Spiritual Israel

[IamNazarene]

Haha Jesus is God! Man!
Jesus created the order, was before all this ever happened lol

 

[Dave-W]

Some have postulated that Melchizedek WAS a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus. (theophany)

 

[fozzy]

In Romans chap. 9 Paul makes some interesting statements where he contrasts Israel of the flesh and Israel of the promise or spirit:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:1-5

He then goes on to say that the children of the flesh are not the children of God or merely being born into the nation of Israel did not guarantee being part of the family of God.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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. Rom. 9:6-8

The children of the promise are counted as the seed or offspring of Abraham. The original promise to Abraham was that God would make him a great nation and then he delayed that promise to test Abraham's faith. There were two nations that sprang from Abraham and they were not Isaac and Ishmael. Both of these men fathered fleshly nations. The nation of the promise are all those who have the same faith that Abraham did and Abraham's faith was severely tested. A mere profession is worthless just like trusting in genealogies is worthless.

As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Rom. 9:25,26

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom. 9:30-33

 

[fozzy]

Some have postulated that Melchizedek WAS a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus. (theophany)

I have heard this before as well and tend to agree with it.

 

[Robert Bee]

SPIRITUAL ISRAEL.

Now the 144,000 are for sure exactly SPIRITUAL ISRAEL.
The HOLY PREISTHOOD !

 

[Righttruth]

OK, now I'm confused. Where does Paul say he isn't a Jew?
I'm sure you know he was a Jew, and was circumcised.

But he claimed to be a Jew to save his skin:

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, "I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."

 

[Dave-W]

PIRITUAL ISRAEL.

Now the 144,000 are for sure exactly SPIRITUAL ISRAEL.
The HOLY PREISTHOOD !

No - they are physical Israel. 12,000 from each physical tribe.

 

[Dave-W]

But he claimed to be a Jew to save his skin:

"... to save his skin." What verse did you get that from? Paul was no wimp and never EVER did anything that would even suggest such a thing.

If he was trying to "save his skin," why did he continue on to Jerusalem when he got prophetic word after prophetic word that he heading for chains and possibly death?

 

[Righttruth]

"... to save his skin." What verse did you get that from? Paul was no wimp and never EVER did anything that would even suggest such a thing.

If he was trying to "save his skin," why did he continue on to Jerusalem when he got prophetic word after prophetic word that he heading for chains and possibly death?

The large gathering of Jews would have attacked him or would not have listened to him. That is importunate way (telling lies) to share the Gospel. Truly he should have said. "I was a Jew."

 

[Dave-W]

Truly he should have said. "I was a Jew."

So read the last chapter - Acts 28. Paul talks to the Rabbis in Rome and tells them that he STILL had done nothing against the Law of Moses OR the Oral tradition (customs of the fathers).

Paul self-identified as a Jew and a Pharisee to the day he died.

Yeah - I know that makes a lot of people nervous and scrambling for an answer that fits their understanding. Well - maybe that understanding needs to be adjusted .....

 

[Righttruth]

So read the last chapter - Acts 28. Paul talks to the Rabbis in Rome and tells them that he STILL had done nothing against the Law of Moses OR the Oral tradition (customs of the fathers).

Did he continue with all the traditions that go with a Pharisee? In fact, he put an end to it eventually.

Paul self-identified as a Jew and a Pharisee to the day he died.

Yeah, that augers well with many of his self-claims! Do you accept a converted Muslim to make a statement that he is still a Muslim?

Yeah - I know that makes a lot of people nervous and scrambling for an answer that fits their understanding. Well - maybe that understanding needs to be adjusted .....

Yes, adjustment was the main strategy of Paul!

 

[Dave-W]

Did he continue with all the traditions that go with a Pharisee?

That is what he claimed in Acts 28.17.

Yeah, that augers well with many of his self-claims! Do you accept a converted Muslim to make a statement that he is still a Muslim?

How is that the same thing?
Christianity was not even seen at that time as a separate religion. It was a sect of Pharisaic Judaism.

I submit it NEVER should have been separated.

 

[Righttruth]

That is what he claimed in Acts 28.17.

This is a different event. It doesn't answer my objection of he claiming to be a Jew even after conversion!

How is that the same thing?
Christianity was not even seen at that time as a separate religion. It was a sect of Pharisaic Judaism.

In the beginning it was called 'Way.'

I submit it NEVER should have been separated.

True spirituality separates from ritualistic Judaism pertaining to a specific place. One should worship Father in spirit and truth.

 

[Dave-W]

This is a different event. It doesn't answer my objection of he claiming to be a Jew even after conversion!

Yes, it is a different event well after his arrest and YEARS after his conversion. But it illustrates the point that he CONTINUALLY identified himself as a Jew. On that there should be no objection.

 

[Righttruth]

Yes, it is a different event well after his arrest and YEARS after his conversion. But it illustrates the point that he CONTINUALLY identified himself as a Jew. On that there should be no objection.

Yes, it is a different event well after his arrest and YEARS after his conversion. But it illustrates the point that he CONTINUALLY identified himself as a Jew. On that there should be no objection.

So he had double standards! Not only that he was an opportunist! When there was a big gathering of Jews, he would claim to be a Jew, which is a lie that went against the preaching of Jesus who said that who deny Him before people will be denied before the Father! He accosted Peter when he did the same thing in Galatia.

 

[Dave-W]

Wow.. That is just wrong on so many levels I am not sure where to start.

No - Paul did NOT have double standards. He understood something you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept: that God had different requirements for Jews who were raised with His standards and gentile converts from paganism which had no understanding of God at all.

An opportunist? Yes, but not for saving his own skin. It was for the spread of the gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Now as to the point of claiming to be a Jew - he was. There can be no doubt on that point. So how is it a lie or a denial of the Lord? That makes as much sense as saying if I was born in the Sioux Nation that now that I am a christian, claiming Native American heritage denies Jesus. In what way does being a Jew deny Christ? In fact, Christ Himself was the most observant Orthodox Jew that ever lived.

Peter - you have to look at precisely WHAT Paul got on Peter's case for: it was DUPLICITY; being buddy-buddy with the gentiles one day and too good to be near them the next.

 

[Righttruth]

Wow.. That is just wrong on so many levels I am not sure where to start.

No - Paul did NOT have double standards. He understood something you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept: that God had different requirements for Jews who were raised with His standards and gentile converts from paganism which had no understanding of God at all.

Did Paul have double standards or double visions? Who gave him the authority to bifurcate apostleship betweem Jews and Gentiles? Of course, Jews and Gentiles had different background, so needed different approach. But Jesus commanded all to reach out to all.

An opportunist? Yes, but not for saving his own skin. It was for the spread of the gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

If Jesus had applied the same approach, He would not have been crucified. The result should justify the means also. It is not unrighteous war a Christian looks forward. There would be no suffering if evangelists start pleasing the people by dancing to their tunes! However, they are doing it now is a different story!

Now as to the point of claiming to be a Jew - he was. There can be no doubt on that point. So how is it a lie or a denial of the Lord? That makes as much sense as saying if I was born in the Sioux Nation that now that I am a christian, claiming Native American heritage denies Jesus.

Claiming Native American heritage is not a lie if expressed in the past tense. Because it is an indication of blood lineage. But you cannot claim that you are continuing with Native American heritage.

In what way does being a Jew deny Christ?

Are you opposing the very basic aspect that Jews denied Christ?

In fact, Christ Himself was the most observant Orthodox Jew that ever lived.

Yes to fulfill the letter of the Law.

Peter - you have to look at precisely WHAT Paul got on Peter's case for: it was DUPLICITY; being buddy-buddy with the gentiles one day and too good to be near them the next.

We have never the heard the story from Peter's side. Accosting Peter directly by Paul was not the method Jesus had preached when one does wrong.

 

[Dave-W]

Who gave him the authority to bifurcate apostleship betweem Jews and Gentiles?

Not just him. That group also included Peter and James. And they acknowledged that God Himself was in league with this:

Acts 15.28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

Are you opposing the very basic aspect that Jews denied Christ?

I do not see the fact that MOST Jews rejected Him as a "basic aspect" of anything; and certainly not Judaism. In fact, OBEYING the Risen Lord is what Judaism is supposed to be all about. Those Jews who continue to reject Messiah are lessened in their Judaism for it.

 

[Dave-W]

In fact, Christ Himself was the most observant Orthodox Jew that ever lived.

Yes to fulfill the letter of the Law.

A very narrow view of that. Too narrow.

Are we not told to EMULATE Him? WWJD? ? ? ?

 

[Dave-W]

Accosting Peter directly by Paul was not the method Jesus had preached when one does wrong.

If you are referring to Matt 5 or Matt 18, then you are dealing with a DIFFERENT situation. Those passages deal with sins between believers and should be handled in private because they do not involve others. In the case of Peter, he wronged people in public by dissing them publicly, and therefore had to be rebuked PUBLICLY.

Again, it is NOT a one-size-fits-all situation.