Support your Local Jew!

[jahsoul]

I dont know what notes you are reading but I will tell you what the Bible says,

"your seed will be as the sand on the seashore" - ie physical descendants = jews
"and as the stars in the sky" - ie spiritual descendants = saved from all dispenstions

A few things..

1. You used Genesis 12:3 as a point of reference. That verse had nothing to do with Abraham's descendants. Everytime God talked to Abraham about his descendants, he specified it. One thing Scoffield overlooked when he was screwing with the Word.

2. Abraham's descendants weren't the Jew's per se, but they were the Children of Israel. Those terms are not synonymous at all. In Romans 11, notice how Paul not once used the word Jew but used the was Israel and Israelite? Those are not mix and match terms and they shouldn't be applied as such. Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob was a Jew. Judah was not a Jew. Those don't come from notes. Those things are clearly specified in the word. I don't get how Darby thought he could rightly divide the word but couldn't rightly distinguish a Jew from the Children of Israel.

 

[CoooCaw]

1 - you are wrong - it is all about his descendants - AND MANIFEST HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS REPEATEDLY

2 - John called them Jews, interchangeably with israelitee; that is good enough for me
anything else I can straighten you out on????????????

BTW I do not own a schofield reference Bible; I have almost never laid eyes on one
it is a mistake to take someone else's propoganda as truth

A few things..

1. You used Genesis 12:3 as a point of reference. That verse had nothing to do with Abraham's descendants. Everytime God talked to Abraham about his descendants, he specified it. One thing Scoffield overlooked when he was screwing with the Word.

2. Abraham's descendants weren't the Jew's per se, but they were the Children of Israel. Those terms are not synonymous at all. In Romans 11, notice how Paul not once used the word Jew but used the was Israel and Israelite? Those are not mix and match terms and they shouldn't be applied as such. Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob was a Jew. Judah was not a Jew. Those don't come from notes. Those things are clearly specified in the word. I don't get how Darby thought he could rightly divide the word but couldn't rightly distinguish a Jew from the Children of Israel.

 

[zone]

you havn;t seen an apartheid state until you have been a jew or a christian in a moslem country

where do you guys get your info?
do you ever bother to check your info?

Jewish Iranian MP lauds country’s religious freedomSiamak Moreh Sedgh, director of the Tehran Jewish Committee, says Islamic Republic allows minority to practice its faith openly

BY ADIV STERMAN AND ELHANAN MILLER September 29, 2013, 9:19 pm

In Iran, five seats in parliament are reserved for recognized religious minorities — one for a Jew, two for Christians and two for Zoroastrians. Moreh Sedgh, 48, who also serves as director of the Tehran Jewish Committee, has represented his community in parliament since 2012.

The Jewish MP went on to assert that Jews in Iran may wholly observe Jewish law, as the country provides them with many essential religious services and permits them to operate their own religious facilities.

“For religious freedom, Iran is one of the most free countries,” he said. “You can go to synagogue. We can have our ceremonies,” Moreh Sedgh added.

“In Tehran, there are more than 10 kosher butcheries, five kosher restaurants… There are today more than five Jewish schools in Tehran, and our children are completely free to go to Jewish school or public school,” he concluded.

Iran’s is the largest Jewish community in the Middle East — estimated at under 9,000, according to a 2012 census — after Israel.

There were some 150,000 Jews there in 1948, when Israel was established, and while some 70,000 immigrated to Israel in the next 30 years, some 80,000 remained at the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That number collapsed in the years since, with some 20,000 leaving within months of the rise of Islamist rule.

Jewish Iranian MP lauds country's religious freedom | The Times of Israel

 

[zone]

you havn;t seen an apartheid state until you have been a jew or a christian in a moslem country

 

[zone]

your trouble is you are not as clever as zone
so your intellectual dishonesty sticks out

I never said dont preach to jews (Rom 1:16)

why do you preach to Jews?
that's against your Dispensational God's Plan.

He apparently want Israel (Jews) and the Church SEPARATE.

what are you doing that for when Israel is supposed to stay on earth so ALL ISRAEL will be saved?

 

[jahsoul]

1 - you are wrong - it is all about his descendants - AND MANIFEST HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS REPEATEDLY

2 - John called them Jews, interchangeably with israelitee; that is good enough for me
anything else I can straighten you out on????????????

BTW I do not own a schofield reference Bible; I have almost never laid eyes on one
it is a mistake to take someone else's propoganda as truth

So explain to me why God would say specifically "I will bless them that bless YOU" and then 4 verses later, he tells Abraham "to your DESCENDANTS I will give this land?" Go back an read Genesis for yourself, everytime God was speaking to Abraham about his descendants, he specified it. It was no generalistic "You," but from the time God called him out of his fathers house, he was very specific with Abraham. Scripture backs that up no matter what translation you choose to use.

Also, where did John mix those 2 terms? Israelite is only used twice in the New Testament, with Jesus calling Nathanael one and Paul calling himself one. So yes, you can straighten out how John used those 2 terms as the same? We seriously have to be careful with a lot of things. I mean, we focus so heavily on the word Jew that Samaritans being Israelites is largely overlooked. Are they included?

 

[CoooCaw]

now you wanna go through 22 arab moslem countries and delineate their even handedness?

where do you guys get your info?
do you ever bother to check your info?

Jewish Iranian MP lauds country’s religious freedomSiamak Moreh Sedgh, director of the Tehran Jewish Committee, says Islamic Republic allows minority to practice its faith openly

BY ADIV STERMAN AND ELHANAN MILLER September 29, 2013, 9:19 pm

In Iran, five seats in parliament are reserved for recognized religious minorities — one for a Jew, two for Christians and two for Zoroastrians. Moreh Sedgh, 48, who also serves as director of the Tehran Jewish Committee, has represented his community in parliament since 2012.

The Jewish MP went on to assert that Jews in Iran may wholly observe Jewish law, as the country provides them with many essential religious services and permits them to operate their own religious facilities.

“For religious freedom, Iran is one of the most free countries,” he said. “You can go to synagogue. We can have our ceremonies,” Moreh Sedgh added.

“In Tehran, there are more than 10 kosher butcheries, five kosher restaurants… There are today more than five Jewish schools in Tehran, and our children are completely free to go to Jewish school or public school,” he concluded.

Iran’s is the largest Jewish community in the Middle East — estimated at under 9,000, according to a 2012 census — after Israel.

There were some 150,000 Jews there in 1948, when Israel was established, and while some 70,000 immigrated to Israel in the next 30 years, some 80,000 remained at the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That number collapsed in the years since, with some 20,000 leaving within months of the rise of Islamist rule.

Jewish Iranian MP lauds country's religious freedom | The Times of Israel

 

[zone]

I thought what I was saying was pretty clear.... Dispensationalism is not heresy. I do disagree with it, the same as you do; and I believe it often produces zealous Zionists instead of witnessing Christians, but it still preaches the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. I'm just asking you to argue the points, and stop calling things heresy that are debatable in Scripture.

I hold to much of your position, so I'm not trying to rebuke your points, just the attitude.

NOT FOR JEWS.
because Israel is SEPARATE from the Church.

"the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone" is NOT FOR JEWS if Dispensationalists are to be faithful to their Theology (& soteriology). if you have heterodox dispensatioanlists who refuse to hold to the orthodox view from dispensationialism (no jews/Israel - EXCEPT INEXPLICABLY A "FEW", which is their admission of confonfusion - in the Mystery Grace Age Church)....then why would you want any OF WHAT THEY SAY?

just a rhetorical question.

 

[CoooCaw]

Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the ends of the earth

So explain to me why God would say specifically "I will bless them that bless YOU" and then 4 verses later, he tells Abraham "to your DESCENDANTS I will give this land?" Go back an read Genesis for yourself, everytime God was speaking to Abraham about his descendants, he specified it. It was no generalistic "You," but from the time God called him out of his fathers house, he was very specific with Abraham. Scripture backs that up no matter what translation you choose to use.

Also, where did John mix those 2 terms? Israelite is only used twice in the New Testament, with Jesus calling Nathanael one and Paul calling himself one. So yes, you can straighten out how John used those 2 terms as the same? We seriously have to be careful with a lot of things. I mean, we focus so heavily on the word Jew that Samaritans being Israelites is largely overlooked. Are they included?

 

[zone]

now you wanna go through 22 arab moslem countries and delineate their even handedness?

why don't YOU do it.

start with the jews in Iraq - BEFORE the War on Fake Terror.
find out if the jews wanted to leave Iraq.

i'll wait here.

start documenting your claims.

 

[zone]

Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the ends of the earth

QUESTION:

can jews be saved through the Gospel today?

if so, are they the "part" of Israel that wasn't blinded?

if i misunderstand your misunderstanding of Romans 9-11, please set me straight.

if jews CAN be saved by the Gospel today - and could be in Pauls day.....:

Romans 11
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Romans 11:31
so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

where do you dare to insert a non-existent 2000 blind GAP into their eternal salvation?

because you refuse to understand THEIR PROPHECY - DANIEL (esp: Daniel 9) - where you insert your GAP and place a dumb fake future Antichrist in the picture.

fables. folly.

if i'm wrong, use the bible and set me straight.
no opinions; no emotional appeals to the holocaust or any of that....BIBLE.

 

[zone]

now you wanna go through 22 arab moslem countries and delineate their even handedness?

hold on. IRAN - the big bad existential threat to jews isn't really?
why didn't you BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS?

jews are happy in Iran. they don't WANT to go to Israel.
why is that?

 

[LT]

1 - you are wrong - it is all about his descendants - AND MANIFEST HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS REPEATEDLY

sry, but it's always been about God's glory. It's always been by faith.
notice how many times in the Bible it references God using gentiles even when he could have used jews. Notice when the characters in the Bible have titles like "the Hittite".
The whole story of Jonah was about God's grace being given to gentiles(God saved them on earth, but them condemns them in death? nope).
Even the Davidic genealogy has several gentiles in it: Rahab, Ruth...

Melchizedek was not a Jew, yet Abraham tithed to him.
Jesus only praised 2 people for their faith, both were gentiles.

God used the children of Israel for His purpose, and His glory. It was never all about the jews.

Replacement Theology is not the obvious answer to Dispensationalism. "Engrafted" is the biblical term for the modern church. Not engrafted into Israel, but engrafted into the same salvation!
The sacrifices never atoned for sin. The faith in God, displayed by the sacrifice, is what God recognized as righteousness. God's "program" for salvation was always the same: for ancient Israel, just as for you and me today.

 

[zone]

1 - you are wrong - it is all about his descendants - AND MANIFEST HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS REPEATEDLY

2 - John called them Jews, interchangeably with israelitee; that is good enough for me
anything else I can straighten you out on????????????

BTW I do not own a schofield reference Bible; I have almost never laid eyes on one
it is a mistake to take someone else's propoganda as truth

Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

was PAUL preaching a different message than the Apostles to the Jews?

tell me if you know - what does Galatians 3 MEAN

 

[Elin]

The Jew and Gentile Christians who believe by faith are members of the body of Christ and have been made to be partakers of that one body. The Gentiles are not Jews and the Jews are not Gentiles but both have been made to be one in Christ because of the blood of Christ.

The passage in Rom 2 that you and others refer to is completely misunderstood and
falsely refers to Christians as true Jews. Paul is correcting the attitude of the heart of those Jews who believe they are a Jew by outward circumcision of the flesh through the letter, but instead they are truly Jews through the inward circumcision of the heart through the Spirit.

That was meant for correction to the Jews (not Gentiles) but
you misapply it and it becomes error and it leads into more error in your understanding and many of you refuse to see it, so perhaps you are also blind in a similar fashion.

Yes, in that particular passage, which is in Paul's context of showing that no one, neither Jew nor
Gentile, is righteous, that both Jew and Gentile alike are under sin, showing the need of both for a
righteousness from God, apart from law (Ro 3:21), Paul is addressing the Jews in Ro 2.

However, while the principle that true circumcision is of the heart and not of the flesh, was referring
to the Jews in Ro 2, it is elsewhere applied to the believing Gentiles who are the true circumcision
(Php 3:3; Gal 5:6, 6:15; 1Co 7:19; Col 2:11).

Therefore, a misapplication of it to Gentiles in Ro 2 in no way "leads into more error in understanding,"
because the NT likewise applies it to Gentiles.

The only "misapplication leading into more error in understanding" is yours, in your assertion that it is
erroneous to apply the principle of Ro 2 to Gentiles, which the NT repeatedly does.

 

[zone]

sry, but it's always been about God's glory. It's always been by faith.
notice how many times in the Bible it references God using gentiles even when he could have used jews. Notice when the characters in the Bible have titles like "the Hittite".
The whole story of Jonah was about God's grace being given to gentiles(God saved them on earth, but them condemns them in death? nope).
Even the Davidic genealogy has several gentiles in it: Rahab, Ruth...

Melchizedek was not a Jew, yet Abraham tithed to him.
Jesus only praised 2 people for their faith, both were gentiles.

God used the children of Israel for His purpose, and His glory. It was never all about the jews.

Replacement Theology is not the obvious answer to Dispensationalism. "Engrafted" is the biblical term for the modern church. Not engrafted into Israel, but engrafted into the same salvation!
The sacrifices never atoned for sin. The faith in God, displayed by the sacrifice, is what God recognized as righteousness. God's "program" for salvation was always the same: for ancient Israel, just as for you and me today.

where'd you get your definition of Replacement Theology? from a Dispensational or Jewish (ADL) site?

Is Covenant Theology the same as Replacement Theology?

It is not uncommon today to hear the argument advanced that Covenant Theology is anti-semitic, because it it is erroneously accused of teachubg that the New Testament Church replaces God's Old Testament people, ethnic Israel. Some of these critics of Covenant Theology (such as Dispensationalists and Progressive Covenantalists) use the pejorative term “Replacement Theology” to describe what they believe Covenant Theology teaches.

However, this term is an inaccurate and unfair representation of Covenant Theology since no Covenant Theologian we have ever run into would recognize himself to teach such a thing: while it is true that Covenant Theology emphasizes the unity of God's people throughout redemptive history, and denies that the Church is a distinct people of God that exists alongside his other people, ethnic Israel (as does the bible, see questions 19-22 above); yet it most certainly does not teach that the Church “replaces” Israel. Quite to the contrary, it teaches that the Church has been in existence ever since God first established his Covenant of Grace with Adam, and that, while the Church was composed of the believing remnant of national Israel during the Old Testament era, God's design was always to expand it and bring all the nations into its fold, just as he promised Abraham (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:7-9). Today he has done that, and so now, his Church is composed both of the believing remnant of the Jewish nation, as it always has been, and also of a believing remnant of the Gentiles, who have been grafted in and made a part of the same body. So Israel has not been replaced, it has just been expanded to include Abraham's children by faith from every nation on earth (Ephesians 2; Galatians 2 & 3).

Sadly, some Christian theologians of the past have in fact been anti-semitic, both before and after the crystallization of the biblical framework of Covenant Theology; but anti-semitism is not at all intrinsic to Covenant Theology which, when properly understood, demands an ongoing acceptance of the believing remnant of the Jewish nation as a necessary part of God's Church (see Romans 11).

Is Covenant Theology the same as Replacement Theology?

this isn't hard.
it really isn't.
even dispensationalists when they are FORCED to admit the church "has some jews in it" knows their stuff is WRONG.

 

[LT]

NOT FOR JEWS.
because Israel is SEPARATE from the Church.

"the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone" is NOT FOR JEWS if Dispensationalists are to be faithful to their Theology (& soteriology). if you have heterodox dispensatioanlists who refuse to hold to the orthodox view from dispensationialism (no jews/Israel - EXCEPT INEXPLICABLY A "FEW", which is their admission of confonfusion - in the Mystery Grace Age Church)....then why would you want any OF WHAT THEY SAY?

just a rhetorical question.

some confused people may say this on this forum, but Dispensationalism does not preach this. The current "program" requires Jews to accept Christ as Lord, or be rejected themselves. It preaches a separate "program" for the ancient Jews, and a separate "program" for future Jews(in the Millennium Period).

I think you are confused about what Dispensationalism really is.... read some actual writings from Ryrie. The people defending Dispensationalism are not doing a good job, because they have no idea what they are saying that they believe.

 

[Praus]

why don't YOU do it.

start with the jews in Iraq - BEFORE the War on Fake Terror.
find out if the jews wanted to leave Iraq.

i'll wait here.

start documenting your claims.

California!

"There are roughly 45-thousand Persian Jews living here in Los Angeles. That's larger than the community in Iran. Not only has this community made an historical impact, but it's paving the way for future generations."


[video=youtube;qtKnMY-49P4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtKnMY-49P4[/video]

 

[LT]

where'd you get your definition of Replacement Theology? from a Dispensational or Jewish (ADL) site?

I never defined Replacement Theology in my post...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

hold on. IRAN - the big bad existential threat to jews isn't really?
why didn't you BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS?

jews are happy in Iran. they don't WANT to go to Israel.
why is that?

from zone's own article:

"Iran’s is the largest Jewish community in the Middle East — estimated at under 9,000, according to a 2012 census — after Israel. There were some 150,000 Jews there in 1948, when Israel was established, and while some 70,000 immigrated to Israel in the next 30 years, some 80,000 remained at the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That number collapsed in the years since, with some 20,000 leaving within months of the rise of Islamist rule."

it seems the vast majority were not 'happy in iran'

if zone would read her own sources every once in a while she might have noticed that...but that isn't her kind of 'research'