Are Christians part of Israel?

[Bosco]

I heard a story recently on Christian radio about JC Penny, (true or not I can't say) when he was alive, was interviewing some guy for a job over dinner. As soon as dinner was served, the applicant picked up the salt and while sprinkling his food, began to talk about the new position. Mr. Penny said, "you won't have to worry about the job, you aren't getting it." Confused, the guy asked why not, to which Mr. Penny said, "any man who puts salt on his food before tasting it makes decisions before having facts." I think with all scriptural things, we should refrain from sprinkling salt before hearing a matter.

Paul wrote:
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

So some who are are "of Israel," are not Israel. "Israel" is a term that is used to describe a man (Jacob), a land, a nation, and God's people.

"Eze 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel;" (This term, "my people Israel," is used over 20 times in the prophets alone)

Many "gentiles" have come in faith to Christ. But when they come in faith, are they "still gentiles?"

1Co 12:1 "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. (2) Ye know that ye were Gentiles,"

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,

So when we lived without Messiah, we were considered gentiles, strangers, even aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel:

Eph 2:12 "That at that time ye were without the Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

But watch what happens through him:

Eph 2:13 "But now in the Messiah Yehoshua (Jesus) ye who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of the Messiah."

So then, what are we now if we were gentiles and aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel?:

Eph 2:19 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"

So we Christians aren't strangers and foreignors of the Commonwealth of Israel, God's people, but are both fellow citizens with the saints AND fellowcitizens with the Household of God.

Israel is the lost sheep and who Yehoshua came to save/find.

Matt 15:24 "But answering, He said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But there are "other sheep".....

John 10:16a "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:"

The other sheep become one fold with the lost sheep.

John 10:16b "them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

While Judah, the southern Kingdom, might be that to which he refers, could it also be what Paul refers to here(?):

Rom 11:17 "And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, have been grafted in among them, and came to share the root and fatness of the olive tree,"

The new covenant is what Yehoshua ushered in. Yet, there is a prophecy of this new covenant in Jer 31:31-34, which in part says:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"

This is elaborated on in Hebrews 8. There is no mention of gentiles, no mention of foreignors, strangers, only two houses, Israel and Judah. If we become "one fold" with the lost sheep, we see us fitting into this prophecy perfectly. If we are not one fold with the lost sheep, Israel, where are the Christians?

Interestingly, in the account of the two sticks in Ezekiel's hands (Ezk. 37) we see one stick belonging to the House of Judah, the Southern Kingdom. The other stick, the stick of Joseph which represents the Northern Kingdom is not in the hand of any of the members of the 12 tribes, but rather "in the hand of Ephraim." These two sticks of course are placed in one of Ezekiel's hands and they become one, never again to be divided. But again, as with Jer 31 and Heb. 8, there is no mention of the church, no mention of gentiles or the nations.... just the Houses of Judah and Israel. So again, if we are no longer aliens but now fellow citizens, these make sense to us. But if we are not in any way part of Israel, where is the church in these prophetic accounts?

Any thoughts?

Peace.
Bosco

[bc1980]

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

Any thoughts?

Peace.
Bosco

The church was a "mystery"until it was revealed.

The church is the ecclesia of God, made up from both believing Jews and Gentiles. Christ destroyed the barrier between the two making the two ONE NEW MAN.

[Alucard]

All of God's promises to Israel are applied to the Church, as the Church is the New Israel.

Israel continued in those Jews who received their Messiah and took the gospel of His Kingdom to the Gentiles, who were grafted into the Kingdom of God and have continued to do so to this day. Those who rejected Messiah ceased to be Israel.

[Bosco]

[COLOR="Blue"]The church was a "mystery"until it was revealed.

The church is the ecclesia of God, made up from both believing Jews and Gentiles. Christ destroyed the barrier between the two making the two ONE NEW MAN.

Maybe so, but the word "church" is not exactly the most accurate word for ecclesia. "Called out ones" or "gathering" (by default, an assembly) is a better translation. Seeing Israel has always been the called out ones, and God refers to Israel as "my people Israel," and we are His people, are we then not Israel, at least in part? If not, can you share your understanding of Ephesians 2:10-20.

Too, the joining of God's people has not happened yet. Understand, the word "Jew" is the modern short form of the word "Judah." The Jews today are those who dwell in Israel, in other countries, and are the descendents of the Southern Kingdom. The rest of the 10 tribes, (Judah, Benjamin, and some of Levi make up the Southern Kingdom) were scattered/dispersed and do not yet know who they are. I suspect that many are Christians not knowing their true lineage yet, but that is beside the point. The Northern Kingdom has not been reconciled to Judah to form one whole House of Israel, and that will not happen until the return of Messiah. (See Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 31/ Hebrews 8) So while the barriers have been removed, the reconciliation has not happened yet.

Peace.
Ken

[Bosco]

All of God's promises to Israel are applied to the Church, as the Church is the New Israel.

Israel continued in those Jews who received their Messiah and took the gospel of His Kingdom to the Gentiles, who were grafted into the Kingdom of God and have continued to do so to this day. Those who rejected Messiah ceased to be Israel.

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.

Peace.
Bosco

[bc1980]

If not, can you share your understanding of Ephesians 2:10-20.

.....His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross..... Eph 2:15b-16a

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Eph 219-20

There is ONE people of God, those who are in Christ. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The Covenant made with Israel was a conditional covenant based on their ability to keep the Law, Temple worship and animal sacrifice. It was replaced by the New Covenant when Christ finished HIS work. True worshippers of God worship in Spirit and Truth based on Christ.

The New Covenant is IN. The Old Covenant is obsolete and OUT.

[Bosco]

If not, can you share your understanding of Ephesians 2:10-20.

.....His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross..... Eph 2:15b-16a

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Eph 219-20

There is ONE people of God, those who are in Christ. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The Covenant made with Israel was a conditional covenant based on their ability to keep the Law, Temple worship and animal sacrifice. It was replaced by the New Covenant when Christ finished HIS work. True worshippers of God worship in Spirit and Truth based on Christ.

The New Covenant is IN. The Old Covenant is obsolete and OUT.

By your last statement I see you have your mind made up. Not a problem, but in leaving you to your other discussions, I leave you with something to ponder.

Chadasha is the Hebrew word translated as "New" in Jeremiah 31:31-34. However, from it's roots we know the word means "renew" rather than new. Shaky ground I am on? Those verses are repeated word for word in Hebrews 8, and the word translated as "new" is kainos, go ahead, look it up. (multiple sources) Kainos means renew, as in an older car you rebuilt, repainted, and made to look new. The Greek word for new as in "off the showroom floor new" is nehos, which does not appear in Hebrews 8. This is not a new covenant, it is a renewed covenant. The one you believe is obsolete was called everlasting by the author. Since his word stands above all, our interpretation of the "NT" should be according to the groundwork laid by him. Everlasting, as far as I am concerned, means everlasting. It does not mean "until a certain date."

I wish you well.
Peace.
Bosco

[bc1980]

This is not a new covenant, it is a renewed covenant. The one you believe is obsolete was called everlasting by the author. Since his word stands above all, our interpretation of the "NT" should be according to the groundwork laid by him. Everlasting, as far as I am concerned, means everlasting. It does not mean "until a certain date."

Hebrews 8:6-7
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is medator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had ben nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

The context points to a NEW covenant that replaces the OLD covenant.

While word studies are beneficial, they cannot take the place of context, progressive revelation in Scripture, and biblical theology vs. systematic theology.

[Bosco]

This is not a new covenant, it is a renewed covenant. The one you believe is obsolete was called everlasting by the author. Since his word stands above all, our interpretation of the "NT" should be according to the groundwork laid by him. Everlasting, as far as I am concerned, means everlasting. It does not mean "until a certain date."

Hebrews 8:6-7
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is medator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had ben nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

The context points to a NEW covenant that replaces the OLD covenant.

While word studies are beneficial, they cannot take the place of context, progressive revelation in Scripture, and biblical theology vs. systematic theology.

No doubt, but one set of verses do not overrule many others. If one set of verses are in contrast to the rest, the trouble does not apply to the rest, but how we interpret the one. Also, you might want to reconsider these verses as any kind of proof text seeing the word "covenant" does NOT appear in the manuscripts in verse 7. (It was added by translators) So verse 7 could just as easily be speaking about the ministry of Yehoshua seeing that was the topic leading up to that verse.

Lastly, I fear you are making the same mistake most Christians make (I say this with respect) in lumping Torah (God's Law) and the covenant together as one item, when they are not. Torah was what Israel agreed to as their end of the bargan, but Torah predates Sinai and is a word entirely separate in meaning from covenant.

Yehoshua went out of his way to tell us Torah was still in place. And, to say that it no longer exists goes against his own words in many places and logic. For Torah is instruction in righteousness, God's will for man and how he relates to God and those around him. Without it, we live in a state of lawlessness. Sound familiar, lawlessness? Isn't that what is prophecied about the end times?

Peace.
Bosco

[bc1980]

No doubt, but one set of verses do not overrule many others. If one set of verses are in contrast to the rest, the trouble does not apply to the rest, but how we interpret the one. Also, you might want to reconsider these verses as any kind of proof text seeing the word "covenant" does NOT appear in the manuscripts in verse 7. (It was added by translators) So verse 7 could just as easily be speaking about the ministry of Yehoshua seeing that was the topic leading up to that verse.

There is no indication of what you said in the ESV.

6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Lastly, I fear you are making the same mistake most Christians make (I say this with respect) in lumping Torah (God's Law) and the covenant together as one item, when they are not. Torah was what Israel agreed to as their end of the bargan, but Torah predates Sinai and is a word entirely separate in meaning from covenant.

You are very polite in your argument but I believe it is you who is mistaken. The covenant and the Law were tied together. You could not have one without the other.

Yehoshua went out of his way to tell us Torah was still in place. And, to say that it no longer exists goes against his own words in many places and logic.

If you are referring to Matthew 5:17-18 here it is.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

All was accomplished when Christ finished His work through His life, death, burial, resurrection, and sending of the Holy Spirit.

Paul clarifies that in Ephesians 2.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

"Abolish" is the exact same greek word in both passages. Jesus told the disciples there was more He wanted to explain to them but they couldn't understand it. But when the Spirit came He would guide them into ALL truth.

The writers of the New Testament are explaining what could not be understood prior to the coming of the Spirit.

The New clarifies the Old.

For Torah is instruction in righteousness, God's will for man and how he relates to God and those around him.

Wrong! God's will for us is to relate to Him through the finished work of Christ. The Law made no one righteous.

Without it, we live in a state of lawlessness.

Romans 8:2-5
For the law of h the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

We are lead by the Spirit. We have the Law of Christ, "love one another as I have loved you."

We have the commandment found in 1 John 3:23

23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

Sound familiar, lawlessness? Isn't that what is prophecied about the end times?

The Law never prevented anyone from living lawlessly.

Galatians 3:19
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

There is plenty of clarification in the Epistles if we are unsure how to interpret "love one another." Our worship of God is not still tied to the shadows and types of the Old that was fulfilled in Christ. God's law has been poured into our hearts through the Spirit, if we are indeed in Christ. Anything else is moving backwards. Anything else is why Paul was getting onto the Galatians.

BC

[Bosco]

BC, I have no problem with the ESV, but don't assume that is perfect, no translation is "perfect." The letters by the Apostles were inspired, but unless they are locked away in some Vatican catacomb vault, we don't have them. Instead, we have copies of the original that have transversed at least 2 languages. The word covenant in verse 7 is not in the majority manuscripts. If you have e-sword or another decent program, pull up the KJV or the NKJV which will show that word lighter than the rest... which means it was added by the translators.

I am closing my account due to personal reasons, so will not be back.

I wish you well in your walk.

Peace.
Ken

[seanD]

I heard a story recently on Christian radio about JC Penny, (true or not I can't say) when he was alive, was interviewing some guy for a job over dinner. As soon as dinner was served, the applicant picked up the salt and while sprinkling his food, began to talk about the new position. Mr. Penny said, "you won't have to worry about the job, you aren't getting it." Confused, the guy asked why not, to which Mr. Penny said, "any man who puts salt on his food before tasting it makes decisions before having facts." I think with all scriptural things, we should refrain from sprinkling salt before hearing a matter.

Paul wrote:
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

So some who are are "of Israel," are not Israel. "Israel" is a term that is used to describe a man (Jacob), a land, a nation, and God's people.

"Eze 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel;" (This term, "my people Israel," is used over 20 times in the prophets alone)

Many "gentiles" have come in faith to Christ. But when they come in faith, are they "still gentiles?"

1Co 12:1 "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. (2) Ye know that ye were Gentiles,"

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,

So when we lived without Messiah, we were considered gentiles, strangers, even aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel:

Eph 2:12 "That at that time ye were without the Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

But watch what happens through him:

Eph 2:13 "But now in the Messiah Yehoshua (Jesus) ye who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of the Messiah."

So then, what are we now if we were gentiles and aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel?:

Eph 2:19 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"

So we Christians aren't strangers and foreignors of the Commonwealth of Israel, God's people, but are both fellow citizens with the saints AND fellowcitizens with the Household of God.

Israel is the lost sheep and who Yehoshua came to save/find.

Matt 15:24 "But answering, He said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But there are "other sheep".....

John 10:16a "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:"

The other sheep become one fold with the lost sheep.

John 10:16b "them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

While Judah, the southern Kingdom, might be that to which he refers, could it also be what Paul refers to here(?):

Rom 11:17 "And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, have been grafted in among them, and came to share the root and fatness of the olive tree,"

The new covenant is what Yehoshua ushered in. Yet, there is a prophecy of this new covenant in Jer 31:31-34, which in part says:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"

This is elaborated on in Hebrews 8. There is no mention of gentiles, no mention of foreignors, strangers, only two houses, Israel and Judah. If we become "one fold" with the lost sheep, we see us fitting into this prophecy perfectly. If we are not one fold with the lost sheep, Israel, where are the Christians?

Interestingly, in the account of the two sticks in Ezekiel's hands (Ezk. 37) we see one stick belonging to the House of Judah, the Southern Kingdom. The other stick, the stick of Joseph which represents the Northern Kingdom is not in the hand of any of the members of the 12 tribes, but rather "in the hand of Ephraim." These two sticks of course are placed in one of Ezekiel's hands and they become one, never again to be divided. But again, as with Jer 31 and Heb. 8, there is no mention of the church, no mention of gentiles or the nations.... just the Houses of Judah and Israel. So again, if we are no longer aliens but now fellow citizens, these make sense to us. But if we are not in any way part of Israel, where is the church in these prophetic accounts?

Any thoughts?

Peace.
Bosco

There is a spiritual Israel and a historical geographic Israel. I don't believe that the latter has dissipated, but will be dealt with in the future, though I don't exactly know how or what spiritual level. As far as the former, Paul said that "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen." He said this before there was ever a NT, which means that we can proclaim all the promises given to Israel scattered throughout the Old testament (i.e., of health, of peace, of guidance, of protection, of stability, et al.) as an inheritance for ourselves in Christ, who was the true Israel.

[bc1980]

There is a spiritual Israel and a historical geographic Israel. I don't believe that the latter has dissipated, but will be dealt with in the future, though I don't exactly know how or what spiritual level. As far as the former, Paul said that "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen." He said this before there was ever a NT, which means that we can proclaim all the promises given to Israel scattered throughout the Old testament (i.e., of health, of peace, of guidance, of protection, of stability, et al.) as an inheritance for ourselves in Christ, who was the true Israel.

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."

[bc1980]

BC, I have no problem with the ESV, but don't assume that is perfect, no translation is "perfect." The letters by the Apostles were inspired, but unless they are locked away in some Vatican catacomb vault, we don't have them. Instead, we have copies of the original that have transversed at least 2 languages. The word covenant in verse 7 is not in the majority manuscripts. If you have e-sword or another decent program, pull up the KJV or the NKJV which will show that word lighter than the rest... which means it was added by the translators.

I am closing my account due to personal reasons, so will not be back.

I wish you well in your walk.

Peace.
Ken

For any readers that are interested, here is the King James Version of the passage Bosco said did not contain the word "covenant".

Hebrew 8:6-13
6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

"Covenant" in verses 7 & 13 is implied as Bosco said. I believe the context shows the use of the word accurate.

Bosco didn't mention all the other uses of the word "covenant" in this passage which are NOT implied.

Just for your information.

BC

[popaface]

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

[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.

[John Goddard]

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

Your answer is that Paul suffered from a split mind. Rather, you want to pick and choose contexts and accuse Paul of having a split mind due to your own lack of understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:52, and in fact the entire Bible all the way to the beginning.

Adam was made of dust and flesh and converted to incorruptibility once placed in the Garden, Genesis 2:8.

So you don't understand that the resurrected are the same, raised flesh and blood, but into the immortal state Adam was after he was placed in the Garden, having been created from dust outside of the Garden as a mortal being.

Just as Jesus was raised flesh and blood for Thomas to see, yet ascended physically into immortality back into the Garden. Which is where we are all trying to get back to since Adam took us out of it, and Jesus brings us back in.

Your ignorance and rejection of pertinent text which explains the entire story just fine, in favor of your own made-up stuff, is astounding.

[UrbanMonk]

Your answer is that Paul suffered from a split mind.

It's obvious. But not just P(s)aul. It's a prehistoric condition going back to when the prodigal Son split his home. Jesus referenced this psychological condition when he said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". He's saing that the world, a product of a split mind, will end when the psychological condition is healed. P(s)aul referenced this condition when he wrote about a struggle he was having between what he really wants...between flesh and Spirit. P(s)aul was yet undecided. At one point, he said that it was not even his will that he be preaching like he was. Rather, he felt compelled by something/someone driving him. And when you look at his contradictions, a pattern emerges. He was split between "the Way" (which he had suppressed) and his training under Gamaliel.

Rather, you want to pick and choose contexts and accuse Paul of having a split mind due to your own lack of understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:52,

No, I'm referencing P(s)aul's entire portfolio. What's good about P(s)aul is not original, and what's original with P(s)aul is not good. He is split, and I am choosing to reference the parts that are not original, having come from "the Way" he spent time suppressing.

and in fact the entire Bible all the way to the beginning.

The very first sentence of the bible is misleading propaganda either by mistake (ignorance) or design. The bible is not an authority. The interpreter is the authority...if he interprets with the Interpreter/Redeemer/Translator...Good Shepherd. The Interpreter can interpret anything...even Harry Potter. The Interpreter is the "Holy Spirit" and the interloper is an unholy spirit.

Adam was made of dust and flesh and converted to incorruptibility once placed in the Garden, Genesis 2:8.

Believe what you want. You're just not interpreting with a "Holy" agenda. You ignore that God creates "like from like"..."true God from true God". Man is made as a matter of imagination. Imagination is not the same as creation. And what you are proposing is sci-fi, depicting a god who fails to make his little 'frankenstein' behave morally correctly.

So you don't understand that the resurrected are the same, raised flesh and blood, but into the immortal state Adam was after he was placed in the Garden, having been created from dust outside of the Garden as a mortal being.

More frankenstien mentality. Imaginative, yes. True, no. You have no clue what resurrection is all about. Or you do, and you've rejected what it proposes because you simply will not relenquish your efforts to get a square peg into a round hole. God does not fail. So, what has failed - Adam...flesh and blood - cannot be of God. So if you keep thinking the way you've thought, you're just going to get what you've always got. Placing dust/flesh in "the Garden" didn't work last time, and won't work this time. And the logic that seems to justify such a "ground hog day" scenario is far too blasphemous to consider your argument valid.

Just as Jesus was raised flesh and blood for Thomas to see, yet ascended physically into immortality back into the Garden. Which is where we are all trying to get back to since Adam took us out of it, and Jesus brings us back in.

Excuse me, whatever appears and disappears at will is not flesh and blood. It is a demonstration of the unreality of the body...by a mind that is master of it's metaphysical manifestations. People saw a body defying gravity as far as the eye could see. They did not see a body going back into "the Garden". This is assumed. Ascension of a body is a metaphor that teaches about concepts the eyes cannot see. The lesson is that 'what descends from heaven ascends to heaven...and only that'. The Son of God descended, and the Son of God ascends. "The world" is the descended Son of God, otherwise known as the "prodigal Son". The other lesson is that the Son of God denies the validity of every "law" the prodigal Son ever thought to call "the truth", for example, "gravity".

Man is trying to get back the the proverbial "Garden of Eden". The Son of God is trying to get back to his home...the proverbial "Kingdom of God". Man is trying to save his skin. The Son is trying to save his mind and return to Spirit. These are opposing purposes. Man's skin is a mental manifestation of a mind gone mad...gone far from home..."fallen"..."descending" from glory.

Your ignorance and rejection of pertinent text which explains the entire story just fine, in favor of your own made-up stuff, is astounding.

You're blowing smoke here. Pertinent text? I've got pertinent text for you. You've just chosen text that supports your dream of re-creating a neo-frankenstien from the dust....anything that supports your wish to exist as a body in a utopian dreamscape. You are not alone in wishing for this. Many "spiritual" teachers wish for this, even though it has nothing to do with a spiritual path...a path leading to Spirit. It's a pathetic path leading to the manifestation of more pathology.

[Bosco]

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

When Yehoshua was raised, he was changed. He had a body but a different body. He still ate, drank, breathed, walked, talked, but of course he could appear or disappear by mere thought, it seems. When we see him, we will be like him. We will be changed, made incorruptible.... but we will still have bodies. Likely, there will be skin on our bones and blood pumping through our bodies. "Flesh and blood" not inheriting the Kingdom then, I am guessing, is an Hebrew Idiom and not a literal saying. IMO

Peace.
Ken

[John Goddard]

God does not fail. So, what has failed - Adam...flesh and blood - cannot be of God.

Thus according to you...

1. You are also flesh and blood, therefore you cannot be of God either.
2. God is not the creator of man.

Who created man if man is not of God, since man is flesh and blood?

[UrbanMonk]

Thus according to you...

1. You are also flesh and blood, therefore you cannot be of God either.
2. God is not the creator of man.

Technically, this is correct. However, the issue is about identity...about an identity crisis. We "become flesh" when we deny we are Christ...which IS of God. What is not of God must "die" as an identity...as the "dream" that it is. The death of the dream is the end of the dream...is the resumption of reality. God is the creator of ONLY THE SON OF GOD. The Son of God is Our Father's ONLY creation...his ONLY Son. Creation and Sonship are synonymous. Man is "made"...as in "manufactured" in an industrial sized imagination which forges images of god out of quarks, leptons, protons and all things unreal and imaginary. As such, man is a "graven image"...an idol.

Who created man if man is not of God, since man is flesh and blood?

Man is a manifestation of a powerful imagination. Man is made in the imagination of the "prodigal Son"...a rogue concept that departs from reality. The realm of the prodigal Son is all that can possibly be imagined. The problem with imagination is that it dreams of everything that is not real. This would be "good" of reality were harsh. But if reality is really blissful, then imagination is going to be harsh. That is exactly why the prodigal Son has problems. Not because he is being punished...but because if it's not real, it must be some kind of desert wasteland. Such is "the world".

[UrbanMonk]

When Yehoshua was raised, he was changed. He had a body but a different body. He still ate, drank, breathed, walked, talked, but of course he could appear or disappear by mere thought, it seems. When we see him, we will be like him. We will be changed, made incorruptible.... but we will still have bodies. Likely, there will be skin on our bones and blood pumping through our bodies. "Flesh and blood" not inheriting the Kingdom then, I am guessing, is an Hebrew Idiom and not a literal saying. IMO

Peace.
Ken

Flesh and blood not inheriting the Kingdom of God is an idiom of "the Way" before it was paved over to accomodate a five lane hiway for the orthodox masses. Guilt is more popular than guiltlessness these days.

[John Goddard]

Technically, this is correct. However, the issue is about identity...about an identity crisis. We "become flesh" when we deny we are Christ...which IS of God.

You are flesh and blood sitting there typing, unless you also claim to be a ghost sending messages through the Internet...

Your ideas don't have any practical application and thus are nonsensical.

[UrbanMonk]

You are flesh and blood sitting there typing, unless you also claim to be a ghost sending messages through the Internet...

Well, that was edifying. What kind of christian did you say you were? The church is edified when we become willing to acknowledge the Son of God in our "brother". Our brother is our neighbor. Anyone can be our savior if we were willing to open our eyes and see them rightly.

Cooincidently, flesh and blood is very much like to be a ghost...relative to reality. We think this world is our home. We continue to haunt it until we figure out we are "dead" in this world. No, if you want to get technical on me, I'm going to deny "I" am sitting here typing, and I'm going to affirm that I am in Paradise (Heaven, Christ), now, as the Son of God...encompassing God as the Kingdom of God. That is to say that I am multitasking...awake and sleeping at the same time. Like I said, salvation is about identity and what we are doing with our power. Till you understand this, you have imprisoned your practical power to forgive.

Your ideas don't have any practical application and thus are nonsensical.

You need to understand these things before you can begin the process of forgiveness. You will be saved to the extent that you forgive, and damned to the extent that you don't. So what I'm saying is really the most important information in the world whether you believe it or not...think it practical or not. At this moment in time, you do not understand what forgiveness is because you don't want what it offers.

[John Goddard]

No, if you want to get technical on me, I'm going to deny "I" am sitting here typing, and I'm going to affirm that I am in Paradise (Heaven, Christ), now, as the Son of God...encompassing God as the Kingdom of God. That is to say that I am multitasking...awake and sleeping at the same time.

Whatever you say, Neo...:lol:

[UrbanMonk]

Whatever you say, Neo...:lol:


Your homework will be to watch the Matrix ten times. Oh, and say five "Hail Marys".

[Bosco]

Flesh and blood not inheriting the Kingdom of God is an idiom of "the Way" before it was paved over to accomodate a five lane hiway for the orthodox masses. Guilt is more popular than guiltlessness these days.

Can't say I ever heard "flesh and blood is an idiom for the Way" as you state. While I agree it is idiomatic, Yehoshua himself is the WAY, not flesh and blood!

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

Can't say I ever heard "flesh and blood is an idiom for the Way" as you state. While I agree it is idiomatic, Yehoshua himself is the WAY, not flesh and blood!

Peace.
Ken

No what I mean is that the earlies teachers of the way used that catch-phrase (flesh and blood will not inherit the kindgom of god) as part of their curriculum. Paul picked it up as he suppresed the way. Asphalt is a metaphor for suppression under a hard darkness.

[popaface]

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

Well, I see what you're saying. I understand the anti-Judaism(Semitism) in the Church Fathers as resembling much more of a heresiological polemic which gives interest into the identity and practice of Christianity as an entity itself. As that, I think it's important to note explicitly that their identity was shaped by communicating with and evolving alongside other Judaism(s).

I'm not one to criticize (well, I am really), but this whole notion that the first century, immediate Jesus movement as somehow more pure than anything else is really just idealist tendencies, and not a very educated position. Within this idealistic perspective, what emerges is a Romantic notion that early Christianity somehow was a 21st century post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment movement all (if not "only") about gender equality and egalitarianism. I personally think that's not how history works; what I see the Second Temple Judaism(s), is a particular, very complex movement which articulated beliefs in the divinity of a crucified man as Messianic and as Salvific. Contemporary notions of gender-equality of pacifism and anti-militarism, are very good notions, but they're not necessarily the same notions of the biblical world and even if they were, so what? They should be our realities, incarnated in our national and international ideologies/relationships.

Allan

[Bosco]

Well, I see what you're saying. I understand the anti-Judaism(Semitism) in the Church Fathers as resembling much more of a heresiological polemic which gives interest into the identity and practice of Christianity as an entity itself. As that, I think it's important to note explicitly that their identity was shaped by communicating with and evolving alongside other Judaism(s).

I'm not one to criticize (well, I am really), but this whole notion that the first century, immediate Jesus movement as somehow more pure than anything else is really just idealist tendencies, and not a very educated position. Within this idealistic perspective, what emerges is a Romantic notion that early Christianity somehow was a 21st century post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment movement all (if not "only") about gender equality and egalitarianism. I personally think that's not how history works; what I see the Second Temple Judaism(s), is a particular, very complex movement which articulated beliefs in the divinity of a crucified man as Messianic and as Salvific. Contemporary notions of gender-equality of pacifism and anti-militarism, are very good notions, but they're not necessarily the same notions of the biblical world and even if they were, so what? They should be our realities, incarnated in our national and international ideologies/relationships.

Allan

I am not suggesting it was more pure, man is fallible. I am simpy suggesting that the earlier you can go back and look at those who walked with Messiah, the closer you will find yourself to the intent of his teachings. The further we go away from his days in time, the more syncretism we will find and thus, the more man made laws added which are now (1800 years or so later) are now traditions we are born into that we don't even think to consider in regards to their validity. Did those who walked with him or those who walked in this path right after his ascension... did they continue to keep Sabbath, Passover....did they blow the shofar on the new moon sighting. (beginning of the new month) These things interest me I study them with passion. That doesn't mean I expect you to follow in my error prone steps... nor do I judge those who don't have the same vision. We are indeed free to draw our own conclusions and should be able to do so... unless it adversely effects other brethren, without condemnation from others. We are brothers in Messiah and >>ALL<< of us hold to doctrines which might not align to scripture perfectly and I REALLY believe that when he returns, there will be much head smacking going on. (SMACK- "Doh, I was off THAT much??") Truth is what matters to me, even if others lack the same desire or reach the same conclusions.

Peace.
Ken