Replacement theology.

[KJV1611]

So basically, anything from the OT that talk about good things to Israel, you regard that as spiritual, while anything from the OT that criticized Israel, you regard that as flesh Israel?

Yes that's right and the same goes for Jerusalem.
Verses about Jerusalem being Sodom, or Egypt or a whore, those are references to earthly Jerusalem.
Anything about Jerusalem being restored or being built again or walls of protection is about spiritual Jerusalem.

The wicked Jews were constantly trying to tear down spiritual Jerusalem.

 

[Guojing]

Yes that's right and the same goes for Jerusalem.
Verses about Jerusalem being Sodom, or Egypt or a whore, those are references to earthly Jerusalem.
Anything about Jerusalem being restored or being built again or walls of protection is about spiritual Jerusalem.

The wicked Jews were constantly trying to tear down spiritual Jerusalem.

Alright then, we can agree to disagree there.

 

[KJV1611]

Alright then, we can agree to disagree there.

Of course, we can disagree.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Strictly speaking, no one was even saved in the OT.

Jews who were not cut off from the nation Israel were all placed in Abraham's bosom/Paradise, after their death.

But if you are a gentile in the OT, and you want to be included in Paradise after death, you had to be a Jew.

Not sure where you got this but this is not true
again minivan did not covert. They repented at the teaching of Jonah and were saved. Many gentiles were saved and never knew God. All men at all times have been saved the same way. By grace through faith

 

[pottersclay]

The promise that was made to Abraham was and is literal and not spiritual.

 

[KJV1611]

The promise that was made to Abraham was and is literal and not spiritual.

I agree, there’s no such thing as a spiritual promise as far as I know of.

 

[Guojing]

Not sure where you got this but this is not true
again minivan did not covert. They repented at the teaching of Jonah and were saved. Many gentiles were saved and never knew God. All men at all times have been saved the same way. By grace through faith

How do you know that those "minivan" were saved? Any scripture there?

Which gentiles in the OT were "saved" without becoming Jews? Where is the scripture?

Salvation for Israel was always at the end of their lives, where only then will they know they are saved. Peter mentioned it a number of times in Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1, and 1 Peter 4.

For us in the Body of Christ, the main difference is that we are saved the moment we believe 1 cor 15:1-4.

 

[tribesman]

I understand

i just can not see this. My basis is this, if all the prophesies concerning the 1st coming, taken with the downfall and punishment of Israel and the giving of Gods word to the gentiles were literally fulfilled

all the rest should be taken literally also

i know there is a term for it, I think it is called precedence?

It's called preterism. I hold to partial preterism (and amillenialism), seeing all the prophecies save for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ as being fulfilled. "The end of the world" inclusive.

Take what has happened to interpret what has not yet been seen,

in this view, taking everything that has happened literally, by making the rest symbolic or allegory, does not make sense and seems contradictory,

anyway, I take Jesus as an example, he read part of is 61 In Luke 4: 18: as he is reading he suddenly stops, and proclaims “today this scripture is fulfilled.

Is 61 talk about the day the lord will come to do all those things, and as re read all of verse 1 and 2 a were as Jesus said, literally fulfilled

bit what the prophet said from vs 2 b on was never fulfilled

And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To [b]console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.”
4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins,
They shall raise up the former desolations,
And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations.
5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.
7 Instead of your shame you shall havedouble honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery [c]for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed.”
10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.


now if the first part is literal, why would the second be literally translated

what ruins, what desolations, what cities

i hope you see my point

I am quiet far from a literalistic, physical interpretation of Isa. 61:1-2. The ruins and desolate places spoken of does not refer to physical buildings. It is about apostasy and dangerous doctrines that led the children of Israel and their cities astray. So when the Lord came He rebuked all these and restored the true path of salvation. Not only for the jews, but for whomsoever would believe on Him.

Hence, by Christ's ministry it became a reality that "the whole world" would grab the garments of these jewish followers of Jesus and ask to be joined to them, since they have heard that God is with them. What can be greater than this as to fulfillment of these prophecies?

The prophetic scriptures however mentioning the land of Israel as pertaining to the return of the Lord are about the Everlasting Kingdom to be set up by the Lord Jesus Christ. Not a literal, physical millenia.

 

[tribesman]

Of course, its easy for us to look back in retrospect and understand why the 70th week of Daniel had to be postponed after Acts 7.

Can't recall that I have heard anything about Acts 7 as to "postpone" the 70th week. Usually it's the Temple destruction in AD 70 that marks a landmark of the countdown.

But if you put yourself in Peter's shoes then, can you now understand why he was hesitant to go to Cornelius's house in Acts 10, that when Jesus told them the Great Commission in Matthew 28, the "all nations" does not mean the gentile nations, but rather the Jews that were scattered across all nations (Acts 2:5)?

When do you mean that baptism of gentiles "ended"?

 

[Guojing]

Can't recall that I have heard anything about Acts 7 as to "postpone" the 70th week. Usually it's the Temple destruction in AD 70 that marks a landmark of the countdown.

When do you mean that baptism of gentiles "ended"?

The cross took place at the 69th week of Daniel.

When Peter preached to the men of Israel in Acts 2, thru the Holy Spirit, he prophesied that Joel prophecy of the 70th week is at hand, when he said

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The day of the Lord always refers to the 70th week, Jacob's trouble or the Tribulation, before the coming of Christ.

In scripture, Jesus was always pictured as seated in the heavens, example Psalms 110, Hebrews 10:12.

So when Stephen in Acts 7, thru the Holy Spirit, stated he saw Jesus standing, that was the clear indication that he saw Jesus ready to return to pour judgement on Israel, which would be the 70th week.

It made sense since the nation, whom the Holy Spirit was addressing thru him, was about to commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by stoning him. That was the unforgivable sin that Jesus was mentioning to Israel in the 4 gospels.

As for your 2nd question, that quote you used did not state that term, so I don't understand what were you asking.

 

[tribesman]

Acts 2:17-20.
The day of the Lord always refers to the 70th week, Jacob's trouble or the Tribulation, before the coming of Christ.
In scripture, Jesus was always pictured as seated in the heavens, example Psalms 110, Hebrews 10:12.
So when Stephen in Acts 7, thru the Holy Spirit, stated he saw Jesus standing, that was the clear indication that he saw Jesus ready to return to pour judgement on Israel, which would be the 70th week.

Can't recall I have heard about this before. I have to check this up.

It made sense since the nation, whom the Holy Spirit was addressing thru him, was about to commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by stoning him. That was the unforgivable sin that Jesus was mentioning to Israel in the 4 gospels.

Not sure I understand you correctly here. Stoning a holy and just man would certainly be abominable in the eyes of God and a sin unto death, which meant that guilty should be put to death. But to call that an unforgivable sin or sin against the Holy Spirit, how do you draw that conclusion? Stephen even cried to God NOT to lay that sin to their charge. So if that sin was unforgiveable it would have made no sense to plead with God.

As for your 2nd question, that quote you used did not state that term, so I don't understand what were you asking.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say that, according to your view, it seems like believing gentiles were only baptized for a certain time period, as the believing jews were still in the "program" (your wording) of applying "OT" standard to converts. At what point in time do you see this changing?

As for the vision of Peter. It was clear that Peter needed a sharpening of the understanding that the through the work of the Lord, indeed also elect and believing gentiles had been cleansed. This universality of the cleansing work of the Lord was such a great (and among jews controversial) thing that even the chief apostle Peter needed a revelation to get it into his head.

 

[tribesman]

...Many gentiles were saved and never knew God. All men at all times have been saved the same way. By grace through faith

Writing error bro? You know what John 17:3 says.

 

[Guojing]

Can't recall I have heard about this before. I have to check this up.
Not sure I understand you correctly here. Stoning a holy and just man would certainly be abominable in the eyes of God and a sin unto death, which meant that guilty should be put to death. But to call that an unforgivable sin or sin against the Holy Spirit, how do you draw that conclusion? Stephen even cried to God NOT to lay that sin to their charge. So if that sin was unforgiveable it would have made no sense to plead with God.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say that, according to your view, it seems like believing gentiles were only baptized for a certain time period, as the believing jews were still in the "program" (your wording) of applying "OT" standard to converts. At what point in time do you see this changing?

As for the vision of Peter. It was clear that Peter needed a sharpening of the understanding that the through the work of the Lord, indeed also elect and believing gentiles had been cleansed. This universality of the cleansing work of the Lord was such a great (and among jews controversial) thing that even the chief apostle Peter needed a revelation to get it into his head.

Stephen's preaching to the leaders of Israel, the Sanhedrin, was choke-full of reference about the Holy Spirit.

Acts 6
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

and of course, the grand conclusion of his sermon

Acts 7
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

When Stephen's face shone like an angel, it was a clear indication that it was not Stephen speaking, but rather the Holy Spirit addressing the nation of Israel thru him.

Recall what Jesus promised the 12 in Matthew 10:19-20?

But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.…

As for your final question, as I have stated, gentiles in time past had to become Jews to be saved. So naturally when the gospel of the kingdom was being preached to Israel, which required water baptism, they also must undergo that.

But now, after Paul was revealed the revelation of the mystery of the cross of Christ, all of us, Jews and gentiles are saved directly thru that (1 Cor 15:1-4)

 

[tribesman]

Stephen's preaching to the leaders of Israel, the Sanhedrin, was choke-full of reference about the Holy Spirit.

Acts 6
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

and of course, the grand conclusion of his sermon

Acts 7
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

When Stephen's face shone like an angel, it was a clear indication that it was not Stephen speaking, but rather the Holy Spirit addressing the nation of Israel thru him.

Recall what Jesus promised the 12 in Matthew 10:19-20?

But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.…

I can concur with all this. However, saying that the murder of Stephen equaled the unpardonable sin, I'd not go that far. Among the crowd that stood there and gave their approval of the stoning, some might later on having repented and believed. We can also name the conversion of the very apostle Paul himself in that context.

As for your final question, as I have stated, gentiles in time past had to become Jews to be saved. So naturally when the gospel of the kingdom was being preached to Israel, which required water baptism, they also must undergo that.

But now, after Paul was revealed the revelation of the mystery of the cross of Christ, all of us, Jews and gentiles are saved directly thru that (1 Cor 15:1-4)

So since then neither jew nor gentile should be baptized in water? Or are only gentiles excluded?

 

[Guojing]

I can concur with all this. However, saying that the murder of Stephen equaled the unpardonable sin, I'd not go that far. Among the crowd that stood there and gave their approval of the stoning, some might later on having repented and believed. We can also name the conversion of the very apostle Paul himself in that context.

So since then neither jew nor gentile should be baptized in water? Or are only gentiles excluded?

You can think of it this way using what the Holy Spirit spoke thru Stephen in Acts 7:51-52, which I have already quoted to you earlier

Israel rejected God the Father in the OT by ignoring or stoning their prophets, the last being John the Baptist (Luke 16:16, Acts 7:52).
Israel rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels by putting him on the cross (Acts 2:36)
Israel rejected God the Holy Spirit in Acts by stoning Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:55).

With the entire Trinity being rejected by the Jews, the last one to me is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is an unforgivable sin under the Law of Moses, God finally unveiled his hidden plan to save the Gentiles independent of the Jews, a plan he had kept hidden since the world began (Ephesians 3:9).

As Paul revealed later, he was the first to be saved in the Body of Christ (1 Tim 1:16). Under the revelation of the mystery, there is no more unpardonable sin.

For you final question, since the nation of Israel has currently fallen (Romans 11:11), now everyone Jew and gentile are to be saved directly thru the gospel revealed to the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Water baptism is no longer required for anyone now to be saved.

 

[tribesman]

You can think of it this way using what the Holy Spirit spoke thru Stephen in Acts 7:51-52, which I have already quoted to you earlier

Israel rejected God the Father in the OT by ignoring or stoning their prophets, the last being John the Baptist (Luke 16:16, Acts 7:52).
Israel rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels by putting him on the cross (Acts 2:36)
Israel rejected God the Holy Spirit in Acts by stoning Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:55).

With the entire Trinity being rejected by the Jews, the last one to me is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is an unforgivable sin under the Law of Moses, God finally unveiled his hidden plan to save the Gentiles independent of the Jews, a plan he had kept hidden since the world began (Ephesians 3:9).

As Paul revealed later, he was the first to be saved in the Body of Christ (1 Tim 1:16). Under the revelation of the mystery, there is no more unpardonable sin.

I can't agree in full. As gruesome as these sins were, they do not represent blasphemy or sin against the Holy Spirit. I would far more see that "final impenitence" is that very sin. The final hardening against the Holy Spirit conviction of sin. It's when that door of reconciliation is shut for good.

May I ask you from where you have gotten this view? You might say "The Bible", but I mean if there is any certain teacher or fellowship that teach this view?

For you final question, since the nation of Israel has currently fallen (Romans 11:11), now everyone Jew and gentile are to be saved directly thru the gospel revealed to the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Water baptism is no longer required for anyone now to be saved.

Interesting that you say there is one single gospel for jew and gentile. That said, if we mind that also believing jews are to "live like jews" and see baptism as a form of cleansing, in connection with the Law, don't you think it would be a stumblingblock to other jews if a believing jew would say "no need for baptism"? Remember Timothy, whose mother was a jewess, even accepted to be circumcised (now we are there again ) as not to offend the jews he was going to preach to.

 

[Guojing]

I can't agree in full. As gruesome as these sins were, they do not represent blasphemy or sin against the Holy Spirit. I would far more see that "final impenitence" is that very sin. The final hardening against the Holy Spirit conviction of sin. It's when that door of reconciliation is shut for good.

May I ask you from where you have gotten this view? You might say "The Bible", but I mean if there is any certain teacher or fellowship that teach this view?

Interesting that you say there is one single gospel for jew and gentile. That said, if we mind that also believing jews are to "live like jews" and see baptism as a form of cleansing, in connection with the Law, don't you think it would be a stumblingblock to other jews if a believing jew would say "no need for baptism"? Remember Timothy, whose mother was a jewess, even accepted to be circumcised (now we are there again ) as not to offend the jews he was going to preach to.

Its from the proper reading of scripture, the book of Acts, and understanding the words used there literally. So when Peter and Stephen addressed Israel, I don't try to insert myself into the sermon.

As for water baptism, again, when you read the scripture literally as far as possible, taking context into account. Israel is to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9), to reach out to the gentiles after the nation accept Jesus as their king and Messiah (Zechariah 8:23). All these means water baptism is necessary for their program.

But the nation Israel is currently an enemy of God (Romans 11:11), so that program is now put on hold until the millennial reign of Christ.

Together with the Apostle Paul not telling us in the Body of Christ that water baptism is part of the salvation process, in fact, he even stated that he was not called to baptize (1 Cor 1:17), I see no scripture telling us that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

But as I said, getting water baptized is not a sin, you can go ahead and perform it if you want. It is less costly than physical circumcision so there is no problem there.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Writing error bro? You know what John 17:3 says.

wow yeah I am trying to think of what I could have meant to say that changed to God. Ugh..

many were saved and yet never knew the Jewish way, but I do not think even that is what I meant to say, I sometime hate typing on my small iPhone 7

 

[tribesman]

wow yeah I am trying to think of what I could have meant to say that changed to God. Ugh..

many were saved and yet never knew the Jewish way, but I do not think even that is what I meant to say, I sometime hate typing on my small iPhone 7

Avoid auto typing and correctives.

And, ya, why could not God have saved people in americas or southern africa that time through dreams or visions. The Spirit leading them to avoid uncleanliness and such. Who are we to set a limit for that? And I am very OK with God doing so.

 

[tribesman]

Its from the proper reading of scripture, the book of Acts, and understanding the words used there literally. So when Peter and Stephen addressed Israel, I don't try to insert myself into the sermon.

As for water baptism, again, when you read the scripture literally as far as possible, taking context into account. Israel is to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9), to reach out to the gentiles after the nation accept Jesus as their king and Messiah (Zechariah 8:23). All these means water baptism is necessary for their program.

But the nation Israel is currently an enemy of God (Romans 11:11), so that program is now put on hold until the millennial reign of Christ.

Together with the Apostle Paul not telling us in the Body of Christ that water baptism is part of the salvation process, in fact, he even stated that he was not called to baptize (1 Cor 1:17), I see no scripture telling us that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

But as I said, getting water baptized is not a sin, you can go ahead and perform it if you want. It is less costly than physical circumcision so there is no problem there.

Well, thanks. I guess you have some dispensational background, seeing the stress you make of an earthly millenium with Israel as leading nation. Although, as you understand, I am not in full agreement, there are some interesting things you brought up.

So, since you say we can opt out water baptism, what is the sign and seal of the covenant today, as you see it?