Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Christianity the 2nd Israel "New Covenant "


Galahad

Recommended Posts

Hi Um.

Recently I raised this topic in another thread, and rightly so It was suggested to start a thread specifically on this subject. ( what Christianity is) That being the creation of a new Israel also called the "New Covenant" and referred to as the 2nd Israel by some, myself included.

The topic is at the heart of Christianity.

Shown below is a summary of these basic elements of Christianity from Wiki ( using Wiki as it's a neutral position and gives a quick overview of this subject)

One thing that this subject does potentially hold is some proof that even in the OT there was a new covenant written about,

surely this is also some proof of the validity of Christianity, the existence of Jesus and God?

and to atheist and non believers of the validity of the bible and Jesus, with proof of prophecy coming to fruition how can it not be?

Also it shows how there is a continuance of Gods promise in the OT and NT..

For those who had a conversion experience " being reborn in Christ" I would like to hear about it too as it is perhaps why you hold a certain position. However a simple post about why you call yourself a Christian, or your spiritual conversion experience would be appreciated if nothing more.

However this subject extends to the Eucharist, even all the way to the 2nd coming and judgment day and revelations if need be (as shown in the link) with aspects such as blood linage and forgiveness of sin, and what is expected to be in the body of Christ.

Edited by Galahad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shown here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

New Covenant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the theological concept of the New Covenant. For other uses, see New Covenant (disambiguation). Part of a series on Christianity 190px-StJohnsAshfield_StainedGlass_GoodShepherd_Portrait.jpg

20px-P_christianity.svg.png Christianity portal

The New Covenant (Hebrew ברית חדשה 11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png berit hadashah (help·info); Greek διαθήκη καινή diatheke kaine) is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah, in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is often thought of as an eschatological Messianic Age or world to come and is related to the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God.

Generally, Christians believe that the New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment. There are several Christian eschatologies that further define the New Covenant. For example, an inaugurated eschatology defines and describes the New Covenant as an ongoing relationship between Christian believers and God that will be in full fruition after the Second Coming of Christ; that is, it will not only be in full fruition in believing hearts, but in the future external world as well. The connection between theBlood of Christ and the New Covenant is seen in most modern English translations of the New Testament[1] with the saying: "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood".[2]

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and that the Blood of Christ shed at his crucifixion is the required blood of the covenant. As with all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, the New Covenant is considered "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God."[3] It has been theorized that the New Covenant is the Law of Christ as spoken during his Sermon on the Mount.[4]

Contents

Christianity[edit]

The key New Testament chapter for the Christian concept of the New Covenant is Hebrews 8, a portion of which is quoted below:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

That full quotation, with partial quotations of the same text in other New Testament passages, reflects that the authors of the New Testament and Christian leaders generally, consider Jeremiah 31:31–34 to be a central Old Testament prophecy of the New Covenant.[citation needed] Here is the key text:

31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Some Christians claim[who?] that there are many other passages that speak about the same New Covenant without using this exact wording. Some passages speak of a "covenant of peace",[5] others use other constructions; some simply say "covenant", but the context may imply that the New Covenant is at issue; and some claim metaphorical descriptions, for example that "Mount Zion" is really a metaphor for the New Covenant.[citation needed]

New Testament texts[edit]

The occurrence of the phrase "new covenant" varies in English translations of the Greek New Testament. In the King James Version it occurs only in Hebrews 8:8,8:13 and 12:24 while in the New International Version it occurs at Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15 andHebrews 12:24 as a translation of some form of διαθήκη[6] and καινός[7] or νέας.[8]

Luke 22:17–20 (part of the Last Supper) is disputed. Six forms of the text have been identified; for example, the Western text-type such as Codex Bezae omit verses 19b–20.[9]

Christian view[edit]

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[10] both Jews andGentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ.

29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Thus as the Apostle Paul advises that the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying,[11] and is not given to Gentiles at all (only the Noahic covenant is unique in applying to all humanity), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things.[12] See types of Supersessionism for details.

Also based much on what Paul wrote, a dispensationalist Christian view of the nature of Israel is that it is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israelites. This spiritual Israel is based on the faith of the patriarch Abraham (before he was circumcised[13]) who was ministered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which is understood to be a type for the Christian faith of believing Jesus to be Christ and Lord in the order of Melchizedek. The Apostle Paul says that it is not "the children of the flesh" who are thechildren of God, but "the children of the promise".

"6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 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."

Membership[edit]

Among Christians, there are significant differences on the question of membership in the New Covenant. These differences can be so serious that they form a principal reason for division i.e., denominationalism. Christian denominations exist because of their answer to this question. The first major split is between those who believe that only believers are members of the New Covenant, and (reflecting the idea of the Jewish covenants as national or community covenants) those who believe that believers and their children[14] are members of the New Covenant.

These differences give rise to different views on whether children may be baptised: the credobaptist view and the paedobaptist view. Secondarily, there are differences among paedobaptists as to the nature of the membership of children in the covenant.

Knowledge of God[edit]

Another difference is between those who believe the New Covenant has already substantially arrived (Preterists), and that this knowledge of God that the member of the New Covenant has is primarily salvific knowledge; and those that believe that the New Covenant has not yet substantially arrived, but will in the Second Coming, and that this knowledge is more complete knowledge, meaning a member of the New Covenant no longer has to be taught anything at all regarding the Christian life (not just that they lack need for exhortation regarding salvific reconciliation with God).

This division does not just break down along Jewish v. Christian lines (as the previous difference did). In general, those that are more likely to lean toward the "already view", or salvific knowledge view, are those Christians that do not believe in the indivisible Church (the indivisible Church is a belief of Catholics and Orthodox) and Christians that practice believer baptism, because both believe the New Covenant is more present reality than future reality. Also in general, those that lean toward the "not yet view", or complete knowledge view, practice infant baptism for covenantal reasons, and dispensationalistic Christians (even though they tend to practice believer baptism), because they believe the New Covenant is more future reality than present reality.

Christian supersessionism[edit]

Main article: Supersessionism

Supersessionism is the biblical interpretation that the New Covenant of God with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes God's priorcovenants with the Children of Israel and B'nei Noah.

Writers who reject the notion of supersessionism include Michael J. Vlach,[15] Walter Brueggemann,[16] Roland Edmund Murphy,[17] Jacques B. Doukhan.[18]

The most common alternatives to Supersessionism are abrogation of old covenant laws and dual covenant theology.

Judaism[edit]

220px-Moses_speaks_to_the_children_of_Israel.jpg

Moses Speaks to the Children of Israel (illustration from Hartwell James'sThe Boys of the Bible)

The only reference in the Hebrew Bible that uses the wording "new covenant" is found in Jeremiah 31:30-34:

"30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; 31 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. 32 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; 33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."

This prophet's word refers to the Messianic Age to come (or World to come), in which the eternal Mosaic covenant with Israel will be confirmed. Of this Mosaic covenant between God and Israel the Shabbat is declared to be the sign forever (Exodus 31:13–17).[19] The Tanach describes Shabbat as having the purpose as a "taste" of Olam Haba (the world to come, the Hereafter) following the Messianic Age (the End of Days).[citation needed]

The Jewish view of the mere wording "new covenant" is no more than a renewed national commitment to abide by God's laws. In this view, the word new does not refer to a new commitment that replaces a previous one, but rather to an additional and greater level of commitment.[20]

Because Jews view the Mosaic covenant as applying only to Jews and any New Covenant merely a strengthening of the already existing one, Jews do not see this phrase as relevant in any way to non-Jews. For non-Jews, Judaism advocates the pre-Sinaitic Seven Laws of Noah. "Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not deny salvation to those outside of its fold, for, according to Jewish law, all non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws will participate in salvation and in the rewards of the world to come".[21]

In his 1962 work The Prophets Abraham Joshua Heschel points out that prophecy is not the only instrument of God to change the hearts of Israel, to know that he is God. He tells how the prophet Jeremiah complains that Israel is circumcised in body but "uncircumcised in heart" (9:26), that Jeremiah says "wash your heart from wickedness" (4:14). Heschel analyses that, while the prophet can only give Israel a new word, it is God himself who will give man a new heart: The "new covenant" will accomplish the complete transformation of every individual.[22]

Compare with:

"19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh; 20 that they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God."

"26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 And I will save you from all your uncleannesses; and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye may receive no more the reproach of famine among the nations. 31 Then shall ye remember your evil ways, and your doings that were not good; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations. 32 Not for your sake do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you; be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel."

The Jewish Encyclopedia's "New Testament" article states:[23]

"The idea of the new covenant is based chiefly upon
(comp.
,
). That the prophet's words do not imply an
is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel (
; comp.
); he obviously looked for a renewal of the Law through a regeneration of the hearts of the people."

It is mentioned several times in the Mishna and Talmud, and had been used extensively in kabbalistic literature due to the gematria value of 135 being equal to the word HaSinai (הסיני) in Genesis 10:17. Brit also has the numeric value of 612, which is suggested by some to mean that it is the 'first' mitzvah which is true for theJewish life cycle. The other use is in relationship to the merit of Ruth being an ancestor to King David, with the name again having same gematria as Brit, linking Davidic covenant with that of all previous, since Ruth was a Moabite by birth, and related to Noah also.

See also[edit]

Edited by Galahad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a jumbled wall of text that I'm never going to bother to read.

It's better to introduce a few points at a time than shot-gun what you believe against a wall.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the pictures. Very colorful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is a disapointment. I had hoped that somebody here may take the post seriously enough..the jumbled wall of mess is a quote out of wiki on what basicly the new covenant is..( for those who dont know) I believe its a concept that is being left behind and largely forgotten yet is the basic element of Christianity.

My apologies for not organizing the thread better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is a disapointment. I had hoped that somebody here may take the post seriously enough..the jumbled wall of mess is a quote out of wiki on what basicly the new covenant is..( for those who dont know) I believe its a concept that is being left behind and largely forgotten yet is the basic element of Christianity.

My apologies for not organizing the thread better.

No need to apologize. It's just afer two or three paragraphs my eyes were being disjointed. Perhaps a link to the original wiki article would have sufficed.

Edited by Likely Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,I did that in the previous thread, posted just a link..and I asked on 3 separate occasions for the reader to click on the link..( how many knocks on a door does it take) , but nobody clicked on it,and this is by there own admission, however I was then told a lot of info on how to review and read my bible and to do it in the proper context.. then i was told to start a thread on the topic, I have done my best to do that.

I would rather have posted a simple link as you suggest, and I did that at the top of post no2 in this thread ..but decided to click and paste the subject to be sure

Once again my apologies to the readers for putting up such a wall of info in the 2nd post.

.

Edited by Galahad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,I did that in the previous thread, posted just a link..and I asked on 3 separate occasions for the reader to click on the link..( how many knocks on a door does it take) , but nobody clicked on it,and this is by there own admission, however I was then told a lot of info on how to review and read my bible and to do it in the proper context.. then i was told to start a thread on the topic, I have done my best to do that.

I would rather have posted a simple link as you suggest, and I did that at the top of post no2 in this thread ..but decided to click and paste the subject to be sure

Once again my apologies to the readers for putting up such a wall of info in the 2nd post.

.

No apologies necessary Galahad. I've read a lot of it and will pick at it during breaks at work. Then I will send you a response. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Edited by Bluefinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all hypothetical, because I'm agnostic and I'm not even actually convinced that there ever was an historical Jesus. That said...no matter how you slice it, the scripture states that Jesus said he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's pretty clear, and it means Jews. Jews who believe him to be the messiah, or "messianic Jews." Even John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was against Gentiles being welcomed, and referred to welcoming synagogues as synagogues of Satan.

If Jesus actually did exist, and did the things people claimed, he said some really awesome things. They just weren't for us. There was never any covenant with Gentiles.

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all hypothetical, because I'm agnostic and I'm not even actually convinced that there ever was an historical Jesus. That said...no matter how you slice it, the scripture states that Jesus said he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's pretty clear, and it means Jews.

Why did Jesus say that?

Jews who believe him to be the messiah, or "messianic Jews." Even John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was against Gentiles being welcomed, and referred to welcoming synagogues as synagogues of Satan.

John did not write against Gentiles being welcomed. You really should take a closer look at Revelation. Whether it is the multitude of people from every nation (Gentiles) holding palm branches, dressed in white and singing praises to God in Revelation 7; or the offspring of the woman (Israel) in Revelation 12:17, there is a serious confirmation that the author welcomed Gentiles. Beside, the book was written to seven churches in Asia-Minor, churches filled with Non-Jew Greeks.

If Jesus actually did exist, and did the things people claimed, he said some really awesome things. They just weren't for us. There was never any covenant with Gentiles.

Try reading the book of Acts closer, which is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. Also Romans. Galatians. Colossians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Jesus say that?

John did not write against Gentiles being welcomed. You really should take a closer look at Revelation. Whether it is the multitude of people from every nation (Gentiles) holding palm branches, dressed in white and singing praises to God in Revelation 7; or the offspring of the woman (Israel) in Revelation 12:17, there is a serious confirmation that the author welcomed Gentiles. Beside, the book was written to seven churches in Asia-Minor, churches filled with Non-Jew Greeks.

Try reading the book of Acts closer, which is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. Also Romans. Galatians. Colossians.

Well, I did as you advised to read the book of Acts as the continuation of the gospel of Luke and I found the following contradiction: If you read Luke 24 from v. 13 and until the end, it seems that Jesus went back to Heaven at the same day of his resurrection. But now, when I read Acts 1:3, Luke is saying that Jesus spent 40 days appearing to his disciples and eating with them just as he used to before he died. Where was he telling the truth, in the gospel or in the book of Acts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all hypothetical, because I'm agnostic and I'm not even actually convinced that there ever was an historical Jesus. That said...no matter how you slice it, the scripture states that Jesus said he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's pretty clear, and it means Jews. Jews who believe him to be the messiah, or "messianic Jews." Even John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was against Gentiles being welcomed, and referred to welcoming synagogues as synagogues of Satan.

If Jesus actually did exist, and did the things people claimed, he said some really awesome things. They just weren't for us. There was never any covenant with Gentiles.

As a matter of fact, I agree with you CR. Although I do not understand why, whenever Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would forbid them to go to the Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. That's in Mat. 10:5,6.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Galahad,

So I reviewed the wiki that you pasted, and I had a few comments/questions.

You mentioned in one of your replies on the other thread that there will be a second Israel. Many recognize this line of thinking as Replacement Theology.

Is that what you are talking about?

I apologize for needing so much information, but I am very analytical like that.

Another issue I have is with the New Covenant. I agree with the point the wiki made concerning being better than the Mosaic covenant and newer, but I don't think it is separate from the Abrahamic covenant. The point that Paul made in Galatians 3 is that all those who have faith in Jesus inherit the promises that God made to Abraham.

Beforehand, according to the Mosaic covenant, one had to be circumcised and then obey every law in the Torah. When Jesus came, there was already a large number of Greeks, called God-fearers, that were greatly interested in Judaism. The only reason they never committed is because of circumcision. When the apostles brought the gospel to them, saying that circumcision was no longer required to inherit the promises of Abraham, the field was already ready for the harvest (if you understand the parable I am referring to). Little did the Jewish teachers know, circumcision pointed to Jesus, the Life-giver whose flesh was mutilated so that all that believed in Him would inherit Abraham's promise.

The caveat to Abraham's promises, as laid out in Jesus' parables, was that they were bigger than Jerusalem and its temple, bigger than the land of Israel, and bigger than the Jewish people.

It is for this reason that I argue that Israel was never replaced. Rather, the Gentiles were included by faith in Jesus, "so all of Israel will be saved."

Finally, if the New Covenant does not replace Israel, then there is no second Israel. Only a New Covenant.

I look forward to hearing your response and I hope I did not go on a weird and I received tantrum. Have a good night Galahad.

Edited by Bluefinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I did as you advised to read the book of Acts as the continuation of the gospel of Luke and I found the following contradiction: If you read Luke 24 from v. 13 and until the end, it seems that Jesus went back to Heaven at the same day of his resurrection. But now, when I read Acts 1:3, Luke is saying that Jesus spent 40 days appearing to his disciples and eating with them just as he used to before he died. Where was he telling the truth, in the gospel or in the book of Acts?

It is unlikely that Luke ever meant to mislead anybody. I see two reasons for this discrepancy. Either, 40 days had passed when Jesus opened the minds of His apostles to all that was written about Him or the author received updated information between writings. Forgiveable? Absolutely!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all hypothetical, because I'm agnostic and I'm not even actually convinced that there ever was an historical Jesus. That said...no matter how you slice it, the scripture states that Jesus said he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's pretty clear, and it means Jews. Jews who believe him to be the messiah, or "messianic Jews." Even John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was against Gentiles being welcomed, and referred to welcoming synagogues as synagogues of Satan.

If Jesus actually did exist, and did the things people claimed, he said some really awesome things. They just weren't for us. There was never any covenant with Gentiles.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html

Jesus came to free the Jews and lead them out of spiritual stagnation, but that was only part of what he was here for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.gotquesti...-Jews-only.html

Jesus came to free the Jews and lead them out of spiritual stagnation, but that was only part of what he was here for.

I understand that other people claimed they received some sort of divine message that they were supposed to minister to the Gentiles, but I would think that anyone who believes in Jesus as their savior might value what he had to say over...well...anyone else. Especially someone like Paul who not only never met Jesus (unless you're gonna count the Damascus Road event that no one else witnessed...very conveniently), but had actually persecuted early believers in Jesus. There's also a dispute over what Paul actually wrote (with about half of the letters being suspect). A lot of Christians are also very strongly attached to Revelation, which was written by someone who didn't believe Gentiles should even be welcomed. I mean he vehemently felt they should not be welcomed. Not to mention that it wasn't even about the end of days, but it was about events that happened back then. It was about Rome and Nero and John of Patmos' fear that he would come back.

Then again, the Gospels were not even likely written by their namesakes, and were written long after Jesus would have died. So we can't even be certain what Jesus would have said, even if we knew he existed. We certainly do know that the Gospels contradict each other, and also other parts of the bible contradict them, as well. The sayings of Jesus contradict themselves, as well...as you have shown. It seems that it depends on who was writing "the words of Jesus" at the time. If that person was pro-Gentile...then Jesus appeared pro-Gentile. If not...well, there you have it. One of the verses your link uses to defend its position is the one where Jesus calls a non-Jew a dog, and begrudges her the bread that he would feed to the children (the house of Israel). He finally does admire her faith, and figures that he can allow her the crumbs that fall from the table. How generous. It kind of puts in perspective what Christians can actually hope for in their kingdom-seeking.

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who had a conversion experience " being reborn in Christ" I would like to hear about it too as it is perhaps why you hold a certain position. However a simple post about why you call yourself a Christian, or your spiritual conversion experience would be appreciated if nothing more.

I was an atheist when I was a teenager and very resistive of anything related to religion. I thought it a waste of time, while all I was doing was wasting time. Anyway, I refused to have anything to do with Youth Groups, or the Boy Scouts, or the Jehovah's Witness that occasionally came by. I went off to college and then into the military, where I was told I could go to church on Sunday, or stay at the barracks and do chores. So I did chores. I then had several bad experiences with really greedy churches while in Georgia. But then, after leaving the Army and finishing my Bachelor degree and moving to the Portland area, I found some of my old D&D buddies from college and started hanging out with them. A few went to church, and to a Bible Study. I'd always wondered about the Bible, because when we played D&D (Which I did in college and in the Army.... And still do occasionally.) I would regularly end up being the Cleric. So if for no other reason then research I went to the Bible Study. Which it turns out had little to do with the Bible, but was more of a social gathering and prayer time. Finding that the people at the Bible Study were good people, and what went on was completely innocent and almost childish, I decided to also attend church. I sat in the back and watched, and then occasionally sang, and then occasionally went to social events. Eventually I found that I was good friends with almost everyone in the church and that no one demanded anything of me. Eventually I came to accept that these people were just good people, and that being a follower of Jesus meant following his teachings and his lifestyle. Which really didn't seem so onerous, since I already lived very close to that way. When I came to accept Jesus as my Savior, I began to pray to God (and Jesus) in a authentic way, and I found that it surely seemed that a greater then random chance of those prayers coming true did occur. My finances turned around. Many of the things in my life that weighed me down seemed to lighten. I was basically free of stress and regrets that I didn't even know I was carrying around. Some people attribute such things to being "lucky", and some attribute it to being to one side of the bell curve for a time, but many think that when you pray, and improbable things happen, that it is an answer to your prayer. This was 15 years ago now. I got baptised and eventually married the Pastor's daughter (he didn't much care for that at the time.). I've been the church treasurer for a time, and helped start a couple small churches. One time I even had the "gold dust" land on me. I didn't really see it, but a lot of other people said they did.

I've met too many people with too many impossible stories to dismiss God outright, as some people do. When you see miraculous things happen, it is hard to ignore them occurring. Such things are not the stuff of science however and they usually can't be replicated. But that then involves Faith. I now have a strong faith that God is there and is a force for good, which can aid us and will look after us. I've found that if you are positive, and helpful, and loving, that generally good things will happen to you, and that is very close to what Jesus said, when he said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". I don't know that my actions have ever led anyone to the Lord, but I like to think that living a good life, and being a stand up example to others, sends a good message to people about being a Christian and what a Christian looks like and acts like.

I'm not a Bible scholar, but I am good at researching into the Bible and reading what a scripture is supposed to mean, and not what some cherry pickers would say it means. "Christians" who base their theology on stuff Jesus never taught, like anger and hatred, are this age's Pharisees. They are more concerned with following the rules that in living a life of Love and Relationship. Rules aren't what Christianity is about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that other people claimed they received some sort of divine message that they were supposed to minister to the Gentiles, but I would think that anyone who believes in Jesus as their savior might value what he had to say over...well...anyone else. Especially someone like Paul who not only never met Jesus (unless you're gonna count the Damascus Road event that no one else witnessed...very conveniently), but had actually persecuted early believers in Jesus. There's also a dispute over what Paul actually wrote (with about half of the letters being suspect). A lot of Christians are also very strongly attached to Revelation, which was written by someone who didn't believe Gentiles should even be welcomed. I mean he vehemently felt they should not be welcomed. Not to mention that it wasn't even about the end of days, but it was about events that happened back then. It was about Rome and Nero and John of Patmos' fear that he would come back.

Then again, the Gospels were not even likely written by their namesakes, and were written long after Jesus would have died. So we can't even be certain what Jesus would have said, even if we knew he existed. We certainly do know that the Gospels contradict each other, and also other parts of the bible contradict them, as well. The sayings of Jesus contradict themselves, as well...as you have shown. It seems that it depends on who was writing "the words of Jesus" at the time. If that person was pro-Gentile...then Jesus appeared pro-Gentile. If not...well, there you have it. One of the verses your link uses to defend its position is the one where Jesus calls a non-Jew a dog, and begrudges her the bread that he would feed to the children (the house of Israel). He finally does admire her faith, and figures that he can allow her the crumbs that fall from the table. How generous. It kind of puts in perspective what Christians can actually hope for in their kingdom-seeking.

I agree parts of the Gospels contradict each other and they appear to have been written second or third hand, by disciples of disciples of the Apostles. I like to say the Bible is the God inspired words of Men, and not "God's own Truth", as some might put it.

Paul does appear to be the exception, as he primarily went after the Gentiles, but it also says that he, and the Christian Gentiles were welcomed by the first church in Jerusalem, which was headed by James. So there was never a point where the previously Jewish Christians disrespected and ignored the Gentiles Christians. At least not that I know of.

In Revelation 2 it says:

To the Church in Smyrna

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. 9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&version=NIV

Note it does say, "Those who say they are Jews, but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.". Yet after that it says, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death." Meaning those who are gentiles, but also believers... if they stay faithful they will be rewarded with Heaven in the afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to some choice bits.

I agree that quoting the whole of a wiki article is a bit of a big bite to chew.

The New Covenant (Hebrew ברית חדשה Posted Image berit hadashah (help·info); Greek διαθήκη καινή diatheke kaine) is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah, in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is often thought of as an eschatological Messianic Age or world to come and is related to the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God.

Generally, Christians believe that the New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment. There are several Christian eschatologies that further define the New Covenant. For example, an inaugurated eschatology defines and describes the New Covenant as an ongoing relationship between Christian believers and God that will be in full fruition after the Second Coming of Christ; that is, it will not only be in full fruition in believing hearts, but in the future external world as well. The connection between the Blood of Christ and the New Covenant is seen in most modern English translations of the New Testament[1] with the saying: "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood".[2]

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and that the Blood of Christ shed at his crucifixion is the required blood of the covenant. As with all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, the New Covenant is considered "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God."[3] It has been theorized that the New Covenant is the Law of Christ as spoken during his Sermon on the Mount.[4]

I would tend to agree that the New Covenant happened at the Last Supper, where the bread was broken and the wine was drunk ceremonially. At least that is how it has been done for 2000+ years.

My understanding is that the New Covenant is made with Jesus, and His blood was the Final Sacrifice that sealed the deal on the cross. So the covenant came at the Last Supper, and the Sacrifice to seal it, was on the Cross.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

—Hebrews 8:7–13

This is very much a teaching of Jesus. That the Holy Spirit has come into us, and resides with us, and God's laws are written on our hearts, and not on paper, or stone. The Bible is a teaching/learning tool, not a set of rules to follow.

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[10] both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ.

That sounds correct to me.

"The idea of the new covenant is based chiefly upon Jeremiah 31:31–34 (comp. Hebrews 8:6–13, 10:16). That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:35–36; comp. 33:25); he obviously looked for a renewal of the Law through a regeneration of the hearts of the people."

I'd agree with that.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In revelations I believe the angel said to John do not measure the courtyard for it is for the gentiles. So the gentiles have a place in heaven. As for the Jews, Muslims, and Christian neither have realized good is good a man of good works is a good man. All he ask is you know him and live a righteous life with praise to God. If you know God you know right from wrong the 10 are part of you. Unlike the savage people of the past. Good luck and God bless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In revelations I believe the angel said to John do not measure the courtyard for it is for the gentiles. So the gentiles have a place in heaven. As for the Jews, Muslims, and Christian neither have realized good is good a man of good works is a good man. All he ask is you know him and live a righteous life with praise to God. If you know God you know right from wrong the 10 are part of you. Unlike the savage people of the past. Good luck and God bless.

Here is what I have seen as the issue involving our culpability and sin.

Physics for a long time now has been revealing the true nature of material reality as the illusion. That Humanity's true origins lie in the spirit, and apart from time.

"The Fall", is about this organic aspect... the evolved animal/ mammal in time and space... which is illusory.

In that respect, and comparitively, there is no, "good man", you see. But, there is One that is good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree parts of the Gospels contradict each other and they appear to have been written second or third hand, by disciples of disciples of the Apostles. I like to say the Bible is the God inspired words of Men, and not "God's own Truth", as some might put it.

Paul does appear to be the exception, as he primarily went after the Gentiles, but it also says that he, and the Christian Gentiles were welcomed by the first church in Jerusalem, which was headed by James. So there was never a point where the previously Jewish Christians disrespected and ignored the Gentiles Christians. At least not that I know of.

In Revelation 2 it says:

https://www.biblegat...n 2&version=NIV

Note it does say, "Those who say they are Jews, but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.". Yet after that it says, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death." Meaning those who are gentiles, but also believers... if they stay faithful they will be rewarded with Heaven in the afterlife.

It isn't a secret how John of Patmos felt about the Gentiles. His statements don't include them. It is Gentile wishful thinking that they do. He never says that. He in fact names the 144,000 chosen few as 12,000 from each specifically named tribe.

When the saints go marching in...we ain't gonna be in the number.

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a secret how John of Patmos felt about the Gentiles. His statements don't include them. It is Gentile wishful thinking that they do. He never says that. He in fact names the 144,000 chosen few as 12,000 from each specifically named tribe.

When the saints go marching in...we ain't gonna be in the number.

Those are the Jews who are saved, a Remnant of Israel. God promised to save them, and save some of them He shall.

After that comes this....

9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

“Salvation belongs to our God,

who sits on the throne,

and to the Lamb.”

........

13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”

14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore,

......

17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne

will be their shepherd;

‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’

‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’[c]”

https://www.biblegat...ch=Revelation 7

A remnant of Jews will be saved, and every freaking single Christian. At least according to this bit of Scripture.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluefinger: to summerise some of my points and i hope im not going " weird" on you.

I believe in Noahic Covenant or Dual Covenants ..i don't believe that the Mosaic Covenant is rescinded and is very much in force for Jews to this day...in that there is two tribes of Israel..the later being Christians. The first Israel does not by in large accept Jesus..this i blame on John the baptist failure to clearly state he was Elijah and is why Jesus said he is the least in the kingdom, further, its why there was a need for the second coming.. Jews don't accept Jesus because Elijah had to come first..and they are still waiting for him.

The Lord of Second Advent must join us all to one Family again and bring the kingdom Of Heaven On Earth. with a completed testament..this book of his, is the Book handed to John in revelations, by a angel " that is as sweet as honey in the mouth but turns bitter in the stomach".

I believe that the salvation offered by Jesus was only spiritual salvation and conditional until the day of judgment, in that there is still the devil in us..or as Paul wrote in Romans NIV "I see another law in me wagging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me" . to me this tells me that Paul was well aware of the original sin and satanic blood linage inside him and its in all of us, that linage that was left over from the fall..were elements of Satan that came into humans and is hereditary passed on. ( these elements are called Fallen nature)..

to answer you question in the other thread also : I believe that the resurrection or rapture is a spiritual resurrection, as Jesus ( the 2nd Adam) said " leave the Dead to bury the dead and follow me!" indicating that whilst somebody may be physically alive they are spiritually dead. But i believe the returning Lord and his heralding angels, will be physical people like us and living spirits

we all state that we are Christians, but this thread is at the heart of that, and whilst i disagree with basically everybody here on UM!! all have my love..including those who are not walking with God or have no wish too know him or accuse him.

I'm forever Grateful that the Lord allowed me to know him in any way or form , and I often struggle in my weakness, yet i remind everybody the Lord said " Come to me as you are",I proclaim even when we are to ashamed to ever come to the Lord and ask his help and forgiveness we should, we should not judge one another because of our differences in beliefs as we all fall short.

I feel the Lord has revealed himself to humans in many ways at different times and places.. and in many religions and teachings..there is 7 lamp stands before the throne of God, for me these are Mohamed, Socrates, Confucius, Moses, Jesus, Buddha.. and at the time of the second coming , the Lord of the second Advent. therefore all religions are a expression of truth

All these people are known to same the same God i believe and know him, and have shown him to us in different ways..this does not mean that all there teachings are correct as except for Jesus they are from fallen Men. but for me Jesus is the chief cornerstone and the only Avatar that was born sinless, A true Son of God,. we are all Adopted sons of God and therefore are reborn.

I also believe that Adam and eve were not the first humans, rather the first to become God Conscious ( there children mated with the wildlife, not monkeys! but other humans who were not God conscience and instinctive beings only) and everybody living in that age would have been grafted to the 1st Adams family had they not fallen, the fall is a spiritual fall from my prospective and the loss of our spiritual senses and awareness (eg: " those who have a ear let them hear"... and "those the have eye let them see").

Sometimes spiritual senses can be momentarily restored as is shown on the " Mount of Transfiguration" where Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah and the disciples eyes were momentarily opened by God to see it.., and some of us are more spiritually aware, but its dangerous to open ourselves up to the spirit world completely or seek there advice as there are many levels ( different levels, different devils! and some are very strong!!! as we often see a lot of Church ministers get overtaken by them and fall spiritually.)..therefore i don't recommend this.

Therefore i Believe : We Humans are all created equal under God, but not all are created equal in there capacity to sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.