Are the Jews still God's people?

[webdog]

That answer made no sense whats so ever.

...then I can't help you...I got it from the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who is saying what? I've posted in post 197 my view about the whole Jew thing. So whos for who's against?

 

[Martin Luther]

Christianity is the continuation of the foundational faith of Abraham and Moses. I think that Jews having rejected Christ are outside the faith and that those who have accepted Christ are the continuation of the family of God. Modern Jews in my perspective are no better off then pagans. Remember what John the Baptist said to the Pharisees "God can take anyone of these stones and turn it into a child of Abraham". I see Christianity as the fulfillment of the writings and the hope of OT. Christians are Gods people Jews are the physical decendents of Abraham but unless they accept christ they are not partakers in the promise. Remember how Jacob placed his hand on the younger of Joseph's sons and gave him the older's blessing? Well I believe its a forshadowing of Christianity. Just like Jacob was chosen for the blessing rather than Esau.

Jews are not Israelites, Jews are those who followed the law. Otherwise you are correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jews are not Israelites, Jews are those who followed the law.

Doesn't matter either way My view still holds firm. But to be honest Jews that have genetic links to Abraham are Israelites. And many Israelites are Jewish. So you seem to be parcing words. Christanity is the fulfillment of the OT. Jews or Israelites who are not christians aren't participators in the Heavenly promise. But there is still that genetic link.

 

[Martin Luther]

Doesn't matter either way My view still holds firm. But to be honest Jews that have genetic links to Abraham are Israelites. And many Israelites are Jewish. So you seem to be parcing words. Christanity is the fulfillment of the OT. Jews or Israelites who are not christians aren't participators in the Heavenly promise. But there is still that genetic link.

No they do not and it cannot be proven, unless you have Abraham's DNA. When you are reading the N.T. it is important to know who is being spoken to and for what cause. Only Judah and Benjamin lived in Israel when Christ walked the earth. Paul, when addressing jews, was referring to those who followed the law. At that time many non Israelites were jews. This distinction is crucial to understanding Paul’s epistles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No they do not and it cannot be proven, unless you have Abraham's DNA. When you are reading the N.T. it is important to know who is being spoken to and for what cause. Only Judah and Benjamin lived in Israel when Christ walked the earth. Paul, when addressing jews, was referring to those who followed the law. At that time many non Israelites were jews. This distinction is crucial to understanding Paul’s epistles.

Judah and Benjamin are Jewish and are decended from Abraham. They returned from Bablyon 400 years before and were pretty much that way at the time of Jesus. Which is why they made such a distinction from the Samerians because they were half breeds. Note there is also a distinction in the NT of God fearers or Gentiles who followed the Law but they were only allowed in the Gentile court. Now there were many mixed Jews from the diaspora certainly who practice the Law faithfully as they could but a distinction is made here and note how Paul reveals his ancestry and connection with Abrahamic lineage. So I think these should be taken into account of what paul meant.

 

[Martin Luther]

Judah and Benjamin are Jewish and are decended from Abraham. They returned from Bablyon 400 years before and were pretty much that way at the time of Jesus. Which is why they made such a distinction from the Samerians because they were half breeds. Note there is also a distinction in the NT of God fearers or Gentiles who followed the Law but they were only allowed in the Gentile court. Now there were many mixed Jews from the diaspora certainly who practice the Law faithfully as they could but a distinction is made here and note how Paul reveals his ancestry and connection with Abrahamic lineage. So I think these should be taken into account of what paul meant.

Esther 8:17

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.


Where did this term jew come from? Read every passage that contains the term jew and you will find it refers to the religion of the law.

 

[LadyEagle]

Esther 8:17

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.


Where did this term jew come from? Read every passage that contains the term jew and you will find it refers to the religion of the law.

You forgot about Levites - they came back with Judah and Benjamin - Ezra Chapter 1.

Look in Nehemiah Chapter 9 and you will see this:

1] Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackclothes, and earth upon them.
[2] And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

So there is definitely a DNA reference there... "seed".....

 

[Martin Luther]

You forgot about Levites - they came back with Judah and Benjamin - Ezra Chapter 1.

Look in Nehemiah Chapter 9 and you will see this:

1] Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackclothes, and earth upon them.
[2] And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

So there is definitely a DNA reference there... "seed".....

Yes, you are correct; I should have mentioned them as well. The point I was trying to make was that the northern ten tribes never returned to Israel. Those pure Israelites who returned to Israel did so to facilitate the birth of Messiah. After 70 A.D. there was not an Israelite left in Israel. I believe Joseph and Mary (Israelites) practiced the pure Law of Moses and by such were likely called jews. However, the majority of those who called themselves jews favored the Babylonian Talmud version of Judaism. This is what Christ spoke out against. Christ was a pure Israelite who flawlessly followed the law of God. He was called a jew but never called himself a jew. The term jew is religious in nature. No man alive today can prove he is blood realted to Abraham.

 

[DHK]

No man alive today can prove he is blood realted to Abraham.

Are you sure about that? Your statement comes close to being a universal negative--an illogical fallacy and impossible to prove. To demonstrate it you would have to take a census of every six billion plus person in this world just to make sure you don't miss anyone (for the Jews are still scattered throughout the world), and go through a detailed genealogy with each one.
I can trace back my genealogy right back to the time of the Reformation without too much difficulty. I am sure that there are many that can do better than I can especially when they have much more interest than I in doing so.
(I am not even an Israelite).

 

[Martin Luther]

Are you sure about that? Your statement comes close to being a universal negative--an illogical fallacy and impossible to prove. To demonstrate it you would have to take a census of every six billion plus person in this world just to make sure you don't miss anyone (for the Jews are still scattered throughout the world), and go through a detailed genealogy with each one.
I can trace back my genealogy right back to the time of the Reformation without too much difficulty. I am sure that there are many that can do better than I can especially when they have much more interest than I in doing so.
(I am not even an Israelite).

Now you’re being silly. There is not a person alive that can trace their ancestry back to Abraham. Please use the proper term, Israelite, a jew can be of any race and it only confuses people who know the difference.

 

[DHK]

Now you’re being silly. There is not a person alive that can trace their ancestry back to Abraham. Please use the proper term, Israelite, a jew can be of any race and it only confuses people who know the difference.

I am not being silly at all. Think it through. As I said, without any trouble at all I can trace my lineage as far back as the Reformation. If others took the trouble they could no doubt trace it farther. I know the Mormons have taken great pains in this area.
Now at the time of Christ all the Jews were sure of their ancestry. We are given the lineage of both Joseph and Mary right in the Bible. They had to be sure of the lineage of Christ in order that he might legitimately sit on the throne of David. The Pharisees proudly proclaimed: "But Abraham is our father."
The Israelite of today has only to trace his lineage back to the time of Christ.
I doubt if it is that difficult for Israelites who, in their families, have kept meticulous records can trace their lineage back two thousand years. We have greater technology than the Israelites of the time of Christ, and they could do it.

 

[LadyEagle]

Yes, you are correct; I should have mentioned them as well. The point I was trying to make was that the northern ten tribes never returned to Israel. Those pure Israelites who returned to Israel did so to facilitate the birth of Messiah. After 70 A.D. there was not an Israelite left in Israel. I believe Joseph and Mary (Israelites) practiced the pure Law of Moses and by such were likely called jews. However, the majority of those who called themselves jews favored the Babylonian Talmud version of Judaism. This is what Christ spoke out against. Christ was a pure Israelite who flawlessly followed the law of God. He was called a jew but never called himself a jew. The term jew is religious in nature. No man alive today can prove he is blood realted to Abraham.

You are wrong on several accounts.

First, Jesus was a Jew because He was born of a Jewish mother. That's how Jewish people trace ancestry.

Next, you are wrong that no Jews lived in Israel after 70 AD.

Masada was not destroyed until 73 AD, for one thing. Next, excavations have found a Jewish settlement near Jerusalem dating between 70 and 132 AD. See here:

An archaeological dig, about five kilometers north of the Old City, has uncovered a complete community that existed during the two generations between the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the Bar-Kochba Rebellion in 132 CE.

ROAD WORKS. The dig at the central island of Shu'afat Road, which separates northbound and southbound traffic.
The dig is proceeding along a 360-meter stretch smack in the center island of Shu'afat Road, the main traffic artery from Jerusalem to Ramallah and farther north to Nablus (Schechem).

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361068205&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Next, you are wrong about the DNA. Genotyping proves that Cohens as well as some tribes in Africa are Jewish from the priestly tribe (Levi) in their DNA and that Jews have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile:

There is now new and exciting DNA evidence for common Jewish origin -- not just among Cohanim, the Priestly Class, but among Jews scattered all over the globe.

Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry.

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp

Plus what DHK said.

 

[Allan]

HP: Even cults has their list of scholars.

Non-sequistur. We are not speaking of nor refering to cults or their views but historical data gathered in relation to early church views.

What is it that ‘you’ have shown? I see your lists of purported scholars and see your lists of early Christian fathers that they try to line up with a particular line of thought, but how does that attest to what ‘you’ have shown? You have done nothing more than reason in a circle as far as I can tell. The views of Christian fathers is often subjective and can be misleading as to their mature sentiments and or their agreement with truth.

I have not reasoned anything in a circle. I have set forth established fact of early church views as noted by writings and historical veracity of said truth. The fact is you can not deny what has been give but must give your circular reasoning to try to move it aside. The views of them 'might' be subject on 'certain' points but I was not stating what is or is not considered subjective. I gave what is considered factual data regarding the historical views of the early church till about or around 450 ad. Which means the pre-mil view in the early church was the main and undisputed view for nearly 300 years that began with the apostles. You see you point has a great flaw in it with regard to 'proported scholars' "trying to line up with a particular line of thought". What is it? Many in that List were Amil'ers, thus it was not all done by Dispy's tring to rewrite history but that is simply a fact found by all views.

What you call historical facts are, more often than not, debatable, and may be nothing more than the accumulated error of many writers over a long period of time. Just because an author states one thing at one point in his or her life in no wise is proof that from a more mature point in their life, they felt the same way. Historical facts of men’s opinions are subject to many variables. You would do well to recognize that fact.

Lol.. You can't even admit the fact that you are wrong. It is fact and historically verified. If you will not acknowledge it that is not my problem but yours. Also we are not talking about one writer but the majority of them. Sure one might change their minds but we have nothing from them NOR their students/disciples who make any such claims. It was an undisputed view for nearly 300 years after the apostles which taught them to their disciples.

Any and all of us can also be guilty of allowing our bias to affect how we read the writings and ideas of others. What we claim are historical facts may in fact be nothing more than desires of our own making. What one often reads into what anther one has written often varies according to ones own beliefs or bias. I have often seen that as true. You will find it happening every day on this list.

Fine. Then show us some that prove otherwise. The list I gave were not all dispensationalist but also Amill's and Post's as well. So I would say the statement stands upon Historical data. This said because it said also by those who do not even believe in the view.

This is a debate forum, not a forum to simply create lists. It is meaningless and impossible to debate early Christian fathers or a whole list of so- called authorities on the issue that never show, nor could many of them, their faces on this list to be reasonably questioned.

Of course. so prove it otherwist. I stated the Early church held a Pre-mill view till about 400'ish ad. (I updated the correction from bc.). You challenged that, and I gave historical proof it was from both the dispy's and Amil's alike. They need not show their faces they have given us their writings and that is enough. It is funny how you can't actually prove anything contrary but continue with the circular reasoning that leads you no where but back here - face to face with the facts. Deny them if you want but you can't dispute them.

May I be so bold as to make a suggestion? If you desire to debate on the list, place your ideas as to how ‘you’ feel on paper with supporting evidence clearly laid out, preferably sound reason or logic, matters of fact, Scripture, etc. and then we can discuss it with you. If all you have for your opinions are the opinions of others you leave little to seriously debate.

No. If you want to debate then I suggest 'you' go to each and every Christian college, University, and Seminary and tell them all the books on church history are wrong and that you can prove it. THEN show your proof. Till then I will stick with what the last couple of hundred of years of Church Historians have said.

We are not discussing the validity of Pre-mil but the valitdity that it was the promiant and undisputed view of the early church for nigh 300+ years or so.

The views of Early Christian fathers can be good source for information but one has to be careful not to place them on too high of a plane. Again, there can be many variables to their writings and they are not inspired writings as Scripture is. They were but fallible men as we are. They may be a secondary source of value at times, but never should be used as a primary source of any doctirine or belief. Scripture, God -instilled reason, matters of fact, and immutable truths of justice should serve as our primary sources for sound theological truth, not the varied and often aberrant writings of the early Christian fathers or anyone else for that matter.

I say this with all due repect to education, but education, yes even so-called Christian education, can be a detriment to truth.

Again, you scoot around the issue. We are not discussing whether they were right or wrong but whether or not the Pre-mil view was infact the prominant and undisputed view for nigh 300+years in the early church. Answer- Yes it was.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Allan: It was an undisputed view for nearly 300 years after the apostles which taught them to their disciples.

HP I asked you the most simple question that you have yet to answer unless I missed a post. One of the first names I recall that was on the list was Andrew, was it not? I asked you to verify how and where he taught a pre-mil view.

You throw around claims such as ‘undisputed’ etc. Why do not you attempt to prove your claim with some real evidence instead of rhetoric? Show us the real facts, facts that can be examined in light of Scripture not simply man’s opinion. Show us the Scripture(s).

 

[Allan]

HP I asked you the most simple question that you have yet to answer unless I missed a post. One of the first names I recall that was on the list was Andrew, was it not? I asked you to verify how and where he taught a pre-mil view.

You throw around claims such as ‘undisputed’ etc. Why do not you attempt to prove your claim with some real evidence instead of rhetoric? Show us the real facts, facts that can be examined in light of Scripture not simply man’s opinion. Show us the Scripture(s).

I do not need to. I gave church historians who have already done this. Research for yourself a little. Why must I do all your work for you.

Editted - I help you out, start with George N. H. Peters, more specifically start with his presentation of Justin Martyr's declarion -such as this:

"Our doctrine [of the Kingdom] is traced continuously from the Apostles themselves, see that (Prop.72, Obs. 3, note 1) the first fathers, who present Millenarian views, saw and conversed either with the Apostles or the elders following them. So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm perpetuated, that Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld it. Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec.2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts: "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many -- even those of that race of Christians who follow no godly and pure doctrine -- do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound" etc. He adds: "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,' etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God." -- The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 480

It was Peters, the Church historian, who gives us this listing of names that all (both Amils and Dispy's)have agreed with and do not dispute- at least I have not yet found any. Not because of him but because the writtings of the times and people bear this out. Read His work in Volume IV, Chapter XIV, V, pg. 271 where you will see a complete reference to those apostles who taught this.

 

[Allan]

However HP, if you want the exact sourse. It was Papias, the disciple of the apostle John who wrote the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, you are correct; I should have mentioned them as well. The point I was trying to make was that the northern ten tribes never returned to Israel. Those pure Israelites who returned to Israel did so to facilitate the birth of Messiah. After 70 A.D. there was not an Israelite left in Israel. I believe Joseph and Mary (Israelites) practiced the pure Law of Moses and by such were likely called jews. However, the majority of those who called themselves jews favored the Babylonian Talmud version of Judaism. This is what Christ spoke out against. Christ was a pure Israelite who flawlessly followed the law of God. He was called a jew but never called himself a jew. The term jew is religious in nature. No man alive today can prove he is blood realted to Abraham.

The babylonian Talmud was written 500 years after Jesus Christ in an entirely different era. No comparison. The Jerusalem Talmud was written 300 years after Christ. Things were different in the time of Christ. I believe that Judaism and Israel of Abraham came to an end in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Since then the lineage of Abraham has mixed with just about every peoples so there are no pure original Israelis or Jews. Lineage was important at the time of Jesus and there were Pure Jews and Israeli and not so pure. And this distinction is evident in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Fox]

If you think the modern Jews are not God's chosen people just ask the Germans. Do ever wonder why the Pres. of Iran is so quiet these days?? He knows who those people are!! Why do so many people on this board try to rationalize away the Bible?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you think the modern Jews are not God's chosen people just ask the Germans. Do ever wonder why the Pres. of Iran is so quiet these days?? He knows who those people are!! Why do so many people on this board try to rationalize away the Bible?

who are you speaking to?