Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 08-03-2011 11:41 AM by Ekklesia.)

(08-02-2011 07:49 PM)Mary Wrote: Hi Ekklesia, welcome back.

Perhaps if you could address posts 95 - 100? But there are also Vic's direct questions which you have not fully answered.

Thanks Mary. Glad to be back (after being away for 3 weeks).

There's a lot in 95-100. I will commit to answering the questions raised. May I propose that we break these up into a number of separate threads (or not), on the grounds that there are threads which likely ought to be addressed in their own right. This thread is becoming 'unwieldy' and I'm working off the assumption that this discussion is centering around the assertion 'the church' is 'Israel'.

Other threads my allow us to detangle the issues. (I offer this suggestion for administrative consideration).

(08-02-2011 07:49 PM)Mary Wrote: Ekklesia, I don't want to overload you with questions, but this I am curious about. Did you know that you were one of the lost House of Israel, and therefore "saved by the blood of the Lamb", or were you "saved" (i.e. you had believed Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the third person of God; repented of your sins, and accepted His forgiveness) and then on discovering this doctrine of Jesus coming for only the Lost Sheep of Israel, concluded that because you were "saved" - had heard His call - you must therefore be of the Lost House of Israel?

Good question Mary.

In my very first post, I said that as far as Christian essentials go, I am completely orthodox. This means I believe the same as you about the role of Christ in salvation (my view of what the Bride-groom did to bring salvation/redemption is the same as yours).

So let me paraphrase the issue at the heart of your question; would you agree it is "What does it matter whether or not the assembly (church) is Israel WRT salvation?" or "What does it matter whether or not one believes themselves to be an Israelite?" (I will answer you how I came to believe as I do)

This question is not about the bride-groom, but about the bride; and as we all know the bride plays absolutely no role in effecting salvation, though the bride is expected to be faithful. Belief about the bride-groom (Jesus) is what counts in salvation. Belief about the bride can be mistaken. Whether a person believes or not they are an Israelite has nothing to do with them being saved. The only way one can be saved is by accepting that Christ's sacrifice pays for the sins we commit. Whatever blood flows through my veins, be it Israelite or not, plays no role in my redemption. Only the blood of Jesus saves, full stop, end of discussion. I don't think you and I have controversy on this point. I was saved by putting my faith in Christ, by recognizing that only Jesus lived a sinless life that he took my punishment on the Cross, upon Himself. Accordingly, before God I will be found righteous because of what Jesus has done.

If that is true, you ask, how did I go from being saved to believing myself to be an Israelite? Why believe the 'church' is 'Israel'? Because I want to understand the bible completely, wholely, truely, from cover to cover. Let me say again, if all I do is believe in Christ, and repent of my sins, I will l be saved. No other belief about the bible changes that, including belief about the identity of Israel. But like you, I love the word of God above all else. If I believe my biblical understanding is true, like you, I have an obligation to speak truthfully about it, whether or not it is popular. In speaking with the unsaved, I don't speak of Israel, I speak only of Christ. If one is not saved, one needs to be. In speaking with believers who struggle with more meatier matters in the word of God, I will speak of Israel and prophecy. Doesn't Paul say become all things to all men? If one is saved, but wishes the full council of God, than sharing identity belief is appropriate. [Pro 8:10] "Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold.". So let me tell you briefly how I arrived at the conclusions I did.

In reading the bible, there are elements of ecclesiastical (church) orthodoxy that don't conform to what the bible actually says. That suggests that these ecclesiastical elements are traditions rather than biblical teachings. Treating everyman a liar but God as true [Rom 3:4], I committed myself to believing the bible first, whatever the cost. Likewise, modern Christian theology imparts tension between old and new covenants, making it seem like first God had one plan, and then another. The relationship between the two covenants, and the words used to describe the theology, has been the cause of nearly every theological debate in the last 2000 years. When a theology is based upon an artificially constrained understanding, which suggests our theology has gotten it wrong.

Not only, but I clearly see Hebrew idioms in Greek, mistranslated into English and therefore lost to our English text. Because of these mistranslations, they not understood or reflected in our theology (such an example would be the Greek 'fullness of the gentiles' found in [Rom 11:25] is actually a mistranslation (into English) of the Hebrew expression 'multitude of nations' found in [Gen 48:19] ( גוי gowy (H1471) means the same as ethnos in Greek, and should be translated consistently, just as מלא mĕlo' (H4393) means the same as πλήρωμα plērōma (G4138) (from the root πληρόω plēroō (G4137)). Surely God did not want Hebrew idioms (in Greek) missed because of translation (which has always been a political process). It made me wonder if our understanding of the bible hasn't become as corrupt as that of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The bible also says [Est 8:17] that many non-Israelites became Jews in Babylon. From [Ezra 2:62] we know this was a concern on their return to Jerusalem. Look at this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees [John 8:31-33] "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' They answered him, 'We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

We know that the Pharisees did not understand Jesus and his use of the word 'slave', but consider for a second what the Pharisees responded given their understanding; they said they had "never been enslaved to anyone". Even with the understanding they had, how could they make this claim? Had they not been enslaved in Egypt, and later in Babylon?

Even if they did not understand Jesus, no Israelite, after two separate captivities (period of enslavements), could have claimed NEVER to have been enslaved. The only descendants of Abraham who could have made that claim were the descendants of Esau. Look at the prophecies against Edom in [Oba 1:8] because of the violence they did against Israel [Oba 1:10-14]. When Israel fell, Esau stood at the gates casting lots, and coveted Jerusalem, the birthright God have gave to Jacob. Accordingly God promised to cut Esau off. He did this when they lost their identity, and were forcibly converted to Judaism. The existence of non-Israelites Jews within the House of Judah claiming to be Israelites, obscures who the Israelites were biblically (examples being King Herod (an Edomite), or the converts of John Hyrcanus). The bible points out the problem of Edomites not sincere in their faith or conversion, in [Rev 2:9][Rev 3:9].

Because prophecy is not currently well understood (at least not convincingly) this suggests that our own understanding of history is not well understood. Normally this would not be a problem just reading the bible, if we have no desire to understand biblical prophecy correctly. However about 1/3 of the bible IS prophecy, and prophecy is often tied to blood-lines [Gen 48:19][Psa 21:10][Isa 44:3][Jer 29:32], so we need to understand the history of bloodlines correctly, against prophecy to understand if God's promises are fulfilled or not.

Therefore there is incentive to re-read the bible without prejudice of ecclesiastical tradition, and history, and take plain meaning as plain, to obtain a completely understanding.

So, to be saved, one only needs to believe in Christ. But, if one desires a perfect understanding of the word of God, including the prophecies, I think it's unavoidable to depart from Church based orthodoxy and arrive at Christian identity belief. God prophesied Israel that the new covenant would (in the future tense) “… and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” [Eze 36:27] and “… and you shall be my people, and I will be your God” [Eze 36:28].

If the new covenant promise that was made to the people of Israel is true, and God true to His word, Israel MUST have recognized their shepherd as messiah. His new covenant people [MUST] be Israel fulfilling God’s promise to be a light to the world. They could ONLY do this by worshiping their God for the great redemption His blood has bought.