• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured Replacement Theology Refuted

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Jerryhuerta, Mar 23, 2019.

  1. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I'm sorry but you do make yourself a mystery.
     
  2. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    As I asked but you did not answer, It appears you were unable to show where I backpedaled. Does this mean you understand my position a little better? I sure hope so......

    It also supports the preterist position and amil position, which is that exiled Ephraim became as gentiles through their divorce from God, thus becoming not His people and God not their God. Therefore, by God including gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the jews in the vessels of mercy, He fulfills His promises to Ephraim.

    This is substantiated by Romans 9:24, where Paul has hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy.


    Romans 9:24 surmounts your argument that there is a distinction between gentiles and Ephraim.


    1.) Ephraim became gentiles through their divorce from God
    2.) By God including gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, He fulfills his promises to Ephraim.



    Please show where I stated it was gentile non-descendants of Ephraim coming into the body of Christ under the new covenant that fulfills Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23 to substantiate your claim that my belief is contradictory and/or altering.

    Is it through the old covenant or new covenant that Ephraim has more children than Judah?

    As I have stated multiple times before, the only part of suppersessionism I agree with is that the new covenant superseded the old covenant. I do not agree that the church superseded Israel.


    It's transparent that you continue to avoid discussing Romans 9:24 which addresses hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the gentiles

    Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12 with the gentiles praising God. But you say its not fulfilled. I'll stick with Paul. Does that mean you don't believe gentiles have yet put their hope in God?


    And this comment reveals your lack of understanding of what I believe. I do not hold to the entire doctrine of supersessionsism, as I have stated multiple times. I only agree that the new covenant superseded the old covenant.


    Maybe if one holds to the entire doctrine of supersessionism. But I do not.

    It's transparent you continue to ignore Romans 9:24, which has hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles, which substantiates my claim that Ephraim became gentiles through their divorce and exile.


    You sure do like sesquipedalianism

    I agreed that Peter's intention is to address the descendants of Ephraim, but this does not address the question I asked.

    Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built in is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles as stated in 1 Peter 2:5?

    This ignores verse 23

    Romans 11:23-24 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

    The "you" in verse 11:23-24 is the gentiles
    Romans 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles

    The "they" in verse 11:23-24 is the jews.
    Romans 11:14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

    it is the unbelieving Jews that were cut off while the believing gentiles were grafted in. If the Jews do not continue in unbelief, God can graft them back in.

    Paul makes no mention of Ephraim or the northern kingdom. Nor is there any clear differentiation between gentiles and Ephraim. You appear to add that.


    you could have just said yes, you believe satan has 2 different short seasons in different ages.

    Yes. I believe the millennium is the fulfillment of Christ sitting on the throne in heaven at his ascension. It was 1000 years between the time of David and Christ. Thus, Christ ascending to the throne fulfills david "never lacking a man to sit on the throne".

    I read revelation as a series of parallel visions that reflect different perspectives on the same event.


    How do you know it ends the day for a year determination?

    Not following you here Jerry.

    The day of atonement involves BOTH atonement for sin and the sanctuary


    Leviticus 16:20 And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat

    Leviticus 16:34 And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.”

    The author of Hebrews mentions BOTH the atoning of the heavenly things with Christ's death and the putting away of sin by Christ's death.

    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

    Hebrews 9:25-26 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice[/QUOTE]
     
  3. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    As do most on this website who do not use their full names as their username. But a hint, you can select male or female when creating a profile. Notice my profile stock image is male, and not female. If one selects female, their stock image will be female.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2019
  4. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Oh, I understand your position; it appears you don’t and that’s why you don’t see that you’re backpedaling.

    Right here you backpedal. You state that God fulfills his promises to Ephraim but then backpedal on those promises by asserting Paul takes the promises to Ephraim in Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 and applies them to the gentiles in Romans 9:25-26. The salvation of the gentiles wasn’t promised through Hosea 1:10 and 2:23—Ephraim’s was. There are a number of OT texts that pertain to the salvation to the gentiles, but Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 aren’t included in that number.

    You apparently don’t see that your obfuscating the definitions of “gentile” and “Ephraimite” that makes language a farce. From the perspective of the first advent, Ephraim was at one time the “nation of God;” the gentiles weren’t. From the perspective of the first advent, Ephraim was at one time “married to God;” the gentiles weren’t. You think by repeating a fallacy over and over again you can make it true.

    It is true that the lost tribes became distant in that blood line by their intermarriage with those who were not so biologically disposed, the gentiles, but to say they became gentiles backpedals on your concessions that: “It's a simple fact that some people in Paul's society had descended from Ephraim and some had not.” By stating that Paul applies Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 to the gentiles you’re alleging that at one time the gentiles were the “nation of God,” which they weren’t and that at one time they were “married to God,” which they weren’t.

    Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 prophecy the future restoration of the descendants of Ephraim, not salvation being extended to the gentiles. There are a number of OT texts that pertain to salvation being extended to the gentiles, but Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 aren’t included in that number. Your doctrines pervasively dismiss all context in order to diminish the prophecies that Ephraim, as a nation, finds mercy while in exile at the first advent, which is what you conceded at the onset of our debate that Zechariah 10:8-9seems to be a gathering in Christ and a sowing of the great commission.” Such a concession substantiates Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard in Matthew 21:43. You’ve been backpedaling from that point on.

    Choose between supersessionism or THT; you can’t straddle the fence and expect credibility with either.

    Where does Paul write Isaiah 11:10 is fulfilled in Romans 15:12? He doesn’t! You're making that up. Paul is merely citing OT passages about the future inclusion of the gentiles, some of which were inaugurated at the first advent and some are to be consummated as the second.

    Strawman argument. THT does not preclude the NT affirmation of the inclusion of the gentiles as fellow heirs to salvation and the land, according to the promises to Abraham. (Being fellow heirs of heaven is another erroneous doctrine of supersessionism.) This does not preclude the fulfillment of the OT scriptures that pertain to the gentiles as distinguished from those that pertain to the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Supersessionism obfuscates the distinction to maintain that the nation of Israel was rejected by God at the first advent. By your continued rejection of said distinction, you prove to be a supersessionist through and through and actually promote that the “nation” of Israel was rejected at the first advent. Only maintaining that distinction in the OT properly renders the gifts and calling to the people that God foreknew as being without repentance (Romans 11:29).


    This is poor exegesis.

    The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal. Jeremiah 11:16-17

    Paul didn’t just make up the illustration of the olive tree nor did it just pertain to Judah but Ephraim/Israel also. One of the ploys of supersessionism is to argue from silence, which is another fallacy. This is particularly pertinent when it comes to Biblical doctrine because the prophets were not inspired to foretell what was to occur in any full and linear narration but were given bits and pieces of the future that was to be supplemented by other prophets who were given to see forward in the same manner. That is why doctrine must be determined by “precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10). You and your proponents have continually argued from silence, such as the issue Ephraim is not mentioned by name in Matthew 21:43, which informs me how poor their methods are in interpreting doctrine.

    I have found that the book of Revelation is divided/folded in two parallel parts. Chapter 1-11 prophecies from the first advent until the last trumpet and the millennial kingdom. Then John recaps the same time from chapter 12 until the millennium in chapter 20. This is what I vindicate in my book, unlike the traditional historicist. Revelation 20:3 clearly states that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations while chapter 13:1-8 substantiates the dragon, which is Satan (Revelation 20:2), gives the beast from the sea his seat and authority to make war with the saints “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations,” which clearly cannot be reconciled to being bound from deceiving the nations without making a farce of language. If one avoids such a farce in language then Revelation 12-13 represents this age and chapter 20 the next. Your doctrine continues to make a farce of language to uphold excessively breaking the linear narration in the book of Revelation.


    By “precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).


    You neglected to note that the atonement on Yom Kippur was for “the people of Israel,” the corporate body. Any Israelite that did not afflict their soul on that oblation were “cut off” from the congregation (Leviticus 23:29). The “daily” offerings were for individual sin. Hebrews 10:18 affirms the atonement for individual sin was accomplished at the first advent. Matthew 7:22-23, 13:37-43, 24:29-31; Romans 2:8-9; Revelation 18:1-5, 19:1-8 substantiate that the former, the judgment of the body of the congregation, does not occur until Christ returns.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  5. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As I said, I apologize for the mistake.
     
  6. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    Your response shows that you clearly don't.

    I have not reversed my opinion. I have maintained the same belief this entire time. Please show where I reversed by my belief to show that you understand the definition of backpedalling.

    Backpedal definition: reverse one's previous action or opinion.

    Right here shows your misunderstanding of my belief. You correctly assert that I believe God fulfills his promises to Ephraim. However, you then incorrectly assert that my belief involves Paul taking the promises of Ephraim in Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 and applying them to those who DID NOT descend from Ephraim, but instead to descendants of Greeks, Romans, Persians, Edomites, Cushites, Scythians, Barbarians, etc.......)

    This is not what I believe at all. So your assertion is incorrect.



    "gentile" nations not in covenant with God

    "Ephraimite" descendants of Jacob who were in covenant with God, but were later divorced and removed from covenant with God.


    It in fact does not backpedal on my agreement that there were descendents (700 years later) of Ephraim living in Paul's society. There were descendants of shem, ham, and Japheth living in Paul's society, so I'm not following your argument.

    My belief is that when God divorced the northern kingdom (Jeremiah 3:8) he removed them from the status of being God's people (hosea 1:9), Thus they were no different than the surrounding nations whom they were scattered to, regardless if they intermingled or not.

    Thus by God including the nations, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise to the descendants of Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23.

    Please explain why you are ignoring romans 9:24.


    More proof of your misunderstanding of my position. I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim. Hence, I have stated multiple times now, that God fulfills his promise to Ephraim in hosea 1:10 and 2:23 by including the gentiles, specifically of those who descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy.

    maybe and earthly picture can you help you understand:


    You tell me you are going fishing for tuna. You have a boat and drag a net behind the boat. This net catches all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, wahoo, AND TUNA. Did you fulfill the first statement of catching tuna, even though you caught many other kinds of fish? YES

    You tell me you are going fishing for tuna. You have a boat and drag a net behind the boat. This net catches all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, and wahoo. Did you fulfill the first statement of catching tuna, even though you caught many other kinds of fish? NO

    You continue to avoid Romans 9:24......



    Paul has hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in the vessels of mercy. You have still yet to address Romans 9:24, which surmounts your argument and substantiates my belief that the descendants of Ephraim were as gentiles after their divorce from God.

    You are allowed to have that subjective opinion.


    So Paul is just randomly quoting verses that have nothing to do with the gentiles praising God in the 1st century? The gentile did have not yet put their hope in Jesus?

    Inaugurated? So do you agree or disagree that Isaiah 11:10 was inaugurated at the 1st advent?


    Strawman? I wasn't making an argument. I asked a question.


    So I'll ask again: Do you believe the spiritual house that the descendants of Ephraim are being built in is separate or 1 with jews and other gentiles as stated in 1 Peter 2:5?

    I would probably actually agree a lot with you here.

    I don't believe all Israel is Israel.

    Ah, so you don't believe all of what traditional historicists believe. You're straddling the fence I see....I thought you said that impacts credibility?

    no scripture is of private interpretation. if the 1260 days are years, scripture would say so, otherwise it's just speculation.

    I thought that was assumed, just as the cross was for the entire body of Christ.

    Israel was to be "cut off" from the people for a lot of things (Leviticus 7:20, Leviticus 17:4, Leviticus 18:29, etc.....), not just for disobeying the day of atonement. So I'm not following your argument.

    I agree. What does this have to do with Hebrews 9 which mentions the day of atonement.

    I agree. Again, what does the return of Christ have to do with the high priest entering the presence of God once a year to put away sin?
     
  7. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    no worries jerry
     
  8. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Here you say that Ephraimites, were “no different than the surrounding nations” and in the very next comment you say “some descended from Ephraim,” which is a concession there WAS a difference between Ephraim and the surrounding nations. This is where you attempt to backpedal because it makes no sense; it is contradictory. But if you want to live by contradictions that is your prerogative but I won’t have them in my doctrines.

    You state: “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim.” There is only one other alternative and that is Paul cited Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26 as being fulfilled in the elect descendants of Ephraim, as a nation. As I stated, there are a number of OT texts that pertain to the salvation to the gentiles, but Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 aren’t included in that number. Just as there OT passages that pertain to the salvation of the gentiles there are NT texts that do so like Romans 9:24 and 9:30, but Romans 9:25-26 pertains to Ephraim’s reinstatement as the nation of God that bears the fruit of the vineyard.

    In the context in question, Paul cites four passages from the OT concerning the gentiles, the first three were fulfilled at the first advent, while the fourth is fulfilled at Christ’s return. There is nothing in the language of the context that sustains all passages were to be fulfilled at the first advent; you're adding a notion that simply isn’t there.

    Your query is an implication that THT separates the BOC; it’s a strawman argument. Christ made the gentiles fellow heirs with Ephraim but this doesn’t preclude the fulfillment of the OT scriptures that pertain to the gentiles as distinguished from those that pertain to the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What don’t you comprehend about this distinction?

    Progressive historicists have been around since it’s beginning, of which I’m one. Progressive revelation accounts for progressive historicists.

    God prophesied to his people using the principle: Numbers 14:33-34; Ezekiel 4:5-6; Daniel 9:24-27.

    What don’t you comprehend about the distinction between the “daily” atonement for the individual and the “yearly” atonement for the sanctuary? If there was no distinction why were they separated by seven months? Why was the former performed “daily” for the individual and the other only once a year for all the people if there was no difference? There are numerous differences that separated the two oblations so tell us why supersessionism conflates them as if there was no difference?
     
  9. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    Correct.

    I view "gentiles" as the nations that aren't in a covenantal relationship with God.

    I view "Israel" as a nation that is in a covenantal relationship with God.

    When Ephraim was divorced from God (jeremiah 3:8) and became no longer his people (hosea 1:9) due to their disobedience, they became excluded from the covenantal relationship with God, and thus they were no different than the surrounding nations in relation to God.


    Correct. Unless God completely wiped out every single Ephraimite with the Assyrian exile, there would be descendants of Ephraim, just as there were descendants of shem, ham, and Japheth living during Paul's time.

    As Ephraim was divorced by God, being a descendant of the kingdom of Ephraim was no different than being a descendant of Babylon, Greece, Persia, Cush, etc.....in relationship to God.

    While being a descendant of the kingdom of Judah, who remained married to God, was different than being a descendant of Babylon, Greece, Persia, Cush, etc.....


    Those who had descended from Ephraim 700 years later (from the time of the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent) may still have had similar genetic markers as Ephraim, but in regards to their relationship to God, they had been ousted, and were thus no different than the surrounding nations. Judah, however, remained in a covenantal relationship with God, thus there was difference between Judah and the surrounding nations. Hence the term "to the Jew first, and then the gentile", and NOT "to the Jew first, then Ephraim, then gentile"
    .

    You have shown no contradictions of my belief. You have only shown that you misunderstand my position.

    Correct. Remember the fishing scenario?

    You state you are going catch some tuna. your boat's net then drags in in all kinds of fish: mahi mahi, derado, tarpon, bonefish, wahoo, AND TUNA. Was your first statement fulfilled, that you caught tuna, even though you also caught many other fish?

    Thus it is with Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 and Paul's conclusion. God's promise was to bring back Ephraim and to make them his people again. By God including gentiles (cushites, greeks, Persians, edomites, scythians, barbarians, etc.... AND ephraimites) with the jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise to Ephraim.


    Thus, paul quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles with the Jews in the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:24-26.

    In romans 9:24, Paul does not state Ephraim. he states gentiles. Paul has hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy.

    Thus, substantiating my argument that Ephraim became as gentiles: no different than the surrounding nations in regards to the covenantal relationship with God.


    Thank you for clarifying your position on romans 9:24. Although, I disagree that romans 9:24 is separate from 9:25-26. I would argue that the Romans 9:24 is the statement and Romans 9:25-26 is the supporting scripture for that statement . This would be due the grammar connecting Romans 9:24 and Romans 9:25-26 and Paul's clear absence of the terms Ephraim, northern kingdom, or house of Israel.


    Specifically, concerning the gentiles giving glory to God.

    Romans 15:8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

    Paul doesn't associate any of those verses with the 2nd advent.

    I didn't know if THT separates the body of Christ and Ephraim or not, hence I asked the question. You have been maintaining that Ephraim is the nation that inherits the kingdom, While I believe that nation to be the body of Christ. I can't tell if you separate Ephraim from the body of Christ as the nation that inherits the kingdom as stated in matthew 21, hence I asked the question about 1 peter and the spiritual house Ephraim is being built into. It was a question to clarify. not a made up argument against your position.

    What's the difference between a progressive historicist and a regular historicist when it comes to biblical theology?

    Hey look at that, scripture defines the 40 days as being 40 years in the wilderness
    Numbers 14:33-34 And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.

    hey look at that, scripture defines the 390 days as equal to 390 years of iniquity
    Ezekiel 4:5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their iniquity.

    I would argue the Daniel passage for this one is not as solid, as the Hebrew word for 'weeks' literally means period of 7. In Daniel 9:24, the Hebrew word for 'sevens' שָׁבֻעִ֨ים is constructed differently with respect to it's use outside of Daniel. The only other time this construct for 'sevens' is used outside of Daniel 9 is in Daniel 10. However, in Daniel 10, שָׁבֻעֹ֖ת is accompanied by the Hebrew word for days יָמִֽים׃ . Thus the Hebrew word for day following the period of 7 in Daniel 10 let's us know it us about the 7 day periods. Where as the Hebrew word for 'sevens' in Daniel 9 is NOT accompanied by the Hebrew word for days. Thus, I would argue the seventy 'sevens' prophecy refers to seventy heptads, versus literal weeks that must then be interpreted with the day for year principle to reach 490 years. Additionally, with the first 2 verses you mentioned (numbers and Ezekiel) the day for year principle is clearly there, where as in Daniel, it is not.

    Daniel 9:24 Seventy sevens are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place

    Daniel 10:2-3 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or

    Why do you continue to refuse Hebrews 9 mentions the day of atonement? What other ritual in the old covenant mentions the high priest going into the Most holy place once a year? What other old covenant ritual mentions the sanctuary being purified once a year?

    Hebrews 9 mentions that Christ's sacrifice (the better one) purified the heavenly things, Thus associating the cross with the day of atonement. It also mentions Christ appearing in the presence of God on our behalf, thus associating it with the day of atonement.

    Hebrews 9:23-24 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. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf

    Jesus is our high priest. What is the purpose of the high priest outside of the day of atonement?
    Hebrews 6:20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

    interestingly enough Jesus is a forerunner for us.

    4274
    pródromos (from 4253 /pró, "before" and 1408 /drómos, "a race-course") – properly, a person running ahead (a forerunner) to reach the destination before others – i.e. arriving safely in advance for the benefit of others who also need to get there.

    Where did jesus arrive for benefit of us before we get there?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  10. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Actually, it was the lost sheep of Israel that was first and then the gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). And of course, Ephraim is the other fold that Christ affirms in John 10:16, and Ezekiel 34 is Christ’s source in John 10.

    Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks…. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them…. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment…. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd…. And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods. Ezekiel 34:2, 4, 16, 23, 25​

    (Dwelling safely in the wilderness is conveyed in Revelation 12) By your doctrine, supersessionism, we have a contradiction: there is no difference between Ephraim and the gentiles and there is a difference between them. If you want to live with such fallacies that is your prerogative, but I won’t. The scriptures affirm a difference between the gentiles and the descendants of Ephraim, even when they are broken off of the olive tree and are no longer God’s covenant people; the condition is ephemeral if they are the elect according to scripture because the gifts and calling are without repentance (Romans 11:29). God is able to graft them back onto their own tree (Romans 11:23). Certainly, the Jews aren’t God’s covenant people since the first advent, but even Judah is reinstated according to Zechariah 10:6; there is a difference between the Jews and the gentiles today; by God’s standards some are the elect, saved before the foundations of the world.

    You continue to argue from silence; Ephraim isn’t mentioned in Romans 9. By your illogic, the Jews weren’t called by Christ because he came for the lost sheep of Israel and “Israel” was the name of the lost tribes, not Judah. But a rational argument maintains the term “Jew” as interchangeable with Israel at the time of the first advent (while not so in the OT). Consequently, when Paul wrote “not of the Jews only” in Romans 9:24 he is not excluding the other kingdom but speaking idiomatically of the elect of Israel, your argument from silence notwithstanding.

    In your last post you stated: “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim.” If language is not made a farce, what you state is that Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 is fulfilled by the descendants of Ephraim, which makes Romans 9:26-26 pertain to the descendants of Ephraim and not the gentiles. If that is not what you mean, then you need to express yourself more precisely and not be in such a hurry to respond. Your work is full of contradictions and incongruities and arguments from silence.

    But the context of the OT does. Is this another argument from silence?

    Your comments are disingenuous. In truth you have never surmounted my response to this; there are different callings in the BOC. So, don’t act as if we haven’t dealt with this over and over again in past posts. It’s an obvious and desperate ploy to discredit those who don’t agree with your doctrines when your doctrines begin to be exposed as erroneous.

    I told you: progressive revelation.

    Why do you continue to conflate the “daily” intercession for the individual and the “yearly” intercession for the congregation? The salient differences do not allow such a conflation. As originally stated, Christ being the antitype of the veil substantiates that he ascended to a compartmentless sanctuary, which thwarts your assertions. The heavenly sanctuary isn't the earthly one; the latter is merely an imperfect reflection. Furthermore, the phrase “the holy places every year” in the ESV merely conveys “perpetuality” as opposed to a “yearly” intercession.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  11. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    Correct, Jesus instructed the 12 disciples to go the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the gentiles nor Samaritans.

    Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

    We see that in the previous chapter, Jesus has compassion on the crowds following Him because they were like sheep without a shepherd.

    Matthew 9:36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

    Prior to the Assyrian exile, we find those from the northern kingdom already living in the southern kingdom
    2 chronicles 15:9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the Lord his God was with him.

    After the Assyrian exile, we find those from the northern kingdom in kingdom of Judah
    2 Chronicles 30:11 However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem

    2 Chronicles 30:18 For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Lord pardon everyone

    After the Babylonian Exile, we find those from the northern kingdom living in the southern kingdom.
    1 Chronicles 9:1-3 So all Israel was recorded in genealogies, and these are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their breach of faith. Now the first to dwell again in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the temple servants. And some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh lived in Jerusalem.

    As evidenced above, some from the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom prior to the Assyrian exile, during the Assyrian exile, and even after the Babylonian exile. Thus, I would argue the term Jew includes all of the 12 tribes that remained in southern kingdom.

    Nehemiah 4:1-2 Now when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was angry and greatly enraged, and he jeered at the Jews. And he said in the presence of his brothers and of the army of Samaria, “What are these feeble Jews doing? Will they restore it for themselves?b Will they sacrifice? Will they finish up in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burned ones at that?”

    When Peter Addresses the Jews, he addresses them as "men of Israel" and "the house of Israel"

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

    Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know

    Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

    Thus, I would argue the lost sheep of Israel are the Jews, descendants of the 12 tribes following the Babylonian exile, who had strayed from God. While the divorced Ephraimites who were exiled by Assyria became a multitude of nations (gentiles) (genesis 48:19). Thus to the Jew first, then gentile.

    I would argue the gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim (genesis 48:19), are the other fold.

    John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

    This is substantiated by the Jew and gentile becoming one new man under Christ

    Ephesian 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility


    Sure, and if your THT or British Israelism doctrine allows you to accept that the northern kingdom remained God's people even though He divorced them, effectively making them no longer His people, then that is your prerogative. I will continue to disagree, as scripture is very clear, that the exiled northern kingdom became no longer his people.

    Hosea 1:9 And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people, and I am not your God.


    As I believe Jew and Israel are interchangeable due to the evidence of those of the northern kingdom settling in the southern kingdom pre-Assryian exile, during the Assyrian exile, and post Babylonian exile, I disagree with your assertion.

    Even Paul uses Israel and Jew interchangeably.


    Romans 11:11-13 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them


    I believe it to be Jews/Israel who rejected Christ and were cut off , while the gentiles, which include the multitude of nations that Ephraim became, that accepted Christ, were grafted in.

    And thus the mystery is revealed. All of Israel is saved by the inclusion of the elect Jews/Israel with the fullness of the nations, which includes the descendants of Ephraim

    Romans 11:25-26 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

    Genesis 48:19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a fullness of nations.

    According to genetics yes, according to those who are in the body of Christ, no.

    Correct, I maintain that Paul makes no distinction between then exiled multitude descendants of Ephraim and the surrounding nations as there is no evidence of distinction in Romans 9. I further substantiate that claim not based on silence but by the fact the paul quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in the vessels of mercy.

    Arguments of silence are not logical fallacies when used in the correct context and substantiated with other evidence.


    Not following your conclusion here. See above where I believe the Jews were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the first fold.

    Hey look at that, we agree that a rational argument maintains the term "jew" is interchangeable with Israel at the time of the first advent. Although I disagree with your assertion that it is not so in the OT. There are multiple references to those from the northern kingdom living in the southern kingdom pre and post Babylonian exile. Thus, I would argue the term Jew in Nehemiah would refer to those of the northern and southern kingdoms.

    Correct. Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 is fulfilled by the inclusion of the made-gentile-by-divorce-and-scattered descendants of Ephraim at the first advent. I don't agree that Paul intends to have hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of gentiles who did not descend from Ephraim. I have explained this numerous times now. I have even given an earthly example using fishing for tuna. Maybe you should read my posts a little closer and little slower before hastily responding. Remember the first time you responded to me? you missed a large chunk of my post and made hasty assumptions as a result.

    You have yet to show an objective contradiction. You have only shown that you misunderstand my position, which it appears your somewhat correct in the above paragraph. Considering the minds of the disciples had to be opened to understand OT scriptures (luke 24:45), I find it more appropriate to substantiate OT understanding with NT proof. If you don't have NT proof to substantiate your personal interpretation of the OT, then I can't confirm that you are understanding the OT correctly. Thus in my case, an argument from silence is not inappropriate.

    This assumes your interpretation of the OT is correct, so yes, it is an argument of silence. Paul associates Isaiah 11:10 with the gentiles glorifying God in Romans 15. I believe that began to happen at the first advent because there is evidence of gentiles giving glory to God. There is no mention of the 2nd advent in romans 15, thus how are we to know your interpretation is correct?

    Another false assumption. Be careful with those. The body of Christ has different callings yes. Some are teachers, some are prophets, some are apostles, etc....; God has given the body of Christ different callings and gifts.

    I don't believe that means God has given the foot the physical land of Israel, while the hand the kingdom of God. However, that is what APPEARS you are asserting, and thus I was clarifying.


    Many theologies believe in progressive revelation. I'm not clear on how historicists differentiate between non progressive and progressive revelation.

    Why do you keep switching to the veil? Why don't you actually address Hebrews 9 which specifically talks about the work of the high priest. What was the purpose of the high priest outside of the day of atonement? Is Christ not yet the high priest? Has Christ not yet done the work of the high priest, atoning of the sins of the people and appearing in the presence of God?

    When does the high priest perform the daily sacrifices?

    Hebrews 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  12. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Arguments founded on contradictions bear no true weight. You’re asserting that Ephraim was in Judah and a was a multitude of scattered foreign nations at the same time, which is actually crafting more contradictions. It suggests the babble that there are over 20 tribes of Israel. And don’t think that it goes without notice that you take parts of the OT strictly literally and other parts strictly figuratively to suit your contradictions, and in indifference to accuracy.

    Let’s actually stick to what the scriptures say. All your OT references pertain to “some” of the people of Ephraim and not the majority. The OT affirms the majority went into exile.

    In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes…. Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day. (2 Kings 17:6, 23)​

    Your citations from the OT pertain to refugees from Ephraim/Israel, while the de jure birthright of “Israel” followed the majority that went into exile, even until the first advent, according to the texts in Kings, above, Hosea, Zechariah, and even Peter’s epistles (Samaria has never been restored to Ephraim, as Judah was restored to the Jews). The title of “Israel” and the firstborn lawful standing was the de jure provision of the sons of Joseph and followed the northern “nation” when the kingdom was divided (Genesis 48:16; 1 Chronicles 5:1). The scepter went to Judah and followed them into the southern nation until the scepter departed in the “last days,” at the advent of Shiloh, who is Christ, and is witnessed in Matthew 21:43 (Genesis 49:10). Since Ephraim/Israel had been cast off, Judah had usurped the “name” Israel by de facto provision, which explains the texts you cited in Acts.

    The aforesaid vindicates that the “last days” in Genesis 49 represents the inter-advent age and not the prior one, your misrepresentation notwithstanding. As stated previously, Joseph’s descendants become a multitude of nations in this age (when God scatters them according to Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9, 13:7), not the prior. Genesis 49:22-26 illustrates the descendants of Joseph, as a fruitful bough, run over the wall in this age, and that the shepherd and the stone of Israel, Christ, stems from the house of Joseph, which vindicates the nation in Matthew 21:43 is Ephraim/Israel.

    Your contradictions do not surmount that Ephraim represents the sheep of the other fold in John 10:16 and that were driven away in Ezekiel 34:4, 16.

    Again, your comments stem from the inherent contradictions in supersessionism that cannot preserve the inerrancy of the OT by maintaining the gifts and calling of the elect remnant of Ephraim and Judah in either Testaments. The gentiles were not the offspring of the nation of Israel, nor were they the offspring of the nation of Israel that was married to God, nor were they the offspring of the nation of Israel that was driven away in Ezekiel 34:4, 16, who was prophesied to be sought out by God and given Christ as their shepherd in verse 22-24 of said book, which Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9, 13:7 vindicate occurred at Christ’s first advent. There is an insurmountable difference between gentiles and the elect remnant of Ephraim and Israel in scripture that Ephesian 2:14-15 does not rule out. The gentiles merely have a different calling in prophecy, which does not rule out Ephesian 2:14-16. Your supersessionist’s misrepresentation of Ephesians 2:14-16 simply cannot preserve the inerrancy of the OT by maintaining the gifts and calling of the elect remnant of Ephraim and Judah in either Testaments. Your supersessionist’s misrepresentation of Ephesians 2:14-16 leads to the contradiction: there is no difference between Ephraim and the gentiles and there is a difference between them. Your supersessionist’s misrepresentation of Ephesians 2:14-16 has led to such irrational claims that the gentiles are restored to the land of Israel just like Ephraim and Judah in Zechariah 10:6, 10-12. And when caught in these contradictions, trying to distract from them by making it my lack of understanding is simply spurious.

    Again, this stems from the inherent contradictions in supersessionism that cannot preserve the inerrancy of the OT by maintaining the gifts and calling of the elect remnant of Ephraim and Judah in either Testaments. From the time of Moses, God ordained that Israel would fall away and be cast off, but that God would take matters into his own hands and redeem them (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). Your supersessionist’s misrepresentations do not surmount that God is able to graft Ephraim back onto their own tree because the gifts and calling are without repentance. Isaiah says it well,

    For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. (Isaiah 54:7-8)​

    The gentiles were not the offspring of the nation of Israel, nor were they the offspring of the nation of Israel that was married to God and etcetera… Your supersessionist presuppositions are blind to the aforesaid.

    This is simply more contradiction. You had stated, “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim.” If Paul’s intention was not to cite Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled by the gentiles who didn’t descend from Ephraim, then it logically follows his intention was to cite Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled by the descendants of Ephraim! Your contradictions lead to all sorts of faux pas.

    Furthermore, your other evidence does not substantiate your argument from silence because it is not true evidence.

    Yet, you haven’t delivered any such scripture to affirm that the gentiles were prophesied to be redeemed and then scattered as we see in Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9, or that they were driven away and then to be sought out by God and given Christ as their shepherd Ezekiel 34:22-24. You can’t deliver any such scripture because that was not the calling to the gentiles, but to the elect of Ephraim and Judah.

    Why do you keep ignoring the significance that Christ is the antitype of the veil? The significance affirms the two compartments of the earthbound temple was merely an illustration of Christ as a mediator and that the heavenly sanctuary is without partition. Your supersessionist’s presuppositions simply do not account for the spring and autumnal antitypes; the former being ordained for the first advent and the latter the return of Christ.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  13. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    Correct, I am asserting that some descendants of the northern tribe lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, pre-Assyrian exile, during Assyrian exile, Post Babylonian Exile, and 1st century. I am also asserting that descendants of the northern tribe were scattered to foreign nations.

    This is clearly evidenced in scripture

    1.) northern kingdom descendants living in the southern kingdom pre Assyrian Exile, During Assyrian Exile, post Babylonian exile, and even 1st century Judea.

    2 Chronicles 15:9 And he assembled all Judah and Benjamin, along with those from the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who had settled among them, for great numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.

    2 Chronicles 30:11 Nevertheless, some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem

    We find that descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh settled in Jerusalem post Babylonian Exile.

    1 chronicles 9:1-3 So all Israel was recorded in the genealogies written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. But Judah was exiled to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness. Now the first to resettle their own property in their cities were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants. These were some of the descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh who lived in Jerusalem:

    We even find a descendant of Asher living in Jerusalem in the 1st century.
    Luke 2:36 There was also a prophetess named Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, who was well along in years. She had been married for seven years

    2.) northern kingdom descendants were scattered among the nations.

    2 Kings 17:6, 23 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes…. Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.


    20 tribes? how did you come to that conclusion? How does many of the northern kingdom being scattered, while some of the northern kingdom living in the southern kingdom, create 20 tribes?

    You appear to continue to 'make up' contradictions, but you still have yet to produce any actual contradictions for my position.


    please point out which parts I take literally and others figuratively so I know what you are talking about.

    Good so you agree descendants of the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom.

    So where is this "contradiction" you keep speaking of?

    Which shows that descendants from the northern kingdom dwelled in the southern kingdom pre-Assyrian exile, during the assryian exile, post Babylonian exile, and 1st century.

    I agree. I have never disagreed with this.

    Just so I'm clear, your stating that the name Israel went to the southern kingdom when the northern kingdom was divorced and exiled, correct? If so, I agree.

    Good, so we agree Christ's first advent was in the last days

    Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

    Which doesn't surmount that descendants from both kingdoms were living in Judea in the 1st century, as evidenced by the 1st century descendant of Asher.

    Luke 2:36 There was also a prophetess named Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, who was well along in years. She had been married for seven years

    I believe the last days began with Christ's 1st advent, as evidenced by scripture.

    Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

    thus I believe that by the time of Christ's 1st advent, divorced and exiled Ephraim had become a multitude of nations

    I would argue that exile and scattered Ephraim became a multitude of nations over 700 years, from the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent and beyond. Hence Paul has Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the nations with the jews in the vessels of mercy.

    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,”

    There it is again. You are creating a contradiction for my position that isn't there. Remember, I believe the descendants of divorced, exiled, and scattered Ephraim were gentiles. Thus by God including the 'other fold' which consisted of believers from the nations, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the believing Jews, he fulfills His promise.

    Not all gentiles were offspring of the divorced, exiled, northern kingdom. But some of the gentiles living in the 1st century were descendants of the divorced, exiled, northern kingom.

    Genesis 498:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of gentiles.”

    This is substantiated by Paul quoting hosea as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in the vessels of mercy.

    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,”

    The kingdom of God is like a fishing net gathering ALL KINDS of fish, Jerry

    Matthew 13:47 Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and caught all kinds of fish.

    I state I am going to fish for tuna. I then drag a net behind my boat. I catch ALL KINDS of fish, including tuna. Even though I caught all kinds of fish, is my first statement true, that I went fishing for tuna?

    So it is with Paul's statement. Paul doesn't quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with Ephraim being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy. He quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the GENTILES being included with the jews in the vessels of mercy


    The old covenant is obsolete Jerry, along with it's promises.

    Hebrews 10:9 Then He adds, “Here I am, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second

    Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


    Jeremiah confirms the promise of restoring from captivity and gathering from the nations back to the land, as found in the old covenant, would be fulfilled upon the return from Babylonian exile.

    Deuteronomy 30:1-4When all these things come upon you—the blessings and curses I have set before you—and you call them to mind in all the nations to which the LORD your God has banished you, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey His voice with all your heart and all your soul according to everything I am giving you today, then He will restore you from captivity and have compassion on you and gather you from all the nations to which the LORD your God has scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the ends of the earth, He will gather you and return you from there.

    Jeremiah 29:10-14 For this is what the LORD says: “When Babylon’s seventy years are complete, I will attend to you and confirm My promise to restore you to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. ou will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore you from captivityc and gather you from all the nations and places to which I have banished you, declares the LORD. I will restore you to the place from which I sent you into exile.”

    Thus the promise of restoration as found in Deuteronomy 30:1-4 was fulfilled at Israel's return to the land.

    However, now the old covenant is obsolete, along with it's conditional promises, as they were superseded by the new covenant.

    Yes, some of the gentiles in the 1st century were offspring of the exiled and divorced northern kingdom.

    Genesis 48:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of gentiles.”

    An argument of silence is not inappropriate in the case. Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to understand scripture, so how do I know your understanding of the OT is correct, if you won't provide NT scripture to support your claims?

    The northern kingdom was prophesied to become a multitude of gentiles.

    Genesis 48:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of gentiles.”

    The veil is not mentioned in Hebrews 9. I keep ignoring you bringing up the veil because you keep trying to turn the conversation away from Hebrews 9. You continue to avoid addressing the references to Jesus being the high priest and entering the presence of God and putting away sin, which is clearly pointing toward the day of atonement.
     
  14. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Again, arguments founded on contradictions bear no true weight. To put it more simply for your benefit, you’re still asserting “Israel” was in Judah and in exile at the same time; this is a contradiction. Literally, 2 Kings 17:6, 23 affirms “Israel” was “carried away out of their own land to Assyria.” Texts such as 2 Chronicles 15:9 and 30:11 cannot have “Israel” come to Jerusalem and contradict 2 Kings 17:6, 23 that “Israel” was “carried away out of their own land to Assyria,” unless one attempts to foist a contradiction, as you do. The correct interpretation is that refugees from the northern nation came to Jerusalem, while the birthright or title of “Israel” remained with the northern nation of people that went into captivity. The contradiction you attempt to foist implies the tribes of Ephraim were in Judah and in exile at the same time, which implies there are more than 10 tribes of Ephraim. In so doing you must interpret texts such as 2 Chronicles 15:9 and 30:11 literally and 2 Kings 17:6, 23 figuratively, while in truth, the reverse is true; the refugees were figurative of Israel, while those who were exiled represented Israel in the literal sense.

    What I’m saying is that the Jews usurped the title, de facto, but 2 Kings 17:6, 23, Jeremiah 31:27-28, Hosea 2:23 and Zechariah 10:8-9 affirm the “tile” belonged to the elect of the nation that was in exile and redeemed at the first advent. Samaria was never restored so “Israel” found grace in the wilderness (Jeremiah 31:2; Ezekiel 34:25).

    Hebrews 9:26 is irrelevant to the points I was making. Point one, is that the scepter departed from Judah in the “last days,” at the advent of Shiloh, who is Christ, and is witnessed in Matthew 21:43 (Genesis 49:10). Two, this affirms that in these days, not the previous ones, the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, run over the wall, they become a multitude of nations, and that the shepherd and the stone, Christ, resides with them, your misrepresentations notwithstanding. Your misrepresentations have them running over the wall prior to the last days.



    There it is again. You stated previously, “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim,” which is tantamount to conceding that Paul cited Hosea in Romans 9 as fulfilled by Ephraim, not the gentiles. And here you go again trying to backpedal. Ezekiel 34 clearly affirms the sheep from the other fold in John 10:16 are the same sheep that were driven away in Ezekiel 34:4, 16 and are the subject of Hosea 2:23 and Romans 9:25-26. 2 Timothy 3:16.


    Your supersessionist interpretation confuses the terms gentiles and Israel in both Testaments; the terms “gentiles” and “Israel” are erroneously interchangeable or amalgamated is such confusion or misrepresentation, which is usually a misrepresentation of Ephesians 2:14-16 or Galatian 3:28-29. It is Ephraim that becomes the fullness of the Goyim, or gentiles, which makes Ephraim clearly distinguishable from the gentiles that are not descended from the Ephraim, like the Arabs. While they dwell amongst the gentiles, they are still distinguishable from them in both Testaments, just as in Ezekiel below.

    And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. (Ezekiel 4:13)​


    You’re backpedaling from your concession: “I don't believe Paul's intention is to quote hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with gentiles who don't descend from Ephraim,” which is tantamount to conceding that Paul cited Hosea in Romans 9 as fulfilled by Ephraim, not the gentiles. Furthermore, Jeremiah reveals who are the fish.

    Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks. (Jeremiah 16:14-16)​


    Obviously, you do not comprehend that Moses is prophesizing about Israel’s restoration through the New Covenant in Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

    That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deuteronomy 30:3-6)​

    And obviously, you do not comprehend that the promise of the restoration was based on the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic.

    And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. (Genesis 13:14-15)​


    The NT didn’t exist when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. And what do you call Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 1:1, 10-12, 2:9-10, to name a few of the NT scriptures that I’ve used to vindicate my doctrines?

    So you admit your proof-texting! If you weren’t you would address the significance that Christ was the antitype of the veil, which affirms the two compartments of the earthbound temple was merely the illustration of Christ as mediator and that the heavenly sanctuary is without partition. Your supersessionist’s presuppositions simply do not account for the spring and autumnal antitypes; the former being ordained for the first advent and the latter the return of Christ.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  15. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    I agree. But I would also argue creating contradictions of someone's position based on a misunderstanding bears no weight either.

    I'm not understanding how some descendants of the northern tribes living in the southern kingdom, while many others from the northern kingdom were deported by Assyria, is a contradiction.

    I take 2 kings 17 literally, in that the northern kingdom was exile and deported by Assyria.
    2 kings 17:23 Finally, the LORD removed Israel from His presence, as He had declared through all His servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their homeland into Assyria, where they are to this day.

    I take 2 chonicles 30 literally, in that some from the northern tribes came to Jerusalem shortly after the Assyrian exile.
    2 chronicles 30:11 Nevertheless, some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem

    I take 1 chronicles 9 literally, in that descendants of the northern tribes lived in Jerusalem POST BABYLONIAN exile.
    1 chronicles 9:1-3 all Israel was recorded in the genealogies written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. But Judah was exiled to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness. Now the first to resettle their own property in their cities were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants. These were some of the descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh who lived in Jerusalem:

    What I do not do, is assume absolutes. I do not assume 2 kings 17 means absolutely every single member of the 10 northern tribes. I do not assume this because scripture confirms that not absolutely all of the 10 northern tribes were deported.

    What's the difference between me saying some of the northern kingdom lived in the southern kingdom and you saying "refugees from the northern kingdom" came to the southern kingdom?


    That is an illogical conclusion. I am simply implying that some of the descendants of the 10 northern tribes remained in the southern kingdom and even returned to the southern kingdom following the Babylonian exile as stated by 1 chronicles 9:1-3. This is also evidenced by descendants of the northern tribes being found in Judea in Luke 2.

    I am also implying that those of the northern kingdom who were exiled and separated from covenant, intermingled with the surrounding nations, thus becoming gentiles/nations by the time of Christ's 1st advent.

    Usurped? Does that mean Peter is wrong to call the Jews "men of Israel" or "house of Israel" in Acts 2?

    When was the kingdom take away from Judah and given to a nation producing it's fruits?


    It's again clear you don't understand my position.

    Again, my position is that the northern kingdom was divorced and exiled to no longer be God's people. Through this divorce and intermingling with the nations, they would become a multitude of gentiles, which fulfilled the blessing given by Jacob to Ephraim. By the time of Christ's 1st advent, 700 years later, the descendants of Ephraim would have become a multitude of nations.

    Thus by God including the gentiles, of whom SOME descended from the divorced and exiled northern tribe, with the jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise to reunite northern and southern kingdom in the body of Christ.

    If I would have stated hosea 1:10 is fulfilled by the gentiles, regardless of who they descended from and then changed to hosea 1:10 is fulfilled by the gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, then I would be backpedaling to substantiate your claim. But as it stands I did not do that, so it appears you don't actually know what the definition of backpedaling is, which is surprising considering you like to us fancy words a lot for us simple folk.


    What makes Ephraim distinguishable from the gentiles? I believe Ephraim was distinguished from the nations because they were a part of the old covenant. However, When they were divorced and exiled and became no longer God's people, they were separated from the old covenant and no longer distinguished from the nations.

    the kingdom of Judah, however, remained in a covenant relationship with God, and thus remained distinguished from the nations.

    What would you say makes Ephraim distinguishable from the nations, if it is not their covenantal relationship with God?



    Remember, there are "all kinds of fish" caught in the kingdom of heaven. While Jeremiah was inquiring only of Israel, the mystery that the gentiles were included was still not known.

    matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.

    I tell you I am going fishing for tuna. I then drag a net behind my boat and Catch 'all kinds of fish' including tuna. Even though I caught all kinds of fish, is my first statement still true that I caught tuna?

    So it is with the multitude of gentiles who descended from Ephraim. The kingdom of heaven gathers all kinds of gentiles, including those who descended from the exiled and divorced northern kingdom. And by this God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim.


    obviously you are not comprehending that Israel needed to be restored to the land under the old covenant, after the Babylonian exile, for the messiah to be born under the law in the promise land as prophesied.

    Additionally, I can't tell if you believe the old covenant is still in effect or not.


    Obviously you are not comprehending that the PLURAL promises spoken to Abraham and his seed was to Jesus, and not the nation of Israel that existed under the old covenant.

    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.

    The unconditional promises were not spoken to nation of Israel because the offspring is Christ as stated by Paul. Christ is one who owns the land. For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and Christ was made Lord.

    The promise of restoration to land is found in the old covenant. The new covenant superseded the old covenant, thus the promise of restoration to the land is cancelled.


    Correct. But as I'm sure you are well aware, there are a thousand different modern day interpretations of scripture. When Jesus had to open the minds of the disciples to understand the scriptures, that tells me that a straight forward and literal reading does not always give us a proper understanding.

    This assumes that the nation that inherits the kingdom of God is Ephraim.

    Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits

    I would disagree that it is only Ephraim who inherits the kingdom of God.

    I agreed with you on these, didn't I? they don't surmount my belief.

    Ironic, it seems you are doing that too. You continue avoid addressing Hebrews 9 and continue to talk about Hebrews 10:19-20 as proof that Christ has not yet fulfilled the day of atonement.
     
  16. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Your contradiction is in affirming Ephraim is exiled, amongst the gentiles, and at the same time asserting that the “lost sheep of Israel” are the Jews in Judah. Maybe you can foist such contradictions on other supersessionists, but not with those who substantively comprehend the scriptures concerning of both houses of Jacob. In order to assert such a notion, one must disregard that the northern kingdom maintains the name of Israel, and the southern kingdom the name of Judah at the ratification of the New Covenant (I’ve given you several OT texts supporting this under the OC, which you have attempted to circumvent, which has not escaped my notice).

    For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Hebrews 8:7-10)​

    When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. (Hebrews 10:8-9)​

    Both dispensationalists and supersessionists try to sidestep that Christ established the New Covenant first and foremost with Judah and Israel verifying, in principle, the calling in Romans 9:24 is first and foremost to the elect of both houses under the New Covenant and that this calling was ordained for the first advent. This is object of Romans 11:29. In principle, then, it is a contradiction to assert that the call to “lost sheep of Israel” was strictly to the Jews when you’ve already conceded that Ephraim, the house of Israel, is exiled, amongst the gentiles. In principle, it is irrational to assert that “all” of Israel was “in attendance” in any of the texts you cited in indifference with John 7:35 and 11:52 and James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1. The address to “the house of Israel” in Acts 2:22, 36 cannot be viewed as strictly to the Jews in attendance, but must be interpreted as also pertaining to the scattered descendants of both houses during the entire inter-advent epoch; not all of Israel are Jews.

    This returns us to the reason you attempted to foist such an irrational contradiction, which is your assertion that Paul cites Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26 as pertaining to the gentiles because the previous verse concerns the revelation that the elect gentiles in this age are called as well Jews. As stated above, Christ came first and foremost to call the “lost sheep of Israel” as affirmed in Matthew 10:5-6 and Ezekiel 34: 16, 23-24 and the book to the Hebrews, and both Testaments establish that both houses cannot be interpreted as the “Jews,” the evidence of refugees from Ephraim in Judah notwithstanding. This is also affirmed by Paul’s mission strategy that salvation was first to the Jew and subordinately to the gentile in Romans 1:16 and 2:10. This is confirmed by Christ’s testimony that “salvation is of the Jews” in John 4:22. Supersessionists like you and even dispensationalists are caught in the misrepresentation that this first and foremost call to the elect of Ephraim and Judah ended with the call to the gentiles, which leads to consequent misrepresentations, such as the assertion that Romans 9:25-26 pertains to gentiles, in indifference to the truth that Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 concerned to the descendants of Ephraim. But such misrepresentation simply cannot surmount that Paul affirmed that “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” and that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:2, 29). The calling of both houses under the New Covenant commenced with the first advent and does not end until Christ returns. In essence, Israel and the remnant of Judah may be lost or hidden to man but God knows who they are and where he has sown them. Corroborating evidence is in the prophecy that Israel would find grace in the wilderness and that God would plant them and feed them during the inter-advent epoch.

    Thus says the LORD: "The people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness; when Israel sought for rest, the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you…. "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 2:2-3, 27-28)​

    The ordained days in verse 27 are explained further in verses 31-34.

    Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)​

    Again, both Testaments confirm that God was not done with Israel or Judah when Christ came. Christ came to save the elect of Israel and Judah through the New Covenant and then scatter them throughout the nations to fulfill the great commission, remaining the first and foremost in the calling, while the gentiles are ancillary to that calling. Supersessionists such as yourself twist that calling and make the gentiles first and foremost in the calling, while the Jews are ancillary to that calling and Ephraim even lower in the missionary strategy of God. God’s missionary strategy was plainly related by Paul and Isaiah concerning the Servant, Christ, who IS the head of the church.

    And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him--- for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength---he says: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:5-6)​

    God’s mission strategy was to task Christ, his Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and ancillary to that was to save the gentiles. Zechariah 10 and Jeremiah 31 and the book of Romans affirm that this is done first and foremost by saving Israel and Judah and ancillary to that, saving the gentiles, which is also affirmed in Matthew 10:5-6 and Ezekiel 34: 16, 23-24 and a host of other texts. God’s missionary strategy does not preclude that he loves all equally, which Galatians 3:28 and Ephesian 2:13 affirm, but the strategy conveys the mystery of how Israel is saved (Romans 11:25-26) and the mystery of how the gentiles are made fellow heirs to the earth (Ephesians 3:1-6; Matthew 5:5).

    The elect of Ephraim are distinguishable because they were called to be sown in the earth to send salvation to the gentiles. The gentiles were not called in such a manner. The strategy doesn't preclude exceptions, but the exceptions maintain the rule.

    The parable where God sows good seed over the field has its origin in Zechariah 10:8-9 and Jeremiah 31:27-28 and Hosea 2:23. The fish are first and foremost Judah and Israel, and ancillary to them come the gentiles.

    Obviously, your comments continue to contradict and become more and more irrational. In truth, you have conceded that the Jews remained in bondage to the law, revealed in Galatians 4, which caused them to be cast off, but that Ephraim had taken up the great commission and was sown in the world in fulfillment of Zechariah 10. Zechariah 10, in particular, affirms that both houses are restored to their land, to which you made the comment: “As well as the gentiles who became one with the elect biological descendants through Christ under the new covenant.” Your comment is a concession to Zechariah’s prophecy that God returns both houses to the land but with the misrepresentation that the gentiles are included even though they are without a history of ever being driven off by God. Your doctrines are replete with concessions mixed with irrational contradictions and misrepresentations.

    Again, contradiction and confusion. If the “seed” only means “Christ” and Christ already owns the land, then promising the land to Christ is simply another irrational contradiction.

    And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. (Genesis 12:7)​

    Let me give you a hint. The “land” is the “inheritance” in Galatians 3 that was promised through the Abrahamic covenant, which was 430 years before the law, the law being the old covenant, revealed in verses 17-18.

    And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:17)​


    Again, Paul affirms the “inheritance to the land” was not through the old covenant, law, but through the promise God gave Abraham.

    For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Galatians 3:18)​

    The object of Galatian 3:16, which is from Genesis 22:18, is to affirm that the blessings to the gentiles of being co-heirs of the land with the descendants of Abraham are due to Christ. And Christ comes through the descendants/seed of Abraham and not the gentiles. That is not to say the gentiles are returned to the land, but only that they are joined to the descendants of Abraham when they return. No gainsay can surmount this exposé of your confusion because Christ affirms our inheritance is the earth.

    Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5)​

    To someone that substantively grasps the insurmountable evidence of the two houses of Jacob and their differing narration, Christ opens the minds of the disciples first to understand the literal meaning and only then the progressive revelation that complements, but does not destroy the literal. Only this method upholds Paul testimony that the Old Testament was profitable for teaching and doctrine. Your perception precludes the OT is profitable as such without the New Testament and, as I stated, the New Testament wasn’t even available when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, which is more contradiction and confusion.

    No, Matthew 21:43 is the fulfillment that the scepter departs from Judah when Shiloh, Christ, comes (Genesis 49:10) and that Christ takes the scepter and rules with the descendants of Joseph (Genesis 49:22-24). The fruits represent the gentiles.

    If you can’t move past Hebrew 9:25 you give me no reason to move past the implication that Christ is the antitype of the veil. My additional commentary that the context supports the spring antitypes for the propitiation for individual sin and not the atonement for the congregation is ignored, so there is no need to proceed any further. I am a believer in the economy of expression, unlike your protracted and desultory posts. I find it most revealing that you're stuck on “one note” of the Hebraic festivals.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  17. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    This as a "contradiction" is only apparent to those who draw an illogical conclusion from the theology that is known as THT/British Israelism.

    Wow, that's quite the assumption on your part.

    As someone who believes the new covenant superseded the old covenant, I absolutely agree God first made the new covenant with Israel.

    This would be a subjective contradiction based on your THT/British Israelism belief, and not an objective one based on the fact that some descendants of the northern kingdom remained tribally intact in the southern kingdom, while other descendants of the northern kingdom were exiled and mixed with the nations.

    We can confirm that Jesus was not talking about the descendants of the divorced and exiled northern kingdom that had mixed with the gentiles. In regards to the house of Israel, He clearly tells his disciples NOT to go on the road of GENTILES or the towns of the Samaritans, but to the TOWNS OF ISRAEL.


    Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

    Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

    Good, so we agree that "house of Israel" In acts 2:22, 36 refers to all 12 tribes.

    Was peter wrong to address the Jews as Israel?


    THT/Brit Israelism may establish that, but the testaments do no such thing.

    You just conceded above that the Jews were addressed as Israel by Peter.

    The phrase "to the Jew first and then to the gentile" confirms that the term Israel and Jew are interchangeable.

    The exiled and divorced descendants of Ephraim became a multitude of gentiles by the time of the 1st advent. This is confirmed by Paul quoting hosea 1:10 and 2:23, which was prophesied about the descendants of Ephraim, as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the jews in vessels of mercy.

    I agree. The prophets foresaw that the Israelites would be sown in the earth by God to bring the light to the nations. This does not preclude that grafted in the gentiles were also bringing the light to the nations. Paul confirms several gentile co workers

    Philemon 1:23-24 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

    2 Corinthians 8:23 for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengersf of the churches, the glory of Christ

    This would be incorrect. Just another misunderstanding of my position on your part.

    I agree. To the Jew first and then the gentile

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek

    Right, which confirms my position, which is that Ephraim is only distinguishable from the nations when they are in a covenantal relationship with God.

    From the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent, the descendants of Ephraim would NOT be in a covenantal relationship with God. During this time, God would not be their God, and they would not be His people (hosea 1:9). During this time, Ephraim, the divorced woman, was barren (Isaiah 54:1). It is during this time, that exiled northern kingdom descendants would mix with the nations (hosea 7:8), thus fulfilling the blessing given to Ephraim by Jacob, that Ephraim would become a multitude of gentiles (Genesis 48:19).


    This is substantiated when Paul, who believed he was living at the end of ages (1 Corinthians 10:11), quoted hosea 1:10 and 2:23 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:24-26).


    I'm not denying that the fish are first and foremost Judah and Israel. "to the Jew first AND THEN the gentile". But this doesn't surmount that the kingdom catches ALL KINDS of fish. So the net is not only catching Jews, but also gentiles.

    It's irrational and contradicting to believe that Israel was restored to the land after the Babylonian exile for the purpose of the Messiah living?


    How so?

    I absolutely agree

    I absolutely agree, the land was promised as an unconditional possession to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, who is Christ.

    The land was promised as an eternal possession to Christ, for he is the seed (galatians 3:16). Those who are in Christ, Jew and gentile, are co-heirs (Galatians 3:28-29, romans 8:17).

    Christ, who is Lord, owns the earth FROM HEAVEN, for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. He has all authority in heaven and on earth.

    A forerunner is someone who arrives at a place in advance of others who later arrive to that same place. Jesus went to heaven in advance of 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

    Paul states we have an eternal building IN the heavens

    2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens

    Peter states are inheritance is IN heaven.
    1 Peter 1:4 into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for you.

    Thus, if Christ now owns the earth (which includes the promised land) from heaven, then those in Christ are co-heirs with Christ in heaven.

    I find it very revealing that you continue to ignore the implications of Hebrews 9 that surmount your argument. I also find it revealing that you continue to switch the topic to the veil of the temple.

    Jesus, our high priest, put away sin and entered the presence of God. The author of Hebrews in chapter 9 compares this to the high priest going into the most holy place once a year to atone for the sins of the people. This is a direct reference to the day of atonement.
     
  18. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    One doesn’t have to grasp THT to see that your “concession” that the nation of Israel, which you acknowledge is also Ephraim, was in exile, amongst the gentiles, is in contradiction to your assertion that the “lost sheep of Israel” strictly represent the Jews in Judah at the same time.

    Your solution is to turn Ephraim into gentiles through the phrase not my people as if God no longer considered them the descendants of Ephraim whom He chose to recall sometime after they had been exiled; Hosea, as well as Jeremiah and Isaiah's prophecies, expose your solution as illegitimate. God doesn’t recall the gentiles. The gentiles are never considered as a people who were once married to Christ, which makes Ephraim also the lost sheep of Israel by the evidence that Christ came to recall them. Your concession that Zechariah 10:8-9 pertains to Israel/Ephraim is an acknowledgment Christ came to recall them as the nation of Ephraim and not as gentiles. You have been attempting to backpedal on the implications of your concessions but I’m not going to allow you to do so. Your concession of the proper interpretation of Zechariah 10:8-9 substantiates that Christ came to recall Ephraim, which is a concession that they too are the lost sheep of Israel, whether you confess to the implications of your concession and your contradictions in your backpedaling or not.

    Good, so we agree that Acts 2:22, 36 also pertains to the scattered descendants of Ephraim, who were not in attendance. This makes the lost sheep of Israel also pertain to Ephraim, who was in exile.

    Even your concession of the proper interpretation of Zechariah 10:8-9 affirms what I’ve been revealing; Christ came to recall Ephraim, who was still in exile and not abiding with the Jews, even if there were refugees from Ephraim in Judah at the time. This makes the lost sheep of Israel also pertain to Ephraim, who was in exile.

    Jews are also Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. The scriptures affirm this without any gainsay whatsoever with those who have studied to show themselves approved.

    Your concession that Zechariah 10:8-9 pertains to Ephraim exposes your interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 as specious. Christ came to recall Ephraim in Zechariah 10:8-9, which makes Ephraim as much as the lost sheep as Judah. The gentiles are not recalled, which is the object of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23.

    As I stated previously, the call to be sown in the earth and to bring light to the gentiles is first and foremost to elect of Ephraim and the Judah, that does not preclude exceptions, but the exceptions do not dismiss the calling: For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

    I confirmed no such thing. And Peter and James are evidence that the descendants of Ephraim were still distinguishable from the gentiles in their time. Peter, in particular, addressed his epistles to the elect exiles of the dispersion and cited Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in affirmation. Your supersessionist’s perceptions are untenable. And Genesis 49:10 and 22-24 vindicate that Ephraim becomes a multitude of nations in this age and not the past.

    Yes, the fish are first and foremost Judah and Ephraim.

    I don’t know where you get such irrational thoughts. I’ve been revealing that Christ came to recall Ephraim, which clearly makes the remnant of Ephraim the lost sheep of Israel just as much as the remnant of Judah. They are lost partly because they were never restored to Samaria.

    You admit the land was Abraham’s inheritance before the Old Covenant was inaugurated but then try and shift the inheritance to heaven. Just more contradiction based on misrepresentation of the NT. The house in 2 Corinthians 5:1 is the glorified body we receive at the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52). And you fail to recognize the abstract in 1 Peter 1:4, which Matthew 6:10 and other NT texts confirm: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The object of God’s Providence is to ultimately bring His kingdom to earth; you supersessionists misrepresent the NT to assert the kingdom is backtracked into heaven.

    First Peter 1:4 is clearly an abstract, meant to affirm that the kingdom to come heralds from heaven and not that it is where God dwells. God’s intent is to bring his kingdom to earth and not to backtrack it into heaven; there is no need to establish peace and justice in heaven, while there is a need on earth.

    Again, this is mere proof-texting. When the context and implications of the antitype of the veil are taken into account, with the rest of scripture, only the spring antitypes are indicated in Hebrews 9:25 and the autumnal antitypes, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, are reserved for the return, conveyed Hebrews 9:26-28.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
  19. claninja

    claninja Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    Christian
    Married
    As we can see, multiple Biblical Commentaries agree with my "concession" that the house of Israel = Jews, and the exiled and divorced 10 northern tribes, that were scattered, became as gentiles. You are creating a contradiction out of thin air, when one doesn't actually exist.

    Matthew 24:15 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

    Barnes notes on the Bible
    The "lost sheep of the house of Israel" were the Jews

    Matthew Poole's Commentary
    Our Lord’s ministry was confined to the Jews

    Gill's Exposition
    but he himself was sent only to the Jews

    Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
    came to save all, but His personal ministry was confined, with few exceptions, to the Jews.


    Romans 9:24-25 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

    Elliot's 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

    Barnes notes on the Bible
    The meaning is the same in Hosea and in this place, that God would bring those into a covenant relation to himself, who were before deemed outcasts and strangers. Thus, he supports his main position that God would choose his people from among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, or would exercise toward both his right as a sovereign, bestowing or withholding his blessings as he pleases.

    Jamieson-Fausett-Brown
    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" (so 1Pe 2:10).

    Pulpit Commentary
    The subject is pursued through Hosea 2, at the end of which (ver. 23) comes the other passage quoted: "And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy on Lo-ruhamah; and I will say to Lo-ammi, Ammi ['My people'], and they shall say, My God." It might seem that these quotations are not apposite, since they referred originally, not to the Gentiles, but to the ten tribes of Israel. It is to be observed, however, that the words were spoken after these tribes had been declared to be cut off from being God's people at all, so that a principle of Divine dealing is ex- pressed which is applicable to the Gentile world. "This, which was true of Israel in its dispersion, was much more true of the Gentiles.


    Ephraim, the woman with no husband, was considered barren despite there existing biological descendants of Ephraim between the Assyrian exile and the 1st advent, no?

    Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud,
    you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord.

    Unless their ancestors were of Ephraim.

    Where did I say the exiled and divorced descendants of Ephraim would be reinstated as gentiles? I believe Israel = Jews and grafted in gentiles

    You have shown no backpedalling thus far, so not sure what you are talking about.

    The lost sheep of Israel refers to the Jews. Jesus affirms this by instructing the 12 NOT to go on the road of the Gentiles or any towns of the Samaritans. It is the towns of Israel where the 12 are to go to the lost sheep of Israel.

    matthew 10:5-6 , 23 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

    The gentile descendants of exiled, divorced, and scattered Ephraim were also considered lost sheep. They would be the other flock, along with gentiles who did not descend from Ephraim.

    John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd

    The scriptures never affirm this. THT/British Israelism creates it.

    Good, so you concede that exceptions are not precluded from being sown along with Israel.

    Which again confirms my position, that all 12 tribes are represented IN the body of Christ, and NOT outside the covenantal relationship. Exiled and divorced Ephraim was not distinguishable from the gentiles outside of the covenantal relationship with God. This is substantiated by the barren woman not having children until the new covenant (galatians 4). It is only through a covenant, that Israel is distinguished from the nations.

    Which does not preclude gentiles, as the kingdom gathers "all kinds of fish".

    To the jew first, then gentile. Why doesn't scripture state to Jew, Ephraim, and gentile?


    I could say the same about you and the irrational theology that is THT/British Israelism. Christ came to be a shepherd over one flock: Jew and gentile, who were lost because of sin.

    Incorrect. Clearly, more misunderstanding on your part. From where was Christ given dominion over all the earth, which includes the land promised to Abraham and his offspring (Christ)?

    The kingdom is both on earth and in heaven.

    Christ ascended to heaven as a forerunner on our behalf. Do you know what a forerunner is?

    Hebrews 6:19-20 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and steadfast. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,where Jesus our forerunner has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.

    There was no need to establish peace and justice in heaven? how could there be a war in heaven (revelation 12). why would Christ need to cleanse the heavens with better sacrifices than the earthly ones (Hebrews 9:23). Why does there need to be a new heaven and earth and not just new earth?

    As well as on your part with Hebrews 10 and the veil.

    Please provide scripture as to which spring festival involves the high priest entering the most holy place, into the presence of God, once a year to substantiate your claim that Hebrews 9:25 only indicates the spring feast antitypes. I'm not familiar with that one.

    Hebrews 9:25 Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own
     
  20. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    361
    +72
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    It is desultory or foolish for one to cite their advocates (supersessionists in this case) in any controversy with those who refute one’s credo. Conversely, it is prudent for one to cite those of another credo where they support one’s credo in any controversy; even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Since my thread is about refuting supersessionism, it logically follows that I’m not going to recognize the soundness of its advocates, so it is foolish or desultory to cite them to me or any other individual who grasps the significance of the diverse narratives of the two houses of Israel. Yet, it was prudent for me to cite your own advocates when they agree with me like on the issues that Satan is still the prince of this world or that Israel inherits the gentiles in Isaiah 54:3. Since they’re your advocates, it’s significant when they agree with me, in disagreement with your credo; even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Again, your contradiction and backpedaling stem from your concession that Zechariah 10:8-9 refers to Ephraim where you wrote: “This seems to be a gathering in Christ and a sowing of the great commission.” Your concession was further demonstrated when you wrote: God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim. This is an admission that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent. Consequently, it logically follows that the elect descendants of Ephraim are also the lost sheep of Israel and not just the Jews. The major problem with your perception is a lack of coherent logic.

    Your attempt to backpedal on your concession with the ad hoc explanation that God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim by including the gentiles is merely augmenting your concession with an incidental; the incidental does not change your concession and your incidental is incorrect in the first place. The gentiles are incidental to God’s plan to call or redeem the elect of Israel, not the other way around: the Jew first and then the gentile. Or, in other words, the missionary strategy revealed by ALL scripture is: the descendants of Jacob first and foremost and then the gentiles (Isaiah 49:5-6). Twisting the missionary strategy stems from the supersessionist’s assertion that God rejected the Jews in complete denial of Paul’s affirmation that God did not cast off the people who He foreknew (Romans 11:2, 29). You deny that you hold to this rejection but by twisting the missionary strategy it shows your denial is false and that you actually deny Paul’s said affirmation.

    In support of my doctrine that the lost sheep of Israel included the elect descendants of Ephraim who were exiled and scattered I cite a number of supersessionists who confirm that the phrase I will hiss for them (KJV) represents Christ’s calling to Israel, the descendants of Jacob.

    Zechariah 10:8
    I will hiss for them

    Or "whistle for them"; the word signifies, as Kimchi and Ben Melech observe, the motion of the lips with the voice, and is a sign of calling; and so the Targum renders it, I will cry or call for them; and it denotes the call of them by the Gospel, which is the voice of Christ (John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible; emphasis added)

    Zechariah 10:8-10. I will hiss for them — Rather, whistle, as the word שׁרק should be here translated. I will call them from distant countries, as a shepherd calls his flock together with his whistle. (Benson Commentary; emphasis added)

    I will hiss for them; though they are now scattered far off, I will cause them to return; I will whistle, as a shepherd, and they, as scattered sheep, shall run with sped back to the flock. (Matthew Poole's Commentary; emphasis added)​


    There are a number of supersessionists who affirm the phrase “I will hiss for them” represents the call of Christ to the lost sheep of Israel, even as they fail to grasp the significance of the context that it pertains to Ephraim and that it is a first advent phenomenon; obviously this is due to their failure to recognize differing narrations in the scriptures for Judah and Ephraim and their denial of Romans 11:2, 29, which is pervasive in supersessionism. Even so, YOU HAVE CONCEEDED that the call pertains to Ephraim, as opposed from Judah, and that it was a first advent phenomenon! Therein lie your contradictions and reason for trying to backpedal.

    Ignoring context is pervasive in supersessionism. The woman who is barren in Isaiah 54 is the one who bears the children that people the desolate cities. Clearly, this supports my doctrine in that the desolation ends when Christ calls the elect descendants of Ephraim to fulfill the prophecy that they become a multitude of peoples. As Hosea 1:10 prophesied: “and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” KJV

    Not all Israelites are Jews. Again, your backpedaling and contradiction attempt to make the descendants of Ephraim the gentiles in both Testaments.

    Ignoring context is pervasive in supersessionism. The woman who is barren in Isaiah 54 is the one who bears the children that people the desolate cities. Clearly, this supports my doctrine in that the desolation ends when Christ calls the elect descendants of Ephraim to fulfill the prophecy that they become a multitude of peoples. As Hosea 1:10 prophesied: “and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” KJV

    Your denial of the context of Isaiah 54 leads to the perversion of such texts as Matthew 10:5-6, 23. Christ told them not to go to Samaria because that is not where they were to find Ephraim. And since Christ’s call causes the elect descendants of desolate woman to people the desolate cites in the far-off dominions, it will not be until Christ’s return that they reach those cities; Christ was speaking of his return in Matthew 10:23.

    Concession noted! But you're still backpedaling to try and cover your concession that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent. You're finding it impossible with me to turn Ephraim into gentiles, so now you allowed the camel’s nose into the tent by acknowledging the descendants of Ephraim are also “considered lost sheep.”

    Paul’s gentile co-workers were not exiled descendants of Jacob. The call to be sown throughout the nations pertained to the elect remnant of Ephraim and Judah, the former are the descendants that people the desolate cities in the foreign dominions in Isaiah 54. Paul’s gentile co-works were the few exceptions and there is no further testimony that substantiates them fulfilling the prophecy.

    This does not surmount that the descendants of Ephraim were still distinguishable from the gentiles at the time the apostles such as James and Peter went out to minister to them. Knowing that they were to be recalled in accord with Hosea, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and a plethora of other prophets affirm my doctrine, not yours.

    Again, the specious argument from silence. Any true scholar of scripture should know that God’s intent is to cloak some truths in mystery to be revealed by progressive revelation.

    Your doctrine makes a mockery of Matthew 6:10. Matthew 6:10 reveals that the intent of God is to bring his kingdom to earth, not take it to heaven. And if war was common in heaven that would be in conflict with numerous scriptures that affirm God does not allow evil to dwell with him (Psalms 94:20, 101:7, 140:13).

    For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. (Psalms 5:4)​

    As for the forerunner, this refers to Hebrew 4:16: “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” He became our forerunner in order that, at this time, we are able to spiritually come before God’s throne. That said, you fail to note that the war in heaven in Revelation 12 can be decrypted with Ephesians 6:12

    For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    There is a spiritual war for the high places of this world (“heavenly places” in the ESV), over the rulership of this world since Christ’s first advent and that is what is depicted in Revelation 12. Again, Abraham’s inheritance was the land.

    For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)​

    You're all too ready to cite Galatians 3:28-29, without really knowing what it actually means.

    You don’t understand the meaning of proof-texting, then. Proof-texting ignores the context, which you are doing and is pervasive in supersessionism. Hebrews 10:20 is the context.

    Please provide the scripture that shows us where Christ was the literal veil in the copy of the heavenly. I’m not familiar with that one. Show us in the copy of the heavenly where the golden altar of incense was in the second section, as in Hebrews 9:3-4, if you can. Furthermore, since the antitype for the sacrifice for sin is different than the copies of this phenomenon, then we have assurance the heavenly things are different also. In summation, the heavenly sanctuary has but one compartment, unlike the copy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
Loading...