Replacement theology.

[Guojing]

Sort of painstakingly, yes. Anyway, these fellas were counted as jews and was one Israel with their fellow israelites. And that same principle of one Israel, one people of God, follows on into the NT. There was/is no "gentile Israel" or a "gentile church".

Interesting reference to Exodus 12:48 by the way. This mentioning of sojourners being circumcised brings to mind the Peshitta, which I think have the word "proselytes" instead of strangers, sojourners. In that perspective, israelites were told not to oppress the proselyte.

Yes, I recently learned about Esther 8:17 and how it fits well with what Exodus 12:48 was referring to.

Aren't all of us glad to be living under the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul for this "but now" time period, where physical circumcision for males is no longer required.

 

[tribesman]

A covenant community sharing the covenant signs and seals, yet with some having circumcised hearts whilst others have uncircumcised hearts. That's how I explain the spiritual vs the fleshly. And we can see that big time in christianity today with so much baptized people and both groups represented.

 

[tribesman]

Yes, I recently learned about Esther 8:17 and how it fits well with what Exodus 12:48 was referring to.

Aren't all of us glad to be living under the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul for this "but now" time period, where physical circumcision for males is no longer required.

But we have anesthesia now, should anyone insist to keep it going. Well, today baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and seal.

 

[Guojing]

But we have anesthesia now, should anyone insist to keep it going. Well, today baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and seal.

Oh you believe that water baptism is required for salvation now?

 

[tribesman]

Oh you believe that water baptism is required for salvation now?

That's another topic altogether. I hope we won't go down that road of having the Apostles saying that water baptism is a goody thing, but it's optional. Water baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant. That's On-Topic.

 

[Guojing]

That's another topic altogether. I hope we won't go down that road of having the Apostles saying that water baptism is a goody thing, but it's optional. Water baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant. That's On-Topic.

It was required for all Jews under the gospel of the kingdom because, as I said earlier, all Jews are supposed to be priests to spread the message of salvation to gentiles, after the nation accept Jesus as their Messiah.

But once the nation rejected Jesus when they stoned Stephen, us gentiles are saved directly thru the cross (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Water baptism is no longer required, at least not until the Tribulation begins.

 

[tribesman]

It was required for all Jews under the gospel of the kingdom because, as I said earlier, all Jews are supposed to be priests to spread the message of salvation to gentiles, after the nation accept Jesus as their Messiah.

But once the nation rejected Jesus when they stoned Stephen, us gentiles are saved directly thru the cross (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Water baptism is no longer required.

Sounds like dispensationalism to me. I do not agree with this. I see no reason why a believer should not want to be baptized. And I am not sure how your statement fits in with the topic of replacement theology.

 

[Guojing]

Sounds like dispensationalism to me. I do not agree with this. I see no reason why a believer should not want to be baptized. And I am not sure how your statement fits in with the topic of replacement theology.

If a believer wants to be water baptized, as a kind of public declaration to family and friends that he is now a Christian, it is fine.

The Body of Christ is kept separate from Israel. Water baptism was an integral part of Israel's salvation program, but since we are not Israel, water baptism is not part of our salvation program now.

That is how the topic of replacement theology could be applied here.

 

[tribesman]

If a believer wants to be water baptized, as a kind of public declaration to family and friends that he is now a Christian, it is fine.

The Body of Christ is kept separate from Israel. Water baptism was an integral part of Israel's salvation program, but since we are not Israel, water baptism is not part of our salvation program now.

That is how the topic of replacement theology could be applied here.

Man, we are are as far as east is from the west on that one. Baptism is far more than a public declaration, it means to put on Christ and it is really a means by which God works, not a work of man. Who can apply? Believers and their children. There is really no age-limit for the reception of baptism.

However, this said, I do not see any one "requirement" per se as for salvation, as all and every requirement there ever was for same has been fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

Jesus said:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Matt.28:19).

Now, this "all nations" does not only refer to jews in the diaspora or the lost tribes, it includes also gentiles, which believe on the Lord Jesus. Hence, once they are taken up into the covenant community through baptism, they too, are part of the Israel of God. Same principle as in Exo.12:48, different sign and seal.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus said: Now, this "all nations" does not only refer to jews in the diaspora or the lost tribes, it includes also gentiles, which believe on the Lord Jesus. Hence, once they are taken up into the covenant community through baptism, they too, are part of the Israel of God. Same principle as in Exo.12:48, different sign and seal.

As I have stated to KJV, Peter's reaction in Acts 10 showed that the meaning of all nations in that passage cannot be referring to gentiles.

But let's not go into this, for it will really be off topic.

 

[tribesman]

As I have stated to KJV, Peter's reaction in Acts 10 showed that the meaning of all nations in that passage cannot be referring to gentiles.

But let's not go into this, for it will really be off topic.

Ya, we better avoid that.

But, again referring to water baptism as relevant to "one Israel", don't you believe that Cornelius was baptized in water?

 

[Guojing]

Ya, we better avoid that.

But, again referring to water baptism as relevant to "one Israel", don't you believe that Cornelius was baptized in water?

Peter only knew about Israel salvation program then so the instruction to baptise him was expected.

Avoid using acts as salvation doctrine, as it was a transitional period between the 2 programs

 

[tribesman]

Peter only knew about Israel salvation program then so the instruction to baptise him was expected.

Avoid using acts as salvation doctrine, as it was a transitional period between the 2 programs

I can't see what Jesus would not have instructed Peter and the other apostles regarding baptism and that they needed additional revelation for same. As for the cleansing work it seems Peter needed the vision he got though.

Do you hold to that there are "two" gospels that are preached, one for jews and one for gentiles? Some dispensational people believe so, as far as I can recall.

 

[tribesman]

I have to say that I do see a danger in (effectively) making Jesus and Paul "cult founders", so to speak. Jesus did not start a new "religion", neither did Paul. They do not contradict each other and none of them contradict the OT and the Saints of old. I hope most would agree with this. With this perspective, taking into consideration the "change" of priesthood, I find it quiet impossible to land at the shores of dispensationalism or any other doctrine having Israel and the Church as two separate entities. This community solution to the issues that pertains to outward/fleshly and inward/spiritual worship makes much sense if you look at the greater picture of scripture.

 

[Guojing]

I can't see what Jesus would not have instructed Peter and the other apostles regarding baptism and that they needed additional revelation for same. As for the cleansing work it seems Peter needed the vision he got though.

Do you hold to that there are "two" gospels that are preached, one for jews and one for gentiles? Some dispensational people believe so, as far as I can recall.

As I already stated to kjv1611, according to prophecy, gentiles were to be saved thru the rise of Israel. It started way back in genesis 12

But when you read acts 7, and you see the Sanhedrin refuse to accept Jesus as their promised messiah, do you think The nation Israel was in any position to reach the gentiles then?

 

[tribesman]

As I already stated to kjv1611, according to prophecy, gentiles were to be saved thru the rise of Israel. It started way back in genesis 12

But when you read acts 7, and you see the Sanhedrin refuse to accept Jesus as their promised messiah, do you think The nation Israel was in any position to reach the gentiles then?

Depends what you mean with Israel, if by that is meant the promises made to Abraham, then, yes, wherever that applies to gentiles being made righteous it's valid.

If someone was expecting Jesus to be accepted by the Sanhedrin and set up a Messianic Kingdom at that time in Jerusalem one had to be disappointed. Stephen's message to the non-believing jews in Acts 7 is a dreadful showcase of the condition of those addressed. He really was affirming the very problem of uncircumcised hearts and the resisting of the Holy Ghost. What is most amazing with his speech are yet his last words lay not this sin to their charge. What an amazing love for his people! A Saint indeed in the footsteps of the Saviour.

 

[Guojing]

Depends what you mean with Israel, if by that is meant the promises made to Abraham, then, yes, wherever that applies to gentiles being made righteous it's valid.

If someone was expecting Jesus to be accepted by the Sanhedrin and set up a Messianic Kingdom at that time in Jerusalem one had to be disappointed. Stephen's message to the non-believing jews in Acts 7 is a dreadful showcase of the condition of those addressed. He really was affirming the very problem of uncircumcised hearts and the resisting of the Holy Ghost. What is most amazing with his speech are yet his last words lay not this sin to their charge. What an amazing love for his people! A Saint indeed in the footsteps of the Saviour.

Of course, its easy for us to look back in retrospect and understand why the 70th week of Daniel had to be postponed after Acts 7.

But if you put yourself in Peter's shoes then, can you now understand why he was hesitant to go to Cornelius's house in Acts 10, that when Jesus told them the Great Commission in Matthew 28, the "all nations" does not mean the gentile nations, but rather the Jews that were scattered across all nations (Acts 2:5)?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

We do have different views here, as well as today as many years ago. I do see these prophecies as already fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. What is not yet fulfilled is His return. And all the elect even among the jews shall surely be gathered before His return. We can rest well of that.

I understand

i just can not see this. My basis is this, if all the prophesies concerning the 1st coming, taken with the downfall and punishment of Israel and the giving of Gods word to the gentiles were literally fulfilled

all the rest should be taken literally also

i know there is a term for it, I think it is called precedence? Take what has happened to interpret what has not yet been seen,

in this view, taking everything that has happened literally, by making the rest symbolic or allegory, does not make sense and seems contradictory,

anyway, I take Jesus as an example, he read part of is 61 In Luke 4: 18: as he is reading he suddenly stops, and proclaims “today this scripture is fulfilled.

Is 61 talk about the day the lord will come to do all those things, and as re read all of verse 1 and 2 a were as Jesus said, literally fulfilled

bit what the prophet said from vs 2 b on was never fulfilled

And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To [b]console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.”
4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins,
They shall raise up the former desolations,
And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations.
5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.
7 Instead of your shame you shall havedouble honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery [c]for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed.”
10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.


now if the first part is literal, why would the second be literally translated

what ruins, what desolations, what cities

i hope you see my point

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, but they were saved by converting to Judaism, either thru marriage or thru undergoing circumcision. That was the only way gentiles could be saved in time past. (Exodus 12:48)

Esther 8:17 stated

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Cornelius was saved without becoming a Jew.

No one was ever saved by converting to Judaism. They were saved by trusting God like all men everywhere have been saved (Nineva repented they did not convert to Judaism)

 

[Guojing]

No one was ever saved by converting to Judaism. They were saved by trusting God like all men everywhere have been saved (Nineva repented they did not convert to Judaism)

Strictly speaking, no one was even saved in the OT.

Jews who were not cut off from the nation Israel were all placed in Abraham's bosom/Paradise, after their death.

But if you are a gentile in the OT, and you want to be included in Paradise after death, you had to be a Jew.