Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".You are jousting with windmills. I’ve never held that the wall of partition in Ephesian 2:14 is still in effect. What I’ve been substantiating is that the gentiles are made fellow citizens through Christ and with the assistance of the elect biological descendants of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The prophets provide a progressive revelation of the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 through Christ and the assistance of Ephraim/Israel. This progressive revelation is suppressed by the presuppositions of supersessionism.
Quotes please.
Right. British Israelism (BI) is the only repository of truth.
Just a reminder: "Most Christians regard it as a cult."
Myself included.
The myths and falsifications of BI/RB/BS cultic racialism are legion.
There was no enmity between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. They were united in belief.
There was no enmity between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. They were united in unbelief.
There was enmity between believing Gentiles and Jews; and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews.
There was no other enmity, BI/RB/BS "interpretation by imagination" notwithstanding.
Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".
Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".
You are aware, though, that supersessionism, RT, is looked on as a great heresy by a great part of Christianity!
Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Your side-stepping that Ephesian 2:15 reveals as the law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between the gentiles and the descendants of Abraham, Israel. Circumcision discouraged the inclusion of the gentiles. Acts and Galatians testify that it was still a problem until the councils, through revelation, decided against it.
jgr said: ↑
The law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between those who were faithful and obedient to them, and those who were not.
Nothing to do with physical DNA.
No scripture discourages the inclusion of the Gentiles.
No RB or BS.
The lengths some supersessionist will go to maintain their false doctrines has no bounds. Even so, there are a significant number of supersessionist who published commentaries that agree with me that Ephesians 2:13-14 concerns the enmity between the “gentiles” and the “Jews”, due to the law contained in ordinances, the Mosaic Covenant. Rev. Joseph Benson, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, John Wesley, John Gill and Albert Barnes to name a few.
jgr said: ↑
Right. British Israelism (BI) is the only repository of truth.
Just a reminder: "Most Christians regard it as a cult."
Myself included.
The myths and falsifications of BI/RB/BS cultic racialism are legion.
There was no enmity between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. They were united in belief.
There was no enmity between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. They were united in unbelief.
There was enmity between believing Gentiles and Jews; and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews.
There was no other enmity, BI/RB/BS "interpretation by imagination" notwithstanding.
You are aware, though, that supersessionism, RT, is looked on as a great heresy by a great part of Christianity!
I would go so far as to consider Dispensationalism a form of Zionism...and it appears it is shunned by much of Christianity.....Unlike BI, RT is not considered a cult by any part of Christianity.
Christian Zionism is a movement to "usher in the end times".
I voted yes due to the simple fact that man has absolutely NO say in determining the will of GOD.
What I always find strange is the fact that they cant wait to see,or they promote the temples or temples being built ,that will have animal sacrifices.I guess they never read this.
Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
It may be rather funny to see something.Did they ever realize if they get this prefabricated temple they have up and running,that maybe nothing will happen.No antichrist may bother with it.
I think they are genetically trying to breed a red hiefer! Talk about a move of the flesh.
SummaScriptura said: ↑
If that's your definition of Zionism then, in addition to my being a chiliast, please count me among these heretics too. Along with the Apostles of the Lord.
2 Peter 3:11-13, Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
1 Corinthians 16:22, Come, O Lord!
It seems to me the Church is a movement to "usher in the end times".
Sorry my friend...my definition describes modern day heresy.
You are not a heretic mind you...but the ideal that you said you hold is actually heresy.
Hoping and Praying for Jesus' second coming is not heresy mind you.
You and I have posted on and off together for a long time, so I hope you take my words for what they are worth(not much in the long run) and don't get offended here.
Honestly support of Christian Zionism is unorthodox theology and is just wrong exegetically.
Also, the Apostles did NOT ever want to rush things by man made ideals to promote an idea that in essence show a controling of the will of GOD Almighty to make the end times come "sooner".
They prayed and hoped beyond hope that Jesus would come again in their lifetimes, and promoted that idea.
There is a big difference between that and what is transpiring now with the building of the 3rd temple, etc.
I still love ya though!
Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Let me ask you, is the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 idiomatic of walking after the flesh as we note in Romans 8:1 or the coincidence of birth as Replacement theology attempts to assert? And how do you interpret?
ebedmelech said: ↑
Well first...let me state your idea of "replacement theology" is a misnomer when it comes to me. Theologically no one replaced anyone. Christ came in the fullness of time...and just as John 1:11-13 says. Under the New Covenant those who come to Christ are children of God regardless of Jew or Gentile...there is no difference. Reference Ephesians 2:11-22.
Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Initially, Christ did not come for the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only later that the Gentiles are included through a revelation to Peter (Acts 10:10-`16, 35). And of course, a council had to be held to determine whether they were going to have the Gentiles convert to Judaism and decided against the Old Covenant ministration (Act 15). What we have, more accurately, was that the New Covenant was initially established with the biological descendants with the intent of inevitably gathering in the gentiles, which is precisely what the Old Testament prophecies. You might read both treads where I posted and see this is exactly what I’ve substantiated from both Testaments.
Hi ebedmelech.ebedmelech said: ↑
No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!
This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.
Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?
No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.
Open your eyes brother!
The 'rapture to heaven' of the Church believers bitterly hate what they call Replacement Theology.Yes, Dispensationalists either bring up the "R T" or "anti Semetism" cards to defend their doctrinal views.
What I stated was that, “the pejorative label of THT cannot be sustained by scripture,” not that THT cannot be sustained by scripture. Do you know what pejorative means?
ou’re side-stepping the significance that Paul was a literal descendant of Benjamin, one of the tribes of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is.”
The significance is that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally.
It substantiates he doesn’t have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to be spiritually perceived by God as one of the children of Ephraim, when Ephraim is the nation given the kingdom of God in Matthew 21:43.
It substantiates that Paul and the apostles are the spiritual children of the barren and desolate women, Ephraim, in Isaiah 54.
Once one concedes that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally it demolished any argument that the “Jerusalem which is above” cannot be Ephraim because Paul was a literal Benjamite.
Your assessment of supersessionism is incomplete. The comprehensive definition of supersessionism maintains that Israel was a chosen people and that their failure to avow Christ ended this relationship,
which was superseded by the church.
THT exposes supersessionism as a fallacious doctrine.
You unavoidably promoted supersessionism when you wrote: “the nation of Israel was removed from the land by Assyria and Babylon based on the conditional promises of the old covenant. So how do we reconcile that with the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his seed? His seed is singular: Jesus.”
As to your insistence the timing of Isaiah 54, there is nothing to “sing” about if the object of the text is the continuation of this barren and desolate “state”; the singing conveys the state is at an end, at a future time from when Isaiah wrote. This affirms the chapter is a prophecy of the future when Christ reestablishes the covenant relationship with the nation of Ephraim under the New Covenant.
Isaiah 60 substantiates that Ephraim/Israel “inherits” the gentiles. “Inherit" is from the Hebrew: H3423 יָרֵשׁ יָרַשׁ (yārēš yāraš) 1.) to seize, dispossess, take possession of, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir. Isaiah 60 substantiates that the gentiles who afflict Israel/Zion shall “bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” which substantiates that the gentiles that are not converted are seized, dispossessed, taken possession of, occupied and etc. and etc. By definition, Zion inherits the gentiles in Isaiah 60 and other texts in the said book.
The nonsense continues in how you avoid the entirety of Romans 11. Like how the Gentile and Jewish believers are grafted in as ONE olive tree. How is it you leave that out Jerry? It's because it refutes your viewpoint thoroughly.I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.... For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:1-2, 29
Well, when I come across what is in my opinion nonsense I don't even comment. I am usually compelled to comment on those posts that I deem worthy of my attention.
I thought pejorative labels were ok, as you continue to insist that I believe RT theology, even though I stated multiple times I don't believe the church replaced Israel.
Have I not acknowledged multiple times that Paul is biologically from the kingdom of Judah?
Bingo
It substantiates that race no longer matters for children of God through Christ under the new covenant.
Yup, that's the argument I have been making the whole time. Jews, Gentiles, Ephraimites, etc..... are all spiritual children of the desolate woman through Jesus Christ under the new covenant.
Did we ever disagree that the desolate woman was ephraim?
Those of Israel who rejected Christ were broken off.
Romans 11:20 That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith.
The gentiles were grafted in, replacing, the unfaithul natural branches that were broken off.
Romans 11:17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root,
The church did not "replace" Israel. Gentiles were grafted in to faithful Israel to become fellow heirs through Christ. Anyone who teaches the church "replaced" Israel teaches a false doctrine.
how so? Do you believe the New covenant superseded the old covenant?
How do I promote supersessionism if Jesus was always the heir to the promises of Abraham, AS PAUL TEACHES. How can Jesus supersede himself?
I believe Jesus was always the intended heir to the unconditional promises of Abraham. I believe Israel was given conditional promises through the old covenant, Israel failed because of sin and disobedience to maintain their end of the covenant. Thus God did away with the old covenant, because he found fault in his people. God then enacted the new covenant through his son, to whom all the promises of Abraham were intended. Jesus fulfilled the law, so that all those in him are no longer bound to it. The new covenant is built upon better promises. The new covenant superseded the old covenant.
Do you believe the old covenant still exists along side the new covenant?
This doesn't answer my question. When did Ephraim become desolate? Was it during the time of Isaiah when Assyria sent them into exile or was it still future to the time of Isaiah?
How does this surmount my argument that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?
Psalm 2:7-8 will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son;today I have become Your Father.b Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession.
Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are Your inheritance.
The nonsense continues in how you avoid the entirety of Romans 11. Like how the Gentile and Jewish believers are grafted in as ONE olive tree. How is it you leave that out Jerry? It's because it refutes your viewpoint thoroughly.
Paul goes into great detail in the scriptures to make the point that there is no difference, while you labor to say there is a difference.
The point is Jewish and Gentile believers are the "Israel of God" Paul says it this way in summation at Romans 2:28, 29:
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 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.
Members of a theological disposition that is heretical accusing others from another theology as a cult does not inspire confidence in the former but hypocrisy.Unlike BI, RT is not considered a cult by any part of Christianity.
So when are you going to do that?One must relinquish their supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend Romans 11.
No. The Olive tree doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to God! Furthermore the point is, the Olive tree was Israel, who lost it through breaking the Old Covenant which was between them and God...they were God's chosen people. Jesus appears and Israel rejects their messiah, who then institutes a New Covenant. Once again you demonstrate your inability to accurately comprehend scripture. What do you do with Paul's clear points that Israel failed?...particularly:Unless they do they miss the point that the gentiles shouldn't boast against the natural branches. They are made one on the olive tree, but the olive tree belongs to Israel, the biological descendants. Gentiles are grafted onto Israel, not the other way around. The gentiles are blessed by the biological descendants of Abraham, not the other way around (Genesis 22:18).
Members of a theological disposition that is heretical accusing others from another theology as a cult does not inspire confidence in the former but hypocrisy.
The gentiles are blessed by the biological descendants of Abraham
The Israel that failed were those who God had not chosen to begin with.
The kingdom was promised to the elect, it was never promised to those destined to be cast off and to remain in that condition.
The intent was to restore the kingdom to the elect biological descendants under the New Covenant
and the nation Ephraim would be the mother, Zion, by which this was to be accomplished.
This is substantiated by Hebrews 12:22-24. Zechariah 10:7-10, Isaiah 49 as well as many other OT texts affirm this, which you conceded by acknowledging Ephraim’s part in the great commission.
The elect of Ephraim represent the nation; they are
regrafted onto their own tree, affirmed in Romans 11.
The promises and prophecies in the OT to Israel belong to the elect descendant of Judah and Ephraim, albeit Ephriam in given the kingdom in Matthew 21:43.
You’ve challenged me to show scriptural evidence that Ephraim/Zion inherits the gentiles, but you must relinquish your supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend the evidence
I gave you the Hebraic meaning of the word “inherit” and it fits perfectly with the recalcitrant gentiles bowing down to Zion in Isaiah above.
supersessionalist’s presuppositions would allow you to see that the promises of the kingdom to Israel were only to the elect and that’s why Israel didn’t fail; the kingdom was never promised to the branches that were to be cast off. This is the reason Paul declared that when Christ returns all Israel will be saved.
So when are you going to do that?
No. The Olive tree doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to God! Furthermore the point is, the Olive tree was Israel, who lost it through breaking the Old Covenant which was between them and God...they were God's chosen people. Jesus appears and Israel rejects their messiah, who then institutes a New Covenant. Once again you demonstrate your inability to accurately comprehend scripture. What do you do with Paul's clear points that Israel failed?...particularly:
Romans 9:24-26
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25 As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
Then Romans 9:27-33
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;
28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”
29 And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
You simply can't see it through the convoluted theology you tout. If you stay with Paul, and not your theology it comes through clear as day.
Holding the gentiles superseded the natural descendants is the true anti-Semitism.A racialized cult of RB masquerading as a theology is the epitome of risibility.
You won't find that in any Bible.
But you will find that the Gentiles are blessed by the biological descendant of Abraham.
Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?