Replacement Theology Refuted

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Concerning my comment that your responses are anachronistic you wrote,



Anthropology concerns the origins of people and it’s a simple fact that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not. Supersessionists can grumble all they want but this fact still stands. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.



But this is precisely why I wrote your comments are anachronistic; not all Israelites are Jews! Your perception implies Paul is merely speaking of “Jews” in Romans 9:24, which is a shallow perception in light of the fact he is addressing “who is true Israel among Israel,” in your own words. He is obviously employing hyperbole and means Israel; God has his elect, vessels of mercy, amongst the Israelites as well as the gentiles. Verses 25-26 cite Hosea 2:23 pertaining the descendants of Israel, the ten northern tribes, that are redeemed and then sown throughout the world, which carries over from the previous verse concerning Israel and the succeeding one from Isaiah 10:22. The context supports my perception and not yours and any notion that the “gentiles” were sown in the world to spread the gospel is anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally. It’s not about anyone’s feelings, it’s about the truth.

In response to my comments upon discernment between fulfillment and consummation, you reiterated the common misapprehension that the apostles cite from the OT to indicate the fulfillment of OT texts pertaining to the establishment of the Davidic kingdom.



Again, supersessionism fails to grasp fulfillment in juxtapose with consummation. Some prophecies are intended to be protracted phenomena; fulfillment is for an extended period until the consummation. Revelation 11 affirms the kingdoms of the world do not become Christ’s to rule until the time arrives to judge the dead and to reward the saints. Consequently, texts such as Romans 15:12 cannot be truly interpreted as consummated but only begun, any more than Judah and Ephraim’s reconciliation in avowing Christ. Isaiah prophesied that Ephraim is only fully reconciled with Judah when Christ strikes the “earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (Isaiah 11:4), which substantiates the enmity ends with Christ’s return in Revelation 11. Isaiah 11 cannot be correctly interpreted as consummated at the first advent.

Concerning the enmity between Ephraim and Judah prophesied for the first advent in Zechariah 11:14 you wrote.



As I stated, supersessionists can grumble all they want but the fact still remains that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning to the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertains to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.


Your interpretation ends the inerrancy of scripture in that it no longer maintains the OT as a guide for the original addressees, as well as succeeding generations. The inerrancy of the OT is shattered when the prophets are interpreted as in error concerning the identity of Ephraim, or that the ten northern tribes become synonymous with the gentiles, undistinguishable by God as to who is a descendant of Ephraim and who is not. God’s omniscience is called into question if he is unable to make such a distinction in the end and having ordained it to the prophets who lived thousands of years before its consummation. The prophets are simply incapable of relating the future events concerning their people to their contemporaries and their future descendants in such an interpretation as yours that attacks the inerrancy of the OT.

As to my comments that Christ returns to execute the prophecies of the Davidic kingdom you wrote,



You’re just making my point that elements of the Davidic kingdom had come to fruition in that generation conveyed as the kingdom of God, but the Davidic kingdom is only consummated when Christ returns; the "kingdom of God" is not the Davidic kingdom to those who are well studied. As I stated, Jeremiah 23:1-6 affirms the Davidic kingdom executes judgment and justice for his people so that they dwell safely that is a counterpart of Ezekiel 38:8-12, which is why John cites from Ezekiel in the events succeeding Christ’s reign with the saints for 1000 years in Revelation 20. In this age the people of God are not secure, as Satan, the dragon, is allowed to make war with the saints and overcome them (Revelation 13).



Christ reigns in the hearts of the elect, but the world is still allowed to be deceived by Satan, so Christ not reigning over the world as yet. The promises of the Davidic kingdom execute judgment and justice for his people so that they dwell safely, which is not consummated until Christ returns and executes the promises pertaining to the Davidic kingdom.



Ephraim is amongst the gentiles, which does not mean God is unable to discern who is a descendant of Ephraim and who is not. God’s omniscience is called into question if he is unable to make such a distinction in the end and having had ordained it to the prophets who lived thousands of years before its consummation. The prophets are simply incapable of relating the future events concerning their people to their contemporaries and their future descendants in such an interpretation as yours and supersessionism.



Your confusing Satan’s release from the pit with his being cast to the earth. The contrast between the two vindicates they are not synchronous.



The modest Bible expositors are indifferent to the seven months that separated the spring and autumnal festivals, amongst numerous other issues that vindicate Hebrews 9:24 is not about the day of atonement. The day of atonement was connected to judgment, which is not what Christ came for (John 12:47).
What I see in your posts is an agenda Scripture won't support. Ephraim isn't mentioned in Jer 3:8.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's zilch in Jer 3:8 about Ephraim except that they're part of Israel. Ephraim isn't mentioned.
I thought you were going to ignore my posts! But my response is the same; go back and read the thread, because I've answered this over and over again.
 
Upvote 0

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I thought you were going to ignore my posts! But my response is the same; go back and read the thread, because I've answered this over and over again.
I can read and you're making a claim on Jer 3:8 that is incorrect. The only reason for my post and this response is found in my signature.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anthropology concerns the origins of people.

Anthropology: is the scientific study of humans and human behavior and societies in the past and present.

Anthropogeny: is the study of human origins.


it’s a simple fact that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not.

Unless God made all of the woman of the 10 northern tribes literally biologically barren at their divorce, then yea, 100 generations later, a lot of people around the world today statistically have a common ancestor with Ephraim.

However, that matters not, for God can also just as easily turn stones into the children of Ephraim and fulfill his promise.


When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

The OT texts state that the 10 northern tribes became "not my people" and God was "not their God" due to their disobedience. God divorced them, and scattered them. This would make the 10 northern tribes as gentiles.

Thus, there would be no distinction between them and the gentiles in regards to the promises under the old covenant.

From there, many of those from the 10 northern tribes would mix, genetically, socially, culturally, and religiously with other nations.


What am I specifically "anthropologically" wrong about here?


But this is precisely why I wrote your comments are anachronistic;

So my comment that Ephraim became as gentiles through their divorce from the covenant and scattering by Assyria, and then brought into the body of Christ with the inclusion of the gentiles under the new covenant, around 700 years later, is out of order? How so specifically?

Your perception implies Paul is merely speaking of “Jews” in Romans 9:24,

Correct, my perception is that when Paul speaks of Israel in the context of Romans 9, he is implying the Jews. The 10 northern tribes were not God's people starting from the time of the divorce (Assyrian exile), thus Paul speaking of the covenant people would be those who were actually in covenant with God, the kingdom of Judah. Which you have agreed remained married to God when Ephraim was divorced.

Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.d

This is confirmed by Paul stating Israel pursued the law of righteousness. I would argue it wasn't Ephraim that pursued the law of righteousness, as they were no longer a covenantal people. It was those from the house of Judah.

Romans 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.d

This is confirmed by Paul quoting Isaiah 1:9. Isaiah 1 is in regards to the kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem, no Ephraim.

Romans 9:29 It is just as Isaiah predicted: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom, we would have resembled Gomorrah

Isaiah 1:1 This is the vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Paul quotes from Isaiah 10, which doesn't mention the "house of Israel", "Ephraim", or "House of Joseph". It only mentions Israel, which the Jews were of.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out His sentence on the earth
thoroughly and decisively.”

The context supports my perception and not yours

Subjectively yes, but not objectively.

any notion that the “gentiles” were sown in the world to spread the gospel is anachronistic,

Gentiles being gathered into the body of Christ and then sown into the world to spread the gospel, shortly after Christ ascended is anachronistic? I'm actually surprised then that there's no scriptures telling Luke and Titus, gentiles and fellow workers with Paul, an Israelite, that they shouldn't have been bringing the gospel to the world as it's "anachronistic"...........

Philemon 1:23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

2 Corinthians 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit.

Some prophecies are intended to be protracted phenomena; fulfillment is for an extended period until the consummation.

I absolutely agree.

Revelation 11 affirms the kingdoms of the world do not become Christ’s to rule until the time arrives to judge the dead and to reward the saints

Where did I disagree with you on this?

Consequently, texts such as Romans 15:12 cannot be truly interpreted as consummated but only begun

I absolutely agree, Jesus began to rule the gentiles back in the 1st century.

Isaiah prophesied that Ephraim is only fully reconciled with Judah when Christ strikes the “earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (Isaiah 11:4), which substantiates the enmity ends with Christ’s return in Revelation 11. Isaiah 11 cannot be correctly interpreted as consummated at the first advent.

Good, so you now concede that the reconciliation began at the first advent.

As I stated, supersessionists can grumble all they want but the fact still remains that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning to the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertains to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

The descendants of the 10 northern were as gentiles in relation to the covenant, when God divorced them and scattered them with Assyria. they became "not my people". From an anthropological stand point, many from the 10 northern tribes would mix, genetically, socially, culturally, and religiously with the surrounding nations after the Assyrian exile. These "not my people" would go on to have descendants. However, God promised that these descendants, who were not his people, would one day again be called my people. Paul has this (hosea 2:23 and 1:10) fulfilled with the Jews and gentiles being included in the vessels of mercy. Paul makes no distinction between Ephraim and the Gentiles, but you do. I will stick with Paul.

Your interpretation ends the inerrancy of scripture

As does your's

inerrancy of the OT is shattered when the prophets are interpreted as in error concerning the identity of Ephraim, or that the ten northern tribes become synonymous with the gentiles,

Then don't shatter the words of the prophets, which state Ephraim became "not my people"

Hosea 1:9 9And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi,c for you are not My people, and I am not your God.d

, but the Davidic kingdom is only consummated when Christ returns; the "kingdom of God" is not the Davidic kingdom to those who are well studied.

Sure, just provide NT scripture demonstrates the kingdom of God is not the Davidic kingdom.

but the world is still allowed to be deceived by Satan, so Christ not reigning over the world as yet.

I disagree

Revelation 1:5 5and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

Ephraim is amongst the gentiles, which does not mean God is unable to discern who is a descendant of Ephraim and who is not.

God can turn stones in descendants of Ephraim, so what does that have to do with anything?

God’s omniscience is called into question if he is unable to make such a distinction in the end and having had ordained it to the prophets who lived thousands of years before its consummation.

who questioned that?

Your confusing Satan’s release from the pit with his being cast to the earth. The contrast between the two vindicates they are not synchronous.

So satan is cast to earthly for only a short time and then released from the pit for only a short time?

The modest Bible expositors are indifferent to the seven months that separated the spring and autumnal festivals, amongst numerous other issues that vindicate Hebrews 9:24 is not about the day of atonement. The day of atonement was connected to judgment, which is not what Christ came for (John 12:47).

Your still avoiding the content of Hebrews 9:24-25, which points to the day of atonement.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Unless God made all of the woman of the 10 northern tribes literally biologically barren at their divorce, then yea, 100 generations later, a lot of people around the world today statistically have a common ancestor with Ephraim.

However, that matters not, for God can also just as easily turn stones into the children of Ephraim and fulfill his promise.

You’re just grasping for straws and rambling as usual; you are at an impasse that you can’t get around.

It’s a simple fact that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not. Rambling doesn’t change this fact. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

The OT texts state that the 10 northern tribes became "not my people" and God was "not their God" due to their disobedience. God divorced them, and scattered them. This would make the 10 northern tribes as gentiles.

Thus, there would be no distinction between them and the gentiles in regards to the promises under the old covenant.

From there, many of those from the 10 northern tribes would mix, genetically, socially, culturally, and religiously with other nations.


What am I specifically "anthropologically" wrong about here?

There was a distinction; the descendants of the ten northern tribes in the first century were the offspring of Ephraim, even when they intermarried with gentiles who were not. Obviously, you are neglecting that Ephraim and Manasseh were already of mixed blood through their mother. This did not preclude that there were gentiles that had no ancestry with the 10 northern tribes. It was the former people that Peter evangelized fulfilling the prophecies of Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9 and the promises to Israel. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

So my comment that Ephraim became as gentiles through their divorce from the covenant and scattering by Assyria, and then brought into the body of Christ with the inclusion of the gentiles under the new covenant, around 700 years later, is out of order? How so specifically?

The descendants of the ten northern tribes in the first century were the offspring of Ephraim, even when they intermarried with gentiles who were not. Obviously, you are neglecting that Ephraim and Manasseh were already of mixed blood through their mother. This did not preclude that there were gentiles that had no ancestry with the 10 northern tribes. It was the former people that Peter evangelized fulfilling the prophecies of Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9 and the promises to Israel. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

Correct, my perception is that when Paul speaks of Israel in the context of Romans 9, he is implying the Jews. The 10 northern tribes were not God's people starting from the time of the divorce (Assyrian exile), thus Paul speaking of the covenant people would be those who were actually in covenant with God, the kingdom of Judah. Which you have agreed remained married to God when Ephraim was divorced.

Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.d

This is confirmed by Paul stating Israel pursued the law of righteousness. I would argue it wasn't Ephraim that pursued the law of righteousness, as they were no longer a covenantal people. It was those from the house of Judah.


Romans 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.d

This is confirmed by Paul quoting Isaiah 1:9. Isaiah 1 is in regards to the kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem, no Ephraim.

Romans 9:29 It is just as Isaiah predicted: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom, we would have resembled Gomorrah

Isaiah 1:1 This is the vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Paul quotes from Isaiah 10, which doesn't mention the "house of Israel", "Ephraim", or "House of Joseph". It only mentions Israel, which the Jews were of.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out His sentence on the earth
thoroughly and decisively.”

First off, you are neglecting what I’ve already conveyed to you; Paul had been with the descendants of the 10 northern tribes in Galatia where Peter had also preached the gospel. This eviscerates your perception that Paul wasn’t addressing Ephraim. As a first century Jew, Paul was well acquainted with the prophecies concerning Ephraim and where many dwelt, and there is no doubt in the minds of those who are well studied in the OT that he is addressing Ephraim in Romans 9:25-26. Furthermore, Isaiah 10 pertains to both houses of Israel, seeing that Assyria, idiomatically speaking, is the rod by which they are punished. Zion, in verse 12 would be Ephraim and Jerusalem, Judah.

Subjectively yes, but not objectively.

Subjectivity would be your interpretation that ends the inerrancy of scripture in that it no longer maintains the OT as a guide for the original addressees, as well as succeeding generations. The inerrancy of the OT is shattered when the prophets are interpreted as in error as to the identity of Ephraim, or that the ten northern tribes become synonymous with the gentiles, undistinguishable by God as to who is a descendant of Ephraim and who is not. God’s omniscience is called into question if he is unable to make such a distinction in the end and having ordained it to the prophets who lived thousands of years before its consummation.

Gentiles being gathered into the body of Christ and then sown into the world to spread the gospel, shortly after Christ ascended is anachronistic? I'm actually surprised then that there's no scriptures telling Luke and Titus, gentiles and fellow workers with Paul, an Israelite, that they shouldn't have been bringing the gospel to the world as it's "anachronistic"...........

Philemon 1:23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.


2 Corinthians 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit.

They were partnered with the descendants of Jacob. Even so, there is no such evidence that the gentiles were sown in the world to spread the worship of the true God as in Zechariah 10 and Hosea 2.

I absolutely agree, Jesus began to rule the gentiles back in the 1st century.

No, Romans 15:12 cites Isaiah 11, which is about the return of Christ when he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth and slays the wicked, which was not consummated at his first advent. His reign over the gentiles in the first century is confined to the heart, but when he returns the kingdom of the world becomes his to rule and execute Isaiah 11.

Good, so you now concede that the reconciliation began at the first advent.

The grafting in of the Jews who do not continue in unbelief is the exception to the rule that God hardened them in this age. Isaiah 11:13 is consummated when Christ returns, ending the enmity between Ephraim and Judah.

The descendants of the 10 northern were as gentiles in relation to the covenant, when God divorced them and scattered them with Assyria. they became "not my people". From an anthropological stand point, many from the 10 northern tribes would mix, genetically, socially, culturally, and religiously with the surrounding nations after the Assyrian exile. These "not my people" would go on to have descendants. However, God promised that these descendants, who were not his people, would one day again be called my people. Paul has this (hosea 2:23and 1:10) fulfilled with the Jews and gentiles being included in the vessels of mercy. Paul makes no distinction between Ephraim and the Gentiles, but you do. I will stick with Paul.

Your rambling doesn’t preclude that the descendants of the ten northern tribes in the first century were the offspring of Ephraim, even when they intermarried with gentiles who were not. Obviously, you are neglecting that Ephraim and Manasseh were already of mixed blood through their mother. This did not preclude that there were gentiles that had no ancestry with the 10 northern tribes.

As does your's

Mere rambling again. My interpretations agree with the prophets. When they wrote of Israel or Ephraim, I interpret them the way they and their descendants would have; you do not. Your interpretations end the inerrancy of the OT.

Then don't shatter the words of the prophets, which state Ephraim became "not my people"

“Not my people” who were the descendants of the ten northern tribes, would be those whom God decreed would be restored again, even under the Old Covenant in Deuteronomy 30:1-10. They were grafted back onto their own tree, according to Romans 11:24; which contrasts them from the gentiles.

Sure, just provide NT scripture demonstrates the kingdom of God is not the Davidic kingdom.

Again, why confine such proof to the NT, in defiance with 2 Timothy 3:16. Both Testaments work together to affirm what you ask and your refusal to acknowledge the OT in such proof vindicates my comment that supersessionism destroys the inerrancy of the OT. In the kingdom of God, his people are not safe from the world, Satan is allowed to rule the world to war and overcome them (Revelation 12-13). Jeremiah 23:1-6 and Ezekiel 3:8-12 affirms the Davidic kingdom executes judgment and justice so as to ensure the safety of God's people, which binds Satan (Revelation 20:1-3).

God can turn stones in descendants of Ephraim, so what does that have to do with anything?

Such statements diminish the Sovereignty of God. The point is the prophets testify He does no such thing but saves both houses of Israel (Deuteronomy 30:1-10).

So satan is cast to earthly for only a short time and then released from the pit for only a short time?

As a historicist and premillennialist, my perception is he is cast to the earth to make war with the saints and overcome them for 1260 years through the beast from the sea (Revelation 13). In Revelation 20 the saints are dwelling safely in a land of unwalled villages (Ezekiel 38:8-12) for 1000 years and then he is released for a short span.

still avoiding the content of Hebrews 9:24-25, which points to the day of atonement.

No, you're avoiding the context that Christ put away sin, depicting the spring festivals, and avoiding the obvious implications of the separation of seven months between them and the autumnal antitypes that represent judgment at his return.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Hosea 1 it says "are not." In chapter 2 it says "were not." That would imply to me they never were. This can't be any part of Israel.

An actual good question. Chapter 1 is about the end of the covenant relationship and chapter 2 is hundreds of years later when they are betrothed once again, which explains the change in tenses. You still need to read the threads to see who is Ephraim and how it pertains to Jeremiah 3:8. BTW, has my thread forced you to go back and actually study the OT as you never have before? I would surmise if it hasn't it will, if you continue to ask pertinent questions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
An actual good question. Chapter 1 is about the end of the covenant relationship and chapter 2 is hundreds of years later when they are betrothed once again, which explains the change in tenses. You still need to read the threads to see who is Ephraim and how it pertains to Jeremiah 3:8. BTW, has my thread forced you to go back and actually study the OT as you never have before? I would surmise if it hasn't it will, if you continue to ask pertinent questions.
Not seriously. I did briefly look at Hos 1 and 2 and couldn't connect anything you say. I also peeked at Jer 3:8. We'll never come to agree.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not seriously. I did briefly look at Hos 1 and 2 and couldn't connect anything you say. I also peeked at Jer 3:8. We'll never come to agree.

Probably not. But that is because you're not really concerned about truly grasping the OT; I am. Jeremiah 31 parallels 3:8, Ephraim finds grace in the wilderness, he is Yahweh's firstborn and the name Ephraim is used for the northern ten tribes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Probably not. But that is because you're not really concerned about truly grasping the OT; I am. Jeremiah 31 parallels 3:8, Ephraim finds grace in the wilderness, he is Yahweh's firstborn and the name Ephraim is used for the northern ten tribes.
Ephraim may be the first born of Moses, but certainly not the first born of Israel or Yahweh. I don't know who you think you're foolin'. I say that because I've yet to see any Scripture supporting your claims.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ephraim may be the first born of Moses, but certainly not the first born of Israel or Yahweh. I don't know who you think you're foolin'. I say that because I've yet to see any Scripture supporting your claims.

1 Chronicles 5
1 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled as the oldest son;

The sons of Joseph were Ephraim and Manasseh.

Jeremiah 31
9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

It is God who is saying, Ephraim is my firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9. Can you tell us why?
 
Upvote 0

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1 Chronicles 5
1 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled as the oldest son;

The sons of Joseph were Ephraim and Manasseh.

Jeremiah 31
9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

It is God who is saying, Ephraim is my firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9. Can you tell us why?
OK I was thinking they were the soms of Moses for some reason.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You’re just grasping for straws and rambling as usual

And there it is. you can't surmount my argument which leads to demeaning words on your part. Whatever makes you feel better Jerry, I'm glad I could help.

Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

I make no such distinction between Ephraim and gentiles, as not to break the inerrancy of scripture as you have done.

Scripture states Ephraim became "not my people" and God became "not their God". Thus Ephraim became as the gentiles

Hosea 1:9 And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People,b for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”c

Judah did not become as the gentiles, because they remained married to God. Thus there was distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Hosea 1:7 But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”

I can even substantiate my interpretation with Romans 9, where Paul has Hosea fulfilled with the inclusion of the Jews and Gentiles in the vessels of mercy.

Romans 9:24-25 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”


There was a distinction; the descendants of the ten northern tribes in the first century were the offspring of Ephraim, even when they intermarried with gentiles who were not. Obviously, you are neglecting that Ephraim and Manasseh were already of mixed blood through their mother.

In regards to the old covenant, the 10 northern tribes were as gentiles as they were divorced from God and became "not my people".

What was the difference between the 10 northern tribes and the edomites prior to the Assyrian exile? They were God's people under the old covenant, while the edomites were not.

What was the difference between the 10 northern tribes and the edomites, after God divorced Ephraim? Nothing, both were not God's people under the old covenant.

Remember, the Jews kept their distinction from the gentiles because of God's mercy who remained in covenant with them leading up to the 1st advent.

The descendants of the ten northern tribes in the first century were the offspring of Ephraim, even when they intermarried with gentiles who were not. Obviously, you are neglecting that Ephraim and Manasseh were already of mixed blood through their mother. This did not preclude that there were gentiles that had no ancestry with the 10 northern tribes. This did not preclude that there were gentiles that had no ancestry with the 10 northern tribesYour comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.

You just refuted yourself. You conceded that Ephraim mixed with gentiles, thus agreeing with me anthropologically.

First off, you are neglecting what I’ve already conveyed to you; Paul had been with the descendants of the 10 northern tribes in Galatia where Peter had also preached the gospel. This eviscerates your perception that Paul wasn’t addressing Ephraim.

You keep making a distinction that Paul doesn't make. Paul makes no distinction between Ephraim and gentiles.

Paul was well acquainted with the prophecies concerning Ephraim and where many dwelt, and there is no doubt in the minds of those who are well studied in the OT that he is addressing Ephraim in Romans 9:25-26.

You continue to ignore scripture to make your interpretation work. Paul clearly applies the prophesies of Hosea to the gentiles with the Jews being included in the vessels of mercy. He makes no distinction between Ephraim and Gentile, like you do.

Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’here they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Subjectivity would be your interpretation that ends the inerrancy of scripture in that it no longer maintains the OT as a guide for the original addressees, as well as succeeding generations.

Your eisegesis fails to surmount that Hosea prophesies that Ephraim became "not my people"

your eisegesis fails to surmount that Paul has hosea fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles with jews into the vessels of mercy


They were partnered with the descendants of Jacob.

They weren't just partners, they were one with the descendants of Jacob. They were fellow offspring of Abraham, They were fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body.

Galataisn 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slaveg nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Ephesians 3:6 This mystery isa that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

No, Romans 15:12 cites Isaiah 11, which is about the return of Christ when he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth and slays the wicked, which was not consummated at his first advent. His reign over the gentiles in the first century is confined to the heart, but when he returns the kingdom of the world becomes his to rule and execute Isaiah 11.

These are 2 contradicting statements. On one hand you state "no" its about the 2nd advent. On the other hand you state he reigns over the gentiles hearts. Since paul , in Romans, clearly quotes Isaiah 11 as being fulfilled with gentiles glorifying God, I'll stick with Paul.

The grafting in of the Jews who do not continue in unbelief is the exception to the rule that God hardened them in this age. Isaiah 11:13 is consummated when Christ returns, ending the enmity between Ephraim and Judah.

But you agree it began at the 1st advent, Good.

Mere rambling again.

Glad I can make you feel better about yourself.

My interpretations agree with the prophets. When they wrote of Israel or Ephraim, I interpret them the way they and their descendants would have; you do not. Your interpretations end the inerrancy of the OT.

Your interpretation ignores Paul quoting hosea as fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles into the vessels of mercy.

“Not my people” who were the descendants of the ten northern tribes, would be those whom God decreed would be restored again,

So what does that make the "not my people" them prior to the restoration? It makes them as gentiles

They were grafted back onto their own tree, according to Romans 11:24; which contrasts them from the gentiles.

There is no contrasting between Ephraim and Gentiles in Romans 11. Show me one time where its states Ephraim/Joseph? The contrast is clearly in regards to the jews and Gentiles. It is clearly the Jews, and not Ephraim, that were cut off so that the wild branches (gentiles) could be grafted in.

Romans 11:13-24 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing rootc of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Again, why confine such proof to the NT,

many of the biological descendants of Israel interpreted the scriptures incorrectly, when it came to Christ. Even the disciples had to have their minds open to understand the scriptures. Thus the understanding of the OT should come from the NT.

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

john 3:10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

I interpret them the way they and their descendants would have; you do not. Your interpretations end the inerrancy of the OT.

And many of their descendants incorrectly interpreted/understood the OT.

Such statements diminish the Sovereignty of God.

Tell that to John the Baptist who stated it.

matthew 3:9 do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham

As a historicist and premillennialist, my perception is he is cast to the earth to make war with the saints and overcome them for 1260 years through the beast from the sea (Revelation 13). In Revelation 20 the saints are dwelling safely in a land of unwalled villages (Ezekiel 38:8-12) for 1000 years and then he is released for a short span.

1,260 is not a short time, additionally, it's been more than 1260 years since Christ ascended to cast out satan.
Revelation 12:12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

Your historicist and premil view don't seem to reconcile this.

No, you're avoiding the context that Christ put away sin, depicting the spring festivals, and avoiding the obvious implications of the separation of seven months between them and the autumnal antitypes that represent judgment at his return.

Again you continue to avoid the context of Hebrews 9.

Right away, the author of Hebrews mentions the day of atonement. The high priest goes into the 2nd section once a year
Hebrews 9:6-8 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing

The author of Hebrews clearly is depicting the day of atonement.
Hebrews 9:24-25 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

What spring festival has the high priest going into the most holy place once a year? I'm not familiar with that one.
 
Upvote 0

ace of hearts

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
3,507
1,149
west coast
✟39,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And there it is. you can't surmount my argument which leads to demeaning words on your part. Whatever makes you feel better Jerry, I'm glad I could help.



I make no such distinction between Ephraim and gentiles, as not to break the inerrancy of scripture as you have done.

Scripture states Ephraim became "not my people" and God became "not their God". Thus Ephraim became as the gentiles

Hosea 1:9 And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People,b for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”c
Certainly. The fact is Ephraim were His people. Hos 2 says were not so Ephraim doesn't qualify.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And there it is. you can't surmount my argument which leads to demeaning words on your part. Whatever makes you feel better Jerry, I'm glad I could help.


I make no such distinction between Ephraim and gentiles, as not to break the inerrancy of scripture as you have done.

Scripture states Ephraim became "not my people" and God became "not their God". Thus Ephraim became as the gentiles

Judah did not become as the gentiles, because they remained married to God. Thus there was distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

I can even substantiate my interpretation with Romans 9, where Paul has Hosea fulfilled with the inclusion of the Jews and Gentiles in the vessels of mercy.

In regards to the old covenant, the 10 northern tribes were as gentiles as they were divorced from God and became "not my people".


What was the difference between the 10 northern tribes and the edomites prior to the Assyrian exile? They were God's people under the old covenant, while the edomites were not.

What was the difference between the 10 northern tribes and the edomites, after God divorced Ephraim? Nothing, both were not God's people under the old covenant.

Remember, the Jews kept their distinction from the gentiles because of God's mercy who remained in covenant with them leading up to the 1st advent.

So are you backpedaling where you affirmed in the Dispensationalism Refuted thread: It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not. This is precisely the distinction between the gentiles and Ephraim that I’ve been making. In the same post, you also conceded that God: “fulfills his promises to Ephraim's descendants.” By logical deduction, we can reason that you have conceded God fulfills his promises to Ephraim that were not intended for the gentiles, who were of no such ancestry! This is an inadvertent concession plain and simple. To deny it is refuting the inerrancy of the OT. And as for my discernment that your comments are grasping at straws and rambling, that’s hardly demeaning.

You just refuted yourself. You conceded that Ephraim mixed with gentiles, thus agreeing with me anthropologically.

No, you’re merely contradicting yourself, which I caught you at above. Anthropologically, It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not.

You keep making a distinction that Paul doesn't make. Paul makes no distinction between Ephraim and gentiles.

Paul cites Hosea 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26 as being fulfilled (which you acknowledge) because he witnessed Peter’s success with the descendants of Ephraim, the lost sheep of Israel in Galatia, which is what I’ve been maintaining all along. You’re proceeding on the false assumption that the lost sheep of Israel were strictly the Jews. Let me remind you, Christ declared he had other sheep not of the fold in Jerusalem (John 10:16). The epistles of James and Peter affirm the fulfillment of Hosea 2:23 wasn’t due to the inclusion of the gentiles by any means, but by Peter’s obeyance of Christ’s initial command not to “go in the way of the Gentiles,” and “not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6). Galatians 2:7-9 affirms James and Peter continued to obey that command and that is how Hosea 2:23 was fulfilled, which is why he cites Hosea 2:23 in his first epistle, chapter 2:10. Your assertion Hosea 2:23 was fulfilled by the inclusion of the gentiles cannot be sustained in light of the NT’s evidence that the apostles obeyed Christ and went to the lost sheep of Israel in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia: Ephraim (1 Peter 1:1-2).

You continue to ignore scripture to make your interpretation work. Paul clearly applies the prophesies of Hosea to the gentiles with the Jews being included in the vessels of mercy. He makes no distinction between Ephraim and Gentile, like you do.

No, that’s what you’re doing with Paul to make your assertions.

These are 2 contradicting statements. On one hand you state "no" its about the 2nd advent. On the other hand you state he reigns over the gentiles hearts. Since paul , in Romans, clearly quotes Isaiah 11 as being fulfilled with gentiles glorifying God, I'll stick with Paul.

No, it’s just that you persistently ignore context. The context of Isaiah 11 is about the return of Christ when he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth and slays the wicked, which clearly was not fulfilled at the first advent. Deal with it.

But you agree it began at the 1st advent, Good.

The preponderance of Ephraim avowed Christ, which is what you conceded concerning Zechariah 10:8-9 and when you said God, “fulfills his promises to Ephraim's descendants.” And you also conceded the preponderance of Judah disavowed Christ and remained in bondage to the Old Covenant. All of which is a concession of the THT perception of Zechariah 11:14 and Isaiah 11:13.

There is no contrasting between Ephraim and Gentiles in Romans 11. Show me one time where its states Ephraim/Joseph? The contrast is clearly in regards to the jews and Gentiles. It is clearly the Jews, and not Ephraim, that were cut off so that the wild branches (gentiles) could be grafted in.

Tell us where the “nation” in Matthew 21:43 is expressly revealed. (Actually, Peter does in 1 Peter 2:9-10: Ephraim.) This is why there is theological controversy and why the matter must be discerned by the scriptures. By your own concession, God fulfills his promises to Ephraim’s descendants, and reason substantiates they are grafted in again onto their own tree, according to Romans 11, in contrast to the gentiles. Your comments fall far short of proper deductive reasoning.

1,260 is not a short time, additionally, it's been more than 1260 years since Christ ascended to cast out satan.
Your historicist and premil view don't seem to reconcile this.

And your amill view can’t reconcile the contrasts between chapter 12 and 20. For one, in chapter 12 the saints are aided into the wilderness for 1260 years to escape the persecution of Satan in contrast to chapter 20, where the saints are securely camped in the beloved city for 1000 years, while Satan is bound in the pit. The contrast maintains they are not addressing the same time or age, which your amill is trying to assert.

Again you continue to avoid the context of Hebrews 9.

Right away, the author of Hebrews mentions the day of atonement. The high priest goes into the 2nd section once a year

The author of Hebrews clearly is depicting the day of atonement.

What spring festival has the high priest going into the most holy place once a year? I'm not familiar with that one.

No, you’re evading the context maintains Christ put away sin when he entered the heavenly sanctuary and that he appears the second time to judge.

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Hebrews 9:25-28​

The autumnal festivals represented the final harvest, judgment, which led to Sukkot, which is illustrated in Ezekiel 38:8-12 and Zechariah 14 and the 1000 years illustrated in Revelation 20. You should study the Hebraic festivals, more.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Certainly. The fact is Ephraim were His people. Hos 2 says were not so Ephraim doesn't qualify.

Claninja is off the amill refuge; she has conceded God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim in chapter 2. You should read more carefully. And you still haven't reconciled how Ephraim is God's firstborn son in Jeremiah 31:9. Supersessionism doesn't really grasp the OT.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So are you backpedaling where you affirmed in the Dispensationalism Refuted thread: It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not.

Looks like "dispensationalism refuted" was closed to due flaming and harassing language.

Anyways.....Not following you here Jerry, so let's break down what I believe, and then you can point out which part is specifically back pedaling in order to substantiate your claim.

1.) Ephraim was divorced by God and became "not my people" (Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 1:9)


2.) Many from Ephraim would then mix with the surrounding nations (Genesis 48:19, Hosea 7:8)

3.) over a period of 700 years, from the time of the Assyrian exile until the 1st advent, it is logical that there would be some who descended from Ephraim, just as over a period of 400 years, there were descendants of Noah after the flood.


Which part is backpedaling?
Which part have I changed since the beginning of our discussion?

This is precisely the distinction between the gentiles and Ephraim that I’ve been making.

Correct, you have been making a distinction between gentile and Ephraim.

Help me out then. As Paul never makes the contrast of Ephraim with Jew or Gentile, then which group does Ephraim belong to, Jew or Greek?

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek

In the same post, you also conceded that God: “fulfills his promises to Ephraim's descendants.”

Correct, I believe when God includes the gentiles, of whom some had descended from Ephraim, he fulfills his promise to Ephraim.

Remember Jerry, we agreed that Ephraim became divorced, barren, and "not my people", while those of Judah remained married to God.


By logical deduction, we can reason that you have conceded God fulfills his promises to Ephraim that were not intended for the gentiles, who were of no such ancestry! This is an inadvertent concession plain and simple. To deny it is refuting the inerrancy of the OT.

Well, I believe God's intention was to turn Ephraim into a multitude of nations through their disobedience under the old covenant, so that God would have mercy on those who accept the gospel from the multitude of nations under the new covenant.

I believe the kingdom of heaven to be like a fishing net, gathering all kinds of fish. It gathers descendants of Israel and non descendants of Israel. It gathers Jew and gentile. alike. It also gathers the good and the bad. The inclusion of gentiles who did not descend from Ephraim fulfills the promises to Abraham and promises recorded in the prophets such as Isaiah 11:10 . The inclusion of gentiles who did descend from Ephraim fulfills the promises to Abraham and promises recorded in the prophets such has hosea 1:10 and 2:23.


And as for my discernment that your comments are grasping at straws and rambling, that’s hardly demeaning.

If that makes you feel better.

No, you’re merely contradicting yourself, which I caught you at above. Anthropologically, “It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not.

Not following you here Jerry, so let's break down what I believe, and then you can point out which part is specifically contradicting in order to substantiate your claim.

1.) Ephraim was divorced by God and became "not my people" (Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 1:9)


2.) Many from would Ephraim would then mix with the surrounding nations (Genesis 48:19, Hosea 7:8)

3.) over a period of 700 years, from the time of the Assyrian exile until the 1st advent, it is logical that there would be some who descended from Ephraim, just as over a period of 400 years, there were descendants of Noah after the flood.


Which part is contradicting?

Paul cites Hosea 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26 as being fulfilled (which you acknowledge) because he witnessed Peter’s success with the descendants of Ephraim

Incorrect, Paul does not cite Hosea as being fulfilled because he "witnessed Peter's success with the descendants of Ephraim". Instead, Paul quotes hosea as being fulfilled due to the inclusion of the gentiles with the jews as vessels of mercy, as clearly stated in Romans 9:24.

Romans 9:24-25 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”

You’re proceeding on the false assumption that the lost sheep of Israel were strictly the Jews.

I am under the assumption that those of Ephraim who remained in disobedience under the old covenant were divorced and became "not my people" and were thus scattered by Assyria. I am under the assumption that those of Ephraim who remained obedient went south and assimilated with the kingdom of Judah prior to, during, and after the Assyrian exile.

Thus I am under the assumption that the lost sheep of Israel are those of the kingdom of Judah (descendants of Judah and assimilated descendants of Benjamin, levi, Ephraim, simeon, etc...). In other words, to the Jew first, and then the gentile.



, Christ declared he had other sheep not of the fold in Jerusalem (John 10:16)

Correct, He did declare that. However, I believe the other fold to be the gentiles (divorced and exiled descendants of Ephraim and non-descendants of Ephraim).

The epistles of James and Peter affirm the fulfillment of Hosea 2:23 wasn’t due to the inclusion of the gentiles by any means,

You again appear to misunderstand my position.

1.) Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 are specifically directed at Ephraim/northern kingdom. We agree, yes?

2.) Would hosea 2:23 be fulfilled by the inclusion of descendants edomites, Persians, greeks, scythians, barbarians, cushites, ethopians, etc... who did not descend from Ephraim, who believed the gospel? In a literal or grammatical-historical sense, no. We still agree at this point, yes?

3.) Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 can only be fulfilled by the inclusion of the divorced descendants of Ephraim in the vessels of mercy, We still agree at this point, yes?

4.) I believe that when Ephraim was divorced from God through their disobedience under the old covenant, they became "not my people". Thus they became as edomites, Persians, greeks, cushites, scythians, barbarians, ethopians, etc...anyone outside of the covenant: they became as gentiles in relationship to God.

5.) Over 700 years of Ephraim mixing with the surrounding nations, their descendants would become a multitude of nations by the time of the 1st advent thus fulfilling the promise to Ephraim, just as noah's sons became a multitude of nations within a period of 400 years.

6.) By God including the gentiles (the descendents of Ephraim, edomites, Persians, greeks, cushites, ects..) in the new covenant as vessels of mercy some 700 years later along with the remnant Jews, he fulfills His promise to the descendants of Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23.

Thus by God including the gentiles into the body of Christ, of whom some descended from Ephraim, to become one under the new covenant, Peter can rightly address the descendants of Ephraim and James can rightly address the 12 tribes of Israel.


Galatians 2:7-9 affirms James and Peter continued to obey that command and that is how Hosea 2:23 was fulfilled, which is why he cites Hosea 2:23 in his first epistle, chapter 2:10.

Galatians 2:11-21 and acts 10 also confirm that James and Peter brought the gospel to gentiles thus fulfilling the command to bring the gospel to the nations in matthew 28:19.

No, that’s what you’re doing with Paul to make your assertions.

Sure Jerry, if you could just point out which scripture of paul's I am ignoring to make my assertions, that would help substantiate your claim.

While I wait, I'll leave you with the verse you seemingly continue to ignore to make your assertions: Romans 9:24. You continue to ignore that Paul quotes hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled due to the inclusion of the gentile with jews as vessels of mercy.

No, it’s just that you persistently ignore context. The context of Isaiah 11 is about the return of Christ when he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth and slays the wicked, which clearly was not fulfilled at the first advent. Deal with it.

So Paul is wrong when he quotes Isaiah 11:10 as being fulfilled with the gentiles glorifying God in the first century? I disagree

Romans 15:8-9,12 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy. As it is written: And once more, Isaiah says:“The root of Jesse will appear, One who will arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles will put their hope.

The preponderance of Ephraim avowed Christ, which is what you conceded concerning Zechariah 10:8-9 and when you said God, “fulfills his promises to Ephraim's descendants.” And you also conceded the preponderance of Judah disavowed Christ and remained in bondage to the Old Covenant. All of which is a concession of the THT perception of Zechariah 11:14 and Isaiah 11:13.

Which would also be a concession of preterism, as well as amil, and supersessionism

Tell us where the “nation” in Matthew 21:43 is expressly revealed. (Actually, Peter does in 1 Peter 2:9-10: Ephraim.)

I don't disagree that Peter's epistle has the intention of being addressed to the descendants of the 10 northern tribes. There seems to be much debate on the identity of the audience of Peter, whether it is Jew or gentiles.

Peter states they are being built into a spiritual house.
1 Peter 2:4 As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house.

This coincides with Paul's theology of Jew and Gentile being built together into a temple
Ephesians 2:15-16 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
Ephesians 2:21 Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord

All are one in this spiritual house, Jew and gentile
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles?

I believe it is 1, thus the nation is simply the body of Christ, which consist of all who believe, regardless of race, tribe, or nationality.


By your own concession, God fulfills his promises to Ephraim’s descendants, and reason substantiates they are grafted in again onto their own tree, according to Romans 11, in contrast to the gentiles. Your comments fall far short of proper deductive reasoning.

Which verse in Romans 11 contrasts Ephraim and the gentiles?

And your amill view can’t reconcile the contrasts between chapter 12 and 20.

I'm not amil

For one, in chapter 12 the saints are aided into the wilderness for 1260 years to escape the persecution of Satan in contrast to chapter 20, where the saints are securely camped in the beloved city for 1000 years, while Satan is bound in the pit. The contrast maintains they are not addressing the same time or age, which your amill is trying to assert.

It's a simple yes or no question, do you believe satan has 2 little seasons, 1 when he is cast out of heaven and 1 when he is released from the pit after 1000 years?

Additionally, why do you interpret 1260 days as years but 1000 years as years?


No, you’re evading the context maintains Christ put away sin when he entered the heavenly sanctuary and that he appears the second time to judge.

The context of Hebrews 9 clearly sets up the day of atonement.

Hebrews 9:3-7 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,b containing the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. Inside the ark were the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. When everything had been prepared in this way, the priests entered regularly into the first room to perform their sacred duties. But only the high priest entered the second room, and then only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

Did or did not Christ enter the most holy place, the presence of God, at the first advent to put away sin?

The autumnal festivals represented the final harvest, judgment, which led to Sukkot, which is illustrated in Ezekiel 38:8-12 and Zechariah 14 and the 1000 years illustrated in Revelation 20. You should study the Hebraic festivals, more.

The day of atonement represents Christ entering heaven, the presence of God, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, this is clearly seen in Hebrews 9.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,013
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Looks like "dispensationalism refuted" was closed to due flaming and harassing language.

Anyways.....Not following you here Jerry, so let's break down what I believe, and then you can point out which part is specifically back pedaling in order to substantiate your claim.

1.) Ephraim was divorced by God and became "not my people" (Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 1:9)


2.) Many from Ephraim would then mix with the surrounding nations (Genesis 48:19, Hosea 7:8)

3.) over a period of 700 years, from the time of the Assyrian exile until the 1st advent, it is logical that there would be some who descended from Ephraim, just as over a period of 400 years, there were descendants of Noah after the flood.


Which part is backpedaling?
Which part have I changed since the beginning of our discussion?



Correct, you have been making a distinction between gentile and Ephraim.

Help me out then. As Paul never makes the contrast of Ephraim with Jew or Gentile, then which group does Ephraim belong to, Jew or Greek?

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek



Correct, I believe when God includes the gentiles, of whom some had descended from Ephraim, he fulfills his promise to Ephraim.

Remember Jerry, we agreed that Ephraim became divorced, barren, and "not my people", while those of Judah remained married to God.




Well, I believe God's intention was to turn Ephraim into a multitude of nations through their disobedience under the old covenant, so that God would have mercy on those who accept the gospel from the multitude of nations under the new covenant.

I believe the kingdom of heaven to be like a fishing net, gathering all kinds of fish. It gathers descendants of Israel and non descendants of Israel. It gathers Jew and gentile. alike. It also gathers the good and the bad. The inclusion of gentiles who did not descend from Ephraim fulfills the promises to Abraham and promises recorded in the prophets such as Isaiah 11:10 . The inclusion of gentiles who did descend from Ephraim fulfills the promises to Abraham and promises recorded in the prophets such has hosea 1:10 and 2:23.




If that makes you feel better.



Not following you here Jerry, so let's break down what I believe, and then you can point out which part is specifically contradicting in order to substantiate your claim.

1.) Ephraim was divorced by God and became "not my people" (Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 1:9)


2.) Many from would Ephraim would then mix with the surrounding nations (Genesis 48:19, Hosea 7:8)

3.) over a period of 700 years, from the time of the Assyrian exile until the 1st advent, it is logical that there would be some who descended from Ephraim, just as over a period of 400 years, there were descendants of Noah after the flood.


Which part is contradicting?



Incorrect, Paul does not cite Hosea as being fulfilled because he "witnessed Peter's success with the descendants of Ephraim". Instead, Paul quotes hosea as being fulfilled due to the inclusion of the gentiles with the jews as vessels of mercy, as clearly stated in Romans 9:24.

Romans 9:24-25 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”



I am under the assumption that those of Ephraim who remained in disobedience under the old covenant were divorced and became "not my people" and were thus scattered by Assyria. I am under the assumption that those of Ephraim who remained obedient went south and assimilated with the kingdom of Judah prior to, during, and after the Assyrian exile.

Thus I am under the assumption that the lost sheep of Israel are those of the kingdom of Judah (descendants of Judah and assimilated descendants of Benjamin, levi, Ephraim, simeon, etc...). In other words, to the Jew first, and then the gentile.





Correct, He did declare that. However, I believe the other fold to be the gentiles (divorced and exiled descendants of Ephraim and non-descendants of Ephraim).



You again appear to misunderstand my position.

1.) Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 are specifically directed at Ephraim/northern kingdom. We agree, yes?

2.) Would hosea 2:23 be fulfilled by the inclusion of descendants edomites, Persians, greeks, scythians, barbarians, cushites, ethopians, etc... who did not descend from Ephraim, who believed the gospel? In a literal or grammatical-historical sense, no. We still agree at this point, yes?

3.) Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 can only be fulfilled by the inclusion of the divorced descendants of Ephraim in the vessels of mercy, We still agree at this point, yes?

4.) I believe that when Ephraim was divorced from God through their disobedience under the old covenant, they became "not my people". Thus they became as edomites, Persians, greeks, cushites, scythians, barbarians, ethopians, etc...anyone outside of the covenant: they became as gentiles in relationship to God.

5.) Over 700 years of Ephraim mixing with the surrounding nations, their descendants would become a multitude of nations by the time of the 1st advent thus fulfilling the promise to Ephraim, just as noah's sons became a multitude of nations within a period of 400 years.

6.) By God including the gentiles (the descendents of Ephraim, edomites, Persians, greeks, cushites, ects..) in the new covenant as vessels of mercy some 700 years later along with the remnant Jews, he fulfills His promise to the descendants of Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23.

Thus by God including the gentiles into the body of Christ, of whom some descended from Ephraim, to become one under the new covenant, Peter can rightly address the descendants of Ephraim and James can rightly address the 12 tribes of Israel.




Galatians 2:11-21 and acts 10 also confirm that James and Peter brought the gospel to gentiles thus fulfilling the command to bring the gospel to the nations in matthew 28:19.



Sure Jerry, if you could just point out which scripture of paul's I am ignoring to make my assertions, that would help substantiate your claim.

While I wait, I'll leave you with the verse you seemingly continue to ignore to make your assertions: Romans 9:24. You continue to ignore that Paul quotes hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled due to the inclusion of the gentile with jews as vessels of mercy.


Your concession that, at the first advent, God fulfills his promises to Ephraim that were not intended for the gentiles, who were of no such ancestry, supports the THT interpretation of Romans 9:25-26. One cannot have it both ways; conceding the citation Hosea 2:23 pertains to Ephraim and altering its intent to pertain to the gentiles when it is cited in the NT is contradictory, a fallacy. It destroys the inerrancy of the OT and is the reason that supersessionism never truly had any credibility.

Your comments reveal a lack of understanding of supersessionism; supersessionism maintains the rejection of the Jewish nation at the first advent, which precludes any concession that God fulfilled his promises to Ephraim at the first advent. It’s transparent that your aversion to the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 is founded on supersessionism, while your enlightenment by this debate that God did not cast away the people that he foreknew at the first advent (Romans 11:2) exposes your comments as circumlocutions and fallacies.

So Paul is wrong when he quotes Isaiah 11:10 as being fulfilled with the gentiles glorifying God in the first century? I disagree

Romans 15:8-9,12 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy. As it is written: And once more, Isaiah says:“The root of Jesse will appear, One who will arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles will put their hope.

Paul isn’t wrong; your interpretation is erroneous. Confirming the promises to the patriarchs so that the gentiles may glorify God does not translate into Isaiah 11:10 being fulfilled in the first century; you are adding to the scriptures. Paul is merely citing OT passages about the future inclusion of the gentiles, some of which were inaugurated at the first advent and some are to be consummated as the second.

Which would also be a concession of preterism, as well as amil, and supersessionism

Your comments reveal a lack of understanding of supersessionism; supersessionism maintains the rejection of the Jewish nation at the first advent, which precludes any concession that God fulfilled his promises to Ephraim at the first advent. It’s transparent that your aversion to the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 is founded on supersessionism, while your enlightenment by this debate that God did not cast away the people that he foreknew at the first advent (Romans 11:2) exposes your comments as circumlocutions and fallacies.

I don't disagree that Peter's epistle has the intention of being addressed to the descendants of the 10 northern tribes. There seems to be much debate on the identity of the audience of Peter, whether it is Jew or gentiles.

Peter states they are being built into a spiritual house.
1 Peter 2:4 As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house.

This coincides with Paul's theology of Jew and Gentile being built together into a temple
Ephesians 2:15-16 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
Ephesians 2:21 Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord

All are one in this spiritual house, Jew and gentile
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles?

I believe it is 1, thus the nation is simply the body of Christ, which consist of all who believe, regardless of race, tribe, or nationality.

Any debate is premised on supersessionism; dispensationalism doesn’t seem to have the debate with the epistles of Peter, albeit they too have their shortcomings. Supersessionism falls on the issue that God did not cast away the people that he foreknew at the first advent. Peter’s ministered principally to the circumcised and Paul to the uncircumcised, which ends the debate for those who study to show themselves approved.

Which verse in Romans 11 contrasts Ephraim and the gentiles?

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Romans 11:24​

I'm not amil
It's a simple yes or no question, do you believe satan has 2 little seasons, 1 when he is cast out of heaven and 1 when he is released from the pit after 1000 years?

Additionally, why do you interpret 1260 days as years but 1000 years as years?

Your comments reveal a lack of comprehension; my answer is in my interpretation that the two chapters are not parallel; they don’t represent the same age. The contrast reveals they are not depicting the same age, so the “short time” Satan believes he has in 12 is not the “little season” God allows Satan in 20. We have “Satan’s perception” in chapter 12 and “God’s perception” in 20. Now I ask you, are you asserting that “Satan’s perception” of the time he has left before Isaiah 24 happens, in 12, and “God’s perception” of the time Satan is allowed after being prevented from deceiving the nations for 1000 years, in 20, are synonymous? BTW, Revelation 10:6 states at the time of the last trumpets that "there should be time no longer," which ends the day-for-a-year determination entering the seven vials.

The context of Hebrews 9 clearly sets up the day of atonement.
Hebrews 9:3-7 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,b containing the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. Inside the ark were the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. When everything had been prepared in this way, the priests entered regularly into the first room to perform their sacred duties. But only the high priest entered the second room, and then only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

Did or did not Christ enter the most holy place, the presence of God, at the first advent to put away sin?

The day of atonement represents Christ entering heaven, the presence of God, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, this is clearly seen in Hebrews 9.

The atonement for sin and the atonement for the sanctuary are two different phenomena. You should study the Hebraic festivals more!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0