Keeping the Passover in order to be saved

[robycop3]

So, it's about "loyalty", not race? Get your false doctrine straight!



The Church is literal Israel. You mean racial Israel? God made no promises to racial Israel!



A New Covenant with his covenant people, Israel, the church.



How about President Reuven Rivlin, as Jewish as Obama is Christian. How about the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as Jewish as Obama is Christian. You know less than nothing about Israel, because what you think you know is factually wrong.



The majority of Baptists through most of Baptist history didn't believe your anti-Christian doctrine. Your doctrine is not Baptist.



Until the fullness of gentiles have come into Israel, the church.

I'm not gonna answer all your goofy stuff above, point by point this time. it's all horse feathers, from one who believes the false "replacement theology" doctrine.

God indeed DID make promises to LITERAL Israel and Judah, and He will keep them. The punishment of the Jews for some 1800 years, from their exile from the Roman empire in 135-6 AD thru the nazi holocaust is a matter of public record. And while there are instances of non-Jewish converts to Judaism being persecuted along with the actual jews, it's the exception, not the rule.

And "YOU" say "I" am ignorant of modern Israel? How goofy! And you say netanyahu isn't Jewish? That's DOUBLY goofy! The Israeli parliament is highly critical of N's son for dating a non-Jewish Norwegian woman. Do you REALLY believe N would be PM if he weren't fully Jewish in both race and religion? Such a discussion isn't worth having!

You've shown yourself to be just another false-doctrinaire pretending to be a Baptist. I reject your "replacement theology" as a doctrine conceived by Satan and contrary to Scripture, which PLAINLY draws a distinction between the Church and literal, racial Israel. Replacement theology's roots are in the old anti-semitism which resulted in centuries of persecution of the Jews, culminating in the holocaust. The true Baptist rejects all such garbage.

 

[Smyth]

For example, the carefully kept Genealogies in Scripture from Abraham and David to the Israelites of the time of Christ prove a racial perpetuation continued. The repeated words "your fathers" referring to "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" demand a racial continuation. The genealogy of Christ proves a racial continuation. So the "Israel" in the New Testament was an ethnic racial nation that included religious Jews who are were no part of the genealogies.

The nation of Israel had a royal bloodline. Jesus was to be the descendant of Abraham and David. There was also a priestly bloodline. But, Jesus was and is the final priest (although, not a Levite) and king, and he is our priest and king. Many Jews, probably especially the Pharisees, had genealogies showing themselves to be descendants of Jacob.

When Paul makes racial suggestions, he uses the word "Isrealites" not "Jews". Paul uses "Jew" just to mean an adherent to the religion of Circumcision. And, I say racial suggestions because arguably Paul's comments about Israelites don't requires the tribes to be racially homogeneous.

This same racial Israel exists today and you cannot possibly disprove it.

You want me to prove a negative?

The government of the state of Israel does not operate on the assumption that there's a racial Israel. First, Israelis come in all races. Second, Israel's definition of a Jew, those who are invited to be citizens of Israel, is purely religious (adherent of Judaism, there's no race test).

The last descendants of Jacob have been lost for nearly 2000 years. Statistically* speaking, just about any European or middle-easterner has an ancestor who was Jacob's ancestor. We're all natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but it's only the spiritual descendants that count (faithful Christians).

*There has been a 100 generations since Christ and the dispersal of the last tribes of Israel. There has been 150 generations since the dispersal of the ten tribes. There have been 200 generations since Jacob. That's 4000 years of Israelites leaving Israel and mixing with gentile populations.

1267650600228229401496703205376 is the number of ancestors you had living in the year 16AD, 2000 years ago, if no single ancestor were on multiple branches of your family tree. But, the world's population was probably about 300000000 at the time. How could an ancestor of Jacob avoid being in any of our family lines? Even for people 2000 years ago, there was probably no such thing as a European who was more than five generations away from an ancestor with a genealogy to Jacob.

Furthermore, Paul says that "in Christ there is neither JEW or GENTILE" and so "Jew" is not a synonym with "Christian" and is not used as a religious term in that phrase or else "in Christ" denies being a true jew in a religous sense. If the term "Jew" in that phrase meant a RELIGIOUS view then "in Christ" there is no JEWISH RELIGION. If it means RACE then "in Christ' there is no racial distinctions. So either way your view simply does not fly.

God's people are of one faith and one nation. The biblical Jew looked forward to Christ's coming. The Christian looks back to Christ's coming.

 

[The Biblicist]

The nation of Israel had a royal bloodline. Jesus was to be the descendant of Abraham and David. There was also a priestly bloodline. But, Jesus was and is the final priest (although, not a Levite) and king, and he is our priest and king. Many Jews, probably especially the Pharisees, had genealogies showing themselves to be descendants of Jacob.

You have already admitted that every Israelite is a Jew, because you said Israelites are not proselyted to Jewishness but are born into that religion. Therefore, Israelite and Jew are interchangable terms and these genealogies prove there is a very prominent RACIAL element with being a Israelite, thus being a Jew. These genealogies irrefutable prove this.

When Paul makes racial suggestions, he uses the word "Isrealites" not "Jews". Paul uses "Jew" just to mean an adherent to the religion of Circumcision. And, I say racial suggestions because arguably Paul's comments about Israelites don't requires the tribes to be racially homogeneous.

You can't have it both ways! If you claim that Israelites do not need to be proselyted to become "Jews" but are Jews by birth then "Israelite" and "Jews" are inchangable terms. Again, this proves the strong racial element in the term "Jews" as snyonomous with "Israelite."

You want me to prove a negative?

You cannot prove natural born descendents of Abraham do not exist today. I could care less what the assumptions the government of Israel operates on today. It does not change reality or the Biblical data or Biblical prophecy concerning Israelites as natural born children of Abraham.

The government of the state of Israel does not operate on the assumption that there's a racial Israel. First, Israelis come in all races. Second, Israel's definition of a Jew, those who are invited to be citizens of Israel, is purely religious (adherent of Judaism, there's no race test).

You know very well that there are many among these people who claim to be natural born children of Abraham and not merely advocates of the jewish religion.

The last descendants of Jacob have been lost for nearly 2000 years.

Who says? God says that he scattered them throughout the world and that he will regather them just as he did in the Babylonian captivity when a remnant of all 12 tribes returned. The New Testament does not regard any tribe of Israel to be lost. Paul knew precisely what tribe his genealogical birth originate from.

We're all natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

; but it's only the spiritual descendants that count (faithful Christians).

baloney!

*There has been a 100 generations since Christ and the dispersal of the last tribes of Israel. There has been 150 generations since the dispersal of the ten tribes. There have been 200 generations since Jacob. That's 4000 years of Israelites leaving Israel and mixing with gentile populations.

1267650600228229401496703205376 is the number of ancestors you had living in the year 16AD, 2000 years ago, if no single ancestor were on multiple branches of your family tree. But, the world's population was probably about 300000000 at the time. How could an ancestor of Jacob avoid being in any of our family lines? Even for people 2000 years ago, there was probably no such thing as a European who was more than five generations away from an ancestor with a genealogy to Jacob.

More baloney! Biblical prophecy clearly demonstrates they are not lost to God and he will regather them a "second" time at the end of this age.

(Is. 11:11-12 NASB) Then it will happen on that day that the Lord will again recover the second time with His hand the remnant of His people, who will remain, from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And He will lift up a standard for the nations, and will assemble the banished ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

First, this cannot refer to the regathering under Ezra and Nehemiah, because he clearly says that they will be regathered “a second time.” Isaiah was writing before the first dispersion under Nebuchadnezzar (8th century B.C.). The return from Babylonian and Assyrian exile was the “first regathering” (Is. 10:20-27; 44:26-45:8). Moreover, this cannot refer to the regathering of the Exodus under Moses, because Isaiah promised a “remnant” will be regathered. The Exodus was not a remnant –rather all of Israel was gathered.

Second, this passage states that this will be a global regathering (“from the islands of the sea… from the four corners of the earth”), rather than alocal regathering.

Third, the context explains that this is a global regathering at the end of history. In verses 1-5, Isaiah speaks of the Branch (the Messiah). In verses 6-9, he speaks of the Messianic kingdom. In verses 10-16, he speaks of the political or physical regathering of Israel. In chapter 12:1-6, he speaks of the spiritual regathering in Israel.[1] This is during the time of King Messiah (v.10). Isaiah mentions the “Root of Jesse,” which is synonymous with the Messiah.

Fourth, he mentions the specific countries from which the Jews will return. Regarding the first regathering under Ezra and Nehemiah, Eugenie Johnston writes:

About 50 thousand Jews from Babylon returned immediately under Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:6-7, 66-67). Nearly a century later, Nehemiah led another group from Shushan in Persia (Neh. 1:1; 2:1-11). No other places are mentioned from which Jews returned. Among the names of Jews who returned, we find a number of Babylonian and Persian names, indicating that the Jews had lived in these areas, but no evidence of return from other regions.[2]

Finally, you are taking an example like the "stranger" that becomes circumcised to treated as natural born, and Rahab as though these are the rule rather than the exception to the rule. The rule is that Israelites as a race iwith regard to the males through whom inheritance and blood line was the norm for passing down inheritance whereas any male "stranger" being brought into that line of inheritance, or priestly line is either not a reality or a rare exception to the general rule. Your arguments operate on the exceptions to the general rule instead by the general rule. The genealogies prove that the general rule is racial reproduction.

 

[MsGuidedAngel]

Happy Shabbat Shalom ( Peaceful Sabbath ) Everyone!!

Love Always and Shalom, YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

 

[Smyth]

You have already admitted that every Israelite is a Jew,

In the Old Testament, Isrealites who didn't keep to Judaism were expelled from Israel. Foreigners who converted to Judaism became Israelites (Exodus 12:48). When Paul referred to Israelite according to the flesh, which is either a generalization, pandering, or he was referring to a subset of Israel (unless you want to accuse Paul of contradicting the Old Testament).

Therefore, Israelite and Jew are interchangable terms and these genealogies prove there is a very prominent RACIAL element with being a Israelite, thus being a Jew. These genealogies irrefutable prove this.

There has been no genealogies for almost 2000 years. And, where in the Bible is someone a Jew based on genealogy, not circumcision? A man is a Jew if his Jewish parents circumcised him and he hasn't converted to another religion.

I could care less what the assumptions the government of Israel operates on today.

Maybe you could care less, but for some Evangelicals, the government of Israel is an idol. See the other poster who claimed that the all the government of Israel is Orthodox Jews -- that's a conclusion he reached from his idolatry. In reality, they're overwhelmingly secular Jews.

You know very well that there are many among these people who claim to be natural born children of Abraham and not merely advocates of the jewish religion.

No, no such thing. There's nothing in modern Jewish doctrine that equates Jews Jews, with natural born children of Abraham. There's nothing any Jewish family has to demonstrate they're natural born children of Abraham. Whenever I've seen a modern Jew claim to be a descendant of Abraham, it's a spiritual claim, or if of a specific tribe, it's a self-aggrandizing honorary thing.

More baloney! Biblical prophecy clearly demonstrates they are not lost to God and he will regather them a "second" time at the end of this age.

God has already gathered them together, in the Church. Is. 11:11-12 was fulfilled by Christ when he established the Church -- have you even read the chapter? It screams Jesus!!!! Is 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse....

Finally, you are taking an example like the "stranger" that becomes circumcised to treated as natural born, and Rahab as though these are the rule rather than the exception to the rule.

Exodus 12:48 is the rule. It's the practice throughout the Bible. It's even the doctrine of every modern Jewish sect, from the most secular and liberal to the most orthodox and conservative.

 

[The Biblicist]

In the Old Testament, Isrealites who didn't keep to Judaism were expelled from Israel. Foreigners who converted to Judaism became Israelites (Exodus 12:48). When Paul referred to Israelite according to the flesh, which is either a generalization, pandering, or he was referring to a subset of Israel (unless you want to accuse Paul of contradicting the Old Testament).

Sorry, but this rationalization does not change the fact that your position is there is no such thing as a proselyte Jew out of Israelite racial stock. Now, if you want to take the position that israelites had to be proselyted to the Jewish faith, then that proves Israelite does not equal "jew." Either way your case is lost.

There has been no genealogies for almost 2000 years. And, where in the Bible is someone a Jew based on genealogy, not circumcision? A man is a Jew if his Jewish parents circumcised him and he hasn't converted to another religion.

2000 years does not change the fact that these genealogies prove from the Biblical perspective a racial element that dominated the Israelite/Jew concept. 2000 years does not change the fact that God does not lose track and the orthodox Jewish faith still requires intermarriage which would continue the racial element if followed.

No, no such thing. There's nothing in modern Jewish doctrine that equates Jews Jews, with natural born children of Abraham. There's nothing any Jewish family has to demonstrate they're natural born children of Abraham. Whenever I've seen a modern Jew claim to be a descendant of Abraham, it's a spiritual claim, or if of a specific tribe, it's a self-aggrandizing honorary thing.

Says who? This is nothing but your personal opinion versus their profession.

God has already gathered them together, in the Church. Is. 11:11-12 was fulfilled by Christ when he established the Church -- have you even read the chapter? It screams Jesus!!!! Is 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse....

You obviously don't read Romans 11 contextually. The "Israel" in Romans 11:26 is continued to be described in Romans 11:27-28 and they are not in the church, but are the present "enemies" of the gospel in order that the gospel may come to the Gentiles. The "Israel" in Romans 11:26 is the same Israel that was "cut off" which in Romans 11:25-28 describes at what point they will be grafted back in "again." The remnant were NEVER cut off. The Gentiles are not cut off. The only entity that was "cut off" was ethnic Israel and therefore that is the only possible contextual entity that can be grafted back in "again." So much for your theory and interpretative skills.

Exodus 12:48 is the rule. It's the practice throughout the Bible. It's even doctrine of every modern Jewish sect, from the most secular and liberal to the most orthodox and conservative.

No it is not. It is the rule for the exceptions to the norm which norm is natural born citizens.

 

[Smyth]

Sorry, but this rationalization does not change the fact that your position is there is no such thing as a proselyte Jew out of Israelite racial stock.

Israelites are raised in the covenant. They're already circumcised. They're already adherents to Judaism. It makes no sense for them to convert to what they already are.

The simple and fatal flaw in your argument is that -- and you know it to be true -- is if a gentile woman converts to Judaism and then she has children, those children are Jews. There will be no such thing as their children ever being proselytes. By your reasoning, they are Israelite racial stock.

2000 years does not change the fact that these genealogies prove from the Biblical perspective a racial element that dominated the Israelite/Jew concept.

Statistically, Jacob is your and my natural ancestor. He's in both our family trees on billions of branches. It's inconceivable to you, but this is not in the least an exaggeration. If there's a racial element, we're all Jews!

2000 years does not change the fact that God does not lose track and the orthodox Jewish faith still requires intermarriage which would continue the racial element if followed.

That's the most unchristian thing ever posted in this forum. There is no true Jewish faith outside of Christianity. Someone who rejects Jesus does not have true faith. They do not believe Moses and the prophets. If they had true faith, they would love Jesus because Jesus came from God -- and you know whose children they really are.

Says who? This is nothing but your personal opinion versus their profession.

Says them! This is their opinion, the opinion of all of them. The opinion, if their doctrine can be called an opinion, of Jews is that there is no racial element to being a Jew.

You obviously don't read Romans 11 contextually. The "Israel" in Romans 11:26 is continued to be described in Romans 11:27-28 and they are not in the church, but are the present "enemies" of the gospel in order that the gospel may come to the Gentiles.

There are two Isreals, as proven by Paul saying not all Israel is Israel. There is the church called Israel, which Christians are coming into (along with the OT saints already there) in Romans 11:25. There is the church (including OT saints), called Israel which is ALL saved by Christ at the cross. Then there is the Israel according to the flesh (which Paul may just mean any Jews, the carnal Israel, regardless of natural ancestry). Not all of them are saved, as Paul declares in Romans 11, but just a remnant. They won't all be grafted back on, but only those who do not continue in their unbelief (v23).

 

[The Biblicist]

Israelites are raised in the covenant. They're already circumcised. They're already adherents to Judaism. It makes no sense for them to convert to what they already are.

The simple and fatal flaw in your argument is that -- and you know it to be true -- is if a gentile woman converts to Judaism and then she has children, those children are Jews. There will be no such thing as their children ever being proselytes. By your reasoning, they are Israelite racial stock

Inheritance comes through the male not the woman.

Statistically, Jacob is your and my natural ancestor. He's in both our family trees on billions of branches. It's inconceivable to you, but this is not in the least an exaggeration. If there's a racial element, we're all Jews!

This is just pure hogwash.

There are two Isreals, as proven by Paul saying not all Israel is Israel. There is the church called Israel, which Christians are coming into (along with the OT saints already there) in Romans 11:25. There is the church (including OT saints), called Israel which is ALL saved by Christ at the cross. Then there is the Israel according to the flesh (which Paul may just mean any Jews, the carnal Israel, regardless of natural ancestry). Not all of them are saved, as Paul declares in Romans 11, but just a remnant. They won't all be grafted back on, but only those who do not continue in their unbelief (v23).

You are dancing around your problem and you know it. The church was not "cut of"! The "remnant" was not "cut off." It was Israel as an ethnic community in contrast to the Gentile ethnic community that was cut off as a nation and people and it is what was cut off that is grafted in "again." It is that which is now enemies of the gospel and it is that which is "beloved of the Father" according to election. And so "all Israel" in this context is not the church, not the remnant, not the Gentiles but Israel as an ethnic nation - period!

 

[Smyth]

Inheritance comes through the male not the woman.

Your doctrine is indefensible, so you stoop to pointless objections. If a gentile husband and gentile wife both convert to Judaism, their children will be raised in Judaism and will never be proselytes. So, by your logic, the children must be Israelite racial stock.

This is just pure hogwash.

Jacob is your natural ancestor and mine. I showed you the math. You can't fault it, but you wave your hands and dismiss it out of hand. Your doctrine is indefensible.

You are dancing around your problem and you know it. The church was not "cut of"! The "remnant" was not "cut off." It was Israel as an ethnic community in contrast to the Gentile ethnic community that was cut off as a nation and people and it is what was cut off that is grafted in "again." It is that which is now enemies of the gospel and it is that which is "beloved of the Father" according to election. And so "all Israel" in this context is not the church, not the remnant, not the Gentiles but Israel as an ethnic nation - period!

Did you stomp you feet and rip your shirt giving that errant diatribe?

Every Jew who has ever died without faith in God has not been saved. All your Israel has not been saved. But, all God's Israel has been saved, because this Israel is the nation of people who have faith in God. They have been saved by Christ, both the saints who came before Christ and those who came after Christ. This is how all Israel is saved: the Deliverer -- Jesus -- will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob -- on the cross -- and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

The only enemies of Christians who were beloved by the Father, were Old Testament saints who hadn't yet been introduced to the person of Jesus. Faithless Jews are not beloved by the Father.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your doctrine is indefensible, so you stoop to pointless objections. If a gentile husband and gentile wife both convert to Judaism, their children will be raised in Judaism and will never be proselytes. So, by your logic, the children must be Israelite racial stock.

Again, you are making your argument based on the exception to the rule as though all physical seed of Abraham died out between Abraham and Christ and all the Gentiles repopulated the entire nation. That is simply hogwash and you know it is.

Jacob is your natural ancestor and mine. I showed you the math. You can't fault it, but you wave your hands and dismiss it out of hand. Your doctrine is indefensible.

Lineage is subjective and therefore not subject to your math equations. There is no math that can predict such an outcome.

Did you stomp you feet and rip your shirt giving that errant diatribe?

No, I save that for real bad stuff.

Every Jew who has ever died without faith in God has not been saved.

Who said otherwise? Not me!

All your Israel has not been saved. But, all God's Israel has been saved, because this Israel is the nation of people who have faith in God. They have been saved by Christ, both the saints who came before Christ and those who came after Christ. This is how all Israel is saved: the Deliverer -- Jesus -- will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob -- on the cross -- and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

The only enemies of Christians who were beloved by the Father, were Old Testament saints who hadn't yet been introduced to the person of Jesus. Faithless Jews are not beloved by the Father.

You are still doing your dance routine and avoiding the contextual evidence. The church was not "cut off"! The remnant were never cut off. Gentiles were not cut off. Israel as an ethnic race, the nation was "cut off" and that is what is grafted in "again." All your math and arguments God simply laughs at because the bottom line is what has been cut off is what will be grafted in again. That is the Israel in Romans 11:25-28 who are NOW enemies of the gospel for the sake of the gentiles. It is just that simple and so simply you can't respond except by changing the subject, diversion and ridicule.

 

[Smyth]

Again, you are making your argument based on the exception to the rule as though all physical seed of Abraham died out between Abraham and Christ and all the Gentiles repopulated the entire nation. That is simply hogwash and you know it is.

I speak of rules, not exceptions to the rules. You speak of a fantasy that is neither taught by the Bible or believed by those calling themselves Jews.

(The real bad thing isn't your bad doctrine; it's why your bad doctrine is so important to you.)

Lineage is subjective and therefore not subject to your math equations.

Lineage is subjective?

 

[The Biblicist]

I speak of rules, not exceptions to the rules. You speak of a fantasy that is neither taught by the Bible or believed by those calling themselves Jews.

This is supposed to be an answer? You are taking a rule that was given to deal with the "stranger" that comes in AMONG THE DOMINATE NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND and your end product is the NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND become now as the "stranger" and the stranger becomes the dominate ISRAEL. However, the genealogies repudiate that reversal as does the Levitical preisthood and male line of inheritance. But the biggest problem you have is God and his promise to Abraham that of his own loins he would provide and preserve an elect nation. God scoffs at your mathematics and laws of probabilities.

Your mathematically logic with your conclusion that we are all children of Abraham by birth repudiates the consistent "Jews" versus "Gentile" distinction in Scripture. According to your logic no such distinction exists.

(The real bad thing isn't your bad doctrine; it's why your bad doctrine is so important to you.)

If you could answer the problem that I have now set before you three different times with regard to Romans 11:25-28 you would have but you can't. So it is not my doctrine that is flawed but yours.

Not all Jews deny they are a race in addition to a religion. There are Jewish geneticists who claim that Jews have DNA markers that separate them from other races of people - http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/

 

[Smyth]

This is supposed to be an answer? You are taking a rule that was given to deal with the "stranger" that comes in AMONG THE DOMINATE NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND and your end product is the NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND become now as the "stranger" and the stranger becomes the dominate ISRAEL. However, the genealogies repudiate that reversal as does the Levitical preisthood and male line of inheritance. But the biggest problem you have is God and his promise to Abraham that of his own loins he would provide and preserve an elect nation. God scoffs at your mathematics and laws of probabilities.

St. Paul himself points out that the Promises is not to the natural children of Abraham as proven by Ishmael, a man from the loins of Abraham, who did not inherit the promises (as you fantasize about Jews). But, you dismiss Paul and what he points out in the Old Testament -- instead, you call it "the biggest problem" from me. The Bible is irrelevant to you -- that's how you say Ishmael proves nothing. Stop holding to the traditions of men, traditions which barely predate the 20th century. Your Jewish idolatry is just like Catholic's Mary idolatry -- and Catholics are just as stubborn and blind about it as you are being.

The Levitical Priests were to be in the line of Levite as established by geneologies. And, a new Priest had to be initiated by an existing Priest (which is one reason why the Levitical Priesthood can never be restored, for all the loons who fantasize that the Jews want to rebuilt the Temple and restore sacrifices). This lineage rule does not apply to a mere citizen of Israel, who was merely required to adhere to Judaism. You become a Jew, then you are an Isrealite. You stop being a Jew, then you are no longer an Israelite -- that's the rule.

"NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND"? Why did you not say the Natural Born of Abraham? The Isrealites who entered the "promised land" were not the natural born of the land. They were born in the desert. And, many of them weren't the natural born of Abraham, either. A mixed multitude left Egypt. Moses wasn't checking genealogies at the Red Sea. Any slave would have taken the opportunity to leave Egypt.

Your mathematically logic with your conclusion that we are all children of Abraham by birth repudiates the consistent "Jews" versus "Gentile" distinction in Scripture. According to your logic no such distinction exists.

Jacob is necessarily my ancestor, statistically in billions of branches of my family tree. The Bible's Jew vs. gentile is Circumcision vs. Pagan. Jew=religion. Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Not all Jews deny they are a race in addition to a religion. There are Jewish geneticists who claim that Jews have DNA markers that separate them from other races of people - http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/

"About 80% of Jewish males and 50% of Jewish females trace their ancestry back to the Middle East”, Yeah, most Jews have some Arab DNA . Many non-Arabs and non-Jews also have some Arab DNA. And, Arab DNA doesn't remotely narrow down someone to an ancestor of Jacob, given the huge Arab population (which, by tradition, are NOT descendants of Jacob). (Actually, we all share a lot of DNA with Arabs.)

 

[The Biblicist]

St. Paul himself points out that the Promises is not to the natural children of Abraham as proven by Ishmael, a man from the loins of Abraham, who did not inherit the promises (as you fantasize about Jews).

Absolutely wrong! You forget that Isaac was a product of his loins, and then Jacob and then the twelve sons, etc. The promises are to the natural children among whom are SECOND born natural children and that is the meaning of "Not all Israel (natural born) are of Israel (second born natural born children).

"NATURAL BORN OF THE LAND"? Why did you not say the Natural Born of Abraham?

He did, as that is what "of your loins" means.

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Gen. 35 :11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

 

[The Biblicist]

Jacob is necessarily my ancestor, statistically in billions of branches of my family tree. The Bible's Jew vs. gentile is Circumcision vs. Pagan. Jew=religion. Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Of course, and so is Adam, and Noah as the whole human race is related to each other but that is meaningless as you are not a Negroid even though you are somewhere related to Negroids and you are not an Israelite even though at some juncture you have some connection with Israelites. Your point is pointless.

 

[Smyth]

Absolutely wrong! You forget that Isaac was a product of his loins, and then Jacob and then the twelve sons, etc. The promises are to the natural children among whom are SECOND born natural children and that is the meaning of "Not all Israel (natural born) are of Israel (second born natural born children).

Paul says, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." And, "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."

Jacob's 12 sons were heirs, not just the second son, and have you checked with your Jewish neighbor to see if he's a second son (and, his dad before him, etc.)? Besides, I don't see anything in Paul's explanation about second sons. Being second counts for nothing. Faith is what counts (as any Christian should know).

Not all Israel (Jews) are of Israel (the nation of Believers, the Church).

He did, as that is what "of your loins" means.

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Gen. 35 :11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Neither of those verses equate Israel with Abraham's natural children. Abraham did have kings descend from him, but not every Israelite, not even the most righteous Israelite with a genealogy was a king. Well, maybe Ishmael and his immediate children were kings, but you don't count them.

What's that Gen 35:11 says? A company of nations? Like the gentiles (literally "nations") through Christ?

Many Isrealites were the natural children of Abraham, and they did pay tithes to Livitical priests, that doesn't make all Israelites descendants of Abraham.

Your doctrine isn't just false. The fruit of your doctrine does evil in the world today.

 

[Smyth]

Of course, and so is Adam, and Noah as the whole human race is related to each other but that is meaningless as you are not a Negroid even though you are somewhere related to Negroids and you are not an Israelite even though at some juncture you have some connection with Israelites. Your point is pointless.

Jacob is my Grand.... grandfather. Most of the people of the world can safely say that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul says, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." And, "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."

Well, lets take a closer look at it. Let's look at the pronoun "they" and follow it through. "They" are not ALL ISRAEL (the elect Israel) just because "they are OF ISRAEL" (the natural born children of Israel) In what sense are they "OF Israel"? All who are "all Israel" are "of Israel" in the sense they have been natural born children of Abraham. However, just natural birth from Abraham is not sufficient to be "all Israel" of promise. They must be like "Isaac" who was a natural born child of Abraham but also a supernatural born child of God. The contrast is not between gentiles and Israelites but between natural born Israelites versus supernatural born Israelites as in Isaac, then "Jacob."

We are children of promise not because we are "of Israel" or "all Israel" but because we are supernatural born sons due to the promise of Abraham extending beyond those of his own loins as he would be the "father" of all nations in the sense of the pattern of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone BOTH OF CIRCUMCISION and UNCIRCUMCISION.

But we are not "Jews". The true "Jews" are those circumcised sons of Abraham in the flesh who are additionally circumcised in the heart - that is true Jew. In Christ there is NO JEW at all and no GENTILE at all. And so Gentile believers are not "Jews" and are not "all Israel." All Israel in Romans 11:25-28 are all "OF ISRAEL" according to the flesh, which as a nation has been "cut off" but will be "grafted in again" and what is grafted in again are natural born children of Abraham who becomes supernatural born children of God AFTER all the Gentile elect have been saved.

 

[percho]

We are having the Lord's Supper tonight.

Are we proclaiming the Lord's Passover?

 

[Smyth]

Well, lets take a closer look at it. Let's look at the pronoun "they" and follow it through. "They" are not ALL ISRAEL (the elect Israel) just because "they are OF ISRAEL" (the natural born children of Israel) In what sense are they "OF Israel"? All who are "all Israel" are "of Israel" in the sense they have been natural born children of Abraham. However, just natural birth from Abraham is not sufficient to be "all Israel" of promise. They must be like "Isaac" who was a natural born child of Abraham but also a supernatural born child of God. The contrast is not between gentiles and Israelites but between natural born Israelites versus supernatural born Israelites as in Isaac, then "Jacob."

You keep repeating your refuted false doctrine. The Old Testament says converts to Judaism are Israel. And, that people who don't follow Judaism are not Israel. The New Testament teaches that Christians are citizens of Israel and heirs to the promises to Abraham.

We are children of promise not because we are "of Israel" or "all Israel" but because we are supernatural born sons due to the promise of Abraham extending beyond those of his own loins as he would be the "father" of all nations in the sense of the pattern of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone BOTH OF CIRCUMCISION and UNCIRCUMCISION.

The promise is to Abraham and his seed (which is Christ). It's meaningless for you to wave you hand and say the promise is to gentiles because of "pattern". Does your preacher ever preach on the great "Pattern"?

But we are not "Jews". The true "Jews" are those circumcised sons of Abraham in the flesh who are additionally circumcised in the heart - that is true Jew.

Try the truth. Paul says, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." First, note the definition of a so-called Jew given by Paul, one who is circumcised in the flesh, not one who is (second born) from the loin of Abraham. Second, Paul does not define a true Jew as one additionally circumcised in the heart. A true Jew only is one circumcised of the heart, period.

In Christ there is NO JEW at all and no GENTILE at all. And so Gentile believers are not "Jews" and are not "all Israel."

If there is no Jew in Christ, how it is you believe there are, or were, Christian Jews?