Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine

[Mary]

(06-30-2011 11:52 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  I think you are seriously distorting the meaning of the passage and even the meaning of estranged to suit your own purposes.

Dist-tort: To give a false meaning to;
It is distortion when we adhere to a words proper meaning in its usage. The study of exegetical fallacies (or actually distortions in translations) reveals exactly where errors lie.

So far I have exposed three English distortions. But, to ensure no distortion has indeed occurred, I'll clarify by showing linguistic evolution from meaning to usage (and provide Strongs References).

The word "Lord" in Greek, is κύριος (kyrios G2962). To show the possessive form of κύριος (kyrios G2962) in Greek, becomes κυριακός (kyriakos G2960). Curiously, >>>>>>[links deleted as per forum rules---newbies cannot post links >>>Vic]>>>>>we can see κύριος (kyrios G2962) becomes kuriakon in Latin, kirihha in Old High German, kirk is Scottish Gaelic, cirice in Old Engliish and church in English. I've shown from beginning to end how 'church' in Greek is 'kyriakos' NOT 'ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia G1577).

Kyriakos ('church', or 'the Lord's') appears only twice in the bible, yet modern Christianity uses this word all the time, as though it appears in the original Greek all the time.

When the late use of a word (such as Church in English) is projected back unto the text, that is an exegetical error known as Semantic Anachronism. When we impart meaning back onto the text that is not there, that is called >>>>>>[links deleted as per forum rules---newbies cannot post links >>>Vic]>>>>>Therefore, for me to reject the use of the word 'church' in debating biblical meaning, it is not me introducing the distortions, rather the distortions are already in English and I am countering them. Is there distortion here? Yes, but in the English, and not in the Greek.

So to restore proper meaning to ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia G1577) lets ask what it originally meant in Greek.
The word καλέω (kaleō G2564) means 'to call' while the word ἐκ (ek G1537) means 'out', thus ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia G1577) means 'to call out', 'to congregate'. This is such a Hebrew idea it appears all throughout the OT (for example [Isa 42:6] etc).

[Isa 43] was written to the congregation of Israel .. look what it says:
"Thou art mine .."
"I have loved thee ..."
"I have created him for my glory ..."
"This people have I formed for myself ..."
"My chosen .."
"I am the Lord, your Holy One; the Creator of Israel, your King ..."
(And this is all in just one chapter!)

This is the ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia G1577), the Apostles knew. Yet, you argue, this changed when Christ came. I've already shown you Christ's words, but lets look at others:
[Lev 26:44]"I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, or to break my covenant with them .."
[2 Sam 7:16] "Thine House and thine KINGDOM shall be made sure for ever before thee.."
[2 Sam 23:5] "An everlasting covenant ..."
[Psalm 89:34] "My covenant will I not break ..."
..."But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

I distort nothing then, when I argue that the Lord's portion is Jacob! To say the Lord's portion is NOT Jacob - that would be a distortion!

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  you would like me to read verse 11 as

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past NATIONS in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
since you say we should use the word nations for gentiles, I did. Sounds a bit funny but anyway..in the next verse we have the differentiation between those nations and Israel being made even clearer,since these nations were both aliens from the covenant and strangers from the covenants of promise.
If this was referring to the dispersed of Israel around the world that according to you was cast off,then the promises would still stand.They wouldn't be aliens to the covenant.

If I understand your argument, you're saying something along the lines of .. if I were correct that Paul were speaking of the House of Israel, and since God's covenant stands forever, they couldn't be aliens to the covenant (forgive me if I've misrepresented your argument).

Well, God's covenant does stand forever (the giving of the covenant is unconditional), but the terms of the covenant are not. This is like God saying to Israel "You alone will be my wife".

If Israel is put up for divorce (as she was in [Isa 50:1]), and God remains faithful (for the sake of Jacob [Isa 45:5][Isa 48:9]), though Israel has many lovers [b][Jer 30:14], and then God cleanses Israel (redeems) [Isa 1:27] and remarries her [Hos 2:20], God's covenant has been eternal, YET Israel has still been alien to the covenant.

Look at Hosea. There are only ever two children throughout; Lo-ruhamah (No mercy) and Lo-ammi (Not My People).

[Hos 1:6-7] "And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo–ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the House of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah.."

Then what happens to the House of Israel?

[Hos 1:8] "Then said God, Call his name Lo–ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God."

This is the point at which the House of Israel is uncircumcised, alienated from the covenant, but look a little later:

[Hos 1:10-11] "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.  Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together {under the new covenant, as described in [Eze 37:11-13], AND Jesus quoted [Isa 37:12] to John the Baptist to show the messiah in this prophecy}, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel."

Then, the marriage Hosea speaks about in [Hos 2:20] is the one Jesus spoke about in [Matt 25:1].

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  We see in the NT where men from all around the world would journey to Jerusalem for the feasts.The lived in the dispersion but were well aware of who they were as Israelites.Thus they cwere definitely not strangers to the covanant.

If that were true, why do the disciples ask [Acts 1:6] "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  The same with the members of the 12 tribes that James wrote to.They were not strangers or aliens to the Covenant since James knew they e xisted and even wrote to them.

The House of Judah went and returned from Babylon. The House of Israel never did return from Assyria. This is both in the bible and in history. The Roman historian Josephus speaks about it in (Flavius Josephus, Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews” (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1960) Book XI, Chapter V, Verse 2, p. 234.

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  In chapter 3 of Ephesians Paul again makes it clear that gentiles or the nations partake in the covenant with Christ.

I want to point out God's promise to Abraham in [Gen 35:11] which says "... a nation (singular) and a company of nations (pluara) ". How can God promise both one nation and many nations to come from Abraham? Simple, 'a nation' is the House of Judah, and 'a company of nations' is the House of Israel (which was ten tribes).

Chapter three makes it clear the company of nations partake in the covenant, yes.

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Jeremiah 31 31 mentions two covenants.The new one and the previous one.

True, but it only mentions one bride. There were two marriages, but there was only one relationship. The second marriage was perfect. The first marriage, not so perfect.

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  [b]Anyway under the Law a man couldn't remarry a previously unfaithful wife no?

Rose, this is a very very good question! The answer is, not as long as the husband was alive [Rom 7:2-3] which says:

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

Which means as long as the husband lives, the law of marriage makes the wife an adulteress, but once the husband dies she is free from the law and no longer an adulteress. You already know that Jesus was the perfect 'blood offering' who shed blood for the remission of sins, you also know he was the 'pascal lamb' whose blood kept away the angel of death, and the 'Jubilee', who freed slaves and paid debts, but did you know Jesus had to die so that Israel was no longer an adulteress?

The irony here, is that once Israel is no longer an adulterous nation, she is free again to become God's bride. Read [Hos 2:20] again.

(06-30-2011 07:25 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Do you keep the Laws given to Israel at Sinai Ekklesia?

Rose forgive me but your understanding of the Laws given at Sinai have been heavily influenced by Pharisee thinking. Paul says the Law was spiritual [Rom 7:14], which means laws (such as the dietary laws) are not about eating this food or that, rather about treating the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit [1 Cor 6:19] for example.

The Law was not about shedding 'animal' blood for the remission of sins, but rather the shedding of Jesus blood. If no animal had ever been sacrificed, Israel would have still been saved through Christ. But your understanding is the same understanding that the Pharisees had, which Christ came to correct.

The marriage that God had the first time with the adulterous wife is never the marriage he promised. Had she understood the first time around, he would not have had to die, and the first covenant would have been indistinguishable from the second. As it stands though, as long as people misunderstand the first covenant, there is room for misunderstanding the second.

---

Vic I'm not going to address your post. I'll address anything you might challenge me with directly, but not some criticism someone else has leveled. Nor will I'll defend what others have said. I think it's fair to expect to be confronted directly, and represented accurately, and I like to avoid the fallacy of appealing to authority (just because some authority holds an opinion on a matter, doesn't mean that opinion is correct. It must be gauged on its own merits - as Jesus showed us).

I haven't advocated 'two-seed' doctrine, and I'm not a racist.

I don't mean in any way to be answering for Vic, but I do think that if you claim to hold to the beliefs of British Israelism, then I would think you would be willing to accept that you are aligned with their beliefs and the fruit of their beliefs. So I challenge you: the history and fruit of BI has not shown itself to be Christian, so how can you continue to align yourself with those beliefs and call yourself a Christian?