ARE YOU KIDDING ME?    You wake up.  Does it look like he's reigning now?  If this is it, this is a pretty dismal view of the physical reign of Christ.  This is so wrong and so unbiblical it's like you're disregarding 2/3 of scripture to come up with this statement.  You have to get rid of Rev 21, Zechariah 14, Psalm 2, Ezekiel 40-48, and a whole bunch more out of the minor prophets. 

You've got to be kidding.  Then why did both Paul and Jesus say that Satan was the prince of this world????  He's the one ruling.  Not God...not yet.  Not until the fulness of the Gentiles is complete.  Why did Peter say that Satan was like a roaring lion seeking whom to devour if Christ is reigning?  Before Christ reigns, Satan is deposed.  Hasn't happend yet. 

I'm glad you said "in my view."  Your view is amillennialism.  This view teaches that there will be no 1,000 year reign at all and that the NT church inherits all the spiritual promises and prophesices of the OT Israel (Leauki are you listening?)  In this view Isaiah's beautiful prophecy of the bear and the cow lying together and the lion eating straw like the ox Isa 11:7 simply doesn't mean what it says at all.  However, if the 11th chapter of Isaiah cannot be taken literally, what proof do you have that the 53rd chapter should not likewise be symbolized away? 

I am a premill believer or a futuristic believer believing this HAS NOT happened yet.  Theologians who held "my view" during the very first three centuries AD are

1.  Clement of Rome 40-100

2.  Ignatius 50-115

3.  Polycarp 70-167

4.  Justin Martyr 100-168

5.  Irenaeus 140-202

6.  Tertullian 150-200

7.  Cyprian 200-258

8.  Commodianus 250-

BUT beginning in the 4th century the RCC began to grow and premillennialism began to dry out for Rome viewed herself as God's instrument to usher in the promised kingdom of glory.  THEY TOOK HIS PLACE!  

No it hasn't.  Because if it had we wouldn't be discussing all this.  Besides the last part of that 70th week is this:

"to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy."  Dan 924b. 

Hasn't happened yet.  I don't think you understand the 70th week of Daniel. 

I am listening.

Why exactly can the Romans come to Israel, kill one of our rabbis, and then announce that from now on the Romans are the owners of everything G-d gave to Israel?

LULA POSTS:

KFC POSTS:

In a nutshell, after the disciples recieve the Holy Spiirt at Pentecost, St.Peter preaches Christ  to the Jews and a great multitude from all over the known world at that time. Those that heard the words of St.Peter were converted and asked what they should do...Peter answered: repent and be baptized for the remission of sins ......That day 3,000 souls entered the fledgling Christian Church.  

Here are the verses in Acts 2...

1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they (the Apostles and disciples )were all together in one place: 

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue.

8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,

11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. 

 14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words.

 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know:

31 Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.

37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

in a nutshell huh? 

Some nutshell. 

You still didn't answer my question.  Where does it say that PETER baptized thousands. 

Answer:  It does not. 

You did not prove your statement. 

V14 and your highlighted does NOT say that Peter baptized only that Peter preached.  no question.  But that's not what I asked you. 

My question again is where does it say that Peter baptized (not preached to)  thousands? 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

You are thinking in the physical KFC. Since when is there a physical reign of Christ? There is no such thing and never, ever will be.

When we apeak of the Church, you keep saying it's not about physical buildings and I agree 100%. The Church is the spiritual kingdom Of Christ.  As Scripture states, "the Church is the pillar and ground of Truith."  Did you catch that? Who is Truth, KFC? Christ is. The Church is the pillar and ground of Christ.  

 Christ ascended into Heaven and is presently reigning over us, His spiritual Body, His spiritual kingdom, the Chruch of which by Baptism I am a member and child of GOd. The Chruch is in her own Exodus through this valley of tears to the promised land , Eternal New Jerusalem in Heaven.

kfc posts:

God is very much still in charge and always will be. Christ isn't reigning over the world for the world, in large, has rejected Him. Satan is the prince of the world prowling around for the ruin of souls...and when he is let loose will be the end  of the physical world. Then comes Judgment and Heaven or Hell. No physical reign of Christ.

Christ is presently reigning over His spiritual kingdom, the Chruch, which is in the world but not of it.

Reaad the post again, and especially verses 38 and 41 which I highlighted in blue to make it easier.

Unlike you...I don't apply Daniels's prophecy to end-time fantasy.

well not exactly.  He's ruling in the hearts and minds of those that are his.  So while we do have Christ in our hearts and minds thru the indwelling of the Holy Spirit it's not the same as his "coming again" to rule physically which is going to happen soon hopefully.  We see that in Rev 19 when he comes again.  What do you think that is referring to?  Remember... He's on the white horse with the sword (his word)  coming from his mouth. 

Yes, here I am.  The physical reign of Christ is what the whole of scripture is ALL about.  The Holy Spirit is just the promise of what is to come.  It's the seal given to the believers as a deposit or ernest of a future coming.  We are going to reign with him in a physical sense.  He's going to be with us physically just like he was in the first coming.  You're being taught there is NO physical reign of Christ?  Really?  I didn't know that. 

Do you know anything about the Davidic Covenant?  If so, what is it? 

nope.  Not there.  You made a claim that Peter baptized thousands.  v38 and 41 do not say that Peter baptized these thousands only that Peter urged them to be baptized.  NOT the same thing.  While we're at it.  Can you show me anywhere where we see Mary being baptized?  Peter?  John?  Andrew?  Any of the disciples?  I mean if it's so important to one's salvation you would think that would be a very important thing to record wouldn't you? 

P.S.  Notice how the word of God had to be received FIRST!   Have you noticed in all the recordings in Acts where it says they recieved the word first and then were baptized or they repented first and were baptized?  How does that work with infants? 

A teacher isn't really necessary to learn that 2 +2= 4.

"A teacher isn't really necessary to learn that 2 +2= 4."

Not so, someone teaches every child to count, whether it be parent, school teacher or sibling.  Without learning how to count first, no one can learn to add.

lula posts

kfc posts: 641

lula posts 648

KFc,

The interpretative error you are making is that you are isolating verse 24 and making that single verse apply to the modern state of Isreal without taking the surrounding verses into consideration. "The land" of v. 24  has a dual meaning..it was Jerusalem in St. Peter's day and is also spiritual Isreal. 

Acts 2: tells when and how Ezekiel 36 was fulfilled. The time is the first Pentecost day when Jews of every country come together in Jerusalem. That day a  new Jewish "state" was created, but it wasn't a physical state, it was a spiritual state...it was in the heart and soul of the individual Jew who was/ is converted and baptized in Christ.  Then, today and in the future, a "remnant" of Jews shall receive Christ and be saved.

Lula, I've asked you before to stop putting in these large quotes especially when you keep repeating yourself.  Please stop. 

Acts 2 as NOTHING to do with Ezek 36.  Doesn't even make sense.  Go over and read Matthew 23 when Jesus pronounces blindness on Israel.  He leaves them and is done with them.  They rejected him.  That's not the new heart that Ezekiel is talking about..in fact Christ has alot to say about the black hearts of the Jews in the Gospels when he denounces them. 

All those people were in Israel during Pentecost BECAUSE it was a requirement.  All Jews had to be in Pentecost for the feast.  After this feast they went into their own countries and were able to pronounce the gospel they heard from Peter and the other disciples.  BTW this was NOT the first Pentecost.  You may want to brush up on your Jewish Feasts by reading Lev 23.  They had been celebrating this holiday for a couple of thousand years only this time with the release of the Holy Spirit it was a bit different. 

No Ezekiel is speaking of a total restoration of Israel like Paul is in Romans 11.  HASN'T happened yet.  That's what's happening right before our very eyes now as millions of Jews are streaming into Israel as we speak. 

You just can't accept it.  It's not that you can't see, it's that you chose not to because it messes up the whole RCC theology...but the truth is we are seeing a miracle in our own day.  I think it's an awesome thing to witness. 

You have an aversion to V24 because it's pretty clear that in the latter days there will be a regathering of the Jews INTO THEIR OWN land.  Acts 2 is NOT that time.  They went BACK to their lands they were living in from afar after this Pentecost. 

Whisper2,

First, on the Sacrament of Confession, Catholics believe that Christ gave His "ministers of reconciliation" (bishops and priests)  the power to forgive repentant sinners when He said,

"For as the Father has sent Me, I also send you ...whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." St.John 20: 20-23.

Every man being a sinner Prov. 24:16 means every Catholic is subject to the law of Confession be they the Pope, priest or laity.

That's becasue when a person sins, the soul is wounded, the strength of the will is weakened, the heart is turned to things degraded, the light of the mind is darkened, and the unrepentant is self-condemned.

During the act of Confession the Pentitent first searches his conscience, calls himself to contrition, presents his case against himself, sincerely promises to amend his life, humbly asks Almighty God's forgiveness and accepts the penalty (penance) prescribed by the priest. (and that's where your question comes in).

After the Pentitent has declared his sins, the priest speaks to the pentitent about those. For example if a person steals, the priest will tell him to make reparation and then he'll give him his penalty or "penance" ...that usually comes in the form of saying a prayer, such as the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary prayer....it may be one or more than that depdending upon the severity of the penance the priest deems the person needs. Also, besides prayer another common penance is fasting.

Catholics accept the laws of Catholicism becasue we have the authority of Christ latent within them. Sufficient justification for the imposition of penance is found in the fact that the CC requires it as part of Confession for to that Chruch Our Lord said, "Whatever you bind on earth is bound also in Heaven and whaterver you loose on earth will also be loosed in Heaven."

Besides that the reason for the discipline is based upon God's own procedure in dealing with sin, the teachings of Christ and the very nature of Confession. In the Old Testament God Himself couples the forgiving of sin with the imposing of penances.

I hope this has been helpful.

The teacher teaches them how to count. Then they can count to four without anyone's help.

Where is this going?

This post was long becasue I'm a "thorough" type of person. I made my case by providing all the pertinent comments, summed up with Scripture. Instead of going back and forth with several comments, It's all done in one comment.

You say that the modern physical state of Isreal is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:24-28 while I say Ezekiel has already been fulfilled...that was done immediately following the First Christian Pentecost and gave Scripture as proof-text.

You say salvation is about the modern state of Isreal encompassing all Jews and I say salvation is about a remnant of Jews. Then (as per Acts 2, today and in the future, a "remnant" of Jews shall receive Christ and be saved.

Besides being a fulfillment of Ezekiel 36, You say that what happened in 1948 and 1967, in what is presently the state of Isreal is a miracle of God and I say that the Zionist enterprise was an immoral and illegal act, officially sanctioned theft.

I plan to comment later on some of Leauki's remarks concerning this. 

KFC posts:

It might not make sense if you leave out verse 25 which is what you initially did, remember? But we can't do that for verses 25-27 all continue the thought and context since they all begin with "and".

Ezekiel 36 was fulfilled on the first Christian Pentecost.

There is a remnant that CHrist is not done with...at the First Christian Pentecost of Acts 2, it's those Jews then that were given  the HS by the ritual of Christian Baptism. It's Jews today and Jews in the future (some no doubt will be living in the modern state of Isreal) this same thing will happen. 

I know.

We are discussing Acts 2 which describes the First Christian Pentecost KFC. I'm describing what happened to the multitude of Jews from every country who heard St.Peter's sermon and were converted and subsequently baptized. That's when their hearts of stone were made into hearts of flesh and they received the HS as per Ezek. 36: 24-27.They were reborn from their former life into a new spritual life by Baptism.

"Total restoration" like St.Paul in Romans 11???   This is the face with the expression that's thinking.... another interpretation whopper coming from KFC. 

Let's start with Romans 11:4-5.

4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have kept for Myself seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal. 5 So too, at this present time, there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

You keep asserting it is "all those in the modern state of Isreal", and now, a "total restoration", but the plain words of St.Paul have only a "remnant" of the OT Jews who were saved and only a remnant of Jews under the Covenant of Grace.  

Verse 4 tells us only some ( a remnant of 7,000 ) of the OT Isrealites were faithful and to them belong the adoption... they were the Isrealites that were identified as the "Christ bearers".

Verse 5 speaks for itself. "This present time" goes until the end of the world.

As for Romans 11: 25-27,

25 "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. 26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins."

Grammatically speaking, v. 25 has it a hardening has come upon part of Isreal until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in...then we learn the salvation of "All Isreal" will be the product of the work of the Deliverer from Sion, (Christ)....From there we learn the manner, (not the time) in which "All Isreal" will be saved, that is, Isreal will be saved by the Deliverer coming out of Sion as He takes away their sins.

Tieing it all together, St.Paul is teaching there is a hardening on one part of  Isreal, and the saving of the other part of Isreal are happening simultaneously and both will continue while the full number of Gentiles are being added. 

We've already discussed how the Deliverer, Christ, takes away sins...by Baptism...for in Acts 2, St.Peter said, be baptized for the remission of sins (as what happened to 3,000 Jews that day of Christian Pentecost.

ok, *sigh* let me go in another direction with this.  You're trying to make pieces fit that don't fit.  It's because you don't understand the Jew.  To understand the Jew is to understand what's going on.  To understand the Jew is to understand History.

Ezekiel can't have been fulfilled because there is NO history showing that Israel was gathered out of all the nations of the earth to dwell safely in their own land since Ezekiel wrote this...UNTIL NOW. 

You say it's been fulfilled in Acts 2.  But what we see in Acts 2 are the Jews coming into Pentecost for the feast and listening to Peter's words and then accepting Christ and by doing so receiving the Holy Spirit.  They then went BACK to their lands to spread the gospel.  We know later Titus came and razed Jerusalem.  Again, this would show that this couldn't be the time Ezekiel was talking about. 

So far so good? 

Now...go back and read Ezekiel 36-37 (lots more but this will do) and underline everywhere where it says he will bring them into their own land.  Notice how many times it says they "will dwell in the land."  Notice also in 37:25 it says: "And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein even they and their children and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever." 

This has NOT happened yet.  When it speaks of David like this it's speaking of Christ because David was promised his seed would sit on the throne forever and rule the people.  Also goes back to Gen 49 when it says the scepter would NOT depart from the line of Judah which is the direct line to David. 

So what we're seeing in Ezek is that the Jews would someday (latter days many places) dwell safely in their own land and that Christ would rule over them forever (Davidic covenant). 

This has nothing to do with Acts 2.  You're zooming in on the sprinkling part.  But remember the priests in the OT (Leviticus) sprinkled blood on the congregation after they slaughtered the animal on the Day of Atonement.  That's the sprinkling God is speaking about.  Not water.  It's blood. 

Here's something I haven't put up yet and something for you to consider.  It's from Isaiah and it's about the suffering Christ on the cross.  It says:

"Behold My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted .  Just as many were astonished at you, My people, so His appearance was marred more than any man and his form more than the sons of men.  Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him.  For what had not been told them they will see, and what they had not heard they will understand."  52:13

As a result of the mistreatment done Him at the cross He scarcely was recognized as human.  Because of His sacrifce He would be able to sprinkle many just as a High Priest does in order to purify them (1 Peter 1:2).  In His disfigured state Jesus will perform a priestly work as our High Priest of cleansing not just Israel, but many outside the nation. 

Now go and read Peter.  Heck, I'll put it right here:

"To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout (not gathered...notice?)  Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood;"

KFC,

Lula views scripture from a replacement/supersession theology.  Everything she is stating is coming from the view point for that is the 'lenses' that she views Scripture with.  You missing her whole crux which is replacement theology.  That's why she views Acts 2 as she does and Matthew 21:43.

KFC, all you have been doing is just messing with the 'stems' instead of the root of the issue which is Lula believes in replacement theology because the RCC believes in it.

The Tanack explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation of Israel

Zechariah 12-14, Zephaniah 3:14-20, Amos 9:11-15, Ezekiel 36-37 (these passages promise the future salvation and restoration of the Nation of Israel to its land) Jeremiah 30-31;32 (This promises a New covenan along with promises of restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings), Deuteronomy 30:1-6 (Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land).

The Abrahamic and New Covenant (Jer 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect G-D to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people, with whom the covenants were made.

All of the Scriptures were written by Jews.  All of the writers had a Jewish mindset. Now, most people that go to church throw all that away.  They then inspect the Scriptures with a Greco-Roman mindset.  I'm not saying that you can't get anything out of it with this type of mindset. You can for G-D's word is Living. You just won't get the rich full meaning.

Now with the Matthew 21:43/Luke 20 disrupt.  First, in both Matthew and Luke, when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard HIS parables, they knew HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THEM.  Who is them?  Them being the chief priests and the Pharisees. They knew that these parables particularly the last one was about them.

Now to use this as that Israel is no longer 'G-D's people' and that the Jewish people missed it because they killed the Son of Man (when I hear this it makes me wonder why people don't include in this the Romans since it was the Romans oh wait.....I think know). Jesus said so HIMSELF to the Gentile woman that HE came for the house of Israel.  Paul did not immediately start on his mission to the gentiles.  It wasn't until 15 years later that Paul did and even then he still went into the synagogues to HIS OWN PEOPLE.  Paul even wrote in that the blessing may have come on the to the Gentiles BUT WHAT GREATER BLESSING WILL IT BE WHEN THE FULLINESS OF JEWS come in.  Now, I don't know about you, but I want the greater blessing.  Paul said in Romans 9:1 that the covenants and the promises still belong to Israelo.  He also says that 'the gifts and call of G-D to Israel are irrevocable.

The view of Matthew 21:43 being Israel is going to be replaced, however, is improbable for several reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the “you” from whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out that the “you” probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. In the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a whole which you can see at the end of the parable.  Furthermore, Jesus never rejected the Jewish crowd or the people of Israel.

         Another  problem with replacement theology/supersessionist view is more in line with their presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43.   Again Matthew and Luke apply that chief priest and Pharisees see that this parable was aimed at them not to Israel as a whole.  When in context this indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to the religious leaders of HIS day.  The assertion that replacement theologist/supersessionst that Jesus was stating the permanent rejection of the nation of Israel does not appear likely.

            Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew’s gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel.   If you look at Matthew 19:28 you can see Jesus speaks of the restoration of Israel. 

            A final problem concerns the replacement theology/.supersessionist view that the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian church.  The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the “nation” of whom Jesus is referring is the church.  When you read verse 46, again you can see that Jesus was talking about the Pharisees and the chief Priest and once again not to Israel as a whole.   The interpretation that it means that the church is being read into way too much and are reading in a 4th century Christian theology.

The tanack explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation of Israel (Jeremiah 31:35-37).  If you can still see the sun, moon, or stars you know that the nation of Israel still has a place in G-D's plan.

If you looked at the New Testament prophecy, the prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that G-D's plan for Israel is alive.  Revelation, you can see that all the tribes of Israel are mentioned.  In Matthew 24:15 Jesus tells the residence of Israel what to do in the tribulation period.   If the church is now Israel why do New Testament prophecies refer to ethnic Israel?

no.  I'm not missing it.  In fact, I've mentioned this to her several times over the course of three years.  I'm well aware of Lula's belief system.  I know the mindset.  I'm well aware of this replacement theology and have mentioned this during the course of this conversation even.  I've brought up Jer 31 to her many times in the past but she just goes onto something else to prove her point.  She replaces the promises to Israel to the Church when it was never supposed to be. 

I'm just trying to get her to read scripture because I believe if she would just read it she would see it.  The problem is she's not hearing me nor do I believe the Holy Spirit.  She's not listening because she's too busy coming back with a retort before she thinks of what I just said. 

I didn't mean that you weren't. I just meant that is her reason for the way she views Scripture.  I apologize if you thought that I was insinuating that you weren't. I agree with your assessment of Lula.  She seems to be a very intelligent lady.

She is and a very pleasant one in person. 

I responded to this but evidently you deleted this one too making it 5 now of my replies you've deleted.