RT's illegitimate language use

[Wick Stick]

No, it is allegorization that is very evident in the time of Origen, one of the early Church Fathers (unless you reject him as such). Allegorization became a popular method of interpretation in the Church, particularly when it became inconvenient to support Israel in the time of their stubborn resistance to evangelization.

We don't have enough of Origen's writing left to make a judgment on him.

Allegorizing doesn't negate the original meaning of a text. Adding a 2nd or 3rd meaning never takes away the first one. And the allegory isn't necessarily correct.

John's Baptism was a baptism into Israel's faith under the Law. Christian Baptism has nothing to do with the Law, and is a kind of initiation ceremony into the New Covenant of Christ.

We are all, as sinners, adopted into God's family, having been like corrupt "strangers" to God in His holy heaven. We are brought back in as though "lost children" to get a 2nd chance at being His children.

Eph 2.12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Paul explained that God's promise to Abraham was not just to guarantee Israel's ultimate Salvation, but also to guarantee there would be many other nations to enjoy that inheritance together with Israel.

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Jews think that these "other nations" are really just tribes as such of Israel. But Paul indicates they are really other nations other than Israel.

The transition from "only Israel" to "many nations" is an extension of the people of God from Israel to other Christian nations. And so, Israel, being a model for the Church, is often used in an allegorized form to show how God deals with Christian nations in the same way He dealt with ancient Israel.

1 Cor 10.For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

You are quoting the verses I would have quoted to you. The nations are adopted before the Law, and are not subject. But the language Paul uses in calling them Israel... I don't think Paul is doing any allegorizing there. Perhaps his choice of language gives occasion for misunderstandings. But that's so common that even Peter commented on it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

We don't have enough of Origen's writing left to make a judgment on him.

Allegorizing doesn't negate the original meaning of a text. Adding a 2nd or 3rd meaning never takes away the first one. And the allegory isn't necessarily correct.


You are quoting the verses I would have quoted to you. The nations are adopted before the Law, and are not subject. But the language Paul uses in calling them Israel... I don't think Paul is doing any allegorizing there. Perhaps his choice of language gives occasion for misunderstandings. But that's so common that even Peter commented on it.

That's what happens when we use the same Bible and come up with different interpretations. At least we're using the same Bible! It's okay--we can disagree at times.

When I use the term "Israel" as a representation of the Church I'm using the word allegorically, because the nation Israel is *not* the International Church. When 2 dissimilar things are compared, there is not an exact identification and therefore represent an allegorization.

If I show you fuss going on in an animal house, and compare that to the fuss going on in a State's political turmoil, these are two dissimilar things, presenting an allegorization. So if I show you the Law and Israel producing blessings and the worship of God, and compare that to the International Church worshiping God through Christ, "Israel" is being used allegorically.

To then take this allegorical use of "Israel" and turn it into a new definition of "Israel" is what "Replacement Theology" does. It disposes of the original model, Israel, and replaces it with what my position sees as a different model, the International Church. "Israel" is allegorized and redefined to mean "the Church."

 

[Wick Stick]

That's what happens when we use the same Bible and come up with different interpretations. At least we're using the same Bible! It's okay--we can disagree at times.

When I use the term "Israel" as a representation of the Church I'm using the word allegorically, because the nation Israel is *not* the International Church. When 2 dissimilar things are compared, there is not an exact identification and therefore represent an allegorization.

If I show you fuss going on in an animal house, and compare that to the fuss going on in a State's political turmoil, these are two dissimilar things, presenting an allegorization. So if I show you the Law and Israel producing blessings and the worship of God, and compare that to the International Church worshiping God through Christ, "Israel" is being used allegorically.

To then take this allegorical use of "Israel" and turn it into a new definition of "Israel" is what "Replacement Theology" does. It disposes of the original model, Israel, and replaces it with what my position sees as a different model, the International Church. "Israel" is allegorized and redefined to mean "the Church."

Even the Bible uses Israel to mean a few things.

There's the northern kingdom - "the house of Israel." There's the united kingdom. And we've already talked about Paul using it to refer to believers.

And then we also use it to refer to the nation that still exists today, both geographically and in reference to a certain people.

So there's at least 5 distinct meanings for the word Israel.

And we wonder why Christians struggle with their theology.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Even the Bible uses Israel to mean a few things.

There's the northern kingdom - "the house of Israel." There's the united kingdom. And we've already talked about Paul using it to refer to believers.

Israel has *always* referred to a nation that is supposed to be based on Abraham's "faith." That's not a variant definition of "Israel." That's the *common* definition of "Israel."

The Northern Kingdom was part of "Israel." Both Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Judah, the Southern Kingdom, were "Israel" in some sense. The two should've been united by Law of Moses. It just happened that the Northern Kingdom was called 'Israel" because most of the tribes had existed there.

That is not a different definition of "Israel." That is "Israel" at one time and at one stage of their existence. The Israel in 700 BC is the same Israel in the time of Jesus. But the people from all of the Northern tribes had mixed into the Southern tribes, constituting "Israel" and the 'Jewish People." Many in the Northern Kingdom perished. Not a different meaning of "Israel" at all.

And then we also use it to refer to the nation that still exists today, both geographically and in reference to a certain people.

That is the *only* definition of "Israel."

So there's at least 5 distinct meanings for the word Israel.

Where are the other 4 definitions?

 

[ewq1938]

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Clearly you can be Israel but not Israel. How so? Those traditionally born in families related to the 12 tribes are Israel in the flesh but that no longer guarantees membership in Israel.



Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Just being genetically related to past Israelites no longer makes you part of Israel. The requirements of membership of Israel have changed.

The true seed or children of Israel is not those of the promise not of the flesh. In other words, Israel is no longer a physical trait ie: born to Jewish parents etc. Only those of the promise are now Israel or otherwise known as true Israel.



Rom2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


One is NOT Jewish or of Israel through any physical connection, whether circumcision or by birth/flesh. Only inside, of a spiritual nature is one of Israel and that is directly related to accepting Christ and being born again which is also a circumcision of the heart (a spiritual matter).

In the past you were of Israel if you were related to any of the 12 tribes. That has changed. Paul teaches that those (even those of his own family) are not the children of God anymore, which means they are not the chosen people of God any longer based solely on genetics. Now, it is based only on your spiritual status, whether you are in Christ or not. This is wrongly associated with replacement theology. God's definition of Israel has changed. The church did not replace Israel, rather the faithful of Israel became the church (became the body of Christ and the bride of Christ as well) and gentiles that accept Christ become members of Israel. Not psuedo members but 100 percent real Israelites.

 

[Keraz]

Even the Bible uses Israel to mean a few things.

There's the northern kingdom - "the house of Israel."

This entity remains 'scattered among the nations; and is 'as many as the sands of the sea',
They are identifiable as the Christian peoples, to be gathered into all of the holy Land soon after the Lord has cleared and cleansed it, on His Day of vengeance and wrath.

There's the united kingdom

That was before their separation into the 2 Houses; Israel - the ten Northern tribes and Judah - the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Ezekiel 37:15-28 remains unfulfilled.

And we've already talked about Paul using it to refer to believers.

We Christian believers are the Overcomers for God. Literally Israelites, as Jacob was originally designated.

And then we also use it to refer to the nation that still exists today, both geographically and in reference to a certain people.

The Jewish State of Israel was initially to be called Judah, their correct name. It was the American influence that caused David ben Gurion to use Israel. Their citizens are called 'Israelis', not Israelites.
That State is a Satanic construct, founded and funded by atheistic Zionists. Their flag is a Satanic symbol.
God has allowed it to exist, for His purpose of working with the hidden, real Israelite peoples, faithful Christians in every tribe, race, nation and language.

 

[Wick Stick]

Israel has *always* referred to a nation that is supposed to be based on Abraham's "faith." That's not a variant definition of "Israel." That's the *common* definition of "Israel."

The Northern Kingdom was part of "Israel." Both Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Judah, the Southern Kingdom, were "Israel" in some sense. The two should've been united by Law of Moses. It just happened that the Northern Kingdom was called 'Israel" because most of the tribes had existed there.

That is not a different definition of "Israel." That is "Israel" at one time and at one stage of their existence. The Israel in 700 BC is the same Israel in the time of Jesus. But the people from all of the Northern tribes had mixed into the Southern tribes, constituting "Israel" and the 'Jewish People." Many in the Northern Kingdom perished. Not a different meaning of "Israel" at all.

That is the *only* definition of "Israel."

Where are the other 4 definitions?

I can see we aren't going to agree on this. That's fine.

1) Israel - a geographic region in the Middle East
2) Israel - a group of people inhabiting (1) today, who are (mostly) not descendants of Abraham after the flesh OR after the spirit
3) Israel - a Bronze Age confederation of nomadic tribes descended from Abraham after the flesh, originating in modern-day Syria, who subsequently colonized the northern third of (1).
4) Israel - a kingdom of the Bronze Age formed by a mixture of (3) with the Moabites, Edomites, and Midianites, which conquered most of (1), while losing its ancestral homelands in Syria and Lebanon
5) Israel - anyone who has been adopted among Abraham's descendants

 

[Wick Stick]

That was before their separation into the 2 Houses; Israel - the ten Northern tribes and Judah - the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Ezekiel 37:15-28 remains unfulfilled.

We Christian believers are the Overcomers for God. Literally Israelites, as Jacob was originally designated.

The Jewish State of Israel was initially to be called Judah, their correct name. It was the American influence that caused David ben Gurion to use Israel. Their citizens are called 'Israelis', not Israelites.
That State is a Satanic construct, founded and funded by atheistic Zionists. Their flag is a Satanic symbol.
God has allowed it to exist, for His purpose of working with the hidden, real Israelite peoples, faithful Christians in every tribe, race, nation and language.

We agree on a lot... but not on this bit:

This entity remains 'scattered among the nations; and is 'as many as the sands of the sea',
They are identifiable as the Christian peoples, to be gathered into all of the holy Land soon after the Lord has cleared and cleansed it, on His Day of vengeance and wrath.

Ther northern kingdom is not in diaspora. The northern kingdom was DESTROYED. Ezekiel envisions them as a field of dry bones. Hosea calls them "not a people" in the same breath he numbers them as the sand. The prophecies about this group DO include a gathering, but they first require a resurrection.

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

"Replacement Theology" turns the word "Israel" into a dual-purpose word, retaining its literal meaning "Israel" as a natural people, but simultaneously turning it into an allegorized term denoting a "spiritual people." There is no basis for inserting this process of allegorization, which began at some point in the Early Church and was adopted by leading figures, including the Church Fathers, who thought it might be on a par with "revelation."

Though Paul does use allegory, he does not allegorize "Israel" by redefining it as the International Church. He only defines the nation as an ideal which is an ages-long process that requires a long time to arrive at. Many are delegitimized not because they have ceased to be Israelis, but only because they have ceased to belong to a nation from which they have religiously departed. They are "cut off" like any apostate would be cut off from a doctrinally-orthodox congregation.

Israelis never cease to be Israelis even when the entire majority have apostacized. That's because there is no nation left to be cut off from--they've all been exiled. But even in exile they remain members of Israel potentially, inasmuch as those Jews in exile have been given a hope of return when they repent of their sins. And even those who remain ignorant in their sins can be restored, since God has indeed promised to restore Israel at a time when they don't deserve it. Ezekiel 36.

RT is also known as Suppressionism.

Its roots go back to Marcion (A.D. 160)

Which means it has been extant for centuries. That's a very long time to be wrong but,there you have it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

RT is also known as Suppressionism.

Its roots go back to Marcion (A.D. 160)

Which means it has been extant for centuries. That's a very long time to be wrong but,there you have it.

That is indeed one of the sources, I should think, since Marcion created a big separation between the OT and the NT. Separating them thus then required that the OT be devalued in favor of the NT, since they cannot both have value.

A similar kind of dualism is in Replacement Theology, which utilizes a depreciated OT as an allegory for a superior NT. One often hears, "The Law was only good for showing us that we can't do good." Or, "Israel was only an external foreshadowing of the Church," whereas the True Israel was really only a small remnant of faith.

In reality, King David sang the praises of the Law in its time. And Jesus said not one law should be devalued while it was in effect. The ceremonies of the Law were not purely external, but were authentic and spiritual, affording Israel a temporary place with God until Christ had met the legal need for final atonement.

The Law was not worthless, and national Israel could not be reduced in perpetuity to a remnant--it had to be restored to fulfill God's promise to Abraham. The Law was a valid means of keeping Israel in a temporary fellowship with God until Christ could come and meet the legal requirements for establishing a permanent fellowship with God.

But the allegorical method of interpretation had roots beyond that of Marcion. Origen became a major influence in the development of allegorization as a method of biblical interpretation. His predecessor Clement of Alexandria had apparently used allegory before him.

And from Origen on, allegorical interpretation was used more regularly by theologians and scholars who wished to interpret the Bible. However, allegorization is subjective and can lead to presumptuous claims about the Bible, rather than leaning on explicit statements in the Bible.

 

[Keraz]

Ther northern kingdom is not in diaspora. The northern kingdom was DESTROYED. Ezekiel envisions them as a field of dry bones. Hosea calls them "not a people" in the same breath he numbers them as the sand. The prophecies about this group DO include a gathering, but they first require a resurrection.

They were exiled, not destroyed.
The historical, and the archaeological, heraldic and linguistic record proves the Western nations to be of Israelite descent. We are Caucasian people; from where Assyria resettled the exiles of the ten Northern tribes and we are the peoples who have received the Promises to the tribes, as Prophesied by Moses and Jacob.

The dry bones of Ezekiel 37:1-14 is a Spiritual regeneration. [verse 14]
As a people group, the ten tribes were Spiritually 'dry' and without hope. Jesus came to save us; Matthew 15:24 and we generally accepted the Gospel preached by the Apostles.
It is our destiny to be His people in all of the holy land. John sees us there in Revelation 7:9

 

[Keraz]

RT is also known as Suppressionism.

Actually; Supersessionism.
A wrong belief, as the true People of God have always been only those who believe in Him and who keep His Commandments.

Israel has *always* referred to a nation that is supposed to be based on Abraham's "faith." That's not a variant definition of "Israel." That's the *common* definition of "Israel."

Unfortunately, the Jewish Zionists have usurped the name of Israel for their State in a small part of the holy land. They happily go along with this deception, as many Christian people mistakenly think they are still Gods chosen people and support them; hugely financially, militarily, and they pray for them. Something that Jeremiah 11:14-16 and Jeremiah 14:11-12 specifically tells us NOT to do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Unfortunately, the Jewish Zionists have usurped the name of Israel for their State in a small part of the holy land. They happily go along with this deception, as many Christian people mistakenly think they are still Gods chosen people and support them; hugely financially, militarily, and they pray for them. Something that Jeremiah 11:14-16 and Jeremiah 14:11-12 specifically tells us NOT to do.

I would think that statement makes you a "Supersessionist?" If Israel is not "their State in a small part of the holy land" then who are they? While it's true that God called the nation to be a "nation of faith," and while it's true that they've failed in this throughout the NT era, it is necessary that they be recognized for who they are ethnically, so that God can fulfill His promise to them and restore them.

I hear this all the time, how bad they are, as if all sinners who reject Christ can never repent. And I hear that nations cannot become "Christian nations," which is in error historically. I give up.

 

[Wick Stick]

They were exiled, not destroyed.

A few were exiled, but most were destroyed. The Assyrians built literal mountains of human skulls after their war in the area. Those who were captured were forced to build ramparts against the walls of cities the Assyrians besieged... so even those mostly died too.

The city of Samaria was carried away captive in 723. Sargon II commemorated the victory on a (still extant) stele, stating that he destroyed the city and the countryside, and took captive exactly 27,299 inhabitants.

Whoever didn't die was cut off from their people. Israel as a nation ceased to exist. That's the death of a nation.

The historical, and the archaeological, heraldic and linguistic record proves the Western nations to be of Israelite descent. We are Caucasian people; from where Assyria resettled the exiles of the ten Northern tribes and we are the peoples who have received the Promises to the tribes, as Prophesied by Moses and Jacob.

Caucasian people come from the Caucasus and the steppe of Asia and Europe that stretches from the Balkans in the east to Mongolia in the west. They originated a looong time before the Assyrian empire even existed. They certainly aren't descended from Abraham, seeing they pre-date Abraham's birth by thousands of years.

You're just wrong about the archaeology and linguistics. And y-DNA also disproves it.

The Israelites were a mixed-race people. Abraham may have been a Syrian, but they intermingled with the Moabites, Edomites, and Midianites in the Wilderness. Moses was married to an Kushite, and there were a lot of people that were "baptized in the cloud and the sea" during the Exodus, which is to say they became Israelites, though they didn't start out that way.

Anyway, I don't think that race is important here. Conversion works through adoption, so Abraham's children come from all races.

The dry bones of Ezekiel 37:1-14 is a Spiritual regeneration. [verse 14] As a people group, the ten tribes were Spiritually 'dry' and without hope.

Israel ceased to exist as a country in the 8th century BC. It began to exist again as a country in the 1st century AD. How did that happen?

I've already said the answer - Adoption. Many people were adopted into Israel in fulfillment of the prophecy that Abraham would become a "father of nations." This was one of the primary objectives of Jesus' ministry... I wish more Christians could understand how Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies. Or, just understand the prophecies for starters.

Jesus came to save us; Matthew 15:24 and we generally accepted the Gospel preached by the Apostles.
It is our destiny to be His people in all of the holy land. John sees us there in Revelation 7:9

Who exactly is "us" and "we," here? It sounds like you're saying that it's just the white people that get saved... but I'm hoping that I've just misunderstood.

 

[Keraz]

I would think that statement makes you a "Supersessionist?" If Israel is not "their State in a small part of the holy land" then who are they? While it's true that God called the nation to be a "nation of faith," and while it's true that they've failed in this throughout the NT era, it is necessary that they be recognized for who they are ethnically, so that God can fulfill His promise to them and restore them.

I hear this all the time, how bad they are, as if all sinners who reject Christ can never repent. And I hear that nations cannot become "Christian nations," which is in error historically. I give up.

How is it that you and so many have fallen for Satan's carefully organized and constructed nation, falsely called Israel?
How is it that you and many fail to see the 20+ Prophesies which graphically describe what the Lord will do those Jesus hating people?
Jesus said they were false Jews and they belong to Satan's synagogue. Revelation 2:9b

The nation; people group, that God called to be His faithful peoples are every true Christian, from every tribe, race, nation and language. Revelation 5:9-10

. Israel as a nation ceased to exist

Not in God's eyes, they didn't - Amos 9:9

The Israelites were a mixed-race people

I agree. The way to be a true Israelite is to be an Overcomer for God, as Jacob was.
We can safely ignore the ethnic arguments, as Ephesians 2:11-18 clearly tell us.

Who exactly is "us" and "we," here?

The Christian peoples. I gave the proof Scripture: Revelation 7:9 You do say you are Christian in your avatar.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How is it that you and so many have fallen for Satan's carefully organized and constructed nation, falsely called Israel?
How is it that you and many fail to see the 20+ Prophesies which graphically describe what the Lord will do those Jesus hating people?

How is it that you generalize about a people for all time and consign them to the trash heap of history, even though Jesus said he died for them and is patient towards all--even the worst of sinners?

Of course there are prophecies that deal with Israel when they are in a state of sin. But there are also prophecies indicating that at some point of time they come back to their senses and will be restored.

Jesus said they were false Jews and they belong to Satan's synagogue. Revelation 2:9b

There are false Jews, but there are also genuine Jews. A few false Jews do not make all Jews false Jews.

The nation; people group, that God called to be His faithful peoples are every true Christian, from every tribe, race, nation and language. Revelation 5:9-10

As I've repeatedly said, this is bad language. When the Bible uses the word "Israel" it *always* refers to the literal nation in the literal land of Canaan or the same people exiled throughout the earth, destined to return, as a people, to the original land. It does *not* refer to the International Church!!

God's promise to Abraham clearly distinguished among nations, indicating that Israel would come to be, along with other nations eventually. They are not all homogenized into one term, "Israel." Israel is only one of the many nations that will be brought into God's Kingdom realm.

The best I can say to agree with you is that Israel can be used "allegorically" to depict the Church as if it is a nation going through the same spiritual battles Israel in the OT did. As Paul said in 1 Cor 10, Israel was a model, a prototype, for the International Church. But by definition, Israel is not the Church. One is a nation, and the other is a multi-national body including Israel.

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Just a new arrival observation here.

I am astonished ,especially given the times and conflict currently at hand in Israel, to find a community filled with so many boldly proud antisemites. And per their usual tactic,they defend their position and take umbrage at the antisemite label,while insisting they are still followers of the Jewish Jesus.

 

[covenantee]

Just a new arrival observation here.

I am astonished ,especially given the times and conflict currently at hand in Israel, to find a community filled with so many boldly proud antisemites. And per their usual tactic,they defend their position and take umbrage at the antisemite label,while insisting they are still followers of the Jewish Jesus.

As is dispensationally typical, you confuse race and religion.

Semitic refers to race.

Talmudic refers to religion.

No one here is antisemitic.

What you see here is the exposure and condemnation of talmudism, the pharisaic antiChristian religion of practising Jews.

Don't confuse the two.

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

As is dispensationally typical, you confuse race and religion.

Semitic refers to race.

Talmudic refers to religion.

No one here is antisemitic.

What you see here is the exposure and condemnation of talmudism, the pharisaic antiChristian religion of practising Jews.

Don't confuse the two.

I haven't. I recognize racist Xtian identity movement rhetoric as soon as it spouts its sulphur from the pit of Hell.

 

[covenantee]

I haven't. I recognize racist Xtian identity movement rhetoric as soon as it spouts its sulphur from the pit of Hell.

Such as?