Guest shiloh357 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Praise the Lord that he has not cast away the natural branches or I would not be here having this conversation with you. But I am part of the church which is Israel but not because of the gentiles but because of my Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. And every one who is grafted in is there because of their Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am sorry, avenaue, but the Church was not, is not, and never will be "Israel." The Bible nowhere makes that assertion. The Church is the Church, period. Israel is Israel, period. That is truth, that is Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Praise the Lord that he has not cast away the natural branches or I would not be here having this conversation with you. But I am part of the church which is Israel but not because of the gentiles but because of my Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. And every one who is grafted in is there because of their Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I forgot to comment on your Hebrew. It is Brit Chadash Which means fresh alliance or new covenant. Not renewed. And for those who don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BibleStudent Posted August 19, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 65 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/03/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 The word of Shiloh came to this thread saying, My theology says that much, but you stop short of understanding that God has made promises to Israel that cannot be brushed off by the silly assertion that God was really talking to the church. Anyone that studies the texts can see that such an assertion is based upon faulty exegesis. I guess that at least 18 centuries of expositors were unable to read, according you your explicit claim. After all, the idea that there was a divine plan remaining for physical Israel was unknown until about 1830. It is a silly assertion and I have only demonstrated ad nauseum on this thread. It is based upon redifining key terms in Scriptures that were taken out of context and forced to address issues that were not germain to the text, or the intention of the author. "Silly" is the politest term usable. It is becaues my position on Israel is demonstratably stronger than Biblestudent's that I can make that assertion. As I noted just above, 18 centuries of well-schooled expositors (Shall we mention a few? Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, etc.) read the scriptures and found no such contextual problem. They all saw the church as the continuation of true Judaism, just as the apostles did. Of course, the apostles made inspired commentary on those OT promises a matter of Holy Writ. And their comments clearly define that the church is the royal priesthood (Exod 19:16, 1 Pet 2:5, Rev 1:5), not the Jews. They declare that all the sacrifices are over, since Jesus died and became the high priest according to Melchizedek (Matt 27:51, Heb 7). The land promise is not to Jews, but to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 The word of Shiloh came to this thread saying, QUOTE My theology says that much, but you stop short of understanding that God has made promises to Israel that cannot be brushed off by the silly assertion that God was really talking to the church. Anyone that studies the texts can see that such an assertion is based upon faulty exegesis. I guess that at least 18 centuries of expositors were unable to read, according you your explicit claim. After all, the idea that there was a divine plan remaining for physical Israel was unknown until about 1830. QUOTE It is a silly assertion and I have only demonstrated ad nauseum on this thread. It is based upon redifining key terms in Scriptures that were taken out of context and forced to address issues that were not germain to the text, or the intention of the author. "Silly" is the politest term usable. It is becaues my position on Israel is demonstratably stronger than Biblestudent's that I can make that assertion. As I noted just above, 18 centuries of well-schooled expositors (Shall we mention a few? Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, etc.) read the scriptures and found no such contextual problem. They all saw the church as the continuation of true Judaism, just as the apostles did. Of course, the apostles made inspired commentary on those OT promises a matter of Holy Writ. And their comments clearly define that the church is the royal priesthood (Exod 19:16, 1 Pet 2:5, Rev 1:5), not the Jews. They declare that all the sacrifices are over, since Jesus died and became the high priest according to Melchizedek (Matt 27:51, Heb 7). The land promise is not to Jews, but to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanners Posted August 29, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 116 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/17/1968 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Praise the Lord that he has not cast away the natural branches or I would not be here having this conversation with you. But I am part of the church which is Israel but not because of the gentiles but because of my Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. And every one who is grafted in is there because of their Jewish Father of faith Christ and Abraham. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am sorry, avenaue, but the Church was not, is not, and never will be "Israel." The Bible nowhere makes that assertion. The Church is the Church, period. Israel is Israel, period. That is truth, that is Bible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are not making any sense again Shilo. Are you saying that the church is all gentiles and that Israel are all Jews. Christ is the king of Israel and He is the head of the Church. The Church is the new covenant. When a new covenant is made the old ones are nul and void. Mt 15 24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 26 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Heb 8 13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Church is made up of believers both Jewish and Gentile. The Church has been given spiritual blessings as they are a spirtual "nation" if you will. The nation of Israel is a physical entity. The physical nation of Israel inhabits a place on earth. Israel was given physical blessings. God has not taken away those blessings, He has not transferred them to anyone else. Israel has been and shall remain God's nation (Jeremiah 31:35-36.) You cannot confuse the two. When God talks about Israel, he is either talking about the entire nation, the northern Kingdom, or even Jocob Himself, who was named "Israel." When God is speaking to or about the Church, he is speaking to a body of baptized, spiritfilled believers. God NEVER once in the NT declares that the Church has replaced Israel, nor does he declare that the Church IS Israel. One cannot be saved without being a part of the Church. One cannot be saved simply by belonging to the nation of Israel. Jewish or Israelite pedigree is worthless where salvation is concerned. Israel and the Church are two separate entities, and they must remain separate for the Bible and the endtime prophecies to make sense. The Church is the new covenant. No, this is not so. The Church participates in the "New Covenant" but it is NOT the New Covenant. The term New Covenant from Hebrew is "Brit Chadashah" it is a term that means "renewed covenant." The New Covenant is not "New" in the absolute sense. It still has a sacrficial system. It simply has a better one. The Brit Chadashah is a modified version of the previous covenant, and it makes the previous one obsolete. In the old days people used to de-seed cotton by hand, until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The cotton gin did not do away with the need to de-seed cotton, it simply provided a better way to do it. In the same way, the Brit Chadashah did not do away with man's need for a sacrifce, but it provides a better sacrifice, a better priesthood and better blood through Christ. It was also modified to account for the entrance of the Gentiles by faith. The New Covenant is with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. That is not a reference to the church, and no amount of theological gymnastics can twist into such a reference, especially considering the surrounding context of Jer. 31. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, I'm jumping into this late. But I do not see the church as including the Jews since they have not accepted Jesus as their Messiah. You cannot enter heaven without accepting christ as your savior. However, the Jews are not forever doomed. Because of God's blessing and grace and per Ezekiel 38:15 the last war of all nations will result in divine intervention to prevent annihilation of all mankind, this will cause a great majority of Jews to see Jesus as their Messiah. Don't you just love GOD His grace is incomprehensible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Sorry, I'm jumping into this late. But I do not see the church as including the Jews since they have not accepted Jesus as their Messiah. You cannot enter heaven without accepting christ as your savior. However, the Jews are not forever doomed. Because of God's blessing and grace and per Ezekiel 38:15 the last war of all nations will result in divine intervention to prevent annihilation of all mankind, this will cause a great majority of Jews to see Jesus as their Messiah. Don't you just love GOD His grace is incomprehensible The church does not include unbelieving Jewish people, but does include Jewish people who are believers. No one is suggesting that one can be enter heaven without Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanners Posted August 30, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 116 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/17/1968 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The church does not include unbelieving Jewish people, but does include Jewish people who are believers. No one is suggesting that one can be enter heaven without Christ. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, there are jews who believe in Christ. I guess I didn't clarify myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BibleStudent Posted August 30, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 65 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/03/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 Shiloh, I know there were many anti-Semitic theologians in the church. That doesn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Shiloh, I know there were many anti-Semitic theologians in the church. That doesn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts