Same Name

[GLJCA]

Israel and the Church are called the same names by God in the Old and New Testaments. Why is that?

The "Church" in the New Testament is given the same names that "Israel" was called in the Old Testament. Here are some examples, we were both called a holy nation, kingdom of priests, chosen people (Ex 19:6, 1 Peter 2:19), the children of God (Deut 14:1, Gal 3:26), the flock of God(Jer 23:2, 1 Peter 5:2), the people of God (Jud 20:2, 1 Peter 2:10), the wife of God(Isa 54:5-6, Eph 5:23-32), the seed of Abraham (Psa 105:6, Gal 3:29). Why would God call the Church the same names as He called Israel if the Church and Israel are separate? In Romans 11:1-22 Paul talks about the olive tree (Covenant Israel) and how the unbelieving Jewish branches were cut off and the believing Gentile branches were grafted in. Notice that only the unbelieving branches were cut off. The believing Jewish branches, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rahab, David, Solomon, etc. were still connected to the tree. The believing Gentile branches were grafted into the same tree that the believing Jewish branches were already dwelling. We see this same concept in Hebrews 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. "They without us should not be perfect" but with us we are made into the Church(city) whose builder and maker is God. The foundation of the Church in Eph 2:20 is built upon the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The prophets in the Old Testament believed by faith in the coming Messiah and their faith saved them just as our faith in the Messiah saves us today. There is overwhelming evidence that True Israel in the Old Testament and the True Church are the same remnant of God. All through the New Testament we see Paul telling us over and over that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. If a Jew is lost he will go to Hell, if he is saved, he is part of the Church. God does not show a difference, so why should we?

 

[Tychicum]

From Strongs:

1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah

From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.


Problem is that same noun (Gr. ekklēsia) was used of the mob who praised the goddess Diana (for about two hours) when Paul was visiting Antioch.

Act 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing,243, 3303, 3767, 2896 and some243 another:5100 for1063 the3588 assembly1577 was2258 confused;4797 and2532 the3588 more part4119 knew1492 not3756 wherefore5101, 1752 they were come together.4905

"ekklēsia" means simply an "assembly". Sometimes a gathering. Even a mob ... of ungodly heathen.

So your premise is flawed.


What you should be looking for which has no ambiguous meaning is "Body of Christ"


Your post is what I call "a swing and a miss".


†

PS if you confuse a Jewish synagogue with one of the Christian Churches ... you ain't been to the synagogues around here ...

 

[foundinHim]

Let us all give praises, thanks, and the glory to the Head of the body, which is the true "church of God". Christ Jesus is His Holy Name!!!

 

[GLJCA]

From Strongs:

1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah

From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.


Problem is that same noun (Gr. ekklēsia) was used of the mob who praised the goddess Diana (for about two hours) when Paul was visiting Antioch.




"ekklēsia" means simply an "assembly". Sometimes a gathering. Even a mob ... of ungodly heathen.

So your premise is flawed.


What you should be looking for which has no ambiguous meaning is "Body of Christ"


Your post is what I call "a swing and a miss".


†

PS if you confuse a Jewish synagogue with one of the Christian Churches ... you ain't been to the synagogues around here ...

Hi foundinhim,

No I don't confuse a synogogue with a Christian Church. The synogogue is full of AntiChrists and the Church is full of the people of God, a holy nation, the flock of God, the wife of God, the seed of Abraham. Big difference!!!!

Apparently you ignored all of the comparisons that I gave only to center on something that I didn't say. Classic Dispy response.

GLJCA

 

[Tychicum]

Hi foundinhim,

No I don't confuse a synogogue with a Christian Church. The synogogue is full of AntiChrists and the Church is full of the people of God, a holy nation, the flock of God, the wife of God, the seed of Abraham. Big difference!!!!

Apparently you ignored all of the comparisons that I gave only to center on something that I didn't say. Classic Dispy response.

GLJCA

Hmmm ... not a very accurate reader I see ... makes a twisted kind of sense I guess. You respond to foundinhim ... but it was I who wrote the post ...

By the way ... the "church" you "see" today is full of snakes and wolves ready to devour you. The Roman church is the best example.

Likely the very LAST place one should look for any kind of real truth ... or so we have been warned.

.

 

[foundinHim]

GLJCA:

I think you're confused about who you are responding to, are you not?

But, I will add a response to your above post...there is only ONE body of Christ Which He is the Head of and it is the ONE and ONLY TRUE "church of God" (1Cor.10:32).

also, "the church of God" is NOT "spiritual Israel".

Let us always keep our eyes on Christ and behold His glory...He is to come again...so be ready!!!

 

[GLJCA]

Hmmm ... not a very accurate reader I see ... makes a twisted kind of sense I guess. You respond to foundinhim ... but it was I who wrote the post ...

By the way ... the "church" you "see" today is full of snakes and wolves ready to devour you. The Roman church is the best example.

Likely the very LAST place one should look for any kind of real truth ... or so we have been warned.

.

I have to disagree. The church I see today is the body of Christ. Granted it is comprised of wheat and tares but it is still the body of Christ.

GLJCA

 

[Tychicum]

I have to disagree. The church I see today is the body of Christ. Granted it is comprised of wheat and tares but it is still the body of Christ.

GLJCA

I think the church for the most part ... even in Asia ... where Paul had spent so much time ... turned from the gospel which Paul had brought them ... even before Paul's death ...

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

By the first century I believe there weren't many reliable who were left.

So many turn to quotes from the old divines of the 1st or 2nd century. I think for the most part they were no authority at all ...

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
(Act 20:28-31 KJV)

.

 

[pehkay]

Israel and the Church are called the same names by God in the Old and New Testaments. Why is that?

Because Israel in the Old Testament is a type of the church in New Testament ^^ ??

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

The "Church" in the New Testament is given the same names that "Israel" was called in the Old Testament. Here are some examples, we were both called a holy nation, kingdom of priests, chosen people (Ex 19:6, 1 Peter 2:19), the children of God (Deut 14:1, Gal 3:26), the flock of God(Jer 23:2, 1 Peter 5:2), the people of God (Jud 20:2, 1 Peter 2:10), the wife of God(Isa 54:5-6, Eph 5:23-32), the seed of Abraham (Psa 105:6, Gal 3:29). Why would God call the Church the same names as He called Israel if the Church and Israel are separate?

Apparently the NT writers and readers didn't see Israel and the church as exactly the same. If Israel and the church were exactly the same, it would be completely redundant to give them the same "names."

Israel consists of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. The church consists of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews are not part of the church, and the believing Gentiles are not part of Israel.

In Romans 11:1-22 Paul talks about the olive tree (Covenant Israel) and how the unbelieving Jewish branches were cut off and the believing Gentile branches were grafted in. Notice that only the unbelieving branches were cut off. The believing Jewish branches, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rahab, David, Solomon, etc. were still connected to the tree.

The tree is not Israel - the natural branches are Israel. Believing Jews are the natural branches which remained, the unbelieving Jews are the natural branches which are broken off. Believing Gentiles grafted into the tree are not required to be circumcised, to obey the law, to offer sacrifices, etc. So its clear that the Gentiles are not Israel.

The foundation of the Church in Eph 2:20 is built upon the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The prophets in the Old Testament believed by faith in the coming Messiah and their faith saved them just as our faith in the Messiah saves us today.

The church was built upon the NT apostles and NT prophets. The church is a new entity consisting of Jews and Gentiles together based on belief in Jesus Christ as Savior. Israel consists of only Jews - not Gentiles - and they may or may not believe in Jesus.

There is overwhelming evidence that True Israel in the Old Testament and the True Church are the same remnant of God.

Scripture never uses the phrases "True Israel" or "True Church."

All through the New Testament we see Paul telling us over and over that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

Paul also said there was no difference between male and female. So are we to believe everyone is no longer male/female? Paul himself also said he was a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin - and this after he became a believer.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[GLJCA]

GLJCA:

I think you're confused about who you are responding to, are you not?

But, I will add a response to your above post...there is only ONE body of Christ Which He is the Head of and it is the ONE and ONLY TRUE "church of God" (1Cor.10:32).

also, "the church of God" is NOT "spiritual Israel".

Let us always keep our eyes on Christ and behold His glory...He is to come again...so be ready!!!

Sorry about that I was reading both posts and wrote to the wrong one.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

I think the church for the most part ... even in Asia ... where Paul had spent so much time ... turned from the gospel which Paul had brought them ... even before Paul's death ...



By the first century I believe there weren't many reliable who were left.

So many turn to quotes from the old divines of the 1st or 2nd century. I think for the most part they were no authority at all ...

.

It is sad to see Dispensationalism's view of the Church of Jesus Christ. The local Church is part of the body of Christ. Granted it has wheat and tares in it and will have until the end of time but it is still His Church.

The damage that Dispensationalism has done to the Church is sad. The Church can not fail because Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. If we fail, He fails. That ain't gonna happen. We will fulfill the commission that our Lord gave us. It won't be in our lifetimes but it will happen.

Look at the two views. You say that the Church is corrupt and not reliable and dying. I say that the Church of Jesus Christ is alive and well and doing the work of Christ in the world.

You believe that the Church will fail in it's commission and Christ will have to come down and destroy His enemies and set up His kingdom and I believe that the Church will succeed in the great commission. The Church will spread the gospel throughout the world and bring the world into God's covenant, which will bring about peace, which is what the lion lying with the lamb is signifying. I believe all that because the Bible says it. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was likened unto leaven placed into dough and it takes over the whole lump of dough. The church started out with 120 people in an upper room now there are millions of Christians throughout the world. The gospel will go forward and the Church will carry it.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Apparently the NT writers and readers didn't see Israel and the church as exactly the same. If Israel and the church were exactly the same, it would be completely redundant to give them the same "names."

Israel consists of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. The church consists of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews are not part of the church, and the believing Gentiles are not part of Israel.



The tree is not Israel - the natural branches are Israel. Believing Jews are the natural branches which remained, the unbelieving Jews are the natural branches which are broken off. Believing Gentiles grafted into the tree are not required to be circumcised, to obey the law, to offer sacrifices, etc. So its clear that the Gentiles are not Israel.



The church was built upon the NT apostles and NT prophets. The church is a new entity consisting of Jews and Gentiles together based on belief in Jesus Christ as Savior. Israel consists of only Jews - not Gentiles - and they may or may not believe in Jesus.



Scripture never uses the phrases "True Israel" or "True Church."



Paul also said there was no difference between male and female. So are we to believe everyone is no longer male/female? Paul himself also said he was a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin - and this after he became a believer.


Lamorak Des Galis

That is the beauty of it. The apostles did see the Church and Israel as the same because we as believing Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. are in. Remember only the unbelieving Jewish branches were cut off. Therefore Paul saw the Church as the Israel of God(Gal 6:16) That is why Paul could tell the Galatian Church that if they were Christ's they were Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.(Gal 3:29) That is why Paul could tell them that they were equal to Isaac as children of promise(Gal 4:28) It is not redundant. We are called the same names because we who are grafted into the olive tree are Covenant Israel.

GLJCA

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

That is the beauty of it. The apostles did see the Church and Israel as the same because we as believing Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. are in.

You ask why people ignore your questions, but its apparent you didn't read my post or answer my questions. You say you don't think dispensationalists are addressing your issues, but you aren't interacting with those who actually do answer your questions. If you aren't going to be serious about dialogue, then those who ignore you are justified in doing so.

There are clear and obvious distinctions between Israel and the Church that you are totally ignoring. One is that Cornelius wasn't required to be circumcised.

Remember only the unbelieving Jewish branches were cut off.

Its ironic that you miss the point that Paul spoke of the unbelieving Jewish branches as Israel. Paul said the unbelieving NATURAL branches can be grafted back in. The WILD branches didn't become Jewish - they remained Gentile.

If the olive tree was actually Israel, then Paul would have said the WILD branches would become NATURAL when grafted in.

Therefore Paul saw the Church as the Israel of God(Gal 6:16) That is why Paul could tell the Galatian Church that if they were Christ's they were Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.(Gal 3:29)

So you're seriously trying to tell me that in Galatians, Paul equated the church with Israel? Paul said the law is not based on faith. He was vehemently opposed to the Galatians being circumcised and following the law of Moses. Paul also said this:

Galatians 3:6-9 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, 7 so then, understand that those who believe are the sons of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel to Abraham ahead of time, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you." 9 So then those who believe are blessed along with Abraham the believer.

Paul doesn't equate believing Gentiles with Israel, but he associates them with Abraham and specifically Abraham's faith. When Abraham believed, Abraham was a Gentile. The covenant and circumcision - associated with becoming a Jew and entering the community of Israel - comes much later. Not all the Jews of Israel are believers. All those in the church are believers, whether Jew or Gentile. To call the "church" Israel is to confuse it with an entity that has a mixture of believers and unbelievers.

That is why Paul could tell them that they were equal to Isaac as children of promise(Gal 4:28) It is not redundant. We are called the same names because we who are grafted into the olive tree are Covenant Israel.

You just totally ignored the context. Paul is not equating Israel and the church here at all. Paul contrasts the promise with the law, and points out that Gentiles are NOT to be under the law.

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[GLJCA]

You ask why people ignore your questions, but its apparent you didn't read my post or answer my questions. You say you don't think dispensationalists are addressing your issues, but you aren't interacting with those who actually do answer your questions. If you aren't going to be serious about dialogue, then those who ignore you are justified in doing so.

There are clear and obvious distinctions between Israel and the Church that you are totally ignoring. One is that Cornelius wasn't required to be circumcised.

I must have missed the questions that you asked me could you please share them again and I will address them.

You are right that Cornelius was not required to be circumcised but he was required to be baptized(Acts 10:48) which is the sign of the New Covenant.
Circumcision was the sign of God's covenant in the OT. I shared before that circumcision was done away with because it was a shadow of the shedding of Christ blood and His righteousness.

All of the OT rites that required the shedding of blood were done away with in Christ and replaced with NT signs of the New Covenant. Passover, that required sacrificing a spotless lamb was replaced with The Lord's Supper. Circumcision, that required the shedding of blood was replaced with Baptism. Compare what circumcision did in the OT and what baptism does in the New Covenant. The signs changed but the meaning of the signs remained the same.

Paul taught Jew and Gentile alike in the NT that circumcision meant nothing. Therefore to say that is a distinction is incorrect. I was circumcised when I was a baby does that make me a Jew?

GLJCA

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I must have missed the questions that you asked me could you please share them again and I will address them.

My post is still there for all to see. But let's start with one:
Where in Scripture does the precise phrase "True Church" and/or "True Israel" occur?

You are right that Cornelius was not required to be circumcised but he was required to be baptized(Acts 10:48) which is the sign of the New Covenant.
Circumcision was the sign of God's covenant in the OT. I shared before that circumcision was done away with because it was a shadow of the shedding of Christ blood and His righteousness.

Which means you admit there is a distinction between those in Israel - required to be circumcised - and those in the church - not required to be circumcised. So tell me - why did Paul circumcise Timothy but not Titus?

All of the OT rites that required the shedding of blood were done away with in Christ and replaced with NT signs of the New Covenant.

Looks like your list of distinctions between Israel and the church is getting bigger and bigger...its becoming more obvious that they aren't the same in your view.

The Jewish Christians certainly met in the temple and were known to be zealous for the law. Also in Acts 21:17-26, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem urged Paul to participate in purification rites with 4 other Jewish Christians. Paul purified himself along with his fellow Jewish Christians. These rites are described in Numbers 6:9-12. So in light of all that Paul wrote, why did Paul willingly participate in OT sacrifices?

Paul taught Jew and Gentile alike in the NT that circumcision meant nothing. Therefore to say that is a distinction is incorrect. I was circumcised when I was a baby does that make me a Jew?

Its flippant to say the mere act of circumcision makes one a Jew. It also ignores Scripture which does say it is important, such as Gen 17:13-14

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

And again, if Paul considered circumcision inconsequential, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Why did Paul refuse to circumcise Titus?


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[pehkay]

This indicates that the strong influence of the Judaic background remained among the Jewish believers. It disturbed and frustrated the move of the Lord's gospel. Paul circumcised Timothy for the gospel's sake since people know his father is a Greek.

When Paul was in Jerusalem, the atmosphere of Judaism is so strong that it even affected Paul to go through the nazarite vows. If he had gone through it, God's New Testament economy/purpose would be FINISHED with Paul.

Acts 21 -

At this point he must have felt that he was in a predicament, and he must have been deeply troubled, longing to be delivered from it. Just at the time when their vow was to be concluded, God allowed an uproar to rise up against him, and what they intended to accomplish was blown away. Moreover, by God's sovereignty Paul was rescued out of his predicament.

Hence, in His sovereignty God allowed Paul to be arrested by the Jews and imprisoned by the Romans that he might write his last eight Epistles, which completed the divine revelation.

The mixing of Judaic practices with God's New Testament economy was not only erroneous in relation to God's dispensation but also abominable in the eyes of God. This gross mixture was terminated by Him a mere ten years or so later with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the center of Judaism, through Titus and his Roman army. This rescued and absolutely separated the church from the devastation of Judaism.

 

[GLJCA]

My post is still there for all to see. But let's start with one:
Where in Scripture does the precise phrase "True Church" and/or "True Israel" occur?



Which means you admit there is a distinction between those in Israel - required to be circumcised - and those in the church - not required to be circumcised. So tell me - why did Paul circumcise Timothy but not Titus?



Looks like your list of distinctions between Israel and the church is getting bigger and bigger...its becoming more obvious that they aren't the same in your view.

The Jewish Christians certainly met in the temple and were known to be zealous for the law. Also in Acts 21:17-26, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem urged Paul to participate in purification rites with 4 other Jewish Christians. Paul purified himself along with his fellow Jewish Christians. These rites are described in Numbers 6:9-12. So in light of all that Paul wrote, why did Paul willingly participate in OT sacrifices?



Its flippant to say the mere act of circumcision makes one a Jew. It also ignores Scripture which does say it is important, such as Gen 17:13-14

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

And again, if Paul considered circumcision inconsequential, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Why did Paul refuse to circumcise Titus?


Lamorak Des Galis

As far as I can see I have answered all of the questions that you have asked in this thread so I can not undersatnd why you would say that I haven't. Yes you postS are here for all to see and my answers are also.

Ok so I don't miss anything I will take each comment and answer it.

I don't remember ever using the term True Church in one of my posts so I don't know the context of which I was speaking. The Bible does not say anything concerning the true church. In fact the only churches addressed in the NT were local churches not the universal church.

Sure I believe that there is a distinction between the unbelieving nation of Israel and the Church, of course. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Now I don't think that there is a distinction between the unbelieving nation of Israel and the unbelievers in our churches, they are all lost and going to Hell. One can't compare believers with unbelievers.

I do not believe that there is a distinction between the believing Covenant Israel(all the believing Jews that remained in the olive tree, when the unbelievers were cut out), and the Church of Jesus Christ. We are all one in the olive tree, covenant Israel. We all have the same root that is Christ. That is why Paul could tell a Gentile church that they were Abraham's seed and children of promise. Oh and I didn't say that we are equal Paul did.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Now in answer to your question concerning Timothy.
Acts 16:3Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Paul didn't circumcise Timothy because he thought that circumcision was anything. He did it because of the Jews there. The Jews would not have listened to a half-breed who was outside of the covenant of God.
Titus wasn't circumcised because he didn't need to be nor did he want to be and at that age I can't blame him. Using Paul's words, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

Paul tells us what Christ's circumcision is today. Col 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Now concerning Paul in Acts 21. With just a little bit of studying you will find that Paul was all things to all men so that by all means he may win some. This was a case where Paul was accused falsely of preaching against Moses. To prove to the masses that he was innocent of that charge he went ahead and passed through the purification process with the other 4 men. Nothing that he did was contrary to what he preached. He still preached the abrogation of the law as a means of salvation, which may I say that it never was. Faith in the Messiah has always been the only means of salvation from the OT to the NT. Paul said over and over that circumcision as a rite meant nothing.
1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Now let me ask you why Paul speaking to the Philippian gentile church would tell them:
Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
He told those Gentiles to beware of the concision, which are people who boast of being of the circumcision but are unbelievers. Then he said that the He and the Philippian Church were the circumcision. Why did He tell Gentiles that they were the circumcision? Woah doesn't that equate them with Covenant Israel?

It isn't flippant to say that circumcision is a sign of the covenant and one could not be a Jew without being circumcised. At the point that one refused to be circumcised he had broken the covenant and was cast out from the people of God.

I answer the question about Timothy above so I don't think I need to go through it again.

GLJCA

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I don't remember ever using the term True Church in one of my posts so I don't know the context of which I was speaking.

Try two days ago and post 1 of this thread. Its there for anyone to read. You wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence that True Israel in the Old Testament and the True Church are the same remnant of God.

The Bible does not say anything concerning the true church.

Your statement is confusing compared with what you said two days ago. Ironically I already said that Scripture never uses the phrases "True Israel" or "True Church." That was in post 10 of this thread, in response to what you said in post 1.

You have a serious disconnect between what you said two days ago and what you say now.

Sure I believe that there is a distinction between the unbelieving nation of Israel and the Church, of course. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Now you say of course there is a difference. But the title of the thread implies you believe they are the same. In post 1 you said:
Why would God call the Church the same names as He called Israel if the Church and Israel are separate?

You contradict yourself.

Now I don't think that there is a distinction between the unbelieving nation of Israel and the unbelievers in our churches, they are all lost and going to Hell. One can't compare believers with unbelievers.

I find your statement here highly ironic. So why are you trying to equate Israel - which consists primarily of unbelievers especially since Paul's day - with the body of believers called the church?

I do not believe that there is a distinction between the believing Covenant Israel(all the believing Jews that remained in the olive tree, when the unbelievers were cut out), and the Church of Jesus Christ. We are all one in the olive tree, covenant Israel.

Don't you see the obvious contradiction in your statement? You call the natural branches covenant Israel. And you call the olive tree covenant Israel.

The tree is not the branches, nor are the branches the tree. Paul makes that clear. But you confuse the tree with the branches.

Now in answer to your question concerning Timothy.
Acts 16:3Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Paul didn't circumcise Timothy because he thought that circumcision was anything. He did it because of the Jews there. The Jews would not have listened to a half-breed who was outside of the covenant of God.

Now all you have to do is connect the dots.

The Jews = Israel = circumcision important.

The church = believing Jews + believing Gentiles = circumcision not required.

Therefore there is an obvious distinction between Israel and the church. Unlike your assertion that they are the same in post 1.

Titus wasn't circumcised because he didn't need to be nor did he want to be and at that age I can't blame him. Using Paul's words, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

Titus was a believing gentile. Timothy was a believing Jew. Paul opposed circumcising Titus because Titus was a Gentile. Paul circumcised Timothy because he was a believing Jew who was going to minister to other Jews. I think its obvious that Paul saw a distinction between Israel and the church.

Now concerning Paul in Acts 21. With just a little bit of studying you will find that Paul was all things to all men so that by all means he may win some. This was a case where Paul was accused falsely of preaching against Moses. To prove to the masses that he was innocent of that charge he went ahead and passed through the purification process with the other 4 men.

So you admit that Paul went through an OT rite. That contradicts what you said in post 15 :
All of the OT rites that required the shedding of blood were done away with in Christ and replaced with NT signs of the New Covenant.

You ignored the point that many other Jewish Christians participated - even encouraged Paul - to go through with the purification process. This highlights that there is a difference between Jew and Gentile. Could a Gentile Christian enter the temple in Jerusalem in Paul's day? No, of course not.

And more to the point: all this is rather obvious that Paul and the early church recognized a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Now let me ask you why Paul speaking to the Philippian gentile church would tell them:
Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
He told those Gentiles to beware of the concision, which are people who boast of being of the circumcision but are unbelievers. Then he said that the He and the Philippian Church were the circumcision. Why did He tell Gentiles that they were the circumcision?

Paul told them because certain Judaizers were telling the Philippians they had to physically be circumcised. Paul used a word play to underscore that the Philippians were already spiritually circumcised.

Woah doesn't that equate them with Covenant Israel?

I certainly didn't see Paul use the phrase "covenant Israel" - nor does the entire Bible for that matter. Paul never called the Gentile Philippians Israel.

I think I've already shown you enough proof in other passages that Paul did see a difference between Israel and the church. You admit as much. Therefore Paul did not regard them as the same, which once again is contrary to your main point in post 1.

It isn't flippant to say that circumcision is a sign of the covenant and one could not be a Jew without being circumcised. At the point that one refused to be circumcised he had broken the covenant and was cast out from the people of God.

I never said that statement was flippant. You are doing a classic bait and switch tactic. Anyone following the posts in this thread can see what you originally said. You said
I was circumcised when I was a baby does that make me a Jew? -

and that - your above statement - is flippant.

I answer the question about Timothy above so I don't think I need to go through it again.

Since what you said about Timothy actually supports my original points that there is a distinction between the church and Israel, then no I don't think you need to go through it again.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[eph3Nine]

Lamorak...there are some who are here to deliberately FIGHT and try their darndest to DEBUNK Gods revealed will and plan. They prefer their religion over truth in Gods Word...and we have dealt with them ALL before. They have a zeal for God but WITHOUT knowledge...bless their hearts.