There are two Israels...

[Me4Him]

Me4Him,

That's your own theory.

"The Lost Tribes" is a completely theory. I do not agree with it. This is men making teaching in their own theory.

Nowhere in the New Testament mention 'lost tribes.'

Some use Jeremiah chapter 31 about "House of Judah" & "House of Israel" that they saying the 'new covenant' for both tribes are not yet fulfilled. They say it will be fulfill at Second Coming for Millennial Kingdom.

Rapture isn't mentioned either, so do we toss that out as well???

How can there be two houses in the "body of Christ", clearly there can't be,

a "Covenant" requires at least "TWO" to be in agreement with the terms of the covenant, the "House Of Judah" hasn't accepted the terms of the "New covenant", so there is no new covenant between them and God/Jesus.

No Gentiles can be an "enemies of the Gospel" and ever have any hope of being saved, but because of God promise, Judah does, one reason for the Tribulation period, Daniel's final week.

Ro 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew?
:2 Much every way:

But, Jeremiah chapter 31 of 'new covenant' already fulfilled by through Calvary by through the blood of Christ, that he already made new covenant with Israel. I suggest that everyone should read and study book of Hebrews, it mentioned lot about covenant, blood, and sacrifice. Book of Hebrews teaching us that the blood of Christ already set new covenant. Now we are no longer under the old coveant.

Dispensationalists still believe that 'Church' and 'Israel' are still distinction in God's program of present time.

When they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, "WHY" didn't Jesus keep the "law of Moses" and order her stoned to death???

Jesus didn't "keep the law", as given to Moses, did Jesus the violate the law???

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John:
Lu 16:16 The law was until John:

We're under a "GRACE PERIOD" in which the law isn't "enforced" to the letter, Jesus didn't come to condemn or Judge, like the woman, everyone can have a "Second chance".

The rapture of the church ends this "GRACE PERIOD", Israel goes back under the "LAW" (and prophets, Moses/Elijah),

during the trib if you want to be saved you'll have to be willing to "LITERALLY" crucify the "OLD MAN" to destroy the "BODY OF SIN",

Satan will have authority to kill the "body of sin" of all who have the testimony of Christ, except a remnant.

Under GRACE, we "Spiritually" crucify the old man, under the law, it's a "Literal death" for sin.

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

For example, this present gospel age is FOR Church only while God holds 'Israel' leaves on the shelf wait till Rapture occurs, when the Church gones, then, God takes 'Israel' off the shelf and to focus on Israel(physical Jewish nation) again for seven year of Tribulation Period.

The Doctrines of Law/Grace can't function at the same time, in the same time frame, the "MAIN REASON" for a "PRE TRIB RAPTURE".

Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, (Jews) my brethren, bear olive berries? (Christians) either a vine, (Jesus) figs? so can no fountain (God) both yield salt water (Doctrine) and fresh. (at the same time)

De 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain,

Also, when Christ comes again, They saying that God will re-etablish Israel as Jewish nation again and to set modern Jerusalem to be world's capitol during Millennial Kingdom. In their teasching that God have a very "special" plan for Jews during Millennial kingdom.

Dispensationalism doctrine is no make sense, and it is men-making doctrine.

The Bible doesn't make sense to a lot of people, and the reason is they don't understand it.

God only have one family of all nations whosoever believing in Christ, they are now belong to God's children. God don't care what race, religion, nation, a person is. God interests in person who put faith and trust IN Jesus Christ only-salvation.

Maybe you can explain why God only chose Israel in the OT instead of the whole world???

In Hebrews 11:9-10 telling us, Abraham's faith that he was looking for heavenly city which God is the maker that built the city. Clearly speak of New Jerusalem.

Bible doesn't saying that Abraham was looking for future earthly city -modern Jerusalem for coming Millennial Kingdom.

Jerusalem is an "Eternal city", for this earth and the New earth, When Satan is loose after the 1000 years, it's "Jerusalem" he attacks.

Re 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Right now, we are spiritual Israel, because we as Gentiles are already graft in Olive Tree join with believing Jews that why we are part of Israel -Romans 11:26. God only have one family, and also, He only have ONE WIFE, not two wives.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

"Judah" was married to God, he gave them a bill of divorcement, under the law they can't be married to another unless the "Husband dies", but God being the Husband obviously isn't going to die.

So what if the "WIFE" dies, she can then be married to another without violating the law.

Ro 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

When the Old man is crucified you become a "NEW CREATURE", "BORN AGAIN", now you're free to marry another.

Jesus as the "SON" of God can't have his "FATHER'S WIFE". (Jesus's MOTHER/Judah)

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

Judah refused the invitation to the "Son's marriage supper", by rejecting Jesus, and still as the "MOTHER" of Jesus rather than the "BRIDE OF CHRIST", they're not raptured but they are turned over to satan for the destruction of the "body of sin". (trib)

Mt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Re 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Those who are saved during the Trib will be at the "CANA MARRIAGE CELEBRATION", when both "HOUSES" (stick of Judah/Joseph=Ephraim) will become "ONE".

But until then they are "Separate".


Anybody can read what is occurring in scripture, but understanding "WHY" it occurs is necessary before you'll understand it.

 

[J.D.]

But simply comparing words won't work. What is behind the particular use of a word? that is what is important.

Which is why I distinguished between a pagan assembly and the assembly under Moses.

The NT defines the church (ekklesia) as the body of Christ and the way into the body is Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13). There was no such Spirit baptism in the OT, and therefore, whatever the "ekklesia" was, it wasn't the church.

Right, the OT "church" was not the NT "church" - I recognize that. But it was still the "church" in that it was the assembly of God's covenant people. The Spirit baptism of the NT Church was a change in administration (regulation, if you will). One of the main purposes of Spirit baptism is to bring the Jews and Gentile together into the same body. Ref 1 Cor 12.

the OT assembly did include believing Gentiles (such as Rahab).

Maybe she was not allowed in the "inner court", but she was a member of the congregation. Again, a difference in administration only.

For all your talk of continuity, you are creating a discontinuity.

No, I have merely acknowledged the differences within the continuum. No disjoint.

The OT/NT treats Israel whether from the Exodus or the Exile or the restored kingdom as one entity.

The NT refines our understanding of who Israel is so that we understand that Rahab as well as Moses were in Christ and therefore inheret the covenant blessings. Notice I didn't say the NT redefines Israel, but refines it. And we must see Israel through the NT lense.

Larry, This will be my last post for a while. I have to finish a paper for school on apologetics. You are articulate and a worthy opponent in debate. Blessings.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Which is why I distinguished between a pagan assembly and the assembly under Moses.

I guess if this is all the distinction that is being made, then there are "assemblies" all over the place. I am not sure how that is helpful though. Dispensationalism doesn't disagree that there is a group of God's people in the OT.

Right, the OT "church" was not the NT "church" - I recognize that. But it was still the "church" in that it was the assembly of God's covenant people.

But I think this drastically changes the NT description of the church. Again, if all you are saying is that there was an assembly of God's people in the OT and an assembly of God's people in the NT, you have no argument. But let's take it a step further. In the OT one was apart of the assembly through outward shows, not necessarily inward. In the NT church, one is a part only by inward change. That is another evidence that there is a substantial and irreconcilable difference.

The NT refines our understanding of who Israel is so that we understand that Rahab as well as Moses were in Christ and therefore inheret the covenant blessings. Notice I didn't say the NT redefines Israel, but refines it. And we must see Israel through the NT lense.

I don't think it refines it at all. I think it says the same thing the OT says about it. As for viewing Israel through a NT lens, again, I have to disagree. The idea that we don't know who Israel is apart from the NT means that the OT would have had no real meaning without the NT. I have to reject that for a variety of reasons, which I don't have time or space to go into here. But suffice it to say that I think it calls into question the perspecuity of the Scriptures.

I have to finish a paper for school on apologetics.

What are you writing on?

 

[J.D.]

The idea that we don't know who Israel is apart from the NT means that the OT would have had no real meaning without the NT. I have to reject that for a variety of reasons, which I don't have time or space to go into here. But suffice it to say that I think it calls into question the perspecuity of the Scriptures.

But we Christians do not accept the OT as the complete revelation. And while the O.T. may be able to make us "wise unto salvation", the Jew/Gentile nature of the NT Church was a "mystery" as Paul put it. I don't think it affects perspecuity at all.

What are you writing on?

The ultimate question - Does God Exist?

It's an undergrad philosophy class. It won't be deep - just a listing of arguments for and against with some paragraphs describing and defending my personal viewpoint.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But we Christians do not accept the OT as the complete revelation.

Complete for what though? I think it was complete for some things.

And while the O.T. may be able to make us "wise unto salvation", the Jew/Gentile nature of the NT Church was a "mystery" as Paul put it. I don't think it affects perspecuity at all.

If we say that the OT has no meaning apart from the NT (which I know you didn't say, but I think it leads that direction), then we say that the OT is not clear without the NT. I think that is dangerous.

The ultimate question - Does God Exist?

It's an undergrad philosophy class. It won't be deep - just a listing of arguments for and against with some paragraphs describing and defending my personal viewpoint.

Good topic with some interesting material. I am a presuppositionalist, so I reject the value of most of the traditional arguments. Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" has some interesting material.

Hope it goes well.

 

[J.D.]

Complete for what though? I think it was complete for some things.

Yes, for some things, yes.

If we say that the OT has no meaning apart from the NT (which I know you didn't say, but I think it leads that direction), then we say that the OT is not clear without the NT. I think that is dangerous.

Right, I didn't say that. The OT has meaning apart from the NT. It's just not the whole story. As Paul Harvey would say, "and now you know the REST of the story.." Again, it's not so much an issue of clarity as it is completness. It told the Jews every thing they needed to know about Christ. And even told them that Gentiles would be saved through Christ, but it did not tell them that the Gentiles would be fellowcitizens with them in one body.

Good topic with some interesting material. I am a presuppositionalist, so I reject the value of most of the traditional arguments. Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" has some interesting material.

I am presupp also, and will be supporting that view in my summary. And I have Keller's book waiting on my desk - I'll be checking it out tonight.

Hope it goes well.

Thank you.

 

[OldRegular]

The House of Judah was invited to the "lambs marriage supper", but Judah refused. (Jews) (Matt 22)

The House of Joseph/Ephraim accepted the invitation. (Gentile Church)

The house of Joseph/Ephraim are raptured to the lamb's marraige supper,

The house of Judah (Jews) enter/suffer the trib as chastisment for refusing.

The "CANA" marriage is the "Two sticks/Houses" becoming one, during the MK.

Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church.

But God made a promise to "Abraham" that "HIS SEED", Natural descendants, would as the "stars of heaven",

Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This passage clearly teaches that the Church, "the true believers", constitute Abraham's seed.

Judah (Jews) would be the "literal Israel" while Joseph/Ephraim (church) would represent the "Spiritual Israel", because we can "SEE" the Kingdom of God,

Nonsense! Joseph/Ephraim are not Gentiles. That sounds like some nonsense from the Worldwide Church of God.

 

[Allan]

Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church.

It typically relates or comes from what is known as hyper-Dipsy.

I'm not saying he is a hyper but that ideology is bound up in some forms of hyper-dispensationalism.

 

[Amy.G]

It typically relates or comes from what is known as hyper-Dipsy.

That's pretty dipsy alright! :laugh:



Sorry, couldn't resist. :saint:

 

[Me4Him]

It typically relates or comes from what is known as hyper-Dipsy.

I'm not saying he is a hyper but that ideology is bound up in some forms of hyper-dispensationalism.

I'm not familar with the hyper dispen doctrine/ideology, but hyper or not,

The fact is that there are only two separate groups of people at the present who will become "ONE", that is the Church and Israel.

Eze 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

 

[Me4Him]

Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church.



Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

This passage clearly teaches that the Church, "the true believers", constitute Abraham's seed.

Jesus said "ye must be born again", yet Israel (house of Judah) are "enemies of the Gospel" but still "elect".

There's one group who believe the Gospel and are "born again", but another group who doesn't believe and are, in fact, enemies of the gospel, "UNBORN", yet they are still "considered" as "Elect".

Can you explain this?????

P.S. the promise to Abraham and "his seed" is both for Jesus and Abraham's natural seed.

Nonsense! Joseph/Ephraim are not Gentiles. That sounds like some nonsense from the Worldwide Church of God.

Southern Baptist, very "Southern", and very "fundamental", even the "old path".

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus said "ye must be born again", yet Israel (house of Judah) are "enemies of the Gospel" but still "elect".

There's one group who believe the Gospel and are "born again", but another group who doesn't believe and are, in fact, enemies of the gospel, "UNBORN", yet they are still "considered" as "Elect".

Can you explain this?????

P.S. the promise to Abraham and "his seed" is both for Jesus and Abraham's natural seed.




Southern Baptist, very "Southern", and very "fundamental", even the "old path".

You made two correct statements:
1]Jesus said "ye must be born again" and
2]There's one group who believe the Gospel and are "born again".

You did not answer my question: Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church?

Also your statement: "the promise to Abraham and "his seed" is both for Jesus and Abraham's natural seed" does not comport with the Scripture I quoted:

Galatians 3:29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Eze 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

The stick of Joseph in the hand of Ephraim is the northern kingdom. Ephraim is one of hte names for the NK.

 

[Me4Him]

You made two correct statements:
1]Jesus said "ye must be born again" and
2]There's one group who believe the Gospel and are "born again".

You did not answer my question: Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church?

You're coming up "Seriously short" in understanding "Prefigures" and "Foreshadows".

Also your statement: "the promise to Abraham and "his seed" is both for Jesus and Abraham's natural seed" does not comport with the Scripture I quoted:

Galatians 3:29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We have the "House of Joseph/Ephriam" (Samaritans) who accepted Jesus and are "Born again",

and we have the "House of Judah" (jews) who rejected Jesus and are not "born again", even enemies of the Gospel and of Jesus, yet scripture says they are still "ELECT".

Joseph/Ephraim was circumcised in the heart by the spirit to become Jews,

Judah was circumcised in the "FLESH" by a knife.

How do you explain both groups being "ELECT" after what Jesus said,

Ye must be born by the spirit.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
You made two correct statements:
1]Jesus said "ye must be born again" and
2]There's one group who believe the Gospel and are "born again".

You did not answer my question: Where did you get the above nonsense, particularly that the house of Joseph/Ephraim is the Gentile Church?

Response by Me4Him
You're coming up "Seriously short" in understanding "Prefigures" and "Foreshadows".

You left out types and anti types but you still did not answer my question.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Also your statement: "the promise to Abraham and "his seed" is both for Jesus and Abraham's natural seed" does not comport with the Scripture I quoted:

Galatians 3:29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Response by Me4Him
We have the "House of Joseph/Ephriam" (Samaritans) who accepted Jesus and are "Born again",

and we have the "House of Judah" (jews) who rejected Jesus and are not "born again", even enemies of the Gospel and of Jesus, yet scripture says they are still "ELECT".

Joseph/Ephraim was circumcised in the heart by the spirit to become Jews,

Judah was circumcised in the "FLESH" by a knife.

How do you explain both groups being "ELECT" after what Jesus said,

Ye must be born by the spirit.

Samaritans were not the "House of Joseph/Ephriam". They were a mixture of Israelites and pagans brought in by the Assyrians.

You are assuming that all the so called "House of Joseph/Ephriam" (Samaritans) were converted. Nonsense!

You say "we have the "House of Judah" (jews) who rejected Jesus". May I remind you that all the Apostles were Jews These constituted the beginning of the Church in its new testament form.

Also may I remind you that the Galatians were Gentiles and the apostle paul states that: And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. [Galatians 3:29.]