Jews vs Christians

[Pastor Larry]

I have been thinking that was a prophecy about the Apostles leading Gentiles to Christ. But I never noticed that it speaks of "a" Jew, so maybe it is a prophecy about Paul. After all, Paul is called "the Apostle to the Gentiles."

Again, read the context. You guys seem to have a real aversion to studying the text itself.

Zechariah 8:7-15 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'Behold, I am going to save My people from the land of the east and from the land of the west; 8 and I will bring them back and they will live in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God in truth and righteousness.'

When were the apostles or Christ ever exiled to the land of the east or the west?

'It will come about that just as you were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so I will save you that you may become a blessing.

When were the apostles or Christ ever a curse among the nations that they would now be a blessing?

14 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, 'Just as I purposed to do harm to you when your fathers provoked Me to wrath,' says the LORD of hosts, 'and I have not relented, 15 so I have again purposed in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Do not fear!

When did God ever purpose to do harm to the apostles or Christ because they provoked Him to wrath?

These are the Jews who are being reference in v. 23. The point of "a Jew" is to highlight the numerical disparity: 1:10. There won't be many Jews, but they will be highly respected and sought after because God is evidently with them. That didn't happen to Christ or the apostles, both of whom were widely rejected and eventually killed. That is not what Zech 8:23 has in mind.

Again, I beg you guys (and Amy ) ... Look at the text. Dump your pat explanations and get back to the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Strange, you say: "God said the descendants of Abraham would live in the promised land forever in peace."

Yet dispensational theology claims that the forever lasts only 1000 little ole years. Now who is lying?

You apparently haven't taken time to learn what 'olam means. Why not? Why do you pontificate on this stuff when you don't even know what the words used mean? Get out your BDB or HALOT and look it up. It makes perfect sense.

But that doesn't answer the question I asked you. You say that it was fulfilled in the OT. Yet that doesn't meet the qualifications of the promise. So how do you answer it?

 

[Amy.G]

The word translated "forever" is the Hebrew word 'olam which has a semantic range that includes not only "forever" but "a long period of time." It is used that way quite often actually. So this presents no problem since 1000 years is a "long time" by anyone's definition I would imagine.

Where did you get this definition? I can't find it.


How do you explain EZ 37:24?

24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.


How can David co-reign with Christ if there is only one shepherd?

Christ is the only shepherd.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Good questions, Amy.

Where did you get this definition? I can't find it.

Any Hebrew lexicon will give it, such as Brown Driver and Briggs, Kohler Baumgartner, Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Strong's probably gives it too. Just do a concordance search on the Hebrew word and see how it is translated. You will it there too.

How do you explain EZ 37:24?

24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.


How can David co-reign with Christ if there is only one shepherd?

Christ is the only shepherd.

The same way that we co-reign with Christ, or the apostles. The pattern of undershepherds is well established in Scripture, both in Israel and in the church.

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry Pastor Larry but I just don't see it. Maybe I will later after more study.

Right now I have to go eat pizza! I didn't have to cook tonight!

 

[Havensdad]

That isn't what Scripture teaches. You will find nowhere in Scripture where the church which is the body of Christ is equated with Israel. If you have a place, I will be glad to look at it. So far, I haven't seen one.

Can you show a verse where the Church and Israel are shown to be two distinct bodies? According to scripture, Gentiles are grafted into ISRAEL: not just "members of the Church".

The FACT is that the term "body of Christ", is synonymous with Israel.

Jews and Gentiles and equal in the church, but not in Israel. If you read the OT, you will see that very clearly. Gentiles as proselytes were not given full rights in Israel.

Not only have I studied it, I have had formal classes on every book of the Old Testament: why must you belittle others who refuse to hold to your racist theology?

The fact is, you are WRONG. When someone was circumcised, they became as a "native of the land"; a true Israelite. It was only the "Gentiles" which was the same as "sojourners" who had restrictions. The Pharisees and scribes ADDED this racist stuff; it is not found in the Tanakh.

So if that is true in Joshua, why is the promise repeated more than 1000 years later?

Don't you even read the text? Specifically it is the promise of a specific piece of land which was fulfilled. There was more than one promise in the Bible.

So was there racism with God when he chose Israel over all other nations? Of course not.

Not at all. Because ANYONE could receive circumcision and become "a native of the land" (i.e. a full Israelite).

Your argument makes no sense.

Not to someone brainwashed by dispensationalism, I guess.

When the Bible says there is no distinction, you have to give a reference so we can look at it. the Bible uses that terminology two ways that I can think of: 1) with respect to judgment ... both Jew and Gentile are sinner and God does not respect persons; 2) with respect to believers in the church. To my knowledge, God never makes that statement with respect to his promises to Israel.

You are separating things, and completely misunderstanding the verses. The Bible isn't saying that He treats "two groups equally regarding salvation". It says there isn't even a DISTINCTION between Jew and Gentile! If there is no way of distinguishing between a Jew and Gentile, how can they be held to two different promises?

BTW, where does it talk about two separate promises in the New Testament again?

Where did I claim differently? Again you are confusing things. Those of faith are Abraham's offspring in the gospel. But the promises were made to Abraham's genetic seed in Genesis 17, specifically not non-genetic seed.

The promise made to Abraham is ours, according to Paul. Remember what Jesus said :

Mat 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Do you doubt the words of Christ?

My answer is just read the text careully. Paul's point there is about his "kinsmen according to the flesh." That is not you and I as Gentiles. It is Jews. This is so simple I can't imagine you even ask that. I suppose I should cease to be amazed but somehow I never am.

Again, let's just look at the text: It says, "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," It does not say, "For not all who "belong to Israel are descended from Israel." Or to put it this way, you are affirming something the text doesn't address. It says nothing about whether or not "Israel" has some from outside of genetic Israel in it. I think it doesn't, but the text doesn't say that. The text simply says that everyone in one group (descended from Israel) are in another group ("Israel"). It says nothing about who else might or might not be in the second group.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would one ACTUALLY DESCENDED from Abraham, need to be "COUNTED AS OFFSPRING"? :laugh: Your really reaching with that one.

Is English your second language? Perhaps you would do well buying a Bible that is in your home language. Your interpretation is in direct opposition to what the text actually says.

The point of Romans 9 is that one does not have salvation simply by being an ethnic Jew. It takes more, not less.

As I have shown, that idea is foreign to the text. The point of Romans 9 is that Israel is and has always been according to the individual election of God, and not according to any physical descent. the text SPECIFICALLY says that it election to Israel is not "according to the flesh", but all the children of the promise are "counted" (not actually, in each case) as offspring.

Perhaps I could suggest some books on hermeneutics?

:BangHead:

 

[Havensdad]

Again I ask, can you show that from the text?

If you read the passage, you will see that people are "going up to the Lord," not grabbing onto the Lord.

Come on folks, at least get involved in the text itself.

Might I ask, do you need lessons on the Trinity as well? Perhaps you haven't noticed the other "contradictory" verses such as this one...


Mat 22:42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David."
Mat 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'?

And Pastor Larry says "But Jesus, this can't be talking about you: there are TWO Lords mentioned here.."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

[Pastor Larry]

can you show a verse where the Church and Israel are shown to be two distinct bodies?

All of them. But look at a few like Gal 6:16: Galatians 6:16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Or 1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; or Romans 11:25-29 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

The FACT is that the term "body of Christ", is synonymous with Israel.

Can you show any place where these two terms are used synonymously?

Not only have I studied it, I have had formal classes on every book of the Old Testament: why must you belittle others who refuse to hold to your racist theology?

Do not call me a racist. There is nothing racist about me. I resent that and take it very seriously. Do not ever do it again.

If you have had formal classes in the OT, then you should know better.

Don't you even read the text? Specifically it is the promise of a specific piece of land which was fulfilled. There was more than one promise in the Bible.

Yes, I read the text. The fact is that the specific piece of land is promised to Israel long after the conquest and Solomon.

It says there isn't even a DISTINCTION between Jew and Gentile! If there is no way of distinguishing between a Jew and Gentile, how can they be held to two different promises?

In some respects there isn’t. In other respects there is.

BTW, where does it talk about two separate promises in the New Testament again?

The OT is inspired as well. The promises to Israel as a nation are made clear in Acts 3, Gal 3, other places as well. The OT is full of them.

Do you doubt the words of Christ?

No, not at all.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would one ACTUALLY DESCENDED from Abraham, need to be "COUNTED AS OFFSPRING"?

Because they do not believe. That’s what the text says.

Is English your second language? Perhaps you would do well buying a Bible that is in your home language.

No, English is my first language. I have always done well in it. For instance, when I was in third grade, I read at a 12th grade level. I worked for a while as a copy editor/proof reader while in seminary. So you probably don't want to attack my English skills. For the Bible, I usually study out of Hebrew and Greek though. I can address those too if you would like.

Your interpretation is in direct opposition to what the text actually says.

How so? Your saying so doesn’t make it so. If you think I am in error, do more than make assertions. Use the text and show it.

As I have shown, that idea is foreign to the text. The point of Romans 9 is that Israel is and has always been according to the individual election of God, and not according to any physical descent. the text SPECIFICALLY says that it election to Israel is not "according to the flesh", but all the children of the promise are "counted" (not actually, in each case) as offspring.

Yes, read the text. The children of the promise are the Israelites who believe. Again, this is so patently obvious from the text I can’t imagine anyone missing it.

Perhaps I could suggest some books on hermeneutics?

Given what I have seen here, I would put them on the list to avoid. You have an abominable hermeneutic.

Might I ask, do you need lessons on the Trinity as well? Perhaps you haven't noticed the other "contradictory" verses such as this one...


Mat 22:42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David."
Mat 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'?

And Pastor Larry says "But Jesus, this can't be talking about you: there are TWO Lords mentioned here.."

That’s nonsense. But look at the bright side: You didn’t have to address the text.

 

[tinytim]

When was the church ever two nations that they could be restored into one? Hint: They weren't. They were "not a nation."

I just want to point out your mistake here...

The church is called a nation...

1 Peter 2:9
(9) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

 

[J.D.]

Good questions, Amy.

Any Hebrew lexicon will give it, such as Brown Driver and Briggs, Kohler Baumgartner, Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Strong's probably gives it too. Just do a concordance search on the Hebrew word and see how it is translated. You will it there too.

The same way that we co-reign with Christ, or the apostles. The pattern of undershepherds is well established in Scripture, both in Israel and in the church.

So does that mean we all take turns sitting on the throne?

By the way, admit it - you've been snagged on that "forever" business. You admit that sometimes "forever" really means age-lasting and other time it means all-ages-lasting-without-end. Depends on a proper hermeneutic AND exegesis, doesn't it?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I just want to point out your mistake here...

The church is called a nation...

That's not a mistake. It is a reference to the passages such as 1 Peter 2:10 (not a people but now are a people) and Romans 10:19 (But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, "I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU" ). So before accusing me of making an error, you might want to run a simple concordance search.

The passage you cite is Peter using OT terminology. The church is made up of people from every nation since there is no more Jew or Greek, Barbarian or Scythian, slave or free.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Walvoord also teaches in Major Bible Prophecies that David will reign as coregent with Jesus Christ in the millennial kingdom. He writes [page 393] "Though many have tried to explain away this passage [Ezekiel 37:24-25], it obviously requires the Second Coming of Christ, the establishment of David’s kingdom on earth, the resurrection of David, and David’s sharing the throne of Israel as coregent with Christ."

STRANGE isn't it!

Response by Pastor Larry
And what is strange about that?

It is going to be a tight fit on the throne of David; that is unless they work in shifts!!!!!

Response by Pastor Larry
25 "They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.

Lets not ignore verse 26: Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

The word translated forever in verse 25 and everlasting and forevermore in verse 26 means the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity. Now is God going to be with Israel throughout eternity or with the Church as is taught in Revelation 21, 22?

Where is the millennial reign of dispensationalism, supposedly based on Old Testament prophecy? It doesn’t exist! However, the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Jesus Christ which, as the Baptist Faith and Message states, includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, will dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth with the Triune God forever, that means throughout eternity I

 

[Pastor Larry]

So does that mean we all take turns sitting on the throne?

No.

By the way, admit it - you've been snagged on that "forever" business. You admit that sometimes "forever" really means age-lasting and other time it means all-ages-lasting-without-end. Depends on a proper hermeneutic AND exegesis, doesn't it?

How was I snagged? I am the one who pointed it out. If you look back at past discussions, you will see I have been making that point for years here.

The others here were the ones who seem to have missed it. Several seem to have never even heard of it before, which seems strange to me, given the authority with which some are offering their views. It seems to me that if you are going to be dogmatic on something you should at least be familiar with the terminology used and what it means. But I admit to being picky about that kind of stuff. To me it makes no sense to be dogmatic on something when you don't even know what the points of discussion are.

 

[J.D.]

No.

How was I snagged? I am the one who pointed it out. If you look back at past discussions, you will see I have been making that point for years here.

The others here were the ones who seem to have missed it. Several seem to have never even heard of it before, which seems strange to me, given the authority with which some are offering their views. It seems to me that if you are going to be dogmatic on something you should at least be familiar with the terminology used and what it means. But I admit to being picky about that kind of stuff. To me it makes no sense to be dogmatic on something when you don't even know what the points of discussion are.

Right - in pointing out to Amy that forever doesn't necessarily mean forever, you open your own dispensational understanding (of Israel's claim to the land as an ever-lasting possession) to the same critique.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is going to be a tight fit on the throne of David; that is unless they work in shifts!!!!!

Not if you know what "throne of David" means. It's not talking about a chair, but about a ruling authority. Kings are "on their throne" even when they are in bed.

Lets not ignore verse 26: Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

The word translated forever in verse 25 and everlasting and forevermore in verse 26 means the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity.

As I pointed out, it is the word 'olam in Hebrew. I have already defined it. You can look it up yourself. I am interested as to where you got the definition you posted above.

Now is God going to be with Israel throughout eternity or with the Church as is taught in Revelation 21, 22?

Both.

Where is the millennial reign of dispensationalism, supposedly based on Old Testament prophecy?

Where as in where in the Bible or where on earth? Not sure what your question is.

However, the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Jesus Christ which, as the Baptist Faith and Message states, includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, will dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth with the Triune God forever, that means throughout eternity I

If you read Revelation, you will see that the New Jerusalem is in the new heavens and new earth, which is after the millennial kingdom.

Have you still not read Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom? You seriously need to get the book and read it. Many of the questions you are asking here are so elementary, and they are answered well in his book (though I disagree with him on some things). His is one of the best books available on the topic. Very comprehensive. Whether you agree with him or not, no one should be entering serious discussions on the kingdom until they have read his book.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Right - in pointing out to Amy that forever doesn't necessarily mean forever, you open your own dispensational understanding (of Israel's claim to the land as an ever-lasting possession) to the same critique.

I guess I am not following you here. I never knew it was closed to that critique. In fact, I think it is a central point. It is how you can have an "everlasting" possession in a passing world. Perhaps you can help me understand what your point is.

 

[OldRegular]

I just want to point out your mistake here...

The church is called a nation...

1 Peter 2:9
(9) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

You are correct but quoting the New Testament doesn't faze Pastor Larry.:BangHead:

 

[OldRegular]

No.

The others here were the ones who seem to have missed it. Several seem to have never even heard of it before, which seems strange to me, given the authority with which some are offering their views. It seems to me that if you are going to be dogmatic on something you should at least be familiar with the terminology used and what it means. But I admit to being picky about that kind of stuff. To me it makes no sense to be dogmatic on something when you don't even know what the points of discussion are.

I learned 2-3 years ago that the only one on this Forum who knew any Scripture was Pastor Larry so I quit discussing it with him. Soon after I took a two year hiatus but am back temporarily. I see Pastor Larry hasn't changed. Is it possible that more than one infallible man has been born. Maybe the "rapture" is near!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are correct but quoting the New Testament doesn't faze Pastor Larry

That's nonsense and you know it.

I learned 2-3 years ago that the only one on this Forum who knew any Scripture was Pastor Larry so I quit discussing it with him. Soon after I took a two year hiatus but am back temporarily. I see Pastor Larry hasn't changed. Is it possible that more than one infallible man has been born. Maybe the "rapture" is near!

Again, pure nonsense. You know better. Why not just discuss the Scriptures? I have thrown out a lot of them, and you haven't discussed them. The ones you did discuss, I gave a response, and you have not responded. It seems to me like you don't have any answers and so you simply bail out and make it personal. When I have asked you questions about how you interpret certain Scriptures or pointed out problems in your interpretation, you do not answer.

Let me ask you this: Is it possible that someone knows more about Scripture than you do? I am positive there are people who know more than I do, but you don't seem to admit that possibility.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Larry,

You recently debate about 'everlasting', you say that it don't always mean forever.

Same with Joey Faust as what he mentioned 'forever' discussed about darkness punishment during millennial kingdom as he used Matt. 25:41 - 'everlasting fire', he saying of this verse is not always mean eternal punishment, it have different meaning as he say of this verse means that a lazy servant will suffering in fire for a temporary 1000 years. His interpreting is no sense and dangerous.

I am not well knowledge in Greek words. Just simple understand and accept as what God's Word in English saying so. Accept it.

How about in Ephesians 3:21 says: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." ?

This verse tells us that Church was there since in the O.T. period, as Christ have been glory within them, not only during in the O.T. period, also, Christ still glory within Church during N.T. period. But, He is always, and always glory in the Church now and future forever and ever.

In common sense that means God's covenant with people and Abraham is an everlasting covenant same as be glory in them.

In Dan. 7:27 clearly telling us that his kingdom is an everlasting, it never say that, it is temporary.

In Gen. 17:4-7 God told Abraham that his covenant is an everlasting, and Abraham shall be the father of many nations, he is not just father of the Jews only, also, he is the father of all nations -Gentiles, well also include Jews too. It is the picture of salvation in Jesus Christ. This passage doesn't saying anything on millennial kingdom. God never say 'one thousand years' to Abraham. I am pretty sure that Abraham and O.T. saints all were never hear of premill doctrine. Because it was not teaching in their time. Neither 12 disciples and Paul hear of it either. Christ never say anything about one thousand years to them in the four gospels.

Nowhere in Bible say that God's covenant is temporary as supposed relate with one thousand year of Jews kingdom on earth.

Remmeber that God's promise never, never fail us. Because God is holy and He knows everything. Impossible for God to make one small mistake of fail. Because God is God. God already settled with Abraham for us by through Jesus Christ- 3,500 years ago. His covenant is all about salvation, not political or physical Jewish nation. Salvation is all about eternal life.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!