Palestine? Palestinians? A 20th Century Creation

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
meshak said:
Fair enough but it is not spiritual matter, friend. It is political. You should post this kind of thing in politic section.


BTW, I already told you my spiritual insight about the subject. Jesus does not judge by our blood. Jesus said clearly that if you are Abraham's descendant, you will follow Me. This is not verbatim but point is there.

If you don't know what I am talking about I will bring the verse for you.
Click to expand...

That is a matter of opinion. There is much Prophecy concerning literal Israel that ties to literal locations and sites of biblical reference that is shaping up exactly as written.
 
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
balut55 said:
Why is God sending the 144,000 first fruits back?

t of an Old Testament prophecy:[2] "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more.'"[3] The number of infants killed is not stated. The Holy Innocents, although Jewish, have been claimed as martyrs for Christianity

Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded, declares the LORD. They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future, declares the LORD. Your children will return to their own land." (Jeremiah 31:17)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

Is this a question about the verbiage of Revelations?
 
B

balut55

New member
Evil.Eye. said:
Now you're throwing scriptural hammers against much mainstream doctrines of men!

#Awesome!
Click to expand...

Ty brother. I come from a Lutheran background. My Lutheran mother persecutes me. I don't want to be a hater of Jews. I have learned enough about German hate from personal experience and studying Martin Luther. God bless.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Ask Mr. Religion said:
No. Election unto salvation as relates to soteriology is not a national undertaking, but an individual one. To say the nation of Israel was once elect in the soteriological sense, would mean each and every person therein was saved, yet somehow, those saved by God, then lost that which God clearly teaches cannot be lost. This is contrary to any sense of the Reformed's perseverance of the saints, or even the non-Reformed's once saved, always saved.

The chief purpose of God in history is to glorify Himself through the redemption of a people in all times, places and out of all races, which by His grace He has variously administered since the fall, in history in a visible, institutional church, under Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and now Our Lord Jesus Christ. The premise of the Zionist that God’s intent has been to establish a permanent or millennial, national, Jewish people has it exactly backward, for they confuse what is temporary with what is permanent, and what is permanent with what is temporary.

Scripture teaches us that Jesus is the true Israel of God, that Our Lord's incarnation, obedience, death and resurrection was not some by-product of Israel’s rejection of the offer of an earthly kingdom, but the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan from all eternity. Is this not Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-27? Did not Paul summarize this same teaching when he told the Corinthians that "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20)?

Unfortunately, not a few believers assume that every event which occurred in the history of redemption before the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ belongs to the Old Testament. Moreover, these same assume that since the incarnation, the Old Covenant Scriptures do not speak to or apply to Christians. Sadly, we can easily read in these forums the words of dispensationalists who consider that some books in the New Testament do not apply to Christians today, because these books were intended for those who are ethnically Jewish.

Yet, the same Scripture these folks look to refutes their claims. The Apostle Paul in 2 Cor 3.12-18 defines the “Old Covenant” as Moses, that is, broadly the books of Moses and most particularly the Mosaic laws (2 Cor. 3:14-15). In Hebrews 7:22, Our Lord is the guarantee of a better covenant than that which was given to the Israelites. In Hebrews 8:6-13, contrasting the New Covenant with the Old, we see the restriction of the Old Covenant to the Mosaic epoch of redemptive history. The author of Hebrews makes the same distinction in Hebrews 9:15-20, too.

Accordingly, strictly speaking, the Old Covenant describes the covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Therefore, not everything which occurred in the history of salvation before the incarnation, belongs to the Old Covenant. This is important, because the Old Covenant is described in the New Testament as “inferior” (Hebrews 8:7), “obsolete,” “aging” (Hebrews 8:13) and its glory “fading.”

Along these same lines, another important fact to note about the Old Covenant is that it was intentionally temporary and typical (types and shadows). Colossians 2:17 describes the Mosaic (Old Covenant) ceremonial laws as a “shadow” of things to come. Hebrews 8:5 describes the earthly Temple as a “type and shadow” of the heavenly temple. The Mosaic Law itself, was only a “shadow” of the fulfillment which came with Jesus Christ.

With the death, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord, the promise God made to Adam and repeated to Abraham remains, but the circumstances have changed. On this side of the cross we view things differently because we live in the days of fulfillment. In Scriptural terms, we live in the “last days” (2 Pet 3:3; James 5:3; Hebrews 1:2; Acts 2:17).

The Old Covenant's function was to direct attention upward to heavenly realities (Ex 25:9; Acts 7:44; Heb 8:5) and forward in history to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The old signs, Passover, circumcision, as well as the other bloody sacrifices and ceremonies have been replaced. Nevertheless we still live in covenantal arrangement with God, and the bloody pictures of Or Lord have been replaced with un-bloody signs (reminders) and seals.

Just as God made a covenant with Abraham, He promised a New Covenant to come later (Jer. 31:31). God made this New Covenant in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20). Our Lord consciously and specifically established “the New covenant.” Paul said he was “a servant of the New covenant” (2 Cor. 3.6).

Now some who deny there are but two covenants, Works and Grace, will ask, How can this be if there is but one Covenant of Grace? We covenantalists answer, that the New Covenant is new as contrasted with Moses, but not new as contrasted with Abraham. The Covenant of Grace remains, but the administration of the CoG has changed.

As to your question above, I answer...
Spoiler

Let's remember that there was an Israel before the Old Covenant. Israel was the name given to Jacob. The word first appears in Scripture as the conclusion to the story of Jacob’s wrestling match (Gen 32.21-30). So, in the history of salvation, all those who stem from the Patriarch Jacob are, in a broad sense, “Israel.” Two chapters later in Genesis the term “Israel” is used to describe the place and name of the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 34:7). At Paddan Aram, God again blessed him and named Jacob, “Israel” (Gen. 35:9-10) and repeated the Abrahamic promise to be a God to Abraham and to his children.

Having said this, it might seem to support the idea that, Israel means, “those physically descended from Jacob.”

But we must recall that that Jacob is not the beginning of the story. Before there was an Israel there was Abraham and his miracle son, Isaac (Romans 9). Before Abraham, Jesus says, “I AM” (John 8.58).

God promised to Abraham, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” Our Lord taught the Jews in John 8, that it was He who made the promise to Abraham (John 8:56). The first fulfillment of that promise did not come by “the will of man” but by the sovereign power of God when God allowed Sarah to conceive in her old age.

In the Exodus from Egypt, God constituted the children of Jacob collectively as His “son" (Ex. 4:23). This is a deliberate description of a national people. Clearly, the sons of Jacob are not God’s Son by nature, but, as it were, by adoption. In Deuteronomy 7:7, Moses denies that there was any quality inherent in Israel which made the sons of Jacob worthy of being called the people of God. Rather there are two reasons for God’s choosing of Israel: His undeserved love and His Covenant promise to Abraham.

Israel was not, however, God’s natural Son. That much was evident in the wilderness, in Canaan and finally in the ejection when God changed the name of his “son” Israel to “Lo Ammi, not my people” (Hos. 1:9-10).

God disinherited His adopted, temporary, national “son” Israel as a national people precisely because God never intended to have a permanent earthly, national people. After the captivity, the nation of Israel had largely fulfilled their role in the history of redemption. As a sign of this fact, the Glory-Spirit departed from the Temple. This is because the nation of Israel's chief function was to serve as a type and shadow of God’s natural Son, Jesus the Messiah (Heb. 10:1-4).

Covenantalists argue that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Israel of God. That everyone who is united to Him by grace alone, through faith alone becomes, by virtue of that union, the true Israel of God. It is wrong-headed to look for, expect, hope for or desire a reconstitution of national Israel in the future. The New Covenant church is not something which God instituted until He could recreate a national people in Palestine, but rather, God only had a national people temporarily (from Moses to Christ) as a prelude to and foreshadowing of the creation of the New Covenant in which the ethnic distinctions which existed under Moses were fulfilled and abolished (Ephesians 2:11-22; Col. 2:8-3,11).

Matthew’s inspired interpretation in Matthew 2:15 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Hosea 11:1) must norm our interpretation of Scripture. Per Matthew’s interpretation, it is Our Lord Jesus Christ, not the temporary, national, people who is the true Israel of God. It is not a stretch to say that the only reason God orchestrated the first Exodus was so that He might orchestrate the second Exodus so we might know that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God and that all Christians are God’s Israel regardless of ethnicity.

It is because Jesus Christ is the true Israel of God that, in His infancy and indeed in His entire life, He recapitulated the history of national Israel. What rebellious national Israel would not do, Our Lord did: He loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and His neighbor as himself (Matt 22:37-40). Similarly, Paul argues very clearly that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16).

It was the New Testmament gospel promises that were given to Abraham. These promises were given before Moses and they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Our Lord is Abraham’s true Son, He is “the seed” promised to Abraham. It was to teach national Israel and us the greatness of our sin and misery that the Law was given to Moses (Gal. 3:22). The gospel promise to Abraham was not fundamentally changed by the administration of the Law through Moses.


Here then comes your answer directly:

We may ask, Has God rejected His people? No, the elect are His people and all the elect will be saved. Yes, there are believing Jews. In fact, Paul uses himself as an example (Romans 11:1). Paul is a part of the elect remnant who have not bowed the knee to Baal (Romans 11:5). What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened.

There is no doubt that God is not finished saving Jews. That does not mean He is going to save all the Jews and establish a nation of elect Jews in the Middle East. Rather, salvation has come to the Gentiles “to make Israel envious” (Romans 11:11). Gentiles, by God’s undeserved favor, have been grafted on to the Israel of God. “Israel has experienced a hardening until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (11:25-6). All Israel, that is Christians (Gal. 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Hebrews 8:8-10). God has a plan for Jews, it is the same plan He promised to Adam and to Abraham. That seed is the one Jesus Christ. He is the Holy One of Israel, He is the Israel of God. He did what Adam would not do. He did what stiff-necked Israel would and could not do.

AMR
Click to expand...

This would weigh in heavily, but your assertion that Literal Israel was never elected is contrary to direct scripture cited to literal Israel. I will cite some of it in my more studied response.

The second point of disagreement that I have is that you have utilized some historical tense blurring by referencing everything to Christianity. This is refuted by Paul in Romans 11. I will be anchoring heavily to the "Mystery" reference and the direct acknowledgement that the Jews that are "enemies of the gospel" are in God's salvational plan.

You can't discount the grafting and removal aspect of the chapter, that is further asserted with a regrafting in of two bodies.

The tense of "after the full number of the Gentiles" asserts that the "enemies of the gospel Jews" are still part of God's salvational plan.

I will expound on this in my official response.

You addressed how you desire to be addressed, so I only ask one thing, that you refrain from poking fun at the fact that my responses aren't as prepared as yours. If you need me to clearify a matter, I ask that you refrain from personally attacking the way I express myself.

Our focus now, shouldn't be one another, but the possible intentions of provided scripture.

A more referenced response will come tomorrow.

One last, honest statement... if you feel pinned and start using humor or sarcasm in your rhetoric, I will follow suit.

Biblical and historical discussion is my main focus at the moment, as I draw up a response.
 
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
balut55 said:
Ty brother. I come from a Lutheran background. My Lutheran mother persecutes me. I don't want to be a hater of Jews. I have learned enough about German hate from personal experience and studying Martin Luther. God bless.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

I'm locked in serious with [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] at the moment, but I deeply appreciate you and understand being exposed to persecution of the religious type, from the mouth of the religious.

God bless you and I will be happy to have dialogue with you once I get this reply to AMR out.

#You are my brother in Christ. : )
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
meshak said:
Because it was mission given by His Father.

what else would you like to know?
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering...

So, let's see if I understand you here.

Musterion asked you
musterion said:
What did Christ mean when He said, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father"?
Click to expand...

in which you replied
meshak said:
What Jesus is saying is He is doing the will of His Father so it is the same as seeing His Father.
Click to expand...

So I had to ask why was Jesus crucified?

You see my friend, while I agree with you on your answer and am thankful you know this, it is only answered partially. And this is theological. Jesus was crucified because he in fact equated Himself as God which is total blasmephy to Jews even unto this day. So it really doesn't make alot of sense to just say Jesus was crucified because Jesus was doing His will. That isn't blasmephy in any way.
 
B

balut55

New member
"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
balut55 said:
"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

That is Pharisees' view, not Jesus'.
 
B

balut55

New member
a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
balut55 said:
a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

You see, this is what Jesus says that He is the Son of God. He does not say He is God.

This is for Drbrumley.
 
B

balut55

New member
Jesus put it in the New Testament but it has a Jewish idiom for a long time. Jesus isn't saying you won't know the date or time. He is giving you a clue that it happens around the feast of trumpets. That's why he used it. God gave them feast of trumpets and Jesus used the idiom in Luke.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top