IS ISRAEL IN THE NEW COVENANT GOD'S CHURCH?

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,847.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not opinion when it can be Biblically demonstrated in agreement with all Scripture.

Not everything Biblical is in play and up for grabs.
There are facts and truths that can be demonstrated to be true in agreement with all Scripture.

There isd no safe refuge for one's own Biblical erro.

Some people don't realize that their "agreement with all Scripture", that so-called agreement exists only in their own minds.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Brian Mcnamee
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Some people don't realize that their "agreement with all Scripture", that so-called agreement exists only in their own minds.
As do logic, reason and truth.

"Love rejoices with the truth," (1 Corinthians 13:6), unless the NT is lying and truth can't be known because it is all exists only in one's own mind.

You're a real amateur in handling truth.

You don't even see that your own cinema doctrine shows the doctrine itself to exist only in your own mind, and enjoys no basis in reality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
Some issues there:
Where do we find "inheriting the covenent" in Scripture?
Scripture doesn't use that language.
Who came up with this notion?
"We" (Gentiles) were never in any covenant with God, either Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant.
So "we" did not break any covenant and deserve any covenant curses, just as
"we" were not under the Mosaic law and, therefore, not under the curse of the law.
Christ did not inherit the promises to Abraham, they were made to Abraham and to Christ only, his seed. The promises to Abraham and Christ are: blessing to the nations, land, seed.
All the promises to Abraham were made to Christ (Galatians 3:16) and come to us in Christ (Galatians 3:29), at the new birth,
just as the Mosaic covenant with the nation Israel came to all in Israel at birth.

I don't see any point established.
Perhaps you can explain it to me.
I was just taking a minute to answer the OP for this thread. The answer is no because Jesus is the only one who was able to inherit the promises.
The answer to what is no?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Which does not take into account that the apostles Peter and Paul "avoided the language of the text" in their interpretation of Hosea 1:9, 2:23--the promise made to Israel is fulfilled in the Gentiles.
(Romans 9:24-26; 1 Peter 2:10)

Or that the writer of Hebrews "avoided the language of the text" in his interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34--the promise to Israel of a new covenant is fullfilled in the Gentile church, which is the true Israel. (Hebrews 8:6-13, Hebrews 10:15-18)

So here's a third option, and the one I choose:
All interpretion of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) must be in agreement with authoritative NT teaching.
What does not agree with authoritatige NT teaching is a misinterpretation, because it sets the word of God against itself in contradiction.

You are drawing lines that don`t exist. No avoidance on the part of Peter or Paul. You seem to think that authoritative is whatever you claim it to be.

To be authoritative a contention has to agree with the language of the text. If that isn`t true then there is no authoritative text.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Romans 9:24 -
And who were the "nations". . .more Jews apart from the Jews?

The house of Israel, the lost sheep to whom Jesus was "sent only", as distinct from the house of Judah, the Jews or "Jewry", who rejected Jesus. See the reference in Hosea noted in Romans 9:25, read full context.
 
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Are you talkng about Revelation 20:1-6 here?


1 Corinthians 15:25-26.

Jesus doesn't "inherit" the covenant, the covenant was cut in the sacrifice of his own blood. . .he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) because of the covenant cut in his own blood.

Jesus inherits everything.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

We will inherit because we are adopted.

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So if that is the case, you believe that all of us in the body of Christ are also the Israel that the New Covenant in Hebrews 8:8 was meant for?

Hebrews 8:8 seems to be a millenium promise (Ezekiel 37), as the Jews have not accepted the new covenant.
 
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
My comments in ( )

So just how far apart are we?

( Well, you believe this age is the last one for this earth. I believe there will be one more age after this one before God will replace with new earth. I wish that you would check your resistance for a bit and consider my evidence. I believe in authoritative scriptures so long as it's in a literal understanding rather than interpretive which allows for scriptures to mean almost anything. We almost have common ground in that area and it is your emphasis on scripture authority that leads me to engage you whereas others I refuse to go very far.)

That's the person of the Father's personal inheritance and treasure.

( John 16:15 "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.". The Father has no treasure, it all belongs to the Son until the time Yeshua will deliver up the kingdom to the Father it all belongs to Him.)

He's coming back to gather his saints and judge the world. . .and there's going to be a new heaven and a new earth. . .what do you think that will be about?

( He will gather the saints because they are going to serve in His government. And that judgement will be about who will be spared to live on in the next age and who won't. The new heaven and New earth won't come till later.)

( The discrepancy is about the next age which you do not believe in.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are drawing lines that don`t exist. No avoidance on the part of Peter or Paul. You seem to think that authoritative is whatever you claim it to be.
Did you even read the texts presented?
To be authoritative a contention has to agree with the language of the text. If that isn`t true then there is no authoritative text.
So, the teaching of Peter and Paul in Romans 9:24-26 and 1 Peter 2:10; i.e., the promises made to Israel in Hosea 1:9, 2:23 are fulfilled in the Gentles, rather than Israel, are not authoritative teaching?
So your personal interpretation of prohecy overrides the interpretations of the apostles Peter and Paul?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The OP question. Israel is not in the New Covenant and will no be until God grafts them back in. Which, He will and He will have a purpose for them when He does.
Of course they're not. . .only the church, the one olive tree of both believing Jews and Gentiles, participate in the New Covenant.

None of God's covenants are made with unbelievers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus inherits everything.
The promises of Abraham were made specifically to Jesus (Galatians 3:16). He doesn't inherit them, they were his by right at their origin when they were made to him personally.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

We will inherit because we are adopted.
All that is Christ's is also that of all those in Christ (Galatians 3:29), not by inheritance but by union with Christ in Christ.
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Yes, those in Christ are his brothers, and partake of all the promises made to Christ, as well as to Abraham, by that union with Christ of being in Christ, not by inheritance.
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Our inheritance is us in our glorified bodies, being with Christ, in the eternal heavenly land/city
(Hebrews 11:16), of the new heavens and new earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Did you even read the texts presented?

So, the teaching of Peter and Paul in Romans 9:24-26 and 1 Peter 2:10; i.e., the promises made to Israel in Hosea 1:9, 2:23 are fulfilled in the Gentles, rather than Israel, are not authoritative teaching?
So your personal interpretation of prohecy overrides the interpretations of the apostles Peter and Paul?

Not at all, but according to you in post #339 Peter and Paul ignored the language of the text. And you imply that this justifies you doing the same.

The verses are absolutely authoritative. But Peter and Paul did not ignore the language of the text and these verses have nil to do with promises made to Israel, they do not nullify God`s plan for Israel.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was responding to a remark about prophetic curses on Israel.

Of which came to complete fulfillment in 70AD, ergo, The WWII holocaust was not a fulfillment.

The 20th century extermination of 6 million gentile converts, or descendants of gentile converts, to the post Christian, man made religion of the Babylonian Talmud, simply does not qualify biblically as the fulfillment of any curse of God upon the Hebrew people of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Brian Mcnamee

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2017
2,308
1,294
64
usa
✟213,965.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi
Luke 1:32-33 - "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, his kingdom will never end."
If that is a promise of a future millennial reign, then we have two temporal everlasting Messianic kingdoms, because God already established a kingdom that will never end in Daniel 2:44-45 during the Roman empire. It is still in existence, always will be, and Jesus is reigning over that one as we speak.
And it is the house of Jacob, a spiritual kingdom--the house of Israel according to the promise made to Jacob, over which he reigns, not over Israel who chose to reject him.
Jesus didn't come 2,000 years ago to begin his reign over his kingdom more than 2,000 years later.
Luke 1:32-33 does not present a millennial reign.

Matthew 24:30-31
- refers to the second coming with its rapture at the end of time
in "the last day (John 6:39-40, 44, 54), the "day of the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:2,
1 Corinthians 1:8); i.e., the Final Judgment.

A future temporal "millennial reign" over Israel after the church has been raptured was not a teaching of the apostles. It is not in NT teaching and was never heard of in the church until it was introduced about 200 years ago.
Matthew 24:30-31
does not present a millennial reign.

The apostles nowhere present a millennial reign.

The authoritative teaching of the NT does not present a millennial reign.
That is a fiction of man, so suitable to his human fancy that he thinks it is a doctrine of God, and labors to show it so.
Hi Claire in Rev you have the beast destroyed and bound at the time of the 2nd coming and he is given to the flame and this happens after Armageddon. Now 1000 years later when the beast is loosed he is able to gather an army and surround Jerusalem and then fire comes down from heaven and that is it.
Armageddon has not happened and then either has the binding of Satan which is associated with that day. Now on another thread you have reasserted that Hosea not my people is talking about the Gentile. So God notes in Hosea that this event of now becoming His people is associated with the day of Jezreel which is the same place as Armageddon. Why would it be called great is the day of Jezreel if Jezreel has nothing to do with it? Now Jezreel is also the place where it was said to them you are not my people and the reverse of this edict in the text is clearly to the same people that were disowned that they will now be accepted.

When Israel is delivered form their enemies they are now saved through faith in Jesus who has like Joseph revealed himself to his brothers and this narrative is amazing full goodness, grace, and shows God's great mercy and power and Israel is finally receives that transformation and it is glorious.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The house of Israel, the lost sheep to whom Jesus was "sent only",
as distinct from the house of Judah, the Jews or "Jewry", who rejected Jesus. See the reference in Hosea noted in Romans 9:25, read full context.
Why would "nations" mean Gentiles in almost 100 uses of the word in the NT, except for Romans 9:24, where you say it means Israel, when it is set there in opposition to "the Jews (yehudim) only?"

Since the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC (2600 years), the word "Jews" (yehudim) has come to refer to the entire nation, since most of the remnant of Israel was composed of members of the two southern tribes (Judah).

Is there any other place in Scripture where "nations" refers to Israel?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why would "nations" mean Gentiles in almost 100 uses of the word in the NT, except for Romans 9:24, where you say it means Israel, when it is set there in opposition to "the Jews (yehudim) only?"

Since the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC (2600 years), the word "Jews" (yehudim) has come to refer to the entire nation, since most of the remnant of Israel was composed of members of the two southern tribes (Judah).

Is there any other place in Scripture where "nations" refers to Israel?

It would be helpful to carefully study chapters 9-11 of Romans, which reveals the reconciliation of the the house of Israel (the lost sheep) back to God's grace, and the future reconciliation of all of Israel. Paul is speaking to Gentiles, but is speaking about Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My comments in ( )

So just how far apart are we?

( Well, you believe this age is the last one for this earth. I believe there will be one more age after this one before God will replace with new earth. I wish that you would check your resistance for a bit and consider my evidence.
Well, that's the thing, I do. . .and the first thing I consider is it's agreement with authoritative NT teaching in the word of God written.
I believe in authoritative scriptures so long as it's in a literal understanding rather than interpretive
Oh, wow!

I don't give myself authority over anything in the authoritative NT teaching of the word of God written.
On what basis would I assume that I know more than the writers of the NT, particularly Paul?

You do know that Paul received his revelation in Romans 9:24-26 from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 1:11-12, 15-16, 2:2; 2 Corinthians 12:1-7), right?
And in Romans 9:24-26, his interpretation of Hosea 1:9, 2:23 is not literal, but figurative, right?
So, for the sake of your personal theology, you are willing to deny the teaching Paul received from Jesus Christ personally?

I'm just not able to do that.
which allows for scriptures to mean almost anything. We almost have common ground in that area and it is your emphasis on scripture authority that leads me to engage you whereas others I refuse to go very far.)
Well, thanks. . .I knew I liked you.

The saints are (the person of) the Father's personal inheritance and treasure.
( John 16:15 "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.". The Father has no treasure, it all belongs to the Son until the time Yeshua will deliver up the kingdom to the Father it all belongs to Him.)
The problem with that is that the Father says that he does in Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 26:18; Malachi 3:17, and that they are his own personal inheritance in Ephesians 1:18 and Psalms 33:12, Psalms 28:9, Psalms 74:2.

He's coming back to gather his saints and judge the world. . .and there's going to be a new heaven and a new earth. . .what do you think that will be about?
( He will gather the saints because they are going to serve in His government. And that judgement will be about who will be spared to live on in the next age and who won't. The new heaven and New earth won't come till later.)

( The discrepancy is about the next age which you do not believe in.)
And about:
1) events which authortative NT teaching presents as happening together, some of which you separate by 1,000 years;

2) Christ having the promises made to him personally (Galatians 3:16), they are his by right at their origin and not by inheritance, whereby all those in Christ enjoy that same right, rather than having them by inheritance.
However, as the Son of God, Christ inherits all that is the Father's, not just the promises in Genesis under discussion here. And being in Christ, we share in and are heirs of all that Christ inherits, including his glory! (Romans 8:17-18, 9:23; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:17; Colossians 1:27, 3:4). . .I think that is where your confusion lies, and

2) the Father's personal inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:18; Psalms 33:12, Psalms 28:9, Psalms 74:2).

Aw, shucks, I had hoped there was less disagreement. . .but I'll still see you in glory! :wave:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not really. That is not the way to find the truth of Gods' Word according to the scriptures. The people you are talking about here rarely agree among themselves and in the time of Jesus were the ones who killed him. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Without God's Spirit being our guide and teacher we cannot know the truth of God's Word as God makes of nothing the wisdom of the wise but reveals the truth of his Word to those who are babes.
So what the heck are you doing here?????? We all have the Spirit. We don't need you. Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not at all, but according to you in post #339 Peter and Paul ignored the language of the text. And you imply that this justifies you doing the same.

The verses are absolutely authoritative. But Peter and Paul did not ignore the language of the text
They changed it, teachng that promises which the text made to Israel are fulfilled in the Gentiles.
and these verses have nil to do with promises made to Israel, they do not nullify God`s plan for Israel.
Correct. . .but they do have to do with the necessity of interpreting prophecy literally, which
you maintain is the only correct way to interpret prophecy, which Peter and Paul did not do, they
thereby authoritatively demonstrating that literally is not the only way to correctly intepret prophecy.

And on the authority of their practice, I do not always interpret prophecy literally either.
 
Upvote 0