House Church Talk - Re: Baptisms and Administrations: Star of Bethlehem

[Ross J Purdy]

Hi Bruce,

You wrote:
> Hi Ross,
> When I asked,"What passage of scripture that deals with the new covenant
> speaks of Israel  as priests???"...you responded:"1 Peter 2:5,9"
>
> Dear brother, I Peter 2:5 and 9 speaks of believers who are priests, NOT
the
> NATION of ISRAEL!Israel is a nation composed of believers and unbelievers.
> Under the old covenant, believers and unbelievers of the tribe of Levi
were
> priests, but under the new covenant no unbeliever can be a priest!  Notice
> that no description of those addressed in I Peter  could be true of
> unbelievers, nor are any of these descriptions applied exclusively to
> Israelite believers!!  In fact, other scriptures absolutely require that
> they include Gentiles!

Under the New Covenant, only believers will be part of the nation of Israel.
1 Peter is addressed to the believing remnant of Israel with respect to the
New Covenant, not to us. Nothing you have shared contradicts this in the
least.


>
> When I'd written about your view that the Magi,  FROM WHAT THEY HAD
LEARNED
> FROM THE DISPERSION IN PERSIA, concluded that the star which they had seen
> in the east was the star of the King iof the Jews:"Brother, can you
explain
> to me how they would come to such a conclusion??  Why would any new star
be
> immediately connected by them to Num.24:17???  What would make them think
> that this particular star was associated with the  prophecy of
Num.24??"...
> you responded:"It would only be my guess but they apparently thought the
> star was significant enough to associate with Israel. Putting the OT
> prophecies together to come to that conclusion does not seem out of the
> question in the least."
>
> But brother, you have said that all of their knowledge of such things
would
> have come from the Jewish people of the dispersion who lived among them,
but

Did I? I don't think that is exactly what I said. They also had Israel's
prophets' writings don't forget!

> then you also said that those Jews would not have been familiar enough
with
> the scriptures to know where Christ should be born!!!     You can't have
it
> both ways!!!
>
> The following is what you wrote to me in your last post...!  "Their was
> indeed a large Jewish population in Persia as there was in every city of
the
> Roman empire. To expect the locals of Persia to know where the house of
> bread was in Israel is like expecting me to know where a particular small
> town in another state is located."
>
> Brother, it was NOT, that those Jewish people did not know the location of
> the little town of Bethlehem!  Whoever the Magi had contact with did not
> even know that Christ was to be born IN BETHLEHEM!!!  They were not
familiar
> with Micah 5!!!

I don't follow you here.

>
> You had written, "The lawyers lived in Jerusalem so there would be no one
> with  any more knowledge in the dispersion than the magi themselves."
>
> So brother, there goes you claim that the Magi got their information from
> Jewish people in the dispersion!!

Again, they had the writings as well.

>
> Re your belief that..."prior to Abraham's call by God, God would reveal
> Himself to anyone, regardless of nationality. But  after God called
Abraham,
> God purposed that ALL of His revelation of Himself  to mankind would then
> come THROUGH ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB AND THE NATION OF  ISRAEL
> EXCLUSIVELY"....   I asked:"are you aware of  any scriptures which
> explicitly teach this doctrine? Or is this one of the  "deductions" which
> you believe are just as valid or even more valid than  explicit statements
> of scripture??? "
>
> But rather than quoting EVEN ONE SUCH SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT, you responded
as
> follows:"Not any other Scriptures than those concerning the subject. I
don't
> see how you can pit your interpretations of "explicit statements of
> scripture" as being any more or less valid than my "deductions" from the
> "explicit statements", plus the context, plus the history, plus the use of
> language, as well as whatever other sources of evidence might be
available.
> You can shoot yourself in the leg and stick your other one in a bear trap
> and try to travel, but I will use every available resource God has
provided
> whether that be a Chevy or a Lear jet. We don't have to be afraid of the
> helps we have nor do we have to hide from the facts just because the
> scholars find them for us."
>
> Dear brother, I've never claimed that our bedrock foundation must be "MY
> INTERPRETATION OF  explicit statements of scripture"!  I have claimed that
> our bedrock foundation for what we teach must be EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF
> SCRIPTURE PERIOD!
>
> But, if your view is that we must be dependent on...
> - "explicit statements",
> -plus the context,
> -plus the history,
> -plus the use of language,
> -as well as whatever other sources of evidence might be available"....  my
> question is this: What "explicit statements" are you referring to relative
> to the doctrine stated above???
>
> Dear brother,  do you consider that the Bereans of Acts 17:11 were, in
fact,
> "shooting themselves in the leg and sticking the other one in a bear trap"
> by searching THE SCRIPTURES whether the doctrines that Paul taught were
so?

I am not sure what Paul has to do with the magi, but the present issue of
the magi is not one upon which we depend. We speculate on a nonessential
issue due to silence on the subject. Therefore we look at the external
evidence. Either way it is not fatal. Unlike you, I have chosen to base
speculation on evidence (be it external) rather than on arguments from
silence!

>
> Brother, the bottom line seems to be that the dispensational view which
you
> have embraced ( i.e. that after Israel became a nation, God did not reveal
> Himself to ANYBODY  apart from using the nation of Israel as the channel
of
> that revelation)  is simply not found in scripture NOR is it corroborated
by
> reputable scholarship!

I think I have proved quite the opposite Bruce. Whether right or wrong, it
is not fatal in any way to anyone's system whether they happen to be
dispensational or not. The scriptural and external evidence clearly supports
the dispensational interpretation in my opinion. It stands more of a chance
than arguments from silence.

In Christ,
Ross Purdy