Are Christians part of Israel?

[seanD]

Your quoting 2 Corinthians 1:20. I do not believe this passage is promising us health, peace, guidance, etc., because of what Jesus did.

I believe it is saying, "Jesus is the answer to all the promises'. "He is the amen." "He is the fulfillment of the promises."

Yes, and as a result, we can claim all the promises. The promises given to the children of Israel about Yahweh/Jehovah, we can claim for ourselves in Christ. Example:

Psalms 121 (NLT): "I look up to the mountains—does my help come from there? My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth! He will not let you stumble; the one who watches over you will not slumber. Indeed, he who watches over Israel never slumbers or sleeps. The Lord himself watches over you! The Lord stands beside you as your protective shade. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon at night. The Lord keeps you from all harm and watches over your life. The Lord keeps watch over you as you come and go, both now and forever."

Just because there is a reference to Israel in this passage, and thus most likely directed towards them, doesn't mean we can't claim this for ourselves and daily lives.

[bc1980]

Yes, and as a result, we can claim all the promises. The promises given to the children of Israel about Yahweh/Jehovah, we can claim for ourselves in Christ.

Just because there is a reference to Israel in this passage, and thus most likely directed towards them, doesn't mean we can't claim this for ourselves and daily lives.

The promises made to Israel was based on their ability to keep the Law. Curses were also promised if they did not keep the Law.

Was Christ coming for the purpose of God being able to bless His people physically?

What are the Promises that Paul focused on?

I've started another thread in Christianity 201 so we might can get more people in on this subject which I find interesting.

[seanD]

The promises made to Israel was based on their ability to keep the Law. Curses were also promised if they did not keep the Law.

And since Christ fulfilled the purpose of the law, now anytime you hear the words "obey" or "keep my commandments and covenants" in the Old testament, translate that into obedience and faith in Christ.

Was Christ coming for the purpose of God being able to bless His people physically?

He came to bless them physically and spiritually. As a result of their rejection, that shifted over to the gentiles.

What are the Promises that Paul focused on?

Paul made it clear that the promises of the OT benefit us who are in Christ, and made numerous references to Old Testament scripture. That was the only bible he had.

[bc1980]

And since Christ fulfilled the purpose of the law, now anytime you hear the words "obey" or "keep my commandments and covenants" in the Old testament, translate that into obedience and faith in Christ.

I can handle that.

He came to bless them physically and spiritually.

I'm not sure that (physically) was the purpose. What if the physical promises were shadows and types because they couldn't comprehend what it was to have Christ?

As a result of their rejection, that shifted over to the gentiles.

I believe the intention was for gentiles to be included all along. Abraham's seed would be a blessing to all the nations.

Paul made it clear that the promises of the OT benefit us who are in Christ, and made numerous references to Old Testament scripture. That was the only bible he had.

I agree with this except I believe the Promise was Christ.

[seanD]

[COLOR="Blue"]
He came to bless them physically and spiritually.

I'm not sure that (physically) was the purpose. What if the physical promises were shadows and types because they couldn't comprehend what it was to have Christ?

Throughout the Old Testament, God lays out promises and benefits of those who walk in his commandments and covenant. The promises still apply to us in Christ. Only the covenant and commandments in the new covenant are different and centered on Christ.

I believe the intention was for gentiles to be included all along. Abraham's seed would be a blessing to all the nations.

I think the initial plan was for the Messiah to be offered to world through Israel, much like the Messiah is being offered to the world through Christians. Though this may still apply some how to Israel in the future.

I agree with this except I believe the Promise was Christ.

Of course, but salvation is not the only benefit in this case. Though this doesn't mean (lest I'm understood) that all Christians will be perfectly, wealthy, healthy, unfearful, and wise at all times. But the promises are there for us to claim and hang onto, which is a major part of our Christian walk in Christ -- the justified by faith shall live.

[John Goddard]

Respectfully, I do not believe that is supported by scripture. It sounds good, I have heard it preached often enough, but with unfulfiled prophecy regarding the reconciliation of the Southern and Northern Kingdoms, and the comments I believe in regards to Israel's coming to an understanding regarding the true Messiah (Yehoshua/Jesus) in Zech. 12:10, I do not see how "the church" can be a replacement for a people who are most definitely a part of end time prophecy.

Israel is still Israel, except Jews who reject Jesus are broken off, and Gentiles who accept Jesus are graffed in.

Romans 11:18-20 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

So this is pretty clear and supported, even though not as extremely as Alucard suggests since Paul goes on to say that many Jews who are broken off will accept Jesus in the end, and thus be graffed back in.

Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

So Jews who reject Jesus today still seem to have a valid role in end prophecy as much as Christians. They aren't written off and out of the picture by any means.

This is where your argument is realized.

And likewise, Christians may be broken off too if they fall away like any Jews who reject Jesus.

Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

[UrbanMonk]

But if we are not in any way part of Israel, where is the church in these prophetic accounts?

Any thoughts?

Peace.
Bosco

Hi Bosco,
I was concerned about this when I was fundamental bible-believing christian. In fact, I almost emigrated to Israel to join a kibbutz and/or the IDF. Thankfully, my dad talked me out of it. It's because I couldn't understand metaphor.

Metaphorically speaking, Isreal is a symbol of "the world" and its beliefs. It wants to be special...a chosen people...chosen by a special god for special love. But special love is the attitude that drives the "prodigal son" away from his home. At home, "our Father" gives love equally to all. There are none that are special in the Kingdom of God. So the prodigal son goes and makes his own kingdom. It is an unreal kingdom, made in his own imagination...but he insists it IS REAL. It's "reality" is in direct opposition to GOD. Orthodox Judeo-Christianity is an extension of the attitude of Isreal. It believes that salvation is accomplished through sacrifice and/or attack, and believes that life can come from death and/or that death is life.

You really don't want to be part of an extention of a neo-Levitical franchise unless you don't care about Jesus admonition to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". A christian would not want anything to do with nationalism, ethnic borders, or mythological stories about man's origin.

The "church" is any two or more who will recognize the Son of God in the other...thereby loving their neighbor AS SELF. The only "Self" the church shares in common is Christ...the Son of God. The church is built on this recognition...mutual recognition. Otherwise, there is no agreement and the "church" will fragment and fall as if built on sand. The Son of God as a common identity is the "rock" upon which "the church" is founded. The orthodoxy is in the business of denying this common identity. So, the "church" has been "underground" since Jesus was crucified by the orthodoxy for building his church on the Son of God.

[John Goddard]

A christian would not want anything to do with nationalism, ethnic borders, or mythological stories about man's origin.

But in eschatology, that's exactly what Paul promises for Jews who are currently blind to Jesus but will see him in the end, because of the prophetic promises due to them for their obedience to the Old Covenant.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 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:

So you can make it all about love and Jesus and stuff, yeah that's cool. But you have to remember the prophecies for Old Israel while you are at it. It's not like a black and white situation. The gray area are Jews who are graffed back in, and Christians graffed in at first but cut off just like unbelieving Jews were because they don't measure up in works, Romans 11:22.

[UrbanMonk]

But in eschatology, that's exactly what Paul promises for Jews who are currently blind to Jesus but will see him in the end, because of the prophetic promises due to them for their obedience to the Old Covenant.

Then P(s)aul was a neo-Levitical ex-Pharisee who leavened the doctrine of "the Way" with the "leaven of the Pharisees. All it means is that P(s)aul took Pharisee brand eschatology and adapted it to fit in Gentiles. Instead of a "blood" inheritance, Gentiles were promised a "belief" inheritance. Both are equally a farce. Belief only counts when it is invested in the truth. Rather, P(s)aul preached "Christ crucified", utterly missing the mark of the resurrection...the awakening Christ...Christ risen.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Leaven of the Pharisees. Sophistry. Nonsense.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

More utter balderdash. Anyone who believes in a "god" who works this way is playing the fool.

Romans 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:

Our Father has the power to save the Son of God from his illusions of himself. Every fragment of the "broken" Son of God will be saved. Salvation is universal because the Son of God is universal. Sorry, nations will not be saved. Nations will be transformed to conform with the mind of Christ. When they "bow", they will cease to exist, going back to the "dust" (nothingness) from which they came. There is no Jew or Greek in Christ. The world, and all its nations, will "pass away" in the transformation.

So you can make it all about love and Jesus and stuff, yeah that's cool. But you have to remember the prophecies for Old Israel while you are at it.

Oh contrare. I do all I can to forget the prophecies of Old Israel as insignificant, confusing, misleading, divisive, nationalistic, bigoted, vengeful, wordly, problematic, unfulfilled, meaningless, and not worth the paper they are printed on.

It's not like a black and white situation.

Salvation is simpler than you are making it with all this stuff about Israel. Like money, you can't bring the Jews with you to heaven. What goes to heaven is what descended from heaven. Did Jews descend from heaven? No. What goes to heaven is what's real. Isreal is unreal. I'm sorry, but Israel suffers from the Patty Hearst (Stockholm) syndrome in regards their idolatry...taken psychological hostages by a rogue "god" which usurps the place of "Our Father". Their "god" made them promises it can't fulfill. So forget about it already. It aint gonna happen.

The gray area are Jews who are graffed back in, and Christians graffed in at first but cut off just like unbelieving Jews were because they don't measure up in works, Romans 11:22.

Enough with the lame gardening metaphors. P(s)aul was a student of Gamaliel, and used sophistry to get his way after suppressing the original "Way". He doesn't even understand his own catch phrases, such as, "There is no Jew or Greek in Christ". So forget about grafting this and that nationality into the Son of God. The Son of God is not a nationality but a REALITY. Only what is real will inherit the Kingdom of God. Flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This contradicts what P(s)aul is telling the Romans about Jews and Gentiles. P(s)aul suffered from a split mind.

[John Goddard]

Then P(s)aul was a neo-Levitical ex-Pharisee who leavened the doctrine of "the Way" with the "leaven of the Pharisees. All it means is that P(s)aul took Pharisee brand eschatology and adapted it to fit in Gentiles. Instead of a "blood" inheritance, Gentiles were promised a "belief" inheritance. Both are equally a farce. Belief only counts when it is invested in the truth. Rather, P(s)aul preached "Christ crucified", utterly missing the mark of the resurrection...the awakening Christ...Christ risen...

False, Paul especially preached about Christ risen.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Enough with the lame gardening metaphors.

You mean metaphors like,

Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

You can't have really studied the NT enough to know what Paul actually taught since your reply here is mostly a lot of incorrect jargon.

What goes to heaven is what descended from heaven. Did Jews descend from heaven? No. What goes to heaven is what's real.

The spirit goes to Heaven, then in the resurrection the spirit comes down back to unite with the resurrected body, then the entire body ascends to Heaven. Exactly what happened to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming

He doesn't even understand his own catch phrases, such as, "There is no Jew or Greek in Christ".

You don't understand that Greek/Gentiles are graffed into the one tree of Israel, headed by Christ an Israelite and King of Israel.

That's why they are one in Christ. Not that Gentiles never have to be graffed in.

[Bosco]

Christians understood themselves as "the Israel" in the first, second and third centuries.

Afterwards, they began to see themselves as distinct from Judaism, and they embraced a new form of identity: "religion" as opposed to "nation".

We've always interpreted our prophetic literature in light of Jesus. That's why it's placed just before the NT in our canons, it's meant to lead the story into an understanding of Jesus as the culmination of the Israelite stories. So it's normal to see our own identity in them, I would say, just so long as we can understand that we share stories with another people and they have as much claim to them as we do.

Allan

For ME Allan, I am interested with what they thought of themselves and in how they interpreted things in those early times. There is no sercret that many of the "church fathers" were anti-semetic and did indeed want to distance themselves from anything Jewish in appearance. But, if those who walked with Messiah saw themselves as one thing, and the church fathers saw themselves as another... then while I want to understand WHY the CF deviated from the early mindset, I am more interested in trying to understand the mindset of the early followers and aligning my life to that path.

Besides that, Israel is a term that is used by God in relation to His people among other meanings. "My people Israel" is a term He used over 20 times in the prophets. If we are grafted in as Paul states, no longer gentiles as he also states, then refering to ourselves as Israel would not be scripturally incorrect. It would be if we tried to make us the replacement for the nation Israel, but as a people of God we are indeed Israel, IMHO.

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

False, Paul especially preached about Christ risen.

No, because Paul never described the attributes of Christ rightly. And, describing Christ wrongly, he preached Christ crucified...virtually crucifying Christ with his many ten thousands of witty words.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Are these 31 witty words saying that Christ sits at the right hand of God and begs off the wrath of God for those of us who believe, and condemns those who don't? If so, this is exactly what I mean. Paul crucifies Christ every time he opens his Gamaliel trained mouth.

You mean metaphors like,

[I]Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,

This describes P(s)aul.

but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

P(s)aul again, who could hardly even get along with his traveling compatriots...P(s)aul who once boasted that his doctrine came not directly from Jesus' compatriots...who reamed Peter for hypocricy, only to finally complicate himself with hypocrisy when he went up to Jerusalem after many years and, upon the advice of James, pretended to be a follower of the Jewish law and got caught by regional Jews who heard him preaching around the Mediteranean and siezed him leading to his demise. Yep, hypocrisy led to Paul's demise, and then he taught us to drink the Kool-aid and die...UNLIKE WHAT JESUS TAUGHT US: to live and not die.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Have the witty words of P(s)aul ever gathered together the fragmented peices of the broken Son of God? Or, rather, have they given birth to hundreds, if not thousands of different "christian" sects? And of those sects, how many acknowedge their brother as the Son of God? None. This is the fruit of P(s)aul, who built not on "the rock" but on "sand". What he built will eventually fall.

[UrbanMonk]

You can't have really studied the NT enough to know what Paul actually taught since your reply here is mostly a lot of incorrect jargon.

You're not going to be able to pull biblical rank on me. So you may as well just abandon this line of logic.

The spirit goes to Heaven, then in the resurrection the spirit comes down back to unite with the resurrected body, then the entire body ascends to Heaven. Exactly what happened to Jesus.

Right out of the Pharisee's eschatological play book. Clearly, he is using word-magic to save himself, to save his "life"...ignoring Jesus' admonition to lay down our so-called "life" of bodily existence. This is also in direct conflict with other sayings of Paul, to wit, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God". As I said, Paul suffered from a split mind.

[I]1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

P(s)aul theived catch-phrases from "the Way" he had formerly persecuted. He would make neat sounding statements of which he had no comprehension. So I'll return this catch-phrase to its original meaning: Jesus is the firstfruits of a "rising" (awakening) Christ.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Correction: For since by MIND came death, by MIND came also the resurrection of the dead. Man is a manifestation of MENTAL CONCEPTS.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Correction: As in the mind of the prodigal Son all die, even so in the mind of the Son of God (Christ) shall all be made alive.

You don't understand that Greek/Gentiles are graffed into the one tree of Israel, headed by Christ an Israelite and King of Israel.

I understand that this is just P(s)aul's theological green-thumb genetically re-engineering "tree of good and evil" so it bears the kind of fruit P(s)aul likes to eat. But he's still eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil...INSTEAD OF UPROOTING THE WHOLE TREE.

That's why they are one in Christ. Not that Gentiles never have to be graffed in.

More word-crucifixion which presents a "dead" Christ to the reader. A "dead" Christ is one that is made up in the imagination of the ravening theologian who minces words one against another. For no sooner is the mad gardener done grafting Jews and Gentiles together, he sits down to have a cup of "There are no Jew or Greek in Christ".

Dead metaphors = "dead" Christ = "Christ crucified". This is all P(s)aul preached.

[John Goddard]

No, because Paul never described the attributes of Christ rightly. And, describing Christ wrongly, he preached Christ crucified...virtually crucifying Christ with his many ten thousands of witty words.

I think you just don't understand the text, since Paul preached about Jesus risen, and the rest of us rising through him. Something you denied Paul preached at all, now you are backpedaling to say yes, he preached about Christ risen, just the wrong thing about it. Bah...

So you can't know what you are talking about, you make stuff up as you go along.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

UM: "Right out of the Pharisee's eschatological play book. Clearly, he is using word-magic to save himself, to save his "life"...ignoring Jesus' admonition to lay down our so-called "life" of bodily existence. This is also in direct conflict with other sayings of Paul, to wit, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God". As I said, Paul suffered from a split mind."

Martyrs will have laid down their physical lives. That doesn't mean they aren't resurrected physically like Jesus was.

There is no reason to think that "flesh and blood won't inherit" means that you won't have flesh and blood when resurrected. It means that you can't just do good works with your hands to be seen of men without feeling love in your heart as well.

You think you have a "deeper message" but you are just making a mess of the simple one already there.

UM: "You're not going to be able to pull biblical rank on me. So you may as well just abandon this line of logic."

Of course I will, my theology never contradicts the Bible and has foundation, even though it differs with pop interpretation.

While you pull the skeleton of your theology from the Bible rejecting other verses here and there in favor of stuff you made up on your own to present yourself as some kind of prophet with a new message.

Which is exactly what Matthew 7:15-16, Matthew 7:26, Ephesians 4:14, and other verses talk about.

[UrbanMonk]

There is no reason to think that "flesh and blood won't inherit" means that you won't have flesh and blood when resurrected. It means that you can't just do good works with your hands to be seen of men without feeling love in your heart as well.

So you can't know what you are talking about, you make stuff up as you go along.

You think you have a "deeper message" but you are just making a mess of the simple one already there.

Simple message: Flesh and blood won't inherit the kingdom of God.