A Challenge to Christian Zionists

Status
Not open for further replies.

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you still going to pretend that all of the Hebrews now "know the Lord," (or at any time have known the Lord)? You KNOW this has not happened. It is both foolish and dishonest to keep pretending that a promise has been fulfilled when you are absolutely unable to deny that it contains provisions which have still not been kept.

I will let others here viewing this conversation decide who is being "foolish and dishonest" by denying that Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18 are now in effect.

All of the Hebrews who have become a part of the New Covenant by accepting Christ "know the Lord".
This happened to about 3,000 from "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost.

You are in denial of the scripture below if you think every modern Jew is going to accept Christ.


Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BE AS THE SAND OF THE SEA, THE REMNANT WILL BE SAVED.

.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
It applied to all who would comply with the covenant that God made with Abraham, which included the land and all other associated promises, whether they were of his seed, or not of his seed, beginning with the circumcision of infant males.

That compliance always consisted exclusively of faith and obedience. In the case of infant circumcision, it was manifested in the obedience of those who performed the circumcision in response to God's covenant command. Ultimately, as the infant matured, it was manifested in either ongoing faith and obedience in and to God and His covenant, with the concomitant blessings; or unfaithfulness and disobedience, culminating in death.

Both ethnic and nonethnic Israelites shared equally in God's covenant blessings in response to their faith and obedience, and in His covenant punishment in response to their unfaithfulness and disobedience.

There is no Scripture to be found wherein God segregates Israelites who were of Abraham's seed from those who were not of his seed. God is not a racist. He does not practise apartheid.

Notwithstanding dispensationalism's incessant attempts to force Him into its racialized mold.
You say this, but scripture does not.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You're welcome to prove otherwise.
It is your responsibility to prove that scripture teaches what you claim it teaches. It is not my responsibility to prove it does not.

In this case, proving that the scriptures teach it is something you cannot do.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is your responsibility to prove that scripture teaches what you claim it teaches. It is not my responsibility to prove it does not.

In this case, proving that the scriptures teach it is something you cannot do.

All encapsulated in Genesis 17:12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

God establishes His immutable covenant precedents of faith and obedience, irrespective of ethnicity, at the beginning of covenant history.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
All encapsulated in Genesis 17:12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

God establishes His immutable covenant precedents of faith and obedience, irrespective of ethnicity, at the beginning of covenant history.
An instruction to circumcise his servants did not even imply that such circumcision made these foreigners participants in the promises. That is 100% pure interpretation on your part. The scriptures say no such thing.
 
Upvote 0

Nige55

Newbie
Mar 2, 2012
801
222
✟68,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The law of Moses was established without ethnic distinction (Genesis 17:12) at the beginning of covenant history, many centuries before Amos was written.

God slew Israelites by the thousands for unfaithfulness and disobedience during that time. (e.g. Numbers 25:9)

Their punishment was death.

Their DNA did not save them.

Indeed, and yet the Gospel itself was given, - to the Jew first Romans 1:16.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An instruction to circumcise his servants did not even imply that such circumcision made these foreigners participants in the promises. That is 100% pure interpretation on your part. The scriptures say no such thing.

Since circumcision was the "token", or sign of the promise, you cannot be correct in attempting to disconnect the two.


Gen_17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


These were grafted into the covenant in the same way that Ruth was grafted into the covenant.

.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
An instruction to circumcise his servants did not even imply that such circumcision made these foreigners participants in the promises. That is 100% pure interpretation on your part. The scriptures say no such thing.

Then why did God command it for both ethnics and nonethnics alike?

Hint: See Bro. BAB2's post above.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
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

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Then why did God command it for both ethnics and nonethnics alike?

Hint: See Bro. BAB2's post above.
Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever. Servants (and the word so translated actually meant slaves) were considered part of a man's household. So his entire household was commanded to be circumcised. But there was not even an implied command that any descendant of a slave was to be circumcised, unless he was also a slave to an Israelite.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever. Servants (and the word so translated actually meant slaves) were considered part of a man's household. So his entire household was commanded to be circumcised. But there was not even an implied command that any descendant of a slave was to be circumcised, unless he was also a slave to an Israelite.

Was a baby born to the slave of an Israelite free, or bond?

.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever. Servants (and the word so translated actually meant slaves) were considered part of a man's household. So his entire household was commanded to be circumcised. But there was not even an implied command that any descendant of a slave was to be circumcised, unless he was also a slave to an Israelite.
You err.

Genesis 17
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 34
24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.


Circumcision was applicable to every male, ethnic or nonethnic, foreign or domestic, slave or free, servant or son; without distinction; who was willing to submit to, and comply with, God's covenant.

Back to the original question:

DNA was not a criterion in Genesis 17:12.

When and where did God change His mind and make it a criterion?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pedra

Newbie
Mar 6, 2015
1,134
619
✟36,360.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Anti-Zionism has it's roots in Anti-Semitism. It denies God's everlasting covenant, shows lack of understanding of Old & New Testament and Bible Prophecies.
The Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting promise, it is eternal and cannot be revoked. The Jews hold the title deed to the land of Israel and no humans can take away what GOD gave them.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Nige55
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

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,562
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,793.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Anti-Zionism has it's roots in Anti-Semitism. It denies God's everlasting covenant, shows lack of understanding of Old & New Testament and Bible Prophecies.
The Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting promise, it is eternal and cannot be revoked. The Jews hold the title deed to the land of Israel and no humans can take away what GOD gave them.
Actually the proof of ownership of the Holy Land is hidden in a jar. Jeremiah 33:13-14
When all the Lord's faithful Christian people, Jew and Gentile; from every tribe, race ,nation and language, go to live there, soon after it is cleared and cleansed by the Sixth Seal event, WE will find that jar and God promises us peace and prosperity in the Land.
It is our destiny to be the people that God always wanted there, as His witnesses, Isaiah 43:10, John 15:27 and His Light to the nations, Isaiah 49:8, Matthew 5:14-16

Your belief that it is just the Jews that inherit God's promises, is in error as they constitute only 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jews now occupy an small part of the holy Land and are there in apostasy and rejection of Jesus. Many prophesies tell of their virtual demise, Isaiah 22:14, Jeremiah 10:18, Amos 2:4-5, Romans 9:27 and how God's righteous people will be there in the end times.
 
Upvote 0

Pedra

Newbie
Mar 6, 2015
1,134
619
✟36,360.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Actually the proof of ownership of the Holy Land is hidden in a jar. Jeremiah 33:13-14
When all the Lord's faithful Christian people, Jew and Gentile; from every tribe, race ,nation and language, go to live there, soon after it is cleared and cleansed by the Sixth Seal event, WE will find that jar and God promises us peace and prosperity in the Land.
It is our destiny to be the people that God always wanted there, as His witnesses, Isaiah 43:10, John 15:27 and His Light to the nations, Isaiah 49:8, Matthew 5:14-16

Your belief that it is just the Jews that inherit God's promises, is in error as they constitute only 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jews now occupy an small part of the holy Land and are there in apostasy and rejection of Jesus. Many prophesies tell of their virtual demise, Isaiah 22:14, Jeremiah 10:18, Amos 2:4-5, Romans 9:27 and how God's righteous people will be there in the end times.

That above is called Replacement Theology and it is a False teaching.
God's Covenant to Israel is Eternal - the Bible says so.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nige55
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You err.

Genesis 17
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 34
24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.


Circumcision was applicable to every male, ethnic or nonethnic, foreign or domestic, slave or free, servant or son; without distinction; who was willing to submit to, and comply with, God's covenant.

Back to the original question:

DNA was not a criterion in Genesis 17:12.

When and where did God change His mind and make it a criterion?
Your basic and central assumption is totally incorrect. The Promise was first to the descendants of Abraham, then to the descendants of Isaac, and then to the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel. All these promises were unconditional, and the Law, which was not until 430 years after the original promise, cannot change that.

Later on, promises were further made to the descendants of the two sub-kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim, which last was still sometimes called Israel. And after that, promises were specifically made to the descendants of each of the twelve tribes, to the physical land of Israel, and to the city of Jerusalem. And although conditional promises were also made, all the promises I have referred to were unconditional.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your basic and central assumption is totally incorrect. The Promise was first to the descendants of Abraham, then to the descendants of Isaac, and then to the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel. All these promises were unconditional, and the Law, which was not until 430 years after the original promise, cannot change that.

Later on, promises were further made to the descendants of the two sub-kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim, which last was still sometimes called Israel. And after that, promises were specifically made to the descendants of each of the twelve tribes, to the physical land of Israel, and to the city of Jerusalem. And although conditional promises were also made, all the promises I have referred to were unconditional.

Scripture's unambiguous declarations, three of which I've cited, are totally correct.

DNA was not a criterion in any of them.

When and where did God change His mind and make it a criterion?
 
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

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Scripture's unambiguous declarations, three of which I've cited, are totally correct.

DNA was not a criterion in any of them.

When and where did God change His mind and make it a criterion?
I totally reject your claims about this, and am not interested in arguing with you about it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.