The Son of Man returns with and for his people

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
8,284
581
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
. More than 17 centuries of united historical orthodox defense of the true faith.
It was always "the cults" who were martyred and defended the faith from the wrong "orthodox view" of the established popular majority of sinful humanity.

The term has been "flipped" in modern times as a derogatory remark from those who think they have a correctly established doctrine. If you knew your history you would understand the irony of your accusations.

Being a cult was always the proper way to defend the truth, as the more popular view of Scripture or spiritual matters was not always the correct one.

The term cult was then misappropriated into protestor or Protestant. So of course that is what an orthodox viewpoint would say, that any who do not agree with them is a cult. We would also be a protestor or protestant. Now days all Protestant and established views of religion is lumped into one single Christian orthodoxy. And not all cults are equal. And orthodoxy today is just as wrong as the orthodoxy of the Pharisees and Sadducees in many points.

Of course I don't view orthodoxy as wrong as much as you view a cult is wrong. But I would not trade my cult with Jesus as the leader, with your orthodoxy that is mislead by human authority thinking they speak for Jesus. Especially when you all cannot even see when you are wrong, not willing to leave tradition for the truth of God's Word.

Orthodoxy was never in position to defend the truth. Orthodoxy is just a bunch of humans calling the shots. Sometimes they are correct, most of the times so far off the mark, it is not worth arguing over. The only difference between a cult and orthodoxy is the amount of members when it comes to pointing out each others failures. Orthodoxy has a lot more to be held accountable for than a cult.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,407
1,848
113
72
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It was always "the cults" who were martyred and defended the faith from the wrong "orthodox view" of the established popular majority of sinful humanity.

The term has been "flipped" in modern times as a derogatory remark from those who think they have a correctly established doctrine. If you knew your history you would understand the irony of your accusations.

Being a cult was always the proper way to defend the truth, as the more popular view of Scripture or spiritual matters was not always the correct one.

The term cult was then misappropriated into protestor or Protestant. So of course that is what an orthodox viewpoint would say, that any who do not agree with them is a cult. We would also be a protestor or protestant. Now days all Protestant and established views of religion is lumped into one single Christian orthodoxy. And not all cults are equal. And orthodoxy today is just as wrong as the orthodoxy of the Pharisees and Sadducees in many points.

Of course I don't view orthodoxy as wrong as much as you view a cult is wrong. But I would not trade my cult with Jesus as the leader, with your orthodoxy that is mislead by human authority thinking they speak for Jesus. Especially when you all cannot even see when you are wrong, not willing to leave tradition for the truth of God's Word.

Orthodoxy was never in position to defend the truth. Orthodoxy is just a bunch of humans calling the shots. Sometimes they are correct, most of the times so far off the mark, it is not worth arguing over. The only difference between a cult and orthodoxy is the amount of members when it comes to pointing out each others failures. Orthodoxy has a lot more to be held accountable for than a cult.
It should be evident that when the term "orthodox" with a small "o" is used in connection with the historical true Christian faith, it is not referring to historical apostate Romanism.

But predictably, you're incapable of that understanding.

Which cult(s) do you belong to?
 
Last edited:

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Law can do nothing as an entity. It cannot prosper, it cannot fail. The Law was given to point out that human righteousness is a futile endeavor. Any one who thinks the Law can make Law abiding citizens are going to be disappointed. People will conform to a Law only if it is in their best interest. You cannot really keep the law by faith.
This is a problem with words. What did Paul mean by the inability of human righteousness to save under the Law? It didn't mean people couldn't do good works and please God. It meant that no matter how much good we do, just one sin will disqualify us from Salvation. Hence, our own *record of righteousness* will fail us every time, because we are proven to be sinners by the Law.

Paul meant that in order to obtain a righteousness that will Save, we need to exchange our nature for a New Nature coming from Christ in order to merit Salvation. And that is what Paul meant by Justification by Faith. We trust in Christ to give us a New Nature rather than rely on our own fallen nature to do enough good works to be Saved. Our own fallen nature cannot merit our receiving the New Nature. It must come from Christ for free, simply by our willingness to live by it.

Can't really get into this much more now. Later..
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why does it seem arbitrary to you when I went above and beyond to show you how I interpret Romans 9:6-8. I broke the passage down in detail and showed which parts I believe are talking about national Israel and which are talking about spiritual Israel and I explained why. Yet, here you are saying that it seems arbitrary to you. I don't get that.
I already explained that. Those who disqualified themselves from Israel by their sins and unbelief were to be "cut off," as even the Law had explained. It did not mean that "Israel" became "Spiritual Israel."
For some reason? LOL. I have already explained why in detail. Why are you pretending as if I haven't?
I have no idea why you think any of this is funny? I'm not joking. I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm not saying you're using a senseless argument. From the vantage point of those who believe "Israel is always Israel," your explanation may make sense, but it is not determinative to us.

Therefore, to us, you're a Replacement Theologian. It's just an ID moniker--not a condemnation of your position.

So the real question is not, Is the term "Replacement Theology" offensive? I am not creating the label, nor sustaining that label. It is already out there.

The real question is, Does "Replacement Theology," as your detractors define it, really apply to you? It has nothing to do with whether you think it is an offensive term, or whether you think you've replaced anything. Your detractors define it as the use of "Israel" in a way that it means "Spiritual Israel." If you do that, to your detractors you hold to Replacement Theology.
 
Last edited:

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,552
2,069
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter accounted for what Joel said.

I believe Peter.
I understand and I commend your commitment to Peter. But the question remains. How can we believe what Peter said if we don't understand what he said? And how can we understand what Peter said if we don't understand what Joel said?

Do you get what I am asking?

It is a common belief that Jesus and the Apostles had the authority to re-interpret the OT scriptures and they often did. Why do people believe this? After a comparison between what the OT seems to say, and what the Apostles seem to say, often times what the apostles say is very different than what the OT appears to be saying. What accounts for this?

Many Bible students assume or they are taught that the apostles have been given the authority to "re-interpret" the OT. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles have the authority to "clarify" the OT to suit the gospel message.

This is not very likely. After all, Jesus explicitly said that the scriptures can not be broken, indicating that Jesus himself believed that he was able to argue and prove his ideas on the basis of the OT writings as the original authors intended to be understood. Jesus taught from the scriptures because the scriptures were "unbroken", the scriptures spoke truthfully about Jewish history and God's will for mankind.

What is more likely is that the Bible student has failed to understand the OT passage or the NT passage or both. For this reason, it is imperative that the Bible student incorporate the idea of "harmonization" into his or her Bible study technique. If the Apostle appears to have re-interpreted the prophetic writings, then it behooves the Bible student to conclude that he has misunderstood the OT or the NT or both and to rethink his interpretation.

For instance, if Joel says that God will pour out his spirit on ALL flesh, and we see that God has NOT poured out his spirit on ALL flesh during Pentecost, then it is fair to conclude that Joel was not predicting Pentecost. And for this reason, it is fair to conclude that Peter wasn't saying that Joel was predicting Pentecost. So what did Peter mean to say? Or we can ask "What did Joel mean to say?

But I would never argue that Peter is allowed to contradict Joel simply because Peter is an apostle.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,407
1,848
113
72
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I understand and I commend your commitment to Peter. But the question remains. How can we believe what Peter said if we don't understand what he said? And how can we understand what Peter said if we don't understand what Joel said?

Do you get what I am asking?

It is a common belief that Jesus and the Apostles had the authority to re-interpret the OT scriptures and they often did. Why do people believe this? After a comparison between what the OT seems to say, and what the Apostles seem to say, often times what the apostles say is very different than what the OT appears to be saying. What accounts for this?

Many Bible students assume or they are taught that the apostles have been given the authority to "re-interpret" the OT. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles have the authority to "clarify" the OT to suit the gospel message.

This is not very likely. After all, Jesus explicitly said that the scriptures can not be broken, indicating that Jesus himself believed that he was able to argue and prove his ideas on the basis of the OT writings as the original authors intended to be understood. Jesus taught from the scriptures because the scriptures were "unbroken", the scriptures spoke truthfully about Jewish history and God's will for mankind.

What is more likely is that the Bible student has failed to understand the OT passage or the NT passage or both. For this reason, it is imperative that the Bible student incorporate the idea of "harmonization" into his or her Bible study technique. If the Apostle appears to have re-interpreted the prophetic writings, then it behooves the Bible student to conclude that he has misunderstood the OT or the NT or both and to rethink his interpretation.

For instance, if Joel says that God will pour out his spirit on ALL flesh, and we see that God has NOT poured out his spirit on ALL flesh during Pentecost, then it is fair to conclude that Joel was not predicting Pentecost. And for this reason, it is fair to conclude that Peter wasn't saying that Joel was predicting Pentecost. So what did Peter mean to say? Or we can ask "What did Joel mean to say?

But I would never argue that Peter is allowed to contradict Joel simply because Peter is an apostle.
Why do you think that I think that the fulfillment was restricted only to Pentecost?

The prophecy declared "And it shall come to pass in the last days", plural. (Acts 2:17)

Scripture declares that the last days had already begun:

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son...

The last days began then, and have continued to this moment, and will continue until Christ returns.

The Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, and has continued to be poured out as Christ builds His Church, and will continue to be poured out until He returns.

You're confusing accessibility and receptivity.

The Spirit has been poured out on, and accessible by, all flesh since Calvary. No one is denied access to Him.

Through the Son, He enables access to the Father.

Ephesians 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Sadly, multitudes do not receive the Son.

But for those who do:
John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And the Spirit is, and will continue to be, poured out on, and accessible by, all flesh.

Implemented at Calvary.
 
Last edited:

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,552
2,069
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why do you think that I think that the fulfillment was restricted only to Pentecost?
Isn't that what you said? Or did I misunderstand? You don't think Peter was talking about Pentecost?
The Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, and has continued to be poured out as Christ builds His Church, and will continue to be poured out until He returns.
Right, the spirit was poured on at Pentecost, but not on all flesh.
You're confusing accessibility and receptivity.

The Spirit has been poured out on, and accessible by, all flesh since Calvary. No one is denied access to Him.
Sounds like someone "interpreting" what Peter meant to say. Yes? Just as you need to fill out what Peter said with an explanatory narrative, So do I.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,407
1,848
113
72
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Isn't that what you said? Or did I misunderstand? You don't think Peter was talking about Pentecost?

Right, the spirit was poured on at Pentecost, but not on all flesh.

Sounds like someone "interpreting" what Peter meant to say. Yes? Just as you need to fill out what Peter said with an explanatory narrative, So do I.
If you're unable to understand it, just leave it for those who can.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is not what Paul wrote; but that is your interpretation.
You don't even bother giving an interpretation of Romans 9:6-8 at all, so how can anyone take you seriously?

Of course it makes sense that there is only one Israel. Those of Israel were literally removed from being of Israel both physically and spiritually. I mean that is what covantee keeps declaring in, his, no more DNA left of Israel today point, no?
What are you talking about?

That was it in the first century. They could stay or totally leave to never return.

God could also boot any Gentile individually or corporately at any point for much less of a reason than God booted first century Israel. Obviously the Cross was a major reason and as Paul put it, stumbling block.

The church was always Israel, and prior to the first century, Israel was always the church.
Do you have any idea as to what you were intending to say here? I certainly don't.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, just to let you know, in case you might want to change your mind, your interpretation of Peter makes him out to be a liar.
That's a lie. I'm doing no such thing. I see that you have run out of material and now are resorting to lying because that's all you have left. That's when you know you should just throw in the towel and let the adults discuss these things.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The branch cut off is no longer Israel. It is not an Israel to itself without the tree. To have 2 Israel's, you are making the cut off branch an Israel.
You say the most nonsensical things I've ever seen in my life. It does not say a branch (singular) was cut off, it says branches (plural) were cut off. The branches represent Israelite unbelievers who were cut off because of unbelief. The remnant of believing Israelites were not cut off. So, don't act as if all Israelites in the nation of Israel were cut off because that is not the case.

That you reference a branch being cut off rather than branches shows that you have never even read Romans 11 carefully. Which means that you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

Romans 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

But then you call the original one spiritual, and the cut off branch the physical Israel.
There is no cut off branch. Try actually reading Romans 11 for once and then get back to me.

You are replacing the original Israel with the branch that was cut off.
I can't replace "the branch that was cut off" because there was no singular branch that was cut off. Again, try actually reading Romans 11 before you comment on it. Your post is making me nauseous because of how ridiculous and nonsensical it is, so I can't read any further right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,552
2,069
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's a lie. I'm doing no such thing. I see that you have run out of material and now are resorting to lying because that's all you have left. That's when you know you should just throw in the towel and let the adults discuss these things.
It's not a lie. It is simply a logical implication of your view. Peter wouldn't say that Pentecost is a fulfillment of Joel because Joel predicts that God will pour out his spirit on ALL flesh. Since that didn't happen at Pentecost, then Joel was not predicting Pentecost and Peter wasn't saying he did. Peter was saying something different.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's not a lie. It is simply a logical implication of your view. Peter wouldn't say that Pentecost is a fulfillment of Joel because Joel predicts that God will pour out his spirit on ALL flesh. Since that didn't happen at Pentecost, then Joel was not predicting Pentecost and Peter wasn't saying he did. Peter was saying something different.
The beginning of the fulfillment was occurring on the day of Pentecost, otherwise Peter would not have said "this" (what was happening on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was being poured out on all the believers there) is "that" (what was prophesied in Joel 2:28-32). You're ludicrously trying to claim that "this" was not "that" at all. You can't be taken seriously if you can't even acknowledge that the day of Pentecost was the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Peter said "this is that". You say "this is not that". I'll take Peter's understanding of Old Testament prophecy over yours every time.
 
Last edited:

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,407
1,848
113
72
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
From my perspective, you misconstrued what Peter said.
John 6
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

If Peter didn't say what you claim he meant to say, then neither did Jesus say what He meant to say.

What did Jesus mean to say?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
8,284
581
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You don't even bother giving an interpretation of Romans 9:6-8 at all, so how can anyone take you seriously?


What are you talking about?


Do you have any idea as to what you were intending to say here? I certainly don't.
Obviously you missed the interpretation:
Those of Israel were literally removed from being of Israel both physically and spiritually.
You would no longer be a part of the church if God removed you from the church, and sent you to the LOF just because, for instance, you were an Amil, and God saw that as being like the Scribes and Pharisees.

You would have been of the church, but no longer the church, even if you convinced every soul in the LOF to call you a redeemed Christian.

For they are not all the church, which are of the church. They are in the LOF because God cut them off and discarded them into the LOF. That is how God viewd 21st century church members.

That would be what Paul would write if he lived today. Paul even said in chapter 11, that one cannot be secure in just the fact they were a wild branch grafted in. They could be cut off just the same as a natural branch.

You interpret it as Paul saying now we have a bunch of redeemed Gentiles who are Israel, but not of Israel.

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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."

Your interpretation cannot work, because you missed the point Paul made in verse 3, just like Moses attempted on mount Sinai.

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

Paul was pointing out that many had been cut off from being Israel, the same theme as the branch removed.

The same with the point about Abraham's seed. Of course they were all Abraham's children. Yet Paul was saying Ishmael was not Abraham's child. He was not making a literal statement, but showing that God chose Isaac over Ishmael. Paul was showing God's choices; not physical offspring from Abraham. Ishmael was literally a son of Abraham just like Isaac, but not from God's perspective. Paul was saying from God's perspective not all of Israel can still claim the title. They have been cut off, just like Ishmael was cut off, and Isaac remained a son of Abraham.

I later pointed out, in another post, that God chose Jacob over Esua, Israel over Edom.

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

You use this chapter to claim your rights as a spiritual Israel, but Paul said not to take that route, because it makes God look unrighteous.

"Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."

Paul was not talking about adding to Israel. Paul was talking about removing those from Israel, by His Sovereign Will, just like He removed Ishmael and Esau. Paul said it was prior to their birth that God arranged His perspective:

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth."

Paul never claimed they would never be able to repent and be redeemed by the blood of Christ. They were still part of the election, until they themselves chose not to be redeemed, and rejected the Atonement. Paul was only pointing out that God was picking and choosing through the generations who would be the forefather of Jesus.

The children of God were not to be confused with the children of the flesh at no time in human history. Seems like calling yourself an Israelite is only making yourself a title of the flesh. In fact you can still convert into the Law of Moses and be a bonified Israelite.

God could still cast you out of the physical and spiritual family, because that is what Paul was writing about.

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Paul is declaring that God has all the rights, and that humans literally have no rights at all. That is why many are no longer of Israel. They never had the right even as a physical born Israelite. But we don't become Israelites, we skip the middleman, and become directly sons of God. Even Israelites have to become sons of God, even though God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob over the rest of humanity. God chose it that way even before they were born. God still let sin and nature get in the way: Ishmael and Esau.

So, yes, even those of the church are not all the church. Now all the sons of God are the sons of God, because in Christ those of the church are the sons of God, but some of the church come in and are not part of us, but in every way act like us until they lead some or many astray. But only through Christ are we the actual seeds of the family of God, not through the title church.

I would still point out that in the symbolism of the olive tree, that is not Israel. That some of Israel is no longer Israel like Paul pointed out, as cut off. The olive tree is Christ. Israel was the natural branches, and literally many died and withered away. Some were literally cut off before death. Paul was saying that God did not allow the Gentiles to be natural branches by His Sovereign Will, although after the Cross, God was willing to graft them in and view them as equal with the branches. Nor does that rule out they could have always been grafted in, but God was longsuffering with thousands of years of wild trees nearly snuffing out the only good olive tree, before humans could grasp the full intent of even what it meant to be of Israel, much less of Christ. There were many Gentiles grafted into the olive tree in the OT. The Law of Moses allowed and even encouraged the adoption of Gentiles. Unfortunately like some of the church, Israel was even more like the world, and a lousy example of the power of God.