Why are they called Hebrews?

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(56)

Paul does talk about the land promises. When he speaks of national Israel he is talking about the land and nation of Israel as promised to Abraham. See (Rom. 9-11). (Rom. 9:4) (Rom. 9:6-10) (Rom. 11:1-2) (Rom. 11:25)

I see why you don't like to give the verses of many of the Bible references you give. Paul in (Acts 26) does not say the Resurrection has fuflilled or negated the promises to Israel. He says Israel is still looking for the fulfillment. (Acts 26:6-7) Israel was not wrong in looking for and anticipating the promises of the land and their nation Israel once again being the 'Kingdom of God'. They were wrong in rejecting their King, Jesus.

Explain your references to (Acts 2-4), (Rom. 1), (Acts 13), how that the land and national promises have been fulfilled in the Resurrection.

Paul's knowledge of Hebrew didn't lead him to Christ. Christ blinding him and knocking him to the earth led him to Christ.

You say concerning (Gal. 3:16), "where it is not many people meant by the seed, but the one Seed, Jesus Christ". By which you discount the seed promise to national Israel. But being the 'One Seed', the fulfillment of the Seed promise, does not discount others counted for the seed as you recognize when you say, "and those who enter through Him".

You don't want to count national Israel as also the seed, but you do count the believing in the Church as the seed.

Lees

None of those verses you mentioned are necessarily about the land. The issue being cleared up is whether lineage automatically includes a person in "Israel" of which there are two. Actually, I would say that, going back to 3:3, the automatic question is all through Romans. Even in 2B.

The term "saved" in Rom 11 is about justification by Christ for our sins, so that we become its messengers. John the Baptist started this word choice by referring to the one who 'takes away sins' (not the doing, but the debt problem). But you can clearly see that that 'coming to Zion' is in the historic sense; it has taken place, when Paul quotes Isaiah.

 

[EarlyActs]

re Acts 26
I generally avoid individual verses because it is far to easy to slip into brittle proof-texting of an idea.

You are wrong about the fulfilled hope. He absolutely meant that the resurrection fulfilled this hope; this is all through Acts, Rom 1, Eph 1-3 (extensive). Acts 2-4 show that the resurrection fulfilled all that Israel hoped for--a Davidic enthronement to which the world was to be subject. The grammar there in Acts 2 is quite clear: David saw the resurrection as the enthronement of Christ. The apostles consistently declare this. It is not a 'private' truth, and there is no future kingdom to watch for, as he snapped about in ch 1 (it is not for you to know). In fact his next line there is that they would shortly be made king-priests (you will be endowed with Levitical clothing when the Spirit speaks through you), which is where the 'kingdom of priests' expression is sourced in Rev and I Peter 2. It is absolutely current reality.

The kingdom is imperative. It is what should be. That means you can look at today's news and not see it at all! The nations continue to rage, Ps 2. But because of his phenomenal accomplishment in the Gospel, God has honored Christ exactly as Ps 2 and 110 say: higher than any name, and all the world is on notice to honor him, or be smashed. Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, Heb 1, etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

re Acts 13
I have an interesting history with Acts 13. I grew up in an excited modern Israel fulfillment church, dispensational theology, went to their best local college. In the 2nd year, I was a conference by two Australian speakers on the Reformation, and that was the first time anyone ever taught me Acts 13--in 10 years!

I just let you read it 10x and get back to me. Remember, it is an official transcript of what Paul said in synagogues, with 'echo' (feedback) by Jews, who could not believe how he handled Isaiah (see v47). They were to be lights to the world through the Light to the world.

The land promise served its function until David's time, but the Abraham narrative and earlier Genesis were never confined to it. Thus Paul quotes Isaiah saying the oaths made to David were transferred to Christ, who "fulfilled all that was promised to the fathers." That promise was justification by Christ, which would also become a message to the nations. This is why early Luther hoped Jews would 'be the missionaries that Romans envisioned them being;' later Luther was a very confused person.

 

[Lees]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

I wish everyone would ignore @EarlyActs. He posts inflamatory posts which are clearly against the plain reading of Scripture. Just ignore the guy.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

My bad on geography

No worries... I looked it up again to be sure. LOL

 

[EarlyActs]

What a confession. You don't believe what the Bible says. Forever doesn't mean forever. Everlasting doesn't mean everlasting.



Again, your 'streetwise' element is silly. The promises were to Abraham and his seed.


Again, (Gal. 3) is not addressing the land promise. Because the land promise is to Israel, not the Gentiles.


Point being, the Jerusalem from above comes down to earth. (Rev. 21:2) Just because it comes down to earth, doesn't mean it isn't a 'heavenly city'. It most certainly is. That is the city whose foundations and Builder and Maker is God. (Heb. 11:10)

The 'main thing' at this point, is that the land promises to Abraham are eternal and still in play.

Lees

Didn’t you notice that’s not this earth in Rev 22, not this creation? That matches Heb 2 about our salvation.

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

Re the land promise in Gal 3

(Please deal with one topic per post, )

It does not deal with the land bc there is no need to. The promised Spirit through the Gospel gets the message to the ends of the earth, like Paul himself.

Sorry to have to inform you, but the attempt to revert to being in the land destroys NT theology, just like going back to Judaism would. And there’s no point going back to the land if there is no further practice of Judaism—which there is not.

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

Re Gal 3:16
There is no contradiction if Paul says it was not to many people. He meant it was not automatically to all Jews, like he did in Rom 2’s 2nd half, and Rom 9, and Eph 2-3. It is to many people if you mean in Christ. That is consistent with the olive tree analogy of Rom 11, in which only the faith based person is ‘in,’ and very few of the race-nation were, v14. But he kept trying, even after giving up on them, I Th 2.

 

[EarlyActs]

Re the verses in Romans support a promise about the land.

There are none. You really don’t know the situation of the NT, previously referred to as the street knowledge of what was going on. If a person dissented from the zealot view of the land in the revolt period, you’d be killed.

Last I checked, it was not Christian , ie, was anti-Christian , to do so.

Then in the revolt, if you did take the zealot view, you’d be slaughtered or enslaved by the Romans.

Here’s a helpful formula: Paul the Pharisee + time would have made him the most tyrannical of Judaizers out there. That’s why God intervened , reforming him away from Judaism and its eschatology. John of Gischala ended up with that role, perishing at Masada.

Israel was meant to become evangelists of the Gospel but failed horribly. They mostly became freedom-fighters for the land , which was pathetically self-destructive, Lk 13, 19, 21.

Instead of admitting the huge mistake of revolting, modern Israel trains and graduates its soldiers at Masada.

Acts 3 bluntly stated that if that generation did not obey the new Moses (the NT has new everything in relation to Judaism), they would be ‘exolutresthai’—to be humiliatingly disinherited. That was the destruction of the country in that generation, Lk 23:28. This matches Dan9, which of course is as bleak as it gets.

Therefore the times of refreshing were for those who did follow him, through the evangelism of the nations, the Gen 15 quote which Peter ends with.

The apostles prayed mightily for Israel to take its proper role, but the zealot instinct to place race-nation over its Messianic task even infected and divided the church, Acts 10-11.

Make a list of the 1st 20 quotes of the OT in Acts , where we know the guys were taught for 40 days. Please complete it before further discussion. It’s from Acts 2–15, starting with Joel 2 and ending with Amos9.

Simply find them in a translation that identifies them and summarize what they mean in a line each. That is, what the NT says they mean, not your fav ideas.

 

[EarlyActs]

And see my thread ‘The three ‘lost verses’ of Acts.’

 

[Mr GLee]

Provably false statements. The promised land has never been fully realized. God promised His chosen nation of Israel all the land up to the Euphrates river and into Egypt. That has NEVER happened yet.

Fully realized???

The temporal dying corrupted land is used in parables to represent the eternal not seen land. No mix no faithful power to believe and do the will of the Father not seen

2 Corinthians 4:18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

It's easy to see if a person uses the invaluable mixing prescription (2 Corinthians 4:18)

A good example of those who do not use the mixing prescription looking to the temporal dying and not the eternal living .

The apostles in a series of parables hiding the gospel understanding they thought Jesus the apostle was playing mind games with them.

When it was revealed to them the gentiles are no different than the born-again Jew They demanded the lord rain fire and consume them all (Out of sight out of mind) The Pagan foundation. God call fools

People are known by location (demonym)

In Acts our father renamed the bride previously calling her Israel (not all Isreal is born again Israel .Christian a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations

In verse 55 The Lord rebukes the apostles and reveals the kind of manner of spirit they are of.(Dead)

Luke9:51-56 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (temporal dying) ,And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

 

[Lees]

Didn’t you notice that’s not this earth in Rev 22, not this creation? That matches Heb 2 about our salvation.

No, I didn't notice that. I don't see it. Explain. How does (Heb. 2) match up with that?

Re the land promise in Gal 3

(Please deal with one topic per post, )

It does not deal with the land bc there is no need to. The promised Spirit through the Gospel gets the message to the ends of the earth, like Paul himself.

Sorry to have to inform you, but the attempt to revert to being in the land destroys NT theology, just like going back to Judaism would. And there’s no point going back to the land if there is no further practice of Judaism—which there is not.

I deal with what you present.

As I have said, there is no need to deal with the land promise in (Gal. 3) because the land is not a promise to the Gentiles.

How does God's promise of the land to Abraham destroy New Testament theology? Did God lie about the land promise being forever and everlasting?

Re Gal 3:16
There is no contradiction if Paul says it was not to many people. He meant it was not automatically to all Jews, like he did in Rom 2’s 2nd half, and Rom 9, and Eph 2-3. It is to many people if you mean in Christ. That is consistent with the olive tree analogy of Rom 11, in which only the faith based person is ‘in,’ and very few of the race-nation were, v14. But he kept trying, even after giving up on them, I Th 2.

Yes you contradicted yourself. Saying the Seed is only One, Christ, but then saying it is also to the Church. You only want the Seed to be One to exclude Israel. You're willing for the seed to be many for the Church.

Concerning post #(70)

The verses I gave in (Romans) do address the land promise because they speak of a national Israel. A national Israel does not exist without the land. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation..."

Nothing in (Acts) or any other verses removes the 'forever' and 'everlasting' promise of the land to Israel. As for making a list, no thanks. Make your own if you like. And I have no interest in your 'three lost verses of Acts'.

Lees

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

Lees wrote:
Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion

Really? For Jews it is. You somehow think Galatians is not for Jews (ie audience of letter). Where do you get that? The whole problem (of most of Paul's contests in his missions) is Judaizers.

I guess you don't realize that if you are going to practice Judaism, you have a temple etc and seasons and feasts and practices and all that.

the pitch of Judaizers was often 'Christ was great, but you are not really a Messianic believer unless you follow the law.' That's what Col 2 is about, where the believer in Christ is 'discredited' by the Judaizer, v4.

 

[Mr GLee]

As I have said, there is no need to deal with the land promise in (Gal. 3) because the land is not a promise to the Gentiles.

How does God's promise of the land to Abraham destroy New Testament theology? Did God lie about the land promise being forever and everlasting?

God is not a racist.

Thank God for the resorting of true identity using Mr. Trump to make the new name Christian: "Residents of the city of Christ" prepared for his wife the church giving her ears to hear and understand

Pray for a humble spirit

Chosen people signified used in parables that hide the unseen spiritual understanding. No gospel rest.

What Christ our husband promised to the inward born again Jew as a sons of God.

Christian the new name the father named the bride it applies to every nation.

Foolish. . . Not trusting in the unseen spiritual understanding of faith .Faith unseen power of God

Galatians 3:1-5 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, (death) or by the hearing of faith?Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith

Does he "let there be" do it or we dying mankind ?

 

[EarlyActs]

No, I didn't notice that. I don't see it. Explain. How does (Heb. 2) match up with that?



I deal with what you present.

As I have said, there is no need to deal with the land promise in (Gal. 3) because the land is not a promise to the Gentiles.

How does God's promise of the land to Abraham destroy New Testament theology? Did God lie about the land promise being forever and everlasting?


Yes you contradicted yourself. Saying the Seed is only One, Christ, but then saying it is also to the Church. You only want the Seed to be One to exclude Israel. You're willing for the seed to be many for the Church.

Concerning post #(70)

The verses I gave in (Romans) do address the land promise because they speak of a national Israel. A national Israel does not exist without the land. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation..."

Nothing in (Acts) or any other verses removes the 'forever' and 'everlasting' promise of the land to Israel. As for making a list, no thanks. Make your own if you like. And I have no interest in your 'three lost verses of Acts'.

Lees

Lees,
Since I have dealt with Dispensationalism forever, I can tell you we have now entered the hardened zone--where no matter what I say, you will take D'ism over the Bible.

The Rev 21 and Heb 2 is a case in point. These two with 2 Peter 3 have nothing about Israel's land on the new creation, which, btw, we are already experiencing in Christ.

The new city, which we are already part of (Gal 4), comes down not on this earth but the next. This earth has been consumed by that time.

Every D'ist document thus butchers Rev 21, Heb 2 and 2 P 3 by insisting that the new Jerusalem is going to be in Israel as we know it at some future point.

Then there's the forever-ness issue. Even if that (just above) were true, our earth/universe is to be consumed in fire, so that only Christ, and those in him, remain! so much for the land promise forever, or everlasting. Somehow, at some point, you must switch to accept that this world is removed!

The 20 passages of early Acts is not my list, it is God's. Those are officially the closest interp (the shortest elapsed time between the real event and the written record) we have of the apostles of what was taught for 40 days by the enthroned King about the OT (Lk24, Acts 1). They are officially how to handle the OT. David saw the resurrection as the enthronement of Messiah (Ps 110) and that's that.

So for the record:

"Lees" of CCCForum, will not subject himself to summarizing the first 20 OT passages for us to read as interpreted by the apostles. Nor that this world is consumed, as found in Rev 21, Heb 2, 2 P 3, apart from any reference to an eternal land for Israel the race-nation. That he believes Rom 11's olive tree is actually about the race-nation and the land, because apparently there are verses about the land promise...somewhere in the NT.

For 50 years, I have found these same end points when talking to D'ists.

 

[Lees]

Lees wrote:
Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion

Really? For Jews it is. You somehow think Galatians is not for Jews (ie audience of letter). Where do you get that? The whole problem (of most of Paul's contests in his missions) is Judaizers.

I guess you don't realize that if you are going to practice Judaism, you have a temple etc and seasons and feasts and practices and all that.

the pitch of Judaizers was often 'Christ was great, but you are not really a Messianic believer unless you follow the law.' That's what Col 2 is about, where the believer in Christ is 'discredited' by the Judaizer, v4.

It's not the subject here.

And here you accused me of bringing up a new topic, and look at you.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Lees,
Since I have dealt with Dispensationalism forever, I can tell you we have now entered the hardened zone--where no matter what I say, you will take D'ism over the Bible.

The Rev 21 and Heb 2 is a case in point. These two with 2 Peter 3 have nothing about Israel's land on the new creation, which, btw, we are already experiencing in Christ.

The new city, which we are already part of (Gal 4), comes down not on this earth but the next. This earth has been consumed by that time.

Every D'ist document thus butchers Rev 21, Heb 2 and 2 P 3 by insisting that the new Jerusalem is going to be in Israel as we know it at some future point.

Then there's the forever-ness issue. Even if that (just above) were true, our earth/universe is to be consumed in fire, so that only Christ, and those in him, remain! so much for the land promise forever, or everlasting. Somehow, at some point, you must switch to accept that this world is removed!

The 20 passages of early Acts is not my list, it is God's. Those are officially the closest interp (the shortest elapsed time between the real event and the written record) we have of the apostles of what was taught for 40 days by the enthroned King about the OT (Lk24, Acts 1). They are officially how to handle the OT. David saw the resurrection as the enthronement of Messiah (Ps 110) and that's that.

So for the record:

"Lees" of CCCForum, will not subject himself to summarizing the first 20 OT passages for us to read as interpreted by the apostles. Nor that this world is consumed, as found in Rev 21, Heb 2, 2 P 3, apart from any reference to an eternal land for Israel the race-nation. That he believes Rom 11's olive tree is actually about the race-nation and the land, because apparently there are verses about the land promise...somewhere in the NT.

For 50 years, I have found these same end points when talking to D'ists.

(Heb. 2) is not about the land promise. Just as there are many verses in the Bible which are not about the land promise. That doesn't negate the land promise to Abraham and Israel.

Concerning (Rev. 21) it is about a new heaven and new earth. The earth will have been cleansed. But that doesn't remove the land promise to Abraham. There will still be boundaries for nations. (Rev. 21:24) "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." And we know the land promise to Abraham was forever and everlasting.

No, for the record, Lees is not going to waste his time doing your work for you. If you have a list you want to present, go ahead. I'm sure Lees will respond.

Lees

 

[EarlyActs]

It's not the subject here.

And here you accused me of bringing up a new topic, and look at you.

Lees

You have to explain that. To my understanding it certainly is. We are trying to get down to the meaning of Gal 3; how can it not be there? The historical-grammatical meaning of the text is first, and then fav theology if it passes that test.

But you haven't worked the 20 first quotes of the OT, like all other Dispensationalists that have discussed with, so I'm not surprised and may not continue.

When you said above that 'there has to be a land of Israel in order for there to be a kingdom' you are obscuring the very thing that makes the NT meaning of all this clear. The opposite is the case, because it is not that kind of kingdom, as he said 13 different ways.

And the bit about God lying? Well look at Acts 3: if he doesn't 'humiliatingly disinherit' those who fail to become missionaries for his Gospel, then he is lying. He was speaking to Israel, and Luke clearly shows the cost to Israel of failing to do so. That is the test-case of of the NT about God and lying.

 

[Lees]

You have to explain that. To my understanding it certainly is. We are trying to get down to the meaning of Gal 3; how can it not be there? The historical-grammatical meaning of the text is first, and then fav theology if it passes that test.

But you haven't worked the 20 first quotes of the OT, like all other Dispensationalists that have discussed with, so I'm not surprised and may not continue.

When you said above that 'there has to be a land of Israel in order for there to be a kingdom' you are obscuring the very thing that makes the NT meaning of all this clear. The opposite is the case, because it is not that kind of kingdom, as he said 13 different ways.

And the bit about God lying? Well look at Acts 3: if he doesn't 'humiliatingly disinherit' those who fail to become missionaries for his Gospel, then he is lying. He was speaking to Israel, and Luke clearly shows the cost to Israel of failing to do so. That is the test-case of of the NT about God and lying.

I am not interested in working your 20 quotes.

If you want to present them, and tell me how they refute what I have said, go ahead. I promise I will respond.

You still haven't answered. Did God lie to Abram when He told him the land promise was forever, and everlasting?

Lees