NEWSFLASH: Abraham was not a Jew. Neither was Isaac. Neither was Jacob.

[Zao is life]

James said their faith was dead without works. Start a conversation with James, if you think that is wrong.

Works produced through faith in Jesus = the fruit of the Spirit produced in the redeemed.

Otherwise they're dead works.

And the works James was talking about are written in James 1:26-27 and James 2:1-6 and 14-17. It's not talking about Mosaic law.

Why do you think they were put through the Law by God? Was it just to torment them for 1400 years?

Paul teaches you all about why the law was added. But your question above shows that you have no clue because you have not read the Bible or sufficiently studied the subject before you post here pretending to know what you're talking about, so I won't even tell you where to find the answer to your above ridiculous question.

 

[Wick Stick]

Why do you think they were put through the Law by God? Was it just to torment them for 1400 years?

Galatians 3
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made...
14 The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

 

[Zao is life]

Wow this thread is alarming.

The original post... isn't wrong. Judah is part of Israel, but not every Israelite is a Jew. That's like saying every dog is a Chihuahua.

I would venture to say that if a person doesn't put a difference between Jews and Israelites, they can't possibly understand the Old Testament. Which probably is going to create problems understanding the New Testament, as well.

When you read how so many people (if not most) who post here interpret Old Testament prophecy, you'll realize that when Isaiah or Hosea or other prophets are prophesying about Israel - the Northern kingdom and the ten Northern tribes - they always read "the Jews".

There is no distinction between "the Jews" and "Israel" in their understanding.

 

[Zao is life]

Galatians 3
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made...
14 The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Yes. The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ because it exposes our sin and our inability to obey the law through our own efforts:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of lust. For apart from law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. Romans 7:7-9.

But @Timtofly isn't going to bother now with biblical truth. He's done this with me before when he just starts throwing out arguments for the sake of the arguments in attempts to be correct about something he asserted.

 

[Zao is life]

A natural branch is just that, natural from birth into existence.

Jesus is the natural branch - God's Servant THE branch. His Spirit is in those who are in Him through His Spirit in them through their faith in Him.

Paul claimed Israel would be restored as natural branches at the Second Coming.

You added to the words of Paul again with the above false statement, Why?

"blindness in part is happened to Israel

Blindness in part has happened to whom?

until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. This is fulfilled at the Second Coming. "

If the Deliverer has never come out of Zion and turned away ungodliness from David, ushering in the New Covenant in His blood when He took away their (and our) sins, then ( if that were the case) we are of all people the most blinded!

When Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives, is when Israel will be natural branches from physical birth again.

So you are saying that no Jewish person is born a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob|Israel?

 

[ewq1938]

Wow this thread is alarming.

The original post... isn't wrong. Judah is part of Israel, but not every Israelite is a Jew. T

Scripture generalizes all Israelites as Jews, and all gentiles as Greeks so Jew did eventually come to be able to not only represent ppl from the tribe of Judah, but all the people of all the tribes.

Rom_10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

 

[Zao is life]

Scripture generalizes all Israelites as Jews, and all gentiles as Greeks so Jew did eventually come to be able to not only represent ppl from the tribe of Judah, but all the people of all the tribes.

Rom_10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Scripture only begins to generalize all Israelites as Jews following 725 B.C when the 10 Northern tribes ceased being a nation before God and a handful fled to Judah. But Hosea 1:8-11 is only one example of many, many examples where Israelites are not all generalized as Jews.

So your assertion is false until you say that scripture at times generalizes all Israelites as Jews or uses the words "Jew" and "Israel" interchangeably after a certain point.

 

[covenantee]

Wow this thread is alarming.

The original post... isn't wrong. Judah is part of Israel, but not every Israelite is a Jew. That's like saying every dog is a Chihuahua.

I would venture to say that if a person doesn't put a difference between Jews and Israelites, they can't possibly understand the Old Testament. Which probably is going to create problems understanding the New Testament, as well.

Dispens(ationalists) go apoplectic when shown from Scripture that Israelites were comprised of both descendants of Abraham (later known as Jews), and non-descendants of Abraham, aka (gasp!) Gentiles. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22.

It detonates dispensational ideology, which is absolutely dependent upon racism -- the preservation and perpetuation of a racial division between Jews and Gentiles -- for its survival and persistence.

It is a scourge within the Christian Church.

 

[Wick Stick]

Scripture generalizes all Israelites as Jews, and all gentiles as Greeks so Jew did eventually come to be able to not only represent ppl from the tribe of Judah, but all the people of all the tribes.

Rom_10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Scripture only begins to generalize all Israelites as Jews following 725 B.C when the 10 Northern tribes ceased being a nation before God and a handful fled to Judah. But Hosea 1:8-11 is only one example of many, many examples where Israelites are not all generalized as Jews.

So your assertion is false until you say that scripture at times generalizes all Israelites as Jews or uses the words "Jew" and "Israel" interchangeably after a certain point.

All Israelites are NOT lumped together under the title "Jews" until much later than you'd think.

The major prophets, writing hundreds of years AFTER the northern kingdom of Israel had ceased to exist... still separate the two. There are still separate prophecies for Israel and Judah at that point. Judah is wayward and going into exile, but will return from exile. Israel has been destroyed, but will be resurrected. Eventually the two are destined to be re-united.

Even in the New Testament, in the gospels the two are referred to separately. The language there is about the "lost house of Israel" and "other sheep not of this fold." A major purpose of Jesus ministry was to resurrect dead Israel and re-unite them to wayward Judah - the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

It is basically only Paul, writing AFTER Israel has been resurrected and re-united with Judah that lumps them together... and for good reason, because they had been re-combined by that time.

-Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

Dispens(ationalists) go apoplectic when shown from Scripture that Israelites were comprised of both descendants of Abraham (later known as Jews), and non-descendants of Abraham, aka (gasp!) Gentiles. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22.

It detonates dispensational ideology, which is absolutely dependent upon racism -- the preservation and perpetuation of a racial division between Jews and Gentiles -- for its survival and persistence.

It is a scourge within the Christian Church.

I think you've gone too far and not far enough.

Too far, because most people in dispensational churches aren't racists, and I don't think that's a major tenant of what those churches teach. There are a few weirdo churches (the wwcog comes to mind) that are like that, though.

Not far enough, because Abraham has elect descendants (Isaac, Jacob, etc) but he also has un-elect descendants (Ishmael, Esau, etc). The Bible is forthright in saying that Abraham will be made a father of nations/gentiles. And this was a major teaching of the church fathers. Justin Martyr writes at length on this topic.

Adoption needs to be talked about more. Those who aren't part of the elect group BECOME part of it when they are adopted. This should be salvation 101, but instead there is massive confusion about whether individuals are elect or not.

 

[Zao is life]

All Israelites are NOT lumped together under the title "Jews" until much later than you'd think.

The major prophets, writing hundreds of years AFTER the northern kingdom of Israel had ceased to exist... still separate the two. There are still separate prophecies for Israel and Judah at that point. Judah is wayward and going into exile, but will return from exile. Israel has been destroyed, but will be resurrected. Eventually the two are destined to be re-united.

Even in the New Testament, in the gospels the two are referred to separately. The language there is about the "lost house of Israel" and "other sheep not of this fold." A major purpose of Jesus ministry was to resurrect dead Israel and re-unite them to wayward Judah - the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

It is basically only Paul, writing AFTER Israel has been resurrected and re-united with Judah that lumps them together... and for good reason, because they had been re-combined by that time.

-Jarrod

I agree. Paul includes the Gentiles when he speaks as though Hosea 1:8-11 is fulfilled in Christ:

PROBLEM: "Ephraim shall be broken so that it shall not be a people." Isaiah 7:7

The house of Israel - the 10 Northern tribes - had ceased being a nation before God circa 725 B.C. They are no longer one nation. By the time the apostle Paul made the following statement, the seed of Ephraim/the house of Israel had become mixed with the seed of the Gentiles:

"What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory,

Even us, whom he has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he says also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, All of you are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God." (Romans 9:22-26).

Right there Paul included Gentiles who believe in Jesus in a prophecy that in its context in Hosea speaks only of the house of Israel/Ephraim.

Hosea 1:6
"And she conceived again and bore a daughter. And God said to him, Call her name No-mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel. But I will utterly take them away."

They never returned, and they ceased being one nation before God. Yet Peter said:

1 Peter 2:9-10
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You once were not a people, but now you are God's people. You were shown no mercy, but now you have received mercy."

The house of Israel and the house of Judah - the two sticks - have already been joined together in Christ, and personally I don't know how literally (or not) to interpret what Ezekiel said about this when he prophesied of them all being gathered back into the land of their fathers and Gog of Magog later coming against them, because the literal land of Israel in the Middle East and heavenly Jerusalem of the Revelation etc don't seem to be talking about the same Jerusalem. But I confess, my understanding is not complete.

But on his death-bed, and blessing his two grandsons (the sons of Joseph), this is the prophecy Jacob (Israel) gave to his son, Joseph, regarding Joseph's second-born son, Ephraim:

Genesis 48:17-19
"When Joseph saw that his father placed his right hand on Ephraim's head, it displeased him. So he took his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.

Joseph said to his father, "Not so, my father, for this is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head."

But his father refused and said, "I know, my son, I know. He (Manasseh) too will become a nation and he too will become great. In spite of this, his younger brother (Ephraim) will be even greater and his descendants will become [the fullness of the Gentiles]* a multitude of nations."

* [ Hebrew, m'lo gôy: (the) fulnness (of the) Gentile (nations) ].

Joseph is a biblical type of Jesus, and Joseph took one wife - a Gentile woman. His children were born in Egypt, and were Gentiles, but they were part of Israel, the seed of Israel (Jacob), the seed of Abraham. Ephraim's seed became "the fullness of the Gentiles" (the Hebrew wording of Genesis 48:19).​

 

[Zao is life]

I think you've gone too far and not far enough.

Too far, because most people in dispensational churches aren't racists, and I don't think that's a major tenant of what those churches teach. There are a few weirdo churches (the wwcog comes to mind) that are like that, though.

Not far enough, because Abraham has elect descendants (Isaac, Jacob, etc) but he also has un-elect descendants (Ishmael, Esau, etc). The Bible is forthright in saying that Abraham will be made a father of nations/gentiles. And this was a major teaching of the church fathers. Justin Martyr writes at length on this topic.

Adoption needs to be talked about more. Those who aren't part of the elect group BECOME part of it when they are adopted. This should be salvation 101, but instead there is massive confusion about whether individuals are elect or not.

God's first promise to Abraham when He called him was that Abraham would become the father of a multitude of Gentile nations, and God repeated it three times using the word goy or goyim.

If only Christians would understand that the promise, "in your seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth will be blessed" could not happen unless Abraham fathered a son called Isaac, chosen by God to inherit the promise, who fathered a son called Jacob|Israel, likewise chosen to inherit the promise, who fathered 12 sons - one of whom became the patriarch of the Jews and king David, who became the patriarch of Christ, through whom all the nations of the earth are blessed.

This is how Abraham became the father of a multitude of nations - especially because following 725 A.D and the fulfillment of Hosea 1:8-11 the 10 Northern tribes were scattered among the nations where their descendants have intermarried with Gentiles to this day.

It was always all about God's Son.​

 

[covenantee]

most people in dispensational churches aren't racists

If one subscribes to an ideology which is overtly racist, how does one avoid being a racist?

I don't think that's a major tenant of what those churches teach

It is absolutely a major tenet of what churches subscribing to dispensational ideology (which includes "Christian" Zionism) teach. One cannot be identified as a dispensationalist if one does not subscribe to dispensationalism's racism. Look no further than J. Hagee, D. Jeremiah, H. Lindsey, K. Copeland, F. Graham, et al, for its proponents.

The Bible is forthright in saying that Abraham will be made a father of nations/gentiles. And this was a major teaching of the church fathers. Justin Martyr writes at length on this topic.

Certainly true.

Those who aren't part of the elect group BECOME part of it when they are adopted.

Certainly true. And adoption is contingent upon spiritual DNA.
Two spiritual genes.
Faith and obedience.
Nothing else.

 

[Zao is life]

Dispens(ationalists) go apoplectic when shown from Scripture that Israelites were comprised of both descendants of Abraham (later known as Jews), and non-descendants of Abraham, aka (gasp!) Gentiles. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22.

It detonates dispensational ideology, which is absolutely dependent upon racism -- the preservation and perpetuation of a racial division between Jews and Gentiles -- for its survival and persistence.

It is a scourge within the Christian Church.

I think you've gone too far and not far enough.

Too far, because most people in dispensational churches aren't racists, and I don't think that's a major tenant of what those churches teach.

It's true what covenantee says though. The Dispensationalists who post in these boards, anyway. They do go "apoplectic" when you make the distinctions the Bible makes, that you also make. Just start a thread on it and you'll see the insults and false accusations hurled at you. The angry emotion behind them is always palpable.

When you start listening to what they say, you begin to realize that Dispensationalists do exalt Jews above all other nations, believing that unlike unbelieving Gentiles, unbelieving Jews are still God's chosen, God's elect who are merely waiting to be brought out of their unbelief and into the New Covenant so that Israel (i.e the Jews) can rule all nations from Jerusalem, under Christ.

They do make it obvious that they believe the Jews are more special to God, and more favored.

Adoption needs to be talked about more. Those who aren't part of the elect group BECOME part of it when they are adopted. This should be salvation 101, but instead there is massive confusion about whether individuals are elect or not.

Fully agree. Every individual is adopted through repentance and turning to faith in Christ and then he or she is joined to the elect group, which is a catholic (universal) group made up of all nations, tribes and tongues.

Many here speak about "national" salvation applying to nations such as the USA, as though each and every individual in a nation are believers in Christ. Some say that Europeans were born into nations that experienced a kind of "national" or group salvation as a nation, rather than individuals in the nation being part of a group called the elect, which is a catholic (universal) group. And so they apply the same principle of "national" salvation to a coming "national" salvation of "Israel", which they equate with "the Jews".

But in truth Israel is a catholic (universal) elect group, made up of individuals joined to Christ through their faith in Him.

IMO to exalt any unbelievers to a status of God's elect merely because of their national or ethnic identity, is racist.​

 

[Wick Stick]

If one subscribes to an ideology which is overtly racist, how does one avoid being a racist?

My experience of dispensational churches is that most of the people there are focused on eschatology. They are all hunkered down, trying to ride out the tribulation until Jesus comes to save them. That isn't a paradigm that lends itself to good mental health or success at living life... but it isn't racist.

If you're telling me that these people have more theology than this... I think I disagree. They have a bit about tongues and are very interested in ecstatic experiences, but theology? Not so much.

It is absolutely a major tenet of what churches subscribing to dispensational ideology (which includes "Christian" Zionism) teach. One cannot be identified as a dispensationalist if one does not subscribe to dispensationalism's racism. Look no further than J. Hagee, D. Jeremiah, H. Lindsey, K. Copeland, F. Graham, et al, for its proponents.

Televangelists are always awful. That seems to be true for all churches.

 

[covenantee]

Dispensational televangelists, which is by far most of them, have enormous churches and followings.

And in many if not most of them, Israel has effectively taken priority over Christ.

 

[Wick Stick]

It's true what covenantee says though. The Dispensationalists who post in these boards, anyway. They do go "apoplectic" when you make the distinctions the Bible makes, that you also make. Just start a thread on it and you'll see the insults and false accusations hurled at you. The angry emotion behind them is always palpable.

99% of the people in church don't think about their theology, they just accept what they are taught. The people who post on these boards are the 1% of weirdos who do. Myself included.

I've had Dispensationalists and Reformationists and Restorationists and Catholics and even the Open Theology nuts ALL go apoplectic on me. (I am not new at this).

When you start listening to what they say, you begin to realize that Dispensationalists do exalt Jews above all other nations, believing that unlike unbelieving Gentiles, unbelieving Jews are still God's chosen, God's elect who are merely waiting to be brought out of their unbelief and into the New Covenant so that Israel (i.e the Jews) can rule all nations from Jerusalem, under Christ.

They do make it obvious that they believe the Jews are more special to God, and more favored.

Hard to argue with that, but I will point out that... they aren't part of that group! If this is racism, it is an awfully strange racism. What racist doesn't include himself among the ubermensch? Who is the racist that discriminates in favor of another group, and not against all others?

Fully agree. Every individual is adopted through repentance and turning to faith in Christ and then he or she is joined to the elect group, which is a catholic (universal) group made up of all nations, tribes and tongues.

Many here speak about "national" salvation applying to nations such as the USA, as though each and every individual in a nation are believers in Christ. Some say that Europeans were born into nations that experienced a kind of "national" or group salvation as a nation, rather than individuals in the nation being part of a group called the elect, which is a catholic (universal) group. And so they apply the same principle of "national" salvation to a coming "national" salvation of "Israel", which they equate with "the Jews".

But in truth Israel is a catholic (universal) elect group, made up of individuals joined to Christ through their faith in Him.​

It is easy to mix up national Israel and spiritual Israel if one reads through the Bible uncritically.

Who is Israel? This question has been contentious for thousands of years. The Sadducees reckoned it with geneaologies tracing the fathers. The modern Jews reckon it after the mother. But Jesus reckoned it by looking at behavior - the children of Abraham are the people who act like Abraham (John 8).

It's easiest to just the let the word define itself. Israel - ytsar el - means "ruled of God." If you are, then you are. If you're not, well...

 

[amigo de christo]

Dispensational televangelists, which is by far most of them, have enormous churches and followings.

And in many if not most of them, Israel has effectively taken priority over Christ.

And yet even paul once wrote they are not all ISRAEL who are of israel . Yet today most put the children of the flesh
above the WORD of GOD and of CHRIST , above the gospel . many dont realize
JERUSALEM , TRUE JERUSALEM IS HEAVENLY . that earthly jerusalem IS STILL UNDER BONDAGE .
Not all of israel is OF TRUE ISRAEL . and that be a fact too .

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

99% of the people in church don't think about their theology, they just accept what they are taught. The people who post on these boards are the 1% of weirdos who do. Myself included.

I've had Dispensationalists and Reformationists and Restorationists and Catholics and even the Open Theology nuts ALL go apoplectic on me. (I am not new at this).

Hard to argue with that, but I will point out that... they aren't part of that group! If this is racism, it is an awfully strange racism. What racist doesn't include himself among the ubermensch? Who is the racist that discriminates in favor of another group, and not against all others?


It is easy to mix up national Israel and spiritual Israel if one reads through the Bible uncritically.

Who is Israel? This question has been contentious for thousands of years. The Sadducees reckoned it with geneaologies tracing the fathers. The modern Jews reckon it after the mother. But Jesus reckoned it by looking at behavior - the children of Abraham are the people who act like Abraham (John 8).

It's easiest to just the let the word define itself. Israel - ytsar el - means "ruled of God." If you are, then you are. If you're not, well...

Nothing wrong with being a racist at all in fact, as that is only a creation of the last 30 years or so in Australia.

I have never met one person in my life that was not a racist, not one !

There is a huge difference between a racist and one who is racial prejudice in fact !

One could be excused nowadays that thinking that to be a racist, was the first commandment in the Bible ? But this is only conditioning by who knows Governments Media etc peddling a Lie over years, that such just takes place in peoples head as a truth ? but the masses just swallow whatever that is the trend.
My self being an Australian always looked to the USA as being stupid people in general in regards to some moronic ways of putting things forward, like calling someone an African American ? when that person is in fact truly an American of African decent in fact !
I found such to be insulting and looked down on people of the USA using such outright disregard ? for it's not Truthful for one and peddling an outright lie openly ! but for what ends i ask my self was such a conditioning peddled over the people to swallow such a gross outright lie ! as such is truly coming across to me as a bigoted boasting platform ?
I can see it for what it is in fact for i am not wrapped up in it ? because i am from a distance and not enslaved by all of a Nation, that has this notion all around them infested with such ?

Australia as well is being infested with the Racist BS card, but has not become that stupid, to call people African Australians say ? no one says such things ? example, If You are an African Australian if you were born in Africa period ! and them children born in Australia are Australians of African decent period and they can never call themselves African Australians ? for if anyone from another Nation makes claims like such, would be regarded as a outright Bigot racial prejudice nut case ! because they are putting themselves as a race above the Nation ?
I regard such as that, so much like a Nazi intention ! it's an outright insult regardless what race the moron who says such is in fact ! for they are fighting words in fact ! If one born here claimed to be a German Australia he would be seen as a outright Nazi and abused outright and even bashed up for saying such directly !

To be a Racist only truly means that one understands that other races are different period ! But Socialist conditioning demands that all people are the same ? But if one has a brain and has traveled the world you would know better ? Not every Nations people are the same in fact, far from it !
Being a Racist does not mean one is claiming to be better than all the rest, but maybe one may prefer others over others for good reason ?
I will be the judge of what is what and not just follow along blindly by some Socialist dupes direction, but i have found mates who went to 3rd rate Country's and wanted me to come along and i said No ! why ? well i know the Laws and what can happen for i am not ignorant and i will not tolerate such places to put myself in such a pickle ? No thanks !

 

[amigo de christo]

Ol reggie aint buying the socialist lie . WELL GOOD reggie . Cause it be nothing more than a means
for power and control SOLD under the guise its all for the good of humanity . THEY know how to spin a lie my friends .