ASecondTime

[Hitch]

God promised to restore Israel 'a second time.

There is no promise of a third time, there is no implication of a third time, there is no chance of a third time.

The church occupies the place of the heir;

'And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


God brought Israel out of Egypt , and returned the remenant from Babylon.

[Darfius]

Several problems with your post.

The first is that Paul takes such great pains to explain how the Gentiles--while ingrafted--are not the natural branch that you really have no excuse to claim that they are. The second is that Paul at the very least strongly implies that the natural branch will again be grafted to the tree. The third is that the land of Israel had not been portioned out to the nation of Israel before they came out of Egypt, so that was obviously not a 'restoration'. The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, but Judah was. Granted, Judah represented a portion of Israel, but Judah was not Israel.

[Obsidian]

Hitch, you need to do a better job citing what verses you are talking about. I have no idea where the "second time" thing comes from.

[Hitch]

Several problems with your post.

The first is that Paul takes such great pains to explain how the Gentiles--while ingrafted--are not the natural branch that you really have no excuse to claim that they are.

Where is such a claim presented?

The second is that Paul at the very least strongly implies that the natural branch will again be grafted to the tree. The third is that the land of Israel had not been portioned out to the nation of Israel before they came out of Egypt, so that was obviously not a 'restoration'. The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, but Judah was. Granted, Judah represented a portion of Israel, but Judah was not Israel.

Isaiah 11

11And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

13The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

14But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.

15And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.

16And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

The prophet doesnt share your conserns Darfuis.
But I must admit you're the first to claim;The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, Isaiah really could have used your help.

[Darfius]

Where is such a claim presented?

Here:

The church occupies the place of the heir

You are obviously claiming that the Church has replaced Israel, which Paul makes more than obvious is not the case.

The prophet doesnt share your conserns Darfuis.

My username is Darfius, but your poor interpretation of the provided Scripture makes it plain that you simply cannot read, so I take no offense.

Isaiah 11:11-16

In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

13 Ephraim's jealousy will vanish,
and Judah's enemies will be cut off;
Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.

14 They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west;
together they will plunder the people to the east.
They will lay hands on Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites will be subject to them.

15 The LORD will dry up
the gulf of the Egyptian sea;
with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand
over the Euphrates River.
He will break it up into seven streams
so that men can cross over in sandals.

16 There will be a highway for the remnant of his people
that is left from Assyria,
as there was for Israel
when they came up from Egypt.

To begin with, you should take note of the scope of the restoration (from the four quarters of the earth, including "the islands of the sea"). Obviously a remnant returning from Babylon would not have fit the description.

But more importantly, pay special attention to the ever present duality between Israel (the northern ten tribes, now called "lost") and Judah (the southern two tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Ephraim is another name the northern ten tribes were called by, as they were associated with Joseph as opposed to Judah and Ephraim possessed Joseph's birthright. This duality is most strongly represented in the following passage from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 37:15-23

15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Ephraim's stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.' 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.
18 "When your countrymen ask you, 'Won't you tell us what you mean by this?' 19 say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim's hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.' 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 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. 22 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. 23 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.

So there can be no denying the duality of the northern and southern tribes and no claim that the return of Judah to Israel from Babylon represented a fulfillment of the prophecy here given. Which coincides nicely with Paul's triumphant assertion that all of Israel (not simply Judah and certainly not the Church in place of Israel) should be saved after the "times of the Gentiles" had seen fulfillment.

Also, your claim that Isaiah was calling Israel's journey out of Egypt a restoration does not hold up, as the emphasis is on God's miraculous hand in the events (as it will be when Israel is brought out of the symbolic "Egypt" of its exile in the last days).

But I must admit you're the first to claim;The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, Isaiah really could have used your help.

Isaiah would never have made the foolish mistake of equating the southern two tribes of Judah with all of Israel.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Hitch
Where is such a claim presented?
Here:

[B]The first is that Paul takes such great pains to explain how the Gentiles--while ingrafted--are not the natural branch that you really have no excuse to claim that they are.[/B]

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


The church occupies the place of the heir

[/quote]Thats quite a different charge than you first posted . Dont worry logical consistancy is not expected from you. LOL

You are obviously claiming that the Church has replaced Israel, which Paul makes more than obvious is not the case.

Last I heard Paul wrote the book we call Galations quoted above ,in bold. Heres a thought; why dont you address the text? [quote]


The prophet doesnt share your conserns Darfuis.
My username is Darfius, but your poor interpretation of the provided Scripture makes it plain that you simply cannot read, so I take no offense.

Yawn

[Hitch]

To begin with, you should take note of the scope of the restoration (from the four quarters of the earth, including "the islands of the sea"). Obviously a remnant returning from Babylon would not have fit the description.

But more importantly, pay special attention to the ever present duality between Israel (the northern ten tribes, now called "lost") and Judah (the southern two tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Ephraim is another name the northern ten tribes were called by, as they were associated with Joseph as opposed to Judah and Ephraim possessed Joseph's birthright. This duality is most strongly represented in the following passage from Ezekiel:


Ezekiel 37:15-23
15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Ephraim's stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.' 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.
18 "When your countrymen ask you, 'Won't you tell us what you mean by this?' 19 say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim's hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.' 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 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. 22 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. 23 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.



So there can be no denying the duality of the northern and southern tribes and no claim that the return of Judah to Israel from Babylon represented a fulfillment of the prophecy here given. Which coincides nicely with Paul's triumphant assertion that all of Israel (not simply Judah and certainly not the Church in place of Israel) should be saved after the "times of the Gentiles" had seen fulfillment.

Also, your claim that Isaiah was calling Israel's journey out of Egypt a restoration does not hold up, as the emphasis is on God's miraculous hand in the events (as it will be when Israel is brought out of the symbolic "Egypt" of its exile in the last days).


But I must admit you're the first to claim;The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, Isaiah really could have used your help.
Isaiah would never have made the foolish mistake of equating the southern two tribes of Judah with all of Israel.

LOL Like I said , you're the first I've encountered to deny the return from Babylon.

Sniff sniff,, is that a whiff of Armstrong I'm getting??

[seanD]

Hitch, you're not doing yourself or preterists any favors by ignoring the arguments presented to you from scripture by lacing your rebuttals with ad homs, ridicule and nothing of substance.

And the Galatians letter is not a good source to use to support your view, because the Galatians letter was written specifically in the heat of battle and to address the conflict between keeping the Mosaic law of circumcision, which was argued by the Hebrew Judaizers, and not keeping it.

[Hitch]

Hitch, you're not doing yourself or preterists any favors by ignoring the arguments presented to you from scripture by lacing your rebuttals with ad homs, ridicule and nothing of substance.

You are welcome to defend his point , make your own or refute mine.That would have substance.

And the Galatians letter is not a good source to use to support your view, because the Galatians letter was written specifically in the heat of battle and to address the conflict between keeping the Mosaic law of circumcision, which was argued by the Hebrew Judaizers, and not keeping it.

Well then it should be easy for you to refute Paul's claim.

I'll post it again; and the entire OP below

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Would you like something similar from Romans? Deal with this first OK?

God promised to restore Israel 'a second time.

There is no promise of a third time, there is no implication of a third time, there is no chance of a third time.

The church occupies the place of the heir;

'And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


God brought Israel out of Egypt , and returned the remenant from Babylon.

[seanD]

You are welcome to defend his point , make your own or refute mine.That would have substance.

Nah, I'll pass. You didn't at all address Darfius' post with anything of substance. All you do is cherry pick verses from anywhere just to support an argument not only without understanding the context from which you’re pulling the verse from but the actual prophetic paradigm, and then you color it with ad homs and ridicule. It’s amateurism, and certainly not doing anything to bolster your replacement theology view.

[Hitch]

When the light shines ,,they run. LOL

[Dee Dee Warren]

Several problems with your post.

The first is that Paul takes such great pains to explain how the Gentiles--while ingrafted--are not the natural branch that you really have no excuse to claim that they are. The second is that Paul at the very least strongly implies that the natural branch will again be grafted to the tree. The third is that the land of Israel had not been portioned out to the nation of Israel before they came out of Egypt, so that was obviously not a 'restoration'. The fourth is that 'Israel' was not restored from Babylon, but Judah was. Granted, Judah represented a portion of Israel, but Judah was not Israel.

Several problems with your post. The tree is Christ, not Israel. Of course Jews will and are grafted into Christ. Daily.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sniff sniff,, is that a whiff of Armstrong I'm getting??

Its a whiff of something.

[Darfius]

Several problems with your post. The tree is Christ, not Israel. Of course Jews will and are grafted into Christ. Daily.

I count two 'problems' here, though you said you had several. Perhaps more will be forthcoming. Fortunately, we can solve your first 'problem' by pointing out that it is nonexistent, since I never claimed that the tree was Israel. Paul makes it clear that the 'natural branches' were Israel. But don't the branches make up part of the tree? As a matter of fact, I think it's clear that the 'root' is what Christ is. The tree is made up of 'natural' branches and 'wild' branches, with the root being Christ. Paul laments the breaking off of the 'natural' branches, but says that it is possible for the 'natural' branches to be grafted back in. As a matter of fact, he says that such an ingrafting would (will?) be even easier than the grafting in of the Gentiles!

Think about that. Paul says that the reconciliation of Israel would be even simpler than the initial welcoming in of the Gentiles to the church. If it's that easy, isn't it safe to assume that God is planning it?

And again, Israel is made up of more than the tribe of Judah (the Jews). By Israel, Paul was not referring to just one or two tribes.