Hi and in Duet 28:13 , Israel was to be the HEAD and not the TAIL they became , because , they would not seve the Lord !!
But I blieve that Israel will then become the HEAD in the Millennial Kingdom !!
dan p
ECT Yet Future?
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
Hi and in Duet 28:13 , Israel was to be the HEAD and not the TAIL they became , because , they would not seve the Lord !!
But I blieve that Israel will then become the HEAD in the Millennial Kingdom !!
dan p
turbosixx
New member
Thanks for your comments.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Why turbo, it's all artificial. the heaven vs earth is artificial. I'm also surprised that he would find that ch 11 is service vs being saved from sin, because a person who is justified does serve in the mission, and he has been fighting off the mission all this time, which I think is what Paul meant. Instead, the club thinks it is a future restored monarchy that Paul is dangling before them. Not.
You can't get through Heb 9 on RD's views/exegesis. He is flat wrong all the way through it.
Those on here who affirm they hold to some sort of a so called MAD do not view things, say, like the graffing in of Romans in the same way.
Why?
As with ALL students of Scripture (supposed or actual), where said students find agreement on a thing, it is because their approach is the same in that one thing.
Where such do not; it is because their approach differs...in that one thing.
Approach consistency throughout...or its absence in some parts...
You'd do yourself a service not to view all who profess they hold to some so called MAD as holding to one and the same view on all things.
Again, where any two students differ (within any supposed school) it will be due to their approach differing in that one thing.
The approach of any one of two students will be found unsound - only when both actually allow the open exploration of the respective approach each's assertion is based on.
In this, you are partly right: IP; you are dealing with a cult like club in some who assert they hold to some so called MAD, here on TOL.
Not that you yourself have proven yourself any freer of that kind of thing.
Ignorantly biased intolerance of any view and or approach but one's own...is an intolerance that is club-like, or cult-like; in quality.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Bible believers do not talk like this, commentary worshipers do.
"Gods capital city has the names of the apostles of Israel on it.... hard to follow for you, isn't it?
Rev 21:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Israel for dispensationalism is always Old Covenant Israel. So within the system of dispensationalism saying that the apostles of the Lamb are the apostles of Israel is saying the apostles were from Old Covenant Israel. Were not they part of that remnant in Romans 11: 1-5 who began the New Covenant?
But if by being the apostles of Israel is meant they were part of that remnant of Romans 11: 5 as the Israel of God, Israel reborn in Christ, redeemed Israel or remade Israel, then this is true - but not part of dispensationalism.
Rev 21:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Israel for dispensationalism is always Old Covenant Israel. So within the system of dispensationalism saying that the apostles of the Lamb are the apostles of Israel is saying the apostles were from Old Covenant Israel. Were not they part of that remnant in Romans 11: 1-5 who began the New Covenant?
But if by being the apostles of Israel is meant they were part of that remnant of Romans 11: 5 as the Israel of God, Israel reborn in Christ, redeemed Israel or remade Israel, then this is true - but not part of dispensationalism.
Interplanner
Well-known member
thx North,
It has always been interesting to me that the foundation is the apostles while only the gates have the tribe names. I thought that might be because Jewish people 'opened the access' of faith.
Unfortunately you are right, there is no new Israel, in D'ism.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sure there is, and they are kings and priests in the New Jerusalem.
You cannot get into it.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The people under the Old Covenant get the land. The Kings and Priests that the Lord Jesus called out get the City. Those who qualify for neither get the dispensation of the grace of God and a heavenly inheritance.
This is the whole household of God, the Kingdom of God, led by the Lord Jesus Christ...him that filleth all in all.
This is the whole household of God, the Kingdom of God, led by the Lord Jesus Christ...him that filleth all in all.
Galatians 3 does not teach that the doctrine of the chosen people by their race, their physical DNA, continues into the New Covenant. And there is no prophecy saying that God will return to the administration of the law sometime in the future, and that the New Covenant administration is only temporarily - rather than being temporary, the New Covenant is fulfilled in the New Jerusalem.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
Your opinions are noted.
It's strange that your opinions don't agree with scripture. Probably why IP agrees with you.
Isa 60:9-14 (AKJV/PCE)
(60:9) Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. (60:10) And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. (60:11) Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that [men] may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and [that] their kings [may be] brought. (60:12) For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, [those] nations shall be utterly wasted. (60:13) The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious. (60:14) The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
Don't tell me.... let me guess.... fulfilled in Christ... right?
No, this is yet future when ALL of scripture will be fulfilled. Here is the parallel passage in the yet unfulfilled book of Revelation.
Rev 21:23-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. (21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
Believe the scripture. It's the Word of God.
P.S. That is AFTER the New Jerusalem comes DOWN from heaven.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is nothing future about the new city. It's being in the NHNE has no connection to being over in the state of Israel at any time. It is a totally different realm, reality. Even your passage about it coming down is not on this earth. "The first earth had passed away."
You are so unreliable as a reader, it is hard to know where to start.
The Rev is not unfulfilled. Its first page says it was about things immediate and quickly to take place. most of it concerns the devastation of the destruction of Jerusalem the harlot who rode the beast Rome. It is not exact about any of that, but it is pastoral for those who lost (and lose) friends and family in such events.
Right Divider
Body part
More of your unbelief. The New Jerusalem comes down AFTER the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. Something that you clearly know nothing about.
The irony is strong with this one.
Immediate and YET your say that it came over ~30-40 years later. No, it is still after the LORDS DAY [Rev 1:10] (which you apparently also know nothing about).
Note that the LORDS DAY will not be like the picnic that was 70 AD.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Gal 3 does not mention the new covenant, whatsoever.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Totally made up, as usual.
hehe!
IP likes to avoid scripture that directly mentions the new covenant.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Thou hast well said, club member.
