Lions and tigers and....wolves? Oh My!

[FollowingHim]

I'm betting my whole life and ministerial existence on Israel.

I'm betting my whole life and ministerial existence on Yeshua.

Seriously, however strong your theological arguments on any detail, it's still not the heart of the matter and not the foundation our entire life should be built on. I'm not disagreeing, or agreeing, with you on your interpretation of prophecy. I'm not talking about that at all. I just find this statement a concerning misprioritisation. You may however have spoken more strongly than you intended.

 

[PeteR]

it's still not the heart of the matter and not the foundation our entire life should be built on.

There are a lot of things I don't understand and have yet to learn, but this I know. A King has a kingdom. A kingdom consists of a people, a place and a constitution/government.

Yes, my whole life is bet on Yeshua, but there are particulars in His Word that are equally knowable. Where His Kingdom will be is one of them. (Yes, in one sense, the whole world, but that over generalizes clear prophecy.) I'll even agree with @Cap and @Joleneakamama that we don't know all the particulars about the kingdom but I strongly disagree that it will be in India, China, or the US. That's my point.

Poly has to do with the restoration of the kingdom. Torah has to do with the restoration of the kingdom. Reemergence of the house of Israel...restoration of the kingdom. Modern Israel, as imperfect as it is, a step toward restoration of the kingdom.

Seek ye first the kingdom....

 

[Cap]

“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Rich can mean many things.

Not at all trying to be mean, I just find it really uncomfortable, for the other person, to make such hard stances. Even the intended spiritual purpose of polygamy.

 

[steve]

1 Corinthians 14:8 (KJV)
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Pete’s trumpet has the sound of conviction.

 

[steve]

Saul was willing to kill for what he and his buddies perceived to be the truth.
Then he became willing to die for the truth that he learned.
Revelation 3:16 (KJV)
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

my guess is that Pete is not so much betting his heartbeat on being right, but betting his way of life and investing who he is in the light of his convictions. And his convictions have specificity.

 

[Joleneakamama]

A kingdom consists of a people, a place and a constitution/government.

The people are those gathered to Yeshua. (Gen 49:10)
The place is everywhere they are. (You will not have gone over the cities of Israel....)
The kingdom parables are very telling and reveal a lot. The parable of the sower tells that the wheat and tares are going to grow together until the harvest of the world. After the wicked are cut off the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of their father. (Your descendants will inherit the gentiles errr the NATIONS)
The temple is being built as believers are added to the body. (Living stones)
The kingdom of YHWH is within....and that is where He is tabernacled.
The prophetic city wall is built on the foundations of the 12 apostles, the gates have the names of the 12 tribes. There is no temple because YHWH and The Lamb are the temple of it.
The disciples asked Yeshua before "Are you now going to restore the reign to Israel?" Because they were looking for a recognizable kingdom too. This city's builder is God!
The government is on His shoulders.

But if that state of Israel is the land of Israel that is spoken of by Ezekiel, how do you reconcile these descriptors in the verses? Always been waste....brought back from the sword (recovered from war) a land of unwalled villiages where the people dwell securely.
Then too after the battle when they divide the land for inheritance two boundries of this land are the East Sea and the western boundary is the Great Sea.

Then too, there is still that matter of the judgment in Jer. Confirmed by Yeshua. Did YHWH ever restore Shiloh the place? Or is the new place the Shiloh who has been seated on the throne of David?

 

[FollowingHim]

There are a lot of things I don't understand and have yet to learn, but this I know. A King has a kingdom. A kingdom consists of a people, a place and a constitution/government.

Yes, my whole life is bet on Yeshua, but there are particulars in His Word that are equally knowable. Where His Kingdom will be is one of them. (Yes, in one sense, the whole world, but that over generalizes clear prophecy.) I'll even agree with @Cap and @Joleneakamama that we don't know all the particulars about the kingdom but I strongly disagree that it will be in India, China, or the US. That's my point.

Poly has to do with the restoration of the kingdom. Torah has to do with the restoration of the kingdom. Reemergence of the house of Israel...restoration of the kingdom. Modern Israel, as imperfect as it is, a step toward restoration of the kingdom.

Seek ye first the kingdom....

I agree that when He returns, He will set up His throne in Jerusalem (or new Jerusalem, but probably located at the same place).

But his arrival will be rather destructive (splitting the mount of Olives plus all that war stuff), and we will all be taken to be where he is anyway once he arrives. So I see no need to invest any of my resources into that locality. He will establish His Kingdom - but until His Kingdom is established there, investing in to the existing kingdom there is irrelevant. It would be like investing in infrastructure in the Aztec kingdom because you supported the Spanish and knew they'd be taking over in the future.

So I'm somewhere in the middle of you and Jolene on this one. Physically, I think you're right that the land of Israel is the land of Israel. But spiritually, the Kingdom is the people following Yeshua, and a people who do not follow Him are not his Kingdom even if they use that name and live in that land.

 

[FollowingHim]

There has never existed another nation better fitting the descriptive phrase "a company of nations" then these united States of America. We have 50 countries in one.

Just pointing out that the British Commonwealth, the USSR, and the European Union are all recent or current "companies of nations", that could be seen to fit this description also. We could argue about which one fit the description "better", but that would be a matter of opinion and we'd not come to a clear conclusion.

For instance, and only to illustrate that a case can be made that a different "company of nations" more closely fits that phrase, in all those three other examples nations maintained their distinctness enough to secede from the union without war. But when anyone has tried that with the USA the outcome was ugly, as when push comes to shove the USA will do anything to remain one country - so you could mount a strong argument that it is not a company of nations any more. Furthermore, if "nation" means "ethnicity", the States are not nations, and the true nations in the USA never formed their own states or got recognition as such. However the member states of the Commonwealth, USSR and EU all fit that definition far more closely.

But I don't intend to debate that point. I'm just saying that one can very reasonably disagree with this statement of yours.

 

[Joleneakamama]

For instance, and only to illustrate that a case can be made that a different "company of nations" more closely fits that phrase, in all those three other examples nations maintained their distinctness enough to secede from the union without war. But when anyone has tried that with the USA the outcome was ugly, as when push comes to shove the USA will do anything to remain one country - so you could mount a strong argument that it is not a company of nations any more.

Ah but ....a company is a military unit under a single authority. If it were to be divided those leaving would be a.w.o.l. deserters....court martialed. So maybe the fact that others could leave or break off means they less fit the description of a company?
I'm really not just intending to argue or debate. But thinking about big picture stuff helps me keep perspective on other things.

 

[FollowingHim]

On that big picture then, here's an even broader perspective.

The British Commonwealth, as a company of nations, took the Gospel to the globe - Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas.
Along the way, one member of that company parted ways politically (the USA), but went on to continue that spreading of the Gospel to the world, and ultimately remained religiously and militarily in alliance with other members of that company.
Really, this is still one company of English-speaking Christian nations.

Also, most people don't realise that China is also a company of nations - they are an enormous number of ethnicities and languages united under a common political administration, but with a broad variation in cultural diversity behind it. If the USA is a company of nations, so is China.

So, to go even broader: the British Empire founded the state of Israel, the EU and USSR provided most of its population, the USA sustained it, and China is now sustaining it also... A company of companies. Just to mess with everybody's heads.

 

[Joleneakamama]

company of companies. Just to mess with everybody's heads.

Now it is more like a corporate company as Babylon has taken over to a large degree. Commerce!

 

[rockfox]

A King has a kingdom. A kingdom consists of a people, a place and a constitution/government.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

 

[Joleneakamama]

Interesting study is the three different words translated "world."
That one if I remember right is cosmos.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Someone said on another thread.

"The inconsistency of embracing what one wants while ignoring what one doesn't is the epitome of 'lukewarm. '"

We see people do this all the time when polygyny is brought up. We see a lot of people run from that subject too, especially when they look at it enough to see there may be something to it.

My dad liked a quote. "Only when you are unafraid of the truth will you find it."

Whenever these subjects come up (Jews that are not Jews .....perhaps Edomites? A different land fitting prophetic description) it ruffles feathers and often results in broad sweeping statements being made. This was Zec on another thread for an example of what I mean.

"I will bow out of this ....... My parting shot will be that this is one of the most tortured, tangled readings of history and scripture I've ever come across. It flies in the face of reason and evidence and would make vast swaths of a scripture void, irrelevant and frankly silly."

For whatever reason, he would not engage in a manner that dealt with the substance, or bring specific scripture, history or evidence that actually conflicted with what I suggested as possible/likely.

Another quote my dad liked was "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." With that in mind I'm not really interested in trying to change minds.....but would rather encourage people to use logic and reason when evaluating, and bring specific issues or verses to the discussion.

Emotionally charged topics are challenging, and make thinking all aspects through even more important.

I personally don't think that someone is lukewarm if they shy away from this subject. In my experience the people who tend to object and then ignore questions are very passionate about their beliefs. This is just politically incorrect, very different from the position they currently hold, and they are apprehensive of how this might change their worldview.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Cap]

More from that post, "I am very shocked to read this kind of tripe on this forum."

The hardest thing to overcome is those who loudly dismiss unique thought that may open doors. I am very aware of the Edomite/current Jew connection, but I think most of the pushback is a result of the great effects Zionism has had on the church. Just like polygamy, there are other sacred cows that others want left alone.

Your dad was right, fear of the truth is one thing for onesself, but when others loudly claim that others shouldn't listen,well that's a whole different level of insecurity.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Your dad was right, fear of the truth is one thing for onesself, but when others loudly claim that others shouldn't listen,well that's a whole different level of insecurity.

This is true, and something I have seen growing up lds. Everything they study and use in teaching and evangelizing comes from the church leaders in Salt lake city. I have talked with my family, but they don't want to consider the possibility that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet, or that the book of mormon might not be a truthful historical record.
You will never get anywhere with even the sincere and thoughtful mormons if you just start making accusations like "You worship the god of this world, satan" but if instead you do like this woman and bring questions and issues with FACTS about their beliefs and document the argument..... you may reach the sincere seekers of truth and show them a better foundation for faith.

Here is a good example of someone bringing content to a discussion .....and it has substance!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I spend a fair amount of time with missionaries and usually have good times with them. I try to be super up-front about the fact that although I've read their books, I don't believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet.... which shouldn't matter a bunch inasmuch as we both follow Jesus and rely on the holy spirit to lead us into all truth.... right? RIGHT????

And like half the time they skedaddle after one visit and the other half we develop really good relationships and we end up edifying each other a lot. I personally try to steer away from where we disagree, especially because I promise they change their doctrine every 5 years anyways...

 

[Joleneakamama]

I spend a fair amount of time with missionaries and usually have good times with them. I try to be super up-front about the fact that although I've read their books, I don't believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet.... which shouldn't matter a bunch inasmuch as we both follow Jesus and rely on the holy spirit to lead us into all truth.... right? RIGHT????

And like half the time they skedaddle after one visit and the other half we develop really good relationships and we end up edifying each other a lot. I personally try to steer away from where we disagree, especially because I promise they change their doctrine every 5 years anyways...

Well, since the current prophet can give new 'revelation' that does not have to agree with what previous prophets revealed....their doctrine can basically be changed or updated at will.
We got an unexpected after dark visit from missionaries the other night, and hubby told them in conversation that he believed everyone should lean on the holy spirit and not follow any man because we are all imperfect.
Sometimes they come back. *grin*

I sure prefer "come let us reason together" to any "burning in the bosom" or other feeling someone may claim. That is a super dumb and unstable foundation for faith!
Just my opinion here.

 

[frederick]

I sure prefer "come let us reason together" to any "burning in the bosom" or other feeling someone may claim. That is a super dumb and unstable foundation for faith!
Just my opinion here.

That opinion is quite acceptable here.
Do you think that "burning in the bosom" is much different from the "I have peace in my heart" approach others claim to have when it comes to knowing or obeying the truth?

 

[Cap]

Well, since the current prophet can give new 'revelation' that does not have to agree with what previous prophets revealed....their doctrine can basically be changed or updated at will.
We got an unexpected after dark visit from missionaries the other night, and hubby told them in conversation that he believed everyone should lean on the holy spirit and not follow any man because we are all imperfect.
Sometimes they come back. *grin*

I sure prefer "come let us reason together" to any "burning in the bosom" or other feeling someone may claim. That is a super dumb and unstable foundation for faith!
Just my opinion here.

Our latest visits from our young missionary friends was interesting, as usual they wanted to come in and talk for a while, which I agreed but only if they would be willing to listen to reasons for polygamy. The young boys agreed and they came in and we talked. It became obvious to them that I knew a pretty good bit about their religion and we had a really good talk. I was able to go into great detail about plural marriage and I filled them with as much information as they could take. They came back a couple more times and each time I went deeper into why the Mormon religion was wrong to suppress plural marriage. In the end the just wanted me to read the Book of Mormons, which I already have, but they kept to their script. We parted company but I know for a fact I filled two young men with some true values of a patriarchal family, including plural marriage. They even allowed me to pray for them in their understanding. Best encounter I've had with a Mormon home visit.