The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Error # 2

This is another interpretive error of the nonliteralist.

You claim that Paul here is teaching that Gentiles become “spiritual Jews.” But in context Paul is not at all addressing Gentiles.

Who he is addressing is found in Rom. 2:17:Rom. 2:17 “But if you bear the name Jew, and rely upon the Law, and boast in God…”

Nowhere in this passage is he describing or stating that Gentiles become “spiritual Jews” through faith in Christ. He is describing a “true Jew” to Jews.Error # 3

I explained all this in my original post.

Your problem Mr. Ex is that you’re so quick to defend your position that you fail to comprehend what I write. Please focus for a moment.

:banghead:

The Scriptures say that we are fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.

This is a ‘literal truth’…and not a ‘spiritual truth’.

How on earth can you make the claim Ephesians 2 does not identify the Church as part of Israel?

Where exactly do you draw the line between that which is considered a ‘spiritual language’ and that which is considered merely an ‘allegory’?

I ask because the line which you’ve drawn seems kind of arbitrary and capricious to me, fairly well haphazardly constructed around the mysteries of dispensational eschatology.

For example, when I point toward Melchizedek bringing out the bread & wine toward Abraham in the Hebrew Scriptures (after Abraham defeated God’s enemies) and claim that this literal event prophesied of the Lord Jesus instituting the Eucharist within the New Testament era (before Jesus defeated the devil on the cross), you seem to have no difficulty claiming that I’m ‘allegorizing’ the Old Testament event in order to push the Scriptural record past what the Scriptural record actually intended.

But when you point toward the clear explanation within the Christian Scriptures which explicitly & repeatedly state that the Church is the body of Christ and then proceed to deny that the Old Testament also prophesied about his Church to the extent that the Old Testament prophesied about Christ, you seem to have no difficulty claiming that these passages which speak of the Church being the body of Christ are merely using a ‘spiritual language’ which should not be taken literally.

It is more than fair to ask exactly what the difference is between ‘allegory’ and ‘spiritual language’, because, aside from the important question of whether the Holy Spirit is involved truly involved or not, there appears to be no functional difference to me.

I ask (again) because it appears to me that you are in fact doing exactly what you are repeatedly accusing us of doing.

 

[lak611]

What does the gentile nations not knowing of this future covenant with Israel have to do with the Hebrew Scriptures not knowing of the future covenent that God would make with the gentile nations through Israel?

I never said that the gentiles knew this age was coming. But the Hebrew prophets knew this ‘church age’ was coming even if the gentiles didn’t.

I’ve repeatedly stated that the Old Testament prophesied of the Church age-- and the Christian Scriptures repeatedly demonstrate this point by quoting the Hebrew Prophets and pointing toward characteristics of the Church when doing so.

The Hebrew Prophets definitely knew this, especially Amos, Micah, Daniel and Malachi. You’ve given the references throughout this thread.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Hebrew Prophets definitely knew this, especially Amos, Micah, Daniel and Malachi. You’ve given the references throughout this thread.

Thank you lak611.

Why is it that apophasis can’t see this?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Error # 3 I explained all this in my original post. Your problem Mr. Ex is that you’re so quick to defend your position that you fail to comprehend what I write. Please focus for a moment.

I am focused. I’m not focused on the moment either. I’m focused on eternity.

I’ve explained our position in detail, clearly and concisely. And you’ve offered nothing to actually counter any points we’ve made except that we’re not interpreting in the ‘right context’-- whatever that means.

The proof of an argument lays in the ability to convince someone else that disagrees with you that their position is wrong. You haven’t convinved me. I’m fairly sure you haven’t convinced anyone else in this thread either. In fact, much like self-hypnosis, the only one you’re apparently convincing is yourself. And I’m not even sure if you’ve done a good job at that.

By the way, do you think these kinds of comments I said above actually assist my argument in any way?

I don’t think they do to be honest. But i do think they reflect the same mentality that you’ve empolyed throughout this entire thread.

Your posts seems more like lectures than debates. And you often insert little snide remarks in the process of lecturing others too.

How does it feel when someone uses your own tactics against you?

Do you even care?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If you look at Acts 15:16 you’ll see it quotes James as saying “After these things I will return.”

Here’s the passage found in Acts 15:16…

When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

**After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it, **
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things
that have been known for ages.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

See how James is saying that the fulfillment of this time has started with God allowing the Gentiles to enter into the fold of Israel?

How can this be refering to after the Church age if a temple has to be built before the Gentiles can enter?

Haven’t the Gentiles already been entering the New Covenant since the day of Pentecost and are still doing so today?

And if the Gentiles have already been entering the New Covenant since the day of Pentecost and are still doing so today then how on earth can this passage in Acts 15:16 be refering to after the Church age is over?

Is the Church not considered the Temple of God which God himself is building duing the Church age?

James is not quoting Amos verbatim.

I know. I already pointed that out too. Here’s Amos’s words in Amos 9:11-12 verbatim…

**In that day I will restore
David’s fallen tent.
I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins, **
and build it as it used to be,
so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name,"
declares the LORD, who will do these things.

apophasis:

Amos actually wrote “In that day I will return…”

The reason why Amos wrote in that day and James wrote after that day was because in Amos’s time it was yet to happen whereas in James’ time it had already come.

Now I’m curious to know why you claim that your interpretation the ‘True Interpretation’ whereas you claim that mine is not?

Why can’t my interpretation be the ‘True Interpretation’ whereas your might not be?

Can it be both at the same time in some ways?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

IOW, Mr. Ex, James did not see the Church as now spiritually fulfilling Israel’s Kingdom promises articulated by the ancient Hebrew prophets. Nor did this prophecy by Amos see this present Church age. His and all the other prophecies regarding the Kingdom age would not be fulfilled until “after these things…,” i.e., after this present Church age.

The reason why Amos wrote in that day and James wrote after that day was because in Amos’s time it was yet to happen whereas in James’ time it had already come.

apophasis:

The O.T. Hebrew prophets knew nothing of this Church age. They spoke to the first and second coming of Messiah and the glories of Israel during the future, Messianic age. But not the “sacred secret,” which for generations was hidden with God, the Church, the Body of Christ, His bride.

Hosea 2:23 says…

I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one. ’ I will say to those called 'Not my people, ' ‘You are my people’; and they will say, 'You are my God.'

By the way, Romans 9:23-26 quotes this passage from Hosea 2:23 too in reference to the coming of the Gentiles into the nation of Israel…

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

As he says in Hosea:

I will call them 'my people’

who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,

and

It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
**‘You are not my people,’ **

they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Who are these loved ones who were once not his loved ones?

Who are these poeple now called God’s people who were once not considered God’s people?

Who are these sons of the living God who were once not considered sons of the lving God?

Do these passage not speak of the Church age we live in now?

Doesn’t Romans 15:7-12 explain this with clarity?

For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name.

2 Samuel 22:50 & Psalm 18:49

Again, it says,

Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.

Deuteronomy 32:43

And again,

Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples.

Psalm 117:1

And again, Isaiah says,

The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him.

Isaiah 11:10

Paul, the author of Romans 15:21, even concludes…

Rather, as it is written:

Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand.

Isaiah 52:15

Seriously consider what you’re claming for a moment.

Are you saying that none of the passages from the Old Testament which the apostles quote to dispay the characteristics of the New Testament are actually refering to the New testament after all, the very Church age we live in now?

 

[lak611]

Thank you lak611.

Why is it that apophasis can’t see this?

I don’t know. It it very clear from what the Bible says.

 

[apophasis]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

The Scriptures say that we are fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.
How on earth can you make the claim Ephesians 2 does not identify the Church as part of Israel?

Because I am not reading into the text something that is not there. In Eph. 2:12 Paul states that Gentiles were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, but what he never goes on to state is that the Church Christ is now building has become spiritual Israel, or as you say, “an extension of ancient Israel.” If the Church was merely an extension of ancient Israel, then God is not now making the two (individual Jews and Gentiles) into “one new man,” but He is simply extending the “old” man. But Paul explicitly states in Eph. 2:14-16 that now “in Himself” (not Israel) He, Christ, is making the two (individual believing Jews and Gentiles) into one “new” man, reconciling them both “in one body” to God through the cross.

Read what Paul actually says concerning believing Gentiles:Eph. 2:18-19 “…for through Him we both (Jews and Gentiles) have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers or aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints (lit. “holy ones”), and are of God’s household.”“God’s household” means a part of God’s “family.” What he is not saying is that Gentiles who believe now become a part of Jacob’s family, a part of Israel. Gentiles through faith in Christ have not been brought “nigh” to Jacob by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:13), but “nigh” to God, having been redeemed (purchased) by His blood, cleansed, sanctified and justified. As the Apostle John wrote:John 1:11-14 "He came to His own (Israel), and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."Though excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, Paul, in Ephesians two, nowhere says that Gentiles now are fellow-citizens of national Israel. But fellow-citizens with believing Jews who now make up the Church Christ is building. Remember, for the first several years the Church was made up of saved Jews.

Paul explains that the Church is a holy temple in the resurrected Lord built not on Israel’s ancient divine covenants and prophecies, but the N.T. Apostles and prophets. She is the formation of a whole “new man” in Christ, unforeseen in O.T. times (a sacred secret), having begun at Pentecost, revealed to us by Paul in his Epistles, and will end with its being taken up to be with the Lord. According to Paul the Church has a heavenly citizenship (not earthly), from which we eagerly await our Savior, when, at that time He transforms the humble state of our yet unredeemed bodies into conformity with His (Phil. 3:20-21).

Now if you interpret what Paul says here as merely an extension of O.T. Israel, then you must conclude that the present formation of the Church spiritually fulfills all of the unconditional Covenants God made with that nation (four of them to be exact), as well as all the O.T. prophecies those prophets made concerning their nation, their land and their glory under Messiah’s rule.

IOW, when you go back and read those prophecies and covenants, “Israel” no longer literally means Israel, “Jerusalem” no longer literally means “Jerusalem,” and “Zion” no longer literally means Zion. Those words are not to be taken literally but “spiritualized,” forcing them to mean the Church.

And so according to you (and all Amillennialists) God never actually intended those covenant promises and prophecies to be literally fulfilled in/by national Israel, but all were to be spiritually fulfilled in/by the Church. IOW, literal Israel is now replaced spiritually by the Church (Replacement Theology).

Hence, the joke was on Israel, since if one actually goes back and reads those prophecies and covenant promises, nowhere do they ever indicate that they were not to be literally fulfilled by national Israel.

But the truth is, Mr. Ex, though the Messianic, Kingdom prophecies in the O.T. spoke of a spiritual Kingdom to come, none of those prophets ever “spiritualized” that Kingdom. In other words, they saw it and anticipated it to be literally fulfilled.

But praise God He is not the Deceiver the Amillennalist portrays Him out to be.

Continued to next Post:

 

[apophasis]

Continued from previous post:

Amillennialism is not the result of a comprehensive study of the prophetic Scriptures, but a lack of it. It is based not on the Scriptures themselves, but on the presupposition of certain men that God is finished with national Israel and has been replaced by the Church. IOW, Israel receives the curses and the Church the blessings. And the only divine purpose for Israel in the O.T. was to be a type of the Church.

Two questions:

(1) Do you comprehend what I mean by a “type” of the Church?

(2) Please be honest with me when you answer this next question. Have you ever actually studied the prophetic books of the O.T.?

I’ll get to the rest of your posts later. No time now.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Because I am not reading into the text something that is not there.

If you’re going to continue to just make statements without actually supporting them, then I’ll just reply that yes you are reading into the text something that is not there.

So how easy it is to prove other people wrong when all you have to do is make empty statements without any evidence to verify your empty claims?

Now how about you spare me the snide lecturing and actually debate the points in question, ok?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In Eph. 2:12 Paul states that Gentiles were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, but what he never goes on to state is that the Church Christ is now building has become spiritual Israel, or as you say, “an extension of ancient Israel.”

He says we are fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household apophasis.

What part of fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household do you do not understand?

apophasis:

If the Church was merely an extension of ancient Israel, then God is not now making the two (individual Jews and Gentiles) into “one new man,” but He is simply extending the “old” man.

No. Because both Jews and Gentiles are now being renewed in the image of Christ, just as the Scriptures say:

“I believed; therefore I have spoken.”

Genesis 1:3

With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with them in his presence.

All this is for our benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God**.

We do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.

The Jews of the Old Covenant were not being renewed in this way that we now experience in Christ. But neither were the Gentiles being renewed during the history of the Old Covenant either. It is only now, in the Church age, that we see this renewal taking place.

Or, as Colossians 3:9-11 points out, we have taken off our old selves with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Now there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

This is right here in the Scriptures apophasis. Check it out for yourself.

apophasis:

But Paul explicitly states in Eph. 2:14-16 that now "in Himself

" (not Israel) He, Christ, is making the two (individual believing Jews and Gentiles) into one “new” man, reconciling them both “in one body” to God through the cross.

I know that it is in Christ that God has made the two into one.

When did I ever say it wasn’t Christ who was doing this?

Ephesians 3:10-12 goes on to say…

God’s intent was that now

, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Furthermore, Ezekiel 37:21-23 knew this day was coming too.

I repeat: Ezekiel KNEW this day was coming…

…and say to them,

This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
​

And 2 Corinthians 6:16 even quotes this very same passage Ezekiel 37 when refering to the Church age…

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

I repeat: Ezekiel KNEW this day was coming…

So how can you claim that the Old Testament knew nothing about the Church age when so many authors within the New Testament quoted these same Old Testament Scriptures as proofs of the coming Church age?

I’m sorry for the huge amounts of Scriptural quotes apophasis–but there are a huge amount of Scriptures which testify to this simple truth found in all throughout the Scriptures, both Old and New. In fact, there’s just too much to actually quote without overwhelming these threads.

I’m not sure what else I can do. I gave you many chances to actually demonstrate what you were claiming. I even provided some Protestant type arguments for you to identify with so that we could at least try to find some common ground on this-- WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD BY THE WAY.

In light of how much you’ve disagreed with many basic truths that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants gnerally agree with, I have to say that I’m now firmly convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about on this specific topic.**

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m curious about this, because I specifically choose this topic in the hopes that it would be one of the few things that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants could generally agree with.

I know Catholics do not agree with apophasis. I am curious what others outside of Catholicism think of his ideas.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Continued from previous post:

Amillennialism is not the result of a comprehensive study of the prophetic Scriptures, but a lack of it. It is based not on the Scriptures themselves, but on the presupposition of certain men that God is finished with national Israel and has been replaced by the Church. IOW, Israel receives the curses and the Church the blessings. And the only divine purpose for Israel in the O.T. was to be a type of the Church.

Still snidely lecturing away, eh?

Two questions:

(1) Do you comprehend what I mean by a “type” of the Church?

(2) Please be honest with me when you answer this next question. Have you ever actually studied the prophetic books of the O.T.?

How this for an answer: Do you really care what I know or what I think?

apophasis:

I’ll get to the rest of your posts later. No time now.

Yeah, whatever.

I’m going to continue on with the original Spirit of this thread if you don’t mind.

Thanks for your contributions though.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Looking through the following groupings how would one characterize 12 basic groupings of Christianity in order to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Please note, there are many different groupings to be found within Christianity and reducing them to 12 basic characteristics may not be an easy thing to actually do without much prayer and discernment.

Take a look at the following groupings and one might get an idea of what I’m talking about…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/ProtestantBranches.svg/493px-

Feedback on how to group the various denominations of Christianity into 12 basic groupings would be very much appreciated.

 

[lak611]

Looking through the following groupings how would one characterize 12 basic groupings of Christianity in order to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Please note, there are many different groupings to be found within Christianity and reducing them to 12 basic characteristics may not be an easy thing to actually do without much prayer and discernment.

Take a look at the following groupings and one might get an idea of what I’m talking about…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/ProtestantBranches.svg/493px-

Feedback on how to group the various denominations of Christianity into 12 basic groupings would be very much appreciated.

Shouldn’t Methodist be from Anglican, not Anabaptist?

 

[Valke2]

“I believed; therefore I have spoken.”

Genesis 1:3
Is that the right citation? I don’t recognize it.

 

[Zooey]

The Jews have not been ‘lowered’.

The Gentiles have been ‘raised up’.

We are in a New Covenant under the body and blood of Christ.

:dancing::clapping: :dancing:

I’m curious about this, because I specifically choose this topic in the hopes that it would be one of the few things that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants could generally agree with.

I know Catholics do not agree with apophasis. I am curious what others outside of Catholicism think of his ideas.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist finds Apophasis strangely confused. He is, IMHO, simply refusing to read the plain truths of the Bible, because he :nope: doesn’t want to have to admit to agreeing with Catholics…

Over here, in the Methodist Amen Corner, there are a lot of “amens” to Mr Ex Nihilo’s fine teaching.

Shouldn’t Methodist be from Anglican, not Anabaptist?

Yes!! Wesley lived & died an Anglican priest!!:yup:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

“I believed; therefore I have spoken.”

Genesis 1:3

Is that the right citation? I don’t recognize it.

Oops. Yes. You’re right Valke2.

That should have been Psalm 116:10…

It is written as “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” in 2 Corinthians 4:13.

The text from Genesis 1:3 says “Let light shine out of darkness” in 2 Corinthians 4:6.

My bad.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

lak611:

Shouldn’t Methodist be from Anglican, not Anabaptist?

Zooey:

Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist finds Apophasis strangely confused. He is, IMHO, simply refusing to read the plain truths of the Bible, because he :nope: doesn’t want to have to admit to agreeing with Catholics…

Over here, in the Methodist Amen Corner, there are a lot of “amens” to Mr Ex Nihilo’s fine teaching.

Thank you by the way.

I was honestly starting to wonder what was going on.

Zooey:

Yes!! Wesley lived & died an Anglican priest!!:yup:

Thanks for pointing this out lak611 and Zooey. My time has been limited, so I’ve tried to access some basic graphs from elsewhere on the internet to display this to save time. But the information provided in the charts may not be accurate.

Are there any other errors that may be on those charts?

This is what I really need assistance with right now: establishing twelve basic groupings within Christianity which correspond to the Twelve tribes of Israel.

I’m loathe to suggest any group for the tribe of Dan and may instead employ the twelve names in Revelations in order to avoid any suggestion of something bad for any particular grouping.

 

[Zooey]

The second graph looks less likely to disturb our Anglican/Episcopalian bretheren…They will insist that they are “not protestant”. But really, you know, they are!! (She said, crawling into her bunker).
Other than misplacing us Methodists, they look:thumbsup: fine to me…