Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 12:51 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Ok, now I get you, I think LOL...so according to you ,Christ came only for those descended from Jacob and the rest of the world can perish in their sins? How nice! not!

Rose, I'll answer your points, but I want this dialogue to remain civil as it has been. I think if we're straying into territory where we cannot do that I'm happy to concede for the sake of civility and respect. If we are able to do that so much better for us ...

WRT to your point above, please don't attribute to me Christ's words. It was he who said [Matt 15:25]. I also cannot be credited with Pauls words [/Rom 9:4], Peters [1 Peter 1:1], or James 1:1]. It is their words you are reacting to, not mine. I'm simply pointing them out and taking their meaning as plain and self-evident.

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: And this is why you consistently try to make us think that the word gentiles are merely nations and doesnt refer to non Israelites.

My motivation for consistently pointing out the Greek meaning of ethnos is twofold. First, I believe you value God's word above all else, and therefore I believe you are more interested in what he inspired his NT writers to write, and mean above erroneous theology that translators have instilled.

If ethnos (G1484) has only ever been given the meaning 'gentiles' the 93 or so times it has been translated in the bible, and at no other point in Greek useage (out of millions of translations) has it been taken to mean anything else other than 'nations', I think this is strong evidence for translational tampering (artificial theology). I would think this should interest you, and the onus anyone who defends that translation to prove it is sound. The question is, what is of more worth; the author's intent, or the translators?

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Even back in the OT the reference to the nations or gentiles was in differentiation to the people of Israel.

Ah but Hebrew doesn't use the word 'ethonos', and it's use of the word 'goyim' also sometimes applies to Israel as it does with non-Israel, so I'm not taking issue with the direct translation of the Hebrew, though I am with the Greek.

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Since you reject that the Syrophoenician woman was not an Israelite ,let's try someone else.

What I rejected was the idea that Christ's show of kindness to the woman, was proof he was forging a covenant with her or her people (in contravention to His word). I believe Jesus was supremely kind (to everyone) as he was merciful. The same rain that falls on the just, also falls on the unjust [Matt 5:45]

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: How does Cornelius fit into your interpretation of Acts? Was he an Israelite or non Israelite?

Clearly he was a Roman. Are you saying the Romans have a covenant with God or that he came to forge the new covenant with them? Are you saying that that they were the sheep of his fold, and the bible says that explicity? I think you're arguing against a notion that I don't advocate. What does the bible say about a non-Israelite who joins themselves to the Lord? It says [Isa 54:1] "Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, 'The Lord will surely separate me from his people'; and let not the eunuch say 'Behold, I am a dry tree.'"

This means non-Israelites can join themselves to the Lord, but the kingdom, and the promises of the kingdom still belong to Israel (and conintue to be inherited by Israel). When a non-Israelite joins themselves to the Lord, the lord will have mercy, but the covenant is still with Israel, the blessings and the curses are also with Israel, and that non-Israelite obtains blessing only because they have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant relationship that Israel will continue to inherit. This is why God promised that Israel would be a light unto the world.

(Now realize that I see Christianity as proof we are Israel, so what I just said above about Israel applies today in Christianity (because Christians are the House of Israel)).

(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: There Cornelius was clearly not an Israelite.

He was a Roman (which was his citizenship). His ethnicity may or may not have been Hebrew, it doesn't seem to say clearly (there were uncircumcised Israelite Romans), but I don't exlude the idea he was not.

Rose of Shushan · 06-28-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:Rose, I'll answer your points, but I want this dialogue to remain civil as it has been. I think if we're straying into territory where we cannot do that I'm happy to concede for the sake of civility and respect. If we are able to do that so much better for us ...

You think I'm not being civil because I said

Ok, now I get you, I think LOL...so according to you ,Christ came only for those descended from Jacob and the rest of the world can perish in their sins? How nice! not!

What part of that isn't civil or respectful? It may be a tad sarcastic but am I meant to not express some emotion at the racist doctrine that we are being presented here.Jesus died for all and yet you want to make it seem as though He just came for those from Israelite descent.

Quote:WRT to your point above, please don't attribute to me Christ's words. It was he who said [Matt 15:25]. I also cannot be credited with Pauls words [/Rom 9:4], Peters [1 Peter 1:1], or James 1:1]. It is their words you are reacting to, not mine. I'm simply pointing them out and taking their meaning as plain and self-evident.

The verses you mentioned above are

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Something is wrong here when you would seriously think I would attribute the words of James,or any of the others to you.
The James verse is self evident of what? That there were members of all the tribes scattered abroad and James was writing to them? What am I missing there?

In the Romans verse you seem to be ignoring the rest of the chapter.I will paste the verses you left out but which are relevant to what we are discussing.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

You don't seem to grasp the point that in the New Covenant the promise to Abraham is fulfilled .And the result is that it blesses the whole earth, not just Israelites.In this New Covenant one becomes a child of God through faith not by bloodline.
Paul puts it really well in Galatians.Please note that there are two distinct covenants being mentioned.

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

We have to be born again and become a child of God through the Spirit and by entering into the New Covenant made by Christ.

Christ gave instruction for the apostles to teach all nations.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Jesus also said
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He came for the world, not just for Israelites.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rose of Shushan · 06-28-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:My motivation for consistently pointing out the Greek meaning of ethnos is twofold. First, I believe you value God's word above all else, and therefore I believe you are more interested in what he inspired his NT writers to write, and mean above erroneous theology that translators have instilled.

If ethnos (G1484) has only ever been given the meaning 'gentiles' the 93 or so times it has been translated in the bible, and at no other point in Greek useage (out of millions of translations) has it been taken to mean anything else other than 'nations', I think this is strong evidence for translational tampering (artificial theology). I would think this should interest you, and the onus anyone who defends that translation to prove it is sound. The question is, what is of more worth; the author's intent, or the translators?

Either I'm very dense or you're obfuscating..or maybe a mix of the two LOL...but I fail to get the point of the ethnos thing.Just when I think I get your point ,I get confused again.So according to you we shouldn't use the word gentiles and instead use the word nation every time.Additionally we are not to assume that these gentiles are not israelites.Though I am still not sure what you would have us believe they are.
All of this would make for some awkward interpretations and be very confusing.

Take the following for exaMPLE

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

It wasn’t the nations that are meant here,right? Its distinguishing the jews from the non jews in the same city.In verse 44 it says that the next sabbath nearly the whole city turned up.No mention of nations there but just the city,which we know had jews and non jews.

Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Even here when Paul says that they have rejected the word which was first preached to them(the jewish people) and then turns to the gentiles, the gentiles here seem to be those confined to the region.It seems to me that it's distinuishing between israelite and non israelite there.

Here's another verse

Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

Note the contrast between jew and gentile there with the greeks also thrown in.

I'm finding it real hard to understand your problem with the use of gentiles and those gentiles being non israelite.

Rose of Shushan · 06-28-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:This means non-Israelites can join themselves to the Lord, but the kingdom, and the promises of the kingdom still belong to Israel (and conintue to be inherited by Israel). When a non-Israelite joins themselves to the Lord, the lord will have mercy, but the covenant is still with Israel, the blessings and the curses are also with Israel, and that non-Israelite obtains blessing only because they have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant relationship that Israel will continue to inherit. This is why God promised that Israel would be a light unto the world.

What are the blessings and curses that you mention above?

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 08:03 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan[b' Wrote: You think I'm not being civil because I said[/b]

No. I'm not accusing you of being uncivil.

I'm simply saying as long as our dialogue remains civil I will engage your points as long as you're willing to engage mine. This is as much for my benefit as for yours, and I thought it a fair condition to stipulate. Don't fault me for communicating it.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: It may be a tad sarcastic but am I meant to not express some emotion at the racist doctrine that we are being presented here.Jesus died for all and yet you want to make it seem as though He just came for those from Israelite descent.

.

The doctrine you are being presented here, which you are calling racist, is being presented directly from the bible, in context. I have directly quoted Christ's words. "He answered, 'I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'" Is that racist? It was Jesus himself who said "ONLY". If this doctrine IS racist, but Jesus said it, than I am honoured to be associated with Christ.

About His choice of Abraham, and his descendants, God says in [Exo 19:5-6], "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."

Now, I add nothing to that. It is self-evident, particular, and plain, yet I believe it. Notice that Jesus himself uses the same 'treasure' metaphor in his parable [Matt 13:44] which would have been understood from its old covenant context (which is all the scripture his followers would have had available to them - the bible interprets the bible) to mean House of Israel.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Something is wrong here when you would seriously think I would attribute the words of James,or any of the others to you.

But Rose, you seem to be suggesting I'm arguing doctrine which is not biblical. If I misrepresent the bible, or introduce something that is not in the bible, please point it out.

You asked if I believed "Christ came only for those descended from Jacob" and I do, pointing to Christ words which say [Matt 15:24] "He answered, 'I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'". Do you not believe this then?

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: The James verse is self evident of what? That there were members of all the tribes scattered abroad and James was writing to them? What am I missing there?

Yes, James wrote to the tribes scattered abroad. Since the House of Judah returned from Babylon, and Israel never returned from Assyria, the tribes would be the House of Israel.

Jesus specifically commanded [Matt 10:6] his disciples to target the same 'congregation' that he came ONLY to, and I've shown how NT letters were also directed to the House of Israel (be they from Paul, Peter, James etc (Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, James etc)) it is not only consistent with Jesus command, but it shows that Christianity replaced Judaism within the House of Israel and so the Church IS Israel.

That was my original assertion supported biblically.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: In the Romans verse you seem to be ignoring the rest of the chapter.

Ok but that does not refute or detract from anything I've said, or do you believe that part I failed to include (to conserve space) makes some additional point that supports your case?

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: You don't seem to grasp the point that in the New Covenant the promise to Abraham is fulfilled.

I do grasp the point that the new covenant, the promised to Abraham is fulfilled. It was fulfilled in Christ.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: And the result is that it blesses the whole earth, not just Israelites.In this New Covenant one becomes a child of God through faith not by bloodline.

Are you arguing for 'universalism'? (reacting to your comment that the whole earth is blessed in Christ). I would argue that those who are damned to 'hell' are not blessed in Christ.

Rose, about your second point, ALL covenants, including the new covenant, required faith to receive their promised blessings. Why do you keep arguing against the idea we are saved by bloodline, as though I've said that? That is a strawman that I will not defend.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Paul puts it really well in Galatians.Please note that there are two distinct covenants being mentioned.

Yes, the first was unfulfilled, and the second fulfilled. As Hebrews puts it - the old covenant was a shadow of the covenant to come. However, this still doesn't refute Christ's words (which you disbelieve), (or Jeremiahs for that matter) that the new covenant would be with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah [Jer 31:31][Heb 8:8].

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Jesus also said
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Its not clear why your quoting this. Do you believe ALL men will go to heaven, or do you believe that there is a limit to this? I have no problem believing Christ will draw (impel) all men to himself, but most will resist, and therefore be lost.

(06-28-2011 06:22 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: He came for the world, not just for Israelites.

Rose, if you don't believe Christ's words in [Matt 10:6][Matt 15:24] there's a question about what other biblical passages you reject. Perhaps if you could explain biblically why you disbelieve Christ's words we can move forward.

Rose of Shushan · 06-28-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:The doctrine you are being presented here, which you are calling racist, is being presented directly from the bible, in context. I have directly quoted Christ's words. "He answered, 'I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'" Is that racist? It was Jesus himself who said "ONLY". If this doctrine IS racist, but Jesus said it, than I am honoured to be associated with Christ.

You focus on the words Jesus said there yet ignore the rest of the NT. The words he uttered to the non Israelite woman were said when His mission was only to the House of Israel.He wasn't sent to the Gentiles while in His earthly body.The Gentiles had no knowledge of the promises of the OT or Scripture.Like you said it was Israel that was in a Covenant with God and to them He was sent.

The church would be the one to spread the Gospel amongst the nations and be His witnesses in fulfilment of what Isaiah prophesied..note God says He will gather ALL NATIONS AND TONGUES

Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
Isa 66:19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

Going back to the issue of Israel being the one in the Covenant, the Sinai one , I'd like to go again to the words of Paul to the Ephesians

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye 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:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Do you see there how Paul recognises that Gentiles/nations/non Israelites had been alienated from the promises that pertained to the commonwealth of Israel and yet all this is abolished in Christ?
The law of commandments contained in ordinances were associated with Sinai.Paul says they have been abolished and through Christ we all have access to the Father.
The new Covenant is a new one,not like the one made at Sinai (Jere 31)and not based on the same promises.
Paul says that these gentiles are

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Rose of Shushan · 06-28-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:Are you arguing for 'universalism'? (reacting to your comment that the whole earth is blessed in Christ). I would argue that those who are damned to 'hell' are not blessed in Christ.

Rose, about your second point, ALL covenants, including the new covenant, required faith to receive their promised blessings. Why do you keep arguing against the idea we are saved by bloodline, as though I've said that? That is a strawman that I will not defend.

I am not arguing for universalism but what I am arguing for is for everyone ,Israelite or non Israelite to have the chance to accept and believe in Christ.It is also why I included the verse where Christ said He would draw everyone to Himself.
There I am not saying that everyone who is drawn is saved or accepts Him but the invitation is to all.

As to me arguing against the idea that we are saved by bloodline, what I am arguing against is that you seem to promote bloodline and Jesus.So that it's not just the bloodline but that they also have to accept Jesus.
You yourself said that you regard christians as being Israel now.
While I can concede that christians are now the people of God and spiritually Israel, as Paul said the Israel of God, the House of Israel biblically is or are the descendants of Jacob.
In the OT the people of God are Israel.In the NT , Israel is at the point where the Sinai covenant has been broken by the people and God forges a new one.However it is new and not like the Old and this time the Covenant is made with Israel but also includes the nations ie those not of Israelite descent too.

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 09:14 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-28-2011 06:44 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Either I'm very dense or you're obfuscating..or maybe a mix of the two LOL...but I fail to get the point of the ethnos thing.Just when I think I get your point ,I get confused again.So according to you we shouldn't use the word gentiles and instead use the word nation every time.

I don't think you're dense, and I hope I'm being clear. I think there's two threads tangled here. The first thread is why one word should or should not be used over another. The second is asking me to explain how I understand some particular verse.

I don't mind explaining how I understand those verses you've cited, but let me explain again why 'nations' is more appropriate than 'gentiles'.

In Greek the word that meant 'nations' was ἔθνος (ethnos G1484).
In Greek the word that meant 'foreign' was ἔξω (exō G1854).
There was no word in Greek that specifically meant 'gentile', so this word should really never show up in our bibles.

In translation, Greek words cannot simply adopt meanings they didn't contain. If we translate words and impart meanings the words do not contain, we could create any theology we wish simply by changing meanings, which would mean our theology has no biblical foundation, what-so-ever.

In translation the word ἔθνος should convey its exact meaning in English (as much as possible). We should not translate ἔθνος to mean 'gentiles' because that is not its meaning, or I could ask you to explain to me why we shouldn't translate ἔθνος to mean 'martian', or 'scientist'.

(06-28-2011 06:44 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Additionally we are not to assume that these gentiles are not israelites.

Not necessarily. As with all translation, you have to read the section in context to understand it (which means read the broader text around it).

For example, in [John 18:35] the word ἔθνος clearly means Israelites. Likewise, in [Acts 7:44-45], the word ἔθνος clearly means non-Israelites. However, in [Acts 17:26] the word ἔθνος clearly means both Israelites and non-Israelites without distinction. In [Act 10:22] the word ἔθνος means ONLY the House of Judah (excluding the House of Israel) while in [Romans 9:23-24] ἔθνος means the House of Israel (excluding the House of Judah).

How do we know? Verses [Rom 9:23-26], are the start of the fulfillment of [Eze 37:21] and specifically quotes [Hos 1 and 2] referencing the vessel of mercy spoken of also by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah (also the potters vessel). Hosea reveals this reference to be the (divorced) House of Israel since that is who he prophesied about (also [Isa 54:5-10]). In [Rom 9:24-26] Paul quotes and applies [Hos 1:10] and [Hos 2:23] and making this particularly clear by quoting [Isa 10:22] in [Rom 9:27], another 'House of Israel' verse.

The point is that Greek had no such word 'gentiles', and if we were to translate the word meaning correctly (as 'nations') in every instance the translator would have no such influence over the theology, and the English speaker would be able to determine for themselves whether the 'nations' (ἔθνος) in question were Israelites or not.

As it stands now, the meaning of ἔθνος is veiled behind a translator's mistake)

(06-28-2011 06:44 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: I'm finding it real hard to understand your problem with the use of gentiles and those gentiles being non israelite.

Do you believe we should be able to impart any meaning we like onto the Greek words God inspired? Or, should we try to convey meaning accurately? If you believe the latter you can understand the problem.

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 10:23 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-28-2011 08:38 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: You focus on the words Jesus said there yet ignore the rest of the NT. The words he uttered to the non Israelite woman were said when His mission was only to the House of Israel.

I'm not ignoring the rest of the NT (having quoted from 1 Peter, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans and Matthew. If you'd like I can quote from other NT books as well (though this is besides the point). What I'm doing is seeing the entire bible through one lens, using both the NT and the OT in context, as though God's word is one.

But to do this, I have to break away from the prejudicial (dead) view the Pharisees, Sadducee and Herodian's left us of God's purpose and expectation for the covenant.

(06-28-2011 08:38 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: The church would be the one to spread the Gospel amongst the nations and be His witnesses in fulfilment of what Isaiah prophesied..note God says He will gather ALL NATIONS AND TONGUES

Rose, I'm claiming that the church IS Israel.

Remember the Abrahamic covenant [Gen 12:2-3]? There it is repeated in [Isa 66:22], showing that this prophecy by Isaiah, that you are crediting to the church (whatever that means) was prophesied about the Israel. To be biblical, you have to accept that Isaiah prophesied to Israel about Israel.

However, you'll get no argument from me if by 'church' you mean the congregation of Israel fulfilling God's mandate that they be a light for the nations [Isa 42:6]. (The only way Israel could be a light unto the nations was if they were like Christ?).

(06-28-2011 08:38 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Going back to the issue of Israel being the one in the Covenant, the Sinai one , I'd like to go again to the words of Paul to the Ephesians ...

Do you see there how Paul recognises that Gentiles/nations/non Israelites had been alienated from the promises that pertained to the commonwealth of Israel and yet all this is abolished in Christ?

When, exactly were non-Israelites part of the commonwealth of Israel? If they were never part of the commonwealth of Israel, they could not be estranged from it. The word ἀπαλλοτριόω (apallotrioō G526) means to be 'shut out from' or 'estranged'. Two entities that have never been joined cannot be ἀπαλλοτριόω (apallotrioō G526), shut out from or estranged. (I've never met Wayne Gretky - I cannot be estranged from him)

It is talking about how that company of nations [Gen 35:11] the House of Israel was cast off, and made strangers to the covenant. [Hosea 1:9] says "And the LORD said, 'Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.'" (This is the House of Israel becoming cast off) yet God takes back this same group he cast off in [Hos 2:23] saying "...and I will say to Not My People, 'You are my people'; and he shall say, 'You are my God.'". In Hosea there is only one prophetic 'Loammi' representing the House of Israel.

(06-28-2011 08:38 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: The new Covenant is a new one,not like the one made at Sinai (Jere 31)and not based on the same promises.
Paul says that these gentiles are

As I've pointed out, the nations Paul was talking about were once part of the commonwealth of Israel and cast off by God.

Also, [Jer 31:31] is not the old covenant. It is the new covenant as it says. The covenant spoken of in [Jer 31:31] will last until the end of time as [Jer 31:35-36] says.

But answer me this; if a man casts off His wife (because she is an adulterer), He redeemed her, making her pure, no longer an adulterer, and marries her again, is it true to say the second marriage is not like the first?

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 11:33 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-28-2011 09:06 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: As to me arguing against the idea that we are saved by bloodline, what I am arguing against is that you seem to promote bloodline and Jesus.

Rose, we are talking about what God promised Abraham and his offspring forever.

[Gen 28:14] says "Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

Likewise, about Isaac, [Gen 17:19] says "..I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him."

About Jacob, [Gen 32:12] says "But you said, 'I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.'".

[Gen 35:11] says "And God said to him, "I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation {Judah} and a company of nations {Israel} shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body." repeated in [Gen 48:4] "Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples and will give this land to your offspring after you for an [b]everlasting possession.'"

[Gen 48:16] says ".. and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

I've already quoted you Jesus on the House of Israel.

Yet, you say I seem to promote bloodline. What I promote IS the bible. This bloodline business is IN the bible. Is it not in yours? If you won't believe me, won't you believe your bible?

Your argument seems to reflect the idea that because God choose a particular people to be his treasured possession, a particular people to be a light for the nations, a people he would shepherd, and who would recognize him as God, somehow this is bad. Just because God chose for himself a people does not mean that salvation is apart from Christ.

(06-28-2011 09:06 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: So that it's not just the bloodline but that they also have to accept Jesus.

I've already agreed with you. The blood of Jesus saves, redeems, purifies. Nothing else does. Jesus is our perfect sacrifice, our pascal lamb, our Jubilee; our King, our prophet, our high priest. We have no controversy on this point.

(06-28-2011 09:06 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: You yourself said that you regard christians as being Israel now.
While I can concede that christians are now the people of God and spiritually Israel, as Paul said the Israel of God, the House of Israel biblically is or are the descendants of Jacob.

I do regard Christian's as Israel; not figuratively, but actually (because I believe the bible completely). Furthermore, I know (and can show) how Christian's are Israel, both prophetically, and historically.

So if you recognize Christians as Israel, why should you do so figuratively? Do you not believe the bible literally?

If Christian's have received the blessings promised to Israel, if Christ the shepherd, was promised to Israel (the flock), if Christians are doing God's will in the world that was appointed to Israel, and Christians also exhibit prophetic fulfillment about Israel - why should you NOT believe that Christians ARE Israel?

Because if you can 'spiritualize' promises God actually made to an actually people, you can spiritualize anything in the bible you wish; heaven, hell, Christ. That is simply another way NOT to believe.

(06-28-2011 09:06 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: In the OT the people of God are Israel.In the NT , Israel is at the point where the Sinai covenant has been broken by the people and God forges a new one.

Except that the bible says the new one would be made with the same people the old one was. I've presented the quotes (including Jesus' own) but you don't believe them. Yet you seem to recognized that Jesus was sent to regather them.

Israel broke the covenant, God divorced Israel for a while, and God reforged a new covenant with his people again. This is so important that God's prophets covered it frequently [Isaiah 11:11,12][Eze 37] etc.

(06-28-2011 09:06 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: ... but also includes the nations ie those not of Israelite descent too.

This of course is common theology but is not specifically said in the bible. Show me where God forges a covenant with someone other than Israel, show me where God's calls someone other than Israel, his sheep, his bride, his garden, his branches.

(11-01-2010 11:12 AM)Vic Wrote: We all make choices to believe or not believe what God has said. We cannot say we believe and then say, oh but I don't believe these things, but I have the truth. It simply doesn't work that way.

I believe that.