Does the Parable of the Wedding Banquet confirm the abrogation of the Israelites and invitation to the Gentiles?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sorry if my efforts have not been of much value to you.
I will try to adopt a less "commonsense" approach to this one:
V.13 means kill anyone you "feel led" to kill.
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles UNTIL(UNTIL) the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Luke21:24
How was this fulfilled in OT times?
 
Sorry if my efforts have not been of much value to you.
I will try to adopt a less "commonsense" approach to this one:
V.13 means kill anyone you "feel led" to kill.
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity[a] and restore them to the land I gave their ancestors to possess,’ says the Lord.” Jeremiah 30:1-3
It's all over the place
 
Sorry if my efforts have not been of much value to you.
I will try to adopt a less "commonsense" approach to this one:
V.13 means kill anyone you "feel led" to kill.
The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
14 and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[f]
“They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.
Amos9:13-15

I will leave it there for now, to allow for your common sense to give me explanations
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
14 and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[f]
“They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.
Amos9:13-15

I will leave it there for now, to allow for your common sense to give me explanations

Commonsense just means using God given brains in a simple and ordinary way.
It does not mean thinking that you are wise or learned.
Parts of the Bible are easier to understand than other parts.
That is why bad doctrine is always based on interpretations of prophesy.

As far as I can tell you do not care for my explanations.
 
The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
14 and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.[f]
“They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.
Amos9:13-15

I will leave it there for now, to allow for your common sense to give me explanations

I am done playing this game with you.
Bugger off.
 
Commonsense just means using God given brains in a simple and ordinary way.
It does not mean thinking that you are wise or learned.
Parts of the Bible are easier to understand than other parts.
That is why bad doctrine is always based on interpretations of prophesy.

As far as I can tell you do not care for my explanations.
Well all the scriptures I've placed before you are simple to understand. I expect you have much sympathy with JWS, Muslims, SDA and Mormons. They too use their common sense to make scripture fit their views. I mean, you don't feel you are the only one entitled to overturn huge swathes of scripture that all say the same thing do you? And you are the one interpreting scripture to mean something other than it clearly states, so why does your bad doctrine statement not apply to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
Ruth 4:16 And Naomi TOOK the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.

The Bible does not say that Naomi was handed the baby or that it was for that reason.
Either I have missed something in the verses or that part came from you.
If you can show me relevant verses I am grateful, but please understand that I do not go by opinions.
Lol.
Splitting hairs.
Are we to believe Naomi snatched the infant against everyone's will?

Opinion?
Your opinion is the child was taken against everyone's will?

If I hand you an apple, and you take it,does that mean nobody offered it to you?

What is the point of ;"she wasn't handed the child....SHE TOOK IT"...?

Are you being obtuse?

Think about it....there never has been, in history, where someone handed someone something, and they TOOK IT, and the fact they took it, erases the fact it was handed/offered it.

"Given" is implied.
In fact, play it out.
Add to the story the baby was taken against their will.
How does it fit anything.?

BTW, Naomi, not being the mother, HAD NO MILK, so it took at least 2 or 3 weeks of dry nursing to develope any milk.

So, the idea that she walked up and seized the infant is flat out impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
Christ is no longer Jewish.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

And:

16 “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.”

To do so otherwise is to present a different Christ.
Rev 5
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Maybe heaven did not get your memo.

That pesky doctrine destroying bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimiSurvivor
Commonsense just means using God given brains in a simple and ordinary way.
It does not mean thinking that you are wise or learned.
Parts of the Bible are easier to understand than other parts.
That is why bad doctrine is always based on interpretations of prophesy.

As far as I can tell you do not care for my explanations.
The common sense adherents fail at the trinity.

The bible will never have any depth to the common sense interpreters.
 
I am done playing this game with you.
Bugger off.
The last dynamic between heaven, earth, God, and God's purpose us the throne of David re-established, and Jesus on that throne.

The gates have the 12 Jewish disciples on them.
Rev 5 has a Jew, declared as a Jew, by Heaven, to be the Savior.
A Jewish savior sitting on a Judeo throne.
( David's throne)

To miss it, would be to miss the heart of heaven.

I only know that because I read the Bible cover to cover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
No one's disputing that believing branches will be grafted in
God never intended them to be born again apart from Jesus.
Where you can not venture honestly is the 144,000 Jewish firstfruits.
And the fact that those FISTFRUITS preceding main harvest, absolutely designates the harvest of rev 14:14 as main harvest Jews.

RT MUST reinvent what I Just stated.

It is the final nail in the RT coffin.
 
Rev 5
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Maybe heaven did not get your memo.

That pesky doctrine destroying bible.

You have to reconcile the revelation of "One new man" and "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah" to understand.

As I said, we retain the promises given to Judah; namely the right to rule as kingly rulers ("The scepter shall not pass from Judah"). So, in Christ, whose Body is made up of all who receive Him, we are co-heirs to the same promises.

It works like this: Judah, the man, is deceased. As a dead man he can no longer hold a scepter of rule. Furthermore, the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" refers to the eternal Christ - a being with no end or beginning. He always was, and is, and is to come. He was always the Lion of the tribe of Judah, even before Judah was born.

Judah appeared in time and space in his given time. His line was blessed with the right to rule namely in the manner he secured his own promise to return Benjamin.

Genesis 44:32 "For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame before my father forever.’"

This is juxtaposed against Reuben's promise to allow his own sons to be killed "Reuben spoke to his father, saying, “Kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you; put him in my hands, and I will bring him back to you.”

So Judah, like Christ, promised to give his own life for the redemption of his brother. This was the spirit of Christ being spoken forth from Judah before the birth of Christ.

So, when the house of Judah is blessed with the royal scepter, it secured the reality that the Messiah had to come through Judah's line since the Messiah would be the "King of kings".

That's what Paul was teaching when he wrote this:

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Wait, Paul wrote "once Gentiles in the flesh"... aren't they still Gentiles and not Jews?
Let's read on...

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.

No, in Christ, we are not Gentiles. And the Jews are not Jews. Together we represent one new man.
And what do we gain by being in Christ?

18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Access to the Father. This goes back to eternity before flesh was made. We become a member of the beloved of God Who was One with the Father in the beginning. This reality is the answer to Jesus' prayer before His crucifixion:

This is Jesus: "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."

(Some may say "God does not share His glory with another" They are correct. BUT, in Christ, we are not another. We are His flesh and His bones.)

Jesus continued: “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world."

This goes back to eternity, from the foundation of the world: before Adam and Eve and Noah and Abram, etc... Redemption in Christ restores us to the relationship between the Son and Father that existed before creation.

Cliff's Notes version: The kingly rule of Judah was a spiritual quality of the eternal Christ. Judah appeared as a Hebrew man, but the Christ appears as the new man made up of Jew and Gentile. In Christ we obtain the inheritance of the Only Begotten Son, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, which is the Spiritual reality of Christ, the eternal Messiah.

@Magenta @Cameron143 @posthuman @Pilgrimshope

Blessings
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
To note: I don't think "abrogation" is a correct term. Access to the Father was not taken from the Israelites. In Christ, they receive direct access to the Father. This is true for the Gentiles as well.

Of course, in Christ an Israeli receives the right to rule over the whole of creation which includes the small, parcel of land currently labeled "Israel". In Christ, they give up nothing of value (a.k.a. their own lives) compared to the eternal access to God they gain as sons of God. The same is true for any Gentile in Christ.
 
Almost all of the Reformers (with a very few exceptions persecuted the Jews stripping them of their rights as citizens which subjected them to many hardships. They also persecuted those they labelled "heretics" such as the Anabaptists who were drowned and burned at the stake primarily because they refused to baptize INFANTS but instead baptized only REPENTANT ADULTS.

Calvin was not a hyper-Calvinist?
I don't know how you can say this since he wrote his ideas in a clear systematic meticulous way in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. This work unambiguously expresses Calvin's doctrines which we can easily see is a radical departure from what had been considered orthodox for the preceding 300 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
Christ is no longer Jewish.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

And:

16 “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.”

To do so otherwise is to present a different Christ.

Still, Christ's human (genetic) origins were important to establishing Christ's right to reign under the promises made to David. The genealogies in the gospels are there to authenticate His role as redeemer and ruler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereRoseaLamb
Still, Christ's human (genetic) origins were important to establishing Christ's right to reign under the promises made to David. The genealogies in the gospels are there to authenticate His role as redeemer and ruler.

Of course, Jesus was Hebrew in the flesh. But He did not arise as a Jew. He arose as a New Man who could contain all of humanity.

Right out of the gate from the Matthew genealogy we should know we are dealing with the inheritance of promise. It starts like this:

"This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham..."

Jesus was not a 1st generation son of either David or Abraham yet the promises given to both vested with Him. Yet by this, we see that He was a rightful heir

In the Luke genealogy, we see the line of Jesus go back to God Himself:

"..Adam, the son of God."

This gave Him the right to claim to be "the son of man (adam)".

It's ironic that the eternal right of royal kingship is not established in the genealogy that goes back to God but in the one that goes back to David and Abraham. I presume this is because of the initial audience of the gospel: Jews. It would have been important to connect Jesus to the established line of Hebrew royalty.

However, we certainly CAN see God's intended role for Adam and Woman, that of ruler over all creation.

"Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”


Subjugation and rule are aspects of a king. Here, God intends Adam and Woman to be the sovereign over all of the earth. Perhaps that would have been too esoteric for the Jews looking for the Messiah from David's line so the Holy Spirit made sure to include Jesus' line back to David. Certainly, with the revelation of the Apostles of the Lamb and Paul, we can see the whole story - even beginning in the eternal with God. That's the advantage of not being blinded by only having and reading "Moses".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
The common sense adherents fail at the trinity.

The bible will never have any depth to the common sense interpreters.

Common sense would tell me that God's ways are higher than mine and that I can expect to not understand many things.
 
I am done playing this game with you.
Bugger off.

I welcome people who disagree with me.
I do not welcome those who mock my reasoning without explanation while continually asking me to explain every passage they paste.
I am too busy for that.
 
Lol.
Splitting hairs.
Are we to believe Naomi snatched the infant against everyone's will?

Opinion?
Your opinion is the child was taken against everyone's will?

If I hand you an apple, and you take it,does that mean nobody offered it to you?

What is the point of ;"she wasn't handed the child....SHE TOOK IT"...?

Are you being obtuse?

Think about it....there never has been, in history, where someone handed someone something, and they TOOK IT, and the fact they took it, erases the fact it was handed/offered it.

"Given" is implied.
In fact, play it out.
Add to the story the baby was taken against their will.
How does it fit anything.?

BTW, Naomi, not being the mother, HAD NO MILK, so it took at least 2 or 3 weeks of dry nursing to develope any milk.

So, the idea that she walked up and seized the infant is flat out impossible.

Where could we go if we were to pursue this debate further?
I could opine that Ruth Naomi Obed and Boaz all lived together in Bethlehem, and that Obed drank from Ruth's breast.
You could insist that as Obed was the heir he must be fed proper Jewish milk.
I could insist that it is already too late to un-Gentilize him because Ruth has already given birth to him and therefore the only option is to accept Ruth as a Jew.

Both of us would be arguing opinions and things that we do not know.

You may think that you have found a ground shaking theology there,
I respect your opinion but disagree.