Retrobyter
Active Member
Shalom, veteran.
Understandable. And, please forgive me. I'm not used to including the Gentile/Isra'eli factor, but I concur that it is a highly probable scenario.
Shalom, JLB.
No, neither mixed up nor ignorant. I just use the common generalization of calling all Isra'elim "Jews." Actually, they are neither "Jews" nor "Isra'elis" but "Avrahamiym" - "Abrahamites," if you'll pardon a little semantic liberty.
I'm not ignorant of the fact that the "church" was something far older than the first century, either. However, many believers who call themselves "Christians" have a far different definition of the word "church" or "Church," usually capitalized if they accept the concept of a universal entity called the "Church." I do NOT accept these johnny-come-lately definitions. All the word "church" is (when one is talking about the word used as translation for the Greek word "ekkleesia") is a COLLECTIVE NOUN (actually more of a gerund as a participle with noun properties) meaning a "group" or a "gathering." That's why the word "ekkleesia" has also been used for the town mob at Ephesus in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41, there translated "assembly."
It was also used of the congregation of the Isra'elim (the children of Isra'el) as they were gathered around Mount Sinai in Acts 7:38. Therefore, since the congregation of the children of Isra'el was the "church," I must disagree with you about Avraham being the first member of the "church," although I understand your point.
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, when it was first delivered to David, it was a Kingdom of the Jews first. Seven and a half years later, the rest of Isra'el anointed him as their king as well. Furthermore, it was in Y'hudah (Judah) where Yerushalayim was built and where the Temple was constructed. After both halves of the Kingdom were taken captive, the northern tribes of Isra'el did not return; the Y'hudiym (the Jews) did! There are ample reasons why the term "Jews" has grown to be representative of the entire nation of Isra'el.
Shalom, veteran.
A bit of a mistake here. Avraham moved FROM the land of Ur of the Chaldees, which is in southern Iraq, "between the rivers," TO Aram (or Syria) at the northern peak of the Fertile Crescent around the headwaters of the Euphrates:
After his son Haran died in Ur, Avram's father Terach took his two remaining sons Avram, and Nachowr, and their wives, and his grandson Lowt, Haran's son, with him to Aram. So, when they arrived in a good land, Terach put down roots there. Nachowr also had a son and called his name Haran also after his brother who had died. Later, the children of Nachowr were `Utz, Buz, K'mu'el, Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Yidlaf, and B'tu'el through his wife Milkah and Tevach, Gacham, Tachash, and Ma`akhah through his concubine, Re'uwmah. The son of K'mu'el was Aram (from whom we get the name of the country and the "Aramaic" language). The children of B'tu'el were Lavan (Laban) and Rivkah (Rebekah), and the children of Lavan were at least Le'ah and Rachel. They all put down roots in a town called "Charan" (not the same as Haran, Terach's son), also called "the city of Nachowr." Then, Avram and his wife Sarai and his nephew Lowt moved on from Charan when God called Avram a second time.
Avram, later his name was changed to Avraham, was indeed called a "Syrian" because he used to live there with his father. All Nachowr's sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, etc., were "Syrians," as was he.
I pretty much concur with that Retrobyter, except the part often left out about the ten lost tribes of Israel. Many in Christ's Church today who think they are Gentiles are going to wake up at Christ's coming and realize they have a heritage among the ten lost tribes of Israel, a branch of Israel completely separate from the Jews of the house of Judah. Thus many Jews are going to be shocked by that too.
Understandable. And, please forgive me. I'm not used to including the Gentile/Isra'eli factor, but I concur that it is a highly probable scenario.
Shalom, JLB.
Retrobyter wrote -
Modern believers somewhat flippantly say, "we are IN CHRIST," without ever thinking about what that MEANS! Do you understand that "Christ" means "Messiah?" And, do you understand what the "Messianic" prophecies meant to the Jews?! We Gentiles (Goyim) are GRAFTED INTO the Olive Tree of the Messiah's Kingdom! And, the Jews WILL BE grafted into that same Olive Tree, whether today through the ministries of the Gentiles to them, or when Yeshua` returns and "seeing is believing!" ALL ISRA'EL SHALL BE SAVED!
And, when they believe, they don't become a part of the "Church"; they are grafted into the Messiah's KINGDOM, as we are! However, it was a JEWISH KINGDOM FIRST, not some nebulous, no-affiliation "Church!" It's THEIR own Olive Tree! THEY are the "natural branches!" Gentiles are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God!" Gentiles are "branches of a wild olive tree grafted in contrary to nature!" Gentile believers have MUCH to learn about the household of God and their own status within that household! Gentile believers have MUCH to learn about their Jewish roots!
Who is a subset of whom?! It's not that the believing Jews are a subset of the "church"; it's that believers, Jew or Gentile, are subsets of the Olive Tree, the Messiah's Kingdom! The SAME Kingdom over which David ruled and Smo (Solomon) ruled! Yeshua` is rightly called "the Son of David!" His lineages, recorded in both Matthew 1 and Luke 3, prove that He is David's Heir to his throne
!
However, it was a JEWISH KINGDOM FIRST, not some nebulous, no-affiliation "Church!"
You are a little mixed up or just plain ignorant!
Let's go to scripture -
Genesis 17:1-2
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old,the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
Fact # 1 - Abram was a Gentile.
Fact # 2 - The Lord that made covenant became flesh. His name is Jesus.
Fact # 3 - We are partakers of that covenant, "in Christ".
If you want to get technical, Abraham was the first member of the church or "assembly" which that is what the children of Israel are referred to in the"so called" Old Testament.
Just thought you might want to consider these facts, before you make another comment like "it was a JEWISH KINGDOM FIRST" or "not some nebulous, no-affiliation "Church!"
Thanks, JLB
No, neither mixed up nor ignorant. I just use the common generalization of calling all Isra'elim "Jews." Actually, they are neither "Jews" nor "Isra'elis" but "Avrahamiym" - "Abrahamites," if you'll pardon a little semantic liberty.
I'm not ignorant of the fact that the "church" was something far older than the first century, either. However, many believers who call themselves "Christians" have a far different definition of the word "church" or "Church," usually capitalized if they accept the concept of a universal entity called the "Church." I do NOT accept these johnny-come-lately definitions. All the word "church" is (when one is talking about the word used as translation for the Greek word "ekkleesia") is a COLLECTIVE NOUN (actually more of a gerund as a participle with noun properties) meaning a "group" or a "gathering." That's why the word "ekkleesia" has also been used for the town mob at Ephesus in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41, there translated "assembly."
It was also used of the congregation of the Isra'elim (the children of Isra'el) as they were gathered around Mount Sinai in Acts 7:38. Therefore, since the congregation of the children of Isra'el was the "church," I must disagree with you about Avraham being the first member of the "church," although I understand your point.
As far as the Kingdom is concerned, when it was first delivered to David, it was a Kingdom of the Jews first. Seven and a half years later, the rest of Isra'el anointed him as their king as well. Furthermore, it was in Y'hudah (Judah) where Yerushalayim was built and where the Temple was constructed. After both halves of the Kingdom were taken captive, the northern tribes of Isra'el did not return; the Y'hudiym (the Jews) did! There are ample reasons why the term "Jews" has grown to be representative of the entire nation of Isra'el.
Shalom, veteran.
That was because of where Abraham's ancestors lived, in the land Ur of the Chaldee. Per Gen.11 Abram (Abraham) was descended from Eber, and Eber is where the name Hebrew came from. You'll find Laban and Bethuel were also called 'Syrian', yet they all were of Shem's people per Gen.11 descended from Eber, and thus all Hebrews.
A bit of a mistake here. Avraham moved FROM the land of Ur of the Chaldees, which is in southern Iraq, "between the rivers," TO Aram (or Syria) at the northern peak of the Fertile Crescent around the headwaters of the Euphrates:
After his son Haran died in Ur, Avram's father Terach took his two remaining sons Avram, and Nachowr, and their wives, and his grandson Lowt, Haran's son, with him to Aram. So, when they arrived in a good land, Terach put down roots there. Nachowr also had a son and called his name Haran also after his brother who had died. Later, the children of Nachowr were `Utz, Buz, K'mu'el, Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Yidlaf, and B'tu'el through his wife Milkah and Tevach, Gacham, Tachash, and Ma`akhah through his concubine, Re'uwmah. The son of K'mu'el was Aram (from whom we get the name of the country and the "Aramaic" language). The children of B'tu'el were Lavan (Laban) and Rivkah (Rebekah), and the children of Lavan were at least Le'ah and Rachel. They all put down roots in a town called "Charan" (not the same as Haran, Terach's son), also called "the city of Nachowr." Then, Avram and his wife Sarai and his nephew Lowt moved on from Charan when God called Avram a second time.
Avram, later his name was changed to Avraham, was indeed called a "Syrian" because he used to live there with his father. All Nachowr's sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, etc., were "Syrians," as was he.