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

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
keras said:
You don't see the great Second Exodus of God's people to the holy Land, because you have another belief about what you want God to do in the end times.
Not knowing just who God's people are today, thinking the Jews still are the 'chosen' people, is the great error of many.
WE Christians are the Israelites of God, His Victorious ones and the Promises of God to His Israelite Overcomers for Him, pertain to us. 2 Corinthians 1:20
:oldthumbsup:
There is nothing in scripture that suggests that the people who will be forever dwelling in the land of Israel will be, in a predominant sense, anyone other than they who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And the cited passage from Romans in no way suggests that ancient Israel was to be rejected; in fact Romans chapter 11 goes on to state quite the opposite.
Contender......
I have never seen anyone as entrenched in the "spider web" doctrine of Zionist Futurist Dispensationalism as you.....
This thread is like beating a dead horse..............

Dispensationalism – Grace Online Library

.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking.
So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.
=============================
I invite you over and/or others to this thread and give your rebuttals to it.........

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

Christians are God's true "Jews" today, Israel is the church!

You believe in Replacement theology if…

Most churches teach replacement theology so this should be quite easy for you to see…

  1. …you believe the Bible when it says Christians are the true Jews today: Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. ", "for we [Christians] are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, " (Philippians 3:3)
  2. …you believe that Israel is the church: "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel [church] of God." (Galatians 6:15-16) The peace in this passage is for those who walk according to Christ so CANNOT refer to fleshly/physical Israel that utterly rejects Christ.
  3. …you believe Jews must believe in Jesus to be saved and are as lost as Muslims and atheists until they do. (Jn 3:16; Jn 14:6)
  4. …you believe the New Testament (second covenant) of Jesus Christ replaced the Old Testament (first covenant) Jer 31:31 + Heb 8:6-13
  5. …you believe that keeping both the First and Second covenants at the same time is like a woman married to two men at the same time (Romans 6:1-7)
  6. …you believe the body of the Christian is the temple that God dwells in today not some building made of stone, wood or curtains. (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20)
  7. …you believe the Saturday Sabbath was abolished and Christians worship on the first day of the week (Sunday).
  8. …you believe the calendar of 7 Jewish feasts are not to be kept by Christians: Passover (Pesach), Unleavened Bread (Chag Hamotzi), First Fruits (Yom habikkurim), Pentecost (Shavu'ot), Trumpets (Yom Teru'ah), Atonement (Yom Kippur), Tabernacles (Sukkot).
  9. …you believe that the entire law of Moses has been abrogated and replaced by the law of Christ and that if you want to keep just one part of the law of Moses, YOU MUST KEEP IT ALL!
  10. …if you believe that you do not need to be circumcised to be saved. Acts 15:1-3
  11. …if you believe there is no distinction in the mind of God towards all men: Jew or gentile, rich or poor, male or female (Gal 3:28-29)

    The church is true Israel and

    Christians are God's true "Jews" today.
    (Left: Jewish High Priest)


    1. Christians are the true Jews and true Israel today
    2. The church is God's Israel today.
    3. Physical Israel is equal to the gentiles today and like the Gentiles, must believe Jesus rose from the dead in order to be saved from punishment.

    Go to Rapture Refuted home page
Galatians 6:14-16 But far be it from me to boast, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ…….all that counts is new [personal] creation. All who take this principal as their guide: peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God. Revised English Bible

The proper interpretation and translation of the last phrase in Galatians 6:16 has become a matter of controversy in the past century or so. Formerly, "The Israel of God" was understood as a name for the Church. The καὶ ("and") which precedes the phrase upon the Israel of God, was understood as an explicative καὶ. This understanding of the grammar is reflected in the Revised Standard Version's Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God, and in the New International Version's: even to the Israel of God. It is not necessary, to understand the καὶ as an explicative in order to get substantially the same sense. If it be regarded as an ordinary connective καὶ, the all who take this principal, correctly refers to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively; being the entire messianic community."

So the rendering "and upon the Israel of God" (KJV and others) is acceptable enough, provided it is not misapplied. In any case, it is clear that in this verse Paul cannot be pronouncing a benediction upon persons who are not included in: All who keep the Christian rule….The entire argument of the epistle contradicts any idea that here in 6:16 he would give a blessing to those who are not Christians.

The phrase has become controversial because the traditional interpretation conflicts with principles of interpretation associated with Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists, those who believe in a ‘rapture to heaven’, insist on maintaining a sharp distinction between "Israel" and "the Church".

They refute the idea that here Paul is using the phrase "Israel of God" in a sense that includes Gentiles, because this undermines their contention that "the Church" is distinguished from "Israel" in Scripture. This major tenet of dispensationalist hermeneutics, is a false teaching.

The dispensationalist explanation of the meaning of "The Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 is contrary to Paul’s main point, in which it is said that: in Christ Jesus ... there is neither Jew nor Greek. This central idea of the epistle, is expressed in the third chapter: "you are all one in Christ Jesus ... if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring" Galatians 3:26-29

The fascination with the secular state of Israel which is so characteristic of dispensationalists today has led many of them to think that the restoration of the Jews as "God's people" has already occurred, despite the fact that their rapture has not yet happened and the Jews continue to reject Christ. Dispensationalists insist that this unbelieving Israel according to the flesh must be blessed by everyone. But of course this premise is totally wrong, because there is no blessing for anyone who rejects Christ.

The attempt to limit the meaning of "Israel of God" to the carnal sons of Judah betrays a fundamentally wrong approach to biblical interpretation, and to New Testament theology in particular. I give below some excerpts from writers who are more accurately express the meaning of Galatians 6:16. Even in these authors I find, however, an insufficient appreciation of Paul's teaching. Peace be ... upon the Israel of God, is a positive blessing and affirmation of true Christian believers as the spiritual Israel of God.
This truth is unacceptable to those who have chosen to believe that the Lord will 'rapture' them to heaven, while those who call themselves Israel remain to pass thru Tribulation and finally become saved Christians. Neither are scriptural and neither will happen.

We Christians are now the chosen people, a few Jews, most from every race, nation and language. WE are the Lord's priests now and will be His co-rulers on earth. Revelation 5:9-10
===============================
premillennialism-three-promises-abraham-land-promise-fulfilled-3000-years-ago.jpg


Israel's land promise fulfilled in 1350 BC


1. Israel got all the land they were promised!

2. Israel's 1948 nationhood is not the beginning of the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham!

3. Abraham's land promise fulfilled by Joshua, Solomon!

4. Christ will never set foot on earth again!

5. Read more
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
keras said:
You don't see the great Second Exodus of God's people to the holy Land, because you have another belief about what you want God to do in the end times.
Not knowing just who God's people are today, thinking the Jews still are the 'chosen' people, is the great error of many.
WE Christians are the Israelites of God, His Victorious ones and the Promises of God to His Israelite Overcomers for Him, pertain to us. 2 Corinthians 1:20

The many prophesies that tell about the gathering of His people into all of the holy Land, soon after the Lord has cleared and cleansed that entire area, do mostly mention Israel, which confuses people like you who wrongly think the Jewish State of Israel is the only Israel.
But prophesies like Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, do not mention Israel, they DO support the truth that every faithful Christian will live in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land during the end times. Also Romans 9:24-26 clearly states that Christians will be called the sons of the Living God, in the same place as ancient Israel was rejected. Isaiah 66:18b-21, Revelation 5:9-10
Contenders Edge said:
The Gentiles out of those nations and peoples who will not exist in the millennial kingdom may be too few to be able to survive apart from any other people, that they will be absorbed into the nation of Israel.
LittleLambofJesus said:
There is no literal earthly reign of Christ except in and thru us.......the True Israel of God....
The context of Revelation chapter 20 does not suggest anything but a literal reign of Christ on earth.
A few discussions threads on that subject.........:angel:

The 1000 Year Reign of Christ ??? - Article
The 1000 Year Reign of Christ ???

Richard Anthony

Did you know that the phrase "1000 Year Reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Nor the word "millenium"? Does this surprise you? Notice in the above title, we did not spell out the word "thousand," but used "1000" instead. This is because numbers are fictions in numerical form and have no substance. And the "1000 year reign of Christ" is also a fiction according to Scripture, which has has no substance. It is born and bred from the doctrines of man, not from the Holy Scripture.

The "thousand year reign" appears nowhere in the sixty-six books, 1,189 chapters, 31,173 verses of the Bible except in this one passage where it occurs six times in six consecutive verses (Revelation 20:3-8). It is not solid study to build an entire system of beliefs about the end of the age and the status of the kingdom on such a highly symbolic passage. More especially when that interpretation conflicts with other plain passages of scripture.

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly kingdom at Jerusalem -- those that so teach are duty-bound to prove their doctrines with scripture, not just their imaginations.

For complete article click here - The 1000 Year Reign of Christ ???


What is the purpose of the thousand-year reign of Christ?
The Millennium (also known as the Millennial Kingdom) is the 1,000-year reign of Jesus after the Tribulation and before all the people of the world are sent to either heaven or hell. Jesus will reign as king over Israel as well as all the nations of the world (Isaiah 2:4; 42:1). The world will live in peace (Isaiah 11:6–9; 32:18), Satan will be bound (Revelation 20:1–3), and, at the beginning, everyone will worship God (Isaiah 2:2–3). The purpose of the 1,000-year reign is to fulfill promises God made to the world that cannot be fulfilled while Satan is free and humans have political authority. Some of these promises, called covenants, were given specifically to Israel. Others were given to Jesus, the nations of the world, and creation. All of these will be fulfilled during Jesus’ 1,000-year reign.
Quasar92

An article for your viewing pleasure.........

Reigning With Christ:

Revelation 20:1-6 In Its Salvation-Historical Setting

Even if we regard the above categories in terms of "salvation in three tenses" (we have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved), the basic binary structure of soteriology is not disrupted, because the "present tense" of redemption is but the extension of the "past tense" and the harbinger of the "future tense" of consummated glory. Thus, the present has meaning only as it relates to the past and the future, to what God has done in Christ at his first coming and what he will do in Christ at his second appearance. For the NT authors, then, human history now assumes the complexion of a time of tension between the two advents of the Son of God, i.e., between the "Already" and the "Not Yet" or between "this age" and "the age to come." To borrow Cullmann's famous illustration, the "D Day" of inaugurated salvation has come, but still outstanding is the "V E Day" of consummation.33

Therefore, as we shall argue from Revelation 20, the thousand year reign of Christ and his people is an integral part of eschatological salvation; it is located within that span of time between the inauguration and the consummation of redemption, during which Christ is drawing all men to himself by the preaching of the cross. He has bound the strong man (Satan) and has plundered his house (Matt 12:29), thus bringing release to the captives and enabling Paul to announce later on the Areopagus that the "times of ignorance" (for the nations) are at an end; God now34 commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31). It is within this interim between the announcement of salvation and its final actualization that the dead hear the voice of the Son of Man and live, anticipating that time when "all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth" (John 5:25-29). Our argument is precisely that the "millennial reign" of Rev 20:1-6 is resurrection to life in Christ.

The purpose of elaborating (and reiterating) all this is to say that the historical unfolding of salvation operates along the lines of two epochs of fulfillment, or, phrased differently, two phases of the same epoch, not three. In a sense, it is a negative point - but a necessary negative. Once the overarching pattern of salvation history has been determined, it follows that there is no place for another time-period which effectively amounts to a third epoch or phase in the outworking of God's purposes. Therefore, we must take exception to those chiliastic schemes which confuse this pattern by placing more emphasis on the (supposed) penultimate rather than ultimate stage of the work of Christ. In our view, they represent an intrusion into and, therefore, interruption of the conceptual framework established by the NT. Not only are such constructions unnecessary,35 they actually obscure the architecture of biblical history.

(2) The relation of Israel and the church lies at the heart of any consideration of eschatological matters. It is, of course, an extremely complex matter; and because of the limitations imposed on this study, I must to a degree proceed presuppositionally................

III. Revelation 20:1-6: The Reign of Christ and His People

Hoekema rightly begins his discussion of Revelation 20 by setting the chapter within the progressive parallelism of the book.42 These sections, he observes, exhibit a "eschatological progress" which climaxes with chapter 21's depiction of the blessedness of the new life on earth.43 Chapter 20, as he notes, forms part of the seventh parallel, chapters 20-22, which narrates the overthrow of the dragon, the ancient serpent.44 "This last section describes the judgment which falls on Satan, and his final doom. Since Satan is the supreme opponent of Christ, it stands to reason that his doom should be narrated last."45 This means that chapter 20 is not to be understood as following chronologically the return of Christ, related by the preceding chapter. Thus, Rev 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the NT era, and the thousand year reign occurs not after the parousia but before it.46 Assuming this as the book's overall literary structure,47 we offer the following observations on the text of Revelation 20.

(1) Within the resumé of salvation history provided by the seventh parallelism, 20:1-3 informs us of the binding of Satan.48 In attempting an explanation of the phenomenon, we must be sensitive to Mounce's caveat that the text of Revelation itself ought to be the foremost indicator of John's intentions.49 Nevertheless, the undergirding assumption here is that as a salvation history, particularly one written from the vantage point of the interim between Jesus' first advent and his parousia, Revelation finds points of contact with other NT documents which address similar, if not identical, concerns to those of John.50 These contacts, consequently, will enable us to construct a biblical theology of the reign of Christ.

In Matt 12:29, Jesus asks: "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." This announcement of the binding of the strong man (Satan) is placed in immediate connection with Jesus' exorcism of demons, which are proof-positive that the kingdom of God has arrived. It is hardly accidental, then, that John, who probably was an eyewitness to the Beelzebub controversy related by Matthew, should draw upon the imagery of the binding of Satan. That this particular binding should be performed by an angel is not a problem, because in Apocalyptic angels regularly stand as representatives of God and his doings.51 It makes sense, then, to think that Rev 20:3 marks the inception of the kingdom of God with the binding of Satan.

Luke 10:17-18 is also relevant: "The Seventy returned with joy, saying 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!' And he said to them, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven'." Here, again in a figure of speech, Jesus indicates that Satan and his kingdom have been dealt a crushing blow. It is this figure which is taken up by Rev 12:10: "the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night."52 Note as well that in Luke 10 this fall is brought into direct connection with the missionary preaching of the disciples.53

A third significant text is John 12:31-32: "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." Standing in the shadow of Calvary, Jesus announces that the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified (12:23), i.e., to die. In the process, he will "cast out" the ruler of this world. Note that the verb ekballô bears a striking resemblance to ballô in Rev 20:3. More important, however, is the contextual factor that in v. 20 some Greeks arrive at the feast seeking Jesus; they, within the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel, are the vanguard of the new humanity in Christ.54 Hence, the casting out of Satan is inextricably bound up with the acceptance of the nations, the eschatological harvest of John 4:35-38. This corresponds in principle to the mission of the seventy in Luke 10.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The passages foretelling judgment upon Israel that you cited already came to pass and met their fulfillment when Judah was taken into exile by the Babylonians. Ezekiel is foretelling a regathering of a people who had been scattered and the people who had been scattered are the people of Israel and while I do agree that the promised land will be inherited by the righteous, the designated stewards of the land will predominantly be the Jewish people. Any Gentiles among them will have their share of the inheritance within which ever tribe they will happen be dwelling. (Ezek. 47:23)
Totally wrong interpretation of the Prophesies. You seem incapable of reading what is Written, other than to suit your preconceived beliefs.
Jeremiah 8:10...I shall give their [Judah's] lands to new owners. Was not fulfilled after the Babylonian exile, or after the Roman exile of 70-135 AD, as each time there remained some Jews and each time they returned to control Jerusalem.

I see that Claninja has it right in how the lost Northern tribes of Israel are mixed among the other nations, we cannot tell who they are now, but God knows. Amos 9:9
It will be them; now the Christian peoples who will be the new owners of the holy Land.
The Jewish remnant who join them, Jeremiah 50:4-5, will be so ashamed of their conduct that they will never again open their mouths. Ezekiel 16:63
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your sources do not say that there is no genetic evidence for Jewish ancestry. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a matter of bridging the gap between present day Jews and the pre-desolation Jews. In fact your first source (23 and me) stated in Fig. 1 that Ashkenazi Jews have more genetically in common with other Jews throughout the world than they do with most Europeans and if any of the Jewish gene groups, from either the paternal or maternal lines, do appear in a non-Ashkenazi European, it is counted as evidence of Jewish ancestry.

Unfortunately, there is too much reliance placed upon the mitochondrial line in attempts to bridge the genetic gap between the Jews of this generation and their pre-desolation ancestors. In the case of the Ashkenazi Jews, reliance upon the maternal line shows only Gentile ancestry eight percent of the time according to your second source (nature) whereas, as also stated by that same source, the paternal line shows Jewish ancestry.

It would be much easier to bridge the gap genetically, if both the maternal and paternal lines were given equal consideration. It can also be argued that this is where current Jewish law and tradition errs in determining Jewish ancestry.

According the 23andme link, the company looks at 3 things: Ancestry Composition, Maternal haplogroups, Paternal Haplogroups

1.) Ancestry Composition: The DNA test looks at your DNA and matches it to what is currently in their Database, in order to see what ethnicities you most resemble. Those matching to Ashkenazi Jewish DNA are matching to what is found on the current Database of other Ashkenazi Jews who have submitted their DNA. There is no way to know if the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews specifically matches pre-desolation Hebrews, as there are no DNA samples of pre-desolation Hebrews in the database.

2.) Maternal haplogroups: There are 4 common haplogroups found in about half of Ashkenazi Jewish DNA in the database, that are rarely found in other Europeans. So whether you have 1 of these 4 haplogroups from the maternal line or not, doesn't really help us concretely. Not having one of the haplogroups may still mean you have Jewish ancestry, but also not having one may indicate Jewish ancestry. Considering a 2013 study performed by Martin Richards at the University of Haddersfield concluded that 65-80% of Ashkenazi mt-DNA on the maternal side is from European descent, it seems that the matrilineal line of Ashkenazi Jews is not the best test to determine if someone is descended from Jewish ancestry. Although interestingly enough, modern day Israel determines if someone is Jewish based on matrilineal line.

3.) Paternal haplogroups: several Y-chromosome haplogroups that are found more commonly in Ashkenazi Jewish DNA than among other Europeans. According to the website, this "Carrying one of these paternal lineages MAY indicate Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry". According to a study done in 2000 by Filon Nebel, 70% of Jewish men and 82% of Arab men had inherited the Y-chromosomes from the same paternal ancestor. The genetic studies cannot tell us who this paternal ancestor is. So, even as the website states, DNA tests "MAY" indicate Jewish Ancestry, but it's not concrete. The only concrete thing the paternal test can tell is near eastern descent.

So Again, 23andMe does not confirm that someone is without a doubt genetically related to pre-desolation Hebrews. It can only confirm that one's DNA 1.) matches other Ashkenazi Jewish DNA in the database, 2.) contains or does not contain 1 of the 4 haplogroups found in roughly half of Ashkenazi Jews on the maternal side and 3.) has ancestry associated the near east on the paternal side.

That should not be surprising to anyone (Dispensationalist or Preterist) since both Jews and Arabs are descendants of Abraham, but if the majority of Palestinians do happen to be of Jewish descent, then that would render their ambitions for a separate Palestinian state pointless and annihilate any credibility that it possesses.



Paul tells us that not all that are Abraham's children, according the flesh, are God's people. He adds it is children of the promise that are His people. Thus, it is through Isaac, and not Ishmael, that the offspring would be reckoned. It is not through Esau, but Jacob that God's plan of election would stand. And Even then, not all who descend from Israel are Israel.


Romans 11:6, 10-11 It is not as though God’s word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” Not only that, but Rebecca’s children were conceived by one man, our father Isaac. Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,


Now, let's apply Paul's logic to genetics. Paul states the offspring is not reckoned through all of Abraham's offspring (Ishmaelites or Edomites for example), but through Isaac and Jacob. That means that those that descended from Abraham, not through the line of Isaac and Jacob, are not through whom the offspring would be reckoned. So, although 82% of Arabs and 70% of Jews paternally (y chromosome) share a common ancestor, It is only through the line of Isaac and Jacob that the offspring is reckoned. So how do we know if modern day Jews and Arabs descended from specifically Isaac and Jacob without genealogical records? Who is to say that if Arabs descended from Jacob, then they shouldn't hold just as much claim to the land as the Jews, if in fact the conditional promises of the old covenant are still in effect?



So, if the conditional promises of the old covenant are still in effect, as you have argued, and belong solely to the natural born descendants of Abraham through the line of Isaac and Jacob, how do we determine who the land belongs to based solely on genetics, without any genealogical records or an Urim and Thumin?




Ancestry can already be proven genetically. What genealogical records would be helpful in is determining is what tribe each Jew is descended from which may not be sorted out until Christ returns unless genealogical records are discovered beforehand.


As for the religious standpoint, changes in tradition do not change the fact that the people of the Jewish state are still descendants of Abraham by blood. The Jews in the days of the first coming of Christ did not practice the religion of their pre-exile ancestors either. They were adhering to the religion of the Pharisees, but they were still children of Abraham.

While genealogical records played their role in the old covenant for things such as determining land inheritance (numbers 1,26) or priesthood service (ezra 2), etc...., under the new covenant, genealogical records do not matter.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless



1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.




For under the new covenant, Abraham is the father of many nations, both Jew and gentile. Anyone who is in Christ, regardless of race, tribe, or nationality, is Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise


Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.






What specifically did the Pharisees change about the law? I know they had oral traditions, which burdened the people with additional laws related to the 613 commands of moses, but did they actually change anything from the 613 laws of Moses? Modern Day Jews cannot follow the 613 laws of moses, for the tabernacle is no longer standing.



Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.



Matthew 23:3 The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach


There is a reason why God chose the location He did to establish Israel. We can only speculate as to what that reason was, but one interesting and noteworthy theory suggests that the land where the nation of Israel was established may have been where Eden, the land in which man was created, once was.

If that were true, not only would it make sense for Israel to be established and retained where they are, but it would also make sense for all that began there to end there. But again, it is just a theory

Right, I absolutely agree its only speculation.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Contenders Edge said:
The passages foretelling judgment upon Israel that you cited already came to pass and met their fulfillment when Judah was taken into exile by the Babylonians. Ezekiel is foretelling a regathering of a people who had been scattered and the people who had been scattered are the people of Israel and while I do agree that the promised land will be inherited by the righteous, the designated stewards of the land will predominantly be the Jewish people. Any Gentiles among them will have their share of the inheritance within which ever tribe they will happen be dwelling. (Ezek. 47:23)
Totally wrong interpretation of the Prophesies. You seem incapable of reading what is Written, other than to suit your preconceived beliefs.
Jeremiah 8:10...I shall give their [Judah's] lands to new owners. Was not fulfilled after the Babylonian exile, or after the Roman exile of 70-135 AD, as each time there remained some Jews and each time they returned to control Jerusalem.

I see that Claninja has it right in how the lost Northern tribes of Israel are mixed among the other nations, we cannot tell who they are now, but God knows. Amos 9:9
It will be them; now the Christian peoples who will be the new owners of the holy Land.
The Jewish remnant who join them, Jeremiah 50:4-5, will be so ashamed of their conduct that they will never again open their mouths. Ezekiel 16:63
I have been trying to get contender to post over on this other thread, but it appears he wants to keep playing dodge ball............

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

Note: if you post, please vote in the poll.......thanks

Being a Preterist non-Dispensationalist Futurist, I tend to agree with much/most of the site shown below.......

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Also see: Rapture refuted

Replacement Theology, supersessionism: Christians are God's Jews. The church is true Israel.

"Replacement theology" or "supersessionism" is the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

John Hagee and others who oppose "replacement theology" are rank false teachers whom apostle Paul condemns as "fallen from grace, severed from Christ". (Gal 4:10; 5:4; Rom 7:1-7; Jer 31:31 + Heb 8:6-13)

========================
TO BE CONTINUED


DO YOU AGREE WITH THE OP POST?
Edit
  1. *
    Yes
    3 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. No
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I don't know what REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY is
    1 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. I don't know what SUPERSESSIONISM IS
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Does it matter?
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other
    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
have answered this question earlier in this thread. You choose to ignore scriptures proving that the Christian peoples will inherit the holy Land. Ephesians 3:6, Romans 8:16-18, Romans 9:24-26 And Contenders Edge, grips onto the false idea that the Jews, despite 2000 years of Jesus rejection; are still God's Chosen, in direct contradiction of John 15:14-19, 1 Peter 2:9-10

Ephesians 3:6 does not specifically mention the present land of Israel as our inheritance
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:16-18 does not specifically mention the present land of Israel as our inheritance
Romans 8:16-18 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him. I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us.

Romans 9:24-26 does not specifically mention the present land of Israel as our inheritance.
Romans 9:24-26 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,” and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Those verses are your interpretation, which can be debated. Again looking for NT scripture that explicitly and clearly mentions land restoration as part of the new covenant. For example John 3:16 clearly and explicitly states that those who believe in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Can you provide an verses that clearly and specifically mention land restoration as part of the new covenant, and not your debatable interpretations of verses?

Daniel 7:25 He [the Anti-Christ] will wear down the holy ones of God. He will change the feasts and the religious laws. The Lord’s holy people will be delivered into his power for 3½ years.
[Those people, who stay in Beulah: Isaiah 62:1-5, will experience the Tribulation. Daniel 11:32, Revelation 12:17]

Daniel 11:21-22....a despicable man, not recognized as a king, will come unexpectedly and seize the kingdom by intrigue. He will sweep all opposition before him and will kill a leader of the covenant people.
[The leader of the One World Govt will conquer Beulah, Zechariah 14:1-2, inhabited by every faithful Christian, and will kill one of their leaders.]

Daniel 11:29-35 At the appointed time, he will again invade the South, but ships of Kittim will oppose him. As he retreats, he will vent his fury against the covenant people. He will reward those who forsake their covenant with God. Troops in his command will stop the regular offering and set up ‘the abomination that causes desolation’. With flattery, he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who are faithful to their God, will be resolute and take action.
Wise leaders of the nation will guide the people, though for a time, they will be taken captive and killed. Some help will come, albeit; not entirely sincere. Those leaders may become victims, so that they may be refined and purified, ready for the end of the age.
Daniel 12:3 The wise leaders, who have guided the people in the true path, will shine like stars, forever.

The Anti Christ invades some unidentified nations in Southern regions, but ships of Kittim, [Cyprus – in the Mediterranean, but this is a metaphor for the Western nations] will stop him. He will then occupy the Holy Land, taking control and causing many of God’s people to obey him. Those who hold firm to their Covenant with God will be persecuted and some killed. This is in order to refine and purify them, ready for the Return of Jesus.
Zechariah 14:1-2 A Day is coming for the Lord to act and the plunder taken from you will be shared out while you stand by. I shall gather all the nations to make war on Jerusalem, the city will be taken, the houses ransacked and the women raped. Half of the people will go into exile, but the rest will remain there. Daniel 9:27 &11:31-32

Verses 1 & 2 must refer to the midpoint of the 70th week. [A 7 year period] That commences the Great Tribulation, 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls. Then: from verse 3, the description is of the Return of Jesus, 1260 days later.

Revelation 13:5-10 The Beast, [Anti-Christ] was given permission to continue for 42 months. [3½ years] He blasphemed against God and waged war on God’s people and defeated them, he was given authority over the whole earth. You have ears, so hear!
Those who are destined for prison, will be imprisoned, those to be killed will be killed. This calls for the endurance and faithfulness of God’s people.


Revelation 12:13-14 The dragon [Satan: the Beast] is thrown down to earth. He pursues the Woman, [Israelites, Overcomers; the followers of Jesus] who gave birth to the male child. [Jesus] But she is given the wings of the mighty eagle, so that she could fly to a place in the wilderness, where she is looked after for 3½ years. Ref. REB, NIV. Verses abridged.

In Zechariah 14:2 it says that half of the population will go into exile, this obviously is the Woman: faithful Christian Israelites, referred to in Revelation 12:6-17, where they will be kept safe until the Return.
Then, in Matthew 24:31 – they will be gathered back into the Land, along with those Gentiles who have refused the mark of the Beast, to live with Christ for 1000 years.

The other half of the population who remain in the Land, will suffer under the yoke of the Anti-Christ. They are the Lord’s Christian people, who have to face testing and refinement. Daniel 11:32-33, Revelation 14:12, 2 Esdras 13:47-50, Revelation 7:14....they have passed through the great ordeal.... It is these people who will say to Jesus: “Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord”.


So, who are those living in the Land of Israel before and during the Tribulation?

They are the Lord’s people, all the true believers, mainly the Christian descendants of Jacob; all 12 tribes of Israel, gathered, in order to fulfil God’s promises to the Patriarchs, to be His witnesses and to be His Light to the nations. All of the Lord’s faithful Christian people will occupy all of the holy Land, from the Nile to the Euphrates, being the people that Gad always wanted there, but has never yet had.

It is quite evident, from Bible study, that the next prophesied event, the Sixth Seal, will cause a dramatic clearance of peoples from all the Middle East area. Jeremiah 10:18, Jeremiah 12:14, Zephaniah 1:14-18, Ezekiel 30:1-5, Amos 1 & Amos 2:1-5

In Ezekiel 20:34-38, we see the gathering of all the 12 tribes of Israel. The Lord will judge them and those who revolt and rebel will not enter the holy Land.
Then all His righteous people to emigrate there, as described in Isaiah 66:18b-21, Psalms 107, all faithful Christians, from every nation and language, to live there in peace and prosperity. Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, and Romans 9:24-26 says how the Christians become Sons of the Living God, in the very place that the ancient Israelites were rejected.

They will rebuild the Temple and reinstitute the Law and the ordinances. Zechariah 6:15, Ezekiel 43:1-12, Isaiah 56:1-8

All the rest of the world will be under a One World Government, initially ruled by 10 leaders, but soon to be taken over by another strong leader. He will rule until the Return of Jesus, when he will be chained up for the 1000 years.

This is all debatable interpretation. I am specifically looking for NT scripture that clearly and explicitly mentions land restoration as part of the new covenant.

For example, John 3:16 explicitly states that eternal life is given to those who believe in Jesus.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Are there any NT scriptures that clearly and explicitly mention land restoration for those in the new covenant?
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1 Peter 1:1 uses parepidemos, but when we look to the LXX, Leviticus 25:23 and 1 Chronicles 29:15 use parakois. The use of parakois in the LXX let's us know that the nation of Israel was to only live temporarily in the promise land as non citizens. Parepidemos doesn't seem to be found in the LXX OT, as least that I could find. However, your only argument was that Israel was never referred to as strangers, without specifying the "type" of stranger. However, we know Israel was in fact referred to as strangers in the OT.
I actually agree that "exile" is probably not the best translation of parepidemos. Peter applies "parepidemos" to those of the dispersion living in Asia. We know the Jews lived in the very areas that Peter was writing to.


If we really want to know how "stranger" was defined in the Old Testament passages cited, we need to consult the original language in which those scripture were originally written, not a secondary language. The Hebrew word for "stranger" is "geyer" which is be defined as guest foreigner, or sojourner.

As for the cited passage out of 1 Chronicles, "stranger" is applied in the sense that we are only on this present earth temporarily and that our everlasting home is in the world to come; It is also possible that "stranger" may be applied in the same manner in Leviticus 25:23 which appears to be the explanation for why God forbade the land to be sold. Out of any place in the world. The land in which Israel dwells is never to be given away or sold by its inhabitants.

The land may belong to the Jews to live in, but they are forbidden to give or sell it to any other people which is why any two-state solution will be destined to end in failure.

While there is no denying that there were Jews living in the places which were being addressed by Peter, if the strangers to whom Peter was writing were Jews living in exile, why not just call them such, just as James did? (Jas. 1:1)

As Asian minor was part of the roman empire, it would only make sense for Peter to call gentiles parepidemos in 1 of 2 cases: 1.) he knew the gentiles were not originally from Asia minor, or 2). he is using parepidemos the same way the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 11:13) applies it to Abraham and Sarah in regards to being strangers on earth.
However, in 1 peter 1:1, parepidemos is an adjective used to the describe the noun "diaspora"


# 1 is contextually more consistent.


As parepidemos is describing the "dispersion", which typically refers to Jews living among the nations in scripture, and Peter is a known as the apostle to the circumcised, it lends evidence that Peter is writing to a mainly Jewish audience. Although I would agree that this Jewish audience includes the gentiles.
If you perform a simple google search on who is peter's audience you will find that this is a highly debated topic. One I don't think we'll answer here. I think its safe to "cut the metaphorical baby in half" and say that Peter was writing to the body of Christ that consisted of Jews and gentiles.


You earlier admitted that "exile" was not the best translation of "parepidemos." Therefore, how can you now say that parepidemos is describing the dispersed Jews? The only conclusion that can reasonably be reached from a contextual standpoint is to conclude that Peter was writing to a people who were not native to the Roman empire nor were accepted as being either Jew or Gentile.

But the only hope there could possibly be in settling the debate on this matter is consulting history. Granted that Peter ministered predominantly to the Jews, he was also called upon to take the Gospel to Gentiles as well as is made evident in the book of Acts in chapter 10 and elsewhere throughout.


"Distinction of Church and nation of Israel is maintained". What I've learned from all this is that the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church, that is created by the doctrine of dispensationalism, is based on the belief that conditional promises of the old covenant are still in affect, even though the old covenant is declared obsolete by the NT. Your argument seems to be that because the NT does not declare the conditional promises of the old covenant as obsolete, then they are still in affect. This would be an argument from ignorance and is always a fallacy in informal logic.
To me there is definitely a distinction, but it differs from your statement: Those in Christ and those outside of Christ.


The distinction between the Church and Israel that is made by whom you call Dispensationalists, is that Israel is a nation with a people, a certain amount of land, and defined borders. The Church is an entity comprised of a multitude of different peoples from every existing, nation, tribe, kindred, tongue, and every walk of life that there is, which is why it transcends all barriers.

As I said before, it is not an argument from ignorance to claim all promises concerning Israel to still be in effect when not only is there no declaration of land restoration being canceled but when land restoration and the restoration of blessings which pertain to Israel have always served as evidence of being reconciled with their Maker. There is no reason to believe that the Apostle Paul believed otherwise (Rom. 11:12, 15) for if he believed the promises as pertaining to the nation of Israel were no longer in effect, he would have said so, but because he has not nor do any of the other New Testament scriptures declare such, neither can we.

Wherein lies the ignorance, is to declare promises canceled that the scriptures have not declared canceled. Though we may no longer be bound to or required to observe most of the 613 Mosaic commands, promises are a different matter. They cannot be canceled. They must be fulfilled, and not all things pertaining to Israel have yet been fulfilled and that which is yet to be fulfilled concerning them requires their presence as a people and nation in the land.


The argument that because the NT does not mention the cancellation of land restoration, then therefore land restoration must still be in affect, is an argument from ignorance. There is no way around that. If you would simply provide a scripture that provides clear and explicit mention of land restoration, and not a debatable interpretation, then you could prove your point. So far you have not done this.
Is land restoration a part of the old covenant? yes: Deuteronomy 30:1-5
The old covenant as a whole was made obsolete: Hebrews 8:13
New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins: Luke 5:37
Is land restoration a part of the new covenant? The new testament doesn't mention it, but if you believe it to be, just provide NT scripture that clearly and explicitly mentions land restoration.


And if you could provide from the NT scriptures that explicitly declares land restoration no longer an applicable promise, you yourself would be better able to prove your point and your point would also be served all the more by explaining how land restoration would conflict with the greater promises. As already mentioned, the ignorance lies in declaring canceled what has not been declared canceled.


Land restoration was fulfilled under the old covenant following the return from Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 29:10-14, Psalm 85:1). I would argue the purpose of land restoration was for the messiah to be born in the promise land under the law (galatians 4:4). By Christ being born in the promise land, conducting his ministry in the promise land, dying in the promise land, resurrecting in the promise land, ascending to heaven from the promise land, and sending the spirit in the promise land, He fulfilled everything written about Him in the law and the prophets and the psalms (matthew 5:18, Luke 24:44). For Israel had not returned to the promise land following the Babylonian exile, Christ could not have fulfilled what was written about him.


Though all things have been fulfilled concerning the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled, there are other things foretold that have not yet been fulfilled that require Israel to exist as a nation in their own land.


The writings of the prophets are visions, dreams, and parables as testified to by the OT scripture (numbers 12:6-8, hosea 12:10). When we turn to Ezekiel 37, which consists of vision/dreams/parables, we see that Israel would live in the land that their fathers were given forever and David would be their prince forever. It is then that God would make an everlasting covenant of peace with them and would make his dwelling amongst them. From NT scripture we know the land of Israel is not the hope, but the resurrection and inheriting the kingdom (acts 24:15, matthew 25:34, 2 timothy 4:18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:16).


But all the above, as it pertains to Israel, requires Israel to be recognizeably sovereign nation; which they presently are, which sets the stage for everything else to be fulfilled.


Similar to Amos 9, which is a vision/dream/parable. Amos 9:11-12 was declared as fulfilled in the 1st century (acts 15:14-18). Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven is the fulfillment of David's fallen booth being rebuilt and the gentiles coming to God.


The cited passages in Acts while declaring a fulfillment of some of the events in the cited passages of Amos, still said that before the tabernacle of David is restored, that God would call out people from the Gentiles to take for a people to Himself. This is historically consistent with that declaration but skeptics challenging the inerrancy of God's Word will point out inconsistencies between the cited passages of Amos and Acts which will find their resolution in other passages of scripture.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married


If we really want to know how "stranger" was defined in the Old Testament passages cited, we need to consult the original language in which those scripture were originally written, not a secondary language. The Hebrew word for "stranger" is "geyer" which is be defined as guest foreigner, or sojourner.

As for the cited passage out of 1 Chronicles, "stranger" is applied in the sense that we are only on this present earth temporarily and that our everlasting home is in the world to come; It is also possible that "stranger" may be applied in the same manner in Leviticus 25:23 which appears to be the explanation for why God forbade the land to be sold. Out of any place in the world. The land in which Israel dwells is never to be given away or sold by its inhabitants.

The land may belong to the Jews to live in, but they are forbidden to give or sell it to any other people which is why any two-state solution will be destined to end in failure.

While there is no denying that there were Jews living in the places which were being addressed by Peter, if the strangers to whom Peter was writing were Jews living in exile, why not just call them such, just as James did? (Jas. 1:1)




# 1 is contextually more consistent.





You earlier admitted that "exile" was not the best translation of "parepidemos." Therefore, how can you now say that parepidemos is describing the dispersed Jews? The only conclusion that can reasonably be reached from a contextual standpoint is to conclude that Peter was writing to a people who were not native to the Roman empire nor were accepted as being either Jew or Gentile.

But the only hope there could possibly be in settling the debate on this matter is consulting history. Granted that Peter ministered predominantly to the Jews, he was also called upon to take the Gospel to Gentiles as well as is made evident in the book of Acts in chapter 10 and elsewhere throughout.





The distinction between the Church and Israel that is made by whom you call Dispensationalists, is that Israel is a nation with a people, a certain amount of land, and defined borders. The Church is an entity comprised of a multitude of different peoples from every existing, nation, tribe, kindred, tongue, and every walk of life that there is, which is why it transcends all barriers.

As I said before, it is not an argument from ignorance to claim all promises concerning Israel to still be in effect when not only is there no declaration of land restoration being canceled but when land restoration and the restoration of blessings which pertain to Israel have always served as evidence of being reconciled with their Maker. There is no reason to believe that the Apostle Paul believed otherwise (Rom. 11:12, 15) for if he believed the promises as pertaining to the nation of Israel were no longer in effect, he would have said so, but because he has not nor do any of the other New Testament scriptures declare such, neither can we.

Wherein lies the ignorance, is to declare promises canceled that the scriptures have not declared canceled. Though we may no longer be bound to or required to observe most of the 613 Mosaic commands, promises are a different matter. They cannot be canceled. They must be fulfilled, and not all things pertaining to Israel have yet been fulfilled and that which is yet to be fulfilled concerning them requires their presence as a people and nation in the land.





And if you could provide from the NT scriptures that explicitly declares land restoration no longer an applicable promise, you yourself would be better able to prove your point and your point would also be served all the more by explaining how land restoration would conflict with the greater promises. As already mentioned, the ignorance lies in declaring canceled what has not been declared canceled.





Though all things have been fulfilled concerning the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled, there are other things foretold that have not yet been fulfilled that require Israel to exist as a nation in their own land.





But all the above, as it pertains to Israel, requires Israel to be recognizeably sovereign nation; which they presently are, which sets the stage for everything else to be fulfilled.





The cited passages in Acts while declaring a fulfillment of some of the events in the cited passages of Amos, still said that before the tabernacle of David is restored, that God would call out people from the Gentiles to take for a people to Himself. This is historically consistent with that declaration but skeptics challenging the inerrancy of God's Word will point out inconsistencies between the cited passages of Amos and Acts which will find their resolution in other passages of scripture.




Does anyone who converts to talmudism qualify as one of the nation of Israel?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: claninja
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we really want to know how "stranger" was defined in the Old Testament passages cited, we need to consult the original language in which those scripture were originally written, not a secondary language. The Hebrew word for "stranger" is "geyer" which is be defined as guest foreigner, or sojourner.

According to strongs it can mean stranger, thus, the Israelites have been referred to as strangers:

alien, sojourner, stranger
Or (fully) geyr (gare); from guwr; properly, a guest; by implication, a foreigner -- alien, sojourner, stranger.

The LXX gives us insight. The LXX does not translate geyer as parepidemos, but parakois. Thus the translaters of the LXX thought that emphasis on temporarily living in a land as a non citizen was an appropriate translation.

As for the cited passage out of 1 Chronicles, "stranger" is applied in the sense that we are only on this present earth temporarily and that our everlasting home is in the world to come; It is also possible that "stranger" may be applied in the same manner in Leviticus 25:23 which appears to be the explanation for why God forbade the land to be sold. Out of any place in the world. The land in which Israel dwells is never to be given away or sold by its inhabitants.

Exactly, because the land was not theirs, it was God's. They were temporary strangers or non citizens living on that land. Thus you can't permanently sell something that doesn't belong to you.

Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me

The land may belong to the Jews to live in, but they are forbidden to give or sell it to any other people which is why any two-state solution will be destined to end in failure.

The land belongs to God

Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me

And was ultimately promised to the singular offspring, who is Christ.

Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

While there is no denying that there were Jews living in the places which were being addressed by Peter, if the strangers to whom Peter was writing were Jews living in exile, why not just call them such, just as James did? (Jas. 1:1)

He mentioned the diaspora. In the NT the diaspora refers to the Israelites living among the gentiles. You are going to have to address why the diaspora does not refer to Israel in this case.

From strongs

lit: scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world


# 1 is contextually more consistent.

I would disagree. Contextually #1 doesn't really make sense. The diaspora is used in NT scripture of the Israelites among the greeks. Not of gentiles among gentiles. #2 might make more sense if you are trying to argue that the "strangers/exiles/sojourners" refers to gentiles

You earlier admitted that "exile" was not the best translation of "parepidemos." Therefore, how can you now say that parepidemos is describing the dispersed Jews? The only conclusion that can reasonably be reached from a contextual standpoint is to conclude that Peter was writing to a people who were not native to the Roman empire nor were accepted as being either Jew or Gentile.

Right, the Jews dispersed among the gentiles in the 1st century were not forced exiles. As Jews in the 1st century lived among the gentiles, but would return to Jerusalem for the required feasts. that's why I argue "exile" is not the best translation.

Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven

Parepidemos is used elsewhere in scripture (Hebrews 11:13) to describe Abraham as a "stranger" on earth. Thus the earth is the temporary dwelling of Abraham, and the heaven is his home.

Likewise Parepidemos is used in 1 Peter 1 to describe those living in the dispersion. The dispersion, in the NT, typically refers to Israelites living among the gentiles. Thus the dispersion is the temporary dwelling of Peter's audience.


But the only hope there could possibly be in settling the debate on this matter is consulting history. Granted that Peter ministered predominantly to the Jews, he was also called upon to take the Gospel to Gentiles as well as is made evident in the book of Acts in chapter 10 and elsewhere throughout.

And yet, much later than Acts 10, paul refers to peter as the apostle to the circumcised. Galatians 2:7

The distinction between the Church and Israel that is made by whom you call Dispensationalists, is that Israel is a nation with a people, a certain amount of land, and defined borders. The Church is an entity comprised of a multitude of different peoples from every existing, nation, tribe, kindred, tongue, and every walk of life that there is, which is why it transcends all barriers.

This separation is done by literally interpreting OT scripture without the context of the NT.

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

Who are the gentiles fellow heirs with?

You even acknowledged that gentiles are fellow heirs to the land and tribal status as stated in Ezekiel 37. So how can they be separate?


As I said before, it is not an argument from ignorance to claim all promises concerning Israel to still be in effect when not only is there no declaration of land restoration being canceled.

Incorrect. The argument you just made is known as an argument from ignorance.


There is no reason to believe that the Apostle Paul believed otherwise (Rom. 11:12, 15) for if he believed the promises as pertaining to the nation of Israel were no longer in effect, he would have said so, but because he has not nor do any of the other New Testament scriptures declare such, neither can we.

This assumes that your interpretation, biased on your eschatological position, of verse that does not even mention land restoration, is true.

Wherein lies the ignorance, is to declare promises canceled that the scriptures have not declared canceled.

that would be an argument from silence.

Though we may no longer be bound to or required to observe most of the 613 Mosaic commands, promises are a different matter. They cannot be canceled. They must be fulfilled,

Christ fulfilled them. He is the one to whom the promises of Abraham were spoke

There is no reason to believe that the Apostle Paul believed otherwise (Rom. 11:12, 15) for if he believed the promises as pertaining to the nation of Israel were no longer in effect, he would have said so, but because he has not nor do any of the other New Testament scriptures declare such, neither can we.

The NT declares the old covenant obsolete. Land restoration is part of the old covenant.

And if you could provide from the NT scriptures that explicitly declares land restoration no longer an applicable promise, you yourself would be better able to prove your point and your point would also be served all the more by explaining how land restoration would conflict with the greater promises. As already mentioned, the ignorance lies in declaring canceled what has not been declared canceled.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming the positive, not the negative.

In our case, you are stating a positive: land restoration is still in effect
I am stating a negative: land restoration is no longer in effect

Through your argument from ignorance you attempt to shift the burden to me, instead of simply supplying clear and explicit evidence for your positive assertion.


Though all things have been fulfilled concerning the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled, there are other things foretold that have not yet been fulfilled that require Israel to exist as a nation in their own land.

And since the scripture have been completed, who is to tell us when the unfilled things are actually fulfilled? There are 1,000 different interpretation by futurists on this website alone. How will we know which futurist interpretation will be correct?


But all the above, as it pertains to Israel, requires Israel to be recognizeably sovereign nation; which they presently are, which sets the stage for everything else to be fulfilled.

I would disagree.

matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


The cited passages in Acts while declaring a fulfillment of some of the events in the cited passages of Amos, still said that before the tabernacle of David is restored, that God would call out people from the Gentiles to take for a people to Himself. This is historically consistent with that declaration but skeptics challenging the inerrancy of God's Word will point out inconsistencies between the cited passages of Amos and Acts which will find their resolution in other passages of scripture.

According to Amos 9, the gentiles come to the Lord after the tent of David has been rebuilt. As Christ's resurrection fulfilled David having an offspring on the throne (acts 2:30-31), it stands that the tent of David was rebuilt by Christ's resurrection and ascension and thus the Gentiles began to seek the Lord.

Acts 15:16-17 “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins,and I will restore it that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Israel's fortunes were restore upon return from Babylonian exile (jeremiah 29:10-14, psalm 85:1) in the earthly picture, but wouldn't fully be restored until Christ died for the forgiveness of sins to set the captives truly free (the heavenly picture). Thus the NT reveals the heavenly truth of the earthly picture that was given to Ezekiel.


But because they had rejected their Messiah, Jacob's fortunes have not been fully restored--their rejection of Christ further causing a devastating setback for them. And they will not be fully restored until they finally do call upon the name of Jesus.



The OT prophecies are similar to Jesus' parables. Jesus used real world events (earthly pictures) to display a heavenly truth. Many of these earthly pictures contain prophecies, but their fulfillment is not necessarily fulfilled literally in the sense of the earthly picture. For example, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a fishing net that catches all kinds of fish, which are then separated, the good from the bad. The earthly picture of the net and fishing only paints a picture of what the kingdom is like, the kingdom is not literally a net catching fish. This parable also prophesies of a future separation of the good and the bad. This is fulfilled not in literal good and bad fish being separated, but in the resurrection of the just and unjust.



What the earthly pictures represent are explained to us and it is the fulfillment of the explanations that we are to look for.



We have already agreed that the NT declares parts of the 613 commands of Moses as fulfilled and no longer in place under the new covenant. But you would say it is heresy to declare what was made obsolete from the old covenant if the new covenant doesn't declare it as obsolete? The NT doesn't declare laws for skin diseases, laws for menstrual cycles, laws for nocturnal emission, laws against crossbreeding farm animals, laws for standing up in the presence of the elderly, etc....as obsolete. Does that mean those laws are still in affect and it would be heresy to state they are not? I disagree.

The NT declares the old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)
The NT declares the new covenant is not like the old covenant (Hebrews 8:9)
The NT declares the new covenant has better promises (Hebrews 8:6)
The NT is absent of any mention of land restoration.



Acts 15:5, 20 clearly implies that the laws regarding skin diseases, menstrual cycles, nocturnal emissions, standing up in the presence of the elderly and so forth were indeed made obsolete. If that were not the case, verse 10 would be meaningless, as would be a substantial amount of the New Testament. But the cancelation of land restoration as it pertains to Israel is not declared or implied anywhere.

But if the laws and ordinances of Moses which were declared no longer required to abide in, were not declared or even implied as being no longer required to abide in, we would still be abiding in them to this very day and to the best of our ability in order to please and honor our God because we would have no basis in scripture declaring them obsolete. But we can declare ourselves no longer bound by them because the scripture declares what laws and ordinances we are no longer bound to.

As for the crossbreeding of farm animals, this may go beyond just crossbreeding horses and donkeys or sheep and goats, but that is a discussion for another thread.


And peter applies exodus 19:6, which was about the nation of Israel, to his audience in the 1st century.


Which becomes the one thing that the nation of Israel and the Church share in common; the difference however being that we have attained the priesthood which we attain in Christ that Israel has not yet attainted because they have not yet come to Christ.


Just prove me wrong on my "insisting that the parable of the hidden treasure has no explanation" by providing scripture where Jesus explains the said parable to his audience. It's as simple as that. Stop deflecting and just simply post the verse to prove me wrong and I will concede.


To what is the treasure in the parable compared to? And does the man who finds the field with that priceless treasure sacrifice or not sacrifice all that he has for that which is far more valuable than everything he owns?

If you know the answers to those questions, perhaps you will begin to understand what the parable is teaching us.


And I would disagree with your conclusion.


When Jesus called Herod a "fox" did that make Herod a fox? When John the Baptist called the crowd before him a "generation of vipers" did that mean that the preceding generation had given birth to venomous snakes instead of men?

Of course not. Their behavior and character was simply being compared to that of the animals they were being called. In the same way, the behavior of the northern ten tribes was simply being compared to that of their pagan Gentile neighbors, but that did not change their lineage from an Israelite lineage to a Gentile lineage.


You have still not shown how my reasoning is incorrect. I'll break it down and maybe you can then show where my conclusion is off.


1.) Ephraim's descendants were prophesied to become a fullness of nations (genesis 48:19)

2.) Ephraim was mixing with the nations (hosea 7:8)


3.) Ephraim was divorced by God (jeremiah 3:8) and resettled among the Assyrian empire (2 kings 17:23)


4.) Ephraim became no longer God's people (hosea 1:9)


5.) However, God promised to one day call northern kingdom his people again and reunite with the southern kingdom under one head (hosea 1:10-11)


6.) Paul quotes hosea 1:10 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the nations with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:23-26).




My conclusion is that the divorced and scattered descendants of Ephraim/the northern kingdom who became no longer God's people were as the gentiles. Thus by God including the gentiles, of whom some descended from the divorced and scattered northern kingdom, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise from Hosea 1. This same conclusion is supported by several commentaries, and I have found no commentaries that oppose my conclusion.



Elliots commentary

The original of the prophecy in Hosea relates to the pardon and reconciliation promised to the apostate and idolatrous people of the northern kingdom. It is here typically and prophetically applied to the Gentiles. Those who had ceased to belong to the chosen people, and those who had never belonged to it, were to all intents and purposes in the same position.



Jamieson-Fausett

I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved—quoted, though not quite to the letter, from Ho 2:23, a passage relating immediately, not to the heathen, but to the kingdom of the ten tribes; but since they had sunk to the level of the heathen, who were "not God's people," and in that sense "not beloved," the apostle legitimately applies it to the heathen, as "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise



Vincent words studies

The exiled Israelites being mingled with the Gentiles, and forming one homogeneous mass with them, cannot be brought to God separately from them



It takes more than just a mere mixing with other peoples to complete the nations. In order for the prophecy concerning Ephraim to be fulfilled, nations would have to emerge who claim that lineage. So far no nation or people is known to trace their ancestry back to Ephraim and though two out of the three commentaries may agree with your conclusion, the Apostle Paul does not in the sense of calling the ten northern tribes of Israel Gentiles.


The divorced northern kingdom is not mentioned at all in the NT. Only Jew and gentile are mentioned in the NT. Paul applies the passage from hosea 1, which is about the northern kingdom, to the gentiles of the 1st century. Paul could only apply a passage about the northern kingdom to the gentiles, if in fact the northern kingdom had become as gentiles.


The ten northern tribes are not mentioned, it is because all the Israelites, regardless of what tribe they belong to are all called Jews. The distinction between the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom had been eliminated upon the end of the seventy year exile and just because the northern kingdom was compared to Gentiles, that did not make them Gentiles nor does it mean that Paul was calling them Gentiles.


I did and the scripture does not say IF Abraham is blameless THEN God will make a covenant.


Genesis 17:1-2 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty;a walk before me, and be blameless, and I shall make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”


It sure looks like faithful obedience is a condition of the Abrahamic covenant to me. If Abraham had not continued to be blameless, the Messiah would have been brought forth through another line.


Correct, according to the law of Moses one could only be a high priest according to the line of Aaron if there was patriarchal descent from Aaron. According to the book of Hebrews, the law changed as Christ is not from the line of Aaron, and is now our high priest forever.


But no one could ever serve as both King and Priest according to the law for the priestly line came by way of Levi whereas the kingship came through the line of Judah. Thus a change in the law was required in order for Christ to qualify for both. He qualified for the priesthood through Mary who had blood ties with the line of Aaron and qualified for the Kingship by descending from the line of Judah and David.

The change in the law was that Christ was made eligible for the priesthood through the Matriarchal line whereas before Christ, it was through the patriarchal line. Therefore, the change in the law made it possible for Christ to be eligible for the crown and for the priesthood whereas if there had been no change in the law, Christ could still be King, but He could not be priest and therefore might not have qualified as the perfect and sufficient sacrifice that He became.



Revelation 19:15 states the sword that comes from his mouth strikes the nations. That doesn't tell us what the sword actually is though. It tells us what is does, but not what it is.
However, I would argue that Hebrews tells us what the sword is: the gospel, the word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Thus I don't believe the sword in the mouth of Jesus is a literal sword. It would be pretty strange for a literal Jesus to come down from heaven riding on a horse, holding a sword in his mouth, and swinging his head around to cut down the nations. That is not how Jesus went into heaven. We are told Jesus would return the same way he ascended into heaven. Last time I checked Acts 1, Jesus didn't ascend into heaven on a horse with a sword in his mouth.



If you haven't found out what the sword is called in Revelation chapter 19, then you haven't been studying the chapter closely enough. As for the passage you cite from the book of Hebrews, though the Word of God is comparable to a two-edged sword, though much more powerful, it does not carry out the action of the sword from the mouth of Jesus in Revelation 19.

The Word of God which we preach does not kill people. The sword proceeding out of the mouth of our Lord does kill and literally kills. I say once more, birds do not feed off of symbolic corpses.
Jesus came to the earth in peace and He left in peace. The next time He returns, He will return to wage war and pronounce judgment. Therefore, if He comes back to make war, He will be bring with Him the instruments of war and horses did once serve as an instrument of war, still do on a limited scale, and will once again at the battle of Armageddon.



 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Which becomes the one thing that the nation of Israel and the Church share in common; the difference however being that we have attained the priesthood which we attain in Christ that Israel has not yet attainted because they have not yet come to Christ.

You are ignoring the "remnant" found in Romans 11:1-5, which agrees with Romans 9:27, and Romans 9:8.

.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:24-26 does not specifically mention the present land of Israel as our inheritance.
Actually it does. Romans 9:26 In the very place where they, [the ancient Israelites[ were called: Not My People, They, [the faithful Christian people, proved by verse 24] will be called the sons of the Living God.
The other NT references can be interpreted that we Christians will inherit the holy Land. But it is the OT, where we see many prophesies stating how the Lord's faithful people, who can only be Christians now, WILL occupy all of the holy Land, before Jesus Returns.
Ezekiel 36:1-38:
This is what the Lord says about the Land of Israel: Israel, the enemies have gloated over you and you were trampled down when you were occupied by other nations. I will speak to the Land, now plundered and despised by the surrounding nations.
In My burning zeal, I have spoken out against the rest of the nations, especially Edom, for with glee and malice they seized My Land as spoil. Therefore, because Israel has suffered the scorn of the nations, I swear that those nations will in turn suffer scorn.

But you, Land of Israel, bring forth your branches and yield your fruit for My people, [all true Christian believers], for their homecoming is near. See how I will look on you with favor, you will be fruitful. I shall settle on you many people - the whole 12 tribes of Israel, [plus those grafted in] the towns inhabited and the Land prosperous. My people, will live there again, never again to leave. No longer will they suffer the scorn of foreigners.

When ancient Israel was living in the Land, they defiled it by their idolatry. I sentenced them to exile around the world. But I have concern for My Holy Name, so you Israelites, it is not for your sake that I am acting – I shall show My Holiness through you and all the nations will know that I am the Lord.


I shall take you out of the world, gather you from every land and bring you back to your homeland. I will purify you of everything that defiles you. You will have a new heart and I will put My spirit within you and you will desire to only follow My Laws.

Then you will live in the Land that I had given to your forefathers. You will be My people and I will be your God. Having saved you from all that defiles you, I shall command the Land to be plentiful, trees will bear abundant fruit and the soil will produce heavy crops. Never again will you suffer famine. Isaiah 35:1-10, Ezekiel 34:11-31

You will recall your wicked conduct and evil deeds and will hate yourself for them. Feel the shame and disgrace of your old ways, people of Israel.

The Lord says: when I have cleansed you of all your wrongdoings, you will settle in the Land and the ruined places will be rebuilt. The Land will be ploughed and sown, no longer a devastation [after the Sixth Seal event] and rain will come in due season.

The nations still left around you will know that it is I, the Lord who has done this.

The Lord says; once again, I will let the Israelites pray to Me for help. They will become many, as flocks of sheep in the Land. As Jerusalem has flocks of sheep at festival time, so will the towns of Israel be filled with flocks of people.

Then: they will know that I am their God. MUST be before the Return of Jesus.
Ref: REB some verses condensed.



The prophet Ezekiel, who was commissioned to prophesy specifically to the House of Israel: Ezekiel 2:3, wrote chapter 36, giving the story of how God will, in His burning zeal, clear the evil neighbours, Jeremiah 12:14, out of all the holy Land. Then, His people, the Christian Israelites, Jew and from every nation and language, will gather and settle in the Land. many people; as described in Revelation 7:9
They will receive God’s Spirit and will live in the Land with great prosperity. This is in order for them to be a light to the nations and to prepare for the Return of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh Good, then we are in agreement that Jesus is currently sitting on David's throne, as David spoke about the resurrection of Christ when he knew God would put a descendant on his throne.


If David's throne is in Heaven, then Jesus is sitting on the throne of David, but if David's throne is not in Heaven, then it is awaiting the second coming of Christ and the throne that Christ is sitting upon at the right hand of the Father is not the throne of David. And if the throne of David is in Heaven, when was it taken there?


Right, you are using only the concordance which only provides the root word. It does not provide the inflections, which are actually found in the greek writing. In the actual greek of galatains 3:16 the singular inflection spermati is found.


Thus not all sources are always in agreement with one another when it comes to applying certain definitions which means the sources that provide only the root word were relying on manuscripts in which only the root word is found.


Second coming? Jesus stated that John the Baptist is the Elijah who was to come. It's been fulfilled (matthew 11:14).


Malachi. 4:5 foretells Elijah heralding the dreadful day of the Lord. The first coming of Christ was not the day of the Lord. John the Baptist is called the voice crying in the wilderness. (Is. 40:3)


So you believe the kingdom of God is still the size of a mustard seed?


The Kingdom of Heaven is expanding as Christ said it would, but the nation of Israel is not the Kingdom of Heaven. Their borders will expand as well and they too will eventually become part of the Kingdom.


this argument makes no sense. The world was not destroyed with the implementation of the new covenant. the land where the temple stood still exists as the world was not destroyed. Under the new covenant It no longer matters where we worship. Jerusalem is no longer the center of worship according to Jesus (john 4:21). The earthly Jerusalem served its purpose under the old covenant. According to Paul in Galatians 4:21-30, the earthly Jerusalem is tied to the old covenant and inherits nothing with those who are of the new covenant (heavenly Jerusalem). In fact Paul says to cast out the slave woman and her son (old covenant; earthly Jerusalem; and those under the old covenant). Earthly Jerusalem may exist, as the world has not been destroyed, but it isn't a part of the new covenant.


Jerusalem may not serve as the central place of worship, but it will be the center of Christ's coming reign upon the earth and it was Mount Sinai, the place from where the law was given that was given as an illustration of the Old Covenant, not Jerusalem.


Again, assuming your interpretation of a highly symbolic and apocalyptic book is correct.


The text suggests nothing otherwise.


My point was that those who are in covenant with God, are his people. Those not in covenant with God are not His people.

Strangers who sojourned with Israel and agreed to the old covenant were to be considered native born Israelites.
And those who decided to forsake the covenant became no longer God's people (hosea 1:9)


A jew is not defined by being a physical descendant Abraham. Ishmaelites were not Jews, Edomites were not Jews. (Romans 9:6). But Children of the promise are reckoned as being Jews.
According to Paul, a man is not a Jew because he is a descendant of Abraham only (outwardly), but is one Inwardly.
Gentiles who accept Christ are no longer gentiles. As we can see Paul declares those who are called uncircumcision "once gentiles" when they are brought to Christ.
Thus if someone was "once" a gentile prior to Christ, what would they be after coming to Christ?


The Gentiles living amongst the Israelites who embraced the Old Covenant were later known as proselytes; Gentiles who converted to Judaism. It was actually required of them to do so if they desired to live amongst God's people but that did not change their lineage and so while Jew and Gentile may have been one in faith, the genealogical distinction did not disappear.

A Jew, in the ethnic sense, is in fact defined by their bloodline which is not only of Abraham but also of Isaac and Jacob. Ishmael descended from Abraham but not from Isaac and Esau descended from Isaac but not from Jacob. But it is through their descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by which the Israelites are defined by blood.

But it takes more than being a Jew by blood to be saved which was the point that the Apostle Paul was trying to make when he said that not all are Israel which are of Israel. An Israelite by blood may be reckoned as a child of the promise by blood, but not of God if he does not follow the legacy of faith established in Abraham.

But we who are in Christ are made children of Abraham by adoption because we placed our trust in Christ for our salvation and to fulfill all the rest that is to come which He has in store for us, but the Church is only called Israel once and in the figurative sense so as to draw a contrast between the Israel by blood and the Israel of the Spirit, but other than that, the Church is never called Israel so as to maintain the distinction between Israel the nation and the Church which transcends all nations.

But it is in embracing the New Covenant that Israel will be saved from destruction.



The books of Kings are believed to have been written around or after the time of the Babylonian exile, so somewhere between 600 and 500 BC. The author of kings, mentions the northern kingdom remaining in Assyria "to this day". This would have been between 150 and 200 years after the Assyrian Exile (2-3 generations).


They may have remained in Assyria around the time that the books of the Kings were written, but what about the years after that?


I would argue because the land required it's sabbath rests. So God used the Babylonians to make sure the land would get its missed sabbath rest.


Then just as there was a reason why the people who remained in the land were not restored as an independent nation, there was also a reason why the few Christians in the land of Israel were not given sovereignty as a nation, not to mention that around the time that the post-exile Temple was destroyed, Christians were also being heavily persecuted and the last thing the Roman empire in that time would have allowed would be for Israel to be re-established as a sovereign nation under Christian rule.

What questions scripture itself may not answer, history may.


Interestingly enough the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing from 144,000.
Revelation 14:4 They have been redeemed from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

I would argue, using scripture to interpret scripture, the 144,000 of revelation are the first fruits of the 1st century, as James declares him and them so.
James 1:1, 18 To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.


Ephraim may have also been known as the tribe of Joseph at that time and no reason to think that this would not be a reasonable conclusion since Ephraim was a son of Joseph. As for Dan, there has been much speculation as to why he is not among the 144,000. He is not an extinct tribe; there is nothing in scripture to suggest that this would ever be the case, but in the book of Judges (chapters 17 and 18) it appears that the tribe of Dan may have been guilty of spreading idolatry throughout Israel when they should have stamped it out upon discovering it.

Could this be the reason why none of the 144,000 are chosen out of the tribe of Dan? It is possible since transgression does carry consequences which can last for generations to come.

But if we are to interpret scripture with scripture, James never refers to the twelve tribes scattered as the 144,000. The 144,000 described in the book of Revelation are called virgins who have not defiled themselves with women giving clear indication that they are all men. None of them are women.

This does not describe the Christians, even out of the twelve tribes of Israel in the first century since the early church was made up of both virgins and those who were not virgins, men and women, single and married.

In James 1:18, believers are called "a kind of first fruits" of God's creatures whereas in Revelation 14:4, the 144,000 are called "the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb" because they were "redeemed from among men" thus suggesting that they have been set aside for a special purpose at a specific time and until that time, remain unknown to history and this present world.

There is a difference between being called "a kind of first fruits" and being called "the first fruits."
But to be called "a kind first fruits" of all creatures tell us that redemption does not end with us, but is destined to be manifested in the rest of creation as well; thus the passage can be taken to say that redemption begins with man and is completed when the rest of creation is redeemed from the curse.

If that is the case, then anyone coming to Christ becomes a part of this first fruits. Since the curse began with man and extended to the rest of creation, so redemption must also begin with man and be completed with the redemption of creation.


We know the earthly temple was a copy of heavenly order. The most holy place being an earthly copy of heaven, where God's presence resides.
Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these

The author of Hebrews states, in relation to the high priest going into the most holy place once a year, that the way into the holy places is not yet open while the 1st tabernacle is having (present tense) a standing (often used in scripture in regards to sedition or dissension). The author even adds WHICH IS SYMBOLIC FOR THE PRESENT AGE

Hebrews 9:8-9 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first tabernacle is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).

We know Jesus went behind the curtain (heaven) as a forerunner for us. A forerunner is someone who arrives a place prior to others. Thus, Jesus arrived to heaven prior to us.
Hebrews 6:19-20 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.


Considering the book of Hebrews explains that the most holy place was only a copy of the heavenly realms, then it stands that we do have confidence to enter heaven by the blood of Christ. For he is the WAY, the truth and the life.
Hebrews 10:19-20 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body,


But did the Temple in the first century


Well this is another debatable topic that probably deserves its own thread. 30AD and 33AD are the 2 dates considered for Jesus crucifixion. There is evidence for both.

3 key dates

1.) Herod's death: 4BC or 1BC, and how hold was Jesus when Herod died?


2.) Tiberius reign: was the 15th year of Tiberius' reign in 26 or 29AD? Should the start of Tiberius' reign begin when he was co-regent with Augustus in 11AD or should it be when August died in 14AD?


3.) When did the census take place during Quirinius "governing"? Evidence suggests between 8 and 5BC:
Quirinius the Governor of Syria


Then you cannot state for certain that there was a forty year period between the ascension of Christ into Heaven and the destruction of the post-exile Temple in 70 A.D.


Right, where Israel failed at the exact same testing, Jesus fulfilled and even quotes the verses from the Deuteronomy.
So it's just a coincidence that Israel was tested in the wilderness for 40 years with the exact same temptations that Jesus faced in the wilderness for 40 days?


I would only go so far as to describe it as a contrast instead of a foreshadow.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
:sleep:

A much better thread for this discussion :idea:

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

The church is true Israel and Christians are God's true "Jews" today.

Introduction:
1. "Replacement theology" or "supersessionism" is what those who teach the Rapture call the apostolic doctrine that physical Israel was replaced by the Spiritual church and Jews by blood were replaced by Jews by faith.
2. Premillentialists are carnal at their foundational core. They literalize all the clearly spiritual passages that are applied to the church and instead apply them 2000 years later to modern Israel.
3. Jesus taught that God would take his blessings away from fleshly Israel who rejected him as Christ and give it to the Gentiles. Jesus clearly taught the Gentile believers would replace Jewish non-believers.
a. "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. " (Matthew 21:43)
b. The Jews who heard this understood what Rapture false teachers today refuse to see: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. " (Matthew 21:45)
4. The Bible clearly teaches that God's true Jews today are Christians:
a. "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. " (Romans 2:28-29)
b. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God [Christians]. " (Galatians 6:15-16)
c. "for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, " (Philippians 3:3)
5. Even the apostolic fathers of the first and second century believed and taught "replacement theology":
a. "Christians are the True Israel" (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXIII, 130 AD)
b. "As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begat us unto God, (like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David,) are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ" (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXIII, 130 AD)
c. "Christ is King of Israel, and Christians are the Israelitic Race. (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXXV, 130 AD)
d. "As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race." (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXXV, 130 AD)
e. "For all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in their hearts.' ... But though a man be a Scythian or a Persian, if he has the knowledge of God and of His Christ, and keeps the everlasting righteous decrees, he is circumcised with the good and useful circumcision, and is a friend of God, and God rejoices in his gifts and offerings." (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter XXVIII, 130 AD)...........................................
==========================
Continued..........

H. The allegory of Gal 4:21ff: Israel replace by Church

1. "Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND." And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN." So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. " (Galatians 4:21-31)

2. A simple reading of this text show that physical Israel
associated with physical Jerusalem were "cast out" like Hagar and called faithless people of the flesh and replaced by Christians who are associated with Sarah as people of faith.

3. This passage would come as a shock and insult to associate the national Jews with the descendants of Hagar as Israelites who are themselves the ancient ancestors of modern Arabs.

4. Paul calls the nation of Israel a lot of unbelieving, out of covenant, "cast out" Ishmaelite Arabs.

5. Unbelieving Jews are the likened unto the descendants of Ismael and Christians replace them as the true descendants of Sarah through faith, not flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree that Israel would never cease to be a nation.


For which permanent land restoration serves as evidence.


Just to name a couple:

Eternal life (john 3:16)
The kingdom (matthew 25:34)
The world, life, death, present future, all things (1 corinthians 3:21-23)

Living in Jerusalem would no more interfere with the promises of the new covenant, than living in America, Australia, Europe, Africa, ect....
For the time has come when it no longer matters location wise. (john 4:21)

But notice that none of the promises of the new covenant have nothing to do with land restoration. Which gospel tells us to preach land restoration?


What Gospel tell us that land restoration is no longer in effect for the people of Israel? Not the Gospel of eternal life. Not the Gospel of the Kingdom. Not the Gospel that preaches a new world to come where death and the curse are no more. Not the Gospel that preaches a God who is faithful in keeping His promises.

The question is how would land restoration run contrary to the Gospel?


I would disagree. Gentiles are "fellow heirs".
Additionally, didn't you agree that gentiles inherit the land as found in Ezekiel 47?

But they are not the predominant heirs. The Jews are the predominant heirs. The Gentile heirs will have their inheritance in whatever part of the earth God sees fit. The Gentiles who have their part of the inheritance among the Jews could be

1. Gentiles living amongst the Jews and had aligned themselves with them prior to the second coming of Christ.

2. Gentiles from nations that have either perished prior to the second coming or were not allowed to enter into the Kingdom because they had sided with Satan against Christ.

3. Or both.


Hearts remained uncircumcised? There was a remnant in the 1st century who belonged to Christ (romans 11:5). Many from Israel repented and came to Christ, Just read the book of Acts.
Cycle persisted? that is exactly why God did away with the old covenant (hebrews 8:6-13).

But the many who repented and came to Christ were still but a few out of the entire nation and the cycle of apostasy and reconciliation with God might have ceased if they had not rejected Christ and therefore will continue until they finally come to repentance as a nation.

It's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from silence. There is a difference.
An argument from silence is based on a writer's failure to mention a certain topic and is distinct from an argument from ignorance. As in my case, the NT is silent on land restoration and thus land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.
You are proposing a positive: land restoration is still in affect
I am proposing a negative: land restoration is not in affect
In arguments, the burden of proof is on the one proposing the positive. However, by using an argument of ignorance (because the NT doesn't mention the cancellation of restoration then land restoration is still in affect, which equals a negative proof), you attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me. This is a logical fallacy


In this case, the cancelation of land restoration was not mentioned, not because the authors of the New Testament forgot to declare it so but because the Holy Spirit who guided them in their writing did not declare it so and therefore did not lead them to declare it so. If He had declared it so, then the debate would be settled and Israel would not have the central role in the things to come that it will have.

What the Holy Spirit declared no longer in effect, is declared or implied in scripture to no longer be in effect. Arguments from silence are red herrings that prove nothing because they declare nothing. Arguments from silence have no basis because they present none.

What is most critical is not whether land restoration is explicitly mentioned in the New Testament but whether or not the foretelling and promises of land restoration is declared null and void by the New Testament and the New Testament declares no such cancelation.


Ironically, your dispensationalist argument also lacks a scripturally solid base to say that land restoration is still in affect, as there is not one clear mention of land restoration anywhere in the NT.
So we have the dispensationalist argument, that because the NT does not declare land restoration "cancelled", then it is still in affect. However, this is an argument from ignorance and is always a fallacy in informal logic.
And we have the Preterist/Amil argument, that because the NT declares the old covenant obsolete and there is no mention of land restoration, then land restoration is not a part of the new covenant. This is an argument from silence, which is not always a fallacy in informal logic unlike the argument from ignorance.


Actually, it does provide scripturally solid evidence suggesting that the promise land restoration has not been done away with and which has already been presented to you and which you have already rejected. But you offer nothing more than a baseless assumption for your Preterist argument and baseless assumptions settle nothing and convince no one of anything and that is all a so-called argument from silence does provide: Unprovable assumptions. That is where the ignorance lies: Thinking that a meritless assumption is able to present a case.

The only arguments that can present a case and a convincing case at that are arguments that are not arguments from silence.


I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic fulfillment". I believe the visions/dreams/parables have literal fulfillment. For example, in parable of the weeds, the weeds are separated from the wheat by the harvesters. The weeds are burned and the wheat is stored in the barn. I do not believe the fulfillment of this parable is found in literal weeds being pulled by farmers and thrown into the fire, nor literal wheat being put into a barn. I believe the fulfillment is found in the resurrection of the just and unjust.
Another example, in Malachi 4:5 , the vision/dream/parable states that Elijah will come before the great and awesome day of the Lord. I don't believe this fulfilled with a literal Elijah coming, as Jesus tells us, that this was fulfilled with John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus (Matthew 11:14).
Another example, In Jeremiah 31:15, the vision/dream/parable states that rachel weeps for her children. From Matthew 2:18, we know that this wasn't fulfilled with Rachel literally weeping, as she had been dead. Its fulfilled in herod killing the children under the age of 2.
This does not preclude that some characters in the visions/parables/dreams as being literal. For example, in the parable of the wedding feast, the king throws a wedding for His son. We know the King is God and the son is Christ.
Another example of this is zechariah 9:9, where it is claimed the the king comes to zion, riding on a donkey. Jesus literally fulfilled this by riding on a donkey (john 12:15).
So again, I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic fulfillment". I believe God spoke to the prophets in visions/parables/dreams as confirmed by scripture (numbers 12:6-8, hosea 12:10). Parts of these visions/dreams/parables are symbolic and other parts are literal. But the fulfillment is always literal.


What I mean by symbolic fulfillment is the attempt to allegorize a fulfillment rather than waiting upon a fulfillment to take place in the literal, following the letter of the prophecy. Even prophecies presented in symbolic form must be fulfilled according to the interpretation explaining the symbolism. Otherwise, it is not counted as a fulfillment.

All prophecies concerning Christ have come to pass exactly as foretold. Therefore what is left concerning Him that has not yet been fulfilled will also be fulfilled according to the prophecies given.

As for Malachi 4:5, it seems you have confused that with Isaiah 40:3 which foretells of a voice crying in the wilderness heralding the coming of the Lord. John the Baptist was the vessel by which this prophecy was fulfilled. He came upon the scene, preceding the ministry of Christ, preaching the Gospel of the coming Kingdom calling on people to repent.

Malachi 4:5 foretells the prophet Elijah heralding the great and dreadful day of the Lord. The day of the Lord does not describe the first coming of Christ. He did not come to bring judgment but salvation and redemption.

At His second coming, He will bring deliverance to the righteous but destruction to the wicked. The day of the Lord has always been understood to be a time of God's wrath and judgment.

As for Rachel, it was given as a title for the place in which the slaughter of the male children of two years and younger had taken place. Anyone at the time that prophecy was given would have known that and the writers of the Gospels knew that as well. In order to know what place was called Rachel, we would first have to find out what tribes descended from Rachel and what territory in the promised land they were assigned. That will tell us whereabouts in Israel the fulfillment of this prophecy took place.

Wouldn't that be the remnant present in the 1st century?

Romans 11:5 In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea only the remnant will be saved.


That remnant is still present with us since there are still Jews coming to Christ, but the greater part of Israel does not consist of them. It is when the entirety of Israel embraces Christ that we will witness the fulfillment of Zechariah 13:9, Romans 9:27, and 11:26.


They are not cancelled nor are they destroyed. They are fulfilled/brought to their completion in Christ, as the NT states:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.


But not all things foretold have yet met their fulfillment but because all things pertaining to the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled, we can be confident that everything else yet to come pertaining to Him and everything else will find their fulfillment in Him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Contender......
I have never seen anyone as entrenched in the "spider web" doctrine of Zionist Futurist Dispensationalism as you.....
This thread is like beating a dead horse..............


That is because there are participants that are as equally entrenched in Preterism of any given shade and are as equally committed to going the distance on this thread as I am. And just when you begin to think they've moved on, they come back with more rebuttals.


I invite you over and/or others to this thread and give your rebuttals to it.........

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE


It has been added to an ever growing list of threads I plan to visit and offer my two-cents.


THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

Christians are God's true "Jews" today, Israel is the church!

You believe in Replacement theology if…

Most churches teach replacement theology so this should be quite easy for you to see…

  1. …you believe the Bible when it says Christians are the true Jews today: Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. ", "for we [Christians] are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, " (Philippians 3:3)
  2. …you believe that Israel is the church: "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel [church] of God." (Galatians 6:15-16) The peace in this passage is for those who walk according to Christ so CANNOT refer to fleshly/physical Israel that utterly rejects Christ.
  3. …you believe Jews must believe in Jesus to be saved and are as lost as Muslims and atheists until they do. (Jn 3:16; Jn 14:6)
  4. …you believe the New Testament (second covenant) of Jesus Christ replaced the Old Testament (first covenant) Jer 31:31 + Heb 8:6-13
  5. …you believe that keeping both the First and Second covenants at the same time is like a woman married to two men at the same time (Romans 6:1-7)
  6. …you believe the body of the Christian is the temple that God dwells in today not some building made of stone, wood or curtains. (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20)
  7. …you believe the Saturday Sabbath was abolished and Christians worship on the first day of the week (Sunday).
  8. …you believe the calendar of 7 Jewish feasts are not to be kept by Christians: Passover (Pesach), Unleavened Bread (Chag Hamotzi), First Fruits (Yom habikkurim), Pentecost (Shavu'ot), Trumpets (Yom Teru'ah), Atonement (Yom Kippur), Tabernacles (Sukkot).
  9. …you believe that the entire law of Moses has been abrogated and replaced by the law of Christ and that if you want to keep just one part of the law of Moses, YOU MUST KEEP IT ALL!
  10. …if you believe that you do not need to be circumcised to be saved. Acts 15:1-3
  11. …if you believe there is no distinction in the mind of God towards all men: Jew or gentile, rich or poor, male or female (Gal 3:28-29)

    The church is true Israel and

    Christians are God's true "Jews" today.
    (Left: Jewish High Priest)


    1. Christians are the true Jews and true Israel today
    2. The church is God's Israel today.
    3. Physical Israel is equal to the gentiles today and like the Gentiles, must believe Jesus rose from the dead in order to be saved from punishment.


I am only going to answer what is the most relevant to this thread:

Paul only called the Church Israel in a figurative sense for the purpose of drawing a contrast between being a Jew by blood and a Jew in spirit in order to make clear to the Jews that it takes more than being a Jew by blood to be saved.

An Israelite by blood may be reckoned as a child of the promise by blood, but not of God if he does not follow the legacy of faith established in Abraham.

But we who are in Christ are made children of Abraham by adoption because we placed our trust in Christ for our salvation and to fulfill all the rest that is to come which He has in store for us, but the Church is only called Israel once and in the figurative sense so as to draw a contrast between the Israel by blood and the Israel of the Spirit, but other than that, the Church is never called Israel so as to maintain the distinction between Israel the nation and the Church which transcends all nations.

But it is in embracing the New Covenant that Israel will be saved from destruction. It should be worthy to note that other than for the purpose of drawing a contrast between the Jew by blood and the Jew in spirit, the Church is never called Israel which is a very strong indication that the Church never replaced the nation of Israel. In the cited passage from Galatians, there is no contextual evidence that Paul is calling the Israel of God the Church or the Church the Israel of God.

God made it very clear that He would never allow the nation of Israel to be destroyed or replaced. (Jer. 30:11, 31:35-37, 33:20-26, Mal. 3:6) and furthermore, He has said that a day would come in which they would be restored to their homeland permanently. (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:15)

And we can be confident that if God fulfills His promises to one group of people, we can rest all the more assured that all the promises we have in Christ will also be fulfilled. His integrity is tied to His delivering on all promises made from the least to the greatest.


2. Israel's 1948 nationhood is not the beginning of the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham!


No one ever said that it was the beginning of the fulfillment of the land promise but rather a fulfillment of restoration underway of which Ezekiel chapter 37 foretold.


4. Christ will never set foot on earth again!


Soundly refuted by Christ Himself.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Does anyone who converts to talmudism qualify as one of the nation of Israel?

That depends on what present Jewish tradition deems as a qualifier which is debated even amongst the Jews.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are ignoring the "remnant" found in Romans 11:1-5, which agrees with Romans 9:27, and Romans 9:8.

.


I am not ignoring the present remnant found in the cited passages but you are either failing to distinguish between the remnant out of the Jewish people who are presently coming to Christ and the coming salvation of the nation of Israel itself, of which there will only be a surviving remnant in that day, or are refusing to accept that there is a contextual distinction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That depends on what present Jewish tradition deems as a qualifier which is debated even amongst the Jews.

God's choice depends on what Jewish tradition deems?

Christ speaking to the scribes and Pharisees:

Mark 7
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You can be assured that God's conditions and criteria have nothing to do with what Jewish tradition deems.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.