Apparently you are missing the point.When Paul uses the word 'Jews' in the NT, his intent is ALL of those of the nation of Israel.
You are calling this lame, but the bible over and over and over again refers to two distinct peoples the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
I fully understand that it does...and in many cases the use is pretty much speaking to BOTH groups as one.
For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be, (Heb 8:8 MKJV)
Speaks to them together there, and yet just a couple verses down...
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Heb 8:10 MKJV)
What...did He forget to give the details about the a new covenant with Judah here?God is giving TWO separate covenants here then..one to each house?Sorry, just not buying it
To merge them into common stock is like saying that Rebels were the same as Yankees because they were both Americans.
Thats a VERY nice attempt, Tim, but all Americans dont have common ancestry back to one man called 'america'....a common blood line that can be traced back to one Patriarch
Israel was one man, Jacob (Gen 32:28), who had 12 sons who became the nation.Scripture CAN use the word 'Israel' and MEAN that mans descendants as a whole..."Israel" does NOT have to be distinct in its intent from "Jews" in the NT.
To see them as only one people when the truth is pointed out is nothing less than blind.
It is blind in your opinion.You have not yet proven your case, other than to show that there WERE two tribes.Nothing Ive seen thus far shows that the usage of the NT terms is meant to still represent TWO distinct groups, but instead the two are used to show that Gods NEW covenant will be all inclusive of both groups and even the gentiles that believe.Again, I think you are taking some things well past their intent.
Tell ya what, read my online book in my signature and differentiate between the two houses.
Ive got my plate full 7 days a week, quite honestly.
I shouldnt really be wasting time in this thread as it is still having about 15 unfinished studies to put up on the website.
As for Paul mentioning two groups, that is not altogether true. Only the Jews knew their identity and they were the tribe of the Kings and law givers (Genesis 49:10). Paul contrasted that with Gentiles, which also included the divorced and scattered house of Israel. In another passage he contrasts "Jews and Greeks" but that does not mean that's the only two groups of people on this planet.
please, Tim. While there are MANY groups of gentiles, there arent MANY groups of Jews.Paul uses the term 'Jews' very blanketly to cover Israel the nation as a whole, as "Israel" is also used blanketly.
The meaning is "partial blindness".
Thanks for the definition, Tim...Ive looked at it fairly extensively tho, so you wont need to break out a bible dictionary for me or anything...I promise
Israel was blinded to her identity and faltered. The Jew did not accept Christ for that matter. So, this partial blindness would be there until the fullness of the Gentiles be come which was an illusion to Genesis 48:19 where Ephraim would become the fullness of the nations. So what Paul was saying here was that this partial blindness would be in place until Ephraim fulfilled their destiny in Genesis 48:19 (many nations).
You dodged the point, methinks.WHO was blinded, the house of Israel or the house of Judah ?Please be clear in your response.
Now here's a question for you. If the Jew only is God's people, then when was the likes of Genesis 35:11, Genesis 48:19 and II Samuel 7:10 ever fulfilled in the Jew? Yet, these are foundational covenantal promises that include promises of Messiah that the bible is based off of. If one throws these out, the promise of Messiah goes out the window by default.
This is twisting MY words and intents, Tim.I never said that the 'Jew only'...you are missing the point.*MY* actual point is that when "jews" is used in scripture or 'house of Israel' it does not necessarily show DISTINCTION between those descended of Jacob.When "Israel" is used in scripture, many times it simply is generically speaking about those who are Jacobs descendants.
Oh, and one more question, just what is the birthright that Jacob felt so strongly to take from Esau?
Maybe you can enlighten me and we'll see if your thoughts hold water.
Problem is that many people mouth off at my lost tribes theology, but I have yet to hear in all my years one intelligent answer to the questions I have apart from what I stated.
I dont know about 'mouthing off', but I will say that you still have not yet provided a shred of convincing evidence for your case....that is *IF* you are actually claiming that EVERY use of 'Jew' in the NT is entirely different in meaning than 'Israel'.Is that what you are claiming ?And Tim, YOU are the one with the theory.YOU have the burden of PROVING your theories to your peers.Its fairly absurd to demand that responses be given to your satisfaction when it seemingly is YOU that is trying to assert something .
If nothing else, the lost tribes is an accepted historical fact prophesied many times in scripture. Bottom line, what do we want to do with them when God promised their continual existence? Do we sweep them under the rug and disgrace God by saying He does not keep his promises? Or do we believe what the bible says about them?
Apparently you are, and have been, missing the point.*MY* point, again, is that 'Jew' does not necessarily mean 'only Judah' when it is used in the NT as you seem to be claiming.Do you post at christianforums.net ?If so, I think you and I have done this little dance before.Im 'Follower of Christ' over there.