Jews vs Christians

Again, read the context. You guys seem to have a real aversion to studying the text itself.

When were the apostles or Christ ever exiled to the land of the east or the west?

When were the apostles or Christ ever a curse among the nations that they would now be a blessing?

When did God ever purpose to do harm to the apostles or Christ because they provoked Him to wrath?

These are the Jews who are being reference in v. 23. The point of "a Jew" is to highlight the numerical disparity: 1:10. There won't be many Jews, but they will be highly respected and sought after because God is evidently with them. That didn't happen to Christ or the apostles, both of whom were widely rejected and eventually killed. That is not what Zech 8:23 has in mind.

Again, I beg you guys (and Amy ) ... Look at the text. Dump your pat explanations and get back to the Bible.

 

You apparently haven't taken time to learn what 'olam means. Why not? Why do you pontificate on this stuff when you don't even know what the words used mean? Get out your BDB or HALOT and look it up. It makes perfect sense.

But that doesn't answer the question I asked you. You say that it was fulfilled in the OT. Yet that doesn't meet the qualifications of the promise. So how do you answer it?

 

Where did you get this definition? I can't find it.


How do you explain EZ 37:24?

24And 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.


How can David co-reign with Christ if there is only one shepherd?

Christ is the only shepherd.

 

Good questions, Amy.

Any Hebrew lexicon will give it, such as Brown Driver and Briggs, Kohler Baumgartner, Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Strong's probably gives it too. Just do a concordance search on the Hebrew word and see how it is translated. You will it there too.

The same way that we co-reign with Christ, or the apostles. The pattern of undershepherds is well established in Scripture, both in Israel and in the church.

 

Sorry Pastor Larry but I just don't see it. Maybe I will later after more study.

Right now I have to go eat pizza! I didn't have to cook tonight!

 

Can you show a verse where the Church and Israel are shown to be two distinct bodies? According to scripture, Gentiles are grafted into ISRAEL: not just "members of the Church".

The FACT is that the term "body of Christ", is synonymous with Israel.

Not only have I studied it, I have had formal classes on every book of the Old Testament: why must you belittle others who refuse to hold to your racist theology?

The fact is, you are WRONG. When someone was circumcised, they became as a "native of the land"; a true Israelite. It was only the "Gentiles" which was the same as "sojourners" who had restrictions. The Pharisees and scribes ADDED this racist stuff; it is not found in the Tanakh.

Don't you even read the text? Specifically it is the promise of a specific piece of land which was fulfilled. There was more than one promise in the Bible.

Not at all. Because ANYONE could receive circumcision and become "a native of the land" (i.e. a full Israelite).

Not to someone brainwashed by dispensationalism, I guess.

You are separating things, and completely misunderstanding the verses. The Bible isn't saying that He treats "two groups equally regarding salvation". It says there isn't even a DISTINCTION between Jew and Gentile! If there is no way of distinguishing between a Jew and Gentile, how can they be held to two different promises?

BTW, where does it talk about two separate promises in the New Testament again?

The promise made to Abraham is ours, according to Paul. Remember what Jesus said :

Mat 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Do you doubt the words of Christ?

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would one ACTUALLY DESCENDED from Abraham, need to be "COUNTED AS OFFSPRING"? :laugh: Your really reaching with that one.

Is English your second language? Perhaps you would do well buying a Bible that is in your home language. Your interpretation is in direct opposition to what the text actually says.

As I have shown, that idea is foreign to the text. The point of Romans 9 is that Israel is and has always been according to the individual election of God, and not according to any physical descent. the text SPECIFICALLY says that it election to Israel is not "according to the flesh", but all the children of the promise are "counted" (not actually, in each case) as offspring.

Perhaps I could suggest some books on hermeneutics?

:BangHead:

 

Might I ask, do you need lessons on the Trinity as well? Perhaps you haven't noticed the other "contradictory" verses such as this one...


Mat 22:42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David."
Mat 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'?

And Pastor Larry says "But Jesus, this can't be talking about you: there are TWO Lords mentioned here.."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

All of them. But look at a few like Gal 6:16: Galatians 6:16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Or 1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; or Romans 11:25-29 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Can you show any place where these two terms are used synonymously?

Do not call me a racist. There is nothing racist about me. I resent that and take it very seriously. Do not ever do it again.

If you have had formal classes in the OT, then you should know better.

Yes, I read the text. The fact is that the specific piece of land is promised to Israel long after the conquest and Solomon.

In some respects there isn’t. In other respects there is.

The OT is inspired as well. The promises to Israel as a nation are made clear in Acts 3, Gal 3, other places as well. The OT is full of them.

No, not at all.

Because they do not believe. That’s what the text says.

No, English is my first language. I have always done well in it. For instance, when I was in third grade, I read at a 12th grade level. I worked for a while as a copy editor/proof reader while in seminary. So you probably don't want to attack my English skills. For the Bible, I usually study out of Hebrew and Greek though. I can address those too if you would like.

How so? Your saying so doesn’t make it so. If you think I am in error, do more than make assertions. Use the text and show it.

Yes, read the text. The children of the promise are the Israelites who believe. Again, this is so patently obvious from the text I can’t imagine anyone missing it.

Given what I have seen here, I would put them on the list to avoid. You have an abominable hermeneutic.

That’s nonsense. But look at the bright side: You didn’t have to address the text.

 

I just want to point out your mistake here...

The church is called a nation...

1 Peter 2:9
(9) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

 

So does that mean we all take turns sitting on the throne?

By the way, admit it - you've been snagged on that "forever" business. You admit that sometimes "forever" really means age-lasting and other time it means all-ages-lasting-without-end. Depends on a proper hermeneutic AND exegesis, doesn't it?

 

That's not a mistake. It is a reference to the passages such as 1 Peter 2:10 (not a people but now are a people) and Romans 10:19 (But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, "I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU" ). So before accusing me of making an error, you might want to run a simple concordance search.

The passage you cite is Peter using OT terminology. The church is made up of people from every nation since there is no more Jew or Greek, Barbarian or Scythian, slave or free.

 

No.

How was I snagged? I am the one who pointed it out. If you look back at past discussions, you will see I have been making that point for years here.

The others here were the ones who seem to have missed it. Several seem to have never even heard of it before, which seems strange to me, given the authority with which some are offering their views. It seems to me that if you are going to be dogmatic on something you should at least be familiar with the terminology used and what it means. But I admit to being picky about that kind of stuff. To me it makes no sense to be dogmatic on something when you don't even know what the points of discussion are.

 

Right - in pointing out to Amy that forever doesn't necessarily mean forever, you open your own dispensational understanding (of Israel's claim to the land as an ever-lasting possession) to the same critique.

 

Not if you know what "throne of David" means. It's not talking about a chair, but about a ruling authority. Kings are "on their throne" even when they are in bed.

As I pointed out, it is the word 'olam in Hebrew. I have already defined it. You can look it up yourself. I am interested as to where you got the definition you posted above.

Both.

Where as in where in the Bible or where on earth? Not sure what your question is.

If you read Revelation, you will see that the New Jerusalem is in the new heavens and new earth, which is after the millennial kingdom.

Have you still not read Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom? You seriously need to get the book and read it. Many of the questions you are asking here are so elementary, and they are answered well in his book (though I disagree with him on some things). His is one of the best books available on the topic. Very comprehensive. Whether you agree with him or not, no one should be entering serious discussions on the kingdom until they have read his book.

 

I guess I am not following you here. I never knew it was closed to that critique. In fact, I think it is a central point. It is how you can have an "everlasting" possession in a passing world. Perhaps you can help me understand what your point is.

 

That's nonsense and you know it.

Again, pure nonsense. You know better. Why not just discuss the Scriptures? I have thrown out a lot of them, and you haven't discussed them. The ones you did discuss, I gave a response, and you have not responded. It seems to me like you don't have any answers and so you simply bail out and make it personal. When I have asked you questions about how you interpret certain Scriptures or pointed out problems in your interpretation, you do not answer.

Let me ask you this: Is it possible that someone knows more about Scripture than you do? I am positive there are people who know more than I do, but you don't seem to admit that possibility.

 

Larry,

You recently debate about 'everlasting', you say that it don't always mean forever.

Same with Joey Faust as what he mentioned 'forever' discussed about darkness punishment during millennial kingdom as he used Matt. 25:41 - 'everlasting fire', he saying of this verse is not always mean eternal punishment, it have different meaning as he say of this verse means that a lazy servant will suffering in fire for a temporary 1000 years. His interpreting is no sense and dangerous.

I am not well knowledge in Greek words. Just simple understand and accept as what God's Word in English saying so. Accept it.

How about in Ephesians 3:21 says: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." ?

This verse tells us that Church was there since in the O.T. period, as Christ have been glory within them, not only during in the O.T. period, also, Christ still glory within Church during N.T. period. But, He is always, and always glory in the Church now and future forever and ever.

In common sense that means God's covenant with people and Abraham is an everlasting covenant same as be glory in them.

In Dan. 7:27 clearly telling us that his kingdom is an everlasting, it never say that, it is temporary.

In Gen. 17:4-7 God told Abraham that his covenant is an everlasting, and Abraham shall be the father of many nations, he is not just father of the Jews only, also, he is the father of all nations -Gentiles, well also include Jews too. It is the picture of salvation in Jesus Christ. This passage doesn't saying anything on millennial kingdom. God never say 'one thousand years' to Abraham. I am pretty sure that Abraham and O.T. saints all were never hear of premill doctrine. Because it was not teaching in their time. Neither 12 disciples and Paul hear of it either. Christ never say anything about one thousand years to them in the four gospels.

Nowhere in Bible say that God's covenant is temporary as supposed relate with one thousand year of Jews kingdom on earth.

Remmeber that God's promise never, never fail us. Because God is holy and He knows everything. Impossible for God to make one small mistake of fail. Because God is God. God already settled with Abraham for us by through Jesus Christ- 3,500 years ago. His covenant is all about salvation, not political or physical Jewish nation. Salvation is all about eternal life.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!