CHRIST THE CHOSEN ONE, THE ELECT OF THE FATHER
- Thread starter chess-player
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
While your reply was written to Mem, I just wanted to point out something.
You made several statements about "Dispensationalism", a belief system usually attributed to Darby. Other authors, like L. Ron Hubbard, wrote some interesting books but they hardly could be called Bible honoring. However, there are other views on the subject of Premillennialism. The proper view, is constituted as "Futurism". I personally, do not hold to a strict view of Dispensationalism - there are problems in this view.
However, Amillennialism is far worse. It takes areas of the book of Revelation and tries to place these into the 70AD assault on Jerusalem but they clearly do not fit. They also spiritualize the literal meanings of Old Testament prophecies. The best form of interpretation, is to always except the literal, unless forced, by the text, to give another.
You made several statements about "Dispensationalism", a belief system usually attributed to Darby. Other authors, like L. Ron Hubbard, wrote some interesting books but they hardly could be called Bible honoring. However, there are other views on the subject of Premillennialism. The proper view, is constituted as "Futurism". I personally, do not hold to a strict view of Dispensationalism - there are problems in this view.
However, Amillennialism is far worse. It takes areas of the book of Revelation and tries to place these into the 70AD assault on Jerusalem but they clearly do not fit. They also spiritualize the literal meanings of Old Testament prophecies. The best form of interpretation, is to always except the literal, unless forced, by the text, to give another.
-
1
- Show all
I never claimed that the answer was a parable.
Strike one.
"And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? The sower soweth the word." - Mark 4:10-14 KJV
If by "His own" you mean any of the disciples, you are incorrect per Mark 4:10-14. He is asked a question, makes a statement and then proceeds into a parable. Look closely about who He is talking to and how He answers.
"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." - Mark 4:34 KJV
Here we see that Christ speaks parables to the disciples and explains aspects of it afterward.
Your claim appears to be that none of the questions proposed by anyone truly in Christ would be answered with a parable. It isn't clear how you are coming to that conclusion.
The fact is in Acts 1:6-7, a question was asked and His answer was indirect, much like many of the other figurative speech He uses to explain things. He didn't say "yes", He didn't say "no", He stated that it wasn't for them to know the time or season of such things. That can be interpreted as a response that means "You're thinking about it the wrong way"
My explanation is very clear for anyone that has studied formal logic. Clearly not you.
Getting mad at my answer would be like getting mad at "1+1=2" because it doesn't work with your preconceived ideas.
You very clearly, in a demonstrable way, offered an eisegetic rather than an exegetic.
"Read too much into it" shows that you have no idea what those terms mean.
Either you are working from the source material (Christian scripture) to demonstrate what is 1) logically possible, 2) logically impossible, or 3) logically necessary. From there, you can make a case for possible interpretations that you feel are compelling true or compelling false.
That's fine if you want to make a case for something being compellingly true. That's a good thing. But don't confuse a compelling interpretation with a necessary interpretation.
I don't think it is hard to grasp the implication that "It's not for you to know" means that He just wasn't answering the question. It's a mystery. A mystery of the kingdom.
You asked me to respond to the question that you had in post #24. You asked a single rhetorical question "But what do we read in His reply?" regarding Acts 1:7, which you opined to mean that His reply "it's not for you to know" somehow means "yes, the physical kingdom will be restored." That isn't evident in the text, even if you could make a case for consistency.
To your single rhetorical question you asked yourself in post 24, "what do we read in His reply?" I illustrated the fact that His response did not directly answer the question and could mean a number of things. Your supposition was that the person asking the question wasn't expecting the Church, but your reasoning wasn't drawn from the text, it was injected from your own beliefs and added into scripture.
You seem to be voicing a perspective that states "If my interpretation isn't true, which one is!?". It's a mentality to at all times have all interpretations reduced to the smallest form possible. Why not leave it as a mystery? Do we need to have only a single interpretation in mind for every verse and passage?
Why does He have to?
In ignorance? Or humbled by the fact that certain things weren't for them to know?
If you don't understand how "Jesus not answering their question" was actually "Jesus not answering their question" is a valid possible interpretation, you need to think long and hard about how many of your own assumptions and biases you are introducing into your interpretations. How many of your thoughts and opinions about scripture actually come from Christian scripture? How many of your thoughts and opinions are from traditions that you have been raised in that are contrary to Christian scripture? Why should a disciple be told everything? Not even Jesus Himself knows everything.
Strike one.
"And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? The sower soweth the word." - Mark 4:10-14 KJV
If by "His own" you mean any of the disciples, you are incorrect per Mark 4:10-14. He is asked a question, makes a statement and then proceeds into a parable. Look closely about who He is talking to and how He answers.
"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." - Mark 4:34 KJV
Here we see that Christ speaks parables to the disciples and explains aspects of it afterward.
Your claim appears to be that none of the questions proposed by anyone truly in Christ would be answered with a parable. It isn't clear how you are coming to that conclusion.
The fact is in Acts 1:6-7, a question was asked and His answer was indirect, much like many of the other figurative speech He uses to explain things. He didn't say "yes", He didn't say "no", He stated that it wasn't for them to know the time or season of such things. That can be interpreted as a response that means "You're thinking about it the wrong way"
My explanation is very clear for anyone that has studied formal logic. Clearly not you.
Getting mad at my answer would be like getting mad at "1+1=2" because it doesn't work with your preconceived ideas.
You very clearly, in a demonstrable way, offered an eisegetic rather than an exegetic.
"Read too much into it" shows that you have no idea what those terms mean.
Either you are working from the source material (Christian scripture) to demonstrate what is 1) logically possible, 2) logically impossible, or 3) logically necessary. From there, you can make a case for possible interpretations that you feel are compelling true or compelling false.
That's fine if you want to make a case for something being compellingly true. That's a good thing. But don't confuse a compelling interpretation with a necessary interpretation.
I don't think it is hard to grasp the implication that "It's not for you to know" means that He just wasn't answering the question. It's a mystery. A mystery of the kingdom.
You asked me to respond to the question that you had in post #24. You asked a single rhetorical question "But what do we read in His reply?" regarding Acts 1:7, which you opined to mean that His reply "it's not for you to know" somehow means "yes, the physical kingdom will be restored." That isn't evident in the text, even if you could make a case for consistency.
To your single rhetorical question you asked yourself in post 24, "what do we read in His reply?" I illustrated the fact that His response did not directly answer the question and could mean a number of things. Your supposition was that the person asking the question wasn't expecting the Church, but your reasoning wasn't drawn from the text, it was injected from your own beliefs and added into scripture.
You seem to be voicing a perspective that states "If my interpretation isn't true, which one is!?". It's a mentality to at all times have all interpretations reduced to the smallest form possible. Why not leave it as a mystery? Do we need to have only a single interpretation in mind for every verse and passage?
Why does He have to?
In ignorance? Or humbled by the fact that certain things weren't for them to know?
If you don't understand how "Jesus not answering their question" was actually "Jesus not answering their question" is a valid possible interpretation, you need to think long and hard about how many of your own assumptions and biases you are introducing into your interpretations. How many of your thoughts and opinions about scripture actually come from Christian scripture? How many of your thoughts and opinions are from traditions that you have been raised in that are contrary to Christian scripture? Why should a disciple be told everything? Not even Jesus Himself knows everything.
-
1
- Show all
That is good to hear. No one is going to have a perfect understanding, and heck, no one save one is perfect, but there are elements of Dispensationalism that are in stark contrast to Christian scripture that are completely irreconcilable.
I think there is a great opportunity for a discussion about amil. A dedicated thread might be the way to go, and maybe I'll post one in defence of amil at some point. There are of course going to be different kinds of amil, some of them might be consistent with scripture, others might be inconsistent with scripture. We should always examine an interpretation at its strongest form to give it the best chance, and see where it lands from there. The most basic form of amil is an interpretation that recognizes repeated symbolism from Daniel's dreams, and the fact that Rev 12:5 appears to describe the birth of Christ. The most basic form of amil proposes that Revelation is not necessarily chronological in all respects and that there are symbolic or figurative elements used in the descriptions.
Many times in recognition of the repeated symbolism from past prophesy, especially Daniel's dreams. Some interpretations can be "spiritualized" but would still point back to previous prophesies where explanations were given for what each of those symbols mean. Sometimes things aren't crystal clear in amil interpretations, but so long as what is clear is consistent, the rest can be left as a mystery within amil.
If other interpretations have an explanation for Rev 12:5, amil isn't a necessary interpretation.
We could certainly take this approach, but I would argue that there is a better approach for interpretation.
We should be able to sort interpretations as to whether they contain contradictions with the rest of scripture or not. We should also be able to sort interpretation as to whether they are required by a different part of scripture. From those two evaluations, we have 3 categories, that which is: 1) necessarily false, 2) necessarily true, 3) possibly true.
And when we encounter two or more possible, valid, interpretations, we should superimpose them instead of making a decision to reduce them down to one needlessly. In the same way that Schrodinger's cat proposes superposition, or how the square root of 4 is +2 and -2 at the same time, we can take our time considering possible interpretations until some of them are ruled out by other considerations.
After we have ruled out what we can, within those remaining possibilities, we can propose what we feel to be the most compelling. And those propositions may be based on some convention or by feeling. But it is important to remember that although we might be compelled by something possible by our own human reasoning, that we still may be wrong.
One convention that a person may feel compelled by is best fit. If Revelation (a vision) has the same imagery as Daniel (a vision), it might feel more compelling to observe these things a repeated imagery rather than Revelation being strictly literal and Daniel being symbolic.
We may all be led to slightly different answers, and not necessarily because many people are wrong, but I would propose because scripture is a living thing that speaks to each of us differently at different times in our lives, when we need it, as we need it.
But all of the answers derived should be consistent with scripture. And sometimes we discover that some of them aren't. So one of the ways to root out false doctrine and religions pretending to be Christian is by performing these logic checks between scripture and their interpretations. If there is an irreconcilable contradiction, there is an issue. Even using logic, we aren't perfect calculators, so we will all make mistakes from time to time, but the effort is important as a meditation in doctrine. And collectively, we all sharpen each other in this process as iron sharpens iron.
"Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." - 1 Tim 4:15-16 KJV
Logos is sacred.
I think there is a great opportunity for a discussion about amil. A dedicated thread might be the way to go, and maybe I'll post one in defence of amil at some point. There are of course going to be different kinds of amil, some of them might be consistent with scripture, others might be inconsistent with scripture. We should always examine an interpretation at its strongest form to give it the best chance, and see where it lands from there. The most basic form of amil is an interpretation that recognizes repeated symbolism from Daniel's dreams, and the fact that Rev 12:5 appears to describe the birth of Christ. The most basic form of amil proposes that Revelation is not necessarily chronological in all respects and that there are symbolic or figurative elements used in the descriptions.
Many times in recognition of the repeated symbolism from past prophesy, especially Daniel's dreams. Some interpretations can be "spiritualized" but would still point back to previous prophesies where explanations were given for what each of those symbols mean. Sometimes things aren't crystal clear in amil interpretations, but so long as what is clear is consistent, the rest can be left as a mystery within amil.
If other interpretations have an explanation for Rev 12:5, amil isn't a necessary interpretation.
We could certainly take this approach, but I would argue that there is a better approach for interpretation.
We should be able to sort interpretations as to whether they contain contradictions with the rest of scripture or not. We should also be able to sort interpretation as to whether they are required by a different part of scripture. From those two evaluations, we have 3 categories, that which is: 1) necessarily false, 2) necessarily true, 3) possibly true.
And when we encounter two or more possible, valid, interpretations, we should superimpose them instead of making a decision to reduce them down to one needlessly. In the same way that Schrodinger's cat proposes superposition, or how the square root of 4 is +2 and -2 at the same time, we can take our time considering possible interpretations until some of them are ruled out by other considerations.
After we have ruled out what we can, within those remaining possibilities, we can propose what we feel to be the most compelling. And those propositions may be based on some convention or by feeling. But it is important to remember that although we might be compelled by something possible by our own human reasoning, that we still may be wrong.
One convention that a person may feel compelled by is best fit. If Revelation (a vision) has the same imagery as Daniel (a vision), it might feel more compelling to observe these things a repeated imagery rather than Revelation being strictly literal and Daniel being symbolic.
We may all be led to slightly different answers, and not necessarily because many people are wrong, but I would propose because scripture is a living thing that speaks to each of us differently at different times in our lives, when we need it, as we need it.
But all of the answers derived should be consistent with scripture. And sometimes we discover that some of them aren't. So one of the ways to root out false doctrine and religions pretending to be Christian is by performing these logic checks between scripture and their interpretations. If there is an irreconcilable contradiction, there is an issue. Even using logic, we aren't perfect calculators, so we will all make mistakes from time to time, but the effort is important as a meditation in doctrine. And collectively, we all sharpen each other in this process as iron sharpens iron.
"Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." - 1 Tim 4:15-16 KJV
Logos is sacred.
-
1
- Show all
All that you posted is correct, but you forgot to mention that all of them were IN CHRIST, the chosen of the Father to save the world,
Isa. 42:1 “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations."
Luke 9:35 "And then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
You cannot have chosen ones without the first being chosen. Jesus, the Word, was chosen to create, redeem and rule over all His creation.
-
1
- Show all
Why don't you stop accusing me and others of not knowing what we know while you claim to know what you don't know?
So, what right do we have as "Gentiles" having Bible that contains the OT that was written for the Jews only, and NOT for us? Why didn't God give us the NT only while the OT was JUST for the Jews?
Make your claim, rip the Bible in two to console your failed doctrine of a covenant Israel with its temple, priesthood, law, and sacrifices, that no longer exist?
Where is the Israel of the OT, and please do tell me that the present secular and godless nation of Israel that happens to hate the Lord Jesus, is the Israel of God?
Please do tell.
So, what right do we have as "Gentiles" having Bible that contains the OT that was written for the Jews only, and NOT for us? Why didn't God give us the NT only while the OT was JUST for the Jews?
Make your claim, rip the Bible in two to console your failed doctrine of a covenant Israel with its temple, priesthood, law, and sacrifices, that no longer exist?
Where is the Israel of the OT, and please do tell me that the present secular and godless nation of Israel that happens to hate the Lord Jesus, is the Israel of God?
Please do tell.
i never once disputed the promise the LORD made to Abram concerning the physical seed of Abram and the land/Israel in the Middle East.
Which is the Place whereby Matthew 23:37 is fulfilled from the mouths of those Jews(of the flesh) whom the LORD spares by bringing them thru the Fire = Zechariah chapters 12 thru chapter 14
(i just gave you and everyone a GIFT here.)
Additionally, back on the subject of the Israel of God.................
Romans 11: 22-24 - "Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"
Here is another overlooked Truth of this concluding passage from Romans ch11:
Which proves, again, that pre-trib rapture is a lie, is incongruous with scripture and unravels the errors that emerged pre-trib rapture.
See if you can SEE.
PEACE
Isaiah 65:17 in the context of God speaking of the new heavens and new earth. The LORD says, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth." The word for create here is 'bara,' the same as "in the beginning God created", and the same word David used imploring God to "create in him a new heart". This is a creating something new out of nothing rather than 'forming' something new out of what already exists.
So, it does seem that the new heavens and earth is entirely different than that which is currently passing away, as per v.17b, "The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
However, the word "new" here is chadash which means 'renew, repair."
And, a cross reference offered for this context can be found in Rev 21:1-8, wherein v.1 the word used for "new," in "a new heaven and a new earth", is kainos, which means "fresh"; "new in quality"; "fresh in development or opportunity--because not found like this before," "while neos is properly so with respect to age--new (Strong's Greek 2537)".
So, it does seem that the new heavens and earth is entirely different than that which is currently passing away, as per v.17b, "The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
However, the word "new" here is chadash which means 'renew, repair."
And, a cross reference offered for this context can be found in Rev 21:1-8, wherein v.1 the word used for "new," in "a new heaven and a new earth", is kainos, which means "fresh"; "new in quality"; "fresh in development or opportunity--because not found like this before," "while neos is properly so with respect to age--new (Strong's Greek 2537)".
-
1
-
1
- Show all
K
This is to the blinded Jews, not the church...
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Nope, it's the other way round.
Pretty funny when you try to turn around what I said and use the term anti- Semitic. lol The Nazi's quoted from Martin Luthers sermons to justify what they had done. So you can stop that trick right now. These church fathers had a Catholic influence that they never turned loose of. That's where your theology comes from, the church replaces the Jews. It doesn't. Of course Jesus was a Jew of course there are Messianic Jews. Already debunked that in another thread.
Literally no one has said that. There are promises that will be fulfilled to the Jews, all Jews, every Jew, part of the unconditional and ever lasting covenant made with Abraham. To the Jews, not to the church.
t
No seriously, you don't know anything about history. Anti- Semitism is anti- Jew. In denying this, right away there is a problem. You're throwing around terms and a whole lot of lies because of what I said. You POV gives all the curses to the Jew and all the blessings to the church, which is anti- Semitic? smh
The Bible says to bless the Jews and pray for the peace of Israel. But I'm sure they should all just follow what you say. Yeah that sounds right. smh
Lie!!
Romans 11 rip it on out of there and throw it in the trash then.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Nope, it's the other way round.
Pretty funny when you try to turn around what I said and use the term anti- Semitic. lol The Nazi's quoted from Martin Luthers sermons to justify what they had done. So you can stop that trick right now. These church fathers had a Catholic influence that they never turned loose of. That's where your theology comes from, the church replaces the Jews. It doesn't. Of course Jesus was a Jew of course there are Messianic Jews. Already debunked that in another thread.
Literally no one has said that. There are promises that will be fulfilled to the Jews, all Jews, every Jew, part of the unconditional and ever lasting covenant made with Abraham. To the Jews, not to the church.
t
No seriously, you don't know anything about history. Anti- Semitism is anti- Jew. In denying this, right away there is a problem. You're throwing around terms and a whole lot of lies because of what I said. You POV gives all the curses to the Jew and all the blessings to the church, which is anti- Semitic? smh
The Bible says to bless the Jews and pray for the peace of Israel. But I'm sure they should all just follow what you say. Yeah that sounds right. smh
Lie!!Romans 11 rip it on out of there and throw it in the trash then.
This question is worded in such a way that it causes me to hesitate in answering. Agree now? only comes down to? I'm not sure what i'm agreeing with.
There are many other points that we shouldn't assume we agree in regard to the meaning. For example, we are given that we are called "Abraham's seed" which includes Jacob, and we are given that not all Israel is Israel, but can we then assume that Israel is not all Israel?
And we are given that Israel is blinded for a time for our sake, but can we then assume that Israel's sight will never be restored? Especially considering that Satan will be bound a thousand years so that he can no longer deceive the nations (and is this equivalent to blinding?).
At any rate, if there comes a time that everyone will be able to 'see.' I think this definitely qualifies as a fresh development or opportunity--because not found like this before".
There are many other points that we shouldn't assume we agree in regard to the meaning. For example, we are given that we are called "Abraham's seed" which includes Jacob, and we are given that not all Israel is Israel, but can we then assume that Israel is not all Israel?
And we are given that Israel is blinded for a time for our sake, but can we then assume that Israel's sight will never be restored? Especially considering that Satan will be bound a thousand years so that he can no longer deceive the nations (and is this equivalent to blinding?).
At any rate, if there comes a time that everyone will be able to 'see.' I think this definitely qualifies as a fresh development or opportunity--because not found like this before".
-
1
- Show all
Admittedly, I could have worded my question differently. I see that scripture in Rev 21 states that New Jerusalem comes down to new earth. I have not seen scriptural evidence that New Jerusalem comes down at any point prior to that.
If I am recalling correctly, you proposed that New Jerusalem came down to earth. Is there a scriptural source for the concept that New Jerusalem descends prior to Rev 21? Or were you speaking speculatively?
Which includes only the Jacob that is in Christ, because flesh is not counted for the children of God.
Not all of Israel are Israel. I believe there is no objection to rephrase this as "Not all flesh descendants of Israel are Spiritual Israel".
I believe it would be fair to rephrase your question as "Is there justification to assume that non-flesh Israel exists in Spiritual Israel?"
It's a good question. Consider these points:
1) Do two become one in marriage? Scripture says yes. A marriage between the Church and Christ the bridegroom would mean that the Church becomes a part of Israel by that union. And that can especially be the case if we are talking about a spiritual flesh of "the new creature". There are timing considerations with the marriage that gets into a whole amil/premil/postmil conversation.
2) If a rock can be raised up as a descendant of Abraham, this clearly highlights the fact that anything is possible with God. If God wanted to "poof" new physical descendants of Judah out of thin air, it is in His ability to do so. If God wanted to make someone in the womb suddenly be a descendant of Judah, it is in His ability to do so. E.g. the school of thought that Jesus wasn't adopted by Joseph, that He was literally made into a descendant of Joseph to fulfil the patrilineal requirement.
3) Many modern Christians are of Israel by flesh despite not being recognized as part of Israel by the modern Rabbinic orders. Who has the authority to decide whom will count as Israel or not? Does a descendant of Jacob-Israel in Christianity count as Israel or as the Church? Someone that is initially not esteemed to be of flesh may be determined to be flesh at a later time. Are they not both Israel and Church?
4) Israel is the firstborn of God (cf. Exo 4:22), Christ is the firstborn of God (cf. Psalm 89:27). Is Christ Israel? Or are there multiple firstborns of God?
True Spiritual Israel is blinded in part. There are still parts of true Israel that became incorporated into the Church such as Paul and were given sight. The entirety of true Israel will be saved (salvation promise) but this does not negate the fact that not all flesh of Israel are true Spiritual Israel, and not all of flesh Israel will be saved.
The Dispensationalist argument is that all of flesh Israel by Judah would be saved (including every unrepentant murderer, "child of hell" Pharisee, rich man in Hades, and even Judas Iscariot). The Christian perspective is "maybe they find redemption" because God works in mysterious ways therefore maybe there is some posthumous purgatory-like redemption arc in store for people like Judas. But the Christian perspective is certainly not "yes, that is necessarily the case". We would be speculating completely as to whether all physical descendants of Judah would be saved. I believe that the parable of the wedding banquet points to the idea that full inclusion is not the case, but as a parable, there is room for discussion and interpretation.
We also have to remember that not all that call themselves Jews are Jews. There are antichrist decievers that scripture warns about. Therefore even if we somehow decided that there was hypergrace for all physical descendants of Judah, not all that call themselves that are necessarily going to be as advertised. And we also have to address the passage that explains that a Jew is not one outwardly but only through circumcision of the heart.
I agree that we can explore the possibility of hypergrace salvation for all descendants of Judah. God shews mercy on those He shews mercy. I still don't find the salvation for Judas Iscariot pitch to be compelling, but the possibility for coversation is there.
That's a salvation question.
The big ticket item in Dispensationalism is the geopolitics: the interpretation of land promises. Not only will Dispensationalists purport that the land needs to be claimed right now, but also that only descendants of Judah that reject Christ are allowed to inherit it. If you are a 2% Ashkenazi by genetics, but a practising Christian, Talmudic Jews will give you no place in the land and Dispensationalists will support their decision for denial. Hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists will even take it a step further to rub salt in the wound by claiming that you aren't really a descendant of Judah anyway because you don't reject Christ and don't practice Talmudic Judaism. Somehow a Christian is considered an apostate in the Dispensationalist playbook instead of properly recognizing that they didn't leave their faith, they fulfilled it in Christ by becoming Christian. They didn't replace their faith, they fulfilled it. It's that "Israel is blind in part" bit that hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists have a hard time trying to explain. Many Dispensationalists hate Christians with Jewish ancestry for the same reason many Talmudic Jews hate Christians. Their scriptures are different, therefore the conclusions that they draw from are going to be different. It's part of the reason Dispensationalist exegetics doesn't work in Christian scripture. The clash can lead to frustration.
Is it possible by Christian scripture that everyone currently in the middle east belongs exactly where they are? Absolutely. I'm not proposing border changes or anything for the sake of politics. But there is a gross incompatibility between Dispensationalism and the Christian Bible in terms of how promises and terms are considered. There is also a strange antisemitic hatred for Christians with Jewish ancestry that needs to be addressed like an elephant in a room. There is a strange hatred for what Christian scripture actually states compared to what Talmudic Judaism and Dispensationalism claim. Christian scripture does not expressly support the modern Talmudic Judaic land-claim by means of the promises to Abraham and seed.
Is that possession of land ensured by right of the promises to Abraham and Seed? No. Not unless those individuals are Christ's per Gal 3.
Will each dead descendant of Judah resurrect in order to possess that land? No. We know this because Heb 11 tells us that some of those dead Hebrews missed the opportunity.
All of this falls on deaf ears to Dispensationalists because cognitive dissonance is painful to deal with. Christians are destined to suffer under hateful people.
If I am recalling correctly, you proposed that New Jerusalem came down to earth. Is there a scriptural source for the concept that New Jerusalem descends prior to Rev 21? Or were you speaking speculatively?
Which includes only the Jacob that is in Christ, because flesh is not counted for the children of God.
Not all of Israel are Israel. I believe there is no objection to rephrase this as "Not all flesh descendants of Israel are Spiritual Israel".
I believe it would be fair to rephrase your question as "Is there justification to assume that non-flesh Israel exists in Spiritual Israel?"
It's a good question. Consider these points:
1) Do two become one in marriage? Scripture says yes. A marriage between the Church and Christ the bridegroom would mean that the Church becomes a part of Israel by that union. And that can especially be the case if we are talking about a spiritual flesh of "the new creature". There are timing considerations with the marriage that gets into a whole amil/premil/postmil conversation.
2) If a rock can be raised up as a descendant of Abraham, this clearly highlights the fact that anything is possible with God. If God wanted to "poof" new physical descendants of Judah out of thin air, it is in His ability to do so. If God wanted to make someone in the womb suddenly be a descendant of Judah, it is in His ability to do so. E.g. the school of thought that Jesus wasn't adopted by Joseph, that He was literally made into a descendant of Joseph to fulfil the patrilineal requirement.
3) Many modern Christians are of Israel by flesh despite not being recognized as part of Israel by the modern Rabbinic orders. Who has the authority to decide whom will count as Israel or not? Does a descendant of Jacob-Israel in Christianity count as Israel or as the Church? Someone that is initially not esteemed to be of flesh may be determined to be flesh at a later time. Are they not both Israel and Church?
4) Israel is the firstborn of God (cf. Exo 4:22), Christ is the firstborn of God (cf. Psalm 89:27). Is Christ Israel? Or are there multiple firstborns of God?
True Spiritual Israel is blinded in part. There are still parts of true Israel that became incorporated into the Church such as Paul and were given sight. The entirety of true Israel will be saved (salvation promise) but this does not negate the fact that not all flesh of Israel are true Spiritual Israel, and not all of flesh Israel will be saved.
The Dispensationalist argument is that all of flesh Israel by Judah would be saved (including every unrepentant murderer, "child of hell" Pharisee, rich man in Hades, and even Judas Iscariot). The Christian perspective is "maybe they find redemption" because God works in mysterious ways therefore maybe there is some posthumous purgatory-like redemption arc in store for people like Judas. But the Christian perspective is certainly not "yes, that is necessarily the case". We would be speculating completely as to whether all physical descendants of Judah would be saved. I believe that the parable of the wedding banquet points to the idea that full inclusion is not the case, but as a parable, there is room for discussion and interpretation.
We also have to remember that not all that call themselves Jews are Jews. There are antichrist decievers that scripture warns about. Therefore even if we somehow decided that there was hypergrace for all physical descendants of Judah, not all that call themselves that are necessarily going to be as advertised. And we also have to address the passage that explains that a Jew is not one outwardly but only through circumcision of the heart.
I agree that we can explore the possibility of hypergrace salvation for all descendants of Judah. God shews mercy on those He shews mercy. I still don't find the salvation for Judas Iscariot pitch to be compelling, but the possibility for coversation is there.
That's a salvation question.
The big ticket item in Dispensationalism is the geopolitics: the interpretation of land promises. Not only will Dispensationalists purport that the land needs to be claimed right now, but also that only descendants of Judah that reject Christ are allowed to inherit it. If you are a 2% Ashkenazi by genetics, but a practising Christian, Talmudic Jews will give you no place in the land and Dispensationalists will support their decision for denial. Hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists will even take it a step further to rub salt in the wound by claiming that you aren't really a descendant of Judah anyway because you don't reject Christ and don't practice Talmudic Judaism. Somehow a Christian is considered an apostate in the Dispensationalist playbook instead of properly recognizing that they didn't leave their faith, they fulfilled it in Christ by becoming Christian. They didn't replace their faith, they fulfilled it. It's that "Israel is blind in part" bit that hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists have a hard time trying to explain. Many Dispensationalists hate Christians with Jewish ancestry for the same reason many Talmudic Jews hate Christians. Their scriptures are different, therefore the conclusions that they draw from are going to be different. It's part of the reason Dispensationalist exegetics doesn't work in Christian scripture. The clash can lead to frustration.
Is it possible by Christian scripture that everyone currently in the middle east belongs exactly where they are? Absolutely. I'm not proposing border changes or anything for the sake of politics. But there is a gross incompatibility between Dispensationalism and the Christian Bible in terms of how promises and terms are considered. There is also a strange antisemitic hatred for Christians with Jewish ancestry that needs to be addressed like an elephant in a room. There is a strange hatred for what Christian scripture actually states compared to what Talmudic Judaism and Dispensationalism claim. Christian scripture does not expressly support the modern Talmudic Judaic land-claim by means of the promises to Abraham and seed.
Is that possession of land ensured by right of the promises to Abraham and Seed? No. Not unless those individuals are Christ's per Gal 3.
Will each dead descendant of Judah resurrect in order to possess that land? No. We know this because Heb 11 tells us that some of those dead Hebrews missed the opportunity.
All of this falls on deaf ears to Dispensationalists because cognitive dissonance is painful to deal with. Christians are destined to suffer under hateful people.
Ok, I think it is becoming clearer what you might have wondered concerning New Jerusalem. I referred to Israel circa 1948 using the commonly ascribed "re-emerged' or 're-birthed' or something like that in my initial question posed to you simply to present the condition generally assigned to it. On the other hand, this may be as you would describe it considering your question whether it has anything to do with that Israel spoke of in the OT?
I do not consider the current Israel to be New Jerusalem spoken of coming down out of heaven. But that's not to say that it should never 'unite' with that coming down out of heaven when Christ cleaves the Mt in two and it becomes a plain.
The symbolic language of that strikes me as illustrating how one immovable prominence(s) is split into two and becomes a plain (smooth foundation laid down for New Jerusalem to descend upon.
I do not consider the current Israel to be New Jerusalem spoken of coming down out of heaven. But that's not to say that it should never 'unite' with that coming down out of heaven when Christ cleaves the Mt in two and it becomes a plain.
The symbolic language of that strikes me as illustrating how one immovable prominence(s) is split into two and becomes a plain (smooth foundation laid down for New Jerusalem to descend upon.
And this kind of overlap of Christian terms and Dispensationalist terms can cause some confusion. "New Jerusalem" in Christian scripture has a very specific meaning. If we are going to discuss these items I would prefer to use Christian terminology only, rather than risk confusion with Dispensationalist terminology.
So your perspective is that the current geopolitical Israel-Jerusalem represents a reestablished Jerusalem with continuity from the OT Jerusalem? And specifically, you deny Palestine-Jerusalem having any continuity with OT Jerusalem? Even if a percentage of the Palestine-Jerusalem has ancestry through Judah?
I can't speak to this concept. A merging of an old earth Jerusalem and New Jerusalem isn't a Christian concept. I am not fully versed in Dispensationalist scripture. Does this come from a Rabbinic teaching?
I haven't spent much time reading Zech 14. Can you give me a breakdown of the Dispensationalist interpretation of this sequence? Can you also clarify whether you are speaking about this interpretation as a speculated meaning? Or are you explaining a necessary meaning within Dispensationalist scripture?
Again, I can't speak to this because it isn't part of Christian scripture. Is this considered to be a necessary interpretation within Dispensationalism or are there variances in Dispensationalist views?
So your perspective is that the current geopolitical Israel-Jerusalem represents a reestablished Jerusalem with continuity from the OT Jerusalem? And specifically, you deny Palestine-Jerusalem having any continuity with OT Jerusalem? Even if a percentage of the Palestine-Jerusalem has ancestry through Judah?
I can't speak to this concept. A merging of an old earth Jerusalem and New Jerusalem isn't a Christian concept. I am not fully versed in Dispensationalist scripture. Does this come from a Rabbinic teaching?
I haven't spent much time reading Zech 14. Can you give me a breakdown of the Dispensationalist interpretation of this sequence? Can you also clarify whether you are speaking about this interpretation as a speculated meaning? Or are you explaining a necessary meaning within Dispensationalist scripture?
Again, I can't speak to this because it isn't part of Christian scripture. Is this considered to be a necessary interpretation within Dispensationalism or are there variances in Dispensationalist views?
I'm have little knowledge of official dispensational or rabbinical teachings, so I can't really speak to any of that with any authority. I do not limit the scope of knowledge from which I can draw from, although I do not necessarily agree with everything. So, not knowing nor taking any teaching as valid simply by virtue of authority, it is mostly only speculative but that is not entirely without reason.
Speculative interpretations can have good value and can be edifying, especially if we can make a compelling case for them.
I think before we explore speculation, we should reasonably establish the boundaries of possible interpretations. This requires a sound process for exegesis. The concept that "the most literal interpretation is the best interpretation" that some people have opined should be understood as a convention for sorting preferred possible interpretations rather than as part of a foundation for sound exegesis. That convention should not be used for ruling out possible interpretations by itself. Only to voice that certain types of interpretations belong or don't belong in a school of thought.
The base authority (ethos) for Christianity is at the very least the standard scriptural canon, and for any Trinitarian form of Christianity it will also be the concepts set out by the founding fathers of the Church, including the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, etc. These are going to be elements that do have authority as Christian teachings in themselves, regardless of the form of Christianity. And if something contradicts the established Christian ethos, it isn't genuinely a Christian school of thought.
In the frame of Christian ethos, you can question some things but not all things (or else you are exiting Christian ethos).
I think before we explore speculation, we should reasonably establish the boundaries of possible interpretations. This requires a sound process for exegesis. The concept that "the most literal interpretation is the best interpretation" that some people have opined should be understood as a convention for sorting preferred possible interpretations rather than as part of a foundation for sound exegesis. That convention should not be used for ruling out possible interpretations by itself. Only to voice that certain types of interpretations belong or don't belong in a school of thought.
The base authority (ethos) for Christianity is at the very least the standard scriptural canon, and for any Trinitarian form of Christianity it will also be the concepts set out by the founding fathers of the Church, including the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, etc. These are going to be elements that do have authority as Christian teachings in themselves, regardless of the form of Christianity. And if something contradicts the established Christian ethos, it isn't genuinely a Christian school of thought.
In the frame of Christian ethos, you can question some things but not all things (or else you are exiting Christian ethos).