Be Careful, Church: The ‘Theological’ Arguments Against Israel Are Shamefully Wrong

[Anne2]

22 minutes ago, farouk said:

@Anne2  Hebrews 11 does indeed illuminate so poignantly the significance of the OT saints' faith in relation to the coming Christ.

And two covenants were made with Abraham....I am thinking "firstborn". He who has a portion above his brethren in the inheritance of their father. The other "heirs" a single.

I do not see any distinction of this in these discussions?

De 21:17  But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

[Luther]

21 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

`AND` depending on the context and also all of God`s word.

Now the Old Testament saints did not have faith in Christ for they did not know of Him. They `believed God for a city.`

`But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.` (Heb. 11: 16)

We are the New Man while Israel is the bride. (Isa. 54: 5 & 6   Hos. 2: 19 & 20)

You said: " Now the Old Testament saints did not have faith in Christ for they did not know of Him."

Each and every person throughout time, OT, NT,  who becomes saved is given the faith OF Christ. In Hebrews 11 we read over and over " through faith" or " by  faith"...... through the faith of Christ or literally " through Christ" they obtained and achieved all the things you read about.

Christ is God. They don't have to know the name of "Christ" to believe in Him. If they say God is their Savior don't you think that includes Christ? Yes of course it does. 

Luke 1:47 KJV     Mary:

"And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."

Job 19:25 KJV       Job:         

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Isaiah 60:16 KJV

Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Isaiah 43:11 KJV

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 9:6-7 KJV

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

The point is anyone back then with knowledge of the scriptures available knew of Christ the Savior because they knew God. 

Isaiah 53: 11-12 KJV

[11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

[12] Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

[Luther]

18 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Ok, so you're saying that you refuse to consult scripture (inspired by the Holy Spirit) and written by prophets commissioned by God, to maintain what you already believe.

Gee, if you are satisfied with your own perspective without actually reading scripture, why read scripture at all? 

Please forgive me for making this statement... You are afraid of God's Word. I've never seen anyone so satisfied with their own statements that they would outright refuse to find scripture that might make them think... even a little.

 

 

I found myself in a similar position many years ago... 

I am a writer and researcher. I was excited to write a book to support what is considered an essential doctrine. I planned it to be an apologetic exegesis that could not be refuted. 

I intentionally wrote it to be strictly scripture with no doctrinal or theological influence. I wanted it to be presented so that no one could accuse me of bias. I prepared it like a legal document, point/counterpoint analysis.

I failed.

Scripture, as I found, though thoroughly and honestly documented, did not support this "essential doctrine." I was affected emotionally, and mentally, by this- 

I lost friends, family, and acceptance into churches. I became a "heretic" for simply understanding scripture outside of the mandates of doctrinal rule.

What resulted was three studies that actually refuted this errant doctrine, which became a draft for a new book. My publisher only wanted it due to its controversial perspective... (Not my style)

The point is, I had to shift my focus to scripture, even scripture that spoke against what I'd learned in churches.

It's a lonely world, to be one who sits with God, at the sacrifice of the respect of those who once called me "brother."

I don't expect anyone else to make the same sacrifices to have the truth. 

I do want to thank you for respectfulness in your comments. It is not necessary for us to continue with this, as we individually have determined our source of knowledge, though I do value your interaction.

Shalom, bro.

 

Bro? Yo.....listen. I think you are going a little melodramatic on me when you say something like this:

"Please forgive me for making this statement... You are afraid of God's Word. I've never seen anyone so satisfied with their own statements that they would outright refuse to find scripture that might make them think... even a little."

I believe you are taking advantage of my light-hearted nature. And what is  this  "shalom" thing? Are you jewish? 

[Indentured Servant]

8 hours ago, Anne2 said:

I think both sides go too far, and this I think goes too far.

If I believe The Church is the Israel of God, the apostolic foundation the The church of the firstborn, it get's called replacement theology, it is not. The apostles were the remnant. Jew's are continuing in the covenant of circumcision, in the Abrahamic covenant. That is why God is not done with them. But, this has no bearing on the covenant made in the blood of Christ. 

That's why I only interpret scripture using what God has clearly stated through His Word. I don't follow a denomination, nor any doctrine that is clearly presented in Scripture.

[Luther]

19 hours ago, NConly said:

This what was taught to humans

Ezk 39

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

As one can see in Verse 25 above " Therefore saith the Lord" That is who is speaking.

One can see in the underline portion  The Lord will bring back the ones alive of Jacob this is in progress in today's world still ongoing.

In the enlarged letters we see The Lord says "the whole house of Israel"  I have no reason to doubt The Lord means what He says; the Whole House.

Rom 11

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

I do believe Paul is speaking who was taught by Jesus, If I am wrong correct me.

In V25 the first words are "All Israel will be saved" AS IT IS WRITTEN I have No reason to doubt.

If you are still in doubt or are looking for someone to give you a specific number How can one do that when you see what was taught. All Israel will be saved, I believe Lord.

 

 

If I may add some insight:

You said: " This what was taught to humans

Ezekiel 39

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

 

Who is the "captivity of Jacob"?  Who is the " whole house of Israel"? 

If you believe it's the people in Israel today you are totally mistaken ( deceived might be a better word.)

Today's Israelis ( not Israelites) are  descendants from Eastern Europe from the ancient kingdom of " Khazaria "  (modern day Ukraine). In the 8th century AD The Khazars converted to the newly formed religion of " judaism "  (Completed in written form around 500AD, which uses the talmud, not the Bible, as it's sole authority). 

So long story short, I reject the claim that modern day Israel has semitic, OT hebrew roots. They are Ashkenazi, not Middle Eastern. These are facts that no one ever hears. Did you know that practically all of the leaders of Israel changed their last names from their European roots  to a Middle Eastern sounding name? Here's a good one: 

"Benjamin Netanyahu's original name was Benzion Mileikowsky. He later changed his surname to Netanyahu after his family immigrated to Mandatory Palestine."

 Wikipedia

 Al Jazeera

...........................

HUH? How about:

"Golda Meir: The girl from Milwaukee who became prime minister

By Unpacked Staff

........But, back to her story. Golda Mabovitch’s family moved from Russia to the safety of Milwaukee in 1906. When she graduated as valedictorian of the Fourth Street School in 1912, she became the first person in her family to graduate… elementary school. Today, it is the Golda Meir School for Gifted and Talented Youth......."

"Born in 1898 in Kiev, Ukraine......"

Oh, so they aren't from Palestine. Not even semites. 

Did anyone know this? 

 

 

[Indentured Servant]

2 hours ago, Luther said:

I believe you are taking advantage of my light-hearted nature.

I don't take advantage of people, and I didn't detect a light-hearted nature.

I attempted to connect on scriptural context, and you seemed very reluctant to read scripture, and then when you did, you stopped before you found what I was trying to show you.

But it doesn't matter. Forgive my frustration. There were a few individuals previously that outright refused to consider reading Scripture because it might contradict their unscriptural biblical interpretation.

I'm sorry, but it is extremely difficult to understand why these people, who claim to be a student of God's Word, would not immediately consider scripture to possibly get a clearer understanding of God's Word in context of statements they've made that have/had no scriptural foundation.

I must be just an old Christian trying to communicate with people that belong to a new Christian culture... A culture that feels at liberty to find new ways to link biblical prophecy to topics that suit them.

Using current events, social issues, and wild-hair agendas to define the "true" meaning of scriptural prophecies has become too commonplace.

I feel like I'm offending people by asking them to at least read, and comment on, actual scripture.

2 hours ago, Luther said:

what is  this  "shalom" thing?

It's a Hebrew word that means "peace." It's common to use a greeting, or to end a conversation. "Shalom bro'" makes it casual, a little "light-hearted, " but that obviously didn't go over well... (It be used similarly to "Take it easy, man," or "Cool runnings, mon.") 

 

[Luther]

13 minutes ago, Indentured Servant said:

I don't take advantage of people, and I didn't detect a light-hearted nature.

I attempted to connect on scriptural context, and you seemed very reluctant to read scripture, and then when you did, you stopped before you found what I was trying to show you.

But it doesn't matter. Forgive my frustration. There were a few individuals previously that outright refused to consider reading Scripture because it might contradict their unscriptural biblical interpretation.

I'm sorry, but it is extremely difficult to understand why these people, who claim to be a student of God's Word, would not immediately consider scripture to possibly get a clearer understanding of God's Word in context of statements they've made that have/had no scriptural foundation.

I must be just an old Christian trying to communicate with people that belong to a new Christian culture... A culture that feels at liberty to find new ways to link biblical prophecy to topics that suit them.

Using current events, social issues, and wild-hair agendas to define the "true" meaning of scriptural prophecies has become too commonplace.

I feel like I'm offending people by asking them to at least read, and comment on, actual scripture.

It's a Hebrew word that means "peace." It's common to use a greeting, or to end a conversation. "Shalom bro'" makes it casual, a little "light-hearted, " but that obviously didn't go over well... (It be used similarly to "Take it easy, man," or "Cool runnings, mon.") 

 

Ok. Let's reset. If you can please provide a verse that articulates the subject we were discussing that would be nice. 

[NConly]

3 hours ago, Luther said:

If I may add some insight:

You said: " This what was taught to humans

Ezekiel 39

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

 

Who is the "captivity of Jacob"?  Who is the " whole house of Israel"? 

If you believe it's the people in Israel today you are totally mistaken ( deceived might be a better word.)

Today's Israelis ( not Israelites) are  descendants from Eastern Europe from the ancient kingdom of " Khazaria "  (modern day Ukraine). In the 8th century AD The Khazars converted to the newly formed religion of " judaism "  (Completed in written form around 500AD, which uses the talmud, not the Bible, as it's sole authority). 

So long story short, I reject the claim that modern day Israel has semitic, OT hebrew roots. They are Ashkenazi, not Middle Eastern. These are facts that no one ever hears. Did you know that practically all of the leaders of Israel changed their last names from their European roots  to a Middle Eastern sounding name? Here's a good one: 

"Benjamin Netanyahu's original name was Benzion Mileikowsky. He later changed his surname to Netanyahu after his family immigrated to Mandatory Palestine."

 Wikipedia

 Al Jazeera

...........................

HUH? How about:

"Golda Meir: The girl from Milwaukee who became prime minister

By Unpacked Staff

........But, back to her story. Golda Mabovitch’s family moved from Russia to the safety of Milwaukee in 1906. When she graduated as valedictorian of the Fourth Street School in 1912, she became the first person in her family to graduate… elementary school. Today, it is the Golda Meir School for Gifted and Talented Youth......."

"Born in 1898 in Kiev, Ukraine......"

Oh, so they aren't from Palestine. Not even semites. 

Did anyone know this? 

 

 

It is my belief the captives of Jacob would only be old covenant followers as was Jacob (Israel). then I have met people born in Israel that do not believe in any God at all, they certainly are not considered by me as part of the Captives. The we have new covenant believers and they are no part of the captives.  Any of those that you mention as name changers are not part of the captives. I  can not sort all that out but God knows who the captives are and their descendants, that is who he will cleanse and make part of the new covenant.

[Indentured Servant]

On 3/23/2025 at 10:20 PM, Luther said:

I saw a lot of information in my last post that was making a good point. That's pretty sufficient for me

If your selection of verses are sufficient for you to believe as you do, I am in no place to challenge that, or ask you to consider another 

I should have backed off at the point you stated this. I can't, in good conscience, build on the foundation of another teaching. 

Please forgive the verbal sparring, I withdraw from further interaction on this thread due to my failure to make a positive connection and conversation.

Thank you for your patience.

[Jaydub]

On 3/24/2025 at 3:26 AM, angels4u said:

There seems to be an increasing number of Christians today who are convinced that the Jewish people are no longer God’s chosen people. To them, modern-day Israel is considered irrelevant and not part of God’s prophetic plan, and the church is now the chosen people of God. I’m here to tell you: those who hold to that position are dead wrong.

Your Title also suggests that I am shamefully wrong 

Let me ask you a few questions, in the first generation after the cross, from the cross until the destruction of Israel. Who were Gods people? was it those persecuting or the persecuted, was it  those who believed Jesus the messiah or those that rejected him? There were believing Jews and there were unbelieving Jews, all belonged to the nation of Israel, but which are the ones cut away and no longer Gods people, the un believers. This was not something new. In genesis in exodus and in Deuteronomy Gods people would be cut of for certain sin

 Exodus 12:19

For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel.

Here sin causes those who are Israeli to be cut off from Gods people. Israel being cut off from Israel. They are no longer able to be a part of temple worship, there is no longer atonement for their sin. They were cut off, They are Israeli, but not belonging to Gods family

When we are grafted in, we are grafted in with believing Israel, unbelievers have been cut off. As in the times of old, there are two Israel's, those under the atonement and those who are not, forgiven and not forgiven, saved and not saved, unbelievers and believers. Believing Jews are called Christians. We are told this first happened in Antioch. What do we call the people in the Church? Christians, Jewish believers and gentile believers, These are Gods  chosen people, those of faith, those who believe. Who are the remnant today? Believing Jews.   Believing gentiles have been grafted in with them, not replacing them, but joined together with them in the belief of our messiah. Making us one family Gods chosen people. Israel