View Full Version : Sailing on the Gospel ship
Let me first say that I am grateful for all who regularly post here. We have some lively discussions which occassionally arouse strong feelings.....but,...this is good, as long as we maintain a healthy respect for other opinions. Of late, we have been blessed by some new views from new members. That's a very good indication that God is on the move, and we are riding a new wave, or, shall be say,........the wind is billowing the sails so that we can move into deeper waters.
Richard suggested that I open a new thread when I objected to the "...isms" that prevail within the Church......and that I present an alternate view which I assert pertains to the "gospel".........the good news, or well-message.
So, I will try to state as clearly as possible what I offer to you to discuss;
Paul's ministry is to what he termed "the uncircumcision". Peter's ministry is what Paul termed "the circumcision".
What, if any, is the difference?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2010, 12:24 PM
Let me first say that I am grateful for all who regularly post here. We have some lively discussions which occassionally arouse strong feelings.....but,...this is good, as long as we maintain a healthy respect for other opinions. Of late, we have been blessed by some new views from new members. That's a very good indication that God is on the move, and we are riding a new wave, or, shall be say,........the wind is billowing the sails so that we can move into deeper waters.
Richard suggested that I open a new thread when I objected to the "...isms" that prevail within the Church......and that I present an alternate view which I assert pertains to the "gospel".........the good news, or well-message.
Sailing into deeper waters! That's what I like! I expect we will have an excellent catch of deeper truths. We have a good command from the Lord (adapted for the present discourse):
Luke 5:4 When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, "Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch."
So, I will try to state as clearly as possible what I offer to you to discuss;
Paul's ministry is to what he termed "the uncircumcision". Peter's ministry is what Paul termed "the circumcision".
What, if any, is the difference?
Joel
From my perspective, I see this as talking about the general emphasis of their two ministries. Paul in general ministered the Gospel to the Gentiles, and Peter in general ministered the same Gospel to the Jews. I find it difficult to see any cut and dry distinction between their ministries because Paul regularly preached to Jews and Peter was the first to preach to Gentiles.
I look forward to an excellent time of fellowship and study.
Richard
It is not my belief that Peter and Paul preached different messages.......but.....Paul added clarifications, and he emphacised certain facets that are not found in any other writings.
The Gentiles were treated to this expansive message whereas the apostles of Christ's ministry were not.......at that time.
For example; Paul used the word "mystery" twice as much as is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Revelation, the only other sections where the word is used.
A mystery remains hidden until it is revealed. So, God, through Paul, whose ministry was to the "uncircumcision", revealed some things that were virtually unknown, and could not be known until God revealed them to Paul. None of other writers even spoke of them.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2010, 04:50 PM
It is not my belief that Peter and Paul preached different messages.......but.....Paul added clarifications, and he emphacised certain facets that are not found in any other writings.
We agree perfectly here. But I would say that Peter added his own "clarifications" too. They are less only because of volume.
The Gentiles were treated to this expansive message whereas the apostles of Christ's ministry were not.......at that time.
Are you suggesting that the believing Jews were not treated with the same message when they read Paul's letters? We know Paul was writing to both Jews and Gentiles, and Peter read his letters too.
For example; Paul used the word "mystery" twice as much as is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Revelation, the only other sections where the word is used.
A mystery remains hidden until it is revealed. So, God, through Paul, whose ministry was to the "uncircumcision", revealed some things that were virtually unknown, and could not be known until God revealed them to Paul. None of other writers even spoke of them.
Joel
I don't see the connection between Paul's audience and the message of his letters. Did not the "mystery" apply equally to Jew and Gentile? Was it not received by all Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, who accepted all the writings of the NT?
Richard
Richard,
The point that I was trying to make was; the mystery that was presented to the disciples from Christ was the mystery of the kingdom. They were especially privy to His disclosures to them as in contradistinction to the whole of Israel who were blinded by God.
The mysteries as presented by Paul to the Gentiles were not presented to the disciples of Christ that were called by Him.
It was only after Paul was called, and brought into Christ's body when he was on the way to Demascus, that Paul was given specific truth concerning Christ's sacrificial death.
It appears that the apostles of His original calling, the twelve which included Peter, were not privy to what was revealed to Paul.
The "mystery" applied directly to both Jew and Gentile. Yet, it appears, that first the Gentiles would hear it, and rejoice in God.......and,.....then, the Jews would hear when their blindness was removed.
At present, whether Jew or Greek, all who hear are saved when they believe.
But....can it also mean that in the time to come as the Jew is relieved of his blindness, there will be a time when they (Israel) will yet see the truth that was once presented to them....and....they will see and believe....and.....they will present the gospel to the nations who do not come to Christ in this present era...the gospel that is presented by Peter as their apostle?
In that era, God will bring the Jewish people to Himself as a fulfillment of the confirmation obtained by Jesus as the minister 0f the circumcision Who confirmed the promises of the fathers. The salvation which will brought to all of mankind will be enjoyed by His people, Israel.
basilfo
02-14-2010, 04:31 PM
Hi Joel,
Always good to hear your thoughts. As you can imagine, I'm afraid I don't share your belief that there remains a distinction between people based on their ethnic/genetic makeup - specifically "Jews" and "Gentiles" - under the New Covenant.
As Jer 31:31 says, the new covenant was made WITH "the house of Israel and the house of Judah", and of course Gentiles were welcomed into that covenant as well. The only criteria for either group to be included was faith that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and that He rose from the dead. This is what the Olive tree illustration of Rom 11 teaches as well as all writings from Peter and Paul.
Joel said: But....can it also mean that in the time to come as the Jew is relieved of his blindness, there will be a time when they (Israel) will yet see the truth that was once presented to them....and....they will see and believe....and.....they will present the gospel to the nations who do not come to Christ in this present era...the gospel that is presented by Peter as their apostle?
Paul defined "Israel" as believers in Christ (the Seed):
Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they [are] not all Israel who [are] of Israel, 7 nor [are they] all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who [are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
But you seem to include "blind" Jews as "Israel". Could you define what you mean by "they (Israel)"? Are they those in the state of Israel geographically? What about those in Brooklyn? Are "they" those whose mother is "Jewish"? Does the group you have in mind here include "Jews" who have physically died?
Joel said:
In that era, God will bring the Jewish people to Himself as a fulfillment of the confirmation obtained by Jesus as the minister 0f the circumcision Who confirmed the promises of the fathers. The salvation which will brought to all of mankind will be enjoyed by His people, Israel.
Peter does not call Christ rejecting Jews "His people, Israel". Why would you? He calls believers in Christ "His own special people" and "a holy nation".
1 Pet 2:4 Coming to Him [as to] a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God [and] precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, [He is] precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 9 But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once [were] not a people but [are] now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
With all the NT Scripture teaching that bloodline is meaningless in God's eyes, I can't see how there remains any distinction for any reason in your mind Joel. I respectfully must disagree with you, my brother.
Peace to you,
Dave
Peter does not call Christ rejecting Jews "His people, Israel". Why would you? He calls believers in Christ "His own special people" and "a holy nation".
Dave, my brother,
I never said that the "rejecting Jews" were His people.
They, the "rejecting Jews", are currently called Lo Ammi, not my people.
Currently, both Jews and Gentiles, are in Christ, and there is no distinction during this present era.
You believe that the lack of distinction is permanent. I do not believe that is what the scripture says.............
In that I believe that the scripture teaches that all will be saved, irrespective of what the creeds may say, and that the process of saving all begins with us........then, all Isreal is saved (those to whom Peter was directly speaking).......and then.......all will eventually see the Lordship of Christ after He has put all enemies under His feet.
I do not believe that the believers of today are "Israel", or "Jews". Paul did not say that. He was saying that even if a person may be Jewish, that person is not of Israel unless that Jewish person is circumcised of the heart.
If you are circumcised of the heart, and are ethnically a Gentile, you do not become a Jew. That simply defies logic. You are a new creation, not, a Jew, or Jewish.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 05:57 PM
If you are circumcised of the heart, and are ethnically a Gentile, you do not become a Jew. That simply defies logic. You are a new creation, not, a Jew, or Jewish.
Joel
Hey there Joel,
This is something I have never understood. The title "The Circumcision" is used in Scripture as a synonym of "Jewish." How then should I understand this verse?
Philippians 3:3 For we [Christians] are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Thanks!
Richard
Hey there Joel,
This is something I have never understood. The title "The Circumcision" is used in Scripture as a synonym of "Jewish." How then should I understand this verse?
Philippians 3:3 For we [Christians] are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Thanks!
Richard
Richard, that is a very insightful question......and one that we should earnestly seek to understand.
We know that "circumcision" primarily means the cutting away of the flesh as a ratification of the covenant of God between Himself and Abraham whereas Abraham, and his descendants, were to observe the same external cutting away of the flesh.
We, who have been brought to God in this era, also know that outward circumcision does not apply to us.....and is not a requirement levied upon us as it was levied upon Abraham's progeny.
A conflict arises when we (believers during this present era) see ourselves as descendants of Abraham, and yet,......we certainly do not require ourselves to be physically circumcised.
So true circumcision is inward,.....and not outward.
As we are caused to believe the truth in Christ, only with God's help and by His instrumentality, we know that we are "cut out" of the old humanity.....and.....placed into the new humanity. This is the grandest of truths. We are "in Christ" by an operation of God.
Somehow, God has operated upon our hearts. The flesh, the outward man, has been cut away. And, we have become included in the "new".
We now "in spirit" are offering "divine service"....and....we are boasting in Jesus, the annointed one.
And,.......we are no longer having confidence in the flesh whatsoever. This is the hall-mark of our "circumcision".
Notice that Paul contrasts the circumcision with the "concision" (Phil. 3:2) which is an actual cutting of flesh, a mutilation.
We do not submit to the outward cutting.......as we have been placed under the teaching of the inward cutting.....the circumcision....the ones cut out of the old humanity by the Spirit of God, and placed into Christ.
Joel, the anti-ism, circumcised by the operation of God
Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 06:58 PM
Richard, that is a very insightful question......and one that we should earnestly seek to understand.
We know that "circumcision" primarily means the cutting away of the flesh as a ratification of the covenant of God between Himself and Abraham whereas Abraham, and his descendants, were to observe the same external cutting away of the flesh.
We, who have been brought to God in this era, also know that outward circumcision does not apply to us.....and is not a requirement levied upon us as it was levied upon Abraham's progeny.
A conflict arises when we (believers during this present era) see ourselves as descendants of Abraham, and yet,......we certainly do not require ourselves to be physically circumcised.
So true circumcision is inward,.....and not outward.
As we are caused to believe the truth in Christ, only with God's help and by His instrumentality, we know that we are "cut out" of the old humanity.....and.....placed into the new humanity. This is the grandest of truths. We are "in Christ" by an operation of God.
Somehow, God has operated upon our hearts. The flesh, the outward man, has been cut away. And, we have become included in the "new".
We now "in spirit" are offering "divine service"....and....we are boasting in Jesus, the annointed one.
And,.......we are no longer having confidence in the flesh whatsoever. This is the hall-mark of our "circumcision".
Notice that Paul contrasts the circumcision with the "concision" (Phil. 3:2) which is an actual cutting of flesh, a mutilation.
We do not submit to the outward cutting.......as we have been placed under the teaching of the inward cutting.....the circumcision....the ones cut out of the old humanity by the Spirit of God, and placed into Christ.
Joel, the anti-ism, circumcised by the operation of God
Hi Joel,
That makes a lot of sense - I particularly found the distinction between katatome (concision) and paritome (circumcision) interesting.
But I'm still struggling to understand why Paul would use the technical term "The Circumcision" for Christians since it seems he was contrasting Christians with "Jews of the flesh." In effect, it seems like he was saying that Christians are "True Jews" in contrast with "Jews of the flesh."
Am I getting close, or am I still missing something?
Richard
But I'm still struggling to understand why Paul would use the technical term "The Circumcision" for Christians since it seems he was contrasting Christians with "Jews of the flesh." In effect, it seems like he was saying that Christians are "True Jews" in contrast with "Jews of the flesh."
Am I getting close, or am I still missing something?
The technical term "circumcision" must be of the highest of importance to God and His revelation to us.
The physical application of circumcision dominated the relationship with God and the people which descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Paul identified his dispensation as to the "uncircumcision".
Whereas, Peter was identified with the "circumcision".
While humanity remains in bodies of flesh, as derived from Adam, there must be a cutting away from the outward so that worship to God can be accomplished first in the spirit.
We, who have been blessed to be a first part of the new humanity must be separated from the old humanty while we remain in these bodies. So, we are the first that are "circumcised" in the truest sense, an inward cutting away by the operation of God in spirit, and not in flesh.
This term, "circumcision", is to continue to apply to us, as grace reigns, while we remain in these bodies. There is coming a time, a revealed by Paul, when we will be removed (I know that this opposes much of what is believed by others)..........and,......then.......a new heart will be placed within Israel's sons, and, they will be able to fulfill all that was foreordained for them (admittedly, I have gone further than you may have expected).
It is my belief that these truths are expressed in Paul's wrtings which he characterized as "my gospel", as he revealed what he identified as the "mystery of Christ".
Joel
basilfo
02-14-2010, 08:27 PM
I do not believe that the believers of today are "Israel", or "Jews". Paul did not say that. He was saying that even if a person may be Jewish, that person is not of Israel unless that Jewish person is circumcised of the heart.
If you are circumcised of the heart, and are ethnically a Gentile, you do not become a Jew. That simply defies logic. You are a new creation, not, a Jew, or Jewish.
Joel
Hi Joel,
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who [is one] outwardly, nor [is] circumcision that which [is] outward in the flesh; 29 but [he is] a Jew who [is one] inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise [is] not from men but from God.
Circumcision, which was the distinguishing mark of those under the first covenant (outward, ethnic distinction) is of no consequence after Christ. Paul seems to be saying that the only circumcision that counts is that of the heart. Only believers in Christ - Jew or Gentile - are "Abraham's seed". So where would that put "Jews"? IMO, in the same boat as Christ rejecting Gentiles. Coupled with all the other NT teaching which never give any merit to Jews genetically (in fact, many warnings not to lean on that trait), it seems straightforward to me.
It would help me understand your position if you would answer my questions in my last post:
Paul defined "Israel" as believers in Christ (the Seed):
Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they [are] not all Israel who [are] of Israel, 7 nor [are they] all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who [are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
But you seem to include "blind" Jews as "Israel".
1.Could you define what you mean by "they (Israel)"?
2.Are they those in the state of Israel geographically? What about those in Brooklyn?
3.Are "they" those whose mother is "Jewish"?
4.Does the group you have in mind here include "Jews" who have physically died?
Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 09:52 PM
This term, "circumcision", is to continue to apply to us, as grace reigns, while we remain in these bodies. There is coming a time, a revealed by Paul, when we will be removed (I know that this opposes much of what is believed by others)..........and,......then.......a new heart will be placed within Israel's sons, and, they will be able to fulfill all that was foreordained for them (admittedly, I have gone further than you may have expected).
Hi Joel,
This brings up another challenge for me. When I read Romans 9:6-8 I get the impression that Paul explicitly stated that being a physical son of Abraham or Isaac meant nothing because "the children of the flesh are not the sons of God." Paul went on to say "but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." It seems he is referring specifically to believers (Christians in the context of the New Covenant) because he identified Christians as "the seed of Abraham" (Gal 3:29) as well as the "children of promise" (Gal 4:28). Thus I have three statements that seem to say the same thing:
Christians are The Circumcision
Christians are The Seed of Abraham
Christians are The Children of Promise
These three witnesses apply three standard Biblical descriptions of "Israel" to the Christian Church. This seems to make sense given that the Church grew out of the remnant of faithful Israel that received Christ. Did God ever give any promises to the unbelieving "non-remnant" - the faithless part of Israel defined by the flesh?
So I am confused. What passages should I read that would explain that God has other promises of a grand future for the unbelieving "non-remnant" of Israel who happen to be circumcised in the flesh?
Thanks!
Richard
basilfo
02-15-2010, 01:58 AM
......Did God ever give any promises to the unbelieving "non-remnant" - the faithless part of Israel defined by the flesh?
Richard
Actually He did Richard. Matt 21:43 to name one. But I don't think that's what Joel would be looking for.
In addition, there is the return to the physical type (national Israel) after the spiritual reality of that type has been given (the Church). Does that ever happen in Scripture concerning type/anti-types?
Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 09:49 AM
Actually He did Richard. Matt 21:43 to name one. But I don't think that's what Joel would be looking for.
That's worth quoting:
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof
In addition, there is the return to the physical type (national Israel) after the spiritual reality of that type has been given (the Church). Does that ever happen in Scripture concerning type/anti-types?
That is the sine qua non of futurism - The Return of the Physical Types! It makes me think of a zombie movies like "Return of the Living Dead" when the dead bodies return to "life" but really have no life in them! That is what a rebuilt Temple with animal sacrifices would really be because the True Temple and True Sacrifice has come.
Richard and Dave,.......Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and Pharisees in Matthew 21:43-45...who had rejected the corner stone......
what scripture do you refer to concerning the physical type (Israel).....and the spiritual reality (church)?
Tupos is the Greek word for type........which scripture would recommend that I view where that word is used as you assert?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 11:04 AM
Richard and Dave,.......Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and Pharisees in Matthew 21:43-45...who had rejected the corner stone......
Correct. And he told them that the "Kingdom of God" would be given to another nation. Peter then explains that Christians are the fulfillment of the original prophecy that Israel would be a "nation of priests" -
1 Peter 2:9 But ye [Christians] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
So is seems that this verse and Matt 21:43 cohere with great clarity. Furthermore, all of Peter's descriptions that were originally applied to Israel are now applied to the Christian Church. This is the same pattern we saw in Paul's writings. So now we have a much larger list:
Christians are The Circumcision
Christians are The Seed of Abraham
Christians are The Children of Promise
Christians are a Chosen Generation
Christians are a Royal Priesthood
Christians are a Holy Nation
Christians are a Peculiar People
Christians are Called out of darkness into his marvellous light
what scripture do you refer to concerning the physical type (Israel).....and the spiritual reality (church)?
Tupos is the Greek word for type........which scripture would recommend that I view where that word is used as you assert?
Joel
Not every type is explicitly identified with the word "typos" in the text of Scripture. For example, we all know that the Passover Lamb was a type of Christ but Scripture does not explain that to us using the Greek word "typos."
So the real question is "Which Scriptures indicate that the Church is the Reality signified by Israel as the Type?"
There are many Scriptures that indicate this. For example, the Church fulfills many of the prophecies originally given to "Israel" such as the "I will dwell in you and be your God" and many others that I have shared with you over the years.
Richard
Do you really believe that the church (ecclesia, the called out assembly) is a nation?
How are you certain that Peter is not talking to Israel?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 06:23 PM
Do you really believe that the church (ecclesia, the called out assembly) is a nation?
How are you certain that Peter is not talking to Israel?
Joel
Very interesting questions Joel!
The LXX frequently uses the word ecclesia to describe the nation of Israel:
Exodus 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation [ecclesia] of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
Exodus 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation [ecclesia] of Israel
Deuteronomy 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation [ecclesia] of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.
Thus the nation of Israel is also called the "ecclesia of Israel."
This seems to me to be very clear. What defined Israel? Their covenant with God. People that broke that covenant were "cut off" from the "congregation of Israel:"
Exodus 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
This seems to be identical to the fact that the Church is defined by the New Covenant. It also seems to cohere with the fact that Abraham was the "father of many nations (goyim)" meaning Christians.
Is there a reason to deny that the Body of Christ should be thought of as fundamentally different than the nation of Israel?
Also, we must answer this question: Can you tell me which "nation" received the kingdom of God taken from Israel?
And another question: What was the nation that Paul spoke of when he said "But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you" (Romans 10:19-20)? Was he not referring to the believing Gentiles, the Church?
Now as for Peter's audience: he addressed his letter to first century believers whom he described as "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."
Who are the elect that are sanctified by the Spirit and blood of Jesus Christ? I think that should answer our question.
Peter went on to say "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:"
To whom do these words apply? Jewish believers only?
There are many questions. I look forward to working with you to understand them.
Richard
shawn
02-16-2010, 04:54 AM
Just thinking...
It is interesting to note that we, the Gentiles, are the 'foolish nation.' Meaning we are unintelligent to the things of God. Israel of the flesh moved God to jealousy by things that were not God and provoked Him to anger with their emptiness. Now we who are not a people are used to provoke them to jealousy and anger them with our vanities…..foolishness.
(Deu 32:21 KJV) They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
The unbelief of Israel of the flesh shall not last. They will be grafted in again. When the 'fullness of the Gentiles' shall come in means to me the fullness of foolishness of the Gentiles.
(Rom 11:25 KJV) 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.
[Israel in the wilderness]=a called out assembly, called out of Egypt
[church in early Acts]=a called out assembly, believers called out of Israel
[church later in Acts]=a called out assembly, believers called out of Israel, and called out of the nations (ethnos)
----------------------------------------
The word, ekklesia, however, does not always mean "church" as we today look at it as if it were one thing only.
In Acts 19:32, there was an ekklesia, a called out assembly, in the city of Ephesus who were ready to take Paul and sentence him to death for opposing their pagan religious system.
----------------------------------------
In this present era, the ecclesia, which is called by the name of Jesus,
is comprised of people of all nations, and, the nation of Israel;
In this era,
[church called by the name of Jesus]=believers called out of all nations;
[Israel]>>>>>>[the church of the firstborn]<<<<<<<<[ethnos]
Those called out of Israel are Jews. But you don't see the Jews as coming from the nation, Israel, but coming out of all other people in the world.
It is when they, the Jews, as a people, call on the name of the Lord, that they [as Israel] shall be saved.
---------------------------------------
At present, they [Israel] have not obeyed the gospel.......hupakouo....to come under the teaching of it.....so as to be saved.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2010, 06:36 PM
[Israel in the wilderness]=a called out assembly, called out of Egypt
[church in early Acts]=a called out assembly, believers called out of Israel
[church later in Acts]=a called out assembly, believers called out of Israel, and called out of the nations (ethnos)
----------------------------------------
The word, ekklesia, however, does not always mean "church" as we today look at it as if it were one thing only.
In Acts 19:32, there was an ekklesia, a called out assembly, in the city of Ephesus who were ready to take Paul and sentence him to death for opposing their pagan religious system.
----------------------------------------
Those are very important points. I agree completely that "ecclesia" does not always refer to the Church. But that was not my point. My point was to show that the Church can be called a "nation" just as the "congregation of Israel" was called a "nation."
I was answering your question. You had asked: "Do you really believe that the church (ecclesia, the called out assembly) is a nation?"
My answer is Yes. I have no problem understanding 1 Peter as saying that the Church is a "holy nation." Is this not a necessary fact that accompanies his other descriptions of the Church? Peter and Paul use very similar language to describe the Church founded on Jesus Christ:
Peter: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone [akrogoniaios], elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Paul: Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone [akrogoniaios]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Brother Joel, I am totally mystified why you would question that Peter's letter applies to the Church.
Could you explain this to me? It has come up many times in our discussions, and it appears to be fundamental to your understanding of Scripture.
Many blessings my friend,
Richard
Screaming Eagle
02-16-2010, 06:48 PM
Regarding the assertion that there are 'no more Jew and no more Gentile', I'd like to add that he also says there is neither male nor female. Do we not have male and female among us? Certainly (and thankfully lol). But in the eyes of God (which is what is the only Truth that matters) there is no distinction. We have been made one new man IN Christ. That is not to say that 'Jews' are no more any more than it is to say there are no more females (or males for that matter).
Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2010, 07:18 PM
Regarding the assertion that there are 'no more Jew and no more Gentile', I'd like to add that he also says there is neither male nor female. Do we not have male and female among us? Certainly (and thankfully lol). But in the eyes of God (which is what is the only Truth that matters) there is no distinction. We have been made one new man IN Christ. That is not to say that 'Jews' are no more any more than it is to say there are no more females (or males for that matter).
Ha! Yes ... I too am thankful that the natural distinction of "male and female" remains! :lmbo:
But the distinction between Jew and Gentile is different. There are no more "Jews" in the Biblical sense because they were defined by the Old Covenant which passed away with the death of the Testator (Christ):
Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
Richard
But the distinction between Jew and Gentile is different. There are no more "Jews" in the Biblical sense because they were defined by the Old Covenant which passed away with the death of the Testator (Christ):
Is there no difference between "Jew", and "Israel"?
Paul makes the distinction between "Jew" and "Gentile", as well as "Israel" and "Gentiles" (nations).
The first speaks of individuals. Justification through the blood of Christ was first presented to the Jews. When a person is "justified by the blood of Christ" there remains no distinction........that person's sins are covered by the blood.......the blood that is described as the blood of the new will and testament was clarified by Christ the night that He was betrayed.
Secondly, Paul speaks of reconciliation.......through the death of God's Son.
An individual believer (who may be a Jew or Greek....of the nation of Israel, or of the nations outside of Israel....such distinctions disappear) must receive this gift from God. Such a believer is part of the new humanity......where absolutely no distinctions whatsoever come to play.
But.....when Paul speaks of Israel in Romans 9 - 11 (as he has concentrated on the individual aspect to justification and reconciliation up to this point)...
he says that the fall of Israel, and the diminishing of them has resulted in the riches to both the kosmos and to the nations.
The mystery revealed by Paul in Romans 11:25 (which cannot be found any where else in scripture as it was hidden until God revealed it to Paul) is that the blindness of Israel to the gospel will remain until the fulness of the Gentiles (nations) comes in. He is not talking about individuals in that sense, but about nations, of which Israel is a part.
The Son of God, Christ Jesus, was crucified, buried and rose again to ascend to the Father. He will return.
Israel, the first-born of God as a nation, was delivered out of Egypt.....rejected the gospel of the crucified Lord.....and were cast away as if dead........but their "receiving back" will be as life from the dead.
God has reconciled......this ministry of reconciliation has been entrusted to the ekklesia which is His body. It is a ministry of peace.........love your enemies as you love yourself......love God and obey the gospel as one who reconciles.....as God is now in you, reconciling the world unto Himself not counting offenses against them.
This is a vital part of the gospel as presented by Paul..........how can you speak words of reconciliation to someone you don't even recognise as existing? Paul said that Israel is to be shown mercy.......by those who have been given mercy, those of the nations who are granted faith to believe, and the grace to obey the gospel as presented by Paul.
Joel
Screaming Eagle
02-17-2010, 07:09 AM
joel wrote:
Paul said that Israel is to be shown mercy.......by those who have been given mercy, those of the nations who are granted faith to believe, and the grace to obey the gospel as presented by Paul.
Amen. Amen. It's part of the manifold wisdom of God from before the foundation of the world. The church in Germany in the 1930's had the potential to 'be' a covering of Christ for Jews in that nation that was dominated by a spirit that only wants to annihilate the people of God. To say that they 'no longer exist' naturally makes absolutely no sense and takes us out of the big picture and purpose of God in these days ahead.
joel wrote:
This is a vital part of the gospel as presented by Paul..........how can you speak words of reconciliation to someone you don't even recognise as existing?
Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy. It is yet another example of giving away freely what He has given to us and not holding back anything. If we don't get exactly what joel wrote, we've missed the big picture of the heart of God just as the church did in the 30's.
Richard Amiel McGough
02-17-2010, 11:57 PM
Is there no difference between "Jew", and "Israel"?
Could you please define what you mean by a "Jew?" That might help.
I don't understand anything you say about the "Jews" because the Bible defines them as folks adhering to the Old Covenant. But that covenant longer has any force because the Testator has died. So what now defines a Jew? They can not be defined by a covenant that has no force, and I can not accept carnal descent from Abraham because that directly contradicts Scripture.
So please help me on this Joel. I've been asking for an answer to this question for two years now. You constantly assert that there are still "Jews" in the Biblical sense, but I have no idea what you mean, so our conversation always stops on this point.
Thanks!
Richard
Could you please define what you mean by a "Jew?" That might help.
I don't understand anything you say about the "Jews" because the Bible defines them as folks adhering to the Old Covenant. But that covenant longer has any force because the Testator has died. So what now defines a Jew? They can not be defined by a covenant that has no force, and I can not accept carnal descent from Abraham because that directly contradicts Scripture.
So please help me on this Joel. I've been asking for an answer to this question for two years now. You constantly assert that there are still "Jews" in the Biblical sense, but I have no idea what you mean, so our conversation always stops on this point.
Thanks!
Richard
What defines a Jew?
Looking first at the New Testament writings, the word "loudaios", an adjective, appears 187 times in 12 books.
Many of these citings appear in the Gospels. The first citing is when Herod asked where the "King of the Jews" was to be born.
The final use of the word is found in Revelation 3:9 where Jesus says that there will be those of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not.
A Jew is a "sumphuletes" with all others who spring from the 12 tribes of Israel. In I Thessalonians, 2:14, Paul used the word sumphuletes to describe those who were persecuting believers in Judea as in the same manner as those in Thessalonica who were being persecuted by their "fellow countryment".
Paul uses the word "Jew" 24 times in 6 of his letters.
Interestingly, the word "Jew" is not used in any of the letters following Paul except the final book, Revelation.
I believe that is because now, in this current era, the distinction fades and is not appropriate as long as Paul's ministry to the nations is in force.
Paul, as far as I can tell, does not use "Jew" to characterize those who under covenant of God as you assert it means.
When referring to covenantal relationship, Paul uses a distinct term for those of the Jewish heritage when covenant is the emphasis......he uses "peritome", circumcision.......the cutting away of the flesh.
He uses a distinctly separate term to describe individuals who are not of the "circumcision" when he uses the term, akrobustia, "uncircumcision".
A Jew is an individual who derives his geneology from the 12 tribes of Israel.
There is no argument concerning the lack of operation of the old covenant. It simply does not function as they, the Jews of Israel, thought it would. It cannot bring to maturity and completeness those who were under it.
But, since the operation of the old is fading away, that does not mean that Jews no longer exist.
I hope that clarifies what I have been saying regarding the Jews.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-18-2010, 08:41 AM
What defines a Jew?
A Jew is an individual who derives his geneology from the 12 tribes of Israel.
I hope that clarifies what I have been saying regarding the Jews.
Joel
Hey Joel,
I appreciate your help, but there still is a major confusion for me. It seems that you settled on this definition:
A Jew is an individual who derives his genealogy from the 12 tribes of Israel.
OK - so you define a "Jew" in terms of pure carnal descent?
That's it? Jews are defined by the flesh? But they have promises from God?
You believe that God has given promises based on the flesh?
This mystifies me.
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Galatians 4:23 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise (promise contrasted with flesh).
John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Why do you use "carnal" in the description? Carnal is "sarkikos", fleshly, as pertaining to the soft part of the body.
Both Jews and those of the nations (Gentiles) live in fleshly wisdom, and according to fleshly lusts.
Jews live after the manner of Jews (loudaikos).
Those of the nations live after the manner of the nations (ethnikos).
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Why do you use "carnal" in the description? Carnal is "sarkikos", fleshly, as pertaining to the soft part of the body.
Both Jews and those of the nations (Gentiles) live in fleshly wisdom, and according to fleshly lusts.
Jews live after the manner of Jews (loudaikos).
Those of the nations live after the manner of the nations (ethnikos).
Joel
I call it what it is. Sarkikos (carnal) is the adjective based on sarx (flesh).
You continue to assert that God has plans for a certain group of people defined purely and totally by their carnal descent.
We've gone over this a thousand times but you always exit the conversation before we get a chance to establish the truth. Are you interested in actually establishing the truth with me? I would like that very much.
So tell me this: Was Ruth a Jew? No. At least not before she converted. But the Jews declare that Ruth became a Jew! And she is the grandmother of David. So was David a Jew or not? What defines a Jew? Is having only a Jewish father sufficient? Or do you agree with the modern Jews who say you only have to have a Jewish mother?
We must find the answer because your entire view of the meaning of the Bible rests upon the definition of a "Jew."
Thanks my friend,
Richard
Richard,
Please reconsider the statement....."Your entire view of the meaning of the Bible rests upon the definition of a 'Jew'. "
See if you can re-word to soften the impact.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Richard,
Please reconsider the statement....."Your entire view of the meaning of the Bible rests upon the definition of a 'Jew'. "
See if you can re-word to soften the impact.
Joel
I'm sorry if it seemed harsh Joel. That certainly was not my intent.
:sEm_ImSorry:
Perhaps a more precise statement would be "You view of the relation between Israel and the Church (the body of Christ) rests upon the definition of a 'Jew.'"
Is that better? Maybe it would be good if you reworded it yourself - I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of your view!
All the very best,
Richard
Thanks, that helps.
The limitations we face due to our internet discussions would probably vaporize if we were face to face.
Grace and peace to you, and yours,
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-18-2010, 02:40 PM
Thanks, that helps.
The limitations we face due to our internet discussions would probably vaporize if we were face to face.
Grace and peace to you, and yours,
Joel
You got that right! Folks forget that we have almost no information to go on when all we see are a little series of words. We have no tone of voice. We have no facial expressions. No body language. No spiritual connection that comes from sharing the same space.
So let me know next time you think you'll be in Yakima! That would be great! We could have a beer together (do you drink) or lemonade - whatever works!
:anim_32:
Talk more soon my beloved friend!
Richard
Richard has characterized the foundation of my faith as focused on carnal Israel, "fleshly Israel".
As this aspect of the scripture impacts on our views as to Israel, according to flesh, and the church (Body of Christ), it appears that this is the one major "sticking point" in our discussions (not to say that this is the only one, but, certainly commands the most attention).
Richard used the word, "carnal" as the basis of his objection.
So, I focused again on the word, "carnal" as to its application in the scriptures and invite you to do the same.
When looking at "sarx" (Strong's #4561), it appears 130 times in 22 books of the NT.
Richard's main objection appears to me that he hears me saying that blessings are still coming to "Israel kata sarx", and I don't believe that I ever stated that....in that way.
It seems that one of the problems in our discussions is that there are those who view the church, the body of Christ, as spiritual Israel, and that this distinction prohibits any application to the Israelites which were the brothers of Paul, deriving their geneology from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The objection that I have is that there are those who claim that we, the body of Christ, are the "spiritual Israel", and I struggle greatly with that.
At this juncture, I see that God is going to restore Israel at which point the nation will be "spiritual Israel" enjoying the promises of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which Jesus confirmed to them as a minister of the circumcision.
The body of Christ, the church of the called out of the world in this era, enjoy the blessings of Abraham,........but, are not recipients of the promises of the fathers to the circumcision which is the sign of the covenant when the new covenant will be ratified with the houses of Israel and Judah......of which we, the church which is His body, are not of those houses.
Flesh "sarx" is often mentioned along with spirit, "pneuma" (Strong's #4151) which appears 350 times in 25 books of the NT.
Flesh, sarx, is used with a various prepositions; in, of, after, into. It is helpful when studying the different uses to note the preposition connected to the "flesh".
"After" is often the connector, and can be shown in English as "according to".
"Kata sarx" is a phrase which can be found in many of the uses of sarx.
Paul used the phrase, carnal Israel,"Israel ater the flesh";
1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
At present there is no altar from which they may eat..........the Lord's Supper applies to us, today......but this does not mean that they will not partake of the blessings of the sacrifices of the altar(Christ is the offerer, the offering, and the Priest) in a special, unique manner to them when He is revealed to them. At that point, they will enabled to walk after spirit, and not after the flesh........which privilege is given to us as sons of God (Romans 8:1-14).
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2010, 09:34 AM
Good morning Joel! :sunny:
Richard has characterized the foundation of my faith as focused on carnal Israel, "fleshly Israel".
I never said those actual words Joel. The strongest statement that I made was that:
"Your entire view of the meaning of the Bible rests upon the definition of a 'Jew'."
You asked me to rephrase that statement, and I agreed because it was too broad and wrote:
"Your view of the relation between Israel and the Church (the body of Christ) rests upon the definition of a 'Jew.'"
Then I asked if this was better but you did not answer.
We need to be very clear with our words or we will never come to understanding. We need to ask and answer the essential questions - not go round and round disputing words that miss the main point. I asked very specific questions designed to clarify this issue, but but they have gone unanswered. For example, I had asked this:
Was Ruth a Jew? No. At least not before she converted. But the Jews declare that Ruth became a Jew! And she is the grandmother of David. So was David a Jew or not? What defines a Jew? Is having only a Jewish father sufficient? Or do you agree with the modern Jews who say you only have to have a Jewish mother?
We have been going round and round this question for two years. I presented the evidence that Jews consider Ruth and other converts to Judaism to be "true Jews" every bit as much as any "natural born" Jew in this post (http://biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=9651&postcount=180) in the very long thread called The Fullness of the Gentiles (http://biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=740), but you never responded:
This seems relevant to the conversation. It is from an article called Who is a Jew (http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) from Jewfaq.org:
Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.
Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.
Modern Jews do not recognize the idea that there is a difference between a "natural descendant of Abraham" and a convert.
Richard
Is this not an essential question that must be answered if we want to understand the meaning of a "Jew" in the Bible?
As this aspect of the scripture impacts on our views as to Israel, according to flesh, and the church (Body of Christ), it appears that this is the one major "sticking point" in our discussions (not to say that this is the only one, but, certainly commands the most attention).
Richard used the word, "carnal" as the basis of his objection.
So, I focused again on the word, "carnal" as to its application in the scriptures and invite you to do the same.
When looking at "sarx" (Strong's #4561), it appears 130 times in 22 books of the NT.
Richard's main objection appears to me that he hears me saying that blessings are still coming to "Israel kata sarx", and I don't believe that I ever stated that....in that way.
I never said anything about "blessings" that are "still coming to Israel kata sarx." That is your particular view that you use in your effort to understand the Olive Tree in Romans 11. My questions are about your assertion that God has "two covenant people" with two different callings - Christians have a "heavenly calling" and Jews have an "earthly calling" and the Christians will be "raptured" at which time God will establish the nation of Israel as the "head of the nations" etc.. We need to address all these assertions which have, in my view, no foundation in Scripture. I don't see how we can come to an understanding if you avoid the questions that I do ask and address questions that I did not ask. We need to agree on the questions we are asking or there will be little hope of answering them!
It seems that one of the problems in our discussions is that there are those who view the church, the body of Christ, as spiritual Israel, and that this distinction prohibits any application to the Israelites which were the brothers of Paul, deriving their geneology from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
That is an incorrect analysis. I do not begin by "viewing the Church as spiritual Israel." I begin by looking at what the Bible says about the Church and then draw the conclusion that the Church is the continuation of Israel because the Bible describes the Church as the Circumcision and declares that the Church fulfills the promises of God given to Israel. Indeed, the Bible explicitly declares that Christians are the Children of Promise!
So again, we will only go round and round if we do not begin by focusing on the central claims that I derived from Scripture.
The objection that I have is that there are those who claim that we, the body of Christ, are the "spiritual Israel", and I struggle greatly with that.
Again, that is not a "claim" - it is a conclusion drawn from Scripture. So if you have a problem, it is with how I drew that conclusion, not with the conclusion itself as if I just made it up. Therefore, you need to address the Scriptures that I cite that lead to that conclusion.
At this juncture, I see that God is going to restore Israel at which point the nation will be "spiritual Israel" enjoying the promises of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which Jesus confirmed to them as a minister of the circumcision.
This is another fundamental key to the entire dispute. Here you are asserting that God has plans to "restore" the nation of Israel defined by the flesh. Is there anything in the Bible that would lead us to this conclusion? If so, what?
The body of Christ, the church of the called out of the world in this era, enjoy the blessings of Abraham,........but, are not recipients of the promises of the fathers to the circumcision which is the sign of the covenant when the new covenant will be ratified with the houses of Israel and Judah......of which we, the church which is His body, are not of those houses.
There are two fundamental problems with this statement. You assert that the Church is not the recipients of the promise of the fathers. This appears to directly contradict the plain statements of Scripture which declare that the Church is indeed defined as the "children of promise" and that the unbelieving Jews defined only by the flesh are not the children of promise.
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
I have been presenting this Scripture to you for two years now, yet to my knowledge you have never explained how it does not contradict your primary assertion.
Likewise, it seems to me that your assertion that the New Covenant "was not ratified with the House of Judah and the House of Israel" has no foundation in Scripture. IF the death of Christ did not "ratify" the New Covenant, what do you expect to happen in the future that will ratify it? And where in Scripture do you get this idea?
Flesh "sarx" is often mentioned along with spirit, "pneuma" (Strong's #4151) which appears 350 times in 25 books of the NT.
Flesh, sarx, is used with a various prepositions; in, of, after, into. It is helpful when studying the different uses to note the preposition connected to the "flesh".
"After" is often the connector, and can be shown in English as "according to".
"Kata sarx" is a phrase which can be found in many of the uses of sarx.
Paul used the phrase, carnal Israel,"Israel ater the flesh";
1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
At present there is no altar from which they may eat..........the Lord's Supper applies to us, today......but this does not mean that they will not partake of the blessings of the sacrifices of the altar(Christ is the offerer, the offering, and the Priest) in a special, unique manner to them when He is revealed to them. At that point, they will enabled to walk after spirit, and not after the flesh........which privilege is given to us as sons of God (Romans 8:1-14).
Joel
Upon what Scriptures do you establish these ideas? Peter, Paul, James, and John were all faithful Israelites that believed and received God when He came to them in the person of Jesus Christ. They proclaimed the Gospel to the whole house of Israel.
All the very best,
Richard
Richard
"Upon what Scriptures do you establish these ideas?", you asked;
as to flesh, I will discuss with you;
Romans 1:3, 4:1, 8:4, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 9:3, 9:5
I Corin. 1:26, 10:18
II Corin. 1:17, 5:16, 10:2, 10:3m 11:18
Gal 4:23, 4:29, 5:24, 6:8
Eph 5:29, 5:31, 6:5. 6:12
Col 3:22
Jude 1:8
Which one would prefer to continue our discussion?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2010, 11:43 AM
Richard
"Upon what Scriptures do you establish these ideas?", you asked;
as to flesh, I will discuss with you;
Romans 1:3, 4:1, 8:4, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 9:3, 9:5
I Corin. 1:26, 10:18
II Corin. 1:17, 5:16, 10:2, 10:3m 11:18
Gal 4:23, 4:29, 5:24, 6:8
Eph 5:29, 5:31, 6:5. 6:12
Col 3:22
Jude 1:8
Which one would prefer to continue our discussion?
Joel
Hi bro!
I don't understand what you are getting at. All you did was list the verses that contain "kata sarka" - so what? That's not going to answer the essential questions.
Let's take the fast road to truth. Would you mind answering my question about what defines a Jew? Specifically, could you answer the question about Ruth - was she a Jew? Did she become a Jew? If you don't want to answer this question, please tell me why. It seems essential to the topic we are discussing. Here is how I presented the question in the last post:
This is from an article called Who is a Jew (http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) from Jewfaq.org:
Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.
Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.
Modern Jews do not recognize the idea that there is a difference between a "natural descendant of Abraham" and a convert.
Thanks bro!
Richard
A Jew can be described as "sumphuletes" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2010, 12:17 PM
A Jew can be described as "sumphuletes" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Joel
Where did you get that idea? That word is used in only one verse, and it doesn't even appear to apply to the Jews:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen (sumphuletes), even as they have of the Jews:
And even if it did apply, how would it help us answer the question of what defines a Jew?
Why is it so difficult to define a Jew? I think the Bible is perfectly clear. A Jew is defined as any person in covenant with God under the First Covenant. Why do you not accept this definition?
Richard
Richard,
Paul was discussing with those at Thessalonica who were being severely persecuted by their "fellow countrymen" and was making reference in his discussion the persecution levied upon the belivers in Judea who were receiving it from their fellow countrymen. In that respect, the Gentile believers in Thessalonica were the "sumphuletes" of their persecutors.
But let me approach this from another view point (I really don't want to include a discussion of the technical term for Jew as supplied by sources outside of scripture)........A Jew can be defined as a sugkleronomos of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as to the same promises (Hebrews 11:8 - 10).
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2010, 01:26 PM
Richard,
Paul was discussing with those at Thessalonica who were being severely persecuted by their "fellow countrymen" and was making reference in his discussion the persecution levied upon the belivers in Judea who were receiving it from their fellow countrymen. In that respect, the Gentile believers in Thessalonica were the "sumphuletes" of their persecutors.
But let me approach this from another view point (I really don't want to include a discussion of the technical term for Jew as supplied by sources outside of scripture)........A Jew can be defined as a sugkleronomos of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as to the same promises (Hebrews 11:8 - 10).
Joel
Great! That means that Scripture defines believing Gentiles as Jews:
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs (sugkleronomos), and of the same body [as the Jews], and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Glad we got that cleared up!
Richard
Great! That means that Scripture defines believing Gentiles as Jews:
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs (sugkleronomos), and of the same body [as the Jews], and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Glad we got that cleared up!
Richard
How do you get that?????
Gentiles = Jews
The verse says that Gentiles are; sugkleronomos (fellow heirs), sussomos (joint members of the body), and summetochos (joint partakers) of the promise in Christ.
When one person becomes joined to another..........in one sense they are "one"......because they are joined.....but......they do not lose their separate identity.
A is joined with B,
A does not become B,
and,
B does not become A.
If they are "joint tenants" they both own 100% of all of the property....but they remain individuals in other matters.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-19-2010, 02:33 PM
How do you get that?????
Gentiles = Jews
I used the definition that you supplied. You explicitly stated:
A Jew can be defined as a sugkleronomos of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as to the same promises
And the Scriptures explicitly state that the believing Gentiles precisely match your definition:
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs (sugkleronomos), and of the same body [as the Jews], and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
So are you now saying that your definition is wrong?
The verse says that Gentiles are; sugkleronomos (fellow heirs), sussomos (joint members of the body), and summetochos (joint partakers) of the promise in Christ.
When one person becomes joined to another..........in one sense they are "one"......because they are joined.....but......they do not lose their separate identity.
A is joined with B,
A does not become B,
and,
B does not become A.
If they are "joint tenants" they both own 100% of all of the property....but they remain individuals in other matters.
Joel
Yes, the ethnic Jews remain ethic Jews, and the ethnic Gentiles remain ethnic Gentiles. Those fleshly facts do not change. Those A's and B's do not become the same. That woudl be absurd. I've never suggested any such thing. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the promises which are fulfilled in the children of promise - and there is only one body of children that receives those promises.
The Bible is explicit that believing Gentiles are called THE CIRCUMCISION, which is just another name of the Jews. Not ethnic Jews, but the true Jews that Paul defined:
Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For HE IS NOT A JEW which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Don't you see how everything in the Bible confirms everything else on this point? If your contention were true, why have you not been able to simply express it, let alone prove it, from the text of Scripture?
And why have you not dealt with the fact that Peter and Paul describe the Church using the same language?
Peter: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone [akrogoniaios], elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Paul: Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone [akrogoniaios]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
You have not explained why I should think that Peter was talking to "Israel" when Paul used the same language to describe the Church.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to all these statements that identify the Church as Israel:
Christians are The Circumcision
Christians are The Seed of Abraham
Christians are The Children of Promise
Christians are a Chosen Generation
Christians are a Royal Priesthood
Christians are a Holy Nation
Christians are a Peculiar People
Christians are Called out of darkness into his marvellous light
And now I add point 9: Christians are fellowheirs and of the same body as the Jews.
How much evidence do you want or need?
Many blessings to you my friend,
Richard
Richard, your first statement and question;
"And I'm still waiting for an answer to all these statements that identify the Church as Israel:
Christians are The Circumcision"
You must derive this conclusion from Phil. 3:3
Philippians 3:3 (King James Version)
3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
----------------------------------------------------
Let's also look at Col. 2:11;
Colossians 2:11 (King James Version)
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
----------------------------------------------------
"The circumcision"(of Phillippians 3:3) is "the circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2:11).
As in all matters of faith, the focus is on what pertains to Christ.
The circumcision of the flesh as practised by Israel under the Law was pointing to "the circumcision of Christ".
According to Phillipians 3:3, there are components to the statement;
1.) to the Spirit of God (dative case) divine service is offered,
and, the corresponding truth is,
2.) they are boasting in annointed Jesus and in flesh they have no confidence.
To such believers, there is persuasion concerning what has occcurred in the realm of the spirit. By the operation of God, a cutting away of the "flesh", occrring in the "heart" is enabling them to offer divine service in the spirit.
In this era, this operation is to be realized by members of His body as they are led by the Spirit to see the truths of Romans 5, 6, 7 and 8.
As Paul summarizes in Colossians 2:11, "in Him".....we are circumcised....with the circumcision made without hands (i.e. a spiritual circumcision within us that is present application of the "circumcision" that occurred when Christ hung on the cross, and was placed into the tomb.....and was raised from the dead).....in the putting off of the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ (en peritome Christos).
It was His crucifixion, His death, His burial, His resurrection.....
that is ours by faith.........we share jointly in those things pertaining to Him.
You are saying that these truths only apply (in an absolute, exclusive manner) only to believers in this era which you title, Christians.
I do not see that stated, in that way, in these verses. Your exclusionary theology.......is it of the flesh......or of the spirit? To me, the answer to that question is obvious. Why? Because it is devisive and not uniting......which the flesh always does.....
Israel, those who of Abraham, Isaac, and Jscob, who are called out in the time to come..........not speaking of those who are called today, who are members of the body of Christ, the called out assembly of this era,.....will be given a new heart.
For us, II Corinthiasn 3:3 applies;
2 Corinthians 3:3 (King James Version)
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We are "the epistle of Christ ministered by us" (Paul, and the apostles).
As we are to be an outward manifestation of the inward application of circumcision in this era does not mean that Christians = Israel.
As to the circumcision of Christ, it is administered to us by the Spirit as we believe and receive the truths of it inwardly which it (the circumcision of Christ) is to be inscribed on our hearts. Just because we say we are Christians, we cannot also then say that we are the circumcision exclusively, and, then logically conclude that we are Israel.
There will come a time when all Israel will be saved and a "new heart" given to them. That does not apply to us, those who are members of His body, the called out assembly in this era.
Joel
Gen. 28:4, 28:13, Ex. 32:13 (and many others)
The blessing of Abraham------------>and to thy seed with thee
the land, given as a possession to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
------------------------------------------------------------
All of the promises---->Abraham------>his Seed, Christ
The promises made to Abraham were to his Seed, Christ
------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, confirmed the patriarchal promises to the circumcision (Romans 16:25)
All the promises of God are in Him, yea and amen.
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard, your 2nd question/statement was;
"Christians are the seed of Abraham".........and this, in your opinion, supports your theory that the Church = Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------
In Romans 4:16, Paul says that, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
Paul is talking about inheritance in this section of the 4th chapter of Romans. Previously, in the chapter 4, he spoke of the reckoning of the right standing with God (righteousness) which is reckoned on the basis of faith, and was reckoned prior to circumcision. So, whether a person is of the circumcision, or, the uncircumcision, the reckoning of righteousness is the same.
In the second half of chapter 4, Paul is speaking of inheritance as he was promised, not only the land to him and to his seed through Isaac, and Jacob, but, that he would be the father of many nations, and, that he would be the heir of the world (kosmos).
Are "Christians" the only seed here? Your position is that the Church = Israel.
I say that through Christ (the seed), the promises are sure to the circumcision which He confirmed as a minister to the circumcision to the seed of the fathers.........and,.........the promises to Abraham are also secured to the uncircumcision as to an inheritance secured by Christ.
You are saying that only "Christians" will receive blessings promised to Abraham because "Christians" (the Body of Christ, the church) = Israel.
Believers in this era are of the seed of Abraham in so far as children of promise. But, I do not see that the scriptures eliminate those called in Isaac who will receive the land promised to them, and the ministry that accompanies it.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-21-2010, 07:14 PM
Believers in this era are of the seed of Abraham in so far as children of promise. But, I do not see that the scriptures eliminate those called in Isaac who will receive the land promised to them, and the ministry that accompanies it.
Where does the New Testament say anything about the land promises?
The Word of God declares the land promises were fulfilled. Why do you disagree?
Richard,
I see it as an age-lasting promise......"and they shall inherit it for ever." (Ex. 32:13).
"for ever" in this verse is equivalent to "aionios" in the NT......pertaining to the ages of time that are chronological (chronos).
This is where your testimony differs from mine. You say that Israel's "time" (to paraphrase your prior statements in other posts) has ended. I say that it has not in that Abraham's seed through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) received "aionion" promises concerning the land.
We, believers of the nations, are not related to Jacob.
But, we are related to Abraham, and like Isaac, are children of promise.
We are all related to God, the Father, through Christ, His Son, Who came as a minister of the circumcision to confirm the patriarchal promises. (Rom. 15:8)
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
02-22-2010, 08:24 AM
Richard,
I see it as an age-lasting promise......"and they shall inherit it for ever." (Ex. 32:13).
"for ever" in this verse is equivalent to "aionios" in the NT......pertaining to the ages of time that are chronological (chronos).
This is where your testimony differs from mine. You say that Israel's "time" (to paraphrase your prior statements in other posts) has ended. I say that it has not in that Abraham's seed through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) received "aionion" promises concerning the land.
We, believers of the nations, are not related to Jacob.
But, we are related to Abraham, and like Isaac, are children of promise.
We are all related to God, the Father, through Christ, His Son, Who came as a minister of the circumcision to confirm the patriarchal promises. (Rom. 15:8)
Joel
I agree that it was an "age-long" promise. And that age ended with the coming of Messiah and the beginning of the Messianic age. God marked the end with permanent destruction of the Temple and the cessation of animal sacrifices. All the evidence of the Bible points to this fact. The aion spanned by the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 ended when the Stone (Christ) smashed its feet during the time of the fourth kingdom (Rome). That also marked the end of that aion just like the destruction of the Temple. Everything confirms everything else.
Where do you get the idea that we are related to Isaac but not Jacob? Does the Bible say that somewhere? Is it not contrary to the fact that we are "fellowheirs" with the Jewish Christians?
All the best,
Richard
There are some who use......the "age of the church"........"the Messianic Age".......the "age...this".....the "age....that" as if they are able to define the definite change from one age to another.
If what they say is true.......one age ends with a certain, and definite event....and another age begins.
I say.......prove it by scripture.
The "old.....age of the law"........the "old.....age of Israel's time".....where are these "ages" described?
Joel
Brother Les
02-24-2010, 11:56 AM
Who are the Sons of Abraham?
by David Curtis
""Paul, however, rejects the official view and redefines the essence of Jewishness when he writes:
Galatians 3:7 (NASB) Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
That is quite a statement. The Jews were saying, "We are Jews, and that gives us a certain advantage. And then we are circumcised, so we are the top of the heap. We are sons of Abraham." Paul says, "No, that is not true. Those who are sons of Abraham are those who have believed; therefore, those Gentiles who believed were more sons of Abraham than those Jews who had been circumcised." """
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/galatians/3_6-9.htm
joel Posted
There are some who use......the "age of the church"........"the Messianic Age".......the "age...this".....the "age....that" as if they are able to define the definite change from one age to another.
If what they say is true.......one age ends with a certain, and definite event....and another age begins.
I say.......prove it by scripture.
The "old.....age of the law"........the "old.....age of Israel's time".....where are these "ages" described?
Joel
"HOW MANY AGES ARE THERE?"
William Barclay says:
Time was divided by the Jews into two great periods-- this present age, and the age to come. The present age is wholly bad and beyond all hope of human reformation. If can be mended only by the direct intervention of God. When God does intervene the golden age, the age to come, will arrive. But in between the two ages there will come the Day of the Lord, which will be a time of terrible and fearful upheaval, like the birth-pangs of a new age.
David goes into more detail below:
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/end_of_the_world.htm
Richard and John,
A meaningful discussion of Romans 9, in my opinion, must be a continuation of Romans 1 - 8.
In Romans 9, Paul uses for the first time in his letter the name, Israel.
Previously, in the letter, he uses the words; Jew, Gentile, Greek. God's saving work must first come to individuals. To the Jew first, and then to the Greek. We have no difficulty relating the individual saving work to Gentiles as Paul's specific ministry was to the Gentiles.
We also know from Paul's other letters that when an individual believes the saving work of God, whether Jew, Greek, or otherwise, as a member of the body of Christ, there is no distinction as to heritage. The distinctions of the flesh disappear.
We have not arrived at a unity of the faith concerning the meaning of a true Jew in the first portion of his letter. How then can we move on to the meaning of Israel as Paul presents it in Romans 9 - 11?
A Gentile or Greek does not become a "true Jew" when believing. If the distinction of heritage disappears when entering the body of Christ, we should refrain from categorizing a believer as a "true Jew". When relating to each other, as fellow believers, we are members of Christ's body. The flesh has no standing whatsoever.
However, when we step back into the world, to relate to those outside of the body of Christ, are we to look at ourselves as the "true Jews"? I think not.
A Jewish person, by heritage, when believing the gospel message becomes a member of the body of Christ where no distinction applies. But, when going back into the realm of human interaction, that person, as a Jew, is a "true Jew", being "circumcised without hands", and can function towards fellow Jews as an ambassador of Christ to them.
An unbelieving Jew, not being a member of the body of Christ, is still an Israelite. But, as unbelieving Jews, there is no way such a person can be recognized as part of Israel, that which Paul refers to in Romans 9 - 11.
There remains a ministry towards Israel that is yet unfulfilled by those of the nations. Paul's purpose in Romans 9 - 11 is to clarify that ministry of the nations, and to anticipate the bringing back from the dead the "Israel of God".
If this is so, then, we must not say that the national distinction has disappeared. At present, there remains a filling up of the nations into the body of Christ. When that is accomplished, and only the Father knows, then the saving work of God will be restored to the Israel of God to complete their calling and election.
It is not appropriate to refer to the body of Christ as "the Israel of God".
Joel
Richard and John,
A meaningful discussion of Romans 9, in my opinion, must be a continuation of Romans 1 - 8.
In Romans 9, Paul uses for the first time in his letter the name, Israel.
Previously, in the letter, he uses the words; Jew, Gentile, Greek. God's saving work must first come to individuals. To the Jew first, and then to the Greek. We have no difficulty relating the individual saving work to Gentiles as Paul's specific ministry was to the Gentiles.
We also know from Paul's other letters that when an individual believes the saving work of God, whether Jew, Greek, or otherwise, as a member of the body of Christ, there is no distinction as to heritage. The distinctions of the flesh disappear.
We have not arrived at a unity of the faith concerning the meaning of a true Jew in the first portion of his letter. How then can we move on to the meaning of Israel as Paul presents it in Romans 9 - 11?
A Gentile or Greek does not become a "true Jew" when believing. If the distinction of heritage disappears when entering the body of Christ, we should refrain from categorizing a believer as a "true Jew". When relating to each other, as fellow believers, we are members of Christ's body. The flesh has no standing whatsoever.
However, when we step back into the world, to relate to those outside of the body of Christ, are we to look at ourselves as the "true Jews"? I think not.
A Jewish person, by heritage, when believing the gospel message becomes a member of the body of Christ where no distinction applies. But, when going back into the realm of human interaction, that person, as a Jew, is a "true Jew", being "circumcised without hands", and can function towards fellow Jews as an ambassador of Christ to them.
An unbelieving Jew, not being a member of the body of Christ, is still an Israelite. But, as unbelieving Jews, there is no way such a person can be recognized as part of Israel, that which Paul refers to in Romans 9 - 11.
There remains a ministry towards Israel that is yet unfulfilled by those of the nations. Paul's purpose in Romans 9 - 11 is to clarify that ministry of the nations, and to anticipate the bringing back from the dead the "Israel of God".
If this is so, then, we must not say that the national distinction has disappeared. At present, there remains a filling up of the nations into the body of Christ. When that is accomplished, and only the Father knows, then the saving work of God will be restored to the Israel of God to complete their calling and election.
It is not appropriate to refer to the body of Christ as "the Israel of God".
Joel
Hi Joel,
I must disagree, for it cannot be so. The cutoff branch (unbelieving Jew) is no different than the wild tree (unbelieving Gentile) in the sense that both must be grafted into the natural Olive tree. The difference lies in the cutoff branch being brought back to life from a dead state of their faith, whereas the wild tree had no faith to be brought back from.
For an unbelieving Jew to continue being a Israelite in race has no bearing on the point at hand. The calling and election of Israel has been accomplished in the bringing forth of Messiah, and from the remnant of Israel who was saved the Gospel went forth to the world, which in turn is now made available to both the cutoff branches and the wild ones!
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
05-10-2010, 08:06 AM
It is not appropriate to refer to the body of Christ as "the Israel of God".
Joel
Hi Joel,
I do not understand why you say it is inappropriate to call the Body of Christ the "Israel of God." Scripture describes the Church as Israel over and over again. Here are a few examples:
Christians are The Circumcision (technical Biblical term for Israel)
Christians are The Seed of Abraham
Christians are The Children of Promise
Christians are A Chosen Generation
Christians are A Royal Priesthood
Christians are A Holy Nation
Christians are A Peculiar People
Christians are Called out of darkness into his marvellous light
Christians are Fellowheirs and of the same body as the Jews.
Christians are The People of God in whom He dwells, fulfilling the OT prophecies for Israel.
This seems quite conclusive. Furthermore, it seems confirmed by the fact that all the first believers who formed the original Church were all of Israel. Only the unbelievers of Israel according to the flesh were excluded. And Paul explains that unbelieving Jews - the children of the flesh amongst fleshly Israel - are not "children of the promise" and have no promises from God.
Could you help me understand why I should not think that the Church is born and remains the faithful remnant of Israel who received Christ? Please try to explain it in light of the evidence I have presented above.
Thanks!
Many blessings to you my friend,
Richard
Richard and Rose,
It is a blessing to be discussing these matters again with you. John certainly is welcomed to join in, as hopefully, others as well.
Rose immediately referred to chapter 11 which I encourage that first we move into ch 9 and work our way through.
Let me say that this is not a "we" vs. "them" discussion. This is an "us" discussion as we work together to gain light from the source of Light, the master of us all, the Lord.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
05-10-2010, 09:46 AM
Let me say that this is not a "we" vs. "them" discussion. This is an "us" discussion as we work together to gain light from the source of Light, the master of us all, the Lord.
Joel
Triple Amen to that bro! :thumb:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.