Two Israels / Two Torahs / Two Covenants / Two Tabernacles

[JohnD]

You know, I do not understand what fuels the resistance to this.

 

God is the Hebrew God of all. Hebrew did not originate with the people but with God.

 

The LORD created the House of Yisro'el to usher into this dark world the light of truth in two forms (written and Personified). It is in that House we are all grafted into or damned from. It is in that house that the eventual clash between Messiah and false messiah will play out.

 

Yet we cling to the traditional dividers of those who believe in Yeshua HaMoshiakh for dear life... {sigh}

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Galatians 6:16 (NASB95)

16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

Should have also said "and the Gentiles of God."

 

Is that not the way you are interpreting this verse to mean just the Jewish believers?

"Israel" is NEVER spiritualized to refer to, or include Gentiles anywhere in the New Testament.   Paul includes the "Israel of God"  (Jewish believers) in his comments.   He already included the Gentiles and he also mentioned the Jewish believers who are the true "Israel of God."  

 

There is NO exegetical basis for claiming that "Israel of God" includes Gentiles.

 

 

Then all the passages in Romans Galatians Ephesians about there being no distinction between Jew and Gentile are wrong?

 

Romans 11:16-26 speaks of grafted in Gentiles and the salvation of all ISRAEL.

 

Is this not to include grafted in Gentiles?

 

No, they are not wrong.    Those passages are simply saying that ethnic pedigree, gender and social status do not put a person at either an advantage or disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned.  You are misreading those passages and are trying  to apply them to an issue they were not written to address. 

 

Your exegesis is sloppy.

 

 

A sloppy exegesis is better than a traditional eisegesis any day.

 

Sloppy exegesis is tell-tale sign of someone who is more interested in the agenda they are trying foist on other people than they are about the truth of Scripture.   Sloppy exegesis like yours is nothing to be proud of. 

[Guest shiloh357]

You know, I do not understand what fuels the resistance to this.

A commitment to truth and the leading of the Holy Spirit, for starters. 

[JohnD]

 

 

 

Understand.

 

I am not here to win a contest.

 

I just want the truth to be shown and unless you can disprove it with scripture, the scriptures I have shown must be received authoritatively (not at all because I believe it... but because it is in keeping with God's word).

I receive the Scriptures you presented.  I do not receive your faulty exegesis of them.

 

 

Sure you do.

 

If you believe (despite scriptures in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians to the contrary) that there is a distinction between Jewish born believers In Jesus and Gentile born believers in Jesus.

 

No.  I believe there is no distinction in terms of access to God's grace which is what Paul is talking about in context.  The fact that in Christ there are neither Jew nor Greek doesn't mean that they lose their ethnic identity.   It simply means that everyone gets saved the same way, no distinctions or differences in that regard

 

Anyone can do what you are doing and just grab verses and passages and rip them from their literary context and string them together like lights on a Christmas tree and make them say whatever they want it to say.

 

 

Agreed.

 

But then you apply it to the spiritual aspect with your version of Romans 16:26 and Galatians 6:16...

 

Why?

[JohnD]

 

 

 

 

 

Galatians 6:16 (NASB95)

16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

Should have also said "and the Gentiles of God."

 

Is that not the way you are interpreting this verse to mean just the Jewish believers?

"Israel" is NEVER spiritualized to refer to, or include Gentiles anywhere in the New Testament.   Paul includes the "Israel of God"  (Jewish believers) in his comments.   He already included the Gentiles and he also mentioned the Jewish believers who are the true "Israel of God."  

 

There is NO exegetical basis for claiming that "Israel of God" includes Gentiles.

 

 

Then all the passages in Romans Galatians Ephesians about there being no distinction between Jew and Gentile are wrong?

 

Romans 11:16-26 speaks of grafted in Gentiles and the salvation of all ISRAEL.

 

Is this not to include grafted in Gentiles?

 

No, they are not wrong.    Those passages are simply saying that ethnic pedigree, gender and social status do not put a person at either an advantage or disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned.  You are misreading those passages and are trying  to apply them to an issue they were not written to address. 

 

Your exegesis is sloppy.

 

 

A sloppy exegesis is better than a traditional eisegesis any day.

 

Sloppy exegesis is tell-tale sign of someone who is more interested in the agenda they are trying foist on other people than they are about the truth of Scripture.   Sloppy exegesis like yours is nothing to be proud of. 

 

 

 

Pride is nothing to be proud of.

 

God hates pride.

 

If anyone could have said he was proud of anyone or anything, the Father could have said he was of his Son and his Son's behavior, but he did not. He said he was pleased with him.

 

Proud / pride is not in my vocabulary except to describe the fool-heartiness of others.

[Qnts2]

You and others may not want to see it for what it is.

 

I get that.

 

But you have yet to disprove any of the scripture I cited with scripture.

 

You only offer opinion (so far). 

 

The Bible says we are grafted into the already existing Olive Tree. Romans 11:16-26 and calls it "all Israel." After the distinguishing of Roman 9:6 where Paul states that unbelieving Israel is not "all Israel."

 

Scripture and scripture.

 

Show me scripture that proves this wrong.

 

Please.

Let's look at the actual verses in Romans 11:

 

Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, ¹⁸ do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. ¹⁹ You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; ²¹ for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

 

Verse 17 says that the Gentiles are the 'wild olive', and are grafted into the olive tree. Grafting means the wild branches partake of the root, but do not become natural branches. This is reinforced by verse 21 which states that the broken off natural branches are still called natural branches. Natural branches are Israel, and wild branches are not Israel.

 

Since the Natural branches, are Israel, and they are broken off, but remain natural/Israel, that means the root of the tree is not Israel as broken off branches and remaining branches are Israel. Israel in this metaphor are natural branches  Gentiles in this metaphor are wild branches.  Being grafted into the tree does not make wild branches into natural branches.   

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Galatians 6:16 (NASB95)

16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

Should have also said "and the Gentiles of God."

 

Is that not the way you are interpreting this verse to mean just the Jewish believers?

"Israel" is NEVER spiritualized to refer to, or include Gentiles anywhere in the New Testament.   Paul includes the "Israel of God"  (Jewish believers) in his comments.   He already included the Gentiles and he also mentioned the Jewish believers who are the true "Israel of God."  

 

There is NO exegetical basis for claiming that "Israel of God" includes Gentiles.

 

 

Then all the passages in Romans Galatians Ephesians about there being no distinction between Jew and Gentile are wrong?

 

Romans 11:16-26 speaks of grafted in Gentiles and the salvation of all ISRAEL.

 

Is this not to include grafted in Gentiles?

 

No, they are not wrong.    Those passages are simply saying that ethnic pedigree, gender and social status do not put a person at either an advantage or disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned.  You are misreading those passages and are trying  to apply them to an issue they were not written to address. 

 

Your exegesis is sloppy.

 

 

A sloppy exegesis is better than a traditional eisegesis any day.

 

Sloppy exegesis is tell-tale sign of someone who is more interested in the agenda they are trying foist on other people than they are about the truth of Scripture.   Sloppy exegesis like yours is nothing to be proud of. 

 

 

 

Pride is nothing to be proud of.

 

God hates pride.

 

If anyone could have said he was proud of anyone or anything, the Father could have said he was of his Son and his Son's behavior, but he did not. He said he was pleased with him.

 

Proud / pride is not in my vocabulary except to describe the fool-heartiness of others.

 

I am not operating from pride,but from a commmitment to the truth and a sound exegesis of the Scriptures.   So far you have not refuted  one comment I have made. 

[JohnD]

 

You know, I do not understand what fuels the resistance to this.

A commitment to truth and the leading of the Holy Spirit, for starters. 

 

 

Okay.

 

Let's play.

 

1 John 4:1 (NASB95)

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NASB95)

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

Acts 17:11 (NASB95)

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB95)

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

Which of the two of us has CLEARLY followed this biblical mandate, and which has not?

[JohnD]

 

You and others may not want to see it for what it is.

 

I get that.

 

But you have yet to disprove any of the scripture I cited with scripture.

 

You only offer opinion (so far). 

 

The Bible says we are grafted into the already existing Olive Tree. Romans 11:16-26 and calls it "all Israel." After the distinguishing of Roman 9:6 where Paul states that unbelieving Israel is not "all Israel."

 

Scripture and scripture.

 

Show me scripture that proves this wrong.

 

Please.

Let's look at the actual verses in Romans 11:

 

Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, ¹⁸ do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. ¹⁹ You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; ²¹ for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

 

Verse 17 says that the Gentiles are the 'wild olive', and are grafted into the olive tree. Grafting means the wild branches partake of the root, but do not become natural branches. This is reinforced by verse 21 which states that the broken off natural branches are still called natural branches. Natural branches are Israel, and wild branches are not Israel.

 

Since the Natural branches, are Israel, and they are broken off, but remain natural/Israel, that means the root of the tree is not Israel as broken off branches and remaining branches are Israel. Israel in this metaphor are natural branches  Gentiles in this metaphor are wild branches.  Being grafted into the tree does not make wild branches into natural branches.   

 

 

Sure it does. They are natural OLIVE branches. Right?

[JohnD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Galatians 6:16 (NASB95)

16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

Should have also said "and the Gentiles of God."

 

Is that not the way you are interpreting this verse to mean just the Jewish believers?

"Israel" is NEVER spiritualized to refer to, or include Gentiles anywhere in the New Testament.   Paul includes the "Israel of God"  (Jewish believers) in his comments.   He already included the Gentiles and he also mentioned the Jewish believers who are the true "Israel of God."  

 

There is NO exegetical basis for claiming that "Israel of God" includes Gentiles.

 

 

Then all the passages in Romans Galatians Ephesians about there being no distinction between Jew and Gentile are wrong?

 

Romans 11:16-26 speaks of grafted in Gentiles and the salvation of all ISRAEL.

 

Is this not to include grafted in Gentiles?

 

No, they are not wrong.    Those passages are simply saying that ethnic pedigree, gender and social status do not put a person at either an advantage or disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned.  You are misreading those passages and are trying  to apply them to an issue they were not written to address. 

 

Your exegesis is sloppy.

 

 

A sloppy exegesis is better than a traditional eisegesis any day.

 

Sloppy exegesis is tell-tale sign of someone who is more interested in the agenda they are trying foist on other people than they are about the truth of Scripture.   Sloppy exegesis like yours is nothing to be proud of. 

 

 

 

Pride is nothing to be proud of.

 

God hates pride.

 

If anyone could have said he was proud of anyone or anything, the Father could have said he was of his Son and his Son's behavior, but he did not. He said he was pleased with him.

 

Proud / pride is not in my vocabulary except to describe the fool-heartiness of others.

 

I am not operating from pride,but from a commmitment to the truth and a sound exegesis of the Scriptures.   So far you have not refuted  one comment I have made. 

 

 

You are right. I have not. The Bible has refuted every one of your comments (which have contained no scripture so far)