What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

[Martn]

Not everything Paul teaches is correct.

There are serious errors in his teachings.

For while it is true that Gentiles are not under the Law,

and have no requirement to be,

it is not true that Jews are exempt from the Law.

In fact Jews are explicitly warned to oppose 

anyone who teaches them to reject the Law and the Prophets.

Well did Isaiah prophesy:

To The Law and to The Prophets, if they teach against this Word,

it is because there is no light in them.

Now, while it is true Gentiles have no requirement to be under Law,

they are nevertheless still free to become Jews if they so desire.

It is not something they are required to do for the sake of salvation (which is a free gift).

It is something that they are freed to do, and great is the reward of those who do, 

for gifts and rewards are not the same thing.

To all so moved, Jesus is the Way back Home.

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Seventh Day said:

Rejected!

 

The Jews rejected Jesus the Christ and since are lawless lost, whom God rejected and never will repent.

If you are in saying that Jews are no longer God's chosen people, I disagree.  There would be no Christians if there weren't Jews beforehand.  Jesus was a Jew.  The Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 was unconditional.  God's covenant with David was unconditional.  Ajew (jesus) will one day rule the world (indeed - the universe).  The 144,000 are all Israelites - 12,000 from each tribe.

I point you to Romans 11 where Paul warns new Christians against disregarding Judaism   We are NOT to be proud or arrogant thinking that we are "superior" to the Jews.

"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." (vs 1-2) ...  "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." (vs 11) ... "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." ... As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, ²⁹ for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Replacement theology (i.e., that Christians have replaced Jews as God's chosen people) is a satanic lie that has been used by Romans, Christians, Muslims, and Nazis to make Jews the longest and most universally hated people in history.  If the Jews have been rejected by God, why are they still the supreme target of satan's wrath?  Rather than God replacing the Jews with Christians as the chosen people, God has given Christians the privilege of being included with the Jews as God's Chosen people.

[8thdaypriest]

49 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

If you are in saying that Jews are no longer God's chosen people, I disagree.  There would be no Christians if there weren't Jews beforehand.  Jesus was a Jew.  The Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 was unconditional.  God's covenant with David was unconditional.  Ajew (jesus) will one day rule the world (indeed - the universe).  The 144,000 are all Israelites - 12,000 from each tribe.

I point you to Romans 11 where Paul warns new Christians against disregarding Judaism   We are NOT to be proud or arrogant thinking that we are "superior" to the Jews.

"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." (vs 1-2) ...  "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." (vs 11) ... "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." ... As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, ²⁹ for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Replacement theology (i.e., that Christians have replaced Jews as God's chosen people) is a satanic lie that has been used by Romans, Christians, Muslims, and Nazis to make Jews the longest and most universally hated people in history.  If the Jews have been rejected by God, why are they still the supreme target of satan's wrath?  Rather than God replacing the Jews with Christians as the chosen people, God has given Christians the privilege of being included with the Jews as God's Chosen people.

Joe and I have spent some time on this topic via PMs, so I'm not going to say anything new to him.

"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." (vs 1-2) ...  "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

Well - He DID reject some of them.  He gave them a "bill of divorcement".    The LORD divorced the 10 Northern tribes (called Israel at the time).  They were lost to history, and they lost their identity.  That doesn't mean some descendants won't be "grafted in".  

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/18/2016 at 5:55 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes, some aspect paganism was part of the problem.

The pagans have days, months, seasons, and years -- such as Friday the 13th --, that they watch superstitiously because they are afraid something bad is going to happen.  That was not the case with God's Sabbaths and appointed times.  There was no superstitious fear involved in keeping God's Law.

Galatians 4:21 [Paul speaking] "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law"

The above words define the "problem" at Galatia.  

Paul is WRITING TO people who thought they needed to be "under the law" = "justified by works of the law". 

Paul had taught them "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Gal 2:16) and "knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16), and "if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal 2:21), and "no one is justified by the law in the sight of God" (Gal 3:11). 

But the circumcision party came down from Jerusalem - believing Pharisees, who thought it was still necessary to be physically circumcised and to be "justified through works of the law".

The Galatians got confused.  Paul is trying to convince them that we are justified ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ. 

Paul is saying that turning to "the law" as the means of salvation, is "turning again to weak and beggarly elements".  Trying to obtain justification through "works of the law" was every bit as enslaving as the pagan practices they had once known. 

First:  The blood of bulls and goats could NOT take away sin!!    Second:  The Law - WITHOUT the Spirit of Christ to write it on our hearts - IS BONDAGE. 

And trying to observe all the Feasts of the LORD perfectly, can be just as enslaving - IF - you're doing it in order to be saved.  Only the Spirit of Christ can put the JOY of it in our hearts. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

If you are in saying that Jews are no longer God's chosen people, I disagree.  There would be no Christians if there weren't Jews beforehand.  Jesus was a Jew.  The Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 was unconditional.  God's covenant with David was unconditional.  Ajew (jesus) will one day rule the world (indeed - the universe).  The 144,000 are all Israelites - 12,000 from each tribe.

I point you to Romans 11 where Paul warns new Christians against disregarding Judaism   We are NOT to be proud or arrogant thinking that we are "superior" to the Jews.

"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." (vs 1-2) ...  "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." (vs 11) ... "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." ... As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, ²⁹ for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Replacement theology (i.e., that Christians have replaced Jews as God's chosen people) is a satanic lie that has been used by Romans, Christians, Muslims, and Nazis to make Jews the longest and most universally hated people in history.  If the Jews have been rejected by God, why are they still the supreme target of satan's wrath?  Rather than God replacing the Jews with Christians as the chosen people, God has given Christians the privilege of being included with the Jews as God's Chosen people.

The Olive Tree represents "Israel". 

Jeremiah 11:16 "The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken."

Sounds like ALL the branches are broken off - not just the 10 tribes. 

Paul says believing Gentiles are "grafted" into the Tree.   (Right now - the largest number of persons "grafted" onto that Tree - are believing Gentiles!!)

He also says "native branches" can be grafted in "again" - IF they do not continue in unbelief. 

Romans 11:23 [native branches]  "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

But that would mean there are DNA descendants of Abraham/Jacob who are NOT attached to THAT Olive Tree (Israel). 

So - at this moment - if they do not believe in Christ, and do not draw nourishment from that holy "root" - THEN they are NOT Israelites (at least in the eyes of Heaven). 

ONLY "those of faith are sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7).  

Those who do NOT believe in Jesus are NOT "of faith".   They ARE NOT "sons of Abraham" (in the sight of Heaven). 

Yes - they ARE still "loved" on account of the patriarchs.  Yes - God is still "calling" them.   No - we should NOT persecute them!! 

UNBELIEVERS are "broken off" the Tree.  BELIEVERS are "grafted" on to the Tree. 

The TREE remains - and the holy root remains.   Jesus IS "the root".    "if the root is holy, so are the branches" (Rom 11:16)

The Tree IS ISRAEL.   

"all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26)  = The TREE will be saved (with everyone that is attached to it). 

 

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26)  = The TREE will be saved (with everyone that is attached to it). 

Hi Rachel,

Last time we spoke about this on PM, I think we finally agreed that all those who believed (Jew or Gentile) were grafted into the tree; and those who did not believe (Jew or Gentile) would be broken off.  Christians JOIN believing Jews on the tree.  They do not REPLACE them.  So we're good (I think).

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Hi Rachel,

Last time we spoke about this on PM, I think we finally agreed that all those who believed (Jew or Gentile) were grafted into the tree; and those who did not believe (Jew or Gentile) would be broken off.  Christians JOIN believing Jews on the tree.  They do not REPLACE them.  So we're good (I think).

The "church" (congregation) does not REPLACE Israel.  The true congregation of faith IS ISRAEL.

The TREE does have leaves and branches of Jewish extraction.  It also has leaves and branches of all the other races. 

The word "elect" in the NT means "chosen". 

So who are the "elect" in the NT?  Just Jews or descendants of Jacob?  No!

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure." (NAU)

All of those sanctified (set apart) by the Spirit to obey Jesus Christ - THESE - are the "chosen" today. 

It is NOT about race.  It's about faith. 

In the context of Romans 11 - who are the "elect" (the chosen)?  The whole race of Jews?  No way!

Romans 11:7  "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (NKJ)

 Here you have Paul using the term "Israel" for the ENTIRE Jewish community.  THEN he separates that group into "the elect" and "the rest". 

Those Hebrews who did not/have not believed in Jesus are NOT "the elect". 

Paul also said,

Romans 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 which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (NAU)

Here we have the identifier "Jew" also used in two ways: 

1.  an outward Jew, circumcised in the flesh (but not circumcised in heart)  [This one is NOT attached to "the Olive Tree"]

2.  an inward Jew, circumcised in heart  [This one IS attached to the Olive Tree.]

[8thdaypriest]

My concern with this question, concerning the identity of "Israel",  comes from my belief that Satan plans to use the Jewish people in the final days, as part of his plan to deceive the whole world. 

Many Christian commentators point to the rise of the nation currently identified as the State of Israel, and say that it fulfills the promise of resurrection and return to the land, for Israel. 

I do NOT AGREE. 

It is obvious - that some supernatural power is behind the return of Jews to Palestine.  But which power? 

I personally believe Satan has worked to raise up that nation, and plans to use those people in the final days - to pull off his masterpiece of deception. 

Does that mean we should reject or persecute those people?  Of course NOT!!    Even yet - some will come to believe in Jesus as the true Christ. 

I believe there will be a terrible MidEast war.  Old Jerusalem will be destroyed.  Then the Jews will be allowed to rebuild the Temple of Yahweh.  Then an antiChrist will take over that Temple.  Then there will be plagues and natural disasters (trumpets).  Then Satan will appear to destroy that antichrist.  Then Satan will appear in that Temple (with great glorious miracles) as Messiah come.  The Jews and (almost) the entire world will be deceived.  That is the scenario I presently see happening.

The LORD spoke through Moses - saying they would be driven off "the land" if they rebelled against the Covenant.  But then He promised:

Leviticus 26:40 "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me -- 41 so that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land." (NRS)

Jews presently living in the State of Israel have NOT fulfilled the conditions.  85% are secular - having no belief in God at all.  

They fought their way into a portion of the land promised to Abraham.  And they are still fighting to keep possession of it. 

 

[Martn]

On 9/26/2016 at 3:03 PM, Seventh Day said:

The Jews rejected Jesus

The Jews NEVER rejected Jesus, and they do not reject Jesus even now.

Christians have been told the lie so many times they take it for granted as truth, but historically it is not true.

There were a small number of people who were CALLED Jews and who opposed Jesus, but they were not actually Jewish. Mainstream Jews of the time, who were much greater in number and who lived for the most part nowhere near Judea, did NOT regard the "Jews" of Judea as true Jews.

Mainstream Jews had no objection to Jesus, and they have no objection to Jesus even now.

What they reject, today, are merely FALSE teachings about Jesus.

Note again, Jesus himself said he was NOT sent to the Jews of the House of Judah, but only to the lost tribes of the House OF ISRAEL --those who had become lost among the Gentiles.

There is a difference between the House of Judah and the House of Israel. Jesus went only to the latter.

That is why Jesus went to the "Jews" of Judea and not to the actual Jews who then for the most part lived nowhere near Judea or Syria, but far away, in the easternmost regions of Mesopotamia (in the easternmost parts of the Promised Land, according to what God told Abraham in Genesis).

The "Jews" of Judea were almost entirely descended from Gentile converts who, only a hundred years before the birth of Jesus, had been full-blown pagan Gentiles, forced to convert by the renegade "Jewish" rulers of Judea, though most of course privately retained mainly pagan beliefs and practices.

 

[Martn]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Satan plans to use the Jewish people in the final days, as part of his plan to deceive the whole world.

Jewish people (actual, religiously, Jewish people) are the one group of people on earth who for the most part will NOT be deceived by the impostor Jesus. This is because the impostor Jesus will claim to be God, and religious Jews simply can never, ever accept such an idea.

The only people most susceptible to being deceived by the impostor Jesus are Christians, for the most part --because they already believe Jesus is God.

Most Jews today are atheist or agnostic, because of how badly they have been treated --by the Church especially, and the one thing they will never accept is the principal dogma of that Church.

Nevertheless, there remains a large enough community of religious Jews --living, for the most part, in modern Israel-- to remind them and show them the way, when the time comes.

[8thdaypriest]

23 hours ago, Martn said:

Jewish people (actual, religiously, Jewish people) are the one group of people on earth who for the most part will NOT be deceived by the impostor Jesus. This is because the impostor Jesus will claim to be God, and religious Jews simply can never, ever accept such an idea.

The only people most susceptible to being deceived by the impostor Jesus are Christians, for the most part --because they already believe Jesus is God.

Most Jews today are atheist or agnostic, because of how badly they have been treated --by the Church especially, and the one thing they will never accept is the principal dogma of that Church.

Nevertheless, there remains a large enough community of religious Jews --living, for the most part, in modern Israel-- to remind them and show them the way, when the time comes.

Martn,

Do you personally believe that the man named Jesus, was (and is) God our Father's only begotten (literal) son? 

When you say, Jews did not then, and do not now, "reject" Jesus - in what sense did they "not reject" Him? 

We all know that the rank and file of Jews living in Judea back in 33, did NOT condemn Jesus to death.  And we know that some of them DID accept Him as God's only Son.  We also know the majority did NOT accept him as Messiah, and they still do not believe that he literally rose from the dead, and now sits at his Father's right hand.  

They just "accept" him as a righteous teacher, and maybe a prophet.   But THAT is the same thing that Muslims believe about Isa (Jesus). 

[8thdaypriest]

23 hours ago, Martn said:

Note again, Jesus himself said he was NOT sent to the Jews of the House of Judah, but only to the lost tribes of the House OF ISRAEL --those who had become lost among the Gentiles.

There is a difference between the House of Judah and the House of Israel. Jesus went only to the latter.

 

I can agree that Jesus went to the disenfranchised, and avoided (at least until his "time" had come) the central authorities of Judea.  But He managed to speak with Nicodemus,  and Joseph of Arimathea, who were both of the Sanhedrin. 

Jesus came FOR "the lost sheep of the House of Israel".   What does that mean?  What is (or what was) "the House of Israel" ?

It depends upon your definition of "Israel".  And your definition depends upon your context. 

If your context is the Olive Tree of Romans Chapt 11, then "Israel" is the congregation of those who believe and obey Jesus as the Christ.

If your context is the Book of Isaiah, then "Israel" is the 10 Northern Tribes. 

If your context is 2016 and nations of the world, then "Israel" is the State of Israel. 

IF your context is the writings of Jewish Rabbi's, then "Israel" might be all Jews currently living, OR just practicing Jews. 

 

If "Israel" is the Olive Tree,   and Jesus is looking to graft individuals onto THAT Tree,   then the "lost" he was "sent" to find, would have to include all of mankind - NOT just Jews or "lost tribes". 

He was searching for those who would respond to Him - who would become part of His "one flock" - His Olive Tree. 

 

John 3:14-15 [Jesus speaking] "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." (NRS) "

John 12:32 [Jesus speaking] "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (NRS)

John 3:16 [Jesus speaking] "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJ)

John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (NKJ)

 

Jesus CLAIMED to be the only begotten son of God.  If he was NOT - then he was a liar and a deceiver, and SHOULD have been executed for blasphemy!! 

Mark 2:10-11 [Jesus speaking] "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic 'I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.'" (NRS)

Matthew 16:16   Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." (NRS) 

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. (NRS)

 

I don't know Martn, maybe you think the apostles got it all wrong, that Jesus did NOT claim to be the son of Almighty God.  Maybe you think the Apostolic Writings are full of false statements.  You would need to dismiss all of their writings as misguided and full of distortions.  But then you would have to believe they all went from cowards to courageous men who DIED for something that was never true.   

 

[Martn]

23 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

When you say, Jews did not then, and do not now, "reject" Jesus - in what sense did they "not reject" Him?

With regard to everything which is (actually) true and essential for us to know about Jesus, we have no objection

We have problems with certain, strictly Christian ideas about Jesus. It is Christianity so-called, and not Jesus, to which we object. Even among Christians themselves there is no complete unanimity on the points in question, not in the Church as a whole and not even within any single denomination.

In the Jewish religion, however, there are numerous ideas upon which ALL religious Jews (whether Orthodox or Reform or whatever) agree --such as the idea that there is no literal devil, for example. But, in Christianity, one cannot find even one single (strictly Christian) idea upon which all Christians agree. One encounters the same difficulty with Muslims, and with Buddhists, and with Hindus, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, especially within the Orthodox Jewish community, one can find A LOT more openness concerning Jesus than one finds among Muslims.

There are numerous Orthodox Jewish teachers who maintain, for example, that the Resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event --an idea no Muslim can accept. Not all Orthodox Jews agree of course, but many do. They even allow that Jesus was the messiah of the Gentiles. Not THE Jewish Messiah of course, but "a" messiah nevertheless (just as foretold in Daniel).

The claim that the majority of Jews, in Jesus' day, rejected Jesus as the messiah is absolutely false. The majority of Jews, including the majority of Jewish leaders --and ALL of highest officials then in Judaism-- lived nowhere near Judea. They never even heard of Jesus and, in fact, didn't know anything about him until nearly a thousand years later. Only gradually have we come to understand more and more about him.

This is because, in Jesus' day, nearly all Jews resided entirely outside of Judea and Syria, living far away in what is now eastern Iraq. They regarded the Jews --and Jewish leaders-- of Syria, Judea, and Jerusalem as renegades (NOT true Jews).

Nearly all of the Jews living there, including most of the rulers, were only a century before then descended from entirely pagan Gentile converts, who were forced against their will to convert to Judaism by the renegade priestly class then in control of Judea. Nearly all of course, in private at least, naturally retained mostly pagan beliefs and practices.

They were the "Jews" who later became Christians. That's where the idea of Jesus as God comes from. It is pagan, not Jewish, in origin. It was the pagans only who, in EVERY nation among the Gentiles, believed that certain men could be literally of divine birth and therefore literally God. It is a very bizarre thing indeed to claim that actual Jews also believed this way.

 

 

 

[Martn]

23 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It depends upon your definition of "Israel".

My definition of Israel?

That's another topic.

What I spoke of, and what Jesus spoke of, was the HOUSE of Israel.

While the term "Israel" by itself can have a number of different applications, House of Israel does not.

HOUSE of Israel means only one thing --the KINGDOM of Israel, the Ten Lost Tribes.

These people, strictly speaking, were not and are not actual Jews.

Jews, strictly speaking, were and are of the House/Kingdom of Judah (from which the word "Jew" derives).

And Jesus, as he himself explicitly stated, was not sent to them, but only to the HOUSE of Israel --the lost tribes.

This doesn't mean Jesus will reject Jews who come to him.

Everyone eventually will come to him (even though he wasn't sent to all of them).

Not because they need him, but because he is one of them. Eventually, there will be only one House, as it was in the beginning.

 

[JoeMo]

Jesus himself was a Jew from the House of David.  All of His apostles (and likely almost all of His early disciples) were Jews.  He spent most of His life with Jews (although He did visit Samaria now and then).  As a Jew, He will one day rule the planet (actually the entire universe) for the rest of eternity.  I believe that when Jesus referred to the "house of Israel" he was referring to all 12 tribes; or maybe all those of spiritual Israel (i.e., all the saved).

[LifeHiscost]

37 minutes ago, Seventh Day said:

The Jews are not <<God's chosen people>>. They are God's rejected people who have not survived God's rejection of them, one single procreating pair. The Jews of today are a people who do not know God, whom God also, do not know. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not have politics in its fibre--not a single strand or as much as one single cell of it.

15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. ...John 3

I think that written in red, identifies Gods' chosen people.

11....there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

      12So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body;....Col 3

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

 

[Martn]

23 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

They are God's rejected people

History proves this is not what happened.

People (Christians, Muslims, etc.) need for them to be rejected in order to build up their own.

Putting others down in order build up one's own is not righteous.

[Martn]

On 9/29/2016 at 4:11 PM, JoeMo said:

Jesus himself was a Jew

Jesus, it says, descended from the priestly class who ruled Judea. They were of (partly) Jewish ancestry, but not regarded as Jewish by the authorities in eastern Mesopotamia, because they had become largely Hellenized. Also, they made themselves into a dynasty of kings over Judea even though, being of priestly descent, they had no authority to do so.

As for the disciples, it is possible some of them had actual Jewish ancestry, but we don't know for sure because most of the population of Judea at that time were descended from pagan converts, forced to convert to the renegade Judaism of their rulers, only a century before the birth of Jesus. Yes, the people considered themselves Jewish, but still, because of the many pagan ideas and practices which they retained, they were not regarded as truly Jewish by Jews outside of Judea who by far were the majority.

The tribes of Israel were not called Houses until after the Davidic Kingdom divided. Under David they were simply the Kingdom of Israel, but when the Kingdom divided into North and South, then they were called Houses. There is no instance where the term was used to refer to anything else. So, when Jesus said he was sent only to the lost people of the House of Israel, he could not have been referring to people of the House of Judah (Jews). 

This is evident further in the fact that Jesus did not go to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia, and Christian missionaries afterward did not go there either. Even though the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia were by far more numerous than the "Jews" of Judea, and even though eastern Mesopotamia was where the highest Jewish authorities resided.

Jesus went only to "Jews" of Judean extraction, descendants mostly of the ten lost tribes.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/26/2016 at 10:37 AM, Martn said:

Judaism has always maintained --since well before the time of Jesus even--

that only minor parts of the Law (and only minor parts of the Ten) apply to non-Jews.

For the most part, therefore, the Law (and the Ten) do not apply to non-Jews.

Is this teaching of Judaism found in Scripture, or is it just a man-made tradition?  I have not yet found it in Scripture.  There are some passages in God's Law of Moses that seem to teach otherwise.

Deuteronomy 31:10-12
Then Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of every seven years, at the time of the year of remission of debts, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing.  Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law.

How did the mixed multitude of Gentiles that came out of Egypt with Moses avoid standing at Mt. Sinai and entering into the covenant?

[Ron Amnsn]

21 hours ago, Martn said:

The tribes of Israel were not called Houses until after the Davidic Kingdom divided. Under David they were simply the Kingdom of Israel, but when the Kingdom divided into North and South, then they were called Houses. There is no instance where the term was used to refer to anything else. So, when Jesus said he was sent only to the lost people of the House of Israel, he could not have been referring to people of the House of Judah (Jews). 

It is true that the phrase "house of Israel" often refers to the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, especially when it is used in contrast to the phrase "house of Judah". 

However the phrase "house of Israel" was also used to refer to all 12 tribes of Israel together before the kingdom was divided.  These verses show that usage as early as the time of Moses:
Exodus 16:31  Now the house of Israel called its name manna. It was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.
Exodus 40:38  For the cloud of the LORD was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel throughout all their journeys.
Leviticus 10:6  And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the congregation; but let your brothers, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning that the LORD has kindled.
See also Leviticus 17:3-10,  Leviticus 22:18, and Numbers 20:29.

"House of Israel" was also used to refer to all 12 tribes in Joshua 21:45, Ruth 4:11, and 1 Samuel 7:2-3.

Also, during the time of the united Kingdom, all 12 tribes of Israel were referred to as the "house of Israel" as shown in these verses:
2 Samuel 6:5  And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals.
2 Samuel 6:15  So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn.
See also Psalm 98:3 and Psalm 115:12.
 

On 9/29/2016 at 1:27 PM, Martn said:

What I spoke of, and what Jesus spoke of, was the HOUSE of Israel.

While the term "Israel" by itself can have a number of different applications, House of Israel does not.

HOUSE of Israel means only one thing --the KINGDOM of Israel, the Ten Lost Tribes.

These people, strictly speaking, were not and are not actual Jews.

Jews, strictly speaking, were and are of the House/Kingdom of Judah (from which the word "Jew" derives).

And Jesus, as he himself explicitly stated, was not sent to them, but only to the HOUSE of Israel --the lost tribes.

Because Jesus was familiar with the Torah, the Psalms, and the Writings and the way "house of Israel" had been used in Scripture to refer to all 12 tribes, it is likely that he would use the phrase in the same way.

Besides, your assertion that Jesus was referring to only the 10 lost tribes doesn't seem to make sense in the other passage where Jesus used the phrase "the lost sheep of the house of Israel".  Look at Matthew 10:5-6 -- These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

If Jesus had actually been referring only to the 10 tribes of Israel that were scattered among the Gentiles, why would he have directed, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles"  and "enter no town of the Samaritans" ?  Weren't those places, which the twelve were instructed not to go to, places where they would have found people from the 10 lost tribes of the northern kingdom?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/26/2016 at 8:52 AM, Seventh Day said:

You do not perceive the Galatians were Christians yearning after their former RELIGION. That was their problem, irrespective whether their religion was pagan idolatry or not. If they had been Jews, their problem would have been the very same one as the pagans', they would have yearned after their, former RELIGION of paying homage to days, months, seasons, years per se REGARDLESS the days, months, seasons, years, were pagan or, ordained by the true God in the Old Testament. Like some Christians of the present, they would “worship the creature (and his creation / religion) rather than the Creator”. Romans 1:25.

This is nonsense.  If you are going to condemn the followers of Jesus for actually being followers of Jesus, and living as Jesus lived, then in your belief system there is apparently no meaning to being a "follower of Jesus". 

There seems to be no meaning to much of what you are teaching.  On one hand you say that Jesus is "God’s New Law in own Person in deed, teaching and example" but on the other hand you condemn those who actually want to do the deeds of Jesus, accept the teachings of Jesus, and follow the example of Jesus. 

Your teaching is directly opposed to what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:19 where he said regarding even the least instruction of God's Law of Moses, "whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven".   Because you call such people heretics instead, it is obvious that your opinion is quite different from the opinion of Jesus and opinion held in the kingdom of God.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/26/2016 at 11:00 AM, Martn said:

Not everything Paul teaches is correct.

There are serious errors in his teachings.

Are the errors in Paul's teachings, or are the errors in the interpretations of Paul's writings?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/26/2016 at 9:08 AM, Seventh Day said:

I referred to the fictitious adaptable to anyone's fancy calendars invented and used by superstitious observers of days months seasons years claiming they are Christians.

You didn't answer my questions. 

We realize that you often refer to things fictitious.

[Martn]

.

[Martn]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Is this teaching of Judaism found in Scripture, or is it just a man-made tradition?  I have not yet found it in Scripture.  There are some passages in God's Law of Moses that seem to teach otherwise.

Deuteronomy 31:10-12
Then Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of every seven years, at the time of the year of remission of debts, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing.  Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law.

How did the mixed multitude of Gentiles that came out of Egypt with Moses avoid standing at Mt. Sinai and entering into the covenant?

They entered the homes of their Jewish hosts. That's what they entered. And, in many instances, these were people in the process of conversion, in the process of becoming Jews themselves, in which case they too, in time, entered the Covenant as well.

It's interesting how so many notice the word "alien" in these passages, but somehow fail to note the words which follow: "who is in".

The Law applies only to those aliens or strangers who are living within the gates or homes of their Jewish hosts.

If you are living within a mostly Jewish home or mostly Jewish community, then you must do "as the Romans do," so to speak. Because your actions affect the peace of those with whom you share such close quarters.

Is the ancient Jewish prohibition (against Gentile Sabbath keeping, for example) scriptural? In other words, is it written?

Written (Holy Writ) yes, but perhaps not in the way you think.

I don't know if I will be able to explain this to you. People who are not raised Jewish usually have a tremendous degree of difficulty understanding this aspect of the Law.

This is because the Law, the Law which God gave Moses at Sinai, was for the most part never (physically) written down. It was written (Holy Writ) yes, but not physically. This is that part of the Law (the larger portion thereof) which was written in the heart --memorized by the families to whom it was given.

It is NOT a man-made tradition. It was given (even dictated, word-for-word) by God every bit as much as the rest of the Law.

The Law is so vast, even as God is vast, that it can never be fully expressed in mere human words. It will always almost entirely remain unprinted. Though attempts have been made to record more and more of it in documentary form (in Prophets, Writings, Mishnah, Gemara, Talmud, Midrash, Qabala, Responsa, etc.), much of it of course has been lost over the generations.

Which is why Jeremiah says it will be "restored" some day, again fully written in our hearts as it was in the beginning. Jeremiah says it will be a "new" Covenant with the House of Judah and House of Israel, but the word for "new" there is actually a Hebrew word meaning something which is renewed to its original purity.

In the ancient times men had longer lives and stronger memories than we do today. They were able to memorize much more than we can, but as our bodies and minds have grown weaker, we don't remember things as well as we once did. So there is a need to restore it. By restoring us.

When God gave the Law at Sinai, he spoke it out loud, which to most of the people sounded like thunder and earthquake. So they requested intermediaries. God chose from among them the heads of certain families, families which survive on down to this present day. Each was given a portion to memorize and pass down to their descendants, and so between them the whole was preserved.

This is actually what the Nazis were trying to get rid of in the Holocaust. They wanted to eliminate the Law by eliminating the Jewish families who preserved it within their very bodies, minds, and souls.

It was this portion of the Law which even Paul cited, as authority, in Acts. He actually quotes from the Noachide laws, just as they are now found written in our Jewish Talmuds --though at the time they were not physically written down anywhere.

It is in the Noachide laws of the Talmud that Sabbath keeping is forbidden to non-Jews, even on pain of death. Which is why Paul says nothing about the Sabbath for Gentiles when he cites the laws as authority in that matter. Acts 15:19, 20, 24, 28, 29.

While Jewish Christians, as Jews, continued keeping the Sabbath of course, Gentile Christians could not have done so even if they had wanted to. If they had done so, there would have been such an outcry over it, among the Jews in every city of the Roman Empire, as to make the controversy over circumcision seem like nothing in comparison, since Gentiles were forbidden, on pain of death even, to keep the Sabbath.

Even today, Sabbath keeping by Gentiles is considered highly offensive by many Jews. Especially in modern Israel where SDA's, for example, are widely despised because of their Sabbath keeping.

This is because the Sabbath was forfeited by Adam and Eve when they rebelled, which is why we don't find it again until the time of Abraham and thereafter. Abraham was the first "Jew" --the Law was first given to him, long before Moses. Psalm 105:8-10.

The Sabbath was made for all mankind, but it did not remain that way. As long as men remain outside the Law, they cannot partake of its bounty. For to come within the Law is to become a Jew. And a spiritual (religious) Jew is a literal Jew, for in Judaism only religious (spiritual) Jews are considered truly Jewish, regardless of what they were at birth.

It isn't required of Gentiles in order for them to be saved, and it never will be, for salvation is a free gift. But those who embrace it fully have a great reward in store for them. Gifts and rewards are not the same thing.