Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine
08-09-2011, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2011 03:56 PM by Ekklesia.)
RE: Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: Let's go back to post # 30 where you asked:
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: What is a covenant? It is an agreement, a promise. In the Bible specifically it is an agreement between God and a person or group of people. It can be conditional or unconditional.
No, it is more than that Mary. Though God makes many promises in the bible, a covenant has specific components to it that makes it something more than a mere promise. Not all of God's promises are covenants, though all of God's covenants are promises. This is the same as saying not all 'promises' are 'contracts' though all 'contracts' are 'promises'.
Specifically, God's 'covenants' all have a legally binding component to them, above and beyond the certain truth of His word. Often, you can see elements of this in How God establishes His covenants, such as God limiting His own sovereignty according to the terms of the covenant. This is different than God simply choosing to exercise his sovereignty. The Hebrew word used for 'covenant' specifically includes the binding between parties.
Notice that God promised Noah and his children through a rainbow, a prohibition on the use of water (but not fire) as a means of enacting judgement forever. Notice also that God used the shedding of blood to exemplify His 'sealing' of the covenant with Abraham and descendants ( [Gen 15:9-17] particularly [Gen 15:17]). Both examples above had promises, restrictions, and a signatory seal.
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: So what have we here in John 8: 31 -33?
This may have been a confirmation that God's covenant was still in effect, but it was not the establishment of a covenant itself.
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: You say that these Jews who heard his voice could not have been of the house of Israel, because the house of Israel had been enslaved twice. You conclude that these Jews were descendants of Esau - were Edom. Not his sheep, as you have argued consistently. Yet here we have Jesus - God: making a covenant with them.
Any Jew claiming never to have been enslaved was either not an Israelite (since Israel had been enslaved twice), or unbelievably ignorant of Israelite history. We know there were non-Israelite Jews that were Edomites, so it could have been both. I don't believe Jesus' use of the word 'slave' was the same as the Pharisees or Sadducee understood it, but even so - Jesus was not establishing another covenant, rather, he was showing people how to be assured whether or not they belonged to the 'tree' (were they under the 'covenant'). In other words, he was showing everyone how to recognize a tree by its fruit [Matt 12:33][Luke 6:44].
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: While still on the topic, let's look at Abraham: is Abraham Israel? No. Yet God made a covenant with Him, and his offspring for eternity.
Quite right. Notice, however, that Israel's covenant was first inherited from Abraham (through Isaac). Notice also, that Abraham's covenant was NOT inherited by Ishmael, though Ishmael was Abraham's son [Gen 21:12][Rom 9:7][Heb 11:18]. It was also not inherited by Esau [1 Chron 16:16-17][Psa 105:9-10][Mal 1:2-3] though Esau was Isaac's son. The covenant may have been inherited by blood, but it was not simply based upon blood.
(08-05-2011 08:19 AM)Mary Wrote: Then let's also look at Gen 25: 20 -23. God makes a promise to Rebekah - a Syrian- and Jacob and Esau are born.
I'm not sure of your point here. Abraham was a Hebrew, so was Rebekah having come from Nahor. Israelites were a subset of Hebrews that came after Abraham, and Rebekah. It was Jesus who identified to whom he was sent, according to His own claim and contemporary to His ministry. Clearly, all Israelites were Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were Israelites.
So what are you arguing? I hope you're not suggesting that because Abraham was a Hebrew rather than an Israelite, God couldn't establish the 'new covenant' with a subset of Abraham's Hebrew descendants (who the Israelites were). I hope you're not suggesting God could not specifically bless Israel, because Abraham came before. God blessed Abraham before Israel, and Israel descended from Abraham. God's covenant promise passed from Abraham to his descendants, though clearly not all (as evidenced from Ishmael, and Esau). Paul in Romans makes this very argument; simply having Hebrew blood did not mean one would 'automatically' enjoy the blessings of the covenant [Rom 9:6-13]. God's promise most certainly was restricted to Israelites, even if it wasn't first made with an Israelite. I would also add that those Israelites who rejected Christ were cut off like Ishmael and Esau before.
If anything, Christ's claim to have come 'only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel' is evidence that the covenant first established with Abraham, inherited by Isaac, then Jacob, was absolutely worth something because of the blessings it carried with it; whether or not Abraham was an Israelite.
Vic, this post is an example of how you've already made up your mind, and how your method of arguing is based upon a straw-man.
You've posed the questions. and you've answered them (suggesting your answers are actually mine). Your answers are your staw-man.
I've said (honestly) I answer from the bible, and yet you use expressions like 'white race'. If you want me to take your questions seriously, put them in biblical terms, otherwise we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not the one being elusive because I don't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race'. The bible doesn't talk in terms of the 'Aryan race', so like the bible I don't employ that type of vocabulary. That vocabulary is yours.
And you conclude with:
Which is to say, you've already pre-judged my position and made up your mind (so it really doesn't matter anyway).
If you want to challenge my position, do so. If you don't (because you already understand), that's fine too.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)