At Pentecost. Through His Church. "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel".
The only Israel that counts in the New Testament is "God's Israel", the Church.
If you are unwilling to interpret Old Testament "Israel Prophecies" according to the New Testament revelation that the "Israel of God" is the Christian Church, then you don't care about the New Testament.
Given that the New Testament defines the "Israel of God" as being THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, no other interpretation is permissible whatsoever.
Go on that basis, and I'll debate you. Otherwise... any "interpretation" that you offer, frankly doesn't count.
Best, OP
OP: At Pentecost. Through His Church.
We're back at the series of "children of Israel" questions I asked you and you did not answer. But earlier you said...
OP: In other words, this passage may very well refer to the restoration of Jerusalem after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity
So is it Restoration or Pentecost -- you have said both.
So is children of Israel referring to the Church (see unanswered questions post #49) or to physical descendants of Abraham ???? You seem to say both again. This comment indicates the "children of Israel" is the folks coming back from Babylon and Assyria.
OP: In other words, this passage may very well refer to the restoration of Jerusalem after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity
======
OP: If you are unwilling to interpret Old Testament "Israel Prophecies" according to the New Testament revelation that the "Israel of God" is the Christian Church, then you don't care about the New Testament.
Given that the New Testament defines the "Israel of God" as being THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, no other interpretation is permissible whatsoever.
.
So let me sum it up: I am a racist, holding theology damned by God, and I do not care about the New Testament? Why not just show how your view actually explains the prophecy rather than lobbing invectives at me an my views?
OP: Go on that basis, and I'll debate you. Otherwise... any "interpretation" that you offer, frankly doesn't count
Interesting debating rules. I was asking for exegesis of Hosea's inspired words. And, frankly, I am waiting for a single interpretation from you. And I am waiting for you to show how this interpretation arises from the text and not how you read your premise into the text at the expense of Hosea's words.
.
The only Israel that counts in the New Testament is "God's Israel", the Church.
= = = =
HOGWASH.
Perhaps in a dire, fractionally alert hungover Saturday morning one could imagine such IF they had had Romans and a number of other verses removed from their Bible.
Not remotely possible in my reality.
Given that the New Testament defines the "Israel of God" as being THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, no other interpretation is permissible whatsoever.
= = = =
Hogwash premise and biases.
The New Testament describes gentiles being grafted into Israel to become on a par with Blood, genetic Israel. That's quite a different picture.
The position proffered still has not the faintest viable answer for the 12 Patriarchial elders on their thrones on a par with the 12 disciples ruling through eternity.
The position is utterly bankrupt on that prophetic picture.
According to that position, there would ONLY be the 12 disciples on THEIR thrones. CLEARLY, GOD HAS OTHER IDEAS. Ideas made abundantly clear in the Old and New Testaments.
Many things are not clear. But that much is abundantly clear for all with eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts to be teachable.
Who amongts the naysayers first arbitrarily decided that "neither Jew nor Gentile; male nor female" was all inclusive ON THE THINGS !!!!THEY!!!! WANTED IT TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE ABOUT???
I notice they are NOT AT ALL EAGER for it to be all inclusive about women preachers!
So the position is rank hypocrisy. It's all inclusive about blood Israel in spite of dozens upon dozens of Scriptures to the contrary. But when it comes to women--it can't be the least bit inclusive beyond a very narrow, arbitrary construction on reality.
What a rubbery Bible the position seems based on--and one without Romans.