Challenging the Eschatological View that America is God's New Israel

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't need one, nor did we need one for any other major event in world history with an ultra-rare few exceptions.

Interesting to consider..

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Again, none of that deals with scripture - as Christ still reigns/is the scepter and has NEVER lost. And his own have received him continually (Messianic Jews and Jews of the early church and others throughout the centuries who trusted in Him) - even though other Jews did not. There's a context to the Lost House of Israel that needs to be kept in mind...

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Judah was the custodian of the sceptre only until Shiloh, Christ, came. The destruction of the temple and the Levitical priesthood is pretty good evidence that God meant it.


And because there were a few believing Jews in no way negates Jesus primary mission to house of Israel.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeshua was not just King over Israel--but literally King of the ENTIRE WORLD and the Nations (long before anything of Israel even came up). He identified with the Samaritan people (i.e. woman at the well in John 4, Luke 9, etc), the demoniac who was healed in Gentile territory in Mark 5 and many other places. Apart from that, scripture was very explicit about the ways that the Lord chose to work in other nations outside of Israel just as He did with others within Israel.

The woman at the well was an Israelite as were many living in Samaria. This is why Jesus began his ministry there and in Galilee.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Response to the OP


Response to the OP:

The British/Israel theology is a ruse

Herbert W. Armstrong and his earlier mentors were totally off course with their theology and there are still splinter groups who hold to his teachings today

British Israelism isn't theology, it's history. And it's waaaay too good not to be true mostly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nothing in scripture says the promises were without conditions anymore than saying someone who is Jewish is automatically going to be saved or with blessings...

Show me the scriptures that lay conditions on these prophecies. Please be brief. You have a tendency to 'flood the zone' with more material than is necessary. I have to 'mine' your posts to find the errors.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Incorrect - seeing that the land was taken, the descendants prospered and saw God work. One has to avoid history to say otherwise. The natural blessing was for Ephraim and Manasseh to multiply like fishes (Numbers 26:34, 37). It became a blessing among Israelites. At one time Ephraim numbered 40,500 men able to bear arms; Manasseh numbered 52,700, and was permitted additional land besides his brother west of Jordan to the sea. The blessing was that they should "grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth", in the core of the land of their inheritance. And as we look at the map of Canaan as divided among the Tribes we see Ephraim and Manasseh have their inheritance in the midst of Joseph's own sons

These numbers are hardly impressive. Several tribes put more in the field than either Ephraim or Manasseh.

Numbers 1:

18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

19 As the Lord commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.

20 And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
21 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Reuben, were forty and six thousand and five hundred.

22 Of the children of Simeon, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, those that were numbered of them, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
23 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.

24 Of the children of Gad, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
25 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.

26 Of the children of Judah, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
27 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Judah, were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred.

28 Of the children of Issachar, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
29 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Issachar, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.

30 Of the children of Zebulun, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
31 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.

32 Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
33 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand and five hundred.

34 Of the children of Manasseh, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
35 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Manasseh, were thirty and two thousand and two hundred.


36 Of the children of Benjamin, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
37 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Benjamin, were thirty and five thousand and four hundred.


38 Of the children of Dan, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
39 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Dan, were threescore and two thousand and seven hundred.

40 Of the children of Asher, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
41 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Asher, were forty and one thousand and five hundred.

42 Of the children of Naphtali, throughout their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
43 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty and three thousand and four hundred.

So their growing into a 'multitude in the midst of the earth' was for a future time as there was nothing noteworthy about their population at this time.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Judah was the custodian of the sceptre only until Shiloh, Christ, came. The destruction of the temple and the Levitical priesthood is pretty good evidence that God meant it.


And because there were a few believing Jews in no way negates Jesus primary mission to house of Israel.

House of Israel deals with the JEWISH people - and thus, as said before, it's a false distinction whenever one tries to avoid that simple reality (as the early body of believers well understood when it came to Israel NEVER being separate from the Jewish people). Anything else is making things up as one goes along - and Yeshua did his mission with the House of Israel when it came to witnessing to His own people.

These numbers are hardly impressive. Several tribes put more in the field than either Ephraim or Manasseh.

Numbers 1:

18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

19 As the Lord commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.

20 And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
21 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Reuben, were forty and six thousand and five hundred.

22 Of the children of Simeon, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, those that were numbered of them, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
23 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.

24 Of the children of Gad, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
25 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.

26 Of the children of Judah, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
27 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Judah, were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred.

28 Of the children of Issachar, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
29 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Issachar, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.

30 Of the children of Zebulun, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
31 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.

32 Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
33 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand and five hundred.

34 Of the children of Manasseh, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
35 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Manasseh, were thirty and two thousand and two hundred.


36 Of the children of Benjamin, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
37 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Benjamin, were thirty and five thousand and four hundred.


38 Of the children of Dan, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
39 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Dan, were threescore and two thousand and seven hundred.

40 Of the children of Asher, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
41 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Asher, were forty and one thousand and five hundred.

42 Of the children of Naphtali, throughout their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
43 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty and three thousand and four hundred.

So their growing into a 'multitude in the midst of the earth' was for a future time as there was nothing noteworthy about their population at this time
\.

Doesn't matter - nor is the scripture you gave dealing with anything on the actual history of where Eprhraim was already dominant in Israel and blessed - for others having times when they were prominent doesn't mean Ephraim was not in the majority position most of the time. It's hardly impressive when one skips scripture to make a point that goes past the obvious..

No one wishing to address the history of Ephraim selectively focuses in (in incompletion) with Numbers 1 alone as if that was the whole of the matter since that is not the whole Council of God ( Acts 20:27 ) - just as one doesn't start off studying the history of Dan by reading Numbers 3-4 and then making sweeping conclusions on the matter' in absolute terms as if more was not said. For to do so would be slothful exegesis of scripture.

Again, scripture has a context - and nothing you've done thus far really deals with it accurately. There was never a view that growth was for "future" - nor (as goes the assumption) that it had to do with OUR times.

British Israelism isn't theology, it's history. And it's waaaay too good not to be true mostly.

Wrong -as any system of thought attempting to say that scriptures supports a viewpoint is a system of theology - and British Israelism is just that...as well as wrong on multiple points and with too much off base with it to defend credibly, lest one already has an assumption that they WANT to be true rather than letting the scriptures be true on what they noted and how the Hebrew culture handled things.

British Israelism will always be a debunked and racist ideology - and there's no need trying to defend it when it is too baseless to take seriously

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Show me the scriptures that lay conditions on these prophecies. Please be brief..a tendency to 'flood the zone' with more material than is necessary. I have to 'mine' your posts to find the errors

When you actually deal with the scriptures already given on the issue and show from scripture where conditions were NOT in place. ..then one can talk. The issue was already covered earlier when another shared on the issue you disagree with (as seen in #52 ).

As it is, "necessary" is always a subjective matter - for whereas others have no issue addressing something for what it is, whenever there is reason one doesn't want to tackle it, any reason will do for why something is "more material than is necessary" rather than addressment of the fact that it's really not a universal as much as a matter of it not being what one is able to handle in their own ability. People are at differing levels and some have higher capacity to handle swiftly/quickly what others may take awhile on - and as it is, there has already been brief dealing with things and that is problematic when that much is side-stepped.

If you're going to be here, please stick to the topic/address scripture as it is - for thus far, you've given no scripture on multiple points and made assumptions as if they were already proven and expect others to take that seriously (circular logic) - as well as avoiding where there were already scriptures addressed on the issue of relationship NOT being unconditional lest universalism be promoted. When a couple of scriptures are given directly and one has to avoid that in order to say "Well, give me more scripture" - the bottom line is that actually reading through scripture/study is not the focus since those who want to do so deal with it/not complain.

No one is going to take that seriously if the Word of God is really the focus. And you have a tendency to avoid material where it is necessary in the same way one reads past the central issue in a text because they wanted a micro-wave answer for a subject which requires in-depth study or is intricate enough that giving pat answers/over-simplified responses doesn't really address the topic........and to do so is compounded with error when one then asks questions without doing basic research. This in addition o choosing to avoid scripture where it is easy - and several have noted that already before. If one is going to deal with the Word, they need to be ready to do so comprehensively and not make excuses for it, as flooding the zone with rambles that don't deal with scripture is never necessary and no one is going to go through all of that in order to address what God has already said in the Word. Either one makes it up as they go along - or they can deal with scripture point for point, precept upon precept ..and actually deal with the way it has been addressed historically rather than importing into the text anything they think.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is a conspiracy theory that the UN or the EU has anything to do with the End Times, fuels by nothing more than rematerialized premillennialism combined with American Nationalism.

Pretty much...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

House of Israel deals with the JEWISH people - and thus, as said before, it's a false distinction whenever one tries to avoid that simple reality (as the early body of believers well understood when it came to Israel NEVER being separate from the Jewish people). Anything else is making things up as one goes along - and Yeshua did his mission with the House of Israel when it came to witnessing to His own people.

When did the northern kingdom, the house of Israel, rejoin the house of Judah? In other words when did the two 'sticks' of Ezekiel become one stick?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When did the northern kingdom, the house of Israel, rejoin the house of Judah? In other words when did the two 'sticks' of Ezekiel become one stick?

Avoiding the issue on your part - as nothing said there (again) deals remotely with showing where Israel was NOT the Hebrew/Jewish people. Another false distinction others often make is trying to pit Israel against Judah - as opposed to understanding where they were already united.

Historically, when the people of Israel went into idolatry in the extreme (Ephraim leading the way), Judah later experienced people coming into their land for refuge and one king (Josiah) even went into the Northern Kingdom and sought to clean it up---as seen in 2 Kings 23:18-20

2 Chronicles 34:33
Josiah removed all the detestable idols from all the territory belonging to the Israelites, and he had all who were present in Israel serve the LORD their God. As long as he lived, they did not fail to follow the LORD, the God of their ancestors.
2 Chronicles 34:32-33

2 Chronicles 35:18
The Passover had not been observed like this in Israel since the days of the prophet Samuel; and none of the kings of Israel had ever celebrated such a Passover as did Josiah, with the priests, the Levites and all Judah and Israel who were there with the people of Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 35:17-19
​

Although there was enmity between the Israelites and Judeans, there was a time of reconciliation during the days of Josiah, king of Judah. The Israelites who were left behind in Samaria were allowed to join together with the Judeans in the celebration of Passover. (II Chr. 35:17-19). The fact that they were present also deals with the reality of how the 10 tribes that were messed with by Assyria were not "lost" (as many claim)--but simply scattered. On II Chronicles 34:3-9

2 Chronicles 34:3-9
3 In the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, he began to seek the God of his father David. In his twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of high places, Asherah poles and idols. 4 Under his direction the altars of the Baals were torn down; he cut to pieces the incense altars that were above them, and smashed the Asherah poles and the idols. These he broke to pieces and scattered over the graves of those who had sacrificed to them. 5 He burned the bones of the priests on their altars, and so he purged Judah and Jerusalem. 6 In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, and in the ruins around them, 7 he tore down the altars and the Asherah poles and crushed the idols to powder and cut to pieces all the incense altars throughout Israel. Then he went back to Jerusalem.

8 In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the temple of the LORD his God.

9 They went to Hilkiah the high priest and gave him the money that had been brought into the temple of God, which the Levites who were the gatekeepers had collected from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim and the entire remnant of Israel and from all the people of Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

​

According to the text, the Chronicler identifies the Levites as collectors of the temple contibution and includes both the Northern and Southern tribes amongst the contributers. Additionally, because Assyria's power was rapidly deteriorating, Josiah's reforms, as in the book of II Kings, extended into the Northern Kingdom. Josiah's territory in Chronicles nearly equaled that of David and Solomon---from Simeon to Naphtali. As it stands, it would make no sense for God to take away those of the other 10 tribes who were faithful in serving the Lord INTO Exile/out of the prescence of Judah when a remnant was faithful to the Lord while their own nations were seeking to serve him.

It never says at any point that those within Judah from other tribes were ever exiled alongside the rest of the nation of Israel/Northern Kingdom.

On the EXILE of the Northern Kingdom referenced in Jeremiah 7:15 ("I will cast you out of my sight, just as I cast out all of your kinsfolk, the Offspring of Ephraim"), the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians in the eight century BCE. had already occurred WAY before King Josiah had appeared on the scene....be it in II Chronicles 34:8-9 or any other time of the reign of Josiah. Chronologically, this can be seen since the exile of the Northern Kingdom occurred in II Kings 17 whereas Josiah's reforms happened much later in the life of Judah--after the reigns of his great-grandfather (Hezekiah in II Kings 18-20, II Chronicles 29-32) and grand-father (Manasseah in II Kings 21, II Chronicles 33).


For some good review on why it's not logically consistent according to many to claim all of Israel (as in EVERY Israelite inhabitant) was taken away by Assyria and why many were considered "Jews" just as others were who came from Judah, one can go to the following:

• Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'The Lost Sheep of
• The Assyrian Invasions and Deportations of Israel, by J. Llewellyn ...

Apart from that, there's alot of scriptural reference in the NT showing how all within Israel who remained alongside Judah were called "Jews" and there was unity. Paul already mentioned in Acts 26:7 that the 12 tribes were present when speaking about all of them hoping in the promises of God. James also wrote his letter to the 12 tribes, as seen in James 1:1..and the dispersed do show up in scripture as not being lost as a whole. For the New Testament mentions Anna from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36-37). They were scattered, as it concerns the 10 Lost Tribes, but not destroyed and removed without a trace.



As Messianic Jew, Dr.Brown said best (for a brief excerpt):

What happened to the tribes of the kingdom of Israel? (1) Some of the people remained in Samaria and became known as the Samaritans. They consider themselves to be true Israelites, but other Jews, especially in ancient times, have considered them to be half-breeds. (2) Some of the people may have made their way to Judah and became incorporated into the larger “Jewish” population (see especially 2 Chronicles 34:3-9, which indicates that a remnant of the ten northern tribes remained intact after the Assyrian exile). This is reflected in New Testament references that speak of “the twelve tribes of Israel” (see Acts 26:7; James 1:1), indicating that this was the conscious understanding of the Jews in New Testament times, namely that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel and not just Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Note also that the twelve tribes of Israel remain part of God’s future plans (see, e.g., Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). (3) Some of the people became completely assimilated into the nations where they were scattered and have become lost to history (but not to myth!). (4) Some may have actually retained their Israelite-Jewish origins, retaining their ancient traditions and continuing to preserve a conscious identification as Israelites or Jews. Among these would be groups such as the Ethiopian Jews.
​

__________________

There have been other threads which have sought to address the issue - including the ways that others are connected to Israel such as Samaritans and the ways the tribes were never truly "lost" as many assume (more discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's the problem with that whole idea...

God's people COLLECTIVELY (meaning all Christians), are to consider themselves as "aliens and strangers in the world"...wherever we live in the world.

The church has replaced Israel as God's light to the world.

When Jesus gave the beatidues, He was addressing Israel and He told them "You are the light of the world". Now fast forward. Christ has been raised and ascended to the Father, and the church is in full swing. Paul then tells us that we Christians are lights in Phillipians 2:14-16:
14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.

Peter then tells us we are a "holy nation and a royal priesthood". Therefore, there is no one nation God is using. He's using His people in all these nations collectively.

God has not rejected them (the Hebrews/Israel) , because they can join the Church (Jewish believers trusting in the Lord)....Church being the Israel of God, owing all to the Jews for bringing the Law, Prophets, and the Messiah. there is only one Israel, and it is God's people.

God has not ever dumped anyone. He called certain Gentiles to salvation even before the Messiah came. And that's something numerous Jewish evangelists for the Gospel have said for a long time - that God has not cast Israel off because he wants them all to be saved, yet he has made plain that those who follow him are truly His Israel..not just those who are Israel in the Flesh. And everything that Paul said later in Romans 11 about all Israel being saved was in a CONTEXT since he wrote LETTERS and not simple paragraphs divorced from one another. Before Romans 11, his pressuposition was the following:

Romans 9:9

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose

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.”[a] 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. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”[b]

...............
Romans 10:1

Israel Needs the Gospel

10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”[b] 6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’”[d] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”[e] (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
​

__________________

​

As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Church is new. In the New Covenant Scriptures, the first mention of the Church is found in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus spoke of building His Church. Thus, the Church is a new undertaking, specifically because it is the Messiah's congregation that He would build on the basis of His atoning death and resurrection. Like Moses who brought the ekklesia (the Israelites) out of Egypt physically, the Messiah would bring His ekklesia out of the world spiritually, to form a spiritual assembly that included both Jews and Gentiles.

The Church is also new regarding the New Covenant's promise of the indwelling Spirit (Ezekiel 36:24-26; Jeremiah 31:31-33). ..........But the Church is not new. The Church is not new because it is simply remnant Israel. Some people claim that Paul's olive tree is the Church, others claim it is Israel.
.....Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers are no longer "excluded from citizenship in Israel" and no longer "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" (Ephesians 2:12). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers "are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19). These truths would make no sense if the Church were a totally new enterprise, completely separate from or replacing remnant Israel.

​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When you actually deal with the scriptures already given on the issue and show from scripture where conditions were NOT in place. ..then one can talk. The issue was already covered earlier when another shared on the issue you disagree with (as seen in #52 ).

As it is, "necessary" is always a subjective matter - for whereas others have no issue addressing something for what it is, whenever there is reason one doesn't want to tackle it, any reason will do for why something is "more material than is necessary" rather than addressment of the fact that it's really not a universal as much as a matter of it not being what one is able to handle in their own ability. People are at differing levels and some have higher capacity to handle swiftly/quickly what others may take awhile on - and as it is, there has already been brief dealing with things and that is problematic when that much is side-stepped.

If you're going to be here, please stick to the topic/address scripture as it is - for thus far, you've given no scripture on multiple points and made assumptions as if they were already proven and expect others to take that seriously (circular logic) - as well as avoiding where there were already scriptures addressed on the issue of relationship NOT being unconditional lest universalism be promoted. When a couple of scriptures are given directly and one has to avoid that in order to say "Well, give me more scripture" - the bottom line is that actually reading through scripture/study is not the focus since those who want to do so deal with it/not complain.

No one is going to take that seriously if the Word of God is really the focus. And you have a tendency to avoid material where it is necessary in the same way one reads past the central issue in a text because they wanted a micro-wave answer for a subject which requires in-depth study or is intricate enough that giving pat answers/over-simplified responses doesn't really address the topic........and to do so is compounded with error when one then asks questions without doing basic research. This in addition o choosing to avoid scripture where it is easy - and several have noted that already before. If one is going to deal with the Word, they need to be ready to do so comprehensively and not make excuses for it, as flooding the zone with rambles that don't deal with scripture is never necessary and no one is going to go through all of that in order to address what God has already said in the Word. Either one makes it up as they go along - or they can deal with scripture point for point, precept upon precept ..and actually deal with the way it has been addressed historically rather than importing into the text anything they think.

You could have used this post to show me the scriptures that place conditions on the aforementioned prophecies.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You could have used this post to show me the scriptures that place conditions on the aforementioned prophecies.

Scripture was already given - as others have also shared ( #52 - and later here in #72 ). You could've addressed it in the aforementioned post rather than finding reasons to not do so and try claiming it hasn't been given.

As said before, no one is going to take anything seriously that is within the realm of avoiding scripture/claiming it was not given out and asking for it again as if people have to do the homework others should do - and if serious addressment of the Word is the goal, then the Word will be addressed when given (including in reference). It is what it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scripture was already given - as others have also shared ( #52 - and later here in #72 ). You could've addressed it in the aforementioned post rather than finding reasons to not do so and try claiming it hasn't been given.

As said before, no one is going to take anything seriously that is within the realm of avoiding scripture/claiming it was not given out and asking for it again as if people have to do the homework others should do - and if serious addressment of the Word is the goal, then the Word will be addressed when given (including in reference). It is what it is.

I gave you the prophetic scriptures.

I said they were unconditional.

You said they were conditional.

I asked for the scriptures that prove that they were conditional, because I cannot find those conditions.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Of the world's Jewish population how many do you think are in the church? The church is not composed of Jews, but it is composed of Israelites (and others of course), of the house of Israel. The house of Judah, the worldwide population of Jews, is not part of the Christian church. Did Christ fail, or did he succeed in calling his 'other' sheep.

Wrong - seeing the amount of Jewish believers in the Church is extensive - for anyone remotely aware of the history of Jewish believers in the Body of Christ and Messianic Jews today. There are an estimated 175,000 to 250,000 Messianic Jews in the U.S. and 350,000 worldwide, according to various counts...although they are a tiny minority in Israel -- just 10,000-20,000 people by some estimates -- but growing, according to both its proponents and critics. The Church has always been Jew and Gentile - all of whom are God's Israel, the Israel of God. Judah was never solely connected to the Jews and that's a basic error often promoted by others who advance British Israelism - and as said before, it is a racist ideology/anti-semetic whenever others try to say that Jews are not part of the Christian Church.

Yeshua succeeded in his mission to win His bride and it has been beautiful since He established the early church centuries ago - and people fail in understanding that when they avoid/miss where he already went after His lost sheep, in addition to Gentiles.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I gave you the prophetic scriptures.

I said they were unconditional.
.

Wrong - as you gave scripture SELECTIVELY without dealing with the context and addressing the other scriptures others already brought up that handle the issue....in addition to addressing where you already took scripture outside of its historical background to say what it NEVER said since God never made all promises to Israel as being unconditional.

That is never a matter of dealing with scripture...

You said they were conditional.

I asked for the scriptures that prove that they were conditional, because I cannot find those conditions.

As said before, reference was already given in addition to scripture earlier in #52 - and later here in #72 (and for discussion for other places further back where discussion occurred, one can go to #267/#50 /#56 /#57, #37 ,#39 #44 #60 #64 ).

Romans 9:8
In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Romans 9:6–12
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel​

Information is present plainly for anyone wishing to address it...and No one is going to do your homework for you if avoiding the scripture already noted earlier when it comes to the addressment of scriptures pertaining to a conditional reality...for that's avoiding doing what's basic if really serious about the Word. It doesn't take much to go back/investigate a reference as others (including myself) do so all the time - and the same applies here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The British/Israel theology is a ruse

Herbert W. Armstrong and his earlier mentors were totally off course with their theology and there are still splinter groups who hold to his teachings today

Alot of what Hebert W noted was addressed later by members of the church...one of the most notable being how the use of medicine and doctors was discouraged because members were expected to place their faith in God for healing...and another being on long hair not being allowed for men, nor piercings.


Herbert Amstrong said many good things in line with scripture and yet was one who was often checked publically repeatedly for making claims he said were based on the Bible and yet many of them were far from what scripture even noted. ..with these theological doctrines and teachings referred to as Armstrongism....especially as it concerns his teachings of biblical prophecy in light of British Israelism ( discussed here). For that is a racist ideology toward Jewish believers in Christ, often confused for being Messianic) or other things. And to be clear, concerning how Armstrong taught a form of British Israelism, British Israelism is the belief that those of Western European descent, notably England (Ephraim) and the United States (Manasseh), are direct descendants of the ancient northern Kingdom of Israel. This theory is inconsistent with the findings of modern research on the genetic history of Jews..and has been discussed often, even though others holding to it may be in support of other things done by Messianics (i.e. Dietary Codes, Kosher, Celebrating Sabbath, etc). Grace Communion International, the lineal successor to Armstrong's original church, no longer teaches the doctrine, but many offshoot churches continue to teach it even though critics assert that British Israelism is inconsistent with the findings of modern genetics.

More on this has been shared on the boards before---as seen here and here and here. ..as well as explained by other solid MEssianic Ministries discussing the variations within what's known as "Two-House" and how it can easily be corrupted if not knowing the difference between Gentiles being apart of the Messianic Movement and British Israelism. For more, one can consider J.K McKee of TNN Online..as seen here:

• Ephraimite Error Critical Errors
• Anti-Semitism in the Two-House Movement - TNN Online

The fact that Armstrong was not for Birracial marriages and Interracial marriage was also discouraged as Armstrong emphasized requirements for Ancient Israelites (who, according to British Israelism, became Western Europeans) to remain racially and religiously separate from other nations....that is something that should be enough of a warning for one to be cautious when considering what the man has to say.


For more on that:

• Anglo/British Israelism Herbert W. Armstrong REFUTED!
• "How Anglo-Israelism Entered Seventh-day Churches of God: A history of the doctrine from John Wilson to Joseph W. Tkach
• "The United States and Britain in Prophecy: An Analysis of the Biblical Evidence

And for more on others who were impacted negatively by Armstrong:

• Herbert W. Armstrong inappropriate contentographer » The Painful Truth Blog
• The Painful Truth: A collection of Facts, Opinions and Comments from survivors of Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, The Worldwide Church of God and its Daughters". Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God.
• Exit and Support Network: Aiding those spiritually abused by Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God and all affiliated high demand offshoots". Exit and Support Network

I'm still bothered by the sexual advances Garner Ted Armstrong made on a woman during a massage before he was asked to step down..
__________________

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wrong - as you gave scripture SELECTIVELY without dealing with the context and addressing the other scriptures others already brought up that handle the issue....in addition to addressing where you already took scripture outside of its historical background to say what it NEVER said since God never made all promises to Israel as being unconditional.

That is never a matter of dealing with scripture...

As said before, reference was already given in addition to scripture earlier in #52 - and later here in #72 . No one is going to do your homework for you if avoiding the scripture already noted earlier when it comes to the addressment of scriptures pertaining to a conditional reality...for that's avoiding doing what's basic if really serious about the Word. It doesn't take much to go back/investigate a reference as others (including myself) do so all the time - and the same applies here.

If I recited one of the ten commandments would you insist that I recite all ten in order to place it in context? I expect you to know what I'm talking about when I mention a scripture. If you know the bible you know the proper context. You shouldn't have to recite the whole bible every time you want to make a point.

The prophecies concerning the future fate of the children of Israel were unconditional. There is nothing in scripture that says otherwise. History backs this up. In Genesis 49 Jacob told Judah that the sceptre would remain with him until Shiloh/Christ came. This happened right on schedule. When the temple and the Levitical priesthood were destroyed the 'lawgiver' ceased from between the feet of Judah and was conferred to the priesthood of Christ.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If I recited one of the ten commandments would you insist that I recite all ten in order to place it in context? I expect you to know what I'm talking about when I mention a scripture. .If you know the bible you know the proper context. You shouldn't have to recite the whole bible every time you want to make a point.

Thus far, by your logic, you've already failed to actually live that out since there are dozens of scriptures others have already brought up (due to serious study) that are expected to be known amongst others really reading the Word - and you've avoided most of them while still asking for more.

And this goes for the basics when one is given and one doesn't address it. ..making your argument a moot one. Ultimately, the context is already one where scripture was given and one refuses to deal with it either in context - or comprehensively by addressing the scriptures in their totality. For anyone can take a verse and make an entire theology on it without actually dealing with harmonizing scripture with scripture/seeing what the background originally was. Happens all the time...and Seriously, either one wants to address scripture (and the OP) or one doesn't really belong in the thread. Simple as that.

The prophecies concerning the future fate of the children of Israel were unconditional. There is nothing in scripture that says otherwise. History backs this up. In Genesis 49 Jacob told Judah that the sceptre would remain with him until Shiloh/Christ came. This happened right on schedule. When the temple and the Levitical priesthood were destroyed the 'lawgiver' ceased from between the feet of Judah and was conferred to the priesthood of Christ

And as said before, you're making it up as you go along since scripture NEVER said anything close to that when it came to promises being unconditional. There's nothing in the scripture or supported by how the early Jewish believers felt with other non-believing Jews that all promises to Israel were ever unconditional - and one reinvents history everytime they try to speak past that basic reality.

That happens often whenever there's advocacy for British Israelism since the entire system is based off of making scripture say what one wants it to say rather than seeing what it actually said. And one does not deal with scripture via selective argumentation - or ignoring where scripture directly contradicts a claim one makes in order to make their argument.


On Genesis 49:10

Genesis 49:8
Judah,[b] your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your father’s sons will bow down to you.
9 You are a lion’s cub, Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?
10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,[c]
until he to whom it belongs[d] shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.
11 He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk.[e]
​

There's no dealing with Genesis 49 outside of dealing with the REST of scripture plainly which gives it clarity - and as Christ ALREADY rules, things were fulfilled. The Law was NEVER destroyed when Christ came and he will always have supremacy. He also NEVER CEASED being representative of Judah when dealing with the whole of scripture - making the argument a false one when trying to claim that anything of the scepter leaving means Judah no longer has prominence.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+2:6&version=NIV

Matthew 2:6
“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Matthew 2:5-7 (

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+2:6&version=NIVhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+2:6&version=NIV

​

Hebrews 7:14
For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

​

Revelation 5:5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Revelation 5:4-6
​

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7:14&version=NIV​

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7:14&version=NIV​

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7:14&version=NIV
​

For basic commentary on the issue on Genesis 49:10:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
sceptre," the staff of authority. "Shall not depart from Judah." The tribe scepter did not leave Judah so long as there was a remnant of the commonwealth of Israel. Long after the other tribes had lost their individuality, Judah lingered in existence and in some measure of independence; and from the return his name supplanted that of Israel or Jacob, as the common designation of the people. "Nor the lawgiven from between his feet." This is otherwise rendered, "nor the judicial staff from between his feet;" and it is argued that this rendering corresponds best with the phrase "between his feet" and with the parallel clause which precedes. It is not worth while contending for one against the other, as the meaning of both is precisely the same. But we have retained the English version, as the term מחקק mechoqēq has only one clear meaning; "between the feet" may mean among his descendants or in his tribe; and the synthetic parallelism of the clauses is satisfied by the identity of meaning.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,.... Which some understand of the tribe, that Judah should not cease from being a tribe, or that it should continue a distinct tribe until the coming of the Messiah, who was to be of it, and was, and that it might appear he sprung from it; but this was not peculiar to this tribe, for the tribe of Benjamin continued, and so did the tribe of Levi unto the coming of Christ: besides, by Judah is meant the tribe, and to say a tribe shall not depart from the tribe, is not only a tautology, but scarcely sense; it rather signifies dominion, power, and authority, as the sceptre always does, it being an emblem of it, see Numbers 24:17 and this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe, which commenced as soon as it became a tribe, and lasted as long as it remained one, even unto the times of the Messiah; or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of, and which first commenced in David, who was of the tribe of Judah, and continued unto the Babylonish captivity, when another sort of governors and government took place, designed in the next clause....
​