This is to whom the shoe fits.

[AgeofKnowledge]

I gathered that. But how about Biblical scholars Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., and Brauch, M. T.? I can paraphrase their position in a paragraph but it's good to see their reasoning which I provided:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/58545-whom-shoe-fits-6.html#post927401

Take your time. Read it through a couple of times.

Well, there is a vast difference between what I am and what Zone thinks I am. <grin>

 

[Therapon]

I gathered that. But how about Biblical scholars Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., and Brauch, M. T.? I can paraphrase their position in a paragraph but it's good to see their reasoning which I provided:

I was familiar with those views many years ago, probably even have them still, somewhere in my library. Those views could be supported back when they were written, but not anymore because none of those very worthy gentlemen saw the events of 1948 and 1967 in the Holy Land as doctrinally significant as far as Romans 11 was concerned.

Not significant???? In my humble opinion, the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 changed absolutely everything! Those two events opened the book of Daniel, which opened the book of Revelation, which opened much of the rest of Scripture that had been either misinterpreted or ignored. In fact, through those events, the Lord opened for us a whole new doctrinal system! Those events even changed many of our basic doctrines, like who is saved and what salvation actually is. The Jewish people are indeed one of the Two Witnesses, now solidly provable from Scripture, which enables to understand, in a new way, God's intent for the Gentile Church and the Jewish people throughout the Christian era.

But can anyone here see it? I've tried to share bits and pieces of this new doctrinal system on the forum, but one has to almost see the whole picture from the beginning before any of the details makes any sense. I'm like someone who speaks a language nobody underestands, and in a way, it's true: different soteriology, different eschatology, different almost everything. I've written six books on the subject that are now all over the world and I'm better known in Africa than I am here. But getting some to understand what I've been trying to share, well you've seen how that's been going . . .

 

[zone]

the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 changed absolutely everything!

through those events, the Lord opened for us a whole new doctrinal system!

different soteriology, different eschatology, different almost everything

Webster's

doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\

Definition of DOCTRINE
1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma



so·te·ri·ol·o·gy noun \sō-ˌtir-ē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Definition of SOTERIOLOGY

: theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ

the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 changed absolutely everything!

through those events, the Lord opened for us a whole new doctrinal system!

different soteriology, different eschatology, different almost everything

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Therapon, Kaiser, W. C., Jr didn't retire until 2006 (though he is still contributing) and the other two are still very much active. They wrote their opinion and published it in 1996 long after the events of 1948 and 1967 which they certainly did see as doctrinally significant as Romans 11 is concerned but of utmost importance is that their position is systematically sound in relation to all of scripture.

Consider Walter's contribution to the Jews For Jesus titled 'Jews and the Gospel at the End of History' published in 2009 sub-titled 'The Divine Restoration of Israel' in which he focuses on both Romans 11 and Ezekiel 27. Honestly, while you are there, look at Professor of Theology J. L. Packer's and Homer's contribution to the same work.

Every contributing scholar in that book aligns with the view you read and your objection to their opinion, based on them not seeing the events of 1948 and 1967 as important, is patently untrue.

Since you're claiming that the aggregate of respectable mainstream 20th-21st century Bible scholars in Christendom hold a false view of Romans 11 and that your view is the only correct one, at the least you'll need to provide a correct reason to rebut them.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/58545-whom-shoe-fits-6.html#post927401

I was familiar with those views many years ago, probably even have them still, somewhere in my library. Those views could be supported back when they were written, but not anymore because none of those very worthy gentlemen saw the events of 1948 and 1967 in the Holy Land as doctrinally significant as far as Romans 11 was concerned.

Not significant???? In my humble opinion, the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 changed absolutely everything! Those two events opened the book of Daniel, which opened the book of Revelation, which opened much of the rest of Scripture that had been either misinterpreted or ignored. In fact, through those events, the Lord opened for us a whole new doctrinal system! Those events even changed many of our basic doctrines, like who is saved and what salvation actually is. The Jewish people are indeed one of the Two Witnesses, now solidly provable from Scripture, which enables to understand, in a new way, God's intent for the Gentile Church and the Jewish people throughout the Christian era.

But can anyone here see it? I've tried to share bits and pieces of this new doctrinal system on the forum, but one has to almost see the whole picture from the beginning before any of the details makes any sense. I'm like someone who speaks a language nobody underestands, and in a way, it's true: different soteriology, different eschatology, different almost everything. I've written six books on the subject that are now all over the world and I'm better known in Africa than I am here. But getting some to understand what I've been trying to share, well you've seen how that's been going . . .

 

[Therapon]

Webster's

doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\

Definition of DOCTRINE
1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma

so·te·ri·ol·o·gy noun \sō-ˌtir-ē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Definition of SOTERIOLOGY: theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ

That is exactly correct, thank you. <smile>

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Which book from your library (I can't read the entire library right now) do you recommend that supports your hypothesis? Please provide the link to it so I can download it, read it, qualify it, and then discuss it with you. Thank you.

 

[zone]

In fact, through those events*, the Lord opened for us a whole new doctrinal system!

Those events even changed many of our basic doctrines

like who is saved and what salvation actually is.

The Jewish people are indeed one of the Two Witnesses, now solidly provable from Scripture, which enables to understand, in a new way, God's intent for the Gentile Church and the Jewish people throughout the Christian era.

*[1948/Balfour Declaration]

Those events.....changed many.....basic doctrines

like :

who is saved and what salvation actually is.

 

[Chr]

To the church of God which is at Corinth to those who have been sanctified in Christ saints by calling,with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,their Lord and ours.
1 Corinthians 1:2

that If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead,you will be saved;
Romans 10:9

We christians believe that.

 

[Therapon]

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/58545-whom-shoe-fits-6.html#post927401[/URL]

Maybe I should have ben more explicit . . . "I was familiar with those views many years ago, probably even have them still, somewhere in my library. They could be supported back when they were written, but not anymore because none of those very worthy gentlemen saw the events of 1948 and 1967 in the Holy Land as significant as far as their doctrines about the salvation of the Jewish people during the Christian era is concerned, as indicated by Romans 2:19, 11:8, 11:11, 11:24-32."

That better? Maybe I missed something, only the pope is infallible.

But dear brother, are we depending on the Talmud and Mishna of the Church, i.e., commentators, for our doctrines, rather than on the Bible itself? Can't we look at the possibility that the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 really did change how we can now understand Scripture?

Unless we can accept, without doctrinal preconceptions, that Scripture might now have been opened in a new way, then in my most humble opinion, we will continue to believe what is now provably false doctrine. I'll say that again: Unless we can accept, without doctrinal preconceptions, the possibility that Scripture is now open in a new way, then in my most humble opinion, we will continue to believe what is now provably false doctrine.

I love you in the Lord, bro., you have your head screwed on straight so I don't want to debate or argue with you. What I have written over the last 30 years is either true and of God, or is a lie of the devil. There is no middle ground. Now it's easy to stand with the crowd and loudly declare my heresy, but what if you're wrong.

 

[zone]

are we depending on.......commentators, for our doctrines, rather than on the Bible itself? Can't we look at the possibility that the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 really did change how we can now understand Scripture?

i suppose some will.
based on your commentary.

btw: most Israelis were never in that Land.
and were never israelites of old.
and they don't believe Moses anyway.

sooo.....you're putting it all on primarily turkic converts to Talmudism (700 years after the Old Covenant was fulfilled, no longer in effect, can do nothing for anyone, couldn't in reality anyways) who have shed rivers of blood to get that Land, and millions have died over it, including Christians.

mkay.
whatever floats your boat.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Those views are current mainstream views in orthodox Christianity and these Bible scholars are fully cognizant of the events of 1948 and 1967.

Please provide a resource that explains your hypothesis and includes your argumentation in support of said hypothesis.

Thank you.

Maybe I should have ben more explicit . . . "I was familiar with those views many years ago, probably even have them still, somewhere in my library. They could be supported back when they were written, but not anymore because none of those very worthy gentlemen saw the events of 1948 and 1967 in the Holy Land as significant as far as their doctrines about the salvation of the Jewish people during the Christian era is concerned, as indicated by Romans 2:19, 11:8, 11:11, 11:24-32."

That better? Maybe I missed something, only the pope is infallible.

But dear brother, are we depending on the Talmud and Mishna of the Church, i.e., commentators, for our doctrines, rather than on the Bible itself? Can't we look at the possibility that the establishment of the new nation of Israel in 1948, and Jerusalem again in Israeli hands in 1967 really did change how we can now understand Scripture?

Unless we can accept, without doctrinal preconceptions, that Scripture might now have been opened in a new way, then in my most humble opinion, we will continue to believe what is now provably false doctrine. I'll say that again: Unless we can accept, without doctrinal preconceptions, the possibility that Scripture is now open in a new way, then in my most humble opinion, we will continue to believe what is now provably false doctrine.

I love you in the Lord, bro., you have your head screwed on straight so I don't want to debate or argue with you. What I have written over the last 30 years is either true and of God, or is a lie of the devil. There is no middle ground. Now it's easy to stand with the crowd and loudly declare my heresy, but what if you're wrong.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Those views are current mainstream views in orthodox Christianity and these Bible scholars are fully cognizant of the events of 1948 and 1967. <When I say fully cognizant I mean they are fully aware that they occurred and of their immense importance. I don't mean that they have perfect knowledge).

Please provide a resource that explains your hypothesis and includes your argumentation in support of said hypothesis.

Thank you.

 

[Therapon]

Those views are current mainstream views in orthodox Christianity and these Bible scholars are fully cognizant of the events of 1948 and 1967. <When I say fully cognizant I mean they are fully aware that they occurred and of their immense importance. I don't mean that they have perfect knowledge).

Please provide a resource that explains your hypothesis and includes your argumentation in support of said hypothesis. Thank you.

You worry about the documentary support of men, I worry about Bible truth, that which can be supported by God's word and recorded history.

What if the theologians upon whom you rely so heavily are wrong? The theologians of Jesus day didn't recognize the Lord of Glory while He stood right in fromt of them. Do you actually believe the theologians of the Christian era are any different, just because they read Greek, know the four spiritual; law, say the sinners prayer and write voluminously on what they believe to be orthodoxy? They are only men, you know, no taller than you or i, just men, prone to error just like you and I.

What I have written over the last 30 years is either true and of God, or is a lie of the devil. There is no middle ground. I know and can now prove that many of our doctrines upon which we rely can no longer be supported scripturally or historically. If what I have written is in error, prove it from the Bible, don't just quote men who might disagree. That proves nothing. I don't want to be butting heads with you, brother, I want you to start thinking outside the box.

 

[hattiebod]

New to CC, so what is it you believe that appears to be so divisive? <><

 

[mark54]

What if the theologians upon whom you rely so heavily are wrong? The theologians of Jesus day didn't recognize the Lord of Glory while He stood right in fromt of them. Do you actually believe the theologians of the Christian era are any different, just because they read Greek, know the four spiritual; law, say the sinners prayer and write voluminously on what they believe to be orthodoxy? They are only men, you know, no taller than you or i, just men, prone to error just like you and I.

.

I haven't read much of your beliefs, but I love what you have written above
However, for many, you may just have committed heresy

 

[Therapon]

New to CC, so what is it you believe that appears to be so divisive?

LOL, love you sister, cool head. So you play cello, so did my mom. It seems if I take a deep breath on here, it's diviasive. Actually, if you're truly interested, go to ellisskolfield.com and download anything you like. The book, "Islam in the End Times" under menu item "Books & Essays" is as good a place to start as any.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Therapon, if I come to the conclusion after careful review that orthodox Christian scholars have missed the boat on a point or points of theology, then I'll accept the better argument. Followers of Jesus Christ certainly had to in first century Israel, with regards to their commitment to Judaism, to even become Christians.

It hasn't happened yet but I have to be open to the possibility if I intend to call myself a truth seeker.

If you don't want people to qualify what you teach, then you shouldn't teach it simply because scripture exhorts us to qualify it as per verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

And if the teacher has a right heart with God but simply arrives at wrong conclusions that doesn't make them a bad person (e.g. morally blighted person) just as if the teacher is right that doesn't necessarily make students bad people. However, teachers are held to a higher standard in scripture and students are commanded to test all things.

What you have written over the last 30 years may be partially true and partially not true or true or not true. One can come to a wrong conclusion or conclusions without their life, the people they have led to Christ, etc... being "a lie of the devil." Good grief! *rolls eyes*.

One can be wrong on points of theology and still be an authentic Christian receiving manifold rewards for admirable evangelism in leading people to Christ.

In science, we build all sorts of models (some of them over decades) and then attempt to falsify them. This, is in line with the scientific method which arose in Western Civilization exactly because of scripture's admonition to test all things instead of blindly following them. Read Stanley Jaki sometime on that historical issue.

That's because salvation is tied to spiritual rebirth through acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not one's particular hypothesis on eschatology or non-primary essentials of teaching.

I want to know your position and I don't know it. Please provide a resource that explains your hypothesis and includes your argumentation in support of said hypothesis.

Thank you.

You worry about the documentary support of men, I worry about Bible truth, that which can be supported by God's word and recorded history.

What if the theologians upon whom you rely so heavily are wrong? The theologians of Jesus day didn't recognize the Lord of Glory while He stood right in fromt of them. Do you actually believe the theologians of the Christian era are any different, just because they read Greek, know the four spiritual; law, say the sinners prayer and write voluminously on what they believe to be orthodoxy? They are only men, you know, no taller than you or i, just men, prone to error just like you and I.

What I have written over the last 30 years is either true and of God, or is a lie of the devil. There is no middle ground. I know and can now prove that many of our popular doctrines can no longer be supported scripturally. If what I have written is in error, prove it from the Bible, don't just quote men who might disagree. That proves nothing. I don't want to be butting heads with you, brother, I want you to think outside the box.

 

[Therapon]

I haven't read much of your beliefs, but I love what you have written above
However, for many, you may just have committed heresy

Yeah, easy to claim, harder to prove. However, if you find any biblical or historic error in what I've written, just tell me and I'll stop teaching it.

 

[cfultz3]

Mr. Ellis,

When the debate over whose doctrine is the most correct and current is over, will you start going over your book in parts? I think everyone has made their case as pro or con and it is noted.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Islam in the End Times. Gotcha. TY.