Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Guojing]

Well, if we're talking about the Holy Spirit as the source and not the Bible, or the Holy Spirit plus the Bible, then again, that's what pretty much everyone thinks here.

Kind of like I heard a study once where 95% of drivers will rank themselves in the top 5% of drivers

And that's why I'm thankful for discussion forums like this

As I have said, some people view truth in a very egocentric manner. =)

 

[Guojing]

And they don't believe that the Law is Spiritual, and that a Jew is not one outwardly, but of the heart, and that Circumcision is not of the flesh, but of the heart.

The rebellious Jews certainly didn't believe Paul. You don't seem to believe him either, but I do. And that is our disagreement.

I believed Paul that a true Jew is a Jew that is circumcised in the heart, and that comes when they believed that Christ was their Messiah.

What I am disagreeing with you is that, we gentiles in the Body of Christ are considered "True Jews". Paul does not imply that when he stated Philippians 3:3.

I hope you can recognize the difference between the 2 bolded statements.

The latter statement is replacement theology. Do you subscribe to that?

 

[Gary K]

I believed Paul that a true Jew is a Jew that is circumcised in the heart, and that comes when they believed that Christ was their Messiah.

What I am disagreeing with you is that, we gentiles in the Body of Christ are considered "True Jews". Paul does not imply that when he stated Philippians 3:3.

I hope you can recognize the difference between the 2 bolded statements.

The latter statement is replacement theology. Do you subscribe to that?

I see you are still ignoring the fact that Paul is speaking to worshiping God in the Spirit. Which he, the Gentiles. and the Jewish Christians did.

 

[Guojing]

I see you are still ignoring the fact that Paul is speaking to worshiping God in the Spirit. Which he, the Gentiles. and the Jewish Christians did.

Do you understand the difference between the 2 statements, in the post you quoted?

 

[Gary K]

Do you understand the difference between the 2 statements, in the post you quoted?

There is no difference.

Rom_10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is nothing in the Bible that says anyone is a "true Jew".

 

[Guojing]

There is no difference.

If you think there is no difference, would you agree you believe in replacement theology?

 

[Gary K]

If you think there is no difference, would you agree you believe in replacement theology?

Yes, in a way. I believe Jews can still be saved as individuals, just like we Gentiles. I'm definitely not a dispensationalist. I don't think that is taught anywhere in the Bible. It must be read onto it

 

[Guojing]

Yes, in a way. I believe Jews can still be saved as individuals, just like we Gentiles. I'm definitely not a dispensationalist. I don't think that is taught anywhere in the Bible. It must be read onto it

Replacement theology is not "I believe Jews can still be saved as individuals, just like we Gentiles"

But thanks for confirming.

 

[Studyman]

Look, does it make sense if I go to a gathering of ladies and tell them "Do not put confidence in your penises, if anyone has any confidence in their penises, I have the most in mine"?

You get my point now?

The ladies will go "Duhhh, we don't have them anyway, so why do you even think we will have confidence in something that is non-existent"?

Nevertheless, I am confronting your written statements "As for the 2nd question, for me, the nation of Israel is of the physical circumcised Jews, the 12 tribes of Israel, so it will not include us in the Body of Christ.

You obviously have confidence in the Flesh that Paul used to have as a Pharisee, but learned of the Messiah that HIS Church is made up of men, regardless of the DNA they were born with, who worship God in the Spirit.

I posted where the Jews of Paul's Time, were requiring this same physical circumcision, in order to be saved.

Acts 15: 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And I also posted Paul's Words that you refused to examine and discuss;

Rom. 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision (Non-Jews who are not physically circumcised) keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

And I also posted Paul's words where he said that the God of Abraham didn't put the difference between Jews and Gentiles that you and the Pharisees promote.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

So to be clear, you are free in my view, to promote the religious philosophies of any of this world's preachers that you adopt, as do many others in the religious sects and franchises of this world.

Where the contention lies between us, is that you are cherry picking Paul's Words to promote your own religious philosophy, that he clearly doesn't promote, to justify your teaching.

I am obligated by scriptures, as an Israelite myself, to point this out.

 

[Studyman]

I believed Paul that a true Jew is a Jew that is circumcised in the heart, and that comes when they believed that Christ was their Messiah.

That is simply not what Paul says sir. "For he is "not a Jew", which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

He also said; "Therefore if the uncircumcision (Non-Jew) keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? This is the same thing Isaiah said in Chapter 56.

The Apostles of Christ also said "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

If a Gentile repents and joins himself to the Lord, did the God of Lights not say to consider them as one born among you? Did God not say HE would give them a name better than that of sons and daughters? Does Paul not say they are "Grafted into" to the Holy Root?

My issue with the religion you are promoting, is founded on the difference between what you preach, and what the scriptures actually say. Why do you place a difference between Jew and Gentile that God didn't place?

What I am disagreeing with you is that, we gentiles in the Body of Christ are considered "True Jews". Paul does not imply that when he stated Philippians 3:3.

Perhaps if you select this one sentence from Paul and separate it from all the other words of Paul, you might have a case. But why would I do that? For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Is this not also true for non-Jews throughout Biblical history?

Is. 56: 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

How is this an example of God placing the difference between physical circumcised Jews, and Non-Jews who sojourned with them, in the land of Promise?

My questions are relevant to the discussion, and yet you do not acknowledge them. Why not?

I hope you can recognize the difference between the 2 bolded statements.

I have posted the difference between what you teach, and what the apostles of Christ teaches, including Paul.

Why not just say "I don't believe much of what and the Prophets and Paul teaches about Jews and Non-Jews"?

The latter statement is replacement theology. Do you subscribe to that?

There are many theologies of this world. This is just one of those many. For me, I trust the Scriptures "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:".

I do thank you for the discussion though. I have found that digging into scriptures seeking to understand them is better than simply using a sentence here and there, to justify a religious philosophy.

I hope you might consider the Scriptures posted and what they actually say and be renewed in the spirit of your mind.

 

[Guojing]

I am obligated by scriptures, as an Israelite myself, to point this out.

When you claim you are an Israelite, what exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Guojing]

There are many theologies of this world. This is just one of those many. For me, I trust the Scriptures "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:".

Is this a yes or no to my question about whether you subscribe to replacement theology? No one can read your mind.

 

[Guojing]

I have posted the difference between what you teach, and what the apostles of Christ teaches, including Paul.

Why not just say "I don't believe much of what and the Prophets and Paul teaches about Jews and Non-Jews"?

You are falling into the same egocentric bias that Gary K is displaying.

The correct way of phrasing the above 2 sentences, to avoid that, is this

I have posted the difference between what you teach, and what I interpret the apostles of Christ teaches, including Paul.

Why not just say "I don't agree with much of what you interpret the Prophets and Paul teaches about Jews and Non-Jews"?

You realized when you phrase it like that, the answer to your question becomes obvious? =)

 

[Doran]

Do you not believe the words of Jesus? If they did not understand scripture how could He call them hypocrites. as He was not a liar?

I love your low hanging fruit. So delicious<g>.

HOW he could do that is because they were self-righteous and self-deceived. They deceived themselves into believing they understood the Law. But how could they!? No one can see (understand) the things of God, including the gospel of the kingdom, lest he be born again (Jn 3:3). Plus have you never read:

John 9:41
41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would NOT be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains?
NIV

Therefore, their self-righteousness and their self-induced self-deception are how Jesus could call them hypocrites. And this interpretation doesn't contradict the Rom 3 passage I quoted earlier, whereas your interpretation does!

 

[Doran]

It seems prudent to at least acknowledge and hopefully accept what Paul actually teaches in Romans pertaining to Jews and Gentiles. And also what Paul himself said the Christ instructed him to preach in a "heavenly vision" in Acts. 26: 19, 20.

Romans 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, ( The "You" here would be Jews "Outwardly", Yes?) as it is written.

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, (Born a Non-Jew according to DNA) if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So then, men who keep the Laws of God, like Abraham, are Spiritual Jews, just as if they were born among the people, Like Moses said in Lev. 19.

You err and do not know the scriptures. The [spiritual] sons and daughters of Abraham are those who have his kind of FAITH (Rom 4:11, 16).

 

[Gary K]

You err and do not know the scriptures. The [spiritual] sons and daughters of Abraham are those who have his kind of FAITH (Rom 4:11, 16).

And Abraham's faith caused him to travel to Mount Moriah to offer his one and only promised son as a sacrifice. That was hard work both physically and emotionally. I doubt he slept at night on his journey there. Would you, could you, do that to obey God? I find it interesting that you mock those who set aside the 7th day of the week as "legalists" when Abraham did something much, much harder to earn the praise of God as "father of the faithful". Seems to me God has a much different definition of legalist than you do.

 

[Studyman]

You err and do not know the scriptures. The [spiritual] sons and daughters of Abraham are those who have his kind of FAITH (Rom 4:11, 16).

Rom. 4: 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Jesus said Abraham's Children, were those who do the "works" of Abraham. Abraham didn't follow the religions of this world or their religious philosophies you promote. He obeyed God. So then, if I believe in the Jesus, "Of the Bible", I will know that the Faith taught by Scriptures, that Abraham had, was not following manmade religious traditions and doctrines of one or more of the "many" religious sects and businesses "who come in Christ's Name", rather, the faith promoted by the Holy Scriptures that Abraham "WALKED IN" is belief in God to the point of denying the religions of your Fathers, and "Yielding yourself" a servant to obey God.

Like Paul also teaches.

Rom. 6: 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

And again;

Eph. 2: 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Like father Abraham.

I don't ERR in scriptures regarding this topic. We disagree because you only accept, examine and consider a few words from Paul and Jesus and the Inspired Word of God, for the purpose of self-justification. Whereas those who are interested in Biblical Truth, consider "ALL" that is Written, like Paul did, because we believe God's instructions were written "For our sakes no doubt."

 

[Studyman]

Is this a yes or no to my question about whether you subscribe to replacement theology? No one can read your mind.

I don't believe in this world's religious philosophies, some of which you are promoting. One of this world's religious philosophies, promoted by various religious sects of this world is "Replacement Theology". So no, I don't believe in "Replacement Theology", OSAS, or that God treats people according to the DNA they were born with, which is just another version of Calvins "Predestination Theology", only for Jews.

You don't have to read my mind to understand me, but it would help you understand my points, if you actually read my posts and acknowledged the Scriptures posted therein.

 

[Studyman]

You are falling into the same egocentric bias that Gary K is displaying.

The correct way of phrasing the above 2 sentences, to avoid that, is this

You realized when you phrase it like that, the answer to your question becomes obvious? =)

Another point that you are not addressing, is that there is a vast difference between "Interpreting Scriptures" differently and "ignoring them" completely.

For instance, I posted the Scriptures below, and you didn't "interpret it differently". You simply didn't acknowledge their existence.

Acts 15: 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us (Faithful Jews) and them, (Faithful Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith.

For me, this aligns with the Same Spirit inspired Scriptures I also posted, that you completely ignored as well.

Is. 56: 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

So this also aligns, in my view, with the Laws God gave to Moses.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

So there are many more Scriptures which align with the words of the Apostles concerning how God regarding Non-Jews who turned to Him, "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

You offered no opposing "Interpretation" of your own through Scriptures, rather, you ignored what was actually written, and posted the views of one of this world's preachers whose views you have adopted.

So our disagreement is not founded in our difference of interpretation of Scriptures, in my explained view. Our disagreement is the result of believing what is written, or not believing what is written.

 

[Studyman]

When you claim you are an Israelite, what exactly do you mean by that?

My beliefs are molded by what is written in the Holy Scriptures, both Moses and the Prophets, and the testimony of the Lord's Christ.

So to explain my "claim" would include posting Scriptures, many of which I have already posted for your review and examination, and you have already refused to acknowledge and/or discuss them.

Rom. 2: 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And when in Biblical history was this not true according to what is written?