- May 13, 2019
- 2,615
- 370
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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is that because there is no mention of land restoration in the NT in addition to the NT specifically stating the OT is obsolete and taken away.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.
Upvote
0