Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ekklesia · 08-24-2011, 12:08 AM

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote: The whole of the matter goes back to John chapter 3 and verse 16.

Yes but [John 3:16] is not forging a covenant with non-Israelites as you are arguing. [John 3:16] shows that creation will be restored, but that many will perish in the process; a few will not. This is no different than what happened during the flood; for the sake of restoring the earth, many perished, and God saved the righteous. Simply citing [John 3:16] does nothing to show we should disbelieve Jesus's claim that he "came only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel".

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote: Now all along you keep saying to us that you believe Jesus words, all of them, and you say we disbelieve them because we 'reject' that He came only for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet these words "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him may have everlasting life" are spoken by Jesus. Does he contradict himself?

You are taking His words in [John 3:16] out of context because you are making the ".. so loved THE WORLD" mean something that it did not. When Jesus says THE WORLD or κόσμος (kosmos" G2889) he's speaking of something greater then "all men", namely creation itself as His choice of words show (κόσμος kosmos G2889).

Jesus did not come to save "all men", clearly many will perish [Luke 13:3,5]. So how will Jesus save the [b]κόσμος kosmos He loved? He explains clearly [Matt 25:31-46] that He will save some and destroy others. Even [John 3:16] says the only ones saved will be only those "whoever believes in him". If you're going to use Jesus words to make a point, you should use them correctly as he meant them.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote: The chapter relates the event of Nicodemus going to Jesus. Here is the chapter from the beginning to verse 18.

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Wasn't Nicodemus an Israelite who believed in Jesus? I'm not quite sure why you quoted this because it seems to me you're proving that Jesus was addressing an Israelite who believe in Him. This is inline with my position.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote: In Jesus Christ' death and resurrection we are born again, and are a new creature: whether of Israel or Edom, Ethiopia, or Italy or where ever in the world we are from, from whatever tribe or nation. Giving credence to the blood of a person is literally glorying in the flesh, which we are not to do. See Romans, and here Galatians Chap 6:12 - 18

...
Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Mary, I don't dispute that in Christ, one is born again. This is not what we are debating. You are imparting to me something I'm not saying, which is that our flesh has anything to do with our salvation. Only Christ's work was responsible for our salvation.

Rather my argument is about to whom Christ was sent, however they are redeemed. If the bible says clearly the Bridegroom was sent to His Bride; it is worth asking "Who was the bride?" since the bible spends many verses answering this. This is not "glorying in the flesh" since it is not speaking to the nature of Christ's work but instead to the object of Christ's love. What I dispute is that the bride was anyone but Israel.

Your own verses refute your argument then. Notice, [Gal 6:18] shows that Paul presupposes a blood relationship with his audience, when he addresses them as 'brethren'. This expression only applied to those who shared a common forefather. This particular audience were obviously Israelites exiles as their very name shows (Galatians was Greek for גלה Galah H1540).

Look at the promises God made specifically with faithful Israelites [Lev 26:12] "And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.". This promise is integral to the Mosaic covenant, yet your position is that God did not come specifically to His people though He promised to do exactly that! You claim my position is false, but my position holds God's word, at face value is true. It is not my position that needs to explain How God promises one thing, or says one thing, and does another.

I believe God did not abandoned His people. Here's why biblically:
[Jer 31:36] says "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." (Jesus did describe His people as a Kindom didn't he?). So I ask you: How can Israel be a nation before God IF they reject Him? This promise was specifically tied to the new covenant.

I believe God established the new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Here's why biblically:
[Jer 31:31] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah"
[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"

Because Jesus said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" [Matt 15:24], I am justified in believing Him. But he went further and commanded his disciples "but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" as well.

My position so far is consistent with the bible in believing God came to His people, walked among His people, shepherded His people, specifically because He promised to. The bible is clear that God's bride, His sheepfold, His vineyard, WAS ISRAEL.

About Jesus' relationship to Israel [Isa 40:11] says "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." Yet your position makes out these lambs to whom He was sent, were people who never knew Him or received such promises! In none of this have I denied that Christ's blood and ONLY Christ's blood was responsible for redemption, but in all of this you have denied Christ's love for His bride.

You either believe Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as He said He did, or you don't. If you don't, it isn't my position that is unbiblical or that needs to explain why Jesus would say one thing, but do another, or why God would promise one thing but do another.

(08-16-2011 02:17 AM)Mary Wrote: Now look very carefully and prayerfully at 2 Corinthians Ch5 ( the whole chapter) but I will just post these verses: 15-18 :

Ok, now look very closely at who Paul was addressing Mary. The audience Paul was here: [2 Cor 1:8] "For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers (ἀδελφός adelphos G80), of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself."

Which adelpho (brethren) of Paul's had experienced great affliction in Asia? None other than the House of Israel who had been first persecuted by the Assyrian Empire, and pushed westward, then the Greek empire. It was none other than the House of Israel as recorded by Strabo commenting on Herodotus (calling them a number of things including Cappadocians (12.3.9))

Mary, you cite [2 Cor 5], but you pay no heed to whom it was addressed. If you're going to cite Paul's letter, cite it in context. Paul was writing Israelites.