Rapture dream

[Nathan]

Nathan, what about the earthquake in Japan, the tsunami, tornadoes, and other happenings? You think God didn't have anything to do with those?

CHB

I think God shows up when people call on him.  But I don't think he brings in chaos and destruction . . .seriously . . .what "is" God's nature?  It's that age-old question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"  The church puts out this vibe that if you become a Christian, life will be bliss forever more.  But they seem to leave out the part that even Jesus stated "IN THIS WORLD . . you will have trials and tribulation . . ."  The fact that THIS WORLD has wars and hurricanes has nothing to do with whether God sends them or not.  It's not about the tribulations because IN THIS WORLD . . that's what THIS WORLD consists of.  This is a world of death and decay . . .our bodies are influenced by that.  Try as we will, we'll never be able to stop the process of death to these bodies we live in.  The emphasis isn't on the manifestations of death, it's on the fact that Christ as overcome it all.  When we pursue Christ, the miracle happens.  We become illuminating life in the middle of a realm of death.

So, as to all the terrible things happening around us . . .no, I don't believe God sent any of it.  I believe that is merely the nature of the realm that we live in.  Every GOOD THING comes from above.  The things God DOES send are things that induce life.  There is no darkness in him, so why would we assume that darkness around us comes from him?  There was a reason why he told Adam not to eat of that tree . . .it was the gateway into the realm in which we live.  That's a whole other thread.

I could give a dozen scriptures showing otherwise but I know you wouldn't be convinced so I won't even try.

You said the cause of all of the disasters "is the nature of the realm that we live in". Pray tell, where do you think this realm originated from? If from him and to him are ALL things how can you eliminate the realm.

CHB

Well, you're dead on about one thing, quoting verses wouldn't convince me because as I just previously posted, it's not what Scripture says that motivates us, it's what "we think" it says that causes us to move or not move.  And because I no longer rely on my own understanding of what I "think" it says, reading what someone quotes doesn't cut it for me anymore.  It's not so much the Word written on pages that inspire us to move, it's the Word that's written in our hearts.  A spark needs something to ignite before it can become a fire.  The Word in me is the spark, the written word is the oil that ignites . . .when the two come together, it's a fire.

Reading Scripture doesn't automatically induce freedom.  It takes the combination of the author of Scripture who lives IN me that breathes on  the words already written that brings life to the pages.  And the verses that may bring life to me, may have no meaning at all to you . . .it's not because the fire went out, but it's because our relationships are in different places.

As to the latter portion of your post . . .who said anything about eliminating realms???  You're twisting things around on me.  I never said anything about the removal of a realm.  I did say the reversal, but not the removal.

Well, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things, who can know it?

Nathan, I think you misunderstood what I said about the realm. I wasn't talking about destroying or removing the realm. What I said and meant was, if from him and to him are ALL things how can you eliminate the realm from that. You said all of the disasters happened because of the realm that we live in. God created the realm. No matter from what point you start it always comes back to God.

CHB

Yeah, everything comes back to God on one level or another . . .but not all things are "directly" sent by God as many would think.  If I build a house in a flood zone and the river goes out of it's banks and takes my house . . .am I to understand then that God took my house?  Or would it be because those are the consequences from "my" bad choices. I believe of course that God created the heavens AND THE EARTH . . .and I also believe that the earth was made "for" man to inhabit.  But I "don't" believe the earth as we know it now is the same earth that he originally created in the sense that I believe the natural realm was in balance with, but not dominant over the spiritual realm as it is today.  I believe God created this earth in a way that it sustains itself.  I don't see God in this spiritual control room where he has his hands on every lever and is making every decision as to whether to send rain, send drought, send sun, send clouds . . .I believe all of that goes with the original order of how life operates in this realm as he created it.

So when a hurricane hits, I don't believe "God sent it".  I believe God can stop it in response to the prayers of his kids . . .but I think the fact that it happens is just the nature of the realm we live in.

To make it short. The way I see this is. God knows all things from beginning to end. He created ALL things. He made the universe and all that is in it to work the way he planned it from beginning to end. There is no variation on one thing. The moon comes up every night and the stars shine right on schedule because that is the way he planned it. God don't have to sit and watch to see what he needs to do next because it was planned from the beginning.

You are right when you say this. "I believe God created this earth in a way that it sustains itself".  You call it the nature of the realm, I call it "God working all thing after the councel of his will".   Yes, God created this realm to sustain itself, with all of the tornadoes, earthquakes, and everything else that happens within it.

If you build your house in a flood zone,... don't know why a smart guy like you would do that though... except that you were given certain choices and this is what you chose from the choices that God set before you. He gives us choices and all the functions of the body and enviorment cause us to chose what we chose, only thing is we tend to think we are doing it all on our own, when in reality we are not.

You said not all things are directly sent by God and that is true, I believe God created Satan to handle those things that God isn't directly handling. He is working behind the scenes so to speak. Sometimes God works directly and sometimes he works indirectly with man. Think of it like a forman, I don't build your house but I hire someone else to do it for me. There are forces out there that we cannot see.

CHB

So . . .satan is even doing the will of the Father then.  The torturing of people is God's will??  The murdering . . .all that ugly stuff that is accredited to the devil . . .God set that up from the beginning then?

[thinktank]

In the list of the tribes in Revelation 7, where 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, the tribe of Ephraim is not mentioned.

And, why is Ephraim not mentioned?  Ephraim, who receives all the birthright blessings, the double portion, the sceptor of Judah.  Ephraim who represents the northern ten tribes, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the great Gentile Christian nations.  Ephraim who represents the manifested sons of God.

Why is he not present in the book of Revelation.

Maybe because he's gone?  The rapture?  The redemption of the body?

Ephraim is my firstborn son Jer 31:9

Ephraim is part of Joseph


Ezekiel 37:16
 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:

Ezekiel 37:19
 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

[Molly]

In the list of the tribes in Revelation 7, where 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, the tribe of Ephraim is not mentioned.

And, why is Ephraim not mentioned?  Ephraim, who receives all the birthright blessings, the double portion, the sceptor of Judah.  Ephraim who represents the lost tribes, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the great Gentile Christian nations.  Ephraim who represents the manifested sons of God.

Why is he not present in the book of Revelation.

Maybe because he's gone?  The rapture?  The redemption of the body?

Ephraim is my firstborn son Jer 31:9

That won't work, Molly, as the 144,000 are the firstfruits.

"These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb." [Revelation 14:4]

Doug

So you are saying the sealing of the twelve tribes in Revelation represents the sealing of the whole church, the Israel of God?

But, Joseph is mentioned, not Ephraim.

Joseph was never mentioned in the apportionment of land to the tribes of Israel.  It was always Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned in Joseph's place.

But, here Joseph is mentioned again--maybe then to show that the inheritance is not a piece of land but spiritual?

[Molly]

In the list of the tribes in Revelation 7, where 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, the tribe of Ephraim is not mentioned.

And, why is Ephraim not mentioned?  Ephraim, who receives all the birthright blessings, the double portion, the sceptor of Judah.  Ephraim who represents the northern ten tribes, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the great Gentile Christian nations.  Ephraim who represents the manifested sons of God.

Why is he not present in the book of Revelation.

Maybe because he's gone?  The rapture?  The redemption of the body?

Ephraim is my firstborn son Jer 31:9

Ephraim is part of Joseph


Ezekiel 37:16
 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:

Ezekiel 37:19
 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Yes, Ephraim represents the house of Israel, the northern ten tribes, because Ephraim was the largest tribe and the ruler of the northern ten tribes.

Plus, the birthright blessing comes through Ephraim.

[Doug]

In the list of the tribes in Revelation 7, where 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, the tribe of Ephraim is not mentioned.

And, why is Ephraim not mentioned?  Ephraim, who receives all the birthright blessings, the double portion, the sceptor of Judah.  Ephraim who represents the lost tribes, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the great Gentile Christian nations.  Ephraim who represents the manifested sons of God.

Why is he not present in the book of Revelation.

Maybe because he's gone?  The rapture?  The redemption of the body?

Ephraim is my firstborn son Jer 31:9

That won't work, Molly, as the 144,000 are the firstfruits.

"These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb." [Revelation 14:4]

Doug

So you are saying the sealing of the twelve tribes in Revelation represents the sealing of the whole church, the Israel of God?

But, Joseph is mentioned, not Ephraim.

Joseph was never mentioned in the apportionment of land to the tribes of Israel.  It was always Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned in Joseph's place.

But, here Joseph is mentioned again--maybe then to show that the inheritance is not a piece of land but spiritual?

Maybe that is the answer!

Very good. 

Doug

[Molly]

But, again, maybe Ephraim is not nemtioned in the book of Revelation because he has already grown up into the head, even Christ, having received all the blessings of Joseph and the sure mercies of David.


And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more.

 6And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed:

 7For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf.

 8And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words.
--Gen 37

[Doug]

But, again, maybe Ephraim is not nemtioned in the book of Revelation because he has already grown up into the head, even Christ, having received all the blessings of Joseph and the sure mercies of David.

I don't think so, as the promise of a Messiah was made particularly to the tribe of Judah, and to David.

Genesis 49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Only in Christ are all the various promises combined; royalty, priesthood, the land, spiritual blessings.

Doug

[Molly]

No.

Ok.  Look at it this way.  To make a long story short and in no way do it justice,

The birthright blessings and covenant of Abraham is split by Jacob.  He gives the sceptor of rulership to the tribe of Judah and the rest of the inheritance to Ephraim, Joseph's youngest son.

Then the twelve tribes are split into the southern kingdom, the house of Judah, and the northern kingdom, the house of Israel.

The house of Israel is also called by Ephraim's name, and never return to the land.

God has divorced them and calls them a NO PEOPLE, NOT MY PEOPLE.

But, he prophecies over them [book of Hosea]  that in the same place they were called not my people, they shall be called sons of the living God.

Meanwhile, God does not divorce the house of Judah, and the house of Judah returns to the land and rebuild the Temple.

But, the house of Judah will only hold the sceptor until Shiloh comes.   When Jesus comes HE TAKES THE SCEPTOR FROM JUDAH AND GIVES IT TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL [also known as the Gentiles by this time, having gone missing 800 years before Christ comes].

Thus, fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea.

How does Jesus do this?

He marries the church. 

How does he marry the church if God has already divorced the house of Israel?

Leviticus tells us a divorced woman cannot remarry until her husband dies.

Solution: he dies, freeing the woman to remarry, and kicking in the inheritance blessings at the same time to the inheritor of the covenant--Ephraim.


So now we have all the blessings and covenant with Abraham given to and revealed in one new man, the church of Christ, the Israel of God.

[Doug]

No.

Ok.  Look at it this way.  To make a long story short and in no way do it justice,

The birthright blessings and covenant of Abraham is split by Jacob.  He gives the sceptor of rulership to the tribe of Judah and the rest of the inheritance to Ephraim, Joseph's youngest son.

Then the twelve tribes are split into the southern kingdom, the house of Judah, and the northern kingdom, the house of Israel.

The house of Israel is also called by Ephraim's name, and never return to the land.

God has divorced them and calls them a NO PEOPLE, NOT MY PEOPLE.

But, he prophecies over them [book of Hosea]  that in the same place they were called not my people, they shall be called sons of the living God.

Meanwhile, God does not divorce the house of Judah, and the house of Judah returns to the land and rebuild the Temple.

But, the house of Judah will only hold the sceptor until Shiloh comes.   When Jesus comes HE TAKES THE SCEPTOR FROM JUDAH AND GIVES IT TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL [also known as the Gentiles by this time, having gone missing 800 years before Christ comes].

Thus, fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea.

How does Jesus do this?

He marries the church. 

How does he marry the church if God has already divorced the house of Israel?

Leviticus tells us a divorced woman cannot remarry until her husband dies.

Solution: he dies, freeing the woman to remarry, and kicking in the inheritance blessings at the same time to the inheritor of the covenant--Ephraim.


So now we have all the blessings and covenant with Abraham given to and revealed in one new man, the church of Christ, the Israel of God.

Have you ever looked to see how many times the name "Ephraim" is mentioned in the NT?

It occurs but once, in John 11:54, where it is the name of a city.

John 11:54
Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

If "Ephraim" is really as prominent as you allege, surely the name would be mentioned more frequently, and it would be applied to the tribe of Ephraim, IMO, not merely to a settlement at the edge of the desert.

Doug

[Molly]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.


14And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

 15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

 16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

 17And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.

 18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

 19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

 20And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh


--Gen 48



HERE JACOB PLACES HIS RIGHT HAND ON EPHRAIM'S HEAD AND GIVES HIM THE BIRTHRIGHT BLESSINGS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB.  HE GIVES EPHRAIM HIS NAME ISRAEL.  AND HE SAYS THAT EPHRAIM'S 'SEED' SHALL BECOME THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES [A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS].

[Doug]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.

I doubt that being fruitful in spiritual things depends upon ones' ethnic heritage. It is connected to faith.

Doug

[Molly]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.

I doubt that being fruitful in spiritual things depends upon ones' ethnic heritage. It is connected to faith.

Doug

And you consider that, although Ephraim ireceives the covenant blessing including that his seed shall become the fulness of the Gentiles who are called by the name Israel, it  means nothing?

[thinktank]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.

I doubt that being fruitful in spiritual things depends upon ones' ethnic heritage. It is connected to faith.

Doug

And you consider that, although Ephraim ireceives the covenant blessing including that his seed shall become the fulness of the Gentiles who are called by the name Israel, it  means nothing?

Where does it say Ephraim is Israel Molly?

You also ignored this scripture I gave earlier.

Ezekiel 37:19
 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Here Eprahim is named and his fellows the tribes of Israel.

So Ephraim and the tribes of Israel are seperate.

[Doug]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.

I doubt that being fruitful in spiritual things depends upon ones' ethnic heritage. It is connected to faith.

Doug

And you consider that, although Ephraim ireceives the covenant blessing including that his seed shall become the fulness of the Gentiles who are called by the name Israel, it  means nothing?

Can you provide a scripture reference to support that?

Jesus inherits all the nations the Gentiles.

Psalm 2:7-9
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Doug

[Molly]

You're missing the point, Doug.

Ephraim is only used to identify who will receive the covenant blessings, that is, the house of Israel.

Ephraim the name means double fruit.

He is symbolic of the double portioned one.

I doubt that being fruitful in spiritual things depends upon ones' ethnic heritage. It is connected to faith.

Doug

And you consider that, although Ephraim ireceives the covenant blessing including that his seed shall become the fulness of the Gentiles who are called by the name Israel, it  means nothing?

Can you provide a scripture reference to support that?

Jesus inherits all the nations the Gentiles.

Psalm 2:7-9
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Doug

I just did.  Gen 48.

There you go --it's saying the same thing--the Gentiles inherit Christ--God is the inheritance of the Levite priests, that's why they didn't get any land, and the inheritance of God and Christ is the Gentiles, called Isreal.

But, the new covenant is a will which goes into effect when the testator [God] dies.

What are we co-inheritors of Christ for?  What do we inherit?

Co-inheritors, Christ in us, the hope of glory.


Christ made the covenant with himself [his seed] so that when he dies, he will inherit.

[redhotmagma]

This is the work of the cross--that he might create in himself of the two one new man

Does this mean the house of Judah and the house of Israel are now combined into one new man, and that man is Ephraim,  formerly known as the Gentile,  the double portioned one, who gets not only the birthright blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sceptor of Judah, now both king and priest, the Israel of God in Christ?

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

[CHB]

So . . .satan is even doing the will of the Father then.  The torturing of people is God's will??  The murdering . . .all that ugly stuff that is accredited to the devil . . .God set that up from the beginning then?

Seems we have two different discussions going on here and neither of them are going anywhere.

Of course. God uses evil to accomplish his purpose throughout the universe.

Wouldn't you rather think that God has determined everything before it's time rather than think that God created us all, knowing everything that was going to happen yet left us here to figure it all out for ourselves?  Thinking he knows it all yet watches us destroy ourselves with our own stupidy with no intention of lifting a finger unless we ask him.

This will be my last post on this subject. All of this has been said before.

CHB

[Molly]

This is the work of the cross--that he might create in himself of the two one new man

Does this mean the house of Judah and the house of Israel are now combined into one new man, and that man is Ephraim,  formerly known as the Gentile,  the double portioned one, who gets not only the birthright blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sceptor of Judah, now both king and priest, the Israel of God in Christ?

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

He says some wonderful things here, but then I think he takes a wrong turn. Don't forget the meaning of the word, Israel, he will rule as God. You can't throw out the whole Old Testament.  But, I listed here some of the things he said that I like. It's a beautiful teaching, and shows what God planned all along.




The Father no longer reckons us as being part of the Family of Man (Israelites or Gentiles). We are now accounted to be the very members of the Family of God in heaven and sitting (legally) on the same throne as Christ at God's right hand in heaven (Ephesians 2:6). This now gives each of us a divine status.

The central teaching of "the Mystery" is that all Christians have Christ in them and conversely that all Christians are also in Christ. Being "in Christ" now places us in a very high position within the heavenlies.


"In whom [in Christ] also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."

Colossians 2:1

So, when Christ was circumcised as a baby of eight days, you and I — male or female makes no difference for this is a religious and legal principle being discussed — were also reckoned as being circumcised in the eyes of the Father at the same time. That circumcision of Christ was imputed to each of us because we were then "in Christ" and He "in us."



Indeed, after Christ's birth we continued in a legal sense to be "in Christ" for the next thirty years, until the time of His baptism by John the Baptist. And what happened then according to Paul? That is when we were "buried with him in baptism" (Colossians 2:12). The truth is, Paul was telling the Colossians (and all of us) that when John the Baptist was baptizing Christ for sins, it was not Christ's sins that were being washed away, because He had none personally. It was our sins being washed away which were then being carried by Christ. Since we were then "in Christ," we were accounted by the Father as being personally baptized when John baptized Christ.



"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me."

Galatians 2:20

This means that when Christ died by crucifixion, the Father also imputed Christ's death to all of us. We died with Him since God then made us to be "in Christ." When Christ died, all of us legally died with him (2 Corinthians 5:14) as a substitute for each of us individually in the world. But it does not end there.



When Christ was risen from the dead three days later, we were, in a legal sense, also risen from the dead with Him! As Paul taught,

"If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God."

Colossians 3:1

That is right! When Christ was risen from the dead, the Father legally reckoned that we also rose from the dead at that time. Not only that, since after death all people are destined to be resurrected and go to the judgment (Hebrews 9:27–28), so likewise Christ went through a judgment after His death and passed through His judgment triumphantly. And what did the Father do with Christ after He passed His judgment with only perfect obedience and no sins on His records? The Father told Christ to come forward and sit on His right hand.

You and I were "in Christ" at that time also. In the eyes of the Father each of us went triumphantly with Christ through the judgment and sat down with Him on the right hand of the Father Himself. You and I were "in Christ" at that time and are presently sitting in Christ (in a legal sense at this moment) on that very throne. Paul said,

"[God] has quickened us together [made us alive together] with Christ (by grace are you saved), and has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:5–



 Our only mediator is Christ and we are presently reckoned to be in Him. Since Christ is the firstborn, each of us "in Christ" is now called a firstborn one (Hebrews 12:23 where the word "firstborn" is plural in the original). God has no "secondborn" children.

We are all reckoned (as is Christ) firstborn children in the eyes of the Father because — once again — we are all "in Christ." This gives us the same divine status now enjoyed by our Lord Himself. True, the Father and Christ will always have superiority over us for many reasons, but we are still destined to be the very members of the Family of God as Christ is now the firstborn Son of God. This is what salvation "in Christ" means. Salvation is not to be a spiritual "Israelite," it is to be a part of the Deity. It is to become a part of God. This is what "the Mystery" teaches.

Our ultimate destiny is to become glorified divine Children of God with the same glory that the Father and Christ have now. And this dheaven.estiny was given to us when we were saved "in Christ" even from before the foundation of the physical cosmos (2 Timothy 1:9). That is how long God and Christ have loved and cared for us. We are destined to be in the very Godhead...

When people read in the New Testament of those who may not make it into their inheritance (and there are many such verses), it always refers to the "Kingdom phase" of salvation, NOT SALVATION ITSELF! Indeed, salvation is absolutely secured to the human race through the works and efforts of Jesus Christ. All men will indeed be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), but Paul said the totality of mankind will only be granted a salvation "in its own seasons" (1 Timothy 2:6, see original Greek). God awards His salvation at various times.

[Doug]

This is the work of the cross--that he might create in himself of the two one new man

Does this mean the house of Judah and the house of Israel are now combined into one new man, and that man is Ephraim,  formerly known as the Gentile,  the double portioned one, who gets not only the birthright blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sceptor of Judah, now both king and priest, the Israel of God in Christ?

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

I did not find any scriptures in Martin's article saying that gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, or rather the olive tree that Paul discusses in Romans 11. I take it then, there is no scriptural basis for the statement.

Doug

[Doug]

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

He says some wonderful things here, but then I think he takes a wrong turn. Don't forget the meaning of the word, Israel, he will rule as God. You can't throw out the whole Old Testament.

Not just the Old Testament. His doctrine undermines important teachings in the New Testament too. Martin claims there is no need for us to enter into the New Covenant, which is also called the New Testament, the words for "covenant" and "testament" being the same in Greek (as I understand it).

But then, what about these verses?

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Jesus is called the "mediator" of the covenant; in Malachi he is the "messenger of the covenant."

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

How will Martin explain his teaching, when he has to face the "mediator of the covenant"?

Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

It is also called "the everlasting covenant." How can it become obsolete?

Hebrews 13:20-21
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

And finally, Paul called himself a minister of the new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

As mentioned already, the same word is used for "covenant" and "testament."

In Scripture, covenants are represented by mountains. Sinai is an example. And, when Jesus said "flee to the mountains," he meant the mountains that represent promises and covenants of God! He did not mean flee to save your life, because he also said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." [Mark 8:35] This saying occurs four times.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Abandon unfounded speculations, and flee to the mountains, that represent the promises of God under the New Covenant!

Doug

[Molly]

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

He says some wonderful things here, but then I think he takes a wrong turn. Don't forget the meaning of the word, Israel, he will rule as God. You can't throw out the whole Old Testament.

Not just the Old Testament. His doctrine undermines important teachings in the New Testament too. Martin claims there is no need for us to enter into the New Covenant, which is also called the New Testament, the words for "covenant" and "testament" being the same in Greek (as I understand it).

But then, what about these verses?

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Jesus is called the "mediator" of the covenant; in Malachi he is the "messenger of the covenant."

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

How will Martin explain his teaching, when he has to face the "mediator of the covenant"?

Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

It is also called "the everlasting covenant." How can it become obsolete?

Hebrews 13:20-21
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

And finally, Paul called himself a minister of the new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

As mentioned already, the same word is used for "covenant" and "testament."

In Scripture, covenants are represented by mountains. Sinai is an example. And, when Jesus said "flee to the mountains," he meant the mountains that represent promises and covenants of God! He did not mean flee to save your life, because he also said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." [Mark 8:35] This saying occurs four times.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Abandon unfounded speculations, and flee to the mountains, that represent the promises of God under the New Covenant!

Doug

 

[redhotmagma]

My understanding of this is that the one new man is jew+gentile.  The breaking down of the wall is between jew and gentile, so why would then the one new man be different?  This is part of the revelation of the mystery, that no longer are the gentiles grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, but the one new man is created, IMO

Do you have a scripture reference to support the idea that the gentile believers are no longer grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel?

Doug

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess033.htm

He says some wonderful things here, but then I think he takes a wrong turn. Don't forget the meaning of the word, Israel, he will rule as God. You can't throw out the whole Old Testament.

Not just the Old Testament. His doctrine undermines important teachings in the New Testament too. Martin claims there is no need for us to enter into the New Covenant, which is also called the New Testament, the words for "covenant" and "testament" being the same in Greek (as I understand it).

But then, what about these verses?

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Jesus is called the "mediator" of the covenant; in Malachi he is the "messenger of the covenant."

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

How will Martin explain his teaching, when he has to face the "mediator of the covenant"?

Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

It is also called "the everlasting covenant." How can it become obsolete?

Hebrews 13:20-21
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

And finally, Paul called himself a minister of the new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

As mentioned already, the same word is used for "covenant" and "testament."

In Scripture, covenants are represented by mountains. Sinai is an example. And, when Jesus said "flee to the mountains," he meant the mountains that represent promises and covenants of God! He did not mean flee to save your life, because he also said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." [Mark 8:35] This saying occurs four times.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Abandon unfounded speculations, and flee to the mountains, that represent the promises of God under the New Covenant!

Doug

I don't know if he's saying to abandon the NC, but that the mystery is a higher and fuller revelation than what was laid out in the NC.  Maybe he is, if thats the case I don't agree with him on that, its been a while since I've read that article.  Also I'm pretty sure he never says to throw the old testament out, he quotes it all the time. 

I see it like the passover is kind of representing the OC.  NC is pentecost.  And mystery is Tabernacles.

Also everlasting doesn't mean everlasting, or else we can't have our cake and eat it too as UR's, that age (may have) ended with the fall of Jerusalem, and the mystery was instituted right around that time, the NC was given to the house of Israel right?  Literal Israel means nothing anymore in God's economy (at least for this age), so maybe the NC was given to Literal Israel, and those grafted in. 

When Paul says he's a minister of the NC in Corinthians, that is supposed to have been written before the mystery came in.  Also the last chapter in Romans (containing the mystery) may have been added, which is ELM's thesis.  Here's the notes from the NET bible

c There is a considerable degree of difference among the mss regarding the presence and position of the doxology of 16:25-27. Five situations present themselves from the ms tradition. The doxology is found in the ancient witnesses in three separate locations: (1) here after 16:23 (Ì61 א B C D 81 365 630 1739 2464 al co), (2) after 14:23 (Ψ 0209vid Ï), or (3) after 15:33 (Ì46). The situation is further complicated in that some of the mss have these verses in two places: (4) after 14:23 and after 16:23 (A P 33 104 2805 pc); or (5) after 14:23 and after 15:33 (1506). The uncertain position of the doxology might suggest that it was added by later scribes. But since the mss containing the doxology are so early and widespread, it almost certainly belongs in Romans; it is only a question of where. Further, the witnesses that omit the doxology are few: F G 629 Hiermss. (And of these, G has a blank space of several lines large enough for the doxology to belong there.) Only two positions (after chapter 14 only and at the end of the letter only) deserve particular notice because the situation of the mss showing the doxology in two places dates back to the 5th century. Later copyists, faced with the doxology in two different places in the mss they knew, may have decided to copy the doxology in both places, since they were unwilling to consciously omit any text. Because the textual disruption of the doxology is so early, TCGNT 472 suggests two possibilities: either (1) that Paul may have sent two different copies of Romans – a copy lacking chapter 16 and a copy with the full text of the epistle as we now have it, or (2) Marcion or some of his followers circulated a shortened form of the epistle that lacked chapters 15 and 16. Those mss that lacked chapters 15-16 would naturally conclude with some kind of doxology after chapter 14. On the other hand, H. Gamble (The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [SD], 123-32) argues for the position of the doxology at 14:23, since to put the doxology at 16:25 would violate Paul's normal pattern of a grace-benediction at the close of the letter. Gamble further argues for the inclusion of 16:24, since the mss that put the doxology after chapter 14 almost always present 16:24 as the letter's closing, whereas most of the mss that put the doxology at its traditional position drop 16:24, perhaps because it would be redundant before 16:25-27. A decision is difficult, but the weight of external evidence, since it is both early and geographically widespread, suggests that the doxology belongs here after 16:23. For a full discussion, see TCGNT470-73.

I don't really know, I do think there is a difference between the earliest church practices and the later church.  How about this,  one Lord, one faith, one baptism.  This is from Ephesians, one of the mystery gospels.  In the beginning water baptism was very important, but is it really now?  That is only washings and external regulations.  One baptism is baptized with Christ, with the HS. 

????????????

[Beloved Servant]

...and FIRE!

[redhotmagma]

...and FIRE!

 

[Beloved Servant]

THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES:

http://georgewarnock.com/feast-main.html