Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jesus VS today’s gospel of the kingdom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by randyk View Post


    I tried to explain that--what are you not understanding? Circumcision tied men, in the OT, to God under Abraham's covenant, and it continued among the Jews after they became a nation and adopted the Law of Moses. Circumcision had not been exclusively for the Jewish people, but had also been given to all of Abraham's male children and servants.

    Circumcision was compulsory for Jews under the Law of Moses, but not according to the New Covenant of Christ. While the Law was still in effect, Jewish parents who refused to circumcise their children were to be excommunicated from Israel--they did not become non-Jewish in the ethnic sense--just as a German would not stop being German if he was forced to leave Germany. To be out of compliance with the Law, while that covenant was in play, did not remove a person's ethnicity--it just meant he or she was out of compliance with the religious laws that governed that nation.

    By not requiring circumcision of the Jew any longer, Jesus broke down an important distinguishing feature separating men who were not under the Law from those who had been under the Law, now uniting them all in himself. This is what Paul meant by saying Jesus made one new man in place of the two. He was not abolishing diversity of ethnicity, but rather, uniting them religiously.
    It says any not circumcised was cut off from his family. Let God be true and every man a liar.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by randyk View Post

      To be out of compliance with the Law, while that covenant was in play, did not remove a person's ethnicity--it just meant he or she was out of compliance with the religious laws that governed that nation.
      Randy under that covenant it was the only way to be part of the nation, a nation for God. If you were not circumcised you were not part of the nation of God which were Israel. So to take your example it would be that you would not longer be a German. You would have been of the Gentiles and not an Israelite even if you were born one. The nation was not a religion, but of God.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dave L View Post
        It says any not circumcised was cut off from his family. Let God be true and every man a liar.
        Since this has gotten repetitive, and no longer addresses any new issues, I'm done.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kalahari View Post
          Randy under that covenant it was the only way to be part of the nation, a nation for God. If you were not circumcised you were not part of the nation of God which were Israel. So to take your example it would be that you would not longer be a German. You would have been of the Gentiles and not an Israelite even if you were born one. The nation was not a religion, but of God.


          Dial it back a bit in the conversation we were having. I proved that circumcision was given by Abraham not just to Isaac, but to all his children, as well as his servants. Circumcision was not just for Israel!

          So technically, a Jew could be uncircumcised, but cut off from Israel, and then join an Arab nation and be circumcised, without returning to be part of Israel. This means that being circumcised is not always a matter of either ethnicity or religion. It is just a customary practice designed, under the OT period, to show conformity to the God of Abraham. Ethnicity was not an essential part of circumcision. And not all circumcision indicated true conformity to either the Law or Abrahamic religion.

          Again, circumcision was a religious ting, and not strictly an ethnic thing. And being Jewish was both an ethnic thing and a religious thing. It was ethnic insofar as it was an association with people directly descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. It was religious insofar as the nation was theocratic and required, under its State system, that all be circumcised and conform to the Law of Moses.

          In practice, not all Israel conformed to the Law of Moses. But they remained Israelis, and were still called "Jews" later on, even if they did not obey the Law. For example, Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' time were out of conformity with the Law, and yet were still called "Jews." Paul would say they are "unfaithful Jews," or "untrue Jews." But the term "true Jews" had to do with religious fidelity, and not with ethnic identity.

          Comment


          • No, Jesus Himself also told us that when His 2nd Advent occurs, when the Lord is Revealed from Heaven (as Paul says in flaming fire with the angels),
            all of the wicked will be destroyed, and none escape; just like in the the flood of Noah judgement.
            That doesn't match how the story of Noah and Lot are used:


            Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
            Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
            Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
            Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
            Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

            Both stories are used to show what it will be like when Christ returns yet no one thinks the entire human population was killed in Lot's day, so in fact neither are examples of a global slaughter. Both show examples of "all" of a targeted groups being killed. The flood was larger and killed more but it wasn't global anymore than it was in the story of Lot.


            Jesus himself in Revelation 19 says there are people who will be ruled over and he uses the future tense of the verb to indicate this rule happens AFTER the battle of Armageddon just as Premill teaches.

            Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite (Aorist tense) the nations: and he shall rule (Future tense) them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth (Present tense) the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

            James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post

              That doesn't match how the story of Noah and Lot are used:


              Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
              Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
              Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
              Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
              Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

              Both stories are used to show what it will be like when Christ returns yet no one thinks the entire human population was killed in Lot's day, so in fact neither are examples of a global slaughter. Both show examples of "all" of a targeted groups being killed. The flood was larger and killed more but it wasn't global anymore than it was in the story of Lot.

              Nobody from the ancient world, but 8 people on the ark survived the flood.
              Nobody who didnt flee sodom survived either.


              2Pet 2

              4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

              6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from]temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.
              And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

              Comment

              Working...
              X