jerry kelso
Food For Thought
Do you mean "Mitzvah"?
yeshuahaderekh,
1. Yes, sorry, I had to hurry to work from break time. Jerry kelso
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you mean "Mitzvah"?
Supersessionism is the idea that physical Israel is no longer Israel; that the Church is now Israel.
- God is done with them, they are abandoned.
- The Jews are now cursed as a people.
- They no longer have any promises -- all their promises are now promises of the Church.
There is no question that there are Christians today who hold these views who are not antisemite. There are Christians today who are opposed to the Jewish State of Israel who are not antisemite. The question is not whether Supersessionism always produces antisemitism, but rather if it is nevertheless a causative agent.
There is absolutely no question that this sort of teaching, that God is done with Israel, that its promises no longer exist, that it is a cursed people, opened the door for horrific antisemitism in the Church.
Yes, I fully accept the book of Hebrews which declares the Mosaic Covenant inferior to the New Covenant.
However, it never says that
- The church is now Israel.
- That God is done with Israel
- The Jews are now cursed
- They no longer have the promises -- all the promises now belong to the Church.
Until you read Hebrews 8:6-10
bobryan,
1. There's no scripture that says the body of Christ as the church today is physical Israel
Romans 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 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.
Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Heb 8
8“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
Like many other Christians on this board -- I am a New Covenant Christian. But not a physical Jew.
bobryan,
1. There's no scripture that says the body of Christ as the church today is physical Israel
bobryan,
1. A New Covenant Christian? That wasn't the point
. That is why a gentile Christian can be called a spiritual Jew. It is in the context of salvation.
Jesus even taught it at the end of the Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:5; Blessed are the meek for they shall "INHERIT THE EARTH".
Today the nation is backslidden and has not entered into the New Covenant Hebrews 8:6-13
Of course you are not a physical Jew otherwise you would understand the KoH and the KoG message is was and is and will be an eternal reign
Romans 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 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.
Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Heb 8
8“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
Like many other Christians on this board -- I am a New Covenant Christian. But not a physical Jew.
On the contrary - that was exactly the point in my post because it addresses the issue of all Christians under the New Covenant being called "the house of Israel" and the "House of Judah".
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
Indeed and the Hebrews 8 statement is an exact quote of the same point being made in Jeremiah 31:31-33.
And in the NEW Earth of Revelation 21 - "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND Come before Me to worship".
For all eternity - the saints inherit the earth -- after the 1000 year millennium - at the point of Revelation 21. But more specifically they are "Israel" and in Romans 2 "Jews".
Romans 2 does not say 'some day in the future' it says that it is already the case.
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.
True but Christians are under the New Covenant.
Romans 2 does not say 'someday this will be true' - Romans 2 says it is already true.
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.
Same for Romans 9
Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
The Hebrews 8 NEW Covenant Christian does not wait to become a New Covenant Christian - but is already one and already is called "Israel".
Then I suppose that Arthur Koestler, an Ashkenazim Jew, is an anti-semite and anti-zionist for writing the "13th Tribe" in 1975 detailing with Arabic, Russian, Byzantium and Jewish sources the narrative of Khazaria.
I'm afraid not. The posts in question were bad enough that there was really nothing for me to reply to. You can quote scriptures galore, but if they are a part are posts that are not rational, then they are just random scriptures.Nonsensical? That is ridiculous!
I am very methodical and logical in my thinking.
Thank you for this. I get sick of people bringing up the same old Khazar myth when Science has obliterated it.
open heart,
1. I was only talking about one person's will who then decides to make another will and does away with the first one. Why? The second one is new and different.
There are people who draw up a will with someone being a beneficiary and could be replaced and have more changes of more or different information and draw up a new will and the Old will is nullified and void.
What is so illogical of that example?
2. Your scenario was two different contracts with two different parties that had no connection to each other except they both live in Dodge City. I have no disagreement with that but it doesn't fit or address what I was talking about and I find that as not being perceptive in proper understanding of what I said and is on the fringe of being illogical because it was either truly misunderstood or deliberate as in spinning or being confused or whatever and probably only and God would know. Jerry kelso
It was probably a typo. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.Do you mean "Mitzvah"?