The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[marks]

Your question is meant as a "gotcha" question and as a result you have obfuscated the subject of the conversation. Stick to the issue at hand.

I need to put up the verse because you have taken us so far off the track that you forgot the issue. We are discussing 1Peter 2:9.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light . . .​

You have misconstrued Peter's meaning here. He is NOT talking about the church. He is talking about his kinsmen, whom the Lord himself described as the chosen race etc.

His readers are Hebrew and among the Hebrews, some of them have decided to believe in Jesus Christ. As Peter says, they have been called out of the darkness into the light. This is true for all true believers but it doesn't follow, therefore that all true believers are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, etc. That would be an erroneous conclusion.

And this answers exactly to God's covenant with Israel made at Sinai. Jesus fulfilled this covenant for them, so in Christ they can receive the blessings.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So what you've done here is to show that God has sneaky ways of not keeping His word. That He'll tell you something, but later take it back, in essence, by saying, you never did understand what I meant.

No, what he was showing is that God's ways are not our ways. He doesn't decide that terms like "Israel" can only refer to the nation of Israel like you do. He is not obligated to fulfill prophecies only in a hyper-literal fashion as you try to demand.

Was it sneaky for God to not spell it out in the OT that His promises made to Abraham and his seed would apply to Jesus and those who belong to Him, including both Jew and Gentile believers (Galatians 3:16-29)? Did He not keep His word just because He didn't keep it in the way people thought He would based on what they read in the OT?

"You, Israel, thought you had a promise of return but no!"

My God keeps His Word.

These passages all have harmony, but without negating any of them. We're told specifically about all these things.

This is unacceptable for you to imply that your God is a different God than the God of those who disagree with you about these things, like me and covenantee, and that your God keeps His Word, but our God doesn't. Our disagreement has nothing to do with you believing that God keeps His Word and us thinking that He doesn't keep His Word, it has to do with interpreting His word differently in some places.

 

[marks]

2 Corinthians 3
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Paul was writing to the Corinthian church, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, in the present tense.

He declared "us", i.e. himself and them, to be ministers of the new testament, in the present tense, already at that time.

That's fulfillment.

That Israel will be returned to their land, all of them, none left behind? That God will always keep Israel a nation before Him as long as the natural order of sun and moon endure?

It sounds like you are understanding something from this passage that leads you to think that God won't be keeping those promises, but will be doing other things instead. Is that it?

Is it that God won't return Israel to their homeland even after promising - prophesying, you realize the implications, right? - that He would? Because now He has a new covenant, so He off the hook for having prophesied through Jeremiah? And Ezekiel? And Isaiah? Et al?

Are you remembering that in Christ is neither Greek nor Jew? That means something also. It all works together in harmony, not by negating one passage with another.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If you read about God's promises to Abraham and his seed

Abraham? I was talking about something different. Maybe relook at my post.

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

So what you've done here is to show that God has sneaky ways of not keeping His word. That He'll tell you something, but later take it back, in essence, by saying, you never did understand what I meant.

"You, Israel, thought you had a promise of return but no!"

My God keeps His Word.

These passages all have harmony, but without negating any of them. We're told specifically about all these things.

Much love!

What you're doing is denying that God has every right to write His New Will and Testament, based on better promises, for His Chosen People, faithful and obedient to Him and His Son.

Your whining and complaining cannot reverse what He has done, through the shed Blood of His Son at Calvary.

Get with His Program.

 

[marks]

But, where is that indicated? It's not indicated specifically.

This is all being covered already . . .

Much love!

 

[marks]

Your whining and complaining

Sounds like we're done, when that's your response. It doesn't carry much weight, so I'll leave it where it is. Have a blessed day!

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

That Israel will be returned to their land, all of them, none left behind? That God will always keep Israel a nation before Him as long as the natural order of sun and moon endure?

It sounds like you are understanding something from this passage that leads you to think that God won't be keeping those promises, but will be doing other things instead. Is that it?

Is it that God won't return Israel to their homeland even after promising - prophesying, you realize the implications, right? - that He would? Because now He has a new covenant, so He off the hook for having prophesied through Jeremiah? And Ezekiel? And Isaiah? Et al?

Are you remembering that in Christ is neither Greek nor Jew? That means something also. It all works together in harmony, not by negating one passage with another.

Much love!

Go back and read the primer.

There are no promises for anyone, Gentile or Jew, who is not in Christ.

 

[covenantee]

Sounds like we're done, when that's your response. It doesn't carry much weight, so I'll leave it where it is. Have a blessed day!

Much love!

I presume that you agreed with the sentence preceding that one.

 

[marks]

I presume that you agreed with the sentence preceding that one.

I'm not surprised that you would presume, and look what you choose to presume. It's not helpful.

Anyway, once things reach this point, not much good generally comes, so, have a blessed day, and see ya around!

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

I'm not surprised that you would presume, and look what you choose to presume. It's not helpful.

Anyway, once things reach this point, not much good generally comes, so, have a blessed day, and see ya around!

Much love!

Blessings to you as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Abraham? I was talking about something different. Maybe relook at my post.

LOL. No, I wasn't saying that related directly to what we were talking about. I was using that as an example of something that isn't made clear in the OT, but is made clear in the NT. I was showing how things may seem a certain way in the OT but then the NT shows their real meaning. Do you understand that concept?

 

[covenantee]

No, what he was showing is that God's ways are not our ways. He doesn't decide that terms like "Israel" can only refer to the nation of Israel like you do. He is not obligated to fulfill prophecies only in a hyper-literal fashion as you try to demand.

Was it sneaky for God to not spell it out in the OT that His promises made to Abraham and his seed would apply to Jesus and those who belong to Him, including both Jew and Gentile believers (Galatians 3:16-29)? Did He not keep His word just because He didn't keep it in the way people thought He would based on what they read in the OT?


This is unacceptable for you to imply that your God is a different God than the God of those who disagree with you about these things, like me and covenantee, and that your God keeps His Word, but our God doesn't. Our disagreement has nothing to do with you believing that God keeps His Word and us thinking that He doesn't keep His Word, it has to do with interpreting His word differently in some places.

I'm appalled, bro, at the utter lack of, and in fact antipathy toward, understanding of so much of what is basic Christianity. It's no wonder that so much of the evangelical church today is ineffective and impotent.

Darby Scofield et al will have much to answer for on Judgment Day.

But neither does that excuse the blindness of their adherents.

 

[marks]

Do you understand that concept?

Most certainly! And I'm always careful to look for Scriptural authority on these things. Like with Abraham, we're told some specific things regarding promises made to him, and to his "seed".

Maybe we can compare the promises to Abraham to the promises later made to Israel. That could prove interesting!

Does this mean we're to apply that across the board, so that even the promise of a new heaven and new earth means something besides a new heaven and a new earth? Where do you start and stop? And how do you know? Prophecy unfulfilled is broken Scripture.

I look at each case, and see what the Bible says. I find it all fits together, and always just going by what it says. Not, what it says, but actually what I myself think that REALLY means, even though such words weren't used.

So that, "I promise to bring you home again" "actually means" "I'm going to leave you there to rot." I don't see God talking that way. My God keeps His promises.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is all being covered already . . .

As I pointed out in another post, whether Peter was addressing Jewish or Gentile believers doesn't change the fact that he referred to those who were part of "a spiritual house" which has Jesus Christ as its cornerstone. That is the church. No other entity fits that description. So, that is the "holy nation" and "royal priesthood" that Peter was talking about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm appalled, bro, at the utter lack of, and in fact antipathy toward, understanding of so much of what is basic Christianity. It's no wonder that so much of the evangelical church today is ineffective and impotent.

Darby Scofield et al will have much to answer for on Judgment Day.

But neither does that excuse the blindness of their adherents.

I couldn't agree more. We are showing them very clearly who Peter was talking to and about in 1 Peter (the church) and they go out of their way to deny it. It's similar with other things that we show them. And I agree that these are things that are part of basic Christianity. The NT repeatedly teaches that God has one people, one body, which is the church consisting of Jew and Gentile believers. And they're still missing it. It's just unbelievable.

 

[marks]

The NT repeatedly teaches that God has one people, one body, which is the church consisting of Jew and Gentile believers.

Again . . . there is neither Greek nor Jew in Christ. The Jew stops being a Jew, the Greek stops being Greek, as they are transferred into Jesus' kingdom.

Sigh!

Much love!

 

[marks]

I'm appalled, bro, at the utter lack of, and in fact antipathy toward, understanding of so much of what is basic Christianity. It's no wonder that so much of the evangelical church today is ineffective and impotent.

Darby Scofield et al will have much to answer for on Judgment Day.

But neither does that excuse the blindness of their adherents.

With that kind of judgmentalism, I'd be looking more to myself. Just sayin'.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Most certainly! And I'm always careful to look for Scriptural authority on these things. Like with Abraham, we're told some specific things regarding promises made to him, and to his "seed".

Maybe we can compare the promises to Abraham to the promises later made to Israel. That could prove interesting!

Does this mean we're to apply that across the board, so that even the promise of a new heaven and new earth means something besides a new heaven and a new earth? Where do you start and stop? And how do you know? Prophecy unfulfilled is broken Scripture.

My answer is the same as when you've asked similar questions before. We know by asking God for wisdom (James 1:5-7), comparing scripture with scripture, and by receiving spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit.

I look at each case, and see what the Bible says. I find it all fits together, and always just going by what it says. Not, what it says, but actually what I myself think that REALLY means, even though such words weren't used.

In terms of what we have been talking about in this thread, which relates to 1 Peter 2:9, Peter said that the ones he was talking to are "a spiritual house" whose cornerstone is Jesus (1 Peter 2:5-7). Is that not the church? I think it clearly is. So, that tells us the context of what he was talking about. He had the church in mind, not the nation of Israel.

So that, "I promise to bring you home again" "actually means" "I'm going to leave you there to rot." I don't see God talking that way. My God keeps His promises.

Based on things you said before you clearly think of yourself as Mr. Nice Guy Peacekeeper, but you don't even realize how rude you are sometimes. By you saying "My God keeps His promises" that implies that you think I have a different God and He doesn't keep His promises. That is unacceptable! My God always keeps His promises, but I'm willing to humble myself and acknowledge that He may sometimes keep them in a way that I wouldn't expect.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again . . . there is neither Greek nor Jew in Christ. The Jew stops being a Jew, the Greek stops being Greek, as they are transferred into Jesus' kingdom.

Sigh!

So, why do you see God as having two people groups as His own then? You see Him as having the church as one of His people groups and then the people of the nation of Israel as another. Even though it's only Israelite believers who are His people from Israel, not unbelievers (see Romans 11:1-7). And Israelite believers are part of the church along with Gentile believers. So, what is the reason for believing that God has separate plans for Israelites than He has for Gentiles? Scripture does not support that idea. That makes God out to be a respecter of persons even though scripture repeatedly says that He is not a respecter of persons.