Meat MEAT!!!!!!!! What is the "New Covenant"?

[AmericanIsraelite]

I am extremely disappointed that none of our New Covenanters other than @rockfox , who’s always up for a good fight much to his great credit, are willing to define and support what the “new covenant” is. It is the centerpiece of their faith and they tout it so much to the rest of us as a worthy centerpiece of our faith that I had hoped that they had a good working definition and could back that up scripture.

Maybe we won’t be hearing about it so much in the future seeing as how it’s not worth talking about.

If a hundred of us said the same thing would it change your mind?
If I can see the truth has been spoken, and well stated and supported at that, why would I need to add to it?

If you only want to hear your own opinions restated make a recording of yourself, and set it to automatically replay.

 

[Joleneakamama]

@Joleneakamama you usually start in the right place (Ephraim cast into the nations and lost his identity) but then get lost in, as @The Revolting Man refers, a flight of fancy with names, land, etc.

Ezekiel 37, Hosea 1 & 2, Jeremiah 31, etc all clearly state that Ephraim, aka the house of Israel, will return home and live in the land God gave Jacob.

Jeremiah even says that it's such a sure thing you have to remove the sun from the sky before i'm to listen to you. Make no mistake, you are not living in the promised Land, and the Messiah will not reign from Washington DC or Phoenix, AZ.

Best laugh of the day!

Because His tabernacle is within us, I couldn't care less where He chooses to place His throne. I do believe I am living in the promised land though. Revelations tells us that "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ" So you see, it doesn't matter which one, we all are in! There are many prophesies that talk about a new land, and also passages that tell Israel "Your descendants will inherit the nations" What do you do with those? or how about the one in Deut. that says "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." Sounds to me like He allowed for all they would become, or the passage in Isaiah 49:20 The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, (in your bereavement) shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.

So to sum it up, all this stuff hidden and veiled in the prophesies becomes clear at the harvest of the world when the righteous remain and all the kingdoms are recognised as His. @steve sharing that parable about the kingdom of heaven was another gem. The kingdom is like leaven a woman hid in three measures of meal until all were leavened. Three measures, Jews, Gentiles and strangers maybe? This is growing world wide....waiting for the sons to be revealed.

I'll echo @Asforme&myhouse's recent comment. Flip that telescope around!

 

[Quartus]

If after @rockfox quoted this passage above you all still deny being in a new covenant, or insist that the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is still future, even the most perfect argument will not be persuasive enough.
Paul in sharing the good news of a new King, the mediator of that new covenant could not convince everyone.

Just to be clear on this, as I think both points can actually be reconciled:
the new Covenant has been effective from when Christ died which is when it was offered.
individuals have accepted since then
but the nation of Israel has not yet accepted it and Jer 31:31 tells of a future time when they will accept (what has been offered for the last 2000 years).

Even Paul with his knowledge took some three years searching the scriptures in order to sort these things out:
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
Gal 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.

The problem we all need to overcome is that we all start from different places and have our own favourite references. For me Galatians 3 is probably the clearest thing that Paul would have written since his Barmitzvah but not everyone may may consider that it is so straightforward. (I've no doubt the reverse will also be true and I will struggle with passages that others consider 'straightforward'). It takes some time and effort if we are going to put it all together and arrive at the correct destination.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

If after @rockfox quoted this passage above you all still deny being in a new covenant, or insist that the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is still future, even the most perfect argument will not be persuasive enough.
Paul in sharing the good news of a new King, the mediator of that new covenant could not convince everyone.

Acts 18:6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

That was excellent @rockfox and @Quartus great posts!

I don’t deny being in a new covenant, or rather an altered covenant. I was quite explicit in my opening post that my hypothesis was that the new covenant talked about at the Last Supper and in Hebrews 8-10 was the substitution of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice and priesthood for the imperfect and temporary sacrifice and priesthood. That’s all that changed. Everything else remains the same.

Jeremiah 31:31 clearly has provisions that have not been fulfilled yet, I’ve shown that over and over.

So far no one has engaged around the core idea of what exactly the new covenant is. Where it’s described and what it entails. I even listed some of the verses that challenge my hypothesis. I’ve done some of the work for the New Covenanters but no one seems to be that confident in their beliefs in what seems like a very important subject.

Christ replaced the sacrifice and the priesthood, as Hebrews talk about explicitly. But nothing else got changed. Prove me wrong.

 

[The Revolting Man]

My definition: The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.

The proof of this is Gal 3:15-17. If there is a covenant at all, and scripture explains it by saying that the Abrahamic covenant cannot be annulled or added to, then the Covenant that is described as "new" must be the Abrahamic Covenant. How could it be anything else?

“New” because it was impossible for the Abrahamic covenant to come into effect before Christ died.
Luk 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The Abrahamic Covenant is all inclusive:
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
Gen 18:18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

All nations and for that matter all the tribes equally. All are one in Christ Jesus. Nobody need be left out or gets disadvantaged by who they are or aren't descended from.

Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 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.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Abrahamic covenant (I hate this terminology, they’re God’s covenants) was not altered or added to, a whole different one was created alongside of it.

 

[Quartus]

So far no one has engaged around the core idea of what exactly the new covenant is. Where it’s described and what it entails.

I was writing this while you posted your last quote. not sure how you a whole new covenant can be added without that being adding to the existing one? what is in the new covenant that wasn't there before?

Here's the one I prepared earlier, thankfully without using the description you don't like.

OK I suppose we are all using terms that don't have quite the same meaning to everyone and also making some assumptions that we've taken on board years ago so apologies when i've done that.

The gospel was preached to Abraham. Not just by chapter and verse, but by actually experiencing many of the things we just read about.

He didn't just get chapter and verse about the blood of the new covenant, he lived through God's feelings at the sacrifice of his son
Gen 22:7 "My father!"
Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering."
So the two of them went together. Redemption was to be the joint work of the father and the son.
So he knew animal sacrifices were not sufficient Gen 22:8 "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering."
He believed in the resurrection Heb 11:19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

He didn't just get into discussion about Ezekiel 37-39, he experienced it.
Gen 14 - the northern confederacy comes down on the land and takes Lot prisoner. Lot (veiled) symbolises natural Israel which will be taken prisoner. Abraham represents Christ and the redeemed saints who will deliver Israel when they accept him. (If the fault line through the Mount of Olives seems literal then so are the saints)
Zec 14:5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley, For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal. Yes, you shall flee As you fled from the earthquake In the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Thus the LORD my God will come, And all the saints with You.

So Abraham actually experienced not only the suffering of Christ but the glory that should follow.

and still in Gen 14 He learned about Melchisedek, not the fearsome fiery cherubim of Eden who cast out Adam and Eve but the calm fellowship meal of bread and wine with the non-Levitical King-Priest of Salem (Jerusalem).

Abraham knew all about the allegory in Galatians 4 (that might help with Romans 7) because that was HIS family Paul was writing about:
The two women - Sarah (the true seed of the woman Eve) contrasted with Hagar (Gal 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children)
The mocking of Isaac (the promised seed) by Ishmael the son of Hagar. What was the taunt? Who was your father then?
Joh 8:41 You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God."
Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."
Gen 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her;
that Israel/Ishmael had to accept their new brother - Isaac, the promised seed/Jesus - Heb 11:18 of whom it was said (prophesied/promised), "IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED,"
the casting out of the bondwoman after the mocking of Isaac by Ishmael - Israel divorced and cast out AD70

etc etc. A lot can be pieced together once we start looking for it. Gal 3:6 just as Abraham "BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (NKJV not my capitals).

When we get down to it, we find some vitally important things that Abraham believed that the Jews had forgotten.

and the law is linked with the promise, and it was the faith that Abraham had that was counted to him for righteousness
Rom 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,

All this needs laying out in more detail so sorry about throwing it out in this way because it hasn't done any of it justice.

 

[Pacman]

If you go back to Genesis 48:19
But his father refused. “I know, my son; I know,” he replied. “Manasseh will also become a great people, but his younger brother will become even greater. And his descendants will become a multitude of nations.”
Some translations render that last line "The fullness of the nations" and that word nations is the Hebrew word Goy.

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

In John 7:35 when He said where he was going they could not come...they said "Will he go to the dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks" oh wait! King James said dispersed among the gentiles. Hmmm.

"Gentiles" was actually the translators acknowledging the connection of blood between Jews and those cast into the nations. It is from the Latin gentiles and means of the same gens clan or tribe.

When he sent his disciples to the "Lost sheep of the house of Israel" this was them hearing his voice. He did make one fold. Since Shiloh came his servants have been called by a new name.....BUT that never changed who they are.

These were the seed of Israel that YHWH says will be a nation before Him forever.



Because you are using the wrong search parameters. Like maleficent's minions looking for a baby for 16 years, those looking for "lost tribes" will not see those gathered to Shiloh and going by a new name as Israel.

I'm with you for part of this explanation but not all of it. He hasn't yet made them "echad" united. And we have not yet entered the New Covenant. But yes the nations are the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I'm with you for part of this explanation but not all of it. He hasn't yet made them "echad" united. And we have not yet entered the New Covenant. But yes the nations are the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The problem with making this all future, is that the gentiles (nations) were Israel then, and to say they are not united is to claim Paul was mistaken, and all those gentiles who did follow Yeshua were not descendants as in not Israelites. It also applies a human understanding to "national Israel" that is different from the one that is expressed by YHWH. The seed of Israel is a nation before Him forever. He who is no respecter of persons doesn't need a political figure like Herod the Edomite or any of his Edomite successors to speak for the people! Most of "national Israel" was already dispersed, explaining the way most epistles are addressed....to the 12 tribes scattered abroad.

The house of Israel was brought up out of their graves.... ( Ezekiel's dry bones ) "you were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2:1)
Looking for them to be gathered to a land ignores the prophesy telling us they will be gathered to Shiloh....and that is confirmed in Isaiah 56 "I will gather others to Him.... "

But all prophesy can be pushed into another time by futurists....who deny the fulfillment the Apostles explained.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The problem with making this all future, is that the gentiles (nations) were Israel then, and to say they are not united is to claim Paul was mistaken, and all those gentiles who did follow Yeshua were not descendants as in not Israelites. It also applies a human understanding to "national Israel" that is different from the one that is expressed by YHWH. The seed of Israel is a nation before Him forever. He who is no respecter of persons doesn't need a political figure like Herod the Edomite or any of his Edomite successors to speak for the people! Most of "national Israel" was already dispersed, explaining the way most epistles are addressed....to the 12 tribes scattered abroad.

The house of Israel was brought up out of their graves.... ( Ezekiel's dry bones ) "you were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2:1)
Looking for them to be gathered to a land ignores the prophesy telling us they will be gathered to Shiloh....and that is confirmed in Isaiah 56 "I will gather others to Him.... "

But all prophesy can be pushed into another time by futurists....who deny the fulfillment the Apostles explained.

Where did the Apostles explain this? That would solve everything.

 

[PeteR]

Agreed that the apostles knew the Gentiles were the lost 10... agreed that they could see that's how the kingdom is restored. Israel was sown into the nations, thus our Messiah reaps where He did not sow, fulfilling that parable.

Where we disagree is that I believe the prophecies that articulate, with great clarity and specificity, that kol Israel returns to the Land. There is no prophecy that they'll be gathered or established anywhere else. Thus, the prophecies are not yet fulfilled.

Do we see shades and shadows? Sure... but that's it. Torah is not written on everyone's hearts. Teachers still teach, and most of Ephraim hasn't got a clue what you are talking about, nor do they care who they are.

Bottom line, unfulfilled.

@The Revolting Man you are spot on bro. The Achilles heel of the new covenant crowd is that they don't know who it's with, what it will do, or the sign of its completion. They'll commit theological suicide before admitting that Hebrews 8 exactly quotes Jeremiah 31, the LONGEST citation of the Tanakh in the new testament, and it says: house of Israel & house of Judah have Torah on their hearts. It is confirmed innany uncomfortable places like Deut. 31; Ezekiel 36; and multiple passing references in Revelation.

 

[Bartato]

What Quartus said about the Abrahamic covenant being the New Covenant makes quite a lot of sense to me.

It does take me back to the issue of "how and to what extent the Law given to Israel through the Mosaic covenant applies or doesn't apply to those of us grafted in".

Maybe that is because this is an issue I am wrestling with, and maybe it isn't really what Revolting man is asking about here.

The passage Quartus quoted seems to relate to this.

Gen 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.

Abraham didn't have the "Law of Moses". He did have circumcision, and must have had moral instruction from God because the following statements refer to some sort of Law from God.

keep the way of the LORD,
to do righteousness and justice

I think God also wants us to keep His ways and do righteousness and justice, and that these things are largely explained by the Law of Moses, the prophets, the Messiah, and His apostles.

In the Reformed tradition, people like to categorize the Laws of Moses into Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. They go on to say that the moral law stills applies universally, but the civil doesn't since the nation of Israel doesn't, and the ceremonial doesn't since it was all fulfilled in Christ.

I find that argument to make logical sense (like a lot of Reformed arguments do), but at the same time, I don't know that we can really break the Law into those three neat categories.

Then again,
I am still eating the shellfish and pork as God seems to have now declared them clean with His vision to Peter in Acts. I know that isn't what that passage is primarily about. It is really about the fact that Gentiles are now declared clean and accepted into the people of God by faith in Jesus (like Cornelius in that passage).

God declared the previously unclean gentiles now clean in Christ. If Yahweh can declare me clean, then I can also believe that He can declare pigs clean. He seems to have done so.

After all, when He created Adam, God gave Adam only plants to eat. He didn't authorize man to eat meat at all until the time of Noah.

Then again, I might be off track with my understanding. Some of you guys really have studied these things more thoroughly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What Quartus said about the Abrahamic covenant being the New Covenant makes quite a lot of sense to me.

It does take me back to the issue of "how and to what extent the Law given to Israel through the Mosaic covenant applies or doesn't apply to those of us grafted in".

Maybe that is because this is an issue I am wrestling with, and maybe it isn't really what Revolting man is asking about here.

The passage Quartus quoted seems to relate to this.

Gen 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.

Abraham didn't have the "Law of Moses". He did have circumcision, and must have had moral instruction from God because the following statements refer to some sort of Law from God.

keep the way of the LORD,
to do righteousness and justice

I think God also wants us to keep His ways and do righteousness and justice, and that these things are largely explained by the Law of Moses, the prophets, the Messiah, and His apostles.

In the Reformed tradition, people like to categorize the Laws of Moses into Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. They go on to say that the moral law stills applies universally, but the civil doesn't since the nation of Israel doesn't, and the ceremonial doesn't since it was all fulfilled in Christ.

I find that argument to make logical sense (like a lot of Reformed arguments do), but at the same time, I don't know that we can really break the Law into those three neat categories.

Then again,
I am still eating the shellfish and pork as God seems to have now declared them clean with His vision to Peter in Acts. I know that isn't what that passage is primarily about. It is really about the fact that Gentiles are now declared clean and accepted into the people of God by faith in Jesus (like Cornelius in that passage).

God declared the previously unclean gentiles now clean in Christ. If Yahweh can declare me clean, then I can also believe that He can declare pigs clean. He seems to have done so.

After all, when He created Adam, God gave Adam only plants to eat. He didn't authorize man to eat meat at all until the time of Noah.

Then again, I might be off track with my understanding. Some of you guys really have studied these things more thoroughly.

I would quibble a little bit with your description of gentiles as unclean. Remember that a large amount of uncircumcised Egyptians left with the Hebrew children and the Torah has numerous rules that make it clear they would be living amongst Israel and should be treated well.

 

[Joleneakamama]

You know @PeteR what I have never heard an answer on from the "going back to the land crowd?" An answer, or even comment on Jeremiah 7 where YHWH states in no uncertain terms that their continued and future possession of that land was conditional, and further that they did NOT meet those conditions.

Yeshua later stood over Jerusalem and confirmed the judgement stating "Your house is left unto you desolate."

So did YHWH ever go back to Shiloh, or do we need to look for another fulfillment of the new covenant? Hint: Ezekiel prophesied that new land. Extra hint: the latter day land of Israel....the MOUNTAINS (plural nations) is described by him too.

Edit. "Own land" is what is repeated many times.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You know @PeteR what I have never heard an answer on from the "going back to the land crowd?" An answer, or even comment on Jeremiah 7 where YHWH states in no uncertain terms that their continued and future possession of that land was conditional, and further that they did NOT meet those conditions.

Yeshua later stood over Jerusalem and confirmed the judgement stating "Your house is left unto you desolate."

So did YHWH ever go back to Shiloh, or do we need to look for another fulfillment of the new covenant? Hint: Ezekiel prophesied that new land. Extra hint: the latter day land of Israel....the MOUNTAINS (plural nations) is described by him too.

And yet everyone is going to be in the Valley of Megiddo. And one third of the world, most likely the third we’re sitting on, will have been wiped out. If they’re not in the Land then where are they?

 

[Joleneakamama]

And yet everyone is going to be in the Valley of Megiddo. And one third of the world, most likely the third we’re sitting on, will have been wiped out. If they’re not in the Land then where are they?

There was a prophesy to David in which YHWH told him He would appoint a place for his people where they would move no more. This while they were in that land ....that they were later driven out of (So that land cannot be the appointed place)

Ezekiel 38 describes the latter day land of Israel invaded by Gog and Magog like this.
7Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them. 8After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. 9Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.

10Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: 11And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.

Later after the battle of Gog and Magog they divide this land as their inheritance....and it is a land bordered on the east by the east sea, and on the west by the great sea. Eze. 47

 

[Bartato]

Joleneakamama,
Are you suggesting that it may be a different geographic location than the original Israel?

For example I have heard this passage quoted and somehow applied to locations here in the USA (particularly the Ozark region).

I think the Ozarks are great, and I'd kind of like to move there,. but I strongly doubt that Ezekiel is referencing that location.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There was a prophesy to David in which YHWH told him He would appoint a place for his people where they would move no more. This while they were in that land ....that they were later driven out of (So that land cannot be the appointed place)

Ezekiel 38 describes the latter day land of Israel invaded by Gog and Magog like this.
7Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them. 8After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. 9Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.

10Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: 11And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.

Later after the battle of Gog and Magog they divide this land as their inheritance....and it is a land bordered on the east by the east sea, and on the west by the great sea. Eze. 47

Jolene! How dare you? Ezekiel 47 directly references places in this land that will be inherited. It literally describes a map of it. It is a legal description that would stand up in court. The places referenced include Damascus, the Jordan River and the land of Israel by name! Ezekiel 47 specifically says up front that this land is geographic Israel.

Did you think no one would read this passage?!? I know you are too smart to have not read the whole chapter. You referenced the whole chapter. I will not engage with you on this anymore. You clearly don’t respect my intelligence. If your husband wants to continue this conversation fine. I should have never engaged with you over it.

 

[Bartato]

Revolting man,
I know gentiles have been grafted in from early on. Ruth was grafted in by faith. Rahab was a Canaanite harlot, but was grafted in by faith in the God of Israel. Even Moses's two wives (Midianite and Cushite) were apparently grafted in.

There is also the mixed multitude that you mentioned at Passover and the Exodus.

Yet somehow after the cross and resurrection something changed and multitudes were grafted in. Praise be to God!

 

[Joleneakamama]

I'm not at all trying to be insulting.

Some of those descriptors no matter what names the places are called by can never fit that land. All of the descriptors fit a land minus names.
We go by the description, you go by the names. Both sides have to try and explain the why of the choice.....or just ignore what doesn't fit.
I say that Hosea's children were given names that had meanings, the scripture interprets those for us telling us what they mean. Without understanding the meaning of the names in a language I go with what I do understand.
Yeshua's name was not Shiloh, yet He is Shiloh. Prophetic speech communicates ideas. Jerusalem did not have Amorite and Hitite parents.

I guess the debate will be settled when the invasion happens.

What do you do with these descriptors?

1. brought back from the sword
(Recovered from war)
2. mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations
3.they shall dwell safely all of them
4. the land of unwalled villages
5. all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates
6. To take a prey and a spoil in the desolate places that are now inhabited,

I have seen people like Chuck Misler get excited about changes that they pretend will get the State of Israel into this prophesied condition, I say pretend because that land has never been uninhabited "always waste." In contrast, this land was a wilderness (He said He would lead her/Israel into the wilderness and speak comfortable to her)
Arizona, the last state to join the union has only been a state since 1912!

Oh yes, and there is still those other matters in conflict with the modern state of Israel being the latter day land. Jeremiah 7, and that prophesy to David about Him appointing a place where they would move no more.

 

[PeteR]

God declared the previously unclean gentiles now clean in Christ.

God never declared humans unclean. Peter's vision was to counter a tradition of man, Jewish law, that said not to enter the house of a gentile or be unclean.