PDA

View Full Version : HIS PEOPLE, HIS TEMPLE, HIS KINGDOM



Pages : [1] 2

lekh lekha
08-23-2009, 09:51 AM
WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

The truth remains independent of what we believe or don't believe.

'MY PEOPLE' AND 'HIS PEOPLE' IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

"And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of MY PEOPLE which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;" (Exo 3:7).

"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, LET MY PEOPLE go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." (Exo.5: 1).

God calls 'ethnic Israel' 'My people' and they are called 'His people' throughout the Old Testament.

GENTILES JOINED TO 'HIS PEOPLE' IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES

In Old Testament times, Gentiles who were not physically descended from 'His people' were joined to them through conversion to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and through circumcision.

'MY PEOPLE' AND 'HIS PEOPLE' IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed HIS PEOPLE, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;" (Luk 1:68-69).

"And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the governors of Judah. For out of you shall come a Governor who shall rule MY PEOPLE ISRAEL." (Mat.2: 6).

"I say then, Hath God cast away HIS PEOPLE?

God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...' (Notice Paul mentions the son of Jacob from whom Paul descended)

'... God hath not cast away HIS PEOPLE which he foreknew.'

Nobody can deny that the Old Testament is the foundation of whatever is written in the New Testament. Therefore let's go to the Old Testament first, and to the very root of the concept of 'His people':

AN EVERLASTING COVENANT

There are two groups of people mentioned in the following promises which God made to Abraham and which He swore by oath to fulfill:

1.Many nations.
2.The seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

God promised Abraham:

'... As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father OF MANY nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of MANY nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee...

.. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee IN THEIR generations for an EVERLASTING (Strong's H5769) covenant,to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee...' (Gen.17: 4-7).

H5769
עלם עולם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

The repetition of the word 'olam' in verse 7 produces the same effect as 'forever and ever' in English. Therefore God promised Abraham that He would establish His covenant with Abraham and his seed after him 'in their generations' as an everlasting covenant – forever and ever.

Who is Abraham's seed after him in 'their' generations? Is this referring to:

1.The generations of the 'many nations' of whom Abraham would become the father, as promised in verses 4-6; OR

2.The generations who would be descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

It is clear that 'the seed' being spoken about in verse 7 of Genesis 17, is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for God continued,

'... And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant WITH HIM for AN EVERLASTING (Strong's H5769) covenant, and WITH HIS SEED after him.' (Gen 17:19).

Therefore '... in THEIR generations' (Gen.17: 7) can only be referring here to the generations of 'ethnic Israel', since God established His covenant with 'HIM' (Isaac), not with 'them' (the many nations):

This is also absolutely clear from God's response to Abraham concerning Ishmael:

'.. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

But my covenant will I establish WITH ISAAC, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.' (Gen 17:18-21).

'And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for IN ISAAC shall thy seed be called. (Gen 21:12).

God promised and covenanted to be God to Abraham and his seed forever and ever; and it is abundantly clear from the above verses (and everything else which follows in the Bible) that Abraham's seed is called through Isaac and Jacob, who is 'ethnic' Israel.

This is the Word of God to Abraham which he later repeated to Isaac and to Jacob and much, much later to 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' when He promised that he would make a new covenant with them:

'Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

… If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.' (Jer.31: 35-37).

This is the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and (much later) to the prophets of Israel, and His Word cannot be challenged or changed by theology to mean something it does not mean.

The apostle Paul said,

'I say then, Hath God cast away HIS PEOPLE? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...' (notice Paul mentions the son of Jacob from whom he is descended)

'.. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.' (Rom.11: 1-5).

AS LONG AS THERE IS A REMNANT OF ETHNIC ISRAEL SAVED BY GRACE (NO MATTER HOW TINY THE REMNANT), THERE IS AN ETHNIC ISRAEL.

It is the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who we today would call 'ethnic Israel'; and we find God calling this family 'My people' throughout the Bible, and the Bible calling this family 'His people'.

Let's now take a look at this again as we did before, first in the Old Testament, then in the New Testament:

'MY PEOPLE' AND 'HIS PEOPLE' IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

"And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of MY PEOPLE which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;" (Exo 3:7).

"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, LET MY PEOPLE go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." (Exo.5: 1).

God calls 'ethnic Israel' 'My people' and they are called 'His people' throughout the Old Testament.

GENTILES JOINED TO 'HIS PEOPLE' IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES

In Old Testament times, Gentiles who were not physically descended from 'His people' were joined to them through conversion to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and through circumcision.

'MY PEOPLE' AND 'HIS PEOPLE' IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed HIS PEOPLE, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;" (Luk 1:68-69).

"And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the governors of Judah. For out of you shall come a Governor who shall rule MY PEOPLE ISRAEL." (Mat.2: 6).

"I say then, Hath God cast away HIS PEOPLE?

God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...' (Notice Paul mentions the son of Jacob from whom Paul descended)

'... God hath not cast away HIS PEOPLE which he foreknew.'

Jesus said,

'But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'

GOD IS NOT THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THE LIVING.' (Mat.22: 31-32).

Jesus is ethnically a Jew, born of Mary, a Jewish woman, and descended from king David; and He told a Samaritan woman:

'Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you shall neither worship the Father in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem...

… You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS...

... the rest of this subject can be read here (http://lethimbetrue.blogspot.com)

And I've gone to the trouble of putting it all up at that link - just for YOU!

lekh

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2009, 10:39 AM
Hey there Andrew! :yo:

Thank you for posting this excellent review of what the Bible teaches. A systematic walk through the Scriptures is what we need to do to get a clear view of what the Bible is really teaching about "MY PEOPLE."

I'm so glad you came back - I thought perhaps you had grown tired of "going in circles" as you put it. Myself, I thought the conversation was only just beginning and that we had not talked enough to go in half of a circle, let alone around the circle a few times! :lol:

Is it correct that the blog you linked to is your blog? I couldn't find any info on the blog that identified the author, but you referred to it as yours, so I assume that is correct. If so, let me say "Well done!" Both the blog and it's content is very well laid out.


WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

Amen, Amen, and AMEN! I agree completely and absolutely, and I doubt there is anyone in this forum would disagree.



God calls 'ethnic Israel' 'My people' and they are called 'His people' throughout the Old Testament.

That is not correct. God specifically states that any male member of "ethnic Israel" that is not circumcised is "cut off from his people":
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Furthermore, God explicitly states that the honor of being called "MY PEOPLE" is conditional - it depends upon obeying His Covenant:
Leviticus 26:3-12 IF ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; THEN I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. ... And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
IF they obeyed THEN God would call them "MY PEOPLE." This is the fundamental teaching of the entire Bible.

God has explicitly declared that "ethnic Israel" - which is defined solely by the FLESH - is not counted as "the seed of Abraham" -
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel [GOD'S PEOPLE], which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
"Ethnic Israel" is defined by the FLESH. They are the carnal sons of Abraham and the Lord God Almighty has declared that the "flesh profits nothing."

I pray that everyone discussing this topic will follow Andrew's statement:

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Richard

Rose
08-23-2009, 11:09 AM
Hi Lekh, :yo: Glad you're back.

If I correctly understand your definition of "My people", you are saying it applies to:


1.) Any person whose race is Jewish "ethnic Israel" regardless of their faith.

2.) Any Gentile who converts to Judaism.

3.) Any believer in Jesus Christ.


If that is the case, then the only people who are not considered "My people" are unbelieving Gentiles.

Please correct me if I've misstated your belief.

God Bless

Rose

lekh lekha
08-23-2009, 01:48 PM
Hi Lekh, :yo: Glad you're back.

If I correctly understand your definition of "My people", you are saying it applies to:


1.) Any person whose race is Jewish "ethnic Israel" regardless of their faith.

2.) Any Gentile who converts to Judaism.

3.) Any believer in Jesus Christ.


If that is the case, then the only people who are not considered "My people" are unbelieving Gentiles.

Please correct me if I've misstated your belief.

God Bless

Rose

Hi Rose.

You've completely misstated what I've said. I know the blog is a lot of reading, but I laid it out clearly who "My people" refers to - first in Old Testament times, then in New Testament times:

In Old Testament times, "My people" was (a) the remnant of ethnic Israel whose faith was in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and HIS WORD and was circumcised + (b) any Gentile who converted to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and (in the case of males) became circumcised in his flesh.

It was NEVER regardless of their faith - as Paul says, "they are not ALL Israel who are of Israel" (Rom.9: 26). The emphasis in often wrongly laid upon the word "NOT", which it shouldn't be - because the emphasis, the operative word - is the word ALL, because Paul immediately afterward speaks of the remnant of ethnic Israel:

"Isaiah also cries concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel is as the sands of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." (Rom 9:27).

STILL SPEAKING OF ETHNIC ISRAEL (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing) and after saying that God has NOT cast away "His people" (this time the emphasis is on the word NOT), Paul AGAIN speaks of the remnant of ETHNIC Israel in Rom.11: 1-5, and then states in Rom.11: 17 that believing Gentiles are grafted in AMONG that remnant of ethnic Israel, to share with that remnant in the root and fatness of the Olive tree.

In Romans 9 Paul says of the Gentiles who believe in Jesus and who are grafted into ethnic Israel AMONG the remnant (through circumcision OF THE HEART):

"... whom He also called, NOT ONLY only us, (of Jews), but also of the nations (Gentiles)? As He also says in Hosea, "I will call those not My people, My people; and those not beloved, Beloved." And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them. "You are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God." (Rom 9:24-26)

In New Testament times, "My people" refers to the BELIEVING REMNANT of ethnic Israel (those who believe in Jesus and who are circumcised IN THE HEART) + the BELIEVING Gentiles, and together these make up the New Testament Temple.

lekh

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2009, 02:20 PM
In New Testament times, "My people" refers to the BELIEVING REMNANT of ethnic Israel (those who believe in Jesus and who are circumcised IN THE HEART) + the BELIEVING Gentiles, and together these make up the New Testament Temple.

lekh
Hey there lekh,

From what you wrote there, I would say we are 100% in perfect agreement!

Richard

lekh lekha
08-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Hey there Andrew! :yo:

Thank you for posting this excellent review of what the Bible teaches. A systematic walk through the Scriptures is what we need to do to get a clear view of what the Bible is really teaching about "MY PEOPLE."

I'm so glad you came back - I thought perhaps you had grown tired of "going in circles" as you put it. Myself, I thought the conversation was only just beginning and that we had not talked enough to go in half of a circle, let alone around the circle a few times! :lol:

Is it correct that the blog you linked to is your blog? I couldn't find any info on the blog that identified the author, but you referred to it as yours, so I assume that is correct. If so, let me say "Well done!" Both the blog and it's content is very well laid out.

Hello, RAM

I wouldn't have said it's my blog if it wasn't. I'm not that kind of person. I've been writing about this stuff for a long time and have saved quite a lot of my own articles and discoveries in PC files and on disks. If I quote someone else's work, I always say so. I didn't put my name or contact details in the blog because it's for a limited readership - those I debate with in Christian forums (IF they're interested) - in fact I only created that blog today - copying and pasting from my files.


God calls “ethnic Israel” “My people” and they are called “His people” throughout the Old Testament.




That is not correct. God specifically states that any male member of "ethnic Israel" that is not circumcised is "cut off from his people":
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Furthermore, God explicitly states that the honor of being called "MY PEOPLE" is conditional - it depends upon obeying His Covenant:
Leviticus 26:3-12 IF ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; THEN I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. ... And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
IF they obeyed THEN God would call them "MY PEOPLE." This is the fundamental teaching of the entire Bible.

It's not true what you're saying. You're quoting the Mosaic Law, which was done away with by the New Covenant. If obedience to the Mosaic Law was a condition for God calling ANYONE "My people", then you and I cannot be called "His people" either.

God called ethnic Israel "My people" before the Law was given, and He calls the remnant of ethnic Israel + the Gentiles who are grafted in among them (Rom.11: 1-5, 17) "My people" (Rom.9: 24-26): "not ONLY of us Jews (the believing remnant, but ALSO of the believing Gentiles).

If God calling ethnic Israel "My people" depended on their obedience to the Mosaic Law, then Paul would not have said,

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it." (Gal 3:17).

What promise? The promise of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which I mentioned and quoted in my OP.

God always required circumcision OF THE HEART on the part of ethnic Israel, and not only of the flesh:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deu 10:16)

"And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deu 30:6)

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer.4: 4).

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom 2:28-29)

To qualify for being called "My people" ethnic Israel had to be circumcised in the flesh AND in the heart. BUT ONLY A REMNANT was circumcised in the flesh as well as in the heart - BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS A REMNANT OF ETHNIC ISRAEL which was circumcised in the flesh AND the heart.


God has explicitly declared that "ethnic Israel" - which is defined solely by the FLESH - is not counted as "the seed of Abraham" -
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel [GOD'S PEOPLE], which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children:

You are placing emphasis on the wrong word in the verses you quoted - the emphasis - the operative word is the word "ALL" and not the word "not":

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not ALL Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son." (Rom 9:6-9)

You're also ignoring the fact that Paul reiterates in this passage that the promise is to ISAAC AND JACOB - it is a specific family who we today call "ethnic Israel". The promise was NOT to the many nations - it was to first and foremost and primarily to the BELIEVING REMNANT of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and THROUGH THIS FAMILY to the many nations.

But not ALL (the emphasis and operative word is the word ALL and not the word "not") Israel believed. BUT THE REMNANT believed and later Paul states that it is AMONG that remnant that the Gentiles are grafted into the Olive tree (Israel), to share with that believing remnant of ethnic Israel in the root and fatness of the Olive tree.




but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
"Ethnic Israel" is defined by the FLESH.

They are the carnal sons of Abraham and the Lord God Almighty has declared that the "flesh profits nothing."

Ethnic Israel is defined by the Word of God to Abraham and his physical seed through Isaac and Jacob, which I quoted in my OP, and which depends alone on God's faithfulness to His Word.

It was God who called ethnic Israel into being and it was God who brought about a miracle pregnancy in Sarah when she conceived from Abraham and her old age.

God's calling, work and God's Word is not carnal. You are confusing the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant:

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

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal 3:16-17)

"It is not to seeds as of many", therefore it is not to us either, since we are also the seed of Abraham! The promise ultimately belongs to Christ and to whoever is found IN HIM - and it is the believing remnant of ethnic Israel + the believing Gentiles who have been grafted in AMONG them who are found IN HIM, and together they make up the New Testament Temple.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Hello, RAM

I wouldn't have said it's my blog if it wasn't. I'm not that kind of person. I've been writing about this stuff for a long time and have saved quite a lot of my own articles and discoveries in PC files and on disks. If I quote someone else's work, I always say so. I didn't put my name or contact details in the blog because it's for a limited readership - those I debate with in Christian forums (IF they're interested) - in fact I only created that blog today - copying and pasting from my files.
I'm glad you got them posted. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were "that kind of person" with my question authorship. I was just confirming something that was not stated on the blog. Thanks!



It's not true what you're saying. You're quoting the Mosaic Law, which was done away with by the New Covenant. If obedience to the Mosaic Law was a condition for God calling ANYONE "My people", then you and I cannot be called "His people" either.

I should have specified that I was talking about those whom God called "My people" when the First Covenant was in force. My position is the same as the one that you stated in the previous post, namely, that "My People" refers to God's Covenant People whether in the Old or the New Covenant. In no case is it defined by the flesh.



God called ethnic Israel "My people" before the Law was given, and He calls the remnant of ethnic Israel + the Gentiles who are grafted in among them (Rom.11: 1-5, 17) "My people" (Rom.9: 24-26): "not ONLY of us Jews (the believing remnant, but ALSO of the believing Gentiles).

If God calling ethnic Israel "My people" depended on their obedience to the Mosaic Law, then Paul would not have said,

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it." (Gal 3:17).

What promise? The promise of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which I mentioned and quoted in my OP.

God always required circumcision OF THE HEART on the part of ethnic Israel, and not only of the flesh:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deu 10:16)

"And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deu 30:6)

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer.4: 4).

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom 2:28-29)

To qualify for being called "My people" ethnic Israel had to be circumcised in the flesh AND in the heart. BUT ONLY A REMNANT was circumcised in the flesh as well as in the heart - BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS A REMNANT OF ETHNIC ISRAEL which was circumcised in the flesh AND the heart.

I don't see "ethnic Israel" playing any role in the points you made because being a member of "ethnic Israel" never meant that a person would be considered part of "My People". As far as I can tell there was one condition - you had to be in Covenant relationship with God. It did not matter if you were Jew or Gentile under either the Old or the New Covenant.



You're also ignoring the fact that Paul reiterates in this passage that the promise is to ISAAC AND JACOB - it is a specific family who we today call "ethnic Israel". The promise was NOT to the many nations - it was to first and foremost and primarily to the BELIEVING REMNANT of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and THROUGH THIS FAMILY to the many nations.

On the contrary, the Bible explicitly states that the promise to Abraham was the GOSPEL which included the Gentiles:

Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations [Goyim] be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith [Jew or Gentile] are blessed with faithful Abraham.


Ethnic Israel is defined by the Word of God to Abraham and his physical seed through Isaac and Jacob, which I quoted in my OP, and which depends alone on God's faithfulness to His Word.

The Bible does not use the term "ethnic Israel"? That is a distinction created by folks trying to sort out what the Bible is really teaching about the unbelieving children of Abraham's flesh.

As for God's faithfulness to His Word - that was explained by Paul in Romans 9 when he said that not every decedent of Abraham according to the flesh was included in the promise He gave to Abraham.



It was God who called ethnic Israel into being and it was God who brought about a miracle pregnancy in Sarah when she conceived from Abraham and her old age.

Not so. God brought forth the "children of promise" and He contrasts them with the "children of the flesh."



God's calling, work and God's Word is not carnal. You are confusing the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant:

Of course God's calling, work, and Word are not carnal! That's why any attempt to define God's People in terms of carnal descent is false.

Where does the New Testament make a distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants? And where in the NT does God emphasize the difference and use it as the basis for doctrine?



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

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal 3:16-17)

"It is not to seeds as of many", therefore it is not to us either, since we are also the seed of Abraham! The promise ultimately belongs to Christ and to whoever is found IN HIM - and it is the believing remnant of ethnic Israel + the believing Gentiles who have been grafted in AMONG them who are found IN HIM, and together they make up the New Testament Temple.
I agree that the promise ultimately belongs to Christ. But in as much as we are "IN HIM" and co-heirs with Him, it also applies to us.

I think perhaps we should narrow things down. There are many things you say that I agree with (as noted above) but I don't understand your emphasis upon "ethnic Israel." What is the point that you are driving at? If you would simply state your conclusion, then we could probably narrow down the points of agreement/disagreement much more quickly.

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

Rose
08-23-2009, 03:05 PM
Hi Rose.

You've completely misstated what I've said. I know the blog is a lot of reading, but I laid it out clearly who "My people" refers to - first in Old Testament times, then in New Testament times:

In Old Testament times, "My people" was (a) the remnant of ethnic Israel whose faith was in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and HIS WORD and was circumcised + (b) any Gentile who converted to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and (in the case of males) became circumcised in his flesh.

It was NEVER regardless of their faith - as Paul says, "they are not ALL Israel who are of Israel" (Rom.9: 26). The emphasis in often wrongly laid upon the word "NOT", which it shouldn't be - because the emphasis, the operative word - is the word ALL, because Paul immediately afterward speaks of the remnant of ethnic Israel:

"Isaiah also cries concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel is as the sands of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." (Rom 9:27).

STILL SPEAKING OF ETHNIC ISRAEL (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing) and after saying that God has NOT cast away "His people" (this time the emphasis is on the word NOT), Paul AGAIN speaks of the remnant of ETHNIC Israel in Rom.11: 1-5, and then states in Rom.11: 17 that believing Gentiles are grafted in AMONG that remnant of ethnic Israel, to share with that remnant in the root and fatness of the Olive tree.

In Romans 9 Paul says of the Gentiles who believe in Jesus and who are grafted into ethnic Israel AMONG the remnant (through circumcision OF THE HEART):

"... whom He also called, NOT ONLY only us, (of Jews), but also of the nations (Gentiles)? As He also says in Hosea, "I will call those not My people, My people; and those not beloved, Beloved." And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them. "You are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God." (Rom 9:24-26)

In New Testament times, "My people" refers to the BELIEVING REMNANT of ethnic Israel (those who believe in Jesus and who are circumcised IN THE HEART) + the BELIEVING Gentiles, and together these make up the New Testament Temple.

lekh

Hi Lekh,

Sorry for misstating you, :( that's why I asked you to correct me. Thank you for clarifying, but I still have one question:

Would you classify unbelieving Jews of "ethnic Israel" in the 1st century differently than unbelieving Gentiles?

God Bless

Rose

lekh lekha
08-23-2009, 03:19 PM
Hi Lekh,

Sorry for misstating you, :( that's why I asked you to correct me. Thank you for clarifying, but I still have one question:

Would you classify unbelieving Jews of "ethnic Israel" in the 1st century differently than unbelieving Gentiles?

God Bless

Rose

I'm glad you asked, Rose.

Not in terms of salvation (or rather, a lack of salvation). No unbelieving Jew, Chinese person, European or African can be called "My people" or "His people" if they are not found in Christ.

But we or they are not spirits floating around up there looking down - we are all in the world, in physical bodies, and in the world there is a distinction between male and female, Jew, Chinese person, European, Arab, African etc. The only time or place these distinctions fall away is in the case of those who are in Christ, for we all (those of us who are in Christ) have access by One Spirit to the Father through Christ - whether we be male, female, Jew, Chinese, Arab, African, European, etc.

Lekh

lekh lekha
08-23-2009, 04:22 PM
Hi, Richard

No worries. I'm going to still include a profile on that blog... when I get to it (probably only next weekend!)


I should have specified that I was talking about those whom God called "My people" when the First Covenant was in force. My position is the same as the one that you stated in the previous post, namely, that "My People" refers to God's Covenant People whether in the Old or the New Covenant. In no case is it defined by the flesh.

Who is God talking about in the following verses:

"And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;" (Exo.3: 7).

"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." (Exo 5:1)

Was it not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob + the Gentiles who had been joined to them through conversion to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ("the fathers"), then He is first and foremost the God of the people who are physically descended from them, and also to those Gentiles who are not physically descended from them, yet convert to faith in their God.

If no distinction ever existed, then there would not even be a word like "Gentile" ("goyim" in Hebrew - the word is found in the Bible itself) - for a Gentile refers to anyone who is not physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But not ALL those who were physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were "His people" - for the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob depended on them having the same faith in God (and His Word) that Abraham had. Nevertheless, there was always a remnant of the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who did believe; and Jesus called God the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not the God of the many nations), and Jesus said that He is not God of the dead, but of the living.

Just because "My people" refers first and foremost to the believing remnant of the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not mean that "it is defined by the flesh", as you put it - for it (the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is defined not by the flesh, but by the Word and work of God. But this does not change the fact that the promise is first and foremost to those who are physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (IF they will believe), and THEN also to the Gentiles.

There has always been that distinction, for the covenant was NOT made with the many nations - it was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They, like us, are all flesh - God made His covenant with flesh - with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You are using the word "flesh" in the wrong context - because you are using it in the context of "salvation by works" instead of by faith.


I don't see "ethnic Israel" playing any role in the points you made because being a member of "ethnic Israel" never meant that a person would be considered part of "My People". As far as I can tell there was one condition - you had to be in Covenant relationship with God. It did not matter if you were Jew or Gentile under either the Old or the New Covenant.

You would not have been considered a part of "His people" unless you converted to the God of "His people" - Ruth was not talking to any Gentiles when she said,

"And Ruth said, Do not beg me to leave you, to return from following after you. For where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God." (Rth 1:16)

Ruth was talking to those who were ethnically Israelites - to those who were physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You can't get away from the fact that throughout the Bible a distinction is made between those who are ethnically Israelites and those who are not ethnically Israelites.


On the contrary, the Bible explicitly states that the promise to Abraham was the GOSPEL which included the Gentiles:

Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations [Goyim] be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith [Jew or Gentile] are blessed with faithful Abraham.


Of the seven promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the good news (the gospel) is the one promise that applied also to the many nations - but it would only come through the family who were ethnically Israelites:

"You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." (Joh 4:22)

"The Jews" refers to a nation of people who are ethnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


The Bible does not use the term "ethnic Israel"? That is a distinction created by folks trying to sort out what the Bible is really teaching about the unbelieving children of Abraham's flesh.

We don't have to sort out what the Bible teaches about the unbelieving children who are etnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

Paul tells us very clearly in Romans 9 that not ALL of the children ethnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "Israel".

Then in Romans 11, Paul tells us very clearly that the unbelieving ethnic children are broken off from His people. Then he says that those of them that repent of their unbelief and turn to Christ shall be grafted into "their own Olive tree again" (strange that Paul does not say quite the same thing about Gentiles who turn to faith in Christ, since we're not grafted into "our own Olive tree again" - we're simply grafted in among the remnant of the ethnic children, according to Paul)

Then Paul says that "Israel" has been hardened until the full number of GENTILES has come in - there's that distinction again - whose a "Gentile", if there's no distinction in the Bible between the ethnic children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Gentiles who are grafted in among their remnant?


As for God's faithfulness to His Word - that was explained by Paul in Romans 9 when he said that not every decedent of Abraham according to the flesh was included in the promise He gave to Abraham.

But every one of them would have been if every one of them had believed.




Not so. God brought forth the "children of promise" and He contrasts them with the "children of the flesh."

You're using the word "flesh" again in the wrong context. Paul uses the word "flesh" because he was specifically contrasting (on one hand) Ishmael, who was "a son of the flesh" because he was born as a result of human endeavor to fulfill God's promises to Abraham and his physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob, with (on the other hand) Isaac, who was born as a result of the miracle-working God remaining faithful to His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the physical (ethnic) seed.


Of course God's calling, work, and Word are not carnal! That's why any attempt to define God's People in terms of carnal descent is false.

It's not carnal descent. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their believing physical seed (ethnic Israelites) is not carnal - it's the work of God remaining faithful to His everlasting promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their physical seed + those GENTILES (non-ethnic Isralites) who are grafted in among the believing remnant of the physical seed (the ethnic Israelites)


Where does the New Testament make a distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants? And where in the NT does God emphasize the difference and use it as the basis for doctrine?

Right here:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3: 17-18).

And the promise was repeated to Isaac and Jacob after God made a covenant by oath to Abraham that He would do what He had promised to do. It is through the ethnically descended seed that the promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham (and his seed) is fulfilled (is fulfilled on an ongoing basis, not was fulfilled, as though only 1st century Gentiles could be saved as a result of the promise). This is why Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews". Why did Jesus say that to a Gentile woman? And why did he say to another Gentile woman,

"But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to dogs. And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that very hour." (Mat 15:26-28)

Why was Jesus making a distinction between the ethnic children and the Gentiles?

[QUOTE=RAM;13455]If you would simply state your conclusion, then we could probably narrow down the points of agreement/disagreement much more quickly."

It's not "my" conclusion or your conclusion that matters. If it was, it wouldn't be of the slightest importance.

What I'm trying to show is that even though in Christ there is no distinction between male and female, Jew, Chinese, Greek, yet we are not spirits - we are in the world. In the Bible we find Jesus and Paul making a distinction between the ethnic Israelites and the Gentiles, even though IN CHRIST they are all one.

Great chatting. But sadly I have to go again - it's already past 1 am where I'm sitting.

Talk again tomorrow.

God bless Richard and Rose!

Rose
08-23-2009, 04:38 PM
I'm glad you asked, Rose.

Not in terms of salvation (or rather, a lack of salvation). No unbelieving Jew, Chinese person, European or African can be called "My people" or "His people" if they are not found in Christ.

But we or they are not spirits floating around up there looking down - we are all in the world, in physical bodies, and in the world there is a distinction between male and female, Jew, Chinese person, European, Arab, African etc. The only time or place these distinctions fall away is in the case of those who are in Christ, for we all (those of us who are in Christ) have access by One Spirit to the Father through Christ - whether we be male, female, Jew, Chinese, Arab, African, European, etc.

Lekh

Thank you very much Lekh, :yo: my sentiments exactly.

Many blessing to you,

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2009, 08:43 PM
If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ("the fathers"), then He is first and foremost the God of the people who are physically descended from them, and also to those Gentiles who are not physically descended from them, yet convert to faith in their God.

Hey there lekh,

Where does the Bible say that God is "first and foremost" the God of a particular set of people defined by their flesh?
Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:


If no distinction ever existed, then there would not even be a word like "Gentile" ("goyim" in Hebrew - the word is found in the Bible itself) - for a Gentile refers to anyone who is not physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Yes, there is a "distinction" just as there is a distinction between Chinese and African. But the Bible knows nothing of such a distinction relative to the promises of God.



Just because "My people" refers first and foremost to the believing remnant of the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not mean that "it is defined by the flesh", as you put it - for it (the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is defined not by the flesh, but by the Word and work of God. But this does not change the fact that the promise is first and foremost to those who are physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (IF they will believe), and THEN also to the Gentiles.

As far as I can tell, your idea of "ethnic Israel" is absolutely and unequivocally defined by "the flesh." Paul explicitly states that the promise was based on faith in contrast with the carnal, fleshly decent from Abraham. Paul said what he meant and he meant what he said:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh [of Abraham], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Is there something in this Scripture with which you disagree?



You are using the word "flesh" in the wrong context - because you are using it in the context of "salvation by works" instead of by faith.

I am not the one who introduced the word "flesh" in that context. It was God through Paul who identified unbelieving physical descendants of Abraham as "children of the flesh" who were NOT the "children of God" nor the "children of promise." Paul used the same language earlier in the same book when he was defining who was NOT a Jew:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Note that Paul did not indicate that there is any distinction between the "Abrahamic Covenant" defined by "circumcision" and the "law" of Moses which also was defined by circumcision.



You would not have been considered a part of "His people" unless you converted to the God of "His people" - Ruth was not talking to any Gentiles when she said,

"And Ruth said, Do not beg me to leave you, to return from following after you. For where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God." (Rth 1:16)

Ruth was talking to those who were ethnically Israelites - to those who were physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The concept of divine promises based on the flesh is foreign to the Bible.



You can't get away from the fact that throughout the Bible a distinction is made between those who are ethnically Israelites and those who are not ethnically Israelites.

Of the seven promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the good news (the gospel) is the one promise that applied also to the many nations - but it would only come through the family who were ethnically Israelites:

"You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." (Joh 4:22)

"The Jews" refers to a nation of people who are ethnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Yes, a distinction of convenience to speak about how the Gospel came into the world, but it has no significance whatsoever as concerning the Gospel because the Gospel is not based in any way at all upon the flesh.



We don't have to sort out what the Bible teaches about the unbelieving children who are etnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

Huh? Then why are we having this conversation? Do you really think there is nothing to "sort out"?



Paul tells us very clearly in Romans 9 that not ALL of the children ethnically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "Israel".

Then in Romans 11, Paul tells us very clearly that the unbelieving ethnic children are broken off from His people. Then he says that those of them that repent of their unbelief and turn to Christ shall be grafted into "their own Olive tree again" (strange that Paul does not say quite the same thing about Gentiles who turn to faith in Christ, since we're not grafted into "our own Olive tree again" - we're simply grafted in among the remnant of the ethnic children, according to Paul)

Then Paul says that "Israel" has been hardened until the full number of GENTILES has come in - there's that distinction again - whose a "Gentile", if there's no distinction in the Bible between the ethnic children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Gentiles who are grafted in among their remnant?

I never said there was no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the first century when Paul wrote that passage. My point has been that there is no biblical importance whatsoever if someone is or is not a fleshly descendant of Abraham. There is one Gospel for both Jew and Gentile, and there are no promises from God for anybody but the "children of promise" and the "children of promise" are defined solely in terms of faith, not flesh.





Not so. God brought forth the "children of promise" and He contrasts them with the "children of the flesh."

You're using the word "flesh" again in the wrong context. Paul uses the word "flesh" because he was specifically contrasting (on one hand) Ishmael, who was "a son of the flesh" because he was born as a result of human endeavor to fulfill God's promises to Abraham and his physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob, with (on the other hand) Isaac, who was born as a result of the miracle-working God remaining faithful to His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the physical (ethnic) seed.

Why do you say that is the "wrong context"? Here you say that the correct context is "human endeavor" vs. "God's miracle-working" - is that not the way that the phrase "works of the flesh" is used throughout Scripture?



It's not carnal descent. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their believing physical seed (ethnic Israelites) is not carnal - it's the work of God remaining faithful to His everlasting promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their physical seed + those GENTILES (non-ethnic Isralites) who are grafted in among the believing remnant of the physical seed (the ethnic Israelites)

I never said the work of God was carnal. I said that your definition of "ethnic Israel" is carnal because that's exactly what it is. Your definition is based on the FLESH and nothing but the FLESH. You assert that "ethnic Israel" = the physical seed of Abraham, regardless of belief or unbelief.





Where does the New Testament make a distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants? And where in the NT does God emphasize the difference and use it as the basis for doctrine?

Right here:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3: 17-18).

The word "promise" does not mean "covenant." God did not say "the covenant given to Abraham does not annul the covenant given to Moses." You are confusing the promise given to Abraham with the idea of a covenant. Granted, the two are closely related, but obviously there is a big distinction because the covenant given to Abraham involved circumcion and Paul clearly identifies circumcision with the law.



And the promise was repeated to Isaac and Jacob after God made a covenant by oath to Abraham that He would do what He had promised to do. It is through the ethnically descended seed that the promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham (and his seed) is fulfilled (is fulfilled on an ongoing basis, not was fulfilled, as though only 1st century Gentiles could be saved as a result of the promise).

The promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham has been fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Jews fulfilled their purpose in history by bringing forth the Christ. What more needs to be fulfilled by them?



This is why Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews". Why did Jesus say that to a Gentile woman? And why did he say to another Gentile woman,

"But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to dogs. And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that very hour." (Mat 15:26-28)

Why was Jesus making a distinction between the ethnic children and the Gentiles?

Because that's the way things were. But when the New Covenant was ratified by the death of the Testator (Christ) the Old Covenant ended. There is now no definition of a "Jew" in the biblical sense because they were defined by the first covenant which no longer exists.




If you would simply state your conclusion, then we could probably narrow down the points of agreement/disagreement much more quickly."

It's not "my" conclusion or your conclusion that matters. If it was, it wouldn't be of the slightest importance.

Oh, come on. You know what I meant.



What I'm trying to show is that even though in Christ there is no distinction between male and female, Jew, Chinese, Greek, yet we are not spirits - we are in the world. In the Bible we find Jesus and Paul making a distinction between the ethnic Israelites and the Gentiles, even though IN CHRIST they are all one.

Yes, Paul and Christ and most if not all the NT writers make that distinction. BUT NOT ONE OF THEM makes anything of that distinction! On the contrary, they all speak with perfect unity - there is no biblical or Gospel significance to the Jew/Gentile distinction. Yes, it played a role in the history of the Gospel, because Salvation = Yehoshua (Jesus) was "of the Jews" as it is written:
Romans 1:1-5 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Other than that, I know of no significance of the Jew/Gentile distinctionin the NT.

I am still very curious as to what you are really driving at. What is the "big point" that you are hoping to prove?



Great chatting. But sadly I have to go again - it's already past 1 am where I'm sitting.

Talk again tomorrow.

God bless Richard and Rose!
Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

lekh lekha
08-24-2009, 03:27 AM
Hey there lekh,

Where does the Bible say that God is "first and foremost" the God of a particular set of people defined by their flesh?
Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Yes, there is a "distinction" just as there is a distinction between Chinese and African. But the Bible knows nothing of such a distinction relative to the promises of God.

Yes, it does. Paul states specifically that the gospel is "for the Jew first, and also for the Greek":

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)

Those words "to the Jew first" are not accidental. The promises of God were made to an ethnic nation (Abraham and his physical seed through Isaac and Jacob), and this is proved by Paul's prophetic statement, which the church has twisted into a theological statement about a "non-ethnic Israel":

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to (ethnic) Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in...

And so ALL Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins (it's still to happen)...

... As concerning the gospel, they (the broken off ethnic Israelites) are enemies for your (the Gentiles') sakes: but as touching the election (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), they (the broken off ethnic Israelites) are beloved for the fathers' sakes... For the gifts (grace) and calling (election) of God (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's physical seed) are without repentance (irrevocable)...

... For as ye (believing Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (unbelieving ethnic Israel's) unbelief: Even so have these (unbelieving ethnic Israelites) also now not believed, that through your mercy (the mercy shown by God to the Gentiles) they (the unbelieving ethnic Israelites) also may obtain mercy...

... For God hath concluded them all (first the Gentiles who in times past did not believe, and now the ethnic Israelites who presently are broken off through unbelief) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33)


I am not the one who introduced the word "flesh" in that context. It was God through Paul who identified unbelieving physical descendants of Abraham as "children of the flesh" who were NOT the "children of God" nor the "children of promise."

Paul is saying clearly that the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac (and Jacob) are the children of the promise - but the unbelieving ones among them were broken off through their unbelief (Rom.11: 17).

Nobody can be "broken off" from membership among the children of the promise unless he was first a member of that (ethnic) nation and those promises first applied to him. Paul quite unambiguously uses the words "the children of the flesh" in connection with Ishmael, and not in connection with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it is a simile.


As far as I can tell, your idea of "ethnic Israel" is absolutely and unequivocally defined by "the flesh." Paul explicitly states that the promise was based on faith

The promise is based on God's faithfulness to His everlasting promises (which He swore by oath - a covenant - to fulfill HIMSELF) to Abraham and his (physical) seed WHO WOULD BE CALLED, SAID GOD, IN Isaac (and, later, Jacob).

Just because the promises can only be received by faith in the Word of God (faith in God) does not mean that our faith can produce the work of God - OUR FAITH DOES NOT PRODUCE THE WORK OF GOD WHEN HE FULFILLS HIS PROMISES. You make the scriptures mean what you want them to mean by saying, "Paul explicitly states that the promise was based on faith" (as though anyone by his faith could produce God's fulfillment of His promises) The Charismatics teach that - "faith-prosperity", "faith-this, and faith-that".




in contrast with the carnal, fleshly decent from Abraham...

Once again, THERE IS NOTHING CARNAL OR FLESHLY ABOUT GOD'S WORD - there is NOTHING CARNAL about God's everlasting promise to be God to Abraham and his physical seed forever and ever; and there is nothing carnal about the fact that this promise is extended to any and all Gentiles who are grafted in AMONG that physical (ethnic) Israel; and EVEN THOUGH THERE BE ONLY A REMNANT OF THE PHYSICAL SEED which has NOT been broken off, the fact remains that "ethnic Israel" remains - AND THERE IS NOTHING CARNAL ABOUT THAT FACT BECAUSE IT IS THE RESULT OF THEN EVERLASTING WORD (PROMISE) OF GOD AND WORK OF GOD IN FULFILLMENT OF HIS WORD TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.

It's the gnostic-based theology you adhere to which causes you to bring God's Word into question like this.

Indeed, Paul said what he meant and he meant what he said:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not ALL Israel, which are (ethnic descendants) of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children (of the promise which was given to ethnic Israel and in which any Gentile who is grafted in among them partakes):

but, IN ISAAC Isaac shall thy seed be called."

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh (of ISHMAEL), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."


Is there something in this Scripture with which you disagree?

There's something in that scripture with which you disagree: You said, "They which are the children of the flesh [of Abraham]".

The children of the flesh are the children of Ishmael - not the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who are all flesh).

We, too, are flesh. The seed of Abraham is flesh - otherwise you won't have any fingers to type out what you want them to.

You are making the scriptures mean what they don't mean by your faulty understanding of what Paul means by the word "flesh". Paul meant what he said, and said what he meant - but the theology you adhere to twists the meaning of Paul's words in order that they may do away with the God's everlasting Word (promises) that He made with the physical (ethnic) seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.



The concept of divine promises based on the flesh is foreign to the Bible.

Your calling God's everlasting Word (promises) to the ethnic seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob "promises based on the flesh" and "carnal" is not only foreign to the Bible, it is an immense insult to God.


Yes, a distinction of convenience to speak about how the Gospel came into the world, but it has no significance whatsoever as concerning the Gospel because the Gospel is not based in any way at all upon the flesh.

So whenever God, Jesus and Paul make a distinction between the ethnic seed and the Gentiles who are joined to the remnant of the ethnic seed, it's "a distinction of convenience" because you say it is?


I never said there was no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the first century when Paul wrote that passage. My point has been that there is no biblical importance whatsoever if someone is or is not a fleshly descendant of Abraham. There is one Gospel for both Jew and Gentile, and there are no promises from God for anybody but the "children of promise" and the "children of promise" are defined solely in terms of faith, not flesh.

So there was a distinction between Jews and Gentiles "in the 1st century when Paul wrote that passage", but there's no longer such a distinction between them because you say so?


I never said the work of God was carnal. I said that your definition of "ethnic Israel" is carnal because that's exactly what it is. Your definition is based on the FLESH and nothing but the FLESH. You assert that "ethnic Israel" = the physical seed of Abraham, regardless of belief or unbelief.

Ethnic Israel came into being through the sovereign, Divine will of God and calling of God of Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob. These are physical human beings. Your arguments are gnostic-based, and have no Biblical basis whatever.


The word "promise" does not mean "covenant." God did not say "the covenant given to Abraham does not annul the covenant given to Moses." You are confusing the promise given to Abraham with the idea of a covenant.

The fact of the matter is that God made an oath between Himself and Abraham and his physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob ("covenanted") to FULFILL THE PROMISES. This is why Paul says that the Law cannot annul God's promise to Abraham - and "the promise" consists of seven promises.




Granted, the two are closely related, but obviously there is a big distinction because the covenant given to Abraham involved circumcion and Paul clearly identifies circumcision with the law.

Paul states very clearly that circumcision was given as the outward sign of something that Abraham ALREADY had:

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." (Rom 4:11-12)

Again, Paul makes a distinction between "the circumcision" and "the uncircumcised"




The promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham has been fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Jews fulfilled their purpose in history by bringing forth the Christ. What more needs to be fulfilled by them?

Don't you believe ALL God's promises? Or do you only choose to believe those promises you want to believe? You are doing the same as the unbelieving Jews who only wanted to believe in a Messiah who would be a triumphant, conquering son of David and deliver them from the hands of their enemies, but did not want to believe in a Messiah who would be handed over to gentiles and be put to death by the Gentiles, dying for their sins and the sins of the whole world.

The unsaved Jews refuse to believe in the latter Messiah, though God promised Him through the mouth of His prophets; and you refuse to believe in the former Messiah, though God promised Him through the mouth of His prophets.

There is a lot more that's still to be fulfilled.



Because that's the way things were. But when the New Covenant was ratified by the death of the Testator (Christ) the Old Covenant ended. There is now no definition of a "Jew" in the biblical sense because they were defined by the first covenant which no longer exists.

False - because the only "old covenant" of which you speak is the MOSAIC covenant - but the covenant by which a "Jew" IS defined in the Biblical sense is the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant which could not ever be annulled by the Mosaic Covenant, as Paul states so clearly in Gal.3: 17.

It's pointless debating this issue any longer. Those of you who believe this gnostic-based theology are so blinded by it that you cannot see the truth of the matter, and neither do you want to see it.

So I'm saying goodbye, because I'm starting to feel like I'm just casting pearls before those who insult God by bringing His everlasting Word which came by grace to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into question.

joel
08-24-2009, 06:11 AM
It's pointless debating this issue any longer. Those of you who believe this gnostic-based theology are so blinded by it that you cannot see the truth of the matter, and neither do you want to see it.

So I'm saying goodbye, because I'm starting to feel like I'm just casting pearls before those who insult God by bringing His everlasting Word which came by grace to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into question.

Please, lekh lekha, reconsider your decision to leave.

You have a lot to offer, and, you present your views clearly.

We must attempt to converse passionately, but, debate as dispassionately as possible so as not to draw lines in the sand.

In Romans 9:6, when Paul says that "it is not as though..the word of God has taken none effect".....what does that mean to you?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2009, 07:37 AM
It's pointless debating this issue any longer. Those of you who believe this gnostic-based theology are so blinded by it that you cannot see the truth of the matter, and neither do you want to see it.

So I'm saying goodbye, because I'm starting to feel like I'm just casting pearls before those who insult God by bringing His everlasting Word which came by grace to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into question.

Please, lekh lekha, reconsider your decision to leave.

You have a lot to offer, and, you present your views clearly.

We must attempt to converse passionately, but, debate as dispassionately as possible so as not to draw lines in the sand.

In Romans 9:6, when Paul says that "it is not as though..the word of God has taken none effect".....what does that mean to you?

Joel
Lekh,

I pray you will listen to Joel and remain here to discuss these important questions. You have MUCH to offer. You have studied diligently and have come to a strong conclusions. The same is true for many members of this forum. I can not speak other than what I believe to be true. I came to my conclusions by studying the WORD, not by following any "gnostic-based theology." Such accusations "short-circuit" the discussion and should be avoided - unless you want to provide evidence of where I have ever quoted a "gnostic-based" theologian in anything I have said. Of course, that won't happen because I have not done that.

I trust you will see that you have been given an "open forum" here. Please don't get frustrated and leave just because other members have different views. We all have much to gain by continuing this discussion.

Many blessings,

Richard

Rose
08-24-2009, 07:51 AM
Hi Lekh,

I too, hope you will choose to stay and discuss with us here on this Forum. The only way we truly learn and grow in our knowledge is to present our views and see if they hold up to being tested in the fire of Scripture.

I have one more big question to ask, and I hope you will be kind enough to answer so I may better understand you position.

In your last post you stated that "there is still a lot more to be fulfilled". My question is: If ALL the promises have been fulfilled in Christ (ALL means ALL), then what more is there to be fulfilled? :confused:

Many blessing to you,

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2009, 08:39 AM
Hey there lekh,

Where does the Bible say that God is "first and foremost" the God of a particular set of people defined by their flesh?
Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Yes, there is a "distinction" just as there is a distinction between Chinese and African. But the Bible knows nothing of such a distinction relative to the promises of God.

Yes, it does. Paul states specifically that the gospel is "for the Jew first, and also for the Greek":

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)

Those words "to the Jew first" are not accidental. The promises of God were made to an ethnic nation (Abraham and his physical seed through Isaac and Jacob), and this is proved by Paul's prophetic statement, which the church has twisted into a theological statement about a "non-ethnic Israel":

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to (ethnic) Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in...

And so ALL Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins (it's still to happen)...

1) "To the Jews first" is a statement of historical fact. It does not indicate that God is "first and foremost the God of the Jews" which is the point you were supposedly trying to prove. If you don't have Scripture to support your point, you should just admit that rather than quoting a Scripture that does not prove your point.

2) If you asked Paul "who is the redeemer that would take away their sins" he would have said "Jesus Christ." If you asked "When did he remove their sins" he would have said "at the cross." Paul was telling us HOW "all Israel" would be saved - and he defined "all Israel" in Romans 9:6 as the body of all believers. The "they" in Romans 9-11 is subject to much debate. It probably refers to members ethnic Israel that had not been converted yet. But nobody really knows - that's why it's a constant debate. Your assertion that it means every physical descendant of Abraham is fraught with many difficulties and certainly is not "obviously" correct.

3) The tense of the word "shall" indicates it was future at the time it was originally written. It does not necessarily remain future at the time that Paul quoted it. He was using it as an explanation of the manner in which "all Israel" was to be saved.



... As concerning the gospel, they (the broken off ethnic Israelites) are enemies for your (the Gentiles') sakes: but as touching the election (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), they (the broken off ethnic Israelites) are beloved for the fathers' sakes... For the gifts (grace) and calling (election) of God (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's physical seed) are without repentance (irrevocable)...

... For as ye (believing Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (unbelieving ethnic Israel's) unbelief: Even so have these (unbelieving ethnic Israelites) also now not believed, that through your mercy (the mercy shown by God to the Gentiles) they (the unbelieving ethnic Israelites) also may obtain mercy...

... For God hath concluded them all (first the Gentiles who in times past did not believe, and now the ethnic Israelites who presently are broken off through unbelief) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33)

I agree with all those verses. Who is the "they" - it seems that you are saying it represents "each and every individual unbelieving Jew that has every lived since the Gospel came." I don't think that is correct for many reasons. Why do you not understand that Paul was talking about their salvation, and that salvation is not given to every individual Gentile nor every individual Jew? Therefore, it would seem that Paul was talking about the elect among the unbelieving members of ethnic Israel who had not yet come to faith in Christ, as he said:
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
How will they be graffed in again? Throught faith, just like any Gentile. For there is no difference, as it is written:
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
As you can see, I am simply quoting Scripture here. I am not following a "gnostic-based theology."




I am not the one who introduced the word "flesh" in that context. It was God through Paul who identified unbelieving physical descendants of Abraham as "children of the flesh" who were NOT the "children of God" nor the "children of promise."

Paul is saying clearly that the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac (and Jacob) are the children of the promise - but the unbelieving ones among them were broken off through their unbelief (Rom.11: 17).

You are correct that Isaac was both a physical decendant of Abraham and a "child of promise." But Paul's POINT is that the physical decent has NOTHING to do with the promise. How do we know that? Because Paul explicitly declares that the Gospel is based on FAITH only, as it is written:
Romans 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [Jew and Gentile]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
ALL THE SEED refers to ALL BELIEVERS. Anyone who is of the "faith of Abraham" is called the "seed of Abraham" and no unbeliever, whether a natural born son of Isaac or not, is counted as "seed."

And besides that, Paul's argument directly contradicts your fundamental assertion. Paul went on to declare that Esau - a son of Isaac - was "hated" by God. He was NOT a "child of promise. Look at the pattern:

Children of Abraham .... Isaac (Promise) vs. Ishmael (Flesh)
Children of Isaac ........ Jacob (Promise) vs. Esau (Flesh)

The point is obvious. Physical decent from Abraham DOES NOT DEFINE being a "child of the promise." Likewise, physical decent from Isaac DOES NOT DEFINE begin a "child of the promise." God doubled it to make sure we could not make a mistake here. Your assertion that physical decent from "Jacob" defines the "children of promise" is false.

Please consider this point carefully. You say that the FLESH defines the promise, which means that every UNBELIEVING decendant of Isaac would be a "child of the promise." This is absolutely and unequivocally false.



The promise is based on God's faithfulness to His everlasting promises (which He swore by oath - a covenant - to fulfill HIMSELF) to Abraham and his (physical) seed WHO WOULD BE CALLED, SAID GOD, IN Isaac (and, later, Jacob).

And God went on to reveal that the definition of a "child of promise" and "seed of Abraham" was FAITH, as it is written:
Romans 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [Jew and Gentile]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
I don't understand why you disagree with this Scripture. The Bible is admant and perfectly clear. The FLESH profits nothing. All the promises of God are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the seed of Abraham is defined by the faith of Abraham. It has nothing to do with the flesh.





in contrast with the carnal, fleshly decent from Abraham...

Once again, THERE IS NOTHING CARNAL OR FLESHLY ABOUT GOD'S WORD - there is NOTHING CARNAL about God's everlasting promise to be God to Abraham and his physical seed forever and ever; and there is nothing carnal about the fact that this promise is extended to any and all Gentiles who are grafted in AMONG that physical (ethnic) Israel; and EVEN THOUGH THERE BE ONLY A REMNANT OF THE PHYSICAL SEED which has NOT been broken off, the fact remains that "ethnic Israel" remains - AND THERE IS NOTHING CARNAL ABOUT THAT FACT BECAUSE IT IS THE RESULT OF THEN EVERLASTING WORD (PROMISE) OF GOD AND WORK OF GOD IN FULFILLMENT OF HIS WORD TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.

It's the gnostic-based theology you adhere to which causes you to bring God's Word into question like this.

Forgive me for speaking as plainly as you, but it seems clear that you are introducing a flesh-based theology into God's Word.

There is a simple way to settle this: Do you define "ethnic Israel" according to the flesh? Yes or no?

As we all konw, the answer is yes, and this directly contradicts the Word of God which declares that the "seed of Abraham" is defined by the "faith of Abraham."



Indeed, Paul said what he meant and he meant what he said:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not ALL Israel, which are (ethnic descendants) of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children (of the promise which was given to ethnic Israel and in which any Gentile who is grafted in among them partakes):

but, IN ISAAC Isaac shall thy seed be called."

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh (of ISHMAEL), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

You missed the point of Paul's argument. He did not stop at Issac and Ishmael. He showed the same pattern continued into the next generation with Jacob and Esau. His point is that this is a general pattern that demonstrates his BIG POINT that carnal decent from Abraham means nothing relative to the promises of God.



There's something in that scripture with which you disagree: You said, "They which are the children of the flesh [of Abraham]".

The children of the flesh are the children of Ishmael - not the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who are all flesh).

False. "Ethnic Israel" is defined as the "children of the flesh of Abraham" + those who converted.



You are making the scriptures mean what they don't mean by your faulty understanding of what Paul means by the word "flesh". Paul meant what he said, and said what he meant - but the theology you adhere to twists the meaning of Paul's words in order that they may do away with the God's everlasting Word (promises) that He made with the physical (ethnic) seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

First, I don't to a "theology" - but even if I did your words would be empty if you did not state specifically what was the error of that "theology."

If you think I have twisted some words, then we should NARROW DOWN the conversation to focus on those words so we can discern their correct meaning. That is the path of the true seeker of Truth. These discussions can easily go all over the map so that nothing gets settled. But the Truth Seeker will seek to find the TRUE POINT upon which the difference hinges so we can resolve it and come to agreement.



Your calling God's everlasting Word (promises) to the ethnic seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob "promises based on the flesh" and "carnal" is not only foreign to the Bible, it is an immense insult to God.

Or perhaps your assertion that God's Promises are based on the flesh is an "immense insult to God." You don't have a corner on the truth here my friend. Let's discuss it with lots of grace and mutual respect, shall we? I think we all could benefit. It's obviously important to you, and you have a very friendly open forum here (no one is insulting you and you can say what you want!). So let's pursue this!



Ethnic Israel came into being through the sovereign, Divine will of God and calling of God of Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob. These are physical human beings. Your arguments are gnostic-based, and have no Biblical basis whatever.

Humm ... that's not only false, it's also rather rude! But thanks be to God I feel fine and am not upset at all. You assertion is outrageously false because I have only quoted Scripture. You may disagree with my interpretation just as I disagree with yours, but that does not give you the right to ignore the Scriptures I quote and assert that I have not Biblical foundation for my beliefs. You know I have plenty of support for my beliefs. I presume that is why this converstation is getting frustrating for you. The Bible plainly and explicitly supports my beliefs because my beliefs are derived from the Bible and the Bible alone. You believe the same about your beleifs. So lets discuss it with mutual respect, shall we? :tea:




The fact of the matter is that God made an oath between Himself and Abraham and his physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob ("covenanted") to FULFILL THE PROMISES. This is why Paul says that the Law cannot annul God's promise to Abraham - and "the promise" consists of seven promises.

The Bible declares that all the OT land promises have been fulfilled:
Joshua 23:14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to passnot one thing hath failed unto you, and thereof.
And all the rest are fulfilled in Christ. So what is left to be fulfilled?



Don't you believe ALL God's promises? Or do you only choose to believe those promises you want to believe? You are doing the same as the unbelieving Jews who only wanted to believe in a Messiah who would be a triumphant, conquering son of David and deliver them from the hands of their enemies, but did not want to believe in a Messiah who would be handed over to gentiles and be put to death by the Gentiles, dying for their sins and the sins of the whole world.

The unsaved Jews refuse to believe in the latter Messiah, though God promised Him through the mouth of His prophets; and you refuse to believe in the former Messiah, though God promised Him through the mouth of His prophets.

There is a lot more that's still to be fulfilled.

I would be very interested to know what you believe is yet to be fulfilled, and why.



So I'm saying goodbye, because I'm starting to feel like I'm just casting pearls before those who insult God by bringing His everlasting Word which came by grace to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into question.
That's ridiculous! You have an open forum here to freely share all your ideas, and everybody is very polite and kind-hearted. The fact that some folks disagree gives you a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to show why your understanding is superior! Why would you want to leave?

Many blessing to you my friend,

Richard

lekh lekha
08-25-2009, 06:28 AM
The Bible teaches us that there is a time for everything: "a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pull up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;.." (Ecc 3:2-4)

.. and a time to humbly admit that I was wrong - dead wrong - to get into a fleshly-produced anger and become insulting, and to apologize for the way I said the things I said, and for some of the things I said.

I apologize, Richard for the things I said to you about casting pearls (one can only cast pearls before unbelievers, not before believers, and it was very wrong and ugly of me to have used that expression with regard to you or anyone else here). And I apologize to you and to the other folks here for anything else I said that was insulting. My apology is sincere and I hope you can forgive me for that.

Let me first get rid of a misconception about the points I was trying to make earlier, before I continue:


1)

2) If you asked Paul "who is the redeemer that would take away their sins" he would have said "Jesus Christ." If you asked "When did he remove their sins" he would have said "at the cross." Paul was telling us HOW "all Israel" would be saved - and he defined "all Israel" in Romans 9:6 as the body of all believers. The "they" in Romans 9-11 is subject to much debate. It probably refers to members ethnic Israel that had not been converted yet. But nobody really knows - that's why it's a constant debate. Your assertion that it means every physical descendant of Abraham is fraught with many difficulties and certainly is not "obviously" correct.

Agreed. "they", "their", "them" and "these" certainly does not refer to the generations of Jews who since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus until now, have not believed:

"For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins."

Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as you also then disbelieved God, but now have been shown mercy through their disbelief, even so these also have not believed now, so that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy." (Rom 11:25-31).

Firstly, let me make this argument up-front which I think you all disagree with:

It certainly is not true that everything was fulfilled in the 1st century, as you claim. The gospel of the Kingdom (Mat.24: 14) may have been preached in most of the Roman Empire by the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, but it had not been preached in India, China, South-East Asia, Australia, sub-equatorial Africa, or to the the American Indians, the Hawaiians etc etc.

Jesus stated that the gospel of the Kingdom would first be preached in ALL the world as a witness to ALL nations, and then only would the end come. The gospel only came to America and sub-equatorial Africa a few hundred years ago.

You may disagree with that statement above (I'm not sure); and no doubt, you will thoroughly disagree with what I'm now going to say below. But if you have the time, I'm going to attempt to explain why I say what I say about these verses, as best I can - but you're going to have to stay with me and follow what I'm saying carefully, because I'm going to be jumping backward and forward between (on one hand), the subject of "the flesh", the covenants of God, and "ethnic Israel"; and (on the other hand), the above verses.

Now here's the next argument which I'm going to state up-front, so that you know where my thinking lies, and then I will show you why I say this is Biblical:

Rom.11: 25-32 certainly does not refer to any Jew who has remained in unbelief since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus until now. But those verse, however, remain a prophecy - the Biblical type of which is the "next generation" which entered the promised land under the leadership of Joshua (because with the exception of a tiny remnant - namely, Joshua and Caleb -the entire previous generation had perished in the wilderness in unbelief).

The majority of the Jews have been wandering in a spiritual wilderness in unbelief these last 2,000 years, with all their generations perishing in that wilderness. These generations which have remained in unbelief will never enter the promised land.

Why should there be any difference in the mind of God between the generations of unbelieving Jews and those of unbelieving Gentiles? And why should these verses be a prophecy of something yet to occur?


You are correct that Isaac was both a physical decendant of Abraham and a "child of promise."

But Paul's POINT is that the physical decent has NOTHING to do with the promise. How do we know that? Because Paul explicitly declares that the Gospel is based on FAITH only, as it is written:
Romans 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [Jew and Gentile]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
ALL THE SEED refers to ALL BELIEVERS. Anyone who is of the "faith of Abraham" is called the "seed of Abraham" and no unbeliever, whether a natural born son of Isaac or not, is counted as "seed."

The gospel is not based on faith. It is based on the Word and grace of God and it is received through faith. We are not saved by faith. We are saved by God's grace through our faith in His Word.

The gospel:

1) The gospel of salvation from sin and the wrath of God through the shed blood of Jesus:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)

"You know the Word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching the gospel of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all!);" (Act 10:36)

"But none of these things move me, neither do I count my life dear to myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus Christ, to testify fully the gospel of the grace of God." (Act 20:24)

2) The gospel of the Kingdom:

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people." (Mat 4:23)

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." (Mat 24:14)

There is only one gospel, but there are two aspects to the gospel. You may not think so, but now let's talk about this term "the flesh" and relate it to God's covenants with man:


... And besides that, Paul's argument directly contradicts your fundamental assertion. Paul went on to declare that Esau - a son of Isaac - was "hated" by God. He was NOT a "child of promise. Look at the pattern:

Children of Abraham .... Isaac (Promise) vs. Ishmael (Flesh)
Children of Isaac ........ Jacob (Promise) vs. Esau (Flesh)

The point is obvious. Physical decent from Abraham DOES NOT DEFINE being a "child of the promise." Likewise, physical decent from Isaac DOES NOT DEFINE begin a "child of the promise." God doubled it to make sure we could not make a mistake here. Your assertion that physical decent from "Jacob" defines the "children of promise" is false.

Please consider this point carefully. You say that the FLESH defines the promise, which means that every UNBELIEVING decendant of Isaac would be a "child of the promise." This is absolutely and unequivocally false.

And God went on to reveal that the definition of a "child of promise" and "seed of Abraham" was FAITH, as it is written:
Romans 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [Jew and Gentile]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
I don't understand why you disagree with this Scripture. The Bible is admant and perfectly clear. The FLESH profits nothing. All the promises of God are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and the seed of Abraham is defined by the faith of Abraham. It has nothing to do with the flesh.

One day long, long ago God made an everlasting covenant with ALL FLESH when He said,

"Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth.

And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13)

1. This is the Noahic Covenant, and it shows that God makes covenants WITH FLESH.

2. It also shows that if God keeps His promises with the flesh-seed of His Covenants, this does not mean that the fulfillment of the promises is a carnal thing and produced by the flesh .

3. The fulfillment of the promise contained in the covenant is not based upon the faith of the beneficiaries of the promise. , who are flesh - it is based ALONE upon the Word (promise) of God and His faithfulness to His Word.

4. An everlasting token was given by God as the sign both of the covenant and of the everlasting nature of the covenant.

5. The word "everlasting" in the Nohaic Covenant quoted above is the same Hebrew words (olam olam) that are used in the next covenant that God made with flesh:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

1. Once again, this is a covenant with flesh - but this time, not with ALL flesh.

2. Once again, if God keeps His promises with the flesh-seed of His Covenants, this does not mean that the fulfillment of the promises is a carnal thing and produced by the flesh .

3. Once again, the fulfillment of the promise contained in the covenant is not based upon the faith of the beneficiaries of the promise. , who are flesh - it is based ALONE upon the Word (promise) of God and His faithfulness to His Word.

4. Once again, an everlasting token was given by God as the sign both of the covenant and of the everlasting nature of the covenant (circumcision).

5. Once again, the word "everlasting" in the Abrahamic Covenant quoted above, is the same Hebrew words (olam olam) that are used in Nohaic Covenant that God made with ALL flesh.

The Abrahamic Covenant is A COVENANT WITH FLESH - BUT NOT WITH ALL FLESH:

"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. " (Gen 17:18-19).

QUESTION: WHO IS THE SEED OF ABRAHAM WITH WHOM THE COVENANT WAS MADE?

ANSWER: THE FLESH - IT IS AN EVERLASTING COVENANT MADE WITH FLESH:

I say then, Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.(Rom 11:1).

Benjamin is a son of JACOB - the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed was a covenant made with THE FLESH.

God's fulfillment of the Nohaic and Abrahamic Covenants has NOTHING to do with the faith (or lack of faith) of THE FLESH with whom those covenants were made - the fulfillment of THE PROMISES are based SOLELY upon God's faithfulness to His Word:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-18).

The Law said to ethnic Israel: "IF you will do this, THEN I will do this. But if you will NOT do this, THEN I will do THIS."

The Law was ADDED after the promise and was CONDITIONAL upon the faithfulness and obedience of the people AND TEMPORARY. It was ADDED so that they (and all the world) could become guilty before God, and so that they could see that the promise could not depend on works of obedience, but on the faithfulness of God to His Word (which He revealed and promised to later generations of Jews He would fulfill through the Messiah).

The Law was therefore added for the purpose of driving them to faith in the Messiah, who is the Word of God become FLESH.

If God's promises which were not solicited by the flesh (Abraham and his seed did not solicit God's calling, election and promises) depends upon the faith and obedience of the flesh for their fulfillment, then God may just as well send another world-wide flood to destroy all flesh.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an everlasting covenant with the flesh - but not with ALL flesh - only with the flesh-seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - and "ethnic" nation.

BELIEVING GENTILES ARE GRAFTED INTO THE ETHNIC NATION TO WHOM THE PROMISES PERTAIN, and they are grafted in AMONG THE BELIEVING REMNANT OF THE NATION, while THE UNBELIEVING ETHNIC SEED ARE BROKEN OFF FROM THE NATION.

SO WHY WERE THE UNBELIEVING JEWS BROKEN OFF AND WHY DO THEY CONTINUE TO BE BROKEN OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR UNBELIEF, IF THE PROMISE DEPENDS ALONE UPON THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD TO HIS WORD?

The answer to that question lies IN THIS verse:

"And He is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world." (1John 2: 2).

Salvation depends on God alone and alone on the faithfulness of God to His Word. Jesus died for the sins of all the world. So why is all the world not saved - why does all the world not received the fulfillment of God's promise of salvation?

It is one of those Biblical paradoxes - the grace of God can only be received THROUGH faith in His Word. They are elected who WILL respond positively to His calling and who DO BELIEVE GOD. "Abraham believed God..." Therefore God's promises to ABRAHAM which apply to Abraham's flesh seed + those who are the seed of Abraham by faith WILL be fulfilled:

"Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance." (Rom 11:28-29).

"They" does not refer to all the individual flesh-seed who are perishing in a spiritual wilderness in unbelief - it refers to the ethnic nation as a whole, whose "next generation" will enter the promised land under the leadership of Joshua (Jesus):

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Rom 11:25-26)

WHY?

Because of God's faithfulness to His promises contained in His everlasting covenant with flesh (Abraham and his seed).

This is also why all flesh will never again be destroyed by a flood - because the covenant is made with flesh.

As God said through the prophet Ezekiel, it is NOT for the ethnic nation's sake - it is for the sake of God's holy name which is linked to His covenant with Abraham and his seed (Eze.36: 22 and verses 16-38).

Under Joshua the nation had NOT received the promise of the land contained in the ABRAHAMIC Covenant - they had received the promise of the land contained in THE MOSAIC Covenant, and unlike the promises contained in the everlasting ABRAHAMIC Covenant, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant promises depended equally upon the obedience and faithfulness of the people as it did upon the faithfulness of God to His Word. THIS IS WHY JOSHUA REMINDED THEM that they had to bring their part, now that God had fulfilled the Mosaic-Covenant promise of the land.

Did they bring their part? What was the purpose of the Law (the Mosaic Covenant)? To drive them to faith in GOD ALONE through the Messiah who was later promised. To let them see and understand and know that the fulfillment of the promises of God in His everlasting covenants with flesh depends ALONE on the faithfulness of God to His Word and CANNOT be obtained through human endeavor.

I hope this is starting to make sense to you, whether or not you agree with it.

Andrew

joel
08-25-2009, 08:27 AM
Andrew,

I was not offended by what you said as you were not directing the words to me.

I am pleased that you have expressed repentance for your words directed at Richard.....and.......that you are willing to remain in the hope that you may state your views. That is commendable.

We are all attempting to voice what we believe.......such belief being multi-faceted in that we come from various backgrounds, and hold varying views about what God's word really says.......

Some who post here are very set concerning the fulfillment of prophecy......whether past or present.......some are not so certain......

You offer your views and each of us will compare them with what we believe God is saying, or has said.....and then respond as led.

Thanks for staying with us,

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2009, 08:36 AM
The Bible teaches us that there is a time for everything: "a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pull up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;.." (Ecc 3:2-4)

.. and a time to humbly admit that I was wrong - dead wrong - to get into a fleshly-produced anger and become insulting, and to apologize for the way I said the things I said, and for some of the things I said.

I apologize, Richard for the things I said to you about casting pearls (one can only cast pearls before unbelievers, not before believers, and it was very wrong and ugly of me to have used that expression with regard to you or anyone else here). And I apologize to you and to the other folks here for anything else I said that was insulting. My apology is sincere and I hope you can forgive me for that.


Andrew, my Brother! :hug:

You are blessed of the Lord, for the Scripture declares (Matthew 5:3-5):

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I am glad that you slipped into a little fleshly anger because it gave you the opportunity to reveal the humble heart that God has given you. Your repentance and apology are a bright and shining light for all the members of this forum. I thank God for your presence here. You are an example for all of us because we all fall short at times.

It is important to remember that we have only just begun our conversation. There is no need to "prove everything at once." We need to walk slowly and humbly through the Word of God. We agree about the most import things - the Bible is the Word of God! Perhaps the greatest challenge comes when we enter "debate mode" and become entrenched in our "side" of the argument. This often makes it feel unsafe to admit anything the other side says, and this destroys our mutual search for the truth of God's Word.

So the one thing I think is most important is for us to NARROW DOWN the discussion until we have isolated an absolutely essential point where we differ so we can at the very least know precisely what it is that we disagree about. None of us want to "go in circles" never coming to any solid conclusions.



Let me first get rid of a misconception about the points I was trying to make earlier, before I continue:



2) If you asked Paul "who is the redeemer that would take away their sins" he would have said "Jesus Christ." If you asked "When did he remove their sins" he would have said "at the cross." Paul was telling us HOW "all Israel" would be saved - and he defined "all Israel" in Romans 9:6 as the body of all believers. The "they" in Romans 9-11 is subject to much debate. It probably refers to members ethnic Israel that had not been converted yet. But nobody really knows - that's why it's a constant debate. Your assertion that it means every physical descendant of Abraham is fraught with many difficulties and certainly is not "obviously" correct.


Agreed. "they", "their", "them" and "these" certainly does not refer to the generations of Jews who since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus until now, have not believed:

"For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins."

Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as you also then disbelieved God, but now have been shown mercy through their disbelief, even so these also have not believed now, so that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy." (Rom 11:25-31).

Firstly, let me make this argument up-front which I think you all disagree with:

It certainly is not true that everything was fulfilled in the 1st century, as you claim. The gospel of the Kingdom (Mat.24: 14) may have been preached in most of the Roman Empire by the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, but it had not been preached in India, China, South-East Asia, Australia, sub-equatorial Africa, or to the the American Indians, the Hawaiians etc etc.

Jesus stated that the gospel of the Kingdom would first be preached in ALL the world as a witness to ALL nations, and then only would the end come. The gospel only came to America and sub-equatorial Africa a few hundred years ago.

The word Christ used in Matthew 24:14 is oikoumene. Here is the definition from Strongs
οικουμενηoikoumene {oy-kou-men'-ay} n f AV - world 14, earth 1; 15 1) the inhabited earth 1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians 1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire 1c) the whole inhabited earth, the world 1d) the inhabitants of the earth, men 2) the universe, the world
Paul used this word when he declared that the Gospel had been preached in all the world:

Romans 10:16-18 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 ¶ But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound [of the words of the Gospel] went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Paul used the word "kosmos" to say the same thing in his letter to the Colossians:
Colossians 1:5-6 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
And he said it yet another way a few verses later:
Colossians 1:23 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Now you may or may not agree with my application of these Scriptures to the question at hand, but I hope you will see that my position is not without prima facie biblical warrant.

My question to you is simple - why do you believe that Jesus was talking about the whole globe of planet earth? Is it not much more likely that he was talking about the known world centered on Israel? A close examination of the vast majority of uses of oikoumene seems to suggest that it was usually a reference to Israel and the surrounding nations, not the globe as a whole.



You may disagree with that statement above (I'm not sure); and no doubt, you will thoroughly disagree with what I'm now going to say below. But if you have the time, I'm going to attempt to explain why I say what I say about these verses, as best I can - but you're going to have to stay with me and follow what I'm saying carefully, because I'm going to be jumping backward and forward between (on one hand), the subject of "the flesh", the covenants of God, and "ethnic Israel"; and (on the other hand), the above verses.

Sounds great! I will do my level best to carefully and respectfully and seriously follow your arguments. Let me remind you that there is no rush ... we have all the time in the world to carefully review each point.

I'll dig in to your argument in the next post after breakfast.

Many blessing to you Andrew. Your presence here is a great blessing to all of us.

Richard

lekh lekha
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Thank you, Joel for your encouraging words. And than you too, Richard :) :yo:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2009, 08:10 PM
Firstly, let me make this argument up-front which I think you all disagree with:

It certainly is not true that everything was fulfilled in the 1st century, as you claim. The gospel of the Kingdom (Mat.24: 14) may have been preached in most of the Roman Empire by the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, but it had not been preached in India, China, South-East Asia, Australia, sub-equatorial Africa, or to the the American Indians, the Hawaiians etc etc.

Jesus stated that the gospel of the Kingdom would first be preached in ALL the world as a witness to ALL nations, and then only would the end come. The gospel only came to America and sub-equatorial Africa a few hundred years ago.

You may disagree with that statement above (I'm not sure); and no doubt, you will thoroughly disagree with what I'm now going to say below. But if you have the time, I'm going to attempt to explain why I say what I say about these verses, as best I can - but you're going to have to stay with me and follow what I'm saying carefully, because I'm going to be jumping backward and forward between (on one hand), the subject of "the flesh", the covenants of God, and "ethnic Israel"; and (on the other hand), the above verses.

Hello again my friend, :yo:

I do have time, and I will do the best I can to carefully follow what you are saying. I truly believe this will be a very beneficial interaction for everyone concerned. Your presentation has challenged me to review my understanding of the OT covenants and I see that there may be things I have not understood or articulated correctly. Thanks!



Now here's the next argument which I'm going to state up-front, so that you know where my thinking lies, and then I will show you why I say this is Biblical:

Rom.11: 25-32 certainly does not refer to any Jew who has remained in unbelief since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus until now. But those verse, however, remain a prophecy - the Biblical type of which is the "next generation" which entered the promised land under the leadership of Joshua (because with the exception of a tiny remnant - namely, Joshua and Caleb -the entire previous generation had perished in the wilderness in unbelief).

The majority of the Jews have been wandering in a spiritual wilderness in unbelief these last 2,000 years, with all their generations perishing in that wilderness. These generations which have remained in unbelief will never enter the promised land.

Why should there be any difference in the mind of God between the generations of unbelieving Jews and those of unbelieving Gentiles? And why should these verses be a prophecy of something yet to occur?

Thank you for stating your beliefs up-front. It is very helpful to have an orientation of where you are coming from.

You ask: "Why should there be any difference in the mind of God between the generations of unbelieving Jews and those of unbelieving Gentiles?"

I answer: There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the mind of God. There is one Gospel, one Lord, etc.

You ask: "And why should these verses be a prophecy of something yet to occur?"

I answer: Whether they be a "prophecy" or not I can not say. But I can say that it definitely should not be used as the starting point of any argument because it is highly speculative and not solidly founded by God with many mutually confirming verses.





You are correct that Isaac was both a physical descendant of Abraham and a "child of promise."

But Paul's POINT is that the physical decent has NOTHING to do with the promise. How do we know that? Because Paul explicitly declares that the Gospel is based on FAITH only, as it is written:
Romans 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [Jew and Gentile]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
ALL THE SEED refers to ALL BELIEVERS. Anyone who is of the "faith of Abraham" is called the "seed of Abraham" and no unbeliever, whether a natural born son of Isaac or not, is counted as "seed."

The gospel is not based on faith. It is based on the Word and grace of God and it is received through faith. We are not saved by faith. We are saved by God's grace through our faith in His Word.

I think we should camp on this point for a moment. The Scripture says "it is of faith." You say "The Gospel is not based on faith." So I presume that you are saying that the pronoun "it" in Romans 4:16 is not referring to the Gospel, but the "promise." Is that correct? Do you distinguish between the Gospel and the "promise" given to Abraham?



The gospel:

1) The gospel of salvation from sin and the wrath of God through the shed blood of Jesus:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)

"You know the Word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching the gospel of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all!);" (Act 10:36)

"But none of these things move me, neither do I count my life dear to myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus Christ, to testify fully the gospel of the grace of God." (Act 20:24)

2) The gospel of the Kingdom:

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people." (Mat 4:23)

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." (Mat 24:14)

There is only one gospel, but there are two aspects to the gospel. You may not think so, but now let's talk about this term "the flesh" and relate it to God's covenants with man:

You are correct, I most certainly do not believe that there are two "aspects" to the Gospel. I have been seriously studying the Bible for about two decades and have never read anything that made me think that the "Gospel of the Kingdom" was anything other than the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" = "The Gospel of Salvation" = "The Gospel of God's Grace" = "THE GOSPEL" period.

If this point is important to your argument, we will have to review it carefully.



One day long, long ago God made an everlasting covenant with ALL FLESH when He said,

"Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth.

And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13)

1. This is the Noahic Covenant, and it shows that God makes covenants WITH FLESH.

Excellent! A careful and systematic review of Scripture! This is the way to go.

I think it is important to note that the text explicitly states that the "flesh" with whom God made a covenant is simply a reference to all living creatures. I agree that the covenant God made was with the flesh, but it was not based on the flesh. This will be important for the rest of our discussion - I believe that the Bible is clear that no descendant of Abraham could ever say "God has promised to do certain things for me because Abraham is my father." In other words, no promise was given to any individual based on his carnal lineage. We'll get into this more as the conversation continues.



2. It also shows that if God keeps His promises with the flesh-seed of His Covenants, this does not mean that the fulfillment of the promises is a carnal thing and produced by the flesh .

I never said it was a "carnal thing produced by the flesh." I said that it was "carnal" in its very nature. Here is the definition:

σαρκικος sarkikos {sar-kee-kos'} adj AV - carnal 9, fleshly 2; 11 1) fleshly, carnal 1a) having the nature of flesh, i.e. under the control of the animal appetites 1a1) governed by mere human nature not by the Spirit of God 1a2) having its seat in the animal nature or aroused by the animal nature 1a3) human: with the included idea of depravity 1b) pertaining to the flesh 1b1) to the body: related to birth, linage, etc
Note the final definition: "1b) pertaining to the flesh 1b1) to the body: related to birth, linage, etc." Is this not your definition of ethnic Israel? Do you not based all your claims upon the carnal decent of a certain group of people from Abraham? How is this not "carnal" and "fleshly" according to the definition of those words?

Now as I review the covenant with Abraham, I readily admit that its statement in the OT sounds like promises were given to a group defined by the flesh as "the seed of Abraham" - but there are some issues that must be reviewed. First, when God made the covenant with Abraham he said:

KJV Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
When we read that, we probably think that "thy seed" refers to all his descendants. But that would be altogether incorrect. God limited the covenant just to Isaac, omitting Ishmael. And then again he limited it to just Jacob, omitting Esau. So if "thy seed" does not mean each individual that descended from Abraham, what does it mean?

A second issue arises from the NT which tells us that the "seed" was really Christ. If this is true, what happens to the idea that the "seed of Abraham" denoted a group of people that descended from him?

I'm just thinking out loud here as I carefully follow your argument.



3. The fulfillment of the promise contained in the covenant is not based upon the faith of the beneficiaries of the promise. , who are flesh - it is based ALONE upon the Word (promise) of God and His faithfulness to His Word.

I'm not sure about this point as yet because the Bible is filled with "warning passages" that make the promises of God conditional. It's something I will need to review a bit.



4. An everlasting token was given by God as the sign both of the covenant and of the everlasting nature of the covenant.

5. The word "everlasting" in the Nohaic Covenant quoted above is the same Hebrew words (olam olam) that are used in the next covenant that God made with flesh:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

Actually, the words are simply B'rit Olam (Covenant everlasting). And the meaning of "olam" is usually not "everlasting" or "eternal" but more like "for the duration of the age" or simply "age" - it corresponds to "aion" and "aionios" in Greek.

With this understanding of olam, the text could be understood to be speaking of a promise that lasted until the end of the Jewish Olam, which is the age that ended in 70 AD. But I'm not sure about this right now - just thinking out loud.



The Abrahamic Covenant is A COVENANT WITH FLESH - BUT NOT WITH ALL FLESH:

"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. " (Gen 17:18-19).

QUESTION: WHO IS THE SEED OF ABRAHAM WITH WHOM THE COVENANT WAS MADE?

ANSWER: THE FLESH - IT IS AN EVERLASTING COVENANT MADE WITH FLESH:

But the NT tells that the seed is Christ. And remember, I did not say a covenant could not be made "with" the flesh, I said that the promises were not based on the flesh, that is, no one could say "God promised me something because I am a son of Abraham." We know that because Ishmael was a son of Abraham, but he did not have any promises from God.



I say then, Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.(Rom 11:1).

Benjamin is a son of JACOB - the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed was a covenant made with THE FLESH.

Is not Paul's point that the Jews could be saved by Christ just like the Gentiles? He asked if God had "cast them away" presumably because of their sin against Christ. Paul's answer was NO! Look at me! I'm a Jew and God saved me, therefore, God has not cast away His people.



God's fulfillment of the Nohaic and Abrahamic Covenants has NOTHING to do with the faith (or lack of faith) of THE FLESH with whom those covenants were made - the fulfillment of THE PROMISES are based SOLELY upon God's faithfulness to His Word:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-18).

The Law said to ethnic Israel: "IF you will do this, THEN I will do this. But if you will NOT do this, THEN I will do THIS."

The Law was ADDED after the promise and was CONDITIONAL upon the faithfulness and obedience of the people AND TEMPORARY. It was ADDED so that they (and all the world) could become guilty before God, and so that they could see that the promise could not depend on works of obedience, but on the faithfulness of God to His Word (which He revealed and promised to later generations of Jews He would fulfill through the Messiah).

I think I understand you point, and it has a lot of merit, but I will need to reflect on it more, and also see how you plan on using the implications from it.



The Law was therefore added for the purpose of driving them to faith in the Messiah, who is the Word of God become FLESH.

Yes, and there is the word "flesh" with no negative connotations!

I need to stop here because of time. I will continue soon.

Many blessings to you my friend. And again, I am really glad you chose to stay and discuss these important ideas.


Richard

lekh lekha
08-26-2009, 12:04 AM
Now as I review the covenant with Abraham, I readily admit that its statement in the OT sounds like promises were given to a group defined by the flesh as "the seed of Abraham"

First, when God made the covenant with Abraham he said:

KJV Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

When we read that, we probably think that "thy seed" refers to all his descendants. But that would be altogether incorrect. God limited the covenant just to Isaac, omitting Ishmael. And then again he limited it to just Jacob, omitting Esau. So if "thy seed" does not mean each individual that descended from Abraham, what does it mean?

Exactly - it was limited to Isaac and his seed, and later to Jacob and his seed.

And there was a very good reason for that - because God had promised Abraham:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Gen 17: 7)

But instead of waiting patiently for the promise to be fulfilled and for Sarah to conceive, Sarah convinced Abraham to bring about the fulfillment of God's promises through Hagar.

The ethnic nation of Israel would never have existed if God had not miraculously enabled Sarah to conceive. God wants not only the flesh-seed of Abraham (Isaac, Jacob and their descendants), but the whole world to know that the fulfillment of God's unsolicited promises which he made to Abraham (which are not and never were conditional upon obedience to the Law which came 430 years later), would be through the faithfulness and work of God alone, because God will remain faithful to His Word.

This is why God refused Abraham's request when Abraham asked God that Ishmael might be the son who would live "before God". "In Isaac your seed shall be called" was the Divine answer, and:

"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." (Gen 17:19)

This is why Paul said,

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom.3: 1-3).

In other words, whereas when God made a covenant with flesh in the days of Noah, He made the covenant with ALL flesh, but when He made a covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham, He narrowed it down to a specific ethnic nation. It is of this nation that Jesus is, according to the flesh, descended, being the son according to the flesh of king David, the son according to the flesh of Jacob, the son according to the flesh of Isaac, the son according to the flesh of Abraham:

"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (Joh 4:22)

It's an ethnic nation which came about through God making a covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham, and narrowing the promise down to the seed according to the flesh of Isaac and of Jacob.

The promises - ALL the promises - did not and still do not depend on the obedience or faithfulness of the flesh-seed of Abraham, for ABRAHAM believed God, and the promises are received through faith. And what are the promises?

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

You can use semantics with those words all you like, but the fact remains that the words are the exact same words used by God when He made an everlasting covenant with ALL flesh in the days of Noah:

"And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations:" (Gen 9:9-12).

God promised Abraham not ONLY that he would be the father of the flesh-seed (ethnic Israel which is descended from Isaac and Jacob), but ALSO that he would become the father of MANY nations. As it is written,

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

And the promises of God to Abraham are sure for all eternity - not only because of God's faithfulness to His Word, but because regardless of what Abraham's ethnic seed would believe or refuse to believe afterward, ABRAHAM believed God - and it was to ABRAHAM that the promises were made, then God repeated the promises to Isaac, and then He repeated them again to Jacob.

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." (Rom 4:11-13).

An entire generation of the ethnic seed perished in the wilderness through unbelief. Do you think God didn't know that they would perish in the wilderness through their unbelief?

Of course God knew - He knew their hearts, and He knows every man's heart. Yet despite their unbelief of their hearts, God called them "My people" and continued to call them "My people" throughout the Bible. Even Paul calls them "His people" Rom.11: 1-2). Why does Paul call them "His people"? It's because of God's covenant with flesh which He made with Abraham.

And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

There is a distinction made between two groups of people: "the circumcision", and "the uncircumcision": the ethnic Jew who is also a Jew inwardly through the circumcision of the heart, and the Gentile who becomes a Jew inwardly through the circumcision of the heart.

The fact remains that God made an everlasting covenant with flesh when He promised Abraham things that Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob did not solicit, of which God bound Himself by oath (covenant) to fulfill. And those promises are laid out clearly in Genesis 17.

Whereas God covenanted with all flesh in the Noahic covenant, He covenanted with flesh in the Abrahamic Covenant - but only with the flesh who would be descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just as it is written that Jesus is (according to the flesh) a descendant of king David, a descendant of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

The distinction between the two groups (between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles) still exists and always will because it (the Abrahamic Covenant) is like the Noahic covenant in that it is an everlasting covenant with flesh -

but the distinction does not exist with regard to favoritism - it exists only with regard to the ethnic seed through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, and the many nations. But even though such a distinction exists, in the New Testament Temple (in Christ) there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile.

I've gotta go now and will continue later.

Blessings,
Andrew

lekh lekha
08-26-2009, 02:52 AM
Right. I'm back. I have to continue with this now, because it's bringing us to the crux of the matter:

Please read my previous post FIRST, because this post completes and concludes my previous post:

We are coming to the crux of the matter:

We have already seen that the word everlasting used by God in His promises to Abraham is the exact same Hebrew word used in His promise to Noah:

"Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth. And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13).

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

We see that the covenant was made WITH NOAH but is true for all his seed after him; and we see that the covenant was made WITH ABRAHAM, but is true for all his seed after him. BOTH are covenants made with flesh, but only the first one is made with ALL FLESH, the second covenant is narrowed down to the ethnic seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Both covenants have an everlasting token.

And should anyone ask, "Why then did the promises of God to Abraham not take effect with regard to ALL the ethnic seed of Isaac and Jacob?", Paul answers,

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not ALL Israel, which are (the ethnic seed) of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom 9:6-7).

Paul IS NOT SPEAKING OF ANY GENTILES in these verses - he is speaking about ethnic Israel, and he then contrasts Ishmael with Isaac to illustrate the fact that just because they were the ethnic seed of Israel and had received the everlasting token of circumcision, this did not mean that they could rely on their ancestry and think they would be saved regardless of their faith:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom 2:28-29).

John the Baptist had said the same thing:

"... and do not think to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." (Mat 3:9-10).

John the Baptist was speaking to the ethnic Israelites when he said this, NOT to Gentiles - since Gentiles never did rely on the fact that they had Abraham for their father.

But Paul said that it is NOT AS THOUGH the promises of God to Abraham had taken none effect, then he starts mentioning THE REMNANT of the ethnic seed which was saved by grace through faith, and again in Romans 11, he opens by stating,

"I say then, Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(Rom 11:1).

Then Paul again mentions the remnant of ethnic Israel, and says that the Gentile believers become grafted into ethnic Israel AMONG that remnant TO SHARE WITH them in "the root and the fatness of the olive tree"

What is "the root and the fatness of the olive tree"?

It is God's promises to Abraham contained in the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant.

Now, let's come to THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

The crux of the matter is what you do with the Word of God to Abraham:

Did God mean what He said and say what he meant, or are you going to use semantics to do away with the everlasting nature of God's promises to Abraham:

Let's just repeat this again because it is a very, very important issue and the crux of the matter, and it is AT THIS POINT THAT THE CHURCH DIVIDES:

We have already seen that the word everlasting used by God in His promises to Abraham is the exact same Hebrew word used in His promise to Noah:

"Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth. And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13).

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

We see that the covenant was made WITH NOAH but is true for all his seed after him; and we see that the covenant was made WITH ABRAHAM, but is true for all his seed after him. BOTH are covenants made with flesh, but only the first one is made with ALL FLESH, the second covenant is narrowed down to the ethnic seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Both covenants have an everlasting token.

The crux of the matter is what you do with the Word of God to Abraham:

Did God mean what He said and say what he meant, or are you going to use semantics to do away with the everlasting nature of God's promises to Abraham:


Actually, the words are simply B'rit Olam (Covenant everlasting). And the meaning of "olam" is usually not "everlasting" or "eternal" but more like "for the duration of the age" or simply "age" - it corresponds to "aion" and "aionios" in Greek.

With this understanding of olam, the text could be understood to be speaking of a promise that lasted until the end of the Jewish Olam, which is the age that ended in 70 AD. But I'm not sure about this right now - just thinking out loud.



The question we need to be asking ourselves is, does GOD believe your statement above?

We have to be very, very careful, because we are dealing with the Word of God here, and what we do with His everlasting Word (believe it, or not?) is extremely important.

If God meant what you said you think He might have meant (quote: "With this understanding of olam, the text could be understood to be speaking of a promise that lasted until the end of the Jewish Olam, which is the age that ended in 70 AD. But I'm not sure about this right now - just thinking out loud), then we must believe what He said.

But if He meant the ethnic seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and and if He meant the same thing by the Hebrew word which translates into English as "everlasting", "perpetual" etc as He did in His covenant with Noah, then we are calling God a liar by saying that He did not mean what he said.

And if we believe that He meant what He said, and said what He meant, then we will understand why Paul said,

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! " (Rom 11:25-33).

As I pointed out, this does not refer to the ethnic seed who have been perishing in a spiritual wilderness in their unbelief these last 2,000 years - it refers to "the next generation" which will enter the promised land under Joshua (Jesus). And as I mentioned in another thread, not only are there many prophecies stating this plainly in the Old Testament, but there is also a number of Biblical types of this - and I gave one of those Biblical types in the other thread already.

Nevertheless, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER is what we do with God's Word to Abraham - and it is AT THIS POINT that the Church divides, and has already divided.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness".

What did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets believe? And what did the apostles of Jesus believe?:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Act 1:6-8).

And what did the apostle Paul believe?:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33)

Blessings,
Andrew.

joel
08-26-2009, 08:32 AM
Nevertheless, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER is what we do with God's Word to Abraham - and it is AT THIS POINT that the Church divides, and has already divided.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness".

What did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets believe? And what did the apostles of Jesus believe?:


Faith......what we believe,......and......what we then say we believe.....seems to be the central issue concerning these discussions.

Abraham believed God......Abraham believed what God said to him.......Paul, in Romans 4.......said that Abraham believed the God "who justifies the ungodly".
Abraham, being unjust (as is every person), believed in the God who justifies the ungodly........therefore it (righteousness) was reckoned unto him by faith.

He (Abraham) had a new standing with God.....Abraham was "just"....by means of his faith in God. He was in a state of blessedness.

Each person coming to God.....must believe that God justifies them as well.....He justifies by means of the blood of Christ. There is no alternate way.

This is the foundation of our faith. We may not fully understand "justification", but.......we see the blood of Christ covering our sins.
----------------------------------------------------------
Each person must first be justified.

The justifed ones are to receive inhheritance (the promised allotment).

The second half of Romans 4 concerns the inheritance of seed of Abraham.....the promise that he was the heir of the world (kosmos) which does not come by means of law obedience is the important issue of the second half of Romans 4.

Being in agreement concerning the method of justification as being reckoned on the basis of faith must first be established. Assuming we are all on the same page concerning that truth........

It seems to me that our discussion has led to "the promises",......."inheritance".....i.e......what lies ahead for us, as believers who are the body of Christ...........and......Israel. If their inheritance concerning the land, and their function in God's plan........still remains a part of the plan of God.

The seed to whom the promises given to Abraham apply is singular, seed, not seeds (Gal. 3:16). The seed is Christ.

We are joint heirs with Christ.

As to inheritance......do the descendants of Abraham (the children of promise) apply only to Christians of this era?........or.........are the children of promise......to which reference is made in Romans 9, as I hear Andrew saying......applicable also to the elect of Israel which will inherit the land.

In other words, hoping not to further complicate the issue.......can there be a portion of inheritance (Christ's inheritance) allotted to Israel....and, another portion alloted to believers of this era?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2009, 08:41 AM
Good morning Andrew,

I think the conversation is going very well!



This is why Paul said,

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom.3: 1-3).

I think it is very important to focus upon the word "some." What if SOME did not believe? The unbelief of individual Jews did not destroy God's faithfulness to fulfill His Word and His Promise. But did those unbelieving Jews receive any promise? No. It seems to me that this contradicts your previous statement when you said:
3. The fulfillment of the promise contained in the covenant is not based upon the faith of the beneficiaries of the promise. , who are flesh - it is based ALONE upon the Word (promise) of God and His faithfulness to His Word.
The problem here is that the language is not sufficiently precise. It is true that the fulfillment of the promise was not dependent upon the faithfulness of the Jews, but to be a beneficiary of that fulfillment is entirely and absolutely based upon faith - they were broken off because of unbelief. God never gave any promises to unbelievers.



In other words, whereas when God made a covenant with flesh in the days of Noah, He made the covenant with ALL flesh, but when He made a covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham, He narrowed it down to a specific ethnic nation. It is of this nation that Jesus is, according to the flesh, descended, being the son according to the flesh of king David, the son according to the flesh of Jacob, the son according to the flesh of Isaac, the son according to the flesh of Abraham:

"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (Joh 4:22)

It's an ethnic nation which came about through God making a covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham, and narrowing the promise down to the seed according to the flesh of Isaac and of Jacob.

The promises - ALL the promises - did not and still do not depend on the obedience or faithfulness of the flesh-seed of Abraham, for ABRAHAM believed God, and the promises are received through faith. And what are the promises?

I think there is a big problem with your idea about "ALL the promises." You are quoting Paul to support an idea that Paul never mentioned. When he talked about the promise given to Abraham, he spoke only and always about the promise of Christ and the Gospel. He never said a word about "land promises" and so I don't think you can legitimately quote him in support of that idea.



"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

You can use semantics with those words all you like, but the fact remains that the words are the exact same words used by God when He made an everlasting covenant with ALL flesh in the days of Noah:

"And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations:" (Gen 9:9-12).

Rest assured that the only reason I ever use "semantics" is to clarify the true meaning of the text. That's what semantics means, you know - it is defined as the "study of meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics)."

But I understand your point - since God used the same word "olam" in the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, you assert it has the same meaning in both passages. But there are serious problems with that assertion. The most obvious example is the "everlasting" law of circumcision given in the Abrahamic covenant:
Genesis 17:12-13 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Is this still a covenant for the Jews? Absolutely not. Paul explicitly stated:
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
If circumcision were still a "commandment of God" then Paul could not say it is "nothing" relative to "the commandments of God." Note that Paul is speaking as a Jew. This is confirmed in many other verses:
Galatians 5:1-6 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Now this brings up another very important point. Here Paul identifies circumcision with the Law, but circumcision was part of the Abrahamic covenant. So it seems that you must believe there are two Abrahamic covenants - one that contains the "unconditional promise" and one that is conditioned upon obedience to the law.

This is an excellent conversation Andrew. You present you understanding with great clarity, and I am very thankful that you are here. I look forward to your response.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

Rose
08-26-2009, 08:58 AM
Nevertheless, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER is what we do with God's Word to Abraham - and it is AT THIS POINT that the Church divides, and has already divided.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness".

What did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets believe? And what did the apostles of Jesus believe?:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Act 1:6-8).

And what did the apostle Paul believe?:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33)

Blessings,
Andrew.

Hi Andrew,

That is a very good question.


What did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets believe? And what did the apostles of Jesus believe?:

Since it was the Apostles who asked Jesus that question I will address what I think they believed. By the nature of their question it is very clear that they were looking for Jesus to restore to Israel a literal, earthly, reigning kingdom like the kingdom of David......but, was that a correct belief? Of course not.

The question I would add is: Did Jesus restore the kingdom to Israel?

The answer to that is, of course He did, but not in the way the Apostles believed He would. Jesus ushered in an everlasting kingdom of Israel, taking the TYPE which was ethnic Israel, and fulfilling it in the bride of Christ, "the New Jerusalem". Taking the TYPE which was the temple made of stone, and fulfilling it in our bodies "the living temples of God". Taking the TYPE which is the earthly land of Canaan (Israel) "the promised land" and fulfilling it with the heavenly promise land.

All the promises of God given to Abraham, were first an earthly TYPE that was fulfilled in Christ giving them their eternal, everlasting quality.

I'm glad you came back, your posts are very well written and they give me lots to think about. :pop2:

God Bless,

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2009, 09:04 AM
Right. I'm back. I have to continue with this now, because it's bringing us to the crux of the matter:

Please read my previous post FIRST, because this post completes and concludes my previous post:

I read it!



We are coming to the crux of the matter:

We have already seen that the word everlasting used by God in His promises to Abraham is the exact same Hebrew word used in His promise to Noah:

"Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth. And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13).

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

This point has not been established yet. As noted in my previous response, God used the same words when speaking of the "everlasting" law of circumcision given in the Abrahamic covenant. And we know that circumcision is no longer a law or commandment to the Jews. This point needs to be settled before we can build anything on it.



We see that the covenant was made WITH NOAH but is true for all his seed after him; and we see that the covenant was made WITH ABRAHAM, but is true for all his seed after him. BOTH are covenants made with flesh, but only the first one is made with ALL FLESH, the second covenant is narrowed down to the ethnic seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Both covenants have an everlasting token.

Did you misspeak here? You say that the covenant with Abraham is "true for all his seed after him." Why do you say that? Abraham had many sons who did not benefit from the covenant. Specifically, only the line through Isaac and Jacob. That means a huge number of "his seed" did not have any covenant with God.



And should anyone ask, "Why then did the promises of God to Abraham not take effect with regard to ALL the ethnic seed of Isaac and Jacob?", Paul answers,

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not ALL Israel, which are (the ethnic seed) of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom 9:6-7).

Paul IS NOT SPEAKING OF ANY GENTILES in these verses - he is speaking about ethnic Israel, and he then contrasts Ishmael with Isaac to illustrate the fact that just because they were the ethnic seed of Israel and had received the everlasting token of circumcision, this did not mean that they could rely on their ancestry and think they would be saved regardless of their faith:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom 2:28-29).

John the Baptist had said the same thing:

"... and do not think to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." (Mat 3:9-10).

John the Baptist was speaking to the ethnic Israelites when he said this, NOT to Gentiles - since Gentiles never did rely on the fact that they had Abraham for their father.

:thumb:

I agree completely that "this did not mean that they could rely on their ancestry and think they would be saved regardless of their faith." That is the point of those passages.

But I disagree that Paul was not also speaking of Gentiles because he used the same language to describe Gentile Christians:
Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
And again:
Galatians 3:27-29 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This is the same language that Paul used in Romans 9:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
With the coming of the New Covenant, only Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, are counted as the "seed of Abraham" and "children of the promise" like "Isaac."



But Paul said that it is NOT AS THOUGH the promises of God to Abraham had taken none effect, then he starts mentioning THE REMNANT of the ethnic seed which was saved by grace through faith, and again in Romans 11, he opens by stating,

"I say then, Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(Rom 11:1).

Then Paul again mentions the remnant of ethnic Israel, and says that the Gentile believers become grafted into ethnic Israel AMONG that remnant TO SHARE WITH them in "the root and the fatness of the olive tree"

What is "the root and the fatness of the olive tree"?

It is God's promises to Abraham contained in the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant.

It seems you are identifying the "Olive Tree" with "the believing remnant of ethnic Israel." If so, I would disagree. The root of the Olive Tree is Christ. Similar language is used in John 15:
John 15:1-6 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Note the similarity to Paul's statement that the unbelieving branches are "cut off."

So what is the Olive Tree? The branches are believers consisting of the "believing remnant of ethnic Israel" and the believing Gentiles. The tree itself is not "ethnic Israel." This is a very important distinction. Christ is the "seed of Abraham." Christians are the "seed of Abraham" if they are in Christ. Christ is the Vine and the Olive Tree. I am not graffed into "ethnic Israel." I am graffed in to Christ. The believing members of the historical "ethnic Israel" were the original branches of the Olive Tree. Throughout history, those who did not believe and broke the first covenant were broken off, and believing Gentiles were graffed in.

I'll continue more soon,

Richard

lekh lekha
08-26-2009, 05:05 PM
Hi Andrew,

That is a very good question.


What did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets believe? And what did the apostles of Jesus believe?:

Since it was the Apostles who asked Jesus that question I will address what I think they believed. By the nature of their question it is very clear that they were looking for Jesus to restore to Israel a literal, earthly, reigning kingdom like the kingdom of David......but, was that a correct belief? Of course not.

The question I would add is: Did Jesus restore the kingdom to Israel?

The answer to that is, of course He did, but not in the way the Apostles believed He would. Jesus ushered in an everlasting kingdom of Israel, taking the TYPE which was ethnic Israel, and fulfilling it in the bride of Christ, "the New Jerusalem". Taking the TYPE which was the temple made of stone, and fulfilling it in our bodies "the living temples of God". Taking the TYPE which is the earthly land of Canaan (Israel) "the promised land" and fulfilling it with the heavenly promise land.

All the promises of God given to Abraham, were first an earthly TYPE that was fulfilled in Christ giving them their eternal, everlasting quality.

I'm glad you came back, your posts are very well written and they give me lots to think about. :pop2:

God Bless,

Rose

Hi, Rose.

I understand what you are saying, but whereas I'm sure that the earthly tabernacle was a type of the heavenly tabernacle, I'm not too sure that I can agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is a type of something that would follow it, because the Biblical types are found in the Law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." (Heb 10:1).

"Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17).

All of those things (dietary laws, sabbaths, feasts, new moon celebrations, as well as the earthly tabernacle) came only with the giving of the Law 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was given.

The promise of the land came with the Abrahamic Covenant, not with the Law which came 430 years later.

John saw the heavenly city descending from God out of heaven - it comes down to earth in a new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem (Rev.21: 2, 10). In other words, the heavenly Kingdom is heaven on earth - not a Kingdom in heaven. And it hasn't come in full yet, even though it is now here in part in the way in which you described.

The spiritual and the physical will be united - this is one of the things that is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus - therefore the promised land must be on earth, not in heaven (just as John saw the new Jerusalem coming down to earth from God out of heaven in Rev.21: 2, 10).

The heavenly promised land hasn't been fully realized yet. If it had, then "the whole earth would be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11: 1-16).

The promise of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the promised land has not come to pass yet.

The Abrahamic Covenant is not Law, it is the foundation of everything which follows. That's why we know that the root of the olive tree (Rom.11: 17) is indeed the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God) to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the Abrahamic Covenant), and that's why we know:

1) What the olive tree represents (Gen.17: 7-8, 19).
2) Who planted it (Gen.17: 7-8, 19).
3) When it was planted (Gen.17: 7-8, 19).
4) Who the natural branches refers to (Gen.17: 7-8, 19; Rom.9: 27, 29; Rom.11: 1-5; 17).
5) Who the branches from a wild olive tree refers to (Acts 11: 18; Rom.11: 17).

Blessings,
Andrew

lekh lekha
08-26-2009, 05:12 PM
Will be back later this week or weekend with a reply to Richard and Joel. Too tired to think clearly right now

I had to pick one of the most difficult and complicated of subjects, didn't I? :eek:

Blessings to you all,
Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Hi, Rose.

I understand what you are saying, but whereas I'm sure that the earthly tabernacle was a type of the heavenly tabernacle, I'm not too sure that I can agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is a type of something that would follow it, because the Biblical types are found in the Law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." (Heb 10:1).

"Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17).

All of those things (dietary laws, sabbaths, feasts, new moon celebrations, as well as the earthly tabernacle) came only with the giving of the Law 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was given.

The promise of the land came with the Abrahamic Covenant, not with the Law which came 430 years later.

Hey there Andrew,

I think you made a logical error here. You are correct that the Law contained types, but that does not mean that types are found only in the law. Scripture gives two examples of types that predated the law:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure (type) of him that was to come.
Likewise, the Flood of Noah is called a type of Baptism:
1 Peter 3:20-22 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure (antitype) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Perhaps the most powerful example of a type of Christ given before the Law of Moses is found in the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. The correlations are absolutely astounding and appear on many levels. It is in Genesis 22 that God jointly introduced the words "ohav" (love) and "yachid" (only begotton) in the context of Abraham's sacrifice of his only son whom he loved:
Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
In my estimation, there is no doubt whatsoever that God designed this event as a prophetic type of the sacrifice of His only beloved Son. This is the essence of the Gospel and the central theme of the entire Bible. I discuss this in an article called the Genesis of the Cross (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Genesis/Genesis22.asp) so named because the chapter number 22 signifies the letter Tav which means Cross and the event itself is the greatest typological prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ.

Many blessings,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2009, 10:01 PM
Hey Andrew,

I think you have made a fundamental error in your assumption that every mention of the "law" is a reference to the specific law given through Moses on Mount Sinai (and thereafter). In the Bible, the term "Law" is often used as a title for the first five books of the Bible which are collectively known as the Torah, or the Law of Moses. This includes the book of Genesis which recorded the covenants made with Abraham. This is how it is used in the phrase "Law and Prophets."

The term "law" is also used in the NT to refer to the entire body of the Old Testament Scriptures or any part of them. For example, Christ twice quoted the Psalms and referred to them as the Law in the Gospel of John:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
I also think there is a big problem with your assumption that the Law of Circumcision is part of the Mosaic covenant only, since God introduced it in Genesis 17 when He made (or confirmed, or expanded) His covenant with Abraham. How is it that you say the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional if it contained the circumcision commandment?

There is many things in the foundation of your assertions that need to be clarified.

Richard

Rose
08-26-2009, 10:01 PM
Hi, Rose.

I understand what you are saying, but whereas I'm sure that the earthly tabernacle was a type of the heavenly tabernacle, I'm not too sure that I can agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is a type of something that would follow it, because the Biblical types are found in the Law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant:

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." (Heb 10:1).

"Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17).

All of those things (dietary laws, sabbaths, feasts, new moon celebrations, as well as the earthly tabernacle) came only with the giving of the Law 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was given.

The promise of the land came with the Abrahamic Covenant, not with the Law which came 430 years later.

Hi Andrew,

The way I read the Bible it says the same land of Canaan that God promised to Abraham, was also promised to the children of Israel and that promise was realized when Joshua entered the land of Canaan. This land was called "the Promised Land" and was a "type" of the eternal "Promised Land" which is the believers inheritance through Christ.

1) Promised to Abraham's seed.
Gen. 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
2) Promised to the children of Israel.
Deut. 32:49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession:
3) Fulfilled.
Joshua 14:1 And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them.
God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2009, 10:18 PM
The promise of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the promised land has not come to pass yet.


Hey there Andrew,

Now I'm totally confused about your claim that God never fulfilled the land promise given to Abraham. The Bible explicitly declares that God fulfilled that specific promise:
Nehemiah 9:7-9 "Thou art the LORD God, Who chose Abram And brought him out from Ur of the Chaldees, And gave him the name Abraham. 8 "And Thou didst find his heart faithful before Thee, And didst make a covenant with him To give him the land of the Canaanite, Of the Hittite and the Amorite, Of the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite-- To give it to his descendants. And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, For Thou art righteous. ... 15 "Thou didst provide bread from heaven for them for their hunger, Thou didst bring forth water from a rock for them for their thirst, And Thou didst tell them to enter in order to possess The land which Thou didst swear to give them. ... 23 "And Thou didst make their sons numerous as the stars of heaven, And Thou didst bring them into the land Which Thou hadst told their fathers to enter and possess.
These words are confirmed by a second witness given in the Book of Joshua:
Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. 44 And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.
Note that God specifically stated that He gave ALL THE LAND that He had promised to the FATHERS, the first of which is ABRAHAM, and that in the passage in Nehemiah He explicitly quoted the exact promise He had given to Abraham and declared that it had been FULFILLED.

Would you say that God said what He meant, and meant what He said here in these mutually confirming passages?

Many blessings,

Richard

lekh lekha
08-27-2009, 03:11 AM
This point has not been established yet. As noted in my previous response, God used the same words when speaking of the "everlasting" law of circumcision given in the Abrahamic covenant. And we know that circumcision is no longer a law or commandment to the Jews. This point needs to be settled before we can build anything on it.

Did you misspeak here? You say that the covenant with Abraham is "true for all his seed after him." Why do you say that? Abraham had many sons who did not benefit from the covenant. Specifically, only the line through Isaac and Jacob. That means a huge number of "his seed" did not have any covenant with God.

Yes. You're 100% correct. I'm very glad for your, Rose's and Joel's participation in this thread, because as I said in the beginning, we (including me) must allow the Word of God to mould our thinking, and not attempt to mould the Word of God according to our thinking.

What we've been doing in this thread is discussing what the Word of God says about these things in order that we can bring clarity to the Word of God so that the Word of God can mould our thinking.

I'm happy for that and I appreciate your participation. It's helping to bring clarity to my understanding :thumb::clap2:

You are correct. The promises to Abraham's seed through Isac and Jacob cannot be true for ALL the seed because not ALL believed, and this is why Paul said not ALL are Israel who are of Israel. I can see that clearly now. But I still have questions which I will come to later...:confused2:


But I disagree that Paul was not also speaking of Gentiles because he used the same language to describe Gentile Christians: Galatians 4:28 ... And again: Galatians 3:27-29... This is the same language that Paul used in Romans 9:6-8... With the coming of the New Covenant, only Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, are counted as the "seed of Abraham" and "children of the promise" like "Isaac."

Yes. Again, this is true. And things are slowly becoming far clearer to me. Thank you! But I still have questions which I will come to later...:confused2:


It seems you are identifying the "Olive Tree" with "the believing remnant of ethnic Israel." If so, I would disagree. The root of the Olive Tree is Christ. Similar language is used in John 15:1-6 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.... " ... Note the similarity to Paul's statement that the unbelieving branches are "cut off."

So what is the Olive Tree? The branches are believers consisting of the "believing remnant of ethnic Israel" and the believing Gentiles. The tree itself is not "ethnic Israel."

This is a very important distinction. Christ is the "seed of Abraham." Christians are the "seed of Abraham" if they are in Christ. Christ is the Vine and the Olive Tree. I am not graffed into "ethnic Israel." I am graffed into Christ. The believing members of the historical "ethnic Israel" were the original branches of the Olive Tree. Throughout history, those who did not believe and broke the first covenant were broken off, and believing Gentiles were graffed in.

You're right. I was identifying the "Olive Tree" with "the believing remnant of ethnic Israel." And you're correct that it cannot be so. It's starting to become clearer to me now... but I still have questions that I will come to later :confused2: :)

In the mean time, please tell me if you disagree with anything I say here below:

I still believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is the foundation of everything which follows; and that the root of the olive tree (Rom.11: 17) is the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God) to Abraham. But in my post to Rose, I meant to include Gen.17: 4-5 in point #5:

"As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of many nations." (Gen 17:4-5).

But since reading your posts, I realize that it should actually be included in points 1-3 also:-

We know:

1) What the olive tree represents (Gen.17: 4-5, 7-8, 19).
2) Who planted it (Gen.17: 4-5, 7-8, 19).
3) When it was planted (Gen.17: 4-5, 7-8, 19).
4) Who the natural branches refers to (Gen.17: 7-8, 19; Rom.9: 27, 29; Rom.11: 1-5; 17).
5) Who the branches from a wild olive tree refers to (Gen.17: 4-5; Acts 11: 18; Rom.11: 17).

All nations are ethnic nations (Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, European, African etc). Therefore God promised Abraham that he would become the father of:

a) Many (ethnic) nations; and
b) An ethnic nation descended from Isaac and (later), from Jacob.

The seed (who is Christ, Gal.3: 16-18) came through the ethnic nation in (b) above. The promise to Abraham is the root of the olive tree, and its fulfillment came through Christ (and still comes through Christ).

Both the above groups are represented as branches of an olive tree in Rom.11: 17 - the many ethnic nations being the branches from the wild olive tree, and the remnant of ethnic Israel being "the natural" branches, since the seed (Christ) came through that particular ethnic nation.

And this is going off-topic, but He was born ethnically Jewish (according to the flesh), since Mary was a Jewess and a desecendant of David. He rose again from the dead. The Son of God is not a member of any ethnic nation. Is the Son of Man still ethnically Jewish? Just asking the question. I would be interested to know what you think about that.

:focus:


Hey there Andrew,

I think you made a logical error here. You are correct that the Law contained types, but that does not mean

that types are found only in the law...

Many blessings,

Richard

Yes. This everything you said in that post is also true. I think SOME things are starting to clear up now (for me anyway, maybe it was clear for you all along ) Once again, thank you! :)

(This also means that I have to make quite a few changes in my blog! :mad:)

NOW, let's talk about the next thing related to this discussion (I hope you guys are still going to have enough patience to keep discussing this :pray: :pray:).

But I will do so in my TWO posts: (praying for patience from you guys!)

Blessings,
Andrew

lekh lekha
08-27-2009, 03:20 AM
Hi Andrew,

The way I read the Bible it says the same land of Canaan that God promised to Abraham, was also promised to the children of Israel and that promise was realized when Joshua entered the land of Canaan. This land was called "the Promised Land" and was a "type" of the eternal "Promised Land" which is the believers inheritance through Christ... Gen. 17:8... Deut. 32: 49... Fulfilled... Joshua 14:1...

God Bless

Rose


Hey there Andrew,

Now I'm totally confused about your claim that God never fulfilled the land promise given to Abraham. The Bible explicitly declares that God fulfilled that specific promise:... Nehemiah 9:7-9... And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise[/I][/B][/COLOR], For Thou art righteous. ... These words are confirmed by a second witness given in the Book of Joshua:... Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.... And the
LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

Note that God specifically stated that He gave ALL THE LAND that He had promised to the FATHERS, the first of which is ABRAHAM, and that in the passage in Nehemiah He explicitly quoted the exact promise He had given to Abraham and declared that it had been FULFILLED.

Would you say that God said what He meant, and meant what He said here in these mutually confirming

passages?

Many blessings,

Richard

The points you (Richard) and you (Rose) make above are valid - BUT ("Does there HAVE TO be a but", I hear you say... how can there possibly be a 'but' " :rolleyes:)

... BUT there are questions still remaining in my mind, which consists of two parts (:pray:for your patience):

PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNTIL YOU'VE READ PART ONE AND PART TWO:

PART ONE

1. Whether we have already received the heavenly promised land IN FULL, or still waiting to receive it in full; and

2. Whether the heavenly promised land is the Kingdom of Messiah (the Kingdom of Christ); and

3. Whether the Kingdom of Messiah, when it has come in full (IF it hasn't already come in full), will bear any resemblance to the land God promised the seed of Abraham as their everlasting inheritance:

FIRST PROPHETIC PASSAGE RELATING TO THE KINGDOM OF THE MESSIAH:

"And a Shoot goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.

And He is made to breathe in the fear of Jehovah. And He shall not judge according to the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears. But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and shall decide with uprightness for the meek of the earth.

And He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His heart.

Also the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.

And in that day there shall be the Root of Jesse standing for a banner of the people; to Him the nations shall seek; and His resting place shall be glorious.

And it shall be in that day, the Lord shall again set His hand, the second time, to recover the remnant of His people that remains, from Assyria and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Ethiopia, and from Persia, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the coasts of the sea.

And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

And the envy of Ephraim shall depart, and the foes of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not trouble Ephraim. But they shall fly on the shoulders of the Philistines to the west; they shall spoil the sons of the east together; they shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; and the sons of Ammon shall obey them.

And Jehovah shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind He shall shake His hand over the River, and shall strike it into seven streams, and make one tread it with shoes.

And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Assyria; as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt." (Isa.11: 1-16).

SECOND PROPHETIC PASSAGE RELATING TO THE KINGDOM OF THE MESSIAH:

"Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate on a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them.

Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath.

Yea, I have set My king on My holy hill, on Zion.

I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You.

Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.

You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

And now be wise, O kings; be instructed, O judges of the earth.

Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled in but a little time.

Blessed are all who put their trust in Him." (Psa 2:1-12).

I could quote prophecies which foretold that the Messiah would reign over the whole world from His throne in Jerusalem, but let's just close off with my final question:

PART TWO TO FOLLOW IN MY NEXT POST - IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART TO MY QUESTIONS

Blessings,
Andrew

lekh lekha
08-27-2009, 03:39 AM
PART TWO

The word "UNTIL" denotes a limited period of time. Why does the word "until" keep popping up in the following verses? (please read ALL the verses before you reply):-

JESUS SAID TO THE JEWS,

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39).

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS,

"And seeing this, Peter answered the people, Men, Israelites, why do you marvel at this? Or why do you stare at us, as though we had made this man to walk by our own power or holiness?

The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His son Jesus, whom you delivered up, denying Him in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to let Him go.

But you denied the Holy and Just One and desired a murderer to be given to you. And you killed the Prince of Life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.

And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, this one whom you see and know, His name made firm. And the faith which came through Him has given him this perfect soundness before you.

And now, brothers, I know that you did it through ignorance, as also your rulers did. But those things which God before had shown by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He fulfilled in this manner.

Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.

For Moses truly said to the fathers, "The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet to you from your brothers, One like me.

You shall hear Him in all things, whatever He may say to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people."

And also all the prophets from Samuel and those following after, as many as spoke, have likewise foretold of these days.

You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham,

"And in your Seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

Having raised up His son Jesus, God sent Him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you away from his iniquities." (Act 3:12-26)

THE DISCIPLES HAD ASKED JESUS ON THE DAY OF HIS ASCENSION:

".. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9).

AND AFTERWARD PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:21)

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.

AND PAUL SAID TO THE GENTILES:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
(Rom 11:25-27)

A PSALM OF DAVID:

"... The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool...

... The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies...

... Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth." (Psa 110:1-3)

PAUL:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive...

... But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;..

... then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power...

... for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet... The last enemy made to cease is death...

... For He put all things under His feet... But when He says that all things have been put under His feet, it is plain that it excepts Him who has put all things under Him...

... But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all things in all." (1Co 15:22-28).

"... for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet..."

A PSALM OF DAVID:

"... The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool..."

PETER TO THE JEWS:

... Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord...

... And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began...

JESUS TO THE JEWS:

"And they shall fall by the sword's edge. And shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the nations until the times of the nations is fulfilled." (Luk 21:24)

PAUL TO THE GENTILES:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom 11:25).

JESUS SAID TO THE JEWS:

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39)

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord...

... And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21).



Compare all these verses with the prophecies regarding the Messianic Kingdom which I quoted in my previous post.

To my thinking (which has already been moulded to the Word of God once in this thread regarding one aspect of this discussion), these verses imply that although the Kingdom of Christ is come, yet there is still a Messianic Kingdom that is still coming, ONCE ETHNIC ISRAEL HAS REPENTED:

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39).

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" (Rom 11:25-26).

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luk 21:24).

"... Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 19-21).

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Act 3:25-26)


Your comments? (and thank you for your patience!)

Blessings,
Andrew.

lekh lekha
08-27-2009, 04:47 AM
Faith......what we believe,......and......what we then say we believe.....seems to be the central issue concerning these discussions.

Abraham believed God......Abraham believed what God said to him.......Paul, in Romans 4.......said that Abraham believed the God "who justifies the ungodly".
Abraham, being unjust (as is every person), believed in the God who justifies the ungodly........therefore it (righteousness) was reckoned unto him by faith.

He (Abraham) had a new standing with God.....Abraham was "just"....by means of his faith in God. He was in a state of blessedness.

Each person coming to God.....must believe that God justifies them as well.....He justifies by means of the blood of Christ. There is no alternate way.

This is the foundation of our faith. We may not fully understand "justification", but.......we see the blood of Christ covering our sins.
----------------------------------------------------------
Each person must first be justified.

The justifed ones are to receive inhheritance (the promised allotment).

The second half of Romans 4 concerns the inheritance of seed of Abraham.....the promise that he was the heir of the world (kosmos) which does not come by means of law obedience is the important issue of the second half of Romans 4.

Being in agreement concerning the method of justification as being reckoned on the basis of faith must first be established. Assuming we are all on the same page concerning that truth........

It seems to me that our discussion has led to "the promises",......."inheritance".....i.e......what lies ahead for us, as believers who are the body of Christ...........and......Israel. If their inheritance concerning the land, and their function in God's plan........still remains a part of the plan of God.

The seed to whom the promises given to Abraham apply is singular, seed, not seeds (Gal. 3:16). The seed is Christ.

We are joint heirs with Christ.

As to inheritance......do the descendants of Abraham (the children of promise) apply only to Christians of this era?........or.........are the children of promise......to which reference is made in Romans 9, as I hear Andrew saying......applicable also to the elect of Israel which will inherit the land.

In other words, hoping not to further complicate the issue.......can there be a portion of inheritance (Christ's inheritance) allotted to Israel....and, another portion alloted to believers of this era?

Joel

Those are my questions, too, Joel :) You can see how I've given the scriptures which give rise to those questions in my previous two posts here.

Blessings,
Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
08-27-2009, 07:54 AM
Yes. You're 100% correct. I'm very glad for your, Rose's and Joel's participation in this thread, because as I said in the beginning, we (including me) must allow the Word of God to mould our thinking, and not attempt to mould the Word of God according to our thinking.

What we've been doing in this thread is discussing what the Word of God says about these things in order that we can bring clarity to the Word of God so that the Word of God can mould our thinking.

I'm happy for that and I appreciate your participation. It's helping to bring clarity to my understanding :thumb::clap2:

Brother Andrew,

It is difficult to express what a joy it is to discuss Scripture with a fellow truth seeker! Your desire to have the Scripture mold your thinking is obvious. And again, your presence here is an shining example for us all. I pray each and every one of us, especially me, will follow your example and let the Word of God alone be our light and guide.

I hope you understand that we are all working together to get a "clearer picture" of what the Bible really teaches. None of us have "all the answers" - I certainly know that I do not. That is why it is so valuable to have my views challenged. We all have much to benefit.

I will carefully review your latest posts before responding.

Many blessings and much peace unto you,

Richard

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Rose
08-27-2009, 08:20 AM
My dear brother Andrew, what a joy this is to my heart to truly have a brother who will walk with Richard and I(and all those who seek the truth on this Forum), as we journey through the Word of God. It has been Richard and my desire to seek the truth at any cost, and I see you are willing to do the same. You are showing yourself true to your words to let Gods Word mold your thinking.

Many blessing to you, as you embark with us upon this exciting adventure.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-27-2009, 09:03 AM
The points you (Richard) and you (Rose) make above are valid - BUT ("Does there HAVE TO be a but", I hear you say... how can there possibly be a 'but' " :rolleyes:)


... BUT there are questions still remaining in my mind, which consists of two parts (:pray:for your patience):

PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNTIL YOU'VE READ PART ONE AND PART TWO:

I have reviewed both Part One and Part Two. The "but" is justified. There are many verses that seem to suggest a future event. Pretty much everyone who has seriously studied eschatology have recognized this "tension" in Scripture. One of the primary attempts to understand these passages is a view expressed by the idea that the coming of the kingdom was both "already" and "not yet" fulfilled, but that view is really more of an acknowledgment than a solution of the tension.

So let's walk through the passages you cited and see what we can see.



PART ONE

1. Whether we have already received the heavenly promised land IN FULL, or still waiting to receive it in full; and

I am inclined to believe that we have received the promises "IN FULL" in Christ. He is the "all in all" and the fulfillment of the promises are in Him. It seems to me that all the promises were elevated to a spiritual (meaning more real and truly eternal) fulfillment rather than some long but temporary fulfillment down here on this rock called earth. The general pattern of all prophecy seems to confirm this. The physical Temple was a type of the Body of Christ, first in the literal sense as when He said "destroy this temple (speaking of His body), and then in the spiritual sense of His Body the Church. Christ ascended to His throne in heaven - there is no reason to think that He is going to descend from that throne to sit on a literal throne on earth. This seems to be the point of Peter's preaching:

Acts 2:29-36 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Of course, we still need to understand the meaning of "until" in verse 2:34. But the main point seems to be that Peter was explaining that Christ, not David, was ascended unto the heavenly throne. This seems to be the ultimate meaning of the prophecy that Christ would sit on the "throne of David."



2. Whether the heavenly promised land is the Kingdom of Messiah (the Kingdom of Christ); and

3. Whether the Kingdom of Messiah, when it has come in full (IF it hasn't already come in full), will bear any resemblance to the land God promised the seed of Abraham as their everlasting inheritance:

Hummm ... I wonder what "resemblance" could mean. Christ inherited the "whole world" - not a particular piece of it. So I would tend to think that there is no resemblance at all except the typological resemblance as the "promised land" = The Kingdom of Christ.



FIRST PROPHETIC PASSAGE RELATING TO THE KINGDOM OF THE MESSIAH:

"And a Shoot goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.

And He is made to breathe in the fear of Jehovah. And He shall not judge according to the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears. But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and shall decide with uprightness for the meek of the earth.

And He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His heart.

Also the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.

And in that day there shall be the Root of Jesse standing for a banner of the people; to Him the nations shall seek; and His resting place shall be glorious.

And it shall be in that day, the Lord shall again set His hand, the second time, to recover the remnant of His people that remains, from Assyria and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Ethiopia, and from Persia, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the coasts of the sea.

And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

And the envy of Ephraim shall depart, and the foes of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not trouble Ephraim. But they shall fly on the shoulders of the Philistines to the west; they shall spoil the sons of the east together; they shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; and the sons of Ammon shall obey them.

And Jehovah shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind He shall shake His hand over the River, and shall strike it into seven streams, and make one tread it with shoes.

And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Assyria; as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt." (Isa.11: 1-16).

It seems to me that whole passage is a prophecy of the coming of Messiah in the first century. it seems pretty much incontrovertible that the first five verses refer to that event. I think the same is true for the verses you highlighted:

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.
The "knowledge of Jehovah" is found in Jesus Christ, as it is written:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
This knowledge had been preached and heard in the whole world in the first century:

Romans 10:16-18 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 ¶ But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
As for the second verse you highlighted, I believe that speaks of Pentecost:

Isaiah 11:11-12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar [Babylon], and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Compare this with the record of Pentecost - both passages speak of gathering Jews from the four corners of the earth, even mentioning the same countries:

Acts 2:5-11 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia [region of Babylon], and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
It seems to me that God gathered the faithful (devout) remnant of Jews from every tribe of Israel and from the four corners of the earth so they could participate in the New Covenant outpouring of the Holy Spirit when He fulfilled the promise to the fathers:

Acts 2:37-42 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
=============================



SECOND PROPHETIC PASSAGE RELATING TO THE KINGDOM OF THE MESSIAH:

"Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate on a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them.

Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath.

Yea, I have set My king on My holy hill, on Zion.

I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You.

Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.

We know this was fulfilled (at least in part) in the first century. Personally, I see no justification to think that it was not fully fulfilled since Christ ascended to His throne in heaven and was given all authority over heaven and earth. It seems like making a trip down here to sit on a throne made of stone would be a great demotion from His heavenly position. We will have to review it in more detail.



I could quote prophecies which foretold that the Messiah would reign over the whole world from His throne in Jerusalem, but let's just close off with my final question:

Personally, I have never seen any such prophecy. It's another thing we would have to examine in detail and in light of the entire Bible.



PART TWO TO FOLLOW IN MY NEXT POST - IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART TO MY QUESTIONS

Blessings,
Andrew
I will answer those now.

Thanks again for the excellent and very fruitful discussion!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-27-2009, 10:59 AM
PART TWO

The word "UNTIL" denotes a limited period of time. Why does the word "until" keep popping up in the following verses? (please read ALL the verses before you reply):-

I have read them all and I think you left out a very important example:
Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Here Christ is speaking to his first century disciples. He said they would not have " gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." We know this statement is true, so what does it mean? It makes perfect sense if Christ was talking about his coming in power and judgment in 70 AD. But it does not seem to make any sense at all if Christ was talking about a "second coming" in the distant future some 2000+ years later.



JESUS SAID TO THE JEWS,

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39).

I understand that this could be taken to mean that Christ was implying that all the unbelieving Jews would receive Him some day in the future. But it could just as easily be understood as a statement that none of the Jews who had rejected Him would see Him until they individually repented and came to faith in Messiah, declaring "Blessed is He - Jesus Christ - who comes in the name of the Lord."

The only way we could determine the true meaning of this passage is to find other passages that confirm our interpretation. Taken by itself, there is no way for us to know with certainty what God intended. This is why the "Big Picture" is of vital importance. The first thing we must do is establish what we can know with certainty from the large body of mutually confirming verses. Only then can we hope to understand the "hard verses" that don't have any clear and unambiguous witnesses to confirm their meaning.



PETER SAID TO THE JEWS,

Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.

Here we need to determine when the "times of restoration of all things" did or will occur. And what does it mean for "heaven to receive" Him until that time? What then happens? Is there any verse that tells us what will happen after the "times of restoration of all things" occurs? There are many questions about each word in this verse. We can not begin by simply assuming that it is talking about a future earthly millennial reign, for example.

But I acknowledge that this verse gives a strong sense of "yet future fulfillment." The problem is, how does this fit with the "Big Picture" of biblical eschatology of which we can be certain through the testimony of the great cloud of mutually confirming verses?



THE DISCIPLES HAD ASKED JESUS ON THE DAY OF HIS ASCENSION:

".. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9).

AND AFTERWARD PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:21)

It is my opinion that the disciples' question was asked in complete ignorance of God's true plan. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests God ever planned to "restore the kingdom again" to ethnic Israel. At the time they asked the question, the disciples were totally and absolutely ignorant of God's true plan to evangelize the world by bringing in the Gentiles. I do not think we can build any argument from an ignorant question.

Now your observation that Peter spoke of the "restoration of all things" after he had asked the question about the kingdom is interesting, but I can not draw any conclusion from it. Perhaps we will need to explore this more.



AND PAUL SAID TO THE GENTILES:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
(Rom 11:25-27)

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Act 3:25-26)


Compare the red words that Paul spoke about the Jews with the red words that Peter spoke to the Jews:

PAUL ABOUT THE JEWS: And in this manner all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

PETER TO THE JEWS: Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."

Is there a reason to think Peter and Paul were talking about something different? It seems to me that they were saying exactly the same thing. Jesus Christ the Redeemer came in the first century to take away the sins of the Jews who would believe in Him. Neither Peter nor Paul said a word about a "future" coming of Jesus to take away the sins again.



Compare all these verses with the prophecies regarding the Messianic Kingdom which I quoted in my previous post.

I think it would help a lot if we focused on one "prophecy of the Messianic Kingdom" at a time to see how it should be understood.



To my thinking (which has already been moulded to the Word of God once in this thread regarding one aspect of this discussion), these verses imply that although the Kingdom of Christ is come, yet there is still a Messianic Kingdom that is still coming, ONCE ETHNIC ISRAEL HAS REPENTED:

Your comments? (and thank you for your patience!)

Blessings,
Andrew.

I have not yet seen anything that makes me think "ethnic Israel" could, or ever would, "repent." Repentance is an action taken by individuals. Granted, when all (or most) individuals in an ethnic nation repent as happened in Ninevah in the Book of Jonah, we can talk of "national repentance." But is there anything in the Bible that tells us to expect a national repentance of ethnic Israel? I don't think so. But I'm certainly will to change my mind if you can show me that this is what the Bible teaches.

Many blessings to you my friend! It is absolutely wonderful to be digging deep into Scripture with you.

Richard

lekh lekha
08-27-2009, 11:52 AM
Hi again, Richard. Thanks for your replies :)


It is my opinion that the disciples' question was asked in complete ignorance of God's true plan. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests God ever planned to "restore the kingdom again" to ethnic Israel. At the time they asked the question, the disciples were totally and absolutely ignorant of God's true plan to evangelize the world by bringing in the Gentiles. I do not think we can build any argument from an ignorant question.

You see, here's the BIG problem I have with your statement above:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God - the record of God's Revelation to man.
2. The Bible was penned by Moses, the prophets of Israel, the apostles of Jesus + Luke.
3. The Bible was penned by its authors, but inspired by God.
4. We must allow the Bible (the Word of God) to mould our thinking, and not attempt to let our thinking mould the Word of God.

So here's Peter, one of the authors who penned the Word of God, immediately after he had healed a man in the name of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, standing in the temple which was in Jerusalem, AFTER the day of Pentecost, when Peter was filled with and inspired by the Holy Spirit, telling the Jews who that day were yet UNBELIEVING Jews:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed...

.. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Act 3:25-26) (in order that you might turn away from your iniquities - they had not yet turned when Peter said this to them).

Peter was preaching the gospel to them, telling them at one and the same time that they are the children of the prophets[/B], and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed...

And this immediately after he told them to:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;...

... And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:..

... Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began...

... For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among

the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days...

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." (Act 3:19-25).

Earlier on in this thread we noted that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness"; and we all agreed on that.

Then I asked, "What did Abraham believe"? And what did Isaac, Jacob, the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus believe?:

1. "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?...

... And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Act
1:6-8)

2. "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." (Act 3:25)

3. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;...

... And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:...

... Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21).

The answer that I get to this question is,

"They (the authors of the Bible who penned the Bible at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and who spoke, as Peter did above, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)... did not understand the Abrahamic Covenant or the prophecies of the Bible correctly, and so they said the things they did.

So if I'm correct, we must allow the Word of God, which was penned by Moses, the prophets, the apostles of Jesus + Luke at the inspiration of God Himself, to mould our thinking...

... but the moment it can be seen by the things they said that what they believed contradicts our beliefs and thinking, then THEY ALL (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets, the apostles + Luke) "did not understand correctly", because it certainly isn't US who do not understand correctly???

So we must mould the Word of God to fit our thinking and beliefs, because the people who penned the Bible at the inspiration of God Himself did not understand the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Christ correctly???

C'mon, Richard. I'm sure you know you know better than that.

Surely we should ask ourselves WHY Peter said the things he did which are recorded in Acts, and which he said both BEFORE and AFTER the day of Pentecost, and both BEFORE and AFTER he was filled with the Holy Spirit and began to perform miracles at the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus?

Surely we should let the apostles of Christ teach US, instead of brushing aside what they said by assuming that THEY (and not US) did not understand correctly? It was THEY whose fathers had received the promises. It was THEY whose fathers (and them) penned the Bible. THEY had walked with Jesus. THEY saw Him ascend to heaven, and THEY were given a special filling of the Holy Spirit so that they could preach the gospel boldly to the Jews first, and also to all the world.

But because THEY said things that contradict our beliefs and thinking, we must mould what they said (what the Bible says) according to our thinking, and not allow the Bible to mould our thinking?


I have read them all and I think you left out a very important example:
Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Here Christ is speaking to his first century disciples. He said they would not have " gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." We know this statement is true, so what does it mean? It makes perfect sense if Christ was talking about his coming in power and judgment in 70 AD. But it does not seem to make any sense at all if Christ was talking about a "second coming" in the distant future some 2000+ years later.

It won't make any sense if we CHOOSE TO flatly ignore the fact that the Jews are back in the land today. The fact that there are Jews in the land today kills your argument, unless you choose to ignore the fact of Jews in the land today.

I think we're back to square one now in this thread. You had me convinced there for a few minutes that the olive tree does not refer to ethnic Israel, until I remembered that it was AFTER Peter had been filled with the Holy Spirit and the day he healed the lame man that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, he said to the Jews:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;...

... And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:..

... Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began...

... For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you...

... And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people... Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days...

... Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. " (Act 3:19-25).

So the conclusion I've come to in this thread I started is,

1. The Bible is the written Word of God - the record of God's Revelation to man.
2. The Bible was penned by Moses, the prophets of Israel, the apostles of Jesus + Luke.
3. The Bible was penned by its authors, but inspired by God.
4. We must allow the Bible (the Word of God) to mould our thinking, and not attempt to let our thinking mould the Word of God.

But its been a VERY, VERY interesting discussion and debate, and I thank you for it, and everyone else who participated in this thread :) And I still would be interested in your conclusions.

God bless ya'll (as they say in the American South!!)
Andrew :yo::)

Rose
08-27-2009, 03:09 PM
So the conclusion I've come to in this thread I started is,


1. The Bible is the written Word of God - the record of God's Revelation to man.
2. The Bible was penned by Moses, the prophets of Israel, the apostles of Jesus + Luke.
3. The Bible was penned by its authors, but inspired by God.
4. We must allow the Bible (the Word of God) to mould our thinking, and not attempt to let our thinking mould the Word of God.

But its been a VERY, VERY interesting discussion and debate, and I thank you for it, and everyone else who participated in this thread :) And I still would be interested in your conclusions.

God bless ya'll (as they say in the American South!!)
Andrew :yo::)

Hi Andrew, :yo:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God - the record of God's Revelation to man. I am sure every one of us here on this Forum absolutely believes that. :thumb:

2. The Bible was penned by Moses, the prophets of Israel, the apostles of Jesus + Luke. The Bible was indeed penned by those you've mentioned, but there is a big difference between a prophecy given to, or recorded by those who penned the Bible and other things that are recorded such as the questions by the Apostles concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. The Apostles were clearly asking this question of Jesus, because they did not know, or fully understand why Jesus was going away. :confused2:

3. The Bible was penned by its authors, but inspired by God. Again, I believe most if not all who post on this Forum would agree with that statement. :thumb:

4. We must allow the Bible (the Word of God) to mold our thinking, and not attempt to let our thinking mold the Word of God. Absolutely, the only way we can truly understand God's Word is by discarding our own personal ideas, and allow Gods Word to shape our thinking. :thumb:

I sincerely hope you will continue this discussion...I find it very informative. :pop2:

God Bless,

Rose

P.S. I've been working on an article concerning the topic you touched on in your last post: that is the period of time that heaven received Jesus till the restitution of all things. I'll post it as soon as I'm finished.

Silence
08-29-2009, 12:31 AM
Hello All,
I have just finished reading this thread from beginning to end and must say it has been good to have so many points to ponder brought up. I have an unusual three days off from work so I can stay up a little later. I hope you don't mind if I post a few observations.

First - Richard, early on in the thread you mentioned the fact that God never considered unbelieving Israel "His people".

<<<I don't see "ethnic Israel" playing any role in the points you made because being a member of "ethnic Israel" never meant that a person would be considered part of "My People". As far as I can tell there was one condition - you had to be in Covenant relationship with God. It did not matter if you were Jew or Gentile under either the Old or the New Covenant.>>>

What do we do with Isaiah 1:3 - "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: Israel doth not know, [B]my people doth not consider." God is addressing people who do not even know that He is their owner as "My people". How could these people be seen as being in any kind of faith-based covenant with God? In verse 2, who were those who had been nourished and brought up by the Lord and then rebelled if not "ethnic Israel"? They are the same ones who are addressed in verse 3 as "My people". The "daughter of Zion" and "the remnant" in v. 8&9 are in the midst of these rebels whom the Lord addresses as "His people".

Second, in regard to the disciple's question in Acts 1 about the kingdom -

Acts 1:6 -When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 - And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

It seems that if the Lord intended to reprove their understanding of prophecy He would not have started by saying that it was not given to them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power. This is an implicit acknowledgment that Jesus was not questioning their expectation, He was just telling them that they were not to know the time or the season that it would take place.

The use of 'alla' (translated 'but' in English) at the beginning of v.8 is instructive as according to Thayer it denotes something other than those things just previously mentioned. So the power they received along with the Holy Spirit, and the witnessing they did is not related to the preceding discussion about the kingdom being restored again to Israel.

Third - In regard to "all" being fulfilled in Christ, all has been fulfilled in Him, but all has not been revealed on earth yet, not even to the church or by the church. Paul said that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us." If all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., then what additional glory was revealed to the rest of creation (Romans 8:19,23) by seeing Paul or the other early Christians in 70 A.D.? To my knowledge there has been nothing incomparably glorious demonstrated by the church after 70 A.D. that was not present in equal or greater purity or glory before that time. I don't see the destruction of something that was old and passing away (the temple and it's religious system) as adding anything to the glory of the church.

Lastly, when God said in psalm 19 that the heavens declare His glory, there is no speech or language where His voice is not heard, and He travels from one end of heaven to the other, did He not know that this psalm would be read by people from places other than the "whole earth" that Israel knew of? Why should we discount "ethnic Israel" from any future destiny, but make the physical territory that Israel considered to comprise the earth the limiting factor in our understanding of past prophetic fulfillments describing "the whole earth"? If we are to take their perspective of what would be considered "the whole earth as reliable", why can we not take their perspective on what the "kingdom" entails?

I realize that my futurist views seem to show disregard for the prophecies preterists consider to have been fulfilled, but on my part, it seems that if all has been fulfilled, then I must have had an unrealistically high expectation of what God has promised.

Rose
08-29-2009, 09:14 AM
Hello All,
I have just finished reading this thread from beginning to end and must say it has been good to have so many points to ponder brought up. I have an unusual three days off from work so I can stay up a little later. I hope you don't mind if I post a few observations.

Hi Silence,

Thank you for joining the conversation. :D It's always good to have added input from different perspectives. :pop2:


First - Richard, early on in the thread you mentioned the fact that God never considered unbelieving Israel "His people".

<<<I don't see "ethnic Israel" playing any role in the points you made because being a member of "ethnic Israel" never meant that a person would be considered part of "My People". As far as I can tell there was one condition - you had to be in Covenant relationship with God. It did not matter if you were Jew or Gentile under either the Old or the New Covenant.>>>

What do we do with Isaiah 1:3 - "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider." God is addressing people who do not even know that He is their owner as "My people". How could these people be seen as being in any kind of faith-based covenant with God? In verse 2, who were those who had been nourished and brought up by the Lord and then rebelled if not "ethnic Israel"? They are the same ones who are addressed in verse 3 as "My people". The "daughter of Zion" and "the remnant" in v. 8&9 are in the midst of these rebels whom the Lord addresses as "His people".

I think what Richard meant by "you had to be in Covenant relationship with God" before one could be considered "My People", was that a person had to be circumcised as a sign of their covenant relationship even though they may have been in rebellion against God. A person wasn't automatically called "My people" just because their race was Jewish.


Second, in regard to the disciple's question in Acts 1 about the kingdom -

Acts 1:6 -When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 - And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

It seems that if the Lord intended to reprove their understanding of prophecy He would not have started by saying that it was not given to them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power. This is an implicit acknowledgment that Jesus was not questioning their expectation, He was just telling them that they were not to know the time or the season that it would take place.

The use of 'alla' (translated 'but' in English) at the beginning of v.8 is instructive as according to Thayer it denotes something other than those things just previously mentioned. So the power they received along with the Holy Spirit, and the witnessing they did is not related to the preceding discussion about the kingdom being restored again to Israel.

I think you are right, Jesus was telling the disciples that they were not to know the times or the seasons that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, but what they didn't realize at that time was the manner in which the kingdom would be restored.

From the remnant of Israel the Church was born, and the Gospel of salvation to all who believe was spread to the world, hence the kingdom was restored to Israel. The true kingdom of God is within us, the former kingdom of Israel was a type that was fulfilled when Jesus fully ushered in the kingdom, but before the kingdom could be fully ushered in the Old "type" had to be completely done away with.

What the disciples were thinking was a purely physical restoration of the Davidic kingdom of Israel, what Jesus was meaning was a spiritual restoration of the true kingdom of Israel.


Third - In regard to "all" being fulfilled in Christ, all has been fulfilled in Him, but all has not been revealed on earth yet, not even to the church or by the church. Paul said that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us." If all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., then what additional glory was revealed to the rest of creation (Romans 8:19,23) by seeing Paul or the other early Christians in 70 A.D.? To my knowledge there has been nothing incomparably glorious demonstrated by the church after 70 A.D. that was not present in equal or greater purity or glory before that time. I don't see the destruction of something that was old and passing away (the temple and it's religious system) as adding anything to the glory of the church.

Lastly, when God said in psalm 19 that the heavens declare His glory, there is no speech or language where His voice is not heard, and He travels from one end of heaven to the other, did He not know that this psalm would be read by people from places other than the "whole earth" that Israel knew of? Why should we discount "ethnic Israel" from any future destiny, but make the physical territory that Israel considered to comprise the earth the limiting factor in our understanding of past prophetic fulfillments describing "the whole earth"? If we are to take their perspective of what would be considered "the whole earth as reliable", why can we not take their perspective on what the "kingdom" entails?

I realize that my futurist views seem to show disregard for the prophecies preterists consider to have been fulfilled, but on my part, it seems that if all has been fulfilled, then I must have had an unrealistically high expectation of what God has promised.

The main point of what the Bible says God promised, is that the Bible makes it perfectly clear by multiple witnesses that God's promises have been fulfilled.


Originally Posted by RAM http://biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13531#post13531)
Hey there Andrew,

Now I'm totally confused about your claim that God never fulfilled the land promise given to Abraham. The Bible explicitly declares that God fulfilled that specific promise:...

Nehemiah 9:7-9... And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise[/color], For Thou art righteous. ... These words are confirmed by a second witness given in the Book of Joshua:...

Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.... And the
LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

Note that God specifically stated that He gave ALL THE LAND that He had promised to the FATHERS, the first of which is ABRAHAM, and that in the passage in Nehemiah He explicitly quoted the exact promise He had given to Abraham and declared that it had been FULFILLED.

Would you say that God said what He meant, and meant what He said here in these mutually confirming

passages?

Many blessings,

Richard[/i]Again, thank you for joining the conversation with your valuable input.

God Bless

Rose

lekh lekha
08-30-2009, 04:48 AM
Hi Silence,

Thank you for joining the conversation. :D It's always good to have added input from different perspectives. :pop2:



I think what Richard meant by "you had to be in Covenant relationship with God" before one could be considered "My People", was that a person had to be circumcised as a sign of their covenant relationship even though they may have been in rebellion against God. A person wasn't automatically called "My people" just because their race was Jewish.



I think you are right, Jesus was telling the disciples that they were not to know the times or the seasons that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, but what they didn't realize at that time was the manner in which the kingdom would be restored.

From the remnant of Israel the Church was born, and the Gospel of salvation to all who believe was spread to the world, hence the kingdom was restored to Israel. The true kingdom of God is within us, the former kingdom of Israel was a type that was fulfilled when Jesus fully ushered in the kingdom, but before the kingdom could be fully ushered in the Old "type" had to be completely done away with.

What the disciples were thinking was a purely physical restoration of the Davidic kingdom of Israel, what Jesus was meaning was a spiritual restoration of the true kingdom of Israel.



The main point of what the Bible says God promised, is that the Bible makes it perfectly clear by multiple witnesses that God's promises have been fulfilled.
Again, thank you for joining the conversation with your valuable input.

God Bless

Rose

Hello again, Rose.

Well, yes, I suppose CHRIST'S Kingdom is only a spiritual Kingdom, since we are apparently all spirits floating around up there somewhere in an ethereal Kingdom looking down at the earth and shaking our heads.

That is to say that according to your thinking, CHRIST'S kingdom which was promised by God and foretold over and over by the prophets, will NEVER be physically manifested on earth, except in the physical bodies of the believers, His temple. CHRIST'S Kingdom, according to you what you say above, is and always will be an ethereal Kingdom.

Jesus did not die and rise again from the dead in order to separate the spiritual from the natural (or physical). Such an idea comes from the gnostic philosophy of Dualism, which teaches that the spiritual; and the natural (or physical) will be eternally separate, since the natural is corrupt and (according to Dualism) cannot be sanctified.

You see, Rose, you have made up your mind that CHRIST'S Kingdom will NEVER be physically manifested on earth, since His Kingdom is a "spiritual" Kingdom.

That's why your thinking cannot be moulded by the Word of God - because you've already made up your mind, and this thinking forms the foundation of your interpretation of every other scripture in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

But your argument is killed by many, many scriptures (such as Jesus' answer to His apostles, when they asked Him if at that time He would restore again the Kingdom to Israel, and He replied that it is not for them to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority).

And because your foundation (your formula) is in error, your result (the way you interpret all scripture) will be in error also.

In the day that Solomon's Temple was sanctified, God said to Israel:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments; Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom (a definite distinction is being made here between the temple and the Kingdom), according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel...

But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.

And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say,

Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house? And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them."
(2Ch 7:14-22).

Did this prophecy come to pass? Yes, of course it did - because it's the Word of God.

So will the following prophecies not also come to pass?:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land." (Jer 23:5-8).

Was the above prophecy fulfilled in the days of their restoration from their exile in Babylon? NO:

During the days of the exile in Babylon, they had not been exiled into ALL countries - this world-wide exile only occurred AFTER the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luk. 21:24).

The prophecy continues:

"Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.

And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land.

And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.

But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD." (Jer 12:14-17)."

Yes, of course all these prophecies SHALL come to pass - because it's the Word of God.

But you say, "they HAVE come to pass - spiritually".

Yet that's not what Jesus said, and that's not what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and apostles of Jesus believed:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9)

Jesus gave His apostles (and not you, me or anyone else) full doctrinal authority of His Church/es, and the apostle Peter said to the Jews:

"And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people,

Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Act 3:11-26)

That's also why the apostle Paul said,

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...

... For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33).

Rose, the reason why I left this thread is because I know that it's pointless debating with you, Rose, when you deny the authority of the apostles of Christ over all matters of doctrine to the church, saying that THEY did not understand correctly, and that's why they said the things they did.

What the apostles said is the Word of God, since they spoke and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To claim that they said things because THEY did not understand correctly, is appoint to yourself an "authority" above that of the apostles of Christ and above that of the Word of God. And so God CANNOT mould your thinking according to His Word, because you will not allow it.

It's for this reason that I cannot and WILL not continue in this thread.

It gives me deja-voux of the days my brother became a Jehovah's Witness, and I had to attempt to debate with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have also appointed authority to themselves above the authority of the Word of God, and who also refuse to allow the Word of God to mould their thinking.

There's really no point in debating with someone who claims or implies that he/she knows better than the apostles of Jesus, for the one who appoints doctrinal authority to himself/herself above the authority of the apostles and what the Word of God plainly says, will see no reason except their own reasoning.

And when their formula is in error, every result (the way they interpret most of the Bible) will be in error also.

I'm NOT saying these things to insult you, Rose, and it is NOT said from a position of pride (I have NOTHING to be proud of - Jesus shed His blood because of that fact).

I'm telling you the truth prayerfully, in the hope that you will change your mind about your doctrinal "authority" over that of the apostles, and humble yourself to let your thinking be moulded by the Word of God spoken by the mouth of, and through the pen of His prophets, apostles and Luke.

They believed what Jesus believed - that's why he gave them full doctrinal authority over His Church/es. And that's why He DID NOT correct them when they asked if He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time.

God bless you Rose,
Andrew.

joel
08-30-2009, 05:37 AM
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew, let us realize that "not believed God, ....their unbelif.....now not believed" are based upon "peitho" (Strong's 3982), which means to persuade with words.

A person may enter into a condition whereas they are "unpersuasible" (apeites, Strong's #545).

Interestingly, "pistis" (Strong's #4102), which is commonly interpreted "faith" is also based on the same root, "peitho" (#3982).

Our faith 1st needs to be sound. We must believe what God has said. You and Rose, and those of us who also join in, are struggling with what exactly did God say.

In Romans 11:30, 31, Israel is described as in a state of unpersuasiveness. Earlier in the chapter, Paul spoke of their lack of faith (apistia, Strong's #570). They (Israel) remain in a state of unpersuasiveness and cannot be persuaded unto the truth until God acts upon them through "mercy".

They (Israel) are first to brought out of the state of unpersuasiveness before they can believe what God has said.

And how can that occur? You and I and all members of the body of Christ are called to play a part............"...that through your mercy they may obtain mercy".

It is my belief that we, in the body of Christ, have failed in this area towards each other for far too long. We wrangle about issues of "faith" and then turn away from each other when the other won't see things as we may see them.

But one thing is sure.......we have all received the mercy of God. We were in a state of need when He called us........and.....we were unpersuasible.....until His mercy softened our hardened hearts.

Let us deal likewise with each other.

Israel remains in the state where they cannot be persuaded as to God's calling for them through Christ.......but His mercy endureth for ever.

I wanted for some time to bring out this distinction but waited until now to share this with you. Let us remember that in our dealings with each other....as we struggle to come to the unity of the faith.......we will encounter many who oppose sound doctrine. The truth of the matter is....theiy are actually opposing themselves. They need mercy in order to released from the stubborn state of "apeitheia".

Joel

lekh lekha
08-30-2009, 07:37 AM
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew, let us realize that "not believed God, ....their unbelif.....now not believed" are based upon "peitho" (Strong's 3982), which means to persuade with words.

A person may enter into a condition whereas they are "unpersuasible" (apeites, Strong's #545).

Interestingly, "pistis" (Strong's #4102), which is commonly interpreted "faith" is also based on the same root, "peitho" (#3982).

Our faith 1st needs to be sound. We must believe what God has said. You and Rose, and those of us who also join in, are struggling with what exactly did God say.

In Romans 11:30, 31, Israel is described as in a state of unpersuasiveness. Earlier in the chapter, Paul spoke of their lack of faith (apistia, Strong's #570). They (Israel) remain in a state of unpersuasiveness and cannot be persuaded unto the truth until God acts upon them through "mercy".

They (Israel) are first to brought out of the state of unpersuasiveness before they can believe what God has said.

And how can that occur? You and I and all members of the body of Christ are called to play a part............"...that through your mercy they may obtain mercy".

It is my belief that we, in the body of Christ, have failed in this area towards each other for far too long. We wrangle about issues of "faith" and then turn away from each other when the other won't see things as we may see them.

But one thing is sure.......we have all received the mercy of God. We were in a state of need when He called us........and.....we were unpersuasible.....until His mercy softened our hardened hearts.

Let us deal likewise with each other.

Israel remains in the state where they cannot be persuaded as to God's calling for them through Christ.......but His mercy endureth for ever.

I wanted for some time to bring out this distinction but waited until now to share this with you. Let us remember that in our dealings with each other....as we struggle to come to the unity of the faith.......we will encounter many who oppose sound doctrine. The truth of the matter is....theiy are actually opposing themselves. They need mercy in order to released from the stubborn state of "apeitheia".

Joel

Amen, brother Joel. Rose, myself, you, Richard are all members of the body of Christ by virtue of His blood, which mercy we have received and do received through our faith and not by our virtue.

And we are taught by the apostle Paul to speak the truth in love:

"And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

But that you, speaking the truth in love, may in all things grow up to Him who is the Head, even Christ;" (Eph 4:11-15).

NOT speaking the truth for fear of offending does not bring the Church of Christ into sound doctrinal unity, neither does speaking the truth without love:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have prophecies, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and do not have charity, I am nothing.

And though I give out all my goods to feed the poor, and though I deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am profited nothing.

Charity has patience, is kind; charity is not envious, is not vain, is not puffed up; does not behave indecently, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil. Charity does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, quietly covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Charity never fails. But if there are prophecies, they will be abolished; if tongues, they shall cease; if knowledge, it will be abolished.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease. When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, I reasoned as an infant. But when I became a man, I did away with the things of an infant. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know even as I also am fully known.

And now faith, hope, charity, these three remain; but the greatest of these is charity." (1Co 13:1-13).

The reason I spoke is because wherever and whenever the doctrinal authority of the apostles of Jesus is brought into question, it needs to be understood that such reasoning is not going to bring anyone to an understanding of the truth.

It's difficult to do that - nobody wants to make others mad at him in a Forum like this, and it would be much easier to say nothing, or even worse - to pretend one agrees - but this is a public Forum visited by people from the four corners of the globe, and so to refrain from challenging such a challenge to the understanding (and therefore the doctrinal authority) of the apostles of Jesus would perhaps be sinful on my part, since it was me who started this thread in the first place.

ESPECIALLY because of the immense amount of anti-semitism and hatred of Israel and its Jewish citizens that is beginning to grow out of control in the world.

God bless,
Andrew.

joel
08-30-2009, 07:57 AM
I encourage you to continue to speak out.......and not to be discouraged so as to depart. Your input is valuable....and is valued.

We are struggling with very important issues, and need the input from as many viewpoints as possible.

Each of us has developed a "mind-set" concerning certain issues. Undoubtedly, all of us are in need of some adjustment.

Paul speaks of this mind-set in Romans 8.........the mind set on the spirit vs. the mind set on the flesh. Phronema is the word he uses.

When he begins to speak of Israel in Romans 9 (previously in the letter he used only the word "Jew", the individual Jewish person).....he is expressing the mind set on the spirit. This demonstration is how the spirit led mind thinks and reasons. He has continual sorrow concerning them. This sorrow is unabated. This must also be the heart of God.

I have been approaching the threads in the forum from the perspective of God's continued purpose for His people, Israel. Recently, your input has been agreeable to much that I have seen concerning that which will unfold in the days yet to come.

Hope has a future perspective. What God is going to do......and the part that we will all play in that plan. I see it as our inheritance.

The reason that I brought up the use of the word "apeitheia" in Romans 11:30, 31 is that Paul is demonstrating that Israel is locked in a state of stubbornness towards God and His Word. It is God's doing. This is all so that we, the Gentiles, may receive mercy.

It sounds like Paul is saying at the end of the chapter that we, the Gentiles, are to show them mercy so that the locked door can be opened. Does this make sense to you?

Joel

CWH
08-30-2009, 08:57 AM
Hi Andrew, :yo:

I wonder how I and Joel and a few others survived through the Bible Wheel forum for so long. Let me give you the Bible Wheel Survivor Kit, you will find it very useful:

1. Have varied topics to discuss so as to make the discussions dynamic.
2. Change to a neutral topic so that there is no way to "counter-attack"
3. Pray for perseverance that you can go through the "onslaught"
4. Insist and standby what you believe, disagree in order to agree.
5. Put on the emergency brake :lol: if the onslaught is too much or the ding-dongs seem never ending and going in circles
6. Take a long break and come back again. Think win-win.
7. Ignore and DNR (Do Not Response)
8. Relax and have a cup of coffee.

We really welcome your fellowship here; it's God-sent.

Many Blessings to you.

Rose
08-30-2009, 09:17 AM
Rose, the reason why I left this thread is because I know that it's pointless debating with you, Rose, when you deny the authority of the apostles of Christ over all matters of doctrine to the church, saying that THEY did not understand correctly, and that's why they said the things they did.

What the apostles said is the Word of God, since they spoke and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To claim that they said things because THEY did not understand correctly, is appoint to yourself an "authority" above that of the apostles of Christ and above that of the Word of God. And so God CANNOT mould your thinking according to His Word, because you will not allow it.

It's for this reason that I cannot and WILL not continue in this thread.

It gives me deja-voux of the days my brother became a Jehovah's Witness, and I had to attempt to debate with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have also appointed authority to themselves above the authority of the Word of God, and who also refuse to allow the Word of God to mould their thinking.

There's really no point in debating with someone who claims or implies that he/she knows better than the apostles of Jesus, for the one who appoints doctrinal authority to himself/herself above the authority of the apostles and what the Word of God plainly says, will see no reason except their own reasoning.

And when their formula is in error, every result (the way they interpret most of the Bible) will be in error also.

I'm NOT saying these things to insult you, Rose, and it is NOT said from a position of pride (I have NOTHING to be proud of - Jesus shed His blood because of that fact).

I'm telling you the truth prayerfully, in the hope that you will change your mind about your doctrinal "authority" over that of the apostles, and humble yourself to let your thinking be moulded by the Word of God spoken by the mouth of, and through the pen of His prophets, apostles and Luke.

They believed what Jesus believed - that's why he gave them full doctrinal authority over His Church/es. And that's why He DID NOT correct them when they asked if He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time.

God bless you Rose,
Andrew.

Hello Andrew,

Your post is very long so first I'm going to address the last part first.

First, don't blame me for the reasons you left this thread, I have conversed with you strictly from the Word of God. If your interpretations are different from mine, great! That gives us more to discuss.

For you to say that I claim authority over what the Apostles understood, and above the Word of God is getting way out of line, and I'm sorry you have decided to take that route.

Obviously, in Acts when the Apostles asked Jesus "when the kingdom would be restored to Israel" they didn't fully understand or they would not have asked the question. And of course they didn't fully understand the manner in which the kingdom would be restored, most of Israel at that time expected their Messiah to be a conquering ruler.

And if the disciples had understood the mission of Jesus so well, why did He have to tell them to lay up treasures in heaven and not on earth, because where their treasure is their hearts would be.
Matt. 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven....19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I have to go now, but I will answer more later.

God Bless

Rose

lekh lekha
08-30-2009, 11:37 AM
I encourage you to continue to speak out.......and not to be discouraged so as to depart. Your input is valuable....and is valued.


Thank you, Joel.




We are struggling with very important issues, and need the input from as many viewpoints as possible.

Each of us has developed a "mind-set" concerning certain issues. Undoubtedly, all of us are in need of some adjustment.

Paul speaks of this mind-set in Romans 8.........the mind set on the spirit vs. the mind set on the flesh. Phronema is the word he uses.

When he begins to speak of Israel in Romans 9 (previously in the letter he used only the word "Jew", the individual Jewish person).....he is expressing the mind set on the spirit. This demonstration is how the spirit led mind thinks and reasons. He has continual sorrow concerning them. This sorrow is unabated. This must also be the heart of God.

I have been approaching the threads in the forum from the perspective of God's continued purpose for His people, Israel. Recently, your input has been agreeable to much that I have seen concerning that which will unfold in the days yet to come.

Hope has a future perspective. What God is going to do......and the part that we will all play in that plan. I see it as our inheritance.

The reason that I brought up the use of the word "apeitheia" in Romans 11:30, 31 is that Paul is demonstrating that Israel is locked in a state of stubbornness towards God and His Word. It is God's doing. This is all so that we, the Gentiles, may receive mercy.

It sounds like Paul is saying at the end of the chapter that we, the Gentiles, are to show them mercy so that the locked door can be opened. Does this make sense to you?

Joel

Thank you, Joel. It makes sense, but I don't agree with the application of "through your mercy" as being "only to the Jews" or the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance" (2Pet.3: 9). Which means that God's mercy is to be shown by us and through us to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and whoever, so that, as you put it, the locked door can be opened to them.

I believe that the verse means that God will show mercy to "the next generation" of ethnic Israel through (because of) the mercy shown the Gentiles through ethnic Israel's unbelief:

The Greek word "humeteros" translated as "your" ("your mercy") is:

G5212
ὑμέτερος
humeteros
hoo-met'-er-os
From G5210; yours, that is, pertaining to you: - your (own).

It's God's mercy pertaining to the Gentiles through ethnic Israel's unbelief that is being spoken of in this verse, I believe:

"Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy (the mercy pertaining to you Gentiles) they also (Greek: "kai" and even they) may obtain mercy." (Rom 11:31).

I believe it means that they also will obtain God's mercy because He had mercy on the Gentiles through their unbelief.

In other words, God is 100% fair and just. If He had mercy on the Gentiles through the unbelief of the ethnic seed even though we are no worse or better than the ethnic seed, He will again have mercy on ethnic Israel who are no worse and no better than the Gentiles.

It's all of God's mercy - I don't think our mercy we show others makes much difference. For all the Gentiles praying for the ethnic seed, they are yet still in unbelief. The prophecy will be fulfilled by God's work in the day He turns ungodliness away from Jacob (verse 26).

Andrew

lekh lekha
08-30-2009, 11:49 AM
Hi Andrew, :yo:

I wonder how I and Joel and a few others survived through the Bible Wheel forum for so long. Let me give you the Bible Wheel Survivor Kit, you will find it very useful:

1. Have varied topics to discuss so as to make the discussions dynamic.
2. Change to a neutral topic so that there is no way to "counter-attack"
3. Pray for perseverance that you can go through the "onslaught"
4. Insist and standby what you believe, disagree in order to agree.
5. Put on the emergency brake :lol: if the onslaught is too much or the ding-dongs seem never ending and going in circles
6. Take a long break and come back again. Think win-win.
7. Ignore and DNR (Do Not Response)
8. Relax and have a cup of coffee.

We really welcome your fellowship here; it's God-sent.

Many Blessings to you.

Thank you, Joel :)

I beg your pardon, Cheow Wee Hock ! (now where are those emoticons when I need them??!)

gregoryfl
08-30-2009, 12:00 PM
I found an article which I think speaks to some of what is being discussed here. It is very long however, so I posted it on its own, so as not to take up the flow of thought here. Please feel free to look through it at your leisure. It is the one on possessing the holy land.

Ron

lekh lekha
08-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Hello Andrew,

Your post is very long so first I'm going to address the last part first.

First, don't blame me for the reasons you left this thread, I have conversed with you strictly from the Word of God. If your interpretations are different from mine, great! That gives us more to discuss.

For you to say that I claim authority over what the Apostles understood, and above the Word of God is getting way out of line, and I'm sorry you have decided to take that route.

Obviously, in Acts when the Apostles asked Jesus "when the kingdom would be restored to Israel" they didn't fully understand or they would not have asked the question. And of course they didn't fully understand the manner in which the kingdom would be restored, most of Israel at that time expected their Messiah to be a conquering ruler.

Hello, beloved of the Lord :)

That's your opinion, Rose. One should really not build a whole doctrine around the false assumption that the apostles didn't understand the manner in which the Kingdom would be restored - especially since in His own reply, Jesus DID NOT tell them that the Kingdom would be restored in the manner in which you say. Jesus basically said, "NOT YET":

"And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority." (Act 1:7).

The Kingdom Jesus and the apostles had in mind is not the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, nor the age during which the gospel is being preached "in all the world as a witness to all nations".

The Kingdom of Christ HAS come in this age also, but it has not yet been manifested in full.

You will see it, beloved of the Lord. And you and I will be in His Kingdom looking back and laughing together about how ridiculously we argued in endless circles about things which lay in the Lord's hands, and in His hands alone (as though what you and I believe can change anything :lol:)

You can claim that's what the Kingdom of Christ refers to, but this only shows either total ignorance of, OR total disregard of 1/3 of Biblical scripture.

Christ's Kingdom will be physically manifested after the end of this age - NOT because I say so, and NOT because you say it won't - but because it depends on God - on His faithfulness to His Word to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets. And the promised land which God promised to Abraham stretches from the coast of the Mediterranean sea in the West to the Euphrates river in the East. The Israelites have NEVER in their entire history received all of it.


And if the disciples had understood the mission of Jesus so well, why did He have to tell them to lay up treasures in heaven and not on earth, because where their treasure is their hearts would be. Matt. 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [I]it is in heaven....19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:[B] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

What's THE CONTEXT of the passage you quoted above, beloved pf the Lord? Is it prophecy? Does the context have anything at all to do with Christ coming in His Kingdom?

Enjoy yourself beloved of the Lord - neither you nor I can get the Word of God to say what it doesn't say just because we want it to say it :p

Bring your points, beloved of the Lord - I'll debate them with you for as long as I haven't yet completely tired of going round in circles with you (which is going to happen, since we don't even agree on the basics!!:lol:)

God bless you with a wonderful Sunday (what's left of it).

PS I may only be back on Tuesday.

Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 01:53 PM
Hello All,
I have just finished reading this thread from beginning to end and must say it has been good to have so many points to ponder brought up. I have an unusual three days off from work so I can stay up a little later. I hope you don't mind if I post a few observations.

First - Richard, early on in the thread you mentioned the fact that God never considered unbelieving Israel "His people".

<<<I don't see "ethnic Israel" playing any role in the points you made because being a member of "ethnic Israel" never meant that a person would be considered part of "My People". As far as I can tell there was one condition - you had to be in Covenant relationship with God. It did not matter if you were Jew or Gentile under either the Old or the New Covenant.>>>

What do we do with Isaiah 1:3 - "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider." God is addressing people who do not even know that He is their owner as "My people". How could these people be seen as being in any kind of faith-based covenant with God? In verse 2, who were those who had been nourished and brought up by the Lord and then rebelled if not "ethnic Israel"? They are the same ones who are addressed in verse 3 as "My people". The "daughter of Zion" and "the remnant" in v. 8&9 are in the midst of these rebels whom the Lord addresses as "His people".

Hey there silence,

Excellent point! Thank you for pointing out my error. :thumb:

The problem is a lack of precision in the definition of "My People." It is used in more than one sense in the Bible. On the one hand, it is defined solely in terms of covenant. If a person is not in a covenant relationship with God, then that individual is not one of "God's People." God gave many commands that define when a person would be "cut off from his people":
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Many of the commands are given in Leviticus. For example:
Leviticus 20:2-3 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
If a person want's to argue that "cut off from his people" does not mean "cut off from God's people" we have this example from Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 14:7-8 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: 8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of [B]my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
So the big question is: What is the status of people "cut off" from God's People? Does He still refer to them as "My People"? I think the answer is "no."

How then do we understand God's reference to the rebellious members of "His People" as in the examples you cited? I think the answer is pretty clear. God calls the whole body of people He selected to fulfill His Purposes "His People" regardless of how many are or are not individually His People. He usually did not divide between "the wheat and the tares." He was simply referring to the whole group that He is using to fulfill His Purpose to bring forth the Christ as "My People". But there was always a remnant of faithful believers in covenant with God in the Old Testament. This was the "true Israel" that God kept for Himself:
Romans 11:4-5 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
In my response to Andrew, I was using the term "My People" in this sense, speaking of an individual's status as a member of "God's People."

Thanks again for your correction. Anyone who tries to use the term "My People" as a proof of a future for ethnic Israel would have to start by answering these questions. That was not done in the discussion that Andrew began. He simply assumed his own preferred meaning for "My People" without discussing anything about what determined if an individual was or was not a member of that group.

Richard

Rose
08-30-2009, 02:10 PM
Hello, beloved of the Lord :)

That's your opinion, Rose. One should really not build a whole doctrine around the false assumption that the apostles didn't understand the manner in which the Kingdom would be restored - especially since in His own reply, Jesus DID NOT tell them that the Kingdom would be restored in the manner in which you say. Jesus basically said, "NOT YET":

"And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority." (Act 1:7).

The Kingdom Jesus and the apostles had in mind is not the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, nor the age during which the gospel is being preached "in all the world as a witness to all nations".

The Kingdom of Christ HAS come in this age also, but it has not yet been manifested in full.

You will see it, beloved of the Lord. And you and I will be in His Kingdom looking back and laughing together about how ridiculously we argued in endless circles about things which lay in the Lord's hands, and in His hands alone (as though what you and I believe can change anything :lol:)

You can claim that's what the Kingdom of Christ refers to, but this only shows either total ignorance of, OR total disregard of 1/3 of Biblical scripture.

Christ's Kingdom will be physically manifested after the end of this age - NOT because I say so, and NOT because you say it won't - but because it depends on God - on His faithfulness to His Word to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets. And the promised land which God promised to Abraham stretches from the coast of the Mediterranean sea in the West to the Euphrates river in the East. The Israelites have NEVER in their entire history received all of it.

Hello back, my fellow beloved of the Lord. :yo:

Yes, of course it's my opinion, and excuse me :(.... but I didn't build an entire doctrine on a false assumption that the Apostles misunderstood the manner in which Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel. That what you said! As far as what they really believed a restored kingdom of Israel would be like...of course I don't know for sure, but I do know that they asked a question about the time of its restoration, which tells us nothing about the way it was to be restored.

I know my fellow beloved of the Lord, that many people believe that Jesus will literally restore the physical kingdom of Israel, and Jesus Himself will physically sit on the literal throne of David as king of all the earth. I don't believe that because nowhere in the Bible does it say that. One day we will all know the truth.

You also said that the Israelite's never received all of Gods promises to them. If that is the case then why does the Bible say they did? Are you doing what you accused me of doing? That is disregarding Scripture. The verses below in Joshua clearly say that God gave Israel ALL the land that He promised them, no matter if you think it was all or not, God said it was.
Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it....
And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. 45) Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

What's THE CONTEXT of the passage you quoted above, beloved pf the Lord? Is it prophecy? Does the context have anything at all to do with Christ coming in His Kingdom?

Enjoy yourself beloved of the Lord - neither you nor I can get the Word of God to say what it doesn't say just because we want it to say it :p

Bring your points, beloved of the Lord - I'll debate them with you for as long as I haven't yet completely tired of going round in circles with you (which is going to happen, since we don't even agree on the basics!!:lol:)

God bless you with a wonderful Sunday (what's left of it).

PS I may only be back on Tuesday.

Andrew

The passage I quoted from Matthew as you well know is from the Lord's prayer. These are things that Jesus instructed His disciples to pray for. Jesus told them to pray for God's kingdom to come, and for His will to be finished here on earth in the same manner as it is in heaven. Jesus told them not to lay up treasures here on earth where there is corruption, but rather focus on their heavenly treasures because wherever your treasures lie, that's where your heart will be.

So, in closing my fellow beloved of the Lord, you are absolutely correct in saying that just because we want the Word of God to say a particular thing does not make it so. I have come to my Preterist point of view not because I wanted to see things that way, but from an open mind with a desire to seek the truth. When I started reading the book of Revelation with an open mind willing to let God speak to me through His Word, I came to the understand I have....only because that is what the Bible says. Everything I say is founded and backed up by the Bible, not my own ideas. There are times when the Bible is ambiguous and unclear on certain things, and that is when I give my own opinion of its interpretation by using other witness verses in the Bible.

Far from going around in circles I think we have covered a lot of very good, different ground. If I see where I have misinterpreted Scripture I am more than willing to change my viewpoint. I have no personal "pet" ideas that I am not willing to look at and change if proven to be incorrect.

I have no clue of why you say we don't even agree on the basics....:confused: :confused2:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to save the world, and give us eternal life. :pray:

God bless you my fellow brother in the Lord.

Rose

Rose
08-30-2009, 02:31 PM
Hi Andrew, :yo:

I wonder how I and Joel and a few others survived through the Bible Wheel forum for so long. Let me give you the Bible Wheel Survivor Kit, you will find it very useful:

1. Have varied topics to discuss so as to make the discussions dynamic.
2. Change to a neutral topic so that there is no way to "counter-attack"
3. Pray for perseverance that you can go through the "onslaught"
4. Insist and standby what you believe, disagree in order to agree.
5. Put on the emergency brake :lol: if the onslaught is too much or the ding-dongs seem never ending and going in circles
6. Take a long break and come back again. Think win-win.
7. Ignore and DNR (Do Not Response)
8. Relax and have a cup of coffee.

We really welcome your fellowship here; it's God-sent.

Many Blessings to you.

Come on Cheow.....I know your post was done in jest, but it seems pretty shallow to me. Do you have such a low opinion of us "Preterists" here on the Forum that you think of us as a bunch of "Ding Dongs" who try to "counter attack" anyone who disagrees with us. :eek: And that we continually go in circles so we should be ignored, come on Cheow....that was a low blow! :nono:

I think you need to follow you own advise #8. Relax and have a cup of coffee. :tea:

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Hi again, Richard. Thanks for your replies :)


It is my opinion that the disciples' question was asked in complete ignorance of God's true plan. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests God ever planned to "restore the kingdom again" to ethnic Israel. At the time they asked the question, the disciples were totally and absolutely ignorant of God's true plan to evangelize the world by bringing in the Gentiles. I do not think we can build any argument from an ignorant question.

You see, here's the BIG problem I have with your statement above:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God - the record of God's Revelation to man.
2. The Bible was penned by Moses, the prophets of Israel, the apostles of Jesus + Luke.
3. The Bible was penned by its authors, but inspired by God.
4. We must allow the Bible (the Word of God) to mould our thinking, and not attempt to let our thinking mould the Word of God.

Andrew,

Your attitude is entirely wrong. You can not prove that your personal interpretation is correct by asserting that anyone who disagrees is really disagreeing with the Bible and God! You are writing as if you believe that your own interpretation is infallible. That is a serious error in and of itself. We all are fallible. We all make errors. I have no trouble admitting that. I was just corrected in a recent post by silence.



The answer that I get to this question is,

"They (the authors of the Bible who penned the Bible at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and who spoke, as Peter did above, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)... did not understand the Abrahamic Covenant or the prophecies of the Bible correctly, and so they said the things they did.

That is an absolutely false understanding of my answer, based on an absolutely false understanding of the Holy Bible. When the apostles taught, their words were inspired. But that certainly does not mean that every word they spoke was inspired and infallible!

The Bible records the words and actions of many people. Some were apostles, some were liars, some were thieves, and some were all three (Judas). I have no idea why you would think that every word spoken by an apostle and recorded in the Bible was "under inspiration." The Bible clearly contradicts that idea. For example, did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to rebuke Christ for speaking of his coming death?

Matthew 16:21-23 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
I could give many more examples, but there is no need to belabor this point since this is common knowledge amongst all serious students of the Bible.

Now the fundamental question is this: What does the apostles' question about the "restoration of Israel" imply? You say that they had prophetic knowledge of God's Plan to restore a literal physical kingdom of Israel like unto the reign of David. Let's assume you are correct. We know that the apostles had prophetic knowledge about the soon coming DIVINE JUDGMENT upon Jerusalem because Christ told them very explicitly about it in the Olivet Discourse. So now you are telling me that the apostles asked if Christ was going to "restore the kingdom to Israel" when in fact they knew that He already told them it was going to be destroyed in their generation.

Think about it - does it make any sense for them to ask "Are you going to restore the kingdom of Israel now?" if they knew that God was going to destroy it just a few short years later?

Given that the apostles were already told by Christ about the soon coming destruction of Israel, I am surprised He did not rebuke them yet again for having no understanding of the things He had taught them.

Richard

Rose
08-30-2009, 03:13 PM
Thank you, Joel.



Thank you, Joel. It makes sense, but I don't agree with the application of "through your mercy" as being "only to the Jews" or the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance" (2Pet.3: 9). Which means that God's mercy is to be shown by us and through us to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and whoever, so that, as you put it, the locked door can be opened to them.

I believe that the verse means that God will show mercy to "the next generation" of ethnic Israel through (because of) the mercy shown the Gentiles through ethnic Israel's unbelief:

The Greek word "humeteros" translated as "your" ("your mercy") is:

G5212
ὑμέτερος
humeteros
hoo-met'-er-os
From G5210; yours, that is, pertaining to you: - your (own).

It's God's mercy pertaining to the Gentiles through ethnic Israel's unbelief that is being spoken of in this verse, I believe:

"Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy (the mercy pertaining to you Gentiles) they also (Greek: "kai" and even they) may obtain mercy." (Rom 11:31).

I believe it means that they also will obtain God's mercy because He had mercy on the Gentiles through their unbelief.

In other words, God is 100% fair and just. If He had mercy on the Gentiles through the unbelief of the ethnic seed even though we are no worse or better than the ethnic seed, He will again have mercy on ethnic Israel who are no worse and no better than the Gentiles.

It's all of God's mercy - I don't think our mercy we show others makes much difference. For all the Gentiles praying for the ethnic seed, they are yet still in unbelief. The prophecy will be fulfilled by God's work in the day He turns ungodliness away from Jacob (verse 26).

Andrew

Hello again Andrew,

I absolutely think we owe a debt of gratitude to the founding fathers of our faith, the remnant of ethnic Israel who believed, the foundation upon whom the church was built. God is 100% fair and just, and the mercy He has shown to the Gentiles when the Gospel was given to them, has come back upon ALL now.

The unbelieving ethnic Jewish branches of the Olive tree that were cut off because of unbelief, God says are able to be grafted back on again, and that is like life from the dead....Hallelujah!

Great is God's mercy upon ALL, Jew and Gentile alike.:pray:

Many blessings to all,

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 03:30 PM
Second, in regard to the disciple's question in Acts 1 about the kingdom -

Acts 1:6 -When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 - And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

It seems that if the Lord intended to reprove their understanding of prophecy He would not have started by saying that it was not given to them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power. This is an implicit acknowledgment that Jesus was not questioning their expectation, He was just telling them that they were not to know the time or the season that it would take place.

We have to remember that Christ had already told them that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and desolated within their own lifetimes. Their question reveals that they did not understand a word of what He had already told them concerning God's Plan with regards to Israel.

If Christ was going to correct them, He would have had to explain that the Gentiles were going to be included and the the Kingdom of God was going to cover the whole world, not just Jerusalem. But He did not give that revelation until Acts 10 when Peter had his vision of the sheet.

Bottom line - there is no way we can start reading things about a literal physical restoration of Israel into Christ's answer. Just look at how ignorant most students of the Bible are on this point! I have never heard of anyone who even noticed the incongruity between the prophesied destruction of the Jerusalem and the "restoration of the kingdom." Yet this is the most obvious thing! The reason students don't notice it is because they are ignorant of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and they are ignorant of that because they have been taught a false futurist eschatology.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 04:07 PM
Christ's Kingdom will be physically manifested after the end of this age - NOT because I say so, and NOT because you say it won't - but because it depends on God - on His faithfulness to His Word to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets. And the promised land which God promised to Abraham stretches from the coast of the Mediterranean sea in the West to the Euphrates river in the East. The Israelites have NEVER in their entire history received all of it.

ANDREW SAYS: All the land promises were NOT fulfilled.

THE BIBLE SAYS: All the land promises were fulfilled.

Who ya gonna believe? Andrew or the Lord God Almighty?

It is particularly ironic that Andrew's post included this choice little "admonition" to Rose - "neither you nor I can get the Word of God to say what it doesn't say just because we want it to say it :p" Yeah, right on Andrew. Preach it brother! Maybe "ALL CAPS" will help everyone see how sincere you are about your fundamental admonition:

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

I think it might be time for Andrew to begin following his own advice.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 04:31 PM
Bring your points, beloved of the Lord - I'll debate them with you for as long as I haven't yet completely tired of going round in circles with you (which is going to happen, since we don't even agree on the basics!!:lol:)

God bless you with a wonderful Sunday (what's left of it).

PS I may only be back on Tuesday.

Andrew
The primary reason we "go in circles" is because people do not want to admit what the Bible actually teaches. Case in point, the Bible says that all the land promises were fulfilled. You deny what the Bible states. Likewise, anybody who knows anything about the teachings of Christ knows that He predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the first century. This means that the disciples' question "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" was based on an absolute failure to understand what Christ had already taught them. It was absurd for them to ask if Christ was going to restore the kingdom at that time when He had already given them a prophetic revelation that Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed.

It truly amazes me that others have not written about the incongruity of that question. The only reason I can think of is because the vast majority of modern students have received the false futurist teachings which completely obliterate the greatest testimony of Biblical Prophecy - the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse - because it does not say what they want it to say. They try to force it into the distant future, and thus destroy the testimony of God's Word.

Richard

CWH
08-30-2009, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock
Hi Andrew,

I wonder how I and Joel and a few others survived through the Bible Wheel forum for so long. Let me give you the Bible Wheel Survivor Kit, you will find it very useful:

1. Have varied topics to discuss so as to make the discussions dynamic.
2. Change to a neutral topic so that there is no way to "counter-attack"
3. Pray for perseverance that you can go through the "onslaught"
4. Insist and standby what you believe, disagree in order to agree.
5. Put on the emergency brake if the onslaught is too much or the ding-dongs seem never ending and going in circles
6. Take a long break and come back again. Think win-win.
7. Ignore and DNR (Do Not Response)
8. Relax and have a cup of coffee.

We really welcome your fellowship here; it's God-sent.

Many Blessings to you.


Come on Cheow.....I know your post was done in jest, but it seems pretty shallow to me. Do you have such a low opinion of us "Preterists" here on the Forum that you think of us as a bunch of "Ding Dongs" who try to "counter attack" anyone who disagrees with us. :eek: And that we continually go in circles so we should be ignored, come on Cheow....that was a low blow! :nono:

I think you need to follow you own advise #8. Relax and have a cup of coffee. :tea:

God Bless

Rose

Hi Rose, :yo:

There is not a single word of "preterist" in my post. I am referring to anyone regardless of their eschatological position. "Ding-dongs" means "to and fro" like you shake a bell in my part of the world. I am from the other side....(sounds spooky) :eek:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is meant as an encouragement for Andrew to feel at ease in times of disagreements in this forum. Some of these tactics are what I used in this forum to relax in times of disagreements and I believe are also used by some people in this forum as well.

Relax and have a cup of coffee.

Many Blessings to you :)

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2009, 08:52 PM
Hi Rose, :yo:

Relax and have a cup of coffee.

Many Blessings to you :)
Hey Cheow,

I'd love to have a cup of coffee with you too. But maybe we should have decaf - too much caffeine makes people uptight. :p

Richard

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 03:15 AM
We have to remember that Christ had already told them that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and desolated within their own lifetimes. Their question reveals that they did not understand a word of what He had already told them concerning God's Plan with regards to Israel.

If Christ was going to correct them, He would have had to explain that the Gentiles were going to be included and the the Kingdom of God was going to cover the whole world, not just Jerusalem. But He did not give that revelation until Acts 10 when Peter had his vision of the sheet.

No. If Christ was going to correct them concerning the timing of the Kingdom being restored to Israel (which was their question), He would have had to remind them that the gospel would first be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, before the Kingdom would be restored to Israel.

We could interpret this from Preterist point of view, of course, but I don't believe that wouldn't be a true reflection of what Jesus meant by his answer.



Bottom line - there is no way we can start reading things about a literal physical restoration of Israel into Christ's answer. Just look at how ignorant most students of the Bible are on this point! I have never heard of anyone who even noticed the incongruity between the prophesied destruction of the Jerusalem and the "restoration of the kingdom." Yet this is the most obvious thing! The reason students don't notice it is because they are ignorant of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and they are ignorant of that because they have been taught a false futurist eschatology. Richard

Bottom Line - there is no way we can start reading things about a "spiritual" Kingdom of Christ into Christ's answer. I have never heard of any preterist who even noticed the incongruity between the preterist view and Jesus' words "And this gospel of the Kingdom must first be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come" (Mat.24: 14). The reason Preterists have to explain it away is because they have been taught a false preterist eschatology.

There is not one period in the history of Israel during which they had gained possession of all the land God promised Abraham:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Gen 15:18)

We cannot isolate one passage of scripture and interpret it by itself - we have to interpret every passage of scripture in the light of ALL other passages which relate to it. Just before he died, Joshua said to the Israelites:

"And it came to pass a long time after that the LORD had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age. And Joshua called for all Israel, and for their elders, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and said unto them,

I am old and stricken in age: And ye have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto all these nations because of you; for the LORD your God is he that hath fought for you.

Behold, I have divided unto you by lot these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, even unto the great sea westward.

And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you.

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them:

But cleave unto the LORD your God, as ye have done unto this day.

For the LORD hath driven out from before you great nations and strong: but as for you, no man hath been able to stand before you unto this day. One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.

Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God...

Read very carefully what Joshua says now:

"... Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you." (Jos 23:11-16)

They HAD NOT received ALL the land, as the passage above clearly shows. In fact they never did receive all the land:

"Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

You choose to believe and quote only one small portion of the above verses, while flatly ignoring the rest of what Joshua said to Israel that day. I was going to point this out long ago in this thread, but decided to be polite and not point out that your statement is false and your interpretation of Joshua's words a misinterpretation.

But the Kingdom was later promised by God again as the eternal Kingdom of David's seed, and the promises of the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant were all based upon God's promise to Abraham, which Abraham believed.

Your assertion that the Israelites received ALL that God had promised them is entirely false, as the Word of God shows above - unless you ignore the Word of God which shows that they did not.

Roses' assertion that Israel is a "type" of the Church (which is the New Testament Temple, made up of the ethnic remnant + the believing Gentiles) is also false. The Bible does not teach it.

Andrew.

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 03:38 AM
The primary reason we "go in circles" is because people do not want to admit what the Bible actually teaches. Case in point, the Bible says that all the land promises were fulfilled. You deny what the Bible states.

Richard

True: The primary reason we "go in circles" is because people do not want to admit what the Bible actually teaches.

False: The Bible says that all the land promises were fulfilled.

(See my previous post). It's your misinterpretation of Joshua's words, which is based on the fact that you ignore ALL Joshua's words in that same passage, which in turn is based upon your pre-disposition to misinterpret the scriptures, which in turn is based upon your belief in a false preterist theology and eschatology, which causes you to misinterpret so much of scripture.




Case in point, the Bible says that all the land promises were fulfilled. You deny what the Bible states.

Case in point, I certainly do not deny what the Bible states, and neither would I accuse you of denying what the Bible states,because I understand that there is a difference between denying what the Bible states and misinterpreting what the Bible states due to a theological formula which is in error (preterism). But I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone who believes in Jesus is "ignorant" - certainly not the apostles.

Andrew

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 03:58 AM
We have to remember that Christ had already told them that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and desolated within their own lifetimes. Their question reveals that they did not understand a word of what He had already told them concerning God's Plan with regards to Israel.

Richard

Christ told them that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and desolated within their own lifetimes, and because they knew the prophecies concerning the Messiah fighting against those nations which would attack Jerusalem, they asked Him if He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished;

and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east,

and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah:

and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour. And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts." (Zec 14:1-21)

Mmmm.... I wonder what prophecies the apostles had in mind when Jesus told them that Jerusalem was going to be attacked by the armies of the nations?

Mmmm... I wonder why the apostles asked Jesus if He (the LORD) was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time (as the prophets had foretold)?

Mmm... I wonder what Jesus meant when He basically said, "NOT YET":

"... When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9).

Silence's answer to this was correct.

It is quite clear that Jesus had in mind the fact that the gospel would first be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and THEN the end ("the Day of the LORD" mentioned by Zechariah and so many other prophets) would come.

Are we going to choose to flatly ignore the fact that when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, the LORD DID NOT set His feet upon the Mount of Olives and go out and fight against those nations, as God promised through the prophet Zechariah He would?

Of course we will choose to ignore it - if it goes against our preterist interpretation of scripture, we MUST ignore these inconsistencies.

Andrew

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 05:26 AM
Hello beloved of the Lord


Hello back, my fellow beloved of the Lord. :yo:

I have no clue of why you say we don't even agree on the basics....:confused: :confused2:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to save the world, and give us eternal life. :pray:

God bless you my fellow brother in the Lord.



:thumb:

And this is part of the basics:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23).

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (Joh 13:34)




Yes, of course it's my opinion, and excuse me :(.... but I didn't build an entire doctrine on a false assumption that the Apostles misunderstood the manner in which Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel. That what you said!

You have stated that the apostles did not understand the manner in which the Kingdom would be restored. It is from this position that you interpret many, many other passages of scripture (such as the Olivet Discourse). This particular interpretation which you adhere to is known as Preterism - a doctrine built on the belief that Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom only.

This is why I say that one cannot (or should I say should not) build an entire doctrine upon an assumption. You know by now that I believe that the assumption is a false assumption.




I know my fellow beloved of the Lord, that many people believe that Jesus will literally restore the physical kingdom of Israel, and Jesus Himself will physically sit on the literal throne of David as king of all the earth. I don't believe that because nowhere in the Bible does it say that. One day we will all know the truth.

Amen, sister. Not that we don't already know the truth, the One who sets us free, but I know what you mean, and I agree :yo:




You also said that the Israelite's never received all of Gods promises to them. If that is the case then why does the Bible say they did? Are you doing what you accused me of doing? That is disregarding Scripture. The verses below in Joshua clearly say that God gave Israel ALL the land that He promised them, no matter if you think it was all or not, God said it was.
Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it....
And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. 45) Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.


No. You're reading only one part of what Joshua said that day and ignoring the rest of what he said:

"And it came to pass a long time after that the LORD had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age. And Joshua called for all Israel, and for their elders, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and said unto them,

I am old and stricken in age: And ye have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto all these nations because of you; for the LORD your God is he that hath fought for you.

Behold, I have divided unto you by lot these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, even unto the great sea westward.

And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you.

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them:

But cleave unto the LORD your God, as ye have done unto this day.

For the LORD hath driven out from before you great nations and strong: but as for you, no man hath been able to stand before you unto this day. One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.

Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God...

Read very carefully what Joshua says now:

"... Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you." (Jos 23:11-16)

They HAD NOT received ALL the land, as the passage above clearly shows. In fact they never did receive all the land:

"Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."




The passage I quoted from Matthew as you well know is from the Lord's prayer. These are things that Jesus instructed His disciples to pray for. Jesus told them to pray for God's kingdom to come, and for His will to be finished here on earth in the same manner as it is in heaven.

"Your kingdom come, Your will be done (Greek: ginomai), on earth as it is in Heaven." (Mat 6:10)

G1096
γίνομαι
ginomai
ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought."

It is so, so clear from the context that Jesus is instructing all His disciples (including us) to pray for His Kingdom to come.

If you're going to attempt to use this verse to assert that His Kingdom has already come, please don't. The context proves otherwise.


Jesus told them not to lay up treasures here on earth where there is corruption, but rather focus on their heavenly treasures because wherever your treasures lie, that's where your heart will be.

I'm assuming that the reason you quoted this verse is because you want to attempt to use this verse to prove a preterist viewpoint? Well it doesn't - not by a long shot:

"For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope; for what anyone sees, why does he also hope for it? But if we hope for that which we do not see, then we wait for it with patience." (Rom 8:24-25).

What are we hoping for?

We're hoping for the Kingdom of God to come:

"But now (Greek: nuni: "at present time") they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:16)

As Paul also said,

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made to our fathers by God, to which promise our twelve tribes hope to attain, serving God fervently night and day. For the sake of this hope, king Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews." (Act 26:6-7)

We're definitely going to be going round in circles, as you can see! :lol:




So, in closing my fellow beloved of the Lord, you are absolutely correct in saying that just because we want the Word of God to say a particular thing does not make it so.

I have come to my Preterist point of view not because I wanted to see things that way, but from an open mind with a desire to seek the truth.

I don't doubt that, beloved of the Lord. Same here. I think it's the same for all of us who even start getting into debates like this. And yet, we seem to have come to different "truths" regarding the correct interpretation of the Word. And we can't all be correct, and not one of us can be correct in everything we believe, since we are all fallible.

So therefore, we attempt to ascertain who is misinterpreting the Word of God in certain respects, and who isn't. But we fail, because we are ALL fallible, and none of us knows as much as we think we know, and what we think we understand, we might be misunderstanding.

But God knows. Jesus knows. Praise the name of the LORD!


When I started reading the book of Revelation with an open mind willing to let God speak to me through His Word, I came to the understand I have....only because that is what the Bible says. Everything I say is founded and backed up by the Bible, not my own ideas.

I don't doubt that you have diligently made an effort to keep your own ideas from interfering with a true and correct interpretation of scripture. And I don't doubt that your studies have been diligent.

But so have mine and many hundreds of thousands of others, and so have we been diligent not to let our own ideas interfere with our interpretations of the scriptures - and yet we still disagree with you and all those who interpret the scriptures the way you do, and we do not believe that you understand what you do (in respect of certain things) "because that is what the Bible says".

Understand that you're not the only one who has been as diligent as you describe above - therefore neither you, me or anyone else understands all things correctly just because we believe we do. Is this not true?

God bless, sis.

Andrew

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 08:49 AM
We should never isolate one verse or passage of scripture and interpret it on its own.

We should always interpret any verse or passage in the light of all the other verses and passages which speak about the same thing, as well as in the light of the rest of the Bible.

That's the first principle for sound hermeneutics.

To the Jews Paul said,

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the circumcision) were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. (Rom 3:1-4)

But to the Gentiles, Paul said,

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4)

What else did Paul say about circumcision?

"Cometh this blessedness (of salvation through faith in Christ) then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision...

... And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:..

... AND the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 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. (Rom 4:9-13)

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith. (Rom 3:30)

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1Co 7:18-20).

How can any man "called being circumcised" become uncircumcised?

Paul was talking about a Jew who is called to salvation, saying that he is to to remain a Jew and not try to become as a Gentile, and that the Gentiles should not try to become as a Jew.

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." (Gal 6:15-17)

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith. (Rom 3:30)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom 2:28-29)

"For we (the believing remnant of the circumcision + the believing Gentiles) are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (Php 3:3)

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:" (Col 2:9-11)

"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Col 3:11)

"Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me." (Col 4:10-11)

CAME THE TROUBLE:

"... And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Act 15:1-2)

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4)

"... And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Act 15:23-24)

To the Jews Paul said,

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the circumcision) were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. (Rom 3:1-4)

But to the Gentiles, Paul said,

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4)

We should never isolate one verse or passage of scripture and interpret it on its own.

We should always interpret any verse or passage in the light of all the other verses and passages which speak about the same thing, as well as in the light of the rest of the Bible.

That's the first principle for sound hermeneutics.

Rose
08-31-2009, 09:20 AM
No. You're reading only one part of what Joshua said that day and ignoring the rest of what he said:

"And it came to pass a long time after that the LORD had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age. And Joshua called for all Israel, and for their elders, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and said unto them,

I am old and stricken in age: And ye have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto all these nations because of you; for the LORD your God is he that hath fought for you.

Behold, I have divided unto you by lot these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, even unto the great sea westward.

And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you.

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them:

But cleave unto the LORD your God, as ye have done unto this day.

For the LORD hath driven out from before you great nations and strong: but as for you, no man hath been able to stand before you unto this day. One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.

Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God...

Read very carefully what Joshua says now:

"... Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you." (Jos 23:11-16)

They HAD NOT received ALL the land, as the passage above clearly shows. In fact they never did receive all the land:

"Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

Hello brother Andrew,

I have highlighted in blue the passages I am speaking of to help give clarity to my interpretation. :D

To my understanding those verses in Joshua are saying: when Joshua was quite old, and many years after the tribes of Israel had peace with their enemies, Joshua called together all of Israel to remind them of all that God had done for them. He reminded them of how God had driven out their enemies from before them, and how the land of the nations that God had given them was divided by lot and given to the tribes for an inheritance. Joshua tells them that they will posses all the land that God has given them, but....they must keep all the commandments of Moses, and not intermingle, or cleave unto the gentile people "nations" who are among them. God says if they do cleave unto the gentile people "nations" that are among them, God will cause them to perish from off the land that He has given them.

As can be seen by the highlighted verses, Joshua had already divided the land by lots and given it to the tribes of Israel. Joshua told them that God would expel all their enemies from before them and they would posses all the land God had given them IF they kept ALL that was written in the law of Moses, and did not mingle with the gentile people, otherwise God would cause them to perish from off the land that He had given them. Then Joshua goes on to say that "NOT ONE GOOD THING OF ALL THE THINGS THAT GOD HAS PROMISE HAS FAILED TO COME TO PASS".

Those words are the Words of God, recorded in the Bible. The book of Nehemiah chapter 9 gives us another witness confirming the words of Joshua.

Far from going in circles, I feel I am gaining a good understanding of Gods' promises.

God Bless

Rose
I

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 09:37 AM
Hello brother Andrew,

I have highlighted in blue the passages I am speaking of to help give clarity to my interpretation. :D

To my understanding those verses in Joshua are saying: when Joshua was quite old, and many years after the tribes of Israel had peace with their enemies, Joshua called together all of Israel to remind them of all that God had done for them.

He reminded them of how God had driven out their enemies from before them, and how the land of the nations that God had given them was divided by lot and given to the tribes for an inheritance. Joshua tells them that they will posses all the land that God has given them, but
God Bless

Rose
I

O.k. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that when Joshua said that they will possess ALL the land, that means they had ALREADY possessed it?

And if I understand your position on the Kingdom of Christ being a "spiritual" Kingdom which shall never be manifested physically, then you understand God's later promise to king David regarding the everlasting nature of his kingdom, throne and royal family line as referring to a "spiritual" Kingdom, heavenly throne only, and the Lord Jesus Christ who is the eternal King?

"... And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." (2Sa 7:16)

I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness that I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and like a faithful witness in the heavens. Selah." (Psalm 89:34-38)

Blessings,
Andrew.

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 09:48 AM
ANDREW SAYS: All the land promises were NOT fulfilled.

THE BIBLE SAYS: All the land promises were fulfilled.

Who ya gonna believe? Andrew or the Lord God Almighty?

Don't be childish, Richard. This can just as well be turned around to say, "Richard believes...., but the Bible says... Who you gonna believe...?" but I'm not going to do that. It's childish.


It is particularly ironic that Andrew's post included this choice little "admonition" to Rose - "neither you nor I can get the Word of God to say what it doesn't say just because we want it to say it :p" Yeah, right on Andrew. Preach it brother! Maybe "ALL CAPS" will help everyone see how sincere you are about your fundamental admonition:

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

I think it might be time for Andrew to begin following his own advice.

Richard

Richard, when someone disagrees with you and you can't bully him into agreeing with you, accept it. Why are you throwing your toys out of the cot?

I'll say again,

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

I won't comment further on your remarks in this post of yours. I'm confident that the Lord Jesus will renew the fruit of the Spirit in you, as you have often displayed before now:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23)

Blessings to you beloved of the Lord,

Andrew

Rose
08-31-2009, 11:02 AM
O.k. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that when Joshua said that they will possess ALL the land, that means they had ALREADY possessed it?

No, what I meant was that God gave them all the land that He promised them (because that's what it says), but their actual possession of the land was contingent on:

1) Keeping all the laws of Moses.
2) Not mingling with the Gentile people of the land that God gave them.

And as we know from what Joshua tells us, they did neither.....so the land that God had given to them as a possession they were either kicked off of, or never got to inhabit it. But, it was still given to them as God had promised, even though through disobedience they were either kick off or never lived on it.

A good example would be: My parents giving me a parcel of land as my inheritance, but in order to live on the land I have to honor their rules. Now if I brake their rules they can either kick me off the land or never let me live on it to begin with. I could never say that my parents didn't give me the land, because they did. I was the one who broke their stipulations for living on the land.


And if I understand your position on the Kingdom of Christ being a "spiritual" Kingdom which shall never be manifested physically, then you understand God's later promise to king David regarding the everlasting nature of his kingdom, throne and royal family line as referring to a "spiritual" Kingdom, heavenly throne only, and the Lord Jesus Christ who is the eternal King?

"... And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." (2Sa 7:16)

I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness that I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and like a faithful witness in the heavens. Selah." (Psalm 89:34-38)

Blessings,
Andrew.

The only house, kingdom, or throne that can last forever is the eternal kingdom of God. The earthly kingdoms of Israel that were manifest physically have been for types; no earthy kingdom made of stone can last forever, as we have well seen from their destruction's throughout history.

God absolutely has not broken His Covenant. When the Old was vanished away, a New and better Covenant was fully ushered in by the eternal King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ our Lord. All that was promised in the Old Covenant as a type, has been made eternal through the Lord Jesus Christ, Him being the testator of the eternal New Covenant.

Many blessings to you, Andrew.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 11:36 AM
ANDREW SAYS: All the land promises were NOT fulfilled.

THE BIBLE SAYS: All the land promises were fulfilled.

Who ya gonna believe? Andrew or the Lord God Almighty?

Don't be childish, Richard. This can just as well be turned around to say, "Richard believes...., but the Bible says... Who you gonna believe...?" but I'm not going to do that. It's childish.



It is particularly ironic that Andrew's post included this choice little "admonition" to Rose - "neither you nor I can get the Word of God to say what it doesn't say just because we want it to say it :p" Yeah, right on Andrew. Preach it brother! Maybe "ALL CAPS" will help everyone see how sincere you are about your fundamental admonition:

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

I think it might be time for Andrew to begin following his own advice.

Richard


Richard, when someone disagrees with you and you can't bully him into agreeing with you, accept it. Why are you throwing your toys out of the cot?

I'll say again,

WE MUST ALLOW THE WORD OF GOD TO MOULD OUR THINKING AND NOT ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO OUR THINKING.

I won't comment further on your remarks in this post of yours. I'm confident that the Lord Jesus will renew the fruit of the Spirit in you, as you have often displayed before now:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23)

Blessings to you beloved of the Lord,

Andrew
HA! You GOT IT!
Well done Andrew! :congrats:

I was deliberately mimicking your behavior in this forum. I would never habitually treat people the way you do! You have repeatedly written as if your opinion was God's opinion and you have consistently implied that anyone who disagrees with your opinion was not really believing in the Bible as the Word of God.

I am thrilled that you see that kind of behavior as childish. I could not agree more.

I hope now we can return to the mature, rational, adult, serious, and mutually respectful discussion that is the primary aim of this forum.

Richard

lekh lekha
08-31-2009, 12:03 PM
HA! You GOT IT!
Well done Andrew! :congrats:

I was deliberately mimicking your behavior in this forum. I would never habitually treat people the way you do! You have repeatedly written as if your opinion was God's opinion and you have consistently implied that anyone who disagrees with your opinion was not really believing in the Bible as the Word of God.

I am thrilled that you see that kind of behavior as childish. I could not agree more.

I hope now we can return to the mature, rational, adult, serious, and mutually respectful discussion that is the primary aim of this forum.

Richard

No you weren't mimicking me. You were in a rage because I refused to entertain your assertion that the apostles were ignorant to ask the question they asked of Jesus.

If you want to be anything, Richard, be honest first about the reason for your words and behavior, and don't try to put the blame on someone else for them. You are the one who claims that your beliefs are Biblical. When anyone has the "cheek" to insist they are not, you fly into a rage. That doesn't show a "mature, rational, adult, serious, and mutually respectful discussion" on your part, which you claim is the chief aim of this forum.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 12:39 PM
No you weren't mimicking me. You were in a rage because I refused to entertain your assertion that the apostles were ignorant to ask the question they asked of Jesus.

Having trouble with the man in the mirror, are you? I don't have to post all the quotes of you behaving exactly the way that I mimicked, do I?

If you can't admit that, then you are the one with the "honesty" problem, or worse, it could be that you really are unaware of how you have behaved in this forum. If that is the case, then I have no idea how to make you aware. I presented a post that was a perfect mirror image of your style, using your exact words. If you can't recognize your own posts, there is nothing I can do to help.



If you want to be anything, Richard, be honest first about the reason for your words and behavior, and don't try to put the blame on someone else for them. You are the one who claims that your beliefs are Biblical. When anyone has the "cheek" to insist they are not, you fly into a rage. That doesn't show a "mature, rational, adult, serious, and mutually respectful discussion" on your part, which you claim is the chief aim of this forum.
I am not the "one" who claims my "beliefs are Biblical." You claim exactly the same thing.

And it is a lie to assert that I flew into a "rage." Nothing could be further from the truth. You know nothing of my mental state, and if you interpret my mimicry of your post as a "rage" then you condemn yourself because I was merely showing you what you sound like to others.

It seems that you are merely trying to distract attention from the fact that you can dish it out but can not take it.

Again, I repeat the truth that is plain for all to see. YOU are the one who introduced the behavior that you now decry.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Richard

joel
08-31-2009, 12:58 PM
Andrew and Richard;

Two excellent pitchers went out to play catch.
At first they lobbed the ball softly to each other to warm up.
Then, their throws picked up some steam.
After a while, they began to throw their best stuff.....each pitch getting harder and harder to catch.....a curve here.....a slider there.
Each threw a good hard fast ball now and again.

When it was all over.......and they had exhausted themselves......they learned that the game was being played in another field.....and the joy of the game had escaped them.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 01:05 PM
Andrew and Richard;

Two excellent pitchers went out to play catch.
At first they lobbed the ball softly to each other to warm up.
Then, their throws picked up some steam.
After a while, they began to throw their best stuff.....each pitch getting harder and harder to catch.....a curve here.....a slider there.
Each threw a good hard fast ball now and again.

When it was all over.......and they had exhausted themselves......they learned that the game was being played in another field.....and the joy of the game had escaped them.

Joel
Well stated Joel!

I think you deserve the blessed title "Peacemaker of the Bible Wheel Forum."

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
I pray we all will follow your example, just as I prayed that we would all follow Andrew's example earlier in this thread when he humbled himself before us.

Luke 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, 8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; 9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. 10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
I think it is very instructive for people to note how differently things seem when you say them as opposed to when they are said to you. We all must strive to be humble peacemakers.

Richard

joel
08-31-2009, 01:22 PM
We, the fans in the stands, who come down ocassionally to join in the game, need both of you to stay on the team.

Richard, we're not too concerned that you may leave, after all, you own the field.

But that Andrew throws a pretty mean pitch and we would feel downright pitiful if he signed up with the Philistines, otherwise known as the Phillies.

Joel, a true fan and loyal athletic supporter

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 01:40 PM
We, the fans in the stands, who come down ocassionally to join in the game, need both of you to stay on the team.

Richard, we're not too concerned that you may leave, after all, you own the field.

But that Andrew throws a pretty mean pitch and we would feel downright pitiful if he signed up with the Philistines, otherwise known as the Phillies.

Joel, a true fan and loyal athletic supporter
Joel,

I share your concern. It would be very sad if Andrew chose to leave. He has much to offer and I think we all have much to benefit from his input. But he needs to play by the same rules as the rest of us here which really involves little more than basic respect of folks who have a different understanding.

I think the little "spat" between Andrew and myself should be very instructive to all. As far as I can tell, I spoke to him in precisely the same tone and manner that he spoke to me and Rose. (If I am incorrect on this point, please post a public correction here.) His response that my post was "childish" and that I had gone into a "rage" demonstrates with perfect clarity how the same words can take on a very different complexion when they are received into one's own bosom as opposed to being tossed out for others to receive.

I believe this is an essential Gospel Lesson. Do unto others ....

Peace to all in this forum,

Richard

Rose
08-31-2009, 02:11 PM
Thank you Joel, for once again stepping in as peacemaker. :yo:

As a mother of two sons, I see this very thing happen all the time. What one does or says to the other seeing no harm done, is then greatly annoyed if that same thing is said or done back to themselves. I find myself continually bringing this to their attention :attention:....maybe someday they will get it. :blah:

Many blessings to all

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 08:55 PM
We should never isolate one verse or passage of scripture and interpret it on its own.

We should always interpret any verse or passage in the light of all the other verses and passages which speak about the same thing, as well as in the light of the rest of the Bible.

That's the first principle for sound hermeneutics.

Hey there Andrew, :yo:

I agree completely and absolutely! That is why all our speculations about what the apostles may or may not have meant by their question about the "restoration of the kingdom" and whether or not they were correct and whether or not Christ implicitly confirmed their understanding when He did not answer their question are fundamentally the wrong questions to be discussing at this point of our study of eschatology. We simply do not have any other verses to prove either your position or mine on that verse, so that verse can not be used as a "foundation stone" in anyone's understanding of eschatology.

The ONE THING that you and I and everyone else in this thread should be doing right now is working together to establish the "main" and the "plain" things that the Bible really teaches. Once we establish the FOUNDATION of what the Bible really teaches beyond all dispute, then we can work together to discern the meaning of the verses that do not have so many mutually confirming verses and that are subject to dispute.

Here again is my Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.asp) which I have had published for a couple years on my site:

=========================================
The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistimology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
=========================================

I presume you agree with this principle, correct? If so, then I would hope that you would see how important it is that we begin at the beginning and establish the fundamental eschatological truths taught in the Bible.

Does this sound like a good starting point?

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-31-2009, 09:51 PM
Your assertion that the Israelites received ALL that God had promised them is entirely false, as the Word of God shows above - unless you ignore the Word of God which shows that they did not.

I never said that the Israelites "received" all the land promises. I said that GOD FULFILLED all the land promises. The Bible explicitly states that He gave them all the land that He had promised. It then goes on to explain that they rebelled and so were then kicked out of the land. This is the plain and explicit testimony of Holy Scripture. This understanding is confirmed by a host of verses and as far as I know, there is not a SINGLE VERSE in the entire Bible that contradicts it. If you can find one, please share it. But please note that your assertion that GOD FAILED to fulfill His promise because the Israelites refused to obey has no support in Scripture as far as I can tell. Indeed, it also contradicts your fundamental premise that God's fulfillment does not depend on the faith of the recipients of the promise. I agree. God fulfilled His Word but the unbelieving Israelites rebelled and so were ejected from the land (which also was a "promise" spoken by God).

I think it is very important to note that your entire thesis is "non-Biblical" in the sense that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states that God failed to fulfill the land promises whereas there are many verses that explicitly declare He did fulfill them. It seems to me therefore that you have absolutely no Biblical foundation for your beliefs.

All the very best to you,

Richard

lekh lekha
09-01-2009, 03:58 AM
I'm going to wrap up with this thread by copying and pasting thoughts I posted in gregoryfl's thread. But I'm also going to add one thought to that post (further on down in the post, which I will highlight in red.

No doubt, there are many who will disagree (and that's absolutely fine), but I'm wrapping up this thread and so I won't be responding to any comments of disagreement, or any questions about it.

I'm just expressing thoughts below, and not a doctrine:


Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah are the only prophecies which were written to Gentiles only, or to a Gentile nation or kingdom or city only.

All the other prophetic books swing between warning Israel of God's judgment or chastisement for its sins at the hand of Assyria/Babylon/the nations, and warning of God's judgment coming upon Syria/Babylon the nations for their sins and for what they did to Israel after He had made an end of using them to chastise Israel.

When we read and study any biblical prophecy, we should bear in mind that the prophecy was inspired by the Spirit of GOD Himself, who knew the end from the beginning before all time and who is ultimately in control of all history, and who said,

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

It is this God Whose Spirit inspired all the Biblical prophecies.

And so when we approach Biblical prophecy such as found in Micah and in Zechariah, it helps us firstly to try and understand that God transcends not only all dimensions, but also "time"; and secondly to try not to attempt to interpret the prophetic book we are reading from the perspective of a one-dimensional creature, who can only see "time" as something that moves along a horizontal line, from start to finish.

Astronomical science tells us that before the big bang, there was no "time", and that "time" was created the moment the big bang occurred. Scientists tell us that to speak of what what was even a millionth of a second before "the big bang" is a non-question, since there was no "time" before the big bang.

Now we know that in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth, and that's when "time" began. We also know that before Adam was prevented from eating of the tree of Life and living forever and ever, there had already been seven cycles of 1 day each, and one cycle of seven.

We also know that the seasons, days, weeks, months and years come and go in cycles, and that 1 day is one cycle in time, as is one week, one month, one season, one year. Each seventh year was a sabbath by the Law of God in Leviticus 25, and in the 49th (the 7x7th) year, the cycle was complete, and the 50th year marked a new beginning.

God gives us many clues to show us that "time" is linked to cycles, and we know that all Biblical prophecy is linked to the interaction of God's people with "the nations" (or the world), which takes place in "time".

And so with the exception of Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah, if we look out for it, we will start to see many passages where one and the same passage swings between one period in time and another period in time, and yet applies to both periods:

"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him,

Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son.

If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings...

... Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." (Isa.7: 1-16; 8: 1-4).

This prophecy was fulfilled in the days of the prophet and the king to whom the prophecy was given. Was it NEVER fulfilled again?

Of course it was fulfilled again. The same prophetic passage applies to more than one period in "time".

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa 55:8-9).

The God who transcends all dimensions and all "time" and who knew the end from the beginning is the God who inspired all the prophecies in the Bible.

We will stay in the 1st grade with regard to our understanding of Biblical prophecy if we choose to view Biblical prophecy and "time" from the perspective of a one-dimensional creature ("time" moving along one continuous horizontal line from start to finish and Biblical prophecy as being "one prophecy, one fulfillment":

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which the Lord had prophesied) be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Mat 24:3)

Did they ask Jesus for the sign for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which took place in 70 A.D, or did they ask Him for the sign for His return at the end of the age?

Yes.


Did Jesus give them the sign for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which took place in 70 A.D, or did He give them the sign for His return at the end of the age?

Yes.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)

"And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No." (Joh 1:21).

"And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him." (Mat 17:3).

So immediately they got down from the Mount of transfiguration, they asked Him,

"... Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?

And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things (future-tense). But I say to you that Elijah has come already (past-tense), and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them. Then His disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Baptist." (Mat 17:10-13).

It was John the Baptist who had already come "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luk.1: 17). But Jesus said Elijah indeed shall come first and restore all things.

And of course, Elijah is one of two Biblical characters who, we are told in the Bible, never tasted death, but was translated and taken up into heaven.

So is the preterist understanding of Biblical prophecy correct, or is the futurist understanding of Biblical prophecy correct?

Yes.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecc 1:9)

God's Word to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which He swore by oath to fulfill and declared to be everlasting, is everlasting because God's Word transcends all "time". So we can take God at His Word - just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus did - and of course, just as Jesus Himself did.

The God who created the heavens and the earth and "time" transcends all dimensions and all "time" and He knew the end from the beginning and He is in control of all history.

That's the God whose Spirit inspired the prophets of old.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9).

So when we come to study Biblical prophecy, we must try not to think from the perspective of a one-dimensional creature:

"Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding." (Pro 3:5).

So we have to first take James' advice:

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and with no reproach, and it shall be given to him." (Jas 1:5).

Otherwise we will be arguing forever from the perspective of a one-dimensional creature, believing that "time" moves along a continuous horizontal line, from start to finish, and one prophecy has one fulfillment.

Then we must ask the LORD to help us to understand which passages of scripture swing between one period in time and another period in time and yet apply to both (two or sometimes even three) periods in time.

Or we can choose to remain in the 1st grade forever, and view prophecy from the limited perspective of a one-dimensional creature, forgetting that prophecy was inspired by the Spirit of the God who knew the end from the beginning before all "time" and said,

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

Andrew.

Rose
09-01-2009, 07:45 AM
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)

"And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No." (Joh 1:21).

"And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him." (Mat 17:3).

So immediately they got down from the Mount of transfiguration, they asked Him,

"... Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?

And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things (future-tense). But I say to you that Elijah has come already (past-tense), and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them. Then His disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Baptist." (Mat 17:10-13).

It was John the Baptist who had already come "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luk.1: 17). But Jesus said Elijah indeed shall come first and restore all things.

And of course, Elijah is one of two Biblical characters who, we are told in the Bible, never tasted death, but was translated and taken up into heaven.

So is the preterist understanding of Biblical prophecy correct, or is the futurist understanding of Biblical prophecy correct?

Yes.

Hi brother Andrew,

I'm going to repost an article on "The message of Malachi" that I wrote on another thread, which I think clearly shows the fulfillment of the coming of Elijah as John the Baptist. This prophecy's fulfillment is so perfectly woven through the whole New Testament, its hard to see how there can be a second fulfillment.


The last book of the Old Testament is written by a prophet named Malachi; in Hebrew Malachi means 'my messenger'. This last messenger of the Old Testament delivered the prophecy that would be fulfilled with the coming of John the Baptist, who would be 'the messenger' preparing the way of the Lord.
Mal. 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

The first book of the New Testament is Matthew. Chapter 3 of Matthew begins by identifying who John the Baptist is, and by saying that he is the one whom Isaiah spoke of as being the one who would prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.
Isa. 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Matt. 3:1-3 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.'

God’s last prophetic messenger of the Old Testament, Malachi, says that the prophet Elijah will be the one who comes to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.
Mal. 4:4-6 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The book of Luke identifies John the Baptist as the one who goes forth in the spirit of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.
Luke 1:13-17 But the angel (Gabriel) said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Jesus then tells us in Matthew that Elijah has indeed already come as John the Baptist.

Matt. 17:12-13 But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.


From the above verses it has been clearly established that the one whom Malachi spoke of as 'Elijah the prophet' coming to prepare the way of the Lord, was John the Baptist. And the way in which John the Baptist was to prepare that way was by turning the hearts of the children of Israel back to God (repentance)…..before the coming of Jesus.

The next question that comes to mind is: what exactly was the mission of John the Baptist, and what was his message? The Gospel of Luke tells us that his mission was to turn the hearts of the Jews back to the Lord, and his message was that the kingdom of God was fast approaching.
Matt. 3:1-10 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Forthis is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 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. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
John warned his fellow Jews, of which the Sadducees, and Pharisees were part of that at the very time he was speaking the axe was being laid to the root of the tree of Israel, and all those who did not bring forth the fruit of repentance would be cast into the fire. John addressed the Sadducees, and Pharisees as a 'Generation of vipers' and queried of them 'who has warned you to flee from the wrath of God that is to come'.

This wrath that John the Baptist is speaking of to this generation of vipers is the same wrath that Jesus speaks of in Matthew, and the Apostle Paul speaks of in Thessalonians.
Matt. 23:29-38 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

1 Thess. 2:14-16 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
When this generation of vipers 'Jews', fills up the measure of their sins by killing and persecuting the saints of God, then the wrath of God will be poured out upon them. All those things were about to happen to that 1st century generation that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul were talking to.
Rev. 6:10-11 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
This wrath is described as the damnation of hell and their house (Temple) is being left unto them desolate. Over, and over again by John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and others it is said that all these things will come upon this generation. And what is it that is said will come upon this generation? The judgment of God, which is nothing less than the desolation of their house….Jesus, said every last stone would come down, and it did.
Luke 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down…..20) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Rev.18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas,that great city (Jerusalem), wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, Gods wrath was poured out in judgment and the blood of the Saints was avenged.
Rev. 18:20 Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
God bless

Rose

Rose
09-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Hello again, Andrew.

One problem that just came to mind concerning a second fulfillment of the coming of Elijah, is that the prophecy in Malachi states that Elijah will come before the "great and dreadful Day of the Lord".....
Mal. 4:4-6 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Well, we know from the Apostle Peter that the "great and notable Day of the Lord" was about to happen in Peter's generation....and Peter specifically said that what was happening at Pentecost was that which the prophet Joel spoke of.....

Acts 2:16 But this is that (Pentecost) which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:......19) And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

So, if the coming of John the Baptist was the first fulfillment of Elijah, and the "great and dreadful Day of the Lord" that happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, was the first fulfillment of the "Day of the Lord", then there would have to be a second "Day of the Lord" to come after the second coming of Elijah....:confused:

I guess that's fine for speculation, but we surely can't get that from the Bible.

Many blessings

Rose

CWH
09-01-2009, 03:18 PM
Hi Rose,

I know your post is addressed to Andrew but sorry for the interjection. I want to understand several issues in your post and hope you could enlighten me:


"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)

"And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No." (Joh 1:21).



your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:......19) And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood

1. Why did John the Baptist claimed he is not the Elijah then?

2. When on earth in the period of earth's history did the heart of the fathers turn to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers? In today's perspective, it sounds more like "the hearts of the children turns against their fathers."

3. When on earth in the period of earth's history did "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams"? I know you are going to talk about Josephus seeing angels fighting in the skies over Jerusalem when the Romans were attacking Jerusalem in AD 70 but these sort of visions sometimes do occur in soldiers and people during times of intense stress especially during war times.

4. When did people see "wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"?

If those things have not come then that "great and notable day of the Lord" has yet to come.

Many Blessings to you.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-01-2009, 04:27 PM
Hi Rose,

I know your post is addressed to Andrew but sorry for the interjection. I want to understand several issues in your post and hope you could enlighten me:

Hi Cheow,

I know your post is address to Rose, but I'm guessing you won't mind the interjection. :D



1. Why did John the Baptist claimed he is not the Elijah then?

Because he did not know that he was fulfilling the Elijah prophecy, just like Judas probably did not know that he was fulfilling the prophecies about the traitor of the Messiah.



2. When on earth in the period of earth's history did the heart of the fathers turn to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers? In today's perspective, it sounds more like "the hearts of the children turns against their fathers."

That happened under the ministry of John the Baptist, as it is written:

Luke 1:13-21 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he [John the Baptist] turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. 18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. 20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season. 21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
The angel of the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY said that John the Baptist would fulfill everything he said about him. Whether or not we have an extra-biblical historical record of the fulfillment of these words means absolutely nothing because the vast majority of historical events were never recorded. This is especially true about something like a family restoration in the backwaters of Judea. Do you really expect that such an event would have been recorded in the Annals of the Roman Empire? The Angel of God declared that John the Baptist would do these things, so anyone who believes the Bible believes that John the Baptist did these things. It's really not that complicated.

I do not understand why you reject the plain facts taught in the Bible in favor of futurist speculations that are not plainly taught in the Bible.



3. When on earth in the period of earth's history did "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams"? I know you are going to talk about Josephus seeing angels fighting in the skies over Jerusalem when the Romans were attacking Jerusalem in AD 70 but these sort of visions sometimes do occur in soldiers and people during times of intense stress especially during war times.

All the writers of the NT were prophets of God, and other NT prophets are recorded therein. And remember John saw the vision recorded in the Book of Revelation. How could you forget these fundamental facts?



4. When did people see "wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"?

If those things have not come then that "great and notable day of the Lord" has yet to come.

Many Blessings to you.
That is standard symbolic language that the Lord God Almighty defined in His Holy Word. I know you understand that God uses symbolic language. For example, you do not expect to see a literal Beast with seven heads, correct? I mean, in your interpretation of Revelation, you believe that the beast represents something like the Antichrist or an evil government, correct? You don't really expect to see a literal seven headed beast, right? If so, then you understand that God uses symbols, and that is the answer to your question.

Many blessings to you my friend, :thumb:

Richard

Rose
09-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Hi Rose,

I know your post is addressed to Andrew but sorry for the interjection. I want to understand several issues in your post and hope you could enlighten me:




1. Why did John the Baptist claimed he is not the Elijah then?

2. When on earth in the period of earth's history did the heart of the fathers turn to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers? In today's perspective, it sounds more like "the hearts of the children turns against their fathers."

3. When on earth in the period of earth's history did "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams"? I know you are going to talk about Josephus seeing angels fighting in the skies over Jerusalem when the Romans were attacking Jerusalem in AD 70 but these sort of visions sometimes do occur in soldiers and people during times of intense stress especially during war times.

4. When did people see "wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"?

If those things have not come then that "great and notable day of the Lord" has yet to come.

Many Blessings to you.

Hi Cheow, :yo:

Thank you for joining the discussion. :D This conversation is open to all!

Very good questions. I hope I can answer them adequately for you. My answers are in red.


1. Why did John the Baptist claimed he is not the Elijah then? John the Baptist was not physically Elijah. The angel Gabriel told John the Baptists father, Zacharias that his son John would walk in the "spirit and power" of Elijah.
Luke 1:13-17 But the angel (Gabriel) said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
2. When on earth in the period of earth's history did the heart of the fathers turn to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers? In today's perspective, it sounds more like "the hearts of the children turns against their fathers." John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew declares that this is he [John] who was spoken of by Isaiah), by calling on Israel to repent and turn back to God, even though very few repented and turned to God. This repentance includes the hearts of fathers and children turning to each other
Matt. 3:1-3 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.'
3. When on earth in the period of earth's history did "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams"? I know you are going to talk about Josephus seeing angels fighting in the skies over Jerusalem when the Romans were attacking Jerusalem in AD 70 but these sort of visions sometimes do occur in soldiers and people during times of intense stress especially during war times. No, I'm not going to say anything about Josephus. Joel's prophecy (that was quoted by Peter, and he said was fulfilled at Pentecost), was speaking of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. At that time, and afterward many sons and daughters who were filled with the Holy Spirit had visions, and prophesies.
Acts 2:16-17 But this is that (Pentecost) which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
4. When did people see "wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"? The signs and wonders were to occur before the "great and notable Day of the Lord" which happened when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, and every last stone of the Temple came down.
Acts 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Many blessing

Rose

CWH
09-01-2009, 08:18 PM
Thanks Richard and Rose for the explanations but that does not mean I accept all the explanations. But I am still curious over the 1st question of why did John claimed that he is not Elijah? From what I deduce :

1. John did not know he is Elijah or fulfilling the role of Elijah. I feel this is something unbelievable.

2. John is not Elijah but has the spirit and power of Elijah. That means John the Baptist is not the real Elijah and the real Elijah will come in the future.

3. John lied that he is Elijah or fulfilling the role of Elijah so as to prevent the Pharisees from arresting him for blasphemy. I feel this is false for a man of integrity to lie.

4. John is truly not Elijah and the real Elijah will come in the future. The Jews then were expecting the real Elijah to come.

5. John is Elijah but refused to admit due to his humbleness.

I tend to believe in item 4. In Matthew 11 : 14 "....John is Elijah whose coming was predicted. 15 Listen then whoever have ears".

Many Blessings to both.

Rose
09-01-2009, 09:00 PM
Thanks Richard and Rose for the explanations but that does not mean I accept all the explanations. But I am still curious over the 1st question of why did John claimed that he is not Elijah? From what I deduce :

1. John did not know he is Elijah or fulfilling the role of Elijah. I feel this is something unbelievable.

2. John is not Elijah but has the spirit and power of Elijah. That means John the Baptist is not the real Elijah and the real Elijah will come in the future.

3. John lied that he is Elijah or fulfilling the role of Elijah so as to prevent the Pharisees from arresting him for blasphemy. I feel this is false for a man of integrity to lie.

4. John is truly not Elijah and the real Elijah will come in the future. The Jews then were expecting the real Elijah to come.

I tend to believe in item 4.

Many Blessings to both.

Hi Cheow

I don't understand why it's so unbelievable that John the Baptist did not know he was fulfilling the role of Elijah. Do you think Mary knew she was the virgin prophesied in Isaiah, who would conceive and bare the Lord Jesus Christ?
Isa.7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Or do you think that Peter knew before Jesus told him, that he would be the "Rock" upon whom the Church would be built, and that he would be the one who would declare that the prophesy of Joel was being fulfilled before his very eyes? Or that the Apostle John knew he would be the one chosen to receive the revelation of Jesus Christ, and send the message to the churches?

I'm sure none of these people had the slightest clue that they would be chosen to fulfill these hugely significant roles. So with that in mind, it is totally believable that John the Baptist did not see himself fulfilling the role of Elijah.

But aside from all that, Jesus clearly said that John the Baptist was Elijah for those willing to receive it, and that enough for me. :D

God Bless

Rose

CWH
09-02-2009, 03:29 AM
Hi Cheow

I don't understand why it's so unbelievable that John the Baptist did not know he was fulfilling the role of Elijah. Do you think Mary knew she was the virgin prophesied in Isaiah, who would conceive and bare the Lord Jesus Christ?
Isa.7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Or do you think that Peter knew before Jesus told him, that he would be the "Rock" upon whom the Church would be built, and that he would be the one who would declare that the prophesy of Joel was being fulfilled before his very eyes? Or that the Apostle John knew he would be the one chosen to receive the revelation of Jesus Christ, and send the message to the churches?

I'm sure none of these people had the slightest clue that they would be chosen to fulfill these hugely significant roles. So with that in mind, it is totally believable that John the Baptist did not see himself fulfilling the role of Elijah.

But aside from all that, Jesus clearly said that John the Baptist was Elijah for those willing to receive it, and that enough for me. :D

God Bless

Rose

Hi Rose,


I don't understand why it's so unbelievable that John the Baptist did not know he was fulfilling the role of Elijah. I have expected a "violent" objection from you.

The main reason why I feel that it is unbelievable that John the baptist did not know he was fulfilling the role of Elijah even though Jesus said he is Elijah is based on the words, "He that have ears o hear, let him hears". What do you think it means and Jesus use it fairly often in the closing of his several speeches and parables. He means that, "Please meditate on what I said and grasp the inner meanings for a true revelation. If you don't, then what you hear are just words that I said without understanding its true meanings."

Matthew 11:
7And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


What basically Jesus was saying was "Don't expect to see Elijah in his raiment clothings. John is my messenger that was prophesied to come before me. Now, he is Elijah that was prophesied to come and prepare the way for me. Please grasp the true meaning that I was saying." Ask yourself, why didn't the Lord said plainly, "He is Elijah, my messenger, that was prophesized to come and here he is, already here.". "this is Elijah, which was for to come." when Elijah was already there at that time seems to suggest a future re-appearance of Elijah. This is then followed by "He who have ears to hear, let him hears" i.e. please grasp the true meaning.

There is a website that explains quite clearly what is meant by "He that have ears to hear, let him hears" :

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/blay10.html


The other reason is what John the Baptist said about himself which means he knew his role and mission but short of saying he was the Elijah:

“‘Are you that prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ Then said they unto him, ‘Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What say you of yourself?’ He said, ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias [Isaiah].’ And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, ‘Why baptize you then, if you be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?’”John 1:21–25


Many Blessings to you.

Rose
09-02-2009, 07:53 AM
Hi Rose,

I have expected a "violent" objection from you.

Hey Cheow, :yo:

Well, I wouldn't exactly call my response a "violent" objection, but.....:lol:


The main reason why I feel that it is unbelievable that John the baptist did not know he was fulfilling the role of Elijah even though Jesus said he is Elijah is based on the words, "He that have ears o hear, let him hears". What do you think it means and Jesus use it fairly often in the closing of his several speeches and parables. He means that, "Please meditate on what I said and grasp the inner meanings for a true revelation. If you don't, then what you hear are just words that I said without understanding its true meanings."

Matthew 11:
7And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


What basically Jesus was saying was "Don't expect to see Elijah in his raiment clothings. John is my messenger that was prophesied to come before me. Now, he is Elijah that was prophesied to come and prepare the way for me. Please grasp the true meaning that I was saying." Ask yourself, why didn't the Lord said plainly, "He is Elijah, my messenger, that was prophesized to come and here he is, already here.". "this is Elijah, which was for to come." when Elijah was already there at that time seems to suggest a future re-appearance of Elijah. This is then followed by "He who have ears to hear, let him hears" i.e. please grasp the true meaning.

There is a website that explains quite clearly what is meant by "He that have ears to hear, let him hears" :

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/blay10.html (http://www.auburn.edu/%7Eallenkc/blay10.html)


The other reason is what John the Baptist said about himself which means he knew his role and mission but short of saying he was the Elijah:

'‘Are you that prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ Then said they unto him, ‘Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What say you of yourself?’ He said, ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias [Isaiah].’ And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, ‘Why baptize you then, if you be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?’'John 1:21–25


Many Blessings to you.

Yes, you are right....he that has ears let him hear what the Spirit says! That is why Jesus told the disciples that in response to their question "is John the Baptist, Elijah?": Then Jesus said: If you will receive it, this is Elijah.

Apparently Cheow, you are one of those who is unable to receive the Word of Jesus telling us that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. We all know that John was not the physical reincarnation of Elijah, Jesus never said he was physically Elijah, but that he was more than a prophet, and that he fulfilled the prophecy of being the messenger who was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, by turning the children of Israel back to the Lord....hence, John the Baptist walked in the role of Elijah fulfilling the prophecy.

Many blessings to you Cheow :pray:

Rose

CWH
09-02-2009, 09:05 AM
Hey Cheow, :yo:

Well, I wouldn't exactly call my response a "violent" objection, but.....:lol:



Yes, you are right....he that has ears let him hear what the Spirit says! That is why Jesus told the disciples that in response to their question "is John the Baptist, Elijah?": Then Jesus said: If you will receive it, this is Elijah.

Apparently Cheow, you are one of those who is unable to receive the Word of Jesus telling us that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. We all know that John was not the physical reincarnation of Elijah, Jesus never said he was physically Elijah, but that he was more than a prophet, and that he fulfilled the prophecy of being the messenger who was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, by turning the children of Israel back to the Lord....hence, John the Baptist walked in the role of Elijah fulfilling the prophecy.

Many blessings to you Cheow :pray:

Rose

Hi Rose,

I do believe and agree that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah but he was not the real Elijah or the Elijah incarnate. The only disagreement that I have with you is that I believe the real Elijah will come again in the future.

Many Blessings to you :pray:

Rose
09-02-2009, 09:44 AM
Hi Rose,

I do believe and agree that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah but he was not the real Elijah or the Elijah incarnate. The only disagreement that I have with you is that I believe the real Elijah will come again in the future.

Many Blessings to you :pray:

Hi Cheow,

If you believe that the "real" physical Elijah will come again in the future, then do you also believe that this "real" Elijah will "prepare the way of the Lord" as John the Baptist did in the spirit and power of Elijah? And do you also believe that there will be a second "great and notable Day of the Lord" after the "real" Elijah comes as Malachi prophesied?
Mal. 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

God Bless

Rose

CWH
09-02-2009, 10:10 AM
Yes Rose,

Elijah will come again towards the end of the world. I believe in double fulfillment of some prophesies just like Andrew and as with some futurists. Now where is Andrew? :confused2: I hope he is not MIA (missing in action) after the battle at Bible Wheel. I hope my Bible Wheel Survivor Kit helps. :lol: Come on soldier boy, come and enjoy the peace and fellowship here at Bible Wheel. We are never at war, we are in fact your comrades fighting together to understand the Scriptures.

Many Blessings :yo:.

Rose
09-02-2009, 10:33 AM
Yes Rose,

Elijah will come again towards the end of the world. I believe in double fulfillment of some prophesies just like Andrew and as with some futurists. Now where is Andrew? :confused2: I hope he is not MIA (missing in action) after the battle at Bible Wheel. I hope my Bible Wheel Survivor Kit helps. :lol: Come on soldier boy, come and enjoy the peace and fellowship here at Bible Wheel. We are never at war, we are in fact your comrades fighting together to understand the Scriptures.

Many Blessings :yo:.

Amen to that brother Cheow!

We are indeed comrades in the Lord, fighting together to better understand the truths of the Bible. :fencing:Once in awhile we accidentally jab our fellow brothers, and sisters in the Lord, but we quickly ask forgiveness.:pray:

Many blessing back to you,

Rose

lekh lekha
09-02-2009, 11:50 AM
Yes Rose,

Elijah will come again towards the end of the world. I believe in double fulfillment of some prophesies just like Andrew and as with some futurists. Now where is Andrew? :confused2: I hope he is not MIA (missing in action) after the battle at Bible Wheel. I hope my Bible Wheel Survivor Kit helps. :lol: Come on soldier boy, come and enjoy the peace and fellowship here at Bible Wheel. We are never at war, we are in fact your comrades fighting together to understand the Scriptures.

Many Blessings :yo:.

Hey, brother Cheow Wee Hock :yo: I'm not MIA - I'm AWL - absent with leave :lol: I wrapped up in my last post because I know that those who have ears to hear sound doctrine will hear, and those who don't, won't.

John the Baptist was fully aware of his God-given mission, alright:

"And he proclaimed, saying, There is One coming after me who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen." (Mar 1:7).

John knew exactly who that One was - he knew he was talking about the Messiah, and John knew the prophecy in Malachi, we can be sure of that.

And yet he knew he was not Elijah, but had come "in the spirit and power of Elijah":

"And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. Then they said to him, Who are you so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say of yourself? He said, I am "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord," as the prophet Isaiah said." (Joh 1:21-23).

I doubt John's parents would have failed to tell him what had been told them when his mother had conceived him in her womb, as well as all the others who were aware of the circumstances surrounding his conception:

"But the angel said to him, Do not fear, Zacharias. For your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you shall have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice at his birth.

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

And he shall turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God.

And he shall go before Him (the Messiah) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luk 1:13-17).

Notice the reference to "turning the sons of Israel to the Lord their God":

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6).

It's the heart of the children of Israel being turned to the fathers, as can be seen from what was said about John the Baptist who came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" to herald the coming of the Messiah.

There is ONE Messiah - but He will come again, at the time all the prophets called "the Day of the LORD" - just as He promised us all He would:

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (Joh 14:3).

It's an amazing thing (?), but the Jews believe in a resurrection of the dead on the day the nations of the world begin to be judged.

THAT DAY:

'Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?' (Mat 7:22)

THE DAY OF JESUS CHRIST:

'being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,' (Phil. 1:6)

THE DAY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST:

'He shall also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (1Co 1:8)

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT:

'Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.' (Mat 10:15)

THE DAY OF REDEMPTION:

'And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed until the day of redemption.' (Eph 4:30)

NOTE: The day of judgment for Pharaoh and his armies was the day of redemption for Israel.

SKIPPING TO A DIFFERENT? DAY NOW: THE DAY OF TRUMPETS:

To Orthodox Jews, THE DAY OF TRUMPETS is known as:

1 The day the nations of the world are judged (with the decree being sealed 10 days later on the Day of Atonement); and

2 The day of the resurrection of the dead (the Day of Redemption??)

3 The day that 'the books are opened'

4 The day of 'the opening of the gates'.

5 The beginning of 'The Days of Awe' (which last until the Day of Atonement).

6 The birth-pains of the Messiah.

7. THE HIDDEN DAY/or THE DAY OR THE HOUR THAT NO MAN KNOWS.

John the Baptist was:

1. Fully aware of Malachi's prophecy concerning the coming of Elijah, alright - otherwise when they asked him "Are you Elijah?", he would not have said, "NO". He would have said, "Who's Elijah?".

2. Fully aware that he was making ready for the coming of the Messiah, as his words about Jesus clearly shows, and also because he was preaching a baptism of repentance - because his parents were told that he would "turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God."

When we say these people were ignorant of this and that so-called "fact" and asked ignorant questions etc, we're implying that we are far more enlightened than what they were, and that we therefore understand their expectations "correctly", whereas they did not.

John the Baptist knew - and yet he still said "NO".

Their expectations vs. our expectations - it all boils down to what they believed, and what we believe regarding God's everlasting Word to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets:

And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

"... And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them." (Mat 17:11-12).

"... which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
(Act 3:12-26)

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

Personally, I'd rather stick with the "ignorant" expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus than with the expectations of the "enlightened" few in the Church.

Quite obviously, they all took God at His Word regarding His everlasting promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and did not believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob meant something other than the plain and literal meaning of His words.

And it is quite obviously this "taking of God at His (literal) Word" which produced their expectations - expectations which many Gentiles since post-apostolic days have claimed were based on ignorance of God's "real" plan.

The thing that none of - including John the Baptist - knew, was the timing:

"Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9).

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (Joh 14:3).

There is so much that still needs to be said about this: The Jewish groom leaving his father's house and going to the home of his bride, offering his bride a marriage-contract, paying the bride-price, then returning to his father's house and preparing the wedding chamber and mansion for the marriage to be consummated,

then returning on a day the bride did not expect (since she would have been waiting for him to return for her throughout this period), then taking his bride with him to his fathers house and the marriage being consummated for seven days, and then returning with his bride to her own village or country again in order to reside with her there for the rest of their lives.

Jewish Christians understand these things so much better than Gentile Christians (I learned about the above from a Christian Jew). And you will be very, very hard-pressed to find a Jewish Christian whose expectations of the Kingdom of the Messiah (the Kingdom of Christ) are any different to what the expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus were. It is after all their fathers who received the Word of God!

Sorry, Cheow Wee Hock, that's a mouth-full, I know - but you did kinda "call" for me to come back!! :lol:

God bless,
Andrew

Rose
09-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Hey brother Andrew, I'm glad you're back too! :hug:

Before I address your looooong post...:D I would like to point out a verse you quoted, and then repost an article Richard has on another thread. Richard and I were just talking about John 14 last night, and I was going to repost it today but I hadn't gotten around to it yet.....and then you brought it to mind again when you quoted this verse.
John 14:3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."


http://biblewheel.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif An Exegesis of John 14
A proper understanding of John 14 is possible only when it is viewed as a unified whole. It is an integrated discourse that opens and closes with nearly identical words:
John 14:1-3 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
John 14:27-29 ... Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.Sandwiched between these two "bookends" we find the key to the central message of the entire Bible.


In my fathers house ...

What is the "father's house" to which Christ referred? This question is easily answered. The Apostle Paul explicitly identifies it as the Church, the body of all believers:
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.This confirmed by the Apostle Peter:
KJV 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?The parallelism between "begin at the house of God" and "begin at us" confirms that the "house of God" is "us", that is, the body of believers. This is confirmed again in Hebrews which explicitly states that "we" are the "house" over which Christ rules:
Hebrews 3:4-6 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. And all these ideas are confirmed again in Ephesians:
Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. The teaching of the New Testament is perfectly clear and unambiguous. The Church, the Body of Christ, is the "House of God" - the "Father's House."



... are many mansions.

The word "mansion" is from the Latin root manere which means "to remain, abide, dwell." It is cognate with the Greek root mone' which has the same meaning and which is translated as "mansions" in vs. 2. Here is how Strong's defines it:
μονη mone {mon-ay'} from 3306; TDNT - 4:579,581; n f AV - mansion 1, abode 1; 2 1) a staying, abiding, dwelling, abode 2) to make an (one's) abode 3) metaph. of the God the Holy Spirit indwelling believers This word appears only twice in Scripture, once in John 14:2 and again in John 14:23. I highlighted the third definition because that is that is the meaning of the word in this context. This is confirmed by the way Christ used it later in this integrated discourse:
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode (mone) with him. If the translation were consistent, it would have Christ saying that "we will come unto him, and make our mansion with him." This forms an essential link to the second verse which is impossible to miss when read in the Greek. God makes us into His Mansion. Note the plural "our" - that is a direct reference to the Trinity, as we shall see below. The noun mone' is based on the verb meno (to dwell, to abide) which is particulary characteristic of the writings attributed to the Apostle John - his Gospel and first Epistle account for over half of all occurrences in the Bible. Here is an example of how it is typically used:
1 John 4:12-16 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13 &#182; Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Every one of those five highlighted words is based on the verb "meno" which is cognate to the noun "mone" translated as "mansion" (vs. 2) or "abode" (vs. 23). Christ used this word repeatedly in John 14, so there is no way to deny that He was making a connection between the noun mone' and its cognate verb meno:
John 14:10-17 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 &#182; Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. The "many mansions" refers to the many believers each of whom are individual "dwelling places" for God. We are the "mansions" in which God dwells. They are not made for believers, they are made of believers.


... I go ...

What did Christ mean when He said "I go"? The answer is clear because He repeated it many times:
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.The meaning is perfectly clear and explicit. Christ was talking about His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension unto His Throne in Heaven. This is confirmed by the explanation He gave for why He must depart:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when did He send the Comforter? That happened at Pentecost after His Ascension to heaven and exaltation to the right hand of God:
Acts 2:32-33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.



... to prepare a place for you.
John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. Here we find a sudden shift in the language that has caused a lot of confusion. The word "place" is topos - it is not related in any way to the the words mone' or meno. Here is how Strong's defines this word:
τοπος topos {top'-os} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 8:187,1184; n m AV - place 80, room 5, quarter 2, licence 1, coast 1, where 1, plain + 3977 1, rock + 5138 1; 92 1) place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space 1a) an inhabited place, as a city, village, district 1b) a place (passage) in a book 2) metaph. 2a) the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly 2b) opportunity, power, occasion for acting
I highlighted the definition that is being used in John 14. Christ went to prepare a "place" for us before the Throne of God - this is His ministration as our High Priest - and then He sent forth His Spirit so that the Triune God could dwell in His People. Christ did not say that He was going to prepare a "place" for the "many mansions" in which we would dwell. On the contrary, we are the mansions. He needed to prepare a "place", that is, to intercede for us before our Father in heaven, so He could pour out His Holy Spirit to fill His mansions, which is what we are. He is our forerunner to prepare us a place before God, as it is written:
Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Christ is our High Priest who has prepared a place for us "through the veil":
Hebrews 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; This returns us to the "house of God" - the Father's House, which we are - that Christ consecrated by His Blood. The reference to the "living way" returns us again back to John 14:
John 14:3-6 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. This demonstrates the one great challenge of biblical exegesis. The supernatural divine unity of the Bible is such that it is difficult to explain all the connections without writing a large volume. Everything is connected to everything else, and the true interpretations are incontrovertible because everything confirms everything else.


... and He shall give you another Comforter ...
John 14:16-23 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. This is perhaps the greatest Trinitarian passage in the entire Bible. Christ specifically says that each person of the Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - would "dwell" (meno) in the believers, and then caps it off with the plural "we" which is a reference to all three.

Conclusion:

Judas asked "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" The answer is clear. We are the "mansions" in the Father's house. The Triune God "manifests" Himself to the believers by dwelling in us. This first happened at Pentecost, which was obviously the "coming" of the Lord prophesied here in John 14.

There is much more to say, but I can't fit it all in one post.

RichardIt's quite a different take on the way John 14 has been traditionally taught.

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Hey, brother Cheow Wee Hock :yo: I'm not MIA - I'm AWL - absent with leave :lol: I wrapped up in my last post because I know that those who have ears to hear sound doctrine will hear, and those who don't, won't.
Hey there Andrew!

Glad to see you are back! But I don't remember giving you "leave" - :p



John the Baptist was fully aware of his God-given mission, alright:

"And he proclaimed, saying, There is One coming after me who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen." (Mar 1:7).

John knew exactly who that One was - he knew he was talking about the Messiah, and John knew the prophecy in Malachi, we can be sure of that.

And yet he knew he was not Elijah, but had come "in the spirit and power of Elijah":

"And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. Then they said to him, Who are you so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say of yourself? He said, I am "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord," as the prophet Isaiah said." (Joh 1:21-23).

I doubt John's parents would have failed to tell him what had been told them when his mother had conceived him in her womb, as well as all the others who were aware of the circumstances surrounding his conception:

"But the angel said to him, Do not fear, Zacharias. For your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you shall have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice at his birth.

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

And he shall turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God.

And he shall go before Him (the Messiah) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luk 1:13-17).

Notice the reference to "turning the sons of Israel to the Lord their God":

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6).

It's the heart of the children of Israel being turned to the fathers, as can be seen from what was said about John the Baptist who came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" to herald the coming of the Messiah.

I think that is a very good explanation that John the Baptist probably did know that he was fulfilling the prophecies of the Messenger (Mal 3:1) and Elijah (Mal 4:6). You have helped me come to a better understanding, thanks! :yo:

Why then did John say he was not Elijah? Perhaps because he knew he was not literally Elijah in the sense that he was not the reincarnation of Elijah. Some folks have suggested that he was responding to the Jewish tradition that said Elijah would literally return before the Messiah came. But that would be the same error as assuming the David himself was going to literally be king again over Israel in this prophecy:
Ezekiel 37:24-25 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Who is the fulfillment of this prophecy - literal King David, or Christ the Shepherd? Is literal King David going to literally rule over them for a literal "for ever"?



There is ONE Messiah - but He will come again, at the time all the prophets called "the Day of the LORD" - just as He promised us all He would:

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (Joh 14:3).

Rose posted my exegesis of John 14 in which I conclude that it contains absolutely nothing that refers to a future "second coming" of the Messiah. I would be very interested if you could isolate any errors in that post.



It's an amazing thing (?), but the Jews believe in a resurrection of the dead on the day the nations of the world begin to be judged.

THAT DAY:

'Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?' (Mat 7:22)

THE DAY OF JESUS CHRIST:

'being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,' (Phil. 1:6)

THE DAY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST:

'He shall also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (1Co 1:8)

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT:

'Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.' (Mat 10:15)

THE DAY OF REDEMPTION:

'And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed until the day of redemption.' (Eph 4:30)

NOTE: The day of judgment for Pharaoh and his armies was the day of redemption for Israel.

SKIPPING TO A DIFFERENT? DAY NOW: THE DAY OF TRUMPETS:

To Orthodox Jews, THE DAY OF TRUMPETS is known as:

1 The day the nations of the world are judged (with the decree being sealed 10 days later on the Day of Atonement); and

2 The day of the resurrection of the dead (the Day of Redemption??)

3 The day that 'the books are opened'

4 The day of 'the opening of the gates'.

5 The beginning of 'The Days of Awe' (which last until the Day of Atonement).

6 The birth-pains of the Messiah.

7. THE HIDDEN DAY/or THE DAY OR THE HOUR THAT NO MAN KNOWS.

Excellent points Andrew! I myself have seen that those Jewish traditions give profound insights into the Book of Revelation which is structured on the fulfillment of the seven feasts of the Lord in the first century. The first four were fulfilled in the Death (Passover), Burial (Unleavened Bread), and Resurrection (Firstfruits) of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost). The final three (Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles) were fulfilled in 66-70 AD. It is particularly striking that Revelation follows the order of the feasts, and ends with Tabernacles:

>>> Synopsis of the Book of Revelation <<<

Rev 1-3: Intro and letters to the churches (contemporary 1st century)

Rev 4: Revelation of the Throne room (timeless)

>>> SPRING FEASTS <<<
Rev 5: Vision of Christ as PASSOVER Lamb, as dead (UNLEAVENED BREAD) and now alive (FIRSFRUITS) - 30 AD

Rev 6 Vision of the whole sequence in terms of the Seals (30 - 70 AD)

Rev 7: Vision of 144,000 literal first century Christian Jews sealed with Holy Spirit, beginning at PENTECOST (30 AD)

>>> FALL FEASTS <<<
Rev 8: Half hour = half year (in "feast time"). This moves us from the Spring to the Fall Feasts and from 30 to 66 AD. The fall feasts start with TRUMPETS, and moves immediately into Yom Kippur (DAY OF ATONEMENT) in which the Priest enters the Temple (hence the priestly activity of the angel in Rev 8). Jews also call this YOM DIN = JUDGEMENT DAY. Thus the outpouring of judgment on apostate Jerusalem begins. We are in 66 AD.

Rev 9: Judgment continues 66-70 AD.

Rev 10: More prophecy given

Rev 11: 66-70 AD. Vision of the entire judgment of the Great Tribulation (1260 days = 3.5 years).

Rev 12: New Vision: Recap from birth of Christ to His ascension to heaven and casting out of Satan. Ends in 30 AD.

Rev 13: Begins in 66 AD when Satan is loosed to "deceive the nations" and empower the beast to raise up the Roman mercenary armies from all the nations to dominate and then destroy Jerusalem.

Rev 14: Recap from Pentecost (Rev 7) that reveals the COMING OF CHRIST ON CLOUDS to judge apostate Jerusalem (66-70 AD).

Rev 15: Heavenly vision revealing the meaning of the seven plagues

Rev 16: Another view of the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD

Rev 17-18: Harlot revealed and destroyed. 66-70 AD.

Rev 19: Celebration in heaven for the victory of God. Marriage of the Lamb. Revelation of Christ on the white horse. 70 AD.

Rev 20: Recap that begins with 30 AD (Rev 12) and continues all the way to the consummation in 70 AD.

Rev 21-22: New heaven and new earth. God now TABERNACLES with man. 70 AD - present.

That's the Book of Revelation, structured on the seven feasts and fulfilled in the first century.



When we say these people were ignorant of this and that so-called "fact" and asked ignorant questions etc, we're implying that we are far more enlightened than what they were, and that we therefore understand their expectations "correctly", whereas they did not.

We ARE far more enlightened than they were! For example, we know that Gentiles are included in the New Covenant, but the apostles did not know that when they asked about the Kingdom in Acts 1. They had to wait until God gave a vision to Peter in Acts 10. Likewise, there was much revelation given through Paul that they knew NOTHING about because God had not yet revealed it to anyone. So it goes without saying that any competent student of the Bible knows many things than apostles did not know at the time they asked that question.



John the Baptist knew - and yet he still said "NO".

Their expectations vs. our expectations - it all boils down to what they believed, and what we believe regarding God's everlasting Word to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets:

As shown above, they did not have all the revelation from God that we now have in the Bible. God had not yet revealed His full plan, and Paul had not written a single book of the NT at that time.



And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

"... And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them." (Mat 17:11-12).

"... which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
(Act 3:12-26)

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

Why did you quote all those Scriptures without stating how they support your point? When I read them, they confirm my point of view. For example, you highlighted the words "Elijah has come already." I could not agree more! That is my my fundamental point! So why post Scriptures if you are not going to state how they support your view?



Personally, I'd rather stick with the "ignorant" expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus than with the expectations of the "enlightened" few in the Church.

If you want to be ignorant there is no one who can stop you, that's for sure!

As for the disciples, anyone who reads the Bible knows that they frequently did not understand what Christ, the Incarnate Word of Truth spoke directly to them. For example:
Mark 9:31-32 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. 32 But they understood not.
Here Christ told them the absolutely essential CORE of the Gospel and they did not understand him. The word translated as "understood not" is Strong's Number 50:
50 agnoeo {ag-no-eh'-o} Meaning: 1) to be ignorant, not to know 2) not to understand, unknown 3) to err or sin through mistake, to be wrong
So would you "rather stick with the 'ignorant' expectations of ... the apostles of Jesus" concerning the meaning of His death and resurrection? Is that really what you are saying?



Quite obviously, they all took God at His Word regarding His everlasting promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and did not believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob meant something other than the plain and literal meaning of His words.

That is not obvious at all. Your idea of "plain and literal" does not mean what "plain and literal" really mean. The plain and literal teaching of the New Testament states absolutely and unequivocally that the "coming of Jesus" would happen in the first century. No student of the Bible can deny this fact. It is what the plain text states in many mutually confirming verses. Of course, you can say that you don't believe that it really happened and that the Bible can't mean what it seems to be saying and that we need to reinterpret those passages. That's fine. But if you deny that the plain reading of the Bible states that the coming would be in the first century, then you simply are not dealing with the facts of reality.



And it is quite obviously this "taking of God at His (literal) Word" which produced their expectations - expectations which many Gentiles since post-apostolic days have claimed were based on ignorance of God's "real" plan.

It was the Apostle Paul who applied the so-called "literal" promises of the Old Testament to God's New Testament Church:

PROPHECY:
Leviticus 26:11-12 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. 12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
FULFILLMENT:
2 Corinthians 6:16-18 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
And there are many other examples. You do know this, don't you?

Many blessings and much peace in Christ to you Andrew,

Richard

lekh lekha
09-02-2009, 02:14 PM
Hello, again, sister.


Hey brother Andrew, I'm glad you're back too! :hug:

Before I address your looooong post...:D I would like to point out a verse you quoted, and then repost an article Richard has on another thread. Richard and I were just talking about John 14 last night, and I was going to repost it today but I hadn't gotten around to it yet.....and then you brought it to mind again when you quoted this verse.
John 14:3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

It's quite a different take on the way John 14 has been traditionally taught.

God Bless

Rose

... to prepare a place for you.

John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Here we find a sudden shift in the language that has caused a lot of confusion. The word "place" is topos - it is not related in any way to the the words mone' or meno. Here is how Strong's defines this word:

τοπος topos {top'-os} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 8:187,1184; n m AV - place 80, room 5, quarter 2, licence 1, coast 1, where 1, plain + 3977 1, rock + 5138 1; 92 1) place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space 1a) an inhabited place, as a city, village, district 1b) a place (passage) in a book 2) metaph. 2a) the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly 2b) opportunity, power, occasion for acting

I highlighted the definition that is being used in John 14. Christ went to prepare a "place" for us before the Throne of God - this is His ministration as our High Priest - and then He sent forth His Spirit so that the Triune God could dwell in His People. Christ did not say that He was going to prepare a "place" for the "many mansions" in which we would dwell. On the contrary, we are the mansions. He needed to prepare a "place", that is, to intercede for us before our Father in heaven, so He could pour out His Holy Spirit to fill His mansions, which is what we are. He is our forerunner to prepare us a place before God, as it is written:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy (Greek: hagios) place (Greek: topos) (whoever reads, let him understand).
(Mat 24:15)

Acts 6: 12-13:

"... And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes. And coming on, they seized him and brought him to the sanhedrin. And they set up false witnesses, who said, This man does not cease speaking blasphemous words against this holy place (Greek word: topos) and the Law." (Act 6:12-13).

That was the temple in Jerusalem the unsaved Jews called (in the Greek) the "hagios" (holy or sacred) "topos" (place).

"When Jesus heard, He departed from there by boat into a deserted place (Greek topos) apart. And hearing, the crowds followed Him on foot out of the cities." (Mat 14:13).

"And evening coming on, His disciples came to Him, saying, The place (Greek topos) is deserted and the time has already gone by. Send the crowd away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves." (Mat 14:15).

"And recognizing Him, the men of that place (Greek: topos) sent to all that neighborhood, and brought to Him all who were diseased." (Mat 14:35).

"Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place (Greek: topos); for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword." (Mat 26:52).

"And coming to a place (Greek: topos) called Golgotha, which is called, Place of a Skull, " (Mat 27:33)

"He is not here, for He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place (Greek: topos) where the Lord lay." (Mat 28:6)

"... Then the Lord said to him, "Loosen the sandal on your feet, for the place (Greek: topos) where you stand is holy ground." (Act 7:33)

"And it shall be, in the place (Greek: topos) where it was said to them. "You are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God." (Rom 9:26)

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, Rose. But your argument is just... whatever.

Andrew.

Rose
09-02-2009, 02:26 PM
Sorry, Rose. But your argument is just... whatever.

Andrew.I wasn't presenting it as an argument, but as a way of looking at John 14 from a different perspective than has been traditionally taught. So in my opinion, your dismissive statement was rude. :(

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2009, 02:34 PM
Hello, again, sister.

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy (Greek: hagios) place (Greek: topos) (whoever reads, let him understand).
(Mat 24:15)

Acts 6: 12-13:

"... And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes. And coming on, they seized him and brought him to the sanhedrin. And they set up false witnesses, who said, This man does not cease speaking blasphemous words against this holy place (Greek word: topos) and the Law." (Act 6:12-13).

That was the temple in Jerusalem the unsaved Jews called (in the Greek) the "hagios" (holy or sacred) "topos" (place).

"When Jesus heard, He departed from there by boat into a deserted place (Greek topos) apart. And hearing, the crowds followed Him on foot out of the cities." (Mat 14:13).

"And evening coming on, His disciples came to Him, saying, The place (Greek topos) is deserted and the time has already gone by. Send the crowd away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves." (Mat 14:15).

"And recognizing Him, the men of that place (Greek: topos) sent to all that neighborhood, and brought to Him all who were diseased." (Mat 14:35).

"Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place (Greek: topos); for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword." (Mat 26:52).

"And coming to a place (Greek: topos) called Golgotha, which is called, Place of a Skull, " (Mat 27:33)

"He is not here, for He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place (Greek: topos) where the Lord lay." (Mat 28:6)

"... Then the Lord said to him, "Loosen the sandal on your feet, for the place (Greek: topos) where you stand is holy ground." (Act 7:33)

"And it shall be, in the place (Greek: topos) where it was said to them. "You are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God." (Rom 9:26)

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, Rose. But your argument is just... whatever.

Andrew.
What's your point? Are you saying that the dictionary is wrong? Are you an expert in Greek who can dispute the standard dictionary definitions?
5117 topos {top'-os}

Meaning: 1) place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space 1a) an inhabited place, as a city, village, district 1b) a place (passage) in a book 2) metaph. 2a) the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly 2b) opportunity, power, occasion for acting
All you did was quote a bunch of verses that used definitions 1 and 1a. Are you really trying to say that there are no places (topos, def 1b) in the Bible that use definitions 1b, 2, 2a, or 2b?

You are making a mockery of serious Bible study! We are talking about the WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!! And all you can do is spit out an ignorant and rude "whatever." Why are you throwing out meaningless and absurd responses to serious exegesis???

Here is a more detailed dictionary that will help you understand the correct MEANING that GOD ALMIGHTY intended in HIS WORD if you really care to know. This is the entry in The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament by Zodhiates. Do you exalt yourself over him too?

5117. τόποςt&#243;pos; gen (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1). t&#243;pou, masc (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn2). noun. Place.
(I) As occupied or filled by any person or thing, a spot, space, room.
(A) Particularly (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 2:7; 14:9, 10, 22; John 20:7; Acts 7:33; Heb. 8:7; Rev. 2:5; 6:14; 20:11; Sept (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn3). Gen. 24:23; 1 Kgs. 8:6, 7; Prov. 25:6). In Luke 14:9, to give place to someone means to make room. See Rom. 12:19; Eph. 4:27. Of things, as a place where something is kept such as a sword, meaning a sheath, scabbard (Matt. 26:52).
(B) Figuratively, condition, part, character (1 Cor. 14:16, “he who fills the place of one unlearned” [a.t.], who is unlearned).
(C) Figuratively, place, opportunity, occasion (Acts 25:16; Rom. 15:23; Heb. 12:17, "no place for repentance").
(II) Of a particular place or spot where something is done or takes place (Luke 10:32; 11:1; 19:5; John 4:20; 5:13; 6:23; 10:40; 11:30; 18:2; 19:20, 41; 2 Pet. 1:19). Pleonastically (Rom. 9:26, “in the place where,” meaning simply where, quoted from Hos. 2:1; Sept.: Gen. 28:16, 17; 35:14; Ruth 3:4).
(III) Of a place in which one dwells, sojourns or belongs; a dwelling place, abode, home (Luke 16:28; John 11:6; 14:2, 3; Acts 1:25; 12:17; Rev. 12:6, 8, 14). Of a house, dwelling (Acts 4:31); a temple (Acts 7:49 quoted from Is. 66:1); the temple as the abode of God is called the Holy Place (Matt. 24:15; Acts 6:13, 14; 21:28; Sept.: 1 Sam. 10:25; 24:23; Ps. 24:3; Is. 60:13).
(IV) In a geographical or topographical sense, a place or part of a country, the earth.
(A) Of a definite place or spot in a city, district, country (Matt. 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 6:17; 22:40; 23:33; John 6:10; 19:13; Acts 27:8, 29, 41; 28:7; Rev. 16:16; Sept.: Gen. 22:2, 14; 28:19; 29:26; Num. 24:11).
(B) Of an inhabited place, a city, village, quarter (Matt. 14:35; Luke 4:37; 10:1; Acts 16:3; 27:2). In 1 Cor. 1:2, “in every place,” everywhere among men (2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim. 2:8; Sept.: 2 Chr. 34:6).
(C) Of a tract of country as a district, region, desert place (Matt. 14:13, 15; Mark 1:35, 45; 6:31, 32, 35; Luke 4:42; 9:10, 12); “through dry places” (Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24); “in divers places” meaning quarters, countries (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). Also in the sense of a land, country (John 11:48, “our place and nation”). “In this place” (Acts 7:7) in allusion to Gen. 15:4 (cf (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn4). Heb. 11:8).
(D) Figuratively of a place or passage in a book (Luke 4:17).
Deriv.: &#225;topos (824), out of place, inconvenient; ent&#243;pios (1786), a resident.
Syn.: ch&#243;̄ra (5561), a space or territory, country, ground, region, land; chōr&#237;on (5564), a region; ch&#243;̄ros (5566), area, place; perioch&#233;̄ (1042), the area around; m&#233;ros (3313), place, part, portion.
It appears you have been overtaken by your zeal for ignorance.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-02-2009, 02:57 PM
Hey there Andrew!

Glad to see you are back! But I don't remember giving you "leave" - :p

Richard

Thanks :) And Christ's blessings to you too.

I don't doubt that many of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled in the 1st century in the way you and Rose have described so well in a number of other threads in this forum, and in the way you described in your previous post - but neither do I doubt that many of those very same prophecies have an ultimate fulfillment which is still coming.

Though your insight into the book of Revelation is very good :thumb:, I believe it's also flawed in some respects, for a number of reasons, and in a number of ways. I could give you a summary of the Revelation in the same way you did for me, and while I'm about it, I could point out, "point-by-point" where I believe some (not all) of what you say is flawed, because like you, I know almost all of the Revelation [almost] off-by-heart already, so much and so often have I read and studied it, in comparison with the Bible's other prophetic books.

Which of course, means nothing if my understanding is flawed.

The same principle goes for the rest of what you said in your post. I could point out "point-by-point" where I believe some of the things you say are flawed.

BUT ... you and I are NEVER going to disagree.... oops... I mean agree :nono: .... and a circle is a circle, is a circle. I think you know about circles and wheels! :)

I hope you understand. I'm going to force myself not to come back to "peek" at this thread of mine again :nono: ... because whenever I do, the temptation to speak gets the better of me, and then we just end up on the same merry-go-round... and even worse (forgive me), exchanging mutual angry "compliments". That just sucks. It breaks down everything that's good and right and Holy and true, and that's when the Lord withdraws His blessing upon any discussion or debate - and I've been guilty of it, I know.

I've basically said whatever I wanted to say (as well as things I DIDN'T want to say) in this thread, so it's time for me to be quiet about this subject of the Kingdom of Christ now. Whether His Kingdom has come, or whether it has come in part and is yet to come in full, all I want "at the end of the day" is to be a good citizen of His Kingdom.

God bless,
Andrew

lekh lekha
09-02-2009, 03:19 PM
Wooah. I'm sorry, Rose, I took it you were presenting an argument against what I said to Cheow Wee Hock here:


"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (Joh 14:3).

There is so much that still needs to be said about this: The Jewish groom leaving his father's house and going to the home of his bride, offering his bride a marriage-contract, paying the bride-price, then returning to his father's house and preparing the wedding chamber and mansion for the marriage to be consummated,

then returning on a day the bride did not expect (since she would have been waiting for him to return for her throughout this period), then taking his bride with him to his fathers house and the marriage being consummated for seven days, and then returning with his bride to her own village or country again in order to reside with her there for the rest of their lives.

Jewish Christians understand these things so much better than Gentile Christians (I learned about the above from a Christian Jew). And you will be very, very hard-pressed to find a Jewish Christian whose expectations of the Kingdom of the Messiah (the Kingdom of Christ) are any different to what the expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus were. It is after all their fathers who received the Word of God!

Andrew

It seemed to me the purpose of your entire post was to be dismissive of what the culture of the Jews in the days of Jesus teaches us about the Word of Almighty God.

I wasn't meaning to be rude, just feeling tired of going in circles... but I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "whatever" in referring to your argument against what I said in the quote above (which Richard wrongly took to be "dismissive of the Word of God"). I'm never dismissive of the Word of God... I was just being as dismissive of your argument against what I said in my post above... because I don't agree with it at all.

But I shouldn't have used that word - it TRULY wasn't directed against you personally (and DEFINITELY NOT toward God's Word), but against your argument against what I said in my post above, which was (as usual) very dismissive of whatever I've said in this thread. You've been very dismissive of WHATEVER I've said in this thread. What am I supposed to think?

I'm going on a very long coffee-break. I'm not angry with you, or with Richard or with anyone. I don't have the desire or the strength to fight with you two all the time like this.

God bless, Rose - :flowers:

Andrew

Rose
09-02-2009, 03:32 PM
BUT ... you and I are NEVER going to disagree.... oops... I mean agree :nono: .... and a circle is a circle, is a circle. I think you know about circles and wheels! :)

I hope you understand. I'm going to force myself not to come back to "peek" at this thread of mine again :nono: ... because whenever I do, the temptation to speak gets the better of me, and then we just end up on the same merry-go-round... and even worse (forgive me), exchanging mutual angry "compliments". That just sucks. It breaks down everything that's good and right and Holy and true, and that's when the Lord withdraws His blessing upon any discussion or debate - and I've been guilty of it, I know.

I've basically said whatever I wanted to say (as well as things I DIDN'T want to say) in this thread, so it's time for me to be quiet about this subject of the Kingdom of Christ now. Whether His Kingdom has come, or whether it has come in part and is yet to come in full, all I want "at the end of the day" is to be a good citizen of His Kingdom.

God bless,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I'm sorry if you feel that you can't continue learning more by our discussions, even if we do disagree, and go in circles at times. I know myself, that I am continually getting insights into Gods Word no matter how many times I go over it (or in circles :lol:). I have enjoyed, and learned much from our conversations here.

"all I want "at the end of the day" is to be a good citizen of His Kingdom." Amen to that, :thumb:

Blessings to you wherever you go....

Rose

Rose
09-02-2009, 03:58 PM
Wooah. I'm sorry, Rose, I took it you were presenting an argument against what I said to Cheow Wee Hock here:



It seemed to me the purpose of your entire post was to be dismissive of what the culture of the Jews in the days of Jesus teaches us about the Word of Almighty God.

I wasn't meaning to be rude, just feeling tired of going in circles... but I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "whatever" in referring to your argument against what I said in the quote above (which Richard wrongly took to be "dismissive of the Word of God"). I'm never dismissive of the Word of God... I was just being as dismissive of your argument against what I said in my post above... because I don't agree with it at all.

But I shouldn't have used that word - it TRULY wasn't directed against you personally (and DEFINITELY NOT toward God's Word), but against your argument against what I said in my post above, which was (as usual) very dismissive of whatever I've said in this thread. You've been very dismissive of WHATEVER I've said in this thread. What am I supposed to think?

I'm going on a very long coffee-break. I'm not angry with you, or with Richard or with anyone. I don't have the desire or the strength to fight with you two all the time like this.

God bless, Rose - :flowers:

Andrew

Again, I"m sorry that you think of our discussions as fights, as I said before I have learned much from them. To my way of thinking disagreeing with someone and being dismissive of them are two entirely different things. I hope I have not been dismissive of your interpretations, I certainly didn't intend to, my only intention was to present a differing point of view.

Please get plenty of relaxation on your long coffee-break, and pop back in whenever you feel like exercising your debating skills. We love having you around here.

Many blessings and peace to you my brother in the Lord.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2009, 04:11 PM
Thanks :) And Christ's blessings to you too.

I don't doubt that many of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled in the 1st century in the way you and Rose have described so well in a number of other threads in this forum, and in the way you described in your previous post - but neither do I doubt that many of those very same prophecies have an ultimate fulfillment which is still coming.

Though your insight into the book of Revelation is very good :thumb:, I believe it's also flawed in some respects, for a number of reasons, and in a number of ways. I could give you a summary of the Revelation in the same way you did for me, and while I'm about it, I could point out, "point-by-point" where I believe some (not all) of what you say is flawed, because like you, I know almost all of the Revelation [almost] off-by-heart already, so much and so often have I read and studied it, in comparison with the Bible's other prophetic books.

I would be delighted if you shared your insights!



BUT ... you and I are NEVER going to disagree.... oops... I mean agree :nono: .... and a circle is a circle, is a circle. I think you know about circles and wheels! :)

Ha! Yes, am a bit familiar with round things! :p

But as for going in circles - I don't believe that is what is happening. Students of mathematics don't "go in circles" when they disagree, unless someone insists that 2 + 2 = 17 and refuses to learn.

I see no reason we could not come to perfect agreement about the facts. It seems to that all we need to do is establish the points we totally agree upon as a foundation. Then move forward with absolutely NO SPECULATION allowed. If we followed the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics that demands to or three clear an unambiguous witnesses for anything taught as doctrine, we could clear up all the major questions of eschatology in short order.

After years of reading and discussing eschatology with others, I am convinced the 90% of futurism is speculation with no biblical foundation. Preterism, on the other hand, is fundamentally established upon a great cloud of mutually confirming biblical facts. Or that's how it seems to me anyway. :rolleyes:



I hope you understand. I'm going to force myself not to come back to "peek" at this thread of mine again :nono: ... because whenever I do, the temptation to speak gets the better of me, and then we just end up on the same merry-go-round... and even worse (forgive me), exchanging mutual angry "compliments". That just sucks. It breaks down everything that's good and right and Holy and true, and that's when the Lord withdraws His blessing upon any discussion or debate - and I've been guilty of it, I know.

I very much appreciate your desire to avoid "mutual angry compliments." :thumb: But I am sorry that you feel you can not participate without the danger of us falling into such lousy behaviour.



I've basically said whatever I wanted to say (as well as things I DIDN'T want to say) in this thread, so it's time for me to be quiet about this subject of the Kingdom of Christ now. Whether His Kingdom has come, or whether it has come in part and is yet to come in full, all I want "at the end of the day" is to be a good citizen of His Kingdom.

God bless,
Andrew
Amen! My prayers are that God will fully fulfill your desire to be a good citizen of His Kingdom.

All the very best my friend. I am glad you shared your understanding with us. We have all benefited a lot.

Richard

joel
09-03-2009, 09:47 AM
It seems to that all we need to do is establish the points we totally agree upon as a foundation.

When are the cows coming home? I'm not sure that the two of you (Andrew = 1, Richard and Rose = 1) can reasonably expect to accomplish that goal.

As I see this issue, it is not so much a difference in foundation......as it is.....what is built upon the foundation.

In other words, a major difference in your belief systems is "timing". There is no argument about God judging sin......or bringing judgment upon the Israel....but.....there is a difference concerning the timing.
And,.....
Coupled with timing, there seems to be disagreement about "amount".

Is a thing completed entirely with no more to be done?
Is something going to be completed incrementally, or all at once?

Two "word families" seem to apply here. One is associated with the family of words linked to "telos" (Strong's 5056), termination, consummation.
The other is linked to "pleroma" (Strong's 4138). completeness, fullness.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
09-03-2009, 10:15 AM
When are the cows coming home? I'm not sure that the two of you (Andrew = 1, Richard and Rose = 1) can reasonably expect to accomplish that goal.

As I see this issue, it is not so much a difference in foundation......as it is.....what is built upon the foundation.

In other words, a major difference in your belief systems is "timing". There is no argument about God judging sin......or bringing judgment upon the Israel....but.....there is a difference concerning the timing.
And,.....
Coupled with timing, there seems to be disagreement about "amount".

Is a thing completed entirely with no more to be done?
Is something going to be completed incrementally, or all at once?

Two "word families" seem to apply here. One is associated with the family of words linked to "telos" (Strong's 5056), termination, consummation.
The other is linked to "pleroma" (Strong's 4138). completeness, fullness.

Joel
Hi Joel,

I very much appreciate your comments, and I agree that a lot of dispute comes from the question of timing. By I disagree that there is "not so much a difference in foundation." It seems to me that the failure to lay a proper foundation upon the large set of mutually confirming verses is the source of essentially ALL of our eschatological disputes.

For example, the doctrine of a premillenial rapture has absolutely no foundation in Scripture if we follow the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which requires at least two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses before anything can be taught as "doctrine" - that is, before anything can be said to have a true "foundation" in Scripture. I say this because there is only one verse that can be read in the "plain sense" that seems to imply the Rapture, and there are no verses that explicitly state that Christ will reign on earth for a 1000 years. This means that neither the doctrine of the Millennium, nor the doctrine of the Rapture, can be used as "foundation stones" for anyone's eschatology. They may or may not be true - that is not the question. The question is, can they be used in the foundation of any eschatological understanding? It seems to me that the answer is unequivocally "No."

The same thing goes for Andrew's fundamental doctrine that the "land promises" were not fulfilled. There is absolutely no justification to use this idea in the "foundation" of any eschatological view for two fundamental reasons:

1) There is not a single verse in the Bible that states or implies that the land promises were not fulfilled.

2) There are a number of mutually confirming verses that explicitly state that the land promises were fulfilled.

Therefore, anyone who attempts to found their eschatological beliefs upon the doctrine that the land promises were not fulfilled is directly contradicting both the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics as well as the idea that we should "LET THE WORD OF GOD MOULD OUR THINKING."

It is my opinion that these are extreme and fundamental errors that destroy absolutely and completely any possibililty of coming to a correct understanding of the Bible.

This is why I say that we need to lay the FOUNDATION of our eschatology upon what the Bible really teaches, and that the primary reason for our continuing disagreements is precisely this lack of a BIBLICAL FOUNDATION.

Many blessings to you my friend!

Richard

PS: Again, let me affirm how glad I am that you are here to share your views with us.

joel
09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
By the "foundation"......I was referring to the common truths that unite us.....Who Jesus is.....what He has accomplished concerning the covering for our sins.....by His blood.

That, to me, is the foundation upon which we all rest.

I assume that you and Andrew are in agreement concerning that.

What occurred at the cross of Christ and continued on until His resurrection is the starting point for all of us. The essential fact of His sacrifice for our sins is the bedrock foundation of our faith.

And, it is not a matter of our understanding it.......but being persuaded as to the truth....and being given the gift of faith...concerning what God has accomplished in that.

If we say that there is yet more to the foundation......which I do not believe there is more........then, we are laying yet another foundation.

It is now a matter of what is being built upon the foundation.....what material we are bringing to the construction of the building.......is it wood, hay or stubble.......if so, it will be burned. Or, is it gold, silver, or precious stones?......if so, it will stand the trial of the fire and remain.

Joel

lekh lekha
09-04-2009, 08:26 AM
By the "foundation"......I was referring to the common truths that unite us.....Who Jesus is.....what He has accomplished concerning the covering for our sins.....by His blood.

That, to me, is the foundation upon which we all rest.

I assume that you and Andrew are in agreement concerning that.

What occurred at the cross of Christ and continued on until His resurrection is the starting point for all of us. The essential fact of His sacrifice for our sins is the bedrock foundation of our faith.

And, it is not a matter of our understanding it.......but being persuaded as to the truth....and being given the gift of faith...concerning what God has accomplished in that.

If we say that there is yet more to the foundation......which I do not believe there is more........then, we are laying yet another foundation.

It is now a matter of what is being built upon the foundation.....what material we are bringing to the construction of the building.......is it wood, hay or stubble.......if so, it will be burned. Or, is it gold, silver, or precious stones?......if so, it will stand the trial of the fire and remain.

Joel

Well I'm glad that the link to the following web-site is provided on Richard's Bible Wheel homepage, because when one reads what is written in the following two links, one discovers that far from being speculative, the past tense/future tense fulfillment way of interpreting Biblical prophecy is indeed the Biblical view:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html

When Satan approached Eve, he was a good salesman:

1.Telling her about a useless, extremely damaging product (the knowledge of good and evil) while pretending it was an excellent product; and

2. Telling her about enormous benefits for purchasing the product – that her (spiritual) eyes would be opened, and thereby she would become like God in Whose image and likeness she had already been created.

3.Pretending that this word of Satan should be believed because Satan apparently knew what God actually had in mind when He gave Adam His Word ("you will NOT surely die, for GOD KNOWS...), and claiming that that this word of Satan was therefore an accurate reflection of the Word of God.

4. Offering this interpretation of the Word of God as the 'enlightened' interpretation.

Satan comes as an angel of light, and so do his ministers (2Cor.11: 14-15).

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the church:

'And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.' (Rev 12:17)

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' (Gen 3:15)

In her reply to Satan's "hath God indeed said", Eve did two things:

1. She added to the Word of God "... neither shall you touch it..." (Gen.3: 3).

2. She took away from the Word of God "... lest you die... " (God had said "in the day you eat of it you shall surely (most definitely) die.".

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the Church.

When faced with Satan's 'enlightened' interpretation of the Word of God, what did Eve believe that caused her to 'see' 'that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise' and to take 'of the fruit thereof, and eat', and give 'also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.'? (Gen 3:6).

"Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Rom.4: 3; Gen.15: 6).

With regard to God's promises to Abraham, what did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe?

It is clear from the two links to the website provided above and from everything I've shown in this thread, that they did not believe what Richard and Rose believe.

What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

They assert that the questions the apostles asked Jesus about the Kingdom being restored to Israel, and the statements they made about the Kingdom of Christ were ignorant questions and statements.

This assertion implies that those who believe in full preterism and in a "spiritual" Kingdom of Christ are far more enlightened regarding the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob than what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles were.

As can be seen from the links to the website provided above, full preterism and the teaching that the Kingdom of Christ is a 'spiritual' Kingdom does three things:

1. Adds to the Word of God by asserting that in His promises to Abraham, God meant a 'spiritual' nation and a 'spiritual' kingdom.

2.Takes away from the Word of God by taking away the plain and literal meaning of God's promises, and replacing them with another meaning (a "spiritual" nation and a "spiritual" kingdom).

3.Claims to be far more enlightened than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus regarding what God actually had in mind and what God promised :

Paul said, "they are not ALL Israel, who are of Israel" (Rom.9: 6-8), and in Rom.11: 17 he tells us that they became broken off because they refused to believe (ALL) the Word of God.

They would not believe the Word which said that the Messiah would die for His people and rise again, even though they did believe the Word which said that the Messiah would become the conquering, triumphant son of David who would deliver them from their enemies by judging their enemies.

As we can see from the above links, both aspects of the role of the Messiah are entirely Biblical, and the full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom interpretation of the Word of God is foreign and alien to the Bible.

Most of Israel were were broken off from Israel because of what they believed (since by refusing to believe that the Messiah must die and rise again, they believed something else regarding the Word of God).

And Paul said to the Gentiles:

'Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.' (Rom 11:19-22).

Lekh

Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2009, 09:18 AM
Well I'm glad that the link to the following web-site is provided on Richard's Bible Wheel homepage, because when one reads what is written in the following two links, one discovers that far from being speculative, the past tense/future tense fulfillment way of interpreting Biblical prophecy is indeed the Biblical view:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html


Hey Lech!

I'm very glad you came back to present your views though I think it would have been better if you had responded to my previous refutations of your arguments. But that does not really matter, because you have introduced some very "enlightening" ideas that will really help clarify our differences.

Looking at the first link you posted, we find the "Twelfth Principle" of the modern Jewish faith:
'I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and though he may delay, nevertheless I wait for his coming every day.'
Contained in this "principle" is the implicit denial that Messiah has already come. And what does the Holy Bible declare concerning anyone who denies that Jesus already came as Messiah? The answer is absolutely clear and unambiguous:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Therefore, in as much as you are founding your argument upon the Twelfth Principle of the Faith written by unbelieving Jews, you are founding your argument upon the doctrine of antichrist.


With regard to God's promises to Abraham, what did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe?

It is clear from the two links to the website provided above and from everything I've shown in this thread, that they did not believe what Richard and Rose believe.
That is absolutely and unequivocally false because Abraham believed God, whereas you have only quoted those who do not believe God. The links that you provided present the views of Jews who REJECT JESUS CHRIST. They are the views of antichrist, as defined by the Lord God Almighty in His Holy Word.

I thank God that Rose and I do not believe the doctrines taught by people who reject Jesus Christ.

I find it extremely "enlightening" that you had to go outside the Bible to quote UNBELIEVERS to support your doctrines. This demonstrates yet again that they are not founded upon the Holy Bible.



What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

They assert that the questions the apostles asked Jesus about the Kingdom being restored to Israel, and the statements they made about the Kingdom of Christ were ignorant questions and statements.

It is true that I have said their question about the "restoration of the kingdom" was ignorant if they meant a literal restoration of the carnal kingdom of Israel. But it is a lie to assert that I said their "statements about the kingdom of Christ were ignorant." I have never said anything like that. We never have discussed their "statements about the kingdom of Christ." Our conversation has focused on the question in Acts 1. You really should try to be a little more responsible about what you say. The Holy Bible does not speak well of liars:
John 8:37-45 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 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. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Note that these Jews who denied Christ and sought to kill Him are the fathers of the people who wrote the "Twelfth Principle" which you are using to prove your eschatology.

You would do well to change sides and establish your eschatology upon the writings of the Jews that recieved Christ, such as Peter and Paul and John and James.

Richard

Rose
09-04-2009, 09:25 AM
What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

Hey Andrew, glad you're back from your coffee-break....;)

One thing that I would like to clarify, because of the way you lumped both Preterists, and Replacement-theologists in the same sentence, is to state the difference in what both believe for those who don't know.


1.) "Full" Preterists believe that all the Promises and Prophecies given in the Bible have been fulfilled by the coming of Lord Jesus Christ in power, and glory. They believe (myself included), that the Olive Tree always has been, and always will be "faithful, believing Israel" starting with Abraham and continuing on until today. There has always been grafting in and cutting out going on throughout history, but NEVER, Never, never has the Olive Tree been replaced by the Church. The foundation of the Church began with the remnant of "faithful, believing Israel", which was and is, one and the same Olive Tree of today "the Church".

2.) Replacment-theologians falsely believe that somehow the Church has replaced Israel.:confused: :confused2:


As you can see there is quite a fundamental difference between the two, and that the two could never merge. So, in the future please be more careful in the way you use those terms.

I am a Preterist, which has nothing to do with Replacement- theology!:eek:

Many blessing

Rose

lekh lekha
09-04-2009, 12:08 PM
I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gen 17:7-8)

You can use as many thousands of scriptures as you like, because from the very beginning of the history of the human race God's Word has been used to beguile God's people into believing a lie, and into believing that God DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID, BUT HAD SOME OTHER MEANING IN MIND.


Well I'm glad that the link to the following web-site is provided on Richard's Bible Wheel homepage, because when one reads what is written in the following two links, one discovers that far from being speculative, the past tense/future tense fulfillment way of interpreting Biblical prophecy is indeed the Biblical view:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html

When Satan approached Eve, he was a good salesman:

1.Telling her about a useless, extremely damaging product (the knowledge of good and evil) while pretending it was an excellent product; and

2. Telling her about enormous benefits for purchasing the product – that her (spiritual) eyes would be opened, and thereby she would become like God in Whose image and likeness she had already been created.

3.Pretending that this word of Satan should be believed because Satan apparently knew what God actually had in mind when He gave Adam His Word ("you will NOT surely die, for GOD KNOWS...), and claiming that that this word of Satan was therefore an accurate reflection of the Word of God.

4. Offering this interpretation of the Word of God as the 'enlightened' interpretation.

Satan comes as an angel of light, and so do his ministers (2Cor.11: 14-15).

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the church:

'And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.' (Rev 12:17)

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' (Gen 3:15)

In her reply to Satan's "hath God indeed said", Eve did two things:

1. She added to the Word of God "... neither shall you touch it..." (Gen.3: 3).

2. She took away from the Word of God "... lest you die... " (God had said "in the day you eat of it you shall surely (most definitely) die.".

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the Church.

When faced with Satan's 'enlightened' interpretation of the Word of God, what did Eve believe that caused her to 'see' 'that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise' and to take 'of the fruit thereof, and eat', and give 'also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.'? (Gen 3:6).

"Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Rom.4: 3; Gen.15: 6).

With regard to God's promises to Abraham, what did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe?

It is clear from the two links to the website provided above and from everything I've shown in this thread, that they did not believe what Richard and Rose believe.

What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

They assert that the questions the apostles asked Jesus about the Kingdom being restored to Israel, and the statements they made about the Kingdom of Christ were ignorant questions and statements.

This assertion implies that those who believe in full preterism and in a "spiritual" Kingdom of Christ are far more enlightened regarding the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob than what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles were.

As can be seen from the links to the website provided above, full preterism and the teaching that the Kingdom of Christ is a 'spiritual' Kingdom does three things:

1. Adds to the Word of God by asserting that in His promises to Abraham, God meant a 'spiritual' nation and a 'spiritual' kingdom.

2.Takes away from the Word of God by taking away the plain and literal meaning of God's promises, and replacing them with another meaning (a "spiritual" nation and a "spiritual" kingdom).

3.Claims to be far more enlightened than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus regarding what God actually had in mind and what God promised :

Paul said, "they are not ALL Israel, who are of Israel" (Rom.9: 6-8), and in Rom.11: 17 he tells us that they became broken off because they refused to believe (ALL) the Word of God.

They would not believe the Word which said that the Messiah would die for His people and rise again, even though they did believe the Word which said that the Messiah would become the conquering, triumphant son of David who would deliver them from their enemies by judging their enemies.

As we can see from the above links, both aspects of the role of the Messiah are entirely Biblical, and the full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom interpretation of the Word of God is foreign and alien to the Bible.

Most of Israel were were broken off from Israel because of what they believed (since by refusing to believe that the Messiah must die and rise again, they believed something else regarding the Word of God).

And Paul said to the Gentiles:

'Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.' (Rom 11:19-22).

Lekh

Rose
09-04-2009, 12:34 PM
I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gen 17:7-8)

Hi Andrew,

Of course Jesus did not refute the question of when He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel, because that is precisely what He did! When Jesus came in power and glory, He forever restored the Kingdom of Israel, on whose throne He sits as reigning King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Do you deny that Jesus is at this time the reigning King of Kings?

And God did absolutely establish an everlasting Covenant, with an everlasting inheritance, for Abraham's seed....ALL that was promised was given, as God has said in His Holy Word, the Bible. Do you deny that all believers (Abraham's seed) have right now, at this time an everlasting Covenant with God?

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2009, 12:47 PM
I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

Hey there Andrew, :yo:

You are absolutely correct. You certainly do not "have to" refute anything I say if you are satisfied with forfeiting your argument and implicitly declaring that my refutations are valid. That's how a public debate works.

I trust you understand the nature of a public debate. Everyone reading this thread can easily see that I have presented many solid Biblical facts that refute your theories, and that you have not successfully answered them. You may be happy to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong" but that does not carry much weight in a public debate.

Here are some fundamental points that you have not yet not successfully refuted (if you disagree, please state a brief synopsis of your refutation in a couple sentences and cite the posts that contain the more complete answers):

1) You deny that that land promises were fulfilled. This assertion is contrary to the Bible in two fundamental ways:

A) It directly contradicts the Bible which explicitly states that the land promises were fulfilled.
B) It has no explicit Scriptural support because there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that the promises were not fulfilled.

It would be absurd to assert that you are basing your theories on the Bible and the Bible alone if you let these two points remain unanswered.

2) You have appealed to the Doctrines of Antichrist that deny Jesus was Messiah to prove your eschatology. You have not yet answered this point.

And there are many other points but there is no need to address them until you answer these.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-04-2009, 01:11 PM
The Word of the LORD says,

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Pro 3:5-6);

and,

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (Jas 1:5)

All the people who have been reading this thread and who will read this thread fall into one of three categories:

1. Those who will make up their own minds.

2. Those who will ask God to make up their minds for them, and study the scriptures diligently (Prov.3: 5-6; Jam.1: 5).

3. Those who will let either Andrew or Richard or Rose make up their minds for them.

Of the above three categories of people, only one category is wise.


I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gen 17:7-8)

You can use as many thousands of scriptures as you like, because from the very beginning of the history of the human race God's Word has been used to beguile God's people into believing a lie, and into believing that God DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID, BUT HAD SOME OTHER MEANING IN MIND.


Well I'm glad that the link to the following web-site is provided on Richard's Bible Wheel homepage, because when one reads what is written in the following two links, one discovers that far from being speculative, the past tense/future tense fulfillment way of interpreting Biblical prophecy is indeed the Biblical view:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html

When Satan approached Eve, he was a good salesman:

1.Telling her about a useless, extremely damaging product (the knowledge of good and evil) while pretending it was an excellent product; and

2. Telling her about enormous benefits for purchasing the product – that her (spiritual) eyes would be opened, and thereby she would become like God in Whose image and likeness she had already been created.

3.Pretending that this word of Satan should be believed because Satan apparently knew what God actually had in mind when He gave Adam His Word ("you will NOT surely die, for GOD KNOWS...), and claiming that that this word of Satan was therefore an accurate reflection of the Word of God.

4. Offering this interpretation of the Word of God as the 'enlightened' interpretation.

Satan comes as an angel of light, and so do his ministers (2Cor.11: 14-15).

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the church:

'And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.' (Rev 12:17)

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' (Gen 3:15)

In her reply to Satan's "hath God indeed said", Eve did two things:

1. She added to the Word of God "... neither shall you touch it..." (Gen.3: 3).

2. She took away from the Word of God "... lest you die... " (God had said "in the day you eat of it you shall surely (most definitely) die.".

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the Church.

When faced with Satan's 'enlightened' interpretation of the Word of God, what did Eve believe that caused her to 'see' 'that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise' and to take 'of the fruit thereof, and eat', and give 'also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.'? (Gen 3:6).

"Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Rom.4: 3; Gen.15: 6).

With regard to God's promises to Abraham, what did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe?

It is clear from the two links to the website provided above and from everything I've shown in this thread, that they did not believe what Richard and Rose believe.

What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

They assert that the questions the apostles asked Jesus about the Kingdom being restored to Israel, and the statements they made about the Kingdom of Christ were ignorant questions and statements.

This assertion implies that those who believe in full preterism and in a "spiritual" Kingdom of Christ are far more enlightened regarding the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob than what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles were.

As can be seen from the links to the website provided above, full preterism and the teaching that the Kingdom of Christ is a 'spiritual' Kingdom does three things:

1. Adds to the Word of God by asserting that in His promises to Abraham, God meant a 'spiritual' nation and a 'spiritual' kingdom.

2.Takes away from the Word of God by taking away the plain and literal meaning of God's promises, and replacing them with another meaning (a "spiritual" nation and a "spiritual" kingdom).

3.Claims to be far more enlightened than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus regarding what God actually had in mind and what God promised :

Paul said, "they are not ALL Israel, who are of Israel" (Rom.9: 6-8), and in Rom.11: 17 he tells us that they became broken off because they refused to believe (ALL) the Word of God.

They would not believe the Word which said that the Messiah would die for His people and rise again, even though they did believe the Word which said that the Messiah would become the conquering, triumphant son of David who would deliver them from their enemies by judging their enemies.

As we can see from the above links, both aspects of the role of the Messiah are entirely Biblical, and the full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom interpretation of the Word of God is foreign and alien to the Bible.

Most of Israel were were broken off from Israel because of what they believed (since by refusing to believe that the Messiah must die and rise again, they believed something else regarding the Word of God).

And Paul said to the Gentiles:

'Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.' (Rom 11:19-22).

Lekh

Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2009, 01:16 PM
You can use as many thousands of scriptures as you like, because from the very beginning of the history of the human race God's Word has been used to beguile God's people into believing a lie, and into believing that God DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID, BUT HAD SOME OTHER MEANING IN MIND.
Anybody can quote "thousands of scriptures" - that in itself means less than nothing if they do not support your argument. Case in point - you have habitually quoted mounds upon mounds of scriptures without any explanation of how they supposedly supported your point, and worse, many of those scriptures you quoted directly contradicted your point! I attempted to help you see that this is a fundamental error in your method of presentation but you just changed the topic again and never responded to my post. Here it is again:




And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

"... And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them." (Mat 17:11-12).

"... which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
(Act 3:12-26)

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."

Why did you quote all those Scriptures without stating how they support your point? When I read them, they confirm my point of view. For example, you highlighted the words "Elijah has come already." I could not agree more! That is my my fundamental point! So why post Scriptures if you are not going to state how they support your view?


Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2009, 01:19 PM
The Word of the LORD says,

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Pro 3:5-6);

and,

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (Jas 1:5)

All the people who have been reading this thread and who will read this thread fall into one of three categories:

1. Those who will make up their own minds.

2. Those who will ask God to make up their minds for them, and study the scriptures diligently (Prov.3: 5-6; Jam.1: 5).

3. Those who will let either Andrew or Richard or Rose make up their minds for them.

Of the above three categories of people, only one category is wise.
Into which category do you fall Andrew?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers.
You are building your foundation upon the utterly unstable sand of speculations about a mere question that the apostles asked.

This demonstrates with the utmost clarity that you have absolutely no Biblical foundation for your theories since we all know with perfect certainty that if you could find a single explicit verse that directly supported your ideas you would have posted it by now. But as it is, all you can do is claim secret knowledge about the "beliefs" of the apostles that is never explicitly stated in Scripture.

And you call this letting "THE WORD OF GOD MOULD YOUR THINKING"?

Furthermore, you never answered my refutation of this point! So here it is again:





Personally, I'd rather stick with the "ignorant" expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus than with the expectations of the "enlightened" few in the Church.

If you want to be ignorant there is no one who can stop you, that's for sure!

As for the disciples, anyone who reads the Bible knows that they frequently did not understand what Christ, the Incarnate Word of Truth spoke directly to them. For example:
Mark 9:31-32 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. 32 But they understood not.
Here Christ told them the absolutely essential CORE of the Gospel and they did not understand him. The word translated as "understood not" is Strong's Number 50:
50 agnoeo {ag-no-eh'-o} Meaning: 1) to be ignorant, not to know 2) not to understand, unknown 3) to err or sin through mistake, to be wrong
So would you "rather stick with the 'ignorant' expectations of ... the apostles of Jesus" concerning the meaning of His death and resurrection? Is that really what you are saying?


Let me repeat that question just in case you didn't notice it:

So would you "rather stick with the 'ignorant' expectations of ... the apostles of Jesus" concerning the meaning of His death and resurrection? Is that really what you are saying?

The Bible explicitly states that the Apostles were ignorant about the core message of the Gospel even after it was told to them by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

An answer would be wonderful.

Do you realize that you have failed to answer the majority of points that I have made? You usually just ignore the Biblical evidence and shoot off on another tangent. To me, such behaviour is diametrically opposed to that of a genuine Lover of Truth. A genuine Lover of Truth always tries to focus on the precise point of disagreement so that the truth can be discovered, because that is what the Lover of Truth desires most of all! The "debater" who is committed to his own opinions over and above the Truth will try to dodge any fact that is not "convenient" for his personal opinion, regardless of the Truth. Which behaviour have you been exemplifying in this forum? How many different topics have you started and dropped under the pretext of "going in circles" when you found that they were not based on the explicit teachings of the Bible? And THAT is the problem - the foundation of all of your theories about the end times and Israel are based on speculations and implications that you read into Scripture. If anything has been discovered in this discussion, it is that you have no SOLID BIBLICAL FOUNDATION for your beliefs. That is why you resort to insults against people who disagree by saying that they are twisting Scripture like the serpent in the garden. In effect, you are saying that anyone who disagrees with you is of the devil! Such accusations (which were presented with absolutely no supporting evidence), are the first sign of a desperate debater who would rather win arguments than discern the Truth of Holy Scripture.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-05-2009, 02:31 AM
Hey Lech!

That is absolutely and unequivocally false because Abraham believed God, whereas you have only quoted those who do not believe God. The links that you provided present the views of Jews who REJECT JESUS CHRIST. They are the views of antichrist, as defined by the Lord God Almighty in His Holy Word. Richard

Quote from http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html :

"The idea of a “Savior of the Jewish people,” then, is bound up with the idea of national Israel and the restoration of the Kingdom of David on earth. This (among other reasons) partly explains why the Jewish people tend to reject Jesus as their Savior: from their point of view Jesus did not rescue corporate, national Israel from her enemies nor set up the kingdom of David....

As Christians, however, we believe that Yeshua’ indeed did all of these things -- but in an “already/not-yet” sort of way. He already has effected full deliverance from the ultimate enemy of the Jewish people (i.e., sin and the devil), but He has not yet fully restored the temporal glory of the Kingdom of David and will not do so until He comes again to establish His rule in Jerusalem. Maranatha, Lord Jesus!"

Quote from http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html :

"Yeshua is both Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David

As Christians, we believe that Yeshua is both Mashiach Ben Yosef (the suffering servant - at His first coming) and Mashiach Ben David (the reigning King - at His second coming)
[see Isaiah 52:13-15 - 53:12, Psalm 22]). He is also the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King as foreshadowed by other m’shichim in the Tanakh.

David Brown (of AMF International) writes:

It is very common for Jewish objectors to point that “Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies,” and to scorn the suggestion that some prophecies are for a later time and are to be fulfilled at the “second coming.”

The fact is, however, that prophecies about Messiah are of two seemingly mutually-exclusive types, as though they were talking about two different Messiahs.

Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and ignore ben-Yosef, but the Messianic/Christian view accounts for both in one person.

Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came true. Eventually however, he had a “second coming” when he came back into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed down to him and he became the savior of his people by providing for them in a time of famine.

David also, though anointed as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in glory. Shouldn’t the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?"

END QUOTES

So I quoted our Christian brother in Christ, whose views agree with what I've said in this thread, and who shows in these links from the Bible and from the Jewish understanding of the Messiah that everything I've said in this thread is indeed the case.

And you call our Christian brother in Christ an antichrist???????

I'm totally amazed that God had given me the same understanding of the two Biblical types of Jesus in Joseph and king David which our brother in Christ mentions in these links - and he shows from the Bible why it's the case, comparing it with the traditional views of the Rabbis who reject Christ, showing that their rejection is not Biblical.

And you call your Christian brother in Christ an antichrist???????

Your ranting and raving seems to me to be the last, desperate kicks of a dying horse - the dying horse of your false theology and eschatology, which is in serious error.

You use red herrings and straw-man arguments constantly in your "debate" simply in order to divert attention away from the real issue.

And you accuse your Christian brother who I quoted and who believes in Jesus (and whose pages you yourself have provided links to in your own web-site) of being an antichrist because of his views???????

Lekh

Rose
09-05-2009, 08:43 AM
Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and ignore ben-Yosef, but the Messianic/Christian view accounts for both in one person.

Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came true. Eventually however, he had a 'second coming' when he came back into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed down to him and he became the savior of his people by providing for them in a time of famine.

David also, though anointed as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in glory. Shouldn’t the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?"

END QUOTES

Hi Andrew,

Absolutely, those are perfect types and figures. Messiah DID FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN of Joseph, and David, both started out in low esteem, lived in exile and became suffering servants for a time....then both in their lifetimes ultimately became leaders and rulers who saved their people. This is the exact type, and pattern that Jesus fulfilled. Born a carpenters son, his parents having to flee to Egypt to save their lives, suffering on the cross for the sins of others (to save them), and ultimately becoming King of Kings, and restoring His people's kingdom (His people = believers = seed of Abraham), all this happened within His generation, exactly in keeping with the pattern of Joseph, and David.

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 08:59 AM
Quote from http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Savior/savior.html :

"The idea of a “Savior of the Jewish people,” then, is bound up with the idea of national Israel and the restoration of the Kingdom of David on earth. This (among other reasons) partly explains why the Jewish people tend to reject Jesus as their Savior: from their point of view Jesus did not rescue corporate, national Israel from her enemies nor set up the kingdom of David....

As Christians, however, we believe that Yeshua’ indeed did all of these things -- but in an “already/not-yet” sort of way. He already has effected full deliverance from the ultimate enemy of the Jewish people (i.e., sin and the devil), but He has not yet fully restored the temporal glory of the Kingdom of David and will not do so until He comes again to establish His rule in Jerusalem. Maranatha, Lord Jesus!"

Quote from http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Shloshah-Asar_Ikkarim/Mashiach/mashiach.html :

Hey Lech! :yo:

That is a very helpful response! In you your first post, you just posted some links but did not quote the part of the links that you were intending to use as support for your position. The first thing at the top of the page was a statement of faith written by people who reject Jesus Christ, so I assumed you were in agreement with them and using them to support your position. Thanks for clarifying!

For a long time I thought that the "already/not yet" idea was the best solution to the "tensions" in the prophecies of the Bible. I think there is a lot of Biblical support for that position but after much study I have come to as different conclusion (as you probably have noticed ;)!).



"Yeshua is both Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David

As Christians, we believe that Yeshua is both Mashiach Ben Yosef (the suffering servant - at His first coming) and Mashiach Ben David (the reigning King - at His second coming)
[see Isaiah 52:13-15 - 53:12, Psalm 22]). He is also the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King as foreshadowed by other m’shichim in the Tanakh.

David Brown (of AMF International) writes:

It is very common for Jewish objectors to point that “Jesus has not fulfilled all the prophecies,” and to scorn the suggestion that some prophecies are for a later time and are to be fulfilled at the “second coming.”

The fact is, however, that prophecies about Messiah are of two seemingly mutually-exclusive types, as though they were talking about two different Messiahs.

Jewish scholarship refers to Messiah ben-David and Messiah ben-Yosef. One is the positive, victorious Messiah who ushers in a kingdom of peace, the other is a suffering servant (as in Isaiah 53). The popular tendency is to think only of ben-David and ignore ben-Yosef, but the Messianic/Christian view accounts for both in one person.

Interestingly, these two prophetic strains are named for David and Joseph, both of which suffered first and emerged victorious in the end. Joseph is introduced to us with dreams of grandeur, but he was lost to Israel – actually considered dead – before his dreams came true. Eventually however, he had a “second coming” when he came back into the lives of his brothers who once rejected him. Then they bowed down to him and he became the savior of his people by providing for them in a time of famine.

David also, though anointed as King in his youth as far as God was concerned, was rejected by the current King and lived as a fugitive for many years before he finally became the quintessential King of Israel. Both of these historic figures, which Jewish tradition has recognized as being prototypes of Messiah, arrive amid promises, are pushed down, and finally emerge in glory. Shouldn’t the ultimate Messiah follow the same pattern?"

END QUOTES

Those quotes contain a huge number of assumptions, preconceptions, and speculations so it would be a very big conversation to evaluate their validity. The whole "two Messiah" idea has some appeal, but does it really have any Biblical support? We would have to establish that before assuming it is true. Are you saying that you believe every eschatological statement posted on that page?

As for the Messiah following the pattern of David - that remains true regardless your eschatological beliefs, and the Preterist view has much more support because Christ went away for a "long time" (about 40 years) before coming in power to judge apostate Jerusalem. And there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says a single word about a 2000+ year delay. On the contrary, ALL THE BIBLICAL STATEMENTS clearly state the Christ would come in the generation of the first century believers.



So I quoted our Christian brother in Christ, whose views agree with what I've said in this thread, and who shows in these links from the Bible and from the Jewish understanding of the Messiah that everything I've said in this thread is indeed the case.

And you call our Christian brother in Christ an antichrist???????

Absolutely not! As you can tell from my post, I specifically referred only to the teaching quoted at the head of the page that denies Jesus Christ was the Messiah. It is the Bible, not I, that declares that to be antichrist.



I'm totally amazed that God had given me the same understanding of the two Biblical types of Jesus in Joseph and king David which our brother in Christ mentions in these links - and he shows from the Bible why it's the case, comparing it with the traditional views of the Rabbis who reject Christ, showing that their rejection is not Biblical.

And there may be some validity to that - but that does NOTHING to help distinguish between Preterism and Futurism because the same pattern is fulfilled in both understandings. The difference between Preterism and Futurism is the question of whether or not the Bible teaches a literal restoration of a carnal first covenant Israel - you must remember that the prophecies that you use to support the idea of a future literal OT style Israel contain references to elements of the first covenant such as the feasts and animal sacrifices (e.g. Zechariah 14). Therefore, if you believe in a literal future Israel from these prophecies, then you also believe in a reinstution of the OT law, and that is an absolute impossibility. There are many such problems with the literal interpretion of those prophecies.



Your ranting and raving seems to me to be the last, desperate kicks of a dying horse - the dying horse of your false theology and eschatology, which is in serious error.

Your statements are outrageously absurd! On the level of just plain NUTS. It is perfectly clear and plain to every person on reading this forum that I have done everything possible to engage every point you have raised. I have never "ranted" nor "raved" about anything.

Your assertions are particularly ridiculous because YOU are the one who has consistently failed to answer the BIBLICAL proofs that I have presented. Over and over again, I have presented mountains of Biblical data that directly contradict your position. And what did you do? You ignored the BIBLE and claim that the "thousands of scriptures" that I quote mean nothing becuase I am a deciever like the serpent in the garden! And you have the gall to spit in my face and tell me that I have been "ranting and raving"? You seem to have forgotten that you are a guest in my house, and that I have treated you with respect from the beginning, even when you falsely accused me of "gnosticism." And when you repented of your error, I prominently proclaimed what a shining example you were for everyone in this forum!

All of the spitting and ranting and raving has come from you my friend. This forum is characterized by a fundamental desire for mutually respectful conversation, and we have maintained that Godly Spirit of Peace here for over two years. I always go out of my way to accomodate people with different points of view. But the simple fact is that you can not tolerate anyone who disagrees with ANDREW'S PERSONAL OPINION! If anyone dares to disagree and present SCRIPTURE, you run and hide and refuse to discuss the Scripture and opt to insult and slander your opponent as "of the devil." All the ugly spirit of accusation has come from you. If you can't see this, then you are truly blind.

If your position is so strong, then why do you claim you "don't have to respond" to my Biblical arguemnts on the pretext that I have "twisted" the Scritpures like the devil? If your statement were true, then it would have been very easy for you to quote my exact twistings and convict me of sin right here for all to see!!! But did you do that? NO! You simply threw out an unfounded accusation and ignored the plain statements of Holy Scritpure that refute your position.



You use red herrings and straw-man arguments constantly in your "debate" simply in order to divert attention away from the real issue.

Those are serious accusations - but your forgot one little thing called EVIDENCE. You now have three options:

1) Provide examples of at least two red herring and two straw-man arugments that I have presented in this discussion (since you said I did it "constantly").

2) Publically repent of your error. Admit that your accusation was false.

3) Stand convicted before God and every person reading this forum as an unrepentant liar.

It's a very simple choice, my friend.



And you accuse your Christian brother who I quoted and who believes in Jesus (and whose pages you yourself have provided links to in your own web-site) of being an antichrist because of his views???????

Lekh
That is another false accusation. I never accused any Christian brother of being "antichrist." And you know that. I restricted my comments entirely to the antichrist teaching of the Twelfth Priniciple.

Your thinking is very sloppy. You falsely accuse me of things that you certainly should know are not true. Please consider what this says about the condition of your soul and your relationship to truth.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 09:11 AM
Hi Andrew,

Absolutely, those are perfect types and figures. Messiah DID FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN of Joseph, and David, both started out in low esteem, lived in exile and became suffering servants for a time....then both in their lifetimes ultimately became leaders and rulers who saved their people. This is the exact type, and pattern that Jesus fulfilled. Born a carpenters son, his parents having to flee to Egypt to save their lives, suffering on the cross for the sins of others (to save them), and ultimately becoming King of Kings, and restoring His people's kingdom (His people = believers = seed of Abraham), all this happened within His generation, exactly in keeping with the pattern of Joseph, and David.

God Bless

Rose
Brilliant answer my dear! :flowers:

Preterism certainly gives the most literal fulfillment of that typological prophecy!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 11:57 AM
Andrew,

Here are a few of the questions I have presented to you that you have never answered.

I begin with this post that was in response to your point that John knew he was fulfilling the Elijah prophecy (note that I begin by acknowledging the validity of your point):



I think that is a very good explanation that John the Baptist probably did know that he was fulfilling the prophecies of the Messenger (Mal 3:1) and Elijah (Mal 4:6). You have helped me come to a better understanding, thanks! :yo:

Why then did John say he was not Elijah? Perhaps because he knew he was not literally Elijah in the sense that he was not the reincarnation of Elijah. Some folks have suggested that he was responding to the Jewish tradition that said Elijah would literally return before the Messiah came. But that would be the same error as assuming the David himself was going to literally be king again over Israel in this prophecy:
Ezekiel 37:24-25 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Who is the fulfillment of this prophecy - literal King David, or Christ the Shepherd? Is literal King David going to literally rule over them for a literal "for ever"?

This question must be answered if you are going to maintain your position that the prophecies should be interpreted "literally."

A little later in the same post I presented another question that must be answered if you want to assert that the prophecies should be interpreted "literally":





And it is quite obviously this "taking of God at His (literal) Word" which produced their expectations - expectations which many Gentiles since post-apostolic days have claimed were based on ignorance of God's "real" plan.

It was the Apostle Paul who applied the so-called "literal" promises of the Old Testament to God's New Testament Church:

PROPHECY:
Leviticus 26:11-12 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. 12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
FULFILLMENT:
2 Corinthians 6:16-18 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
And there are many other examples. You do know this, don't you?

It is absolutely essential for you to explain why you think there will be a future "literal" fulfillment of these prophecies that the Lord God Almighty declared to be fulfilled in the Church.

Another point that you never refuted is the BIBLICAL FACT that the apostles were ignorant of the impending death and resurrection of Christ even after He told them about it:





Personally, I'd rather stick with the "ignorant" expectations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus than with the expectations of the "enlightened" few in the Church.

If you want to be ignorant there is no one who can stop you, that's for sure!

As for the disciples, anyone who reads the Bible knows that they frequently did not understand what Christ, the Incarnate Word of Truth spoke directly to them. For example:
Mark 9:31-32 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. 32 But they understood not.
Here Christ told them the absolutely essential CORE of the Gospel and they did not understand him. The word translated as "understood not" is Strong's Number 50:
50 agnoeo {ag-no-eh'-o} Meaning: 1) to be ignorant, not to know 2) not to understand, unknown 3) to err or sin through mistake, to be wrong
So would you "rather stick with the 'ignorant' expectations of ... the apostles of Jesus" concerning the meaning of His death and resurrection? Is that really what you are saying?

You need to explain why you insist that the Apostles were not ignorant when the Bible says they were. Is your position really founded upon Scripture or not?

Another very important argument against your whole thesis that you have not yet successfully refuted is the fact that the Bible declares the land promises have been fulfilled:



Here are some fundamental points that you have not yet not successfully refuted (if you disagree, please state a brief synopsis of your refutation in a couple sentences and cite the posts that contain the more complete answers):

1) You deny that that land promises were fulfilled. This assertion is contrary to the Bible in two fundamental ways:

A) It directly contradicts the Bible which explicitly states that the land promises were fulfilled.
B) It has no explicit Scriptural support because there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that the promises were not fulfilled.

It would be absurd to assert that you are basing your theories on the Bible and the Bible alone if you let these two points remain unanswered.

As far as I can tell, you have made no attempt to answer any of these fundamental Biblical refutations of your opinions, but have opted rather to insult me with false and unfounded accusations of "ranting and raving" and "constantly" using "red herrings and straw-man arguments."

If you would calmly and clearly present your answers to these questions, I think we could begin to make good progress in this conversation.

Many blessings to you in the name of Christ,

Richard

lekh lekha
09-05-2009, 12:29 PM
Hello, Richard :yo:


Hey Lech! :yo:

Your assertions are particularly ridiculous because YOU are the one who has consistently failed to answer the BIBLICAL proofs that I have presented.

The problem is, the Biblical "proofs" that you have quoted are only "proofs" in your own mind. you still haven't proved anything by any of the scriptures you quoted...

BUT your are allowed your opinion.


Over and over again, I have presented mountains of Biblical data that directly contradict your position.

As above :yo: In your mind, maybe. But not in my mind or in the mind of a couple of million other Christians.


And what did you do? You ignored the BIBLE and claim that the "thousands of scriptures" that I quote mean nothing becuase I am a deciever like the serpent in the garden

I didn't even imply that! I said that you can quote as many scriptures as you like, but if the earth is not as flat as you think it is, it can't change the truth, and the scriptures cannot be used to "prove" something that just aint true - and in any case, the scriptures have been used by Satan in his deceit of Eve (God's people) since the beginning of time, so if something is not true, it won't make it true no matter how many scriptures you quote to "prove" your a position.

I also said that from the beginning of time Eve (God's people) have been adding things to the Word of God which God did not say, and subtracting from the Word of God. And the fact that I said this should show any casual observer that it means I regard you as one of God's people. But you seem to choose to falsely accuse me of meaning something I did not say.

Satan is still deceiving not only the world, but also the church (typified by Eve). And false doctrine is proof of that. So quoting scriptures in support of a false doctrine does not change the fact that it's a false doctrine. The scriptures have been used by every conceivable group for eons to propagate false beliefs - including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al.


You seem to have forgotten that you are a guest in my house and that I have treated you with respect from the beginning

Yes. "Your house" is a public forum read by millions in the internet, and you say you don't mind your views being challenged in "your house".

But the Bible is the Word of God, and does not belong to anyone, and this is a public forum -

- but nevertheless I can take a hint so yes, I will stay away from "your house" after this.

- and no, you have not treated me with respect all along - your Christianese "blessings to you" and "yo" (as above) etc does not cover up for some of the things you've said after and before the niceties - you only have to go back and read the whole thread again and if you are honest, you will see that you have not been as innocent as you claim.


! And you have the gall to spit in my face and tell me that I have been "ranting and raving"?

You're doing that right now.

And you've been falsely accusing me of saying that you are a deceiver like the serpent in the garden, whereas if you read carefully what I said, you would see that's not what I said.

You may be a part of the deceived portion of the church, and the deceived portion of the church will always add meanings to God's Word which are not there, and also subtract things from the Word of God - which is what full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ theology and eschatology actually does.

And the scriptures will always be used in support of false doctrine - the Jehovah's Witnesses do it, the Mormons do it, and everyone who wants to propagate their own doctrinal beliefs do it.

For some reason the only people who don't do it to the same degree (although even some of them do this also), are the Christian Jews. (I'm not a Jew, just a believer in my Savior and Lord who notices things).


This forum is characterized by a fundamental desire for mutually respectful conversation, and we have maintained that Godly Spirit of Peace here for over two years.

Yes, and I've noticed all the praising that gets offered and accepted in these forums (and I'm not talking about praises offered to Jesus).

Well I apologize. But in the words of Paul,

"For now do I persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Gal 1:10).


I always go out of my way to accomodate people with different points of view.

As long as they either agree with you in the end or keep quiet in the end?


But the simple fact is that you can not tolerate anyone who disagrees with ANDREW'S PERSONAL OPINION!

Thankfully, my Lord and Savior is the One who knows the truth about my thoughts. I think it's you who can't tolerate someone presenting too much of a challenge to the beliefs about the Kingdom of Christ you seem to hold so dear to your heart - beliefs which are actually an insult to God and to those who are ethnic Jews.


If anyone dares to disagree and present SCRIPTURE, you run and hide and refuse to discuss the Scripture and opt to insult and slander your opponent as "of the devil." All the ugly spirit of accusation has come from you. If you can't see this, then you are truly blind.

It's a false accusation! I never once said or implied that you are "of the devil". I've said that your teaching is false, and it's proof of Satan's deception of the church, and Satan's deception of God's chosen people has been happening since the beginning of the history of the human race and of God's chosen people.

And I've said that you can quote as many scriptures as you like to support your position, but it's like trying to prove from the Bible that the earth is flat, and the doctrine you believe in (and teach) does exactly what was done from the beginning by Eve (God's chosen people) - it adds to the Word and takes away from the Word - AND it claims to be the more "enlightened" view.

It is those things which I said above which caused you to rant and rave.

Do you think I don't know that IF what you said was true, then what I've said above would be true of me and every single Christian who believes what I believe?

I can apply those very same things to myself if it was shown to me satisfactorily that what I believe is false, [COLOR="Blue"]no problem.

But you seem to hate the idea that it may apply to you. You say I'm insulting you because I say such things. And yet they are true.

If the church is deceived, it is deceived - and the people of God have come under deceptive philosophy over and over again since the beginning of time - today is no different, and the doctrine you believe with regard to the Kingdom of Christ and eschatology goes way back to Augustine, and was influenced by gnostic thinking.

I can apply the very same things I've said to myself if it was shown to me satisfactorily that what I believe is false, and it would be no problem to me.

But you have shown that you are totally incapable of applying these principles to yourself, and you become enraged at the very suggestion. Why? Where's the Godly humility?

I admit that when I told you that I have a BIG problem with your assertion that the apostles asked their question regarding the Kingdom of Christ out of ignorance, and with your assertion that we cannot base a doctrine on gross "ignorance", I was being unusually (for myself) "loud" about it. My purpose was to try to make you understand what exactly it is that you are saying. But it was futile and it went over your head - since you are already convinced that you are right about whatever you believe, and there's no changing that.

With regard to your ridiculous and childish closing demands, firstly you are not an army Lt, and I'm not on trial in your court-house. Do your own work and go and find the places where you became arrogant, and bear in mind that subtle arrogance clothed with clever and "nice" words is arrogance nonetheless.

I'm not here to please men.

And I've taken your hint - I won't be back.

And by the way - I still see you as a brother in Christ - a brother who is still on a journey to full maturity in Christ, just like I am :thumb:

But you have a problem with accepting the truth about Satan's deception of God's chosen people (maybe because you believe he's bound and incapable of deceiving the church, I don't know).

Lekh

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 02:43 PM
The problem is, the Biblical "proofs" that you have quoted are only "proofs" in your own mind. you still haven't proved anything by any of the scriptures you quoted...

If that were true, then you would have not problem answering the many Biblical proofs I have given that refute your opinions. But you have refused to do that no matter how many times I ask. You constantly choose to ignore the Bible and focus instead on empty assertions that I "still haven't proved anything."

I can not imagine how you could think it possible that anyone will believe what your are saying when you constantly REFUSE to support any of your accusations or assertions with any facts from Scripture or reality.





And what did you do? You ignored the BIBLE and claim that the "thousands of scriptures" that I quote mean nothing becuase I am a deciever like the serpent in the garden

I didn't even imply that!

Are you seriously asserting that you "didn't even imply that"? Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It appears that you do not understand the meaning of "imply." Webster's defines "imply" as "to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement"

Did you "involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence" Rose, myself, and preterists in general with Satan's deception of Eve in the garden? Let's review your post to see (remember, everything you have written has been recorded not only in the Mind of God, but on this forum where we all can read it). Here is what you wrote in post #114 (I'll make your implication nice and clear with super-big font so even you can not miss what you wrote):



When Satan approached Eve, he was a good salesman:

1.Telling her about a useless, extremely damaging product (the knowledge of good and evil) while pretending it was an excellent product; and

2. Telling her about enormous benefits for purchasing the product – that her (spiritual) eyes would be opened, and thereby she would become like God in Whose image and likeness she had already been created.

3.Pretending that this word of Satan should be believed because Satan apparently knew what God actually had in mind when He gave Adam His Word ("you will NOT surely die, for GOD KNOWS...), and claiming that that this word of Satan was therefore an accurate reflection of the Word of God.

4. Offering this interpretation of the Word of God as the “enlightened” interpretation.

Satan comes as an angel of light, and so do his ministers (2Cor.11: 14-15).

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the church:

“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev 12:17)

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:15)

In her reply to Satan's "hath God indeed said", Eve did two things:

1. She added to the Word of God "... neither shall you touch it..." (Gen.3: 3).

2. She took away from the Word of God "... lest you die... " (God had said "in the day you eat of it you shall surely (most definitely) die.".

Eve is a Biblical type of God's chosen nation, and also of the Church.

When faced with Satan's “enlightened” interpretation of the Word of God, what did Eve believe that caused her to “see” “that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” and to take “of the fruit thereof, and eat”, and give “also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”? (Gen 3:6).

"Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Rom.4: 3; Gen.15: 6).

With regard to God's promises to Abraham, what did Abraham believe? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe?

It is clear from the two links to the website provided above and from everything I've shown in this thread, that they did not believe what Richard and Rose believe.

What do preterists and replacement-theologists believe?

They assertthat the questions the apostles asked Jesus about the Kingdom being restored to Israel, and the statements they made about the Kingdom of Christ were ignorant questions and statements.

This assertion implies that those who believe in full preterism and in a "spiritual" Kingdom of Christ are far more enlightened regarding the Word of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob than what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles were.

As can be seen from the links to the website provided above, full preterism and the teaching that the Kingdom of Christ is a “spiritual” Kingdom does three things:

1. Adds to the Word of God by asserting that in His promises to Abraham, God meant a 'spiritual' nation and a 'spiritual' kingdom.

2.Takes away from the Word of God by taking away the plain and literal meaning of God's promises, and replacing them with another meaning (a "spiritual" nation and a "spiritual" kingdom).

3.Claims to be far more enlightened than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets, and the apostles of Jesus regarding what God actually had in mind and what God promised :


In the first part of your post you went to great lengths to establish a connection between Satan's deception and the idea of "enlightenment" and in the second part of the same post you twice used the word "enlighted" in reference to Rose, myself, and pretersits. And you highlighted it to be sure no one could possible miss the implication.

Your statement that you "never implied" that Rose, myself, and preterists were acting like the serpent in the garden is an absolute falsehood.

If you insist on denying the explicit and carefully crafted implications of your own words, then you have placed yourself outside of all rational discourse.

The really pathetic FACT for all to see is that you are producing this great cloud of confusing and crazy and mindless posts for one reason and one reason only - you are attempting to DODGE and HIDE the fact that you have not and can not respond to the BIBLICAL arguments that refute your position.

I have REPEATEDLY asked you to simply answer some very basic and fundamental questions from the Bible and you constantly have refused. You are simply trying to generate enough animosity and confusion so you can say you are quitting because of rudeness or abuse or some such absurdity. But the fact remains and will remain unto eternity - you have not successfully established you arguments on the Bible, and you are not willing to discuss, let alone admit, the facts.



I didn't even imply that! I said that you can quote as many scriptures as you like, but if the earth is not as flat as you think it is, it can't change the truth, and the scriptures cannot be used to "prove" something that just aint true - and in any case, the scriptures have been used by Satan in his deceit of Eve (God's people) since the beginning of time, so if something is not true, it won't make it true no matter how many scriptures you quote to "prove" your a position.
You say "the scriptures cannot be used to 'prove' something that just aint true." You are correct. And that's why you have utterly and completely failed to prove your theories. They simply are not scriptural. Indeed, they directly contradict the explicit teaching of the Holy Bible which states that the land promises were fulfilled.

And again you have failed to support your position with Scripture. All you did was repeat your empty assertion that "I'm right, your wrong." When are you going to learn that few people find that line of argument convincing?



I also said that from the beginning of time Eve (God's people) have been adding things to the Word of God which God did not say, and subtracting from the Word of God. And the fact that I said this should show any casual observer that it means I regard you as one of God's people. But you seem to choose to falsely accuse me of meaning something I did not say.

If you really did not mean to imply that preterists are acting like satan, then why did you craft a post that so strongly implied that very thing?

But if you really did make a mistake, I would be thrilled to accept your apology and forget about this point. Which is obviously just a distraction from answering my serious questions anyway. That's all I really care about. Answer the questions already! (Please).




You seem to have forgotten that you are a guest in my house and that I have treated you with respect from the beginning
Yes. "Your house" is a public forum read by millions in the internet, and you say you don't mind your views being challenged in "your house".

But the Bible is the Word of God, and does not belong to anyone, and this is a public forum -

- but nevertheless I can take a hint so yes, I will stay away from "your house" after this.

Ha! That's hilarious. The word "hint" is a synonym of "imply." It appears you understand neither. I most certainly did not give any "hint" that I wanted you to leave. On the contrary, I would be very sad if you left without answering the fundamental Biblical questions that I have repeatedly presented to you. I was merely trying to remind you to act like a civilized man, if not a Christian.

So will you drop all these distractions and just return to a mature and intelligent discussion of the what the Bible really teaches? I have presented very clear and direct questions to you that refute your interpretation. All you have done is talk about satan and claim I proved nothing without ever even responding to many of my points, or the points that others have presented. Why are you running away from GOD'S WORD???



And the scriptures will always be used in support of false doctrine - the Jehovah's Witnesses do it, the Mormons do it, and everyone who wants to propagate their own doctrinal beliefs do it.

And that's why you should be spending all your time correcting the errors that you see in my interpretations. But you have not done that! I have given you the BIBLICAL REASONS for my beliefs, and have begged and begged and begged for you to please please please just respond to those reasons, but you refuse, and refuse, and refuse!!!

Don't you get it? Everyone can see that you are doing everything possible to avoid dealing with what the Bible really teaches! If my interpretations are as erroneous as the JW's, then why do you not show me where the errors lie? Why do you not answer the questions I have posted over and over again?



And the scriptures will always be used in support of false doctrine - the Jehovah's Witnesses do it, the Mormons do it, and everyone who wants to propagate their own doctrinal beliefs do it.

For some reason the only people who don't do it to the same degree (although even some of them do this also), are the Christian Jews. (I'm not a Jew, just a believer in my Savior and Lord who notices things).

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! AHHAHAHAH! HAHAHAHA!

Man oh MAN oh MAN! The so-called "Christian Jews" have been infiltrated by total heresy on many fronts! Many of them preach against the Apostle Paul! Many teach that we have to go back to Torah! Many deny the Trinity! And you say they are the ones with the least error? Wow!





I always go out of my way to accommodate people with different points of view.

As long as they either agree with you in the end or keep quiet in the end?

That statement is moronic. Ask Cheow or Joel if I have insisted that they "agree with me or keep quiet." As usual, the truth is diametrically opposed to your assertion. A "quiet" forum in which everyone agrees about everything is a dead forum because there is nothing to discuss. Everyone here is into the "iron sharpens iron" mentality. We delight in differences of opinion because they help us discern the truth of God's Word.

That's why I wish you would return to the discussion of God's Word and quit trying to find a way to escape without answering the BIBLICAL FACTS that refute your theories.



I admit that when I told you that I have a BIG problem with your assertion that the apostles asked their question regarding the Kingdom of Christ out of ignorance, and with your assertion that we cannot base a doctrine on gross "ignorance", I was being unusually (for myself) "loud" about it. My purpose was to try to make you understand what exactly it is that you are saying. But it was futile and it went over your head - since you are already convinced that you are right about whatever you believe, and there's no changing that.

If it is was "over my head" why did you not refute my BIBLICAL PROOFS that the disciples were ignorant of many things? I have repeated this question to you and you have repeatedly ignored it.

You can not claim that it is "futile" to answer me if you have not tried!

It has nothing to do with whether I am "convinced" or not. It has to do with the PLAIN AND EXPLICIT TEACHING OF THE BIBLE that states that the disciples were ignorant about important things.

If you would just try to respond to my post and Biblical citations, you will find that you are incorrect about it being "futile." I am a completely rational man who will admit when I am wrong. I've already done that in this thread when I acknowledged your point about John knowing he was fulfilling the role of Elijah.

So get with the program already. You can not hide behind the false idea that I am "already convinced that [I am] right about whatever [i] believe, and there's no changing that." That assertion is absolutely false and without any factual support whatsoever. I have already given you a counterexample that proves you are wrong.

Again, it appears that you are simply trying to dodge serious interaction with someone who knows the Bible and is able to present strong arguments against your interpretations and speculations.




With regard to your ridiculous and childish closing demands, firstly you are not an army Lt, and I'm not on trial in your court-house. Do your own work and go and find the places where you became arrogant, and bear in mind that subtle arrogance clothed with clever and "nice" words is arrogance nonetheless.

Again, you failed to understand simple English. I was not giving you a command. I was stating the facts of the situation into which you put yourself.

You made false accusations about me. Therefore, you have three options in this Moral Universe that our Lord created:

1) Prove your assertions with evidence (which you can not do because they are false)

2) Admit your error.

3) Stand convicted before Almighty God and everyone reading this thread as an unrepentant liar.

This is not a command. This is a declaration of a Moral Law like gravity and geometry that governs this Moral Universe in which we live. You simply have no other options. It's like you are a triangle, and I am telling you that your angles have to add up to 180 degrees. That is not a command. It is a statement of fact.

As it stands, you are currently in process of convicting yourself as an unrepentant liar because you have not taken options 1 or 2 and you have had plenty of time to correct your egregious error. The longer you continue to evade dealing with your own words the stronger the conviction becomes, and if you refuse to answer after being reminded of the Laws of our Moral Universe in this current post, you will have convicted yourself completely.

That's just the way it is in a Moral Universe.



And I've taken your hint - I won't be back.

Everyone can see you are trying to escape the mess you got yourself into. But it won't work. I NEVER EVER hinted in any way that I didn't want you here. On the contrary, I have repeatedly told you and others that I hoped you would stay.

I repeat my request now. I hope you will stay and complete the work that you began.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 09:17 PM
I was reading an article by the brilliant Christian professor Thomas Talbott called Abuse of Revelation (http://www.willamette.edu/%7Ettalbott/false.html) and found his opening paragraph particularly relevant to the discussion in this thread:

Quote:

A generalization about religious belief to which there are, I believe, few exceptions is this: The more confident one is in one's religious beliefs, the more willing one is to subject those beliefs to careful scrutiny; the less confident one is in them--the more one unconsciously fears that they cannot withstand such scrutiny--the more eager one is to find a device that would appear to protect them from careful scrutiny. And, more often than not, such a protective device will include an assault upon human reason.
RIchard

Rose
09-05-2009, 11:13 PM
I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gen 17:7-8)

You can use as many thousands of scriptures as you like, because from the very beginning of the history of the human race God's Word has been used to beguile God's people into believing a lie, and into believing that God DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID, BUT HAD SOME OTHER MEANING IN MIND.

Here's another beautiful example of a type shown in the Old, and fulfilled in the New, clearly establishing that the everlasting Covenant that was promised to the seed of Abraham was none other than the everlasting Covenant brought in by Jesus Christ.

Gen. 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2009, 11:17 PM
Here's another beautiful example of a type shown in the Old, and fulfilled in the New, clearly establishing that the everlasting Covenant that was promised to the seed of Abraham was none other than the everlasting Covenant brought in by Jesus Christ.
Gen. 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

God Bless

Rose
Excellent insight! The everlasting covenant first announced to Abraham is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written:

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Christ is the true "seed of Abraham" and by His blood the everlasting covenant was established forever.

The Bible declares all the promises are fulfilled in Christ. This is the Gospel.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-06-2009, 12:12 AM
You're very shrewd Richard, and cunning, the way you twist things.

1. You twist the Word of God (perhaps unknowingly - I still believe it is unknowingly).

2. You twist the things that others have to say - knowingly. For example, though you may deny it, you knew perfectly well that I was quoting our Christian brother in those links I provided, but you chose to pretend I was referring to the beliefs of the Jews who do not believe in Jesus. And that's just one example.

Believe what you want to believe.

I was advised to stay away from you and your forum. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I'll leave you to your own devises.

lekh

lekh lekha
09-06-2009, 02:16 AM
Here's another beautiful example of a type shown in the Old, and fulfilled in the New, clearly establishing that the everlasting Covenant that was promised to the seed of Abraham was none other than the everlasting Covenant brought in by Jesus Christ.

Gen. 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

God Bless

Rose

Hello, sister Rose.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Which covenant is being spoken of above, sister Rose? It's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"In the same way He took the cup, after having dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luk 22:20).

What covenant did the everlasting New Covenant replace?:

Once again, it's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).

It was the Mosaic Covenant which was replaced by the everlasting new covenant in the blood of Jesus, sister Rose. But the New Covenant says nothing about the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant, it only confirms it to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob, it does not annul it:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-18)

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

God promised Abraham that he would be the father of

1. Many nations; and
2. The father of the ethinic nation descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The New Covenant confirms part 2 of the above:

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. " (Jer 31:35-40)

The promise was given in the context of Jeremiah 30-31 - a time AFTER the ethnic Israelites had been "scattered among the nations in the four corners of the earth" and during the time of their regathering into the land God promised them through Abraham.

How did Abraham become the father of the "many nations".

Well, we know that it's through us being grafted in among the believing remnant of the ethnic nation, as Paul teaches in Romans 9-11.

So you see, there is a serious flaw in your statement:


Here's another beautiful example of a type shown in the Old, and fulfilled in the New, clearly establishing that the everlasting Covenant that was promised to the seed of Abraham was none other than the everlasting Covenant brought in by Jesus Christ.

God did not promise "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" that He would make a new covenant "which would do away with the everlasting promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant", or add a meaning to them which does not exist and which implies that God had something different in mind - He promised "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" that He would make a new covenant with them "not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).

lekh

I'm afraid I won't be able to respond to your questions regarding this, sister. It's time for me to stay on a permanent "coffee-break" now.

Lekh

Rose
09-06-2009, 08:21 AM
Hello, sister Rose.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Which covenant is being spoken of above, sister Rose? It's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"In the same way He took the cup, after having dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luk 22:20).

What covenant did the everlasting New Covenant replace?:

Once again, it's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).

It was the Mosaic Covenant which was replaced by the everlasting new covenant in the blood of Jesus, sister Rose. But the New Covenant says nothing about the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant, it only confirms it to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob, it does not annul it:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-18)

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

God promised Abraham that he would be the father of

1. Many nations; and
2. The father of the ethinic nation descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The New Covenant confirms part 2 of the above:

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. " (Jer 31:35-40)

The promise was given in the context of Jeremiah 30-31 - a time AFTER the ethnic Israelites had been "scattered among the nations in the four corners of the earth" and during the time of their regathering into the land God promised them through Abraham.

How did Abraham become the father of the "many nations".

Well, we know that it's through us being grafted in among the believing remnant of the ethnic nation, as Paul teaches in Romans 9-11.

So you see, there is a serious flaw in your statement:



God did not promise "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" that He would make a new covenant "which would do away with the everlasting promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant", or add a meaning to them which does not exist and which implies that God had something different in mind - He promised "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" that He would make a new covenant with them "not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).

lekh

I'm afraid I won't be able to respond to your questions regarding this, sister. It's time for me to stay on a permanent "coffee-break" now.

Lekh

Hello brother Andrew, :yo:

Thank you, for giving us a very clear explanation of your beliefs on the Covenants before you left. :)

First off, I must say that nowhere in Scripture does God give two separate Covenants....one that is a Abrahamic Covenant, and one that is a Mosaic Covenant. The Covenant that God made with Abraham was sealed with the sign of circumcision, which grew into the Laws that were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, whose sign was also the sign of circumcision. Never would the sign given for one covenant be used to ratify another, besides the fact that Moses fully partook in all the promises given to Abraham and his seed.

There was and is only one EVERLASTING COVENANT containing ALL THE PROMISES given to Abraham and his seed, from whom came Jesus.
Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The mistake is made when the Old Testament is divided up into different covenants that never existed separately, but were a continuance of the same promises and Covenant that began with Abraham, clearly marked by the sign of circumcision which remained as the sign until Jesus brought in the New Covenant (then circumcision of the flesh, became circumcision of the heart). No promises given to Abraham and his seed were ever annulled.....all that was promised was given for an everlasting inheritance.

There has always been only one Olive Tree, beginning with Abraham. Gentile believers have always been grafted in and unbelieving Jews have always been cut out. The root is Christ, always has been and always will be. Jesus Christ sits on the throne of David, as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.....ONE COVENANT, ONE PEOPLE, FOREVER.

Well, I guess it's time to say good-bye....sorry to see you go, our discussions have been very educational for me. :pop2: There is a time, and a purpose for everything under heaven.

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2009, 08:40 AM
You're very shrewd Richard, and cunning, the way you twist things.

I think you are confusing basic intelligence and conformity to the plain teaching of God's Word with being "shrewd" and "cunning."



1. You twist the Word of God (perhaps unknowingly - I still believe it is unknowingly).

Wow. Yet another baseless accusation presented with absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Mere empty bluster. If it were true that I twist scripture, they why have you spent the last dozen posts attacking me rather than my arguments? You have repeated this false accusation many times now. Have you ever presented any solid evidence of a Scripture that I have twisted? And if you did, why did you not spend your hours showing how I was avoiding your powerful evidence rather than focusing all your attacks on me as a person?

A vast amount of your activity on this forum has been marked by an overwhelming abuse of logic, your chief fallacy being known as Ad Hominem. Look it up. If you open your eyes you should be able to recognize yourself as a man standing before a perfectly polished mirror under intense omnipresent light.



2. You twist the things that others have to say - knowingly. For example, though you may deny it, you knew perfectly well that I was quoting our Christian brother in those links I provided, but you chose to pretend I was referring to the beliefs of the Jews who do not believe in Jesus. And that's just one example.

Ah! An attempt to support your assertion with evidence! Very good! Perhaps you are learning the ways of the wise. :congrats:

But there is a serious flaw in your assertion. I was absolutely and perfectly clear that I was speaking of the Twelfth Principle, and I was equally clear that my argument applied to you only in as much as you were using it as a foundation of your argument. Here is what I wrote:

Quote:
Therefore, in as much as you are founding your argument upon the Twelfth Principle of the Faith written by unbelieving Jews, you are founding your argument upon the doctrine of antichrist.
The proper and intelligent response would have been to simply point out that you were not founding your argument in any way at all upon the Twelfth Principle. Then I would have said "Oh. Thank you for the clarification" and the conversation would have continued in an intelligent and mutually respectful fashion. But you did not do that. And why did you not do that? If I were to judge by your actions, I would have to say that you can not risk a serious, thoughtful, and thoroughly Biblical discussion of your beliefs because you know they are not founded upon the Bible and will not stand up under scrutiny.


Believe what you want to believe.

That is the sum total of what you do. You have utterly and completely failed to support your doctrines from the Bible. You just believe what you want to believe. You even said that you "don't have to respond" to my arguments! I, on the other hand, am here in the public presenting rock solid Biblical evidence for my beliefs with the absolute confidence that comes from having only one love - the LOVE OF TRUTH. Therefore, I am invincible because if you prove me wrong then you have helped me attain my goal!

Your position appears to be entirely different. It seems that you are committed to one peculiar doctrine rather than to the TRUTH, and it appears that you will do anything to protect that doctrine - the evidence be damned. So you resort to the only tactic available to those who hold untenable, self-invented, unbiblical doctrines - you attack the person instead of the argument. This is a fundamental error.



I was advised to stay away from you and your forum. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I'll leave you to your own devises.

lekh
Your adviser was wise. You are obviously out of your element here. The one and only thing that we care about is whether or not you have legitimate Biblical support for your doctrines.

But I truly and sincerely hope you do not leave for three reasons. First, it would be a victory for the devil, since we both profess Christ yet can not even discuss the Bible in a rational and mutually respectful fashion. And this is going on for all the world to see. It is a terrible witness. Second, I find your attempt to prove futurism extremely enlightening because it reveals that there is no Biblical foundation for that doctrine. This is very helpful for everyone trapped in that false belief system. Third, if you leave without justifying your accusations or repenting, you will have completed your self-conviction as an unrepentant liar. You don't need to do that! There is an easy way to exit with grace if that is what you want to do. Simply adhere to the Moral Laws that God has built into this universe! Why don't you want to do that?

Richard

lekh lekha
09-06-2009, 11:03 AM
I think you are confusing basic intelligence and conformity to the plain teaching of God's Word with being "shrewd" and "cunning."

A vast amount of your activity on this forum has been marked by an overwhelming abuse of logic, your chief fallacy being known as Ad Hominem. Look it up. If you open your eyes you should be able to recognize yourself as a man standing before a perfectly polished mirror under intense omnipresent light.


Ah! An attempt to support your assertion with evidence! Very good! Perhaps you are learning the ways of the wise. :congrats:

But there is a serious flaw in your assertion. I was absolutely and perfectly clear that I was speaking of the Twelfth Principle, and I was equally clear that my argument applied to you only in as much as you were using it as a foundation of your argument. Here is what I wrote:

Quote:
Therefore, in as much as you are founding your argument upon the Twelfth Principle of the Faith written by unbelieving Jews, you are founding your argument upon the doctrine of antichrist.
The proper and intelligent response would have been to simply point out that you were not founding your argument in any way at all upon the Twelfth Principle. Then I would have said "Oh. Thank you for the clarification" and the conversation would have continued in an intelligent and mutually respectful fashion. But you did not do that. And why did you not do that? If I were to judge by your actions, I would have to say that you can not risk a serious, thoughtful, and thoroughly Biblical discussion of your beliefs because you know they are not founded upon the Bible and will not stand up under scrutiny.

That is the sum total of what you do. You have utterly and completely failed to support your doctrines from the Bible. You just believe what you want to believe. You even said that you "don't have to respond" to my arguments! I, on the other hand, am here in the public presenting rock solid Biblical evidence for my beliefs with the absolute confidence that comes from having only one love - the LOVE OF TRUTH. Therefore, I am invincible because if you prove me wrong then you have helped me attain my goal!

Your position appears to be entirely different. It seems that you are committed to one peculiar doctrine rather than to the TRUTH, and it appears that you will do anything to protect that doctrine - the evidence be damned. So you resort to the only tactic available to those who hold untenable, self-invented, unbiblical doctrines - you attack the person instead of the argument. This is a fundamental error.


Your adviser was wise. You are obviously out of your element here. The one and only thing that we care about is whether or not you have legitimate Biblical support for your doctrines.

But I truly and sincerely hope you do not leave for three reasons. First, it would be a victory for the devil, since we both profess Christ yet can not even discuss the Bible in a rational and mutually respectful fashion. And this is going on for all the world to see. It is a terrible witness. Second, I find your attempt to prove futurism extremely enlightening because it reveals that there is no Biblical foundation for that doctrine. This is very helpful for everyone trapped in that false belief system. Third, if you leave without justifying your accusations or repenting, you will have completed your self-conviction as an unrepentant liar. You don't need to do that! There is an easy way to exit with grace if that is what you want to do. Simply adhere to the Moral Laws that God has built into this universe! Why don't you want to do that?

Richard

You claim to be a Christian? Read all your words above. Is this how you care about what the world sees?

Regarding the moral high ground you claim to hold and your false accusation (in which you assert that I placed you in the category of the deceiver, and not in the category of the deceived), read again what I said.

Or must I explain it to you slowly so that you understand basic logic?

1. I said that Eve is the forerunner of God's chosen people, who are "the seed of the woman " (Rev.12: 17; Gen.3: 15).

Eve, as we know, believed the more "enlightened" interpretation of the Word of God put forward by the deceiver, or else she would not have eaten of the fruit - and no doubt, when she gave to her husband, she first would have had to convince him of the more "enlightened" interpretation of the Word of God.

2. Eve's thinking was influenced by the deceiver, and since the beginning of time, the deceiver has been deceiving "the woman and the rest of her seed".

3. I said that in her response to the deceiver's "hath God indeed said", Eve both added to the Word of God, and took away from the Word of God.

Eve obviously believed that the interpretation of the Word of God she now believed, was the more "enlightened" view - or else she would not have eaten and given to her husband to eat.

4. Since the beginning of time, Satan has been the deceiver of God's people, and they take the interpretation of the Word of God which they believe to be the more "enlightened" view, and hand it on to their fellows.

5. I said that (in the same way that Eve both added to, and took away from the Word of God) you and Rose believe in full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ philosophy - which both adds to, and takes away from the Word of God, and you believe this is the more "enlightened" view - and of course, you hand it on to your fellows.

Every single human being with a logical mind can see whether I placed you in the category of the serpent/deceiver, or the category of God's chosen people, who since the beginning of time have been deceived by the deceiver.

But you insist that I placed you in the category of the serpent/deceiver, and demand that I apologize for "implying" something I did not imply, and then repeatedly call me a liar because I deny that I implied it.

Do you believe you are Satan, Richard, or do you believe that you are part of "the seed of the woman"?

If you believe you are part of "the seed of the woman" Richard, then I suggest you apologize to me for insisting that I placed you in the category of the serpent/deceiver (whereas any logical human being can see which category I placed you in), and for repeatedly accusing me of being a liar because I deny what you insist I "implied".

And if you do not apologize to me, please don't continue to pretend that you hold the moral high ground, Richard - you will only be making a fool of yourself.

And if you believe that you are Satan, Richard, then I will not apologize to you for anything.

I have nothing to apologize for. What I said is the truth - your interpretation of the Word of God both adds to the Word of God, and takes away from the Word of God, and you have shown by the things you have said in this thread that you believe it is the more "enlightened" view of the Word of God.

I think you are confusing basic logic and intelligence with "implying".

The proper and intelligent response regarding the links I provided a little earlier would have been to simply ask if I was referring to what our brother in Christ had said on that page, or if I was referring to the Jewish Rabbis he quoted. Then I would have said "Oh. Thank you for asking me to clarify that, and the conversation would have continued in an intelligent and mutually respectful fashion. But you did not do that. Instead, you ranted and raved and went on about me "quoting an antichrist to support my views" and generally made the same insulting and abusive remarks which have so characterized your posts in this thread - some of which have been so bizarre as to border on NUTS. You call this mature and intelligent?

And why did you not simply ask me to clarify that? If I were to judge by your actions, I would have to say that you can not risk a serious, thoughtful, and thoroughly Biblical discussion of your beliefs because you know they are not founded upon the Bible and will not stand up under scrutiny.

The truth is Richard, a vast amount of your activity on this forum has been marked by an overwhelming abuse of logic, your chief fallacy being known as Ad Hominem. Look it up. If you open your eyes you should be able to recognize yourself as a man standing before a perfectly polished mirror under intense omnipresent light.

Your red herrings which you have used in this thread to divert the topic away from Biblical scripture have worked very well in your favor, I must say - instead of intelligently debating your false premise, you would rather make a mockery of the very meaning of intelligent debate the moment you see yourself being driven into a corner where you are forced to admit the fallacy of your full preterist/'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ premise.

And then after you've finished ranting and raving like a spoiled child who can't get his own way, you return to the use of intelligent language and words (example you post above) in order to make your opponent in the debate look like the one whose doing what you do.

C'mon, Richard. Grow up.

All your insults, shrewd and cunning ways aside, deep in my spirit I sense that you are nevertheless a Christian, though you have a great deal to learn.

God bless you,

Andrew

Rose
09-06-2009, 03:30 PM
5. I said that (in the same way that Eve both added to, and took away from the Word of God) you and Rose believe in full preterism/'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ philosophy - which both adds to, and takes away from the Word of God, and you believe this is the more "enlightened" view - and of course, you hand it on to your fellows.

Hello Andrew,

That is quite a heavy accusation!

Please back up your statement that Richard and I have either added to, or taken from the Word of God by what we believe with a quote from something we have posted. We both have been very open in our beliefs and interpretations. It's hard for me to refute, or agree to something when I have no clue of what you are referring to.

Thank you, and God Bless

Rose

gregoryfl
09-06-2009, 03:50 PM
For those who believe that the promises to Abraham would ultimately and finally be fulfilled in a physical land with physical descendants of Abraham, any claiming that the Church fulfills in a spiritual way those promises is adding to the scriptures to them. This is because they believe that the land promises and being gathered back all refer to physical Israel descended from Abraham, and physical Israel as the land God promised. To make that a spiritual fulfillment is to them adding to the word.

Ron

lekh lekha
09-06-2009, 03:55 PM
So, Richard. My previous post was mirror-image number one. How did you like gazing into it? Feels good, huh? Pretty sight to behold while you're reading huh? Can you imagine how I feel looking at the same image in the mirror?

But here's mrirror-image number two which I will leave you with, before I say my FINAL goodbye. You can mock it afterwards if you feel like it, it won't make any difference to me, since I won't be here anymore to see any remarks - good or bad:

1. The King Messiah who would be the triumphant, conquering son of David and come as the antitype of king david and deliver them from their enemies, saving them by judging the nations in the day the nations gathered against Jerusalem and attacked it.

2. The suffering-servant Messiah who would come as the antitype of Joseph and die for the sins of the people and rise again from the dead.

But they do not believe the full counsel of the Word of God, and so they have been given over to partial blindness, and their hearts have been hardened to the part of the counsel of the Word of God which they cannot see through their partial blindness:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom 11:25).

When the people of God add to or take away from the Word of God and believe a more "enlightened" interpretation, and when the people of God refuse to believe the full counsel of the Word of God, they are given over to partial blindness, and their hearts become hardened to the part which they cannot see through their blindness.

But it is the blood of Jesus alone that saves, and though you are blinded to the one part of the full counsel of the Word of God through refusal to believe it, and through adding to, and taking away from the Word of God, yet you believe in the shed blood of Jesus for your salvation - the very part which they are blinded to.

But God is 100% fair and just - and if He had mercy upon one group of His people who are partially blinded to the full counsel of the Word of God through their unbelief of it, He will again have mercy upon the other group who are likewise partially blinded:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom 11:25-33).

But it will not happen before they repent of their unbelief of the part that is need for salvation - faith in Jesus:

For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on UNTIL you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39).

Gaze into this mirror-image, Richard, and meditate over it a while - then go back to the Word of God, but first ask God in prayer to give you wisdom, insight and understanding of His Word (which should be done in any case on a daily basis)

The only thing that those who can see can do for those who are partially blinded is to (a) pray for them; and (b) attempt to share the light of the truth of the full counsel of the Word of God with them, in the hope that their eyes may be opened.

And then, finally, exit.

Mirror-image number one (your insults of me which I reflected back to you) I would prefer you to forget about, since I will forget about them, and I apologize and ask for your forgiveness for any and all hurt any of my words caused you and Rose. But think about these things, for our God has said,

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

God bless you Richard,
Andrew.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2009, 04:15 PM
Hello, sister Rose.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Which covenant is being spoken of above, sister Rose? It's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"In the same way He took the cup, after having dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luk 22:20).

What covenant did the everlasting New Covenant replace?:

Once again, it's not the Abrahamic Covenant:

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).

It was the Mosaic Covenant which was replaced by the everlasting new covenant in the blood of Jesus, sister Rose. But the New Covenant says nothing about the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant, it only confirms it to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob, it does not annul it:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-18)

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

God promised Abraham that he would be the father of

1. Many nations; and
2. The father of the ethinic nation descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The New Covenant confirms part 2 of the above:

Andrew,

I am very glad that you are explaining the reasons for your beliefs. This is very helpful to everyone following this discussion, and personally I find it intensely interesting.

From my point of view, the fundamental error of your theology arises from your division of the so-called Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Everlasting Covenants. Have you ever considered the possibility that the first two were simply stages in the development of God's ultimate goal which was the establishment of the one and only everlasting covenant, which is nothing other than the New Covenant, the Gospel of Jesus Christ established by the blood of the Lamb of God?
Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Is there anything in the Book of Hebrews that would suggest the "everlasting covenant" was anything other than the "New Covenant" made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" mentioned earlier in the same book (Heb 8:8)?

We know that the Abrahamic covenant was a prophecy of the Gospel for many reasons. First, God declares that Scripture "preached the Gospel" to Abraham when He made the covenant with him:
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Second, God revealed the first great prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ when He confirmed the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 22, repeating the promise that in his seed "all the nations would be blessed":
Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Thus, the confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant contained within itself an amazing and glorious prophecy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which established the everlasting covenant of the Gospel. Here we are witnessing the supernatural unity of the Holy Bible, which is the greatest proof of its divine origin and validity.

But this is only the beginning! God then established another primary prophetic type of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant when He freed Israel from Egypt and explicitly based it upon the covenant He had made with Abraham:
Exodus 6:2-9 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob ... 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.
And how did God redeem them from Egypt? Through the BLOOD OF THE PASSOVER LAMB, a profound prophetic image of the blood of Christ that is the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20) which is the New Covenant (Heb 8:8), the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Consider now these facts: God based the "Mosaic" covenant upon the "Abrahamic" covenant, and both covenants reveal fundamental prophecies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! How then could we "divide" between these covenants as if they were separate? It seems pretty clear to me that they were stages in the development of the everlasting New Covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ, God's beloved Son (Gen 22) and the Passover Lamb of God (Exo 12). God's Word is divine. Everything is integrated with everything else to proclaim the glory of Jesus Christ. Everything confirms everything else, and it is all centered on the everlasting covenant of the Holy Gospel established by the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Here we are beholding the divine unity of the revelation of the everlasting covenant of Jesus Christ revealed through the divine unity of the Holy Bible! This is the greatest proof of the Bible that anyone could ever imagine because there is no way that random human experience could produce a message with such a supernatural unity! And this is why I have such great confidence that this is the truth taught by God in His Word - everything confirms everything else in very simple and direct ways. This is altogether different than other systems that divide the Word of God into disconnected bits and pieces which are then reconstructed into a wild variety of arbitrary mosaics displaying the idiosyncratic images unique to each interpreter.

All the verses you quoted fit this singular pattern with divine perfection. We now can see that the "New Covenant" prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31 is the covenant that God made with Israel when He shed the blood of the Passover Lamb - which everyone knows is a prophecy of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, that established the Everlasting New Covenant:
"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenantnot according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt [by the GOSPEL BLOOD OF THE PASSOVER LAMB]; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; "(Jer 31:31-32).
Here we witness the divine unity of the Gospel message, proclaimed from the beginning when Abraham believed God straight through to its ultimate fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which established the everlasting covenant of the Gospel.

I see no place for any fundamental distinctions between the so-called Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, and Everlasting Covenants. They were all stages in the establishment and revelation of the everlasting Gospel. And that's what the Bible is all about.

Of course, this is just a small slice of the divine unity and supernatural perfection of the holy message proclaimed in the Holy Bible. All the pieces fit together with perfect clarity and precision. This is why I have such a strong reaction against theological theories the deny the unity of the Bible and its message, such as dispensationalism which teaches that God has multiple covenants with different groups of people based upon the flesh. I see nothing anywhere in the Bible that would support such an idea, and it seems to me that such ideas are extremely destructive to the unity of God's Word.

Thanks again for sharing your views.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2009, 04:44 PM
Mirror-image number one (your insults of me which I reflected back to you) I would prefer you to forget about, since I will forget about them, and I apologize and ask for your forgiveness for any and all hurt any of my words caused you and Rose. But think about these things, for our God has said,

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

God bless you Richard,
Andrew.
Brother Andrew,

I am truly sorry that the conversation became so heated, and I apologize for saying things that sounded "arrogant" and "raging" and "raving" to you. That was not my intention.

Thank you for giving me a "mirror image." I pray it will help God accomplish his work in both of us -
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
I think we have MANY things in common:

1) Neither of us enjoyed our recent interaction.
2) We both desire to embrace each other as Christian brothers regardless of our differences of opinions.
3) We both are passionate for God's Word
4) We both want to bear a good witness for Christ
5) We both want to do unto others as Christ commands
etc...

If you feel inclined, it would be wonderful if you stayed here with us for a while and worked with us to improve our understanding of Scripture. It is a win-win-win situation. Together, we would be giving the devil a big "black eye" by defeating his effort to sow discord amongst Christian brethren. We would be showing the world that the Spirit of Christ truly redeems the hearts of men who violently disagreed and insulted each other. We would glorify the Gospel of Christ by displaying the transforming power of His Love. And we all have much to learn about Holy Scripture!

But if you feel a need to go, then go in peace, and with my blessings, and with the knowledge that the door here will always be open to you.

Again, I profoundly apologize for not finding a way to work with you that displayed the grace of Christ. I do not believe it was "all your fault" - we both failed our Lord in this discussion.

Many blessings in Christ the Lord, brother Andrew,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2009, 05:07 PM
It seems to me that there is a direct progression through the two primary OT covenants that leads directly to their fulfillment in the Everlasting New Covenant of the Gospel:

Abrahamic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands
Associated Gospel Prophecy: Sacrifice of Isaac (Abraham's Only Beloved Son)Mosaic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands.
Associated Gospel Prophecy: The Blood of the Passover LambEverlasting New Covenant:

Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made without hands (Baptism into the Death/Resurrection of Christ)
Fulfills all Gospel Prophecies associated with previous covenantsRichard

Rose
09-06-2009, 05:53 PM
For those who believe that the promises to Abraham would ultimately and finally be fulfilled in a physical land with physical descendants of Abraham, any claiming that the Church fulfills in a spiritual way those promises is adding to the scriptures to them. This is because they believe that the land promises and being gathered back all refer to physical Israel descended from Abraham, and physical Israel as the land God promised. To make that a spiritual fulfillment is to them adding to the word.

Ron

Hey Ron,

Thanks for trying to clarify that for me, even though what your saying is totally based on what they believe verses what I believe, so how could that be interpreted as adding or taking away from the Word of God? To my way of thinking that would be only a matter of interpretation of Scripture, so in no way could my supposed misinterpretation of the Biblical promises be considered either adding to or taking away from Scripture, anymore than I could say of their interpretation of what God promised.

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2009, 05:58 PM
For those who believe that the promises to Abraham would ultimately and finally be fulfilled in a physical land with physical descendants of Abraham, any claiming that the Church fulfills in a spiritual way those promises is adding to the scriptures to them. This is because they believe that the land promises and being gathered back all refer to physical Israel descended from Abraham, and physical Israel as the land God promised. To make that a spiritual fulfillment is to them adding to the word.

Ron
Hey Ron,

Thanks for the insight. I've pretty much gotten the same impression of their ideas, but I think that an accusation like "adding to the Word of God" is a bit beyond the pale because the question is one of interpretation of the Word of God, not adding to or deleting from it.

For example, the doctrine of a future fulfillment of the land promises is largely based on the idea that God has not fulfilled them yet. But this directly contradicts explicit statements found in the Bible:

Nehemiah 9:7-9 "Thou art the LORD God, Who chose Abram And brought him out from Ur of the Chaldees, And gave him the name Abraham. 8 "And Thou didst find his heart faithful before Thee, And didst make a covenant with him To give him the land of the Canaanite, Of the Hittite and the Amorite, Of the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite-- To give it to his descendants. And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, For Thou art righteous.
The folks who believe that the land promises have not been fulfilled have to explain why this verse does not mean what it literally means. How is this different than any other dispute about interpretation? How is it possible that they could accuse others of "adding to the Word" when they do the same thing according to their own definitions?

Richard

lekh lekha
09-08-2009, 02:27 PM
Brother Andrew,

I am truly sorry that the conversation became so heated, and I apologize for saying things that sounded "arrogant" and "raging" and "raving" to you. That was not my intention.

Thank you for giving me a "mirror image." I pray it will help God accomplish his work in both of us -
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
I think we have MANY things in common:

1) Neither of us enjoyed our recent interaction.
2) We both desire to embrace each other as Christian brothers regardless of our differences of opinions.
3) We both are passionate for God's Word
4) We both want to bear a good witness for Christ
5) We both want to do unto others as Christ commands
etc...

If you feel inclined, it would be wonderful if you stayed here with us for a while and worked with us to improve our understanding of Scripture. It is a win-win-win situation. Together, we would be giving the devil a big "black eye" by defeating his effort to sow discord amongst Christian brethren. We would be showing the world that the Spirit of Christ truly redeems the hearts of men who violently disagreed and insulted each other. We would glorify the Gospel of Christ by displaying the transforming power of His Love. And we all have much to learn about Holy Scripture!

But if you feel a need to go, then go in peace, and with my blessings, and with the knowledge that the door here will always be open to you.

Again, I profoundly apologize for not finding a way to work with you that displayed the grace of Christ. I do not believe it was "all your fault" - we both failed our Lord in this discussion.

Many blessings in Christ the Lord, brother Andrew,

Richard

Hello, brother Richard :yo:

Brother Richard, what the world doesn't know, is that the blood of Christ and the bond of the unity of the Spirit is far, far more powerful and runs far deeper than the portrayal of some the Lord's disciples (like me) of the fact that they need further growth and maturity in Christ - God bless you :)

I knew I had to withdraw for a few days and allow for a cooling-off period.

But it would be a pity for me too if I didn't come back, because there are quite a few questions I still wanted to ask you about a few of the things you said about the topics under discussion.

But I also realize that a drastic change in my "modus operandi" is needed.

I need to change to simply asking you questions about what you said, and if I disagree, then simply saying, "Thank you for your replies, I don't agree with them because to my mind..., but here's my next question".

But I'll have to begin with that tomorrow or later this week, since it's already very late in my part of the world, and then I'll wait for your replies after I've posed my questions.

I'll do my best to ask my questions regarding your replies one by one, without combining related subjects and ending with loooong posts.

If that's O.K with you?

Andrew.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-08-2009, 03:01 PM
Hello, brother Richard :yo:

Brother Richard, what the world doesn't know, is that the blood of Christ and the bond of the unity of the Spirit is far, far more powerful and runs far deeper than the portrayal of some the Lord's disciples (like me) of the fact that they need further growth and maturity in Christ - God bless you :)

I knew I had to withdraw for a few days and allow for a cooling-off period.

But it would be a pity for me too if I didn't come back, because there are quite a few questions I still wanted to ask you about a few of the things you said about the topics under discussion.

But I also realize that a drastic change in my "modus operandi" is needed.

I need to change to simply asking you questions about what you said, and if I disagree, then simply saying, "Thank you for your replies, I don't agree with them because to my mind..., but here's my next question".

But I'll have to begin with that tomorrow or later this week, since it's already very late in my part of the world, and then I'll wait for your replies after I've posed my questions.

I'll do my best to ask my questions regarding your replies one by one, without combining related subjects and ending with loooong posts.

If that's O.K with you?

Andrew.
Brother Andrew!

You came back! And we are reconciled! :hug:

:woohoo:

Praise God for demonstrating the power of His Spirit working in His people which are (in and of themselves) just as weak as anyone else.

Your suggested "modus operani" is excellent. It is exactly what we all need to do. And the beauty of it is that it will be much more effective as a means of coming to truth because when we ask each other questions that are not adequately answered, the truth will not be hid in a bursting cloud of clashing words and noisy accusations against one another. The Biblical truth will shine forth like the sun in its power without any clouds to obscur its light.

Don't worry about time. This forum has been here for a couple years. And I am going to be away from my computer till tomorrow morning anyway.

Many, many blessings to you my friend and brother,

Richard

PS: Your suggestion that we answer questions "one-by-one" is very important because it is difficult to get a good conversation going with those looooong posts, since points always get dropped or missed. Personally, I always desire to narrow things down to the exact point of disagreement which distinguishes our different views.

lekh lekha
09-09-2009, 04:46 AM
Thank you, Richard :yo:

I'm going to be asking you questions about three topics, and the things you've said in this thread regarding those topics - but I'm going to be asking those questions "topic by topic".

You said,


It seems to me that there is a direct progression through the two primary OT covenants that leads directly to their fulfillment in the Everlasting New Covenant of the Gospel:

Abrahamic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands
Associated Gospel Prophecy: Sacrifice of Isaac (Abraham's Only Beloved Son)Mosaic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands.
Associated Gospel Prophecy: The Blood of the Passover LambEverlasting New Covenant:

Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made without hands (Baptism into the Death/Resurrection of Christ)
Fulfills all Gospel Prophecies associated with previous covenantsRichard

I'd like to know what your beliefs are regarding the questions below, which are pertinent to the above topic:

QUESTION 1. Is the New Covenant an everlasting Covenant?

QUESTION 2. Is the New Covenant based on:

(a) The Abrahamic Covenant; and

(b) The Davidic Covenant (in which God promised king David that his kingdom, throne and royal family-line would be everlasting)?

QUESTION 3. Does the everlasting gospel of salvation from sin through the shed blood of Jesus fulfill both covenants? (to my mind, it does).

So far, we've already mentioned above, three covenants mentioned in the Bible:

1. The Abrahamic Covenant.
2. The Davidic Covenant.
3. The New Covenant.

Concerning the covenant based upon obedience to the Law, Paul said,

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand...

… And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-19).

And just as Paul said,

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal 3:19),

so the author of the letter to the Hebrews said,

'For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...

… For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:...

… In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:7-8, 13).

QUESTION 4.

(a) Am I correct in saying that we have already identified four covenants in the Bible, and yet Heb.8: 7-8, 13 is talking about only two of them?

(b) What is the "inheritance" Paul is speaking about in Gal.3: 18?

( c ) Do the words "added", and "until" show that the covenant based upon obedience to the Law was something of a temporary nature, and was therefore not an everlasting covenant?; and

(d) Bearing in mind the following words of Paul: "And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise. Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal 3:17-19).

What was the law "added" to? Was it "added" to nothing?

QUESTION 5.

(a) Is it true that in Jer.31: 31-32, does the New Covenant promise specifically mention the covenant which God made with the fathers of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

(b) Does the New Covenant promise say that the New Covenant would not be according to that covenant which God made with the fathers of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah 'in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

( c ) In these verses in Jer.31: 31-32, are any of the other covenants mentioned in the New Covenant promise?

QUESTION 6.

In the New Covenant promise (Jeremiah 31 verses 31-40),

(a) Who is 'the seed of Israel' mentioned in verses 35-37 referring to?; and

(b) Which city is being spoken of in verses 38-40?

QUESTION 7. Is the context of the New Covenant promise the passage in which it is found?

QUESTION 8. In Jeremiah 31 verses 5 and 24, what region is being spoken about?

Question 9. According to the context of the passage, which people/nation is being spoken about in Jeremiah 31 verses 3-30, and in verses 35-37?

Question 10. Do you believe that the gospel of the Kingdom of Messiah and the gospel of salvation from sin through the shed blood of King Messiah is one and the same promise?

I have more questions regarding two other topics and the things you've said about those topics, but I'm going to ask the questions 'topic by topic'. So I'll leave this with you now to give you time to answer these questions.

God's blessings to you,
Andrew.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 08:21 AM
Thank you, Richard :yo:

I'm going to be asking you questions about three topics, and the things you've said in this thread regarding those topics - but I'm going to be asking those questions "topic by topic".

You said,



It seems to me that there is a direct progression through the two primary OT covenants that leads directly to their fulfillment in the Everlasting New Covenant of the Gospel:

Abrahamic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands
Associated Gospel Prophecy: Sacrifice of Isaac (Abraham's Only Beloved Son)Mosaic Covenant:
Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made with hands.
Associated Gospel Prophecy: The Blood of the Passover LambEverlasting New Covenant:

Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision made without hands (Baptism into the Death/Resurrection of Christ)
Fulfills all Gospel Prophecies associated with previous covenantsRichard


Good morning (or evening to you) Andrew!

I am very glad that you started with my little synopsis of the covenants. I think that will really help clarify things.



I'd like to know what your beliefs are regarding the questions below, which are pertinent to the above topic:

QUESTION 1. Is the New Covenant an everlasting Covenant?

Yes, that is my understanding, for the reasons stated in my previous few posts. Also, I think this is supported by the mention of the "everlasting Gospel" of Rev 14:6, and the fact that the Book of Hebrews seems to be talking about the same thing when it talks about the "New Covenant" and the "everlasting covenant" and says that both of these were accomplished by the blood of Christ.



QUESTION 2. Is the New Covenant based on:

(a) The Abrahamic Covenant; and

(b) The Davidic Covenant (in which God promised king David that his kingdom, throne and royal family-line would be everlasting)?

The New Covenant replaces "the first covenant" which is a general term for all the covenant that God progressively developed in the OT. It began with the "Abrahamic" covenant which was confirmed and amplified in the "Mosaic" covenant. This seems clear to me because Paul spoke of the Abrahamic covenant when he was explaining the "two covenants" in Galatians:
Galatians 4:22-24 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
The Davidic covenant was part and parcel with the other covenants of the OT that were all "types and shadows" of the everlasting covenant. That's why Scripture declares that it was not literal David who ascended to the thone, but rather Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the typological prophecy:
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
This is extremely important. Scritpure declares that the prophecy was not talking about a Jesus Christ sitting on a literal throne in Jerusalem. It says that he "spake of the resurrection of Christ" and His ascension to His throne in heaven which was typified by the throne of David.



QUESTION 3. Does the everlasting gospel of salvation from sin through the shed blood of Jesus fulfill both covenants? (to my mind, it does).

Yes. It looks like we are in perfect agreement here.



So far, we've already mentioned above, three covenants mentioned in the Bible:

1. The Abrahamic Covenant.
2. The Davidic Covenant.
3. The New Covenant.

Concerning the covenant based upon obedience to the Law, Paul said,

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand...

… And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:17-19).

And just as Paul said,

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal 3:19),

so the author of the letter to the Hebrews said,

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...

… For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:...

… In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:7-8, 13).

QUESTION 4.

(a) Am I correct in saying that we have already identified four covenants in the Bible, and yet Heb.8: 7-8, 13 is talking about only two of them?

No, I do not see it that way at all. When God saved Israel and gave the "Mosaic" covenant, He began by saying "I have remembered my covenant with Abraham." He never called the Mosaic covanant "another covenant" separate from the Abrahamic covenant. To my understanding, it seems very clear that the Mosaic covenant was an amplification of the Abrahamic. They both had the same sign of circumcision. God does not have two different covenants marked by the same sign.

It is extremely important to note that God never spoke of "covenants" (plural) in the OT. He always spoke of only "the covenant." This seems to strongly confirm my fundamental point that there really was only one "covenant" which we now know as the "first covenant." The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants appear to be aspects of the development of that one covenant.



(b) What is the "inheritance" Paul is speaking about in Gal.3: 18?

That is the "eternal inheritance" mentioned in Hebrews:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


( c ) Do the words "added", and "until" show that the covenant based upon obedience to the Law was something of a temporary nature, and was therefore not an everlasting covenant?; and

Absolutely. That's why Hebrews says that the first covenant was flawed:
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Note that this seems to imply there could not be simultaneous multiple covenants, since there is "place" for only one covenant at a time. This seems confirmed by the fact that the OT never speaks of "covenants" in the plural. So if there were multiple OT covenants, they were never mentioned as such by God in the OT. But there is mention of "covenants" (plural) in three verses of the NT, but this does not seem like a firm foundation for such an elaborate system of theology, especially since it seems to contradict many other verses.



(d) Bearing in mind the following words of Paul: "And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise. Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, UNTIL the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal 3:17-19).

What was the law "added" to? Was it "added" to nothing?

The "law" was an expansion on the original covenant marked by circumcision (which itself was a law that demanded obedience). But that expansion did not annul the promise. Is that not Paul's point?



QUESTION 5.

(a) Is it true that in Jer.31: 31-32, does the New Covenant promise specifically mention the covenant which God made with the fathers of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

Absolutely. I emphasized that fact in my previous posts to show how that covenant contained a prophecy of the blood of Christ (passover lamb), and so should be understood as part of the development of the everlasting New Covenant of the Gospel bought by the Blood of Christ, the Passover Lamb of God who freed us all.



(b) Does the New Covenant promise say that the New Covenant would not be according to that covenant which God made with the fathers of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah “in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

Yes, that's exactly what it says. You quoted well! ;)

To understand what the means, we just need to quote the next verse:
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
These promises were fulfilled in the New Covenant Gospel:
2 Corinthians 3:2-3 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
And again:
2 Corinthians 6:16-18 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
And there are many other examples, of course.



( c ) In these verses in Jer.31: 31-32, are any of the other covenants mentioned in the New Covenant promise?

The Old Testament never states anything about multiple covenants. It never uses the word "covenant" in the plural. It always talks as if God had only one covenant with His people. So the "covenant" mentioned in Jer 31:31 follows the pattern of the entire OT, which knows of only one "covenant" (and a New Covenant, of course).

Excellent questions!

I'll answer more as time permits.

Richard

Rose
09-09-2009, 09:25 AM
Hi All,

An interesting question came to mind, that I would like to pose to the Forum audience.

I wonder what a practicing orthodox Jew who only adheres to the Old Covenant, and does not believe that Jesus brought in the New Covenant, would describe their Covenant with God as?

Would he say that there are different covenants with God, given at different times all contained in the "Tanakh", or would he say that the "Tanakh" contains only one Covenant with God, that has many parts given at different times as a continuation of the one covenant.

Many blessings to all

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Hi All,

An interesting question came to mind, that I would like to pose to the Forum audience.

I wonder what a practicing orthodox Jew who only adheres to the Old Covenant, and does not believe that Jesus brought in the New Covenant, would describe their Covenant with God as?

Would he say that there are different covenants with God, given at different times all contained in the "Tanakh", or would he say that the "Tanakh" contains only one Covenant with God, that has many parts given at different times as a continuation of the one covenant.

Many blessings to all

Rose
Rose, my dear,

I think that is an extremely significant observation.

In the Old Testament, there is not a single mention of "covenants" in the plural. Every mention of God's covenant in the Old Testament is always in the singular:
Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant [SINGULAR]; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Genesis 9:9 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant [SINGULAR] with you, and with your seed after you;
Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant [SINGULAR] with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Genesis 17:2 2 And I will make my covenant [SINGULAR] between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
Exodus 2:24 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant [SINGULAR] with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Exodus 6:4-5 And I have also established my covenant [SINGULAR] with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant [SINGULAR].
Leviticus 26:9 For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant [SINGULAR] with you.
Numbers 10:33 And they departed from the mount of the LORD three days' journey: and the ark of the covenant [SINGULAR] of the LORD went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.
Deuteronomy 4:12-13 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13 And he declared unto you his covenant [SINGULAR], which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.Exactly the same pattern is seen throughout the Gospels and Acts - there is never any mention of "covenants" in those books. The first occurrence of "covenant" proves that the covenant that was fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the singular OT covenant that began with Abraham:
Luke 1:68-77 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
It seems pretty clear that the Gospel of Jesus Christ which gives "knowledge of salvation by the remission of sins" was the ultimate fulfillment of the one and only covenant that God made with Israel. And it seems that this is confirmed in Acts:
Acts 3:25-26 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
As an aside, this seems to confirm my understanding of Romans:
Romans 11:26-27 And in this manner all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
In all these examples, Scripture speaks always and only about the singular covenant that God made. It almost never speaks of more than one, except when Jeremiah prophesied the New Covenant. This is confirmed again by Paul who spoke of only two covenants, the first being identified with the covenant given to Abraham.

Now there are three mentions of "covenants" [plural] in the NT, but I do not think they contradict the unified testimony of the rest of the Bible. Indeed, the one occurrence confirms everything we have seen because the plural is used in reference to the First and New Covenants, not two different OT covenants:
Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Note that Paul begins with reference to Abraham, but then identifies the first covenant as coming from "Sinai" which is the second of the covenants that Andrew believes are separate from each other. I do not believe that idea can be supported from Scripture, but I very much look forward to his explanation of how he understands this point.

I do not believe that the other two occurrences of "covenants" [plural] in the Bible can used as a foundation to dispute the overwhelming testimony of the two hundred ninety two occurrences of "covenant" [singular].

There is much more to say on this topic. It seems to be the key to discerning whether or not there are multiple OT covenants in the Bible.

Richard

joel
09-09-2009, 03:43 PM
I do not believe that the other two occurrences of "covenants" [plural] in the Bible

Richard, please provide those 2 references. Thanks, Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 04:00 PM
Richard, please provide those 2 references. Thanks, Joel
Silly Peacemaker! All you need to do is type "covenants" into the Search By Word field in my Bible database.

Here are the results:

Rom 9:4 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=45&cnum=9&vnum=4)Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Gal 4:24 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=48&cnum=4&vnum=24)Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Eph 2:12 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=49&cnum=2&vnum=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:

Those are the only verses in the entire Bible that speak of "covenants" in the plural. The second one is not relevant to the discussion because it is talking about the First Covenant in contrast with the New Covenant.

Thus, there are only two verses that mention even the mere existence of more than one OT covenant, and neither of them identifies them as "Abrahamic" or "Mosaic" or "Davidic." It seems that division of the OT Covenant into different "covenants" is foreign to the Bible.

Many blessings my friend!

Richard

gregoryfl
09-09-2009, 05:13 PM
Silly Peacemaker! All you need to do is type "covenants" into the Search By Word field in my Bible database.

Here are the results:

Rom 9:4 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=45&cnum=9&vnum=4)Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Gal 4:24 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=48&cnum=4&vnum=24)Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Eph 2:12 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=49&cnum=2&vnum=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:

Many blessings my friend!

RichardInterestingly, here is how Rom 9:4 is rendered in the Aramaic:

who are the children of Israel, whose was the adoption of children, and the glory, and the covenant, and the written law, and the ministry which is in it, and the promises.

And here is Eph 2:12:

And you were at that time without the Messiah, and you were aliens from the government of Israel and strangers to the covenant of the promise and you were without hope and without God in the world.

I do see as well that there were many covenants in the OT, each dealt with as a single entity. That is the reason you do not see them spoken of as covenants in the plural, for the verses are dealing with each one individually.

With the possible exception of the covenant given to Noah, the others I see as fulfilled in Messiah, including the one given to Abraham, the one given to Moses, and the one given to David.

Ron

joel
09-09-2009, 05:29 PM
Richard, the one with a heart of a lion,
I continue to marvel at the treasure of the data-base,
but, now, I need to use it determine other features, such as plural vs. singular.
---------------------------------------------------
That's awesome!

So.....we have.......every time covenant is named.....it is in the singular.....except in these three verses;

Romans 9:4 (King James Version)

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
-----------------------------------------------------

Galatians 4:24 (King James Version)

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 2:12 (King James Version)

12That 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:
------------------------------------------------------

By the rules that you have established here (which we have embraced as the basis of proper interpretation), when there are two or three witnesses to a "word", it is established.

So.....my question is.........two (2) covenants refer to...............
1.) the "old", and the,
2.) the "new"......
--------------------------------------------------------------

since there are two covenants........all verses referring to the 1st covenant are all except three,............which refer to the second (2nd) covenant....right?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 05:51 PM
With the possible exception of the covenant given to Noah, the others I see as fulfilled in Messiah, including the one given to Abraham, the one given to Moses, and the one given to David.

Ron
Hey Ron,

Could you cite the the verse(s) that states that there was a covenant "given to Moses"? It seems that this is a very common mistake. A lot of folks seem to think that God made a covenant with Moses.

If we look at the giving of the Law at Sinai, what do we see? God does not mention any new covenant that is different than the one He first proclaimed to Abraham. On the contrary, He constantly makes reference to it. This becomes quite evident if we simply review all references to the word "covenant" in Exodus:
Exodus 2:24 So God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Exodus 6:4-5 "I have also established My covenant with them [past tense], to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. 5 "And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant [that He made with Abraham].
That's every mention of "covenant" up to the giving of the Law in Exodus 19 and following. Does God now introduce a new covenant that is different than the already existing covenant? NO! He demands that Israel keep the existing covenant that He had already made with them:
Exodus 19:4-8 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant [which covenant??? No other covenant has been mentioned yet], then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
It is also very important to note that Peter proclaims that the promises about being a "kingdom of priests" is fulfilled in the Church just as all the other promises given in the OT Covenant. The next reference to God's covenant speaks of the Book of the Covenant which is sanctified by the blood of the covenant:
Exodus 24:7-9 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words."
This is a direct typological prophecy of the everlasting Gospel New Covenant, as explained in the Book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 9:11-27 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
This is the divine unity of the Holy Scripture, and it is the ultimate proof of the Doctrines of Christ. The entire pattern of the Gospel was established prophetically in the First Covenant that God established with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. And it is all explained in the New Testament.

Much more to say, but I've got to take my girl out for our Wednesday Night Date at Red Robins (yummy burgers).

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 06:02 PM
Richard, the one with a heart of a lion,
I continue to marvel at the treasure of the data-base,
but, now, I need to use it determine other features, such as plural vs. singular.
---------------------------------------------------
That's awesome!

:cool:

You can also search for parts of words. For example, if you want to find all occurrences of believe, believeth, believes etc, you just type in believ* with an asterisk (wildcard) at the end.

When I get some time, I plan on adding some more features.



So.....we have.......every time covenant is named.....it is in the singular.....except in these three verses;

Romans 9:4 (King James Version)

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
-----------------------------------------------------

Galatians 4:24 (King James Version)

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 2:12 (King James Version)

12That 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:
------------------------------------------------------

By the rules that you have established here (which we have embraced as the basis of proper interpretation), when there are two or three witnesses to a "word", it is established.

So.....my question is.........two (2) covenants refer to...............
1.) the "old", and the,
2.) the "new"......
--------------------------------------------------------------

since there are two covenants........all verses referring to the 1st covenant are all except three,............which refer to the second (2nd) covenant....right?

Joel
When there are two or three clear an unambiguous verses that mutually confirm the plain meaning of each, then we have a solid basis for our understanding.

Its not a rule that can be applied mechanically, by merely counting how many verses use a specific word or form of a word. We need to evaluate the meaning of the verses of which we speak, and then discern if we have a strong, verified witness for a particular doctrine or teaching.

In this case, we have the testimony of the entire OT that God never mentioned having more than one covenant with His people. And the NT confirms this in most of its verses, but there are two verses that speak of "covenants" [plural] so we need to review them to see if they are giving important information concerning the question of the relation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

I'll talk more after dinner.

Many blessings,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 06:03 PM
Interestingly, here is how Rom 9:4 is rendered in the Aramaic:

who are the children of Israel, whose was the adoption of children, and the glory, and the covenant, and the written law, and the ministry which is in it, and the promises.

And here is Eph 2:12:

And you were at that time without the Messiah, and you were aliens from the government of Israel and strangers to the covenant of the promise and you were without hope and without God in the world.


Yes, it is very interesting that they chose to use the singular. It conforms with the OT usage. But I wonder what texts they used to justify that?

Richard

gregoryfl
09-09-2009, 06:05 PM
Richard,

When I speak of the covenant given to Moses, I am referring to the Law given to him in the form of a covenant which was ratified by blood. You are correct, that covenant was not made with Moses. It was made to Israel. Perhaps I could have worded it different to avoid confusion.

As to your point about what takes place in Exo 19, I can explain that as him speaking about the covenant he is about to make with them. Just because no specific mention is made of it in writing yet does not mean they were not told of it. There are many cases of things not specifically mentioned yet understood from the narrative. One reason I believe this is true is because of the very nature of the request he makes of them.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine;

My question is this: If this covenant he is speaking of here is the one made with Abraham, then what in that covenant do they have to keep? Here is the information we have of the covenant:

Gen 12:1-3 Now Yahweh said to Abram, “Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you.”

Gen 13:14-17 Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him, “Now, lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then your seed may also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you.”

Gen 15:5 Yahweh brought him outside, and said, “Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” He said to Abram, “So shall your seed be.”

Gen 15:18-21 In that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Gen 17:4,5 “As for me, behold, my covenant is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

I believe the reason it is spoken of as a promise is precisely because there are NO conditions. It is totally a one-sided covenant, for only God passed through the cut pieces, not Abraham. Is there anything else to this covenant that suggests something Israel had to keep?

Please feel free to eat a burger or two for me :)


Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Richard,

When I speak of the covenant given to Moses, I am referring to the Law given to him in the form of a covenant which was ratified by blood. You are correct, that covenant was not made with Moses. It was made to Israel. Perhaps I could have worded it different to avoid confusion.
Hey Ron,

No worries. That was just a pet peave of mine. But it did give me a starting point for reviewing what the covenant in Exodus is really all about.



As to your point about what takes place in Exo 19, I can explain that as him speaking about the covenant he is about to make with them. Just because no specific mention is made of it in writing yet does not mean they were not told of it. There are many cases of things not specifically mentioned yet understood from the narrative.

You are exactly correct - but it is important to note that God was not introducing a new idea. It sounds like He was talking about the same covenant that He had been talking about many times in the previous chapters. He said "keep my covenant" exactly as He did when He first proclaimed His Covenant to Abraham:
Genesis 17:9-10 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And the sign of the covenant remained unchanged.

The big question is this - did the Children of Israel believe that God was making a new covenant with them? Did they believe they were under two different covenants with God? Is there any mention in the Bible of Israel simultaniously being under both an "Abrahamic" covenant and a "Mosaic" covenant?

If not, I think we need to ask if this idea is Biblical.



One reason I believe this is true is because of the very nature of the request he makes of them.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine;

My question is this: If this covenant he is speaking of here is the one made with Abraham, then what in that covenant do they have to keep? Here is the information we have of the covenant:

Gen 12:1-3 Now Yahweh said to Abram, “Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you.”

Gen 13:14-17 Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him, “Now, lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then your seed may also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you.”

Gen 15:5 Yahweh brought him outside, and said, “Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” He said to Abram, “So shall your seed be.”

Gen 15:18-21 In that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Gen 17:4,5 “As for me, behold, my covenant is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

I believe the reason it is spoken of as a promise is precisely because there are NO conditions. It is totally a one-sided covenant, for only God passed through the cut pieces, not Abraham. Is there anything else to this covenant that suggests something Israel had to keep?

Ah ... the beauty and joy of divine synchronicity! I already answered this question in my quote above, before reading it! God used the same word "shamar" (to keep) when He proclaimed His Covenent to Israel in Exodus 19 and to Abraham in Genesis 17:
Genesis 17:9-10 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Furthermore, the covenant with Abraham was conditioned upon obedience just like the covenant given at Sinai:
Genesis 17:14-15 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
The command to keep the covenant is the same. The sign of the covenant is the same. Every reference to "covenant" leading up to Sinai spoke specifically of the covenant made with Abraham.

I see nothing that suggests that God made a "new covenant" with Israel at Sinai, and I see much that contradicts that idea.




Please feel free to eat a burger or two for me :)

Ron
Wish I could ... but it's all I can do to get one of those monsters down! Do they have Red Robins where you live?

Richard

gregoryfl
09-09-2009, 06:30 PM
Thank you for sharing that. I will think on this some more.

No Red Robins here that I know of, no. Only the ones that poop and sing.

Ron

gregoryfl
09-09-2009, 06:33 PM
Yes, it is very interesting that they chose to use the singular. It conforms with the OT usage. But I wonder what texts they used to justify that?

Richard

You know what I would say of course but...:lol:

I went ahead and did some research in my "Greek New Testament" where it lists all the known variants, and did find one Greek miniscule which omitted the "ai" at the end of covenant. It is #1962 as they catalogue it. Just some food for thought is all.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 09:46 PM
I'm having a very interesting time researching the historical development of the theories about the Abrahamic vs. Mosaic covenants. I have in the Logos system on my pc a large library of theological journals, including the Bibliotecha Sacra which is the journal of Dallas Theological Seminary which is the center of dispensational theology. Here is a snippet from an article by Charles Fred Lincoln. Of primary interest is his assertion that the "two covenants" of Galatians 4 is a reference to the Abrahamic vs. Mosaic covenants which he declares to be "wholly contrary systems represented by Abraham and Moses."
3. The Mosaic Covenant.

The testimony of the Scripture everywhere is clear and manifest that the Covenant of the Law, given on Mount Sinai through Moses, is a separate and distinct Covenant from that made by God with Abraham. The teachers of Covenantism arbitrarily deny this fact because to concede it would take the very foundation from their erroneous scheme of things. But numerous Scriptures establish this foundational truth beyond all possibility of question. Many illustrative passages might be given, but at this point reference will be made to only two or three. Galatians 4:19–31 sets forth the “two covenants” of Moses and Abraham in distinct contrast and shows that they are incompatible and cannot live together. The declaration that there are “two covenants” is conclusive evidence of the erroneousness of the scheme of the covenantists. The contrast is not between the ceremonies and animal sacrifices of the law and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, as the theory lamely contends, but between two wholly contrary systems represented by Abraham and Moses; the whole burden of the argument clearly rests upon this fundamental difference.
I find his language rather course and combative for a "theological" journal. But more to the point, I find his fundamental assertion so outrageously absurd as to defy further description. It is as if he never once thought to imagine how Moses might understand his theories. A comedic tragedy seems to be the only way to answer it. So let's suppose that Charles Fred Lincoln had a time machine and went back to chat with the Prophet Moses as he climbed down from Mount Sinai. Here's the conversation:

Charlie vs. Moses: Two systems that are truly incompatable (A comedic tragedy)

Charlie: Shalom Moses! You got quite a glow on today! Say, What's that you've got in your hands?

Moses: These are the Ten Commandments written by the Finger of God.

Charlie: Really? I've read about those. Did you know that they are wholly contrary to the Abrahamic covenant?

Moses: Whence cometh this strange doctrine? I, and all the children of Israel you see here are bound by the covenant the Lord made with our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We bear the mark of His Covenant in our flesh. And it was because He remembered His Covenant with our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that He redeemed us from bondage in Egypt, and now has given us His Holy Law!

Charlie: No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! You are bringing the Covenant of Law, and everyone knows that the Covenant of Law and Abraham's Covenant are absolutely incompatible and can not live together!

Moses: What sayest thou? Again, I testify that I and all the children of Israel are bound by the Covenant our Lord made with Abraham. Thou knowest not the meaning of the words thou speakest.

Charlie: What?!? I've studied this for years! I've written articles in prestigious theological journals about this topic, and I'm telling you that those Ten Commandments are wholly contrary to the Covenant the Lord made with Abraham.

Moses: Well, I've done a little writing myself, and I can assure you that I never have, and never will, write a single word supporting your theories. I am bound by the Covenant the Lord made with my fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Get thee behind me. I have work to do.

Charlie: Oh, I get it. You are one of those deluded teachers of Covenantism. You can not admit the truth because it would destroy the very foundation of your erroneous scheme of things.

Moses: Thou speakest of foundations? Behold the ground beneath thy feet!

At this point Charlie looked down and saw the earth open her mouth with flames of fire reaching unto heaven. It was the last thing Charlie ever saw.

THE END

Richard Amiel McGough
09-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Andrew has repeatedly cited Galatians 3:17 which happens to be a verse that has always seemed extremely inarticulate and difficult to understand in the KJV translation. Here is how it is in the KJV:
KJV Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
To understand the true meaning of the this verse, we merely need to move the red words to their proper place (for an English translation, that is):
Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, that it should make the promise of none effect.
This is essentially identical to how it is translated in the NAS:
NAS Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
This has really helped me understand what Paul was saying here. I hope it helps the conversation converge on the Truth of God.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-10-2009, 02:44 AM
Hello, Richard,


Hey Ron,

If we look at the giving of the Law at Sinai, what do we see? God does not mention any new covenant that is different than the one He first proclaimed to Abraham.

Richard

Richard. it seems to me that you are making an error in the above statement, for God specifically said to Moses,

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel...
... And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exo 34:27-28).

"These words" refers specifically to the Law which had been given through Moses.

And regarding those words contained in that (Mosaic) covenant, God said to the people:

Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel...

... And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." (Exo 19:5-8)

In the days of Moses, God said to the Israelites:

"Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." (Exo 19:5-8)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exo 34:27-28)

"And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words."
(Exo 24:7-8)

It is clearly the above (Mosaic) Covenant which the author of the epistle to the Hebrews is speaking of when he wrote,

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord..."

God had said IF they would obey the words of that (Mosaic) Covenant, "THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:...

"... And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." (Exo 19:5-8)

"... For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more...

... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13).

Richard, it seems to me that the above passages are only a few of many passages of Biblical scripture which show that your assertion that God only made one covenant with Abraham's descendants, is not a valid assertion at all.

There is a huge difference between the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed on the basis of a promise, and the later covenant which God made with Abraham's seed through Isaac and Jacob on the basis of their obedience to the Law God which gave to the people through Moses.

The above passages of scripture show that God indeed made another covenant with Moses on Mt. Sinai - and regarding that covenant, Paul said,

"And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ. And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:16-18).

We are the seed of Abraham by faith, but Paul said,

"And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ."

This means that the promise God made to Abraham is the inheritance of the Lord Jesus Christ.

lekh lekha
09-10-2009, 04:07 AM
Hello again, Richard.

I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have to spend here, so I'm going to ask my final questions.

I know you haven't had time yet, but you haven't answered these questions yet:

QUESTION 5.

(a) In Jer.31: 31-32, does the New Covenant promise specifically mention the covenant which God made with the fathers of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

(b) Does the New Covenant promise say that the New Covenant would not be according to that covenant which God made with the fathers of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah “in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

( c ) In these verses in Jer.31: 31-32, are any of the other covenants mentioned in the New Covenant promise?

QUESTION 6. In the New Covenant promise (Jeremiah 31 verses 31-40),

(a) Who is “the seed of Israel” mentioned in verses 35-37 referring to?; and

(b) Which city is being spoken of in verses 38-40?

QUESTION 7. Is the context of the New Covenant promise the passage in which it is found?

QUESTION 8. In Jeremiah 31 verses 5 and 24, what region is being spoken about?

Question 9. According to the context of the passage, which people/nation is being spoken about in Jeremiah 31 verses 3-30, and in verses 35-37?

Question 10. Do you believe that the gospel of the Kingdom of Messiah and the gospel of salvation from sin through the shed blood of King Messiah is one and the same promise?

And here are the last two questions:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Gen 15:18)

The Israelites did not receive all the land God promised to the seed of Abraham in the above promise under the leadership of Joshua, or ever.

QUESTION 11

If the Jews received all the land which God had promised Abraham under the leadership of Joshua, then

(a) Why did Joshua ALSO say, "And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you." (Jos 23:5)? and

(b) Why did God deem it necessary long, long AFTER the time of Joshua and the time these things were said by Joshua, to restore the people to the land of their fathers following their exile in Babylon? and

(c) Why did the prophets prophesy long, long AFTER the time of Joshua and the time these things were said by Joshua, that the Jews would be scattered among the nations in the four corners of the earth and after that prolonged exile, be regathered into the land of their fathers a second time? (example Isa.11: 11-12; Eze.36: 16-38; Jeremiah chapters 30-31, which is the context of the New Covenant promise to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah"; and many other prophetic passages of scripture)?

FINAL QUESTION

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8)

Richard, you said earlier in this thread that the word "olam" ("everlasting") in the above verse refers to a specific period of time, and a limited period of time, such as an age.

QUESTION 12

(a) Richard, are you saying that what God actually had in mind in Gen.17: 8 is this:

And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for a temporary covenant until the establishment of a new covenant which I will later establish, to be a God to you and to your seed after you until the establishment of the new covenant. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for a temporary possession, only until the establishment of the new covenant.?

(b) IF that is what you are saying, why did God not say so?

( c ) IF that is what you are saying, is this not adding a meaning which God did not in fact have in mind, and taking away from the meaning by annulling the promise (or attempting to annul it by stating that God had something different in mind than what He actually said)?:

"And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ. And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:16-18).

Many blessings to you and your family, Richard,

Andrew

lekh lekha
09-10-2009, 04:40 AM
LET'S TALK ABOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD – AND THINK ABOUT IT

In man's contracts (legal promises) where one party makes a promise of value to another, the language used will be as plain and clear as possible, in order that the promise of value (and any conditions involved) can be clearly understood; and it would be considered either absurd - or sneaky - to veil, in that wording, another meaning which would (a) take a very long time to become apparent; and (b) completely annul the plain and literal meaning of the words of the promise.

The question is not "should" God do such a thing (since God can do whatever He likes), but would God do such a thing?

"When God's Word came to Abraham, what God actually had in mind was... a spiritual kingdom, ultimately"

Is this indeed true?

Or is what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed true?

Throughout the pages of the book containing the history, law, poetry, wisdom and promises (prophecy) of this king, the prophecies (which promise the reconciliation of this man's seed to God and their restoration to this land after their world-wide dispersion among the nations in the four corners of the earth), are based upon the promises given to this man and his seed - these prophetic promises are not based upon the covenant of Law.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed the king and took him at his word; and they did not believe that the king had something else in mind which would completely do away with the plain and literal meaning of the promises regarding the land - in fact, Moses and the prophets and the apostles all understood the promise of the land to be "the kingdom of the Messiah" - the One the prophets said would:

1. Be the antitype of David who would save the people from their enemies ("the nations") by judging their enemies who would gather against Jerusalem in a day following the regathering of the seed of this man to the land the king promised their father as his/their eternal inheritance.

2. Be the antitype of Joseph who would save them from their sins by dying for their sins (and rising again from the dead).

A BIBLICAL STORY UNFOLDS:

A king who owns a peice of land calls a man to come out of his country to the land which belongs to the king eternally, and the man did not solicit this calling, but he obeys the king.

Then the king promises the man that he will give the man a seed through the man's wife, and that the man will become a great nation, and that the man will become the father of:

1. The nation descended from the man's seed; and
2. Many nations.

Then the king promises the man that he will bless the man, and will make his name great, and that he shall become a blessing, and that in his seed all the families of the earth will be blessed, and that he will bless whoever blesses the man (and his seed), and that whoever curses the man will be cursed.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king promises the man that the king will establish and everlasting covenant with the man to remain the king of the man and the king of his his seed throughout their generations.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king promises the man that he will give the land (which belongs eternally to the king) to the man and his seed as his/their everlasting inheritance.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king tells the man to look and see, for the land that he gives the man stretches from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then before the man's very eyes, the king binds himself by oath (covenant) to fulfill all these promises.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

"For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." (Rom 4:3)

Throughout the Old Testament, the king calls this land "My land" and his prophets call it "His land". It is also called "the land of your fathers" and "the land I gave to your fathers".

IT IS THE INHERITANCE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:

"And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ. And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:16-18)

"And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again." (Zec 2:12)

"Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.

But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9)

"Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21)

May God's blessings come upon you all,

Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 08:15 AM
Hello, Richard,



Hey Ron,

If we look at the giving of the Law at Sinai, what do we see? God does not mention any new covenant that is different than the one He first proclaimed to Abraham.

Richard


Richard. it seems to me that you are making an error in the above statement, for God specifically said to Moses,

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel...
... And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exo 34:27-28).

"These words" refers specifically to the Law which had been given through Moses.

Hey Andrew,

I agree that "These words" refer "specifically to the Law which had been given through Moses."

But does that mean that God is speaking of a different covenant than the one that He had repeated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

How many times did God previously say He was making a "covenant" with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Is there any reason to think that those repetitions and augmentations implied He was making multiple covenants with them? Let's review:

God began working with Abraham in Genesis 12 when He gave Him many promises, but did not mention the word "covenant" in that context.

Then in Genesis 15 God gave Abraham prophecies about the bondage in Egypt and made a covenant with Him that included only the land promises.

Then in Genesis 17 God augmented the same covenant, adding more promises, prophecies, and stipulations - specifically the Law of Circumcision. It was at this point that God first spoke of His covenant with Abraham as an "everlasting covenant." Is this a different covenant than the ones He had previously spoken to Abraham?

This was the status of the covenant between God and Israel when God saw the bondage of Israel in Egypt and said "I have also established my covenant with them" (Exo 6:4) and "I have remembered my covenant" (Exo 6:5) - speaking specifically of His Covenant with Israel that began with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It is at this point that God declares His covenant with Israel once again from Mount Sinai, augmenting it with additional promises, prophecies, and stipulations exactly as He had done in the past with Abraham.

This is a very important point that I hope you will find time to answer. When God augmented the covenant at Sinai, He was speaking to His people who already had a covenant with Him. Did they now have two covenants with God? Could a person accept the "Covenant of Law" while rejecting the Abrahamic Covenant? Could a person take a pass on the "Covenant of Law" and choose to remain under just the Abrahamic Covenant? If not, then how can we say that there are "two covenants"?



It is clearly the above (Mosaic) Covenant which the author of the epistle to the Hebrews is speaking ...

Your statement seems to depend upon the assumption that the Mosaic Covenant is different than the Abrahamic Covenant. But that's what we are trying to determine, so we can not just assume it is true or we will be committing the fallacy of "Begging the Question."

If the so-called "Mosaic Covenant" is simply an agumentation of the Abrahamic, just like all the other augmentations that preceeded it, then your statement would be false.



Richard, it seems to me that the above passages are only a few of many passages of Biblical scripture which show that your assertion that God only made one covenant with Abraham's descendants, is not a valid assertion at all.

Andrew, I don't know how those verses are supposed to prove your point because you did not state how they were supposed to prove your point. I quoted some of the same Scriptures to prove my point, so obviously, the same Scriptures can be understood in different ways. The challenge is that many assumptions sneek in unnoticed. That's really our primary job right now - we need to expose underlying assumptions that might be false or unfounded. For example, you assumed that the Mosaic Covenant was different than the Abrahamic when you said "It is clearly the above (Mosaic) Covenant which the author of the epistle to the Hebrews is speaking of." This statement contains the assumption of the point we are disputing - namely, if the Mosaic Covenant is different, independant, and separate from the Abrahamic Covenant.

I say no - the Mosaic Covenant is clearly an agumentation of the Abrahamic. God does not have two separate covenants with His people. I can not imagine Moses agreeing with your suggestion. How would He respond if you said "Hey Moses! Did you know that the Covenant of Law is entirely different than the Covenant that the Lord made with Abraham?" I think Moses would say - "No it's not. God began His covenant with a promise, and then augmented it unto this day when now He has given us His Holy Law."



There is a huge difference between the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed on the basis of a promise, and the later covenant which God made with Abraham's seed through Isaac and Jacob on the basis of their obedience to the Law God which gave to the people through Moses.
Yes, there are many "differences" just as there were many differences between the covenants God made with Abraham in Gen 15 and Gen 17. But you do not believe that those covenants are two different covenants. I believe the same principle applies here.

And the NT tells us that the Law was never supposed to be understood as "obedience" in the sense of "works of the law" anyway:
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Is that perfect clarity? The error of Israel was that they sought God's righteousness as though it were by the works of the law. The Mosaic augmentation of the Abrahamic covenant did not disannul the promise that comes by faith.

Thanks for taking time to work with me on this. I continue to be thankful that we are reconciled.

Many blessings to you my brother,

Richard

Rose
09-10-2009, 08:17 AM
LET'S TALK ABOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD – AND THINK ABOUT IT

In man's contracts (legal promises) where one party makes a promise of value to another, the language used will be as plain and clear as possible, in order that the promise of value (and any conditions involved) can be clearly understood; and it would be considered either absurd - or sneaky - to veil, in that wording, another meaning which would (a) take a very long time to become apparent; and (b) completely annul the plain and literal meaning of the words of the promise.

The question is not "should" God do such a thing (since God can do whatever He likes), but would God do such a thing?

"When God's Word came to Abraham, what God actually had in mind was... a spiritual kingdom, ultimately"

Is this indeed true?

Or is what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed true?

Throughout the pages of the book containing the history, law, poetry, wisdom and promises (prophecy) of this king, the prophecies (which promise the reconciliation of this man's seed to God and their restoration to this land after their world-wide dispersion among the nations in the four corners of the earth), are based upon the promises given to this man and his seed - these prophetic promises are not based upon the covenant of Law.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed the king and took him at his word; and they did not believe that the king had something else in mind which would completely do away with the plain and literal meaning of the promises regarding the land - in fact, Moses and the prophets and the apostles all understood the promise of the land to be "the kingdom of the Messiah" - the One the prophets said would:

1. Be the antitype of David who would save the people from their enemies ("the nations") by judging their enemies who would gather against Jerusalem in a day following the regathering of the seed of this man to the land the king promised their father as his/their eternal inheritance.

2. Be the antitype of Joseph who would save them from their sins by dying for their sins (and rising again from the dead).

A BIBLICAL STORY UNFOLDS:

A king who owns a peice of land calls a man to come out of his country to the land which belongs to the king eternally, and the man did not solicit this calling, but he obeys the king.

Then the king promises the man that he will give the man a seed through the man's wife, and that the man will become a great nation, and that the man will become the father of:

1. The nation descended from the man's seed; and
2. Many nations.

Then the king promises the man that he will bless the man, and will make his name great, and that he shall become a blessing, and that in his seed all the families of the earth will be blessed, and that he will bless whoever blesses the man (and his seed), and that whoever curses the man will be cursed.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king promises the man that the king will establish and everlasting covenant with the man to remain the king of the man and the king of his his seed throughout their generations.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king promises the man that he will give the land (which belongs eternally to the king) to the man and his seed as his/their everlasting inheritance.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then the king tells the man to look and see, for the land that he gives the man stretches from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

Then before the man's very eyes, the king binds himself by oath (covenant) to fulfill all these promises.

And the man did not solicit any of these promises, but he believed the king and took him at his word.

"For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." (Rom 4:3)

Throughout the Old Testament, the king calls this land "My land" and his prophets call it "His land". It is also called "the land of your fathers" and "the land I gave to your fathers".

IT IS THE INHERITANCE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:

"And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ. And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:16-18)

"And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again." (Zec 2:12)

"Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.

But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9)

"Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:19-21)

May God's blessings come upon you all,

Andrew

Hi Andrew
"For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." (Rom 4:3)
Abraham did believe God, and God was faithful in fulfilling ALL the promises given to Abraham and his seed.

The Law was given because of transgressions, so we need to ask: transgressions of what? The answer to that from Paul's own words is, "transgressions of the Covenant", but did the Law that was given in any way make the promises of the Covenant of no effect? Absolutely not! So, we have the Law given to the Covenant God made with Abraham because of transgressions, but all the promises remain intact, and the inheritance is ultimately fulfilled in a measure (Christ) that is pressed down, shaken together, and flowing over. Amen, and Amen!

Many blessings

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 09:17 AM
Hello again, Richard.

I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have to spend here, so I'm going to ask my final questions.

I know you haven't had time yet, but you haven't answered these questions yet:

Hi again Andrew,

I think it would help a lot if you took a little time to respond to the many answers I already have given before asking more questions.

But while I am waiting, I will happily answer more questions.



QUESTION 5.

(a) In Jer.31: 31-32, does the New Covenant promise specifically mention the covenant which God made with the fathers of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

(b) Does the New Covenant promise say that the New Covenant would not be according to that covenant which God made with the fathers of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah 'in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

( c ) In these verses in Jer.31: 31-32, are any of the other covenants mentioned in the New Covenant promise?

a) Yes, and we must remember the fundamental Gospel prophecy that immediately preceded that augmentation of the Abrahamic Covenant - the Blood of the Passover Lamb - which is a prophecy of the blood of Christ that ratified the New Covenant prophesied in Jer 31:31.

b) Yes - but we need to discuss what God meant when He said "not according to."

c) No - but that means nothing if the Sinai covenant was a continuation and augmentation of the pre-existing Covenant that Israel already had with God. That's why it is so important for us to come to a true Biblical understanding of the relation between those "two" covenants.



QUESTION 6. In the New Covenant promise (Jeremiah 31 verses 31-40),

(a) Who is 'the seed of Israel' mentioned in verses 35-37 referring to?; and

(b) Which city is being spoken of in verses 38-40?

a) The NT defines the true meaning of "seed of Israel" as all believers who hold to the faith of Abraham, who is the father of the faith, the father of us all, the father of many goyim.

b) Jerusalem - and Galatians 4 explains that there are two meanings of Jerusalem in prophecy as the earthly Jerusalem in bondage (Law) and the heavenly Jerusalem (Gospel) which is free.



QUESTION 7. Is the context of the New Covenant promise the passage in which it is found?

Yes - and that context must be read in the larger context of the whole Bible.




QUESTION 8. In Jeremiah 31 verses 5 and 24, what region is being spoken about?

Samaria and Judah.



Question 9. According to the context of the passage, which people/nation is being spoken about in Jeremiah 31 verses 3-30, and in verses 35-37?

To the carnal eye this prophecy is speaking of the literal OT nation of Israel. But to the spiritual eye enlightened by the revelation of the NT, these references are seen as the symbols God intended them to be. As it is Paul explained in great detail. In the Book of 1 Corinthians, he first explained how to interpret Holy Scripture, and then gave a demonstration of how to interpret Holy Scripture:

Paul's Explanation of How to Interpret Holy Scripture

1 Corinthians 2:10-14 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Paul's Demonstration of How to Interpret Holy Scripture

1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
There are of course many other things such as context and mutually confirming witnesses (verses) that we must keep in mind when interpreting Scripture, but if we forget that God Himself has taught us that He uses symbols in the prophecies, we will never understand the Bible the way that He intended.



Question 10. Do you believe that the gospel of the Kingdom of Messiah and the gospel of salvation from sin through the shed blood of King Messiah is one and the same promise?

Absolutely and unequivocally! The Gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the Gospel of Salvation from sin through His shed blood.



And here are the last two questions:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Gen 15:18)

The Israelites did not receive all the land God promised to the seed of Abraham in the above promise under the leadership of Joshua, or ever.

You are correct that they failed to receive what God had given them. But does that mean that God failed to give it them? I think not. The Bible explicitly declares that God fulfilled His Word to them concerning the land promises. Their unbelief did not make the faith of God without effect (Rom 3:3).



QUESTION 11

If the Jews received all the land which God had promised Abraham under the leadership of Joshua, then

(a) Why did Joshua ALSO say, "And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you." (Jos 23:5)? and

Again, you are confusing the receiving of the gift with the giving of the gift. God fulfilled His side of the bargain. They rebelled and so were expelled.



(b) Why did God deem it necessary long, long AFTER the time of Joshua and the time these things were said by Joshua, to restore the people to the land of their fathers following their exile in Babylon? and

He needed His people to be in the Holy Land to receive Him when He came in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ so He could make the New Covenant with "all the house of Israel" as it is written:
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
And He needed them their so He could fulfill His Word and bring judgment down upon the unbelievers who killed Him.



(c) Why did the prophets prophesy long, long AFTER the time of Joshua and the time these things were said by Joshua, that the Jews would be scattered among the nations in the four corners of the earth and after that prolonged exile, be regathered into the land of their fathers a second time? (example Isa.11: 11-12; Eze.36: 16-38; Jeremiah chapters 30-31, which is the context of the New Covenant promise to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah"; and many other prophetic passages of scripture)?


Isa 11:11-12 - this is a prophecy of Pentecost, as explained in a previous post (which I don't think you ever answered).

Ezek 36:16 - This is a large prophecy that can not be answered in a single sentence. And that doesn't matter anyway since I have answered dozens of your questions and have not received many responses as yet. So there are a lot of other questions you need to answer before we get to this one.

Jer 30-31 - Again, we can discuss this after you have responded to all the other answers I have given.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 10:18 AM
LET'S TALK ABOUT GOD'S HOLY WORD – AND THINK ABOUT IT

In man's contracts (legal promises) where one party makes a promise of value to another, the language used will be as plain and clear as possible, in order that the promise of value (and any conditions involved) can be clearly understood; and it would be considered either absurd - or sneaky - to veil, in that wording, another meaning which would (a) take a very long time to become apparent; and (b) completely annul the plain and literal meaning of the words of the promise.

The question is not "should" God do such a thing (since God can do whatever He likes), but would God do such a thing?

"When God's Word came to Abraham, what God actually had in mind was... a spiritual kingdom, ultimately"

Is this indeed true?

Or is what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed true?

Hey there Andrew,

That's an excellent suggestion! I love talking and thinking about God's most excellent Word! :thumb:

Let's test your question against something we know for certain. You assert that "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believed" that the promises were given to Abraham's seed which refers to the literal children of Abraham known as "ethnic Israel," correct?

But what did Paul believe and teach? That's easy to discern:
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
How do you understand this? Does it not contradict your thesis that we must constrain our understanding to that of the OT saints?

It is wonderful to be working with you on this.

Many blessings to you and yours,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 11:00 AM
The continuity of the Covenant of God with Israel from it's inception with Abraham unto King David is displayed with great clarity in this passage from 1 Chronicles. David speaks of the Covenant given to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Israel at Sinai in one breath with no distinctions between them, and no suggestion that there was ever more than ONE COVENANT. Note that the Ark of the Covenant contained the Ten Commandments and so was a symbol of the Mosaic Law that augmented the original covenant with Abraham. This is the Word of the Lord:
1 Chronicles 16:4 And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel: 5 Asaph the chief, and next to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obededom: and Jeiel with psalteries and with harps; but Asaph made a sound with cymbals; 6 Benaiah also and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God. 7 Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the LORD into the hand of Asaph and his brethren. 8 Give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people. 9 Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him, talk ye of all his wondrous works. 10 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD. 11 Seek the LORD and his strength, seek his face continually. 12 Remember his marvellous works that he hath done, his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; 13 O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. 14 He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. 15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; 16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; 17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, 18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; 19 When ye were but few, even a few, and strangers in it. 20 And when they went from nation to nation, and from one kingdom to another people; 21 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes, 22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm. 23 Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. 24 Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. 25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. 26 For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 27 Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place. 28 Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 29 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. 30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth. 34 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. 35 And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory in thy praise. 36 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel for ever and ever. And all the people said, Amen, and praised the LORD. 37 So he left there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually, as every day's work required:

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 11:32 AM
The passage from 1 Chronicles quoted in the previous post is repeated nearly word for word in Psalm 105. Remember the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics: Every word is established by two or three witnesses. Here is a second witness to what God declared in 1 Chronicles:
Psalm 105:1 O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people. 2 Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works. 3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD. 4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore. 5 Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; 6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. 7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: 11 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: 12 When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. 13 When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; 14 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; 15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm. 16 Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread. 17 He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant: 18 Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: 19 Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him. 20 The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free. 21 He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: 22 To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom. 23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. 24 And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies. 25 He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants. 26 He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen. 27 They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham. 28 He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word. 29 He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish. 30 Their land brought forth frogs in abundance, in the chambers of their kings. 31 He spake, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts. 32 He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their land. 33 He smote their vines also and their fig trees; and brake the trees of their coasts. 34 He spake, and the locusts came, and caterpillers, and that without number, 35 And did eat up all the herbs in their land, and devoured the fruit of their ground. 36 He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength. 37 He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and there was not one feeble person among their tribes. 38 Egypt was glad when they departed: for the fear of them fell upon them. 39 He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night. 40 The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven. 41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river. 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.
Again we have a perfect continuity of the ONE COVENANT made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel. There is never any mention of the Law as a separate covenant anywhere in the OT. Note also that we have yet another witness that God "gave them the lands of the heathen."

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 09:48 PM
I am reading an egg-head commentary on Galatians by Longenecker (Word Biblical Commentary) and found his assertion that the Jews teach the same thing I have been presenting in this thread, namely, that "the Mosaic law as simply the developed form of the Abrahamic covenant" -
Jewish tradition viewed Abraham as having kept the entire Mosaic law even though that law was not given until much later (cf. Str-B, 204–6). His acceptance of circumcision in Gen 17:10–14, in effect, signaled for Jews his acceptance of all the Mosaic law. Furthermore, Judaism, with its view of truth as coming first in an elemental form and then in a developed form, understood the Mosaic law as simply the developed form of the Abrahamic covenant.
It would be very interesting if anyone could find any historic evidence that the Jews ever believed the dispensational doctrine that teaches a fundamental distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. To date, I have never seen any such evidence. So if Moses and the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ did not believe it, then .... ?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-10-2009, 10:55 PM
I found this explanation of God's Covenant with Israel in the LookLex Encyclopedia's article on Judaism (http://lexicorient.com/e.o/judaism.htm):
The covenant

The central theme of Judaism, is the covenant between the Jews and God. This was first made Abraham, from whom the Jewish believe they came. This covenant was renewed with Abraham's son Isaac, and Abraham's grand son Jacob.

The covenant was extended as Moses was given the Ten Commandments and other laws. From this, the Jews learn how they should lead their lives.

The covenant involves that the Jews are a chosen people, giving them certain rights as well as responsibilities.
The article was written by Tore Kjeilen (http://looklex.com/contact/p_tore.htm) who describes his credentials as follows: "I live in the centre of Oslo, the capital of Norway. I have an honors degree (a somewhat longer study than a Master's) in Science of Religion from the University of Bergen, with Arabic and History as supporting subjects."

The evidence continues to mount.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-11-2009, 04:21 AM
Thank you for all your replies, Richard.

I have read them all, and I don't want to say anything more about those replies, save that I still don't agree with your interpretation of the scriptures you mentioned, or that you interpret the scriptures in accordance with sound hermeneutics, as you repeatedly claim to do.

Indeed, every Christian claims to interpret the scriptures correctly, and in accordance with sound hermeneutics - and there are quite a few excellent and very famous Bible commentators who have produced commentaries on the Bible - and yet who disagree with your interpretation, as well as many other excellent and very famous Bible commentators who agree with your interpretation, or at least agree in part with your interpretation (some of them are only partial Preterists).

I do believe you've misinterpreted a great many of the scriptures you've quoted, and the very scriptures you quote do not "prove" your position at all - except in your mind, and in the mind of those who agree with you.

The important question in my mind is and always will remain NOT "What do I believe?" or "What does Richard believe?" but rather,

"What does God believe?"; and in accordance with that question, to my fallible human mind and interpretation of God's Word, so far you still have not provided satisfactory answers produced from your fallible human mind and interpretation of the Word of God.

If I wanted to, I could continue to refute what you've said by showing what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Biblical scriptures under discussion.

But I really, really don't think the exercise would produce any change of mind in either yourself or myself, and to be honest, I really don't have the needed time on my hands to continue with what will prove to be a very long continuation of the same circles - and this most certainly has become a circle that we've been going round and round in.

I think that whoever has been following this thread and whoever is interested in this discussion has been given enough "food for thought", and those people will, hopefully, pray to God and ask Him to reveal the truth to them regarding the disputed theological and eschatological beliefs which have come up.

At the end of the day, we know that someone wisely said,

"But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ.

But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he who shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Mat 23:8-12)

Notice how our Savior and Lord repeated His words which I highlighted in blue - and the final verse is equally as important.

You may say, "He was only talking to the apostles", but personally I think He is much, much wiser than that.

God bless,

Andrew

gregoryfl
09-11-2009, 04:59 AM
And I can say with assurance that as God gives the revelation of any such interpretation, until such time there are valuable lessons God is using to mold and shape us even in the inadvertent errors we may hold to.

I would go so far as to even say that his giving over of people to believe the lie, who want it so, happens under the providence and control of a loving creator who has more in store for such ones, even though harsh it may appear to us. Harsh is not the end, but merely the means to it, something far grander and glorious than any of us can imagine.

Perhaps some may not believe this, but if we had to have all our doctrines in a row in order to have Life, not a one of us would be alive today.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
09-11-2009, 07:41 AM
This article (http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/nutshell/part11.html#)from torah.org explains that the Covenant at Sinai was not a new covenant, but rather the "fine print of the original deal with Abraham":
So at Sinai, God laid out everything He had to say. What He was communicating was the fine print of the original deal with Abraham, the spiritual details of the unique, mission-centered relationship known as the Covenant. Then, when He finished His communication, God instructed Moses to write everything down and present it to the nation for their signature.
There is not, of course, a single word in the OT that states or implies that the covenant as Sinai was a "new" covenant different from the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I am still hoping anyone who disagrees will provide some real evidence from either the Bible or Jewish tradition that contradicts this conclusion.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-11-2009, 09:25 AM
(b) Does the New Covenant promise say that the New Covenant would not be according to that covenant which God made with the fathers of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah 'in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt"?; and

The answer is of course "yes" since that's what the Bible says. Everyone who can read knows that. But what does "not according to" mean? That is the $64,000 question. so let's look at what the Scripture says:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
The difference between the New Covenant and the covenant made at Sinai is that the New Covenant would be written on our hearts, not tables of stone. Paul used this distinction when he showed that this prophecy was fulfilled in the Church. I highlighted in two colors because Paul confirmed both aspects of the prophecy were fulfilled in two different sections of 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 3:2-4 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
And ...

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Richard

lekh lekha
09-11-2009, 01:22 PM
And I can say with assurance that as God gives the revelation of any such interpretation, until such time there are valuable lessons God is using to mold and shape us even in the inadvertent errors we may hold to.

I would go so far as to even say that his giving over of people to believe the lie, who want it so, happens under the providence and control of a loving creator who has more in store for such ones, even though harsh it may appear to us. Harsh is not the end, but merely the means to it, something far grander and glorious than any of us can imagine.

Perhaps some may not believe this, but if we had to have all our doctrines in a row in order to have Life, not a one of us would be alive today.

Ron

I agree, wholeheartedly :thumb:

It is the blood of Jesus that saved us 2,000 years ago, and it is through our faith in the Living Word that we are saved.

Richard and I don't interpret the Bible the same way because:

1. I believe (in my fallible human understanding of God's Word) that though the gospel of the Kingdom of Christ and the gospel of salvation from sin are inextricably linked, yet they are the two sides of the same coin, and not one and the same side of the coin.

2. I believe that just because one cannot be a part of Christ's Kingdom unless one is saved through faith in Jesus, this does not (in my fallible human understanding of God's Word) mean that Christ's Kingdom is a 'spiritual Kingdom only' which will never be manifested on earth in a real, tangible way - in a time when Christ quite literally rules the whole world from His throne in His Kingdom on earth.

Even if one completely ignores "the millennium" and the dispute over whether or not "the millennium" is literal, we still see "the Kingdom of Heaven on earth" in the "new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem".

In my fallible human understanding of the Word of God, I simply cannot see truth in the claim that "all prophecies have been fulfilled".

But I certainly don't believe that if I (or anyone else who believes in Jesus) believes a lie (believes something that is not true), that we are not saved.

I hope Richard, Rose and everyone who has read this thread will understand that the only reason why I showed how God's people have been adding to and subtracting from the full counsel of the Word of God since the days in the Garden of Eden, is because I wanted Richard to think about that fact.

I don't exempt myself from that category, because if I believe a lie (something that is not true), then I myself am adding to, and subtracting from the Word of God. It has been done from the beginning. There are many contemporary doctrines which may or may not fall into that category, such as "faith-prosperity", for example (I'm not saying it does or doesn't - one can of worms per thread is enough, I think!)

This discussion became very heated at times, and Richard and I both fell into a trap. But we both pulled ourselves out of it, and we both placed Christ back where He belongs - as our Head.

Praying for Richard, Rose, gregoryfl, Cheow-Wee-Hock, Joel and all the folks here at the Bible Wheel Forums.

God bless ya'all

Andrew

joel
09-11-2009, 04:24 PM
Andrew, your participation here, along with all the others who love the truth, is so valuable. please stay with us as we seek to understand His Word.

Be a fellow seeker of the truth, with us.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2009, 10:46 AM
Thank you for all your replies, Richard.

I have read them all, and I don't want to say anything more about those replies, save that I still don't agree with your interpretation of the scriptures you mentioned, or that you interpret the scriptures in accordance with sound hermeneutics, as you repeatedly claim to do.

Hello there my friend,

I have enjoyed answering your questions, but I would have enjoyed it even more if you had responded to my answers!

I have no idea what you mean when you say that I am not following "sound hermeneutics." I have repeated most of my principles many times, and I do not recall that you disagreed with them on any point. Perhaps I forgot? Here is a basic summary of the principles of my Biblical Hermeneutics:
The Bible is the Word of God.
We must let the Word of God mold our thinking.
Every foundational doctrine must be established on at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages. This protects us from the great error of adding things to Scripture.
We must never interpret any verse in isolation. We must examine the original language and context before coming to any final conclusion.
There must be no speculation in the foundation of our Biblical understanding.
We must seek to understand the Bible as God intended. We must understand the symbolic language that God presents, such as the Passover Lamb as a type of Christ and so forth. We must compare spiritual things with spiritual as Paul taught.
The Bible possesses a Divine Unity. We must never interpret any verse in isolation. We must understand how our interpretation of any part of the Bible fits into the BIG PICTURE of what it is really all about. This protects us from the error of having one set of ideas about one part of the Bible that contradicts another set of ideas about another part of the Bible.Now I know with certainty that you agree with Principles #1, #2, #3, and #4 because you have explicitly said so, and I would be greatly surprised if you would consider any of the other points to be in error or unsound.

As far as I recall, you have never attempted to refute my arguments by demonstrating an error in my hermeneutics. Again, I may have forgotten, but if you did it failed to make an impression on me and certainly has not been central to your arguments.

If you want to maintain that you reject my position because I do not use "sound hermeneutics" then you will need to state the specific hermeneutical principle that I have violated. A mere statement that you do not think I use "sound hermeneutics" is not helpful at all. You need to be specific, with examples from the central issues that we have been discussing. That would be most helpful. :thumb:



Indeed, every Christian claims to interpret the scriptures correctly, and in accordance with sound hermeneutics - and there are quite a few excellent and very famous Bible commentators who have produced commentaries on the Bible - and yet who disagree with your interpretation, as well as many other excellent and very famous Bible commentators who agree with your interpretation, or at least agree in part with your interpretation (some of them are only partial Preterists).

I have been studying the Bible for decades. I have read countless commentaries including many that attempt to lay a Biblical foundation foundation for futurism and have never found even one that fully adhered to the principles I outlined above.

Furthermore, I have engaged many futurists in this forum and not one has ever successfully demonstrated a solid Biblical foundation for their beliefs. I'm not saying that futurism is necessarily false, only that no one I know of has laid a solid Biblical foundation for it. If you know of any presentation online or in a book or journal that has attempted to establish futurism using sound Biblical hermeneutics, please point me to it so I can review it.

The unfortunate fact is that I have never found a futurist who would follow an argument to its conclusion. When failing to establish one point, they typically drop it and raise a new point. After they do this a number of times they get the impression that they are "going in circles" and then simply bow out graciously (or not) saying that we need to "agree to disagree" or something like that.

But I love these discussions because I always learn a lot and I never feel like I am going in circles because I have a solid Biblical foundation that never moves. And I am very thankful that you have shared your views with us. I would be very sad if you chose to quit now. It would only confirm all my previous experience concerning the inability of futurists to establish their doctrines on the Bible using sound hermeneutics.



I do believe you've misinterpreted a great many of the scriptures you've quoted, and the very scriptures you quote do not "prove" your position at all - except in your mind, and in the mind of those who agree with you.

Of course you don't agree with my interpretations! You asked questions from all over the map. That method will never help anyone establish the truth. The proper method is to narrow down our discussion to the fundamental points under dispute so we can discern the truth. The interpretations of many verses you cited are highly speculative and disputable. They depend critically upon what we have determined about the foundation of Biblical eschatology. They are not the correct "starting place" for a discussion such as ours.



If I wanted to, I could continue to refute what you've said by showing what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Biblical scriptures under discussion.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you could continue to dispute what I've said. A refutation would involve two things:
A clear statement of my point you are attempting to refute
A clear statement and demonstration of the logical error or hermeneutical principle that I have violated in the point that I made.Most of your disputations have followed a different route. It seems to me that most of them follow this pattern:
You state that you disagee with me
You reassert your original point without demonstrating any logical or hermeneutical error in my argument.This method will never lead to any resolution of our differences. Neither will it lead to a revelation of what the Bible really teaches.



But I really, really don't think the exercise would produce any change of mind in either yourself or myself, and to be honest, I really don't have the needed time on my hands to continue with what will prove to be a very long continuation of the same circles - and this most certainly has become a circle that we've been going round and round in.

As noted above, I believe you are the one "going in circles" because you are not responding to my refutations of your arguments. In your recent very looong posts you introduced dozens of new questions rather than addressing the many logical and hermeneutical errors that I have found in your arguments.

A quick review should make this clear. You have attempted to found your interpretation upon the idea that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises. I responded by noting that this violates sound hermeneutics in two fundamental ways:
The Bible explicitly states that God gave Israel the land that He promised. There are dozens if not hundreds of verses that explicitly confirm this point.
The Bible never states that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises.Therefore, your fundamental point violates sound hermeneutical principles in two of the most profound ways. You deny what the Bible says, and you add something the Bible does not say.

Likewise, you are attempting to found your interpretation upon the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is entirely different and separate from the Abrahamic Covenant. This contradicts the fact that God always refers to His Covenant with Israel in the singular. There is nowhere in OT that differentiates between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and there are Biblical passages that speak of both covenants as one. Furthermore, you have appealed to what the Jews believe, and I have shown that the Jews believe that the Mosaic Covenant is a continuation, amplification, and clarification of what was implicit in the Abrahamic Covenant. You never responded to, let alone refuted, these facts.

If you want to avoid "going in circles" you will need to address the evidence I have presented. If I have erred in logic or sound hermeneutics, all you need to do is demonstrate that fact. It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

Again, I hope you will stay and complete the work you have begun. I sincerely doubt you will ever find a more rational and Biblically sound discussion of these fundamental questions on any internet forum. I am committed to the TRUTH of what the Bible really teaches - nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

Andrew, I am very thankful that God reconciled us, and feel in my heart that you are a true Christian brother. I remain thankful that you participated here and hope you will continue. But if you want to go, then go in peace, and with my blessing, and never forget that the door here will always be open for you. I will always hope your absence is temporary.

I pray that our Lord will bless you in all you do,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2009, 01:57 PM
Here is an explanation (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html) of the Covenant from www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). It shows that the Jews today believe that the covenant between God and Israel began with the Abrahamic covenant and that the entire Torah, including the covenant at Sinai, was the culmination of a process that made the content of the original Abrahamic covenant "more explicit."
Eventually, the one true Creator that Abram had worshipped called to him, and made him an offer: if Abram would leave his home and his family, then G-d would make him a great nation and bless him. Abram accepted this offer, and the b'rit (covenant) between G-d and the Jewish people was established. (Gen. 12).

The idea of b'rit is fundamental to traditional Judaism: we have a covenant [singular], a contract, with G-d, which involves rights and obligations on both sides. We have certain obligations to G-d, and G-d has certain obligations to us. The terms of this b'rit became more explicit over time, until the time of the Giving of the Torah. Abram was subjected to ten tests of faith to prove his worthiness for this covenant [singular]. Leaving his home is one of these trials.
And here is a quote that confirms the same understanding from Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (http://books.google.com/books?id=SPS4tKH3VSQC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=jewish+covenant+avraham+sinai&source=bl&ots=_k_S-l_MyL&sig=YItKnMFkpdRXNnBaDabeIU9CW00&hl=en&ei=GwmsSpfQLYPAsQOJpOyFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by Tom Holmen. After reviewing the history of the various covenants, he wrote:
In the culmination of the Old Testament traditions and subsequent to that, all these instances of covenant-making were seen as adding to the one relationship between God and the people, rather than as successive unconnected or even mutually exclusive "covenants" (47).
In foot-note 47 he noted that "covenant" in the OT is always in the singular and cites many scholastic studies that confirm his general argument. He then finished his note by stating the following:
The separate instances of covenant-making were all expressions of one and the same, enduring, merciful will of God vis-a-vis his people.
Another confirmation of the traditional Jewish understanding is found in This is Judaism (http://books.google.com/books?id=-jr0LitQg4QC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=judaism+covenant+singular&source=bl&ots=WnJurmJWgV&sig=2DyMzGGFWY4KoOPKlWYnjeAJ-kM&hl=en&ei=ID-sSqe0JJLusQPjkaHtBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by Michael Keene:
Although the covenant between God and the Jews was first made by Abraham, God only spelt out its terms to Moses on Mount Sinai. It was there that the Jews were given rules by which they were expected to live.
The evidence continues to mount ever more. The idea that the Mosaic Covenant was separate and distinct from the Abrahamic Covenant appears to be completely foreign to the Bible.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2009, 04:12 PM
If anyone has any historical evidence that the Jews have ever considered that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were separate and distinct, please post it here. I have not been able to find any and I want to present all possible evidence that might support Andrew's point of view.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2009, 08:19 PM
If anyone has any historical evidence that the Jews have ever considered that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were separate and distinct, please post it here. I have not been able to find any and I want to present all possible evidence that might support Andrew's point of view.

Richard
Here is a link to the very helpful online book The Promise of the Land (http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft596nb3tj&chunk.id=d0e8393&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e8393&brand=ucpress) that studies the differences between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, though I have not found anything in it yet that supports the idea that the two covenants were distinct or that Israel was under "two covenants." Here is a relevant snippet from the introduction:
Chapter 9 treats the nature of the divine covenantal promise to the patriarchs concerning the land. In contradistinction to Sinaitic covenant, in which the Israelites pledge to keep the law of God, in the Abrahamic covenant it is God who commits himself to give the land to the Patriarchs and their descendants. Also, the Sinaitic covenant constitutes an obligation promise of God based on Abraham having already proved himself in the past as his loyal servant (Gen. 15:6; 22:18; 26:5). A covenant of the same type is concluded with David, who is promised a dynasty forever (2 Sam. 7) since he proved himself as a loyal servant of God in the past (1 Kings 3:14; 8:18; 9:4, etc.). Both contracts, the Abrahamic and the Davidic, constitute a gift forever and without any condition.
But there seems to be a problem with the view that the Davidic covenant was "unconditional" given these following statements from God:
2 Chronicles 7:15-21 Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. 16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. 17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments; 18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel. 19 But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; 20 Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations. 21 And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house?
The Davidic covenant seems to have many conditions attached. And how are we supposed to understand the idea that there will "never fail" to be a man to be a ruler in Israel if Israel sins and is kicked out of the land? Given that all these ideas appear in a single passage, I think the pop interpretation needs to be rethunk.

==============
Edit to add: I originally quoted the above book because I thought it might add some weight to Andrew's argument. But as I read more I found that it acknowledges the conditional nature of the land promises in both Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (pg. 185):
As early as the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15), the conditionality of the promise of the land is implied. The sin of the Canaanites is the cause of their expulsion from the land: "For the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete" (v. 16),[1] which by allusion suggests that if the Israelites sin, they too might lose the land. A similar outlook is found in Gen. 18:19, in the words of God concerning Abraham: "For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing justice and righteousness[2] in order that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what He has promised him." Dwelling in the land was contingent on keeping the commandments; if the Israelites did not keep the commandments, the land would spew them out, as it did to the nations who lived there before them (Lev. 18:28). This view achieves fullest expression in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic literature.

The same pattern developed with the Davidic covenant. The covenant of God with David, which contained an unconditional promise of eternal dynasty for David (2 Sam. 7:13, 16; Ps. 89:29–38), was interpreted after the disruption of the Davidic dynasty as originally given on condition (1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:4–9).==============
Edit to add: I'm now reading the section called "Spirtualization of the Land Promises" that discusses the pre-Christian transformation of the Rabbinic understanding of the land promises as ultimately a reference to our eternal inheritance in the "world to come" precisely as taught in the NT. Here is the quote beginning at page 217:
It is in Rabbinic literature that the land begins to take on eschatological significance.[76] The verse, "Your nation is all righteous, they will inherit the land forever" (Isa. 60:21) is understood in Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 as referring to inheritance of a part of the world to come.[77] Another verse, "But he who takes refuge in Me shall possess the land and inherit My holy mountain" (Isa. 57:13), is explained by commentator D. Kimchi, as follows: "The world to come is called the land of the living and the holy mountain," an interpretation that clearly corresponds to the Rabbis' approach. And the expression "holy mountain," in "And in that day a great ram's horn shall be sounded, and the strayed . . . shall come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain, in Jerusalem" (Isa. 27:13), is interpreted as the world to come in BT Sanhedrin 110b. In Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:3, Rabbi Akiva explains that the people cast in "the other land" (Deut. 29:27) are not in "the real land," namely, the world to come, but rather "the netherworld," from which no one ever returns. "Just as the day passes and never returns, so too they go and never return."[78]

Inheriting the land was understood by the Rabbis as being granted a place in the eternal world, as, for example, in Mishnah Kidushin 1:10: "He who observes even one commandment is rewarded, will be granted a long life, and will inherit the land."[79]

Rashi and Maimonides both correctly interpret this "inheriting" as inheriting the world to come.[80] The eschatological interpretation of the phrase "inheriting the land" was exceedingly popular among the early Christians, and was rooted in the common wisdom of Jewish belief of the times as well.[81] Thus, the Rabbis' eschatological interpretation of the phrase "inheriting the land" can be said to have preceded the days of the destruction [i.e. 70 AD].

In this period a spiritualistic approach to the land of Israel began to develop. Just as Jerusalem took on a double meaning, as both the celestial and terrestrial Jerusalem,[82] the land of Israel also became understood in both the realistic and metaphysical sense.
All these ideas are seen in Scripture - the final highlighted words correspond directly with Paul's teaching about the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians 4. I find this an amazing discover.


==============
Edit to add: DIVINE SYNCHRONICITY! I found some sources for free online books and looked in the Judaism section and notice a link to Pirke Avot (http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/8547/12.html#6) (The Sayings of the Fathers). The first page I looked at confirmed the quotes above! Here is the quote:
One of the following chapters is read on each Sabbath from the Sabbath after Passover until the Sabbath before New Year.

All Israel (1) have a portion in the world to come, and it is said, “And thy people shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land (2) for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified” (3).

Footnotes:
This does not mean that Israel alone, to the exclusion of other nations, will have a portion in the future world. On the future world ([olam haba]), see [Chapter II], n. 21. “The pious of all nations have a portion in the world to come” (Tosefta Sanhedrin, chap. XII; Maimonides, in Mishneh Torah, I, Hilchot Teshubah, iii, 5) sums up the Rabbinic opinion.
I.e., the land of everlasting life.
Sanhedrin, X (XI), 1; Isaiah lx, 21. This passage is recited before each chapter.I feel like God has simultaneously opened a thousand windows to heaven confirming and expanding everything I have ever learned from Scripture.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-13-2009, 02:14 AM
Hello again, Richard :yo:

I'm surprised that you're quoting sources which you earlier described as "antichrist" in support of your own doctrines, since when you earlier assumed I had quoted unbelieving Jews in support of my understanding (which I had not done), you expressed extremely emotionally-charged accusations about it, specifically using the word "antichrist" a number of times.

It is a pity you quote non-Christian covenantal doctrine in support of your own covenantal doctrine.

Bear in mind that ALL the Jewish sources you quoted:

1. Believe in a very literal Kingdom of Messiah which is still to be established on earth, and do not believe in a 'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ/Messiah at all.

2. Are also partially blinded to the full counsel of the Word of God through their total rejection of the New Covenant and the blood of Jesus which was shed for their sins (1 John 2: 2).

The author of the letter to the Hebrews said,

In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13)

3. The sources you quoted believe ALL the covenants are everlasting, and they do not believe that any one of the covenants will ever vanish away.

4. The sources you quoted hold to obedience to the Law as a means to salvation; and to outward circumcision as the only proof that anyone is a son of Abraham.

But whereas the sources you quoted believe ALL the covenants are everlasting and do not believe that any one of the covenants will ever vanish away, you believe ALL the covenants have become old, and are ready to vanish away.

It's a pity you believe that, because if what you say is true, then this means that there is no Kingdom of Christ AT ALL, and we have been debating in vain, because the Davidic covenant promised the everlasting nature of king David's kingdom, throne, and royal-family-line. The covenant cannot ever become "old" and vanish away - it can only be fulfilled in, by and through the Messiah:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." Selah. (Psa 89:34-37).

And it's a pity you believe that ALL the covenants have become old and are ready to vanish away, because if what you say is true, then the fact that we have become the seed of Abraham through faith really does not matter, because the Abrahamic Covenant said,

"As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations...

... And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you...

... And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:4-8).

According to you, the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants are all one and the same, and have become old and are ready to vanish away.

But we don't have to be sad, because as it is, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants cannot become "old" - because they are fulfilled in, by and through Christ!; and indeed the New Covenant promise did not cite these covenants:

"... not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;"
(Jer 31:32).

The Mosaic covenant is the only covenant which COULD BE BROKEN, AND WAS BROKEN, because UNLIKE the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, the Mosaic covenant was THE ONLY COVENANT which was equally as dependent upon the faithfulness and obedience of the people:

"... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient... And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exo 24:7-8).

But that Mosaic Covenant WAS BROKEN because the people were disobedient (they did not keep their side of the bargain):

"... For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith,

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13).

It is a real pity you take your covenantal doctrines from those who reject the New Covenant in it's entirety, Richard. I'm really sorry to hear that.

You've complained that I don't answer all your responses to my questions.

Well it's because I did not want to continue here in this thread any longer, but I wanted you to have "the last say", since this is your forum - because by asking you all those questions and by your replying, all those who read what I asked (and what you replied) will have the information and arguments "for and against" your own doctrines, which result in full Preterism and 'spiritual kingdom only' theology and eschatology.

If I comment on ALL your answers, not only do I deny you the right to leave the thread with you having the final say in support of your own doctrines, but I also first have to deal with the many, many blanket statements which do not prove anything at all, such as "the New Testament teaches/does not teach") and nonsensical phrases such as "to the carnal eye such and such is the case..." (which of course to you makes a great deal of sense, yet can just as well be used in reference to the way you "see" things, and in reference to your own doctrines; and this fact shows [a] just how nonsensical statements like that are, and how they don't prove anything at all).

To be quite frank, I don't understand why you think the continual use of blanket and nonsensical statements constitutes the use of the sound hermeneutic principles you listed in some of your posts. The very fact that you come up with your own doctrines which are in error shows that you do not adhere to the sound hermeneutic principles which you repeatedly claim to adhere to.

If I had to continually have to address all the blanket statements, false assumptions and nonsensical statements which are made in almost each and every one of your posts, I will be here in this thread not only until the cows come home next month, but until our Lord and Savior comes back.

Earlier you agreed that I could change my "modus" operandi" to simply asking you questions, and if I didn't agree with your answers, to simply say, "I don't agree because...."

I've given you the reasons why I don't agree with your replies - and I've done so over and over again in this thread - but you don't agree with my reasons, and so you want me to "admit" that your own doctrines are true. I cannot do that, since I don't believe your own doctrines are true.

Let's look at what the Bible teaches us:

1. God made an everlasting covenant with ALL flesh in the days of Noah.

2. God made an everlasting covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham - but this time, not with ALL flesh, narrowing the covenant (as He did) down to the BELIEVING flesh-seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and any Gentile who would be joined to [B]their nation through faith in their God.

If it were not so, then it wouldn't matter whether we become the seed of Abraham or not.

God made an everlasting covenant with king David:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." Selah. (Psa 89:34-37).

If it were not so, then there is no such thing as "the Kingdom of Christ AT ALL, and we are debating the merits of your own doctrines in vain.

But as it is, God specifically said that the New Covenant would be "... not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;"
(Jer 31:32).

The Mosaic covenant is the only covenant which COULD BE BROKEN, AND WAS BROKEN, because UNLIKE the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, the Mosaic covenant was THE ONLY COVENANT which was equally as dependent upon the faithfulness and obedience of the people:

"... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient... And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exo 24:7-8).

But that Mosaic Covenant WAS BROKEN because the people were disobedient (they did not keep their side of the bargain):

"... For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith,

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13).

I appreciate the fact that you did in fact read and reply to my questions, but I've already shown over and over in this thread why I don't believe your own doctrines, and in any debate, somebody has to have the last word - shouldn't this be you, since this is your forum?

So in the words of the Italian lawyer in the court,

"Your honor. Ees finish. I pack my case".

God bless,

Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Hello again, Richard :yo:

I'm surprised that you're quoting sources which you earlier described as "antichrist" in support of your own doctrines, since when you earlier assumed I had quoted unbelieving Jews in support of my understanding (which I had not done), you expressed extremely emotionally-charged accusations about it, specifically using the word "antichrist" a number of times.

Hey there Andrew, my brother in Christ,

I am very sorry you have chosen to reintroduce emotionally charged language. Do you not recall the joy I expressed when we were reconciled? I thought we had agreed to move past such language in our common effort to understand and articulate the truth of God's Word.

Your comment exemplifies why we should avoid emotionally charged words in this discussion. They add unecessary heat, and heated conversations often lead to misunderstandings because folks are less inclined to read carefully with an eye towards understanding. Case in point: I never said that every Jewish idea or teaching was "antichrist." I was very precise in my statement. I specifically stated that the Twelfth Article of Maimonides Statement of Faith is antichrist because it implicitly denies that Christ was Messiah, and the Bible defines that specific teaching to be anitchrist. I already corrected this error in Post #137 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../Forum/showpost.php?p=13774&postcount=137) after you misunderstood it the first time.

To be perfectly clear: I have never, ever, at any time or under any circumstance, rejected all or even most of the Jewish teachings as "antichrist."

Brother Andrew, if you want glorify God through the proclamation of His Word, you will have to put in a little more effort to speak accurately and in accordance with Truth. You have now twice misunderstood and misapplied what I wrote, and you did it the second time after I had given specific correction on this error.

I am also very sorry that you have persisted in writing very long posts that contain few if any attempts to refute the answers I have given you. Anyone reading this thread will interpret your refusal to respond as an implicit admission that you can not refute my arguments.

I have tried to help you understand that the only way we will ever be able to discern the truth is to narrow down the conversation to the specific points upon which our positions rest. Why will you not do this? Why do you continue to avoid answering the simple, direct, and specific refutations I have presented?

I will respond to the rest of your points individually so as to make them easier to answer. Long posts typically serve those who are trying to hide the truth under a cloud of many words. Our job here is to clear away that cloud of confusion and to establish the truth of the Bible by narrowing down the discussion to individual fundamental points that can be proven to be either true or false. Only then will we be able to discern who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Andrew,

I will now respond to your second point in Post #187 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=13971&postcount=187).



It is a pity you quote non-Christian covenantal doctrine in support of your own covenantal doctrine.

That statement is poorly formed and extremely confusing. I don't know what you mean by "non-Christian covenantal doctrine." It seems there are two possibiliities:
You were referring to the "covenant theology" put forth by the Reformed tradition, and you believe the Reformed tradition is "non-Christian." This seems likely because futurists often attack them on this point.
You are referring to some Jewish form of "covenantal doctrine" and you called it "non-Christian" to emphasize the fact that Judaism is not Christianity.I find both of these possibilities riddled with problems. At best, Point #1 is a non-sequitur (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur) in our discussion because we have not been discussing the "covenant doctrine" of the Reformed tradition and I have never appealed to the Reformed tradition to support my arguments. I have cited mostly Jewish sources, so if your intended meaning is truly relevent to our discussion I must assume that you are referring to some Jewish form of a "covenantal doctrine" (Point #2). But this leads to another non-sequitur, since we have not been discussing any such thing, and for that matter, I know nothing of a "Jewish covenantal doctrine" and as far as I know the books I cited did not teach it. In my study of eschatology, I have found that futurists often attack the "covenantal theology" put forth by Reformed Christians, but I have never heard of any such thing as a Jewish "covenant doctrine." So what exactly did you mean?

Now over and above the surprisingly large amount of confusion compressed into that single sentence, we also find that it contains fundamental errors; the first and foremost being that you have, yet again, made an assertion without supporting it with any evidence. It is therefore an empty assertion with no weight in this discussion. This is the primary reason that I don't even know what you meant. If you had simply said "It is a pity you cited Source A because Source A teaches a covenant doctrine" then at least I would have known what you meant. But then you still would have been obligated to explain what is wrong with "covenant doctrine" and how it impacts our discussion. Merely tossing it out there as undefined prejudicial term violates fundamental rules of rational discourse.

Another serious error is your assertion that I hold to some sort of "covenantal doctrine." This is an grave error on two counts. First, you failed, yet again, to provide any evidence of your assertion. Second, it simply is not true! I have been strongly repulsed by what little of the Reformed Covenant Theology that I have read. It seems to me to be riddled with ideas not directly derived from Scripture. I hope you see the gravity and depth of your error here. You have asserted a ridiculously false statement that has absolutely no evidence to support it!

And this brings us to the most significant of all the errors crammed into that single sentence. Your statement implies that my citations were invalid merely because you claim they derive from "covenant theology." This is a gross logical fallacy known as the the Genetic Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html):
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.
Andrew, I hope and pray you will take this analysis to heart and seek to speak in truth with clarity. You will never be successful in your desire to proclaim the glory of God's Word as long as you persist in errors such as these. I speak as brother. I am trying to help. I very much want this discussion to continue. But you are not "playing by the rules" of rational or Biblical discourse. You need to stop "fighting" and just walk peacefully and calmly and slowly with me through the Word of God. You need to begin to deal with the refutations I have presented. Only then will we have any hope of coming to a clear vision and articulation of the truth taught in God's Word.

The Bible declares:
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.
It is my prayer that God will give us all great strength and clear guidance to obey His command. We are walking on Holy Ground. We must strive to glorify God as we study His Word, and do everything possible to avoid misunderstandings.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2009, 01:00 PM
Andrew,

I will now respond to your third point in Post #187 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=13971&postcount=187).



Bear in mind that ALL the Jewish sources you quoted:

1. Believe in a very literal Kingdom of Messiah which is still to be established on earth, and do not believe in a 'spiritual' Kingdom of Christ/Messiah at all.

There are two fundamental errors in that assertion:
You claim to know what "ALL the Jewish sources" believe. To use your language, that is a "blanket statement" that does not "prove anything at all." Your assertion is self-evidently absurd for a number of reasons. First, there is no universal agreement amongst ALL Jews. They have split in to Reformed, Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, Conservative, and Liberal branches. They have no one, single belief system. Are you claiming that you have studied ALL of them and know that they ALL believe exactly the same thing? Second, the absurdity is amplified a thousand fold when we recall that the sources I cited span the time from the first century BC to the present. How is it you feel that you have knowledge about what "ALL the Jewish sources" spanning 2000 years believed? Have you read everything they have written? If not, they you must admit the error in your statement. And besides all that, it is absurd to claim you know what "ALL" believed about anything because you have nothing like that kind of knowledge - you are a limited human being like the rest of us. You are not God with knowledge of the "ALL." And above and beyond all those errors, you failed, yet again, to present any evidence to support your claim. This is perhaps your most consistent error. You constantly make statements without providing any evidence to back them up. I have called you on this error at least half a dozen times. Why do you persist in it? Are you truly unaware that you do not have evidence for your claims?
Your statement is simply false. Many of the sources cited explicitly declare that the land promises have a spiritual meaning. That was why I quoted them. For example, one quote says "The verse, 'Your nation is all righteous, they will inherit the land forever' (Isa. 60:21) is understood in Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 as referring to inheritance of a part of the world to come."And besides these fundamental errors, you are still dodging all the refutations that I have presented, which is perhaps the greatest error of all.

My only consolation is that you are proving my point for me - futurism can not be established using sound Biblical hermeneutics.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2009, 01:26 PM
Well it's because I did not want to continue here in this thread any longer, but I wanted you to have "the last say", since this is your forum -

Andrew,

I will never have the "last say" as long as I keep this forum open. :lol:

But I will fulfill your desire that I have the "last say" in this thread. I am closing it now because we have long passed the point of absurdity. You have made it perfectly clear that you are not interested in answering any refutations of your theories, no matter how soundly they are founded on Scripture. So what's the point of continuing? You have explicitly forfeited the debate. It is done. If you ever want to pick it up again, write me a private message stating that you will make a genuine and sincere effort to respond to my refutations and I will consider reopening it.

God bless you,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2009, 09:33 PM
I changed my mind. I am opening this thread again because there are number of issues that I want to address. And the continued exposure of Andrew's errors will be very valuable for the Body of Christ.



You've complained that I don't answer all your responses to my questions.

Well it's because I did not want to continue here in this thread any longer, but I wanted you to have "the last say", since this is your forum - because by asking you all those questions and by your replying, all those who read what I asked (and what you replied) will have the information and arguments "for and against" your own doctrines, which result in full Preterism and 'spiritual kingdom only' theology and eschatology.

If I comment on ALL your answers, not only do I deny you the right to leave the thread with you having the final say in support of your own doctrines, but I also first have to deal with the many, many blanket statements which do not prove anything at all, such as "the New Testament teaches/does not teach") and nonsensical phrases such as "to the carnal eye such and such is the case..." (which of course to you makes a great deal of sense, yet can just as well be used in reference to the way you "see" things, and in reference to your own doctrines; and this fact shows [a] just how nonsensical statements like that are, and how they don't prove anything at all).


Andrew's answer makes me think of an inky cloud sprayed by a startled squid. It is an amazing example of his willingness to deny all truth in a wild panic to escape exposure of his false arguments. I find it utterly incredible that he could imagine anyone would believe his lame and transparently false excuses. I was extremely specific in the post immediately prior to his response. I did not complain that he had failed to answer "ALL" my responses to his questions. On the contrary, I complained that he introduced another great cloud of questions in an extremely obvious attempt to divert attention from his failure to answer two very specific and damning refutations of his theories.

We only need review the post immediately prior to Andrew's squidinkly response to see the falsehood of his words:





But I really, really don't think the exercise would produce any change of mind in either yourself or myself, and to be honest, I really don't have the needed time on my hands to continue with what will prove to be [B]a very long continuation of the same circles - and this most certainly has become a circle that we've been going round and round in.

As noted above, I believe you are the one "going in circles" because you are not responding to my refutations of your arguments. In your recent very looong posts you introduced dozens of new questions rather than addressing the many logical and hermeneutical errors that I have found in your arguments.

A quick review should make this clear. You have attempted to found your interpretation upon the idea that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises. I responded by noting that this violates sound hermeneutics in two fundamental ways:
The Bible explicitly states that God gave Israel the land that He promised. There are dozens if not hundreds of verses that explicitly confirm this point.
The Bible never states that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises.Therefore, your fundamental point violates sound hermeneutical principles in two of the most profound ways. You deny what the Bible says, and you add something the Bible does not say.

As can be seen, I was complaining that Andrew was introducing new questions as a tactic to avoid answering my specific refutation of his fundamental point. This fact can not be hidden by his empty and absurd rhetoric.

And neither can Andrew hide the fact that he is refusing to answer my argument, which, if correct, demonstrates that he is both adding to and removing from Scripture. I have been pressing this specific point of the land promises for a long time now, and Andrew continues to refuse to answer my argument. He is perfectly willing write a thousand words to "explain" why he will not answer, but he refuses to touch the truth with a ten foot pole. I consider this the most damning and explicit admission of guilt that could ever be written.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-15-2009, 05:11 AM
I changed my mind. I am opening this thread again because there are number of issues that I want to address. And the continued exposure of Andrew's errors will be very valuable for the Body of Christ.


Andrew's answer makes me think of an inky cloud sprayed by a startled squid. It is an amazing example of his willingness to deny all truth in a wild panic to escape exposure of his false arguments. I find it utterly incredible that he could imagine anyone would believe his lame and transparently false excuses. I was extremely specific in the post immediately prior to his response. I did not complain that he had failed to answer "ALL" my responses to his questions. On the contrary, I complained that he introduced another great cloud of questions in an extremely obvious attempt to divert attention from his failure to answer two very specific and damning refutations of his theories.

We only need review the post immediately prior to Andrew's squidinkly response to see the falsehood of his words:


As can be seen, I was complaining that Andrew was introducing new questions as a tactic to avoid answering my specific refutation of his fundamental point. This fact can not be hidden by his empty and absurd rhetoric.

And neither can Andrew hide the fact that he is refusing to answer my argument, which, if correct, demonstrates that he is both adding to and removing from Scripture. I have been pressing this specific point of the land promises for a long time now, and Andrew continues to refuse to answer my argument. He is perfectly willing write a thousand words to "explain" why he will not answer, but he refuses to touch the truth with a ten foot pole. I consider this the most damning and explicit admission of guilt that could ever be written.

Richard

Richard, that's all just yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo which brings nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, but though some may not see it, yet many will know that it is yet another attempt to razzle dazzle those who read your post with gobbledgook. Instead of quoting from scripture to show your position to be factual, you spent quite a few posts doing this. It's a pity.

Instead of wrapping up the position I maintain as I did with quoting scripture, I could just as well have said something like:

Richard's answer makes me think of an inky cloud sprayed by a startled squid. It is an amazing example of his willingness to deny all truth in a wild panic to escape exposure of his false arguments. I find it utterly incredible that he could imagine anyone would believe his lame and transparently false excuses....

But that would, of course, have been nothing but yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo which would have brought nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, and though some may not have seen it, yet many would have known that it was just an attempt to razzle dazzle those who read my posts with gobbledgook.

The issue was that you believe that what God actually meant when His Word came to Abraham was:

As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of many nations...

... And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for a temporary covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you only until the coming of a new covenant which I will establish with your seed after you ... ... And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for a temporary possession, only until the establishment of the new covenant. And I will be their God. (Gen 17:4-8)

Andrew said, NO. What God actually meant was,

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

That's the Word of God. I simply accept it. And I allow the Word of God to mould my thinking, and interpret the rest of Biblical scripture (including New Testament passages such as Acts 1: 6-8; 3: 12-26; Luk.21: 24; Romans chapters 9-11, etc) in accordance with God's Word which came to Abraham.

But Richard, you say, NO. It's not what God actually meant, and Andrew, you are not allowing the Word of God to mould your thinking, and we should interpret Gen.17: 7-8 + all the prophets and prophecies (regarding the reconciliation of the ethnic seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to God and their return to then land of their fathers following an exile and world-wide dispersion among the nations) + the Kingdom of the Messiah, in accordance with our own interpretation of the New Testament scriptures which followed much later.

That's what the issue was all about in this thread, and I chose to wrap up my final post on the subject using scripture.

You never wrapped up your final posts (which were quite a few) using scripture. Instead, you chose to assail me with accusations that are all just yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo which brings nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, and though some may not see it, yet many will know that it is yet another attempt to razzle dazzle those who read your post with gobbledgook.

Though this may be shrewd, it's not an intelligent and mature way to make your case. Instead of quoting from scripture to show your position to be factual, you spent quite a few posts doing the above. It's a pity.

It really would be good for you to rather have attempted to give real scriptural support for your belief that what God actually meant in His promises to Abraham, is what you believe He actually meant - without resorting to

1. Blanket statements, such as "the New Testament teaches it...", or
2. Absurd statements such as "The carnal eye sees things this way.."
3. Yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo accusations to assail me with, which bring nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, and is merely yet another attempt to razzle dazzle those who read your posts with gobbledgook.

God bless,

Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2009, 08:32 AM
As noted above, I believe you are the one "going in circles" because you are not responding to my refutations of your arguments. In your recent very looong posts you introduced dozens of new questions rather than addressing the many logical and hermeneutical errors that I have found in your arguments.

A quick review should make this clear. You have attempted to found your interpretation upon the idea that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises. I responded by noting that this violates sound hermeneutics in two fundamental ways:
The Bible explicitly states that God gave Israel the land that He promised. There are dozens if not hundreds of verses that explicitly confirm this point.
The Bible never states that God has not yet fulfilled the land promises.Therefore, your fundamental point violates sound hermeneutical principles in two of the most profound ways. You deny what the Bible says, and you add something the Bible does not say.
Richard, that's all just yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo which brings nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, but though some may not see it, yet many will know that it is yet another attempt to razzle dazzle those who read your post with gobbledgook. Instead of quoting from scripture to show your position to be factual, you spent quite a few posts doing this. It's a pity.
Andrew,

I know I used some pretty strong language in my last post, and I can see why you may be so upset as to want to merely "throw it back in my face." But that misses the reason I wrote that way. I was not trying to insult you. I had one goal, and one goal only, in mind. My one desire was to evoke a response to my refutations that you have been ignoring. You have refused, refused, and refused again to respond to the argument against your doctrine of the land promises. I have brought this to your attention many times, and you always ignore my refutation.

If my refutation is fallacious, why don't you just show the error so we all can see it? Why do you continue to act as if I have not presented Biblical evidence against your position?



Instead of wrapping up the position I maintain as I did with quoting scripture, I could just as well have said something like:

Richard's answer makes me think of an inky cloud sprayed by a startled squid. It is an amazing example of his willingness to deny all truth in a wild panic to escape exposure of his false arguments. I find it utterly incredible that he could imagine anyone would believe his lame and transparently false excuses....

But that would, of course, have been nothing but yadda yadda yadda mumbo jumbo which would have brought nothing but hubbub to everyone reading this thread, and though some may not have seen it, yet many would have known that it was just an attempt to razzle dazzle those who read my posts with gobbledgook.


Your assertion that I have not followed your example by "quoting scripture" is not merely false, it is utterly absurd. I have quoted mounds upon mounds of scripture. And what was your response when I appealed to the Bible? Here is what you wrote way back in Post #117 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../Forum/showpost.php?p=13736&postcount=117):



You can use as many thousands of scriptures as you like, because from the very beginning of the history of the human race God's Word has been used to beguile God's people into believing a lie, and into believing that God DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID, BUT HAD SOME OTHER MEANING IN MIND.

Would it be wrong to interpret your words as meaning that you are justifed to reject and ignore my quotations of Scripture because I was using them to "beguile God's people into believing a lie" like Satan himself?

Is that a valid way to refute my Biblical arguments?

If we were in a formal debate with a judge, do you think he would allow you to use language like that?

Though we are not in a "formal" debate, we are debating the Word of God and we both know that the Perfect Judge is listening to our every word. That's why I am shocked to see you write the way you do.

It is very significant that you have spent over a week seeking to justify your refusal to answer my Biblical refutation of your theories. I had already begun the process of repeating my refutation way back in Post #117 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../Forum/showpost.php?p=13736&postcount=117) in which you stated "I don't have to refute anything you say anymore." That was a little ironic because you had not, in fact, been refuting much of anything I had said up to that point (or since). As explained in a previous post, your general modus operandi has been to simply state that you disagree and then reassert your position without any attempt to refute the arguments that I had presented. I think it is very important that everyone see that I have been pressing this point for over a week, and you have been doing everything in your power to avoid answering. Here is what you wrote, and my response (Post #119):




I don't have to refute anything you say anymore. Because as I've shown clearly over and over again in this thread, THE APOSTLES believed it - and so did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - who were ALL believers. And JESUS HIMSELF did not refute it when His disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the Kingdom to Israel - He simply said it was not for them to know the time when this would be done.

Hey there Andrew, :yo:

You are absolutely correct. You certainly do not "have to" refute anything I say if you are satisfied with forfeiting your argument and implicitly declaring that my refutations are valid. That's how a public debate works.

I trust you understand the nature of a public debate. Everyone reading this thread can easily see that I have presented many solid Biblical facts that refute your theories, and that you have not successfully answered them. You may be happy to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong" but that does not carry much weight in a public debate.

Here are some fundamental points that you have not yet not successfully refuted (if you disagree, please state a brief synopsis of your refutation in a couple sentences and cite the posts that contain the more complete answers):

1) You deny that that land promises were fulfilled. This assertion is contrary to the Bible in two fundamental ways:

A) It directly contradicts the Bible which explicitly states that the land promises were fulfilled.
B) It has no explicit Scriptural support because there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that the promises were not fulfilled.

It would be absurd to assert that you are basing your theories on the Bible and the Bible alone if you let these two points remain unanswered.

I presented this refutation on Sept 4, 2009. It now is Sept 15, 2009 - that's eleven days ago - and you are still refusing to answer it! For that matter, I am not aware that you have ever even acknowledged its existence! And every time I have brought it to your attention, you have merely dodged and made false accusations or wrote mocking "mumbo jumbo" posts. Why do you not honor God and His Word by simply responding in a reasonable and Biblical way to my refutations of your theories?

Shalom,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2009, 12:04 PM
The issue was that you believe that what God actually meant when His Word came to Abraham was:

As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of many nations...

... And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for a temporary covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you only until the coming of a new covenant which I will establish with your seed after you ... ... And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for a temporary possession, only until the establishment of the new covenant. And I will be their God. (Gen 17:4-8)

Andrew said, NO. What God actually meant was,

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

That's the Word of God. I simply accept it. And I allow the Word of God to mould my thinking, and interpret the rest of Biblical scripture (including New Testament passages such as Acts 1: 6-8; 3: 12-26; Luk.21: 24; Romans chapters 9-11, etc) in accordance with God's Word which came to Abraham.

But Richard, you say, NO. It's not what God actually meant, and Andrew, you are not allowing the Word of God to mould your thinking, and we should interpret Gen.17: 7-8 + all the prophets and prophecies (regarding the reconciliation of the ethnic seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to God and their return to then land of their fathers following an exile and world-wide dispersion among the nations) + the Kingdom of the Messiah, in accordance with our own interpretation of the New Testament scriptures which followed much later.

That's what the issue was all about in this thread, and I chose to wrap up my final post on the subject using scripture.

In your words above, you make a big deal about "everlasting covenant" meaning "everlasting covenant" and state "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." But do you really accept what the Word of God is really saying? Let's see:

In Post #6 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=13454&postcount=6) you stated: "You're quoting the Mosaic Law, which was done away with by the New Covenant." Central to the Mosaic Law is the Law of the Sabbath. Here is what God says about that Law:
Exodus 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
The Hebrew phrase translated as "perpetual covenant" is b'rit olam, which is the precise phrase translated as "everlasting covenant" in your Biblical quote above. God confirmed this meaning in the next verses when He said it was "for ever" (l'olam).

So what do you do with this? Are you going to try to separate the Sabbath Law as an "everlasting subcovenant" from the Mosaic Covenant? That won't work because there are many elements of the Mosaic Covenant that are described as everlasting (olam). For example:
Leviticus 24:7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant (b'rit olam). 9 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual (olam) statute.
If you want to claim "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." when speaking of the "everlasting covenant" given to Abraham, you will have to explain why you do not "simply accept it" when the same words are used to describe elements of the Mosaic Covenant.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-16-2009, 10:47 AM
Hello Richard.

I did answer these points after you made them, but you ignored the Biblical evidence I gave you - if you search the thread again, you will find it:




Here are some fundamental points that you have not yet not successfully refuted (if you disagree, please state a brief synopsis of your refutation in a couple sentences and cite the posts that contain the more complete answers):

1) You deny that that land promises were fulfilled. This assertion is contrary to the Bible in two fundamental ways:

A) It directly contradicts the Bible which explicitly states that the land promises were fulfilled.

I DID point this out after you made you assertions, so let me do it again:

Point (A) above is a false statement - it's only a true statement if you choose to flatly ignore the following facts:

1. The fact that the land God promised Abraham and his seed stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates river - it was only a small portion of this promise they received under Joshua.

2. In the day Joshua said that God had fulfilled His promise, He also said God shall (future tense) give them the land.

Go look through the thread again and you will find the post in which I quoted the entire passage you are referring to (instead of just the little piece of the passage which you continue to choose to isolate and interpret on its own, totally ignoring the rest of the passage and the rest of the Bible.

Richard, the facts are staring at you in the face from the pages of the Bible, but you don't seem to understand the Bible even though it's written also in English for our benefit. I can't help that. I can only pray for you, and I am praying for you, for a number of reasons.




B) It has no explicit Scriptural support because there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that the promises were not fulfilled.

Richard

As above.

God bless,
Andrew

lekh lekha
09-16-2009, 11:45 AM
In your words above, you make a big deal about "everlasting covenant" meaning "everlasting covenant" and state "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." But do you really accept what the Word of God is really saying? Let's see:

In Post #6 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=13454&postcount=6) you stated: "You're quoting the Mosaic Law, which was done away with by the New Covenant." Central to the Mosaic Law is the Law of the Sabbath. Here is what God says about that Law:
Exodus 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
The Hebrew phrase translated as "perpetual covenant" is b'rit olam, which is the precise phrase translated as "everlasting covenant" in your Biblical quote above. God confirmed this meaning in the next verses when He said it was "for ever" (l'olam).

So what do you do with this? Are you going to try to separate the Sabbath Law as an "everlasting subcovenant" from the Mosaic Covenant? That won't work because there are many elements of the Mosaic Covenant that are described as everlasting (olam). For example:
Leviticus 24:7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant (b'rit olam). 9 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual (olam) statute.
If you want to claim "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." when speaking of the "everlasting covenant" given to Abraham, you will have to explain why you do not "simply accept it" when the same words are used to describe elements of the Mosaic Covenant.

Richard

Richard, try and understand the distinction between a covenant which God makes with flesh and a commandment:

When asked, "Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Mat.22: 36), Jesus said to him,

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:36-40).

Clearly, there are commandments which are eternal - but I'm NOT going to get into a debate with you about which commandments are eternal commandments and which aren't.

The point you need to understand is that at Mt. Sinai, God made a covenant with the Israelites through Moses which was based just as much upon their obedience to the commandments as it was upon God's faithfulness to His Word:

"And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exo 24:7-8).

But the Israelites did not keep their promise recorded above, and so God promised that he would make a new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah", and we also know that the believing Gentiles also share in the new covenant.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord...

... For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws (commandments) into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more...

... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13).

Please, Richard, try and understand the distinction between a covenant and a commandment, and bear in mind that some commandments are eternal, such as the greatest commandment and the second commandment - they are being written in our hearts by the Lord Jesus Himself.

If you can't understand these distinctions, and if you insist that the Bible teaches that any part of the promises of God to Abraham is not everlasting - whether it be the promise that in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed, or whether it be the promise of the land - then what is the point of me trying to convince you otherwise?

In any case, I really don't want ANYONE to follow my beliefs OR your beliefs in - I want people to think about the issues that came up in this thread and then prayerfully (asking God) make up their own minds.

But I've stated what my position is, and you have stated what your position is, making blanket (and false) statements all along, such, as the statement you take from one verse (which you isolate not only from all other scripture, but also from THE REST of the passage in which it is found):

"The Bible states unambiguously and/or categorically that the Israelites were given all the land God promised to Abraham and his seed".

That's not exactly what you said, but it's clear from everything you've said that's what you meant.

Earlier on in this thread you admitted in your post that the idea (that there may be a distinction between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants) was a new idea to you, and you needed to think about it a little more.

Later on it really began to appear as though you were forming your covenantal theology in your mind as you were going along - and it seems as though you still are, based on your statements in your above post.

Whatever the case may be, Richard, every bone in my body hates the kind of uninspiring, unedifying "debate" that has taken place between me and you in this thread.

From what I can see (in this thread and others) you are a highly intelligent man - but unfortunately you often use your intelligence in ways which you shouldn't - like in order to subtly put others down together with their arguments they are bringing forward.

This is the reason I have been so harshly straight-forward with you in this thread.

Nevertheless, my behavior and words are something I will have to give account for when I stand before my Lord, and not something you will have to give account for.

But The Lord is my witness that I absolutely hated being as harsh as I was in this thread, and that I prayed to God the Father in the name of Jesus, asking Him that HE be vindicated (not me), and that HIS Word be vindicated, not mine or yours.

I really don't care anymore if you continue to use my silence as an opportunity to bring up more accusations against me or my method of debate, and to generally have me shown up in a bad light - I don't care about my name being vindicated.

But I do care about you as a brother in Christ, because loving a person with the love of Christ leads to liking that person, regardless of how exasperating he or she is.

AND I'M FAR FROM PERFECT

God bless,
Andrew

Rose
09-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Hi Andrew,

There is one main point crucial to our conversation that I would like to clarify, because it has been brought up numerous times.

The point is the difference between the "Giving" of something, and the "Receiving" of it. We all agree that God promised to Abraham and his seed "Land", and that in numerous places God says that He gave them all the land He promised. The question that seems to be dividing us is:

Did God fulfill His promise in giving the twelve tribes of Israel all the land He promised them, if they never received it (occupied it) because of disobedience?

From my understanding I say that yes indeed! God kept His promise and gave to Israel all the Land He promised them....it was not Gods fault that they never fully occupied it because of disobedience, God still gave it to them.
Joshua 23:14-15 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Many Blessings

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-16-2009, 01:24 PM
Hello Richard.

I did answer these points after you made them, but you ignored the Biblical evidence I gave you - if you search the thread again, you will find it:



Here are some fundamental points that you have not yet not successfully refuted (if you disagree, please state a brief synopsis of your refutation in a couple sentences and cite the posts that contain the more complete answers):

1) You deny that that land promises were fulfilled. This assertion is contrary to the Bible in two fundamental ways:

A) It directly contradicts the Bible which explicitly states that the land promises were fulfilled.


I DID point this out after you made you assertions, so let me do it again:

Point (A) above is a false statement - it's only a true statement if you choose to flatly ignore the following facts:

1. The fact that the land God promised Abraham and his seed stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates river - it was only a small portion of this promise they received under Joshua.

2. In the day Joshua said that God had fulfilled His promise, He also said God shall (future tense) give them the land.

Go look through the thread again and you will find the post in which I quoted the entire passage you are referring to (instead of just the little piece of the passage which you continue to choose to isolate and interpret on its own, totally ignoring the rest of the passage and the rest of the Bible.

Richard, the facts are staring at you in the face from the pages of the Bible, but you don't seem to understand the Bible even though it's written also in English for our benefit. I can't help that. I can only pray for you, and I am praying for you, for a number of reasons.

Hey there Andrew! :yo:

Thank you for engaging me on these points! :thumb:

You are correct that you had responded to those points in the past. You and Rose and I had gone back and forth a bit on them. But it seemed to me that your previous response did not prove your point and that's why I said that "you have not yet not successfully refuted" those points.

So let's work together to see what the Bible really teaches here:

ANDREW: 1. The fact that the land God promised Abraham and his seed stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates river - it was only a small portion of this promise they received under Joshua.

I answered this in Post #171 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=13899&postcount=171), but never received a response (as far as I recall anyway - please forgive me if I forgot). Here was our exchange:





And here are the last two questions:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Gen 15:18)

The Israelites did not receive all the land God promised to the seed of Abraham in the above promise under the leadership of Joshua, or ever.

You are correct that they failed to receive what God had given them. But does that mean that God failed to give it them? I think not. The Bible explicitly declares that God fulfilled His Word to them concerning the land promises. Their unbelief did not make the faith of God without effect (Rom 3:3).



QUESTION 11

If the Jews received all the land which God had promised Abraham under the leadership of Joshua, then

(a) Why did Joshua ALSO say, "And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you." (Jos 23:5)? and

Again, you are confusing the receiving of the gift with the giving of the gift. God fulfilled His side of the bargain. They rebelled and so were expelled.

What do you think of the distinction between God giving and the people receiving?

To establish your point from the Bible, you will need to show me where the Bible explicitly states (or at the very least, strongly implies) that Israel's failure to possess all the land because of unbelief implies that God did not fulfill all His land promises.

Now even if you succeed in demonstrating this point, there is another fundamental problem that folks like me, who establish everything upon Scripture and Scripture alone, will have. Your argument depends critically on a statement not found in the Bible, namely, that Israel did not receive all the land that God promised. Now I'm not disputing this claim, it is well-established in secular history. But that's not the point - the point is that it is not established in the Bible. This is an extremely important point because I follow the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which states that nothing can ever be taught as Biblical doctrine if it does not have at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages to support it. This principle is based upon my acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, which means that it contains everything that God wants it to contain. I constrain myself absolutely to what the Bible actually says when laying the foundation for any doctrine. If something is missing, then I know that "something" is something God chose to leave out, and I would feel strongly convicted that I was violating His Word if I added it. I know with certainty that if God did not put it in His Word, then He does not want me to use it in the foundation of any Biblical doctrine.

Let me restate this point in hopes of making it perfectly clear: I feel that we are going way off track if we make a central foundational point out of something that God has not even mentioned, let alone set as a "central foundational point" of in His Word. Why should we make a central foundational point out of something God did not mention?

Case in point: God never mentioned anything about His failure to give all the land He promised. Not one word. This idea is foreign to the Bible. Indeed, if the Bible said that God had not fulfilled His land promises then we would have a direct contradiction with the verses that say He did fulfill them. Of course, we could resolve that contradiction by inventing another doctrine not clearly established in Scripture, namely that the failure of Israel to receive the land implies God's failure to give it. But by this time it should be obvious that we have departed from the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which demands that every doctrine be established upon at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages.

So this is why I have continued to press my argument that your Point #1 is not Biblical - it adds something that is not found in God's Word.

Now let's look at Point #2:

ANDREW: 2. In the day Joshua said that God had fulfilled His promise, He also said God shall (future tense) give them the land.

I am glad I found your initial post where you gave the verse you were referring to:

ANDREW: Why did Joshua ALSO say, "And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you." (Jos 23:5)?

As you can see in the quote above, I answered this question long ago on Sept 4 in Post 171. But as far as I know, you never responded to my answer, which is basically identical to my answer to your first Point, namely, the Israel's failure to receive does not imply that God failed to give.

But to be more specific - your question is flawed because the word "shall" spoke of "drive them out from your sight." This was something that was explicitly conditioned on obedience. If the would obey (in the future) God would "drive out" the inhabitants (in the future). If they disobeyed, God would drive them out (which is exactly what happened).





B) It has no explicit Scriptural support because there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that the promises were not fulfilled.


As above.

God bless,
Andrew
As far as I can tell, you never presented any Biblical evidence that states the promises were not fulfilled. So do you agree that Point B is true - there is no explicit Scriptural support for the doctrine that the land promises were not fulfilled? Please answer, this is a critical point in your argument.

Great chatting Andrew! I'd say we have successfully moved back from the edge of the abyss once again. Thanks be to God who gives us His Spirit.

Richard

Rose
09-16-2009, 04:20 PM
Hi again Andrew,

I would like to comment on a point you made to Richard in your last post.


The point you need to understand is that at Mt. Sinai, God made a covenant with the Israelites through Moses which was based just as much upon their obedience to the commandments as it was upon God's faithfulness to His Word:

I see no reason why the covenant God made with Moses on Mt. Sinai containing the commandments has to be a separate covenant from the covenant God made with Abraham. I see them as a whole unit with different parts.

Paul clearly tells us in Galatians 3, that God added the commandments (covenant of the Law) to "His covenant with Abraham" because of transgressions. Paul goes on to say the Law was like a schoolmaster, given to lead them to Christ. When Christ came they no longer needed to be under the schoolmaster (because now all who believe are justified through faith in Christ), so the Law that was added to the "Abrahamic covenant" because of transgressions, waxed old and vanished away....and that in no way changed the promises given to Abraham and his seed.
Gal. 3:28-29 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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

God Bless

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-16-2009, 04:22 PM
If you want to claim "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." when speaking of the "everlasting covenant" given to Abraham, you will have to explain why you do not "simply accept it" when the same words are used to describe elements of the Mosaic Covenant.
Richard, try and understand the distinction between a covenant which God makes with flesh and a commandment:

When asked, "Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Mat.22: 36), Jesus said to him,

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:36-40).

Clearly, there are commandments which are eternal - but I'm NOT going to get into a debate with you about which commandments are eternal commandments and which aren't.

Hey there Andrew! :yo:

Thank you for taking time to explain things to me.

But I don't understand how your explanation answers my point. The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant. It contains the Sabbath Commandment which God later amplified with these words:
Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep (shamar) the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Here God refers to the Sabbath itself as a b'rit olam (everlasting covenant). I do not see Scripture making a distinction between the covenant commandments and the covenant itself. On the contrary, the commandments are an essential element of the covenant. Note also that God used the word shamar (keep) which is frequently used in reference to His Covenant, as for example, the Abrahamic Covenant:
Genesis 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep (shamar) my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is one reason I see no distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. God further amplified the Sabbath commandment in Leviticus:
Leviticus 24:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually. 3 Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the LORD continually: it shall be a statute for ever (l'olam) in your generations. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant (b'rit olam). 9 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual (olam) statute.
Here we see "everlasting covenant" embedded again in the text of the Mosaic Covenant along with other elements referred to as "olam." And to what does the everlasting covenant refer in this case? It appears to refer to the everlasting priesthood taken from the children of Israel:
he [Aaron] shall set it in order ... being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Aaron was the first priest in the everlasting priesthood:
Exodus 40:13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
The everlasting priesthood and the everlasting covenant of the Sabbath are both fundamental elements of the Mosaic Covenant. Note how emphatically the Word of God declares that it "shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." This is very similar to the language He used in the Abrahamic Covenant. Indeed, both instances use exactly the same Hebrew word l'doratam, which is variously translated as throughout or in "their generations".

And a most important question is this: What is the everlasting covenant that established the everlasting priesthood if not the Mosaic Covenant? Does this imply that the Mosaic Covenant is an everlasting covenant? If not, then what does it mean?

So my question remains:
If you want to claim "That's the Word of God. I simply accept it." when speaking of the "everlasting covenant" given to Abraham, you will have to explain why you do not "simply accept it" when the same words are used to describe elements of the Mosaic Covenant.
I think the complexity of your answer pretty much proves my point. You do not "simply accept" what the Bible says. And I'm glad you don't because matters such as these are much too complex for anyone to "simply accept" anything. We must "study to show ourselves approved." We must dig deep to discern what God really meant. If this were not the case, there would be no disagreement between folks who all agree absolutely that the Bible is the very Word of Almighty God.

I will answer the rest of your post after dinner.

Many blessings to you my friend.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-17-2009, 07:16 AM
Hello there Richard - and Rose :yo:

I hope you will bear in mind that if this post of mine is long, it's because of all the points you and Rose have brought up.


Hey there Andrew! :yo:

... the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which states that nothing can ever be taught as Biblical doctrine if it does not have at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages to support it....

I'm going to demonstrate the following:

1. The truth is, there are no clear and unambiguous passages to support your assertion that God did not give the land of Canaan (from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river) as their everlasting inheritance (as in everlasting); and

2. Just because you misinterpret certain passages of the Bible, interpreting them "in the light of" your misinterpretation of much of the New Testament scriptures, this does not of necessity mean than any passage of scripture which you cite as "clear, unambiguous proof" that the Israelites were given ALL the land God promised to Abraham and his seed as their everlasting inheritance (from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river), is in fact "proof" that they were given ALL the land God promised them.

There are not only two or three, but a number of clear and unambiguous passages to support the fact that the land from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river was given to them by God as their everlasting inheritance, and there are more than three passages which unambiguously show not only that they are yet to inherit it, but also that it is the Kingdom of the Messiah from which He will reign the whole world in the FULL Messianic age.

But before I quote those scriptures again for the umpteenth time, let's just talk AGAIN about God's Word which came to Abraham:

It is clear by the context of the following passage that the author to the Hebrews is NOT talking about the promise of the land when he says,

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (Heb 6:13-18)

Regarding ANY ONE of the various aspects of God's promise to Abraham, God does not need ANY of the later scriptures to prove the immutability of the FULL counsel of His Word - and yet there IS and abundance of such witness in the scriptures which came after God's promise was given to Abraham:

(I) With the exception of Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah, ALL THE LATER PROPHETS PROPHESIED THE DISPERSION OF THE ETHNIC SEED OF ABRAHAM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT REGATHERING INTO THE LAND OF THEIR FATHERS, THEIR RECONCILIATION TO GOD, RESTORATION TO THE LAND OF THEIR FATHERS AND THEIR BLESSING IN THE LAND.

(II) The prophecies even became LINKED TO THE MESSIAH AND HIS KINGDOM:

Ezekiel 36: 16-38; Jeremiah chapters 30-31 (which contains the promise of the New Covenant being given to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" after the days of their regathering into the land of their fathers) are only some of MANY prophecies which prophesy it.

Isiah 11: 1-16 and and Psalm 2: 1-12 (which I've quoted in this thread already) are only TWO of the many passages which show that the prophecies are LINED TO THE MESSIAH AND HIS KINGDOM.

There are also MANY New Testament passages which confirm this:

AFTER Peter had been filled with the Holy Spirit and the day he healed the lame man that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, he said to the Jews:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;...

... And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:..

... Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began...

... For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you...

... And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people... Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days...

... Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. " (Act 3:19-25).

The word "UNTIL" denotes a limited period of time. Why does the word "until" keep popping up in the following verses? (please read ALL the verses before you reply):-

JESUS SAID TO THE JEWS,

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat 23:39).

PETER SAID TO THE JEWS,

"And seeing this, Peter answered the people, Men, Israelites, why do you marvel at this? Or why do you stare at us, as though we had made this man to walk by our own power or holiness?

The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His son Jesus, whom you delivered up, denying Him in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to let Him go.

But you denied the Holy and Just One and desired a murderer to be given to you. And you killed the Prince of Life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.

And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, this one whom you see and know, His name made firm. And the faith which came through Him has given him this perfect soundness before you.

And now, brothers, I know that you did it through ignorance, as also your rulers did. But those things which God before had shown by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He fulfilled in this manner.

Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And He shall send Jesus Christ, who before was proclaimed to you, whom Heaven truly needs to receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began.

For Moses truly said to the fathers, "The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet to you from your brothers, One like me.

You shall hear Him in all things, whatever He may say to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people."

And also all the prophets from Samuel and those following after, as many as spoke, have likewise foretold of these days.

You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham,

"And in your Seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

Having raised up His son Jesus, God sent Him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you away from his iniquities." (Act 3:12-26)

THE DISCIPLES HAD ASKED JESUS ON THE DAY OF HIS ASCENSION:

".. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Act 1:6-9).

AND AFTERWARD PETER SAID TO THE JEWS:

"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Act 3:21)

There was ALWAYS the understanding in the mind of the apostles and their fathers that the promise of the Messiah showed that the Messiah would:

1) Be the not only the son of, but also the antitype of king David who would save the people from their natural enemies and restore to Israel the ENTIRE kingdom God gave them, thus establishing His Messianic Kingdom and reigning over all the world from His throne in Jerusalem.

2) Be the antitype of Joseph who would suffer for His people and die for them.

Most of the Jews only believe PART OF the FULL COUNSEL of the Word of God, and remain blinded to the rest:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom 11:25)

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REASON YOU HAVE SPIRITUALIZED ALL THESE PROMISES AND PROPHECIES

(A) You reject the plain and literal meaning of the Word of God which came to Abraham, and have added a meaning (a 'spiritual kingdom' only) and have taken away (annulled) the plain and literal meaning; and

(B) You have fallen into the same trap Augustine fell into, and have incorporated the gnostic philosophy of Dualism, which maintains a seperation between 'the spiritual' and 'the natural' which the Lord Jesus did die and rise again from the dead to maintain;

(c) You are blinded in part to the full counsel of the Word of God.

Paul said,

"Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief (of the FULL counsel of the Word of God) they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." (Rom 11:19-22).

Fighting against the FULL counsel of the Word of God is in effect fighting against the Word of God; and fighting against the Word of God is in effect fighting against God.

You assert that God brought the nation of Israel into being and made these promises only so that in the end He would finally judge them and do away with the other half of His promises, and deny that God can once again have mercy on the ethnic seed because of the fact that He had mercy upon the Gentiles through their unblief (Rom.11: 25-33).

These assertions of yours are not only absurd, they are preposterous; and not only are they preposterous, but in Eze.36: 20 God calls these assertions profaning His Holy name.

I point out these things not to judge you, but to plead with you - and certainly not only for your and Roses' sakes, but for the sake of all those reading this thread. And I really don't care if you mock me (again) and these words - because your reaction is between you and God.

In this thread you have also resorted a number of times to the tactic of subtly, shrewdly and cunningly trying to make a fool of me and the things I say - regardless of whether or not they are valid, for example:


I was reading an article by the brilliant Christian professor Thomas Talbott called Abuse of Revelation (http://www.willamette.edu/%7Ettalbott/false.html) and found his opening paragraph particularly relevant to the discussion in this thread:

Quote:

A generalization about religious belief to which there are, I believe, few exceptions is this: The more confident one is in one's religious beliefs, the more willing one is to subject those beliefs to careful scrutiny; the less confident one is in them--the more one unconsciously fears that they cannot withstand such scrutiny--the more eager one is to find a device that would appear to protect them from careful scrutiny. And, more often than not, such a protective device will include an assault upon human reason.
RIchard

Many people may be fooled by such tactics. But many others (including myself) are not fooled. It is clear that you use such tactics in order to maintain the supremacy of your own doctrines over all - including over the Word of God.

The fact that there isn't only one or two, but a great cloud of Biblical witnesses that show the error of your questioning of what God actually had in mind when His Word came to Abraham, coupled with the fact that you completely ignore and deny ALL of these witnesses (and continue to choose to interpret then "in the light of" your own doctrines), and the fact that you have also repeatedly resorted to subtle, shrewd and cunning ways to make a fool of others and uphold the supremacy of your own doctrines, speaks volumes.

I say the above things only In order to plead with you, Richard - and not only for your sake, but also for the sake of all those reading this thread.

You can continue to argue against the full counsel of the Word of God using your misinterpretation of Biblical scriptures all you like, but it only proves that you are partially blinded to the FULL counsel of the Word of God.

No doubt, you are going to take this post as me assailing you and attacking you, and you are going to assail and attack me in your next post/s.

But I've said this not to assail you or to attack you - but for your sake and the sake of all those who read this thread.

I can't "beat about the bush" regarding these things - the Word of God is the Word of God, and you can 'spiritualize' God's everlasting covenants and everlasting promises (which He chose in His grace to make with flesh) all you like, but you cannot fight against God. He will fulfill ALL His promises, and He is coming soon.

I only say "God bless you" if I mean it.

God bless you, Richard

Andrew

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2009, 08:35 AM
Hello there Richard - and Rose :yo:

I hope you will bear in mind that if this post of mine is long, it's because of all the points you and Rose have brought up.

Hey there Andrew!

I am very glad that you are taking time to explain your understanding, but I think we would make a lot more progress if you would directly respond to my posts that I have written to you. I was really enjoying the fact that we were engaging each other on specific points. But now you have introduced another huge post with lots of new ideas and I fear that you will ignore my answers again and we won't make any progress towards understanding and resolution.





... the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which states that nothing can ever be taught as Biblical doctrine if it does not have at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages to support it....
I'm going to demonstrate the following:

1. The truth is, there are no clear and unambiguous passages to support your assertion that God did not give the land of Canaan (from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river) as their everlasting inheritance (as in everlasting); and

I'm very glad you quoted my fundamental principle! It is my opinion that 95&#37; of all Biblical errors arise from its violation. People build doctrines that are not clearly taught in Scripture.

But there is a problem with your Point #1. In my last post I showed that you do not "simply accept" what the Bible says. You have one meaning of "everlasting" when it speaks of the Abrahamic Covenant and apparently quite another when it speaks of elements of the Mosaic Law. You have not justified why you do not "simply accept" what the Bible says in these cases. Your failure to answer that post makes it impossible for us to pursue the meaning of the "everlasting" land promises because I have no idea when we should or should not take "everlasting" to mean "everlasting" in the complex covenantal theology that you have developed.



2. Just because you misinterpret certain passages of the Bible, interpreting them "in the light of" your misinterpretation of much of the New Testament scriptures, this does not of necessity mean than any passage of scripture which you cite as "clear, unambiguous proof" ...

And that statement applies equally to you, correct? Therefore, our job is to clarify our understanding by narrowing down the discussion to specific points that can be discerned to be true or false. This is what I always strive for. But you dropped the ball again. We were discussing the absolute FOUNDATION of your beliefs concerning the meaning of the word "everlasting." I presented strong evidence that you do not interpret that word consistently. You give it one meaning when talking of the Abrahamic covenant, and apparently quite another when talking about elements of the Mosaic Law. And now you have written another HUGE post that completely disregards this fundamental point that very well could bring down the entire complex system of covenantal theology that you have developed.



Regarding ANY ONE of the various aspects of God's promise to Abraham, God does not need ANY of the later scriptures to prove the immutability of the FULL counsel of His Word - and yet there IS and abundance of such witness in the scriptures which came after God's promise was given to Abraham:

(I) With the exception of Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah, ALL THE LATER PROPHETS PROPHESIED THE DISPERSION OF THE ETHNIC SEED OF ABRAHAM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT REGATHERING INTO THE LAND OF THEIR FATHERS, THEIR RECONCILIATION TO GOD, RESTORATION TO THE LAND OF THEIR FATHERS AND THEIR BLESSING IN THE LAND.

(II) The prophecies even became LINKED TO THE MESSIAH AND HIS KINGDOM:

Ezekiel 36: 16-38; Jeremiah chapters 30-31 (which contains the promise of the New Covenant being given to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" after the days of their regathering into the land of their fathers) are only some of MANY prophecies which prophesy it.

I have already responded to the prophecies of Ezekiel 36-37 and showed that they contain elements that are not literal. For example:
Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Surely you do not believe this prophecy is talking about the literal man David who "is both dead and buried", do you?
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Who is the "one shepherd" spoken of in Ezekiel 37:24? It is Christ. Therefore we know with great certainty that the prophecy of Ezekiel 36-37 contains elements that are not "literal" and that are fulfilled in Christ. To literalize it as speaking of earthly Israel ignores much of the plain and explicit teachings of the Bible such as Acts 2 quoted above.

Now I suppose you may attempt to argue that there are both literal and symbolic elements in those prophecies. That is fine, I would be happy to engage you in that argument. But you can not claim that your position is self-evidently true or the only position possible. There are many other verses that come into play here. We must discuss them to see if they really support your point.



Isiah 11: 1-16 and and Psalm 2: 1-12 (which I've quoted in this thread already) are only TWO of the many passages which show that the prophecies are LINED TO THE MESSIAH AND HIS KINGDOM.

Do you dispute that Isaiah 11:1-6 is speaking of the coming of Christ in the first century? If so, then we have a lot of work to do, and if not, then they do not support your point in any clear and direct way.

As for Psalm 2, that was fulfilled in the coming of Christ in the first century. You know the verses, I don't need to quote them. That passage does not, therefore, directly support your point in any self-evident way.

Here is my estimation of the current status of our discussion:

1) You need to answer my previous post and explain when I should or should not "simply accept" the meaning of the word "everlasting." Until you do this, further discussion of the "everlasting" land promises will be impossible because I won't know what you mean by "everlasting."

2) You need to explain when I should or should not "simply accept" the OT prophecies as literal, using the specific verses that you claim support your view. We have seen that the Ezekiel 36-37 prophecy involves elements that are clearly symbolic of Christ. And there also are elements that are clearly symbolic of the NT Church (as I noted in a previous unanswered post - 2 Cor 6:16 shows Eze 37:27 is fulfilled in the Church).

Again, I want to thank you for working with me on these complex questions.

All the best to you in Christ Brother Andrew.

God's blessings be upon you.

Richard

lekh lekha
09-17-2009, 12:17 PM
Hey Richard :yo:

I was still going to respond to the points you brought up regarding

1) The word "everlasting" which appears in some commandments; and
2) The Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision/the Law and circumcision.

It's just that you and Rose kinda come together and throw out a few different yet interrelated points at the same time, and I can only respond to one of those at a time.

I'm coming back in my next post to talk about the above two points.

Unfortunately they are involved subjects, and each post isn't going to be short - although I'll try and keep them as short as possible.

Shalom,
Andrew.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2009, 12:30 PM
Hey Richard :yo:

I was still going to respond to the points you brought up regarding

1) The word "everlasting" which appears in some commandments; and
2) The Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision/the Law and circumcision.

It's just that you and Rose kinda come together and throw out a few different yet interrelated points at the same time, and I can only respond to one of those at a time.

I'm coming back in my next post to talk about the above two points.

Unfortunately they are involved subjects, and each post isn't going to be short - although I'll try and keep them as short as possible.

Shalom,
Andrew.
Hey there Andrew! :yo:

That's great! Thanks for letting me know. It should really help us get on track so that we are engaging the points the other person is making.

One quick point - since you acknowledge that they are "involved subjects" does that mean that you agree that it is not a matter of me "simply accepting" what the Bible says? I mean, are you beginning to see that this subject really is very involved, and good-hearted Bible believing brothers may well have good reasons to see things differently? I hope so ...

Here is something I would like you to consider. I have a lot of pending comments on your recent posts (before the last big one) that I think would be very good for us to discuss. But I have been waiting because I don't want this thread to get overloaded with lots of unanswered posts. What do you think about the idea that we enter into a very strongly engaging conversation where we limit our responses as much as possible to the points currently being discussed? What I mean is, if you present an argument and I respond, you will then respond to what I say rather than writing a big post that includes lots of other stuff. The problem is that nothing ever gets settled that way. Does that sound like a good idea?

Much peace to you,

Richard

lekh lekha
09-17-2009, 02:04 PM
FALLACIOUS AND ILLOGICAL STATEMENTS AND CHRISTIANS

First consider the following verses:

"In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13)

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." (Heb 8:8-9).

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:" (Heb 8:10).

Now consider the following fallacious and illogical statements:-

Fallacious and illogical statement #1: "The man who murdered.... is from New York".

New Yorkers are criminals.

Fallacious and illogical statement #2: "John is an American. John is arrogant."

All Americans are arrogant.

They are fallacious and illogical statements, because they completely ignore all other New Yorkers and all other Americans.

Fallacious and illogical statement #3. The book of Hebrews says, "In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13).

Therefore we do not have to obey the following commandments:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;...

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exo 20:3-17)

Fallacious and illogical statement #4: The Bible shows that whether or not the Israelites received the blessings promised to them by God in the covenant which He made with them on Mt. Sinai, was dependent upon their obedience to the Law and all its commandments.

Therefore the covenant = the commandments.

Fallacious and illogical statement #5: The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created by and through the Word of God, and He rested on the seventh day; and God said,

"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." (Exo 31:16-17).

But the book of Hebrews says, "In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13).

And Jesus said, "... The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mar 2:27-28).

Therefore God and God-in-the-flesh really couldn't care less whether or not we rest from physical labor one day in a week and devote that day to prayer, praise, Bible-study, worship, fellowship and rest.

QUESTIONS:

(I) Is the above statement a fallacious and illogical statement, because it completely ignores all other statements regarding the sabbath?

(II) What did Jesus mean, by "... The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."?

POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO QUESTION # (II):

(A) He meant , "Don't take this gift and use it as a rope to bind people with" (for example the way Seventh-Day Adventists do).

(B) He meant, it's no longer important to God whether or not we set one day a week aside for the above-mentioned purposes.

Oh, wait a minute, we left out the 4th commandment earlier, when when we quoted the 10 commandments:

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Fallacious and illogical statement #6: In Acts we read, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Act 15:24).

Therefore we do not have to obey the ten commandments.

NOW CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VERSES:

Also in the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month of the Roman calendar is an ancient pagan festival held in honor of the incarnation of the sun-god, ye shall keep it as a feast unto the LORD in honor of the birth of the Son of God. And ye shall take you on this day a Pine tree, and you shall decorate it the way the pagans did, and you shall adorn it with ornaments and glittering things. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD every twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month of the Roman calendar. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the twelfth month of the Roman calendar.

Note that I deliberately left out quotation marks to show that the above IS NOT the Word of God, but you can compare it with Lev.23: 39-41.

Strange though how Christian churches are so bound by the above commandment, that even if you challenge them to keep their church doors closed even just once on this twenty-fifth day of the Roman calendar (and tell everyone to go to work), they are totally incapable of doing such a thing - it's just absolutely impossible for them.

The same goes for Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and for every Sunday.

Yet if you observe one of the God-given festivals because you understand that they teach about the Messiah and point to His first and second coming, they will tell you that you are a legalist, and have fallen from grace!

QUESTION:

In the entire history of the human race, has the following EVER come to pass yet?:

"... And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth...

... And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles...

... And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain...

... And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles...

... This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." (Zec 14: 12, 16-19).

The nations being commanded to keep "The Feast of Tabernacles" is mentioned THREE times in four verses!

AMAZING.

We can make of it what we will. We can interpret it in accordance with our own interpretation of the Word of God, anyway.

I wonder if it would matter? Would what we believe or don't believe prevent God from fulfilling His Word?

TRUE OR FALSE?

The book of Hebrews says, "In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13).

Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not we do any servile work on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month of the Roman calendar.

TRUE OR FALSE?

The book of Romans says,

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it...

... For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord;

and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." (Rom 14:5-12).

Clearly, there are God given commandments and God-given "appointed times" (a.k.a "Feast days") which are eternal - and clearly, many Christians have replaced these with their own man-made commandments and man-made "appointed times".

Andrew.

I'll come back to talk about circumcision some other day - maybe tomorrow, maybe later. And then after that, Richard, we can go to your other points and objections, and deal with them one by one, as you requested. I doubt that it's going to make us agree, but we'll at least talk about them, one by one

- if you promise to stick with only one point at a time, and don't flood me with 5,6 or 7 points in one post.

But first I must answer at least these two points - since you said I ignore the points you and Rose raise. I will have to answer the points you said I ignore. I can't continue until I've answered those.

Blessings,
Andrew.

lekh lekha
09-18-2009, 03:01 AM
I'm still going to come back to talk about circumcision.

This post finishes the previous post:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever (Hebrew Olam), and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."
(Psa 89:34-37).

QUESTION:

Was God giving the Israelites an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) commandment in the above verses?

Now compare the two verses below:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever (Hebrew Olam), and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."
(Psa 89:34-37).

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

The words "covenant" and "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) in Psa.89: 34-37 and in Gen.17: 7-8 (above) are linked to God's oath which He made when He swore to fulfill His Word.

QUESTION:

Was God giving the Israelites an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) commandment in the above verses?

There is a distinction between a covenant and a commandment, and it's absolutely absurd to suggest that just because the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in any commandment can be changed because of a change in the Law (Heb.7: 12), then it can be changed in God's oath also. Such a suggestion is actually an insult to God, because it's bringing His Word (oath) into question.

We cannot compare the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in God's oaths (covenants) to the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in God's commandments to men (which men break), without insulting God.

I'll be back to post the answer to your objections regarding what Paul said about circumcision in my next post.

Shalom,

Andrew

lekh lekha
09-18-2009, 04:10 AM
Hello again, Richard :yo:

Please take note of my previous post which is in answer to your question regarding the word "everlasting" in the commandments.

Before I post this, I just want you to know that if I don't come back to answer your objections and questions, it's because there seems to be a technical problem:

Yesterday when I tried to access the Bible Wheel Forum directly (using your URL), I got a message:

THIS IP IS BANNED.

The next time I tried to come in directly, I was automatically redirected to a completely different website. So I tried a third time by coming in via a non-direct route (yahoo-search), and this time, I got in.

The internet is wonderful. Messages can be sent instantaneously, and people all over the world can get the message very fast.

But sometimes technical problems develop, so if you don't see me again, please understand that there is a technical problem, and it's not because I can't or don't want to respond to your points.

Anyway, to get to the subject of this post:

1. God made a covenant with ALL flesh in the days of Noah.
2. God made a covenant with flesh in the days of Abraham.
3. God gave an everlasting token of the Noahic Covenant - the rainbow.
4. God gave an everlasting token of the Abrahamic Covenant - circumcision.

The sign of circumcision was given by God to Abraham and his physical (ethnic) seed as an everlasting token that they belong to God (Gen.17: 9-14).

FALLACIOUS AND ILLOGICAL STATEMENTS AND CHRISTIANS

Fallacious and illogical statement #1: "The man who murdered.... is from New York".

Therefore New Yorkers are criminals.

Fallacious and illogical statement #2: "John is an American. John is arrogant."

Therefore Americans are arrogant.

Paul said the following:

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4).

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." (Gal 6:15-17)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom 2:28-29)

"For we (the believing remnant of the circumcision + the believing Gentiles) are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (Php 3:3)

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:" (Col 2:9-11)

"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Col 3:11).

Statement # 3:

Therefore God has done away with circumcision for the Jews.

Fallacious and illogical statements #1 and #2 are illogical, because they ignore all other New Yorkers, and all other Americans.

Is statement #3 a fallacious and illogical statement because it ignores all the other things Paul said about circumcision?

You read what else Paul said about circumcision, and make up your own minds:

To the Jews Paul said,

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the circumcision) were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." (Rom 3:1-4)

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith. (Rom 3:30)

"Cometh this blessedness (of salvation through faith in Christ) then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision...

... And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:..

... AND the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

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. (Rom 4:9-13)

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith. (Rom 3:30)

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God...

... Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1Co 7:18-20).

How can any man "called being circumcised" become uncircumcised?

Paul was talking about a Jew who is called to salvation, saying that he is to to remain a Jew and not try to become as a Gentile, and that the Gentiles should not try to become as a Jew.

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith. (Rom 3:30)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom 2:28-29).

"Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me." (Col 4:10-11).

Even today, you will never find any self-respecting Jewish parents (including those who believe in Jesus) who will not circumcise their sons on the eighth day - because they know it is an everlasting God-given token for the Jews.

CAME THE TROUBLE:

"... And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the (Gentile) brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved..." (Act 15:1-2)

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4).

"... And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard,
that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Act 15:23-24)

Fallacious and illogical statement # 4:

Paul linked the everlasting token of circumcision which God gave to the Jews, to seeking to be justified by the law on the part of the Jews.

To the Jews Paul said,

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the circumcision) were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." (Rom 3:1-4)

But to the Gentiles, Paul said,

"Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gentile converts), that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal 5:2-4)

We should never isolate one verse or passage of scripture and interpret it on its own. We should always interpret any verse or passage in the light of all the other verses and passages which speak about the same thing, as well as in the light of the rest of the Bible. That's the first principle for sound hermeneutics.

The sign of circumcision was given by God to Abraham and his physical (ethnic) seed as an everlasting token that they belong to God.

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1Co 7:18-20).

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, AND uncircumcision through faith." (Rom 3:30)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom 2:28-29)

But in Christ '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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:28-29)

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." (Gal 6:15-17).

Richard, I know you won't agree. But you make up your own mind about it.

But if you don't mind, I'd rather not debate it. It's pointless arguing endlessly about minor things we don't agree on. You give the reasons why you disagree, and finish.

Please remember that if I don't come back to answer your objections and questions, it's because there seems to be a technical problem:

Yesterday when I tried to access the Bible Wheel Forum directly (using your URL), I got a message:

THIS IP IS BANNED.

The next time I tried to come in directly, I was automatically redirected to a completely different website. So I tried a third time by coming in via a non-direct route (yahoo-search), and this time, I got in.

The internet is wonderful. Messages can be sent instantaneously, and people all over the world can get the message very fast.

But sometimes technical problems develop, so if you don't see me again, please understand that there is a technical problem, and it's not because I can't or don't want to respond to your points.


Shalom,

Andrew.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2009, 07:48 AM
Hello again, Richard :yo:

Please take note of my previous post which is in answer to your question regarding the word "everlasting" in the commandments.

Before I post this, I just want you to know that if I don't come back to answer your objections and questions, it's because there seems to be a technical problem:

Yesterday when I tried to access the Bible Wheel Forum directly (using your URL), I got a message:

THIS IP IS BANNED.

The next time I tried to come in directly, I was automatically redirected to a completely different website. So I tried a third time by coming in via a non-direct route (yahoo-search), and this time, I got in.

The internet is wonderful. Messages can be sent instantaneously, and people all over the world can get the message very fast.

But sometimes technical problems develop, so if you don't see me again, please understand that there is a technical problem, and it's not because I can't or don't want to respond to your points.


Hi Andrew,

My site is hosted by SiteServer.net which hosts a lot of sites. It is possible that one of the other sites sent out a lot of spam or got infected with a virus which could have triggered an automatic response from your ISP (Internet Service Provider) to ban all incoming traffic from my host. I hope this was not the case but I did have a similar problem with email a couple years ago. Comcast.com rejected any emails coming from my host. This was caused by some new antispam software that was incorrectly set up on the comcast servers, and it was quickly fixed.

If you have trouble getting to this site don't worry about it - I'll just leave this thread open and if you are able to come back, please do. But it would be good if you could send me an email so I can look into the technical problem.

I'll answer the rest of your points in an other post.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2009, 10:48 AM
Hey Andrew! :yo:

Thanks for presenting your interpretation of God's Word. It is very helpful.


I'm still going to come back to talk about circumcision.

This post finishes the previous post:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever (Hebrew Olam), and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."
(Psa 89:34-37).

QUESTION:

Was God giving the Israelites an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) commandment in the above verses?

The answer is "no" in as much as that verse does not contain the word "commandment." But as you correctly noted in a previous post, we must not consider any verse in isolation. And since you are asking a question about the relation between God's Covenant and God's Commandments, we need to look at verses that speak of both:
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Here we see that God is apparently identifying the "words of the covenant" with the ten "commandments." This clearly shows that the commandments are an integral part of the covenant, and it may mean that they are identical to the covenant. This seems to be confirmed in another verse:
Psalm 105:8-10 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
So again, it seems that the word that God commanded defines His covenant. Furthermore, He begins by speaking of His Covenant (singular) and then presents a continuous chain from Abraham to Israel:

GOD'S COVENANT TO A THOUSAND GENERATIONS

With Abraham --> to Isaac --> to Jacob (for a law) --> to Israel for an EVERLASTING COVENANT (at Sinai?)
This chain begins with the Abrahamic covenant, and says the it was "confirmed unto Jacob for a law." How should we understand this? How is it that the Abrahamic covenant is called a "law" if it is unconditional? And is it not the same covenant that God made "to Israel for an everlasting covenant" at Sinai? Is this verse speaking only of the Abrahamic covenant? If so, then how do we understand the verses that conclude that Psalm?
Psalm 105:42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.
Note that God never spoke of two covenants anywhere in Psalm 105. Yet He spoke of the commandments of His Covenant (singular). Note also that God says He "gave them the lands of the heathen" in the context of remembering "his holy promise" to Abraham.

Now returning to the verse you cited:
"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever (Hebrew Olam), and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah." (Psa 89:34-37).
What is this verse really talking about? Who is "David's seed" that "shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me?" It seems clear that this is a prophecy of Christ who ascended to His throne after His resurrection:
Acts 2:29-36 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
So it seems to me that the Acts 2 is a fulfillment of the prophecy you quoted form Psalm 89. What do you think of this?



Now compare the two verses below:

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever (Hebrew Olam), and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."
(Psa 89:34-37).

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8).

The words "covenant" and "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) in Psa.89: 34-37 and in Gen.17: 7-8 (above) are linked to God's oath which He made when He swore to fulfill His Word.

QUESTION:

Was God giving the Israelites an everlasting (Hebrew: olam) commandment in the above verses?

No, not in those isolated verses. But as noted above, we must not interpret those verses in isolation. We must interpret them in light of the many verses where God says that He commanded His covenant and closely identified the covenant with the words of the commandments it contains.



There is a distinction between a covenant and a commandment, and it's absolutely absurd to suggest that just because the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in any commandment can be changed because of a change in the Law (Heb.7: 12), then it can be changed in God's oath also. Such a suggestion is actually an insult to God, because it's bringing His Word (oath) into question.

I haven't seen the distinction between the covenant and commandment, and there are many verses that make the two words seem synonymous like the verses where God says that He commanded His covenant and appears to identify (largely) the covenant with the commandments it contains. So this point is going to need some clarification.

And I still don't understand why you use two different meanings of olam. Are you saying that olam means "everlasting" sometimes but not at other times? How do you decide when it means one thing and when it means another? This point will need to be clarified since obviously we can't change the meaning of words whenever we feel like it.



We cannot compare the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in God's oaths (covenants) to the word "everlasting" (Hebrew: olam) contained in God's commandments to men (which men break), without insulting God.

I don't understand this point. Men can break both covenants and commandments. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word "olam" as far as I can tell. So we'll have to clarify this point.



I'll be back to post the answer to your objections regarding what Paul said about circumcision in my next post.

Shalom,

Andrew
Thanks again Andrew for helping me understand the Bible. Many blessings to you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-20-2009, 08:47 AM
Andrew,

I was reading Revelation last night and came upon this verse:
Revelation 11:19 Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.
The Ark of His Covenant contained the tablets of the Ten Commandments, the essence of the so-called "Mosaic" Covenant. This makes perfect sense if we understand the Covenant at Sinai as the continuation and culmination of the singular Covenant that began with Abraham and which was was type fulfilled in the New and Everlasting Covenant sealed by the blood of Christ.

How do you understand this verse? Why would God display the Ark of the Mosaic Covenant in heaven at the time of the final judgment? If that covenant was temporary and the Abrahamic covenant everlasting, why does Revelation mention the former but not the latter? And why does God speak only of "His Covenant" in the singular if He really had two covenants with Israel?

We also need to reflect on the context of the revelation of the Ark of God's Covenant in Revelation. It is revealed at the time the Seventh Trumpet is blown, when God's eternal plan reaches its culmination:
Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: "We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. 18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth." 19 Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.
From my perspective, this makes perfect sense. The Ark of the Covenant represents the entirety of God's covenant dealings with humanity from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Israel, to Christ and the New Covenant. The proclamation that The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" reveals the ultimate intent and fulfillment of the Abrahamic "land promises" as well as the promises of the Davidic Kingdom.

Well, those are just some thoughts that lept out from the Holy Text as I read last night. It seems they are important for our understanding of the "Big Picture" of God's Covenant.

Many blessings to you my friend and fellow student of God's most excellent Word,

Richard

PS: Please send me an email if you are still having trouble connecting to the forum.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-20-2009, 09:19 PM
Richard, try and understand the distinction between a covenant which God makes with flesh and a commandment:

When asked, "Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Mat.22: 36), Jesus said to him,

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:36-40).

Clearly, there are commandments which are eternal - but I'm NOT going to get into a debate with you about which commandments are eternal commandments and which aren't.

Hey there Andrew,

The commandment you quoted is an excellent example of why God added the Law to the Abrahamic Covenant. It is very similar to the first two of the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Did God have to command Abraham to "have no other gods" before Him? Did God have to command him to refrain from idols? Of course not! Abraham believed God and that's why he was counted righteous. But the same is not true for all his seed - they had to be told how to keep the covenant that Abraham had kept through faith. Thus the commandments were added to the Abrahamic Covenant:
Galatians 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
It seems so simple and clear to me. Israel was not keeping the faith of Abraham, so God gave them a tutor, the Law, that explicitly told them to do the things that Abraham did simply through faith - to have no other gods, to make no idols, to hallow the name of God, and so forth.

But this could be misunderstood, so Paul explained that the Law did not annul the promises of the covenant at all. It was merely a tutor to keep them "on track" until the Promised Seed (Christ) would come.

I would be very interested to know what you think of this interpretation.

Richard

gregoryfl
11-04-2009, 08:52 PM
I was reading Deuteronomy tonight and happened upon this verse, which brought this thread to mind where we were discussing whether there was more than one covenant given to Israel.

God through Moses gets through speaking about all the words of the law that he just got through telling them about that were written in a book:

De 28:58 If you do not guard to do all the Words of this Torah that are written in this book...

Then in chapter 29 he say this:

De 29:1 These are the words of the COVENANT which Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, BESIDES the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Other translations say APART FROM, ASIDE FROM, IN ADDITION TO.

My question is, how do you all understand this, as just a continuation of the one covenant throughout the Hebrew scriptures, or a totally different covenant and separate from the one given at Sinai? And of course, why?

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
11-04-2009, 09:50 PM
I was reading Deuteronomy tonight and happened upon this verse, which brought this thread to mind where we were discussing whether there was more than one covenant given to Israel.

God through Moses gets through speaking about all the words of the law that he just got through telling them about that were written in a book:

De 28:58 If you do not guard to do all the Words of this Torah that are written in this book...

Then in chapter 29 he say this:

De 29:1 These are the words of the COVENANT which Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, BESIDES the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Other translations say APART FROM, ASIDE FROM, IN ADDITION TO.

My question is, how do you all understand this, as just a continuation of the one covenant throughout the Hebrew scriptures, or a totally different covenant and separate from the one given at Sinai? And of course, why?

Ron
Hi Ron!

:icon_hello:

I'm glad you brought up this question. I think the answer if very clear. The covenant made with the children of Israel "in Moab" is a continuation/renewal of the covenant he made with them in Horeb. There are many reasons this seems to be the only possibility. First, God never spoke of having more than one covenant with Israel. Second, the nature of the covenant made at Moab is identical to the covenant made at Horeb:
Deuteronomy 29:12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: 13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Israel was already in covenant with God when Moses said that they should "enter into covenant with the LORD thy God." So it sounds like a renewal to me. This also is the opinion of the first two commentaries I checked. And this seems to be the general pattern as exemplified in Psalm 105:

Psalm 105:7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant [singular] for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham (1), and his oath unto Isaac (2 - renewal); 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law (3 - renewal), and to Israel for an everlasting covenant (4 - renewal):
There is one covenant with Abraham that is continued and renewed through Isaac and Jacob and all Israel.

What do you think of this answer? Does it seem correct to you?

Richard

gregoryfl
11-05-2009, 08:04 AM
Richard,

I am taking into consideration what you are sharing about this, that from the covenant with Abraham all the way through until the new covenant that each is (if I understand you correctly) a renewal of the original covenant given to Abraham.

I will share why I am still not quite seeing it exactly in that way:

Any covenant, once ratified or put into effect, cannot be...

1. Put aside, or
2. Added to

This I find stated by Paul in Galatians:

Gal 3:15 Brothers, as a man I say it: a covenant, even though it is man’s, yet if it is confirmed, no one sets it aside, or adds to it.

What this tells me is that once a covenant is made, it must be fulfilled, the obligations must be met. You cannot just put it aside and say you changed your mind and will no longer honor it. The other thing (and this is why I have trouble totally agreeing with what you are proposing) is that once the covenant is made, you cannot at a later time decide to add more to it. The original covenant comes as is, no exceptions.

So in the effort of not being too long, I will start at the beginning and work my way through the places where I see a covenant being made, and see if they follow this principle Paul lays out:

1. The first explicitly known covenant God made with anyone is the one he made with Noah. He says:

Gen 9:8-17 And Elohim spoke to Noaḥ and to his sons with him, saying, “And I, see, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you: of the birds, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. “And I shall establish My covenant with you, and never again is all flesh cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again is there a flood to destroy the earth.” And Elohim said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for all generations to come: “I shall set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. “And it shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud, and I shall remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and never again let the waters become a flood to destroy all flesh. “And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I shall see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between Elohim and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And Elohim said to Noaḥ, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

According to this covenant, he gives a time frame as well as the provision of this covenant. The provision is that he will not let a flood of waters destroy all flesh. The time frame is that he will NEVER do it.

Accordingly then, this covenant never has an ending point. It is still in effect today and will be in the future. Also, no other covenant has been added to it. It stands on it's own, just as any covenant does.

Before I go on to the next covenant, are there any thoughts on what I have shared so far?

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
11-05-2009, 08:44 AM
Richard,

I am taking into consideration what you are sharing about this, that from the covenant with Abraham all the way through until the new covenant that each is (if I understand you correctly) a renewal of the original covenant given to Abraham.

I will share why I am still not quite seeing it exactly in that way:

Any covenant, once ratified or put into effect, cannot be...

1. Put aside, or
2. Added to

This I find stated by Paul in Galatians:

Gal 3:15 Brothers, as a man I say it: a covenant, even though it is man’s, yet if it is confirmed, no one sets it aside, or adds to it.

What this tells me is that once a covenant is made, it must be fulfilled, the obligations must be met. You cannot just put it aside and say you changed your mind and will no longer honor it. The other thing (and this is why I have trouble totally agreeing with what you are proposing) is that once the covenant is made, you cannot at a later time decide to add more to it. The original covenant comes as is, no exceptions.

Good morning Ron, :yo:

I'm glad you are working through this in detail. It is an important part of Scripture that is often misunderstood (or ignored).

I agree with everything you have written except for one fundamental point. After Paul explained that you can not add to a covenant, he went on to explain why the Law was added! Here's what I mean:
Galatians 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Huh? Is this a direct contradiction? First Paul says you can not "add" anything to a covenant, then he says the law was "added"!

I have an answer, but I would be interested to hear your take on this before sharing it.

Richard

gregoryfl
11-05-2009, 09:25 AM
Yes, I was going to get to that point, but upon rereading it just now, I will have to rethink some things because I see something now that I have not seen before.

Even though I generally quote from other translations, in my personal study I usually use the Aramaic Peshitta. Well, when I read it just now, based on the great question you asked, I can no longer say that Paul said that a covenant could not be added to. I could still be wrong about this but here is what I read and what I am thinking...

In verse 15 he uses the Aramaic term which means "changes". The word in verse 19 is the word which means "it was added." So I do not see a contradiction there. (Just checked the Greek, and there are two different words there as well)

If it is possible to add to a covenant without changing the stipulations of it, then I can see how indeed the law covenant was added, (because he knew they would transgress his covenant) while the stipulations of God's promise to Abraham would still be the same, with no changes made.

I still would like to work step by step through what I had planned, to see where we end up.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
11-05-2009, 11:17 AM
Yes, I was going to get to that point, but upon rereading it just now, I will have to rethink some things because I see something now that I have not seen before.

Even though I generally quote from other translations, in my personal study I usually use the Aramaic Peshitta. Well, when I read it just now, based on the great question you asked, I can no longer say that Paul said that a covenant could not be added to. I could still be wrong about this but here is what I read and what I am thinking...

In verse 15 he uses the Aramaic term which means "changes". The word in verse 19 is the word which means "it was added." So I do not see a contradiction there. (Just checked the Greek, and there are two different words there as well)

If it is possible to add to a covenant without changing the stipulations of it, then I can see how indeed the law covenant was added, (because he knew they would transgress his covenant) while the stipulations of God's promise to Abraham would still be the same, with no changes made.

I still would like to work step by step through what I had planned, to see where we end up.

Ron
I think a thread on the Peshitta would be very fruitful when time permits. I just looked at peshitta.org and they believe the entire NT was written in Aramaic. I have problems with that, but the Peshitta is very old and the official Bible of some eastern Christians, so it certainly is worthy of study.

But back to the topic at hand: You found the key to understanding Galatians 3. The two different words explain the apparent contradiction. Unfortunately, the first word that Paul used when he said we do not add anything to a confirmed covenant is a rare word that we know little about. But I don't think we really need to know much about the exact meaning of that word because the intent is clear from context. You do not add anything that changes the essential nature of the confirmed covenant.

We have more info on the second word that he used when he said the law was "added." This word is Strong's numner 4369:

4369 prostithemi
Meaning: 1) to put to 2) to add 2a) i.e. to join to, gather with any company, the number of one's followers or companions 2a1) he was gathered to his fathers i.e. died
Origin: from 4314 and 5087; TDNT - 8:167,1176; v
Usage: AV - add 11, again send + 3892 2, give more 1, increase 1, proceed further 1, lay unto 1, speak to any more 1; 18
This word has the concept of adding more in the sense of expanding what was originally there, not adding something different. It is used, for example, in this verse:
KJV Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
New believers were added to the original group of believers. They did not change the nature of the group. Likewise, the law merely expanded upon the original covenant, spelling out the conditions that were already implicit in it. The first commandment is an excellent example. God did not have to explicitly tell Abraham to have no other gods because Abraham believed in the Lord and was made righteous by his faith. But that law had to be added because of the transgressions of the children of Abraham who were not living by the faith of their father.

Thus when faith comes, there is no more need for the schoolmaster (the law).

After we finish reviewing Galatians 3 I would be happy to return to the review of all the covenants that you began.

Richard

gregoryfl
11-05-2009, 03:17 PM
But back to the topic at hand: You found the key to understanding Galatians 3. The two different words explain the apparent contradiction. Unfortunately, the first word that Paul used when he said we do not add anything to a confirmed covenant is a rare word that we know little about. But I don't think we really need to know much about the exact meaning of that word because the intent is clear from context. You do not add anything that changes the essential nature of the confirmed covenant.

Likewise, the law merely expanded upon the original covenant, spelling out the conditions that were already implicit in it. The first commandment is an excellent example. God did not have to explicitly tell Abraham to have no other gods because Abraham believed in the Lord and was made righteous by his faith. But that law had to be added because of the transgressions of the children of Abraham who were not living by the faith of their father.

Thus when faith comes, there is no more need for the schoolmaster (the law).

After we finish reviewing Galatians 3 I would be happy to return to the review of all the covenants that you began.

Richard

That's fine Richard. I am not sure what other aspects you want to review in Galatians 3, but I will say that for the most part I agree with what you have said, that indeed what was added did not change the nature of what it was added to.

A couple of thoughts to share:

1. Is it possible to understand the law being added to mean it was added alongside in such a way as to be maintained as a different covenant from the 10 words? I'm not asking if you believe this, because I know the answer to that. I'm merely asking if you see that if you knew nothing else about the subject, could it be understood that way?

2. If what is known as the law of Moses is indeed this book of the covenant that was aside from the covenant written in stone by God, and we know that it is only in the book of the covenant where we find instruction concerning the priesthood and dealing with sin, then is it possible that the law that was added, written about in Galatians 3, is that law of Moses, and not the covenant containing the 10 words? I ask this because of the reason for the adding of the law, namely, because of transgression, which to me implies that he knew transgression would take place and would need to be dealt with, which I do not see in the 10 words, but I do see in the book of the law.

And if you wanted to take the summary in a different direction, feel free please.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
11-05-2009, 04:33 PM
1. Is it possible to understand the law being added to mean it was added alongside in such a way as to be maintained as a different covenant from the 10 words? I'm not asking if you believe this, because I know the answer to that. I'm merely asking if you see that if you knew nothing else about the subject, could it be understood that way?

The problem with that idea is that the Bible never mentions two (or more) concurrent covenants with Israel. And as far as I know, that idea is also foreign to Jewish theology and tradition. So it seems pretty unlikely that it could be true.

If you know of anyone (Jew or Christian) who maintains the opinion you suggest, please let me know.



2. If what is known as the law of Moses is indeed this book of the covenant that was aside from the covenant written in stone by God, and we know that it is only in the book of the covenant where we find instruction concerning the priesthood and dealing with sin, then is it possible that the law that was added, written about in Galatians 3, is that law of Moses, and not the covenant containing the 10 words? I ask this because of the reason for the adding of the law, namely, because of transgression, which to me implies that he knew transgression would take place and would need to be dealt with, which I do not see in the 10 words, but I do see in the book of the law.

Ok - let me think about this. You are suggesting the Ten Commandments that were written by God on stone were the "Covenant" and that the Book of the Law was "not the covenant" written on stone. That doesn't make sense to me because the Book of the Law is also called "The Book of the Covenant." And God spoke of the laws in the book of the law as a his "covenant."
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
So it doesn't seem to me at first glance anyway, that there is a difference between the Book of the Law, the Book of the Covenant, and the Covenant God made when he gave the Ten Commandments.

Richard

gregoryfl
11-06-2009, 03:01 PM
The problem with that idea is that the Bible never mentions two (or more) concurrent covenants with Israel. And as far as I know, that idea is also foreign to Jewish theology and tradition. So it seems pretty unlikely that it could be true.

If you know of anyone (Jew or Christian) who maintains the opinion you suggest, please let me know.


Ok - let me think about this. You are suggesting the Ten Commandments that were written by God on stone were the "Covenant" and that the Book of the Law was "not the covenant" written on stone. That doesn't make sense to me because the Book of the Law is also called "The Book of the Covenant." And God spoke of the laws in the book of the law as a his "covenant."
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
So it doesn't seem to me at first glance anyway, that there is a difference between the Book of the Law, the Book of the Covenant, and the Covenant God made when he gave the Ten Commandments.

Richard

Yes, I also believe that the Book of the Law is also called The Book of the Covenant. I am suggesting that the Book, or Scroll of the Law, was not the Ten Words. They were written on two different things.

The Ten Words were written on the two tablets of stone by God, while the Book, or Scroll of the Law, was not written on stones, but on a scroll. The Ten Words were placed IN the ark:

Deu 10:2 and I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets, which you have broken, and you shall place them in the ark.

The Book of the Covenant, also called the Book of the Law, was to placed BY THE SIDE of the ark:

Deu 31:26 You are to take this scroll of the law, and you must place it by the side of the coffer of the covenant of Yahweh your Elohim, and it will come to be there as a testimony against you,

I do not believe there is a difference between the book of the law and the book of the covenant, as they are one and the same as far as I understand.

I do believe there is a difference in purpose between the covenant contained within the Ten Words, and the covenant contained within the Book of the Law. I also do believe that both are called his covenant, in that they both came from God.

Ron

RND
11-06-2009, 03:47 PM
Yes, I also believe that the Book of the Law is also called The Book of the Covenant. I am suggesting that the Book, or Scroll of the Law, was not the Ten Words. They were written on two different things. Yep, that's very true. One witnessed against the COI and what they promised to do.


The Ten Words were written on the two tablets of stone by God, while the Book, or Scroll of the Law, was not written on stones, but on a scroll. The Ten Words were placed IN the ark:

Deu 10:2 and I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets, which you have broken, and you shall place them in the ark. They were originally written on sapphire stones which is where the blue ribbons and tassels come from


The Book of the Covenant, also called the Book of the Law, was to placed BY THE SIDE of the ark:

Deu 31:26 You are to take this scroll of the law, and you must place it by the side of the coffer of the covenant of Yahweh your Elohim, and it will come to be there as a testimony against you,

I do not believe there is a difference between the book of the law and the book of the covenant, as they are one and the same as far as I understand. You get a standing ovation! :signthankspin: Clarity and sanity can indeed be found on this thread!


I do believe there is a difference in purpose between the covenant contained within the Ten Words, and the covenant contained within the Book of the Law. I also do believe that both are called his covenant, in that they both came from God. I to do. Excellent Ron.