Romans 11 and the current so-called Jewish State of Israel

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by cloudyday
I don't like the epistles written by Paul. I prefer the epistles of James, Peter, and John, because they seem less vitriolic. But I bet you are right that Paul would be opposed to Zionism. (Sorry, I can't contribute anything more useful to the discussion, but star and flag.)

Peter huh?

Well, do tell what 2 Peter 3:15-16 says will you?

Well I should have been specific that I like 1 Peter. Most people think 2 Peter was written by a different person than 1 Peter (according to the comments in my bible).

Of course pthena threw me for a loop when he said 1 Peter may be written under false pretences too.

However the verse describes me very accurately as "untaught and unstable". You got me there.

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16

ACTUALLY, it's interesting to see what 1 Peter 3:15-16 says - I assume this is your mission statement on ATS. (This is the verse I thought you meant at first. It made me think I should be careful not to slander you and like-minded Christians.)

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

1 Peter 3:15-16

reply to post by cloudyday

Well I should have been specific that I like 1 Peter. Most people think 2 Peter was written by a different person than 1 Peter (according to the comments in my bible).

It WAS "written" by a different person, and Mark is Peter's gospel, John Mark wrote it for him that's why it goes by "Mark". All were "dictated" by Peter though. Peter was an illiterate fisherman. He used the services of an "Amanuensis" which was a common profession in that day and age. It would be like Donald Trump dictating a letter to his secretary, and her typing it up and presenting it to him for signature. Silvanus was also one of Peter's amanuensis'. 2 Peter was his last letter from prison in Rome just prior to his martyrdom, so it was dictated to an amanuensis working for the Romans. Also commonly called a "ready writer". Paul used one from time to time also, and they would normally take the person's letter down in shorthand, make the final complete copy, as well as duplicate as many copies as the patron wanted copied.

All of Peter's epistles and his gospel were written by different men. Peter couldn't write or read, it was an unnecessary skill as a fisherman.

Amanuensis

1 Peter was penned by Silvanus:

"By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand." 1 Peter 5:12

Of course pthena threw me for a loop when he said 1 Peter may be written under false pretences too.

Nothing false about it, Peter says Silvanus wrote it for him as an amanuensis. (1 Peter 5:12)

reply to post by Awen24

The return of Christ and the restoration and revival of the Jewish people are coincidental in this context - a theme repeated throughout Scripture, e.g the final chapters of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and practically every other prophetic book.

This is a belief system which you seem to have which I interpret as the idea that this nuisance of Christians being around needs to be "taken care of", so that Judaism can go on unimpeded by all those gentiles and their religion.
So what if the "second coming" never happens according to the rapture cult's agenda?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Awen24

 

The return of Christ and the restoration and revival of the Jewish people are coincidental in this context - a theme repeated throughout Scripture, e.g the final chapters of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and practically every other prophetic book.

This is a belief system which you seem to have which I interpret as the idea that this nuisance of Christians being around needs to be "taken care of", so that Judaism can go on unimpeded by all those gentiles and their religion.
So what if the "second coming" never happens according to the rapture cult's agenda?

None of us believe that, said that, nor imply that. And you've been corrected numerous times. We believe the Jews/Israel will be redeemed to Christ, they will accept Him as their Messiah and be Christians just like we are.

Why do you keep purposely lying about what we say or the position we take on the subject?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . be Christians just like we are.

Obviously not, since they don't get a rapture.
All the Christians are eliminated by the rapture.
You just posted on the "Rapture" thread, your theory of a dual salvation. One by Jesus and his bride, and one by The Father, and His "bride".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

None of us believe that . . .

Do you have a cult web site to find out what your official position is on things?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . be Christians just like we are.

Obviously not, since they don't get a rapture.
All the Christians are eliminated by the rapture.
You just posted on the "Rapture" thread, your theory of a dual salvation. One by Jesus and his bride, and one by The Father, and His "bride".

Not true. The rapture isn't a blessing for the saved, it's a blessing for the "overcomer". Some are promised they will be spared from that hour, and some are told they will be thrust into the tribulation. We are to pray we are "accounted worthy" to stand before the Son of Man and to escape all the things that are coming upon the land. The ten virgin parable, 5 were wise and had "oil" and 5 were unwise and were sleeping. All 10 were "virgins" though.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Do you have a cult web site to find out what your official position is on things?

As a matter of fact we do:

Link to Our Cult Site.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

None of us believe that, said that, nor imply that. And you've been corrected numerous times. We believe the Jews/Israel will be redeemed to Christ, they will accept Him as their Messiah and be Christians just like we are.

Classic Dispensationalism (what was taught in the early 70s) taught that the Old Testament Jerusalem temple program was the real deal. That the "Church Age" was a parenthesis, a temporary aberration, whereby Gentiles could slip into grace with the g.d through Jesus.

Once "the full number of Gentiles came in" then the rapture would take them away, then all Israel, unbelieving still, would somehow end up in Jerusalem and get tormented horribly until they believe. Then the Kingdom Age begins, wherein animal sacrifices continue on into eternity, and the nations pay physical tribute to Jerusalem and Jerusalem is the center of the New World Order.

That was the old time dispensationalism, now there seems to be a "dual system" whereby Jews are just fine as is (because of the fathers) and only Gentiles must believe in Jesus to be saved. But that's okay because "all Israel will be saved". Therefore the "Christian duty" toward Jews is to pay their way to Israel and pay the Chabad Organization to convince Jews to move to Israel.

By treating Jews as "special", with special dispensation, you actually go against Paul's idea of bringing Jews to belief through jealousy.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you who are Gentiles. Since then as I am an apostle to Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh, and may save some of them. 15 For if the rejection of them is the reconciling of the world, what would their acceptance be, but life from the dead?

reply to post by pthena

By treating Jews as "special", with special dispensation, you actually go against Paul's idea of bringing Jews to belief through jealousy.

No I don't, I maintain 2 things:

1. There is no need to make "jealous" any people who you have no plans to redeem. That doesn't even pass Occam's razor right off the bat.

2. That event that will make them "jealous" is the rapture of the church, they've heard about it before.


And what does some teaching from the 1970's have to do with me today? I was in diapers in the 70's, and I have a Bible from the 1600's based upon the majority of Greek manuscripts available. (Majority Text) I never went to the cemetery for 4-8 years to formulate my doctrine, I rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth through His Word, the rhema grounded in the logos. Same thing the apostles did. They evangelized the known world without a NEW TESTAMENT.

Here is a hypothetical story:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul the Dispensationalist

And as Paul was teaching the Jews, God Fearers, and Hellenists outside the synagogue in Cappadocia, one of the Jews of Cappadocian descent spoke up,

"Paul,
My Great Grand Father, while fighting alongside the Judean mercenaries of Pompey, converted to Judaism, he and his whole household. We have been Jews ever since. What must I do to be saved?"

And Paul replied, "Sell all that you have. Move to Eretz Israel, as close to Jerusalem as possible, make the 3 mandatory annual temple visits.

There you will be tormented until you come to saving faith. Then you shall be saved."
-------------------------------------------------------------
This story is patently absurd. Yet there are those who use a few verses from Paul to portray his views as consistent with this story.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

1. There is no need to make "jealous" any people who you have no plans to redeem. That doesn't even pass Occam's razor right off the bat.

Could you fill us in on what steps of logic got you to this position? You seem to be good at giving pronouncements from on high, that in and of themselves make no sense nor are understandable.

2. That event that will make them "jealous" is the rapture of the church, they've heard about it before.

Paul never brings anything like that up. It is just an after-the-fact tacked-on argument that comes out of left field. Also there is no hint from Romans 11:25 that there is some specified amount of time, off into the future, from when Paul wrote the letter. It is all speculative interpretations where segments of time and amounts of gentiles are calculated in where the original text mentions none of those things.

Same thing the apostles did.

The New Testament Apostles personally knew Jesus, that is what makes them Apostles, where Jesus breathed on them and gave his spirit of prophecy directly to them. You seem to think that you have greater powers than Jesus himself to be creating a whole new religion. (not that I am against people inventing their own religions, as long as they do not copyright infringe by calling it Christianity, or themselves Christians)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No I don't, I maintain 2 things:

1. There is no need to make "jealous" any people who you have no plans to redeem. That doesn't even pass Occam's razor right off the bat.

2. That event that will make them "jealous" is the rapture of the church, they've heard about it before.

On 1: I am at a loss as to who the "you" is in "you have no plans to redeem". Is "you" me, or you, or Paul, or g.d?

On 2: So for almost 2,000 years, Christians have been waiting for this "rapture" to cause jealousy? Then according to Christian belief, according to you, all the Jews who have died in unbelief are lost. And when this "rapture" doesn't happen?

And what does some teaching from the 1970's have to do with me today?

The 1970s were very formative years as far as that's when "fringe" Christian teachings became mainstreamed, partially through the funding and influence of Israeli and Jewish sources.

I never went to the cemetery for 4-8 years to formulate my doctrine,

Let me supply the laugh track for that "cemetary, seminary"

I rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth through His Word,

Which for some strange reason coincides nicely with dominant neo-dispensationalism.

reply to post by pthena


Why Torah when we have exact same thing and close enough to Torah. Even the Jews have a problem getting it correct because they constantly add to it or as our politicians do they do by looking for loopholes. (ex. heter iska)

As paul of saul of tarsus writes.

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. (KJV) 1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1Co 16:2 KJV)

So in for the money? Sure he was.

Originally posted by cloudyday
I don't like the epistles written by Paul. I prefer the epistles of James, Peter, and John, because they seem less vitriolic. But I bet you are right that Paul would be opposed to Zionism. (Sorry, I can't contribute anything more useful to the discussion, but star and flag.)

edit on 29-4-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

Sorry OP but would like to point something out here. You say you read James but that is exactly where the problem started in this period of ACTS before the final destruction of the Temple. Read ACTS carefully and judge for yourself. When God says not to call my law a burden and say that I said when I didnt say they will surely die. James' epistle is nothing more than a guilty plea to G-d. He knew what he had done.

Jeremiah 23:34 And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house. (KJV)

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (KJV)

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Act 15:29 KJV)

4 Measly laws from God. Not ony did he delute his law but polluted it with not sharing the works of God. James died with the sword. And i could imagine it was immediately after his final stroke of the pen.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by cloudyday

Thank you. Paul was engaged in an internal struggle(Jew living as a Gentile) as well as external(fighting for Gentile right to be free from Torah), it shows in his letters.

I take 1 Peter as a pseudepigrapha, probably written after the death of Peter and Paul. Probably written to seem to be a posthumous reconciliation between Peter and Paul teachings.

Now, speaking of John, a very key verse to remember is what is written as Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman.

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "“Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father. 22 You worship that which you don’t know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshippers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”"

As far as Gospel of John is concerned, mountains and temples have no relevance whatsoever. John doesn't seem to support Zionism.

edit on 29-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

FirstI would like to point out. Even paul of saul of tarsus stole his conversion in ACTS 9 from the book of Daniel.

Daniel 10:7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. (KJV)

Next, paul says, "I didnt know sin until I knew the law"

When God says, Zechariah 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD. (KJV)

Gods law does not teach sin therefore is not a false oath.

Next Peter!

reply to post by SuckerMe

Read ACTS carefully and judge for yourself.

How do you know if the writer of James was the same James talked about in Acts as being in the committee meeting in Jerusalem that Paul supposedly attended?
There were at least two James', one the brother of John, and the other, the brother of Our Lord.

reply to post by SuckerMe

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.

4 Measly laws from God. Not ony did he delute his law but polluted it with not sharing the works of God. James died with the sword. And i could imagine it was immediately after his final stroke of the pen.

Are you advocating that Gentiles should have become full on Torah covenanters? as per Isaiah 56?

4 For thus says Yahweh, “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant: 5 to them I will give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to Yahweh, to minister to him, and to love the name of Yahweh, to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and holds fast my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

And 4 laws (proto-noahide) are not sufficient? I suppose that if James and crew were fully committed to Yahweh and his Torah, then yes, this Yahweh would very much want to kill them. According to Jeremiah 23.

Paul didn't even teach the 4 laws, much less the 7 Talmud laws.

reply to post by SuckerMe

First, I would like to point out. Even paul of saul of tarsus stole his conversion in ACTS 9 from the book of Daniel.

Hello!
Paul did not write Acts.
The writer of Acts likely did borrow a lot of stories in writing what I would categorize as historical fiction.
I don't think it is fair to judge Paul based on fiction and you should, if you must, judge him by his own writings, which are for sure, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. And most likely: 1 Thess. and Philippians and Philemon.

Originally posted by SuckerMe

Originally posted by cloudyday
I don't like the epistles written by Paul. I prefer the epistles of James, Peter, and John, because they seem less vitriolic. But I bet you are right that Paul would be opposed to Zionism. (Sorry, I can't contribute anything more useful to the discussion, but star and flag.)

edit on 29-4-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

Sorry OP but would like to point something out here. You say you read James but that is exactly where the problem started in this period of ACTS before the final destruction of the Temple. Read ACTS carefully and judge for yourself. When God says not to call my law a burden and say that I said when I didnt say they will surely die. James' epistle is nothing more than a guilty plea to G-d. He knew what he had done.

Jeremiah 23:34 And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house. (KJV)

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (KJV)

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Act 15:29 KJV)

4 Measly laws from God. Not ony did he delute his law but polluted it with not sharing the works of God. James died with the sword. And i could imagine it was immediately after his final stroke of the pen.

Thanks - I'm not sure what you're saying, but that is probably only due to my ignorance of theology.

reply to post by SuckerMe

It is not the purpose of this thread to question the validity of Paul. Many threads have done that already.

The purpose of this thread is to challenge the current use that Christians make of a few verses in Romans as if it were some support for the current political phenomenon commonly called the Jewish State of Israel.