The physical descendants of the acient nation of Israel.

[Biblewriter]

Yes it is Biblewriter and I don't have to read that you posted because I've heard that before too.

Israel is a spiritual entity and is be made up of Jews and Gentiles. That is clear.

That is exceedingly clear to those that refuse to believe what God has explicitly said in more places than can be counted.

It is the blindness of unbelief that makes lies clear.

 

[ebedmelech]

That is exceedingly clear to those that refuse to believe what God has explicitly said in more places than can be counted.

It is the blindness of unbelief makes lies clear.

No Biblewriter. The fact is it's clear that you are remaining true to YOUR theology. Not what the scriptures relate.

You are remaining true to dispensational theology...that's all. You are a true C. I. Scofield theologian!

I've been there and done that, it's wrong on too many levels.

 

[Douggg]

That error you speak is refuted easily by John 1:11-14:
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The scriptures are consistent Doug.

I don't have any argument with you that those who receive Jesus become the children of God. What the issue is who are physical (of the flesh) children of Israel?

Doug

 

[Biblewriter]

No Biblewriter. The fact is it's clear that you are remaining true to YOUR theology. Not what the scriptures relate.

You are remaining true to dispensational theology...that's all. You are a true C. I. Scofield theologian!

I've been there and done that, it's wrong on too many levels.

Actually, I have never read even one book by C. I. Scofield. I have read many of the notes in his Bible, and agree with some of them and disagree with others.

I do not base my doctrine on anything but the Bible. Your problem is that you are ascribing more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of a few passages of scripture than to the explicit statements of many other passages of scripture.

You need to study the whole Bible, not just part of it.

 

[ebedmelech]

Actually, I have never read even one book by C. I. Scofield. I have read many of the notes in his Bible, and agree with some of them and disagree with others.

I do not base my doctrine on anything but the Bible. Your problem is that you are ascribing more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of a few passages of scripture than to the explicit statements of many other passages of scripture.

You need to study the whole Bible, not just part of it.

I always include scripture as I write! So, to try to assert scripture is not my authority is grossly wrong, and *probably* because you cannot refute it...you resort to asserting that.

Remember this...anytime you want we can enter debate! It is not to try to convince one another though Biblewriter...it would be about the scripture that says "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens his friend". That would be my point! You're accountable to God...not me, and vice-versa.

Also...stop trying to say I don't read the whole bible...because even as you assert that...I'm in Genesis 45 as I read the bible through in a year. I've *probably* done that more than you have.

As for how I study the scriptures Biblewriter, you have no clue. That doesn't even deserve a response!

Let me add this:

Jesus stated in John 8:

“I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Now I'm just as you, a sinner saved by God's grace. I'm not perfect, and neither are you. God opens our eyes as we learn to let the Holy Spirit enlighten us. As we read the scriptures through life God will do that *if* we open to the Holy Spirit. That is a lifetime struggle as we read, and read, read, read, and read some more.

I don't have a problem conceding I'm wrong...when God convinces me that I'm wrong.

 

[Biblewriter]

I always include scripture as I write! So, to try to assert scripture is not my authority is grossly wrong, and *probably* because you cannot refute it...you resort to asserting that.

Remember this...anytime you want we can enter debate! It is not to try to convince one another though Biblewriter...it would be about the scripture that says "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens his friend". That would be my point! You're accountable to God...not me, and vice-versa.

Also...stop trying to say I don't read the whole bible...because even as you assert that...I'm in Genesis 45 as I read the bible through in a year. I've *probably* done that more than you have.

As for how I study the scriptures Biblewriter, you have no clue. That doesn't even deserve a response!

Let me add this:

Jesus stated in John 8:

“I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Now I'm just as you, a sinner saved by God's grace. I'm not perfect, and neither are you. God opens our eyes as we learn to let the Holy Spirit enlighten us. As we read the scriptures through life God will do that *if* we open to the Holy Spirit. That is a lifetime struggle as we read, and read, read, read, and read some more.

I don't have a problem conceding I'm wrong...when God convinces me that I'm wrong.

I apologize. I had lumped you in with another poster here with whom you often agree. He insists that we should ignore the old Testament prophecies.

As to disagreements, I debate energetically, but I do not for a moment think that anyone who disagrees with me is not a real Christian. (Although some regulars here have made statements that show they are not. But that is another issue.)

I wholly accept those who have differing ideas about eschatology as brethren in the faith.

 

[ebedmelech]

I apologize. I had lumped you in with another poster here with whom you often agree. He insists that we should ignore the old Testament prophecies.

As to disagreements, I debate energetically, but I do not for a moment think that anyone who disagrees with me is not a real Christian. (Although some regulars here have made statements that show they are not. But that is another issue.)

I wholly accept those who have differing ideas about eschatology as brethren in the faith.

No problem brother. I appreciate that.

 

[Interplanner]

re: a few passages
There are 2500 quotes and allusions of the OT by the NT. The list at the back of Metzgers Greek text is helpful because we don't always see the allusions. I have tried to assimilate this. I don't know what BW is refering to by "a few passages." I think he means the frequent list of 'self-organizing chapters' but let's say each of them contains 10 assertions: then we are talking 50-60 items. Today, I forgot all about Rom 15, and it cracked like lightening across my awareness, that this is viewed by many commentators as the 1st wrap-up of Romans before Paul took off through the thank-you list and then finished with the powerful one about the divine command of God about prophecy.

It (15) is remarkable for repeating Zechariash vision in Luke 1 (Luke being Paul's reporter as they traveled), and consistently saying how the promises were fulfilled AND WHY.

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

re: a few passages
There are 2500 quotes and allusions of the OT by the NT. The list at the back of Metzgers Greek text is helpful because we don't always see the allusions. I have tried to assimilate this. I don't know what BW is refering to by "a few passages." I think he means the frequent list of 'self-organizing chapters' but let's say each of them contains 10 assertions: then we are talking 50-60 items. Today, I forgot all about Rom 15, and it cracked like lightening across my awareness, that this is viewed by many commentators as the 1st wrap-up of Romans before Paul took off through the thank-you list and then finished with the powerful one about the divine command of God about prophecy.

It (15) is remarkable for repeating Zechariash vision in Luke 1 (Luke being Paul's reporter as they traveled), and consistently saying how the promises were fulfilled AND WHY.

--Inter

By "a few passages" I mean those few New Testament passages that you interpret to mean that the Old Testament prophecies should be interpreted symbolically, rather than literally.

I agree that the New testament quotes the Old Testament many times, and refers to it many times more. And I agree that a few New Testament passages apply a few Old Testament passages symbolically. But you choose to ignore the very many New Testament passages that speak of how Old Testament prophecies had been literally fulfilled. There are far more of these than the few that apply some Old Testament prophecies symbolically. But somehow, you do not seem to notice any of them.

 

[B1inHim]

I only read the OP...

Well done!

2 Question'.
Biblewriter
Do you believe that Israel is completely restored before the second coming?

Do you believe that the Gentiles will still be here when this happens?

Thanks,

Love,
ערבות מדינה
Bond Servant
Brother Jerry
AKA
B1inHim

How Great thou Art By Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill !Standing Ovation! - YouTube

 

[Biblewriter]

I only read the OP...

Well done!

2 Question'.
Biblewriter
Do you believe that Israel is completely restored before the second coming?

Do you believe that the Gentiles will still be here when this happens?

Thanks,

Love,
ערבות מדינה
Bond Servant
Brother Jerry
AKA
B1inHim

How Great thou Art By Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill !Standing Ovation! - YouTube

No, Isaiah 66 says that Israel will be brought back to the land after the Lord comes in power and glory, not before. Judah was to be back in the land before that time, and she is there now. But all Israel will be brought back after Messiah comes. Ezekiel 20 says that when they come back, Messiah will meet them at the border and purge out all the rebels from among them, and Zechariah 12 says that all the rest of them will truly repent.

 

[Biblewriter]

How does it matter Doug? Paul says Israel is NOT the children of the flesh. Work with that.

This is nothing but a wrested interpretation of what the passage you are speaking of actually said.

 

[ebedmelech]

This is nothing but a wrested interpretation of what the passage you are speaking of actually said.

I know...you just haven't been able to get it right...so you keep wresting it Biblewriter...because you want there two be to peoples of God.

Theres that "dispensational block" again...it just won't let you see the truth of scripture.

 

[Interplanner]

The Judah vs Israel notion has nothing to do with how the NT does eschatology. It never shows up. BW believes 2P2P and they have to find a way to get the nation of Israel back to Israel, back to the era of Joshua, even if it explodes everything else. That's what 2 programs means. 2 conflicting, skew, schitzophrenic programs.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Judah vs Israel notion has nothing to do with how the NT does eschatology. It never shows up. BW believes 2P2P and they have to find a way to get the nation of Israel back to Israel, back to the era of Joshua, even if it explodes everything else. That's what 2 programs means. 2 conflicting, skew, schitzophrenic programs.

Your mental block of "how the NT does eschatology" is exactly that. A mental block. The same Holy Spirit that gave us the New Testament also gave us the Old Testament. And everything He said is absolutely reliable. When you deny this, you have nothing to base your faith upon.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes it is Biblewriter and I don't have to read that you posted because I've heard that before too.

And this is the reason that those who deny the plainly stated scriptures annot ever learn. They are so certain that their interpretations of the meanings of some scriptures are correct, that they cannot even be bothered with carefully studying the actual statements of the many more scriptures that clearly show that these interpretations are incorrect.

 

[Interplanner]

The way the NT uses the OT is new wine. It won't fit in old wineskins. "You search the OT because you think it has life; it testifies of ME" said Christ.

I've read all the counterarguments for 40 years BW. It is people like Chafer and Walvoord who end up shallow and sound like their snowing us with thing not in the text that they have found to be important.

What I notice about you BW is that you don't deal with the NT using the OT, you retreat to the OT where you find it "safe." That is why I have tried to get you talk about Rom 9A on the defense of the Word. The Word did not lie about promises to Israel because of all the major exceptions in the promises as percieved by Israel! It is a problem of perception. They thought it was about desendancy. But the Word never lied, because it was not.

Apparently "safe" means the easiest method of proof for today's audience: Israel is now in its land and Ezek said so. Done deal.

 

[Douggg]

I've read all the counterarguments for 40 years BW.

It is people like Chafer and Walvoord who end up shallow and sound like their snowing us with thing not in the text that they have found to be important.

Inter, it sounds like your making a case of...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8aprCNnecU

What I notice about you BW is that you don't deal with the NT using the OT, you retreat to the OT where you find it "safe." That is why I

have tried to get you talk about Rom 9A on the defense of the Word.

 

[Interplanner]

Stick to the discussion Doug, not cartoons of it.

I do not find the type of doctrine BW purports in the NT itself. I find it in "experts" commenting on the OT and saying that's where we "prove" the Bible. Which is not found in 9 except by very strained explanation and some dismissals. (BW does not do the OT texts there in 9B at all, that I know of.)

 

[Biblewriter]

The way the NT uses the OT is new wine. It won't fit in old wineskins. "You search the OT because you think it has life; it testifies of ME" said Christ.

I've read all the counterarguments for 40 years BW. It is people like Chafer and Walvoord who end up shallow and sound like their snowing us with thing not in the text that they have found to be important.

What I notice about you BW is that you don't deal with the NT using the OT, you retreat to the OT where you find it "safe." That is why I have tried to get you talk about Rom 9A on the defense of the Word. The Word did not lie about promises to Israel because of all the major exceptions in the promises as percieved by Israel! It is a problem of perception. They thought it was about desendancy. But the Word never lied, because it was not.

Apparently "safe" means the easiest method of proof for today's audience: Israel is now in its land and Ezek said so. Done deal.

I clearly dealt with all of Romans 9 in the multi-part OP of a separate thread. You did not answer ot because you could not. You just rejected it as insignificant, or some such term.

I have reviewed your arguments abut how the New Testament applies the Old Testament prophecies, and have seen that they are all, without even one exception that I noticed, based, not on the words used in the New Testament, but on your interpretations of what those words mean.