End times?

[Doug]

Yes Doug, the verses that you quote do say all the same thing which is that very much my point. For neither Paul nor his personal "body" was "made with hands" but rather by God (or God's hands if you will).

2Cr 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. {not made with human hands of course}

Paul is clearly waiting for the building or tabernacle that is "not made with hands". Of course then, the building or tabernacle he was presently in was indeed made with hands or else his sentence makes no sense.

But you have made a great assumption here, about Paul's reference to the future, incorruptible inheritance of the saints as being "not made with hands."

Paul used the phrase "without hands" when he referred to the spiritual circumcision of believers.

Col. 2:11
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Spiritual circumcision, or circumcision of the heart, referred to being God's people, obedient, faithful, and not "stiffnecked." It is mentioned in the law of Moses. [Deut. 10:16, 30:6] and in Jeremiah. [Jer. 4:4]

Paul called the church the "circumcision." He said, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." [Phil. 3:3]

In the building of the altars of sacrifice, in the Mosaic law, the stones that were used could not be stones that had been cut by man, with tools of iron.

Deut. 27:5
And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.

The NT describes believers as "living stones." 

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Just as the stones of the altar of sacrifice could not be worked by hand, the "lively stones" of God's spiritual building are "not  made with hands" but are living humans; neither are we justified by the works of the law, which is probably what "hands" alludes to, (as in Col. 2:11) but by faith.

In Dan. 2:34, Daniel refers to Christ as a "stone cut out without hands" which smites the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands.." It becomes a great mountain that fills the earth. This mountain is the church, also called Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. [Heb. 12:22-23] So the idea of the entire church, or the kingdom of God, being "not made with hands," is from the prophecies of the OT.

So then the tabernacle and or building that he presently was in was one that was "made with hands".
Since God made us, it cannot be speaking of us in our physical body. Since Paul was formed in the womb by God, then he is clearly speaking of the old covenant tabernacle, the old covenant building which was "made with hands".

No, the idea of stones being used that had not been shaped with tools of iron predates the temple. It is mentioned in Deut. 27:5, so cannot refer to the Jewish temple, which came centuries later, in the time of Solomon. At the time, the tabernacle was just a tent.

Paul considers himself still part of that old tabernacle as a Hebrew. James and all the other Jewish Christians including the other apostles felt at least the same way if not even stronger. They are still waiting for the end of types and figures and the way behind the veil is "not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle is yet standing"

See my previous points on this subject from Acts where Paul behaves exactly like a Hebrew that knows the types and figures were still valid and so then the Hebrews were still attached to them in ways that the Gentiles were not. That is why the context contrasts the "us and you" as the Hebrews and the Gentiles.

Both Jews and Gentiles are waiting for the fullness of the tabernacle from heaven but the New Jerusalem is still then "coming down out of heaven". the context is not about receiving a new personal body.
If it is then Paul stands in contradiction with the fact that he was made by God and not with hands of men.

The biblical evidence seems to indicate that Max King was indeed correct that this is speaking of the old covenant tabernacle that was made with hands.
Blessings Barry

Max and his followers seem to have followed seducing spirits, not the spirit of Christ. IMO, they misinterpret the figures used by Paul, which were based on OT imagery. They try to dispense with prophecy entirely, saying it was all fulfilled in the first century, even the resurrection of the saints. Thus they are enemies of the gospel, and fulfill 1 Tim. 4:1-5, about people who depart from the faith.

Doug

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Amen, notice the contrast here talking about the birth of the members of His ecclesia.......

John 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:   13  Which were born , not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[Barry DuPont]

Couple of points before I would wish to continue in this conversation:

1)Quote:
Max and his followers seem to have followed seducing spirits, not the spirit of Christ. IMO, they misinterpret the figures used by Paul, which were based on OT imagery. They try to dispense with prophecy entirely, saying it was all fulfilled in the first century, even the resurrection of the saints. Thus they are enemies of the gospel, and fulfill 1 Tim. 4:1-5, about people who depart from the faith.

Doug

End quote.

Even though it is in your opinion it is not helpful IMO.
My reasoning is that from this point it just becomes a "no you are the spirit deceived heretic" back and forth.

I really try not to go there as easy as it is to do so when there is a difference of opinion that touches on a personally perceived self identity.

Also just to let you know in case you did not know, the term "hyper" preterist is an insult. Purposefully used in that way by some predominant folk who write and speak against the view. The more common term as used by those who hold to the fulfillment of all things written in the time of AD 70 is "full preterism" or myself, a "fulfillment advocate". It doesn't bother me in any way, but there may be other preteristic members here who might not like being called "hyper".  


2) Quote Reformer:
Barry...you didn't answer this question very well.  Though you said, "Yes," it was not embellished with descriptions of that experience.  You instead went into doctrinal thought processes and logical permutations of Scripture.

For myself at least, I'm interested in your experience with God, like conversion or regeneration, any crisis of repentance, work or event of sanctification, baptism in the Holy Spirit, miracles, visions, how you came to UR, ongoing leadings or prophetic insight into your own life...that sort of thing.
End quote:

May I propose then that you PM me about it.
Perhaps you might consider starting a thread about "personal revelations" or "intuitive understanding" or "comparing personal conversion experiences" and let me know reformer by PM and I'll consider participating in the discussion topic. If there is a thread already started that embodies the intent of your question please do advise me of that. I do have a lot of ideas and views on the subject and it would IMO certainly derail this thread.

Personally speaking I do not mind anyone challenging any my views or holding to very different views of their own.
In his love, Barry

[Doug]

Couple of points before I would wish to continue in this conversation:

1)Quote:
Max and his followers seem to have followed seducing spirits, not the spirit of Christ. IMO, they misinterpret the figures used by Paul, which were based on OT imagery. They try to dispense with prophecy entirely, saying it was all fulfilled in the first century, even the resurrection of the saints. Thus they are enemies of the gospel, and fulfill 1 Tim. 4:1-5, about people who depart from the faith.

Doug

End quote.

Even though it is in your opinion it is not helpful IMO.
My reasoning is that from this point it just becomes a "no you are the spirit deceived heretic" back and forth.

I really try not to go there as easy as it is to do so when there is a difference of opinion that touches on a personally perceived self identity.

Also just to let you know in case you did not know, the term "hyper" preterist is an insult. Purposefully used in that way by some predominant folk who write and speak against the view. The more common term as used by those who hold to the fulfillment of all things written in the time of AD 70 is "full preterism" or myself, a "fulfillment advocate". It doesn't bother me in any way, but there may be other preteristic members here who might not like being called "hyper".  

A biblical name for it would be "the doctrine of Hymenæaus and Philetus." Paul associated it "profane and vain babblings," and with compared it with gangrene, a foul smelling sore.

2 Tim. 2:15-19
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The word translated "canker" is gaggraina i.e., gangrene.



Doug

[Zeek]

Couple of points before I would wish to continue in this conversation:

1)Quote:
Max and his followers seem to have followed seducing spirits, not the spirit of Christ. IMO, they misinterpret the figures used by Paul, which were based on OT imagery. They try to dispense with prophecy entirely, saying it was all fulfilled in the first century, even the resurrection of the saints. Thus they are enemies of the gospel, and fulfill 1 Tim. 4:1-5, about people who depart from the faith.

Doug

End quote.

Even though it is in your opinion it is not helpful IMO.
My reasoning is that from this point it just becomes a "no you are the spirit deceived heretic" back and forth.

I really try not to go there as easy as it is to do so when there is a difference of opinion that touches on a personally perceived self identity.

Also just to let you know in case you did not know, the term "hyper" preterist is an insult. Purposefully used in that way by some predominant folk who write and speak against the view. The more common term as used by those who hold to the fulfillment of all things written in the time of AD 70 is "full preterism" or myself, a "fulfillment advocate". It doesn't bother me in any way, but there may be other preteristic members here who might not like being called "hyper".  

A biblical name for it would be "the doctrine of Hymenæaus and Philetus." Paul associated it "profane and vain babblings," and with compared it with gangrene, a foul smelling sore.

2 Tim. 2:15-19
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The word translated "canker" is gaggraina i.e., gangrene.



Doug

Gary, owner of tentmaker believes in fulfilled view.  Is he a gangerenous heretic also?  Or is it only the "hyper" pretersists.  

Your post here Doug, imo; is divisional, labelling, and promotes self belief.  

I have reported this to moderators; and will watch accordingly.  

[Taffy]

Hi Zeek :icon_flower:

Your point Is Noted . :thumbsup:

But the other side of the Coin - Doug does relay scripture to emphasize a Point, be it a Very Bold One


Please continue to share and  express your veiws in the manner which is supported By TM.

Ty for your cooperation Guys. :icon_flower:

[Zeek]

Hi Zeek :icon_flower:

Your point Is Noted . :thumbsup:

But the other side of the Coin - Doug does relay scripture to emphasize a Point, be it a Very Bold One


Please continue to share and  express your veiws in the manner which is supported By TM.

Ty for your cooperation Guys. :icon_flower:

allrighty.  Cult, hmmm.

later

[Taffy]

Zeek :icon_flower:

Plz Check ya Pms Bud :icon_flower:

[Barry DuPont]

[Thanks very much Zeek for trying to keep this on the up and up.]

2Ti 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 
2Ti 2:16   But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 
2Ti 2:17   And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 
2Ti 2:18   Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 

This is certainly not the only scripture used in the accusation of heresy that the fulfillment advocate must face. 

What about this one:

1Jo 3:2   Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 
1Jo 3:3   And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

And many many more.
So any type of Consistent-Preterism is going to be called heresy by those who feel threatened by it and by those who see it as a threat to their understanding of the Gospel.

My advice then: If you are one that is afraid of what other Christians think of you and say about you then don't be open minded about this subject. Don't even bother looking into it.
The evidence is far more than abundant and much more than convincing. It harmonizes massive amounts of scripture that cannot otherwise be harmonized.

The nearness and expectation of the "judgment" and the "resurrection" is relentless.

That's why Hymenaeus and Philetus were quite convincing. And is it clear that the one's they were convincing did not believe from Paul that they were supposed to get their own personal spiritual body.

Otherwise Paul would certainly have said something in defence of such a substantial difference in expectation.

Imagine you were Paul and you wished to defend the then true fact that the resurrection had not yet taken place. 

1) Would you not have addresses the issue of a change of definition of resurrection?
2) Would you not have brought attention to the issue that no one around them had a new body yet?

1) If resurrection was out of sin-death as I believe that it was in the end of the law of sin and death, in the end of the ministry of sin and death then Paul did defend that very point throughout 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. He did this by addressing the overall teaching of these Judaizers. Hymenaeus and Philetus were (probably converted) Judizers.
Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the law for salvation. They as the Jews then were teaching that the temple would not be destroyed and that Law obedience was necessary for the Gentiles.
Teaching that the resurrection had then already happened would reinforce the principle of their teaching that God was not going to do away with the old covenant. They were thus overthrowing the faith of some by converting Gentiles to law obedience.
2) Did Paul ask or state the blatantly obvious?
Did everyone stop dying?
Do you have your new eternal body yet?
Did the graves open up?
Try looking out your window and see if there is a whole new world.
Did you get raptured?
Did the stars fall from the sky?


It's very clear that we today in most traditional or common beliefs concerning end times and resurrection have very different expectations from what Paul taught. For Paul mentions nothing of the sort in his letters to Timothy. No such advice at all on how to quench this false teaching. Only that these false teachers taught the law and that the timing on the resurrection was too early.

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 
1Ti 1:4   Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do]. 
1Ti 1:5   Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned: 
1Ti 1:6   From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 
1Ti 1:7   Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 
1Ti 1:19   Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 
1Ti 1:20   Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.


1Ti 2:4   Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. {Judaizers taught that only the circumcised and law obedient are saved}
1Ti 2:5   For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; {not Moses}

1Ti 2:7   Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.



1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 
1Ti 4:2   Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 
1Ti 4:3   Forbidding to marry, {A misunderstanding of the application that in the resurrection there is no marriage} [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Hymenaeus was a Judaizer teaching the law, telling everyone that the resurrection had already taken place while the temple still stood.

There is much more here but out of time for now.
They were expecting the "end" in their time. Were they wrong?
Many Blessings Barry

[Doug]

What about this one:

1Jo 3:2   Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 
1Jo 3:3   And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Yes, that certainly destroys the doctrines of Max King about the resurrection having already happened! IMO

And many many more.
So any type of Consistent-Preterism is going to be called heresy by those who feel threatened by it and by those who see it as a threat to their understanding of the Gospel.

God's word is a threat to the hyper preterists. IMO

My advice then: If you are one that is afraid of what other Christians think of you and say about you then don't be open minded about this subject. Don't even bother looking into it.
The evidence is far more than abundant and much more than convincing. It harmonizes massive amounts of scripture that cannot otherwise be harmonized.

The nearness and expectation of the "judgment" and the "resurrection" is relentless.

Yes, Peter said:

1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

He didn't say it begins in 70 AD at Jerusalem, but the "house of God" which is the church.

That's why Hymenaeus and Philetus were quite convincing. And is it clear that the one's they were convincing did not believe from Paul that they were supposed to get their own personal spiritual body.

Probably, those who had not received a love for the truth were deceived. 

2 Thes. 2:10-11
... because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 
1Ti 4:2   Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 
1Ti 4:3   Forbidding to marry, {A misunderstanding of the application that in the resurrection there is no marriage} [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Christians are said to be in a marriage relationship with Christ.

Eph. 5:31-33
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And commanding to abstain from "meats" seems to imply that these false teachers try to promote a very literal view of scripture.

Meats means "solid food" and abstaining from "meats" would limit one to a liquid diet, or in other words, a diet of "milk." And a diet of spiritual "milk" forbids the spiritual nourishment that has been provided for us by God in prophecy, which is not "milk," but "solid food," that has to be chewed, or interpreted. Preterists and dispensationalists both say that most of the prophecies of scripture do not apply to us. The preterists say it was all fulfilled in the first century, and the dispensationalists say most prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, in a future 7 year tribulation, after the church has been "raptured" away to heaven. Thus they deny prophecy applies to the church today, and so limit Christians to a diet of spiritual "milk."

Heb. 5:12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hymenaeus was a Judaizer teaching the law, telling everyone that the resurrection had already taken place while the temple still stood.

Where is your proof that he was a Judaizer? Is it something you made up? Did Max King make it up? The name "Hymenaeus" does not seem Jewish to me.

Hymenaeus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hymenaeus may refer to one of the following:

    * Hymenaios, a deity in Greek mythology
    * Hymenaeus (Ephesian), a heretical teacher in Ephesus

Doug

[Barry DuPont]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

[HartleyDamboiseII]

I just wish all people would read J.P.Eby's Part 47 End Times Revelations "Looking for His Appearing" Page 2, on www.kingdombiblestudies.org and learn where the real lies are and who invented the Rapture Lie.

Lee Damboise II

[Yeshua-Song]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

according to Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Paul book yes definitely. Chilton makes an amazing claim that Paul had more enmity to the Judaizers within Christianity than to the unbelieving Jews outside of Christianity. He claims that in this verse Paul speaks against Christian Judaizers rather than generally unbelieving Jews. I dont think that could be correct, though:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

of course Paul is speaking about Christian Judaizers in verse 14. Chilton's rather shocking claim though is that in verse 15 Paul also is speaking about the Jewish believers in Jesus rather than the Jews who opposed the Gospel message.

I don't think that makes any sense since he writes:

the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

Chilton works at Bard College with Jacob Neusner the Jewish apologist and goes out of his way to show that rabbinical Judaism is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

the question is what does Paul intend here:

They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

it seems clear to me this is a reference to unbelieving Jews and a prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. I don't think Chilton et al are correct in saying that Paul here only criticizes the Jewish believers.

[Yeshua-Song]

I just wish all people would read J.P.Eby's Part 47 End Times Revelations "Looking for His Appearing" Page 2, on www.kingdombiblestudies.org and learn where the real lies are and who invented the Rapture Lie.

Lee Damboise II

your email address is .ru. are you based in Russia?

[HartleyDamboiseII]

no , Caribou Maine

[Doug]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

Probably. But they were promoting a different heresy. Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander are mentioned in another context, probably one that involved Gnostic ideas, a mixing of paganism (including the ideas of Plato) and Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_%28Ephesian%29

Alexander (fl. 50–65) was an early Christian, one of two heretical teachers at Ephesus—the other being Hymenaeus—against whom Paul warns Timothy. Hymeneus and Alexander were proponents of antinomianism, the belief that Christian morality was not required. They put away—"thrust from them"—faith and a good conscience; they willfully abandoned the great central facts regarding Christ, and so they "made shipwreck concerning the faith."[1]

Hymenaeus is associated with Philetus, and further details are there given regarding their false teaching.[2] What they taught is described by Paul as "profane babblings," as leading to more ungodliness, and as eating "as doth a gangrene." Their heresy consisted of saying that the resurrection was past already, and the heresy had been so far successful in that it had overthrown the faith of some. The doctrine of these three heretical teachers, Hymeneus, Alexander and Philetus, was accordingly one of the early forms of Gnosticism. It held that matter was originally and essentially evil; that for this reason the body was not an essential part of human nature; that the only resurrection was that of each man as he awoke from the death of sin to a righteous life; that thus in the case of everyone who has repented of sin, "the resurrection was past already," and that the body did not participate in the blessedness of the future life, but that salvation consisted in the soul's complete deliverance from all contact with a material world and a material body.

So pernicious were these teachings of incipient Gnosticism in the Christian church, that they quickly spread, eating like a gangrene. The denial of the future resurrection of the body involved also the denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ, and even the fact of the incarnation. The way in which the apostle dealt with those who taught such deadly error was by resorting to the same extreme measures as he had employed in the case of the immoral person at Corinth: he delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. Compare 1 Cor 5:5.

Doug

[Cardinal]

that the body did not participate in the blessedness of the future life, but that salvation consisted in the soul's complete deliverance from all contact with a material world and a material body.

:cloud9: I found this part particularly interesting if it is indeed a part of gnosticism, because basically the only way the soul is delivered from all contact of a material body, IS TO DIE.

How many in the churches see as their hope DYING and "going to heaven"; who knew that was a form of gnosticism. Instead of, Christ in you, the hope of glory and the glory that is getting ready to be revealed in us, ie. mortality swallowed up of immortality.Blessings...

[Barry DuPont]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

Probably. But they were promoting a different heresy. Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander are mentioned in another context, probably one that involved Gnostic ideas, a mixing of paganism (including the ideas of Plato) and Christianity.

Doug

That is not in the context anywhere.
I hope that you don't think that the Judaizers had no converts at all, or that all their converts had Jewish names. They were not telling Jews that they needed to be circumcised.

These are the only two meantionings of Hymenaeus:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.  
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Here is the context:

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,  
1Ti 1:4   Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].  
1Ti 1:5   Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:  
1Ti 1:6   From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;  
1Ti 1:7   Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  
1Ti 1:8   But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;  
1Ti 1:9   Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10   For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;  
1Ti 1:11   According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.  
1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;  
1Ti 1:13   Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.  
1Ti 1:14   And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 1:15   This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.  
1Ti 1:16   Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.  
1Ti 1:17   Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.  
1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;  
1Ti 1:19   Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:  
1Ti 1:20   Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.  

The only thing Paul has brought up is those teaching the law. So then the Judaizers.
Who would teach abstaining from meats?
The Judaizers of course:
Col 2:14   Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;  
Col 2:15   [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.  
Col 2:16   Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:  

Gal 1:14   And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.  
Gal 1:15   But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,  
Gal 1:16   To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;  

Paul is saying the same thing about the same problem.
When Paul is speaking against the Judaizers he brings up his own converison as one being a circumzised Jew zelous for the law but then converted and now an apolte to the Geniles.
Compare:

1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;  
1Ti 1:13   Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.  
1Ti 1:14   And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 1:15   This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.  
1Ti 1:16   Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.  
1Ti 1:17   Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.  
1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;  
1Ti 1:19   Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:  
1Ti 1:20   Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What fables are being taught and who is doing it?
Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:  
Tts 1:11   Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.  
Tts 1:12   One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tts 1:13   This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;  
Tts 1:14   Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.  

2Ti 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  
2Ti 2:16   But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.  
2Ti 2:17   And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;  
2Ti 2:18   Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.  

Rightly dividing the word of God.

1Ti 1:7   Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  
1Ti 1:8   But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;  

They were Judaziers teaching the law!
Not rightly dividing the word of God.
Blessings to you
Barry

[Barry DuPont]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

according to Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Paul book yes definitely. Chilton makes an amazing claim that Paul had more enmity to the Judaizers within Christianity than to the unbelieving Jews outside of Christianity. He claims that in this verse Paul speaks against Christian Judaizers rather than generally unbelieving Jews. I dont think that could be correct, though:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

Great post!
Yes, all the chruches were coming under attack by the Judaizers and their converts which became Judaizers.

This is the context of every great house and the vessels their in.
2Ti 2:20   But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.  
2Ti 2:21   If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.  

This is how "Judgement began at the house of God" and signaled clearly that "the end of all things was at hand" as per Peter's points.

There is no historical proof of any problems with the Gnostic in the time of the writings of the New Testament. It is all subjective theory and no context to back it up. No history to back it up either. Just hearsay and subjective interpretation.
 
Blessings Barry

[Cardinal]

according to Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Paul book yes definitely. Chilton makes an amazing claim that Paul had more enmity to the Judaizers within Christianity than to the unbelieving Jews outside of Christianity. He claims that in this verse Paul speaks against Christian Judaizers rather than generally unbelieving Jews. I dont think that could be correct, though:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

:cloud9: Looking at this NIV version here, it reads to me like they were gentiles that got the idea from the Jewish Judaizers. It says "you suffered from YOUR OWN countrymen the same t hings those churches suffered from the Jews". My  :2c: Blessings.....

[Doug]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

Probably. But they were promoting a different heresy. Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander are mentioned in another context, probably one that involved Gnostic ideas, a mixing of paganism (including the ideas of Plato) and Christianity.

Doug

That is not in the context anywhere.
I hope that you don't think that the Judaizers had no converts at all, or that all their converts had Jewish names. They were not telling Jews that they needed to be circumcised.

The apostles preached the gospel to Jews, and to Gentiles, so believers in the churches represented a great variety of different backgrounds; hellenized Jews, traditional Jews, Jewish proselytes, Gentiles, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, priests, Levites, etc. Of the Jews and proselytes who became Christians, some attempted to promote "Judaism" or legalism in the churches. They were indeed prominent troublemakers, but not the only kind in the early church. 

These are the only two meantionings of Hymenaeus:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.  
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Here is the context:

Hymenaeus was the name of pagan Greek god, the god of weddings. What devout Jew would give their child such a name, and have him circumcised also? More likely, he was of Gentile background.

The context in 1 Tim 1:7 is about teachers of the law, which probably refers to Jewish believers who wanted to instruct Gentile believers about how to live like the Jews.

Then when Hymenaeus and Alexander are mentioned, 13 verses later, they could not be among the teachers of the law referred to in verse 7, because they had been "delivered unto Satan" by Paul, or expelled.

The only thing Paul has brought up is those teaching the law.

No, there were some who wished to be teachers of the law on the one hand, and those who had blasphemed (by defiling their conscience) and so were "delivered unto Satan" on the other.

They were Judaziers teaching the law!

Some were Judaziers, but there were others in the church who had previously been idolaters, and who had lived as pagans.

1 Cor. 6:9-11
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Doug

[Doug]

Hey Doug,
Do you think that the Judaizers are the ones that Paul is refering to as the ones teaching circumcision in Philippians chapter 3 and throughout Galatians?

Barry

according to Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Paul book yes definitely. Chilton makes an amazing claim that Paul had more enmity to the Judaizers within Christianity than to the unbelieving Jews outside of Christianity. He claims that in this verse Paul speaks against Christian Judaizers rather than generally unbelieving Jews. I dont think that could be correct, though:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

Great post!
Yes, all the chruches were coming under attack by the Judaizers and their converts which became Judaizers.

Jews in the diaspora were actively seeking proselytes of the Gentiles. The Pharisees did this, as Jesus mentioned.

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

There were synagogues in every city where they met on the sabbath days. [Acts 15:21]

When the gospel was preached by Paul, he went to those synagogues, and also preached directly to the pagan Gentiles, and among the latter, many believed. This irritated Jews who did not believe, as they were jealous of the success of the Apostles. And so they did all they could to suppress the preaching of the gospel. These are probably the ones referred to in 1 Thes. 2:14-16, upon whom the "wrath of God" fell.

OTOH, the "Judaizers" were from among those who believed, but who still cling to their traditions, and tried to convince other believers that they should keep the law of Moses too. They are mentioned in Acts 15.

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This is the context of every great house and the vessels their in.
2Ti 2:20   But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.  
2Ti 2:21   If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.  

This is how "Judgement began at the house of God" and signaled clearly that "the end of all things was at hand" as per Peter's points.

The apostles taught that they were living in the last age, and we are still in that time. 

1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Jude 1:17-18
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

The entire age since the time of the apostles is represented by the "time, times and a half" of Dan. 7:25, during which the saints are dominated by antichrist. Those who are spiritually Gentiles trample the holy city, which is the church. [Luke 21:24] They occupy the "outer court" of the temple, which also represents the church. The 42 months of Rev. 11:2 is the same "time, times and a half" as Dan. 7:25.

In Dan. 12:7, the phrase "a time, times and a half" is used to identify the very last age of prophecy, in which all the events included in Daniel's prophecies are fulfilled. It has not ended, we are still in that age in which Christ confirms his covenant with believers. It is the last half of the 70th week, that began when Jesus began his ministry, and it includes both the period of his ministry and the entire period since.

Jesus said all would be fulfilled in his generation, and since he rose from the dead, his generation still exists. It has not passed away! It cuts off the legs of hyper-preterism.  :laughing7:

There is no historical proof of any problems with the Gnostic in the time of the writings of the New Testament. It is all subjective theory and no context to back it up. No history to back it up either. Just hearsay and subjective interpretation.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/H/HYMENAEUS/

HYMENAEUS
hi-men-e'-us (Humenaios, so named from Hymen, the god of marriage, 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17): A heretical teacher in Ephesus, an opponent of the apostle Paul, who in the former reference associates him with Alexander (see ALEXANDER), and in the latter, with Philetus (see PHILETUS).
1. His Career:
It is worthy of notice that in both passages where these persons are mentioned, the name of Hymeneus occurs first, showing, perhaps, that he was the leader. In the passage in 1 Tim Hymeneus is included in the "some" who had put away faith and a good conscience and who had made shipwreck concerning faith. The apostle adds that he had delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme.
2. His Denial of the Resurrection:
In the passage in 2 Tim, Hymeneus and Philetus are included among persons whose profane and vain babblings will increase unto more ungodliness, and whose word "will eat as doth a gangrene." The apostle declares that Hymeneus and Philetus rection are of the number of such people as those just described, and he adds that those two persons "concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some." Then, for the guidance of Timothy, he goes on to say the seal upon the foundation of God is, "The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness." The inference intended is, that though Hymeneus and Philetus had named the name of Christ, they did not depart from iniquity. There is no doubt in regard to the identity of this Hymeneus with the person of the same name in 1 Tim. Accordingly, the facts mentioned in the two epistles must be placed together, namely, that though he had made a Christian profession by naming the name of Christ, yet he had not departed from iniquity, but by his profane teaching he proceeded unto more ungodliness, and that he had put away faith and a good conscience and had made shipwreck of faith.
The error, therefore, of Hymeneus and his two companions would amount to this: They taught that "the resurrection is past already," that there shall be no bodily resurrection at all, but that all that resurrection means is that the soul awakes from sin. This awakening from sin had already taken place with themselves, so they held, and therefore there could be no day in the future when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and shall come forth from the grave (Jn 5:28).
3. Incipient Gnosticism:
This teaching of Hymeneus had been so far successful: it had "overthrown the faith of some" (2 Tim 2:18). It is impossible to define exactly the full nature of this heresy, but what Paul says regarding it makes evident that it was a form of incipient Gnosticism. This spiritualizing of the resurrection sprang from the idea of the necessarily evil nature of all material substance. This idea immediately led to the conclusion of the essentially evil nature of the human body, and that if man is to rise to his true nature, he must rid himself of the thralldom, not of sin, but of the body. This contempt for the body led to the denial of the resurrection in its literal sense; and all that Christ had taught on the subject was explained only, in an allegorical sense, of the resurrection of the soul from sin.
4. Overthrows Faith:
Teaching of this kind is described by Paul as having effects similar to the "eating" caused by a gangrene. It is deadly; it overthrows Christian faith. If not destroyed, it would corrupt the community, for if there is no literal resurrection of the dead, then, as Paul shows in 1 Cor 15, Christ is not raised; and if the literal resurrection of Christ is denied, Christian believers are yet in their sins, and the Christian religion is false.
5. Delivered unto Satan:
The way in which the apostle dealt with these teachers, Hymeneus and his companions, was not merely in the renewed assertion of the truth which they denied, but also by passing sentence upon these teachers--"whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme." In regard to the meaning of this sentence much difficulty of interpretation exists. Some understand it to mean simple excommunication from the church. But this seems quite inadequate to exhaust the meaning of the words employed by Paul. Others take it to signify the infliction of some bodily suffering or disease. This also is quite insufficient as an explanation. It seems that a person who was delivered unto Satan was cut off from all Christian privileges, he was "put away" from the body of Christian believers, and handed over to "the Satan," the Evil One in his most distinct personality (1 Cor 5:2,5,13). Compare the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), and of Elymas (Acts 13:11).
It is important that the purpose of this terrible sentence should not be overlooked. The intention of the punishment was distinctly remedial. Both in the case of Hymenacus and Alexander, and in that of the person dealt with in 1 Cor 5, the intention was the attaining of an ultimate good. In 1 Cor it is "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Similarly, Hymeneus and Alexander are delivered unto Satan, not for their final perdition, but that they may be taught, through this terrible discipline--for such is the signification of the word which is translated "taught"--not to blaspheme. The purpose of this discipline, that they might learn not to blaspheme, shows the dreadful length of impiety and of railing at Christian truth to which Hymeneus had gone.
6. The "Perverse Things" at Ephesus:
In the history of Hymeneus and his companions, and in their bold and anti-Christian teaching which had overthrown the faith of some, we cannot fail to see the fulfillment of what Paul had said many years previously, in his farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus: "I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29 f). It was in the Ephesian church that Hymeneus and Alexander and Philetus had arisen. The gangrene-like nature of their teaching has already been described.


http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/P/PHILETUS/

PHILETUS
fi-le'-tus (Philetos (2 Tim 2:17)):
1. The Nature of His Error:
This person is mentioned by Paul, who warns Timothy against him as well as against his associate in error, Hymeneus. The apostle speaks of Hymeneus and Philetus as instances of men who were doing most serious injury to the church by their teaching, and by what that teaching resulted in, both in faith and morals. The specific error of these men was that they denied that there would be any bodily resurrection. They treated all Scriptural references to such a state, as figurative or metaphorical. They spiritualized it absolutely, and held that the resurrection was a thing of the past. No resurrection was possible, so they taught, except from ignorance to knowledge, from sin to righteousness. There would be no day when the dead would hear the voice of Christ and come forth out of the grave. The Christian, knowing that Christ was raised from the dead, looked forward to the day when his body should be raised in the likeness of Christ's resurrection. But this faith was utterly denied by the teaching of Hymeneus and Philetus.
2. How It Overthrew Faith:
This teaching of theirs, Paul tells us, had overthrown the faith of some. It would also overthrow Christian faith altogether, for if the dead are not raised, neither is Christ risen from the dead, and "ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17).
The denial of the resurrection of the body, whether of mankind generally or of Christ, is the overthrow of the faith. It leaves nothing to cling to, no living Christ, who saves and leads and comforts His people. The apostle proceeds to say that teaching of this kind "eats as doth a gangrene," and that it increases unto more ungodliness. As a canker or gangrene eats away the flesh, so does such teaching eat away Christian faith. Paul is careful to say, more than once, that the teaching which denies that there will be a resurrection of the dead leads inevitably to "ungodliness" and to "iniquity."

Doug

[HartleyDamboiseII]

OTOH, the "Judaizers" were from among those who believed, but who still cling to their traditions, and tried to convince other believers that they should keep the law of Moses too. They are mentioned in Acts 15.

This is the only wrong word in your statement because in today's times I call those mentioned above
Catholics
Baptist
Mormens
pen
etc...

Anyone who has the belief that you have to follow [ dont kill, dont lie, dont steal, etc... as a rule system to get to heaven

Lee

[rosered]

OTOH, the "Judaizers" were from among those who believed, but who still cling to their traditions, and tried to convince other believers that they should keep the law of Moses too. They are mentioned in Acts 15.

This is the only wrong word in your statement because in today's times I call those mentioned above
Catholics
Baptist
Mormens
pen
etc...

Anyone who has the belief that you have to follow [ dont kill, dont lie, dont steal, etc... as a rule system to get to heaven

Lee

the Thing is Lee
they serve and are serving many ''gods''  and many  divisions

  Jesus said ONE  GOD  AND THIS COMMAND . if you do this one thing  than all those other  things will  cease  ...

if you keep the greatest command given of Jesus Christ

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 

Mar 12:30   And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.  


Mar 12:31   And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 


Mar 12:32   And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 


Mar 12:33   And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 

Mar 12:34   And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him [any question].

[HartleyDamboiseII]

100 % agree (inpart)
Lee