Historical lineage of Israel

[LadyEagle]

Our pedigree is thru our older brother who purchased our legal adoption as sons. If we had to go with our physical lineage then we would need documentation to prove that lineage. To say legality does not matter is to dismiss the need for the cross.

Well, then, Strat, I think you have a bit of a quandry here. Because there are no papers (other than the Bible) to prove Jesus is of the lineage he says - those would have been destroyed at the temple in AD70, too.

Furthermore, to follow your line of reasoning, God would have to have the paper deed to Jerusalem before He could legally make it the New Jerusalem. If you need to have legal papers to prove these things, you are in a bit of a quandry, don't you think?

Me - I don't need the papers. I accept it all by faith. It's all in God's Word. He said it. That's good enough for me.

 

[Stratiotes]

LE, I have a great deal of respect for you whether you think I do or not. But the logic of your last post is a bit difficult to follow and a bit of a stretch to make a point so I'm not sure how to respond to it.

Here is some more of the question though - and again, these are honest questions not intended to pick a fight - just things that I've wondered about from my own personal study. A few scriptures seem to imply that all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in the first generations after the Exodus, for instance:
Deuteronomy 1:10, Joshua 21:43-45, Joshua 23:1,14

How do we explain these?

 

[Johnv]

We can (and should) support the present day State of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation, but that's where it ends. We cannot as Baptists support the governmental system of the State of Israel, because it's a Jewish theocratic system, and it violates the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

As far as the lineage of Israel, that is in regards to a people, not a tract of land decided by political boundaries. A Jew is a Jew regardless of where he/she resides. The largest population of Jews is in the Unites States, not Israel, and most American Jews have no desire whatsoever to live in Israel, any more than most of us have the desire to live in the lands where our ancestors came from (which, in the case of my maternal side, no longer exists).

 

[LadyEagle]

We cannot as Baptists support the governmental system of the State of Israel, because it's a Jewish theocratic system, and it violates the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

Oh, horsefeathers! What bunk!

The Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state the way you have interpreted it would be in direct conflict with the coming 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ then. That's why the straw man you just threw in here got blown back into the weeds.

 

[LadyEagle]

Strat, the least you could do is cut and paste the verses for me instead of giving the references if you want me to comment. Of course, I will go ahead and check them out anyway just because that is my nature, LOL. But since they aren't in front of me at the moment, I'll get back to you with any comments.

 

[just-want-peace]

We cannot as Baptists support the governmental system of the State of Israel, because it's a Jewish theocratic system, and it violates the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

Sorry JV, but I, as a Baptist, have absolutely no problem with this. It's their country, & if that type of govt is their desire, then so be it! Just because I would not want it is no reason for me or anybody else, to deny ( or not support, if you will,) their freedom to construct any type of govt they want.

This premise is the basis of my objection to 99.99% of the liberals objectives; they are trying to force me to live by their standards by making their "ways" the only legality.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
The Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state the way you have interpreted it would be in direct conflict with the coming 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ then.

There is no conflict since there will be no literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on this present earth as you describe it.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
The Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state the way you have interpreted it would be in direct conflict with the coming 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ then.

There is no conflict since there will be no literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on this present earth as you describe it. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm falling off of my chair, now.

Surely you can't be a Baptist, Ken. Let alone a Southern Baptist. I've never personally known or met (other than this board) a Baptist who doesn't believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. Surely you must have some lively Sunday School classes when you bring up your view at your SBC church.

So, please start a new thread if you want to rehash the literal vs allegorical vs figurative 1000 year reign under Other Religions. I'm sure some of your usual buddies will show up.

 

[rsr]

"Surely you can't be a Baptist, Ken. Let alone a Southern Baptist. I've never personally known or met (other than this board) a Baptist who doesn't believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ."

It was fairly common earlier, LE. Both Y.E. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs were amillenialists. Premillenialism has always held sway. B.H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was a a postmillennialist, as was Spurgeon.

 

[LadyEagle]

Dr. Bob where are you? I've been thrown to the usual straw "wolves" here.

Strat: I looked up your verses and also looked up that they are especially used by people who want to "prove" the Bible is full of contradictions. Since Israel did not possess all the land at the time of Deuteronomy/Moses, it seems to even be a common topic on the atheist board, using the Scriptures you gave, to prove the Bible is wrong, as well as those same verses being referenced on many web pages which teach replacement theology, as well. Thanks for the interesting tour on google.

At any rate. Perhaps Israel did once possess the land, though at the time those verses were written, they still hadn't conquered all of it. But that is beside the point. There is the matter of "everlasting covenants" made by God. God didn't make a condition on the covenants He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Neither did He make a condition when He made an "everlasting covenant" with Noah not to destroy the earth by water again. An everlasting covenant is an everlasting covenant, when God swears an oath. Period.

Next, even if Israel did possess the land and lost it due to their sin and turning to strange God's, there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled. These prophecies were written at a later time than the time of Moses.

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:

32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put MY LAW in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

By a commentator:

These thoughts are taken up by the writer of Hebrews where we find these words about the 'new covenant:' Heb.8: 7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8: For FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL and with the HOUSE OF JUDAH: (my comment: No where does it say "church")

9: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10: For this is the covenant that I will make with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Another prophecy that was not fulfilled at the time of Moses:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:11,12).

As noted by one commentator:

It is of great interest to notice that Isaiah predicted that the people of Israel would return to their homeland by airplanes, hundreds of years before the invention of airplanes.

Who are these that fly along like the clouds, like doves to their nests? (Isaiah 60:8 NIV).

He also predicted that they would return by ships.

Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee (Isaiah 60:9).

Isaiah foresaw that the second restoration of Israel would be in the days of air transportation. This is to be Israel's final restoration. There is no third restoration mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Physical Israel will never again be rooted out of its land, according to God's promise:

And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God (Amos 9:14,15).

This final restoration of the Jews to their homeland is a demonstration of the truthfulness of the Bible and the faithfulness of God.

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, rsr, thanks. But they were before my time. I still don't personally know a Baptist who believes as Ken does, especially a SBC Baptist. But I apologize, Ken.

 

[Stratiotes]

LE, your points are well made and I don't know that I would disagree with much of it except for this bit which seems to play right into the atheist hands you mentioned:

Originally posted by LadyEagle:

At any rate. Perhaps Israel did once possess the land, though at the time those verses were written, they still hadn't conquered all of it. But that is beside the point.

If they did not have it when God had said they did then either God is a liar or else He never actualyl said that and we have to remove those verses from the canon. If the scripture said it, then it was true - whether we think we know different from history or not. Its rather like evolution - no matter how many "experts" tell us Genesis is wrong we know the "experts" must be wrong and scripture true - let God be true and every man a liar. If scripture clearly does not fit our understanding then it is our understanding that needs adjusting - not scripture, but I think we agree on that.

As for personal experience I can asure you there are quite a few southern baptists that are not of the dispensational persuasion and, at one time, as has been pointed out, there were quite a few more that were not. Eschatology is not an issue we need to divide over - surely as baptists we can think of something important to argue about, like, say, the color of the carpet in the sanctuary .

 

[LadyEagle]

If scripture clearly does not fit our understanding then it is our understanding that needs adjusting - not scripture, but I think we agree on that.

Yes we do!

I'm glad we can agree to disagree. About the atheists view point - who cares? Whether it was physical possessing and conquering at the time or not - perhaps it's a matter lost in interpretation from Hebrew or maybe it was a matter of faith. You know, the evidence of things not yet seen? That type of thing. I don't view it as an error. I'm sure some Biblical theologian who knows Hebrew and all historical data replete with old maps could set the atheists straight, LOL.

 

[rsr]

To pick up a dropped word:

LE said:

"Surely you can't be a Baptist, Ken. Let alone a Southern Baptist. I've never personally known or met (other than this board) a Baptist who doesn't believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ."

It was fairly common earlier, LE. Both Y.E. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs were amillenialists. Premillenialism has not always held sway. B.H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was a a postmillennialist, as was Spurgeon.

Obviously, I left out the word NOT. Thanks for not picking at it.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
I'm falling off of my chair, now.

Surely you can't be a Baptist, Ken. Let alone a Southern Baptist. I've never personally known or met (other than this board) a Baptist who doesn't believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ.

I can find nothing in the Baptist Distinctives or the SBC articles of faith and practice that require SBC members from requiring a belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. I don't mean to start a war here, or hijack the thread, but I don't think it's wise to question another's baptisticness when the issue at hand is not a required issue of baptist belief.

 

[MNJacob]

Back to the original topic. It is an interesting question that without the records that were destroyed with the temple, who can validate their priestly heritage. That is the most interesting question.

For us, it's no big deal. Because we know the identity of our high priest.

But for an orthodox Jew, it does raise some a bit of a problem.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Surely you must have some lively Sunday School classes when you bring up your view at your SBC church.

I don't bring it up. Very few people know that I am have no use for dispensational premillennialism. In person I am rather shy and tend to keep my views to myself so only the non-face-to-face environment of the Internet enables me to discuss this, and other issues as well.

 

[LadyEagle]

Thanks for your honesty, Ken.

 

[Daniel David]

I actually don't find where it says that the 144,000 will necessarily even know what tribe they are part of. They won't have to prove it. I think it will be obvious that they are part of the sealed.

We don't know how God will seal them.

The important thing to know is that God knows. He has not required that the person prove that he is sealed.