J.D. I went through the same kind of thing but in a different way,having gone through the Shepherding movement cause I was young in the Lord and trusted others in leadership rather than THINK FOR MYSELF AND BE A BEREAN. When we stand before the Lord were not going to be able to escape our responsibility to Gods Word by saying oh I got it from this guys tape or book. If I had read what the Bible said I would have understood it was whacky....If you had been studying the Bible you would have found that it doesn't say to quit living because the Lord is coming back tomorrow...or the next day for that matter. Sounds like you got burned back then not because of God or His Word or the teaching of Christs imminent return but because you fell into error based on not rightly dividing the Word of truth.
Crusader
"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu
Crusader,
Thanks for that.
"I was young in the Lord and trusted others in leadership rather than THINK FOR MYSELF AND BE A BEREAN."
Same here, except I left dispensationalism behind, and you hold to it. You read one set of teachers, and refuse to read the opposition's portrayal of its own beliefs. How BEREAN of you.
"When we stand before the Lord were not going to be able to escape our responsibility to Gods Word by saying oh I got it from this guys tape or book."
I know. That's why I'm glad I don't hold to dispensationalism anymore. I don't want to explain to Him that I thought Messianic prophecies were actually about Satan and the Antichrist. Do you?
"If I had read what the Bible said I would have understood it was whacky..."
I say the same for dispensationalism.
"If you had been studying the Bible"
I'll resist a softball pitch here, one where I could slam your entire reasoning in this thread. Stop using fallacious rhetoric.
"you would have found that it doesn't say to quit living because the Lord is coming back tomorrow...or the next day for that matter."
Actually, I never stopped living because of that teaching. Though my wife was once told, in 1998, that she shouldn't finish her degree, because the Lord was coming soon. The ill-advice of a sister in the Lord fell under the banner of how I would live differently if the opposing viewpoint were correct. Evidently, people do this.
"Sounds like you got burned back then not because of God or His Word or the teaching of Christs imminent return but because you fell into error based on not rightly dividing the Word of truth."
As millions such as yourself continue to do so today. But I never got burned, and I wouldn't suggest that God's Word leads to error. Again, a fallacious assertion on your part.
Hey, if you're bored, here's a new hobby for ya.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11567350/site/newsweek/
It's a Left Behind video game.
That would fall under the humor category, if you're okay with that.
Regards,
JD
Thanks for that.
"I was young in the Lord and trusted others in leadership rather than THINK FOR MYSELF AND BE A BEREAN."
Same here, except I left dispensationalism behind, and you hold to it. You read one set of teachers, and refuse to read the opposition's portrayal of its own beliefs. How BEREAN of you.
"When we stand before the Lord were not going to be able to escape our responsibility to Gods Word by saying oh I got it from this guys tape or book."
I know. That's why I'm glad I don't hold to dispensationalism anymore. I don't want to explain to Him that I thought Messianic prophecies were actually about Satan and the Antichrist. Do you?
"If I had read what the Bible said I would have understood it was whacky..."
I say the same for dispensationalism.
"If you had been studying the Bible"
I'll resist a softball pitch here, one where I could slam your entire reasoning in this thread. Stop using fallacious rhetoric.
"you would have found that it doesn't say to quit living because the Lord is coming back tomorrow...or the next day for that matter."
Actually, I never stopped living because of that teaching. Though my wife was once told, in 1998, that she shouldn't finish her degree, because the Lord was coming soon. The ill-advice of a sister in the Lord fell under the banner of how I would live differently if the opposing viewpoint were correct. Evidently, people do this.
"Sounds like you got burned back then not because of God or His Word or the teaching of Christs imminent return but because you fell into error based on not rightly dividing the Word of truth."
As millions such as yourself continue to do so today. But I never got burned, and I wouldn't suggest that God's Word leads to error. Again, a fallacious assertion on your part.
Hey, if you're bored, here's a new hobby for ya.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11567350/site/newsweek/
It's a Left Behind video game.
That would fall under the humor category, if you're okay with that.
Regards,
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi
J.D. does this sound like great tribulation to you...
"From 66AD to 70AD, Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman Army three months under Gallus, six months under Vespasian, and five months under Titus: for a total of 14 months. There was total freedom within Jerusalem and in Israel, free of war, from the fall of 66AD to the spring of 68AD, a whole year! In 68AD Vaspasian attacked the city until June on the death of Nero and then went to Rome. Jerusalem again had total freedom from June 68AD until until two years later in April of 70AD when Titus arrived. Now, does all this look like three and a half years of great tribulation as depicted in the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven vials?
From September 66AD to September 70AD when the Temple was captured is FOUR YEARS not three and a half!
Titus captured the Temple in September 70AD but it was not until 73AD that the city was completely leveled and Massada was captured. The removing of stones from the walls and the Temple took place after 70AD was over, outside of the alleged three and a half years of tribulation."
Crusader...
"From 66AD to 70AD, Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman Army three months under Gallus, six months under Vespasian, and five months under Titus: for a total of 14 months. There was total freedom within Jerusalem and in Israel, free of war, from the fall of 66AD to the spring of 68AD, a whole year! In 68AD Vaspasian attacked the city until June on the death of Nero and then went to Rome. Jerusalem again had total freedom from June 68AD until until two years later in April of 70AD when Titus arrived. Now, does all this look like three and a half years of great tribulation as depicted in the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven vials?
From September 66AD to September 70AD when the Temple was captured is FOUR YEARS not three and a half!
Titus captured the Temple in September 70AD but it was not until 73AD that the city was completely leveled and Massada was captured. The removing of stones from the walls and the Temple took place after 70AD was over, outside of the alleged three and a half years of tribulation."
Crusader...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Crusader,
Are these more excerpts from Christians working overtime to prove that Christ's prophecies didn't come true when He said they would, for the express purpose of winning a debate that is slipping from their grasps?
The tell-tale signs: "a whole year!"; "FOUR YEARS not three and a half!"; "outside of the alleged three and a half years of tribulation."
See! See! What Jesus said would happen didn't happen! The Enlightenment philosophers were right!
Who wrote this?
I hope this person is as exacting about terms such as "this generation" and seventy sevens.
I can cut and paste Josephus' depiction of the time periods referenced, and ask you if you do not believe these are the fulfillments of Jesus's words and excerpts from Revelation. You will either say they are not, or else we are awaiting a dual fulfillment.
I believe they are records of what Jesus referred to as the great tribulation Israel would undergo.
But debating facets of history would be more intriguing to me than which European head of state has the power to resurrect himself from a mortal wound to the cranium.
I don't want to take the time to do this, because our discussion has been fruitless (except to further entrench our positions), and you can listen to Steve's eschatology series and receive much of the same information.
But listening to the opposition is dangerous. We should just "stick to the Word". As taught by our favorite teachers, of course.
Regards,
JD
Are these more excerpts from Christians working overtime to prove that Christ's prophecies didn't come true when He said they would, for the express purpose of winning a debate that is slipping from their grasps?
The tell-tale signs: "a whole year!"; "FOUR YEARS not three and a half!"; "outside of the alleged three and a half years of tribulation."
See! See! What Jesus said would happen didn't happen! The Enlightenment philosophers were right!
Who wrote this?
I hope this person is as exacting about terms such as "this generation" and seventy sevens.
I can cut and paste Josephus' depiction of the time periods referenced, and ask you if you do not believe these are the fulfillments of Jesus's words and excerpts from Revelation. You will either say they are not, or else we are awaiting a dual fulfillment.
I believe they are records of what Jesus referred to as the great tribulation Israel would undergo.
But debating facets of history would be more intriguing to me than which European head of state has the power to resurrect himself from a mortal wound to the cranium.
I don't want to take the time to do this, because our discussion has been fruitless (except to further entrench our positions), and you can listen to Steve's eschatology series and receive much of the same information.
But listening to the opposition is dangerous. We should just "stick to the Word". As taught by our favorite teachers, of course.
Regards,
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi
Have an awesome Sunday J.D.....Im going to worship the living God...grow in His grace and just have a day filled with Him...Hope you have the same...I enjoy these discussions and I am still reading about preterists...and learning just how different what they believe really is...the Church is Israel,Revelation has already taken place( or most of it),we have been in the Millenium all this time since A.D 70...I mean its facinateing to me..I just learned about this about a year ago...yet I met the Lord in 1974...I never would have beleived Steve Greg bought into it though...I had wonderd what his link with Hannegraf was..they are both preterists come to find out..but it really doesnt matter in one sense because every sngle day Bible prophecy is being fulfilled before everyones eyes...Israel becomes a nation in 48...I cant wait till they start to rebuild thier temple..and you know that they are getting ready even now...its all to exciting...and really thats why everyone was buzzing over the Left Behind series...because they can see it all falling into place...it really is way to cool ....
Crusader
Crusader
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Crusader,
In response to your last comment to me, you again quoted Romans 11 and made the statement about confusing the church and Israel.
First,
Romans 9 says not all Israel are of Israel:
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 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.
So not all who are Israel of the flesh are true Israel according to Paul.
Who who is "All Israel".
Romans 9:8 the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
This is exactly what Paul says here:
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
So in summary, Paul says that not all the physical descendants of Abraham are true Israel. Only those who are children of promise are counted as true Israel.
Paul also clearly states that Gentiles are partakers in this as well.
So all (both Jews and Gentiles) who are believers are counted as true seeds of Abraham, or true Israel.
So when later, in Romans 11, Paul speaks about ALL Israel, he's not talking about Jews only because he's already said that not all Israel of the flesh are true Israel, it's the believers that are counted as the true seed. Both Jews and Gentiles:
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
This is what Paul is saying in Romans 11, the unbelieving Jews are the part that are hardened, these are the very ones Paul is speaking about in Romans 9:6. The vessels prepared for destruction. (Rom 9:22, Gal 4:30)
The believing Gentiles are those who are coming into Israel, becoming fellow citizens of Israel (Eph 2:12-22).
So there are 3 catagories:
Jews (unbelievers)
Gentiles (unbelievers)
Church of God (believers, true Israel consisting of Jews and Gentiles)
Have a great Sunday!
In response to your last comment to me, you again quoted Romans 11 and made the statement about confusing the church and Israel.
First,
Romans 9 says not all Israel are of Israel:
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 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.
So not all who are Israel of the flesh are true Israel according to Paul.
Who who is "All Israel".
Romans 9:8 the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
This is exactly what Paul says here:
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
So in summary, Paul says that not all the physical descendants of Abraham are true Israel. Only those who are children of promise are counted as true Israel.
Paul also clearly states that Gentiles are partakers in this as well.
So all (both Jews and Gentiles) who are believers are counted as true seeds of Abraham, or true Israel.
So when later, in Romans 11, Paul speaks about ALL Israel, he's not talking about Jews only because he's already said that not all Israel of the flesh are true Israel, it's the believers that are counted as the true seed. Both Jews and Gentiles:
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
This is what Paul is saying in Romans 11, the unbelieving Jews are the part that are hardened, these are the very ones Paul is speaking about in Romans 9:6. The vessels prepared for destruction. (Rom 9:22, Gal 4:30)
The believing Gentiles are those who are coming into Israel, becoming fellow citizens of Israel (Eph 2:12-22).
So there are 3 catagories:
Jews (unbelievers)
Gentiles (unbelievers)
Church of God (believers, true Israel consisting of Jews and Gentiles)
Have a great Sunday!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hi
Sean I missed ya...where were you...???
Yes Sean Israel can get saved at this time...and some do and thats what your referring to here...but nothing you have quoted and requoted says that God has ceased His promises to unbelieving Israel...in fact both the New and Old Testament only confirm God hasnt abandonerd Israel and has a plan for them distinct from the Church in the last days...and that after the times of the gentiles are fulfilled God will remove the same blindness he imposed on them and many in the last days will get saved...Find me one Scripture where it says that God has cast His people Israel away or one place where He has failed to keep His promises to them...and the bottom line is you cant because they dont exist..
Paul is emphatic in this case in Romans 11 and Sean you are ignorant of this mystery...apparently..so hes speaking to you.
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The whole context of Romans 11 is about the relationship between Israel and the Church...the hardening in part has to be in relation to the Gospel becasue the very next line is crystal claer about its meaning..."UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES COMES IN"..which can only mean that until the last gentile beleiver has come into the Church...the key words you need to consider Sean in until the fulness of gentiles...then its counterpart will be removed...the hardening will be removed...
In answer to your last posts yes there is in a sense a true Israel...the ones who recieved thier Messiah and His message at that time and even to this day do...but nowhere does that imply nor conflict with what Paul is saying later on in Romans 11 that eventually in the last days God will remove the hardness and even more will respond after the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled. It only confirms my original point that preterists are guilty of replacement theology and confusing Israel and the Church...but as if thats not enough strange interpretation of eschatology they go on to say things like Jesus returned secretly in 70 A.D. and that we are in the millenium now...while all the time over looking Matthew 24:21 where they say that Jerusalem falling in 70 A.D. was somehow the worst tribulation ever to occur on the earth...over looking things like Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the millions of Jews killed under Hitler...Its just amazing to me now you can pass this off as Biblical eschatology...
"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. " Sean do you really beleive that 70 A.D. was the worst event to hit the Earth?
Crusader...
Yes Sean Israel can get saved at this time...and some do and thats what your referring to here...but nothing you have quoted and requoted says that God has ceased His promises to unbelieving Israel...in fact both the New and Old Testament only confirm God hasnt abandonerd Israel and has a plan for them distinct from the Church in the last days...and that after the times of the gentiles are fulfilled God will remove the same blindness he imposed on them and many in the last days will get saved...Find me one Scripture where it says that God has cast His people Israel away or one place where He has failed to keep His promises to them...and the bottom line is you cant because they dont exist..
Paul is emphatic in this case in Romans 11 and Sean you are ignorant of this mystery...apparently..so hes speaking to you.
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The whole context of Romans 11 is about the relationship between Israel and the Church...the hardening in part has to be in relation to the Gospel becasue the very next line is crystal claer about its meaning..."UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES COMES IN"..which can only mean that until the last gentile beleiver has come into the Church...the key words you need to consider Sean in until the fulness of gentiles...then its counterpart will be removed...the hardening will be removed...
In answer to your last posts yes there is in a sense a true Israel...the ones who recieved thier Messiah and His message at that time and even to this day do...but nowhere does that imply nor conflict with what Paul is saying later on in Romans 11 that eventually in the last days God will remove the hardness and even more will respond after the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled. It only confirms my original point that preterists are guilty of replacement theology and confusing Israel and the Church...but as if thats not enough strange interpretation of eschatology they go on to say things like Jesus returned secretly in 70 A.D. and that we are in the millenium now...while all the time over looking Matthew 24:21 where they say that Jerusalem falling in 70 A.D. was somehow the worst tribulation ever to occur on the earth...over looking things like Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the millions of Jews killed under Hitler...Its just amazing to me now you can pass this off as Biblical eschatology...
"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. " Sean do you really beleive that 70 A.D. was the worst event to hit the Earth?
Crusader...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Crusader,
"Have an awesome Sunday J.D."
Thanks! I did. I went bowling as unto the Lord.
"Im going to worship the living God..."
Me too, tonight with a close group of friends.
"grow in His grace and just have a day filled with Him...Hope you have the same..."
Check.
"I enjoy these discussions"
Why?
"and I am still reading about preterists...and learning just how different what they believe really is...the Church is Israel,Revelation has already taken place( or most of it),we have been in the Millenium all this time since A.D 70...I mean its facinateing to me.."
Neat to see how true God's word is, I know. Jesus was spot-on in His prophecies.
"I just learned about this about a year ago..."
That's okay, so did Anne Rice. She became a Christian because she studied the Olivet Discourse, read history books, and discovered that what He said came true. She's writing Christian books now. Isn't that cool?
"yet I met the Lord in 1974..."
Thirty-two years of wrong predictions by the prophecy pundits hasn't blunted your zeal. Keep bein' a Berean.
"I never would have beleived Steve Greg bought into it though..."
I never would have believed I would buy into it. Until I studied it.
"I had wonderd what his link with Hannegraf was..they are both preterists come to find out.."
You make it sound like we're in hiding or something.
"but it really doesnt matter in one sense because every sngle day Bible prophecy is being fulfilled before everyones eyes..."
Can you point to the prochecies that have come true every day during the past week? Cliches, cliches.
"Israel becomes a nation in 48..."
And how long is a Biblical generation? Lindsey keeps pushing the mark further out. Gotta watch 'em Crusader. Be a Berean.
"I cant wait till they start to rebuild thier temple.."
Why? So they can blaspheme God with their sacrifices? Or because you believe this will lead to their eventual slaughter by Nicolae? Stinkin' thinkin', Crusader.
"and you know that they are getting ready even now...its all to exciting..."
Yep. Ready to worship God in vain, apart from Christ. I'm giddy. Are you this excited about worship in Buddhist temples and Islamic mosques?
"and really thats why everyone was buzzing over the Left Behind series..."
And video game. And study guides. And sport drinks. And...
Who knew the end of the world could make a man rich?
"because they can see it all falling into place..."
And fall apart again, only to be put back together by tomorrow's predictions.
"it really is way to cool ...."
What "it" are you referring to? The return of Christ? Absolutely. His next move is to set His feet on the earth, Crusader. Of course, this event is always seven years away in your view.
Having fun,
JD
"Have an awesome Sunday J.D."
Thanks! I did. I went bowling as unto the Lord.
"Im going to worship the living God..."
Me too, tonight with a close group of friends.
"grow in His grace and just have a day filled with Him...Hope you have the same..."
Check.
"I enjoy these discussions"
Why?
"and I am still reading about preterists...and learning just how different what they believe really is...the Church is Israel,Revelation has already taken place( or most of it),we have been in the Millenium all this time since A.D 70...I mean its facinateing to me.."
Neat to see how true God's word is, I know. Jesus was spot-on in His prophecies.
"I just learned about this about a year ago..."
That's okay, so did Anne Rice. She became a Christian because she studied the Olivet Discourse, read history books, and discovered that what He said came true. She's writing Christian books now. Isn't that cool?
"yet I met the Lord in 1974..."
Thirty-two years of wrong predictions by the prophecy pundits hasn't blunted your zeal. Keep bein' a Berean.
"I never would have beleived Steve Greg bought into it though..."
I never would have believed I would buy into it. Until I studied it.
"I had wonderd what his link with Hannegraf was..they are both preterists come to find out.."
You make it sound like we're in hiding or something.
"but it really doesnt matter in one sense because every sngle day Bible prophecy is being fulfilled before everyones eyes..."
Can you point to the prochecies that have come true every day during the past week? Cliches, cliches.
"Israel becomes a nation in 48..."
And how long is a Biblical generation? Lindsey keeps pushing the mark further out. Gotta watch 'em Crusader. Be a Berean.
"I cant wait till they start to rebuild thier temple.."
Why? So they can blaspheme God with their sacrifices? Or because you believe this will lead to their eventual slaughter by Nicolae? Stinkin' thinkin', Crusader.
"and you know that they are getting ready even now...its all to exciting..."
Yep. Ready to worship God in vain, apart from Christ. I'm giddy. Are you this excited about worship in Buddhist temples and Islamic mosques?
"and really thats why everyone was buzzing over the Left Behind series..."
And video game. And study guides. And sport drinks. And...
Who knew the end of the world could make a man rich?
"because they can see it all falling into place..."
And fall apart again, only to be put back together by tomorrow's predictions.
"it really is way to cool ...."
What "it" are you referring to? The return of Christ? Absolutely. His next move is to set His feet on the earth, Crusader. Of course, this event is always seven years away in your view.
Having fun,
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Crusader,
I have some questions related to your last post to Sean. You wrote:
"nothing you have quoted and requoted says that God has ceased His promises to unbelieving Israel"
I am very curious what makes you think God has made promises to unbelievers. Where are these promises found, and why would you say they are made to unbelievers? Sean just quoted from Romans nine, where Paul said that the promised seed is not the children of the flesh (Israel by natural birth) but the children of the promise (whom Paul refers to as us Christians in Galatians 4:28). Why must you dispute with the apostle by claiming there are still promises that apply to the children of the flesh?
You wrote:
"in fact both the New and Old Testament only confirm God hasnt abandonerd Israel and has a plan for them distinct from the Church in the last days"
Again, can you identify a passage in the Old or New Testament that says that God has a plan for Israel's salvation outside the church? Is what you are calling the church anything else but the body of Christ Himself? How can anyone come to faith in Christ without becoming a part of His body? And why would anyone be so anti-semitic as to wish to exclude believing Jews from the body of Christ? Must they be forever marginalized and kept in the ghetto, as your view apparently suggests?
You wrote:
"Find me one Scripture where it says that God has cast His people Israel away or one place where He has failed to keep His promises to them...and the bottom line is you cant because they dont exist."
It is unfair to request a scripture that uses the arbitrary wording of your own choosing. There are many scriptures that say that unbelieving Jews no longer are identified with God's kingdom (compare Ex.19:5-6 with Matt.21:43); that they have been cut off of the olive tree that represents Israel (comp. Jer.11:16 with Rom.11:17-20); that ethnic Israelites who reject Christ are "destroyed from among the people" (compare Deut.18:18-19 with Acts 3:22-23); that apostate Israelites are not God's people (Hosea 1:9), and that they have no right to appeal to God's covenant (Ps.50:16-17/ Gal.4:28-31). It is hard to look anywhere in the Old or New Testament without finding this message. I guess I'd wonder whether there is any scripture that you think teaches that God has not rejected apostate Israel.
As far as God failing to fulfill His promises, it is your view that teaches that the promises to Israel have not come true. Amillennialists believe that God has fulfilled every promise (and every threat) to Israel that He ever made. This has been explained to you many times in the above posts. Are you listening, or only assuming you know something and then criticizing?
You wrote:
"Sean you are ignorant of this mystery"
I seriously doubt that Sean is ignorant of the mystery. It is a major theme in Paul's writings, with which Sean seems quite conversant. Paul's "mystery" concerning Israel is that "the Gentiles should be fellow heirs [with elect Israel], of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ..." (Eph.3:6). Everything you are saying on this topic makes it seem as though you are the one ignorant of the mystery.
You wrote:
"The whole context of Romans 11 is about the relationship between Israel and the Church."
This statement is true, but answers none of the questions under discussion. The question must be answered: "What IS the relationship between Israel and the church?" The answer Paul gives in Romans 11 is no different from the one he gives everywhere else.
You wrote:
"It only confirms my original point that preterists are guilty of replacement theology and confusing Israel and the Church"
You use the term "replacement theology" as if it is self-condemned by its very name. Sean, JD, and others have explained what the New Testament teaches on this subject. If you wish to call it "replacement theology," I have no objection to your doing so, but, in order to make this label a pejorative, you ought to show scripturally why this is not a biblical doctrine.
You wrote:
"they go on to say things like Jesus returned secretly in 70 A.D. and that we are in the millenium now"
Has anyone at this forum said that Jesus secretly returned in AD 70? I don't know of anyone here who says this, and I think I have told you so previously. Are you interested in interacting with the actual beliefs of those with whom you debate, or must you resort to straw men that you find easier to ridicule? By the way, the belief that the millennium is the same as the church age is not a belief distinctive of preterists (as I have also told you previously)—nor is it a view held by everyone at this forum. It is, however, the view held by all Western Bible scholars and theologians of the church for three-quarters of church history. Only if you are a superior Bible scholar to all of the church's theologians have you any place to ridicule (without seeking to understand) what all Western Christians believed for 15 centuries. If their belief is incorrect, then it deserves a rebuttal. This is not the approach you take, however. You resort to a cavalier dismissal, as if no intelligent person could believe such silly things.
"while all the time over looking Matthew 24:21 where they say that Jerusalem falling in 70 A.D. was somehow the worst tribulation ever to occur on the earth"
You will not find us criticizing your doctrine without understanding what your doctrine teaches. This is the primary difference between you and your correspondents here. If you had taken any pains to understand the beliefs you are criticizing, you would know that Matthew 24:21 uses a common biblical hyperbole. This has been documented in other places at this forum. It is not necessary to say that AD 70 was the worst disaster in history in order to identify it with Jesus' prediction in Matthew 24:21.
"Its just amazing to me now you can pass this off as Biblical eschatology."
I think you would be less amazed if you made some effort to hear what those whom you disdain actually are saying and would consider the context of the scriptures being discussed. I am afraid, on those conditions, it is predictable that your wonder will never cease.
I have some questions related to your last post to Sean. You wrote:
"nothing you have quoted and requoted says that God has ceased His promises to unbelieving Israel"
I am very curious what makes you think God has made promises to unbelievers. Where are these promises found, and why would you say they are made to unbelievers? Sean just quoted from Romans nine, where Paul said that the promised seed is not the children of the flesh (Israel by natural birth) but the children of the promise (whom Paul refers to as us Christians in Galatians 4:28). Why must you dispute with the apostle by claiming there are still promises that apply to the children of the flesh?
You wrote:
"in fact both the New and Old Testament only confirm God hasnt abandonerd Israel and has a plan for them distinct from the Church in the last days"
Again, can you identify a passage in the Old or New Testament that says that God has a plan for Israel's salvation outside the church? Is what you are calling the church anything else but the body of Christ Himself? How can anyone come to faith in Christ without becoming a part of His body? And why would anyone be so anti-semitic as to wish to exclude believing Jews from the body of Christ? Must they be forever marginalized and kept in the ghetto, as your view apparently suggests?
You wrote:
"Find me one Scripture where it says that God has cast His people Israel away or one place where He has failed to keep His promises to them...and the bottom line is you cant because they dont exist."
It is unfair to request a scripture that uses the arbitrary wording of your own choosing. There are many scriptures that say that unbelieving Jews no longer are identified with God's kingdom (compare Ex.19:5-6 with Matt.21:43); that they have been cut off of the olive tree that represents Israel (comp. Jer.11:16 with Rom.11:17-20); that ethnic Israelites who reject Christ are "destroyed from among the people" (compare Deut.18:18-19 with Acts 3:22-23); that apostate Israelites are not God's people (Hosea 1:9), and that they have no right to appeal to God's covenant (Ps.50:16-17/ Gal.4:28-31). It is hard to look anywhere in the Old or New Testament without finding this message. I guess I'd wonder whether there is any scripture that you think teaches that God has not rejected apostate Israel.
As far as God failing to fulfill His promises, it is your view that teaches that the promises to Israel have not come true. Amillennialists believe that God has fulfilled every promise (and every threat) to Israel that He ever made. This has been explained to you many times in the above posts. Are you listening, or only assuming you know something and then criticizing?
You wrote:
"Sean you are ignorant of this mystery"
I seriously doubt that Sean is ignorant of the mystery. It is a major theme in Paul's writings, with which Sean seems quite conversant. Paul's "mystery" concerning Israel is that "the Gentiles should be fellow heirs [with elect Israel], of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ..." (Eph.3:6). Everything you are saying on this topic makes it seem as though you are the one ignorant of the mystery.
You wrote:
"The whole context of Romans 11 is about the relationship between Israel and the Church."
This statement is true, but answers none of the questions under discussion. The question must be answered: "What IS the relationship between Israel and the church?" The answer Paul gives in Romans 11 is no different from the one he gives everywhere else.
You wrote:
"It only confirms my original point that preterists are guilty of replacement theology and confusing Israel and the Church"
You use the term "replacement theology" as if it is self-condemned by its very name. Sean, JD, and others have explained what the New Testament teaches on this subject. If you wish to call it "replacement theology," I have no objection to your doing so, but, in order to make this label a pejorative, you ought to show scripturally why this is not a biblical doctrine.
You wrote:
"they go on to say things like Jesus returned secretly in 70 A.D. and that we are in the millenium now"
Has anyone at this forum said that Jesus secretly returned in AD 70? I don't know of anyone here who says this, and I think I have told you so previously. Are you interested in interacting with the actual beliefs of those with whom you debate, or must you resort to straw men that you find easier to ridicule? By the way, the belief that the millennium is the same as the church age is not a belief distinctive of preterists (as I have also told you previously)—nor is it a view held by everyone at this forum. It is, however, the view held by all Western Bible scholars and theologians of the church for three-quarters of church history. Only if you are a superior Bible scholar to all of the church's theologians have you any place to ridicule (without seeking to understand) what all Western Christians believed for 15 centuries. If their belief is incorrect, then it deserves a rebuttal. This is not the approach you take, however. You resort to a cavalier dismissal, as if no intelligent person could believe such silly things.
"while all the time over looking Matthew 24:21 where they say that Jerusalem falling in 70 A.D. was somehow the worst tribulation ever to occur on the earth"
You will not find us criticizing your doctrine without understanding what your doctrine teaches. This is the primary difference between you and your correspondents here. If you had taken any pains to understand the beliefs you are criticizing, you would know that Matthew 24:21 uses a common biblical hyperbole. This has been documented in other places at this forum. It is not necessary to say that AD 70 was the worst disaster in history in order to identify it with Jesus' prediction in Matthew 24:21.
"Its just amazing to me now you can pass this off as Biblical eschatology."
I think you would be less amazed if you made some effort to hear what those whom you disdain actually are saying and would consider the context of the scriptures being discussed. I am afraid, on those conditions, it is predictable that your wonder will never cease.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Re: Hi
Again, that's not what Paul says. Not all Israel is of Israel. Only the believers, the elect, are true Israel.Crusader wrote:but nothing you have quoted and requoted says that God has ceased His promises to unbelieving Israel...
The only covenant that takes away sins is the one Jesus made and cofirmed with His own blood. If an unbelieving Jew turns and is saved, how is this done? It's by coming to Christ. Once you have done that, your are part of His body, the Church. You keep trying to keep Israel seperate from the Church. By doing this you are in effect keeping them from their only way of salvation. Thier sins are only taken away in Christ. And by coming to Christ, they become part of the Church body.Crusader wrote: Romans 11
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
Let's look at Romans 11:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part (so the unbelieving part are hardened, as explained in Romans 9-11)
until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
(What do the Gentiles come in to? They are coming into Israel, Just as Paul says in Eph 2-3 and earlier in Romans 11 being grafted in. It says UNTIL. What does that mean? It means that all unbelievers will be hardened indefinately, since you have to repent and believe to be saved. If I say, Jesus was sinless until the resurrection, that does not mean He became a sinner after the resurrection. When Jesus says I will be with you until the end of the age, it doesn't mean that He's going to leave us at the end of the age. So when it says UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles, it does not mean that the hardness will end, because Paul never says it will end unless they repent, and this can happen, as you know BEFORE the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. So Paul isn't talking about that. If so, he wouldn't have tried to persuade some of them in this age (Rom 11:14). Unbelievers stay hardened unless they repent.)
And so all Israel will be saved,
(So when Paul finishes the sentence, not by saying the hardness will be removed, but by saying "and so [in this way] all Israel will be saved. So how is ALL Israel saved? By combining believing Jews and believing Gentiles together into one new man, the body of Christ, the Church, the only way to the Father) Rom 11:17, Gal 3-4, Eph 2-3
If you however, want to press Israel here to mean Jews only, the most you can get out of this is that all believing Jews that used to be unbelievers will be saved. But you still have the problem of thinking that the "Fullness of the Gentiles" is the Church. You are reading it as if it said "Fullness of the Church has come in". But there is no such thing, there are both Jew and Gentile in Christ. So you've still got the problem with how Jews can, in the end times, turn to Christ to be saved, but yet not be part of His Jewish-Gentile body known as the Church body.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)