lekh l'kha

Notice point # 28 in Botz's post below: 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Good post, Another Traveler. Expresses exactly how I feel. "Defining" God or expressing Him in any doctrine is way too far over the heads of mankind - and yet they will try to, and think they have done, what they can't do. 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. It is almost impossible to have an intellectual conversation concerning the trinity because of the doctrinal double talk that is gibberish in it's highest form. Consider the word "person". The American Heritage

And yet if the unsaved should question

Yes. The things Nebula experiences and has experienced exposes her for what she is: A real Christian: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Mat 5:11-16) Real Christians will be UNPOPULAR and the things they say will be despised. "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven".

I can see this from both sides of the discussion. The Christians in the Middle East became pretty ineffective after Islamic Arabs took over the rule of Middle Eastern nations one by one from the Eastern Orthdox Byzantine Emperors. But by the time this happened, Christianity was full of dead traditions and relic worship anyway. But I'm convinced that even then, the Lord must have had His remnant of saved, born-again Christians in the Middle East. How they must have been persecuted over the centuries, and still do - even in Israel. Those who scream the intolerance accusation at Christians are the most intolerant of any religious idea which contradicts their own - the fact that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no-one comes to God the Father but by Him, and the fact that there is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved. But truth is not tolerated in a world which regards truth as non-P.C, and the opposition to saved Christianity is getting steadily more intense - soon we'll be back to the days of the persecution of the real Christians in the Roman Empire. Our Caesars and officials are as anti-Christ as they were back then. "Freedom of religion", at least the kind that America's founders strove for, is a dream today, and the claim that religious freedom is practiced in the West, is a lie today. But I don't think that the author of the book you mentioned is taking the passage which speaks about the saints overcoming Satan by the blood of the Lamb, in its context (Revelation 12). They overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb because Satan was the accuser of the brethren - and the only tool he had to accuse them, was the Law of God. But Jesus shed His blood for our transgression of that Law, and as a result Satan can no longer come before God to accuse the saints who are in Christ, and therefore was legally cast out of the heavenly realm, and down to the earth. Many believe this is a prophecy which is yet to be fulfillled, and in a sense it is (also) a prophecy yet to be fulfilled, because to put in very basic terms, "history repeats itself", and Satan's persecution of "the woman" who brought the seed into the world, as well as his persecution of "the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ", is far from over. Jesus said, "Therefore whoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man shall also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mar 8:38). Therefore they (the saints) overcame Satan not only by the blood of the Lamb, but also by the word of their testimony, because "they did not love their lives even to death." But I believe your main point is completely valid - the governments and societies in the West are most certainly gradually strangling the Word of God and message of His gospel by trying to muzzle those who belong to Christ, and to a large extent, this tactic of Satan is succeeding. It's been a slow and very subtle process - it's not always an obvious, tangible process - and it's happening in every formally traditionally "Christian" country in the world. But this is also exasperated by the fact that Satan's 'Trojan Horse' of false doctrine is busy destroying the community of believers from within, and as a result, Satan has succeeded in getting many of us at one another's throats. To me, we cannot bind the devil - because he was not bound at Calvary, though he most certainly was defeated at Calvary - he was cast out of the heavenly realm to the earth and has been intensifying his warfare ever since - and the only One strong enough to bind Satan, is the One who also defeated him at Calvary - and we are told in the Revelation of Christ that he will only bind Satan at the time of His return (Revelation 20). So we've got a lot of trouble on the horizon, according to the Revelation - and what's happening now, is part of the build-up to it. We mustn't be shocked. In the world, we are responsible to ensure that Caesar and his citizens know that we are Christians, and we are to be ready to give an account of why we believe when the opportunity arises. But we can't force our beliefs down the Roman's throats any more than we can get a horse to drink once we've led it to the water, or any more than the 1st and 2nd century Christians could force their beliefs down the throats of the Romans, until the Roman Church began to do it in the 4th century - and it certainly wasn't right then, either. God only requires that we make those around us (family, friends, collegues and acquaintances) aware that we are Christians, and that we remain always ready to give them a reason for our belief, when the opportunity arsies. We can always pray for such opportunities, but we cannot force anyone to accept truth - God doesn't force them to, and so neither should we. We musn't make ourselves anxious about things beyond our control - but we must use whatever avenues are left open to us to stand up for the truth and for what we know is right - so we should join any demonstration/s held by Christians against abortions, homosexual marriage laws, etc, while we still can - even if we know that our "opinions" will fall on deaf ears and hard hearts. As long as we always remain an example of the One we follow, we can still use the avenues that at present still remain open to us - but the closer the return of Jesus gets, the more "issues" Christians will have to protest about, until Caesar says, "No more" - and silences the saints. That's true, I think, for America and any other nation where Christians are still free enough to gather together freely.

"Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Isn't HIS name YHWH? Why aren't we baptised in HIS name? Why are we baptised in the name of three titles or descriptions of God, instead of in HIS name? Just asking. Because I've often wondered why we are not baptised in the name of God.

Leave a lamb exposed who had lost it's way a little, and the first hyena or vulture that sees it will tear it to shreds But your point is valid, and is taken

Nope, the only one posting in this thread whose often prone to get emotional and to rant is yourself. But you're right about the fact that I really don't know what is taught in colleges and seminaries regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, so maybe I must not speak from ignorance (which is your next accusation, judging by your words which are portraying more and more irritability on your part with the fact that I don't agree with your position). Nevertheless, I truly doubt that colleges and seminaries would be truly open enough to allow their students to bring the sacred doctrine of the Trinity into question too much. Maybe just a little, but I'm preety sure that I'm right to assume that they will all have to conform eventually to the traditional doctrine of the Trinity if they hope to pass their degrees.

Firstly, it's doubtful that Constantine's "conversion" was real: (Quote: "A history of Christianity" by Paul Johnson): "...Many Christians did not make a clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred to Christ 'driving his chariot across the sky'; they held their services on Sunday, knelt toward the East and had their nativity-feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice. During the later pagan revival under the Emperor Julian many Christians found it easy to apostasize because of this confusion; the Bishop of Troy told Julian he had always prayed secretly to the sun. Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins. He made Sunday into a day of rest, closing the lawcourts and forbidding all work except agricultural labour. In his new city of Constantinople, he set up a statue of the sun-god, bearing his own features in the forum; and another of the mother-Goddess Cybele, though she was presented in a posture of Christian prayer... he was an exceptionally superstitious man, and he no doubt shared the view, popular among professional soldiers, that all religious cults should be respected, to appease their respective gods... He was a slave to signs and omens... Superstition guided his decision to build a new capital, the choice of its site..." (unquote) Constantine would have been an idiot not to recognize the fact that Christianity (in its many various forms) had spread far and wide throughout the Roman Empire, and he began to rule in a time when the Roman Empire had begun to fragment. It seems that his decision to overturn the previous edicts persecuting Christians and to treat the Roman church with favor, was done in an attempt to cement the fragmenting Roman Empire together again, rather than out of genuine conviction. This is why he gave the government of the Western Empire over to the Roman church when he shifted the capital to Constantinople, which gave the Roman church the ability, through now being able to use the state "police" (Roman legions), to enforce its own brand of Christianity upon all who fell under the control of the Bishop of Rome. Quote: "A history of Christianity": "A dominant Orthdox Church, with a recognizable ecclesiastical structure, emerged only very gradually and represented a process of natural selection - a spiritual survival of the fittest..." (unquote) In the first two hundred years of post apostolic-era Christianity (around 120-320 A.D), Christianity actually became a collection of heterodixies, rather than one identifiable "Orthodox" faith with a few splinter heteredox sects. Many groups accused ONE ANOTHER of heresy. Rome gained ascendancy over the faith in the Western Empire thanks to the marriage between the Roman Church and the Roman state brought about by Constantines decisions and actions. What we've still got today, is mainly ROMAN UNIVERSAL (CATHOLIC) religious concepts and traditions added to the faith when pagan Roman religion was amalgamated with Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church. You're right that we need to go back to what is written in the Bible - because with the exception of Luke and the book of Acts (which was written by Luke, a Gentile convert), all the books of the New Testament was written by the Jewish apostles of Jesus, who is a Jew. The concepts are Jewish, the understanding of the relationship between the Law and grace are Jewish, even a lot of the stuff written in the book of Revelation is Jewish, but misunderstood by many Gentiles because its Jewishness has been lost in the post-apostolic Gentile-run Church's sausage-mixing machinary. Lekh

Oh yeah, there has to be a shaking, alright. There has to be a shaking so that all the Gentile religious concepts carried over from the pagan Roman Empire and erected upon the foundation of a Jewish, Middle-Eastern faith can come tumbling down, so that all that's left exposed is the fully 100% Jewish foundation; and so that the body of believers, "the called-out-ones" who believe in the Jewish Messiah and King of Israel who is the Holy One of Israel, can get back to the very Jewish religious concepts and foundation of their faith. I'll give you an example: Jesus is King in the millennium. Do you think He's going to oulaw Christmas and Easter? You bet your bottom-dollar He will. He will want to know why a festival not ordained by God and recorded in the Jewish book called the Bible, and a festival with pagan roots is held in rememberance of Him. I think He will regard any Gentile man-made religious concepts and "holy-days" with contempt. There's going to be a shaking of "the church" alright - but the real shaking is going to be brought about at the hands of Yeshua haMashiach, melech ha'olam. So Mary Christmas and Joseph Christmas is going to become: Have a wonderful Feast of Taberncales!

It is no more extrabiblical than a lot of words we use like "legalism" and when we refer to "ceremonial law," "Millennium," and other words/phrases we have in our language meant solely to communicate a biblical concept. The concept of Trinity is defined as one God, but three persons, not three gods. It has been, over the years, competently taught and explained to a degree that to continue asserting that it refers to three gods in the face of those many explanations amounts to a frivolous claim. I disagree. The nature of God is a far, far deeper subject that the millennium or the subject of law vs. grace and the balance between legalism and license, and not only myself but many, many Christians I know have grappled with the Trinity at some stage. I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity has been "competently taught" over the years as you claim - not even in theological seminaries and Bible colleges. What's taught is: "This is the most sacred of all Christian doctrines. Accept it without questioning it. If you don't accept it, you're a heretic."

This is a deep subject, takes a lot of (non-emotional) thought, and many, many Christians I know have grappled with it, including me.

I agree....the Old Covenant talks about G-d, and the Spirit, and the Angel of the L-rd etc, and yet there was never any confusion about the Oneness of G-d...there was no attempt at division, or to define the indefinable. (although I suspect in some of the Jewish commentaries there were certain controversies) The New Covenant extends this same understanding, and we see more clearly, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which to me mysteriously consolidates and unifies G-d and at the same time helps me appreciate some of the revelation about Himself to us. I don't have any worries about the use of extra-biblical words, but I think the way the 'Trinity' has been promoted and the very nature of the name, has been the probable cause of further separation between Jewish and Gentile Believers...but it is an ongoing concern that warrants further reseach on my part...especially the idea that it was somehow a carefully chosen and deliberate undertaking. Yes. I think if we put ourselves in the shoes of conscientious Jew who would enquire if Jesus is the Messiah, but had been brought up to recite the Sh'ma morning and evening every day, the words "three persons" and "Trinity" would ring alarm bells.

Hi, TTS. The thing which you would know about Biblical interpretation is that we can't isolate one or two passages of scripture and interpret them by themselves without looking at what the rest of the Word of God says about the same subject. In Genesis 1 we read, "In the beginning GOD...." (the Father is mentioned right there), then, "...and the SPIRIT of God...", then "... and God SAID.." (the Word of God). John 1.1 tells us that the Word of God is God, and John 1: 14 says that the Word was made flesh. 2Cor.5: 19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and Col.2: 9 tells us that in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. Jesus did not say to Philip, "Have WE been with you such a long time, and yet you have not known US" when Philip asked Him to show them the Father, He said "Have I been with you... and yet you have not known ME" Also, Jesus said that His words are: 1) the works of the Father. 2) Spirit and Life. And He said that God is a Spirit. But we know that Jesus is the Son of God, but He's also the son of MAN, and we are told by Paul, For He put all things under His feet. But when He says that all things have been put under His feet, it is plain that it excepts Him who has put all things under Him. But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all things in all." (1Co 15:27-28); and: "... then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power." (1Co 15:24). Bearing in mind that the Word of God teaches us that God's Word is subject to God, we shouldn't have a problem with this, because God said, "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do." (Isa 55:10-11) This implies that the Word of God who is God, is subject to God. But until the kingdom is delivered by the Son of God/ Son of Man back to God, the authority is in the hands of MAN - IN JESUS THE MAN: "... what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than elohiym, and have crowned him with glory and honor. You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet:" (Psa 8:4-6). "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth." Mat 28:18) "And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed." (Joh 20:28-29) "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among nations, believed on in the world, and received up into glory." (1Ti 3:16) It's not the truths that the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to express that i have a problem with - it's the use of the extra Biblical word "persons" (plural) in the same sentence with the extrea-Biblical word "Trinity" which to me, negates the Oneness of God because it conjures up images in the human mind of three Gods.

mmm... so that's how one becomes human and a son of God... one disrobes from his heavenly body. C'mon, Boash. It's a long shot to say this passage in Jude links up with Genesis 6 and the mixing of the seed of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Anyway, you could be right. I just don't believe it. Me not believing it don't mean you're wrong. Have a good Christmas, if you celebrate it. Otherwise just have a good weekend

Lekh, first of all the first 4 Commandments are for God; and the other six Commandments are for your neighbor or fellow men. Not 5 and 5. Second you said that the first ones were

"Love the LORD your God with all your... and your neighbor as yourself. On these two hang ALL the Law and the prophets" 1. Love God: 5 commandments 2. Love neighbor: 5 commandments 1. 5 commandments to love God: ceremonial law 2. 5 commandments to love neighbor: civil law. "I will write my law in therir hearts, and put it in their minds" Once the Law is written on the heart, all its shadows falls away: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13) But the shadows still instruct us about righteusness and holiness - and still lead us to Christ.

Same as if you faithfully observe Christmas, Good Friday and Easter Sunday because they appeal to your sense of religious decorum. Au contraire. No one was ever commanded to faithfully observe Christmas, Good Friday or Easter Sunday and keeping one does not obligate me to keep any or all of them on pain of being separated from God for disobedience. You keep Christmas in your way and I shall keep it in mine. Great example of reductio ad absurdum, though. Why do you celebrate the birth of Christ on 25 December, when you can celebrate His birth on any day of the year? For that matter, why don't you celebrate His birth on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, since this is most likely the day He was born? Why do you celebrate Christmas at all? I'll tell you why - it's because it appeals to your sense of religious decorum - otherwise you wouldn't do it. It's because you need to add some "form" of tradition to your faith in Christ. Jesus wasn't born on Christmas day, and He wasn't crucified on Good Frdiay. Why don't you remember the crucifixion of Christ on Passover day - the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread? Why don't you celebrate Pentecost on the Biblical day of Pentecost? Who added the religious decorum of Christmas and Easter anyway? It was the Roman Catholic Church, which took the pagan festival of Saturnalia which was held in honor of the incarnation of the sun-god, and turned it into a day to remember the birth of Christ; and which took the pagan festival held in honor of the fertility goddess Easter, and turned it into a time to remember the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, which is why we have the fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs associated with Easter. So why do you celebrate Christmas day at all, when you can remember the birth of Christ on any day of the year? It's because you cannot break yourself from your NEED of this man-made religious decorum. Yet when others remember the birth of Christ on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, you say they show their need of religious decorum. When you criticize others for doing on God's appointed Feast days what you do on man's appointed feast days, you're making yourself a hypocrite. So why criticize another's need for religious decorum when you can't break yourself away from your own need of religious decorum?

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luk 3:38) Adam was the son of God: "And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:26) Only man is created in the image of God. Only man is called "the sons of God" in the Bible. Angels are not created in the image of God. I still don't see how they can be called "sons of God". In Job, "the sons of God" are presenting themselves before the OMNIPRESENT LORD, but they are in the earth, where Satan had just been: "And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 1: 7-8) "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6) God's question to Satan, "Hast thou considered my servant Job" (a man, not an angel) shows that in the context of the passage, "the sons of God" are referring to men, not angels - and Satan is their accuser. The sons of God are in the earth, presenting themselves before the LORD, and Satan, their accuser, has just come from "going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it". "The sons of God" are presenting themselves before the LORD, and Satan is there to accuse them. The context of the passage does not suggest otherwise, IMO. Gen 4: the genealogical line of Cain - "the sons of men". Gen 5: the line of Seth - "the sons of God" (because it Adam, "the son of God" according to Luke, had begotten Seth "in his own image, after his likeness" (Gen.5: 3). This was not said of Cain. Gen 6: the two lines merge when "the sons of God" marry the daughters of men. Gen. 7: judgment (the flood). Gen.8: A new beginning - the ark resting on Mt Ararat, etc. IMO, assumptions + human imagination = "the sons of God" = "fallen" angels. Lekh

I still think that it has caused many spiritually honest Jews and Muslims (probably tens of thousands over the centuries, if not more) to reject the gospel out of hand before considering the gospel message any further, because they see the words "persons" (plural) and "Trinity" as referring to three Gods, and not one; and it does not matter how much we try to "educate" them about the Trinity - many, many Christians don't understand it (I don't - I simply accept that there are three that bear witness in heaven - the Father, the Word and the Spirit), so how much less will Jewish and Muslim non-Christians understand it? "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1Ti 3:16) It just seems to me as though the educated theologians of 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Christendom simply could not accept that God cannot be defined in human language - they just had to work out a "definition" of God. And then there was a lot of squabbling about whether or not the "doctrine of the Trinity" should be canonized before it ever was canonized. I think a human attempt to thrash out a "definition" of God (the Trinity) is a far more serious business than working out whether or not the Bible speaks about grandfathers.

Another thing is, when Philip said, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" Jesus did NOT say, "Have WE been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known US, Philip? He said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known ME Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (Joh 14:8-9) And the apostle John said, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." (1Jn 2:23). "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." (1Jn 2:24). "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1Ti 3:16). The words of Jesus and the words of the apostle John kill the expression, "God in three persons (plural), Blessed Trinity". "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE (Greek: heis - one only)" (1Jn 5:7). Hebrew echad = one only. Hebrew yachad = unity. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is ONE (Hebrew: echad) LORD" (Deu 6:4) "persons" (plural) and "Trinity" are non-Biblical words used in HUMAN attempt to define the eternal God, and the expression "God in three persons (plural), Blessed Trinity" conjures up images of three Gods in unity in human minds. It has caused untold damage to the gospel over the centuries.

Before I also get accused of heresy, let me affirm that I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. But I don't believe any extra-Biblical doctrine, not even the extra-Biblical doctreine of the Trinity. I believe only what the Bible says, and the Bible says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1Jn 5:7). But NOWHERE does the Bible use the word "persons" (plural) to define God, NOR does it use the word "Trinity" anywhere. NOWHERE does the Bible say, "God in three persons (plural), Blessed Trinity". That's a man-made creed. I believe what the Bible says, and the Bible states that we human beings are BODY, SOUL AND SPIRT, and CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. I know that without my body, my spirit and soul cannot function as God intended it to. I also know that my mind/soul is not my body, nor is my spirit, but each (my body, soul and spirit) is it's own expression of "me". One can just as well say, "And these three (body, soul and spirit) are one". But I am not three persons (plural), yet I am created in the image of God. I simply believe what the Bible states, and NOWHERE in the Bible (from Genesis 1 onwards) is there any example of the Father, the Word (Son) and Holy Spirit not being present as ONE, wherever God acts or speaks. And NOWHERE does the Bible state that God is three persons (plural) in a "Trinity". "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is ONE" (Hebrew: ECHAD, distinct from Hebrew YACHAD, which means "unity"). You CAN'T put me into any box of "unitarian" or whatever, because I believe the Bible, and the Bible says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1Jn 5:7). But I reject the extra-Biblical use of the words "persons" (plural) and "Trinity", because the Bible does not use them. In fact, I think the expression "God in three persons, Blessed Trinity" is just the flesh stupidly thinking it's able to define the One God who cannot be defined. Why have a definition of God? Can the eternal One be defined? Simply accept what THE BIBLE says. Don't add anything more.

Man, have them theologians that have come out of Divinity Schools made huge errors throughout the centuries. Thank God that with the exception of Paul, the Lord never chose educated people to spread His gospel. Parker1, I really think that you aren't understanding the principle that Yod is trying to show here: What I think he's trying to show is that the substitution of the word 'church' for a word which always simply means an assembly , has caused the idea to develop over time (in the minds of many, many Gentiles who believe in Jesus) that the assembly of those who believe in Jesus has nothing to with Israel. Yet we have everything to do with Israel - because we have become the seed of Abraham by being grafted into Israel among the believing remnant of Abraham's natural descendants (Rom.11: 17). God's everlasting election of the seed of Abraham is contained in an oath-covenant which God made with an ethnic nation a.k.a Israel - the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Paul teaches that the majority of the ethnic seed of Abraham are broken off (UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles be come in), and only a remnant has remained, and that it is among this remnant of ethnic Israel that the Gentiles find themselves when we become grafted into Israel among them (Rom.11: 1-5). The assembly ("the church") is made up of the remnant of believing Israel + the Gentiles who have been joined to the remnant. But the word "church" + the theology of many, many educated theologians has brought about the situation we now find ourselves in - the fact that the word "church" has come to mean (in the minds of many Christians) an institution that has nothing to do with Israel. I also think it would be much clearer in the translations of the N.T if the Greek word "ekklesia" was simply translated as "assembly" (which is what it means), instead of as "church", which is a word with a pagan root, as Yod pointed out. I think that this is what Yod is trying to show (please tell me if I'm wrong, Yod). Lekh