Notrash
Senior Member
This will be my last post in this thread. Not out of animosity, but it gets to be too time consuming to attempt to persuade against one's indoctrination.
Regarding national Israel old covenant Israel being an entity of the old covenant only
Baptism now saves by the pledge of a good conscience and allegience to Christ as king... It's a citizenship thing, not only recieving a pouring out...
In the underlined point above: again this is what Paul argues against in Gal 3 and Romans 4,5. Again, Abraham was a Gentile of the cities of the dispersion after Babel.
Again, Duet 27:9.
And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God.
This was written after being given the national if/then conditional covenant. By saying that they were the people of God, he was calling the gentile nations 'not' the people of God at that time, but not before.
I can't believe that were having this discussion yet. Again, this is one of the very weakest arguments about 'this generation' could not have meant the first century generation. Above, in the conversation with the disciples it is easily seen that Jesus was referring to the buildings of the temple about which the disciples asked AND about when That building would be destroyed.
And in addition there is much uncertainty about what the present wailing wall is/was. Some say it is part of a wall built by a Roman Emporer in 400 AD. Every eyewitness account after the desolation claims that if one was not told that they were standing in Jerusalem, they would never have guess that a town of any size had existed there, let alone a metropolis of Jerusalem.
Again, ask yourself why Jesus would imply to his disciples that the temple wouild be torn down, and it was torn down, if he really meant some distant 3000 yr later temple. And when saying that not one stone would be left upon another, it was a prophecy about how the Roman soldiers would pry the huge foundation stones off of one another to get the gold that had melted down through the cracks.
You did not respond or consider this information. Please address what sun,moon and stars refers to in Matt 24 by seeing what it refers to in Isaiah.
Since the new covenant is individual and internal, the Peace spoken about is just as much personal and internal among the sons of Israel as it would be national. In fact, if it were not for judaism and the denial of Christs having already come in the flesh, some believe that there would be no wars. Rothschilds mother stated the very concept on her deathbed, saying that if her sons did not want wars, there would be none.
Abraham was given some promises that were to be and were fulfilled 'in his generations". That I take to mean his descendancies. Other promises were given to him and his "SEED". Those are and were fulfilled in those like Abraham are justified by faith and walk in his steps.
Gal 6:16 calls those who walk accoriding to this rule the "Israel of God".
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Is summarized after discussing the "promise" to Abraham and the election according to God's purpose in vs 23,24
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..........Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
It doesn't get much Clearer that the 'seed' of Israel or 'all Israel" is referring to the Spiritual qualities of regeneration according to election, promise, and other spiritual qualities...... even of the gentiles.
Again, in disagreement. Paul uses the same phrases of 'Whole world' saying that the gospel has been proclaimed (past tense) to the 'whole world'. The basic intent is/was that the Gospel (including the teaching of the ending of the old covneant and the destruction of Jerusalem) was taught to those called to believe amon ALL nations as a testimony to them that God's blessing was to all races and nations and that it was not thorugh the law, but through MERCY.And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
World: oikomene
From Strongs, it is difficult to tell which sense is meant from just the word, but it is most often referring to the greek world.... and rightly so as a testimony to those surrounding the area who would witness the end of the old covenant age.
Regarding national Israel old covenant Israel being an entity of the old covenant only
Again we disagree on the point of what was the old covenant. Read Duet 29 again. Heb 9:18-20 says that the old covenant "Contained" the commandments made in Pentacost. And that is correct with what I'm saying. The covenant of the 10 commandment 'law' was part of the overall conditional blessings promised to the Israelites in the land. But it was all the rules/regulations/commandments and instructions and the condiitonal aspect of remaining blessed in the land as a nation by obeying them. The giving of the law was Part of but not all that there was to the old covenant if's/thens. And it is not the giving of the Law at Pentacost the Jeremiah referred to when he said that the "new" covenant would be NOT LIKE the old. Again, the old covenant was begun with the lambs blood over the doorway while in Egypt, NOT with the covenant made in Horeb/Sainia. This is one difference of the symbolisms of baptism by immersion (saved through the lambs blood and putting total faith in God he would cause the resurrection after being trapped against the red sea and then transversing through the red sea...in water and by water....No, you are wrong. And I believe that this lies at the core of your misunderstanding. National Israel existed and will exist in the future as a fulfillment of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant. It is NOT a part of the “Old Covenant” a.k.a. the Mosaic Covenant. Again, read Heb.9:18-20. This defines exactly what the Old Covenant was. Covenants made before the Mosaic Covenant are NOT a part of it, and thus are NOT abrogated by its abolition. You must not try to lump every covenant in the Bible together with the Mosaic Covenant and say it is just one covenant called the “Old Covenant”. This is scripture-twisting! Each covenant with its terms and conditions (if any) MUST be considered separately. Failure to distinguish properly among these various covenants can only lead to endless confusion and very bad theology.
Baptism now saves by the pledge of a good conscience and allegience to Christ as king... It's a citizenship thing, not only recieving a pouring out...
In the underlined point above: again this is what Paul argues against in Gal 3 and Romans 4,5. Again, Abraham was a Gentile of the cities of the dispersion after Babel.
Again, Duet 27:9.
And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God.
This was written after being given the national if/then conditional covenant. By saying that they were the people of God, he was calling the gentile nations 'not' the people of God at that time, but not before.
Please include verse 1 in the context of what they are talking about. 1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.No, not at all! It is just another “nail in the coffin”; Read Matt 24:2 carefully:
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
I can't believe that were having this discussion yet. Again, this is one of the very weakest arguments about 'this generation' could not have meant the first century generation. Above, in the conversation with the disciples it is easily seen that Jesus was referring to the buildings of the temple about which the disciples asked AND about when That building would be destroyed.
And in addition there is much uncertainty about what the present wailing wall is/was. Some say it is part of a wall built by a Roman Emporer in 400 AD. Every eyewitness account after the desolation claims that if one was not told that they were standing in Jerusalem, they would never have guess that a town of any size had existed there, let alone a metropolis of Jerusalem.
Again, ask yourself why Jesus would imply to his disciples that the temple wouild be torn down, and it was torn down, if he really meant some distant 3000 yr later temple. And when saying that not one stone would be left upon another, it was a prophecy about how the Roman soldiers would pry the huge foundation stones off of one another to get the gold that had melted down through the cracks.
Matt 24:29: was particularly addressed in my opening entry. If Matt 24:29 is intended to be physical stars and moon, then also Isaiahs discussion of the exact same wording would have also had to refer to physical sun/moon/stars. But the very context of Isaiahs entry explains that this language symbolically meant the changing of govornment from the Babylonians to the Medes/Persians.It says “all these things”! It does not say just the temple proper, or just some of the structures. And “all these things” MUST include the entire temple complex, including all of the walls, buildings… everything! And if everything were fulfilled in the first century A.D., then I would say that statements such as those made in Matt. 24:29-31 and 40-41 were very deceptive. In fact, I would even say that all of the arguments that I have ever heard in defense of preterism, and not just those you have mentioned here, are all little more than grasping at straws!
You did not respond or consider this information. Please address what sun,moon and stars refers to in Matt 24 by seeing what it refers to in Isaiah.
Peace... If Clarke were the only one saying these things, you may have an argument. AS it is they originated in Josephus and Tacticus, the two historians of the day. And this perspective was common through the church especially in Eusebuis church history and so forth. Interestingly, I liken the futurist rapture doctrine as coming from the fiction pages of the NI.I doubt whether these writings of Adam Clarke are much more credible than articles in the National Enquirer. Now this is grasping at straws!
Then you deny that Daniels prayer in chapter 9 was the fulfillment and confession neccessary to bring the people back from EVERY nation as is mentioned in the very text itself. Which is accurate? Your indoctrination or the scripture record itself. Additionally Paul and Peter say that men from every tribe and from every part of the world were in Jerusalem during Pentacost.No, the situation in Judea in the first century A.D. just does not “cut it” as a fulfillment. First of all, there was only a remnant in the land at that time, and they were under Roman occupation. Also, they were only there for another forty years. Ezekiel and other prophets repeatedly describe a future time of great peace and well-being, and without any threat from outside. There is, to date, simply no time in history that fits this picture. Ezekiel 36:22-28 HAS to lie in the future.
Since the new covenant is individual and internal, the Peace spoken about is just as much personal and internal among the sons of Israel as it would be national. In fact, if it were not for judaism and the denial of Christs having already come in the flesh, some believe that there would be no wars. Rothschilds mother stated the very concept on her deathbed, saying that if her sons did not want wars, there would be none.
The term 'descendants' or generations of Israel are different terminology than the "seed" of Israel. Paul defines 'seed' of Abraham as referring to Christ and also to those of similar justification by faith (of like seed) as Abraham. Likewise the "seed" of Israel infers those who of being like seed as Israel 'wrestled' and reasoned with God concerning their mortality and destiny. And they (us)through being given a new name (of the son of God) obtain a transformed life. John 1:12 states, for those who recieved him he gave the power to become 'sons of God' even to those who believed on His name (His GOOD character)The idea of a “spiritual Israel” is a myth. There is no such thing in Scripture. Believers are called “seed of Abraham” and even “true Jews”, but NEVER “Israel”. That word is reserved for the physical descendants of Jacob, a.k.a. Israel. You cannot quote Scriptures that use the first two terms and then do a subtle “shell game”, and substitute the word “Israel”! You HAVE to keep these terms straight!
Abraham was given some promises that were to be and were fulfilled 'in his generations". That I take to mean his descendancies. Other promises were given to him and his "SEED". Those are and were fulfilled in those like Abraham are justified by faith and walk in his steps.
Gal 6:16 calls those who walk accoriding to this rule the "Israel of God".
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Is summarized after discussing the "promise" to Abraham and the election according to God's purpose in vs 23,24
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..........Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
It doesn't get much Clearer that the 'seed' of Israel or 'all Israel" is referring to the Spiritual qualities of regeneration according to election, promise, and other spiritual qualities...... even of the gentiles.
[/quote]I already answered that in my earlier post. Read it again if you don’t remember what I said. Also note that Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations and then shall the end come. (See Matt.24:14). That does not mean just the Mediterranean region. Even if Thomas made it to India, that is still a far cry from the whole world! Again, also read my previous posts.
Again, in disagreement. Paul uses the same phrases of 'Whole world' saying that the gospel has been proclaimed (past tense) to the 'whole world'. The basic intent is/was that the Gospel (including the teaching of the ending of the old covneant and the destruction of Jerusalem) was taught to those called to believe amon ALL nations as a testimony to them that God's blessing was to all races and nations and that it was not thorugh the law, but through MERCY.And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
World: oikomene
From Strongs, it is difficult to tell which sense is meant from just the word, but it is most often referring to the greek world.... and rightly so as a testimony to those surrounding the area who would witness the end of the old covenant age.
Last edited:
Upvote
0