ECT We are not Israel, but the Body of Christ

[Right Divider]

Wait, are you pro Israel or not?

Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

I don't bite on BAITING questions.

 

[heir]

Paul said, "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:29)

This was not said of Gentiles such as we, but Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent/those found in the synagogue of the Jews (Acts 13:16 KJV, Acts 13:26 KJV, Acts 17:1-4 KJV, Acts 18:4 KJV).

We were never allied with Israel, but aliens and not in the promise, but strangers from it! Believe the Bible!

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV

 

[jamie]

We were never allied with Israel, but aliens and not in the promise, but strangers from it! Believe the Bible!

So what happened to the thirteen tribes of Israel?

 

[Danoh]

So what happened to the thirteen tribes of Israel?

Obviously, in your odd sense of reality, there were no Gentiles in the world before, along with; during; and after Abraham :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Wait, are you pro Israel or not?


Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

Consider answering your own question when asking it of another.

 

[jamie]

Obviously, in your odd sense of reality, there were no Gentiles in the world before, along with; during; and after Abraham :chuckle:

The Chaldeans were Gentiles. Abram was a Chaldean but then God told him that won't cut it.

 

[Danoh]

The Chaldeans were Gentiles. Abram was a Chaldean but then God told him that won't cut it.

I don't hold heir's above stated understanding of various blessed Gentiles.

Nevertheless, and no offense intended you, jamie; but it is obvious to me that you are short a marble.

A marble so critical to what is known within the world of reasoning a thing through as "the common-sensibles" that you can't even see you are actually chasing your own tail.

There is no reasoning with such.

I would suggest you stick to exploring/posting about what is way less taxing of your above shortcoming.

 

[Danoh]

The over-allegorization or amillennial view is an example of a non-literal
kind of Bible interpretation.

As a kind of dialectic opposition to the Origen-Augustine
over-allegorization of scripture, dispensationalism went to the opposite
extreme and called for something like a consistent literalism in
interpreting scripture.

"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is
always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.

"To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole
possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it
in all areas of biblical interpretation is." Charles C. Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), page 40.

Hal Lindsey, for example, makes use of the dispensationalist literalist
interpretation of prophecy by suggesting in his book, New World Coming
(1973), that the locusts of Revelation 9: 3
, are an advanced
kind of helicopter. See page 8 and page 141 for a reference to
Lindsey's Cobra helicopters. Such a literal interpretation destroys the
knowledge given
in the metaphors of Revelation 9: 3

Look at a few examples of scripture to show literal and non-literal
interpretations of scripture, other than the extremes of
over-allegorization and dispensationalist consistent literalism.

"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a
parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." I
Corinthians 10: 11

See Isaiah 4: 1 , which would
seem to be a simple plain text:

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will
eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by
thy name, to take away our reproach."

Bread is a metaphor, meaning Christ is the bread of life" (John 6:35
Bread represents the truth of the Gospel. Christ himself and his Gospel
brings spiritual life. The women in Isaiah 4: 1
do not entirely accept the
bread
- truth of his Gospel - as absolute truth which Christ brings, but they
will follow
their own way. But they want to be called by His name. They want to be
called Christians, but they do not want to accept and follow all of his
Gospel. The metaphoric language makes a statement different from what
the literal and plain meaning of "we will eat our own bread" would be.
Apparently dispensationalism would say that Isaiah 4: says the seven women
literally eat the bread they have baked and wear their own apparel, but
that they take hold of one man and want to be called by his name. They may
not even acknowledge that this one man is Jesus Christ.

Look at Zechariah 8: 23 :
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass,
that 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."

The literal or plain meaning of Zechariah 8: 23
is that this is a prophecy
for the time of the
New Covenant when Christians will take hold of a Jew and say "we will
go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" because Jews of the
flesh, by virtue of their DNA, are the chosen people. But if you know
and understand Romans 2: 17 , you will question
this plain interpretation of Zechariah 8: 23 Instead, of being a
literal Jew because he has the physical DNA from Abraham, this Jew is the
inward Jew of Romans 2: 29 ,
who is one in the Spirit and not of the letter, whose praise is not of men
but of God.

Zechariah 8: 23 ,
interpreted by the New Testament, is using Jew is a way different from the
literal way Jew is usually used in scripture. In fact, dispensationalism
teaches that the word Jew in scripture must always refer to a literal Jew
whose identity is based on his physical DNA from Abraham. Likewise, for
dispensationmalism, Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel of the flesh,
not the Israel of God.

There is some heavier metaphoric language in prophecy, such as in Revelation
14: 4 , "These are they which
were not defined with women: for they are all virgins." The plain or
literal meaning of Revelation 14: 4
says something quite
different than its metaphoric meaning. The dispensationalist literal
meaning of Revelation 14: 4
is that all the members of the 144,000 are males who are physically
virgins, who have never had sex with women. And the metaphor is interpreted
by another metaphor, found in Revelation 17: 1-6
. Here a woman represents
mystery Babylon, which is false religion..

Again; only an individual with a low IQ concludes all those within a particular school of thought represent the view of EVERY individual within said school.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't hold heir's above stated understanding of various blessed Gentiles.

Nevertheless, and no offense intended you, jamie; but it is obvious to me that you are short a marble.

A marble so critical to what is known within the world of reasoning a thing through as "the common-sensibles" that you can't even see you are actually chasing your own tail.

There is no reasoning with such.

I would suggest you stick to exploring/posting about what is way less taxing of your above shortcoming.

What was Abraham the moment before he believed?

 

[Interplanner]

Again; only an individual with a low IQ concludes all those within a particular school of thought represent the view of EVERY individual within said school.

The problem with this about MAD is that it almost means nothing, so it is unclear what is inside it and what is outside it. It thinks there was a mixed grace and law Gospel, and then a Gospel. But Jews who believe the first one are OK. Something like that.

 

[God's Truth]

Forget DNA, Israel was converted into the Son's kingdom without regard to ethnicity.

I do not recognize what you are saying as from God's Word. Could you explain better?

 

[God's Truth]

This was not said of Gentiles such as we, but Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent/those found in the synagogue of the Jews (Acts 13:16 KJV, Acts 13:26 KJV, Acts 17:1-4 KJV, Acts 18:4 KJV).

We were never allied with Israel, but aliens and not in the promise, but strangers from it! Believe the Bible!

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV

All faithless Jews were cut off and bound over to the place where the disobedient Gentiles were.

ALL on earth are condemned until they come to God through Jesus.

What you say about these kinds and those kinds of Gentiles is nonsense talk.

I can hardly believe you said, "Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent/those found in the synagogue of the Jews."

Wow lol

 

[God's Truth]

I don't hold heir's above stated understanding of various blessed Gentiles.

Nevertheless, and no offense intended you, jamie; but it is obvious to me that you are short a marble.

A marble so critical to what is known within the world of reasoning a thing through as "the common-sensibles" that you can't even see you are actually chasing your own tail.

There is no reasoning with such.

I would suggest you stick to exploring/posting about what is way less taxing of your above shortcoming.

I think you describe yourself and your own confusion.

 

[Danoh]

The problem with this about MAD is that it almost means nothing, so it is unclear what is inside it and what is outside it. It thinks there was a mixed grace and law Gospel, and then a Gospel. But Jews who believe the first one are OK. Something like that.

One more in your endless witness against yourself that you remain absolutely clueless of what it is any MAD holds to :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

What was Abraham the moment before he believed?

Consider sharing your answer to your own question, when asking it of another.

Unless, like the consistent troll you continue to prove yourself to be; you are just baiting, once more :chuckle:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Any time you want to post passages for the basis of your supposed sound conclusions against what you misinterpret as Dispensationalism; feel free to do so.

Thus far, all I read in the above was secular methods for supposedly determining the soundness of the Dispensational view.

Where are your supposed Scriptures?

But none of that matters if you are lost to begin with.

In short "dispense" with the wisdom of men and state your case based on Scripture.

Again, the majority of Dispys on TOL are Acts 9 Dispys NOT the Acts 2 Dispys you appear to be ranting on about.


Also, as with individuals within ANY school of thought, you'll find Dispys do not all hold to a same understanding about one thing or another.

Only an individual with a low IQ concludes all those within a particular school of thought represent the view of EVERY individual within said school.

Or just lazy people trained in public school not to think critically.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Study heirs according to the promise vs. fellowheirs by the gospel

Don't go around causing brain hemorrhages.

 

[Danoh]

Don't go around causing brain hemorrhages.

I was kind of leaning toward the sense that you hold to that distinction as well.

Being that I do not, I find that interesting of those who do.

Out of my life long fascination with how processes of perception work both in general, as well as within each individual.

For me, it is one of the best parts of interaction with others - this window to their minds, that the recurrent pattern of their words begins to paint a picture of

This is why I prefer time in the Scripture over books "about" it.

Scripture alone, ever its own endless window into the mind of its' inspired writers, and through theirs, to the mind of the Creator Himself.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I was kind of leaning toward the sense that you hold to that distinction as well.

Being that I do not, I find that interesting of those who do.

Out of my life long fascination with how processes of perception work both in general, as well as within each individual.

For me, it is one of the best parts of interaction with others - this window to their minds, that the recurrent pattern of their words begins to paint a picture of

This is why I prefer time in the Scripture over books "about" it.

Scripture alone, ever its own endless window into the mind of its' inspired writers, and through theirs, to the mind of the Creator Himself.

I didn't arrive at that via books but via friends like STP. I honestly haven't looked closely at it. I tend to believe STP has a sense of what he is doing biblically. This is a terrible way to study the Bible but I watch what others do and basically follow my instincts. To me, a bad tree rarely produces sound doctrine. I believe i can usually spot bad trees, trees that have been touched seriously by demonic deception. TOL is crammed full of such trees. But following your method, compare scripture with scripture. Compare the sections dealing with heirs versus those dealing with fellow heirs in the KJV. See where it leads you. The foundation of this is the belief there are no careless words in the bible. If different phrases are used, there is a reason for it.

 

[Danoh]

I didn't arrive at that via books but via friends like STP. I honestly haven't looked closely at it. I tend to believe STP has a sense of what he is doing biblically. This is a terrible way to study the Bible but I watch what others do and basically follow my instincts. To me, a bad tree rarely produces sound doctrine. I believe i can usually spot bad trees, trees that have been touched seriously by demonic deception. TOL is crammed full of such trees. But following your method, compare scripture with scripture. Compare the sections dealing with heirs versus those dealing with fellow heirs in the KJV. See where it leads you. The foundation of this is the belief there are no careless words in the bible. If different phrases are used, there is a reason for it.

The books thing was not in reference to you.

As for the other; I was not debating it.

As with any individuals within any SAME basic school of thought; Mads are not going to be the exception. We also do not all study all things out in the same manner.

As an example, O'Hair; Baker; Stam; Jordan; et al, each share a sameness in study approach, at the same time that each has a difference in approach.

I'm more fascinated by what I might learn about how these various approaches work - each's weaknesses and strengths - then I am about asserting I alone might have some sort of a holy grail approach.

I'm too curious about processes of perception to allow myself to end up stuck on the idea that I alone am right.

This rightness some insist they alone have within ANY school of thought only blinds one from what one might learn from others, no matter who they are or what they hold to.

It is why I will so readily agree with anyone on TOL on some point I believe is objective though I more often then not might not agree with them on most issues.

A Grace Pastor friend of mine says I should not do that. That it gives them the impression they are right in other areas they are "wrong" in.

I disagree. TOL is more than enough evidence that people will believe what ever they believe regardless of so called seeming encouragement or its' opposite :chuckle: