Body of Christ (Church) vs. Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'm saying that Paul was 'remain as you are' because of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that all families of the Earth will be blessed.

.
Got ya.
If Gentiles were to be circumcised than it would be contrary to the promise to Abraham. The whole theology foundation if you will is the Abrahamic Covenant
Indeed - with Yeshua being the fulfillment of that Promise as the Messianic Seed that the Lord promised Abraham ...and really kept in connection with the other Covenants (such as the Adamic Covenant) before hand who kept the Promised Seed who'd crush the head of the Enemy - from what was seen in Genesis 3 to what happened in preserving Seth and all the way to Noah. And with Abraham being the beginning of the Patriarch line, it is interesting seeing what occurred with Noah since Noah (though well-advanced in age) was alive when Abraham was around thought to have actually trained Abraham according to some Biblical sources from antiquity (more shared here). One chart (referenced here in #8 and another thread entitled Noah and Abraham ) shows how Noah passed away 58 years after the birth of Abraham.
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I'd ask you to consider a working definition for "spiritually speaking".

I already explained what I meant by spiritually speaking. It's not a working definition or was meant to be. Non Jews because of the Abrahamic Covenant receive spiritual blessings.
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I already explained what I meant by spiritually speaking. It's not a working definition or was meant to be. Non Jews because of the Abrahamic Covenant receive spiritual blessings.

So, I'll ask you directly. How do you define "spiritual blessing"?
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'm saying that Paul was 'remain as you are' because of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that all families of the Earth will be blessed.
.
I think it makes a world of difference in understanding how being blessed via Abraham is something seen best (for Gentiles) in what Yeshua does - in His Death, Burial, and Resurrection ...and the coming of the HOLY Spirit as a result/being transformed into His Image as Sons and Daughters for the age to come. Recieving the Kingdom that He promised those who followed Him,
 
Upvote 0

Qnts2

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,323
111
✟2,056.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Here is your text.......
Ez 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


As ezekiel says, their qualifications for JUDGING, they were the righteous, which when they TURN FROM IT, are DISQUALIFIED UNTO LIFE. He shall die in his sin.

The verses you quote are very good gospel verses. All people fall short. None are righteous. In the light of the gospel, all are disqualified unto life and all would die in their sin, except for Yeshua.

So, these verses do not apply to judges, as it is not a requirement in the Mosaic covenant that judges be born again.

They had turned from their righteousness long before they set in the Sanhedrin to put him to death.

They had turned from their righteousness from John's baptism on.

Eze 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Ez 18: 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 33:17 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.
Eze 33:20 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

Mt 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mt 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

The gentiles turning to God, from their SIN.... as Ezekiel says....

Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Consider Ezekiel QNTS
Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Again, consider that the New Covenant is different then the Mosaic covenant. In the Mosaic covenant, eternal salvation is not offered. So, in the view of eternal salvation, all of their righteous acts (which would be acts of keeping the law), do not earn the righteousness of Messiah. All of that righteousness is their own works and does not measure up.

So, it is the righteousness of Messiah, and not our own works of the law, which offers eternal salvation.

So, you have David, who was righteous by faith, even though he sinned according to the Mosaic covenant.

And we know the Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land due to his disobedience, yet by faith Moses was righteous. Moses committed murder, yet was righteous by faith. So, it is not by works, but by faith. And faith can occur when a person is young like David, or old like Moses.

I do not understand why you want to show the unrighteousness of the judges, as scripture says our own righteousness is as filthy rags. So all are unrighteous in light of eternal life and salvation. The point is Yeshua. And Yeshua said that no one could take His life, but that He chose to lay it down for the sheep.

Take Mother Theresa, she did many good acts, but those acts are only her own righteousness, and her own righteousness does not earn eternal salvation, so Mother Theresa, for all that was good she did, was still a sinner, bound for hell. Her own righteousness is summed up as filthy rags, according to scripture, as they are not sufficient to earn eternal salvation. If Mother Theresa never came to trust in the saving work of Yeshua, she would be with the judges who also never came to trust in the saving work of Yeshua. And if Mother Theresa trusted in Jesus completed work, and some of the judges trusted in Jesus completed work (which Easy said there is evidence they did), then they are eternally saved, not based on any good or bad work they did but based on the righteousness of Messiah.

So in light of eternal salvation, we can not boast on anything good we have done, and since Yeshua died for sin, we can not exclude anyone from the possibility of eternal salvation, because of their sins, because eternal salvation by the righteousness of Yeshua, is by grace thru faith.
 
Upvote 0

Ashlantal

Not Really a Newbie Anymore
Jun 3, 2012
209
7
-----
✟8,078.00
Country
Afghanistan
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

How much clearer can it get ?

Also take into consideration the fact that it is no longer WE who live, it is a JEWISH Messiah .

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That was the high priest, which Judaism says lost their authority because of "CORRUPTION". They just won't allow that same standard with the judges EASY. Which he commanded Paul to be slapped, as High priest. Paul apologized for speaking to him in in that manner. Paul admitted he would not have done so, IF HE HAD KNOWN HE WAS THE HIGH PRIEST. Would it have been unlawful for the high priest to command him to be slapped? Considering what the law says concerning the authrity of the high priests in deciding cases, Paul pretty much declared himself innocent before the high priest. Try doing that before a judge in modern courtroom today. The judge more than likely is going to tell you, to sit down and bring forth your testimony, and be cross examined, AND THE COURT WILL DECIDE YOUR STANDING.

Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, was the high priest from A.D. 47 to 59. He was noted for his cruelty and violence - and when the revolt against Rome broke out, he was assassinated by his own people. Paul called Ananias a "whitewashed wall" - a metaphor for a hypocrite (Matthew 23:27) - because Ananias had acted improperly in ordering that Paul be struk. Striking someone prior to a conviction was illegal - and in this case, Paul had not even been properly charged. The Law required that justice should be done, and in order to that, it gave every man an opportunity of defending himself. For more, one can examine John 7:51 - or compare Proverbs 18:13, Leviticus 19:15-16, Exodus 23:1-2, Deuteronomy 19:15, and Deuteronomy 19:18. Contrary to the law - In violation of the Law of Moses Leviticus 19:35, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment."

A similar instance of violence occurred on the trial of the Saviour, John 18:22. If this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is the opinion of many, he had no right to the office of the priesthood when he was first made an high priest. Once, he was sent a prisoner to Rome - and during that time several succeeded in the priesthood... and at this time, though he wasn't high priest, he had gotten the management of affairs in his hands and was considered as high priest even when he wasn't legally.

Some take the apostle's words in an ironical sense - as if Paul was saying "He is high priest, I should not have known him to be an high priest, he looks and acts more like a mafia boss and a tyrant than an high priest, who ought to behave in another."

Some good commentaries on the issue:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Then said Paul, I wist not - I know not; I was ignorant of the fact that he was high priest. Interpreters have been greatly divided on the meaning of this expression. Some have supposed that Paul said it in irony, as if he had said, "Pardon me, brethren, I did not consider that this was the high priest. It did not occur to me that a man who could conduct thus could be God's highest. Others have thought (as Grotius) that Paul used these words for the purpose of mitigating their wrath, and as an acknowledgment that he had spoken hastily, and that it was contrary to his usual habit, which was not to speak evil of the ruler of the people. As if he had said, "I acknowledge my error and my haste. I did not consider that I was addressing him whom God had commanded me to respect." But this interpretation is not probable, for Paul evidently did not intend to retract what he had said.

Dr. Doddridge renders it, "I was not aware, brethren, that it was the high priest," and regards it as an apology for having spoken in haste. But the obvious reply to this interpretation is, that if Ananias was the high priest, Paul could not but be aware of it. Of so material a point it is hardly possible that he could be ignorant. Others suppose that, as Paul had been long absent from Jerusalem, and had not known the changes which had occurred there, he was a stranger to the person of the high priest. Others suppose that Ananias did not occupy the usual seat which was appropriated to the high priest, and that he was not clothed in the usual robes of office, and that Paul did not recognize him as the high priest. But it is wholly improbable that on such an occasion the high priest, who was the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin, should not be known to the accused. The true interpretation, therefore, I suppose, is what is derived from the fact that Ananias was not then properly the high priest; that there was a vacancy in the office, and that he presided by courtesy, or in virtue of his having been formerly invested with that office.


The meaning then will be: "I do not regard or acknowledge him as the high priest, or address him as such, since that is not his true character. Had he been truly the high priest, even if he had thus been guilty of manifest injustice, I would not have used the language which I did. The office, if not the man, would have claimed respect. But as he is not truly and properly clothed with that office, and as he was guilty of manifest injustice, I did not believe that he was to be shielded in his injustice by the Law which commands me to show respect to the proper ruler of the people." If this be the true interpretation, it shows that Luke, in this account, accords entirely with the truth of history. The character of Ananias as given by Josephus, the facts which he has stated in regard to him, all accord with the account here given, and show that the writer of the "Acts of the Apostles" was acquainted with the history of that time, and has correctly stated it.


For it is written - Exodus 22:28. Paul adduces this to show that it was his purpose to observe the Law; that he would not intentionally violate it; and that, if he had known Ananias to be high priest, he would have been restrained by his regard for the Law from using the language which he did.

Of the ruler of thy people - This passage had not any special reference to the high priest, but it inculcated the general spirit of respect for those in office, whatever that office was. As the office of high priest was one of importance and authority, Paul declares here that he would not be guilty of showing disrespect for it, or of using reproachful language in regard to it.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - After all the learned labor that has been spent on this subject, the simple meaning appears plainly to be this: -
St. Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest; he had been long absent from Jerusalem; political changes were frequent; the high priesthood was no longer in succession, and was frequently bought and sold; the Romans put down one high priest, and raised up another, as political reasons dictated. As the person of Ananias might have been wholly unknown to him, as the hearing was very sudden, and there was scarcely any time to consult the formalities of justice, it seems very probable that St. Paul, if he ever had known the person of Ananias, had forgotten him; and as, in a council or meeting of this kind, the presence of the high priest was not indispensably necessary, he did not know that the person who presided was not the sagan, or high priest's deputy, or some other person put in the seat for the time being. I therefore understand the words above in their most obvious and literal sense. He knew not who the person was, and God's Spirit suddenly led him to denounce the Divine displeasure against him.


Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people - If I had known he was the high priest, I should not have publicly pronounced this execration; for respect is due to his person for the sake of his office. I do not see that Paul intimates that he had done any thing through inadvertence; nor does he here confess any fault; he states two facts: -
1. That he did not know him to be the high priest. 2. That such a one, or any ruler of the people, should be reverenced. But he neither recalled or made an apology for his words: he had not committed a trespass, and he did not acknowledge one.
We must beware how we attribute either to him in the case before us.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

How much clearer can it get ?

Also take into consideration the fact that it is no longer WE who live, it is a JEWISH Messiah .

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
:amen:
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

How much clearer can it get ?

Also take into consideration the fact that it is no longer WE who live, it is a JEWISH Messiah .
.
You may be interested in a good review on the issue - as seen here:

 
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

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

How much clearer can it get ?

Also take into consideration the fact that it is no longer WE who live, it is a JEWISH Messiah .

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Yes heirs to the promise(singular) which is Messiah pertaining to the Gentiles. Yes Jews and non Jews are one new man heirs to the promise(singular), which is 'spiritual', this doesn't pertain to physical blessings to Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes heirs to the promise(singular) which is Messiah pertaining to the Gentiles. Yes Jews and non Jews are one new man heirs to the promise(singular).
It does seem, many times, that this is something taken far too lightly by a lot of people - as the concept of being made into One New man is so beautiful :)
 
Upvote 0

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Easy G (G²);62165453 said:
It does seem, many times, that this is something taken far too lightly by a lot of people - as the concept of being made into One New man is so beautiful :)

Yes the mystery of the one new man is that 2 communities are united under Messiah, they are the body.

Now the topic is about the Church versus Israel. Are these 2 words used as synonyms? I don't think so. Scripture makes a distinction on who Israel is, the believing Jewish remnant and the non-believing Jewish remnant. We know from scripture that the believing Jewish remnant was persucuted. I do see a logical creation of the 'church' meaning that the believing Jewish remnant and the believing non Jewish remnant formed separate from the traditional synagogues.

You can call it the church. 'You say potatoe, I say pah tat toe'.

The problem with some that are in the Messianic Jewish movement or Hebrew roots in my opinion is that they can be dogmatic when it comes to the church. Like they don't want to be associated with church.

And being dogmatic like 'Messianic Judaism is the real deal'.

My take is that the Church composed of the one new man started out as the Church as a result of persecution of Jewish believers and Gentiles being accepted as Gentiles both as a result of the Abrahamic Covenant being fulfilled. After Yeshua's resurrection this became apparent to the Apostle's. A new age has dawned. I agree with Mark Nanos 'the dawning of the coming age'.

The church has lots its Jewish roots. Messianic Judaism has tried to answer that although more towards the other side of the pendulum.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
when I need to introduce my identity, I would say I am an Eastern and Western Asian who accepts the God of Israel. :)
WOuldn't be the same without ya:clap::D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yusuphhai
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

Ashlantal

Not Really a Newbie Anymore
Jun 3, 2012
209
7
-----
✟8,078.00
Country
Afghanistan
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Easy G (G²);62164230 said:

Daily Minyan and First Fruits of Zion are gradually giving me a new understanding on the role of Gentiles in Messianic Judaism . The comments section in articles on the former especially !
 
Upvote 0

Ashlantal

Not Really a Newbie Anymore
Jun 3, 2012
209
7
-----
✟8,078.00
Country
Afghanistan
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Easy G (G²);62164230 said:

Gene (author of Daily Minyan) seems to have the same theological point of view as Boaz Michael from First Fruits of Zion , both being advocates against One Law and Two House theology , and seeing as how Gene made blog posts with excerpts from one of Boaz's lectures .

This is from FFOZ's site:

Found under "Where do Jewish believers stand with FFOZ?" here Frequently Asked Theological Questions | FFOZ

"At First Fruits of Zion, we teach the unity of Jew and Gentile in Messiah. We assert that Gentile believers are grafted into Israel as Paul says in Romans 11, forming “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15) and that in Messiah, “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” (Galatians 3:28) However, none of that diminishes the unique and precious distinction of ethnic/halachic Jewish identity."

From http://ffoz.org/info/biblical-foundations.html
"We believe that all non-Jewish people who trust in Yeshua are grafted into Israel. While this does not make them Jewish, they are full and equal participants in the covenants of promise. (Ephesians 2:12; Romans 11:11–24; Jeremiah 31:33)"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Gene (author of Daily Minyan) seems to have the same theological point of view as Boaz Michael from First Fruits of Zion , both being advocates against One Law and Two House theology , and seeing as how Gene made blog posts with excerpts from one of Boaz's lectures .

This is from FFOZ's site:

Found under "Where do Jewish believers stand with FFOZ?" here Frequently Asked Theological Questions | FFOZ

"At First Fruits of Zion, we teach the unity of Jew and Gentile in Messiah. We assert that Gentile believers are grafted into Israel as Paul says in Romans 11, forming “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15) and that in Messiah, “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” (Galatians 3:28) However, none of that diminishes the unique and precious distinction of ethnic/halachic Jewish identity."

From Biblical Foundations | First Fruits of Zion
"We believe that all non-Jewish people who trust in Yeshua are grafted into Israel. While this does not make them Jewish, they are full and equal participants in the covenants of promise. (Ephesians 2:12; Romans 11:11–24; Jeremiah 31:33)"

What many messianic gentiles are finding and fighting is the segregation of jew and gentile within the Messianic Jewish worship service. The gentiles are not afforded the same rights and privileges as the Jew. This is not conducive to building "one new man." You're afraid a gentile newcomer may not understand the sanctity of the Scroll? Fine, teach him, but don't put him in a category of 'all gentiles disrespect' these holy things. He cannot be deemed at fault if no one who does know refuses to teach him. And if that man has been faithful in his attendence to learning classes and worship services, shame on the Jewish men who refuse him the right to be counted in a minyon, or to make aliyah to the bema to read from the scroll! And these things happen at Messianic Jewish Synsgogues all over. It's a disgrace! And something needs to be done to change it.
Rant over. Thanks for listening.;)
 
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

macher

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2012
529
21
✟840.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Divine Invitation as I said I believe has been misunderstood. FFOZ doesn't say that non Jews are 'forbidden' if you will from observing. This is the approach of at least the MJAA and UMJC. My experience is what happens with the One Law theology is it lead people to be 'if you don't keep the Law then you're....' Actually you can say that it is a Divine Invitation to non Jews because of the promise being fulfilled in Abraham. Non Jews are invited to be part of the family of God as 'One New Man'.

I've read through the paper again and FFOZ doesn't advocate no law.

Now the distinction pertains to Jews in the flesh which FFOZ and the likes advocate. The distinction of Jews in the flesh must not be glossed over or be forgotten as per Romans 11.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.