I get it, somethings are not easy to swallow

[kwikphilly]

Blessings hmbld...

    I love simplicity,,,,,,,,,,,,,very nice analogy,I do agree & believe as you say,,,,,,,,,,,,we become Gods children by adoption,,,,,we were not born Jewish and we don't  become Jewish when we are adopted 

                                                                                                       With love-in Christ,Kwik

[zhavoney]

Gentiles become Jews when they accept Christ? I thought we became children of God, or Christians. If I adopted a Chinese child, would he cease to be Chinese? I understand we are grafted in. One would have to be born Jewish to be Jewish.

 

Amen hmbld

 

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is obvious Shiloh, that you knew what scriptures I was referring to when I said the gentiles become adopted Jews. 

 

No it is not obvious.  You said we become adopted Jews.  The Bible doesn't say that.  "Adopted Jews" is something you have penciled into the Bible.  Nowhere does the Bible tie adoption to being Jewish.  And I defy you to provide ONE Scripture that says that.   Still waiting...  

 

The doctrine of Adoption pertains to a familial relationship. Adoption is tied to being children of God, not Jews.  Your theology is based on something you have dreamed up and not on the word of God and certainly not a competent understanding of Scripture.   It's why when I ask for Scripture, you can't provide any.   I am not interested your homemade theology that you cooked up in the basement.  I am interested in seeing Scripture that says what you are saying and you can't provide any.  Hence your claim is not Christian and is not biblical.

 

 

No, the term "adopted Jews" isn't given, but the teaching is.

 

That makes no sense.  You can't argue that the Bible teachings something that isn't actually there.  It's not even a concept anywhere in the Bibie. 

 

The natural branches are the natural descendants of Jacob, and the wild branches are gentile believers.  When the natural branches reject Christ, they are removed from the tree they were born into, and when the wild branches accept Christ, they become part of the tree that originally was made up entirely by natural Israel.  If a couple has children of their own, those children are their natural children.  If they adopt children from an orphanage, those children become just as much their children in the legal sense as their natural children.  Lets take this a step further.  If a Jewish couple has children of their own, they are their natural children.  If they adopt children that were born gentiles, once the adoption is completed, those children are as much their children as their natural children, and are adopted into that Jewish family.  They are their children.  The same thing applies with this olive tree.  The gentiles that accept Christ become part of Israel by adoption, and though they were not born Jews, they become adopted Jews, even though the term "adopted Jew" is never mentioned specifically in scripture. 

 

You mixing up and confusing theological metaphors.  But in either case, you trying to force something on to the text that is not there.   If a Caucasian couple adopts African American children, those children are theirs in a legal sense, but it doesn't change what the children are.  The  children are still African Americans.  They don't become Caucasian.   For your approach to adoption (Gentiles become adopted Jews) simply doesn't fit the adoption metaphor.   Adoption has nothing to do with who is or is not a Jews.   Trying to mix that with the grafting metaphor is equally nonsensical.  The wild branch doesn't become a cultivated branch when it is grafted in.   The natural branches don't cease being natural branches when they are cut off.

 

In Jewish law, if a Jewish family adopts a Gentile child, that child not an "adopted Jew."  That concept is foreign even to Jewish people.  Rarely do Jews adopted nonJewish children, but even if they do, they allow the Gentile child to decide later in life if he or she wants to convert to the Jewish religion.

 

Sorry Butero, but nowhere, and not on any level does your notion of "adopted Jew" fit either Scripture or Jewish life and neither grafting or adoption are anywhere in Scripture tied into who is or is not "Jewish." 

 

The natural branches are the natural descendants of Jacob, and the wild branches are gentile believers.  When the natural branches reject Christ, they are removed from the tree they were born into, and when the wild branches accept Christ, they become part of the tree that originally was made up entirely by natural Israel.  If a couple has children of their own, those children are their natural children.  If they adopt children from an orphanage, those children become just as much their children in the legal sense as their natural children.  Lets take this a step further.  If a Jewish couple has children of their own, they are their natural children.  If they adopt children that were born gentiles, once the adoption is completed, those children are as much their children as their natural children, and are adopted into that Jewish family.  They are their children.  The same thing applies with this olive tree.  The gentiles that accept Christ become part of Israel by adoption, and though they were not born Jews, they become adopted Jews, even though the term "adopted Jew" is never mentioned specifically in scripture. 

 

The difference between the Jews and gentiles was that the Jews were chosen by God to be his people, and everyone else was an outsider, and for the most part, an idol worshipper.  As such, it was a bad thing to be a gentile.  The gentiles are transformed into Jews when they accept Jesus. 

 

 

That is what I mean by "theological train wreck."  Again, the Bible doesn't say that and you obviously can't provide one shred of Bible to prove your point.   "Jew" is an ethnic term in the Bible.  It is not a spiritual or theological term anywhere in the NT or OT.    We are transformed into children of God, we are transformed into new creations.  We are not transformed  into Jews.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is a sin to be born as a Gentile.   Worshiping pagan gods is not equivalent with being a Gentile.

 

If being a Gentile is sinful, it completely destroys the entire idea of Jews and Gentiles being one new man in Christ.   The entire basis of the "one new man" concept in Eph. 2 is based on Jews and Gentiles united together.   It is not the claim of Paul that Gentiles become Jews in Christ.  There would be no reason for Paul to draw out a "one new man" theology in Ephesians if Gentiles become Jews.   Paul would also be spitting in the wind when he says, that in Christ there is neither Jew, nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free..."   

 

How can one say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but then at the same time claim that in Christ, one is tranformed into a Jew???   That again, makes no sense.

 

 

The issue is one of being spiritually a heathen.  Even in the Old Testament, and I know we don't agree here either, gentiles could become part of Israel by accepting Jehovah as the true and living God, and coming up under the law of Moses. 

 

No, I DO agree with that.  Gentiles could join themselves to Israel.  But nowhere does the Bible treat them as Jews. 

 

 

Ruth was an example of a gentile who became a Jew by faith. 

 

Nope.  The Bible doesn't say that.  That is a conclusion you are drawing and penciling into the text.   Scholars have pointed to the fact that the beautiful thing about Jesus' genealogy is that it contains Gentile lineage which points to the all inclusive nature of the Gospel, that God is no respecter of persons. 

 

 

Under the law, a gentile could become a Jew by keeping the law and placing their faith in Jehovah, and under the New Testament, a gentile can become a Jew through faith in Christ.  Under the law, a Jew could commit certain sins to where they were cut off from among God's people, and a gentile could become part of God's people.  The term, "adopted Jew" may not exist, just as the word "rapture" isn't found in the Bible, but they are both Biblical concepts. 

 

 

First of all, a Jew joining themselves to Israel is "adoption" and so once again you are confusing theological concepts there.   Secondly, the Bible doesn't say that a Gentile that joined themselves to Israel became a Jew.  Again, you are making stuff up.  

 

Thirdly, to compare "adopted Jew" with the concept of the "rapture" is an invalid comparison.   I can point to actual Scriptures that describe the concept of rapture.  I can show where the Bible describes a catching away of the saints.  I can even demonstrate the concept of a "trinity" even if that word is not actually used.    The problem with "adopted Jew" is that it is a term YOU have made up and you can't even get the theology right because the doctrine of adoption is nowhere tied to being either Jew or Gentile   So the concept isn't even there.   You have NOTHING and can provide NOTHING from the Bible to demonstrate the concept.  The very fact that you trying to use adoption to make someone Jewish, shows that you don't understand the doctrine of adoption and are not theologically equipped to debate such an issue.

[Qnts2]

 

The difference between the Jews and gentiles was that the Jews were chosen by God to be his people, and everyone else was an outsider, and for the most part, an idol worshipper.  As such, it was a bad thing to be a gentile.  The gentiles are transformed into Jews when they accept Jesus.  The issue is one of being spiritually a heathen.  Even in the Old Testament, and I know we don't agree here either, gentiles could become part of Israel by accepting Jehovah as the true and living God, and coming up under the law of Moses.  Ruth was an example of a gentile who became a Jew by faith.  Under the law, a gentile could become a Jew by keeping the law and placing their faith in Jehovah, and under the New Testament, a gentile can become a Jew through faith in Christ.  Under the law, a Jew could commit certain sins to where they were cut off from among God's people, and a gentile could become part of God's people.  The term, "adopted Jew" may not exist, just as the word "rapture" isn't found in the Bible, but they are both Biblical concepts. 

Oh man. I have to comment because this is so wrong and bad for people. Gentiles are not bad people because they are gentiles. God created all people. God did not make some people bad gentiles. God created and loved all people. There is nothing inherently better about the people who are Jewish as you imply. Both Jews and Gentiles are born sinners, in need of salvation. Both Jews and Gentiles need to come to faith in Jesus, the same way with the same needs.

 

Both Jews and Gentiles, when they believe on Jesus for salvation are born again and receive the same Spirit of adoption, becoming children of God.

 

So, there is no such thing as bad gentile, good Jew. There are only sinners in need of salvation, and saints, rescued from the penalty of sin by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.     

[Guest shiloh357]

I can fully respect the fact that people disagree with what I have said about Gentiles becoming adopted Jews, but I stand by every word of what I said as being true.

 

Despite the fact that you cannot provide one shred of biblical evidence to support that.  You will believe it anyway.  That's called intellectual suicide.

 

 

Lets take the Jewish people for a moment, and what made them Jews.  After all, they weren't always Jewish.  They were of a race of people in the middle east, and the only reason they became a nation is because God called a man named Abraham and said he would make a nation out of him, through Isaac.  What nationality was Abraham before he became a Jew?  What nationality was Isaac?  How about Jacob?  They became a nation because God declared it so because of the faith of Abraham.  It would be like tracing my roots back to Italy today, but God calling me and deciding to make a nation of my future family.  From that moment on, my nationality changed forever. 

 

LOL   Abraham was never a Jew.   You obviously have no clue on what makes a person Jewish.  But by all means, don't let ignorance get in your way. 

 

 

 

I did find that comment about a Chinese child interesting, as I was discussing that very same analogy with my wife last night.  We have a member at WB that adopted a Chinese baby, and I made it clear at the time that I believe that once the adoption went through, the child is fully American, not Chinese.  If I was to adopt a Chinese baby, an African-American baby, or a baby that was from Mexico, immediately they would become a Butero.  Their name would change, along with their nationality in the legal sense.  Yes, it would look odd to see Chinese looking face with an Italian name, but that would be the way it was. 

 

But that isn't really analogous, as "American" isn't a race nor is it an ethnicity.   We are Americans by virtue of being born into our citizenship or naturalized into it.   A Chinese baby adopted by an American family might make it American, but the baby is still Chinese.  So that doesn't really help your position.   Your position is that Gentiles are transformed in to Jews when they get saved.  That clearly implies that God doesn't actually accept Gentiles by faith, which contradicts all of Romans and Galatians which both make the case that Gentiles DON'T become Jews when they get saved.  They are accepted into the family as Gentiles, not as Gentiles who became Jews.

 

 

BTW Shiloh, I couldn't care less if you wait till Jesus returns for me to present the term "adopted Jew" from scripture.  I said the teaching is there, though the term is not.  That is like me telling someone I am waiting on them to show me the word rapture in scripture before I will accept the concept of the church being caught up before the great tribulation, as some do. 

 

No, it is not the same, at all.  Your position isn't even hinted at or implied anywhere.  In fact, your position contradicts the Bible's teaching on Gentiles being accepted into the body of Christ as Gentiles by virtue of faith in Jesus.   Gentiles remain Gentiles.  They are not accepted by being transformed into Jews.  They are accepted by faith by virtue of their faith in Christ and Christ alone.  Your position makes being a Gentile a sinful condition from which nonJews need to be redeemed from.  Your view should be rejected by all true followers of Jesus.

 

I was very clear that the term itself is not there, but the teaching is.  It comes from Romans, and yes, it is there

 

No, it is not in Romans and I defy to produce one Scripture that it is there.  Yes you have been very clear, and you have been clearly wrong.  You can't provide any Scripture that says Gentile Christians are adopted Jews, nor can you provide any place in Scripture that even implies it.  You won't produce it because it isn't there.  But you will try to protect your pride by putting up facade of defiance to deflect from the impotence of your view.

 

 

The fact you deny that the doctrine of adoption exists shows you are not theologically equipped to debate this topic. On the day I got saved, I became spiritually Israel.  I stand by that.  I will continue to teach that for doctrine.  Even so, I see no need to beat a dead horse, because you know full well what I am saying, and I know full well what you are saying, and neither side is going to budge. 

 

Yeah, you'll stand by that. Even though you can't provide anything from the Bible to support it.  It actually contradicts Scripture and is opposed to the authentic New Testament faith.  It's just more of your corny, homespun theology and is not the product of a competent study of the Bible.

[ncn]

Please debate the subject and not the person. 

If you notice that you are getting heated by another’s response, walk away from the thread until you know you have His peace back in your life over the issue.

 

God Bless. 

 

Nigel. 

[Qnts2]

I can fully respect the fact that people disagree with what I have said about Gentiles becoming adopted Jews, but I stand by every word of what I said as being true.  Lets take the Jewish people for a moment, and what made them Jews.  After all, they weren't always Jewish.  They were of a race of people in the middle east, and the only reason they became a nation is because God called a man named Abraham and said he would make a nation out of him, through Isaac.  What nationality was Abraham before he became a Jew?  What nationality was Isaac?  How about Jacob?  They became a nation because God declared it so because of the faith of Abraham.  It would be like tracing my roots back to Italy today, but God calling me and deciding to make a nation of my future family.  From that moment on, my nationality changed forever. 

 

I did find that comment about a Chinese child interesting, as I was discussing that very same analogy with my wife last night.  We have a member at WB that adopted a Chinese baby, and I made it clear at the time that I believe that once the adoption went through, the child is fully American, not Chinese.  If I was to adopt a Chinese baby, an African-American baby, or a baby that was from Mexico, immediately they would become a Butero.  Their name would change, along with their nationality in the legal sense.  Yes, it would look odd to see Chinese looking face with an Italian name, but that would be the way it was. 

 

BTW Shiloh, I couldn't care less if you wait till Jesus returns for me to present the term "adopted Jew" from scripture.  I said the teaching is there, though the term is not.  That is like me telling someone I am waiting on them to show me the word rapture in scripture before I will accept the concept of the church being caught up before the great tribulation, as some do.  I was very clear that the term itself is not there, but the teaching is.  It comes from Romans, and yes, it is there.  The fact you deny that the doctrine of adoption exists shows you are not theologically equipped to debate this topic. On the day I got saved, I became spiritually Israel.  I stand by that.  I will continue to teach that for doctrine.  Even so, I see no need to beat a dead horse, because you know full well what I am saying, and I know full well what you are saying, and neither side is going to budge. 

 

@Qnts, if what you are saying is true, why the need for God to make a nation of Abraham through Isaac?  Why not just leave his nationality as it was originally and save him and his family? 

 

@ Shiloh, why is it you have such a hard time believing God could make Ruth into a Jew, but not Jacob?  After all, Abraham was not originally born a Jew?  Were his parents Jews?  How about Isaac and Jacob?  If God is not a respecter of persons in the way you are claiming, what do you say about his respect for Abraham?  How about Isaac over Ishmael?  How about Jacob over Esau, before they were even born? 

 

I know you are addressing Shiloh, and I am sure he will give his answer, but again, this is way to important to bypass.

 

I'll repeat one thing I said earlier, in scripture there is no such thing as race. Racial groups is a man made concept. Race is a scientific term which even among scientists is debated, with varying definitions.

 

In scripture, the term 'nation' means a people group of common ancestors. In otherwords, for the most part, it is a physical linage. The children of Israel refers to the descendents of Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Egyptians are a nation of people called a nation in scripture. Gentiles or goyim means nations and in scripture, children of Israel are a goy/nation but most of the timeg goyim/nations refers to groups of people who are not Israel. Gentile means not Jewish. In the NT, believers who are not Jewish continue to be called Gentiles/not Jewish.

 

In physical terms, a Chinese baby who is adopted by an Italian family continues to be Chinese because their natural parents are Chinese and descended from the father of the Chinese people. That does not change. Names change but natural linage does not change.

 

With God, things change. When God adopts, the person adopted gains a new nature. They receive the Holy Spirit and God lives in them. God is not Jewish. With the receiving of the Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Adoption .

 

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

 

This Spirit of Adoption, the Holy Spirit, is not Jewish. Unbelieving Jews do not have the Spirit of Adoption. Unbelieving Gentiles do not have the Spirit of Adoption. Only believing Jews and believing Gentiles have the Spirit of Adoption. That makes us into something entirely new. Sons of God. The bride of Messiah. The body. A new nation, but this time the new nation has the first as Jesus with the father being God. Even more unique, we do not have a linage. There are no true believers who are grandchildren of God. No physical linage puts you into this family and there are no grandchildren, nieces or nephews. Only God adopts so only God is the Father. And the adoption includes a change so the Gods Spirit lives in those who are adopted.

 

So, Gentiles do not become adopted Jews because the Jewish people did not adopt the Gentiles, and the Jewish people are not the fathers of the adopted Gentile. God is the adopter and God is the Father.      

[Guest shiloh357]

@ Shiloh, why is it you have such a hard time believing God could make Ruth into a Jew, but not Jacob?

 

Neither Jacob nor Ruth were ever called Jews in the Bible. 

 

After all, Abraham was not originally born a Jew?  Were his parents Jews?  How about Isaac and Jacob?

 

Nope, to all of those.   Abraham was saved 430 years before the law and 25 years before he was circumcised.  Abraham was saved as a Gentile, not as a Jew and Paul makes that clear in Romans 4.   

Ruth did not become a Jew either.  She was always a Moabitess.  The Bible never refers to her in that way.

 

 

If God is not a respecter of persons in the way you are claiming, what do you say about his respect for Abraham?  How about Isaac over Ishmael?  How about Jacob over Esau, before they were even born?

 

None of that has anything to do with God being a respecter of persons. 

[Guest shiloh357]

The scriptures JohnDB gave from Romans show it is the case.  You referred to Romans, so you know exactly what scriptures I am speaking of.  If it wasn't there at all, you wouldn't have referenced the teachings about the spiritual tree and the wild branches.  Those are the scriptures Shiloh. 

 

And I responded to the Scriptures that JohnDB brought up and showed why they have nothing to do with Gentiles becoming Jews.  JohnDB simply strings passages together in order to make the Bible say what he wants it to say while ignoring their contexts and ignoring other Scriptures that bear directly on what those verses are saying.

 

I mentioned Romans, not because I think there are verses that speak to what you are saying.  I said your view contradicts both Romans and Galatians.  The Scriptures you think support your view, actually contradict it, such as in Romans 4 where Abraham was saved as as Gentile, not as a Jew.  Adoption is not connected with Israel, but with being part of the family of God. As Qnts said, God isn't a Jew.   God is adopting us as His children into His family, not the Jewish people.   You simply cannot theologically support your nonsensical claims with the Bible.

 

In addition to that, anyone can go back in the OT and see how a stranger can become part of Israel by keeping the law of Moses by faith, and how a natural Jew can be cut off from among God's people through disobedience.  Anyone with the least amount of Bible knowledge of the OT knows that is true.  The people that deny the doctrine of the trinity and deny the doctrine of the rapture make the same sort of claims you do, about the terms not being there.  They use the exact same arguments you are using now.  They say those concepts are not there, but are man-made doctrines.  Go back right now into the threads where people are denying the rapture and see yourself in this thread. 

 

I know Abraham was not a Jew, but he was chosen by God.  God told Abraham that he would give the land of Israel to him through his descendants.  He told him it would be through Isaac.  He called Jacob Israel, and a nation was born.  The point is, they were not originally Jews, none of them.  They had a nationality.  Abraham had parents, and they were not Jewish.  That means at some point, whether it be with Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, someone was transformed from one nationality to another nationality.  That proves it is possible. 

 

Actually that isn't the case at all.   Abraham died before the nation ever came into being.  The Israelite nation didn't exist until Mt. Sinai in the book of Exodus.  All of the patriarchs died not actually seeing the promise come into fruition.  And no one is transformed into a nation.  That is just silly.    You really are reaching for anything instead of just coming to grips with the facts.

 

 

If Ruth remained a gentiles, and she was in the lineage of Jesus, in the natural of course, that means that Jesus was not 100 percent Jewish.  His lineage through his earthly Father was a mix of Jews and Gentiles.  Is that your position Shiloh? 

 

Rahab the harlot was not Jewish either.  There were several women who were not Jewish in Jesus' lineage through Mary.   Sarah, Rebekah, Tamar, Rahab, Rachel and Ruth.  

So technically, Jesus had Gentiles in his lineage.

 

 

By the way, Jewishness is through the mother.   Tribal affiliation is through the father.  That's why Paul circumcised Timothy who's father was Gentile, but whose mother was Jewish.

[Guest shiloh357]

Your point is well taken NCN. 

 

Was Jacob a Jew Shiloh?  If not, who was the first Jew?  I know Abraham was saved before the law.  Are you claiming that Jews didn't exist until the law was given?  Was Moses the first Jew in your mind?  If nationalities don't change, how did the Jewish nation begin?  How can you claim that God choosing Jacob over Esau or Isaac over Ishmael doesn't show respect of persons?  At this point, I am just asking you questions to try to understand you better, not simply trying to be argumentative. 

 

 

Abraham was not just saved before the law.   He was saved before circumcision.  Abraham didn't get transfomred into a Jew when He was saved and last part of Romans 4 makes it clear that our justification is the same as his. I am saying the Israelite nation didn't exist until Mt. Sinai.  

 

God chose Jacob over Esau in terms of service, not salvation.   Being a respecter of persons refers to privilege.  If God offers a privilege to Jews that he witholds from every one else, if God provides a plan of salvation for Jews that no one else can participate in, then God is being a respecter of persons.  He is showing favoritism.   But God didn't choose Jacob because he reject Esau or didn't love Esau;  rather, God had a plan and it was his sovereign choice to use whom He would use for His purpose.