So, apparently The Church Is Israel

[Jamdoc]

Right. I meant it was quoted about Jesus in relation to His death, so the context was His first coming and not the second coming. As I had already said before as well.

Like the crucifixion is where He was pierced, but the looking on Him will both occur when it happened, and at His second coming. Don't you think one of the ways that the Jews will know that it's Jesus coming from heaven will be that He bears the marks of His crucifixion? We know He still had them after the resurrection, as Thomas doubted until he saw the wounds.

Again, we need to accept that the fulfillment of the verse was specifically quoted in relation to His first coming, not the second. You're trying to get around that, but you can't. That has to be your starting point instead of making assumptions about the prophecy based on your futurist perspective.

Peter quoted Day of the Lord prophecy being fulfilled at Pentecost, then taught about a future Day of the Lord as well. Quoting the scripture does not mean "we cross this one off as done"

People claim that Daniel 11 is about Antiochus Epiphanes because he "kinda" fulfills the events of it, and yet Jesus pointed out the Abomination of Desolation as a future event in the Olivet Discourse.

Near fulfillment, future fulfillment. The near fulfillment usually is not exact, which to me indicates that there's a yet future fulfillment that is perfect. Zechariah 12:10 will be fulfilled perfectly with the entire world at war with Israel as it is written.
The crucifixion did not have those details, and so, it is not a perfect fulfillment.

No, it isn't. It can't be. Scripture itself shows otherwise.


LOL. They fled Judea just as Jesus warned in AD 70 and avoided being killed, so don't tell me to just disregard that.

You should disregard it because Jesus wasn't standing on the Mount of Olives in AD70 or within 7 years of AD70 splitting it in two.

LOL. Your exact match of scripture approach is the result of your insisting that everything has to be taken completely literally despite the fact that there is a lot of symbolism in prophecy. I don't understand that approach at all.


I claim that because scripture claims that. You try to get around that with your double fulfillment nonsense.

they called back to that scripture so it'd be in mind, but was the entire world at war with Israel at the crucifixion? How much of a gumby stretch do you want to make?

Please don't ask me ridiculous questions like that as if I would possibly answer yes to that ludicrous question. What you miss is that it's not all meant to be taken literally the way you do. So, what happens when scripture itself says a prophecy was fulfilled? If it wasn't fulfilled the way you think it should have been, then you resort to double fulfillment and anything you can do to give it a future fulfillment. I don't buy that at all. It's a ridiculous approach to interpreting scripture and not one I can take seriously.

How was this fulfilled at the crucifixion:

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
4 In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God.
6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7 The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Because in the first century, Jerusalem was already under Roman rule. They weren't consuming the Romans. Actually that was one of the things that some disciples of Jesus were expecting. They were expecting if Jesus is the Messiah, then shouldn't we be getting our Kingdom back? They even asked Him about it after the crucifixion. They expected it Jesus the Messiah to lead them to liberation from the Romans.

.. But restoring the Kingdom is second coming prophecy, not first.

There is no prophecy in scripture about that situation. You ignore history in order to keep your hyperfuturist doctrine afloat.

Zechariah 12 has the entire world turning on Israel. Ezekiel 38 has a confederacy invading it. Daniel 11 has an invasion and the abomination of desolation.

You have the blinders on. You ignore the explanation of the fulfillments of prophecy in scripture itself and instead rely on current events to dictate your doctrine. I'd rather rely on scripture.

You believe Zechariah 12 is fulfilled but the entire world wasn't at war with Israel at that time was it?

That has nothing to do with the fulfillment of prophecy. You will always see what you want to see because of your doctrinal bias.

When did Gog and Magog happen historically? Show me.

It was the beginning of the fulfillment, but that doesn't mean the day of the Lord itself has started yet. The day of the Lord is the day that Christ returns and it will result in "sudden destruction" from which unbelievers "shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3).


The day of the Lord is only a future event. I don't accept your double fulfillment approach at all.

Peter quoted Joel and said it was fulfilled and referred to signs shown at the crucifixion.

No, he did not. There are aspects of the prophecy that began to be fulfilled back then and going forward from then, but the day of the Lord itself is a future event.


We all take some scripture literally, some figuratively and so on, so this comment is utterly ludicrous and meaningless. My doctrine is primarily based on literal scripture. That's what premils like you don't get. Scripture says that the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns, which supports amil (2 Peter 3:10-12). I take that literally. Jesus said that all of the dead will be resurrected in the same hour. So, one future resurrection event, not two as you believe (John 5:28-29). Scripture says that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Col 1:12-13). I take that literally and interpret Revelation 20 accordingly. And on and on it goes. So, the idea that my doctrine is based on allegorizing scripture is ridiculous. I interpret literal text literally and allegorical text allegorically. We all agree that not everything is literal, so please stop making these types of useless comments.

Okay then explain the literal fulfillment of Zechariah 12:1-9 at the crucifixion.

Why in the world would you see Romans 11:26-27 as having only a future fulfillment when you acknowledge that they get saved NOW by the covenant Paul referenced there, which you agree is "the same New Covenant we do"? This is truly unbelievable to me. How can you not see that he was talking about how they would be saved throughout the New Testament era and not just in the future? And he was not talking about national Israel all being saved since that is not even reasonable. He was referring to the Israel of which not all of national Israel is part, as he alluded to previously in Romans 9:6-8. Romans 9-11 is all one overarching narrative, which many miss.

Because Paul, Zechariah, and John (Revelation 7's 144,000) have a larger scale salvation. Something done all at once.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Like the crucifixion is where He was pierced, but the looking on Him will both occur when it happened, and at His second coming. Don't you think one of the ways that the Jews will know that it's Jesus coming from heaven will be that He bears the marks of His crucifixion? We know He still had them after the resurrection, as Thomas doubted until he saw the wounds.

As I've already said, Zechariah 12:10 is related to people looking on Him when He was actually pierced and to people mourning for Him. That already happened. In the case of verses like Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, the context is different. Those refer to people wailing in fear when they see Him because of knowing His wrath is coming down on them, as you can see by reading Revelation 6:12-17, which is parallel to Matthew 24:29-31.

Peter quoted Day of the Lord prophecy being fulfilled at Pentecost, then taught about a future Day of the Lord as well. Quoting the scripture does not mean "we cross this one off as done"

There are not two different days of the Lord. You have to continually make things up like this in order to keep your doctrine afloat. It's sad to see. The day of the Lord is described in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 and it is clearly a future event. In 2 Thess 2:1-3, Paul relates that event directly to the time when we are gathered to Him at His second coming. What happened on the day of Pentecost was the beginning of the part of the prophecy that relates to God pouring out His Spirit on people and such which has been happening ever since, but that was not the day of the Lord.

People claim that Daniel 11 is about Antiochus Epiphanes because he "kinda" fulfills the events of it, and yet Jesus pointed out the Abomination of Desolation as a future event in the Olivet Discourse.

No, He did not. Do you understand that the Olivet Discourse was spawned from Jesus saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed? So, the first question the disciples asked Him in the Olivet Discourse related to that. Where else did Jesus answer that question except for in Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24)? Christ's second coming is a global event, but what is described in relation to the abomination of desolation is only a local event and it occurred in 70 AD.

Near fulfillment, future fulfillment. The near fulfillment usually is not exact, which to me indicates that there's a yet future fulfillment that is perfect. Zechariah 12:10 will be fulfilled perfectly with the entire world at war with Israel as it is written.
The crucifixion did not have those details, and so, it is not a perfect fulfillment.

I don't buy this near fulfillment, future fulfillment stuff. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say with this approach. I reject it completely.

You should disregard it because Jesus wasn't standing on the Mount of Olives in AD70 or within 7 years of AD70 splitting it in two.

Your hyperliteral approach to books of prophecy that contain a lot of symbolism just doesn't work. You are obviously referring to Zechariah 14, but there are several problems with seeing a future fulfillment of Zechariah 14. That includes the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated (will not happen) and people being required to go to Jerusalem to worship God despite Jesus saying in John 4 that people were no longer required to do that and that instead God wants worshipers who worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Do you think Zechariah 13:7 has a future fulfillment, too? Where does this double fulfillment thing end?

they called back to that scripture so it'd be in mind, but was the entire world at war with Israel at the crucifixion? How much of a gumby stretch do you want to make?

It's not talking about a literal war. It's talking about how Jesus brought condemnation to all of God's enemies by way of His death. After that anyone who did not believe in Jesus and His death and resurrection was condemned and their only hope was to repent. They were defeated in that way. Again, the fact of the matter is that Zechariah 12:10 was quoted in a first coming fulfillment context. You can try to get around that all you want, but I'll never understand people trying to get around the truth instead of just accepting it.

.. But restoring the Kingdom is second coming prophecy, not first.

You have no understanding of Christ's kingdom which does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36). We're in it now. He is King of kings and Lord of lords now. But, premils don't accept that.

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

Zechariah 12 has the entire world turning on Israel. Ezekiel 38 has a confederacy invading it. Daniel 11 has an invasion and the abomination of desolation.

You believe Zechariah 12 is fulfilled but the entire world wasn't at war with Israel at that time was it?

Most of the world was at war spiritually with God because of their sin and rebellion against Him. Christ's death and resurrection brought hope to a world that was previously without hope (Ephesians 2:11-13). You're not discerning the spiritual truths taught in these prophecies and you are instead interpreting them all carnally and in a hyperliteral, futurist way. That's the wrong approach. It's causing you to contradict other scriptures.

When did Gog and Magog happen historically? Show me.

I can't convince someone who insists on literal, physical fulfillments of these OT prophecies that they already happened. Ezekiel 38-39 talk about ancient weapons being used, so we're supposed to take that all literally? If so, how can it be talking about a future event? Here is the last verse in Ezekiel 39:

29 I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

I don't know about you, but that reminds me of the day of Pentecost when people from every nation were there in Jerusalem and had God's Spirit poured out on them. Seeing these prophecies as having literal, future fulfillments just does not fit with what the rest of scripture teaches. Why not base your doctrine on clear, straightforward scripture not found within books of prophecy like I do and then interpret those prophecies with that foundation? Instead, the foundation of your doctrine is upon these OT passages that are among the most difficult passages in all of scripture to interrpret. I don't understand that approach at all.

Peter quoted Joel and said it was fulfilled and referred to signs shown at the crucifixion.

Said what was fulfilled? Surely, the day of the Lord was not fulfilled on that day since scripture teaches that the day of the Lord is the future day when Jesus will come and deliver His wrath upon His enemies (1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

Okay then explain the literal fulfillment of Zechariah 12:1-9 at the crucifixion.

I love how premils always try to make amils play by their rules. I'm not going to do that. Why would I interpret something literally that I don't believe is meant to be interpreted literally?

Because Paul, Zechariah, and John (Revelation 7's 144,000) have a larger scale salvation. Something done all at once.

No, they did not. Paul talked about a remnant being saved and hoping that he could help save some of them. How could he have gone from that to saying that all of them would be saved? That makes no sense whatsoever. You are taking Romans 11:26-27 completely out of context from the rest of what Paul taught within Romans 9 to 11. As for the 144,000, how do you figure that they are all saved all at once? You sure make a lot of assumptions.

 

[Jamdoc]

As I've already said, Zechariah 12:10 is related to people looking on Him when He was actually pierced and to people mourning for Him. That already happened. In the case of verses like Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, the context is different. Those refer to people wailing in fear when they see Him because of knowing His wrath is coming down on them, as you can see by reading Revelation 6:12-17, which is parallel to Matthew 24:29-31.


There are not two different days of the Lord. You have to continually make things up like this in order to keep your doctrine afloat. It's sad to see. The day of the Lord is described in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 and it is clearly a future event. In 2 Thess 2:1-3, Paul relates that event directly to the time when we are gathered to Him at His second coming. What happened on the day of Pentecost was the beginning of the part of the prophecy that relates to God pouring out His Spirit on people and such which has been happening ever since, but that was not the day of the Lord.

When Peter quoted Joel 2, he quoted parts regarding the darkening of the Sun and Moon, and it was a Day of the Lord passage.
He said that what he'd witnessed was what the prophet Joel wrote about.
Peter had seen the sun and moon darkened at the crucifixion, that was what he was referring to, along with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This was a literal thing that happened. As I posted before a Chinese Emperor thousands of miles away from Jerusalem recorded the phenomena in his own court annals, as independent documented evidence.

the sign of the darkening of the sun and moon, is a sign of the Day of the Lord.

Joel 2

28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.

Peter said this was fulfilled.
Acts 2

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

So by your same logic of "well Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the crucifixion" ALL statements about the darkening of the sun and moon and day of the Lord were fulfilled when Peter declared it to be so in Acts 2.

... except Peter wrote about the Day of the Lord coming in the future
and John wrote about the darkening of the sun and moon at the 6th seal in Revelation.

With Jews "prophecy is pattern" fulfilling once does not preclude fulfilling again.

No, He did not. Do you understand that the Olivet Discourse was spawned from Jesus saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed? So, the first question the disciples asked Him in the Olivet Discourse related to that. Where else did Jesus answer that question except for in Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24)? Christ's second coming is a global event, but what is described in relation to the abomination of desolation is only a local event and it occurred in 70 AD.


I don't buy this near fulfillment, future fulfillment stuff. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say with this approach. I reject it completely.


Your hyperliteral approach to books of prophecy that contain a lot of symbolism just doesn't work. You are obviously referring to Zechariah 14, but there are several problems with seeing a future fulfillment of Zechariah 14. That includes the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated (will not happen) and people being required to go to Jerusalem to worship God despite Jesus saying in John 4 that people were no longer required to do that and that instead God wants worshipers who worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Do you think Zechariah 13:7 has a future fulfillment, too? Where does this double fulfillment thing end?


It's not talking about a literal war. It's talking about how Jesus brought condemnation to all of God's enemies by way of His death. After that anyone who did not believe in Jesus and His death and resurrection was condemned and their only hope was to repent. They were defeated in that way. Again, the fact of the matter is that Zechariah 12:10 was quoted in a first coming fulfillment context. You can try to get around that all you want, but I'll never understand people trying to get around the truth instead of just accepting it.


You have no understanding of Christ's kingdom which does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36). We're in it now. He is King of kings and Lord of lords now. But, premils don't accept that.

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,


Most of the world was at war spiritually with God because of their sin and rebellion against Him. Christ's death and resurrection brought hope to a world that was previously without hope (Ephesians 2:11-13). You're not discerning the spiritual truths taught in these prophecies and you are instead interpreting them all carnally and in a hyperliteral, futurist way. That's the wrong approach. It's causing you to contradict other scriptures.


I can't convince someone who insists on literal, physical fulfillments of these OT prophecies that they already happened. Ezekiel 38-39 talk about ancient weapons being used, so we're supposed to take that all literally? If so, how can it be talking about a future event? Here is the last verse in Ezekiel 39:

29 I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

I don't know about you, but that reminds me of the day of Pentecost when people from every nation were there in Jerusalem and had God's Spirit poured out on them. Seeing these prophecies as having literal, future fulfillments just does not fit with what the rest of scripture teaches. Why not base your doctrine on clear, straightforward scripture not found within books of prophecy like I do and then interpret those prophecies with that foundation? Instead, the foundation of your doctrine is upon these OT passages that are among the most difficult passages in all of scripture to interrpret. I don't understand that approach at all.


Said what was fulfilled? Surely, the day of the Lord was not fulfilled on that day since scripture teaches that the day of the Lord is the future day when Jesus will come and deliver His wrath upon His enemies (1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12).


I love how premils always try to make amils play by their rules. I'm not going to do that. Why would I interpret something literally that I don't believe is meant to be interpreted literally?


No, they did not. Paul talked about a remnant being saved and hoping that he could help save some of them. How could he have gone from that to saying that all of them would be saved? That makes no sense whatsoever. You are taking Romans 11:26-27 completely out of context from the rest of what Paul taught within Romans 9 to 11. As for the 144,000, how do you figure that they are all saved all at once? You sure make a lot of assumptions.

After the 6th seal (and that's what "And after these things" means) the angels are sent to seal the 144,000 before the Earth is hurt. They are stopped from doing so until it's done.
They weren't sealed before the 6th seal, they get sealed afterward.

 

[Guojing]

Even in the Old Testament, non-Jews didn't have to approach God through Israel, with Israel as their mediator. They had to believe in Israel's God. People like Ruth did this. I'm sure her mother-in-law Naomi would have told her much about God, but we don't read of Ruth approaching God through Naomi.

Your understanding of OT scripture is suspect.

Ruth was a Moabite, a people group cursed by God (Deuteronomy 23:3)

But what did Ruth say?

Ruth 1:16

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

And I can't believe you forgot Boaz.

Ruth went thru Boaz, thru marriage.

Ruth is not the main character in that book, its Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, a picture of how us gentiles will eventually be reconciled with God thru Christ (Ephesians 2:11-12)

 

[Guojing]

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

So, you're asking if Paul taught the Israel of God in this verse? He doesn't mention the Israel of God in this verse, so I don't think we can say one way or another whether he was teaching or not teaching about the Israel of God in this verse. Not explicitly, anyway. So, I don't know why you're asking that question in relation to this verse. Can you explain that?

So in Galatians 6:16, you claim he is including us gentiles, into the Israel of God.

Yet, one chapter before that, Galatians 5, you can say with a straight face that the statement in verse 2 may not be directed to the Israel of God.

And I don't know what you meant in relation to your comment about Acts 21:21, either. So, please clarify what it is that you were intending to ask with your question and what you were intending to say with your followup comment.

Since you can answer no to my first question, you are off the hook regarding Acts 21:21 then.

Congrats, we can move on.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

After the 6th seal (and that's what "And after these things" means) the angels are sent to seal the 144,000 before the Earth is hurt. They are stopped from doing so until it's done.
They weren't sealed before the 6th seal, they get sealed afterward.

It indicates what he saw after the things he saw related to the sixth seal which does not necessarily mean what he saw chronologically follows what he previously saw. Just as in the case of Revelation 11 and 12, for example. No one would claim what he saw in Revelation 12, which included the birth and ascension of Christ, chronologically followed what he saw at the end of Revelation 11 (the seventh trumpet).

With that said, even if Revelation 7 chronologically followed the events of the sixth seal where it describes the wrath of the Lamb being at hand, so what? How does that prove your view? It isn't describing the 144,000 all being saved at once. It's describing them as being sealed and protected against the wrath of God. What would be required for them to avoid being killed by the wrath of the Lamb if that is meant to describe something occurring at the time of the sixth seal? I believe it would have to refer to them having their bodies changed to being immortal so that the wrath of the Lamb cannot affect them.

There will be no time for anyone to be converted once Christ comes from heaven after the tribulation of those days. Can't you see that Revelation 6:12-17 is parallel to Matthew 24:29-31? How could anyone be converted and saved at that point? It will be too late at that point. There will be no time for that. If the sealing occurs at that point then it would have to be a physical sealing to protect from the physical destruction coming down on the earth at that point. And, based on what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12, the destruction will not be limited to just the earth. So, being taken up off the earth alone would not be enough to protect mortals from His wrath since it will even involve the dissolving of the heavens and the elements. They would need to be changed to put on immortality (immortal bodies) first.

This illustrates the problem with your doctrine. It's not based on any clear, straightforward scripture. It's all based on some of the most difficult to interpret passages in all of scripture contained within books that undeniably contain a good amount of symbolism. That's it. That's a flimsy foundation for a doctrine.

 

[Jamdoc]

It indicates what he saw after the things he saw related to the sixth seal which does not necessarily mean what he saw chronologically follows what he previously saw. Just as in the case of Revelation 11 and 12, for example. No one would claim what he saw in Revelation 12, which included the birth and ascension of Christ, chronologically followed what he saw at the end of Revelation 11 (the seventh trumpet).

Revelation 12 doesn't start with "and after these things" it's a new vision.
"and after these things" is an indication of Chronology. That this came after the things he saw last.

With that said, even if Revelation 7 chronologically followed the events of the sixth seal where it describes the wrath of the Lamb being at hand, so what? How does that prove your view? It isn't describing the 144,000 all being saved at once. It's describing them as being sealed and protected against the wrath of God. What would be required for them to avoid being killed by the wrath of the Lamb if that is meant to describe something occurring at the time of the sixth seal? I believe it would have to refer to them having their bodies changed to being immortal so that the wrath of the Lamb cannot affect them.

There will be no time for anyone to be converted once Christ comes from heaven after the tribulation of those days. Can't you see that Revelation 6:12-17 is parallel to Matthew 24:29-31? How could anyone be converted and saved at that point? It will be too late at that point. There will be no time for that. If the sealing occurs at that point then it would have to be a physical sealing to protect from the physical destruction coming down on the earth at that point. And, based on what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12, the destruction will not be limited to just the earth. So, being taken up off the earth alone would not be enough to protect mortals from His wrath since it will even involve the dissolving of the heavens and the elements. They would need to be changed to put on immortality (immortal bodies) first.

This illustrates the problem with your doctrine. It's not based on any clear, straightforward scripture. It's all based on some of the most difficult to interpret passages in all of scripture contained within books that undeniably contain a good amount of symbolism. That's it. That's a flimsy foundation for a doctrine.

The last shall be first. IE, those 144,000, are referred to as firstfruits redeemed from the Earth in Revelation 14. They're of the tribes of Israel, and probably, the last people to be saved.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So in Galatians 6:16, you claim he is including us gentiles, into the Israel of God.

Yes, of course. He writes in the previous verse how neither circumcision (associated with Jews) nor uncircumcision (associated with Gentiles) mean anything. What matters is being a new creation in Christ. National Israel is not at all in view there. The church is. Paul indicated in verse 16 that "as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy". Do you understand what that means? He was saying that there would be peace and mercy to all who have been made new creations in Christ. And he describes them collectively as "the Israel of God".

Yet, one chapter before that, Galatians 5, you can say with a straight face that the statement in verse 2 may not be directed to the Israel of God.

I didn't say anything about it because I had no idea what your point was about that verse. I still am not sure what your point is in relation to that verse.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

You are saying that you think that I'm saying this verse can't be directed to the Israel of God? With the understanding that the Israel of God refers to the church, I believe this verse is directed to the Israel of God and Paul, just like he did in Galatians 6:15, indicates that being circumcised doesn't mean anything when it comes to Christ, but instead what means something and what matters is being a new creation in Christ. I have no idea how you think that Galatians 5:2 refutes my understanding of Galatians 6:15-16 because it doesn't.

Since you can answer no to my first question, you are off the hook regarding Acts 21:21 then.

LOL. I'm not sure I even understand your question which I have been trying to tell you multiple times now. Can you ask it in a way that can be understood or not? What exactly are you asking about Galatians 5:2? You're asking if it is directed to the Israel of God? If so, then my answer is yes. If that's not what you're asking, then please try to clarify what you're asking.

Congrats, we can move on.

It's completely up to you whether you want to keep talking about this or not, but from my perspective you have done nothing so far to refute my understanding of Galatians 6:15-16.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Revelation 12 doesn't start with "and after these things" it's a new vision.
"and after these things" is an indication of Chronology. That this came after the things he saw last.

That is not necessarily the case. He could have been saying after he saw those things then he saw something else. There is nothing there that proves with any certainty that what is described in Revelation 7 must occur after the sixth seal. But, even if it does, it doesn't describe a mass conversion and salvation of Israelites, anyway. That idea contradicts the scriptures that say there will be a mass falling away just before Christ returns and contradicts the fact that Jesus wondered if He would find faith on the earth when He returns (Luke 18:8). Your understanding of a future mass conversion of Israelites simply does not line up with the rest of scripture, but you don't seem to care about that.

The last shall be first. IE, those 144,000, are referred to as firstfruits redeemed from the Earth in Revelation 14. They're of the tribes of Israel, and probably, the last people to be saved.

The firstfruits are the last people to be saved? What in the world? Is that how you would understand this verse, too?

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Here, James was talking to those who were the first Christians and included himself while saying they were "a kind of firstfruits". Firstfruits are not last, they are first. When it talks about the last being first, it has nothing to do with this. You are trying to relate unrelated scriptures.

Again, the idea of a mass conversion of Israelites before the end contradicts other scriptures, as I've noted. If you want to just ignore that, then so be it, but you shouldn't. There certainly will NOT be a mass conversion of Israelites when Jesus comes after the tribulation of those days. Matthew 24:29-31 and Revelation 6:12-17 are parallel, so no one will be saved after the sixth seal since no one will be saved "after the tribulation of those days". That is when Jesus will return. At that point, it will be too late for anyone to repent and be saved. That's why you don't see a description of anyone repenting in Revelation 6:12-17. Instead, they are wanting to avoid having to face the wrath of the Lamb since they will know it's too late at that point.

 

[Jamdoc]

That is not necessarily the case. He could have been saying after he saw those things then he saw something else. There is nothing there that proves with any certainty that what is described in Revelation 7 must occur after the sixth seal. But, even if it does, it doesn't describe a mass conversion and salvation of Israelites, anyway. That idea contradicts the scriptures that say there will be a mass falling away just before Christ returns and contradicts the fact that Jesus wondered if He would find faith on the earth when He returns (Luke 18:8). Your understanding of a future mass conversion of Israelites simply does not line up with the rest of scripture, but you don't seem to care about that.

It's a mass falling away from the Church, of Gentiles, yes, remember, Romans 11, "till the fulness of the gentiles are come in". Then the blindness is healed.

The firstfruits are the last people to be saved? What in the world? Is that how you would understand this verse, too?

Matthew 20, the Parable of the Vineyard Workers.

Jesus said the last would be first, illustrating the workers who were hired last, were paid first, and paid the same wage, as those who were hired earlier in the day.

 

[David Lamb]

Your understanding of OT scripture is suspect.

Ruth was a Moabite, a people group cursed by God (Deuteronomy 23:3)

But what did Ruth say?

Ruth 1:16

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

And I can't believe you forgot Boaz.

Ruth went thru Boaz, thru marriage.

Ruth is not the main character in that book, its Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, a picture of how us gentiles will eventually be reconciled with God thru Christ (Ephesians 2:11-12)

I don't think that it's because of any misunderstanding of the Old Testament (though I hasten to add that I don't claim perfect knowledge!). Rather, it's what you mean by "through". I have been assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you were saying that the Israelites were mediators for those Gentiles who wanted to come to God. Naomi and Boaz played their parts, and it was probably through Naomi that Ruth had come to know about the true God, but they weren't mediators between Ruth and God.

 

[Guojing]

I don't think that it's because of any misunderstanding of the Old Testament (though I hasten to add that I don't claim perfect knowledge!). Rather, it's what you mean by "through". I have been assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you were saying that the Israelites were mediators for those Gentiles who wanted to come to God. Naomi and Boaz played their parts, and it was probably through Naomi that Ruth had come to know about the true God, but they weren't mediators between Ruth and God.

You are really stubborn in your thinking, isn't marriage to an Israelite, the prime example of "going thru the nation of Israel" . Marriage to me is the "ultimate union".

Ruth as a Moabite, could not become part of God's people (Ruth 1:16) on her own.

Both Deuteronomy 23:3 and Ephesians 2:11-12 made that very clear.

You would at least agree with that I hope?

If not, then fine, we can agree to disagree.

 

[David Lamb]

You are really stubborn in your thinking, isn't marriage to an Israelite, the prime example of "going thru the nation of Israel" . Marriage to me is the "ultimate union".

Ruth as a Moabite, could not become part of God's people (Ruth 1:16) on her own.

Both Deuteronomy 23:3 and Ephesians 2:11-12 made that very clear.

You would at least agree with that I hope?

If not, then fine, we can agree to disagree.

There is only one Mediator between God and men:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” (1Ti 2:5 NKJV)

So if by going through Israel you mean that Israel was in any sense a mediator, then I don't agree. I would also say that Ruth believed in the true God before she even reached Bethlehem with Naomi, so before she even met Boaz.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

WIt's a mass falling away from the Church, of Gentiles, yes, remember, Romans 11, "till the fulness of the gentiles are come in". Then the blindness is healed.

The church does not just consist of Gentiles, but also of Jews. Surely, you know that? So, why would only Gentiles in the church fall away but not Jews?

Where does it say that the blindness is healed when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? It doesn't.

Do you believe that none of those who were blinded in Paul's time ever had their blindness removed? If so, what do you make of Paul hoping to lead some of them to salvation, as he wrote about in Romans 11:11-14? To see Romans 11 as only being about the future is a mistake. Paul said in Romans 11:5 "at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.". And then he pointed out in Romans 11:7 that "the rest were blinded" (the rest besides the remnant). How can you think he was only talking about the future in Romans 11 when he referred to "this present time". He talked about those who were blinded "in this present time" having the opportunity to be saved. But, you postpone the salvation of anyone who is blinded to some future time instead.

You are taking Romans 11 completely out of context by interpreting it from a futurist perspective. Instead, it talks about ongoing things that began back in Paul's time that would continue until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Jesus will return at that point. There will be no mass conversion of Jews at that point. That would contradict Jesus wondering if He would find faith on the earth when He returns (Luke 18:8). It would contradict the fact that Jesus said the days before His second coming would be like the days of Noah before the flood and days of Lot before the destruction of Sodom. Nowhere does scripture describe a mass conversion event occurring just before Christ returns.

Matthew 20, the Parable of the Vineyard Workers.

Jesus said the last would be first, illustrating the workers who were hired last, were paid first, and paid the same wage, as those who were hired earlier in the day.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the 144,000 firstfruits. You're trying to relate unrelated scriptures.

 

[Jamdoc]

The church does not just consist of Gentiles, but also of Jews. Surely, you know that? So, why would only Gentiles in the church fall away but not Jews?

Where does it say that the blindness is healed when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? It doesn't.

Romans 11

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The until, and "and so" indicate that the blindness done by God has a condition to be met and then God will change that status, and through that, God will save them.

Like I get it, Amillennialists and Replacement Theologians see Romans 11 as "wishful thinking" by Paul
I see it as referring to Prophecy, and it is backed up by Revelation 7, a final act of Salvation by God.

Do you believe that none of those who were blinded in Paul's time ever had their blindness removed? If so, what do you make of Paul hoping to lead some of them to salvation, as he wrote about in Romans 11:11-14? To see Romans 11 as only being about the future is a mistake. Paul said in Romans 11:5 "at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.". And then he pointed out in Romans 11:7 that "the rest were blinded" (the rest besides the remnant). How can you think he was only talking about the future in Romans 11 when he referred to "this present time". He talked about those who were blinded "in this present time" having the opportunity to be saved. But, you postpone the salvation of anyone who is blinded to some future time instead.

You are taking Romans 11 completely out of context by interpreting it from a futurist perspective. Instead, it talks about ongoing things that began back in Paul's time that would continue until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Jesus will return at that point. There will be no mass conversion of Jews at that point. That would contradict Jesus wondering if He would find faith on the earth when He returns (Luke 18:8). It would contradict the fact that Jesus said the days before His second coming would be like the days of Noah before the flood and days of Lot before the destruction of Sodom. Nowhere does scripture describe a mass conversion event occurring just before Christ returns.

See above, the "until" suggests a condition that will be met in the future, that has not been met in Paul's day.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the 144,000 firstfruits. You're trying to relate unrelated scriptures.

It gives that parable a point. That there'd be 11th hour people getting saved, but get the same wages as those who were preaching the Gospel first.

Otherwise, you'd expect people saved earlier to get precedence.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Romans 11

The until, and "and so" indicate that the blindness done by God has a condition to be met and then God will change that status, and through that, God will save them.

You are not even looking at the context of Romans 11. Do you not see that the blindness of some of those who were blinded in Paul's time was lifted and they were saved? Just read Romans 11:11-14 and you can see that. So, why do you postpone the removal of anyone's blindness until some future time? That does not fit the context of what Paul wrote about in Romans 11. Paul later says in Romans 11:32 that he gave them over to unbelief so that He could have mercy on them. That can't be ignored. Romans 11 is not about the future, it's about the present time in Paul's day until the future time when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Again, looking at all of it only from a futurist perspective is a mistake and misses the context of what Paul was writing about.

Like I get it, Amillennialists and Replacement Theologians see Romans 11 as "wishful thinking" by Paul

Why lie like this? Does this help your case to lie about what others believe? This type of nonsense adds nothing to the discussion.

I see it as referring to Prophecy, and it is backed up by Revelation 7, a final act of Salvation by God.

I see it as referring to prophecy as well, but the fulfillment began in Paul's time. That's what you're missing. He specifically mentioned that "in this present time" a remnant was saved and he also indicated that the rest who were blinded could still be saved (Romans 11:11-14) and the plan was for them to be led to salvation by being provoked to jealousy by the salvation of the Gentiles. You seem to completely ignore that.

See above, the "until" suggests a condition that will be met in the future, that has not been met in Paul's day.

No, it shows something of which the conditions would be met on an going basis until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Blinded Israelites have been led to salvatoin for the past almost 2,000 years. Paul himself said he wanted to lead some of them to salvation in his time. It says nothing about any blindness being removed after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. You add that idea to the text.

It gives that parable a point. That there'd be 11th hour people getting saved, but get the same wages as those who were preaching the Gospel first.

Otherwise, you'd expect people saved earlier to get precedence.

That has nothing to do with a mass conversion event. It just means that people can be saved right up until the end, but, again, scripture shows that there will be a mass falling away before the end and Jesus asks if He will find faith on the earth when He comes, so that does not support the idea of a mass conversion event just before He comes.

 

[Jan001]

The Church is not Israel. The Church is a subset of Israel.

One has to look at the entire history. Believers before the church came into existence were heirs of Abraham. Believers after the church came into existence have been grafted into the family of Abraham. Today, one cannot be a believer in Christ without being in His church, but the church is part of the Israel that walked by faith.

Abraham came before Israel.

I am not a child of Israel. I am a child of Abraham.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.”

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

 

[Guojing]

I would also say that Ruth believed in the true God before she even reached Bethlehem with Naomi, so before she even met Boaz.

So her belief in the true God alone would have saved her, without Boaz.

You believe this despite the clear scripture found in Deuteronomy 23:3 and Ephesians 2:11-12

Alright then, no wonder you cannot accept that, during the Tribulation, gentiles must once again be saved thru the nation of Israel.

 

[Guojing]

Abraham came before Israel.

I am not a child of Israel. I am a child of Abraham.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.”

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Correct, Israel came from Jacob.

Just because you are a child of Abraham is not equivalent to you being Israel. nor a subset of Israel.

Simply put, Jacob is not our father.

 

[Jan001]

Correct, Israel came from Jacob.

Just because you are a child of Abraham is not equivalent to you being Israel. nor a subset of Israel.

Simply put, Jacob is not our father.

I agree.

Israel was the people of God in the first covenant.


Christians, both Jews and Gentiles/Greeks, are God's people in the new covenant.


1 Corinthians 12:13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:28-30 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.