Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Guojing]

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.

If you don't subscribe to that, why do you still call yourself an Israelite?

 

[Guojing]

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.

Just because you disagree with my interpretation does not mean none was offered.

 

[Studyman]

If you don't subscribe to that, why do you still call yourself an Israelite?

I posted several times, Scriptures which define for me what an "Israelite" is, according to Scriptures. You ignore them, just as you did here. Nevertheless, it isn't Christlike to repay wrong with wrong, so I will attempt once again, to address your question the only way I know how to do so. According to Scriptures that you have, in the past, ignored.

Eph. 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I believe in this ONE God, and His Church, the "ONE BODY" and His Baptism, "The Way of the Lord". Noah and Abraham were members of this Body. Abraham's Children were taught by Abraham to *****, well I'll post the Scriptures.

Gen. 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

So therefore, men who "Keep the Way of the Lord" are Abraham's Children, and members of this ONE BODY. The Yeshua "of the Bible" confirms this. " If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

The Rock of Israel taught the same thing. "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.

And according to Paul, "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"

So I don't believe the Scriptures teach that God's Church, or His Way, was "Replaced" at all. Rather, I believe what the Scriptures teach about the Law and Prophets, "Now these things were our (Church of God), examples, to the intent we (Circumcised of heart) should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted." and also why the things that happened to Israel, happened. "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our (Jew and Gentile in the Church of God) admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Why Gentiles too?

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 and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

And why did God put no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the Church of God the Apostles were addressing in Acts?

Rom. 2: 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 if you would answer Paul's question, instead of ignoring it, I think you might come to the same conclusion.

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

 

[Studyman]

Just because you disagree with my interpretation does not mean none was offered.

This is true. My "disagreement" with White and his philosophy you promote, doesn't mean you didn't offer your own interpretation.

It was your actual posts which exposed the truth that Scriptures were posted for your review and discussion, and you offered no interpretation.

 

[Guojing]

I posted several times, Scriptures which define for me what an "Israelite" is, according to Scriptures. You ignore them, just as you did here.

I am not ignoring them. I understand you have a particular way of interpreting those scripture, so while I disagree with how you interpret, I respect you have a right to hold them.

I am merely saying, if you consider yourself an Israelite now, and you interpret Paul as supporting your consideration, then by definition, you are subscribing to replacement theology.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

[Studyman]

I am not ignoring them. I understand you have a particular way of interpreting those scripture, so while I disagree with how you interpret, I respect you have a right to hold them.

LOL, It's Paul's interpretation of Circumcision and Jew that you disagree with here, not mine. It is his questions you refuse to address or acknowledge that I'm posting on this forum.

It's not a matter of "interpretation" it's a matter of "belief".

I am merely saying, if you consider yourself an Israelite now, and you interpret Paul as supporting your consideration, then by definition, you are subscribing to replacement theology.

It's not a matter of "Interpreting" Paul here. It's a matter of "believing" what he said, and answering the questions he asked.

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

It's a simple question. One either believes his interpretation, or he doesn't. Our disagreement is based on belief, not interpretation.


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.

The Pharisees were not rebuked or condemned because they "Interpreted" Moses and the Prophets or Jesus or Paul wrong. They were rebuked because they didn't "believe" Moses and the Prophets or Jesus or Paul. They were lost because although they had the Oracles of God, they didn't believe them.

I know this, not because I "Interpreted" Paul's or Jesus' Words, but because I "Believed" them.

Because I believe all that is written, I reject the man-made philosophy of "Replacement Theology". Because, as I have posted, there is ONE Body of Christ. And Noah and Abraham and Caleb and Joshua and Rehab and all examples of the faithful, partook of it. Were "Grafted" into it. No sir, the Jews were not broken off because they "mis-interpretated" God's Word, they were broken off because they didn't believe God's Word.

Rom. 11: 23 And they (Unbelieving Jews) also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in "again".

It isn't because we "interpret" Paul's words differently. It's because I believe them, and you don't. That is the foundation of our disagreement.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

If men stopped "interpretating" the Scriptures to justify the doctrines of one of the religious sects of this world they have adopted, and simply humbled themselves to "Believe" them, perhaps we might not have so much disagreement.

 

[Guojing]

LOL, It's Paul's interpretation of Circumcision and Jew that you disagree with here, not mine. It is his questions you refuse to address or acknowledge that I'm posting on this forum.

It's not a matter of "interpretation" it's a matter of "belief".

I suggest you read up on the term "Egocentric bias".

 

[Studyman]

I suggest you read up on the term "Egocentric bias".

I'm sure you have created a box to place everyone who doesn't agree with you in. It's much easier to just blow others off, than actually discussing what is written or openly discussing differences of perceptions. It is a common practice of this world's religious sects going back to the Pharisees who also refused to acknowledge the Scriptures Jesus showed them.

Nevertheless, it was a good discussion to have, and really opened up Paul's interpretation of the Law and Prophets regarding who God considers a Jew or what Circumcision is.

Our study group had a great discussion about what the Scriptures actually say regarding these issues.

Thanks for the opportunity to have such a discussion.

I'm sorry we couldn't come to terms on God's Inspired Words.

 

[Guojing]

I'm sorry we couldn't come to terms on God's Inspired Words.

That is because you insist your particular interpretation is what God actually says. =)

 

[Gary K]

That is because you insist your particular interpretation is what God actually says. =)

The only people who can agree with you are other dipensationalists.

 

[Guojing]

The only people who can agree with you are other dipensationalists.

That is fine with me, since I am only offering my particular interpretation.

 

[Studyman]

That is because you insist your particular interpretation is what God actually says. =)

No, that is not an accurate representation of our discourse. It is Paul's interpretation that you refuse to acknowledge or address. Which is fine, men have the right to avoid Scriptures. But it's not my interpretation that brings question to your religious philosophy, it is Paul's.

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

You are free to refuse to answer Paul's question here and also free to refuse to engage in honest discourse regarding his interpretation of the Law and Prophets here. But please don't blame your refusal to engage on me or my beliefs.

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?

Why not just answer Paul's questions? Or say you don't believe him. Or explain why you think he isn't saying what he appears to be saying? Why blame your refusal to engage, on me?

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.

The question is, do you agree with Paul's interpretation here? My beliefs are irrelevant to the questions posed.

 

[Guojing]

No, that is not an accurate representation of our discourse. It is Paul's interpretation that you refuse to acknowledge or address. Which is fine, men have the right to avoid Scriptures. But it's not my interpretation that brings question to your religious philosophy, it is Paul's.

You like to split hair.

Since almost every Christian believe that God is the author of the entire Bible, using various humans as his recorder, there is no difference between the 2.

 

[Guojing]

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

You are free to refuse to answer Paul's question here and also free to refuse to engage in honest discourse regarding his interpretation of the Law and Prophets here. But please don't blame your refusal to engage on me or my beliefs.

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?

Why not just answer Paul's questions? Or say you don't believe him. Or explain why you think he isn't saying what he appears to be saying? Why blame your refusal to engage, on me?

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.

The question is, do you agree with Paul's interpretation here? My beliefs are irrelevant to the questions posed.

In case you are wondering what could the "alternative interpretation be for these passages", Paul when he writes Romans 2 and 3, he is telling the Jews not to count on merely on their physical circumcision, to be right with God.

Physical circumcision counts only if they also keep the Law of Moses. When gentiles keep the Law of Moses, in God's eyes, they are equal to them.

Thus a true Jew, in God's eyes, is one that keeps the Law.

When Moses, their lawgiver, said God will raise a prophet like him, and they are to listen to him (Deuteronomy 18:15), if Jews reject Christ, they are rejecting Moses, and they are hence not keeping the Law of Moses (John 5:45).

Their physical circumcision counts as nothing because of that.

That is what I interpret Paul as implying in those passages.

I do not interpret, as you do, that Paul is saying we gentiles in the Body of Christ are now Israelites.

 

[Studyman]

You like to split hair.

Since almost every Christian believe that God is the author of the entire Bible, using various humans as his recorder, there is no difference between the 2.

Since I believe all of what the Scriptures teach, including what Paul teaches, and also that he was inspired by the Christ "of the Bible", then yes, my interpretation of who the true Children of Abraham are, and have always been, is Paul's interpretation and the Christ's as well. So in this respect you are right, there is no difference between my understanding of the Torah, and the Apostles and Paul's.

As His Apostles declared by the same Spirit. "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."

As it is also written in the Torah

Gen. 18: 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Are there religious sects of this world who "Profess that they know God", but don't believe Moses and the Prophets were inspired by Him? It appears so. Are there religious men who preach that God placed a difference between Abraham's Children who "keep the way of the LORD" and those members of his household that were not his children but who "keep the way of the LORD"?

No doubt there are. But it doesn't appear the God of Abraham did. "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."

 

[Studyman]

In case you are wondering what could the "alternative interpretation be for these passages", Paul when he writes Romans 2 and 3, he is telling the Jews not to count on merely on their physical circumcision, to be right with God.

Physical circumcision counts only if they also keep the Law of Moses. When gentiles keep the Law of Moses, in God's eyes, they are equal to them.

Thus a true Jew, in God's eyes, is one that keeps the Law.

Thank you for finally engaging.


Yes, a "true Jew" or as Christ and John the Baptist defined as "Children of Abraham", is a man that, as God inspired Isaiah to write, "join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;"

What are we arguing about? DNA??? Really???

When Moses, their lawgiver,

Not just the Jews "Law Giver". But mine as well. As the Torah defines "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

We were all Strangers at one point sir, were we not? Even Abraham was a Stranger for much of his life. Is this not true according to the Torah?

"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.

Where is this difference you and the Pharisees declare on men, according to the DNA they were born with?

said God will raise a prophet like him, and they are to listen to him (Deuteronomy 18:15), if Jews reject Christ, they are rejecting Moses, and they are hence not keeping the Law of Moses (John 5:45).

Here is what the Christ of the Bible actually says, according to the text you referenced.

John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

If I may, don't you have this backwards, according to this same Christ? The Jews didn't believe Moses, therefore, they didn't believe the Holy One of Israel, the "Rock", who inspired him, when HE came to them as Prophesied. For instance, had they believed Moses, Line Zacharias, Simeon, Anna and the Wise Men, they would not have created a Wall of Separation, or a difference between obedient Jews and obedient non-Jews.

Is this not the same issue with many of this world's religious sects and businesses today? They don't believe what is written in the Torah or the Prophets, therefore they don't understand the Gospel of the Rock of Israel. And can they be persuaded otherwise?

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So then, if I don't believe Moses, I won't be persuaded by the Christ who inspired him.

Their physical circumcision counts as nothing because of that.

That is what I interpret Paul as implying in those passages.

I do not interpret, as you do, that Paul is saying we gentiles in the Body of Christ are now Israelites.

Well we are told to put on "the new man", Yes?. And be renewed in the Spirit of our mind. Is this not the teaching of the Prophets?

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Is this not also for those who sojourn among them?

What man shall I become then? Or am I bound by the DNA I was born with? My understanding of Paul comes from study of the Torah and the Prophets.

So then, in your religion non-Jew members of the Church of God are not grafted into the Holy Root to become part of the Holy tree? God doesn't consider me as one that was born among them, unless I have Jewish DNA? A non-Jew stranger is different that a Jew stranger? God respects men according to the DNA they were born with? Abraham's children are only men born with Jewish DNA, who do the works of Abraham?

I appreciate you finally making your interpretation clear. And it's good to talk about the doctrines and traditions of this world's religious sects and franchises.

Surely you can see though, given what is written in the Torah and the Prophets, why I would question the implication of your teaching that I am to become a New Man, but cannot become a Child of Abraham unless I am born with a certain DNA.

 

[Guojing]

Thank you for finally engaging.

So then, in your religion non-Jew members of the Church of God are not grafted into the Holy Root to become part of the Holy tree? God doesn't consider me as one that was born among them, unless I have Jewish DNA? A non-Jew stranger is different that a Jew stranger? God respects men according to the DNA they were born with? Abraham's children are only men born with Jewish DNA, who do the works of Abraham?

Many people love to interpret the phrase in Romans 11 "grafted in", as grafted into Israel.

Would you accept the possibility that Paul actually meant grafted into God in that verse?

Note I am just asking you whether it is possible, you are still free to interpret that as into Israel, if you want to keep your doctrine.

 

[sparow]

Many people love to interpret the phrase in Romans 11 "grafted in", as grafted into Israel.

Would you accept the possibility that Paul actually meant grafted into God in that verse?

Note I am just asking you whether it is possible, you are still free to interpret that as into Israel, if you want to keep your doctrine.

To my mind there are three concepts of Israel, first there is the 12 tribes, secondly there is the 10 lost tribes after the split, and thirdly there is that Israel who are the called and chosen.

 

[Studyman]

Many people love to interpret the phrase in Romans 11 "grafted in", as grafted into Israel.

That's not what I believe. God is not a Jew. Isael is not God. We are Grafted into the "Way of the Lord" as opposed to the "Way of this world". The "Way of the Lord" is the Holy Root that Abraham and his children, and those of his household that were not his children, were "Grafted" into. Israel was Grafted into this Holy Root. And when they became rebellious and disobedient, they were broken off from this Holy Root. Abraham's children, that is, according to the Christ of the Bible, "men who do the works of Abraham", are also grafted into this same Holy Root. The Apostles said in scriptures I posted, and you also ignored, that "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them (Non-Jews according to the Flesh) the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;(Jews after the flesh) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

You and the Pharisees placed a difference regarding DNA that God through the Law and Prophets didn't place.

Would you accept the possibility that Paul actually meant grafted into God in that verse?

That is exactly what I believe. Just like Israel and Rehab and anyone who "joins himself to the Lord."

Note I am just asking you whether it is possible, you are still free to interpret that as into Israel, if you want to keep your doctrine.

I don't believe the faithful are Grafted into Israel. I believe we are grafted into the Way of the Lord with Israel, and we partake of the Root as if we are Israel, or as the Torah teaches, "as one born among them".

The Torah teaches that God made no difference between Abraham's blood Children that "Keep the way of the Lord", and members of his household who were not his blood children, who also "Keep the Way of the Lord".

You seem to reject a lot of the Torah, so you can keep and promote your own doctrine.

I would ask you to consider, What if the Torah is Right, and your adopted religion, with its u-tube videos are wrong. I am asking whether it is possible that from the very beginning "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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."

 

[Guojing]

I don't believe the faithful are Grafted into Israel. I believe we are grafted into the Way of the Lord with Israel, and we partake of the Root as if we are Israel, or as the Torah teaches, "as one born among them"

P1: I don't believe the faithful are Grafted into Israel
P2: I believe we are grafted into the Way of the Lord with Israel,

Conclusion: we partake of the Root as if we are Israel

Your conclusion does not follow from your above 2 premises.

We are not grafted into Israel, we are grafted into God with Israel will not allow one to conclude that we are Israel.

Example
I don't believe a dog is ever grafted into a cat
I believe dog A is grafted into the household with a cat.

Conclusion: the dog partake of the riches of the owner's household as if it is a cat.

You get my point?

The Body of Christ is a new creation and is separate from the nation of Israel.

In the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor gentile, and because of the mystery revealed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 3:1-9), we are now partakers of God's riches independent of the nation of Israel.