Death is come up into our windows!

[whirlwind]

Yesterday I was watching the Glen Beck show and saw a comedic example of what is transpiring here. He showed a clip from a movie Steve Martin was in. Martin stood before a painting of, I assume, someone that had died. He asked the painting to give him a sign, any little sign, that he should proceed with his plans. Well....the painting began to rattle, shake, spin...whistles were blowing, horns were tooting, wind was blowing, the painting was flipping all over and then...quiet. :o Martin, all disheveled from the experience, still stood there in the same position starring at the painting with windblown hair, clothes all askew and said.....I'll be looking for any little sign.

That gentlemen is an example of what you are doing. The Words are there but you are not seeing or hearing what they say. You see the letter only.

• Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We are Israel...whether or not you see it yet.

 

[toddm]

If you allow it ,,,,,,if you allow death (satan) he will obliterate light (Christ) in your life.....

If you allow him he will kill you and you will be blotted out.......

If you allow it,,,,,,,did you not catch that part????????????

There is not 1 person on this forum I know of who thinks satan will obliterate Jesus,,,what a weak attempt........

Last time I read John 6 and Romans 8, there's nothing and no one who can separate us from Christ and that includes OURSELVES. We don't have the power or authority to blot Christ out...He's more powerful than that.

 

[(THE)]

Is Melchizedek Chrsit ?????????????????????????????????????????????

No. But let's stick to the topic

Getting back to the heart of things:

1. It is self-evident that one way to read the text at issue is as a statement of judgement against Israel. I suspect no one would dispute this.

2. It seems that the real question is whether there is a "second-meaning" over and above the specificity of the judgement about Israel;

3. What specific evidence is there for this? I suggest that an argument along the lines "it could be read such and such a way" is not a very good argument. Consider the cases in the Old Testament where God orders the annihilation of an entire people. One could read such instructions as having a "hidden" second meaning - that Christians shoud annihilate, say, the French. Any second meaning is possible, but one really needs to go further than mere possibilities to make the case for a second meaning. So what evidence is there to see this text from Jeremoiah as being anything beyond a judgement against Israel. The "we are Israel" argument does not work, since one could that same line of think to say that we Christians, in our role as Israel, should build the ark of the covenant. The "we are Israel" argument is way too broad.

Agreed.

It is on topic,,,,,,Lets just call it a little test ,,,and you FAILED........

My bad though......If your not sharp enough to understand that Christ is Melchizedek,,,then there is no-way you will see satan as death.......Sorry we are on opposite sides of the 50......

Here it is in a nutshell,,,God gives me knowledge and I take that knowledge and gain more knowledge......

God gives you knowledge you sit on it and wait until he gives you more........

This is why you dont see death as satan,,,, this is why you dont see Melchizedek as Christ and sorry to say this is why my understanding of the bible far exceeds yours.....

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

You just relax fFee I will do the searching

 

[toddm]

Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless there's good reason not to (ie, poetic genre or obviously figurative). The holier-than-thou attitude on this board that some of you have "special insight" and therefore everyone else is wrong is arrogant to say the least. Does the Holy Spirit not live in us too? You all assume that those of us who disagree w/ your assertions are a bunch of unenlightened dough heads. :naughty Have you ever read any books or studied on how to properly observe & interpret Scripture? You allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not your own subjective opinions (that only you seem to share).

 

[(THE)]

If you allow it ,,,,,,if you allow death (satan) he will obliterate light (Christ) in your life.....

If you allow him he will kill you and you will be blotted out.......

If you allow it,,,,,,,did you not catch that part????????????

There is not 1 person on this forum I know of who thinks satan will obliterate Jesus,,,what a weak attempt........

Last time I read John 6 and Romans 8, there's nothing and no one who can separate us from Christ and that includes OURSELVES. We don't have the power or authority to blot Christ out...He's more powerful than that.

If that were true there would be no lake of fire......

We don't have the power or authority to blot Christ out

No-one ever said we could or wanted too

Posted edited by staff

 

[(THE)]

Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless there's good reason not to (ie, poetic genre or obviously figurative). The holier-than-thou attitude on this board that some of you have "special insight" and therefore everyone else is wrong is arrogant to say the least. Does the Holy Spirit not live in us too? You all assume that those of us who disagree w/ your assertions are a bunch of unenlightened dough heads. :naughty Have you ever read any books or studied on how to properly observe & interpret Scripture? You allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not your own subjective opinions (that only you seem to share).

Where not saying your wrong,,,were saying we see something you dont......

The holier-than-thou

you keep trying to push this notion,,,it wont fly.....We are all humans.....But some of us have eyes to see some dont....Did Christ not allude to this????????

Do not some see men as trees walking???????

that only you seem to share

Well you know thats not true,,,come on now,,, keep it solid......

 

[Vic C.]

[quote="(THE)":2wu1v16z]Is Melchizedek Chrsit ?????????????????????????????????????????????

No. But let's stick to the topic

Getting back to the heart of things:

snip

The "we are Israel" argument is way too broad.

Agreed.

It is on topic,,,,,,Lets just call it a little test ,,,and you FAILED........

My bad though......If your not sharp enough to understand that Christ is Melchizedek,,,then there is no-way you will see satan as death.......Sorry we are on opposite sides of the 50......

Here it is in a nutshell,,,God gives me knowledge and I take that knowledge and gain more knowledge......

God gives you knowledge you sit on it and wait until he gives you more........

This is why you dont see death as satan,,,, this is why you dont see Melchizedek as Christ and sorry to say this is why my understanding of the bible far exceeds yours.....

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

You just relax fFee I will do the searching [/quote:2wu1v16z]
Will you please back down and address the members and Staff without the insults? You claim to be Christian; act accordingly.

1 Cor 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Regarding death and satan:

I have seen, read and heard many teach on the various names of satan; death and legion are never mentioned. So, it's all a matter of interpretation, though I would agree with those who say nay.

About Melchizedek:

Since the name is only mentioned twice in the OT, this also leads to speculation. Either he's Jesus, a shadow, type of Christ or just a man who is highly regarded as being very righteous. Noone can be 100% certain. Again, it leans on interpretation.

 

[whirlwind]

Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless there's good reason not to (ie, poetic genre or obviously figurative). The holier-than-thou attitude on this board that some of you have "special insight" and therefore everyone else is wrong is arrogant to say the least. Does the Holy Spirit not live in us too? You all assume that those of us who disagree w/ your assertions are a bunch of unenlightened dough heads. :naughty Have you ever read any books or studied on how to properly observe & interpret Scripture? You allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not your own subjective opinions (that only you seem to share).

Todd, I must disagree. We are NOT to interpret Scripture literally. I've listed the various verses and will do so again, with additions....

• 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
  
  11 Corinthians 3:5-6 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
  
  Colossians 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
  
  John 14:26 But the Comforter, Which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  
  John 6:63 It is the spirit that quikeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
  
  John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.
  
  1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.

The Spirit He sends isn't found through man or through books of man. His Words are Spirit and are to be understood that way. We should and do, as you pointed out, allow Scripture to interpret Scripture...but it is met with being termed as "Proof texting and crisscrossing verses."

 

[Free]

Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless there's good reason not to (ie, poetic genre or obviously figurative). The holier-than-thou attitude on this board that some of you have "special insight" and therefore everyone else is wrong is arrogant to say the least. Does the Holy Spirit not live in us too? You all assume that those of us who disagree w/ your assertions are a bunch of unenlightened dough heads. :naughty Have you ever read any books or studied on how to properly observe & interpret Scripture? You allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not your own subjective opinions (that only you seem to share).

Todd, I must disagree. We are NOT to interpret Scripture literally. I've listed the various verses and will do so again, with additions....

• 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
  
  11 Corinthians 3:5-6 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
  
  Colossians 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
  
  John 14:26 But the Comforter, Which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  
  John 6:63 It is the spirit that quikeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
  
  John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.
  
  1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.

The Spirit He sends isn't found through man or through books of man. His Words are Spirit and are to be understood that way. We should and do, as you pointed out, allow Scripture to interpret Scripture...but it is met with being termed as "Proof texting and crisscrossing verses."

Oh wow.... Nothing you posted supports the idea that we are not to interpret Scripture literally. Indeed, if we can't, we would be wise to just throw it out. And what you are doing is prooftexting and not letting Scripture interpret Scripture. There are proper rules for doing so and you are not following many of them, if any.

 

[whirlwind]

• Oh wow.... Nothing you posted supports the idea that we are not to interpret Scripture literally. Indeed, if we can't, we would be wise to just throw it out. And what you are doing is prooftexting and not letting Scripture interpret Scripture. There are proper rules for doing so and you are not following many of them, if any.

In other words...it is "foolishness" unto you?

 

[Vic C.]

Oh wow.... Nothing you posted supports the idea that we are not to interpret Scripture literally. Indeed, if we can't, we would be wise to just throw it out. And what you are doing is prooftexting and not letting Scripture interpret Scripture. There are proper rules for doing so and you are not following many of them, if any.

I have agree 100% or more, if it was possible. So many grammatical rules are being broken and so many errant connections between unrelated verses made and as such, so many errant doctrines come from this.

This is bad. It needs to stop. It has to stop. :bigfrown

In other words...it is "foolishness" unto you?

No and I'd appreciate it if you refrained from these sort of comments.

What is foolishness is totally disregarding the accepted methods of understanding Hebrew and Greek which has been translated into English and other languages.

 

[Drew]

Yesterday I was watching the Glen Beck show and saw a comedic example of what is transpiring here. He showed a clip from a movie Steve Martin was in. Martin stood before a painting of, I assume, someone that had died. He asked the painting to give him a sign, any little sign, that he should proceed with his plans. Well....the painting began to rattle, shake, spin...whistles were blowing, horns were tooting, wind was blowing, the painting was flipping all over and then...quiet. :o Martin, all disheveled from the experience, still stood there in the same position starring at the painting with windblown hair, clothes all askew and said.....I'll be looking for any little sign.

That gentlemen is an example of what you are doing. The Words are there but you are not seeing or hearing what they say. You see the letter only.

• Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We are Israel...whether or not you see it yet.

Well, there are a number of problems with this. First of all, unlike the painting in Steve Martin account, you have given us no evidence at all - there has been no sign given as to why we should read the Jer 9 text as anything other than a statement of judgement against Israel.

We all agree, or at least should agree, that the text at least denotes judgement against Israel. Fine. Let's be clear - I am not a priori ruling out a "second meaning". But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the fact that it could have any of a range of secondary meanings does not mean that it, in fact, does.

It could mean any of thousands of different things. So why should it mean the particular thing you are saying it means?

You are misinterpreting the Romans 11 verse - essentially doing the same kind of thing that you have done with Jeremiah 9. Those familiar with Romans 9 to 11 will know that Paul is talking about a hardening of the nation of Israel that is part of God's grand plan. It was a specific hardening of a specific people, done for a specific reason. And it has achieved its purpose. In fact, the very text you post shows that this hardening is now a fait accompli - the hardening was done to achieve the in-gathering of the Gentiles. And, as a study of the entire book of Romans will show, that was achieved 2000 years ago on the cross.

So when you use this verse the way you do, you entirely ignore the redemptive history in which it occupies a specific spot. This "hardening" is not timeless. Nor does it have anything to do with anyone who was not an Israelite.

We are not the "Israel" that is being spoken of in that verse.

 

[Drew]

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quikeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This a common argument that really functions to undermine the authority of the Scriptures.

Your argument appears to be that principles of sound interpretation of the scriptures - proper historical analysis, analysis of literary devices, linguistic analysis, etc. - are all based on "flawed" human abilities. You appear to be asserting that we cannot "trust" our historians, linguists, cultural experts, translators, etc, specifically because they are "flesh".

I suggest that you may misunderstand the "flesh - spirit" dualism. There is indeed such a dualism, but it is decidedly not a dualism that lumps human intellectual efforts (e.g. in the areas I mentioned) into the "flesh" camp. No - the flesh-spirit distinction is really the "fallen nature" vs "new creature" distinction. It does not, repeat does not, carve up the world in such a way that "our brains and all that results from their use" gets cast into the bad "flesh" category. In fact, Paul himself makes it clear that our minds are centrally involved in the new creation that we have become:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

This rejection of standard practices of exegesis in deference to a realm of "personal spiritual" interpretation is an invitation for chaos. And it is grounded in what is a pervasive misunderstanding of the "flesh - spirit" distinction.

To repeat: the "scholarly" activity of the church - doing the relevant historical, linguistic, cultural, etc. analyses of the Bible to determine its meaning - is not part of the "flesh" domain.

 

[(THE)]

Regarding death and satan:

I have seen, read and heard many teach on the various names of satan; death and legion are never mentioned. So, it's all a matter of interpretation, though I would agree with those who say nay.

Eyes to see.........

Regarding death and satan:

I have seen, read and heard many teach on the various names of satan; death and legion are never mentioned. So, it's all a matter of interpretation, though I would agree with those who say nay.

About Melchizedek:

Since the name is only mentioned twice in the OT, this also leads to speculation. Either he's Jesus, a shadow, type of Christ or just a man who is highly regarded as being very righteous. Noone can be 100% certain. Again, it leans on interpretation

The amount of times his names is mentioned is insignificant.....God has given all the clues needed to figure out who He is,,,with some extra hints......

None can be certain??? This opens a door I will not allow ,,,,have you seen God??? How can you be certain he exist since you havent seen him?????? I choose not to play that game.....Lets just say your not certain......

 

[whirlwind]

Yesterday I was watching the Glen Beck show and saw a comedic example of what is transpiring here. He showed a clip from a movie Steve Martin was in. Martin stood before a painting of, I assume, someone that had died. He asked the painting to give him a sign, any little sign, that he should proceed with his plans. Well....the painting began to rattle, shake, spin...whistles were blowing, horns were tooting, wind was blowing, the painting was flipping all over and then...quiet. :o Martin, all disheveled from the experience, still stood there in the same position starring at the painting with windblown hair, clothes all askew and said.....I'll be looking for any little sign.

That gentlemen is an example of what you are doing. The Words are there but you are not seeing or hearing what they say. You see the letter only.

• Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We are Israel...whether or not you see it yet.

Well, there are a number of problems with this. First of all, unlike the painting in Steve Martin account, you have given us no evidence at all - there has been no sign given as to why we should read the Jer 9 text as anything other than a statement of judgement against Israel.

He gives us evidence throughout His Word Drew. That is the sign we're given. Our Father proves us and we are a "rebellious people." He allows Satan (or whoever you believe death is :D ) to tempt us...he comes up into our window. So it is about Israel but...we are Israel.

We all agree, or at least should agree, that the text at least denotes judgement against Israel. Fine. Let's be clear - I am not a priori ruling out a "second meaning". But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the fact that it could have any of a range of secondary meanings does not mean that it, in fact, does.

You see Scripture through preterist eyes. I don't. His Word is living and He gives us examples and types that happen over and over again. What happened long happen will again happen. What He told Israel then He also tells us now.

It could mean any of thousands of different things. So why should it mean the particular thing you are saying it means?

You are misinterpreting the Romans 11 verse - essentially doing the same kind of thing that you have done with Jeremiah 9. Those familiar with Romans 9 to 11 will know that Paul is talking about a hardening of the nation of Israel that is part of God's grand plan. It was a specific hardening of a specific people, done for a specific reason. And it has achieved its purpose. In fact, the very text you post shows that this hardening is now a fait accompli - the hardening was done to achieve the in-gathering of the Gentiles. And, as a study of the entire book of Romans will show, that was achieved 2000 years ago on the cross.

I'm not misinterpreting Romans 11. We are Israel and He has blinded us "in part." Please realize Paul was teaching about the elect of Israel. Do you see them as those of the present day "nation of Israel?" Of course not. The house of Judah is certainly blinded but so is the house of Israel. We are Christians but are being misled. Those that seek knowledge from men and books will indeed receive the knowledge of man.

• Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Those that "hath obtained it" are not those in the present day nation of Israel!

So when you use this verse the way you do, you entirely ignore the redemptive history in which it occupies a specific spot. This "hardening" is not timeless. Nor does it have anything to do with anyone who was not an Israelite.

We are an Israelite either through geneological lineage or through belief in Christ!

The hardening is timeless..."until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

We are not the "Israel" that is being spoken of in that verse.

His Word tells me you are mistaken Drew.

 

[Drew]

I'm not misinterpreting Romans 11. We are Israel and He has blinded us "in part." Please realize Paul was teaching about the elect of Israel. Do you see them as those of the present day "nation of Israel?" Of course not. The house of Judah is certainly blinded but so is the house of Israel. We are Christians but are being misled. Those that seek knowledge from men and books will indeed receive the knowledge of man.

• Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Those that "hath obtained it" are not those in the present day nation of Israel!

No. Paul's argument throughout Romans 9 to 11 is an argument about the Israel of his day. We are certainly not included in this lament of over Israel - it is Paul expressiing sorrow at the sad state of his fellow Jews:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

There may be some confusion. When, in my posts, I have referred to the nation of Israel, I am referring to the ethnic Jews of Paul's time, not the modern country of Israel.

The "blinding" or "hardening" being described in Romans 9 to 11 is a blinding of the Jews of Paul's time. And his argument in Romans 9 to 11 is, in large measure, that the Jews of his day have been hardened so that the Gentiles can be brought into full membership in the people of God. And that was accomplished on the cross.

Sometimes a point is so obviously mistaken, it is hard to deal with. And that is indeed the case with any general claim that "all references to Israel are to be seen as applying to us, the church, the "true Israel"). It is so obviously mistaken one does not know where to begin in citing counterexamples.

Yes, there is indeed a sense in which we, the church, are "true Israel". But this does not give us a hermeutical key to go around replacing the word "Israel" with "us".

 

[whirlwind]

It is not up to me to make you believe anything. I am to plant a seed. I did.

 

[Drew]

Here is a reference to "Israel", from Romans 9 to 11, that must denote the ethnic Jews - the 12 tribes - and simply cannot refer to us, "the true Israel":

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,

If for no other reason, the setting of Israel in opposition to the Gentiles makes it indisputable that Paul is here referring to ethnic Israel, not the church.

And I trust we all understand that Paul is referring to the how the people of Israel - the 12 tribes - pursued righteousness through the Torah, and thereby "missed the whole point".

I would be fascinated to see if any one is going to say that the "Israel" here is not the 12 tribes (or a subset thereof).

 

[whirlwind]

Here is a reference to "Israel", from Romans 9 to 11, that must denote the ethnic Jews - the 12 tribes - and simply cannot refer to us, "the true Israel":

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,

If for no other reason, the setting of Israel in opposition to the Gentiles makes it indisputable that Paul is here referring to ethnic Israel, not the church.

And I trust we all understand that Paul is referring to the how the people of Israel - the 12 tribes - pursued righteousness through the Torah, and thereby "missed the whole point".

I would be fascinated to see if any one is going to say that the "Israel" here is not the 12 tribes (or a subset thereof).

I am not a Gentile...nor am I a Jew...I am an Israelite.

One can be of Israel through adoption, through belief, if he is a Gentile. I am not speaking of that. The following is about the genetic lineage of Israel.

Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, was father to twelve tribes. They ARE Israel. Of those twelve tribes two became and ARE NOW Biblically known as the "house of Judah." They are the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. They remained in Jerusalem when their brother tribes split apart when the cruel son of Solomon began to reign. They are Jews...Ju-dah, Jew-dah.

The other ten tribes are the northern tribes, the "lost sheep" Biblically known as the "house of Israel." All twelve tribes are Israel but Israel is divided into those two houses...to this day! Christ was sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." He was of the house of Judah, a Jew, through His mother Mary but He was not sent to them...nor were His disciples. They, the house of Israel, are not nor ever have been Jews.

• Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
  
  15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

He was sent to them and...He found us. We carry His name.

The house of Israel was taken captive by Assyria and never returned. God scattered us.

The house of Judah was taken captive by Babylon two hundreds years after their brother tribes. They did return. Today the houses remain split and we are told in Ezekiel that the two sticks will again be joined in His hand.

Some of us are Israel by lineage others of us are Israel through belief. Either way, we are His chosen and His letter, the Bible, is written to us...for all time until the end of time. And...if that is "foolishness" to you and others then...so be it.

 

[Drew]

Christ was sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." He was of the house of Judah, a Jew, through His mother Mary but He was not sent to them...nor were His disciples. They, the house of Israel, are not nor ever have been Jews.

• Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
  
  15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

He was sent to them and...He found us. We carry His name.

Wow. I have never seen this argument. Let me see if I understand you - you are saying that Jesus' mission was narrowly focused on the lost 10 tribes, to the exclusion of Judah? I do not see how such an argument can work. You are leveraging the ambiguity of the term "Israel" in support of an hypothesis that is otherwise entirely untenable.

We all know, or at least should know, that the term "Israel" has multiple connotations. Sometimes it denotes all 12 tribes, and, as much as I suspect this will only feed your exegitical errors, sometimes it refers to the church, and, of course, sometimes it refers to the 10 tribes.

But, there is every reason to believe that when Jesus refers to being sent to "the lost sheep of Israel", he is referring to all Jews, not just the 10 northern tribes as you seem to think.

The reasons for this are many. Throughout his ministry, Jesus preached to the Jews of Judah, calling them to a new way of living and critiquing their leaders. He even declares himself to the the chief cornerstone of the temple, the center of of life for the tribe of Judah. So it is very hard to make the case that Jesus' ministry does not include the tribe of Judah.

Some of us are Israel by lineage others of us are Israel through belief. Either way, we are His chosen and His letter, the Bible, is written to us...for all time until the end of time. And...if that is "foolishness" to you and others then...so be it. [/b]

It is true that there is indeed a sense in which we, the church can see ourselves as Israel. But, as the Romans 9 example so clearly shows, we cannot apply the over-simplified hermeutical key of thinking that every reference to Israel is a reference to the church.