You sure waste a lot of time and energy on it - it is the obsession of your every thread and post.
Interplanner; the would be MAD scientist :chuckle:
ECT We are not Israel, but the Body of Christ
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
You sure waste a lot of time and energy on it - it is the obsession of your every thread and post.
Interplanner; the would be MAD scientist :chuckle:
Didn't Paul address that issue?
But yes, Christ divorced the house of Israel so they could fulfill their destinies.
Did Israel die out. By no means, God keeps his promises.
God's Truth
New member
God does not promise that everyone blood related to Abraham would be saved, or that everyone from the earthy place called Israel would be saved. God says not all from Israel are Israel. Cut off Jews can still come to God and be saved, if they do not persist in unbelief. We are all bound together in condemnation, and all must come to God the same way, through Jesus Christ. There is no special exemptions for those who are blood related or for converts to Judaism. Jesus is God over all, and all must be saved the same way.
God's Truth
New member
God does not play favoritism.
There is no special and different way for Jews than for Greeks, and Gentiles, etc.
Romans 2:11
11 For God does not show favoritism.
Deuteronomy 10:17
"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
Job 34:19
Who shows no partiality to princes Nor regards the rich above the poor, For they all are the work of His hands?
Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism,
There is no SPECIAL other time and special other way the Jew will be saved.
All must come to God through Jesus by repenting of sins.
All this must be done before Jesus comes again, he is NOT coming to bear sin. Your sins must be non existent when he comes, for he comes as a thief in the night, we must be ready.
Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism,
There is no special and different way for Jews than for Greeks, and Gentiles, etc.
Romans 2:11
11 For God does not show favoritism.
Deuteronomy 10:17
"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
Job 34:19
Who shows no partiality to princes Nor regards the rich above the poor, For they all are the work of His hands?
Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism,
There is no SPECIAL other time and special other way the Jew will be saved.
All must come to God through Jesus by repenting of sins.
All this must be done before Jesus comes again, he is NOT coming to bear sin. Your sins must be non existent when he comes, for he comes as a thief in the night, we must be ready.
Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism,
heir
TOL Subscriber
I'm certainly not a Jew (not even called one) and neither are you!
heir
TOL Subscriber
What did we have to do with Israel? Absolutely nothing! Say it again! Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV
heir
TOL Subscriber
Paul defines the "you Gentiles" in time past as:
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
heir
TOL Subscriber
There were Gentiles called Jews (Romans 2:17 KJV) in Paul's day and Gentiles who feared God (Acts 13:26 KJV) called Greeks (Acts 14:11 KJV, Acts 17:4 KJV) who were heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:29 KJV) in a KJB and Gentiles who had nothing to do with either in time past (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV). Now what?
Right Divider
Body part
This does make some of us wonder why you're frequenting a site like this then...
It's referred to as trolling :chuckle:
Forget DNA, Israel was converted into the Son's kingdom without regard to ethnicity.
Only a small part of Israel were Jews. The gospel went to the Jews first because most of Israel was scattered all over the world, as it is today.
You call yourself "heir" but an heir of what?
Paul said, "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:29)
This means if you are not Abraham's seed by faith then you are not of Christ who is of Abraham's seed and is the King of Israel.
There are those who call themselves Jews but are not Abraham's seed by faith.
Many Jews claim Jesus is not the King of Israel but Jesus says they lie.
Jesus said, "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie — indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet and to know that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9)
Don't confuse the seed of Abraham with the synagogue of Satan.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Study heirs according to the promise vs. fellowheirs by the gospel
With one exception, the Christian forums I have been on there were far more dispensationalist-Christian Zionists active in posting that those with other Church theologies.
It looks like evangelical type Christians are more active in posting on Christian forums than other types of Christians.
And most of evangelical Christians are dispensationalist-Christian Zionists.
A study of information on the use of a literal interpretation of scripture, IQ level and church growth gives a framework for looking at the evangelicals in relation to other Christians.
See: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...lism-or-low-iq-which-came-first/#.V31v6xJ7Xhq
Biblical literalism or low IQ: which came first? Biblical Literalism and IQ, By Razib Kahn
Razib used data from the General Social Survey for certain religious denominations and compared them to the proportion of followers in that faith who believe the Bible should be interpreted literally.
For example, of more mainstream denominations, the United Pentecostal
Church had the highest growth rate, 120, and the highest rank in
Biblical Literalism.
Then came The Assemblies of God, with a growth rate of 112, and Biblical Literalism rate of 76,
The Southern Baptists, also now dominated by dispensationalism, had a growth rate of 32 and a Biblical Literal rate of 60.
He says he got the IQ scores, apparently by denomination, from the
General Social Survey as reported by The Inductivist.
The denominations which are strongest in teaching a consistent literal view of scripture have
members whose average IQ level is a little lower than denominations who
do not teach a consistent literal view.
Kahn's study shows that a good way to grow church membership among people with an average or
very slightly below average intelligence level is to teach consistent
literalism in interpretation of scripture.
There are probably fewer Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Methodists, Church of Christ People, and Lutherans on Christian forums than there are people from the Assembly of God and Pentecostal churches. The Southern Baptists score fairly high too on use of the literal method of interpreting the Bible, but not as high as Pentecostals. Southern Baptists are almost all dispenationalist-Christian Zionist. Catholics are in the middle on literalist interpretation.
The one exception for the Christian forums I have been on is called Christian Wilderness Forum, which has few dispensationalist-Christian Zionists on it. It is not as active and large as TOL.
Among Christian Forums which are dominated by dispensationalist-Christian Zionists, some have moderators who monitor the posts for positions which are contrary to this theology, while others do not do so. I was booted out of Talk Jesus, which does not advertise itself as being dispensationalist-Christian Zionist, for posting on Dean Gotcher and using scripture to show that dispensationalism is wrong. The Talk Jesus moderator said that Dean Gotcher may be one who they are cautious of, and he was cautious of me too. Dean Gotcher is a leader of those interested in the remnant. Though he does not get into an explicit criticism of dispensationalism, he talks and writes about heresy and use of the dialectic in promoting it and I think this may be what alerted the Talk Jesus moderator, who may not have understood much of Gotcher, but knew many churches oppose him.
It looks like evangelical type Christians are more active in posting on Christian forums than other types of Christians.
And most of evangelical Christians are dispensationalist-Christian Zionists.
A study of information on the use of a literal interpretation of scripture, IQ level and church growth gives a framework for looking at the evangelicals in relation to other Christians.
See: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...lism-or-low-iq-which-came-first/#.V31v6xJ7Xhq
Biblical literalism or low IQ: which came first? Biblical Literalism and IQ, By Razib Kahn
Razib used data from the General Social Survey for certain religious denominations and compared them to the proportion of followers in that faith who believe the Bible should be interpreted literally.
For example, of more mainstream denominations, the United Pentecostal
Church had the highest growth rate, 120, and the highest rank in
Biblical Literalism.
Then came The Assemblies of God, with a growth rate of 112, and Biblical Literalism rate of 76,
The Southern Baptists, also now dominated by dispensationalism, had a growth rate of 32 and a Biblical Literal rate of 60.
He says he got the IQ scores, apparently by denomination, from the
General Social Survey as reported by The Inductivist.
The denominations which are strongest in teaching a consistent literal view of scripture have
members whose average IQ level is a little lower than denominations who
do not teach a consistent literal view.
Kahn's study shows that a good way to grow church membership among people with an average or
very slightly below average intelligence level is to teach consistent
literalism in interpretation of scripture.
There are probably fewer Episcopalians, Presbyterian, Methodists, Church of Christ People, and Lutherans on Christian forums than there are people from the Assembly of God and Pentecostal churches. The Southern Baptists score fairly high too on use of the literal method of interpreting the Bible, but not as high as Pentecostals. Southern Baptists are almost all dispenationalist-Christian Zionist. Catholics are in the middle on literalist interpretation.
The one exception for the Christian forums I have been on is called Christian Wilderness Forum, which has few dispensationalist-Christian Zionists on it. It is not as active and large as TOL.
Among Christian Forums which are dominated by dispensationalist-Christian Zionists, some have moderators who monitor the posts for positions which are contrary to this theology, while others do not do so. I was booted out of Talk Jesus, which does not advertise itself as being dispensationalist-Christian Zionist, for posting on Dean Gotcher and using scripture to show that dispensationalism is wrong. The Talk Jesus moderator said that Dean Gotcher may be one who they are cautious of, and he was cautious of me too. Dean Gotcher is a leader of those interested in the remnant. Though he does not get into an explicit criticism of dispensationalism, he talks and writes about heresy and use of the dialectic in promoting it and I think this may be what alerted the Talk Jesus moderator, who may not have understood much of Gotcher, but knew many churches oppose him.
Wacky side note. The church of Philadelphia was located in modern day Turkey, which was the seat of the Caliphate of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. It didn't fall into the broken Middle East we know today until the fall and removal of the caliphate in 1922.
Muslims claim to be the true Jews and followers of Moses.
This empire overthrew the governmental military pope of the Roman Empire in Constantinople'. This marked the broken back of Rome and the end of the second pope. There is still a representative of namesake, but the Roman Empire was essentially crushed by this action.
Oh, and that's the church in Revelation that this is quoted to.
Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Right Divider
Body part
A story without a fact to support it.
Nope.
Any time you want to post passages for the basis of your supposed sound conclusions against what you misinterpret as Dispensationalism; feel free to do so.
Thus far, all I read in the above was secular methods for supposedly determining the soundness of the Dispensational view.
Where are your supposed Scriptures?
But none of that matters if you are lost to begin with.
In short "dispense" with the wisdom of men and state your case based on Scripture.
Again, the majority of Dispys on TOL are Acts 9 Dispys NOT the Acts 2 Dispys you appear to be ranting on about.
Also, as with individuals within ANY school of thought, you'll find Dispys do not all hold to a same understanding about one thing or another.
Only an individual with a low IQ concludes all those within a particular school of thought represent the view of EVERY individual within said school.
We are not Israel, but the Body of Christ
Wait, are you pro Israel or not?
Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Wait, are you pro Israel or not?
Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
The over-allegorization or amillennial view is an example of a non-literal
kind of Bible interpretation.
As a kind of dialectic opposition to the Origen-Augustine
over-allegorization of scripture, dispensationalism went to the opposite
extreme and called for something like a consistent literalism in
interpreting scripture.
"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is
always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.
"To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole
possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it
in all areas of biblical interpretation is." Charles C. Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), page 40.
Hal Lindsey, for example, makes use of the dispensationalist literalist
interpretation of prophecy by suggesting in his book, New World Coming
(1973), that the locusts of Revelation 9: 3
, are an advanced
kind of helicopter. See page 8 and page 141 for a reference to
Lindsey's Cobra helicopters. Such a literal interpretation destroys the
knowledge given
in the metaphors of Revelation 9: 3
Look at a few examples of scripture to show literal and non-literal
interpretations of scripture, other than the extremes of
over-allegorization and dispensationalist consistent literalism.
"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a
parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." I
Corinthians 10: 11
See Isaiah 4: 1 , which would
seem to be a simple plain text:
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will
eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by
thy name, to take away our reproach."
Bread is a metaphor, meaning Christ is the bread of life" (John 6:35
Bread represents the truth of the Gospel. Christ himself and his Gospel
brings spiritual life. The women in Isaiah 4: 1
do not entirely accept the
bread
- truth of his Gospel - as absolute truth which Christ brings, but they
will follow
their own way. But they want to be called by His name. They want to be
called Christians, but they do not want to accept and follow all of his
Gospel. The metaphoric language makes a statement different from what
the literal and plain meaning of "we will eat our own bread" would be.
Apparently dispensationalism would say that Isaiah 4: says the seven women
literally eat the bread they have baked and wear their own apparel, but
that they take hold of one man and want to be called by his name. They may
not even acknowledge that this one man is Jesus Christ.
Look at Zechariah 8: 23 :
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass,
that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even
shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go
with you: for we have heard that God is with you."
The literal or plain meaning of Zechariah 8: 23
is that this is a prophecy
for the time of the
New Covenant when Christians will take hold of a Jew and say "we will
go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" because Jews of the
flesh, by virtue of their DNA, are the chosen people. But if you know
and understand Romans 2: 17 , you will question
this plain interpretation of Zechariah 8: 23 Instead, of being a
literal Jew because he has the physical DNA from Abraham, this Jew is the
inward Jew of Romans 2: 29 ,
who is one in the Spirit and not of the letter, whose praise is not of men
but of God.
Zechariah 8: 23 ,
interpreted by the New Testament, is using Jew is a way different from the
literal way Jew is usually used in scripture. In fact, dispensationalism
teaches that the word Jew in scripture must always refer to a literal Jew
whose identity is based on his physical DNA from Abraham. Likewise, for
dispensationmalism, Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel of the flesh,
not the Israel of God.
There is some heavier metaphoric language in prophecy, such as in Revelation
14: 4 , "These are they which
were not defined with women: for they are all virgins." The plain or
literal meaning of Revelation 14: 4
says something quite
different than its metaphoric meaning. The dispensationalist literal
meaning of Revelation 14: 4
is that all the members of the 144,000 are males who are physically
virgins, who have never had sex with women. And the metaphor is interpreted
by another metaphor, found in Revelation 17: 1-6
. Here a woman represents
mystery Babylon, which is false religion..
kind of Bible interpretation.
As a kind of dialectic opposition to the Origen-Augustine
over-allegorization of scripture, dispensationalism went to the opposite
extreme and called for something like a consistent literalism in
interpreting scripture.
"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is
always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.
"To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole
possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it
in all areas of biblical interpretation is." Charles C. Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), page 40.
Hal Lindsey, for example, makes use of the dispensationalist literalist
interpretation of prophecy by suggesting in his book, New World Coming
(1973), that the locusts of Revelation 9: 3
, are an advanced
kind of helicopter. See page 8 and page 141 for a reference to
Lindsey's Cobra helicopters. Such a literal interpretation destroys the
knowledge given
in the metaphors of Revelation 9: 3
Look at a few examples of scripture to show literal and non-literal
interpretations of scripture, other than the extremes of
over-allegorization and dispensationalist consistent literalism.
"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a
parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." I
Corinthians 10: 11
See Isaiah 4: 1 , which would
seem to be a simple plain text:
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will
eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by
thy name, to take away our reproach."
Bread is a metaphor, meaning Christ is the bread of life" (John 6:35
Bread represents the truth of the Gospel. Christ himself and his Gospel
brings spiritual life. The women in Isaiah 4: 1
do not entirely accept the
bread
- truth of his Gospel - as absolute truth which Christ brings, but they
will follow
their own way. But they want to be called by His name. They want to be
called Christians, but they do not want to accept and follow all of his
Gospel. The metaphoric language makes a statement different from what
the literal and plain meaning of "we will eat our own bread" would be.
Apparently dispensationalism would say that Isaiah 4: says the seven women
literally eat the bread they have baked and wear their own apparel, but
that they take hold of one man and want to be called by his name. They may
not even acknowledge that this one man is Jesus Christ.
Look at Zechariah 8: 23 :
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass,
that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even
shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go
with you: for we have heard that God is with you."
The literal or plain meaning of Zechariah 8: 23
is that this is a prophecy
for the time of the
New Covenant when Christians will take hold of a Jew and say "we will
go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" because Jews of the
flesh, by virtue of their DNA, are the chosen people. But if you know
and understand Romans 2: 17 , you will question
this plain interpretation of Zechariah 8: 23 Instead, of being a
literal Jew because he has the physical DNA from Abraham, this Jew is the
inward Jew of Romans 2: 29 ,
who is one in the Spirit and not of the letter, whose praise is not of men
but of God.
Zechariah 8: 23 ,
interpreted by the New Testament, is using Jew is a way different from the
literal way Jew is usually used in scripture. In fact, dispensationalism
teaches that the word Jew in scripture must always refer to a literal Jew
whose identity is based on his physical DNA from Abraham. Likewise, for
dispensationmalism, Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel of the flesh,
not the Israel of God.
There is some heavier metaphoric language in prophecy, such as in Revelation
14: 4 , "These are they which
were not defined with women: for they are all virgins." The plain or
literal meaning of Revelation 14: 4
says something quite
different than its metaphoric meaning. The dispensationalist literal
meaning of Revelation 14: 4
is that all the members of the 144,000 are males who are physically
virgins, who have never had sex with women. And the metaphor is interpreted
by another metaphor, found in Revelation 17: 1-6
. Here a woman represents
mystery Babylon, which is false religion..