The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[CadyandZoe]

They were Christian Israelites, and Israelites were comprised of both Hebrews and Gentiles. You continually strive to forget that. I'll continue to remind you.

Well, you would be wrong every time. Gentiles are not Israelites.

You might benefit from this quote

“For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of life. She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name”​

Boris Pastermak Doctor Zhivago.

For some reason, you are not willing to call each thing by its right name.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Peter 2
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Hebrews 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Both of those quotes apply to the Hebrews, not the church at large. Remember, your second quote is in a book called "Hebrews."

 

[CadyandZoe]

You need to recognize that the NT has revoked, fulfilled, eclipsed, and transcended the OT, your denials notwithstanding.

You have mistaken the Old Covenant for the Old Testament the two are not the same thing.

That is how Wills and Testaments work.

But that isn't how divine revelation works.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

This is an error. Paul argues that the New Testament is fulfilled in Christ. He does NOT argue that all the other covenants are nullified.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Same Covenant. Verses 33-34 describe the operation and effects of the New Covenant of verse 31. Repetition of the word "covenant" does not signify a different covenant, but is simply a re-emphasis referring to the original covenant i.e. the New Covenant.

Whoever pointed differently pointed wrong.

Did you miss the phrase "after that"? I think you did.

 

[covenantee]

Well, you would be wrong every time. Gentiles are not Israelites.

You might benefit from this quote

“For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of life. She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name”​

Boris Pastermak Doctor Zhivago.

For some reason, you are not willing to call each thing by its right name.

You might benefit from these Scriptures:

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

 

[covenantee]

Both of those quotes apply to the Hebrews, not the church at large. Remember, your second quote is in a book called "Hebrews."

1 Peter 2:5 uses metaphors unique and exclusive to the Church, and is the grammatical referent to 1 Peter 2:9. Both verses are all about the Church exclusively.

So only the Hebrews can rest? Make sure you tell God.

God is not a racist. Stop trying to deform Him into one.

 

[covenantee]

Did you miss the phrase "after that"? I think you did.

The grammatical referent of verse 33 is verse 32, which refers to the covenant made with the fathers which unfaithful disobedient Israelites broke. The New Covenant came "after those days". Did you miss that? I see you did.

 

[covenantee]

You have mistaken the Old Covenant for the Old Testament the two are not the same thing.

That is complete nonsense alien to more than 17 centuries of historical orthodox Christian doctrine.

But that isn't how divine revelation works.

Tell God that His Son's New Will and Testament isn't a New Will and Testament, and that the Scriptures below are false.

Let us know what He says.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 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.

This is an error. Paul argues that the New Testament is fulfilled in Christ. He does NOT argue that all the other covenants are nullified.

He does not need to argue that OT covenants are nullified, because the nullification of all aspects of an old testament by a new testament is inherent in the jurisprudential definiton and characteristics of a testament. The OT covenants are clauses within the OT. They are nullified by the nullification of the OT which contains them.

Because that's how wills and testaments work.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus earlier, also taught of the two Israels.

John 8:31-47
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

There is a difference between saying there is one Israel with some being cast off from the nation as rejects and saying there are "two Israels."
Randy

 

[Timtofly]

This is utter nonsense. I accept the intended meaning of every passage whether it's written plainly (literally) or figuratively and I allow the New Testament authors to tell me how the Old Testament should be understood.

You don't accept Revelation 20:4-7, as written. But pointing out an "intended" meaning is being arbitrary. You can say the verse is written one way, but then put your own interpretation as an "intended" meaning. Then claim you know the "intended" meaning through spiritual discernment. Then make others look like an idiot, because they don't see it "your way".

What happened with the intended meaning being just what was written, without any one having to turn the passage into something else not intended?

Why would God's Word be written one way, if what was intended was the exact opposite of what is written? This point seems to imply you don't have to accept Scripture as written, but can insert an intended meaning of your own. Who is going to argue against an intended meaning even if you don't have to prove your point?

Then the point that you let the NT give understanding to the OT, is also not what you do in Revelation 20. You take OT Scripture that uses similar words "a thousand", and interpret the NT with an OT implication, even though that is not necessary. Revelation 20 can literally speak for itself, especially if it is the only chapter explicitly defining a particular event.

You do seem to constantly point out no other chapter in the Bible is as explicit as Revelation 20, then you turn it upside down and claim Revelation 20 is too symbolic to be understood as a single chapter by itself. That is a win win for your own "intended" meaning that you claim to accept.

The theory of Amillennialism is not the intended meaning of John's writing in Revelation 20. Amillennialism is not taught in Scripture, and cannot be found as the intended meaning of any part of God's Word. Amil is a plausible explanation of an arbitrary connection between many passages of God's Word. But never God's intended meaning.

In fact, this group defined here as those beheaded were not even part of those on white horses in Revelation 19. Your claim is that there is only a single church with no distinctions period. Yet we see a group of those beheaded judged before thrones, separate from those on white horses.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You might benefit from these Scriptures:

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

What's your point? What you have shown is how a stranger enters into the people of God. As we discussed earlier, the men were required to be circumcised. In other words, Gentiles can enter into the people of God through circumcision.

This became the subject of heated debate among the early believers in Jesus Christ. Do Gentiles need to be circumcised? The answer came back, no, the Gentiles do NOT need to be circumcised.

For this reason, we know that entering the people of God is a much different thing than entering the body of Christ. To enter the people of God one must be circumcised. To enter the body of Christ, one need not be circumcised.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Peter 2:5 uses metaphors unique and exclusive to the Church, and is the grammatical referent to 1 Peter 2:9. Both verses are all about the Church exclusively.

So only the Hebrews can rest? Make sure you tell God.

God is not a racist. Stop trying to deform Him into one.

Making a truth claim is different than defending a truth claim. I have given you many proofs: 1) Peter is the apostle to the circumcised, 2) He is speaking to the diaspora, the circumcised. 3) he reminds them of conditions and attributes unique to his brethren and his people. 4) we can find references to these conditions and attributes recorded in the prophets with reference to God's holy people the Hebrews.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The grammatical referent of verse 33 is verse 32, which refers to the covenant made with the fathers which unfaithful disobedient Israelites broke. The New Covenant came "after those days". Did you miss that? I see you did.

I didn't miss it. I also take note of verse 31, which speaks about the House of Judah and the House of Israel. God will make the new covenant with both houses. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, Jeremiah restricts the next covenant to only one house: the house of Israel.

A. I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
B. (after that) “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,”

And as we discussed earlier, one must become physically circumcised in order to enter the House of Israel. That being the case, Jeremiah's prophetic word in B. above, applies to the Ten Northern Tribes exclusively.

And according to the Apostle Paul, those in the Body of Christ are not required to become physically circumcised. The Gentiles who enter the body of Christ are circumcised of the heart instead. Here again, we see a distinction between the "people of God" and the body of Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is complete nonsense alien to more than 17 centuries of historical orthodox Christian doctrine.

I'm not sure how much you know or how versed you are in Christian doctrine. But what I said is true, and easily defended. The Old Covenant is the agreement (covenant) between Yahweh and the descendants of Jacob, made at Mt. Horeb, where Yahweh gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The agreement can be summarized in the following manner: "I will be a god for you and you will be a people for me." The meaning of this is understood from within the state of theological belief as it existed in ancient times.

In summary, the ancient peoples knew nothing of a transcendent creator of all that exists. Rather it was understood that certain reality-shaping forces existed, and some of these were the gods. Each god was relegated to a particular sphere of influence on the earth. Each nation had a god to bless them and protect them from enemies and make them victorious in battle. The "god" took the local people as "his people."

Within that context then, Yahweh would agree to be a god for Israel if Israel would agree to be a people for him. This is essentially the covenant that God made with Israel at Mt. Horeb.

What Christians call the OT, is a collection of writings, organized into three sections: 1) The Law, 2) The prophets, and 3) The writings. The Law consists of the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. The rest of the OT contains records of the Prophetic word, the history of Israel, the Psalms, and other writings. Jesus often referred to the Hebrew scriptures as "The Law", or at other times, "The Law and the Prophets." Here are a couple of examples.

Matthew 22:37-40

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”​

According to Jesus, both the Law and the Prophets are reliable sources of information with regard to the Biblical concept: eusebeia - A proper regard for God. And of utmost importance in that regard is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." If Jesus said that the Law and the prophets were an important source of that information, who are we to disagree with him?

Secondly, consider this passage.

Luke 24:44

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”​

​

Here Jesus lists the entire Hebrew scriptures, "The Law", "The Prophets," and "The Psalms" in order to suggest that in order to understand Jesus' words, one would do well to study the Hebrew writings because, in these, one can find information concerning the coming Messiah.

If Jesus commended the Hebrew scriptures, then so do I.

Tell God that His Son's New Will and Testament isn't a New Will and Testament, and that the Scriptures below are false.

Why would I do that?

Let us know what He says.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 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.

He does not need to argue that OT covenants are nullified, because the nullification of all aspects of an old testament by a new testament is inherent in the jurisprudential definiton and characteristics of a testament. The OT covenants are clauses within the OT. They are nullified by the nullification of the OT which contains them.

Perhaps you didn't notice but Paul's reference to an Old Covenant is a reference to the Covenant at Mt. Horeb exclusively. Paul never argues that the New Covenant nullifies every other covenant God has made.

 

[covenantee]

Making a truth claim is different than defending a truth claim. I have given you many proofs: 1) Peter is the apostle to the circumcised, 2) He is speaking to the diaspora, the circumcised. 3) he reminds them of conditions and attributes unique to his brethren and his people. 4) we can find references to these conditions and attributes recorded in the prophets with reference to God's holy people the Hebrews.

Your racialized "proofs" have been debunked via the exegesis of Scriptural Greek semantics and grammar, demonstrating that Peter's epistle was written to Israelite Christians in the holy nation of the Churches in the associated regions.

God has only one Holy People.

His Church.

God is not a racist.

 

[covenantee]

But what I said is true, and easily defended.

If so, then there should be abundant evidence of its truth in historical orthodox Christian doctrine.

Please provide just one example of a recognized historical Christian expositor who claimed that the Old Covenant is not the Old Testament.

Just one.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If so, then there should be abundant evidence of its truth in historical orthodox Christian doctrine.

Please provide just one example of a recognized historical Christian expositor who claimed that the Old Covenant is not the Old Testament.

Just one.

What did I say that you found inaccurate?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your racialized "proofs" have been debunked via the exegesis of Scriptural Greek semantics and grammar, demonstrating that Peter's epistle was written to Israelite Christians in the holy nation of the Churches in the associated regions.

God has only one Holy People.

His Church.

God is not a racist.

Do you affirm the inerrancy of the Bible? Sounds like you don't. Sounds like you believe that the OT is filled with errors that the New Testament corrects.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to spend more time in the OT.

You need to spend more time reading the NT scriptures which contain explanations of the fulfillments of OT prophecies. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Allow the NT to interpret the OT prophecies for you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you affirm the inerrancy of the Bible? Sounds like you don't. Sounds like you believe that the OT is filled with errors that the New Testament corrects.

Are you being purposely disengenuous? You know darn well that he (along with everyone else here) doesn't believe "that the OT is filled with errors that the New Testament corrects.". He instead, like many of us, believes that the NT contains explanations of things that were purposely made obscure or were hidden in the OT. Such as when Paul explained that the promises made to Abraham and his seed apply to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Him (Galatians 3:16-29). Or that Gentile believers would be "fellowheirs" with Israelite believers (Ephesians 3:1-6). Why is it that you have so much trouble accepting the non-hyper-literal fufillments of OT prophecies that Paul wrote about?