None

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>You will probably discover some disjointedness in this reply. I am=
 suffering
>from a progressive pralysis. It is controllable by treatments. After each
>treatment I improve for about 6 weeks then begin to deteriate again. The
>reply was written during the deterioration period.
>
We will be praying for you!

> CF> Nevertheless, it serves to show the problems one faces when
> CF> holding to the concept of a double Israel, i.e. natural and
> CF> spiritual or better know as the Jews and the church.
>
>     The converse is known as Replacement Theology, i.e., God has
>dumped (rejected) the Jews and has replaced them with the Church which
>is now and will continue forever to be the Israel of God.=20

This might be what was presented to you as the converse argument to a double
Israel, but it is not a fair assessment.  The right view of the converse of
a double Israel is, there is but *one* true Israel of which both Jew and
Gentile are a part.  Romans chapters 9-11.  Paul argues that both Jew and
Gentile had misunderstood God's faithfulness.  While Judaism touted their
claim to special relationship with God based upon progenitry, the Gentiles
argued that they had replaced Israel.  Both arguments missed the point.  God
kept His promise to Israel and Paul shows that it was not based upon lineage
but God's election Romans 9:11.  The Gentiles were an extension of the
promises made to Israel.....as were the Jews!  The church is Israel now.
Charles D. Provan and ex Baptist Minister writes a good thesis concerning
this concept.

My opinion is that Paul writes in Eph 2 of God having broken down the middle
wall of partition, meaning , there remained no difference between Jew and
Gentile.  God was faithful to keep His promise to Israel (remember Ruth) and
the Gentiles who were afar off were made nigh by the blood of Jesus Christ.
The Gentiles who were strangers to the covenants and promises are now
partakers of those promises God made to Israel.  Paul says God made of
twain, one new man reconciling *both* unto God in one body by the cross,
giving access by one Spirit to the Father, making *both Jew and Gentile*
fellowcitizens. =20

Does God recognize Racial Israel apart from the church?  Only within the
same confines he would recognize Racial Germany apart from the church. =20

There is only one way that you can afford Racial Israel special favor with
God.....by giving credence to their lineage.  I do not believe it is the
will of God to grant favor to men based upon natural progenitry.

You cannot answer the question of why God choose Jacob over Esau before they
were born, if you hold to the notion that progenitry grants favor!  Jacob
and Esau were *twins*.  It has never been in the plan of God to grant favor
based upon progenitry! Yet this is the foundation of you paradigm. =20
=20
                                                       Is God going to
>restore the nation of Israel to a place of preeminence at some time in
>the future. I believe that He must. He made some promises to Abraham
>that He will fulfill. Those promises did not have an if clause associ-
>ated with them when God made them. For instance, "In the same day the
>LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given
>this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
>Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18).
>
Ever read Galations 3:18-19?
>
Or maybe Romans 11:12-15  Now if the fall of them be the riches of the
world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
their fullness?  For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle
of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to
emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the
receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

As you can see God never intended to reject Israel or replace her.  Yet Paul
admits they are......dead.  Israel dead?  No, Racial Israel having faith in
their lineage and not Christ is dead.  For there is no difference between
Jew and Gentile! =20

Paul writes in Romans 10:1-4	Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God
for Israel is, that they might be saved.  For I bear them record that they
have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.	For they being ignorant
of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own
righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that=
 believeth.

How do you afford Racial Israel special favor without Christ while the Bible
calls them Antichrist! 1John 3:18, 22, 1John 4:2-3, 2John :7  Every
statement John makes about antichrist fits unbelieving racial Israel like a
glove!

                                                                  When
>the Israelites refused to possess the land God promised they wandered
>in the wilderness for 40 years until an entire generation died. That
>land would include most of Iraq west of the Euphrates, Jordan, most of
>Syria and a big chunk of eastern Egypt. Any belief that we should not
>bare arms will have to be set aside because these people will not
>simply hand over their land. The very existence of their god Allah
>would hang in the balance.

I can see that your promise land is of the earth earthy, along with you=
 warfare.

>     Acts 3:12  And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people,
>**Ye men of Israel**, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so ear-
>nestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this
>man to walk?
>
>     Clearly Peter was NOT addressing members of the church (Israel of
>God).
>
>     Acts 4:8 (Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them,
>Ye rulers of the people, and **elders of Israel**
>
>     The Apostle Peter clearly distinguished between the church and
>Israel. He even addressed them not as church but as Israel.
>
>     Acts 21:28  Crying out, **Men of Israel,** help: This is the man,
>that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and
>this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath
>polluted this holy place.
>
>     Clearly the Apostle Paul was **not** addressing members of a
>church. Yet even though he is the one that stated that we are
>Abraham's seed by faith, he recognized that there was a national
>Israel at the same time as the church existed. =20

Of course there is a national Israel, but you will carry the point too far!
You will try to say that Paul recognized a national Israel having favor with
God while the church also had favor with God.  And that that favor was
granted Israel based on progenitry, but the favor granted the Church was
based on faith and grace. =20

If I understand the scriptures you posted, they are *****NOT***** recorded
so that you can make a differentiation of Jew and Gentile, but they are the
record of the Apostles addressing the people and rulers of a nation that
must receive the promises of God!  This my friend is not good exegesis!
>
>     Romans 10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to **God for
>Israel** is, that they might be saved.
>
>     This cannot be a prayer for the saints. Any dying at the moment
>of the prayer would be saved. Nor do I believe that Paul was praying
>that the saints would not fall (backslide). This prayer is for the
>physical descendants of Abraham. Paul is making a distinction here.
>
>
Yes, of course he is making a distinction, just as he would make a
distinction between an Italian and a Greek, *not* to give credence to a
doctrine that constantly affirms special favor to Jews but rather their need
of salvation.

>     1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offense, neither to **the Jews**,
>nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
>
>     Two more obvious instances where the Apostle recognized the Jews
>as different from the church. In the Corinthians passage this distinc-
>tion was made **after** the establishment of Gentiles in the church.
>
Okay here we go again.  Look at what you wrote...

'the Apostle recognized the Jews as different from the church'... Why did
you make note of the Jews being different from the church but ignore the
Gentiles being different from the church?  The answer is because this
scripture is *not* recorded on the basis in which you are using it!  Read it
again...Neither the Jews, NOR THE GENTILES, nor the church.  I understand
that you are trying to make a differentiation between the church and natural
Israel.  There is no argument from me that there is a distinction.  The
argument is in the application of making the distinction!  You want to grant
natural Israel God's blessing for you write that he will restore them to a
place of prominence.  By what criteria?  Progenitry?  Lineage?  What?

>     Natural Israel and the church are contrasted in the New Testament
>(Romans 11:1-25). In Romans 11 it is shown that God has taken the
>nation Israel out of the place of blessing temporarily, but will
>restore them to that place of blessing at a future date.
>
Yes natural Israel and the church are contrasted, just as Gentiles and the
church are contrasted. ****NOT**** because natural Israel has special favor
with God, but because they must needs enter the church to be TRUE ISRAEL.
They are **not** afforded special favor with God for they have rejected the
very means in which God choose to bless them. =20
=20
The statement, 'let his blood be upon us and our children', is ****NOT****
to be taken as salvation but as a curse.  Unless of course you would like to
twist it out of proportion to mean salvation is upon the Jews.

>     Romans 9:6 (KJV)  Not as though the word of God hath taken none
>effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:=7F
>
>     Here Paul contrasts these promises which belong to Israel accord-
>ing to the flesh and those which belong to Israel who enter into them
>by faith.
>
I might not understand what your saying here....Do we agree that this
scripture says,
For they are not all Israel (of whom pertained the promises and covenants)
which are of Israel (those whose lineage was of Jacob).  IF we agree, then
why are you saying that Israel according to the flesh has promises made to
them in which God will honor simply because they have the right lineage and
not based upon any kind of faith in God?  Not a very good exegesis.

I refer you to Esau... What special favor does God afford Esau?  He has the
right petigree, yet he is rejected?  If God grants favor based on progenitry
where is Esau? He qualifies!  But the Bible tells me God hates him.

> CF> As far as your interpretation of Daniel's record.  I would like
> CF> to point out that seventy weeks are determined, no more and no
> CF> less than seventy.
>
>     At a later time, "after the threescore and two weeks" which
>follows the first seven weeks  (that is, after 69 weeks), Messiah the
>Prince will be "cut off," and Jerusalem will again be destroyed by the
>people of another "prince" who is yet to come (9:26).
>
I take it then that you believe in a double fulfillment of Matthew 24:1-3 or
that these scriptures are not in reference to 70 AD but are in reference to
a future temple.  What do you think of the Dome of the Rock?

>     In the "midst" of this Seventieth Week, evidently breaking his
>treaty, the coming prince will suddenly cause the Jewish sacrifice to
>cease and precipitate upon this people a time of wrath and desolation
>lasting to the "full end" of the Week (9:27).
>
Jesus Christ has died once and for all and his death is the *only* true
authority that could cause the sacrifice to *truely* cease.  To me it is
interesting that the sacrifice is caused to cease 'In the midst of the
week', which answers to the ministry of Jesus Christ lasting but 3 and 1/2
years.  The word cease is used in the scripture in the sense of desist, rid,
take away.  I believe Christ came to obsolete the sacrifice, cause the
oblation to cease through his efficacious death upon the cross Hebrews
10:10.  You have stated you believe it is some other (prince) that has this
authority.=20

> CF> If you add one week to seventy weeks then you no longer have
> CF> seventy weeks.  If you take away one week, you cease to have
> CF> seventy weeks and if you *insert* one week you have more than
> CF> seventy weeks.
>
>     I certainly agree. However, I have neither added nor deleted any
>part of the weeks.
>
Yes you did.  You added a two thousand plus year gap between the 60th and
70th week, extending the time of 490 years to an arbitrary number of years
and an unfixed time period.=20

It is interesting that you will create a gap between the 69th and the 70th
but ignore the first segment between the first 7 weeks and 62 weeks.  Where
do you get your authority to place two thousand years between the 69th and
70th, but do not place any gap between the 7th and 62 weeks.  It seems to me
very inconsistent to force a gap in one place but not another within the
same setting. =20

This first segment of time that Daniel records are seven weeks, or 49 years,
from the commandment to restore.  It is interesting to me that historically
the restoration took 49 years from the going forth of the commandment, then
without a gap, without a pause in time, without inserting any time
in-between, the time line continues unabated, just as time is suppose to
work.  But then we come to the next gap....time does not continue unabated,
there is a protraction now, although there was not one in the earlier
segment there is one now and time now does not flow in any normal sense of
the word.  You might be able to stop a time watch and restart it but not
history. =20

It seems to me that because you are predisposed to your concept you are
willing to ignore this and force the gap between the next section of 69 and
70 without regard to the first section in which there is no gap.
Inconsistent don't you think!

It seems foolish to me at best to count One week, Two weeks, Three
weeks...... sixty-eight weeks, sixty-nine weeks, One Thousand years, Two
Thousand years, Seventy weeks.  Or maybe having a calendar that reads
January 1995, February 1995, wait three years ten months twenty days, March
1995, April 1995.  And of course if a two thousand year gap is not
sufficient we can add a couple of hundred years in between to make our
calculations right.  All the while the scripture speaks so very=
 plainly........


Dan 9:24 ***************Seventy weeks are determined************************

upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring
in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to
anoint the most Holy.=20

WHO finished the transgression and when did He do it?=20
WHO made an end of sins and when did He do it?=20
WHO made reconciliation for iniquity and when did He do it?=20
WHO brought in everlasting righteousness and when did he do it?
WHO was anointed the most Holy and when was it? =20

If your answer is not Christ in his incarnation, Christ at calvary, Christ
in his earthly ministry, and Christ in his resurrection, be very careful
that you do not mar the power of the cross, with your notion of creating
gaps of time to fit your prophecy.  Certainly the wonder of His resurrection
and the declaration... IT IS FINISHED should suffice that all was
accomplished in and through Him during His earthly ministry.=20

On the lighter side of things.................................

Have you ever noticed Larkins outline?  The one with the statue with head of
gold, chest of silver etc. etc.?   Have you ever noticed how long the toes
are on that dude?  I have always wondered why Daniel did not interpret the
dream saying....'and the toes of the great statue were long, very long, so
long that they were longer than the statue was high=92

Whenever I see that chart I say, 'man look at them toes! He's got some toes
don't he. Wow how could you function with toes like that?  :-)

The reason I believe the toes are sooooo long is so that Larkin can extend
the seventy weeks into more that the 490 years determined and so fit his
paradigm of making 490 years into 2490 years.  And if not 2490 maybe 2780 or
3766 or .....well i'm sure you get the point.  You have succeeded very well
in making the scriptures totally arbitrary.  With your paradigm we cannot
rely upon the statement of the scripture, but upon added calculations that
are not written nor sanctions in other scripture.  For examlple if the gap
works out to be longer that 2200 years then of course you change it, or if
it works out to 2500 years then you can change it again.  All the while you
have destroyed the very nature of Daniels prophecy of 'seventy weeks are
determined....from the going forth of the command to restore...'

I will never understand the convoluted machinations of individuals that will
not accept the plain sense of this prophecy....490 years are 490 years no
more no less.  If you put a gap between them they cease to be 490 years.  In
Genesis between 1 and 2 you might have some room to make an assumption, but
certainly there is no room in Daniel.......But if that makes your paradigm
come tumbling dowm, hold to your 2000 year gap theory.  I really do not feel
comfortable making the scriptures stand on thier head to fit my concepts.



He who sows is nothing but a sowing sower.