That's cool.
Yes. Only one is valid for today since the fall of Israel.
Agreed, which is the one to come in the Millennium with the world ruled by Christ through Israel.
Hmm, perhaps Abraham and his descendants didn't understand that. Anyone who knows and has talked with my fellow Jews of the Judeo flavor knows that they today are still looking to the coming of Messiah as a powerful and influential leader, even though they missed Him by centuries, thus their acceptance of the man of sin as the Messiah until he demands personal worship.
Allegorizing that kingdom is a common practice, but we do have this that some also allegorize into something that it clearly is not saying:
Matthew 16:27-28
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Those people, every one of them, died without seeing that fulfillment...unless, as I have stated above, one allegorizes the text in order to make it conform to personal whims and fancy...especially considering that there are no absolute rules for interpretation of allegory thrown over texts like a blanket that is clear and precisely stated that places it outside the realm of allegory.
Now, some may do a sharp intake of breath thinking that I just called Christ liar. Not so. The Lord has license to make changes to stated plans on the basis of realities that alter the course He ultimately chooses to take. In Genesis 2 the Lord gave to man vegetables, fruits and seed for his diet, then in Genesis 9 He changed that rule to everything that moved on the face of the earth as food, and then in Leviticus He changed it all once again for Israel by limiting their diet to certain animals while forbidding others.
Replacement theology manifests itself in many, many forms and can be seen rooted in many different doctrinal beliefs within most of Christendom. At its root, it is the belief that the "church" has replaced Israel with all the promises, blessings and covenant made with Abraham and with Israel. Up from that grounding are various nuances of various types and sizes in the falsehoods in doctrinal beliefs about the Church and Israel. In other words, the errors are exhaustively too numerous to list, but that's the tap root from which they all spring.
Think along the lines of the Judaizers. James didn't at any time say that what the Judaizers taught to Paul's churches was wrong. All he said about them is that they were not sent out by any of the twelve. James didn't correct the Judaizers by telling them they were wrong about the requirement for circumcision. Silence speaks loud volumes to many things for the understanding within observant student of the Bible.
We know that the Jews in Jerusalem were ALL zealous for the Law, so the Judaizers were simply making the mistake that the Kingdom Gospel, which was completely comfortable with observance of the Mosaic Law, was one and the same as what Paul preached. It's intellectually dishonest to then say Peter preached the same Gospel as Paul, for had the twelve preached the same as Paul, then why would Paul have had such resistance against that gospel being preached to his churches populated mostly by Gentiles?
Paying close attention to the wording tells us the story:
Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul therefore wasn't saying that the twelve and the Judaizers were preaching a false gospel, but only if they or any other entity, even an angel, preach any OTHER gospel (he didn't say false gospel, but any OTHER gospel) is preached UNTO YOU. they are to be accursed.
Indeed?
Matthew 8:1-4
1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
So, if everything in the NT applies to us today, as you stated, that would mean that healing would be a basis for continued animal sacrifices as gifts unto God. When the healing processes the Lord gave to our bodies, did you offer up an animal sacrifice when your body overcame the cold, or the cut in your skin healed up...et al?
I assume you know better, but this should motivate you to be more consistent with reality about saying ALL in relation to the NT:
Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Please tell me you didn't mean what you said about ALL the NT applying to us today. I can show a number of other examples, but perhaps modification of that statement is expedient at this time.
For one, the requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins, as preached by the twelve from Pentecost onward, isn't a requirement upon us today. Our sins are remitted on the basis of our salvation by grace through faith, which is coupled with nothing else for the receiving of it. The legalistic aspect of which I spoke is in the teaching of water baptism for the remission of sins, which nullifies grace, and thus is an avenue for boasting as I've heard many today bragging about.
Hope that gives context to what I was saying.
MM
