Jews 'partly responsible' for their troubles: Churchill

[5stringJeff]

Where did Jesus mention anything about there being another way to salvation?

He didn't. The Abrahamic covenant was not about salvation.

[Dilloduck]

He didn't. The Abrahamic covenant was not about salvation.

Ahhh I get it---It's an earthly thing. Countries and peoples who are nice to Israel will receive Gods' blessing as the obedient Jews will.

[5stringJeff]

Ahhh I get it---It's an earthly thing. Countries and peoples who are nice to Israel will receive Gods' blessing as the obedient Jews will.

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.

[Dilloduck]

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.

Right--after the Messiah appears.

[TheSage]

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.

Jeff. This is a twisted and ignorant interpretation. You don't understand the bible correctly. If you did, you'd realize that a New COvenant for all people necessarily implies the old covenants are gone.

THis is premillenial dispensationalism and it's a bunch of made up crap with no biblical support.

http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=1304
I love my dispensational brothers and see them as victims rather than enemies --even those who propagate the system, even those who speak evil accusations of Covenant Theology. Why do I think the dispensational system is so terrible? Let me explain.

Jesus is the center and ultimate goal of all of creation and redemption. He is the second Adam, the head of a New Creation (1 Cor. 15:45). All the promises of God find their “Yes” in Him (2 Cor. 1:20). The salvation He has brought to the world is what the ancient prophets longed to look into and proclaimed (1Pet. 1:10-11, Acts 26:22). To put it another way, God has had one purpose from the beginning: to redeem a people for His glory through Jesus our Messiah. The glorious redemption through Jesus is what redemptive history is all about. This has always been the plan of God. The “fullness of the ages” has come upon us (1 Cor. 10:11).

Dispensationalism teaches otherwise. According to this error there are two distinct people of God, National/Physical Israel and the Church. The Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God with two separate purposes, they say. They are not to be confused, they say. According to classic dispensational teaching, the Church was not spoken of in the Old Testament, rather it is part of the “Great Parenthesis,” the period of time between the first and second comings of which the ancient prophets knew nothing.

“Plan A” is national and physical Israel. (Hereafter I will use the word “Ethnic” Israel –ethnic coming from the Greek word “ethnos” which encompasses the ideas of nation and people.) Classic dispensationalism says that if ethnic Israel had accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Davidic kingdom would have been established on the spot. Since Jesus was rejected and crucified, the kingdom was postponed and salvation has come to the Gentiles. Accordingly, the Church, made up of Jews and Gentiles, is not to be confused with “Israel.” This is substantially the teaching within Messianic Judaism, except some there teach that Jewish believers are not part of the “church”, they are not even “Christians” (and this is not just a matter of semantics), but are the spiritual remnant of Israel. Someday God will reinstate “Plan A” and again focus on an earthly Davidic Kingdom centered in national Israel. Gentile Christians have no right to the name “Israel”, and according to some extremists, Gentile Christians do not even have a covenant with God, since the New Covenant is with Israel and Judah!

Worse still, many dispensationalists believe the Temple will be set up again and the sacrifices will be reinstated after Jesus returns. But Hebrews says the old system is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Jesus fulfilled it all.

Dispensationalism teaches otherwise. According to this error there are two distinct people of God, National/Physical Israel and the Church. The Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God with two separate purposes, they say. They are not to be confused, they say. According to classic dispensational teaching, the Church was not spoken of in the Old Testament, rather it is part of the “Great Parenthesis,” the period of time between the first and second comings of which the ancient prophets knew nothing.

[TheSage]

While the Bible teaches salvation through Christ alone, the Abrahamic covenant, which established Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people, was never cancelled, nor have all of its promises been fulfilled yet in history.

I believe it was.

All promises are fulfilled in christ. This is what christians actually believe. You've been confused into supporting the empire of the antichrist.

hebrews 8:13
http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-13.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: God made this new promise and showed that the first promise was outdated. What is outdated and aging will soon disappear. (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: When he says, A new agreement, he has made the first agreement old. But anything which is getting old and past use will not be seen much longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: In that he says New, he has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged is near disappearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: By using the words, "a new Covenant," He has made the first one obsolete; but whatever is decaying and showing signs of old age is not far from disappearing altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and groweth old is ready to vanish away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: In that he says, "A new covenant," he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.

[5stringJeff]

I believe it was.

All promises are fulfilled in christ. This is what christians actually believe. You've been confused into supporting the empire of the antichrist.

hebrews 8:13
http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-13.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB ©1995)

I know very well what Christians actually believe. The new covenant of Christ canceled the Mosiac covenant of Law. It did not cancel the Abrahamic covenant, which was given by God unconditionally:

Gen. 12:1-3: "Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Nowhere is Abraham called to do anything. Paul mentions that Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (cf. Romans 4).

God confirmed that He alone was responsible for the successful outcome of the covenant when He alone passed between the animal halves (a way of saying, 'may this happen to me if I don't fulfill what I am promising.')

Gen 15:17-21: "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.'"

This has not yet been fulfilled; therefore, it must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

The Mosiac covenant, on the other hand, was conditional in nature. If the Israelites obeyed God's command, then He would bless them; likewise, if the Israelites didn't obey, he would punish them:

Deut. 11:26-28: "'See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.'"

Deut 28:1-2, 15: "And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God... But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you."

Moreover, Hebrews 8, which you quote, talks about the priesthood. There was no priesthood established in the Abrahamic covenant, only in the Mosaic covenant. In fact, Paul specifically states that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8:8-9: "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, 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."

In summary, the Mosaic covenant was canceled by the new covenant in Christ; the Abrahamic covenant was not, is is yet to be fulfilled.

(All scripture from the ESV)

[TheSage]

I know very well what Christians actually believe. The new covenant of Christ canceled the Mosiac covenant of Law. It did not cancel the Abrahamic covenant, which was given by God unconditionally:

Gen. 12:1-3: "Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Nowhere is Abraham called to do anything. Paul mentions that Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (cf. Romans 4).

God confirmed that He alone was responsible for the successful outcome of the covenant when He alone passed between the animal halves (a way of saying, 'may this happen to me if I don't fulfill what I am promising.')

Gen 15:17-21: "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.'"

This has not yet been fulfilled; therefore, it must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

The Mosiac covenant, on the other hand, was conditional in nature. If the Israelites obeyed God's command, then He would bless them; likewise, if the Israelites didn't obey, he would punish them:

Deut. 11:26-28: "'See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.'"

Deut 28:1-2, 15: "And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God... But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you."

Moreover, Hebrews 8, which you quote, talks about the priesthood. There was no priesthood established in the Abrahamic covenant, only in the Mosaic covenant. In fact, Paul specifically states that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8:8-9: "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, 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."

In summary, the Mosaic covenant was canceled by the new covenant in Christ; the Abrahamic covenant was not, is is yet to be fulfilled.

I disagree with your analysis. All promises came to fruition in jesus, including "both" covenants. I believe your differentiation of the two is made up crap.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=11&version=31
Jeremiah 11
The Covenant Is Broken
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. 3 Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant- 4 the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. 5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today."
I answered, "Amen, LORD."
6 The LORD said to me, "Proclaim all these words in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem: 'Listen to the terms of this covenant and follow them. 7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "

9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. 11 Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them. 12 The towns of Judah and the people of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they will not help them at all when disaster strikes. 13 You have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah; and the altars you have set up to burn incense to that shameful god Baal are as many as the streets of Jerusalem.'

Do you know what THEN means, jeff? It means it's conditional. The covenant with the forefathers was conditional.


Tell me, wise jeff. Should christians place any value on the temple in jerusalem being rebuilt? And sacrifices reconvening? Is that a good thing, according to your understanding of christian teaching? Do you even have the nuts to answer?

[nevadamedic]

that is true, but my point is so would all other non-nazi's, Jews weren't the exclusive targets, even though that is what they claim.

They were the main targets not exclusive.

[chum43]

They were the main targets not exclusive.

they were the advertised or expressed targets, yes, but if they were the actual main targets then they would have suffered the majority of the casualties, but they didn't.

[5stringJeff]

I disagree with your analysis. All promises came to fruition in jesus, including "both" covenants. I believe your differentiation of the two is made up crap.

Is that your way of saying 'nuh-uh?' 'Cause that's what it sounds like.

Do you know what THEN means, jeff? It means it's conditional. The covenant with the forefathers was conditional.

You are correct, that covenant was conditional. The problem is, Jeremiah 11 talks about the Mosaic covenant, made "when I brought them out of Egypt." (Jer. 11:4)

Tell me, wise jeff. Should christians place any value on the temple in jerusalem being rebuilt? And sacrifices reconvening? Is that a good thing, according to your understanding of christian teaching? Do you even have the nuts to answer?

I don't believe that the temple needs to be rebuilt, or that animal sacrifices, as per the Mosaic covenant, are necessary. I do believe that they will occur, because the Bible says that they will occur. So in that sense, I won't rail against these things happening, even though the Jews of today are missing the point: Messiah has already come, and Jews and Gentiles are both offered salvation through Christ.

[nevadamedic]

they were the advertised or expressed targets, yes, but if they were the actual main targets then they would have suffered the majority of the casualties, but they didn't.

They were the majority.

[TheSage]

Is that your way of saying 'nuh-uh?' 'Cause that's what it sounds like.



You are correct, that covenant was conditional. The problem is, Jeremiah 11 talks about the Mosaic covenant, made "when I brought them out of Egypt." (Jer. 11:4)



I don't believe that the temple needs to be rebuilt, or that animal sacrifices, as per the Mosaic covenant, are necessary. I do believe that they will occur, because the Bible says that they will occur. So in that sense, I won't rail against these things happening, even though the Jews of today are missing the point: Messiah has already come, and Jews and Gentiles are both offered salvation through Christ.

So do you think christians should fight to ensure the jews get their homeland, as you believed was promised to them by the unrevoked, according to you, Abrahamic covenant?

[nevadamedic]

So do you think christians should fight to ensure the jews get their homeland, as you believed was promised to them by the unrevoked, according to you, Abrahamic covenant?

Sounds like a plan.

[TheSage]

Sounds like a plan.

Yes. It's called zionism. And there's no biblical support for it.