Jerusalem, Mother of Harlots

American Vision ^ | December 31, 2010 | Joel McDurmon

[Tzfat]

So, just to clarify, within most Christian churches you cannot be a Christian Jew.

[Tzfat]

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. (John 9:22)

Those dirty Joooooz. They've always persecuted Christians. Why, if given a chance they would have exterminated all the nice Christians. Oh, wait... that's not the way its been at all.

[Tzfat]

He replied, “Then, live the Scriptures that you can understand. Perhaps if you get those right, the Lord will bless you with the understanding you will need for the less obvious ones.”

Good advice. Simple faith, expressed by simple obedience, shames all the systematic theologies that exist.

Systematic theologies (such as Supercessionism) exist to silence the questions from the "uneducated." They cannot stand the light of Scripture, because anytime you have to explain away the plain meaning to the hearers of the day, you are entering the realm of the bad parent. The Almighty is not a bad parent. He speaks clearly. Those who don't like what He says come up with elaborate scemes to explain it away.

[topcat54]

So, just to clarify, within most Christian churches you cannot be a Christian Jew.

Not true. You can be a Christian Jew, a Christian Italian, a Christian Indian. No problemo.

You need to actually visit some Christian churches.

[topcat54]

Those dirty Joooooz. They've always persecuted Christians. Why, if given a chance they would have exterminated all the nice Christians. Oh, wait... that's not the way its been at all.

God reports ... You decide.

[Tzfat]

You need to actually visit some Christian churches.

LOL. After reading topcat54 for a number of years, I wouldn't darken the door.

[cinciella]

I was tempted to let the last comment stand, as it’s pretty damning, but I have to ask:

If you’re posting an article such as this one, why not embrace the term “Replacement Theology”? Isn’t that really what you’re all about? I mean, I know that the terms you like to use, expansion or whatever, sounds a bit kinder, but this is one extremely harsh viewpoint expressed in this article. If you posted it, why not embrace what is really being put forth here?

[topcat54]

If you’re posting an article such as this one, why not embrace the term “Replacement Theology”? Isn’t that really what you’re all about? I mean, I know that the terms you like to use, expansion or whatever, sounds a bit kinder, but this is one extremely harsh viewpoint expressed in this article. If you posted it, why not embrace what is really being put forth here?

Because the term was invented by futurist opponents. It was not intended to be accurate. I don't think we should allow our position to be uncritically characterized by our opponents.

Supersessionism is better, but I prefer a term like “kingdom expansion” that best defines the view (as opposed to the “kingdom deferred” view of the futurists).

[topcat54]

As the article says,

It does not mean that Jewish people can never again taste of God’s grace,

Unfortunately, our futurist opponents believe that is precisely the issue when they use the term “replacement theology,” that somehow we believe Jews are incapable of being saved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We believe in a significant intake of Jewish people into the kingdom by normal gospel means, without the need for the futurist holocaust of their “great tribulation.” We deny that race plays any part in God's plan for His people. Abraham's seed is without racial distinction.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3)

Some folks can't abide such views, so they invent terms like “replacement theology” to twist our views.

[topcat54]

but this is one extremely harsh viewpoint expressed in this article.

What in the article would you claim is harsh? Perhaps you have to define “harsh” for me, and ell us whether you think being harsh is always a negative thing.

[cinciella]

I’m sure that you like the term “kingdom expansion”. However, it does not reflect the reality of what you believe. Kingdom expansion is what I believe. You deny the Jews their rightful place in God’s kingdom. God would never break His promise. He is not a liar, and that is what your view makes Him out to be.

[cinciella]

If you would only do a thorough, critical reading of Romans 11, (with your mind open and heart open to the Holy Spirit) you would see that God is not dealing with the unbelieving Jews by “normal gospel means”. If your view is correct, why would He have “blinded” them or “hardened their hearts”? What would be the reason for that?

There would be no reason to do that if your view was correct.

[cinciella]

Quite frankly, reading this article one time through was too much. Calling it harsh wasn’t really getting my point across. I thought it was disgusting.

[topcat54]

Quite frankly, reading this article one time through was too much. Calling it harsh wasn’t really getting my point across. I thought it was disgusting.

I’m not surprised. If you are misreading the Bible, esp. the NT, preferring your own notions of what constitutes “God’s chosen people,” then you will no doubt find this article “disgusting.”

[topcat54]

However, it does not reflect the reality of what you believe.

Did you read this article? It basically explains the term.

Kingdom expansion is what I believe.

Sorry, but you believe in kingdom deferred. For you, Jesus is not yet reigning on the throne of his father, David. In fact there is no kingdom, so there can be no King Jesus (yet) in your system. You don’t really believe what the NT says about the true nature of the kingdom (spiritual, not carnal).

[topcat54]

If you would only do a thorough, critical reading of Romans 11,

Since I have many times, what you are saying is that if I would only set aside the text of the Bible and adopt your futurist assumptions, put on your futurist glasses, drink the futurist kool aid, it would all become “obvious.”

Romans 11 is about unity, not disunity. It’s about integration, not racial separation. It’s about one people being created, not two being divided. It’s about one chosen people, not two.

This is not really clear to you because in the futurist scheme the only part of Romans 11 that really matters is verse 26. You see only “Jew” when what Paul is really teaching about is “root,” with its conjoined branches, and the nature of true Israel. Of course you have to read everything in Romans, not just a part of chapter 11, to get Paul’s argument.

I look forward to your studied explanation of Romans 11 (in context). Not just the “nuh-uhs.”

[cinciella]

Why can’t you simply answer the question that I posed in post 92?

[topcat54]

Why can’t you simply answer the question that I posed in post 92? Because it makes no sense in the real world where most of us live. Perhaps it does in yours, but I’m not sure.

See here.

[Zionist Conspirator]

the Old Jewish way of God’s witness and work on earth—the Old Testament Temple ritual system—was being abolished. It was being abolished because it was never meant to be permanent, but only a symbol that pointed to the reality of Jesus Christ, the true Temple, the true Emanuel.

The only problem is that this is what the "new testament" claims. It's no different than the "holy qur'an" claiming toe invalidate chr*stianity.

For the "old Jewish system" to be temporary and preparatory, it must claim this for itself . . . not have such a claim made only by the religion that claims to be replacing it.