Replacement Theology Refuted

[claninja]

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.

Well, I had a hard time finding any serious Bible scholar or commentator that promotes THT/British Israelism. Maybe you could provide a couple?

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.

What backpedaling? what belief have I changed? I am not following you.

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.

I have always believed the Jews consisted of the 12 tribes of Israel. I have always believed the divorced, exiled, and scattered descendants of the northern kingdom mixed with nations and became gentiles after the Assyrian exile.

Which part did I change or reverse in opinion?

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.

Jerry, what are you talking about? Now you are just starting to make things up.

I have always stated to the Jew first and then the gentile. When the Church first began, where did the gentiles hear the gospel from? The Jews. Peter went to Cornelius. Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, was the apostle to the gentiles.

I have never stated that God rejected all of biological Israel. Scripture states quite the opposite of that. Only part of Israel was hardened (romans 11:25). Only a remnant of Israel would be saved (romans 9:27).

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.

In order to be consistent with other scripture, I believe that Zechariah 10 is in regards to both Judah and Israel being gathered to Christ for the great commission.

Jeremiah 31:27 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 of beast

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.

It's contradicts THT/British Israelism's false teaching.

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

Paul has Isaiah 54:1 being fulfilled in the 1st century, thus it is under the new covenant that the barren woman has children to possess the nations and fill the desolate cities.

It is not untenable that the exiled, divorced, and scattered descendants of Ephraim mixed with nations and became a multitude of gentile over a period of 700 years starting after the Assyrian exile. Especially considering we have no Biblical or archeological evidence that those descendants remained tribally intact in the nations.

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

We will have to agree to disagree, especially considering there is no scripture that makes a distinction between Jews and non Jew Israelites.

I don't think you actually know what the definition of backpedalling is.

During our dialogue I have always believed Jews consisted of all 12 tribes. I have substantiated this by showing that descendants of the northern kingdom lived with the descendants of the southern kingdom post Babylonian exile (1 chronicles 9:1-3, luke 2:36). I have always believed those descendants of Ephraim that were divorced, exiled, and scattered to mix with the nations became gentiles. I have substantiated with with Paul having hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the GENTILES with the Jews in the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:23-26.

Please show where I have changed my belief to substantiate that you understand the definition of backpedalling.

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

Paul has Isaiah 54:1 being fulfilled in the 1st century with those who are under the new covenant. (Galatians 4:21-28).

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.

Your THT/British Israelism doctrine seems to ignore a part the passage. the disciples were not to go among the Samaritans AND GENTILES.

matthew 10:5-6 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.

It is the towns of Israel that they were to go to, and they would not make it through all the towns of Israel until the son of man Comes. As a preterist, I agree Christ was speaking about his return.

Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

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.”

You are convinced that THT/British Israelism is correct. I am not.
I am convinced that Jew and gentile being one fulfills the union of Ephraim and Judah. You are not.

We have been discussing this for, what over a month now? doesn't seem like we will change each others minds.

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.

never stated the co-workers of paul were exiled descendants of Jacob. I'm just glad you can concede that there are exceptions.

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.

To the Jew first, then gentile. The Jews were distinguishable from the nations because of their covenant with God. The gentiles were outside of the old covenant.

Under the new covenant, gentiles that were grafted in with the Jews are distinguished from the nations in that they are now God's people.

The divorced and exiled descendants of Ephraim that were scattered to the nations were not distinguishable from the nations. We have no scriptural, archeological, or historical proof that the exiled and divorced descendants of the northern kingdom remained tribally intact from the time of the Assyrian exile.

As indicated by Ezra, even the returned exiles of Israel mixed with the people of the land. Thus, its highly unlikely that the exiled, divorced, and scattered descendants of Ephraim did not mix with the surrounding nations.

Ezra 9:1-2 After these things had been accomplished, the leaders approached me and said: “The people of Israel, including the priests and Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the surrounding peoples whose abominations are like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites. Indeed, the Israelites have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed has been mixed with the people of the land.

We do however, have scriptural proof that the descendants of the northern kingdom, returned with descendants of the southern kingdom to the land post Babylonian exile (1 chronicles 9:1-3). We even have scriptural proof that descendants of the northern kingdom were living in Jerusalem in the 1st century (luke 2:36). Thus the term Jew refers to all 12 tribes.

 

[claninja]

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

Paul confirms my belief by quoting hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:23-26 with the inclusion of the gentiles with Jews in the vessels of mercy.

Thus to the Jew first then gentile, and not Jew, Ephraim, then gentile.

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.

Ahhh, so you can't provide any reason as to why NT scripture only mentions to the Jew first then gentile, and is very absent on "to the Jew, Ephraim, and gentile".....well noted.

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.

Again, more twisting of what I believe. "thy will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN". God's kingdom originates in heaven. Heaven is where God's throne is (Isaiah 66:1). Heaven is where Christ receives His kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14, Luke 19:12). Through Christ's reconciliation of the world and the Spirit being poured out on His people, the kingdom is brought to earth. God's kingdom originates in heaven (as it is in heaven) and works through his people on earth (thy will be done on earth).

God's throne is heaven. Why would he need to take it there?

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)

Does this mean you make a distinction between the high places (heavenly places) and heaven (the throne of God)?

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.”

Hebrews states Jesus entered into the inner sanctuary as a forerunner on hour behalf. Where has Jesus become a High Priest forever? Only spiritually to throne of grace or literally in the presence of God?

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

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.

You are using a single verse, NOT FOUND IN HEBREWS 9, as a proof text that Hebrews 9 is not about the day of atonement. I have no disagreement that Christ was the antitype of the veil. We seem to have a disagreement though, that Christ was the antitype of the high priest who enter the most holy place once year. Is Christ our current high priest or not? Did Christ enter the presence of God on our behalf or not?

You continue to avoid Hebrews 9:7,25, which is specifically in regards to the day of atonement.

Please provide the scripture that shows us where Christ was the literal veil in the copy of the heavenly.

I have no arguments that Christ was the antitype of the veil. Our difference is in if Christ is the antitype of the High priest who entered into heaven (antitype of the most holy place) in the presence of God. I say he did. You appear to not believe that has happened yet, as you believe the day of atonement (high priest entering the most holy place once a year for the sins of the people) as not been fulfilled yet.

In summation, the heavenly sanctuary has but one compartment, unlike the copy.

I absolutely agree. But it appears you disagree that Christ is the antitype of the high priest that enters the most holy place once a year.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Well, I had a hard time finding any serious Bible scholar or commentator that promotes THT/British Israelism. Maybe you could provide a couple?

I haven’t, but then I have the scriptures that verify the different narrations for the two houses of Israel, which is ignored by dispensationalism and supersessionism. That is why I have rejected both of the latter.

I have always believed the Jews consisted of the 12 tribes of Israel. I have always believed the divorced, exiled, and scattered descendants of the northern kingdom mixed with nations and became gentiles after the Assyrian exile.

You continue with contradictions. You state that ten tribes of the northern nation went into exile, which leaves but two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, comprising the southern nation, which scripture affirms. Therefore, the Jews cannot consist of 12 tribes. Scripture states that a small minority of refugees from the northern tribes settled in Judah before Christ came, but the ten tribes were still in exile, which you acknowledge. You can’t have it both ways with someone who knows the scriptures; your statements are rife with contradictions and fallacies. You actually propose more than 12 tribes.

We will have to agree to disagree, especially considering there is no scripture that makes a distinction between Jews and non Jew Israelites.

This is blatantly false. In speaking of Christ, the stone the builders reject, Isaiah prophesied,

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 8:14)​

And of course, you acknowledged that the NC was first and foremost to Judah and Israel. You concede God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim and you concede the descendants of the northern kingdom were in exile when Christ came and you conceded that they were the lost sheep of Israel, so I’m not making up anything when I state that your doctrine is full of contradictions, backpedaling and lacks coherence. You can’t continue to hold that the call to the lost sheep of Israel was strictly to the Jews in Judah, when you’ve conceded the ten tribes were in exile and that Christ came to call them, and they were also the other fold in John 10, the lost sheep of Israel.

As you stated: 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.

Even your concession is rife with inaccuracies in your attempt to backpedal. It is the descendants of EPHRAIM who were divorced and scattered… and were also considered lost sheep. Descendants of gentiles are not descendants of Ephraim. You’re trying so hard to make the descendants of Ephraim gentiles, but the gentiles were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim.

Paul has Isaiah 54:1 being fulfilled in the 1st century with those who are under the new covenant. (Galatians 4:21-28).

It is the descendants of EPHRAIM who were divorced and scattered… and were also considered lost sheep, by your own words. Isaiah 54 clearly states that the children of the barren woman “possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.” ESV. Ephraim inherits the gentiles, which your own advocates concede. Descendants of gentiles are not descendants of Ephraim. You're trying so hard to make the descendants of Ephraim gentiles, but the gentiles were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim. Paul indeed has Isaiah 54 fulfilled in the 1st century by the children of the promise, Ephraim; 1 Peter 2:9-10 substantives that the children of the barren woman are the descendants of Ephraim that “possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.”

Your THT/British Israelism doctrine seems to ignore a part the passage. the disciples were not to go among the Samaritans AND GENTILES.

matthew 10:5-6 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. It is the towns of Israel that they were to go to, and they would not make it through all the towns of Israel until the son of man Comes. As a preterist, I agree Christ was speaking about his return.

Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

No, it’s your supersessionist and preterist doctrines that try restrict the towns of Israel to Judah. But by admitting that the descendants of Ephraim were the other flock in John 10 you support my doctrine that the desolate cities in foreign dominions in Isaiah 54:3 pertain to the lost sheep of Israel. And even after the first century, they had not gone through all these cities, which also exposes the doctrines of preterism as false. Descendants of gentiles are not descendants of Ephraim. Your trying so hard to make the descendants of Ephraim gentiles, but the gentiles were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim. You’ve already conceded that the exiled descendants of Ephraim were also the lost sheep of Israel, which exposes your preterist's doctrines as bogus.

To the Jew first, then gentile. The Jews were distinguishable from the nations because of their covenant with God. The gentiles were outside of the old covenant.

The Ephraimites were distinguishable from the nations because they, in your own words were, “exiled, divorced, and scattered” and “were also considered lost sheep.”

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Paul confirms my belief by quoting hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:23-26 with the inclusion of the gentiles with Jews in the vessels of mercy.

Thus to the Jew first then gentile, and not Jew, Ephraim, then gentile.

Matthew 10:5-6 affirms the lost sheep of Israel come before the gentiles, and you acknowledged the descendants of Ephraim are the other flock in John 10 and are also the lost sheep, even as you fallaciously try to make them gentiles, who were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim.

Ahhh, so you can't provide any reason as to why NT scripture only mentions to the Jew first then gentile, and is very absent on "to the Jew, Ephraim, and gentile".....well noted.

Yes, I did, Matthew 10:5-6. Last time I checked Ephraim is Israel. And you conceded: “scattered Ephraim were also considered lost sheep.”

Again, more twisting of what I believe. "thy will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN". God's kingdom originates in heaven. Heaven is where God's throne is (Isaiah 66:1). Heaven is where Christ receives His kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14, Luke 19:12). Through Christ's reconciliation of the world and the Spirit being poured out on His people, the kingdom is brought to earth. God's kingdom originates in heaven (as it is in heaven) and works through his people on earth (thy will be done on earth).

God's throne is heaven. Why would he need to take it there?

You merely affirm that God, through Christ, is intruding into Satan’s world in this age, but I see that Matthew 6:10 is consummated at Christ’s return, which is revealed as the last trumpet in Revelation 11:15. As Christ declared the meek inherit the earth in Matthew 5:5. This is not preterist friendly.

Does this mean you make a distinction between the high places (heavenly places) and heaven (the throne of God)?

Paul is speaking of a spiritual war that is occurring because God, through Christ, is intruding into Satan’s world in this age. Paul states we wrestle “against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” We are not warring against Satan’s evil forces where God’s throne abides, but where they exist in this world. The beast in Revelation 13 is one of them and that is not in heaven where God’s throne abides.

Hebrews states Jesus entered into the inner sanctuary as a forerunner on hour behalf. Where has Jesus become a High Priest forever? Only spiritually to throne of grace or literally in the presence of God?

Your ignoring the context, which pervasive of preterism. This was prefaced by Hebrew 4:16, which reveals we spiritually can come before the throne for answered prayers. Hebrews 10 merely elaborates further.

I absolutely agree. But it appears you disagree that Christ is the antitype of the high priest that enters the most holy place once a year.

Since you conceded that the heavenly sanctuary was different than the copy, the it follows that the copy did not impeccably depict the heavenly acts in salvation. It was only a shadow, according to Hebrews 10. Hebrew 9:26 states, “but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” KJV. The object of coming before God was to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, which was in fulfillment of the spring festivals, and individual atonement. There is nothing in the context that verifies the atonement for the congregation was accomplished at the first advent.

 

[claninja]

haven’t, but then I have the scriptures that verify the different narrations for the two houses of Israel, which is ignored by dispensationalism and supersessionism. That is why I have rejected both of the latter.

Right, so I can't quote any serious Bible Scholars/ Commentators of your position because there are none.

I don't believe you'll find any theological study that disagrees the nation of Israel split into 2 houses under the old covenant or that they were prophesied to reunite.

The disagreement appears to be on 1.) what happened to the descendants of the northern kingdom that were divorced and exiled to the nations and 2.) how the reuniting of the these descendants of the northern kingdom with the southern kingdom plays out.

1.) what happened to the divorced descendants?
THT/British Israelism appears to believe they remained tribally intact (western white people in the case of British Israelism) while in exile. While supersessionism believes they intermingled with the nations and thus lost tribal identity.

2.) how are the divorced descendants reunited?
THT/British Israelism appears to believe that the 2 houses are reunited near or at the 2nd advent. While supersessionism believes the reuniting occurred at the 1st advent with the inclusion of the gentiles with the jews in the vessels mercy.

You continue with contradictions.

It only appears so for those who adhere to THT/British Israelism and not what scripture actually states.

You continue with contradictions. You state that ten tribes of the northern nation went into exile, which leaves but two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, comprising the southern nation, which scripture affirms.

Correct, I do believe 10 northern tribes went into exile.
2 Kings 17:22-23 The people of Israel walked in all the sins that Jeroboam did. They did not depart from them, until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had spoken by all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day.

But I do not believe in absolutes. I do not believe every single member of the 10 northern tribes went into Assyrian exile.

Scripture is very clear that a large number of the northern kingdom had settled among the southern kingdom prior to the Assyrian Exile.
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.

Scripture is very clear that a large number of the northern kingdom had come to the southern kingdom after the northern kingdom had been exiled.
2 Chronicles 30:18 A large number of the people—many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun—had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah interceded for them, saying, “May the LORD, who is good, provide atonement for everyone

Scripture is very clear that descendants of the northern kingdom returned to the land with descendants of the southern kingdom.
1 chronciles 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.

Scripture is very clear that more than just the 2 tribes of Israel were living in Israel in 1st century. Since tribal affiliation is rarely mentioned in NT scripture, its pretty remarkable that the tribe of Asher is mentioned.
Luke 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,

Therefore, the Jews cannot consist of 12 tribes.

That would contradict scripture, as scripture is clear that large numbers of northern kingdom had moved to the southern kingdom, even post Babylonian exile. Throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah returning exiles are referred to as Jews and Israel. No distinction is made between Jew and Israel.

Scripture states that a small minority of refugees from the northern tribes settled in Judah before Christ came, but the ten tribes were still in exile, which you acknowledge.

Scripture never specifically states "a small minority" from the northern tribes settled in Judah before Christ came. But even by conceding to the fact descendants of the northern tribes dwelled in the southern kingdom you contradict your own position that Jews don't include descedants from the northern tribe.

Scripture states "large numbers" and "great numbers" hda moved south. Additionally Scripture simply lists of "some" and not all of the descendants of the northern kingdom that returned with the southern kingdom post Babylonian exile (1 chronicles 9:1-3).

I am just glad you concede that descendants of the northern kingdom were present in the land of Israel by the time of Christ, even if you believe they were only "refugees".

You can’t have it both ways with someone who knows the scriptures; your statements are rife with contradictions and fallacies

To say you can't have descendants of the northern kingdom living in the northern kingdom and in exile, contradicts scripture, as scripture is clear, that descendants of the northern kingdom were exiled and also found in the southern kingdom.

You actually propose more than 12 tribes.

Some descendants of the 10 northern tribes living in the southern kingdom while some descendants of the 10 northern tribes living in exile creates more than 12 tribes? This argument doesn't even make any logical sense.

This is blatantly false. In speaking of Christ, the stone the builders reject, Isaiah prophesied,

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 8:14)

You missed the irony of my statement. There is no such thing as a non-Jew Israelite. There is no scripture that makes a distinction with the descendants from the northern tribes that remained with the southern kingdom as non Jews.

And of course, you acknowledged that the NC was first and foremost to Judah and Israel.

Absolutely. To the Jew first, then gentile. The NC was first and foremost to the Jews, which consist of descendants of the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

You concede God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim and you concede the descendants of the northern kingdom were in exile when Christ came

Correct, I believe the descendants of the northern kingdom that had been divorced and exiled and scattered, unlike the descendants who had moved south, mixed with the nations and became gentiles.

you conceded that they were the lost sheep of Israel,

Christ has 2 folds: Jews and Gentiles. Both Jews (house of Israel and House Judah that remained tribally intact) and gentiles (nations and divorced/exiled descendants of ephraim who had mixed with the nations) were lost sheep.

so I’m not making up anything when I state that your doctrine is full of contradictions, backpedaling and lacks coherence. You can’t continue to hold that the call to the lost sheep of Israel was strictly to the Jews in Judah, when you’ve conceded the ten tribes were in exile and that Christ came to call them, and they were also the other fold in John 10, the lost sheep of Israel.

Yes, you are making up contradictions. It is not a contradiction that some descendants from the northern kingdom remained tribally intact with the descendants of the southern kingdom, while other descendants of the northern kingdom were exiled and mixed with the nations resulting in gentile descendants. Especially when scripture testifies to this fact.

Even your concession is rife with inaccuracies in your attempt to backpedal. It is the descendants of EPHRAIM who were divorced and scattered… and were also considered lost sheep. Descendants of gentiles are not descendants of Ephraim. You’re trying so hard to make the descendants of Ephraim gentiles, but the gentiles were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim.

Here seems to be your misunderstanding of my position.

1.) If descendants of the divorced, exiled, and scattered northern kingdom only married other descendants of the divorced, exiled, and scattered northern kingdom for 700 years, then they would remain tribally intact leading up to the time of Christ.

2.) If, however, descendants of the divorced, exiled, and scattered northern kingdom married into other nations, then their children, and children's children, and children's children's children, and so on and so forth for a period of 700 years (from Assyrian exile unto the 1st advent) would be gentiles. This would be because 1.) they were divorced from the covenant and 2.) they would be indistinguishable from the nations from a genetic standpoint even though their ancestors some 700 years prior were of the northern kingdom.


Paul confirms point number 2 in that by the inclusion of the gentiles with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise as stated in hosea to the descendants of the northern kingdom.

Romans 9:24-26 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.’”“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

No, it’s your supersessionist and preterist doctrines that try restrict the towns of Israel to Judah.

Jesus tells them not to go AMONG THE GENTILES and Towns of Samaritans, what area is left? hint: the land Israel.
Matthew 10:5-6 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.

Jesus tells them they will no have gone through ALL THE TOWNS OF ISRAEL before the son of man comes.
matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Your trying so hard to make the descendants of Ephraim gentiles, but the gentiles were never divorced and cast off,

This still shows that you misunderstand. I have never stated the gentiles were divorced and cast off.

1.) Ephraim was divorced
2.) the divorced Ephraimites that were scattered to the nations, mixed with the nations, losing their tribal identity and becoming a multitude of gentiles over a period of 700 years (Assyrian exile to 1st advent).

By God including gentiles from all nations, which include descendants from Ephraim who had lost their tribal identitiy, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim to reunite them into the nation of Israel.

The Ephraimites were distinguishable from the nations because they, in your own words were, “exiled, divorced, and scattered” and “were also considered lost sheep.”

Ephraimites being divorced, exiled and scattered would make them as gentiles. They were no longer in a covenantal relationship with God.

 

[claninja]

Matthew 10:5-6 affirms the lost sheep of Israel come before the gentiles, and you acknowledged the descendants of Ephraim are the other flock in John 10 and are also the lost sheep, even as you fallaciously try to make them gentiles, who were never divorced and cast off, like the descendants of Ephraim.

I agree that the lost sheep of Israel come before the gentiles; the lost sheep of Israel being the Jews that consist of the house of Israel and house of Judah that retained their tribal identity. Thus to the Jew first.

I believe the other flock, NOT OF THIS FOLD, in John 10 is the gentiles, which includes the intermingled divorced and exiled descendants of the northern kingdom that lost their tribal identity. Then to the gentile.

Yes, I did, Matthew 10:5-6. Last time I checked Ephraim is Israel. And you conceded: “scattered Ephraim were also considered lost sheep.”

The descendants of the northern kingdom, living in Israel and not among the gentiles or towns of the Samaritans, that retained their tribal identity, are in fact Israel. Thus Jesus sent the disciples to the Jews, lost sheep of Israel, inhabiting the towns of Israel. He did not initially send them among the gentiles or Samaritans.

You merely affirm that God, through Christ, is intruding into Satan’s world in this age, but I see that Matthew 6:10 is consummated at Christ’s return, which is revealed as the last trumpet in Revelation 11:15. As Christ declared the meek inherit the earth in Matthew 5:5.

Preterists agree with this. Satan was given authority by God over kingdoms of the earth. Christ came and by his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, the kingdom would come, which would result in satan being cast out and those in Christ overcoming him. This would also result in Christ being put above every authority and dominion not only in the apostles age, but the one to come as well.

Paul is speaking of a spiritual war that is occurring because God, through Christ, is intruding into Satan’s world in this age. Paul states we wrestle “against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” We are not warring against Satan’s evil forces where God’s throne abides, but where they exist in this world. The beast in Revelation 13 is one of them and that is not in heaven where God’s throne abides.

So Prior to satan being cast out of heaven, he could not come before God's throne?

Your ignoring the context, which pervasive of preterism. This was prefaced by Hebrew 4:16, which reveals we spiritually can come before the throne for answered prayers. Hebrews 10 merely elaborates further.

You are ignoring the context of one chapter and shifting to a different chapter, which I am finding out more and more is pervasive of THT/British israelism.

Where is Jesus now as our high priest?

Since you conceded that the heavenly sanctuary was different than the copy, the it follows that the copy did not impeccably depict the heavenly acts in salvation. It was only a shadow, according to Hebrews 10. Hebrew 9:26 states, “but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” KJV. The object of coming before God was to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, which was in fulfillment of the spring festivals, and individual atonement. There is nothing in the context that verifies the atonement for the congregation was accomplished at the first advent.

The object of coming in to the presence of God to put away the sins of the people was the day of atonement. There is no spring festival where the high priest entered to the inner sanctuary to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people.

All of Chapter 9 verifies that Christ fulfilled the day of atonement.

What festival does the high priest go into the most holy place once a year?

Hebrews 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

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

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Right, so I can't quote any serious Bible Scholars/ Commentators of your position because there are none.

I don't believe you'll find any theological study that disagrees the nation of Israel split into 2 houses under the old covenant or that they were prophesied to reunite.

The disagreement appears to be on 1….

From the perspective of most postmillennialists there aren’t any serious preterist Bible scholars/commentators. What’s your point? For that matter, from the perspective of most of Christendom, there aren’t any serious preterist Bible scholars/commentators. As to the one and two, that is what we are debating, isn’t it?

Correct, I do believe 10 northern tribes went into exile….

But I do not believe in absolutes. I do not believe every single member of the 10 northern tribes went into Assyrian exile….

Scripture is very clear that more than just the 2 tribes of Israel were living in Israel in 1st century. Since tribal affiliation is rarely mentioned in NT scripture, its pretty remarkable that the tribe of Asher is mentioned….

That would contradict scripture, as scripture is clear that large numbers of northern kingdom had moved to the southern kingdom, even post Babylonian exile. Throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah returning exiles are referred to as Jews and Israel. No distinction is made between Jew and Israel.

More ad hoc rationalizations. You concede that the scriptures affirm that the ten tribes went into exile. Let’s see, 10 from 12 equals 2. Then you proceed by a straw-man argument as if I don’t agree to the texts you cite, that refugees from Ephraim, the northern nation, settled in Judah. Let me repeat myself, refugees from Ephraim, the northern nation, settled in Judah. Now, where are the 10 tribes, in Judah or exile? You just conceded they were in exile, so they cannot be in exile and in Judah at the same time. One of the groups, either the refugees in Judah or those in exile, represent Ephraim, the northern nation, and the scriptures affirm those in exile represent Ephraim. You have the ten tribes in exile and in Judah. Let’s see, 10 plus 10 equals 20 and counting the 2 in Judah, that makes 22 tribes of Israel.

Scripture never specifically states "a small minority" from the northern tribes settled in Judah before Christ came. But even by conceding to the fact descendants of the northern tribes dwelled in the southern kingdom you contradict your own position that Jews don't include descedants from the northern tribe.

Scripture states "large numbers" and "great numbers" hda moved south. Additionally Scripture simply lists of "some" and not all of the descendants of the northern kingdom that returned with the southern kingdom post Babylonian exile (1 chronicles 9:1-3).

I am just glad you concede that descendants of the northern kingdom were present in the land of Israel by the time of Christ, even if you believe they were only "refugees"…..

Some descendants of the 10 northern tribes living in the southern kingdom while some descendants of the 10 northern tribes living in exile creates more than 12 tribes? This argument doesn't even make any logical sense.

Again, the straw-man argument. I never stated that the Jews didn’t include refugees from Ephraim. What I’ve been affirming with scripture is that, when Christ came, the ten tribes that were in exile represented Ephraim, not the refugees in Judah. In similarity, there are Mexican nationals who have migrated to America but Mexico represents the nation, not the migrants in America. Just because there are Mexican migrants in America that doesn’t mean the nation of Mexico resides in America and south of America at the same time. Mexico is south of America even as there are Mexican nationals residing in America.

You missed the irony of my statement. There is no such thing as a non-Jew Israelite. There is no scripture that makes a distinction with the descendants from the northern tribes that remained with the southern kingdom as non Jews.

This has been answered a number of times and you haven’t surmounted that that title “Israel” properly belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh according to Genesis 48:16. This is why the proper term for the northern nation was Israel and the southern became Judah, after the tribe to whom the scepter belonged. Any use of the term “Israel” for Judah when Ephraim was exiled is only in a minor sense.

Here seems to be your misunderstanding of my position.

1.) If descendants … only married other descendants … then they would remain tribally intact….

2.) If… married into other nations, then their children… would be gentiles.

Paul confirms point number 2 in that by the inclusion of the gentiles with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise as stated in hosea to the descendants of the northern kingdom.

As I previously stated, your perception of Ephraim is an anachronism, anthropologically as well as scripturally. No matter how far removed one becomes from their ancestors, both genetically and geographically, one still remains their descendant. That is an anthropological maxim. Again, you already conceded that God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim, which is also an admission that there is a difference between them and other people, the gentiles! You cannot get away with being frivolous about terms with me. It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just that you don’t. And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret Romans 9:25-26 to me.

Jesus tells them not to go AMONG THE GENTILES and Towns of Samaritans, what area is left? hint: the land Israel….

Jesus tells them they will no have gone through ALL THE TOWNS OF ISRAEL before the son of man comes….

You’ve already conceded that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent, which is also an admission that the elect descendants of Ephraim are also the lost sheep of Israel. Your concession is also an admission that there is a difference between them and other people, the gentiles! It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just that you don’t. And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret Matthew 10:5-6, 23 for me.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I agree that the lost sheep of Israel come before the gentiles; the lost sheep of Israel being the Jews that consist of the house of Israel and house of Judah that retained their tribal identity. Thus to the Jew first.

I believe the other flock, NOT OF THIS FOLD, in John 10 is the gentiles, which includes the intermingled divorced and exiled descendants of the northern kingdom that lost their tribal identity. Then to the gentile.

You’ve already conceded that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent, which is also an admission that the elect descendants of Ephraim are also the lost sheep of Israel. Your concession is also an admission that there is a difference between them and other people, the gentiles! It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just that you don’t. And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret John 10 to me.

Preterists agree with this. Satan was given authority by God over kingdoms of the earth. Christ came and by his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, the kingdom would come, which would result in satan being cast out and those in Christ overcoming him. This would also result in Christ being put above every authority and dominion not only in the apostles age, but the one to come as well.

The Revelation is not friendly with preterism. The beasts and the actions against the saints are allowed by God’s Providence, which affirms Christ is merely intruding into Satan’s dominion at this time. This age does not fit what the prophets wrote about the Messianic kingdom; Satan is still allowed to remain in control of this world under God's Providence. Satan's control ends in Christ's government/reign. Postmillennialism, as well as preterism do not do well with such revelations.

So Prior to satan being cast out of heaven, he could not come before God's throne?

Ephesian 6:12 affirms we struggle is on this world and its “heavenly places.” That is not where God’s throne resides.

You are ignoring the context of one chapter and shifting to a different chapter, which I am finding out more and more is pervasive of THT/British israelism.

Where is Jesus now as our high priest?

What you call shifting scholars call maintaining context, which precludes proof-texting.

The object of coming in to the presence of God to put away the sins of the people was the day of atonement. There is no spring festival where the high priest entered to the inner sanctuary to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people.

All of Chapter 9 verifies that Christ fulfilled the day of atonement.

What festival does the high priest go into the most holy place once a year?

So now you're saying Christ didn't present himself to his Father as the antitype of the spring festivals. Tell us when did Christ fulfill the antitypes for the spring festivals, if he did at all.

 

[claninja]

From the perspective of most postmillennialists there aren’t any serious preterist Bible scholars/commentators. What’s your point? For that matter, from the perspective of most of Christendom, there aren’t any serious preterist Bible scholars/commentators.

I am a partial preterist, not full. From the perspective of reformed theology there are. You would disagree that R.C Sproul is not a serious Bible scholar? He was a partial preterist.

While I don't agree with CI Scofield, he was a serious bible Scholar.

You know of no serious THT/British Israelism Bible scholars?

As to the one and two, that is what we are debating, isn’t it?

Then to settle the matter, answering point 1 is probably the most important 1. What happened to those of the 10 tribes that were exiled? Did they mix with the nations or remain tribally intact?

More ad hoc rationalizations.

You continue to misunderstand my position, so I have to.

You concede that the scriptures affirm that the ten tribes went into exile.

Correct, just as you also conceded that descendants of the northern kingdom settled in Judah.

Then you proceed by a straw-man argument as if I don’t agree to the texts you cite, that refugees from Ephraim, the northern nation, settled in Judah. Let me repeat myself, refugees from Ephraim, the northern nation, settled in Judah.

Good, I am glad you concede descendants of the northern kingdom settled in the southern kingdom.

You just conceded they were in exile, so they cannot be in exile and in Judah at the same time.

And you just conceded that descendants of the northern kingdom settled in Judah, so in fact, some descendants of the northern kingdom can be in exile, while other descendants can be settled in the southern kingdom.

One of the groups, either the refugees in Judah or those in exile, represent Ephraim, the northern nation, and the scriptures affirm those in exile represent Ephraim.

So you make a distinction in that the descendants of the northern kingdom that were deported to foreign lands represent Israel, while the descendants of the northern kingdom that settled in Judah do not represent Israel.

I would disagree with that conclusion. I would argue those that have been cast off and divorced from the covenant do not represent Israel. They descended from Israel, but as they have been cast off, they do not represent Israel.

You have the ten tribes in exile and in Judah. Let’s see, 10 plus 10 equals 20 and counting the 2 in Judah, that makes 22 tribes of Israel.

1.You have 1 tribe of Ephraim, some of its descendants were exiled, some settled in judah
2. you have 1 tribe of Manasseh, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
3. you have 1 tribe of reuben, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
4. you have 1 tribe of simeon, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
5. you have 1 tribe of levi, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
6. you have 1 tribe of Judah, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
7. you have 1 tribe of Zebulun, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
8. You have 1 tribe of naphatli, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
9. you have 1 tribe of Dan, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
10. you have 1 tribe of Gad, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
11. you have 1 tribe of Asher, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah
12. you have 1 tribe of Benjamin, some of its descendants were exile, some settled in Judah

That would be 12 tribes

However, by your logic, when some from the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and simeon settled in Judah, that created 15 tribes of Israel. I disagree with that logic.

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.

Again, the straw-man argument. I never stated that the Jews didn’t include refugees from Ephraim.

But you did say "You just conceded they were in exile, so they cannot be in exile and in Judah at the same time.", which is confusing. On one hand you concede descendants of the northern kingdom settled in the southern, but on the other hand you state the descendants of the northern kingdom cannot be in exile and Judah at the same time.

What I’ve been affirming with scripture is that, when Christ came, the ten tribes that were in exile represented Ephraim, not the refugees in Judah.

Right, and I have affirmed with scripture that Jews are representative of national Israel under the old covenant, not the divorced, exiled, and scattered northern kingdom.

In similarity, there are Mexican nationals who have migrated to America but Mexico represents the nation, not the migrants in America. Just because there are Mexican migrants in America that doesn’t mean the nation of Mexico resides in America and south of America at the same time. Mexico is south of America even as there are Mexican nationals residing in America.

Right, but if some Mexicans migrate to America, while the rest are deported all throughout south America, and the country of mexico is then filled with central americans, Canadians, and americans, who is then to draw the line that the Mexicans that migrated to America do no reprenset mexico, while the rest of mexico that was deported all throughout south America does represent mexico?

So it is with the northern kingdom. You are drawing an imaginary line that determines that the descendants of the northern kingdom that settled among the southern kingdom do not represent Israel, while the descendants that were scattered to the nations do represent Israel.

This has been answered a number of times and you haven’t surmounted that that title “Israel” properly belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh according to Genesis 48:16. This is why the proper term for the northern nation was Israel and the southern became Judah, after the tribe to whom the scepter belonged. Any use of the term “Israel” for Judah when Ephraim was exiled is only in a minor sense.

Throughout ezra, Nehemiah, and esther, Jew and Israel are used interchangeably.

Peter calls the Jews men of Israel in acts 2.

As I previously stated, your perception of Ephraim is an anachronism, anthropologically as well as scripturally. No matter how far removed one becomes from their ancestors, both genetically and geographically, one still remains their descendant. That is an anthropological maxim.

Then so are your perceptions because we are in agreement. Over 700 years, from the Assyrian exile to the 1st advent, descendants from Ephraim would be far removed genetically and geographically. I have never stated that even though they were removed genetically and geographically from Ephraim, that they did not descend.

I am Caucasian, if one of my ancestors 700 years ago was African, how would I know without a DNA test. And if I did know, should I now call myself African?

So it is with the descendants of the northern kingdom. After the northern kingdoms divorce and exile and over 700 years of mixing with the surrounding nations, the descendants of exiled Ephraim would have no idea they descended from Ephraim. From a genetic and geographical standpoint they would be indistinguishable from the nations.

Thus, by God including the nations, of whom SOME descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise.

Again, you already conceded that God fulfills his promises to the descendants of Ephraim, which is also an admission that there is a difference between them and other people, the gentiles!

I have always believed that by God including the gentiles with the Jews, he fulfills his promise to reunite the exiled northern kingdom and southern kingdom. I believe the descendants of the northern kingdom were cast off and became as gentiles. Thus by the inclusion of gentiles from every nation, of whom some descended from Ephraim, he fulfills his promises to Ephraim.

It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just that you don’t. And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret Romans 9:25-26 to me.

You separate romans 9:25-26 from Romans 9:24, which is inappropriate and clearly eisegesis.

Romans 9:24-26 are not separate.

You’ve already conceded that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent,

Well, I believe God redeemed people of every tribe, tongue, and nation at the first advent. (revelation 5:9). So obviously that would include those who descended from Israel.

which is also an admission that the elect descendants of Ephraim are also the lost sheep of Israel.

All like sheep have gone astray. The lost sheep of Israel are the Jews. The lost sheep of the other fold are the gentiles.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

To the jew first, then gentile.

And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret Matthew 10:5-6, 23 for me.

I could say the same thing about you, let's stick to objective arguments.

 

[claninja]

You’ve already conceded that it was God’s plan to call or redeem Ephraim at Christ’s first advent, which is also an admission that the elect descendants of Ephraim are also the lost sheep of Israel. Your concession is also an admission that there is a difference between them and other people, the gentiles! It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just that you don’t. And because you don’t know what you are saying you can’t properly interpret John 10 to me.

As I believe people from every tribe, tongue, and nation were redeemed by the blood of Christ (revelation 5:9), logically that would include descendants from Israel.

the only difference between exiled descendants of Ephraim and non descendants of Ephraim is that God promised that he would reunite the exiled descendants of Ephraim with the southern kingdom. As paul reveals, this is fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles with the jews in the vessels of mercy (Romans 9:24-26). Thus by God including the gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim 700 years prior, with the jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise.

God fulfills his promise by uniting the gentiles with the Jews. And by God uniting the gentiles, he reunites the descendants of exiled Ephraim with the Jews, thus fulfilling his promise.

All like sheep have gone astray- everyone. This is not only indicative of Israel, for God so loved the whole world that he gave his one and only son.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The lost sheep of Israel are the Jews. The other fold is the gentiles. Thus to the Jew first, then gentile.

The Revelation is not friendly with preterism.

it's actually quite friendly with preterism, but that's for another thread.

The beasts and the actions against the saints are allowed by God’s Providence, which affirms Christ is merely intruding into Satan’s dominion at this time. This age does not fit what the prophets wrote about the Messianic kingdom; Satan is still allowed to remain in control of this world under God's Providence. Satan's control ends in Christ's government/reign. Postmillennialism, as well as preterism do not do well with such revelations.

That's subject to interpretation.

Ephesian 6:12 affirms we struggle is on this world and its “heavenly places.” That is not where God’s throne resides.

This doesn't answer my question. So satan has never come into the presence of God near his throne?

So now you're saying Christ didn't present himself to his Father as the antitype of the spring festivals. Tell us when did Christ fulfill the antitypes for the spring festivals, if he did at all.

The spring festivals were fulfilled in Christ's death (Passover), his resurrection (1st fruits) and the sending of the Spirit (Pentecost).

Which spring festival involves anything taking place within the Most Holy place?