Israel is not a Nation ???

[parousia70]

Originally posted by parousia70
Funny how most folks here, regardless of their position on futurism vs. preterism, come down on the side of Todays Israel being fraudulent (covenantally speaking).

This may be a politically incorrect question to ask :o, but I'm curious. Do you believe this "fraud" is intentional on the part of Today's Israel, or based on ignorance (or a little of both)? I personally don't know myself, just interested to see what others think.

What a great question!

I can't say I know either, but I guess I suspect it's a little of both.
Hmmmmm....

Certainly, there are those Israeli citizens - government officials who genuinely believe they are the manifestation of Biblical Israel in modern times, and certainly there are those who don't actually believe it but find it expedient for their goals of Power to profess it anyway.

Interestingly, the most orthodox Israeli (and non Israeli) Jews reject the current political Israel as the manifestation of Biblical Israel in modern times.

Hmmmm great question os... gonna hafta ponder it summore

 

[parousia70]

Are Gay Isralis Gods Chosen?

An addemdum to my insistance that todays Political Israel is laying a fradulent claim to the Covenant Name Israel because of the Multi ethnic SECULAR makeup of the Nation, is the recent news about the Shooting at an Israli gay Nightclub.

A little Wiki browsing and I found that Israel's Gay rights are the most lenient in the Middle east and most of Aisa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

Do Futurists believe that Gay Isralis, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hundu, Bhuddist, atheist, agnostic or whatever, Do futurists believe these people are The Israel of Scripture?

NBF, is this your stance?

 

[Benoni]

All of Israel were once priest, but under the Law this could happen and God knew it. But under Jesus or Melchisedec this is God’s plan so they can minister to all the remaining people.

Ex. 19:5-6: "And ye shall be unto Me A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS." The full text reads, "Now, therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: and ye shall be unto Me A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, and an holy nation."

We could not think of a disobedient people being for God - "a peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." The apostle Peter speaks of the saints as "children of obedience"; they are begotten of that nature, and characterized by it. He speaks of "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding Word of God" (I Pet. 1:14, 23). Man after the flesh is born of corruptible seed, but there is another generation born of incorruptible seed, who desire earnestly the pure milk of the Word, and then the strong meat of the Word, and who grow up into the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ by it. They become "a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a purpose" (I Pet. 2:9). Just what the Lord proposed in Exodus chapter 19.

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Are Gay Isralis Gods Chosen?

An addemdum to my insistance that todays Political Israel is laying a fradulent claim to the Covenant Name Israel because of the Multi ethnic SECULAR makeup of the Nation, is the recent news about the Shooting at an Israli gay Nightclub.

A little Wiki browsing and I found that Israel's Gay rights are the most lenient in the Middle east and most of Aisa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

Do Futurists believe that Gay Isralis, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hundu, Bhuddist, atheist, agnostic or whatever, Do futurists believe these people are The Israel of Scripture?

Obviously mistranslated! King James refers to them as 'Happy' Israelis.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousia70
Do futurists believe these people are The Israel of Scripture?

I don't understand the question (though I do believe you‘re having some fun). You do mean "futurists" who don't understand the aforementioned concept of Abraham's seed via the New Covenant; correct?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by parousia70
Do futurists believe these people are The Israel of Scripture?

I don't understand the question (though I do believe you‘re having some fun). You do mean "futurists" who don't understand the aforementioned concept of Abraham's seed via the New Covenant; correct?

Yes, of course... sorry, i should have been more precise... How about Futuristic Christian Zionists?

 

[parousia70]

As far as "when"? The covenant between God and the biological descendants of Abraham ended at the Cross (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 24:1-8; Ephesians 2; Colossians 2:13-17). The death of Jesus brought an end to an exclusive covenant that existed between God and the nation of ancient Israel. That covenant was based on the shedding of blood and it was temporary (shadows); and is why it was called a "blood covenant" (Zechariah 9:11), "the old covenant" (2 Corinthians 3:14), "the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:1), or "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22).

We may have had this conversation before, but based on what you have written above, what do you make of the Writer of Hebrews stating the 1st covenant was, at the time of his writing, "growing old" and "ready to vanish", instead of "already vanished" as I understand your position to be?

 

[^Lazarus]

We may have had this conversation before, but based on what you have written above, what do you make of the Writer of Hebrews stating the 1st covenant was, at the time of his writing, "growing old" and "ready to vanish", instead of "already vanished" as I understand your position to be?

welp, i reckon i just couldn't help chiming in on this one.

This is an old preterist trick, I've seen it many times before, they wrest this verse in an effort to try and prove that the 1st covenant was abolished in 70AD along with the destruction of the Jewish temple, like as if the temple and the old covenant had to coexist somehow.

nowhere in Hebrews does the Writer state that the 1st covenant was, at the time of his writing, "growing old" or, "ready to vanish", he doesn't even imply such a thing, what he does state is that (paraphrased) the 1st covenant became old and ready to vanish away when God said he would make a new one, way back in jer 31:31, long before 70AD.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

by saying a new covenant, the 1st was made old, right then! not in 70AD, i think the preterists put far too much emphasis on the word "now" in this verse .

the old covenant reached its consummation when Jesus said "it is finished", not 70AD, the new covenant was confirmed on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 not 70AD, in fact 70AD has little to do with anything that the preterists claim except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and as for temple sacrifices? they became null and void when Jesus said "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." not 70AD as the preterists would have us believe.

 

[parousia70]

the old covenant reached its consummation when Jesus said "it is finished", not 70AD, the new covenant was confirmed on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 not 70AD, in fact 70AD has little to do with anything that the preterists claim except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and as for temple sacrifices? they became null and void when Jesus said "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." not 70AD as the preterists would have us believe.

So. when Paul Said he became one who was under the law (which he said long after pentacost) how could that be if as you say the Law ended at the Cross? Or is that just a futurist trick?

and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
( 1 Cor 9:20)

 

[NIGHTMARE]

the old covenant reached its consummation when Jesus said "it is finished", not 70AD, the new covenant was confirmed on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 not 70AD, in fact 70AD has little to do with anything that the preterists claim except for the destruction of Jerusalem, and as for temple sacrifices? they became null and void when Jesus said "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." not 70AD as the preterists would have us believe.

So. when Paul Said he became one who was under the law (which he said long after pentacost) how could that be if as you say the Law ended at the Cross? Or is that just a futurist trick?

and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
( 1 Cor 9:20)

The word Jew as it is used here is ,,,,,,"ioudaios, ee-oo-dah'-yos; from 2443 (in the sense of 2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah."

So Paul is only saying When he goes to the land he will speak to them in there language,,,,he will talk like he is from Judaea say they will understand and feel what he is saying.......

And of course the law did not end on the cross..........

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by parousi70
So. when Paul Said he became one who was under the law (which he said long after pentacost) how could that be if as you say the Law ended at the Cross? Or is that just a futurist trick?

and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
( 1 Cor 9:20)

Not everyone converted parousia, and Paul, once a zealous legalist himself (i.e. "under the law") had first hand experience in making that very conversion. Who better to explain than one who was at one time completely immersed in the law. Even Jewish converts (believers) could not let go of their Mosaic baggage. They persistently tried to enforce feast observances and Levitical ceremonies on new Gentile converts in Galatia (probably akin to what the RCC does with it's faux-Levitical priesthood setup :D). Paul denounced the Gentiles who were following the ways of these Jewish converts:

"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God – or rather are known by God – how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." (Galatians 4:8-11)

(Notice the tense - "you ARE observing special days...")

Paul was an expert in the old ways of the law (i.e. he WAS under the law - past tense). He was instructing those who could not "let go" of the Aaronic priesthood and the Old Covenant (obviously implying that the New Covenant was already implemented). He was simply instructing people on how to make the transition from the Mosaic covenant to the "New Covenant" (i.e. NOW, not in 70 AD).

"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He [Jesus] of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." (Hebrews 7:12-14)

How could the old order under the animal blood covenant be intact if Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, is NOW our High Priest? Since the Cross, our High Priest comes from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and with a change in the priesthood, also comes a change of law (Hebrews 7:12). Since the descendants of Aaron can no longer be high priests, Levitical laws are NO LONGER valid (as in "the present"). This occurred at the Cross.

 

[^Lazarus]

So. when Paul Said he became one who was under the law (which he said long after pentacost) how could that be if as you say the Law ended at the Cross?

Where is it Paul said this again? cause he sure doesn't say it in the verse you provided, he said "as under the law" not "under the law" as you put it, big difference.

Or is that just a futurist trick?

Nope no futurist trick here, (as I'm not a futurist) just the plain simple truth.

 

[Drew]

And of course the law did not end on the cross..........

I disagree. Both Jesus and Paul clearly indicate that through Jesus' inauguration of the Kingdom of God, that the Torah - the written law of Moses is no longer in force. Just 2 examples from Paul:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

A new phase in God's plan was inaugurated through the work of Jesus. The Torah served its purpose - it is retired at the cross.