Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

[Contenders Edge]

Romans 11 makes no mention of land restoration. You have yet to provide even 1 verse from romans 11 that mentions land restoration. I have already admitted to using an argument from silence, so Prove me wrong that you are not using an argument from ignorance and provide 1 NT scripture that clearly and explicitly mentions land restoration.

Romans 11:12: "If the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness."

Land restoration and their existence as a prosperous nation has always served as evidence of their fulness. Why would it not now? Did the consistency of God pass away with the Old Covenant as well?

Again you are making an argument from ignorance. The argument that because the NT doesn't specifically mention land restoration, despite the NT explicitly stating the old covenant was done away with, then land restoration is still in effect, is a fallacy in informal logic. An argument from ignorance is ALWAYS a fallacy in informal logic

My argument, one from silence, is that because there is no mention of land restoration in the NT in addition to the NT specifically stating the OT is obsolete and taken away. Arguments from silence are NOT always fallacies in informal logic especially when there is supporting evidence of the entirety of the old covenant made obsolete

Once more, in order to prove my argument is one of ignorance, you would have to be able to explicitly prove that Paul did not believe the restoration of Israel as a nation in their homeland was evidence of their reconciliation with God. What did Paul view as evidence of "their fulness"? There are plenty of OT scriptures that give insight into this yet you would have to prove that his words on that matter were not founded in any OT scriptures.

Did I not ask you first what the natural olive tree represents that the natural branches were broken off of, the church or Israel? Why are you deflecting?

You tell me what the natural olive tree is and we will know who the natural branches.

Who are the "not my people" in the context of hosea 1?

Who did Paul believe God was referring to in the passage where it was written, "in the place where it was said...Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them Ye are sons of the living God"
despite the cited chapter primarily addressed to Israel?

What are the reasons the mixing of the house of Israel was limited upon their deportation and resettling throughout the assyrian empire?

Religious and cultural barriers. Furthermore, the Jews have not always been received with open arms by the nations to which they've been driven. In fact, they have suffered more persecution throughout history than any other people.

Israel was not spread out over the world prior to the roman legions destroying Jerusalem? Scripture disagrees:

I never said that. What I said was that the difference between the Israelites and the Greeks was that the Israelites were spread abroad by forcible dispersion. That was not the case with the Greeks who were already present throughout many nations before the rise of Rome.

natural descent does not make a person a child of God. Under the new covenant it is solely those who are in Christ, regardless of genetics.

Yet they of the natural descent will become partakers of the New Covenant. That is ultimately how they will continue to abide.

Coming back from the Babylonian exile, the Jews maintained their geneological records and could prove tribal status, see ezra and nehemiah. Can any citizen of modern day Israel prove their tribal status? As someone who has Jewish DNA I cannot prove my tribal descent nor have I found anyone to date that can.

But God knows who belongs to each tribe and no genealogy is lost to Him and when the day of fulfillment comes, it will be made known who belongs to which tribe.

So is Jesus a literal passover lamb, or was that picture that pointed to Jesus' sacrifice?

Jesus coming out egypt mirrors Israel's coming out of egypt (matthew 2:15).

Jesus' temptation in the wilderness for 40 days (matthew 4:1-11) mirrors Israel's temptations in the wilderness for 40 years (deuteronomy 6:13-16, deuteronomy 8:2-4)

The curses of the law were poured out on Israel (daniel 9:13-14) mirrors Jesus becoming a curse for us (galatians 3:13)

Israel was only a picture of Jesus. However, where Israel failed, Jesus fulfilled. Thus all that are in Jesus are the true Israel.

The Passover has already been explained by scripture as pointing to Christ. Christ coming out of Egypt after a temporary stay there has been explained in the Gospel as fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus' temptation in the wilderness had nothing to do with Israel's wondering in the wilderness.

Jesus was not taken into the wilderness due to anything He did wrong. He did nothing wrong. It was a period of testing. Israel's wanderings in the wilderness was a punishment for their lack of faith and the sad thing about that is that the forty years that they wandered did not have to be.

The curses of the law were poured out on Israel for their own sins. The curses of the law were poured out on Jesus for our sins. Israel does not qualify as a picture of redemption in that case.

We are only called "Israel" in the spiritual sense in which natural Israel will eventually come to join us.

Jesus is the fulfillment of what has been foretold.

Who will fulfill all that the scripture says and has foretold.

So I should answer the straw man argument?

If you have an answer to it, then give your answer.

Peter applies the same calling of Israel to the church. Israel was only a picture/shadow of the true realities in Christ.

Peter was merely stating an identity shared in common as being "a peculiar people." But both are not given entirely the same status or roles.

Good, I am glad you agree.

But just because it is used as an illustration does not mean that it was initially designed to be anything prophetic. The second chapter of Genesis certainly gives no indication of that.

Not all of the parables are explained by Jesus. Do I believe the kingdom of heaven is literally a man who finds a treasure and the purchases the field? No, I believe it is an earthly story that portrays a heavenly meaning. If we can't understand earthly things, how can we ever understand the heavenly truths these earthly stories point to?

The law of moses Goes into great detail of the temple laws and ordinances under the old covenant. and we know that those were simply a picture of Christ and that we are the true temple serving God with spiritual sacrifices.

If the things spoken to moses clearly and not riddles are pictures of Christ, how much more are the visions and dreams?

The NT gives us explanation as the future temple: we are the temple. Can you provide any Nt scripture that states we will again worship in the literal temple with literal animal sacrifices?

I have not found any parables that are entirely without explanation, even if they are not fully understood. We know that much of what pertains to the Old Covenant pointed to the New Covenant because we are told so, and we are made the temple by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but the Temple from which Christ will rule on earth will be manifested in a literal form, yet when New Heavens and New Earth are created, there will be no temple for God will be that Temple.​

 

[BABerean2]

You tell me what the natural olive tree is and we will know who the natural branches.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

.

 

[claninja]

Revelation chapter 20: He is ruling and reigning on the earth.





Your source link, while listing a general consensus on the basic meaning of oikumene, nevertheless reveals disagreement amongst the different concordances and lexicons as to the proper usage. Not all agree that the proper usage was meant to refer strictly to the Roman empire.





The cited passage leaves open that possibility. Historically, there were attempts to kill the Apostle John, but all had failed which was why he was exiled to the Island of Patmos.





Apparently, you do not know what astrology is. Astrology consists of a zodiac and horoscopes. The signs that Jesus tells us to look for have nothing to do with that. Anything beyond what God Himself has told us to look for is forbidden.





He visited judgment upon them by way of the Roman armies, but who is the nation to whom He has given the land over to? Not the Church. We do not inhabit or govern the land, but rather, our presence is in every nation. Every other Gentile nation that has occupied Israel no longer occupies it and it has been given back to the Jews.





I am not the one who has ignored everything in the middle. You are the one who has done that. The data is fluctuative, with periods of increases and decreases, but overall, an increase is shown. Maybe not a sharp or rapid increase, but an increase nonetheless.

We could get an even clear picture if we were to take the time to acquire all the data and historical records of earthquakes around the world that have taken place between the first coming of Christ and now, but that would take several days, weeks, months, and maybe even years to do.





You are crediting data showing an increase in the frequency of earthquakes felt to improvements in
detection technology. While such technological advancements may detect previously unnoticeable seismic activity, they have nothing to do in uncovering the number of earthquakes that are felt except to assign a magnitude to them.

If there is increased reporting of earthquakes felt around the world, it is because there are more earthquakes taking place as Jesus said there would be.




The context implies an escalation of these things as will be explained shortly.




But He did say these were the beginning of birth pains or sorrows which are precursors leading up to the end. But if an escalation of these things is not implied, then for Him to say that things would come that were already taking place would make no sense.

This is getting off topic for the thread, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[claninja]

Romans 11:12: "If the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness."

Land restoration and their existence as a prosperous nation has always served as evidence of their fulness. Why would it not now? Did the consistency of God pass away with the Old Covenant as well?

Being prosperous in the land was associated with the old covenant agreement. If Israel obeyed, God would prosper them in the land (deuteronomy 28:1-14). If Israel disobeyed, the would be taken off the land and cursed (deuteronomy 28:15-68). If Israel repented and turned to the Lord, they would be restored to the land (deuteronomy 30:2). This is all a part of the old covenant.

The old covenant is obsolete (hebrews 8:13) and was only meant to be in place until the coming of Christ (galatians 3:23-24).

We know that God removed the old covenant and superseded it with the new covenant because Israel could not obey (hebrews 8:6-8).

The OT spells out the promises of the old covenant which were conditional on obedience.

Where does the NT spell out land restoration as a part of the new covenant? After all these responses I'm still waiting for you to answer the OP, since you decided to chime in on this thread. And still you have not provided one NT verse that specifically and clearly mentions land restoration. I know again, you probably won't answer but will deflect.

Once more, in order to prove my argument is one of ignorance, you would have to be able to explicitly prove that Paul did not believe the restoration of Israel as a nation in their homeland was evidence of their reconciliation with God. What did Paul view as evidence of "their fulness"? There are plenty of OT scriptures that give insight into this yet you would have to prove that his words on that matter were not founded in any OT scriptures.

Another fallacy in informal logic. Romans 11 does not mention land restoration.

What did Paul view as evidence of their fullness? Not continuing in unbelief.

Romans 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief,

You are the one claiming land restoration is found in romans 11 (a positive assertion, not a negative assertion), thus the burden of proof is on you to prove Paul is talking about the land restoration.

You tell me what the natural olive tree is and we will know who the natural branches.

More deflection. It appears you do not want to have an actual conversation. Typically in discussions, when one asks a question, the other party answers. I asked the question first, but you continue to not answer and deflect with a question. Answer my question first then I will answer your question. If you are not going to answer my question, I'm not sure why you keep responding.

Who did Paul believe God was referring to in the passage where it was written, "in the place where it was said...Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them Ye are sons of the living God"
despite the cited chapter primarily addressed to Israel?

Good, so you agree the grammatical historical subject of hosea 1 that became "not my people" is the house of Israel.

Now I will answer your question (that's how discussions work): who did Paul believe God was referring to in Hosea 1? Well in Romans 9:23-26, he relates the the grammatical historical subject of the northern kingdom in hosea 1 to the gentiles.

So how can the gentiles being included with the jews in the vessels of mercy fulfill hosea 1's grammatical historical subject of the house of Israel (not my people) becoming God's people again?

Simple, the divorced, exiled and scattered descendants of the northern kingdom mixed with the nations and became as gentiles thus fulfilling Genesis 48:19.

Religious and cultural barriers. Furthermore, the Jews have not always been received with open arms by the nations to which they've been driven. In fact, they have suffered more persecution throughout history than any other people.

Religous and cultural barriers? that didn't stop the Jews from taking foreign spouses and mixing with the peoples of the lands. If the Jews did, how much more the divorced exiles deported and resettled throughout the Assyrian empire?

Ezra 9:2 For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.

I never said that. What I said was that the difference between the Israelites and the Greeks was that the Israelites were spread abroad by forcible dispersion. That was not the case with the Greeks who were already present throughout many nations before the rise of Rome.

in post 1085 you stated : "The difference between them and Israel is that Israel was not spread abroad before the exile. The Greeks, on the other hand, were present throughout various lands before their Diaspora."

Post 1085 shows that you did in fact state that Israel was not spread abroad before the exile.


I then stated: Israel was not spread out over the world prior to the roman legions destroying Jerusalem? and posted acts 2, which shows Jews did live abroad prior to the roman legions destroying Jerusalem.

Yet they of the natural descent will become partakers of the New Covenant. That is ultimately how they will continue to abide.

They were partakers of the new covenant in the 1st century, no?

But God knows who belongs to each tribe and no genealogy is lost to Him and when the day of fulfillment comes, it will be made known who belongs to which tribe.

Tribal status is found in the old covenant. The old covenant no longer exists, thus genealogies are no longer needed and are worthless (titus 3:9). Anyone, regardless of race, is a child of abraham if they are in Christ (galatians 3:28-29)

The Passover has already been explained by scripture as pointing to Christ. Christ coming out of Egypt after a temporary stay there has been explained in the Gospel as fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus' temptation in the wilderness had nothing to do with Israel's wondering in the wilderness.

Jesus was not taken into the wilderness due to anything He did wrong. He did nothing wrong. It was a period of testing. Israel's wanderings in the wilderness was a punishment for their lack of faith and the sad thing about that is that the forty years that they wandered did not have to be.

The curses of the law were poured out on Israel for their own sins. The curses of the law were poured out on Jesus for our sins. Israel does not qualify as a picture of redemption in that case.

We are only called "Israel" in the spiritual sense in which natural Israel will eventually come to join us.

Israel was brought into the wilderness as punishment, but also to test them. So it's just coincidence that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days facing the same temptations that Israel faced?

Deuteronomy 8:2 And you shall remember the whole way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

Jesus, a natural descendant of Abraham, a citizen of Israel fulfilled all that the nation of Israel failed to obtain. Now all those who are in Christ, the true representative of Israel, are Israel.


I would argue Spiritual is better than natural, do you disagree?

Who will fulfill all that the scripture says and has foretold.

Jesus

If you have an answer to it, then give your answer.

No, I decline to answer your strawman argument.

Peter was merely stating an identity shared in common as being "a peculiar people." But both are not given entirely the same status or roles.

Peter was applying that scripture to his audience, who was Israel.

But just because it is used as an illustration does not mean that it was initially designed to be anything prophetic. The second chapter of Genesis certainly gives no indication of that.

Genesis 2 doesn't, I agree. But Paul does in Ephesians 5:31-32

I have not found any parables that are entirely without explanation, even if they are not fully understood. We know that much of what pertains to the Old Covenant pointed to the New Covenant because we are told so, and we are made the temple by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but the Temple from which Christ will rule on earth will be manifested in a literal form, yet when New Heavens and New Earth are created, there will be no temple for God will be that Temple.

Where is the explanation provided for the parable of the hidden treasure?

If the parables are not fully understood, should we take them as literal stories and not earthly stories intended to point to a heavenly meaning?

 

[claninja]

If you believe that the old law and covenant is obsolete, you have missed the point. God never made His Law obsolete; people need to stop behaving as if He did, teaching people this dangerous facet of institutionalism.

The Law is part of the old covenant, but the law is not the old covenant. Do we nullify the law? no, we uphold the law (romans 3:31). The old covenant was an agreement between God and Israel. If Israel obeyed the law, God would bless. If Israel disobeyed the law, God would curse.

This agreement (to obey the law for specific earthly blessings: deuteronomy 28:1-14) is obsolete.

 

[keras]

Who did Paul believe God was referring to in the passage where it was written, "in the place where it was said...Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them Ye are sons of the living God",[FONT=verdana,Arial,sans-serif] [/FONT]despite the cited chapter primarily addressed to Israel? ​

​

I must call you out on this comment.
Romans 9:24-26 We* are those people called out of the Jews and the Gentiles......
Then Paul repeats Hosea 2:14-23, saying how the people of God will respond to the Gospel; Matthew 15:24
So; WE * are all the faithful Christian peoples, comprised of some Jews, mostly non-Jews.
The fact that most of those non-Jews will actually be descendants of the ten Northern tribes of Israel, is God's secret for now and not our concern.

If you insist that Paul meant that just the Jews would become sons of the Living God, then you are directly opposing scripture.

Also, note that this will happen in the holy Land, where every faithful Christian will gather to and live in after the Lord has cleared and cleansed that area. Isaiah 35:1-10

 

[Contenders Edge]

The NT, through the Spirit, gives us the frame work for how to interpret the OT.

But the Spirit never contradicts previous revelation.

The old covenant's promises were conditional upon disobedience; see deuteronomy 28:1-68. Land restoration was conditional upon Israel's repentance, see deuteronomy 30:2.
Land restoration is not found in romans 11. And you have yet to provide even 1 NT verse that specifically and explicitly mentions land restoration.

It is there by implication (Rom. 11:12) and if the Jews could receive their land back upon repentance, then their possession of the promised land was never lost to them on a permanent basis. They possess it once again.

According to Peter the nation already existed in the 1st century: 1 Peter 2:9

Peter is addressing the Church. Not a nation.

Where does romans 11 mention Israel's return to the Lord draws the world to christ? There is no mention of the exaltation of natural Israel as a nation in romans 11. Where are you getting this from

Romans 11:12 by implication.

the northern kingdom/Ephraim/House of Israel mixing with the nations/gentiles to become a multitude of nations/gentiles is a fulfillment of prophecy. 1.) Ephraim is confirmed to become a fullness of nations in genesis 48:19, 2.) Ephraim is divorced from God in Jeremiah 3:8, 3.) Ephraim becomes no longer God's people in Hosea 1:9, 4.) Paul has a passage about the northern kingdom becoming God's people again as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles. Thus substantiating that the divorced, exiled, and scattered descendants of the northern kingdom became gentiles.

In the grammatical historical context of Hosea 1, who are those that became "not my people"? those of the disobedient northern kingdom/house of Israel/Ephraim.
Paul calls these people gentiles in romans 9:23-26.​

​

In order for there to be a fulfillment of prophecy, nations and peoples who had not been in existence beforehand would have to claim descent from Ephraim. So far, no such nation or people has come forth and Paul never called the Northern Kingdom Gentiles. It is just that he revealed that cited passage to extend beyond even the Northern Kingdom of Israel. If there was any connection between Israel and the Gentiles in Paul's exposition on that passage, he would have said so.

God hardens whom he hardens for His purpose. As we can see the vessels made for dishonor's purpose are to make known the riches of His mercy to the vessels of honor for whom he prepared in advance. Thus the the part of Israel that was hardened was for the purpose of crucifying Christ in order that salvation would go to the elect of Israel and the nations.

They may have been hardened by God after their initial rejection of Christ and the Gospel message but the people hardened their own hearts which led to them rejecting Christ; hence the reason why Jesus lamented and grieved over the coming judgment to come upon Jerusalem that would result from their rejection of Him.

Ezekiel's vision disagrees.

Even so, there remains a distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles. As to what part of the inheritance the Gentiles living among the Israelites will share, we do not know.

Not sure what you are talking about, the circumcision is literally called a covenant.

That Genesis records the origins of circumcision and its purpose cannot be denied but there is no mention thereof in the passage you cited.

secondly, Jesus does not come from Aaron's blood line. Jesus is from Judah. Thus the priesthood of aaron is not literally forever. The NT confirms this by stating the law changed.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is cousin to Elizabeth who is a descendant of Aaron. How can that be possible if the lines of Judah and Levi did not blend at some point?

Revelation is a vision with symbolic and apocalyptic language. The Jews were living in their home land in 70ad.

While there is no denying that the book of Revelation contains symbolism, it is not all symbolic. The symbolism is generally explained and even if it is not explained, the context implies symbolism.
There is no evidence that the 144,000, the two witnesses, and the events involving the people of Israel and Jerusalem are symbolic. The context presents them as literal and in order for those events to take place in the literal, the Jews must undergo a degree of restoration. They already have thereby setting the stage for the rest of what pertains to the nation of Israel to take place.

So what David spoke about when he knew God would give him a descendant on the throne is, according to your answer provided: "he would have a descendant". that answer doesn't make any sense to my question, so let's look at what Acts literally tells us what he spoke about:

Acts 2:30-31 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ,

When we actually read the verse we can answer the question appropriately. My question: what did David speak about when he knew God would give him a descendant to sit on the throne?

You're answer: he would have a descendant.

What scripture actually states: the resurrection of Christ.

I did just say that David would have a descendant who would forever sit on his throne. I also said that descendant is Christ.

Is the word Spermati greek or hebrew? This will tell you what translation was used from which Paul quoted from.
Paul uses Spermati and also spermasin in Galatians 3:16 see Galatians 3:16 Greek Text Analysis for evidence.

Paul does not use the form"sperma" anywhere in Galatians 3:16. please provide link to evidence that shows paul uses the the form "sperma".

I provided the link that shows, in fact, spermati (singular form) is used in exodue 32:13b in the LXX.

The masoretic text came almost 1000 years after the LXX. Considering the promises were to spermati (singular). I'll stick with what is consistent: Galatians 3:16: spermati.

That Paul had to clarify what "Seed" he was talking about is evidence that the word he used was "sperma" which can be applied either in a singular or plural context. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance cites only "Sperma" being used in Galatians 3:16.

If he had used the "Spermati", he would not have had to give clarification because the Galatians would have already understood that he was referring to one seed and not many.

If you are willing to accept it, which it appears your are not, John IS the elijah who was to come according to Christ

John himself denied being Elijah in the literal sense despite being commissioned to be the forerunner of Christ at His first coming. I suppose he was not willing to accept it either.

As ephraim would have mixed with pre-existing nations due to their deportation and resettlement through the Assyrian empire, it would be almost impossible to know.

That being said, until nations arise who trace their roots back to Ephraim, we have no basis to declare that a multitude of nations have yet descended from Ephraim.

I would argue that is what happened with the great commission, as Jesus confirms that he is the sower.

The parable of Jesus was in relation to the great commission, the cited passage from Jeremiah was not.

 

[Kaon]

The Law is part of the old covenant, but the law is not the old covenant. Do we nullify the law? no, we uphold the law (romans 3:31). The old covenant was an agreement between God and Israel. If Israel obeyed the law, God would bless. If Israel disobeyed the law, God would curse.

This agreement (to obey the law for specific earthly blessings: deuteronomy 28:1-14) is obsolete.

So, when the Most High God says, "And the LORD God Said..." in the Old Contract, we are suppose to treat that as non-applicable to us since we don't share in the "old" covenant?

No one is talking about obeying the Law for specific earthly blessings, or even salvation. That is foolishness in the first place. I am talking about obeying the Father because we love Him. He has told us several times over how to please Him, and you cant do that by ignoring 2/3 of the places He gave a commandment.

Israel is a holy people chosen to be His. Remember when The Word of God Himself said those who do the will of His Father are his mother, and brother. What is the will of the Father?

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Exodus 19:5-6

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14:12

You are my friend if you do what I command (said the Word of God). John 14:15
​

The Word of God - Christ - is the literal word of God. That means when you see in the "Old Testament" in which God speaks to them, it is the Word of God Himself. Obeying Christ (the Word of God) is the same as obeying the Most High God - which is the same as keeping His statutes from the beginning of His commands. The only entity that can change or amend law, make it void or non-applicable is 1) the Word of God, and 2) the Most High God.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Our readers now have sufficient Scriptural information to make an informed decision as to the Scriptural identify of the remnant.

Let's not forget that the dispensational remnant includes Caiaphas and all who were responsible for Christ's death, the entire Sanhedrin of over seventy individuals. (Zechariah 12:10).

Be ready to greet them warmly on the streets of gold.

You only display you ignorance of the dispensational position on Zechariah 13:9, of which Caiaphas is not a part since that passage is speaking of events that did not take place in that generation but are yet to come.

 

[Contenders Edge]

He asserts that after having already noted that not all Israel (even back then) is Israel.

While, throughout Romans 9-11 he has been asserting that he is referring to a remnant (Believing Israelites) within their nation (the nation Israel in general, back then), just as he noted a contrast between the two at the beginning of Romans 3.

Things that differ are not the same, 2 Tim. 2:15-18.

That is not what is being debated here and no one is disputing between the contrast between the spiritual Israel and the natural Israel. What is at root of this debate, at least for myself and others of like-mind is the character and integrity of God. If our God is not faithful in fulfilling His promises and all that He has declared pertaining to one group of people, how can we be so sure that He will fulfill all that pertains to the rest of us? But if God is faithful fulfilling all that pertains to Israel, we can be confident and assured that He will do the same for the rest of us.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Membership in the New Covenant only comes through individual repentance, and faith in Christ.

It it not defined by earthly geographic location, or national boundaries.

And an entire nation and people will one day by faith enter into that New Covenant, just as we have done, and it is under the New Covenant that they will retain possession of land promised and given to them which is defined by earthly geographical location and national boundaries established not by man but by God and which He will expand.

 

[BABerean2]

And an entire nation and people will one day by faith enter into that New Covenant, just as we have done, and it is under the New Covenant that they will retain possession of land promised and given to them which is defined by earthly geographical location and national boundaries established not by man but by God and which He will expand.

Do you think the author of the Book of Hebrews was wrong in the passages below, when he described the land promised to the Old Testament Saints?

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


What is the New Covenant land promise found below?
It is on this rotten, sin-cursed world?

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.



When Christ said the land belongs to the "son" who is the "heir" to the land in Matthew 21:33-46, do you think He was confused?

.

 

[Contenders Edge]

My new thread..........the Jews need to read the Olivet Disourse and Revelation or they will always be "blinded" to Jesus and what He fulfilled for them.........
Let's help them prove Yahwhe/Jesus did indeed fulfill all things for them and quit this squabbling over land...........

As I've already said more than once and as I am sure you already know, this "squabbling" is more than just about land, but about the faithfulness and integrity of God which is tied to Him faithfully fulfilling what He has said He will do with the land and its people.

And my list of your threads which I plan to eventually visit grows ever longer. I can at least commend you for your part in keeping me busy for some time to come.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Do you think the author of the Book of Hebrews was wrong in the passage below?

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


When Christ said the land belongs to the "son" who is the "heir" to the land in Matthew 21:33-46, do you think He was confused?

.

Is God incapable of making Israel a part of that better country? Does not the scripture say that "Heir" also has joint-heirs?

 

[Contenders Edge]

This is getting off topic for the thread, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Agreed. You are welcome to challenge me again on a thread that is about the millennial reign of Christ.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

.

That does not answer the question.

 

[BABerean2]

Is God incapable of making Israel a part of that better country? Does not the scripture say that "Heir" also has joint-heirs?

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

.

 

[jgr]

You only display you ignorance of the dispensational position on Zechariah 13:9, of which Caiaphas is not a part since that passage is speaking of events that did not take place in that generation but are yet to come.

Zechariah 12
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Caiaphas et al are most assuredly "they" in Zechariah 12:10.

Or are you denying that dispensationalism's Zechariah 12:10 refers to the dispensational "remnant" of dispensationalism's Zechariah 13:9?

And are you ignoring Scripture's record that Caiaphas et al were those responsible for Jesus' death?

Is that the ignorance to which you refer?

 

[Contenders Edge]

I must call you out on this comment.
Romans 9:24-26 We* are those people called out of the Jews and the Gentiles......
Then Paul repeats Hosea 2:14-23, saying how the people of God will respond to the Gospel; Matthew 15:24
So; WE * are all the faithful Christian peoples, comprised of some Jews, mostly non-Jews.
The fact that most of those non-Jews will actually be descendants of the ten Northern tribes of Israel, is God's secret for now and not our concern.

If you insist that Paul meant that just the Jews would become sons of the Living God, then you are directly opposing scripture.

Also, note that this will happen in the holy Land, where every faithful Christian will gather to and live in after the Lord has cleared and cleansed that area. Isaiah 35:1-10

Paul was citing Hosea 1:10 in regards to the Gentiles yet has nothing to do with Matthew 15:24 because Matthew 15:24 deals with an entirely different matter and if you would take the time to read my most recent exchanges with Claninja again, you might see that I never said that only Jews would become "sons of the living God" but that Paul is not connecting the Gentiles to the ten northern tribes of Israel as Claninja has claimed.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Zechariah 12
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Caiaphas et al are most assuredly "they" in Zechariah 12:10.

Or are you denying that dispensationalism's Zechariah 12:10 refers to the dispensational "remnant" of dispensationalism's Zechariah 13:9?

And are you ignoring Scripture's record that Caiaphas et al were those responsible for Jesus' death?

Is that the ignorance to which you refer?

There is more to that fulfillment than just the passage you persist in misrepresenting. That the Gospels did apply Zechariah 12:10 to Jews who were witnessed showing grief at the death of Christ cannot be denied, but the succeeding verses reveal a greater day of mourning to come when our Lord returns that did not take place even at His death upon the cross. The events of Zechariah 13:9 did not take place in the lifetime of Caiaphas but are yet to come. Caiaphas will obviously not be a player in that day.