Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[prism]

Yeah, those two I have some real problems with.

On the replacement theology thing, I am not sure why anyone would want to take upon themselves all the baggage of Israel unless they were born Hebrew. The believer has a far better covenant and promises than Israel ever had. I am a businessman, and trying to equate with Israel is bad business. Let them have their own gig. Paul said the promises are still theirs. But the believer has greater promises. Yeah.... I'll take the believer promises. That seems like the better deal.

And those folks that seem to want to do the replacement theology gig, they always like the blessings that were Israel's but they never seem to accept the curses. Kinda like those New Agers that talk about how they were a famous person in a previous life. None of them say they shoveled manure in a past life. They were always a great warrior or prince or something. Not someone who was the lowest of society.

Or sort of like the Messianic Gentiles 'wanna-be' Jewish...until persecution against the Jews break out, then they go MIA.

 

[ScottA]

More like watching the film. Some have seen the beginning, some seen to middle but everyone is waiting to see the end. But the complete story is already on film.

So...since Christ has come [again] to millions [already], you are saying what exactly...that they do not have Him even now?

 

[ScottA]

Yes, the fathers said things that we know aren't Biblical. However, their ideas about the restrainer are not interpretation - they with "remarkable unanimity" declare what was taught regarding what Paul told the early church about the identity of the restrainer. Tradition tells us that the early church actually PRAYED for the continuation of the Roman Empire. Why? Because they understood when Pagan Rome fell, the Man of Sin would arise and really do damage to the church.

Paul plainly says the Thessalonians had illumination about the identity of the restrainer verse 6 because he says he'd already enlightened them in verse 5.
No darkness surrounding the identity of it - and no mystery why Paul zipped his lip about it in his letter: he knew letters talking about the fall of empires can easily fall into the hands of imperial authorities, which would spell disaster those connected with such letters.

"Unanimity" means nothing. You could just as easily say the leaders in Israel were correct about Christ. If the consensus was wrong, it was wrong.

No, Paul merely said he spoke of it before. But the fact that they were not clear about it and had to be reassured again, is proof that there was no "illumination" on the point. Why do you call darkness light, when Paul clearly writes to them regarding their ignorance? (Rhetorical) Clearly, your reasoning is just as you have said, which is conjecture stemming from believing the same folly - obviously, you share in the same "unanimity."

On the contrary, Paul was clearly vague, knowing "only in part", however not completely "ignorant." He told them all he knew with assurance, but confessed that even he did not know "in full." There is no scriptural support showing that Paul, nor the early church fathers, knew the identity of the man of sin. But there is scriptural support for the fact that they "knew only in part."

Nonetheless, having the promise of the Holy Spirit leading us into "all truth", we need not walk in the darkness that lingered during those days because of their unbelief. It was Christ who clearly told us that He had "come to give sight to the blind", and the prophet Isaiah who declared, "Who is blind but my servant." By this we know that Israel, and indeed, all who are born of the flesh are blind, are born as the manifestation of sin - as "the man of sin", who are the sons of the first Adam; and that only by being born again of the spirit of God, are we able to discern the scriptures in spirit as the sons of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, a life-giving spirit, in whom we have our sight. Which, in Paul's day and that of the early church, was, as he said, still "dim." For this reason, we should not now join with them in agreement, but should "press on" to the perfection, which Paul had not yet attained.

 

[Dave L]

Well, that really isn't helping anyone here. I can say the same about your position. This is like a couple of kids at the playground... "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

Instead, build your case. I offered up a little something to chew on, at least you can do the same. I stated quite clearly that the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are still in play. It is incumbent upon you to disprove that assertion.

Well, when I got up this morning, the sun rose. The moon was out tonight. I am probably not to far off when I say the waves are still roaring on the seashore. Well, it would seem the Abrahamic Covenant is still in play.

And the Davidic Covenant is that the Messiah would rule one day in the authority of David in Jerusalem. Now, that hasn't happened yet, but I am confident that the Lord will keep His promise.

So, unless the Lord is just playing word games and trying to pull the wool over our eyes, it would seem just about everything Hebrew is still in play. All except the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant.

And last I checked, Hosea 5:15 is still in play and Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23:37-39 which was a discourse on Hosea 5:15 in conjunction with Psalms 118. So if anyone wants the Messiah to return, they better hope there are some physical Hebrews still around to do that. They have a unique calling and purpose. The church has its own. Folks need to quit being greedy and trying steal other peoples purposes.

Circumcision made one a physical Jew and member of Israel. When Christ abolished it on the cross, that generation became the last. Today's Jews and Israel are not biblical Israel. Christendom is. Paul says God will graft any back into Israel through faith in Christ (Romans 11:23).

 

[prism]

Circumcision made one a physical Jew and member of Israel. When Christ abolished it on the cross, that generation became the last. Today's Jews and Israel are not biblical Israel. Christendom is. Paul says God will graft any back into Israel through faith in Christ (Romans 11:23).

So all the Millennium promises to Israel, God will not keep?
Can you kindly explain where the detailed description of a future Temple Priesthood and Land fit into the promises of the Church ( Ezek 40-48)?
Did God break 9 chapters of promises or was Ezekiel having false visions?
Why a Temple? (chaps 41, 42)
Why was a future land divided into 12 tribes by God ( chaps 45, 48)?

The Church is not biblical Israel, it is a totally new creation...

Ephesians 2:14-15 NKJV
[14] For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, [15] having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

.

 

[Copperhead]

Circumcision made one a physical Jew and member of Israel. When Christ abolished it on the cross, that generation became the last. Today's Jews and Israel are not biblical Israel. Christendom is. Paul says God will graft any back into Israel through faith in Christ (Romans 11:23).

Who then will be Jacob (Israel) who acknowledges the offense of rejecting Yeshua and calls for His return..... before He will return? The church? When did the redeemed of Yeshua (the “church”) reject Him so that He would return to His place? Especially when the church as an entity did not come into being until after He returned to His place?

So then, who is the Jacob (Israel) that is required to acknowledge that offense of rejection before He will come back?

See Hosea 5:14 - Hosea 6:2, Matthew 23:37-39, and Psalms 118

Yeshua abolished the penalty of the Torah at the Cross, “it is finished” - Tetelosti - Paid in full, but circumcision was established with the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant, which is the Covenant replaced by the New Covenant.

 

[Dave L]

Who then will be Jacob (Israel) who acknowledges the offense of rejecting Yeshua and calls for His return..... before He will return? The church? When did the redeemed of Yeshua (the “church”) reject Him so that He would return to His place? Especially when the church as an entity did not come into being until after He returned to His place?

So then, who is the Jacob (Israel) that is required to acknowledge that offense of rejection before He will come back?

See Hosea 5:14 - Hosea 6:2, Matthew 23:37-39, and Psalms 118

Yeshua abolished the penalty of the Torah at the Cross, “it is finished” - Tetelosti - Paid in full, but circumcision was established with the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant, which is the Covenant replaced by the New Covenant.

If God removed the unbelievers from Israel according to Romans 11, how can the broken off branches be Israel? To whom does he reattach them to by faith, if they are already Israel?

 

[Dave L]

So all the Millennium promises to Israel, God will not keep?
Can you kindly explain where the detailed description of a future Temple Priesthood and Land fit into the promises of the Church ( Ezek 40-48)?
Did God break 9 chapters of promises or was Ezekiel having false visions?
Why a Temple? (chaps 41, 42)
Why was a future land divided into 12 tribes by God ( chaps 45, 48)?

The Church is not biblical Israel, it is a totally new creation...

Ephesians 2:14-15 NKJV
[14] For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, [15] having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

.

Jesus refuted the physical kingdom notion declaring the kingdom to be spiritual. When they tried to make him king, he hid from them.

 

[Copperhead]

If God removed the unbelievers from Israel according to Romans 11, how can the broken off branches be Israel? To whom does he reattach them to by faith, if they are already Israel?

Again, who will the Jacob (Israel) be who is yet to fulfill Hosea 5:15 and Matthew 23:39?

Replacement Theology falls flat on its face with those two passages. Oh... Yeshua is the speaker in both of them.

 

[Dave L]

Again, who will the Jacob (Israel) be who is yet to fulfill Hosea 5:15 and Matthew 23:39?

Replacement Theology falls flat on its face with those two passages

Jesus and believers in him are Israel. The unbelievers are not.

 

[Copperhead]

Jesus and believers in him are Israel. The unbelievers are not.

Hold onto that thought and be sure to tell Yeshua that He didn’t know what He was talking about in Hosea and Matthew. Not sure you even studied those passages side by side.

In your zeal to support your assertion, you neglected the prescription in the Torah that a matter can only be established on the testimony of two or more witnesses. The Bereans in Acts gave us the model which the HS commended them. Anything in the NT has to be supported in the OT. I gave you the two witness passages. You must support from the OT that the church replaces literal Jacob (Israel) as you interpret in the NT. Else your assertion is dismissed for lack of evidence

 

[Dave L]

Hold onto that thought and be sure to tell Yeshua that He didn’t know what He was talking about in Hosea and Matthew. Not sure you even studied those passages side by side.

You are confusing the broken off unbelievers with believing Israel who accepted Jesus.

 

[prism]

Jesus refuted the physical kingdom notion declaring the kingdom to be spiritual. When they tried to make him king, he hid from them.

That was a postponement not a rescission...

(Act 1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
(Act 1:7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
(Notice Jesus did not tell them there would be no expected Kingdom).

Now could you please answer my questions which I posed to you?

Can you kindly explain where the detailed description of a future Temple Priesthood and Land fit into the promises of the Church ( Ezek 40-48)?
Did God break 9 chapters of promises or was Ezekiel having false visions?
Why a Temple? (chaps 41, 42)
Why was a future land divided into 12 tribes by God ( chaps 45, 48)?

 

[Copperhead]

You are confusing the broken off unbelievers with believing Israel who accepted Jesus.

Nah. No confusion. But thanks for caring enough to try and point it out.

The believing Jews become part of the Ekklesia where, spiritually, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. But physical, literal Jacob and physical, literal gentiles are still entities. And that literal, physical Jacob (Israel) has yet to acknowledge their offense of rejecting Yeshua. That has to happen before He will return.

 

[CoreIssue]

So...since Christ has come [again] to millions [already], you are saying what exactly...that they do not have Him even now?

We are still waiting for the rapture coming and the second coming.

I was talking about the total prophetic picture.

 

[Marymog]

The Early Church Fathers knew why. Everyone of them who had something to say about the restrainer said "with remarkable unanimity" that Paul told the early church the restrainer was the Roman Empire. The fathers lived in a time closely removed from Paul and therefore knew exactly what the early church had been teaching on the subject. None of them make even the slightest suggestion the restrainer is some agent of holiness. Therefore, it makes perfect sense why Paul would not risk Christian lives by writing out that the Empire is soon to be "taken out of the way"......

Hi Phoneman,

Please provide these "remarkable" quotes from those Early Church Fathers that back up your statement. I love history and the ECF's but I am not familiar with precisely what you are alluding to. I was hoping you had those quotes ready to cut and paste so I can easily find them instead of doing extensive and time consuming research. Thank you in advance.

Historical Mary

 

[Dave L]

Nah. No confusion. But thanks for caring enough to try and point it out.

The believing Jews become part of the Ekklesia where, spiritually, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. But physical, literal Jacob and physical, literal gentiles are still entities. And that literal, physical Jacob (Israel) has yet to acknowledge their offense of rejecting Yeshua. That has to happen before He will return.

Circumcision made one a Jew. It is a religion, now false. Jews are not a race. When Christ abolished circumcision, the only Jews left were believers who accepted Christ. It is into this Israel we believing gentiles are grafted. And any broken of former Jews are re-grafted upon accepting Christ.

 

[Dave L]

That was a postponement not a rescission...

(Act 1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
(Act 1:7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
(Notice Jesus did not tell them there would be no expected Kingdom).

Now could you please answer my questions which I posed to you?

Can you kindly explain where the detailed description of a future Temple Priesthood and Land fit into the promises of the Church ( Ezek 40-48)?
Did God break 9 chapters of promises or was Ezekiel having false visions?
Why a Temple? (chaps 41, 42)
Why was a future land divided into 12 tribes by God ( chaps 45, 48)?

There was no postponement. The kingdom arrived with him and is here now. But only the born again can see it. Perhaps you and other like minded are not born again? You want a physical kingdom of sight, and not our spiritual kingdom of faith? The pharisees liked your idea of a kingdom too.

 

[Copperhead]

Circumcision made one a Jew. It is a religion, now false. Jews are not a race. When Christ abolished circumcision, the only Jews left were believers who accepted Christ. It is into this Israel we believing gentiles are grafted. And any broken of former Jews are re-grafted upon accepting Christ.

Judaism is a religion. Jew is a physical identity. Do you really not understand that? Abraham was before the Torah, before Israel, before the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant, etc. And circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. It was later also applied to proselytes by the Torah, but it preceded the Torah.

And while the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant was conditional on Israel and the Lord, the Abrahamic Covenant was only conditional on the Lord’s promise. The Jews could not abrogate that Covenant if they wanted to. And boy, they sure have put a strain on it over the centuries. But the sun came out today, the moon was out last night, and the ocean waves still roar on the shores. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in force. And Yeshua never abrogated that Covenant.

In fact, the Abrahamic Covenant is the measuring line by which the nations will be judged. That is laid out in Joel 3 and Matthew 25.

Just like the Noahic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant. Just like the Davidic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant. If the latter is no longer, then Yeshua will never reign on this planet. And if one believes that, they have serious issues.

And therein lies the problem. Many in the church can’t seem to get the covenants figured out. It shows that many really haven’t done their homework.

 

[Dave L]

Judaism is a religion. Jew is a physical identity. Do you really not understand that? Abraham was before the Torah, before Israel, before the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant, etc. And circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. It was later also applied to proselytes by the Torah, but it preceded the Torah.

And while the Mosaic / Sinai Covenant was conditional on Israel and the Lord, the Abrahamic Covenant was only conditional on the Lord’s promise. The Jews could not abrogate that Covenant if they wanted to. And boy, they sure have put a strain on it over the centuries. But the sun came out today, the moon was out last night, and the ocean waves still roar on the shores. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in force. And Yeshua never abrogated that Covenant.

Just like the Noahic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant. Just like the Davidic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant. If the latter is no longer, then Yeshua will never reign on this planet. And if one believes that, they have serious issues.

And therein lies the problem. Many in the church can’t seem to get the covenants figured out. It shows that many really haven’t done their homework.

Israel's history begins with Abraham, Ishmael and 300+ foreigners, (non relatives) all his covenant seed through circumcision. Any not circumcised were cut off and remained gentiles. Moses imported this covenant into the Mosaic Covenant. But the fact remains, circumcision made one a physical Jew and a physical member of Israel. When Jesus abolished circumcision, only the believers were left. The unbelievers were now gentiles to be grafted back into Israel only as believing gentiles. Furthermore, all of the promises of God are yes in Jesus, and no to the unbelievers.