Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine

[Ekklesia]

Hello everyone,

As requested, this is my introductory post. It seems wise to encourage new posters to post in one location. It also seems wise to introduce new members to the community, and the community to new members, however I must say, I'm far keener to post on the Christ, or the Bible, or Biblical history, than I am to post on myself. Even so, introducing one's self at least once, is necessary so people know what's one's position is, even if the intent is to keep discussion away from one's identity or 'self' afterwards.

I have read the rules and will abide by them. They are clear, that we are to be plain about our beliefs. So here is my position:

I don't like labels for two reasons; First, the only two labels that seem to matter biblically, are 'sinner' or 'saved'. We are all sinners, but we are not all saved. The thief on the cross was not a Calvinist, a baptist, or even an Arminian, and nor am I. He was, however, both a sinner and saved, as am I. Second, Jesus also didn't seem to like labels [Mark 10:18]. Even so, I will use them to categorize myself for the sake of those who wish to understand roughly where my views lay. Anyone reading this post should realize that labels are only ever mere approximations however.

I decided to register with these forums to become a regular (at least for a while) after reading this page:
Identity

I object to it.

I am a worshiper of God's anointed son (Jesus), first and foremost. He has redeemed me with his blood. In a C.S. Lewis sense (mere Christianity), I am an orthodox Christian. In theological non-essentials, however, I hold a specific belief about history and prophetic fulfillment which is very different from most other Christians. Some would call me an identity Christian, or British-Israelite (with no affiliation to any particular movement). I believe that I am an Israelite of the House of Israel. I am not Jewish. Theologically, I do not distinguish between 'the Church' and 'Israel'.

I believe the difference between old and new covenant is merely one of degree (Jesus came to fulfill), and that the old covenant specifically points towards the Messiah. (In fact, I would argue, old covenant books were specifically 'canonized' because of their 'Messianic content', as Michael Rydelnik argues in his book 'The Messianic Hope'). I also believe God is without shade or variation, eternally consistent, and so is Jesus. This means I see coherences between all of God's covenants, rather than see differences.

The page that drew my attention above, did so, because it seems 'academic' and not from the perspective of someone who has actually engaged a person who holds these beliefs. I do hold these beliefs and so if they are to be rejected, should be done so after having been engaged. Although I have no formal education in theology, I can defend my beliefs. I know the bible well, and Hebrew and Greek well enough to exegete accurately. However, I am not here to convert anyone over to my way of thinking. I will, however defend my position in discussions as this site seeks for Christians to minister to Christians. What does this mean practically, in terms presenting or responding my position?

First it means that I don't automatically accept common positions held by many churches (or traditions), just as others will not accept my position either. However a few will find this highly offensive since it will seem to question 'beliefs' which should not be questioned, even if these positions are presented in the most patient or pleasant way. Taking this a step further, the presuppostion that many ecclesiastical traditions hold, I believe are in error; the product of eisegesis rather than exegesis. But truth, and Christ who is its embodiment, is the rock of offence over which we stumble. If my beliefs are in error, engaging them will weaken them. If my positions are true, contrary positions will fall. In either event, we are always blessed by discarding error and upholding truth.

Second, it means that although we may use the same words, we will likely mean them in different ways. I believe the bible is the final arbiter (in all debate), with Hebrew idioms, and meaning, taking precedent (even in Greek), over Latin or modern English. My use of words will be held accountable to the bible not to tradition. I will likewise hold others to the same standard. If you find my position, or my use of words offensive, ask me to justify it.

Finally, when engaging historical positions, I present history through the eye of prophecy rather than prophecy through the eyes of history. This means that my positions exhibit unusual confidence in its understanding of prophecy, though I don't claim to understand all prophecy perfectly. This seems to rub some people the wrong way. There are also periods in prophecy (and therefore history) that are not covered in the bible, and in those instances I will justify my position (as much as can be) with historical references consistent with what prophecy there is.

That said, I look forward to dialogue. Christ's standard expects me to love those who disagree with me, whether or not it is reciprocated. I will live to that standard, so help me God.

Ekklesia

[Rose of Shushan]

Hi ekklesia
thanks for telling us a bit about you and your beliefs.It looks as though we might be having some interesting discussions.

Quote:I am a worshiper of God's anointed son (Jesus), first and foremost. He has redeemed me with his blood. In a C.S. Lewis sense (mere Christianity), I am an orthodox Christian. In theological non-essentials, however, I hold a specific belief about history and prophetic fulfillment which is very different from most other Christians. Some would call me an identity Christian, or British-Israelite (with no affiliation to any particular movement). I believe that I am an Israelite of the House of Israel. I am not Jewish. Theologically, I do not distinguish between 'the Church' and 'Israel'.

I really do wonder how one cannot distinguish between the Church and Israel but maybe the answer lies in that as you said, not all of us use the same terms with the same meanings.
According to the Bible ,Israel are Jacob's descendants.The Church would be believers in Jesus and His New Covenant.Therefore, even though we may have overlap, the two are not one and the same.

Quote:I believe the difference between old and new covenant is merely one of degree (Jesus came to fulfill), and that the old covenant specifically points towards the Messiah. (In fact, I would argue, old covenant books were specifically 'canonized' because of their 'Messianic content', as Michael Rydelnik argues in his book 'The Messianic Hope'). I also believe God is without shade or variation, eternally consistent, and so is Jesus. This means I see coherences between all of God's covenants, rather than see differences.

I too can see coherency between the covenants but nevertheless, big differences.Otherwise why the need for different covenants.

[Ekklesia]

(06-25-2011 10:05 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Hi ekklesia
thanks for telling us a bit about you and your beliefs.It looks as though we might be having some interesting discussions.

Rose of Shushan, you are quite welcome. If our discussions are interesting, that'll be good, if they are interesting and edifying, that'll be a blessing.

Rose of Shushan Wrote:I really do wonder how one cannot distinguish between the Church and Israel but maybe the answer lies in that as you said, not all of us use the same terms with the same meanings.
According to the Bible ,Israel are Jacob's descendants.The Church would be believers in Jesus and His New Covenant.Therefore, even though we may have overlap, the two are not one and the same.

We'll have a chance to explore this hopefully. For now, I'll point out that the Greek word (Ekklesia) that is currently translated into English as 'church' (or belonging to the Lord) has not always been so translated. It only began to be translated as church after about 1740.

Ekklesia does not mean 'belonging to the Lord', rather it means 'congregation' in English (from the Greek 'to be called out'). The Greek work for 'church' (kuriakos) appear in the bible twice; [1 Cor 11:20] and [Rev 1:10] both times as possessions of the Lord.

Before 1740 in Biblical translation, and in secular translation Ekklesia is translated 'congregation' not 'church', and of course 'congregation' (as in 'congregation of the Lord' ) is a Hebrew idiom found frequently in the old covenant (as in [Exo 12:3] and [Lev 19:2] etc.)

Rose of Shushan Wrote:I too can see coherency between the covenants but nevertheless, big differences.Otherwise why the need for different covenants.

I agree that an unfulfilled covenant is different from a fulfilled one, (just as a marriage to an adulterous woman is different than a remarriage to her once she has learned fidelity). I otherwise look forward to your posts.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Ekklesia does not mean 'belonging to the Lord', rather it means 'congregation' in English (from the Greek 'to be called out'). The Greek work for 'church' (kuriakos) appear in the bible twice; [1 Cor 11:20] and [Rev 1:10] both times as possessions of the Lord.

I always assumed that ekklesia meant congregation .I am not sure if I am missing a post where someone said that it means belonging to the Lord since I don't see who said this in the thread.

Quote:Before 1740 in Biblical translation, and in secular translation Ekklesia is translated 'congregation' not 'church', and of course 'congregation' (as in 'congregation of the Lord' ) is a Hebrew idiom found frequently in the old covenant (as in [Exo 12:3] and [Lev 19:2] etc.)

I am not following how the word congregation is a hebrew idiom.
There do seem to be a few words for congregation in the OT. In Lev19 12 and Exo 12 3, its adat.In Lev 4 14 it's kahal.

Quote:I agree that an unfulfilled covenant is different from a fulfilled one, (just as a marriage to an adulterous woman is different than a remarriage to her once she has learned fidelity).

I am not sure how you can agree with something I didn't say
I said that I saw both coherency and also big differences between the covenants.What I didn't mention was an unfulfilled covenant being different to a fulfilled one.

[Ekklesia]

(If you move this dialogue out of my introductory post, I'll follow)

(06-26-2011 06:28 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  I always assumed that ekklesia meant congregation .I am not sure if I am missing a post where someone said that it means belonging to the Lord since I don't see who said this in the thread.

You're further ahead than most, then Rose. If you read ekklesia to mean "congregation" than your theology should also mean "congregation" (not "church"). I don't know your theology, but you asked me how I equate 'church' and 'Israel', which is really like asking how I equate the new covenant 'congregation' with 'Israel'. I reject the common use of the unjustified term 'church' in theological talk.

A first century Hebrew, with only old covenant scripture, would have spoken about, recognized, and understood talk of 'congregations' as being consistent with their scriptures. The same Hebrew would not have spoken about a new covenant 'church'. I can show how this can be further proven from Paul's epistles and other new covenant writings.

(06-26-2011 06:28 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  I am not following how the word congregation is a hebrew idiom. There do seem to be a few words for congregation in the OT. In Lev19 12 and Exo 12 3, its adat.In Lev 4 14 it's kahal.

Typical Christian theology which speaks of "the 'church' is this", or "the 'church' is that", or "the church is Christ's bride", using a theologically counterfeit term, one that is not justified, has been built up from the mis-translation of a word that does not distinguish itself from the old covenant expression. The "church" should not be in our theological vocabulary, and we cannot build whole theologies off it, as we have. We're blinding ourselves (in the translation process by doing this) to the bible's meaning by imparting concepts that the biblical author did not intend.

So then, what if we use the word with the proper meaning 'congregation'? Then theologically there is theological consistency between the old covenant and the new, WRT the vocabulary we use, since words with the same meaning appears in both old covenant text and new.

Instead of asking questions about how we got from Israel to the church (which is a false theological word), we'll be asking questions about how we got from the congregation of Israel to the new covenant congregation (whose identity is not specifically known, but prophetically predicted).

God's covenant was with the congregation of Israel (which was not with all Israelites BTW).

(06-26-2011 06:28 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  I am not sure how you can agree with something I didn't say
I said that I saw both coherency and also big differences between the covenants.What I didn't mention was an unfulfilled covenant being different to a fulfilled one.

I'm not imparting words to you, I'm using your words as the basis for a simile. The differences between covenants are merely ones of maturity.

1. The Edenic covenant [Gen 1:28] contained grace - without merit, Adam was given dominion over all things (save for the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life) which is really the promise to be co-heirs with Christ who alone deserves dominion.

2. The Adamic covenant [Gen 3:15] contained grace in that it promised Christ and Christ's victory, though that cost would be great.

3. The Noahide covenant [Gen 9:1,11] contained grace in that it reiterated a previous covenant AND promised not ALL would perish due to God's wrath, which is the same as promising a means of salvation. (Note also that Noah and his family had to go through baptism to obtain this covenant, says [1 Peter 3:20-21])

4. The Abrahamic Covenant [Gen 12:3] contained grace in its promise of Christ and its promise he would be our God ..

5. The Mosaic Covenant [Gen 24:8] was the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant as marriage contract between God and his bride and was also one of grace in that it contained the promise of a high priest, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of blood, and the son of God [Deut 18:15] and clarified the grace found in previous covenants and pointed to Christ as judge [Lev 26][Deut 28,29,30].

6. The Davidic covenant [2 Sam 7:16] contained grace in its promise of Christ as king.

7. This seventh covenant, the new covenant .. well .. you already know.

All those covenants though expressed in different ways, all testified to Christ [John 5:39-40][Luke 24:27].

The only way one could argue that the old covenant(s) is(are) substantially different from the new, save by degree, is if one does not understand them OR if one (mis)understands the old covenant the same way the Pharisees and Sadducees (mis)understood it.

When it comes to man, a promise for some future thing, is obviously inferior to a promise kept. But with God, since his word is sure, a promise for some future thing, is every bit as good as a promised fulfilled.

Likewise, since, God is without shade or variation [James 1:17] we know his intent is also without shade or variation and eternal. Therefore we could argue that the old covenant (as a promise of some future thing, and since it pointed to its own fulfillment), was no less sure than the new, to those who trusted God (says [Hebrew 11]) since God's word is true.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:A first century Hebrew, with only old covenant scripture, would have spoken about, recognized, and understood talk of 'congregations' as being consistent with their scriptures. The same Hebrew would not have spoken about a new covenant 'church'. I can show how this can be further proven from Paul's epistles and other new covenant writings.

What about these verses that seem to speak of something new in relation to the old Covenant congregations

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

In this last verse those being added to the church were those becoming believers in Christ not proselytes to Temple Judaism.Thus there was a distinction between the OT congregation or congregations and the New Covenant ones.
Maybe you agree with me there and your issue is just with the use of the term church for ecclesia? Maybe you would rather that the term be congregation or congregations?

Quote:So then, what if we use the word with the proper meaning 'congregation'? Then theologically there is theological consistency between the old covenant and the new, WRT the vocabulary we use, since words with the same meaning appears in both old covenant text and new.

The OT itself wasn't consistent then according to your standards since they didn't just use one word for the word congregation but at least two,adat and kahal for example.

Quote:Instead of asking questions about how we got from Israel to the church (which is a false theological word), we'll be asking questions about how we got from the congregation of Israel to the new covenant congregation (whose identity is not specifically known, but prophetically predicted).

You can read about it in the Gospels and Acts especially and then also Galatians ,etc.The identity of the Church is not unknown.It is very varied and has been so throughout the centuries.

Quote:God's covenant was with the congregation of Israel (which was not with all Israelites BTW).

Not sure which covenant you are speaking about there.
The Sinai covenant was with the congregation of Israel but the New one is offered to every single person Israelite and non Israelite.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
Act 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

[Ekklesia]

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  What about these verses that seem to speak of something new in relation to the old Covenant congregations

Rose, do you distinguish between new and renew? I'm not disputing that Christ was building up his congregation. The question is; was he building up a new congregation from the ground up, or rebuilding one that previously existed?

Are you able to show biblically that God gave up on the congregation that He previously dispersed [Eze 12:15][Eze 20:23][Eze 22:15][Eze 36:19], and sieved though the nations [Amos 9:9][Isa 30:28]?

Look at these prophecies:

Do you agree the "root of Jesse" in Isa 11:10-12 is a reference to Jesus and is therefore messianic? If so, this propehcy clearly shows that the coming of the Messiah was the foundation for 'gathering' the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Clearly, the [Matt 16:18] quote about building up the congregation on Christ (the rock) is a rebuilding of the block, not a new construction.

[Isa 40:10-11] says the same thing, the Messiah 'gathers' a flock (that once existed). The flock he gathers is actually being 'regathered', since he's not building it up from nothing, he's rebuilding it. Why does the congregation need building up? Becuase it has been dispersed?

Look at [James 1:1] ..."To the twelve tribes in the dispersion: Greetings" (ESV). James wasn't the only one, Peter also wrote to the House of Israel "To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ...". This is all documented in 1&2 Chronicles and Hosea.

Galatia means 'the land of the Galah'. In Hebrews the word גלה (galah - H1540) means exile. Galatia was the land of the "exiles", galah being the root of Galatia. Even the Pharisees understood Christ's ministry as targeting this dispersed flock. In [John 7:35] it says "The Jews said to one another, 'Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?'".

Jesus is also clear on this point that he was coming for His flock which needed re-gathering. He instructed his desciples in [Matt 10:6] "..but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", since that is to whom he was sent [Matt 14:24] "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.". (Not my words, but Christs!)

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. [/color][/b]

In this last verse those being added to the church were those becoming believers in Christ not proselytes to Temple Judaism.

I, personally do not believe that Temple Judaism, as it existed in Jerusalem, and practiced by the Pharisees and Sadducees, was the old covenant faith handed down by the prophets to the Israelites; the faith that pointed to Jesus. I think what was practiced in the temple was a corruption.

See the Dead Sea Scrolls [b]1QM and 4Q491-497 which clearly shows that what was practiced in Jerusalem was as far removed from the old covnenat, as it was from the new. Do I see a relationship between Temple Judaism and the old covenant - certainly not. Do I see a relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant - Yes I do. Do you believe Temple Judaism was the faith God handed down to his prophets?

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Maybe you agree with me there and your issue is just with the use of the term church for ecclesia? Maybe you would rather that the term be congregation or congregations?[/b]

Certainly, I'd agree with that. It would at least be more linguistically representative of what God's word actually says (and less likely to seed false theologies).

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  The OT itself wasn't consistent then according to your standards since they didn't just use one word for the word congregation but at least two,adat and kahal for example.

The issue isn't that different words were used, rather its that we ignore the words meaning when we translate them. When we ignore a words meaning (Ekklesia) and inject false meaning, we inject a source of error. In the case of adat and kahal, have they been translated to mean something they don't as Ekklesia or Ethnos have? If not, I'm ok with that. Don't you believe that our use of biblical words must be in accorance with the author's intent, and not the translators? If so, shouldn't we resist the tempation to impart meaning onto words when we translate them?

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  You can read about it in the Gospels and Acts especially and then also Galatians ,etc.The identity of the Church is not unknown. It is very varied and has been so throughout the centuries.

Ok so when Paul uses the word ἀδελφός (adelphos G80) in [Gal 1:2] to convey the fact that the Galatians where of the same national ancestor as Paul (they were Hebrews), do you believe him, or do you simply take ἀδελφός (adelphos G80) to be figurative, even though in Greek its meaning is clear?

(06-27-2011 09:27 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Not sure which covenant you are speaking about there.
The Sinai covenant was with the congregation of Israel but the New one is offered to every single person Israelite and non Israelite.

Here's the biblical quote that outlines who the new covenant was established with [Heb 8:8] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Rose, do you distinguish between new and renew?

I can distinguish between new and renewed yes but in relation to what?

Quote:I'm not disputing that Christ was building up his congregation. The question is; was he building up a new congregation from the ground up, or rebuilding one that previously existed?

Again this depends on what you mean by a new congregation and what you also mean by rebuilding.
Since His ministry was primarily(though not exclusively) to the House of Israel whilst on earth and prior to His crucifixion we could agree that the first congregation of christians was taken largely out of the old congregations of Israel.
I say largely though because although the early church/"congregation" was Israelite even when Christ was alive many gentiles sought Him and were healed and believed in Him.
Some examples include the syrophoenician woman,

Christ's mission on earth was primarily to Israel since it was Israel who was the heir of God's promises made to Abraham,Isaac and Jacob plus their descendants.However in the prophets God had also made clear that salvation would also come to the Gentiles.Even in the OT Gentiles or the nations had not been forgotten by God and there are instances where we see this.In Jonah for example,where Jonah was sent to the Assyrians as a prophet.Israel was a light to the nations and they were meant to give testimony of what it was like to be in a relationship with the true God.
It makes total sense that Christ's ministry was to have been primarily to Israel .One of Christ's missions was to regather Israel and save the people lost in their sins and incurring all the curses that were a result of them breaking the Covenant of Sinai.
From the Scriptures we know that on Christ's death the wall of partition between jew and gentile was broken down and it seems it is then that the Old Covenant is laid to rest and the New ushered in.

Quote:Are you able to show biblically that God gave up on the congregation that He previously dispersed [Eze 12:15][Eze 20:23][Eze 22:15][Eze 36:19], and sieved though the nations [Amos 9:9][Isa 30:28]?

All those verses talk about God dispersing or scattering His people but I'm not sure why you ask me if I can prove biblically that God gave up on those people and where you are going with that.I didn't say that God gave up on those people however at the time of Christ those people that comprised the "congregation" at that time were long dead so I don't get the point.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Do you agree the "root of Jesse" in Isa 11:10-12 is a reference to Jesus and is therefore messianic? If so, this propehcy clearly shows that the coming of the Messiah was the foundation for 'gathering' the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Clearly, the [Matt 16:18] quote about building up the congregation on Christ (the rock) is a rebuilding of the block, not a new construction.

I totally agree that the root of Jesse referred to in Isaiah 11 is Jesus.
Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
Isa 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Quote:[Isa 40:10-11] says the same thing, the Messiah 'gathers' a flock (that once existed). The flock he gathers is actually being 'regathered', since he's not building it up from nothing, he's rebuilding it. Why does the congregation need building up? Becuase it has been dispersed?

I think you may be confusing the people being dispersed and "lost" with the people being "lost in their sins.
When Christ tells the disciples to preach only to the "lost" sheep of the house of Israel he didn't mean physically lost since for one if they were lost how would the disciples have found them to preach to them.Additionally the disciples were told this early on in their ministry and they went on foot.
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Mat 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Mat 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mat 10:11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

Quote:Galatia means 'the land of the Galah'. In Hebrews the word גלה (galah - H1540) means exile. Galatia was the land of the "exiles", galah being the root of Galatia. Even the Pharisees understood Christ's ministry as targeting this dispersed flock. In [John 7:35] it says "The Jews said to one another, 'Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?'".

You are totally confusing me there.First you say that the land of the exiles is Galatia and you say the Pharisees understood Christ's ministry as targetting that flock and in the next sentence you post Scripture where the jews wonder if Christ is going to go to the dispersion and teach Greeks.

Quote:[Isa 40:10-11] says the same thing, the Messiah 'gathers' a flock (that once existed). The flock he gathers is actually being 'regathered', since he's not building it up from nothing, he's rebuilding it. Why does the congregation need building up? Becuase it has been dispersed?

What do you mean by it needing building up because it has been dispersed?
If by building up you mean a regathering of the physical type then a regathering to where?Certainly wasn't Jerusalem or any physical regathering to a place that I can think of.
The regathering that I see Jesus causing was a regathering to God as the prophet Isaiah promised.

Isa 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Isaiah 40 which you quoted says

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
Isa 40:11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
He regathers His sheep,or rather a remnant since not all seemed and seem to want to be regathered as Jesus would regather them.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


There seem to be many diverse sheep that Christ draws to Himself

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 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.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:I, personally do not believe that Temple Judaism, as it existed in Jerusalem, and practiced by the Pharisees and Sadducees was the old covenant faith handed down by the prophets to the Israelites.

Can I ask why you don't believe it was the Old Covenant faith and if it wasn't the Old Covenant faith,what was it then?

Quote:Do I see a relationship between Temple Judaism and the old covenant - certainly not. Do I see a relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant - Yes I do, and I'm not the only one. See the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QM and 4Q491-497 which clearly show that what was practiced in Jerusalem was as far removed from the old covnenat, as it was from the new.

Again I am curious as to how you don't see a relationship between Temple Judaism and the Old Covenant.Temple Judaism was based totally on the Old Covenant and following its stipulations.

]Can you please explain what is in the Dead Sea Scroll [b]1QM and 4Q491-497 that according to you shows that "what was practiced in Jerusalem was as far removed from the old covnenat, as it was from the new.
As far as I know 4Q491-497 is the War Scroll,however I would appreciate if you explained for us what it says that gave rise to your statements on it and the covenants.
"

Quote: Do you believe Temple Judaism was the faith God handed down to his prophets?

I believe Temple Judaism was the result of the Israelites having faith in following the Scriptures that had been handed down to them.