Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

[Guojing]

You consider historical context to be “inserting” interpretation?

Anything that is not what the passage literally says, is one trying to insert his own interpretation.

 

[Guojing]

What? Are you serious? What has that to do with continuing blood sacrifices and redundant feasts?

Read what the resurrected Christ actually said in Matthew 28:20, and tell me whether you understand what "all/everything" means, literally.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Read what the resurrected Christ actually said in Matthew 28:20, and tell me whether you understand what "all/everything" means, literally.

Stop avoiding. When did He tell them to slit the throats of innocent animals as an atonement for sin after the cross?

 

[Hentenza]

Anything that is not what the passage literally says, is one trying to insert his own interpretation.

So you disagree that in 70ad the temple was destroyed and the Jews expelled from Israel?

 

[Guojing]

So you disagree that in 70ad the temple was destroyed and the Jews expelled from Israel?

What a silly conclusion. Acts 21:18-25 was before 70AD

 

[Guojing]

Stop avoiding. When did He tell them to slit the throats of innocent animals as an atonement for sin after the cross?

Just read Matthew 28:20 and all your answers are there, "commanded" is past tense.

If he commanded that before the cross, nothing has changed after.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It will explain why the resurrected Christ did not tell the Israel of God at Matthew 28 that they no longer had to keep the law, and it also explains the behavior of the little flock at Acts 10 and Acts 21.

But as I said, it won’t matter to you.

You didn't make even a tiny effort to address what I said in my post. Proving that talking to you is a complete waste of time.

 

[Hentenza]

What a silly conclusion. Acts 21:18-25 was before 70AD

You can’t really follow the argument can you. Luke wrote acts between 55 to 65 ad, probably closer to 65ad. The temple was destroyed a few years later. Can what happened in Acts 21 happen again after the temple was destroyed?

 

[Guojing]

You can’t really follow the argument can you. Luke wrote acts between 55 to 65 ad, probably closer to 65ad. The temple was destroyed a few years later. Can what happened in Acts 21 happen again after the temple was destroyed?

When did Luke wrote the account is different from when it actually happened

 

[Hentenza]

When did Luke wrote the account is different from when it actually happened

You still not getting it. I told you before that if you kept the context at just Acts 21 that I would agree with you. The problem is that your belief that the church kept the law only applies the to church of Jerusalem because the temple, and consequently, the levitical priesthood along with the Jewish leaders resided there. The churches outside of Jerusalem did not follow the law but zealous Jews wanted the Christians to follow them. All of the epistles of Paul address these issues. In fact, that is why they were trying to kill Paul in Acts 21.

Christ was aware of this and describes the destruction of the temple in Matt. 24. Once the temple was destroyed the events in Acts 21 cannot be repeated. James was martyred shortly before the temple was destroyed. There are three accounts of his death among the early church fathers and all depict that he was stoned, according to the law, because he continued to preach the gospel of the Messiah which naturally would lead Jews away from the law. The law was never part of the Christian church but it took a few years to eradicate that cultural aspect of Jewish life.

 

[Guojing]

I told you before that if you kept the context at just Acts 21 that I would agree with you.

That was all I was trying to establish with you here

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

What did Peter say to God in Acts 10:14? Do you think that shows Peter understood that "the new covenant was established and the old covenant was made obsolete upon His shed blood on the cross"? It doesn't matter if he understood it at that time or not! Is the truth based on what Peter...

www.christianforums.com

If you agree with what I am saying here, we can move on.

You can insert your own historical context into that passage, without me.

 

[Guojing]

You didn't make even a tiny effort to address what I said in my post. Proving that talking to you is a complete waste of time.

Because what you were saying applies to the Body of Christ.

It does not apply to the Israel of God.

Our discussion is whether the 2 are equivalent.

If you want to understand how I think about Romans 9:6-13 in this thread, you can refer to here Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

we have already discussed this previously

 

[Hentenza]

That was all I was trying to establish with you here

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

What did Peter say to God in Acts 10:14? Do you think that shows Peter understood that "the new covenant was established and the old covenant was made obsolete upon His shed blood on the cross"? It doesn't matter if he understood it at that time or not! Is the truth based on what Peter...

www.christianforums.com

If you agree with what I am saying here, we can move on.

You can insert your own historical context into that passage, without me.

Then I can’t agree with you because agreeing with you would be to ignore proper hermeneutics.

 

[Guojing]

Then I can’t agree with you because agreeing with you would be to ignore proper hermeneutics.

So you are not willing to accept what James is literally saying there.

Alright, we can move on

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Israel in the OT was God’s dearly loved chosen people.

Israel of the NT refers to the invisible church.
Colossians 3:11
Galatians 3:26-29

 

[Hentenza]

So you are not willing to accept what James is literally saying there.

Alright, we can move on

I’m not willing to accept your incomplete interpretation.

 

[Guojing]

I’m not willing to accept your incomplete interpretation.

So you still wanna insist that I am interpreting even though you cannot explain how.

Whatever.