- Jul 21, 2018
- 1,013
- 130
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I am neither an amil nor a woman
I'm sorry but you do make yourself a mystery.
Upvote
0
I am neither an amil nor a woman
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;
It’s transparent that your aversion to the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 is founded on supersessionism
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.
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.
circumlocutions
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.
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
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.
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 atonement for sin and the atonement for the sanctuary are two different phenomena. You should study the Hebraic festivals more!
I'm sorry but you do make yourself a mystery.
As I asked but you did not answer, It appears you were unable to show where I backpedaled. Does this mean you understand my position a little better? I sure hope so......
It also supports the preterist position and amil position, which is that exiled Ephraim became as gentiles through their divorce from God, thus becoming not His people and God not their God. Therefore, by God including gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the jews in the vessels of mercy, He fulfills His promises to Ephraim.
This is substantiated by Romans 9:24, where Paul has hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILESwith the Jews in the vessels of mercy.
Romans 9:24 surmounts your argument that there is a distinction between gentiles and Ephraim.
1.) Ephraim became gentiles through their divorce from God
2.) By God including gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, He fulfills his promises to Ephraim.
Please show where I stated it was gentile non-descendants of Ephraim coming into the body of Christ under the new covenant that fulfills Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23 to substantiate your claim that my belief is contradictory and/or altering.
It's transparent that you continue to avoid discussing Romans 9:24 which addresses hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the gentiles
As I have stated multiple times before, the only part of suppersessionism I agree with is that the new covenant superseded the old covenant. I do not agree that the church superseded Israel.
Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12 with the gentiles praising God. But you say its not fulfilled. I'll stick with Paul. Does that mean you don't believe gentiles have yet put their hope in God?
I agreed that Peter's intention is to address the descendants of Ephraim, but this does not address the question I asked.
Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built in is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles as stated in 1 Peter 2:5?
This ignores verse 23
Romans 11:23-24 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.
The "you" in verse 11:23-24 is the gentiles
Romans 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles
The "they" in verse 11:23-24 is the jews.
Romans 11:14 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?
it is the unbelieving Jews that were cut off while the believing gentiles were grafted in. If the Jews do not continue in unbelief, God can graft them back in.
Paul makes no mention of Ephraim or the northern kingdom. Nor is there any clear differentiation between gentiles and Ephraim. You appear to add that.
you could have just said yes, you believe satan has 2 different short seasons in different ages.
Yes. I believe the millennium is the fulfillment of Christ sitting on the throne in heaven at his ascension. It was 1000 years between the time of David and Christ. Thus, Christ ascending to the throne fulfills david "never lacking a man to sit on the throne".
I read revelation as a series of parallel visions that reflect different perspectives on the same event.
How do you know it ends the day for a year determination?
Not following you here Jerry.
The day of atonement involves BOTH atonement for sin and the sanctuary
Leviticus 16:20 And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat
Leviticus 16:34 And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.”
The author of Hebrews mentions BOTH the atoning of the heavenly things with Christ's death and the putting away of sin by Christ's death.
Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these
Hebrews 9:25-26 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
As do most on this website who do not use their full names as their username. But a hint, you can select male or female when creating a profile. Notice my profile stock image is male, and not female. If one selects female, their stock image will be female.
Oh, I understand your position;
it appears you don’t and that’s why you don’t see that you’re backpedaling.
Right here you backpedal. You state that God fulfills his promises to Ephraim but then backpedal on those promises by asserting Paul takes the promises to Ephraim in Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 and applies them to the gentiles in Romans 9:25-26. The salvation of the gentiles wasn’t promised through Hosea 1:10 and 2:23—Ephraim’s was. There are a number of OT texts that pertain to the salvation to the gentiles, but Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 aren’t included in that number.
You apparently don’t see that your obfuscating the definitions of “gentile” and “Ephraimite” that makes language a farce. From the perspective of the first advent, Ephraim was at one time the “nation of God;” the gentiles weren’t. From the perspective of the first advent, Ephraim was at one time “married to God;” the gentiles weren’t. You think by repeating a fallacy over and over again you can make it true.
It is true that the lost tribes became distant in that blood line by their intermarriage with those who were not so biologically disposed, the gentiles, but to say they became gentiles backpedals on your concessions that: “It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not.”
By stating that Paul applies Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 to the gentiles you’re alleging that at one time the gentiles were the “nation of God,” which they weren’t and that at one time they were “married to God,” which they weren’t.
Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 prophecy the future restoration of the descendants of Ephraim, not salvation being extended to the gentiles. There are a number of OT texts that pertain to salvation being extended to the gentiles, but Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 aren’t included in that number.
Choose between supersessionism or THT; you can’t straddle the fence and expect credibility with either.
Where does Paul write Isaiah 11:10 is fulfilled in Romans 15:12? He doesn’t! You're making that up. 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.
Strawman argument.
I have found that the book of Revelation is divided/folded in two parallel parts. Chapter 1-11 prophecies from the first advent until the last trumpet and the millennial kingdom. Then John recaps the same time from chapter 12 until the millennium in chapter 20.
By your continued rejection of said distinction, you prove to be a supersessionist through and through and actually promote that the “nation” of Israel was rejected at the first advent.
This is what I vindicate in my book, unlike the traditional historicist.
By “precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).
You neglected to note that the atonement on Yom Kippur was for “the people of Israel,” the corporate body.
Any Israelite that did not afflict their soul on that oblation were “cut off” from the congregation (Leviticus 23:29).
The “daily” offerings were for individual sin. Hebrews 10:18 affirms the atonement for individual sin was accomplished at the first advent.
the judgment of the body of the congregation, does not occur until Christ returns.
It in fact does not backpedal on my agreement that there were descendents (700 years later) of Ephraim living in Paul's society. There were descendants of shem, ham, and Japheth living in Paul's society, so I'm not following your argument.
My belief is that when God divorced the northern kingdom (Jeremiah 3:8) he removed them from the status of being God's people (hosea 1:9), Thus they were no different than the surrounding nations whom they were scattered to, regardless if they intermingled or not.
Thus by God including the nations, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise to the descendants of Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23.
Please explain why you are ignoring romans 9:24.
More proof of your misunderstanding of my position. I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim. Hence, I have stated multiple times now, that God fulfills his promise to Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23 by including the gentiles, specifically of those who descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy.
maybe and earthly picture can you help you understand:
You tell me you are going fishing for tuna. You have a boat and drag a net behind the boat. This net catches all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, wahoo, AND TUNA. Did you fulfill the first statement of catching tuna, even though you caught many other kinds of fish? YES
You tell me you are going fishing for tuna. You have a boat and drag a net behind the boat. This net catches all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, and wahoo. Did you fulfill the first statement of catching tuna, even though you caught many other kinds of fish? NO
You continue to avoid Romans 9:24......
So Paul is just randomly quoting verses that have nothing to do with the gentiles praising God in the 1st century? The gentile did have not yet put their hope in Jesus?
Inaugurated? So do you agree or disagree that Isaiah 11:10 was inaugurated at the 1st advent?
Strawman? I wasn't making an argument. I asked a question.
So I'll ask again: Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built in is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles as stated in 1 Peter 2:5?
Ah, so you don't believe all of what traditional historicists believe. You're straddling the fence I see....I thought you said that impacts credibility?
no scripture is of private interpretation. if the 1260 days are years, scripture would say so, otherwise it's just speculation.
I thought that was assumed, just as the cross was for the entire body of Christ…. I agree. Again, what does the return of Christ have to do with the high priest entering the presence of God once a year to put away sin?
Here you say that Ephraimites, were “no different than the surrounding nations”
and in the very next comment you say “some descended from Ephraim,”
which is a concession there WAS a difference between Ephraim and the surrounding nations.
But if you want to live by contradictions that is your prerogative but I won’t have them in my doctrines.
You state: “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim.”
There is only one other alternative and that is Paul cited Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26 as being fulfilled in the elect descendants of Ephraim, as a nation.
Just as there OT passages that pertain to the salvation of the gentiles there are NT texts that do so like Romans 9:24 and 9:30, but Romans 9:25-26 pertains to Ephraim’s reinstatement as the nation of God that bears the fruit of the vineyard.
In the context in question, Paul cites four passages from the OT concerning the gentiles,
the first three were fulfilled at the first advent, while the fourth is fulfilled at Christ’s return.
Your query is an implication that THT separates the BOC; it’s a strawman argument
Progressive historicists have been around since it’s beginning, of which I’m one. Progressive revelation accounts for progressive historicists.
What don’t you comprehend about the distinction between the “daily” atonement for the individual and the “yearly” atonement for the sanctuary?
Those who had descended from Ephraim 700 years later (from the time of the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent) may still have had similar genetic markers as Ephraim, but in regards to their relationship to God, they had been ousted, and were thus no different than the surrounding nations. Judah, however, remained in a covenantal relationship with God, thus there was difference between Judah and the surrounding nations. Hence the term "to the Jew first, and then the gentile", and NOT "to the Jew first, then Ephraim, then gentile"…..
Correct. Remember the fishing scenario?
You state you are going catch some tuna. your boat's net then drags in in all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, wahoo, AND TUNA. Was your first statement fulfilled, that you caught tuna, even though you also caught many other fish?
Thus it is with Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 and Paul's conclusion. God's promise was to bring back Ephraim and to make them his people again. By God including gentiles (cushites, greeks, Persians, edomites, scythians, barbarians, AND ephraimites) with the jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise to Ephraim.
Thus, paul quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles with the Jews in the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:24-26….
In romans 9:24, Paul does not state Ephraim. he states gentiles. Paul has hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy.
Thus, substantiating my argument that Ephraim became as gentiles: no different than the surrounding nations in regards to the covenantal relationship with God.
Thank you for clarifying your position on romans 9:24. Although, I disagree that romans 9:24 is separate from 9:25-26. I would argue that the Romans 9:24 is the statement and Romans 9:25-26 is the supporting scripture for that statement . This would be due the grammar connecting Romans 9:24 and Romans 9:25-26 and Paul's clear absence of the terms Ephraim, northern kingdom, or house of Israel.
Paul doesn't associate any of those verses with the 2nd advent.
I didn't know if THT separates the body of Christ and Ephraim or not, hence I asked the question. You have been maintaining that Ephraim is the nation that inherits the kingdom, While I believe that nation to be the body of Christ. I can't tell if you separate Ephraim from the body of Christ as the nation that inherits the kingdom as stated in matthew 21, hence I asked the question about 1 peter and the spiritual house Ephraim is being built into. It was a question to clarify. not a made up argument against your position.
What's the difference between a progressive historicist and a regular historicist when it comes to biblical theology?
Why do you continue to refuse Hebrews 9 mentions the day of atonement? What other ritual in the old covenant mentions the high priest going into the Most holy place once a year? What other old covenant ritual mentions the sanctuary being purified once a year?
Hebrews 9 mentions that Christ's sacrifice (the better one) purified the heavenly things, Thus associating the cross with the day of atonement. It also mentions Christ appearing in the presence of God on our behalf, thus associating it with the day of atonement.
Actually, it was the lost sheep of Israel that was first and then the gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6).
Ephraim is the other fold that Christ affirms in John 10:16,
(Dwelling safely in the wilderness is conveyed in Revelation 12) By your doctrine, supersessionism, we have a contradiction: there is no difference between Ephraim and the gentiles and there is a difference between them. If you want to live with such fallacies that is your prerogative, but I won’t.
. The scriptures affirm a difference between the gentiles and the descendants of Ephraim, even when they are broken off of the olive tree and are no longer God’s covenant people; the condition is ephemeral if they are the elect according to scripture because the gifts and calling are without repentance (Romans 11:29).
there is a difference between the Jews and the gentiles today; by God’s standards some are the elect, saved before the foundations of the world.
You continue to argue from silence; Ephraim isn’t mentioned in Romans 9.
You continue to argue from silence; Ephraim isn’t mentioned in Romans 9. By your illogic, the Jews weren’t called by Christ because he came for the lost sheep of Israel and “Israel” was the name of the lost tribes, not Judah.
But a rational argument maintains the term “Jew” as interchangeable with Israel at the time of the first advent (while not so in the OT).
If language is not made a farce, what you state is that Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 is fulfilled by the descendants of Ephraim, which makes Romans 9:26-26 pertain to the descendants of Ephraim and not the gentiles. If that is not what you mean, then you need to express yourself more precisely and not be in such a hurry to respond.
Your work is full of contradictions and incongruities and arguments from silence.
But the context of the OT does. Is this another argument from silence?
Your comments are disingenuous. In truth you have never surmounted my response to this; there are different callings in the BOC.
I told you: progressive revelation.
Why do you continue to conflate the “daily” intercession for the individual and the “yearly” intercession for the congregation? The salient differences do not allow such a conflation. As originally stated, Christ being the antitype of the veil substantiates that he ascended to a compartmentless sanctuary, which thwarts your assertions. The heavenly sanctuary isn't the earthly one; the latter is merely an imperfect reflection. Furthermore, the phrase “the holy places every year” in the ESV merely conveys “perpetuality” as opposed to a “yearly” intercession.
Correct, Jesus instructed the 12 disciples to go the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the gentiles nor Samaritans.
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
We see that in the previous chapter, Jesus has compassion on the crowds following Him because they were like sheep without a shepherd.
Matthew 9:36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
Prior to the Assyrian exile, we find those from the northern kingdom already living in the southern kingdom
2 chronicles 15:9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the Lord his God was with him.
After the Assyrian exile, we find those from the northern kingdom in kingdom of Judah
2 Chronicles 30:11 However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem
2 Chronicles 30:18 For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Lord pardon everyone
After the Babylonian Exile, we find those from the northern kingdom living in the southern kingdom.
1 Chronicles 9:1-3 So all Israel was recorded in genealogies, and these are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their breach of faith. Now the first to dwell again in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the temple servants. And some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh lived in Jerusalem.
As evidenced above, some from the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom prior to the Assyrian exile, during the Assyrian exile, and even after the Babylonian exile. Thus, I would argue the term Jew includes all of the 12 tribes that remained in southern kingdom.
Nehemiah 4:1-2 Now when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was angry and greatly enraged, and he jeered at the Jews. And he said in the presence of his brothers and of the army of Samaria, “What are these feeble Jews doing? Will they restore it for themselves?b Will they sacrifice? Will they finish up in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burned ones at that?”
When Peter Addresses the Jews, he addresses them as "men of Israel" and "the house of Israel"
Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven
Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know
Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
Thus, I would argue the lost sheep of Israel are the Jews, descendants of the 12 tribes following the Babylonian exile, who had strayed from God. While the divorced Ephraimites who were exiled by Assyria became a multitude of nations (gentiles) (genesis 48:19). Thus to the Jew first, then gentile…..
As I believe Jew and Israel are interchangeable due to the evidence of those of the northern kingdom settling in the southern kingdom pre-Assryian exile, during the Assyrian exile, and post Babylonian exile, I disagree with your assertion.
Even Paul uses Israel and Jew interchangeably.
Romans 11:11-13 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! 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
I believe it to be Jews/Israel who rejected Christ and were cut off , while the gentiles, which include the multitude of nations that Ephraim became, that accepted Christ, were grafted in.
And thus the mystery is revealed. All of Israel is saved by the inclusion of the elect Jews/Israel with the fullness of the nations, which includes the descendants of Ephraim
Romans 11:25-26 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
Genesis 48:19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a fullness of nations.
I would argue the gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim (genesis 48:19), are the other fold.
John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
This is substantiated by the Jew and gentile becoming one new man under Christ
Ephesian 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility
Sure, and if your THT or British Israelism doctrine allows you to accept that the northern kingdom remained God's people even though He divorced them, effectively making them no longer His people, then that is your prerogative. I will continue to disagree, as scripture is very clear, that the exiled northern kingdom became no longer his people.
Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.
Correct, I maintain that Paul makes no distinction between then exiled multitude descendants of Ephraim and the surrounding nations as there is no evidence of distinction in Romans 9. I further substantiate that claim not based on silence but by the fact the paul quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in the vessels of mercy.
Arguments of silence are not logical fallacies when used in the correct context and substantiated with other evidence.
Another false assumption. Be careful with those. The body of Christ has different callings yes. Some are teachers, some are prophets, some are apostles, etc....; God has given the body of Christ different callings and gifts.
I don't believe that means God has given the foot the physical land of Israel, while the hand the kingdom of God. However, that is what APPEARS you are asserting.
Why do you keep switching to the veil? Why don't you actually address Hebrews 9 which specifically talks about the work of the high priest. What was the purpose of the high priest outside of the day of atonement? Is Christ not yet the high priest? Has Christ not yet done the work of the high priest, atoning of the sins of the people and appearing in the presence of God?
When does the high priest perform the daily sacrifices?
Hebrews 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own
You’re asserting that Ephraim was in Judah and a was a multitude of scattered foreign nations at the same time,
which is actually crafting more contradictions. It suggests the babble that there are over 20 tribes of Israel
And don’t think that it goes without notice that you take parts of the OT strictly literally and other parts strictly figuratively to suit your contradictions, and in indifference to accuracy.
Let’s actually stick to what the scriptures say. All your OT references pertain to “some” of the people of Ephraim and not the majority.
Your citations from the OT pertain to refugees from Ephraim/Israel,
the majority that went into exile, even until the first advent, according to the texts in Kings, above, Hosea, Zechariah, and even Peter’s epistles
The title of “Israel” and the firstborn lawful standing was the de jure provision of the sons of Joseph and followed the northern “nation” when the kingdom was divided (Genesis 48:16; 1 Chronicles 5:1).
The scepter went to Judah and followed them into the southern nation until the scepter departed in the “last days,” at the advent of Shiloh, who is Christ, and is witnessed in Matthew 21:43 (Genesis 49:10).
Since Ephraim/Israel had been cast off, Judah had usurped the “name” Israel by de facto provision, which explains the texts you cited in Acts.
The aforesaid vindicates that the “last days” in Genesis 49 represents the inter-advent age and not the prior one, your misrepresentation notwithstanding.
As stated previously, Joseph’s descendants become a multitude of nations in this age (when God scatters them according to Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9, 13:7), not the prior.
Your contradictions do not surmount that Ephraim represents the sheep of the other fold in John 10:16
The gentiles were not the offspring of the nation of Israel, nor were they the offspring of the nation of Israel that was married to God, nor were they the offspring of the nation of Israel that was driven away
leads to the contradiction: there is no difference between Ephraim and the gentiles and there is a difference between them.
This is simply more contradiction. You had stated, “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim.” If Paul’s intention was not to cite Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled by the gentiles who didn’t descend from Ephraim, then it logically follows his intention was to cite Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled by the descendants of Ephraim! Your contradictions lead to all sorts of faux pas.
God would take matters into his own hands and redeem them (Deuteronomy 30:1-10).
The gentiles were not the offspring of the nation of Israel
Furthermore, your other evidence does not substantiate your argument from silence because it is not true evidence.
Yet, you haven’t delivered any such scripture to affirm that the gentiles were prophesied to be redeemed and then scattered as we see in Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9. Or that they were driven away and then to be sought out by God and given Christ as their shepherd Ezekiel 34:22-24. You can’t deliver any such scripture because that was not the calling to the gentiles, but to the elect of Ephraim and Judah.
Why do you keep ignoring the significance that Christ is the antitype of the veil?
Correct, I am asserting that some descendants of the northern tribe lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, pre-Assyrian exile, during Assyrian exile, Post Babylonian Exile, and 1st century. I am also asserting that descendants of the northern tribe were scattered to foreign nations.
This is clearly evidenced in scripture
1.) northern kingdom descendants living in the southern kingdom pre Assyrian Exile, During Assyrian Exile, post Babylonian exile, and even 1st century Judea.
2 Chronicles 15:9 And he assembled all Judah and Benjamin, along with those from the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who had settled among them, for great numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
2 Chronicles 30:11 Nevertheless, some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem
We find that descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh settled in Jerusalem post Babylonian Exile.
1 chronicles 9:1-3 So all Israel was recorded in the genealogies written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. But Judah was exiled to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness. Now the first to resettle their own property in their cities were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants. These were some of the descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh who lived in Jerusalem:
We even find a descendant of Asher living in Jerusalem in the 1st century.
Luke 2:36 There was also a prophetess named Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, who was well along in years. She had been married for seven years
2.) northern kingdom descendants were scattered among the nations.
2 Kings 17:6, 23 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes…. Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.
20 tribes? how did you come to that conclusion? How does many of the northern kingdom being scattered, while some of the northern kingdom living in the southern kingdom, create 20 tribes?
You appear to continue to 'make up' contradictions, but you still have yet to produce any actual contradictions for my position.
please point out which parts I take literally and others figuratively so I know what you are talking about.
Good so you agree descendants of the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom.
So where is this "contradiction" you keep speaking of?
Which shows that descendants from the northern kingdom dwelled in the southern kingdom pre-Assyrian exile, during the assryian exile, post Babylonian exile, and 1st century….
Which doesn't surmount that descendants from both kingdoms were living in Judea in the 1st century, as evidenced by the 1st century descendant of Asher.
Luke 2:36 There was also a prophetess named Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, who was well along in years. She had been married for seven years
Just so I'm clear, your stating that the name Israel went to the southern kingdom when the northern kingdom was divorced and exiled, correct? If so, I agree.
Good, so we agree Christ's first advent was in the last days
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself….
I believe the last days began with Christ's 1st advent, as evidenced by scripture.
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
thus I believe that by the time of Christ's 1st advent, divorced and exiled Ephraim had become a multitude of nations….
I would argue that exile and scattered Ephraim became a multitude of nations over 700 years, from the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent and beyond. Hence Paul has Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the nations with the jews in the vessels of mercy.
There it is again. You are creating a contradiction for my position that isn't there. Remember, I believe the descendants of divorced, exiled, and scattered Ephraim were gentiles. Thus by God including the 'other fold' which consisted of believers from the nations, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the believing Jews, he fulfills His promise.
Not all gentiles were offspring of the divorced, exiled, northern kingdom. But some of the gentiles living in the 1st century were descendants of the divorced, exiled, northern kingom.
Genesis 498:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of gentiles.”
This is substantiated by Paul quoting hosea as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in the vessels of mercy.
Romans 9:24-26 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,”
The kingdom of God is like a fishing net gathering ALL KINDS of fish, Jerry
Matthew 13:47 Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and caught all kinds of fish.
I state I am going to fish for tuna. I then drag a net behind my boat. I catch ALL KINDS of fish, including tuna. Even though I caught all kinds of fish, is my first statement true, that I went fishing for tuna?
So it is with Paul's statement. Paul doesn't quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with Ephraim being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy. He quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the GENTILES being included with the jews in the vessels of mercy
The old covenant is obsolete Jerry, along with it's promises.
Hebrews 10:9 Then He adds, “Here I am, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second
Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Jeremiah confirms the promise of restoring from captivity and gathering from the nations back to the land, as found in the old covenant, would be fulfilled upon the return from Babylonian exile.
An argument of silence is not inappropriate in the case. Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to understand scripture, so how do I know your understanding of the OT is correct, if you won't provide NT scripture to support your claims?
The veil is not mentioned in Hebrews 9. I keep ignoring you bringing up the veil because you keep trying to turn the conversation away from Hebrews 9. You continue to avoid addressing the references to Jesus being the high priest and entering the presence of God and putting away sin, which is clearly pointing toward the day of atonement.
Again, arguments founded on contradictions bear no true weight.
To put it more simply for your benefit, you’re still asserting “Israel” was in Judah and in exile at the same time; this is a contradiction.
The correct interpretation is that refugees from the northern nation came to Jerusalem, while the birthright or title of “Israel” remained with the northern nation of people that went into captivity.
The contradiction you attempt to foist implies the tribes of Ephraim were in Judah and in exile at the same time, which implies there are more than 10 tribes of Ephraim.
What I’m saying is that the Jews usurped the title, de facto, but 2 Kings 17:6, 23, Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9 affirm the “tile” belonged to the elect of the nation that was in exile and redeemed at the first advent. Samaria was never restored so “Israel” found grace in the wilderness (Jeremiah 31:2; Ezekiel 34:25).
Hebrews 9:26 is irrelevant to the points I was making. Point one, is that the scepter departed from Judah in the “last days,” at the advent of Shiloh, who is Christ, and is witnessed in Matthew 21:43 (Genesis 49:10). Two, this affirms that in these days, not the previous ones, the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, run over the wall, they become a multitude of nations, and that the shepherd and the stone, Christ, resides with them, your misrepresentations notwithstanding. Your misrepresentations have them running over the wall prior to the last days.
There it is again. You stated previously, “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim,” which is tantamount to conceding that Paul cited Hosea in Romans 9 as fulfilled by Ephraim, not the gentiles. And here you go again trying to backpedal. Ezekiel 34 clearly affirms the sheep from the other fold in John 10:16 are the same sheep that were driven away in Ezekiel 34:4, 16 and are the subject of Hosea 2:23 and Romans 9:25-26.
It is Ephraim that becomes the fullness of the Goyim, or gentiles, which makes Ephraim clearly distinguishable from the gentiles that are not descended from the Ephraim, like the Arabs. While they dwell amongst the gentiles, they are still distinguishable from them in both Testaments, just as in Ezekiel below.
Furthermore, Jeremiah reveals who are the fish.
Obviously, you do not comprehend that Moses is prophesizing about Israel’s restoration through the New Covenant in Deuteronomy 30:1-10.
That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deuteronomy 30:3-6)
And obviously, you do not comprehend that the promise of the restoration was based on the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic.
And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. (Genesis 13:14-15)
The NT didn’t exist when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16.
And what do you call Matthew 21:43
1 Peter 1:1, 10-12, 2:9-10, to name a few of the NT scriptures that I’ve used to vindicate my doctrines?
So you admit your proof-texting! If you weren’t you would address the significance that Christ was the antitype of the veil, which affirms the two compartments of the earthbound temple was merely the illustration of Christ as mediator and that the heavenly sanctuary is without partition. Your supersessionist’s presuppositions simply do not account for the spring and autumnal antitypes; the former being ordained for the first advent and the latter the return of Christ.
I agree. But I would also argue creating contradictions of someone's position based on a misunderstanding bears no weight either….
I'm not understanding how some descendants of the northern tribes living in the southern kingdom, while many others from the northern kingdom were deported by Assyria, is a contradiction.
What's the difference between me saying some of the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom and you saying "refugees from the northern kingdom" came to the southern kingdom?
What makes Ephraim distinguishable from the gentiles? I believe Ephraim was distinguished from the nations because they were a part of the old covenant. However, When they were divorced and exiled and became no longer God's people, they were separated from the old covenant and no longer distinguished from the nations.
the kingdom of Judah, however, remained in a covenant relationship with God, and thus remained distinguished from the nations.
What would you say makes Ephraim distinguishable from the nations, if it is not their covenantal relationship with God?
Remember, there are "all kinds of fish" caught in the kingdom of heaven. While Jeremiah was inquiring only of Israel, the mystery that the gentiles were included was still not known.
matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.
I tell you I am going fishing for tuna. I then drag a net behind my boat and Catch 'all kinds of fish' including tuna. Even though I caught all kinds of fish, is my first statement still true that I caught tuna?
So it is with the multitude of gentiles who descended from Ephraim. The kingdom of heaven gathers all kinds of gentiles, including those who descended from the exiled and divorced northern kingdom. And by this God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim.
obviously you are not comprehending that Israel needed to be restored to the land under the old covenant, after the Babylonian exile, for the messiah to be born under the law in the promise land as prophesied.
Additionally, I can't tell if you believe the old covenant is still in effect or not.
Obviously you are not comprehending that the PLURAL promises spoken to Abraham and his seed was to Jesus, and not the nation of Israel that existed under the old covenant.
Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
The unconditional promises were not spoken to nation of Israel because the offspring is Christ as stated by Paul. Christ is one who owns the land. For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and Christ was made Lord.
The promise of restoration to land is found in the old covenant. The new covenant superseded the old covenant, thus the promise of restoration to the land is cancelled.
Correct. But as I'm sure you are well aware, there are a thousand different modern day interpretations of scripture. When Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to understand the scriptures, that tells me that a straight forward and literal reading does not always give us a proper understanding.
This assumes that the nation that inherits the kingdom of God is Ephraim.
Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits
I would disagree that it is only Ephraim who inherits the kingdom of God.
I agreed with you on these, didn't I? they don't surmount my belief.
Ironic, it seems you are doing that too. You continue avoid addressing Hebrews 9 and continue to talk about Hebrews 10:19-20 as proof that Christ has not yet fulfilled the day of atonement.
Your contradiction is in affirming Ephraim is exiled, amongst the gentiles, and at the same time asserting that the “lost sheep of Israel” are the Jews in Judah.
but not with those who substantively comprehend the scriptures concerning of both houses of Jacob.
Both dispensationalists and supersessionists try to sidestep that Christ established the New Covenant first and foremost with Judah and Israel
In principle, then, it is a contradiction to assert that the call to “lost sheep of Israel” was strictly to the Jews when you’ve already conceded that Ephraim, the house of Israel, is exiled, amongst the gentiles.
The address to “the house of Israel” in Acts 2:22, 36 cannot be viewed as strictly to the Jews in attendance, but must be interpreted as also pertaining to the scattered descendants of both houses during the entire inter-advent epoch; not all of Israel are Jews.
both Testaments establish that both houses cannot be interpreted as the “Jews,”
This is also affirmed by Paul’s mission strategy that salvation was first to the Jew and subordinately to the gentile
, such as the assertion that Romans 9:25-26 pertains to gentiles, in indifference to the truth that Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 concerned to the descendants of Ephraim.
Again, both Testaments confirm that God was not done with Israel or Judah when Christ came. Christ came to save the elect of Israel and Judah through the New Covenant and then scatter them throughout the nations to fulfill the great commission, remaining the first and foremost in the calling, while the gentiles are ancillary to that calling.
Supersessionists such as yourself twist that calling and make the gentiles first and foremost in the calling, while the Jews are ancillary to that calling and Ephraim even lower in the missionary strategy of God.
God’s mission strategy was to task Christ, his Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and ancillary to that was to save the gentiles. Zechariah 10 and Jeremiah 31 and the book of Romans affirm that this is done first and foremost by saving Israel and Judah and ancillary to that, saving the gentiles, which is also affirmed in Matthew 10:5-6 and Ezekiel 34: 16, 23-24 and a host of other texts. God’s missionary strategy does not preclude that he loves all equally, which Galatians 3:28 and Ephesian 2:13 affirm, but the strategy conveys the mystery of how Israel is saved (Romans 11:25-26) and the mystery of how the gentiles are made fellow heirs to the earth (Ephesians 3:1-6; Matthew 5:5).
The elect of Ephraim are distinguishable because they were called to be sown in the earth to send salvation to the gentiles. The gentiles were not called in such a manner. The strategy doesn't preclude exceptions, but the exceptions maintain the rule.
The parable where God sows good seed over the field has its origin in Zechariah 10:8-9 and Jeremiah 31:27-28 and Hosea 2:23. The fish are first and foremost Judah and Israel, and ancillary to them come the gentiles.
Obviously, your comments continue to contradict and become more and more irrational.
Again, contradiction and confusion. If the “seed” only means “Christ” and Christ already owns the land, then promising the land to Christ is simply another irrational contradiction.
Let me give you a hint. The “land” is the “inheritance” in Galatians 3 that was promised through the Abrahamic covenant, which was 430 years before the law, the law being the old covenant, revealed in verses 17-18.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:17)
Again, Paul affirms the “inheritance to the land” was not through the old covenant, law, but through the promise God gave Abraham.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Galatians 3:18)
The object of Galatian 3:16, which is from Genesis 22:18, is to affirm that the blessings to the gentiles of being co-heirs of the land with the descendants of Abraham are due to Christ.
If you can’t move past Hebrew 9:25 you give me no reason to move past the implication that Christ is the antitype of the veil. My additional commentary that the context supports the spring antitypes for the propitiation for individual sin and not the atonement for the congregation is ignored, so there is no need to proceed any further. I am a believer in the economy of expression, unlike your protracted and desultory posts. I find it most revealing that you're stuck on “one note” of the Hebraic festivals.
This as a "contradiction" is only apparent to those who draw an illogical conclusion from the theology that is known as THT/British Israelism….
This would be a subjective contradiction based on your THT/British Israelism belief, and not an objective one based on the fact that some descendants of the northern kingdom remained tribally intact in the southern kingdom, while other descendants of the northern kingdom were exiled and mixed with the nations….
We can confirm that Jesus was not talking about the descendants of the divorced and exiled northern kingdom that had mixed with the gentiles. In regards to the house of Israel, He clearly tells his disciples NOT to go on the road of GENTILES or the towns of the Samaritans, but to the TOWNS OF ISRAEL.
Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Good, so we agree that "house of Israel" In acts 2:22, 36 refers to all 12 tribes.
Was peter wrong to address the Jews as Israel?
HT/Brit Israelism may establish that, but the testaments do no such thing.
You just conceded above that the Jews were addressed as Israel by Peter.
The phrase "to the Jew first and then to the gentile" confirms that the term Israel and Jew are interchangeable.
The exiled and divorced descendants of Ephraim became a multitude of gentiles by the time of the 1st advent. This is confirmed by Paul quoting hosea 1:10 and 2:23, which was prophesied about the descendants of Ephraim, as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in vessels of mercy.
I agree. The prophets foresaw that the Israelites would be sown in the earth by God to bring the light to the nations. This does not preclude that grafted in the gentiles were also bringing the light to the nations. Paul confirms several gentile co workers
Philemon 1:23-24 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
2 Corinthians 8:23 for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengersf of the churches, the glory of Christ
Right, which confirms my position, which is that Ephraim is only distinguishable from the nations when they are in a covenantal relationship with God.
From the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent, the descendants of Ephraim would NOT be in a covenantal relationship with God. During this time, God would not be their God, and they would not be His people (hosea 1:9). During this time, Ephraim, the divorced woman, was barren (Isaiah 54:1). It is during this time, that exiled northern kingdom descendants would mix with the nations (hosea 7:8), thus fulfilling the blessing given to Ephraim by Jacob, that Ephraim would become a multitude of gentiles (Genesis 48:19).
This is substantiated when Paul, who believed he was living at the end of ages (1 Corinthians 10:11), quoted hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:24-26).
I'm not denying that the fish are first and foremost Judah and Israel. "to the Jew first AND THEN the gentile". But this doesn't surmount that the kingdom catches ALL KINDS of fish. So the net is not only catching Jews, but also gentiles.
It's irrational and contradicting to believe that Israel was restored to the land after the Babylonian exile for the purpose of the Messiah living?
I absolutely agree, the land was promised as an unconditional possession to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, who is Christ.
The land was promised as an eternal possession to Christ, for he is the seed (galatians 3:16). Those who are in Christ, Jew and gentile, are co-heirs (Galatians 3:28-29, romans 8:17).
Christ, who is Lord, owns the earth FROM HEAVEN, for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. He has all authority in heaven and on earth.
A forerunner is someone who arrives at a place in advance of others who later arrive to that same place. Jesus went to heaven in advance of us
Hebrews 6:19-20 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
Paul states we have an eternal building IN the heavens
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens
Peter states are inheritance is IN heaven.
1 Peter 1:4 into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for you.
Thus, if Christ now owns the earth (which includes the promised land) from heaven, then those in Christ are co-heirs with Christ in heaven.
I find it very revealing that you continue to ignore the implications of Hebrews 9 that surmount your argument. I also find it revealing that you continue to switch the topic to the veil of the temple.
Jesus, our high priest, put away sin and entered the presence of God. The author of Hebrews in chapter 9 compares this to the high priest going into the most holy place once a year to atone for the sins of the people. This is a direct reference to the day of atonement.
One doesn’t have to grasp THT to see that your “concession” that the nation of Israel, which you acknowledge is also Ephraim, was in exile, amongst the gentiles, is in contradiction to your assertion that the “lost sheep of Israel” strictly represent the Jews in Judah at the same time.
Your solution is to turn Ephraim into gentiles through the phrase not my people as if God no longer considered them the descendants of Ephraim whom He chose to recall sometime after they have been exiled;
The gentiles are never considered as a people who were once married to Christ,
Your concession that Zechariah 10:8-9 pertains to Israel/Ephraim is an acknowledgment Christ came to reinstate them as the nation of Ephraim and not as gentiles. .
You have been attempting to backpedal on the implications of your concessions but I’m not going to allow you to do so.
Good, so we agree that Acts 2:22, 36 also pertains to the scattered descendants of Ephraim, who were not in attendance. This makes the lost sheep of Israel also pertain to Ephraim, who was in exile.
Even your concession of the proper interpretation of Zechariah 10:8-9 affirms what I’ve been revealing; Christ came to reinstate Ephraim, who was still in exile and not abiding with the Jews, even if there were refugees from Ephraim in Judah at the time. This makes the lost sheep of Israel also pertain to Ephraim, who was in exile.
Jews are also Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. The scriptures affirm this without any gainsay whatsoever with those who have studied to show themselves approved.
As I stated previously, the call to be sown in the earth and to bring light to the gentiles is first and foremost to elect of Ephraim and the Judah, that does not preclude exceptions, but the exceptions do not dismiss the calling: For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).
I confirmed no such thing. And Peter and James are evidence that the descendants of Ephraim were still distinguishable from the gentiles in their time. Peter, in particular, addressed his epistles to the elect exiles of the dispersion and cited Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in affirmation.
Yes, the fish are first and foremost Judah and Ephraim.
I don’t know where you get such irrational thoughts. I’ve been revealing that Christ came to recall Ephraim, which clearly makes the remnant of Ephraim the lost sheep of Israel just as much as the remnant of Judah. They are lost partly because they were never restored to Samaria.
You admit the land was Abraham’s inheritance before the Old Covenant was inaugurated but then try and shift the inheritance to heaven. Just more contradiction based on misrepresentation of the NT.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The object of God’s Providence is to ultimately bring His kingdom to earth; you supersessionists misrepresent the NT to assert the kingdom is backtracked into heaven.
First Peter 1:4 is clearly an abstract, meant to affirm that the kingdom to come heralds from heaven and not that it is where God dwells. God’s intent is to bring his kingdom to earth and not to backtrack it into heaven; there is no need to establish peace and justice in heaven, while there is a need on earth.
Again, this is mere proof-texting.
only the spring antitypes are indicated in Hebrews 9:25
As we can see, multiple Biblical Commentaries agree with my "concession" that the house of Israel = Jews, and the exiled and divorced 10 northern tribes, that were scattered, became as gentiles. You are creating a contradiction out of thin air, when one doesn't actually exist.
Ephraim, the woman with no husband, was considered barren despite there existing biological descendants of Ephraim between the Assyrian exile and the 1st advent, no?
Where did I say the exiled and divorced descendants of Ephraim would be reinstated as gentiles? I believe Israe = Jews and grafted in gentiles.
You have shown no backpedalling thus far, so not sure what you are talking about.
The lost sheep of Israel refers to the Jews. Jesus affirms this by instructing the 12 NOT to go on the road of the Gentiles or any towns of the Samaritans. It is the towns of Israel where the 12 are to go to the lost sheep of Israel.
matthew 10:5-6 , 23 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
The gentile descendants of exiled, divorced, and scattered Ephraim were also considered lost sheep. They would be the other flock, along with gentiles who did not descend from Ephraim.
Good, so you concede that exceptions are not precluded from being sown along with Israel.
Which again confirms my position, that all 12 tribes are represented IN the body of Christ, and NOT outside the covenantal relationship. Exiled and divorced Ephraim was not distinguishable from the gentiles outside of the covenantal relationship with God. This is substantiated by the barren woman not having children until the new covenant (galatians 4). It is only through a covenant, that Israel is distinguished from the nations.
To the jew first, then gentile. Why doesn't scripture state to Jew, Ephraim, and gentile?
Incorrect. Clearly, more misunderstanding on your part. From where was Christ given dominion over all the earth, which includes the land promised to Abraham and his offspring (Christ)?
The kingdom is both on earth and in heaven.
Christ ascended to heaven as a forerunner on our behalf. Do you know what a forerunner is?
Hebrews 6:19-20 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and steadfast. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,where Jesus our forerunner has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek
There was no need to establish peace and justice in heaven? how could there be a war in heaven (revelation 12). why would Christ need to cleanse the heavens with better sacrifices than the earthly ones (Hebrews 9:23). Why does there need to be a new heaven and earth and not just new earth?
As well as on your part with Hebrews 10 and the veil.
Please provide scripture as to which spring festival involves the high priest entering the most holy place, into the presence of God, once a year to substantiate your claim that Hebrews 9:25 only indicates the spring feast antitypes. I'm not familiar with that one.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own