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.

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 Romans 9:6 ff - what is that saying?

 

[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

 

[throughfierytrial]

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.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

How about adding this to your discussions? ​

Moses as well as other prophets wrote- That what we call the first covenant given by Moses to Israel, was predestined to be replaced by God in favor of a second covenant that was to come. That the first covenant was but an instrument towards his designs of a predestined second covenant through which he would save billions and transform the world. Many of the prophets spoke of this but no one did it quite like Moses in the first five books of the Bible. This is why God rejected so many of the first born in Genesis but elected and predestined the second born.

*Cain the first born of Adam was rejected in favor of the second born Abel.

*Ishmael, Abraham's first born was rejected in favor of his second born Isaac.

*Esau the first born rejected in favor of the second born Jacob.

*Jacob, later named Israel blessed Joseph's second born over the first born
.
*Moses struck the rock the first time in the wilderness and nothing happened, but the second time he struck it water, “the living water” came out.

None of this was written by accident. It is all prophecy about God predestining the world to be saved via the second covenant with the first as a means to arrive at the second.

There is much more of this in the Bible like Israel's first king Saul being rejected in favor of Israel's second king David. Even the book of Job is a prophecy of the first and second covenant. Everything Job had from God at first was destroyed by Satan. But what he received the second time around was much much more and endured. However, the the coup d'état of this prophecy is at the end of the five books of the Torah. God does not allow Moses to lead the people into the promised land because a man named Yahshua, Joshua in English, Jesus from Hebrew to Greek to English, was predestined to do that. A man named Jesus led the children of Israel into the promised land as a prophecy of Jesus leading the meek to inherit the entire earth!

Now ask yourselves how could Moses and the rest of the OT writers know such things about a first and second covenant and preach and prophesy this would happen thousands of years in advance? Especially through the historical story line of the lives of the patriarchs and the lawgiver Moses himself? It certainly was not written after the fact as the books of Moses and the prophets were known throughout the empires of those days many centuries before the Messiah came. Besides, do you think the Jewish political class who murdered Jesus because they thought he would take their ruler-ship over the Jewish people from them would go ahead and alter the scriptures in such a way as to prove the claims made about Jesus? In their rabbinical writings in the centuries following the first century they sure don’t. They couldn’t anyway. The entire Greek Empire had access to the Hebrew Bible written in Greek hundreds of years before Jesus came. That is just historical fact.

I would like you to use reason and logic about what I just pointed out. This is not just a matter of so called faith. What possible reason could Moses or any other writers of the OT have had to conjure up such a story line? What gain would it have been to them? What a total contrivance of nothing because there was no chance the world could or would develop along such lines. Especially in light or the fact that no one understood what it all meant. The apostle Paul called this in Ephesians 3:4.... the mystery of Christ 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; But he found this out after the fact because it became evident due to it transpiring in his ministry. His revelation of it came through the scripture as he was living out what was prophesied.

God had to trick Peter into going to a household of gentiles to preach. Even after that Peter called Paul's writings on the subject scripture, because it was really no clarity on the matter up till that point, until after it began to come to pass. One might ascertain that surely some of the saved in ancient Israel knew that the messiah was going to bring the light, salvation and transformation to the nations because there is so much prophecy about it. Some of the prophets even spoke directly of a new covenant for Israel and the abrogation of the current one. But the means through which that would be accomplished was just to much to grasp for them. Especially since what was written was four-twelve centuries old before Jesus had arrived on the scene and there was no more scripture written throughout that four hundred year period.

Moses even stated it in Duet 18:17 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 18.....He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. Or as the writer of the NT book of Hebrew claims concerning the Old Covenant: 2nd Co. 3:13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away.


Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. 28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

Isaiah 2:17......and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. 18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.

Isaiah 54:5 ......The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

 

[sovereigngrace]

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.

It is a waste of time engaging with someone who is so ignorant of the Word, who denies the finished work of Christ, who promotes the continuation of the old covenant, and who denies the introduction of the new covenant.

 

[Guojing]

It is a waste of time engaging with someone who is so ignorant of the Word, who denies the finished work of Christ, who promotes the continuation of the old covenant, and who denies the introduction of the new covenant.

You would at least agree that, before the cross, animals were to be sacrificed for Israel's sins?