The Cross and the Israel of God

a reply to: DISRAELI

Great points, would you disagree if I said that the Bible says that the Jews will be back in their land and set up a third temple etc etc and so therefore God does recognise His people apart from His people in the new man of Christ?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: maybee

Well if they die before believing on Christ before the gathering of the saints to Jesus in the clouds and the Great tribulation starts, no.

But if they believe on Christ after that event takes place, and they overcome the wicked one, they endure unto the end of the seven years, if they hide and feed each other for that time, And they keep the commandments, love one another. Yes they will enter into the kingdom as his kings and priests forever.

First, you don't belong on something you believe in something. The Messianic church of Israel was annihilated in 70 AD and it was 2000 years ago almost. God might hold a grudge but even God is forgiving. You believe that it is your faith that saves you but you can't possibly expect God to refuse any individual deserving of heaven entrance into now without saying God is a vindictive as well as unjust God. Expecting people of another faith to be held to the standards of your's is a dying belief, and your breed of religious zealot is will not be the judge of souls.

Thank God.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Even Paul concedes that people of another faith will be judged by the merits of that faith. You listen only at the specific indictments against certain oral legalist Israelites, not what is said when it isn't condemning Israel even the Israel that isn't Messianic because you don't want to face that even Paul is comfortable with them practicing their faith and letting them be judged on that.

You are creating artificial divides in the word of God, and if that was how God wanted it the complete Bible wouldn't 66 books plus Apocrypha. It would be 65 or 64 or 54 but it wouldn't be 66 and those 66 wouldn't be all time best selling and most commonly given away book in the history of man.

a reply to: Qwerm
The Bible says that God's people will be secure in their land and have a Temple.
The teaching of the New Testament is that God's people have expanded to include the Gentiles. There is no separation between the two original groups within that people (Ephesians ch2 vv11-16). They are themselves, as a community, the Temple of God, the dwelling-place of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians ch3 v16), making it unnecessary to expect any other Temple.
And their promised land is the promise of living eternally in the presence of God (see Revelation).

It seems that modern Protestants (or modern American Protestants) are getting obsessed with physical Israel and a possible physical Temple because the growing habit of literalistic interpretation of the Old Testament is allowing them to miss the point of the New Testament. That is what I mean by the "veil" which Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians ch3 v15.

a reply to: DISRAELI

What do you make of the Didache? Certainly an inspirational message of come one come all and dated to the 1st century by most scholars.

a reply to: Heresiarch
The early church did not think it had enough authority to be included in the scriptural canon, so i would not want to rely upon it for any disputed point.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Rally? You need to come off that canon only mindset. Why would you let a politician decide your doctrines?

The Didache has no disputable content. Have you even read it?

But I guess it not being a work of Paul you don't really care.

You probably esteme Laodiceans though.

a reply to: Heresiarch
The canon was established as a safeguard against the "Make up your own religion" mindset, and that function is needed more than ever in the present generation.
The New Testament will remain the basis of my theology. You can take it or leave it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Up until modern times the Bible was taken literally. There is not a growing trend of Literal interpretation of the Bible. As a matter of fact the opposite is true, there is a growing trend NOT to take the Bible literally. Today many are spiritualizing, allegorising, twisting and privately interpreting the scriptures in such a way that they have made whole sections of the Bible irreverent to modern times.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
"the letter kills, the Spirit gives life"- 2 Corinthians ch3 v6
That is not some modern person speaking.

I am suffciently acquainted with the historic theology of the church to notice how many heretical novelties are being created by the church of modern times, and how much the new approach of excessive literalism is part of that.
I tried to explain the psychology of it all a few threads back.
Idolatry- the needing something tangible to grasp on to.
Legalism- the needing a tangible set of rules to grasp on to.
Literalism- the needing a tangible mode of interpretation to grasp on to.

People keep inventing new rules to be followed- "You must spell the name of Jesus in a certain way" "You must use only the one translation of the Bible". They are all examples of what I call neo-legalism. The problem is endemic, and the the American approach to Christianity seems to be at the root of it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DISRAELI

Up until modern times the Bible was taken literally. There is not a growing trend of Literal interpretation of the Bible. As a matter of fact the opposite is true, there is a growing trend NOT to take the Bible literally. Today many are spiritualizing, allegorising, twisting and privately interpreting the scriptures in such a way that they have made whole sections of the Bible irreverent to modern times.

You have just perfectly described your methods. You take the bible literally when it suits you and when it doesn't you say that you are a Gentile and that doesn't apply to you. And you misinterpret bible passages to support your particularly vile views on Israel. Something the Bible is not meant for. You talk about Israel being forced to accept Christ, even though Paul was ok with letting other religionsbe judged by their beliefs. Your a living contradiction and the most confused Pauline I have ever seen in my life. You are good for the occasional laugh at loud, as I have been laughing as I typed this.

Gentile means goy and heathen

a reply to: DISRAELI


You don't know history. The canon was made by priests under pressure from constantine and designed for maintaining order.

People should be able to choose for themselves.

The Didache is a genuine Apostolic doctrine.


And your stated reason is not true at all. The Didache is not a make up your own religion document, it was genuine and contained the first official doctrine of the Apostolic church.

And it was no safe guard it was all about power and control. You need a history lesson.