Jews vs Christians

He is doing the same thing the first 400 years of Christianity did. Beileived in an earthly Kingdom to come. The disciples who learned from the Apostles taught this, their learners taught this and so on. It wasn't until MUCH later that this crept into the Churches doctrines.

 

The Historic Pre Millenialism taught by the early church is VERY different from the Dispensational version we see now.

 

And I also believe in an earthly Kingdom to come, but not the MK as you guys do. I believe it will come when the new heaven and new earth are created.
I don't buy the MK of the pre/mil view.

 

Exactly! Just because a person is born as a Jew does not make them a heir to the promise.. they must be born again...

The current nation of Israel will perish unless they turn to Jesus and recognize them as their true Messiah...

Jesus said he is the only way...

Christians are the true Israel, we did not replace them, but we are the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham. Only those that accept Christ as Savior are the Israel of the Bible... There is nothing special about someone born in the current nation of Israel.

To assign something special to today's Israelis is false doctrine... they will go to Hell without Christ.. .and some die daily.

To claim they have something special and God will save them in the end makes Christ a liar.. He said HE is the only way...

 

That isn't what Scripture teaches. You will find nowhere in Scripture where the church which is the body of Christ is equated with Israel. If you have a place, I will be glad to look at it. So far, I haven't seen one.

Jews and Gentiles and equal in the church, but not in Israel. If you read the OT, you will see that very clearly. Gentiles as proselytes were not given full rights in Israel.

So if that is true in Joshua, why is the promise repeated more than 1000 years later?

I think God told the truth. Which "good promises" were being referred to? If you read the Bible, it is the "good promises" about the conquest of the land.

Can you show that from the Scripture itself?

So was there racism with God when he chose Israel over all other nations? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense. When the Bible says there is no distinction, you have to give a reference so we can look at it. the Bible uses that terminology two ways that I can think of: 1) with respect to judgment ... both Jew and Gentile are sinner and God does not respect persons; 2) with respect to believers in the church. To my knowledge, God never makes that statement with respect to his promises to Israel.

Where did I claim differently? Again you are confusing things. Those of faith are Abraham's offspring in the gospel. But the promises were made to Abraham's genetic seed in Genesis 17, specifically not non-genetic seed.

My answer is just read the text careully. Paul's point there is about his "kinsmen according to the flesh." That is not you and I as Gentiles. It is Jews. This is so simple I can't imagine you even ask that. I suppose I should cease to be amazed but somehow I never am.

Again, let's just look at the text: It says, "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," It does not say, "For not all who "belong to Israel are descended from Israel." Or to put it this way, you are affirming something the text doesn't address. It says nothing about whether or not "Israel" has some from outside of genetic Israel in it. I think it doesn't, but the text doesn't say that. The text simply says that everyone in one group (descended from Israel) are in another group ("Israel"). It says nothing about who else might or might not be in the second group.



The point of Romans 9 is that one does not have salvation simply by being an ethnic Jew. It takes more, not less.

 

I was glad to see someone bring that up. We ARE hanging on to the garment of a Jew - his name is Jesus Christ.

 

Okay. Read the text and see who Jesus is talking to and then ask if it makes sense that Jesus is saying that the kingdom is inside of those who rejected him.

The new heavens and earth is not the kingdom in biblical terms. If someone says the kingdom is present now spiritually, I suppose that is okay in some sense, but when you read the OT descriptions of the kingdom, you see that it involves much more than something inside of you. Again, I think this is where ignorance of the OT causes great problems.

I don't think you see that in Scriptures. Again, just read the OT without a bias for any particular view. Having studied and taught the minor prophets, I am amazed that anyone can, with a straight face, say they are amillennial. It is impossible to get past the minor prophets with such a view without destroying the integrity of the text. And that is something I simply cannot do.

 

Again I ask, can you show that from the text?

If you read the passage, you will see that people are "going up to the Lord," not grabbing onto the Lord.

Come on folks, at least get involved in the text itself.

 

This verse sums it up

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Let's look at this...

"And if you are Christ's" Saved, redeemed, Justified, born again, regenerated... all terms that describe saved people, Jesus' church.... His called out people...

"then you are Abraham's offspring"
A descendent of Abraham... a term in the Bible to denote the Jewish People..

"heirs according to promise." the people who receive what was promised... Promised who? To Abraham...

Therefore the church (those who are Christ's) is Israel (Abraham's Offspring) and will receive (Heirs of the promise) what God promised Abraham.

The Bible can't be more plainer than that...

It is not about genetics anymore.. it is about faith.

 

Tiny,

You have to look at all of Scripture. The promise of Gal 3 is the promise of the gospel. It does not address the other promises except to say that they were not annulled. No one in the OT could have been "Christ's" in the NT sense since he had not died and risen again yet. When you think about it, that doesn't make a lot of sense. They are not saved apart from Christ to be sure, but let's not ignore what the Scripture says.

BTW, let me add and not to Tiny directly, that I think a lot of the confusion is that people have not studied the OT enough to know what to do with it if they don't apply it to the church. It is, in some ways, the easy way out. Rather than take the time to figure it out, they offer a few gloss over remarks and proof texts and never really are forced to get into it.

 

But do the following Scriptures show that?

Wow ... where to start. First, let's start with your last citation and let's not quote selectively. Let's start where you left off.

Nehemiah 9:27-31 "Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their oppressors who oppressed them, But when they cried to You in the time of their distress, You heard from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You gave them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their oppressors. 28 "But as soon as they had rest, they did evil again before You; Therefore You abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they ruled over them. When they cried again to You, You heard from heaven, And many times You rescued them according to Your compassion, 29 And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, By which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen. 30 "However, You bore with them for many years, And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear. Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands. 31 "Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or forsake them, For You are a gracious and compassionate God.

So clearly, Nehemiah is a historical recitation of God's providential work that closes with the premillennialists' point: You did not make an end of them or forsake them.

Second, let's compare your references to the promise: I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:8).

Your citation of Nehemiah once again proves that it does not support your point because God has given Israel into the hands of the people of the land (something strange is Israel is the church).

In those passages you cite, did the descendants of Abraham inhabit the promised land "forever"? If so, then how do you explain the exile in 586? How do you explain the current situation?

Remember, if you read the OT the promise of the land involves peaceful dwelling:

2 Samuel 7:10-11 I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, 11 even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies.

Is Israel currently dwelling in the land in peace?

This whole idea that Israel is the church is patently ludicrous. The church is a regenerate people. Israel was not. Israel constantly showed their unbelief. And they were punished for it. But it seems that not very many here are actually thinking about that. Again, it makes me wonder why we are not dealing with more Scripture.

I ask you as I did Jim, when do you think Zech 8:23 will be fulfilled? We already showed that it is not referring to Jesus. So when will it be fulfilled?

Exactly my point. This is what I have been trying to emphasize. Your position has the affect (unintentionally I am sure) of making God out to be a liar.

God said the descendants of Abraham would live in the promised land forever in peace. You say they won't. It seems to me that it is hard to escape the conclusion that one of you is not telling the truth. Given your citation of Hebrews 6:18, I have to say that God is telling the truth, and therefore Israel will be restored to the land in peace.

Seriously ... and I am not being patronizing in the least or making a personal attack ... But I seriously do not see how you avoid making God out to be a liar. I know you don't intend to. I do not doubt your sincerity. But how do you avoid it? The Bible says that God has not cast off Israel forever, yet you say he has and is now making the church Israel.

BTW, your position makes mincemeat out of Romans 11:25 where it says that a partial hardening has happened to Israel. You either have to say that the church has been partially hardened (since you claim that Israel is the church) or you have to make an arbitrary reassignment of meaning to say that "Israel" actually means "Israel," in which case you have undermined your whole point.

As I have said often, and you have demonstrated handily, you cannot win this discussion on the basis of Scripture. At every turn, Scripture disproves amillennialism. There is some support for historic premillennialism. But there is no Scripture support for amillennialism in the Scripture itself. It all comes from outside, and then Scripture has to be read in light of the conclusions.

 

I can't recall ever saying that Israel was the church. I have said that the church is the Israel of God; the kingdom of God. It is a whole new era; the era of Jesus, the Christ.

The prophecies of old are either fulfilled in the church or at worst will be fulfilled. Israel the nation is just that, a secular nation.

So long as one follows the Plymouth Brethren doctrines of dispensationalism they will never see beyond the unimaginable divisions of scriptures. By the way, Dallas Seminary is not even a Baptist school. It is a harbour of dispensationalism and I fear our Fellowship school is filled with Dallas graduates and we too will face this errant theology and church doctrines.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I had never considered that, but it's interesting. I have come to understood the passage from Zechariah to refer to the Apostles, that it is these Jewish believers whose skirts the Gentiles have latched onto and been led to the Lord, after all, who gave the world the Gospel? The Gentiles would know nothing of the Lord, or how to find Him, were it not for the testimony of these men.

But there is more: the Apostles were given authority over the church. Who delivered the Word of God through the Gospels and Epistles they wrote that the church lives by? Where did we get our doctrine that governs our lives? Jews. That's why the Apostles of Christ each are seated on thrones with Christ, ruling and reigning over the household of God through their testimony and teaching that they have left us.

"Ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."

I have been thinking that was a prophecy about the Apostles leading Gentiles to Christ. But I never noticed that it speaks of "a" Jew, so maybe it is a prophecy about Paul. After all, Paul is called "the Apostle to the Gentiles."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Say what??

That prophecy is about Christ. It doesn't refer to David literally.

In Ez. 37:24-27 it makes these statements:

They shall have one shepherd. (Christ, not David and Christ)

They shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children forever;

My servant David (Christ) shall be their prince forever. (Prince of peace/Jesus Christ)

I will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. (New Jerusalem)

The MK does not last forever, therefore this passage cannot speak of a 1000 year period.

 

And what is strange about that?

Again, let's look at the whole passage in context:

When was the church ever two nations that they could be restored into one? Hint: They weren't. They were "not a nation."

Some people believe that David will be a co-ruler with Christ. That's not all that unbelievable. The Bible says that Christians will rule with Christ as well, so I am not sure why a resurrected David would be problemmatic.

Now this is problematic. If you want to make this the New Jerusalem or new heaven and new earth, you will have to show when Israel lived there in the past.

What nations will exist in the new heavens and new earth to know that YHWH is the Lord who sanctifies Israel? This only makes sense in a millennial kingdom, particularly if you believe there are no more national distinctions in the body of Christ.

I think if you take a serious look at this passage, it is yet another that will show the fallacy of amillennialism. Again, you simply cannot win if you deal with the text.

And calling it "strange" doesn't really make an argument.

BTW, OR, I notice that again you won't deal with the Scripture and arguments that I put forth. Why?

 

On what textual and exegetical basis do you make this declaration?

The word translated "forever" is the Hebrew word 'olam which has a semantic range that includes not only "forever" but "a long period of time." It is used that way quite often actually. So this presents no problem since 1000 years is a "long time" by anyone's definition I would imagine.

That probably not something you would know unless you have taken time to study it a bit. Most pastors don't bother to point that out, particularly when it provides evidence against their position.