Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jews know scripture better than the deceitful Supersessionalists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    EvilEye wrote:
    Do you believe that God has a plan for Israel, in the biblical sense (the Israel that scripture defines and never redefines), that will be part of Christ's second coming?




    1, the plan was that the Seed would bless the nations. That message was the Gospel, and to spread that message he located them in a land that touched 3 continents.
    2, not all Israel are Israel. Within Israel the distinction of faith is applied retroactively back over the whole race and history. Outside Israel, the same faith gives non-Jewish believers the promises and inheritance of the Seed in and through the Seed. Rom 9:24+ is clear that "us" as believers is Jews and non and uses 4 OT passages to underwrite that.
    3, the land no longer matters. The whole NT is written against a background of knowing it was going to be decimated. Isaiah shows the 'Israel' of Messiah going to all the islands and the ends of the earth. The apostles thought that the end of the world would take place right after the DoJ, even when talking about marriage (I Cor 7). There is therefore no doctrine about the land of Israel in the NT that matters they way it used to in the OT.
    3A, on top of this is the rather emphatic destruction of the temple the 2nd time in 70 AD ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAME WEEK AS THE FIRST. "Every fact is established by two witnesses." The DofJ was called 'the judgement of all that is written' in Lk 21, and 'the full wrath of God' in I Th 1.
    4, practically, today, I'd rather see a constitutional representative government EVERYWHERE vs. shari'a law. So I'm all for the state of Israel to be that, and hope others in the region will.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
      EvilEye wrote:
      Do you believe that God has a plan for Israel, in the biblical sense (the Israel that scripture defines and never redefines), that will be part of Christ's second coming?




      1, the plan was that the Seed would bless the nations. That message was the Gospel, and to spread that message he located them in a land that touched 3 continents.
      2, not all Israel are Israel. Within Israel the distinction of faith is applied retroactively back over the whole race and history. Outside Israel, the same faith gives non-Jewish believers the promises and inheritance of the Seed in and through the Seed. Rom 9:24+ is clear that "us" as believers is Jews and non and uses 4 OT passages to underwrite that.
      3, the land no longer matters. The whole NT is written against a background of knowing it was going to be decimated. Isaiah shows the 'Israel' of Messiah going to all the islands and the ends of the earth. The apostles thought that the end of the world would take place right after the DoJ, even when talking about marriage (I Cor 7). There is therefore no doctrine about the land of Israel in the NT that matters they way it used to in the OT.
      3A, on top of this is the rather emphatic destruction of the temple the 2nd time in 70 AD ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAME WEEK AS THE FIRST. "Every fact is established by two witnesses." The DofJ was called 'the judgement of all that is written' in Lk 21, and 'the full wrath of God' in I Th 1.
      4, practically, today, I'd rather see a constitutional representative government EVERYWHERE vs. shari'a law. So I'm all for the state of Israel to be that, and hope others in the region will.

      At least 75% made up.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      You're too literal to get it.
      Originally posted by Interplanner
      The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
        I am going to do something that will possibly seem a little like a "hit and run". In trying to flesh out the issue, I started with a high-level view. It was unfortunately very vague and short on any helpful specifics. Part of the reason for that is that I haven't consulted commentaries and have formed my own understanding (though not without the help and instruction of many over the years). I am not referring to any author when I express my view (though I went to a store on the way home last night and took a quick look at Grudem and his treatment of this in his ST - seems bang on to me). So I think it would be most helpful if I ask a question (or more?) of my own.

        You (and, I would think, most dispensationalists) make a big deal of who Israel was. That Jacob was called "Israel" by God that the nation of Israel came from him and distinct from his father(s). What, then, do you see as distinct in Jacob/Israel in terms of God's promises to him - over and against the promises made to Abraham and Isaac?

        While this is jumping to the end (there is likely a lot in between the above question and what follows), I want to get a good overview of your take on what I think is important. So with that in mind, how do you view this statement made in multiple places in the gospels :

        And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham
        Matt 3:9 , Luke 3:8

        And to take it a step further, how do you look at this verse:

        They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
        John 8:39

        Specifically, why does Jesus not even acknowledge their natural descent and rather treats their statement (in reinforcing their supposedly spiritual lineage) in a purely spiritual fashion? He actually says they aren't Abraham's children - without qualification (i.e. making it an entirely spiritual matter).

        One final question here and I think I will have at least the beginnings of the background I am looking for. If all this is so plain - that Israel has been promised much that has yet to be fulfilled and constitutes a separate body that is in nearly all ways distinct from the Church - why did the disciples (to a man, I think) look for a deliverer to overthrow Rome rather than a Savior to bring about spiritual salvation? If all of prophecy was with that in view and was the Spirit of Christ as given before He appeared on earth (John 5:39, I Peter 1:11-12, Rev 19:10), why should one continue to take a (at least partially) nationalistic/racial/ethnic view of prophecy - especially in light of the fact that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? And who qualifies as an Israelite upon whom these prophecies are to be fulfilled?

        Sorry...I know this is more than one question, but they all converge and I'm trying to see the foundation for what it is. I think these questions will let me see that (at least some of it).
        I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
        Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
        Of course, GOD keeps all His word.

        Romans 119 KJV
        (28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
        (29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

        We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
        They already know monsters exist.
        We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Tambora View Post
          I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
          Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
          Of course, GOD keeps all His word.

          Romans 119 KJV
          (28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
          (29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.




          That verse was meant to show that they would be blessed in Christ's mission, not in a restoration of the land which doesn't help that mission. Just check later in the chapter. And the middle of ch 10, and the 'burden' of ch 11.

          The restoration of the land is a total tacked on out of nowhere to Rom 9-11. Down through church history, a few people believed there might be a surge of Jewish believers toward the end, but the idea of restoring Judea, Judaism, the temple was only recent, and the roots are kinda weird (Ribera the Jesuit Counterreformation zealot).
          All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Tambora View Post
            I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
            Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
            Of course, GOD keeps all His word.

            Romans 119 KJV
            (28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
            (29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
            Yep - and where Israel's Promises are concerned and God's faithfulness to same, Romans 9-11 actually is a part of what Romans 3 both starts out with, and returns to at the very end of Romans 3, and then briefly touches on, both in Romans 4, and again, briefly, in Romans 15.

            All in light of Romans 1 and 2, and much of Romans 3.

            Or - lol - "over the river, and through the woods, to grandmother's house we go"

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
              That verse was meant to show that they would be blessed in Christ's mission, not in a restoration of the land which doesn't help that mission. Just check later in the chapter. And the middle of ch 10, and the 'burden' of ch 11.

              The restoration of the land is a total tacked on out of nowhere to Rom 9-11. Down through church history, a few people believed there might be a surge of Jewish believers toward the end, but the idea of restoring Judea, Judaism, the temple was only recent, and the roots are kinda weird (Ribera the Jesuit Counterreformation zealot).
              Made up as usual.
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              You're too literal to get it.
              Originally posted by Interplanner
              The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                Down through church history, a few people believed there might be a surge of Jewish believers toward the end, but the idea of restoring Judea, Judaism, the temple was only recent, and the roots are kinda weird (Ribera the Jesuit Counterreformation zealot).
                who cares
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                You're too literal to get it.
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I stopped 'doing' futurism the day I realized that most of NT eschatology was historical: about what they were going through (the immediate generation and situation in front of them), and that the main list of plain language (non-symbolic) passages said nothing about a future Israel, and that Hebrews new covenant is not future, and is in fact, about the replacement of Judaism in Christ.

                  All proper reasons.
                  Last edited by Interplanner; September 25th, 2017, 05:16 AM. Reason: removed 1 what, added not future re new covenant
                  All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                    I stopped 'doing' futurism the day I realized that most of NT eschatology was historical: about what what they were going through (the immediate generation and situation in front of them), and that the main list of plain language (non-symbolic) passages said nothing about a future Israel, and that Hebrews new covenant is not, and is in fact, about the replacement of Judaism in Christ.

                    All proper reasons.
                    Made up.
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    You're too literal to get it.
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                      I stopped 'doing' futurism the day I realized that most of NT eschatology was historical: about what they were going through (the immediate generation and situation in front of them), and that the main list of plain language (non-symbolic) passages said nothing about a future Israel, and that Hebrews new covenant is not future, and is in fact, about the replacement of Judaism in Christ.

                      All proper reasons.
                      Yes the new covenant is in effect and those in it are the Israel of God, which began at Pentecost and has continued to this day.

                      Dispys want God to bless the flesh of those who reject Jesus Christ down through the centuries whose religion is based on the Talmud and not on the teachings of the Bible.

                      The first of the NT Church were all converted Jews and almost immediately the Judaists began to kill them.

                      Paul repented of it but many of those who claim to follow Paul, actually deny his teachings--

                      Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
                      Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
                      Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
                      Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

                      Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
                      Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
                      Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
                      Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
                      Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

                      LA
                      My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        LA's out in left field, as usual.
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        You're too literal to get it.
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X