Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
In Romans 11 God grafts broken off unbelievers into what?I am not sure which passage in Rom 11 you have in mind here with your "broken off unbelievers" and them being "grafted in"?
If they accept Christ. What does God graft believing gentiles into?
Into the "assembly [gr. ekklesia] of God", that body of which believers from the circumcision and believers from the uncircumcision are members and of which Christ is the head.
After designating the space formerly occupied by the unbelievers, theirs?
?? a space who "formerly occupied"? Not sure, what you are trying to say ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
As for Rom 11, it seems rather clear to me that the "ALL Israel ... saved" is not about "all natural descendants of the Biblical tribes of Israel without exception will be saved", but teaches that even though the large majority of national Israel rejected the Messiah and was broken off, the door now open in Christ even to all Gentiles to be saved remained also open to all of natural Israel ... and for both the way to salvation was to believe in Messiah Jesus and his accomplished work of redemption and salvation.
If I were biased toward the Jews (most of you know that I am not), I would disagree with you. However, I can't inject my politics into the text. Your conclusion makes good biblical sense. What would happen to the sweet land of Israel? Just wondering. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
but if Paul says the broken off will be reattached through faith, doesn't this also make Jesus and Christendom biblical Israel?If Jesus and Christendom are "enemies of the Gospel" for "your sake"(i.e. the sake of the Church) then perhaps, but not only would that line of reasoning be a contradiction it would not fit the context of Romans chapter 11.
However, Dave if you know of resources that argue for that point of view that I might have Logos/faith-life I would interested.
-
@Wolfgang said:
As for Rom 11, it seems rather clear to me that the "ALL Israel ... saved" is not about "all natural descendants of the Biblical tribes of Israel without exception will be saved", but teaches that even though the large majority of national Israel rejected the Messiah and was broken off, the door now open in Christ even to all Gentiles to be saved remained also open to all of natural Israel ... and for both the way to salvation was to believe in Messiah Jesus and his accomplished work of redemption and salvation.
Wolfgang,
If I were biased toward the Jews (most of you know that I am not), I would disagree with you. However, I can't inject my politics into the text. Your conclusion makes good biblical sense. What would happen to the sweet land of Israel? Just wondering. CM -
@C_M_ said:
If I were biased toward the Jews (most of you know that I am not), I would disagree with you. However, I can't inject my politics into the text. Your conclusion makes good biblical sense. What would happen to the sweet land of Israel? Just wondering. CMThe true "sweet land of Israel" (that realm where the beloved of God dwell in God's presence after the resurrection has become reality) is that heavenly land to which already Abraham looked as he understood the promises made to him by God correctly, realizing that the earthly land was only a temporary foreshadow of the true spiritual reality.
The earthly land in Palestine has become irrelevant in God's plan after the true spiritual reality has come into place ... as Jesus already prophesied to the Jews of his day, that their house would be left desolate unto them because of their apostate rejection of the Messiah (cp. Mat 23:38) -
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
but if Paul says the broken off will be reattached through faith, doesn't this also make Jesus and Christendom biblical Israel?If Jesus and Christendom are "enemies of the Gospel" for "your sake"(i.e. the sake of the Church) then perhaps, but not only would that line of reasoning be a contradiction it would not fit the context of Romans chapter 11.
However, Dave if you know of resources that argue for that point of view that I might have Logos/faith-life I would interested.
BTW it's good hearing from you again! The problem with your view is that There is only one Israel and one Messiah. They both go together. So those who rejected Jesus forfeited their citizenship in Israel. But God will re-attach any who accept Christ as the Messiah.
Not to mention Circumcision no longer attaches unbelievers to Israel as it did under the Old Covenant.
And to reaffirm Jesus is Israel not only as Abraham's seed (singular), but by a direct quote of Hosea 11:1 by Apostle Matthew as fulfilling it as prophecy Matthew 2:15.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
In Romans 11 God grafts broken off unbelievers into what?I am not sure which passage in Rom 11 you have in mind here with your "broken off unbelievers" and them being "grafted in"?
If they accept Christ. What does God graft believing gentiles into?
Into the "assembly [gr. ekklesia] of God", that body of which believers from the circumcision and believers from the uncircumcision are members and of which Christ is the head.
After designating the space formerly occupied by the unbelievers, theirs?
?? a space who "formerly occupied"? Not sure, what you are trying to say ...
In Romans 11 Paul says: “Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” (Romans 11:19–21)
“And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.” (Romans 11:23)
-
@Dave_L said:
BTW it's good hearing from you again!Thank you for your kind words.
@Dave_L said:
The problem with your view is that There is only one Israel and one Messiah. They both go together.I believe that there is only one Israel and only one true Messiah. And, I also believe that there is only one Church.
Which is precisely why "the enemies of the gospel" (Romans 11:28) logically is not speaking about Christ or the Church, but rather about individuals or entities outside of the Church(and Christ) in this context non-Messianic Jews/Israel and "for your sake"(Romans 11:28) logically is referring to Paul's audience the Church of which the immediate congregation he is writing to is part of.
This is of course how I currently understand Scriptures at least on this issue.
As always if you have persuasive resources explaining these Scriptures convincingly another wise I would be more than happy to take a look at them and reconsider my views.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
BTW it's good hearing from you again!Thank you for your kind words.
@Dave_L said:
The problem with your view is that There is only one Israel and one Messiah. They both go together.I believe that there is only one Israel and only one true Messiah. And, I also believe that there is only one Church.
Which is precisely why "the enemies of the gospel" (Romans 11:28) logically is not speaking about Christ or the Church, but rather about individuals or entities outside of the Church(and Christ) in this context non-Messianic Jews/Israel and "for your sake"(Romans 11:28) logically is referring to Paul's audience the Church of which the immediate congregation he is writing to is part of.
This is of course how I currently understand Scriptures at least on this issue.
As always if you have persuasive resources explaining these Scriptures convincingly another wise I would be more than happy to take a look at them and reconsider my views.
This still assumes a believing Israel under Christ, aka the Church (congregation of the Lord). And the broken off unbelievers not being members except those who accept Christ as the Messiah.
-
Do, you mean to say then that you believe that Jesus and the Church are "With respect to the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but with respect to election, they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28 LEB) ?
-
@Mitchell said:
Do, you mean to say then that you believe that Jesus and the Church are "With respect to the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but with respect to election, they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28 LEB) ?What do you think. They = broken off Jews who were then Jews under the Law. But are now gentiles after that last genuinely circumcised generation died off.
-
Brethren,
1. Regardless of location, have we recently define what we mean by "Kingdom" in light of Christ reigning forever?
2. Is it not God's plan to make this earth new and to repopulate it with the redeem and Christ will reign forever?
3. This is not a physical Kingdom on earth?Let's be clear to move the conversation forward with understanding. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
1. Regardless of location, have we recently define what we mean by "Kingdom" in light of Christ reigning forever?In today's common usage, the word "kingdom" usually refers to a nation, country, etc which is ruled by a king or queen.
However, the biblical usage of the word translated into English as "kingdom" would be more accurately translated as "reign" or "rule" as a king or queen. Having a correct translation and understanding as "reign", most likely readers would understand the term to refer to Christ's rule, to Christ's reign, and NOT to some earthly realm, country, nation with certain borders, inhabitants, etc.
- Is it not God's plan to make this earth new and to repopulate it with the redeem and Christ will reign forever?
No, it is not God's plan to make planet earth new and repopulate it ... rather it is God's plan that this planet earth will remain forever and not be destroyed, even though certain orders of rule and nations, etc have come and gone will come and go.
- This is not a physical Kingdom on earth?
No, this is not a reign in a physical kingdom on earth.
Let's be clear to move the conversation forward with understanding. CM
Why should we move the conversation forward with an incorrect understanding?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
1. Regardless of location, have we recently define what we mean by "Kingdom" in light of Christ reigning forever?In today's common usage, the word "kingdom" usually refers to a nation, country, etc which is ruled by a king or queen.
However, the biblical usage of the word translated into English as "kingdom" would be more accurately translated as "reign" or "rule" as a king or queen. Having a correct translation and understanding as "reign", most likely readers would understand the term to refer to Christ's rule, to Christ's reign, and NOT to some earthly realm, country, nation with certain borders, inhabitants, etc.
- Is it not God's plan to make this earth new and to repopulate it with the redeem and Christ will reign forever?
No, it is not God's plan to make planet earth new and repopulate it ... rather it is God's plan that this planet earth will remain forever and not be destroyed, even though certain orders of rule and nations, etc have come and gone will come and go.
Do you want to rethink your response? Where in the Bible you are able to draw this conclusion?
To believe as you do above, why would God keep the decay of sin around? Are saying God is going to abandon earth as a space in lure of what?
- This is not a physical Kingdom on earth?
No, this is not a reign in a physical kingdom on earth.
It sounds like you Dave share the point of view on the matter above. Am I correct?
Let's be clear to move the conversation forward with understanding. CM
Why should we move the conversation forward with an incorrect understanding?
This is not my intent. I will wait for the clarification of your point above. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
2. Is it not God's plan to make this earth new and to repopulate it with the redeem and Christ will reign forever?No, it is not God's plan to make planet earth new and repopulate it ... rather it is God's plan that this planet earth will remain forever and not be destroyed, even though certain orders of rule and nations, etc have come and gone will come and go.
Do you want to rethink your response? Where in the Bible you are able to draw this conclusion?
I see no need to rethink my conclusion ... for example, compare Psalm 78:69 "And he built his sanctuary like high [palaces], like the earth which he hath established for ever."
To believe as you do above, why would God keep the decay of sin around?
Sin is not a problem of planet earth, but of PEOPLE ... the problem has nothing to do with the heaven, space, planet, ground or air, etc. PEOPLE are producing SIN ...
Are saying God is going to abandon earth as a space in lure of what?
See above statement from Psalm 78:69 ... which states that God has established the earth for ever.
- This is not a physical Kingdom on earth?
No, this is not a reign in a physical kingdom on earth.
It sounds like you Dave share the point of view on the matter above. Am I correct?
Could be ... I am not sure about all the details of his understanding.
Let's be clear to move the conversation forward with understanding. CM
Why should we move the conversation forward with an incorrect understanding?
This is not my intent. I will wait for the clarification of your point above. CM
I trust the passage from Psalm 78:69 already would be sufficient clarification.
-
@Dave_L said:
What do you think.I think the text (Romans 11:28) means what it says in the context Romans chapter 11. And, earlier on this thread, I have also already quoted a number of resources that offer an explanation of this passage.
See the follow:
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/10249/#Comment_10249 -
Ah, Mr. Wolfgang,
Is not the passage above is a figure of speech? What is its context? CM -
Can you tell me which figure of speech you think it is? and what the actual meaning would be which is emphasized by the use of that particular figure of speech?
It seems to me that you either well know that there is no figure of speech and just want to have a bit of fun with me ... ?
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
What do you think.I think the text (Romans 11:28) means what it says in the context Romans chapter 11. And, earlier on this thread, I have also already quoted a number of resources that offer an explanation of this passage.
See the follow:
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/10249/#Comment_10249These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.
-
Well, then I would be interested in seeing quotes from your recommended articles or commentaries in your Logos library (or paper library) that explain Romans 11:28.
-
@Mitchell said:
Well, then I would be interested in seeing quotes from your recommended articles or commentaries in your Logos library (or paper library) that explain Romans 11:28.Remember, "they" were genuinely circumcised members of physical Israel. But when they died off, nothing remained to make one a physical Jew or member of Physical Israel. These are gentiles today who call themselves Jews and practice Jewish traditions.
-
Dave, what resources in your Logos library or in paper library ofter clear exegesis to illustrate the points of view that you suggest?
As for true circumcision(see: Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6) it never faded and neither did Israel For, Romans, Paul makes a direct allusion to the Deuteronomic passages in Romans 2:29. Both the true circumcision mention in the Torah and the Jews continue.
-
@Mitchell said:
Dave, what resources in your Logos library or in paper library ofter clear exegesis to illustrate the points of view that you suggest?As for true circumcision(see: Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6) it never faded and neither did Israel For, Romans, Paul makes a direct allusion to the Deuteronomic passages in Romans 2:29. Both the true circumcision mention in the Torah and the Jews continue.
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision, all the ceremonies, unbelievers, and the Ten Commandments.
“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: 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: 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.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
-
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, what resources in your Logos library or in paper library ofter clear exegesis to illustrate the points of view that you suggest?...
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision, all the ceremonies, unbelievers, and the Ten Commandments.“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: 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: 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.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
Typical Dave ... REFUSAL to answer plain simple questions asked of him, instead throws out some of his theology idea. Or is it that he just can't read what others write?
It is impossible to have a genuine exchange with him.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, what resources in your Logos library or in paper library ofter clear exegesis to illustrate the points of view that you suggest?...
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision, all the ceremonies, unbelievers, and the Ten Commandments.“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: 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: 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.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
Typical Dave ... REFUSAL to answer plain simple questions asked of him, instead throws out some of his theology idea. Or is it that he just can't read what others write?
It is impossible to have a genuine exchange with him.
I am supposed to answer, but not according to a person's misunderstanding. So we should straighten that out first and then follow up with details.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
Typical Dave ... REFUSAL to answer plain simple questions asked of him, instead throws out some of his theology idea. Or is it that he just can't read what others write?It is impossible to have a genuine exchange with him.
I am supposed to answer, but not according to a person's misunderstanding. So we should straighten that out first and then follow up with details.
More typical Dave ... what did the person misunderstand? NOTHING. He was asking that YOU provide information relating sources for YOUR ideas ...
The one who just about always does not seem to understand or misunderstand others is YOU, Dave_L.Also, please note, IF YOU do not provide information asked of you, then YOU are the one who should straighten himself out first and until you do there is nothing to follow up in the first place ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
Typical Dave ... REFUSAL to answer plain simple questions asked of him, instead throws out some of his theology idea. Or is it that he just can't read what others write?It is impossible to have a genuine exchange with him.
I am supposed to answer, but not according to a person's misunderstanding. So we should straighten that out first and then follow up with details.
More typical Dave ... what did the person misunderstand? NOTHING. He was asking that YOU provide information relating sources for YOUR ideas ...
The one who just about always does not seem to understand or misunderstand others is YOU, Dave_L.Also, please note, IF YOU do not provide information asked of you, then YOU are the one who should straighten himself out first and until you do there is nothing to follow up in the first place ...
If you answer a person according to their misunderstanding, you get nowhere. But if you answer them according to the truth about the topic, you at least presented it to their thinking.
-
@Dave_L said:
If you answer a person according to their misunderstanding, you get nowhere.So, when I asked you twice to recommend commentaries, articles, and exegesis from for your library that might better explain the theological viewpoint you hold you then deemed that as getting nowhere?
@Dave_L said:
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision...In other words, you believe that the new covenant replaced the "circumcision of the heart" mentioned in first in Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 30:6, and referred to in Romans 2:29?
-
@Dave_L said:
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision, all the ceremonies, unbelievers, and the Ten Commandments.“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: 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: 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.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
Even in this vein, did "The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant"? With a closer look, is there just one Covenant and what is called "New" is not a replacement, but an affirmation of the old and an expansion of the Old Covenant? I know this may require a new thread, However, I wanted to plant the seed here. It's interesting when one looks at the "to whom", "the terms", "the promises", and "curses" of the Covenant, etc. Hey, start a new thread: One Covenant or Two. CM
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
If you answer a person according to their misunderstanding, you get nowhere.So, when I asked you twice to recommend commentaries, articles, and exegesis from for your library that might better explain the theological viewpoint you hold you then deemed that as getting nowhere?
@Dave_L said:
The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant including circumcision...In other words, you believe that the new covenant replaced the "circumcision of the heart" mentioned in first in Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 30:6, and referred to in Romans 2:29?
I gave scripture from my Logos library.
Circumcision of the heart existed since Abel and Job. Only when God incorporated unbelievers into Abraham's seed did physical circumcision come into being.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
