What did God originally intend Christianity to be?

[Sinthesis]

(Post removed for not following A&T guidelines requiring the use and reference of scripture to back points being made, and for failing to follow a moderator's request to rectify this. Obadiah)

My logic is consistant. It is also biblical.

1Co 9:19 ¶ For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 - And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21 - To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22 - To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 9:23 - And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.​

Now recall why I said one might choose to refer to themselves as a Messianic Jew.

Messianic Jew or Christian. Messianic Jew might be more effective in the work to help convert other Jews to Christianity.

If you are offended by the term 'Messianic Jew', realize it is not for your benefit, but when displayed to those Jews who still look for their Messiah, informs them that some Jews have in fact found Christ. Judaism is made complete by Christ. Whereas Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, and atheism, because they don't promise the Messiah, are not fulfilled through Christ, but overthrown by Christ.

 

[jasonc]

/

My logic is consistant. It is also biblical.

1Co 9:19 ¶ For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 - And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21 - To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22 - To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 9:23 - And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.​

Now recall why I said one might choose to refer to themselves as a Messianic Jew.

the early church was calling itself the way, not Christians. it was a type of Judaism to the romans in their eyes.

If you are offended by the term 'Messianic Jew', realize it is not for your benefit, but when displayed to those Jews who still look for their Messiah, informs them that some Jews have in fact found Christ. Judaism is made complete by Christ. Whereas Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, and atheism, because they don't promise the Messiah, are not fulfilled through Christ, but overthrown by Christ.

 

[john darling]

My logic is consistant.

It's not consistent. Here's my reasoning...

Messianic Jew or Christian. Messianic Jew might be more effective in the work to help convert other Jews to Christianity.

In an earlier post you said this. I suggested the same reasoning could be used for any religion or any title. Messianic Buddhist, messianic atheists, messianic mechanics etc... If the concept is to help people feel more comfortable about turning to Christ, then the logic must be consistent for any non-christian person. But you denied that by suggesting there is something special about the Jews finding Jesus which is different front other people finding Jesus. You claimed the logic would not be consistent for non-Jewish Christian converts.

but when displayed to those Jews who still look for their Messiah, informs them that some Jews have in fact found Christ.

What is the difference between a Jew finding Christ and an atheist finding Christ, that a Jew should become a Messianic Jew but the atheist should not become a messianic atheist, if the reason for retaining the former name is meant to help others of that kind to find Jesus? In other words, being a "messianic Jew" will help other Jews to find Jesus, but being a "messianic atheist" will not help other atheists to find Jesus? Is there a difference which can be explained rationally?

As for the scripture you posted to support your argument, I noticed in particular this part...1Co 9:22 - To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

"I am made all things to all men". The titles we give ourselves mean little more than a means to identify or associate with those we are trying to reach and the title of "Jew" is included in this teaching. The emphasis is not on reasons to justify the use of various titles which have personal meaning for us, but rather to put on or cast off these various titles according to their usefulness.

So, in this context, I could see some usefulness in the "Jews for Jesus" or "messianic Jew" title, if the circumstances were such that these Christians were particularly ministering to Jews at the time and were willing to drop the title in circumstances where they were not particularly witnessing to Jews.

Otherwise, their desire to hold on to the title of "Jew" indicates something MORE than a desire to use the title as a tool for witnessing to a specific group, thus falling outside the context of the verses you quoted to support your position.

Whereas Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, and atheism, because they don't promise the Messiah, are not fulfilled through Christ, but overthrown by Christ.

Don't promise the Messiah? What does that mean in practical terms? If you are referring to promises made to the Jews, then I suggest that you've misunderstood the scriptures. The promises were made to "Abraham and his seed; not seeds, as of many but to one, which was Christ". We have three witnesses attesting to this basic concept of faith; Galatians 3:16, John 8:39, Matthew 3:9.

 

[Sinthesis]

1Co 9:19 ¶ For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 - And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21 - To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22 - To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 9:23 - And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.​

As for the scripture you posted to support your argument, I noticed in particular this part...1Co 9:22 - To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

"I am made all things to all men". The titles we give ourselves mean little more than a means to identify or associate with those we are trying to reach and the title of "Jew" is included in this teaching. The emphasis is not on reasons to justify the use of various titles which have personal meaning for us, but rather to put on or cast off these various titles according to their usefulness.

So, in this context, I could see some usefulness in the "Jews for Jesus" or "messianic Jew" title, if the circumstances were such that these Christians were particularly ministering to Jews at the time and were willing to drop the title in circumstances where they were not particularly witnessing to Jews.

Again, recall why I said one might choose to refer to themselves as a Messianic Jew.

Messianic Jew or Christian. Messianic Jew might be more effective in the work to help convert other Jews to Christianity.

So, apparently we agree.

But of course Christians with a Jewish ethnic heritage, as defined according to Jewish custom, will always be witnessing to their unsaved Jewish community via the life example they set.

Rom 11:14 - If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.​

 

[Sinthesis]

In an earlier post you said this. I suggested the same reasoning could be used for any religion or any title. Messianic Buddhist, messianic atheists, messianic mechanics etc... If the concept is to help people feel more comfortable about turning to Christ, then the logic must be consistent for any non-christian person. But you denied that by suggesting there is something special about the Jews finding Jesus which is different front other people finding Jesus. You claimed the logic would not be consistent for non-Jewish Christian converts.

...

Don't promise the Messiah? What does that mean in practical terms? If you are referring to promises made to the Jews, then I suggest that you've misunderstood the scriptures. The promises were made to "Abraham and his seed; not seeds, as of many but to one, which was Christ". We have three witnesses attesting to this basic concept of faith; Galatians 3:16, John 8:39, Matthew 3:9.

There is something special about Jews finding Jesus that is different from other people finding Jesus. Jews are promised the Messiah all through the OT. They were the people set apart by God from the rest of humanity for this purpose. This makes Judaism different from all other religions (Christianity excluded). The NT explains how and why the OT is true. The NT does not do that for any other religions texts.

Jhn 4:22 - Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

 

[john darling]

Again, recall why I said one might choose to refer to themselves as a Messianic Jew.

I understood your reasoning and responded two it a couple times now. I'm still waiting on your responses to those points. Saying, "remember what I said" doesn't do anything to address my counter argument; either you don't understand my counter arguments or you're side-stepping. If you want clarification let me know.

So, apparently we agree.

Only if you want assumed agreement. In other words, you are seeing what you want to see in my responses and ignoring what you don't want to see. Did you see the "if" statment in the part where you see "apparent" agreement?

But of course Christians with a Jewish ethnic heritage, as defined according to Jewish custom, will always be witnessing to their unsaved Jewish community via the life example they set.

You're still using inconsistent logic. What you've suggested here is true for ANY person. A converted atheist will always be witnessing to their unsaved atheist community via the life example they set.

There is something special about Jews finding Jesus that is different from other people finding Jesus. Jews are promised the Messiah all through the OT. They were the people set apart by God from the rest of humanity for this purpose.

No, the messiah was not promised "to the Jews". The Messiah was promised to come, for the Jews as well as to those who have the faith of Abraham. GAL 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The entire concept of "the people of Israel" was based on the faith of Abraham and the promise was fulfilled in Jesus. The concept of setting aside a particular nation and race for God didn't work. God tried it for thousands of years and the people failed over and over again. The obvious conclusion is that having a single people set aside as special and "chosen" does NOT create better or more faithful servants.

I'd like to suggest that God knew ahead of time that it would not work, but he carried on with it anyway precisely because he wanted us to get that lesson; a much higher revelation of sincerity. There is no single people who can claim to be special because of their religion, their race or their nationality; it simply does not work and the ultimate proof of that is the Jewish nation rejecting their messiah despite all the help they received from God for thousands of years.

Despite the miracles and the forgiveness and the faithfulness, they still failed to live up to their responsibilities as "God's chosen people." On top of that, the religious leaders of the "chosen people", those with the most knowledge and responsibility were the worst offenders. It is in the light of this failure that the concept of individual faith shines all the more brightly. 2COR 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 2COR 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

In this teaching from Paul he talks about this concept of New Glory replacing old glory. There were some very good intentions in the OT covenant and those good intentions were brought to fruition in the NT, not through the Jewish people but through Jesus Christ. Arguments to hold onto the OT claims of the Jews somehow still being special takes away from Jesus' glory as the fulfillment of the OT promise to Abraham and instead puts the glory onto the Jews themselves. Or, as Paul describes it, they still have a vail over their heart which can only be taken away by turning to Christ.

Now, God looks into the sincere heart of individuals all over the world and make his own decisions on that person's faith regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. However, the concept of "Israel" still exists, but no longer in a material, physical form such as "The Jews" (which are only one tribe of the original 12 anyway). Israel is now a spiritual concept which is far more consistent with the concept of worshiping the father "in spirit and in truth."

When the chosen people rejected their messiah, the thick curtain in the temple separating the holy of holies (where the Jews presumed God lived) was, by God himself, torn in two at the same time Jesus said "it is finished". God's experiment with a "chosen people" in the form of a religion, race and nationality was finished. On the whole the experiment failed to produce faithful servants based on those physical criteria, though there were some individual successes, but even those successes confirm the concept that individual faith (verses the corporate faith of a "chosen people") is what works best.

 

[john darling]

And in Romans 11:17 we learn from Paul that the convert, known as a Christian, is grafted into the Jewish Family and in no manner the other way. around.

I think you're mistaken in classifying the tree as "Jewish". The tree, or vine, is God. Jesus refers to himself as the vine and his followers as the branches. We, as Christians, are not grafted into a "Jewish tree". I think this is part of the argument which I find problematic because it causes so much confusion, especially when professing Christians themselves mistake the kingdom of Heaven for the nation of Israel (i.e. the "Jewish tree").

JN 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

JN 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

The Jews, as God's "chosen people" were cut out because they didn't bear fruit. John the Baptist warned about this before Jesus even came on the scene.

MT 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

MT 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Although John was speaking specifically to Jews at the time this is not a message which is specific to Jews. The basic lesson is there for anyone who would want to be a part of the tree. Paul goes on to warn that none of us should become high minded, because we can just as easily be cut out of the tree as well. According to the New covenant, anyone can be chosen by God and anyone cut be rejected by God on the basis of the criteria he expressed through his son.

 

[Sinthesis]

I understood your reasoning and responded two it a couple times now. I'm still waiting on your responses to those points. Saying, "remember what I said" doesn't do anything to address my counter argument; either you don't understand my counter arguments or you're side-stepping. If you want clarification let me know.

You're going to need to clarify what points you want responded to because your arguments are not making any sense to me.

 

[john darling]

When I originally asked for any reason why a converted Jew should keep the title "Jew" when referring to their Christinanity, you suggested this possible reason...

"Messianic Jew might be more effective in the work to help convert other Jews to Christianity".

Later, you brought up this reason...

"There is something special about Jews finding Jesus that is different from other people finding Jesus. Jews are promised the Messiah all through the OT. They were the people set apart by God from the rest of humanity for this purpose".

Your confusion over my comments is probably because you see these two as the same issue, whereas I am making a distinction. I'll try to explain why I see them as different and why the distinction is relevant. As for the special position of the Jews, I've commented extensively on that already in my previous post. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that part, too, but in this post I'll only comment on the confusion you expressed over the logic of your comment about conversion to Christianity. In previous posts I also asked you to comment on the comments from paul where he boasts about his Jewish heritage and then says he counts it all as dung for the sake of Christ. I'd like you to comment on that. PHIL 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. I'd like you to comment on this verse in the context of what I'm saying here.

Your first response (i.e. using the title of "messianic Jew" as a means of converting other Jews to Christianity) is a suggestion on how to convert Jews to Christianity. In the context of conversion, it is a logic which can be used on any person who is not a Christian. An atheist could refer to themselves as "messianic atheists" in order to "help with the work to convert other atheists to Christianity".

The logic is based on something like comfort by association. It's a strategy which could have merit in some cases, but the logic it is based on has nothing to do with who the title belongs to or what the title is. The strategy could be used with any group, like "Bikers for Jesus", thus encouraging other bikers in their conversion. That you believe the Jews are special makes no difference to the basic logic behind the strategy and therefore your insistence that the strategy is okay for messianic Jews but not for messianic atheists defeats the purpose of the logic in the context of conversion to Jesus, which is the context in which you originally expressed it and the only context which really matters. I hope that has helped to clarify the logic issue for you.

Now I'd like to comment on why I think the distinction is important. The benefits of this strategy must also be weighed up with the risk. In the example of "Messianic atheists" one could very easily get the idea that some kind of strange anti-god Christianity is being promoted. It's a title which is not worth the possible benefits of helping to convert atheists because it creates so much confusion as to what the title is implying. The same would be true for "messianic Buddhists". The confusion created by this titles is simply not worth the possibility that it may help a seeking Buddhist feel more comfortable about converting. The implication is that this person still identifies as a Buddhist, but with some messianic influence. It's confusing.

Since Judaism is NOT Christianity the same reasoning must apply to the title of "messianic Jews". Besides, in the end, the best way to help someone become a Christian is to show them the teachings of Jesus on what he expects from his followers. If a Jew can't convert without holding on to some kind of special title to comfort them then how will they get to the point of laying their lives down for Jesus?

Earlier you quoted a verse from Paul where he teaches the benefits of becoming all things to all men. To the Jew he became as a Jew, but in order for the teaching to be consistent it must allow for circumstances in which a jew becomes a non-jew to non-Jews. This does not mean his DNA or lineage suddenly changes, but it does necessitate a willingness to put Jesus first, before those other things.

 

[Jesse Stone]

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:1-2 KJV)

The purpose of the Jew as stated by Paul. The Jew was chosen only for this reason. Not to be a special nation among nations. Which is how the Jews came to view themselves.

So also Christianity. It sees itself as a special religion among religions. As did the Jews in the time of Christ. The Christians learned nothing from the Gospels and what Jesus said to the Jews therein. Nor did they learn this very important lesson.

20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20-21 KJV)

Instead they have chosen a course that could only end in the denominationalism that is fully present today. Wherein instead of Christ as Lord, men are Lord. Instead of the oracles of God, there are Creeds. And instead of the freedom of local city ekklesia, there are universal institutions each thinking they have the true way.

 

[Jesse Stone]

In answer to question originally posed by the OP

What did God originally intend Christianity to be?

God did not intend for Christianity to even exist. The NT describes a whole different way for the people of God. And John 17:17-23 is just the tip of the iceberg of that description.

(Edited, Tos 2.14 "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." and ToS 2.4 "Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues ... and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice." Obadiah)

12 ¶ Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:12-17 KJV)

The true people of God today have been transferred into the kingdom of the Son, not into one of the many kingdoms of Christianity.

1 ¶ If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Col 3:1-4 KJV)

Seeking those things that have to do with a religion of man or a denomination thereof is a far cry from what Paul intended in these four verses.

 

[smaller]

In every way the external quest and fighting of Israel for their tiny bit of "land" is an allegorical correlation of Christianity in the quest and our hope for our NEW BODY.

Short version, granted. It's actually one of the more interesting and lengthy allegory studies to engage in.

I doubt very much that in the overall scheme of things the 'whole Bible account' is just and only about the people of Israel getting their little spot of ground. I also doubt even more that, in the fulness of said New Body, that anyone will care one way or another about "land ownership." At least I'd hope not.

 

[dadof10]

I understood your reasoning and responded two it a couple times now. I'm still waiting on your responses to those points. Saying, "remember what I said" doesn't do anything to address my counter argument; either you don't understand my counter arguments or you're side-stepping. If you want clarification let me know.



Only if you want assumed agreement. In other words, you are seeing what you want to see in my responses and ignoring what you don't want to see. Did you see the "if" statment in the part where you see "apparent" agreement?



You're still using inconsistent logic. What you've suggested here is true for ANY person. A converted atheist will always be witnessing to their unsaved atheist community via the life example they set.



No, the messiah was not promised "to the Jews". The Messiah was promised to come, for the Jews as well as to those who have the faith of Abraham. GAL 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The entire concept of "the people of Israel" was based on the faith of Abraham and the promise was fulfilled in Jesus. The concept of setting aside a particular nation and race for God didn't work. God tried it for thousands of years and the people failed over and over again. The obvious conclusion is that having a single people set aside as special and "chosen" does NOT create better or more faithful servants.

I'd like to suggest that God knew ahead of time that it would not work, but he carried on with it anyway precisely because he wanted us to get that lesson; a much higher revelation of sincerity. There is no single people who can claim to be special because of their religion, their race or their nationality; it simply does not work and the ultimate proof of that is the Jewish nation rejecting their messiah despite all the help they received from God for thousands of years.

Despite the miracles and the forgiveness and the faithfulness, they still failed to live up to their responsibilities as "God's chosen people." On top of that, the religious leaders of the "chosen people", those with the most knowledge and responsibility were the worst offenders. It is in the light of this failure that the concept of individual faith shines all the more brightly. 2COR 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 2COR 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

In this teaching from Paul he talks about this concept of New Glory replacing old glory. There were some very good intentions in the OT covenant and those good intentions were brought to fruition in the NT, not through the Jewish people but through Jesus Christ. Arguments to hold onto the OT claims of the Jews somehow still being special takes away from Jesus' glory as the fulfillment of the OT promise to Abraham and instead puts the glory onto the Jews themselves. Or, as Paul describes it, they still have a vail over their heart which can only be taken away by turning to Christ.

Now, God looks into the sincere heart of individuals all over the world and make his own decisions on that person's faith regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. However, the concept of "Israel" still exists, but no longer in a material, physical form such as "The Jews" (which are only one tribe of the original 12 anyway). Israel is now a spiritual concept which is far more consistent with the concept of worshiping the father "in spirit and in truth."

When the chosen people rejected their messiah, the thick curtain in the temple separating the holy of holies (where the Jews presumed God lived) was, by God himself, torn in two at the same time Jesus said "it is finished". God's experiment with a "chosen people" in the form of a religion, race and nationality was finished. On the whole the experiment failed to produce faithful servants based on those physical criteria, though there were some individual successes, but even those successes confirm the concept that individual faith (verses the corporate faith of a "chosen people") is what works best.

Where do you find in Scripture that setting aside a people "didn't work"? God's plans always work, despite our free will. His plan for our salvation "worked" even though Adam ate the fruit. He just finds ways to work through human weakness.

 

[Douglas Summers]

God is not finished with the Jews.

But a cursory reading of scripture reveals God intended Christianity to be of the Jews first then of the Gentiles but the Jews (by and large) rejected Christ because their leadership was infiltrated and corrupted.

This is a thread to discuss the implications of this. And what God may eventually intend Christianity to be...

Do you dare participate?

Hi JohnD, (Rom. 8:28-29) (Eph. 1:1-3:21) (1 Cor. 15:20-28) Read them in that order.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[john darling]

Where do you find in Scripture that setting aside a people "didn't work"?

It is abundantly clear all throughout both the Old and New testaments that being set and aside and "chosen" did not prevent the people from turning away from God. People who were not "chosen" showed faith while those who were "chosen" did not (Matthew 15:27 vs John 19:15).

 

[dadof10]

It is abundantly clear all throughout both the Old and New testaments that being set and aside and "chosen" did not prevent the people from turning away from God. People who were not "chosen" showed faith while those who were "chosen" did not (Matthew 15:27 vs John 19:15).

So then, Scripture doesn't teach it...I don't think the definition of "working" is showing faith or even remaining faithful. The Jews were set aside for a few reasons, but mainly to bring forth the Messiah to redeem mankind from Adam's sin. In that, it succeeded.

 

[Douglas Summers]

So then, Scripture doesn't teach it...I don't think the definition of "working" is showing faith or even remaining faithful. The Jews were set aside for a few reasons, but mainly to bring forth the Messiah to redeem mankind from Adam's sin. In that, it succeeded.

Hi ddof10, The reason Christ came is quoted in the Scripture (Rom. 15:8) "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". That promise starts with (Gen. 3:15) then (Gen.12: 2-3) and He confirms the promises to Issac and Jacob also. (Rom. 15:9-11) confirms in that promise that Gen. (12: 3........"in thee (Abraham's seed) shall all the families of the earth (Gentiles) be blessed".) Notice that "promises" is plural. Then there is the promise to King David that his son (descendant) would reign upon David's throne forever.(2 Sam. 7:5-19) and in the Psalms (Ps. 89: 3,4; 33-36). That is the Gospel of the" Kingdom of Heaven" that Yeshua Messiah preached (Matt. 54.17, 23). That was strictly to the Jew (Matt. 15: 24) , for He came as the King of Israel the Son of David. as confirmed to Mary (Luke 1: 26-33). It is in Matt. Chapter 12 where He is rejected as the King of Israel. He Then preaches to the Jew and Gentile of salvation and that He is the Christ that came to take away the sins of the world. The Jew was never discarded, but the Kingdom is just postponed. There is much more, but this should suffice.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[dadof10]

Hi ddof10, The reason Christ came is quoted in the Scripture (Rom. 15:8) "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". That promise starts with (Gen. 3:15) then (Gen.12: 2-3) and He confirms the promises to Issac and Jacob also. (Rom. 15:9-11) confirms in that promise that Gen. (12: 3........"in thee (Abraham's seed) shall all the families of the earth (Gentiles) be blessed".) Notice that "promises" is plural. Then there is the promise to King David that his son (descendant) would reign upon David's throne forever.(2 Sam. 7:5-19) and in the Psalms (Ps. 89: 3,4; 33-36). That is the Gospel of the" Kingdom of Heaven" that Yeshua Messiah preached (Matt. 54.17, 23). That was strictly to the Jew (Matt. 15: 24) , for He came as the King of Israel the Son of David. as confirmed to Mary (Luke 1: 26-33). It is in Matt. Chapter 12 where He is rejected as the King of Israel. He Then preaches to the Jew and Gentile of salvation and that He is the Christ that came to take away the sins of the world. The Jew was never discarded, but the Kingdom is just postponed. There is much more, but this should suffice.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

Ok, so then from that standpoint it "worked".

 

[Douglas Summers]

In answer to question originally posed by the OP



God did not intend for Christianity to even exist. The NT describes a whole different way for the people of God. And John 17:17-23 is just the tip of the iceberg of that description.

(Edited, Tos 2.14 "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." and ToS 2.4 "Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues ... and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice." Obadiah)



The true people of God today have been transferred into the kingdom of the Son, not into one of the many kingdoms of Christianity.



Seeking those things that have to do with a religion of man or a denomination thereof is a far cry from what Paul intended in these four verses.

Hi, I guess you mean the Church when you refer to Christianity? The Church is older than the calling of Israel in the plan of God "before the foundation of the world".(Eph. 1: 3-10) Israel was called at "the foundation of the world", you can look up that one, it's in Matthew. The "Kingdom of the Son" is the same as the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "My Kingdom" (Luke 22: 30) the "Kingdom of the Son of man" (Matt. 16: 28) the "Kingdom of Christ" (Eph. 5: 5) And the "Kingdom of His Dear Son" (Col. 1: 13) are all the same kingdom. This Kingdom is upon the earth and The Son of David as King.(this is the gospel of the "Kingdom of Heaven that Christ starting preaching in Matt. 4: 17,23) It will be accomplished after, The times of the Gentiles be fulfilled .(Luke 21: 24;) "The Time of the Gentiles" started with the dispersion of the Southern Kingdom by the Babylonian captivity. The "Kingdom of God" is different, it includes The Church, Israel, All OT,& NT saints, all those angelic beings in Heaven and all those former rebels that have turned to the Lord, Amen.
The Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached again by the 144,000 Jew during the Tribulation. (Matt. 24: 14; Rev. 7: 1-8).. So yes,God did already know about the Church. It was a mystery hidden in times past (Eph. 3:1-12). Noting surprises God, but many things disappoint Him.. And in the end, everything is delivered up to the "Kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15: 20-28). If you would like to discus more, let me know.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[Jesse Stone]

Douglas Summers,

I guess you mean the Church when you refer to Christianity?

I mean Christianity when I refer to the Church.

Each denomination of Christianity thinks it's "the Church". Acknowledged outright (e.g., RCC) or covertly by a continued separate existence. Each denomination equates its own interpretation of "the Church" with that which is described in the Bible. Christianity misses the mark because inevitably Christian Biblical interpretations boil down to the perpetuation of denominational thinking.

Christians not only interpret what the Bible means (a myriad of commentaries), they interpret what the Bible says by interpretive translation (a myriad of English translations). Even the most literal of English translations aren't entirely literal. Wherever interpretive translation is found, it isn't a literal translation. There are several instances where translations translate according to a Tradition. The JW's aren't the only ones guilty of translating the Bible interpretively to make it agree with their own Tradition. The following is a case in point.

In the KJV and in most modern translations, the NT Greek word "ekklesia" is translated by the English word "church". The two words are NOT equivalent.

The English word "Church" has as its root the Greek word "kyrios" meaning "lord". It was originally used to refer to "the Lord's house". The word became more inclusive with time. Both the Oxford and Mirriam-Webster dictionaries refer to the root and developmental history of the English word in their definitions.

The Greek word "ekklesia" has as its roots two Greek words, "ek" meaning "out of" and "kaleo" meaning "to call". Thus the literal meaning of the word "that which is called out of".

Ekklesia was originally a secular term that referred to a group of people called out of a city population to take care of the affairs of the city. Much like a City Council today. I don't remember the source for the term's secular use. I only remember reading about it a few years back in more than one source. Secondarily it refers to any association of people that are called out of a population for a certain purpose (Acts 7:38, a reference to the Jews called out of Egypt by God, and by extension out of the world for his purpose; Acts 19:32, 39, 41 -- where in the KJV and most modern translations, the word assembly translates the same Greek word usually translated as church, since it obviously isn't a reference to a those who are in Christ).

The NT writers, when referring to the gathering of those who are in Christ, use the word ekklesia in basically the same way as the secular usage. People within a city being called out by God in Christ through the Spirit to take care of his own affairs in that city. It's a necessary variation of the OT economy in Israel wherein one city, Jerusalem, was the center of gathering. Because the Tabernacle/Temple was in Jerusalem. It's the OT economy that Christianity imitates with their universal Church institutions. Since the new economy includes both Jew and Gentile believers, the center of gathering changed. The new center of gathering became individual cities wherein those in Christ reside.

Each ekklesia is autonomous, named for the city in which it exists (e.g., Rev 1:11). Each with his Son as head (Eph, Col, Rev). When more than one ekklesia is referred to, ekklesia is plural (Acts 9:31; Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1;2, 22). There's no such thing as a universal Church (i.e, the Church) in the NT. Only local ekklesia.

In Ephesians, the context is that of a local ekklesia (Eph 1:1). Each ekklesia (specifically in this context of the one in Ephesus) is intended to be expressions of that which is universal. The body of Christ of which he is the head (Eph 1:19-23, 4:5; see with reference to the ekklesia in Corinth - 1 Cor 12:12-26). The temple or residence of God through the Spirit (Eph 2:18-22; see with reference to the ekklesia in Corinth - 1 Cor 3:16-17). The kingdom of the Son of which he is Lord (Eph 3:5-13; see also Col 1:13 & 2 Pet 1:5-11).

In Catholicism, "the Church" on earth is only universal (i.e., world wide.). Locality is usually defined as a parish in subjection to the whole. When Catholics say they're going to Church, it's a reference to more than just a local congregation. The universal Church according to Catholicism is visible in part and invisible in part. That which is on earth is fully visible in its universality.

Key verses the RCC uses as a foundation for its own claim to be "the Church" are Matt 16:13-20 and 18:15-20. Which they have interpreted to refer to a universal Church. Universal even historically. These verses are in actuality a reference to the ekklesia in Jerusalem and was a prophecy about Peter in relation to that ekkesia. A prophecy that was clearly fulfilled as recorded in Acts 1-15. There is also the obvious implication of the keys given to Peter that must of necessity be passed on, according to the RCC, if ekklesia in Matt 16 & 18 refer to universality instead of locality.

In Protestantism, the "Church" is generally defined as two-fold. As having two aspects -- Universal and local. In its universality it's invisible. In its locality it's visible.

Protestantism, being more like the RCC than they care to admit, having perpetuated the idea of a universal Church; must of necessity interpret Matt 16 & 18 in such a way so as to not affect their own idea of the Church as referring to themselves. While simultaneously giving no ground to the interpretation of the RCC. Thus they emphasize the rock as having to do with anything except that to which it refers. Not considering Peter's eventual function in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. A function for which Peter was specially chosen by the Son. Because the Ekklesia in Jerusalem would be the pattern for all ekklesia to come (Acts 2:42-47).

So in answer to your question, we no doubt think of different things when "the Church" and Christianity is mentioned. When I refer to Christianity, I'm thinking of the man-made religion that is composed of denominations that it calls Churches. In contradiction to the desire of the one who is supposedly their Lord (John 17:17-23). When I refer to Churches or what to me is the mythical idea of "the Church", I'm not thinking of anything that has to do with the Biblical kingdoms of God or of his Son. Only to the denominations of Christianity and their local expressions that they call "churches".