Yes, after reflection fulfilled and no longer needed.

Israel believed in a Messiah that would restore the nation to the preeminent position it once held.  Corporately (which is what the nation of Israel is - individuals are Jews residing in the nation) they were not "looking forward to the cross."  Corporately they were not looking for someone to pay for their individual sins.  The Bible says it was a "mystery kept secret since the world began." Rom 16:25 that wasn't revealed until later.

This is clearly evident in how the disciples reacted whenever Jesus said He was going to the cross and die, and then rise again.

His disciples rebuked Jesus for saying that. Mat 16:21-23. They were looking for a NATIONAL Saviour to reestablish Israel, not for one who would pay for their sins.  That was the mystery.  They didn't get it until after the resurrection.

Old Test sinners were saved by grace, humbly seeking God's forgiveness.  But they weren't trusting the coming Saviour because it was a mystery to them.

Luke 18
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Ps 51: 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Like I said, you believe Israel and the church are the same.

You even admit it without realizing what you did.

"Israel is the baby church."

It's like I always say, you guys can't even follow your own system.

I said within national Israel. You're really incorrigible.

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Leviticus?  No Gentile gets to horn in on the covenant between God and Israel.  

And BTW, that covenant had zero to do with saving a Jew's soul.  If the Jews kept the covenant God would bless them in the promised land.  If they broke it, then. they would be cursed instead.

Now if you want to go to Romans 2, that's an entirely different matter.

You said Israel was the baby church.  Words mean things.  Those words mean Israel and the church are the same.  The physical location (within national Israel), or stage of maturity (or whatever you are trying to say when you say church in its infancy) is immaterial.  

Infant Tom and adult Tom are still the same Tom.  Wherever they happen to be located in the world.

The extent to which you guys have to totally disregard reason to support these systems is amazing.



EDIT:

Ok, I see what you are doing.

You are playing semantics.  Like "within national Israel" doesn't mean "Israel."

That's a distinction without a difference.  Anywhere within Israel is... ?

You guessed it.  

Israel.

And you are totally inconsistent.  You, in a previous thread, and another Calvinist/covenantist in THIS thread both mentioned being "grafted into Israel."  And neither of you used that phrase in the geographic sense, you were referring to Israel as equivalent to the church when you did that.

And that is why covenant theology followers so often refer to themselves as "part of the Israel of God."

So like I said, you are merely playing word games in this latest post, and yes, covenant theology still equates Israel with the church, whether some of its subscribers play word games or not.

No Criley, that's not what I said, but I think I'm done tonight with you. You're sort of rabid as usual.

So... is the guy who is on the receiving end of the personal attacks rabid, or the guy who makes the personal attacks rabid?

Hmmm.

The King James translation was largely based on the Greek New Testament text compiled by Erasmus in 1516 and edited four times between then and 1535.

I don't accept the writings of the Roman, Saul, as divine scripture. My faith is based on the writings of the apostles. Your claim of heresy is based on your own beliefs, which I do not share. Besides which, I'm an apostate; not a heretic. My apostasy is based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit though. Both heresy and apostasy are human inventions.

Your Christian revenge fantasies hold no power over me.

It wasn't called Dispensationalism but the beliefs were still established well before Darby.

You're trying to burn the forest and ignore the trees.

I just want to make sure I understand your position.  Is direct sibling incest ok for Christians as long as they're married?  Such relations are only mentioned as forbidden in Leviticus which you say is no longer binding.

What about bestiality, which is mentioned in Leviticus as well?  That's only for the Israelites?

The MOSAIC law (that should be a clue) was part and parcel of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel.

As I already mentioned, Romans 2 covers Gentiles.

4 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

This of course, is proven to be entirely true, because Gentiles societies have codified laws making the acts you mention illegal because their consciences bear witness to that fact.

On the other hand, "the law written in their hearts" does not include the vast majority of Mosaic law - it isn't against man's conscience to eat shrimp, wear mixed fabrics, not have blue fringe on the edges of their garments, or build railings on their roofs.

Israel is not the church, and the church is not Israel.

This relates to the "heart of stone (the Law)" being removed and replaced with "a heart of flesh (Jesus/Holy Spirit/conscience)". Romans 14 talks about this - while there is no Law against eating meat, yet Paul says he'll stay away from it if it violates someone else's conscience (the same with meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8-10).

Wow.  Here is a guy with a thin Bible.

Being a Roman citizen doesn't prevent Saul, who became known as Paul after his salvation, from being a Jew.

And, if you believe the writings of the apostles, then you would believe Paul wrote scripture, because that's exactly what Peter states.

2 Pet 3: 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Most of the people who deny Biblical truths they categorize as "dispensationalism" at least give lip service to believing the Bible.  But at least they don't deny the Bible is the Bible.

You would be wise to pay particular attention to the end of vs 16.

I am asking for a yes or no answer if Leviticus 18:9 is binding on Christians today.  There are Gentile societies that have allowed brother/sister incest to occur.

I didn't post anything about Paul not being a Jew. Paul's writings occupy most of the New Testament because he was a Roman and Roman bureaucrats and politicians assembled the book called the Bible.

Each and every person decides for them self what is and is not a "biblical truth." Your choice to believe something a particular way does not somehow magically obligate me to accept your chosen theology as the one and only truth. So ... no thanks. I prefer the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the religions of humans. You do you, though. I'm not the least bit worried about destruction.

Do you give the Gospel of Peter the same regard you do his letter to Asia Minor, please? Why or why not, please?

I agree 100% with the above. The idea that we can discard part of the Old Covenant while holding on to another part is ridiculous. It’s like we are negotiating with God on what the final Covenant will be.

I don't actually have, use, or need a bible. I make my own choices about what is and isn't holy scripture for myself, following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By accepting someone else's choices about what is and isn't holy scripture, you are abandoning the free will given to you by God and you are yielding your spiritual sovereignty to other people's choices ... choices you may or may not even understand.

I hear you.  Letter of the law vs spirit of the law kind of thing.

But this thread is dealing with the concept that there are no fundamental differences between the nation of Israel and the church, and I think the question was posed to support that false notion.

"The law" serves multiple purposes.  One purpose of Mosaic law given to the nation of Israel, and "the law written in the hearts of Gentiles" in the form of the conscience, served the need of showing the individual that they were unrighteous in God's eyes and needed a saviour.  The Jews couldn't keep Mosaic law, and the Gentiles couldn't keep the law written in their hearts - their consciences should be guilty.  As the law serves that purpose Jew and Gentile are pointed to Christ.  

Rom 2: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Mosaic law served an additional purpose.  It differentiated the nation of Israel from all the other people on the planet.  They stood out because of it.

Deut 4: 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

The issue with the nation of Israel was their pride.  Instead of humbling themselves before the God who chose them to be His particular people so that they could be a blessing to all the families on the earth, they became puffed up.  They took the blessings for granted, rejected God and worshiped idols.

And yet, covenant theology says the people who did this was the "church in its infancy."

They have no understanding that "true Israel" is a FUTURE thing.  Romans 11 discusses God saving all of Israel IN THE FUTURE.  It didn't happen in the past.

Rom 11: 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:  27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.  28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

"Shall be saved"... "shall come out of Sion" ..."shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" ... "shall take away their sins" ...

All of that is FUTURE , not past.

Then and now?  They ARE (present tense) enemies of the gospel.

I think you made your point.

I have answered that question multiple times.  The Mosaic covenant didn't include anyone but Jews.  The few Gentiles that lived in Israel had to keep the law in order to stay there, but they weren't part of the covenant.

“Who do you say that I am?”  

-Jesus.

Dispensationalism is why Christians do not sacrifice animals, stone rebellious children and we eat bacon and travel on Saturday.

Perfect example here folks. The Bible speaks clearly on matters of incest and bestiality.  When you apply a man-made filter to reinterpret the bible into convoluted systems you're unable to explain why a brother/sister incest marriage is wrong.  criley's self imposed Bible system doesn't allow him to cite OT Bible verses on why you shouldn't have sex with animals.

tHaT's fOr tHe jEwS oNly!  Christian's beware of this anti-Biblical paradigm.

Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's, yet Christian's weren't doing any of those things you just mentioned for the first 1900 years.  This is a factually untrue statement.

You should examine why as a supposed Christian you you require a Bible verse to know sex with an animal is wrong.  Good luck.

Is that supposed to be a gotchya question?  All morality was created by God.  What's good and evil is laid out by the creator of the universe.

People without God's morality justify having sex with animals all the time.  It's only with God you can even call such act an abomination.  Otherwise you're left arguing your subjective opinion against the animal screwers subjective opinion.

.

You might be under the law.  Christians are not.  Bible believers understand that.  System believers, depending on the chosen system, do not.  As you have shown.  

1 Tim 1: 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

This is basic Christianity 101.    

You evidently didn’t pass the course.

. And in so doing they violate their conscience- until they sear it , and then they justify it.

Like was stated earlier:
Romans 2.

The early church fathers nor apostles were dispensationalist. Why?  Because it's a man-made system from the 1800s.

Jesus says: "If you love Me, keep My commandments   He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me   If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

Dispensationalism (created a mere 200 years ago by Scolfield) tells you to reject Jesus's moral commandments found in the OT.  Early Church Fathers (including the apostles, even Jesus himself) kept these moral commandments,  Scolfield-Zionism has led you to abandon them.

"Forbidding incest is only part of the the Dispensation of Law!  That's not for us Christians!" - t. Scofieldist

Romans 5:20 [o]The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---------------

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through [u]the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

3 [a]You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of [b]the Law, or by [c]hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun [d]by the Spirit, are you now [e]being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you [f]suffer so many things in vain if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by the works of [h]the Law, or by [i]hearing with faith?

6 [j]Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, [k]be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God [l]would justify the [m]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with [n]Abraham, the believer.

10 For as many as are of the works of [o]the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." 11 Now that no one is justified [p]by [q]the Law before God is evident; for, "[r]The righteous man shall live by faith." 12 [s]However, the Law is not [t]of faith; on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live [u]by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"  14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might [w]come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

------------

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman [r]was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 [s]This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children [t]who are to be slaves; [u]she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

"Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband."

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

"Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

.

This kind of nonsense is how low a system follower has to go to push his system.

And BTW, I don’t buy in to dispensationalism in its entirety, but I certainly agree with what they have correct.  And even their errors are far superior to the egregious ones of Calvinism and reformed theology.

What's your take on this concept?  The idea that the OT prophets could not see the church age and so all their writings were focused on Israel:

So, now we get to the real issue, Saul, or The Apostle Paul, as all real Christians know him isn't to be believed. The testimony of the Apostle Peter and the Book of Acts, I suppose, aren't to be believed either. And I have revenge fantasies. Got it.  You've actual placed yourself as a higher authority than the scriptures themselves, forget what Christians have accepted and understood as holy writ for thousands of years, Cascade-Dude has hit the scene to set us all straight, Paul's not an Apostle, you've all been duped. And after your other thread accusing me of lying about you, I get it, you're just nutty and living in your own little loopy world. Tragic, I sincerely feel bad for you. And you have a nice day, too.

Yep.

OP: "X is an errant teaching"

GD: "You want errant teaching? Heretics ASSEMBBBBBLLLLLLLE!"

Every theological thread becomes a circus, and it's rarely the atheists who make up the main acts.

Attached File


Did the disciples obey or ignore this 'anti-Biblical jews-only' command?

Matthew 10:5-7
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

For those who aren't aware of what these verses signify, Jesus was preaching the 'kingdom gospel' (Mat 4:23) to the Jews who were looking for a national Savior to reestablish Israel (as posted above). In Acts 1 right before Jesus ascended into heaven, His followers were still expecting Him to restore the kingdom to Israel.

Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

I don't think they probably fully understood how things would change after the coming of Christ, but the Jews would have understood in some sense that all the nations of the world would be blessed by Abrahams seed, that the gentiles would be included in God's kingdom. Scriptures like Isaiah 42:6 and Isaiah 60:11-14 would indicate that IMO. That gentiles like Rahab were included in the lineage of Christ also. The temple having "a court of the gentiles" another indicator.

I see your point, I may just stick to talking about off roading after this one. LOL

Indeed.

Why do you think God would specifically condemn bestiality? Is it because there were paganish people who thought it ok, even up to the present time? And please tell us how you discern the rightness or wrongness of any particular thought, word, or deed? Please explain the standard you appeal to.

Instead of taking a snippet out of context continue reading to Matthew 10:18:
"And you will be brought before governors and kings because of me, as a witness to them and to the Gentiles."

They are going to witness to the Gentiles by doing what Jesus says.  This has nothing to do with throwing God's moral commandments in the garbage like many Scolfieldists advocate.

Do you hear God's voice? Does He speak to you often? If He does, are you sure it's God, maybe it's somebody else.

A lot of the debate is over the rapture and the Church and Israel. I’m not necessarily a proponent of the pre-trib rapture, though I maintain it’s possible, also I believe that the Church is separate from Israel and the Jews. I don’t think covenant theology is wrong and I don’t think some aspects of dispensationalism are wrong either, but I haven’t done a full dive in all the nuances of interpretations. I think dispensationalists did hit upon some interesting passages like Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25-27 which speaks about the “times of the Gentiles” and “fullness of the Gentiles”. Romans 11:25-27 even distinguishes between Israel and presumably the Church.

Well, I can see our conversation was useless. I see you don't understand that laws like not yoking 2 different animals together, or not sewing 2 types clothe together were temporary, teaching the Jews to be separate, holy unto God, and fulfilled by Christ, faith in Him, now separates us as holy. As opposed to moral law, that was carried over because it is binding on everyone, everywhere, all the time. Which of the 10 commandments are done away with, murder? having other gods? bestiality? incest?

Most of the first believers in NT times were Jews. One of the things Christ came to do was to break down that partition between Jew and Gentile. There were Gentile believers before Christ. There is only ONE bride of Christ. The whole dispensational paradigm that the Jews were the earthly people and the church the heavenly people is a completely made up fiction, that has led to dubious political movements like Christian Zionism and even the idea that Jews don't really need Jesus, they have their own separate covenant.

I'm thankful that neo-dispys like John MacArthur haven't turned into raging antinomians like we seem to be getting here.

This is more nonsense.  Breaking up MOSAIC law into parts is completely an artificial construct that isn’t found in scripture.  

The New Test provides the standard.  It defines the works of the flesh.  

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, [20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, [21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  

The straw man that “if only the Jews were under the Mosaic law then Christians can be immoral” is a joke.  

These straw man arguments and these artificial distinctions are invented to prop up the system.

Keep reading. Does it sound like they got to witness to the Gentiles? Being witnesses to the Gentiles (Acts 1:7-8 in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth) will not happen until after the 2nd coming (Matthew 10:23).

Matthew 10:23
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Acts 1:7-8
He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Hebrews 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the [a]form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

"You have not desired sacrifice and offering,
But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book)
To do Your will, O God.'"

8 After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He [d]said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By [e]this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.[/i]

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for [f]sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being [g]sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

16 "This is the covenant which I will make with them
After those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their hearts,
And write them on their mind,"

He then says,

17 "And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will no longer remember."