Does the Bible Teach A Spiritual Israel?

[armylngst]

Surely you know Salem was the city of Jerusalem as it stood in the time of Abraham. Do you not. Have you ever read about Salem being referenced in the books of Psalm?

No of course not. That is why I believe that it is incredible that Jesus is both Messiah king of Jerusalem/Israel, AND a high priest in the line of Melchizedek. That can't make any sense if the throne in Jerusalem is both the seat of David and Melchizedek. That's nonsense. (And that was sarcasm.) I understand you haven't seen all comments I have made, so I leave it at elbow to the ribs sarcasm. Except I forget you don't believe Jesus is king. So now I have to rethink it all, since Jesus is not authorized to sit in David's seat. Only a king can.

Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.
Psa 76:2 He lives in Salem; he dwells in Zion.

Heb 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
Heb 13:13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.
Heb 13:14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.

Do you know the cultural reason why Jesus was sacrificed there? I don't remember, but it is in the book I am reading. Also, why the triumphal entry is so special. The day of the triumphal entry is also the day that the sacrificial lamb is set aside in order to inspect and ensure there is no blemish.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

You either need to embrace the eternal kingdom of Christ or you're going to be in very big trouble.

But you just told me Jesus isn't king. If He isn't a king, then He doesn't have a kingdom, eternal or otherwise. Consider that the word used for the kingdom is everlasting, and the interpretation is "age-during". So it actually can be the millennial kingdom that those dispensationalists keep talking about.

Jesus said otherwise. In fact, Jesus told his own people JEWS.... to do otherwise.

Luk 12:21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

My bet? I bet you've forgotten who to listen to. Whatever "Rabbi/Rabbit" you're following...

Walk away.

There is a temporal existence. We are not eternal, but temporal. Our life here on Earth is temporal. Jesus was teaching the Jews to not get so stuck up in the temporal as to disregard the eternal. Paul said that we are not to be of the world, but that we cannot separate ourselves from the world so as to no longer be on the planet. We still have to live here. The Bible is written in a temporal way, because that is what we understand. We can view the eternal, but we cannot truly understand it. No common shared experience.

Jesus death was temporal in that it occurred here on Earth, at a specific time and place as God Himself planned. Jesus death was eternal, in that it's effect was not temporal. It saved everyone from the foundation of the world (just using flowing poetic language) until the end of the world from that one moment in time. The death of a man cannot do that. A man can't even die for their own sin, much less the sins of the world for ALL TIME. We live in time. We are living out whatever God determined/planned from the beginning, one minute at a time. We fast forward by ignoring the world around us, or by sleeping...

As for who I have been reading. Dr. Fruchtenbaum. He wrote a four volume set on a Jewish view of Yeshua Messiah and the four gospels. It is very eye opening. I don't agree with everything, but when he talks from the Jewish perspective, everything that used to be head scratching (why would they do that?) becomes very clear. The Jews were not at all clueless about Jesus. The religious leaders had a list of miracles that they said only the Messiah could accomplish. The religious leaders could heal people (to a point), could cast out demons (to a point), etc. Kind of like how the Egyptians during Moses time were able to copy some of the miracles Aaron did. God worked through the religious leaders for the people of Israel. One of these "Messianic miracles" was the casting out of a mute/dumb demon. Not even the disciples, after having received power from Jesus, was able to do that. That type of demon is the kind that had them go to Jesus and say that they tried everything, but could not cast it out. Jesus cast it out immediately, and then told them that that kind could only come out with prayer and fasting. Why? It was a mute/dumb demon. The way that the religious leaders and others cast out demons is by asking for the demons name. Once they had the name, they had control. However, a mute/dumb demon can't give up its name.

This kind of miracle is also the exact miracle Jesus did before the religious leaders comitted the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So they KNEW it was a Messianic miracle, but they still said that Jesus did it by the power of Beezelbub, who they knew as the lord of the demons. They rejected the Messiah, by rejecting all the Messianic miracles to include this one, and blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This was a national sin, not an individual sin. Its judgment was AD 70. "That generation" that sinned that sin, was judged for it. There is a lot more to it.

 

[armylngst]

No true at all. All God used was the seed of a virgin. Remember?

Oh yes, there was no genealogy listed so that anyone can see that the line was through David. Not to mention that this virgin had a reason to be alive, such as having a family tree/lineage.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I wonder why the father was named "Joseph"...... Pay attention. Messiah Ben Joseph.

That's usually because that is something the mommy and daddy do, and Joseph was a common name. So was John and James apparently.

Amazing. AMAZING. This fairytale is necessary but you deny the necessity of Mary? It is just "how God decided it would happen".....

Yes, and obviously God decided not to use Mary, which is why He used Mary. It could have been ANY young woman/virgin. Are you going to deny that God chose to send Jesus through a virgin that could have been any virgin? I mean, I believe He determined it would be Mary before He got ready to say "Let there be light", but that's me.

Contrast this between what you just said about sinful men being a necessity? What planet are you from? What realty are you from?

I'm just saying that it is God who set it up. He promised David that Jesus would be of His line. If Jesus was not of David's line, then we are waiting for someone else. It's that simple.

Your choices are clear. It is obvious what you prefer. You prefer whoremonging men to a virgin.

Wait? Mary wasn't actually a virgin? Then we are looking for another... BTW, as a subject matter expert, I can tell you that Mary wasn't a whore.

I never said such. Christ does have a Bride. That is all that matters. These people you prefer to exalt above Jesus Christ are part of the Bride of Christ.

I don't exalt any men over Jesus Christ, not even Chuck Norris. The reason David and them were necessary is because God did a Thus saith the Lord, and God doesn't lie. So please, don't make God a liar. Besides, being of the line of David is a necessary part of the story of the world. Jesus will be Messiah king over the Messianic Kingdom once the times of the Gentiles has come to an end, considering it is Jesus' second coming that brings the times of the Gentiles to a shattering close. (You know, that rock shatters the entire statue in Daniel 2.) Now, since Jesus isn't king according to you, we just need to figure out who the king will be.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No of course not. That is why I believe that it is incredible that Jesus is both Messiah king of Jerusalem/Israel, AND a high priest in the line of Melchizedek. That can't make any sense if the throne in Jerusalem is both the seat of David and Melchizedek. That's nonsense. (And that was sarcasm.) I understand you haven't seen all comments I have made, so I leave it at elbow to the ribs sarcasm. Except I forget you don't believe Jesus is king. So now I have to rethink it all, since Jesus is not authorized to sit in David's seat. Only a king can.

Not true. I do believe Jesus is King of Kings. What you're failing to properly address is that that throne you're referencing preexisted Abraham. That throne doesn't require any man other than Jesus Christ to be valid.

Use all the sarcasm you want. Doesn't bother me at all. I can give as good as I get. You have no idea what I know and what I don't know. I surprise most people. In fact, I like it to be that way. I've told you things here in this forum that you've never even heard of before much less dealt with. If you be honest, you'll admit this.

Do you know the cultural reason why Jesus was sacrificed there? I don't remember, but it is in the book I am reading. Also, why the triumphal entry is so special. The day of the triumphal entry is also the day that the sacrificial lamb is set aside in order to inspect and ensure there is no blemish.

So who did the inspection?

I know of many interpretations. You can keep adding more and more to your appeal. Go for it. No. I don't believe that God had to inspect Christ to be a valid "sacrificial lamb". That is utter rubbish.

No man can do the things Jesus did unless God was with him. How about starting there.

I personally believe the very place that Jesus Christ died was the very ground from which Adam and Eve were formed. I had that spiritual understand one day when I was teenager. Haven't abandoned it since.

But you just told me Jesus isn't king. If He isn't a king, then He doesn't have a kingdom, eternal or otherwise. Consider that the word used for the kingdom is everlasting, and the interpretation is "age-during". So it actually can be the millennial kingdom that those dispensationalists keep talking about.

I never said that at all. I said His Kingdom is not of this earth. This is a Kingdom that extends far beyond this "small little place" we currently call home.

Pay attention to the argument I'm making. Christ didn't need the lineage of sinful men as the origins of HIS Kingdom.

There is a temporal existence. We are not eternal, but temporal. Our life here on Earth is temporal. Jesus was teaching the Jews to not get so stuck up in the temporal as to disregard the eternal. Paul said that we are not to be of the world, but that we cannot separate ourselves from the world so as to no longer be on the planet. We still have to live here. The Bible is written in a temporal way, because that is what we understand. We can view the eternal, but we cannot truly understand it. No common shared experience.

You're going to die before this "kingdom" you're looking for is supposedly established. Once you die, you will experience firsthand what a kingdom really is.

Jesus death was temporal in that it occurred here on Earth, at a specific time and place as God Himself planned. Jesus death was eternal, in that it's effect was not temporal. It saved everyone from the foundation of the world (just using flowing poetic language) until the end of the world from that one moment in time. The death of a man cannot do that. A man can't even die for their own sin, much less the sins of the world for ALL TIME. We live in time. We are living out whatever God determined/planned from the beginning, one minute at a time. We fast forward by ignoring the world around us, or by sleeping...

So why do you deny the necessity of the Divine Person of Jesus Christ dying for humanity? Everything you just said above leads to that conclusion.

As for who I have been reading. Dr. Fruchtenbaum. He wrote a four volume set on a Jewish view of Yeshua Messiah and the four gospels. It is very eye opening. I don't agree with everything, but when he talks from the Jewish perspective, everything that used to be head scratching (why would they do that?) becomes very clear. The Jews were not at all clueless about Jesus. The religious leaders had a list of miracles that they said only the Messiah could accomplish. The religious leaders could heal people (to a point), could cast out demons (to a point), etc. Kind of like how the Egyptians during Moses time were able to copy some of the miracles Aaron did. God worked through the religious leaders for the people of Israel. One of these "Messianic miracles" was the casting out of a mute/dumb demon. Not even the disciples, after having received power from Jesus, was able to do that. That type of demon is the kind that had them go to Jesus and say that they tried everything, but could not cast it out. Jesus cast it out immediately, and then told them that that kind could only come out with prayer and fasting. Why? It was a mute/dumb demon. The way that the religious leaders and others cast out demons is by asking for the demons name. Once they had the name, they had control. However, a mute/dumb demon can't give up its name.

You should take the time to get to know Alfred Edersheim. Not that I agree with him completely like you don't agree completely with Fruchtenbaum. I'm not unlearned in any of this. I know the customs you're reference but they are nothing more than customs. Traditions. I moved past them a very long time ago.

This kind of miracle is also the exact miracle Jesus did before the religious leaders comitted the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So they KNEW it was a Messianic miracle, but they still said that Jesus did it by the power of Beezelbub, who they knew as the lord of the demons. They rejected the Messiah, by rejecting all the Messianic miracles to include this one, and blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This was a national sin, not an individual sin. Its judgment was AD 70. "That generation" that sinned that sin, was judged for it. There is a lot more to it.

The event you're reference didn't just affect Israel. It affected Christianity as well. It destroyed the church at Jerusalem. It profound affected the only "unity" that existed among the apostles that ever existed. There is a reason God required "two or three" to agree upon any one thing. This single event caused a profound lack of information to survive to our modern times.

There is so little extant information that exists now that from 70AD forward to about the late 3rd century into the early 4th century AD.

I've given you a hard time but I want you know that I wish the best for you. You don't have to stay where you're at in this. Embrace Jesus Christ fully. That is all I wish/ask for you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Oh yes, there was no genealogy listed so that anyone can see that the line was through David. Not to mention that this virgin had a reason to be alive, such as having a family tree/lineage.

Ah. The genealogies. Is it okay that I mention what Paul told Timothy about genealogies....

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Here was Timothy. A "half breed" that couldn't please anyone. Not the Jews. Not the Greeks. A man caught in the middle of foolish genealogies that Paul referenced as his own "son".

To Timothy, your words ring hollow. He was caught in the very strife you preach.

You have a choice to make. See the Scriptures as presenting information to chose from (which it does) or just claim victory and stay the way you are now.

Luke, the servant of Paul, listed the establishment of the seed of the women. Your focus is upon Matthew and Joseph. Which only had the context of an historical tradition that favored what you believe today about Christ.

Luke presents the truth for you to embrace. The necessity of the seed of Eve. There are two competing traditions among Jews. One favors the establish of the human "Jew" from the perspective of the man. The other embraces the necessity of the women to be a "Jew".

You'll find this out if you study enough.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's usually because that is something the mommy and daddy do, and Joseph was a common name. So was John and James apparently.

The fact of Joseph's name being "common" was because of the faithfulness of Joseph. He was REMEMBERED because of this.

Yes, and obviously God decided not to use Mary, which is why He used Mary. It could have been ANY young woman/virgin. Are you going to deny that God chose to send Jesus through a virgin that could have been any virgin? I mean, I believe He determined it would be Mary before He got ready to say "Let there be light", but that's me.

No. I don't believe this choice was made before "let there be light". Mary was faithful. The necessity was "faithfulness". Not all "Jews" have been faithful. If you want to really know "why Mary", my answer would be... probably Mary....

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God

Notice that word "favor".

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

There is a unity that exists when you deal with this from the perspective of the women that you lose when you only deal with men. Maybe your wife can tell you something about this.

I'm just saying that it is God who set it up. He promised David that Jesus would be of His line. If Jesus was not of David's line, then we are waiting for someone else. It's that simple.

Never said he wasn't. I said that David wasn't necessary. God is what is necessary. Not David. When Christ was joined to humanity it wasn't in the seed of any male.

It was the seed of the woman. So you thusly have a "unity" of "male and female becoming one flesh" in the seed of the women itself. Not the seed of any man.

Wait? Mary wasn't actually a virgin? Then we are looking for another... BTW, as a subject matter expert, I can tell you that Mary wasn't a whore.

Gender is determined by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ. Not by any human male seed. I never said that Mary was a whore. It is rather certain that her "grandfathers" really loved many women.

I don't exalt any men over Jesus Christ, not even Chuck Norris. The reason David and them were necessary is because God did a Thus saith the Lord, and God doesn't lie. So please, don't make God a liar. Besides, being of the line of David is a necessary part of the story of the world. Jesus will be Messiah king over the Messianic Kingdom once the times of the Gentiles has come to an end, considering it is Jesus' second coming that brings the times of the Gentiles to a shattering close. (You know, that rock shatters the entire statue in Daniel 2.) Now, since Jesus isn't king according to you, we just need to figure out who the king will be.

Yeah. We were here a long time ago now.

Let me repeat myself again. "King of Kings" has no origin in any "Hebrew" prophecy. It is distinctly "Gentile". It preexists any context of Abraham at all. Just like ole faithful Job.

 

[armylngst]

Not true. I do believe Jesus is King of Kings. What you're failing to properly address is that that throne you're referencing preexisted Abraham. That throne doesn't require any man other than Jesus Christ to be valid.

I didn't bring it up because you aren't Jeremiah1five. And actually, that throne was contemporary with Abraham. (Melchizedek)

Use all the sarcasm you want. Doesn't bother me at all. I can give as good as I get. You have no idea what I know and what I don't know. I surprise most people. In fact, I like it to be that way. I've told you things here in this forum that you've never even heard of before much less dealt with. If you be honest, you'll admit this.

I didn't mean it to bother you. I was actually hoping for a chuckle. I don't know what you know and don't know. I'd rather walk side by side while sparring. (You know, iron on iron). I actually read about the two Messiah thing a couple of days after I saw your other comment. (It came up in the book I was reading, a commentary on I Peter I believe. It is actually Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and Jud... the five Jewish/Hebrew epistles.

So who did the inspection?

I know of many interpretations. You can keep adding more and more to your appeal. Go for it. No. I don't believe that God had to inspect Christ to be a valid "sacrificial lamb". That is utter rubbish.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that that day of the triumphal entry, in the Jewish system of sacrifices and the passover, is the day that the Jews would set aside the sacrifice for the Passover. I just added what they do during that time. If I was to actually try to make Jesus a point of THAT, I would say the focus would be on His actions from then to the cross. He didn't sin, He didn't break Mosaic Law, He didn't do anything that would have anyone in the world (let alone God) saying that He was actually not a worthy sacrifice. But again, that would not at all be my focus on it. Just that every point was connected to specific points in the traditions that God gave to Israel, and Jesus followed exactly. Every point, even the location at cavalry, checked off a box somewhere in regards to Jewish law and tradition given by God. (I speak of the Passover here as tradition.)

So, again, the point is that specific day of the triumphal entry was the day that the sacrificial lamb would be set aside. So one could say that the triumphal entry was when God set Jesus aside as the sacrificial lamb. (Not literally, but in keeping with the Passover, which is totally connected with Jesus sacrifice.) I just put it out as a point of interest, not as something that has to be.

No man can do the things Jesus did unless God was with him. How about starting there.

Why go back. I already know that. Perhaps I didn't present it well. I always smile a little in understanding the disconnect between those Jews who didn't like Jesus, and those who realized that Jesus was used of God. (I speak from their point of view. Here is someone who people are saying... things about, yet these people recognized God's work through Jesus, and did not fail to give Him the praise/glory.) From our point of view, Jesus is God, so while they didn't recognize this truth, they tacitly did. For only God could do the works Jesus did, but didn't Jesus blaspheme God, then how was He able to do the works of a God who would most certainly not stand such blasphemy? They didn't get stuck up on all that, and just recognized the fact that God had done it. (Jesus... I mean God... I mean Jesus... did.) Unlike the religious leaders, they didn't seem to miss the disconnect between what people were saying was blasphemy against God by Jesus, and Jesus still being able to perform miracles by the power of God. They just recognized, accepted, and praised the work of God. (And since Jesus is God...)

I personally believe the very place that Jesus Christ died was the very ground from which Adam and Eve were formed. I had that spiritual understand one day when I was teenager. Haven't abandoned it since.

It's quite possible. Perhaps not exactly where they were formed, but perhaps where the Garden of Eden once had been, so I can completely see the sentiment. However, the location is also connected to Jewish Law, I believe in connection to the Passover, so again, pointing back to Jesus as the Passover Lamb of God. I don't have issues with "pet beliefs" that don't change the gospel or, well anything. To me, it would add to the universality of Christ's sacrifice, that is, it is for the whole world, starting from Adam and Eve. Not universalism, but that it is Christ raised up (like the serpent in the wilderness) before the world, that whoever looks upon Him (believes in Him for this analogy) are saved. And, if where Adam and Eve were created, grounded in the creation in its own way.

I never said that at all. I said His Kingdom is not of this earth. This is a Kingdom that extends far beyond this "small little place" we currently call home.

Pay attention to the argument I'm making. Christ didn't need the lineage of sinful men as the origins of HIS Kingdom.

I speak of His origins as Messiah. He is the son of David, and brought this up. The lineage is required to make a link that goes all the way back to God's promises/prophecies in the Old Testament. That is why it is necessary. And it touches everything. Three (more?) Gentiles in that lineage. Sinners, kings, etc. However, the important point is that it gives to Him the throne of Israel through David, as again, promised/prophesied in the Old Testament. That link is required to prove His lineage to the throne. Which makes it interesting. IN one lineage, is a king of whom God said that no one in his line would ever sit on the throne. That was through... Joseph, so Jesus is unaffected. His royalty from Joseph, his right to the throne through Mary. (Something like that). Which then makes it interesting where one of David's ancestors had sinned with the punishment that none of their descendants would enter the assembly of God for ten generations (if I recall, maybe twelfth.) Whatever generation it was, David was the first generation that could, by God's law, enter the assembly. It doesn't mean much, but I always found it interesting at how exacting God is in all He does.

You're going to die before this "kingdom" you're looking for is supposedly established. Once you die, you will experience firsthand what a kingdom really is.

I'm pretty sure that the promised earthly messianic kingdom will happen after I am dead. That Kingdom which in Daniel 2 ends the times of the Gentiles, and takes its place. That will be a forever kingdom, or, better interpreted, an age-enduring kingdom. The Messianic Age.

So why do you deny the necessity of the Divine Person of Jesus Christ dying for humanity? Everything you just said above leads to that conclusion.

The Divine DID NOT DIE. Only the flesh/man died. God cannot die. God is eternal. The flesh is not/was not. The Logos wasn't flesh before Jesus, but BECAME flesh. I go off of what is read in scripture, and cannot claim to know what heaven was like. however there is talk of a preincarnate Christ and Christ incarnate. Jesus bore our sin and died. Are you going to try and say that God can be and was corrupted by sin on the cross? The best take I heard was that Jesus was both the sacrifice, and the High Priest in one body. The High Priest doesn't die with the sacrifice, the High Priest only sanctifies the sacrifice. Fruchtenbaum, I believe, said that somehow when Christ was on the cross, He was in heaven applying the blood to the heavenly mercy seat. (Something like that.) Sometime between crying out to God and His saying "It is finished". Plausible, though I am not exactly sure what to think.

You should take the time to get to know Alfred Edersheim. Not that I agree with him completely like you don't agree completely with Fruchtenbaum. I'm not unlearned in any of this. I know the customs you're reference but they are nothing more than customs. Traditions. I moved past them a very long time ago.

I find it very useful in understanding what was going on, especially in the gospels. It was eye opening. The traditions and customs add a whole new level of understanding. Why did Jesus do what He did when the religious leaders were around? He was poking the bear with a stick. An old toothless bear... the Mishna, which the religious leaders held near and dear. He broke those laws in the most flagrant ways possible. He never broke the Mosaic law, so the religious leaders didn't have a leg to stand on in public. I don't beleive we hold on to traditions, but because the Bible is wrapped up in them, simply due to when the Bible was written and to whom, it is almost necessary to have some knowledge of them in order to better understand scripture. Especially Hebrews. One can be/is completely lost if one doesn't understand the history of when it was written (I have a better idea now), and if one doesn't fully understand the Jewish sacrificial system enough to understand the parallels being drawn better.

The event you're reference didn't just affect Israel. It affected Christianity as well. It destroyed the church at Jerusalem. It profound affected the only "unity" that existed among the apostles that ever existed. There is a reason God required "two or three" to agree upon any one thing. This single event caused a profound lack of information to survive to our modern times.

There is so little extant information that exists now that from 70AD forward to about the late 3rd century into the early 4th century AD.

I've given you a hard time but I want you know that I wish the best for you. You don't have to stay where you're at in this. Embrace Jesus Christ fully. That is all I wish/ask for you.

Keep praying then. I am in a rocky place, but this actually helps me keep sane. I believe in the creation. Actual history. Same with the Old Testament, actual history. Same with the New Testament, actual history. Jesus is God incarnate, the Logos become flesh. I believe that the end times have not come yet, but are coming, and that Jesus will personally come and save Israel from the antichrist/Gentiles empowered by Satan attempting to defeat God by destroying Israel, rendering all God's promises moot. I believe that is why Israel faces so much animosity. As long as Israel exists (nation, and the elect within), God's promises stand.

I believe the millennial kingdom is the messianic kingdom promised to Israel, to king David and Solomon, in the Old Testament. It is at this time that the Abrahamic covenant, with its physical promises is fulfilled to ABRAHAM, who will be there to see it fulfilled.

However, that isn't what saves a man.

 

[armylngst]

Ah. The genealogies. Is it okay that I mention what Paul told Timothy about genealogies....

The geneaologies in Matthew and Luke are important, or God would not have had them written.

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

So since Matthew and Luke have genealogies, that must mean they were writing fables, right? I am pretty sure Paul was talking about those people who felt their genealogy meant something before God. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke deal with perspectives connecting Jesus to prophecies and promises in the Old Testament. God does not break promises. The genealogies show that God kept His promises. It also shows that Jesus is exactly who/what prophecies claimed Him to be. One genealogy says that Jesus has no right to sit on any throne. The other genealogy established His right to sit on the throne. Guess which genealogy belongs to Joseph? The one that has the cursed king who God cursed and said none in his line would ever sit on the throne. I would say it also points to the universality of Christ, because there are even Gentiles in his line, and one layed the harlot. However it played out, Jesus credentials are FULLY supported in the genealogies. He is unaffected by Joseph's line because Joseph isn't his real father. I believe the genealogies are included to give the full credentials of Jesus as to His claim to be the Messiah promised to king David. Again, God does not break His promises, so it matters for that reason. Everything points back to GOD, not man.

Here was Timothy. A "half breed" that couldn't please anyone. Not the Jews. Not the Greeks. A man caught in the middle of foolish genealogies that Paul referenced as his own "son".

That is because Paul is Timothy's "spiritual father". Timothy isn't the only one Paul says this about.

To Timothy, your words ring hollow. He was caught in the very strife you preach.

Paul isn't talking about Jesus' genealogy, or the Jesus fable. (If you are going to say that it speaks to the genealogies, then you have to deal with the fable part.) I just believe that the genealogies show God fulfilling His promises, and fulfilling prophecy. Would you agree that we have bigger problems if God breaks promises, and/or gives a Thus saith the Lord that does not come to pass? Everything goes back to God's prophecies and promises. That is all I am looking at in regards to Jesus seed of David, seed of Abraham, line of Melchizedek etc.

You have a choice to make. See the Scriptures as presenting information to chose from (which it does) or just claim victory and stay the way you are now.

Why would I claim victory? There is victory? There are some things I am absolute on. The absoluteness of God's covenants, promises and prophecies is a nonnegotiable. God will not violate a covenant, break a promise, or speak presumptuously in His own name, just as He will not have some so called prophet speak presumptuously in His name and live to tell about it. For Israel, they are supposed to put such a person to death. So what would it be if God gave a prophecy and it didn't happen? To what level does God hold Himself? The discussion should be on covenants, promises and prophecies. If anything I say violates any of those, then I am wrong. If anything you say violates any of those, then you are wrong. As far as being right, there is no such thing. If you don't violate the idea of God keeping His covenants, keeping His promises, and following His words of prophecy (Thus saith the Lord), that's a good starting point. There are still multiple interpretations.

Luke, the servant of Paul, listed the establishment of the seed of the women. Your focus is upon Matthew and Joseph. Which only had the context of an historical tradition that favored what you believe today about Christ.

My focus is on BOTH. Both show Jesus is of the seed of David, however, Joseph's lineage has issues, while Mary's lineage avoids the issues. Possibly why God had both written.

Luke
"the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,"
Matthew
"The [a]record of the genealogy of Jesus the [c]Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:"

" 11 Josiah fathered [k]Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon."

Jeremiah 22
"24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even if [g]Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull [h]you off; 25 and I will hand you over to those who are seeking your life, yes, to those of whom you are frightened, that is, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the Chaldeans. 26 I will hurl you and your mother who gave birth to you into another country where you were not born, and there you will die. 27 But as for the land to which they long to return, they will not return to it.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
And cast into a land that they had not known?
29 O land, land, land,
Hear the word of the Lord!

30 This is what the Lord says:

‘Write this man down as childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man among his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.’”"

Luke presents the truth for you to embrace. The necessity of the seed of Eve. There are two competing traditions among Jews. One favors the establish of the human "Jew" from the perspective of the man. The other embraces the necessity of the women to be a "Jew".

Luke bypasses the issues of the genealogy recorded by Matthew, through Jeconiah's cursed line. Mary's lineage does not go through Jeconiah. I was going to emphasize Abraham, but I figured everyone already knows that Jesus is a Jew. Perhaps I should have emphasized it above? Matthew emphasizes Jesus the Son of David in the very first verse, and includes Abraham. (again, which I almost emphasized) The promises and prophecies of the Old Testament link Jesus to David, so this is important in establishing Jesus' credentials by promises/prophecy.

You'll find this out if you study enough.

I always thought it was the woman's side that mattered?

 

[armylngst]

Never said he wasn't. I said that David wasn't necessary. God is what is necessary. Not David. When Christ was joined to humanity it wasn't in the seed of any male.

This is where we have a promise. You see, to me, the idea that God will not violate a covenant, break a promise, or fail to follow through on "Thus saith the Lord" is a nonnegotiable. Since God promised that the Messiah (Jesus) would be of the seed of David, this is VERY important. Again, solely because God not violating a covenant, breaking a promise, or keeping HIs own word (prophecy) is nonnegotiable. There is no focus on David, however, if you say something that violates that nonnegotaible, I have a problem with that. It attacks God's nature. It doesn't affect David at all, so no, there is no, well David is important. The only reason David has any importance here is God's promise. Not because he's David. Even Jesus Himself speaks of David as His ancestor. The Syro-Canaanite woman also speaks of it, and Jesus doesn't deny it. He actually didn't say anything at all when she called out, Jesus, Son of David. Why? Jesus told the disciples. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So as the Son of David, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Gentiles. Son of David is Jesus' Messianic title. Hence the reason I say that Jesus is not the Messiah of the Gentiles. That promise was made solely to Abraham, the Jews, and king David in particular. To Abraham God said that in Abraham's seed all the nations of the world would be blessed. So, is Jesus the seed of Abraham, or is it as you said and Jesus wasn't in the seed of any male? Did God violate His promise to Abraham?

It was the seed of the woman. So you thusly have a "unity" of "male and female becoming one flesh" in the seed of the women itself. Not the seed of any man.

Ah, but the woman is the seed of a man, hence the connection all the way back to Abraham. Matthew shows that God kept His promise. I believe that is very important. God can be trusted to fulfill His promises.

Gender is determined by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ. Not by any human male seed. I never said that Mary was a whore. It is rather certain that her "grandfathers" really loved many women.

I would say it was determined by promise and prophecy. (Behold, she shall have a son...) Now if you mean she was a virgin, yes, yes she was. And what was in her was conceived by the Holy Spirit .I see no need for the argument you made above. God determinned the gender of the Messiah in promise, and in prophecy. (Back to that nonnegotiable.)

Yeah. We were here a long time ago now.

Let me repeat myself again. "King of Kings" has no origin in any "Hebrew" prophecy. It is distinctly "Gentile". It preexists any context of Abraham at all. Just like ole faithful Job.

Was the author of Revelation Hebrew? In Revelation, one of Jesus' names is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No of course not. That is why I believe that it is incredible that Jesus is both Messiah king of Jerusalem/Israel, AND a high priest in the line of Melchizedek. That can't make any sense if the throne in Jerusalem is both the seat of David and Melchizedek. That's nonsense. (And that was sarcasm.) I understand you haven't seen all comments I have made, so I leave it at elbow to the ribs sarcasm. Except I forget you don't believe Jesus is king. So now I have to rethink it all, since Jesus is not authorized to sit in David's seat. Only a king can.

Why would God care about ruling rebels? Jesus is God. Is that enough for you? Or do you need to add to it?

Do you really think God is impressed when someone bows before Him? That is what men want. That is what mankind seeks.

What King is a high priest? What role does that entail exactly? My bet, you've never even considered it before. You wouldn't have unless I put the thought out there to discuss.

You think like a man. A man like a former king named "King James". One of the last to actually have ability to insist those under his authority accept him as the ruler of the Church.

I tell you what Christ seeks. To marry His Bride.

Does "Messiah" have a "Bride" or is He joined to a harlot?

The "throne of David"...... Geesh. Even Solomon didn't want it......

Ecc 2:7 I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:
Ecc 2:8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
Ecc 2:9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
Ecc 2:10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
Ecc 2:11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

I tell you what. Jesus Christ isn't that stupid/dumb. We all are.

 

[armylngst]

Why would God care about ruling rebels? Jesus is God. Is that enough for you? Or do you need to add to it?

Do you really think God is impressed when someone bows before Him? That is what men want. That is what mankind seeks.

What King is a high priest? What role does that entail exactly? My bet, you've never even considered it before. You wouldn't have unless I put the thought out there to discuss.

Let's see. Melchizeked was King and the priest to the Most Holy God. As for Jesus, while He was on the cross, He was in heaven applying His blood to the mercy seat. And He is a King. So, perhaps I have considered it before?

You think like a man. A man like a former king named "King James". One of the last to actually have ability to insist those under his authority accept him as the ruler of the Church.

Never did like Jimmy. I mean, it got us an english Bible that the Catholic church could not erase, but it has its issues.

I tell you what Christ seeks. To marry His Bride.

Does "Messiah" have a "Bride" or is He joined to a harlot?

Does the Father have a wife, or is He eyeing His Son's bride?

The "throne of David"...... Geesh. Even Solomon didn't want it......

Seat of David. And it belongs to Jesus. I understand you don't like what God had to say in the Old Testament, but it is all over the place. Jesus will sit in the seat of both David and Melchizedek, as of the line of Melchizedek.

Ecc 2:7 I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:
Ecc 2:8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
Ecc 2:9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
Ecc 2:10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
Ecc 2:11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

I tell you what. Jesus Christ isn't that stupid/dumb. We all are.

No. He knows He is King, and He is getting prepared for when He places His feet on the necks of His enemies, and crushes them. (The basic meaning of enemies being made a footstool...)

 

[praise_yeshua]

Let's see. Melchizeked was King and the priest to the Most Holy God. As for Jesus, while He was on the cross, He was in heaven applying His blood to the mercy seat. And He is a King. So, perhaps I have considered it before?

You're avoiding what I asked. You don't know how to answer any of these questions because the people who taught you never have.

What Kingdom did Melchizedek rule? Can you answer that simple question?

Have you ever read Deut 12?

You might notice this phrase throughout the chapter of the Torah you saw you love.

"shalt pour it upon the earth as water"

Deu 12:24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

Jesus poured His blood out on the ground like water.....

Never did like Jimmy. I mean, it got us an english Bible that the Catholic church could not erase, but it has its issues.

The Geneva Bible didn't need James. The Geneva Bible talked of Tyranny. It is why James hated the Geneva and made his own.

YOU believe Jesus is like "King" James. No difference. You expect your Messiah to rule and defeat all these evil Gentiles praising HIS name.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin 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.

Does the Father have a wife, or is He eyeing His Son's bride?

Ah. There it is. Same ole same ole. Always happens with Unitarians that deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. How long have you been a Unitarian?

The "husband wife" relationship requires intimacy and I'm not talking about sex. Maybe one day you might realize that the act of intercourse mimics exactly what God did in the earth. He took a seed from the earth and joined Himself to it in Adam. Same thing happened in the Incarnation.

Have you ever studied the "anatomy" of the "mercy seat" you mention above? I don't think you have. You have no idea what you're talking about. Just more and more regurgitation of long debunked nonsense from Unitarians like yourself. Might as well embrace Allah. What's the difference? A name? You certainly present Allah wrapped up in and pinned with the "bow" you prefer.

Seat of David. And it belongs to Jesus. I understand you don't like what God had to say in the Old Testament, but it is all over the place. Jesus will sit in the seat of both David and Melchizedek, as of the line of Melchizedek.

I love the OT. I know it better than you do. So tell me how Melchizedek is in the "kingly" line of David?

I mentioned Solomon said such things are vanity. Do I need to post them again? YOU'RE avoiding them.

This life is all about the "willing servant" found in Deut 21 and Exodus 15. You need your rabbi. Is he available? I'd prefer to talk with someone that actually can have this conversation without ignoring most everything I say.

You believe Christ seeks to rule humanity when Christ seeks agreement. Agreement. Have you find it yourself? If you think you have, are you getting "lip service" or "sincerity"?

No. He knows He is King, and He is getting prepared for when He places His feet on the necks of His enemies, and crushes them. (The basic meaning of enemies being made a footstool...)

Spoken like a man that has learned from Satan. From whom do you think man has learned such things? Fits perfectly within the desire of Satan.

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’

Jesus had plenty of opportunity to be this "wicked king" you believe He will be during His advent.

Luk 22:50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
Luk 22:51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.

I wonder why? What do you think Jesus desires most? It certainly isn't what you're peddling.

 

[armylngst]

You're avoiding what I asked. You don't know how to answer any of these questions because the people who taught you never have.

What Kingdom did Melchizedek rule? Can you answer that simple question?

Hmmmm... Salem. And the word Jeru means city of, so Jeru-salem. City of Salem...

Have you ever read Deut 12?

You might notice this phrase throughout the chapter of the Torah you saw you love.

"shalt pour it upon the earth as water"

Deu 12:24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

Jesus poured His blood out on the ground like water.....

The Geneva Bible didn't need James. The Geneva Bible talked of Tyranny. It is why James hated the Geneva and made his own.

YOU believe Jesus is like "King" James. No difference. You expect your Messiah to rule and defeat all these evil Gentiles praising HIS name.

I have King Jimmy. Also, He isn't my Messiah. Don't you get it yet. He is the Jewish Messiah.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin 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.

Ah. There it is. Same ole same ole. Always happens with Unitarians that deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. How long have you been a Unitarian?

Slander much. I am not a unitarian. Full blooded trinitarian. We just cannot explain what we have not experienced ourselves. Do you often get lost when you wander outside on your own? Jesus is the God-man, Son of man (humanity/flesh), son of God (divinity/Logos). The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. (Great line._)

The "husband wife" relationship requires intimacy and I'm not talking about sex. Maybe one day you might realize that the act of intercourse mimics exactly what God did in the earth. He took a seed from the earth and joined Himself to it in Adam. Same thing happened in the Incarnation.

Have you ever studied the "anatomy" of the "mercy seat" you mention above? I don't think you have. You have no idea what you're talking about. Just more and more regurgitation of long debunked nonsense from Unitarians like yourself. Might as well embrace Allah. What's the difference? A name? You certainly present Allah wrapped up in and pinned with the "bow" you prefer.

"11 And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands -- that is, not of this creation --
12 neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;
13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Romans 3
25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --

I love the OT. I know it better than you do. So tell me how Melchizedek is in the "kingly" line of David?

I never said he was. Wow. You got really lost somewhere.

I mentioned Solomon said such things are vanity. Do I need to post them again? YOU'RE avoiding them.

I avoid things that have nothing to do with the thread.

This life is all about the "willing servant" found in Deut 21 and Exodus 15. You need your rabbi. Is he available? I'd prefer to talk with someone that actually can have this conversation without ignoring most everything I say.

Rabbi? Why would I need a rabbi?

You believe Christ seeks to rule humanity when Christ seeks agreement. Agreement. Have you find it yourself? If you think you have, are you getting "lip service" or "sincerity"?

When did I say He sought to rule humanity? He doesn't have to. God determined that His Son would rule. And in I Corinthians, the Son gives the Kingdom to the Father after the defeat of the final enemy death.

Spoken like a man that has learned from Satan. From whom do you think man has learned such things? Fits perfectly within the desire of Satan.

What do you have against Jesus? Is Satan Jesus king, that it is Satan's desire to put Jesus on the throne? Is that really what you believe? I mean, the last time someone said anything about Jesus even touching on Satan, it was unforgivable. Jesus is going to be King, in the line of David, sitting on the throne in Jerusalem, once God crushes the times of the Gentiles with His Son's kingdom. (See Daniel 2).

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’

Get down.

Jesus had plenty of opportunity to be this "wicked king" you believe He will be during His advent.

Are you delusional? Jesus is not an wicked king. I'm not sure how you came up with that, but it isn't true.

Luk 22:50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
Luk 22:51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.

I wonder why? What do you think Jesus desires most? It certainly isn't what you're peddling.

You understand that while on Earth, Jesus was in the form of a servant, in the form of a man? Hence why Paul told the church to exercise the mind of Christ, which is supreme humility. He didn't count equality with God as something to be held on to with dear life, but took on the form of a servant. He had no issue doing that. (Oh, by the way, equality with God means He is God...just FYI.) And He became flesh, and was the full glory of God in bodily form. And by form, it means not only physical, but nature. Hence He was tired, He grieved, etc. He experienced all we experienced. He faced every temptation common to man, without sin. Does that mean He faced the temptation of going out to a movie on Sunday night instead of church? No. There are three spheres, and He was tempted from all three. The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Satan hit all three in the wilderness.

BTW, I have no idea what the above was about, but you are like in another ball park, in another state, on another planet.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hmmmm... Salem. And the word Jeru means city of, so Jeru-salem. City of Salem...

I told you that earlier. Glad you're learning.

I have King Jimmy. Also, He isn't my Messiah. Don't you get it yet. He is the Jewish Messiah.

Back to King of Kings here. He is MORE than what you claim is just the "Jewish Messiah".

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

You should deny the NT in its entirety. You will never reconcile the NT to the old with your false teachings. I can. So where is your Rabbi? You need your Rabbi. What is his name?

Slander much. I am not a unitarian. Full blooded trinitarian. We just cannot explain what we have not experienced ourselves. Do you often get lost when you wander outside on your own? Jesus is the God-man, Son of man (humanity/flesh), son of God (divinity/Logos). The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. (Great line._)

I made it through the snow this morning. I didn't get lost. Talk about "slander". I'm fine with your comments. I enjoy proving them wrong.

You're not a Trinitarian. It is impossible to be a Trinitarian and treat Jesus as your Jewish father's did. I'll offer a live debate on this subject. You can bring your Rabbi (whatever his name is).

"11 And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands -- that is, not of this creation --
12 neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;
13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

That holy place was Calvary. Do you remember when the earthquake took place and split the veil? That earthquake extended from Calvary all the way to the 2nd/3rd Temple. Read those words again. "rocks rent".

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

I never said he was. Wow. You got really lost somewhere.

I'm not lost at all. Your writings detail Jesus Christ and in the kingly line of Melchizedek. Own them. I actually believe them. You don't.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

Don't miss verse #5.
Now reconcile your claim that the Kingly line of David is necessary when God said without any context of repentance that Christ is FOREVER after the order of Melchizedek.

David wasn't a priest. Jesus Christ is the Priestly King of all of humanity.

 

[praise_yeshua]

When did I say He sought to rule humanity? He doesn't have to. God determined that His Son would rule. And in I Corinthians, the Son gives the Kingdom to the Father after the defeat of the final enemy death.

You don't really understand Trinitarianism. God seeks agreement. The Unity of the Holy Trinity never seeks to "rule one another" among their "Persons/Personages". This is the very nature of God.

You present "The Son" as a conqueror..... When.....we are His Ambassadors.

2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The Son seeks peace with all nations of the earth.

Will you rejoice when God conquerors all these people you think God hates? That is what your Jewish roots wanted. That is why you preach what you preach. I refuse to believe such nonsense. Such is not within the nature of God.

What do you have against Jesus? Is Satan Jesus king, that it is Satan's desire to put Jesus on the throne? Is that really what you believe? I mean, the last time someone said anything about Jesus even touching on Satan, it was unforgivable. Jesus is going to be King, in the line of David, sitting on the throne in Jerusalem, once God crushes the times of the Gentiles with His Son's kingdom. (See Daniel 2). .

You don't own Jesus. I don't either. Jesus is the Great "I AM". He doesn't need me and doesn't need you. You seem to think He does. That is what your theology teaches. That God is bound to you. That God needs you/Jews. He doesn't. Never has.

I've said this several times here and I'll say it again. "Jews/Messianic Jews" were the first Calvinists.

You are the "chosen"... Right?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Get down.

I don't command anyone. I promote Jesus Christ.

Are you delusional? Jesus is not an wicked king. I'm not sure how you came up with that, but it isn't true.

I never said He was. YOU are the one presenting HIM as a "wicked king" that seeks to rule and create subjects of those he "owns".

I don't preach such nonsense. That is not my gospel. YOU present a King that seeks to subject all of humanity under "Jewish rule".

You understand that while on Earth, Jesus was in the form of a servant, in the form of a man? Hence why Paul told the church to exercise the mind of Christ, which is supreme humility. He didn't count equality with God as something to be held on to with dear life, but took on the form of a servant. He had no issue doing that. (Oh, by the way, equality with God means He is God...just FYI.) And He became flesh, and was the full glory of God in bodily form. And by form, it means not only physical, but nature. Hence He was tired, He grieved, etc. He experienced all we experienced. He faced every temptation common to man, without sin. Does that mean He faced the temptation of going out to a movie on Sunday night instead of church? No. There are three spheres, and He was tempted from all three. The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Satan hit all three in the wilderness.

BTW, I have no idea what the above was about, but you are like in another ball park, in another state, on another planet.

Lust after the flesh is sin in and of itself. You don't understand lust. Lust is fostered. Even among the 'late" early church.... Augustine got this wrong. He believed there was an inherent lust within all mankind. Even among the innocent. It is called "con·cu·pis·cence". Don't attribute such to the experience of Jesus Christ. "Puberty" didn't affect Christ like it did you or me.

The "king" you believe Christ seeks to be....... wouldn't have healed the ear of his enemies.

 

[armylngst]

I told you that earlier. Glad you're learning.

I have KNOWN that for, perhaps, decades.

Back to King of Kings here. He is MORE than what you claim is just the "Jewish Messiah".

I am more than text. A person wrote this. And if you think it is just a person, then you are wrong, because it is MORE than just a person. It is more than you claim is just "times new roman text". You do understand that Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is simply an aspect? I understand you are trying to completely erase something that is against your beliefs. You're probably still upset that God made that promise in the first place. How dare He, am I right? How dare He promise a Messiah to the Jews. How dare He promise this Messiah would be of the line of David. How dare He!!! Not only that, how dare He not be a priest of the Jewish line of Levi. I mean, He is only supposed to be a priest of Israel, right? The only one's He is to intercede for is Israel, right? So how dare He not be a priest of Israel. A priest makes intercession for those He represents, and by being of the line of Melchizedek, He then represents the world and not Israel. How dare HE!!!

He is King of Israel of the line of David, and will sit in the seat of David, but He is a priest, not of Israel, not of that system of death, but of Melchizedek's line. An eternal line. Jesus as king of Israel forever, and priest of the line of Melchizekdek forever. I mean, you can't make up something like this. It is too perfect.

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Not sure what this has to be with Jesus being Messiah. It doesn't say if He is Messiah of the Jews only, does it? This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. He is God of everyone, however, only Israel was His chosen nation, and the remnant of Israel, His chosen people. He didn't choose the Gentiles, He chose Israel through whom to bring salvation to the world.

You should deny the NT in its entirety. You will never reconcile the NT to the old with your false teachings. I can. So where is your Rabbi? You need your Rabbi. What is his name?

So, do I present your name to Jesus when He asks why I deny the NT? It's because praise_yeshua opened my eyes to the lies of the New Testament. I gladly put up his name for consideration for your highest... judgment. I'm sorry, it is going to take much more than you to rock my faith. Also, I haven't found any historical records for a viking rabbi, though that would probably be one rockin' rabbi. However, I do have a name. His name is Jesus. I could introduce you if you want. Start at Matthew, and read to the end of John. Isn't He great!!!

I made it through the snow this morning. I didn't get lost. Talk about "slander". I'm fine with your comments. I enjoy proving them wrong.

Spoken like a man that has worshiped at the feet of Satan. Now, would you consider that slander, or just a simple comment? Not much different from what you said. Difference is, I don't believe that in the least, and as of late, I have been learning much from God. Why you would change God's name to that name is beyond me. Unless that is what you believe of Him.

You're not a Trinitarian. It is impossible to be a Trinitarian and treat Jesus as your Jewish father's did. I'll offer a live debate on this subject. You can bring your Rabbi (whatever his name is).

My... Jewish... fathers? What are you getting on about? Was there some Jewish viking out there that I am not aware of? I'm full blood Scandinavian. Just because I have come to an understanding that the best way to understand parts of the New Testament is to look at it from the point of view of the audience is just exercising critical thinking and logic. Jesus was Jewish when on Earth. That means He grew up learning about Jewish culture. That means when He said things to the people, He knew EXACTLY how they understood what He said. So all those loonies... I mean uni's who said that Jesus never claimed to be God, and that the Jews didn't get it, have no idea what they are talking about. Jesus knew exactly what He was saying, and the Jews understood it exactly as He wanted them to. How else do we get the lessons of John 10?

"32 Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [h]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” "

Not once did Jesus say they were wrong for believing that He claimed to be God. He did, however, tell Him that such a belief was not that important. By that I mean, it was so unimportant that simply to accept the works that He did of the Father is enough to equate as knowing what He said is true. So basically, they cannot accept the works He did of the Father, without knowing and understanding what He said. So accepting the words, was tacit acceptance that He is God. And apparently, that was enough. Perhaps He is saying that if they took the time to think about it, they would know and understand that in order to do the works that they are accepting, He has to be God. So basically not believing what He said was not a show stopper. If they accepted His works, they would end up with the same result. They would come to know and understand that He is God.

That holy place was Calvary. Do you remember when the earthquake took place and split the veil? That earthquake extended from Calvary all the way to the 2nd/3rd Temple. Read those words again. "rocks rent".

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

I always believed that God did it. (The veil tearing). It would be HIm to show that He Himself is saying that man could now approach God through Christ. The earthquake was felt because it was another sign. The rock's rent was high because of Biden... but I digress.

I'm not lost at all. Your writings detail Jesus Christ and in the kingly line of Melchizedek. Own them. I actually believe them. You don't.

You are lost because you aren't following what I am saying at all. Jesus is not in the kingly line of Melchizedek. Look below in verse 4. Prist forever, but not king, after the order of Melchizedek.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

Why priest only by the order of Melchizedek? Because, unlike you apparently [that "apparently" being a key word], I believe God keeps His promises. God promised that the Messiah would be of the line of David. Jesus even taught that to His disciples. It is all over the gospels. His seat is the seat of David. (Seat speaking of throne of the King, and the capital.) The LORD said to my Lord. So apparently the Lord of verse 5 is the same Lord as Jesus quoted to the people. If David said Lord of the Messiah, how is He His Son? [Part of His claim to be God I beleive.] Jesus Kingship on Earth is through the line of David, hence the two genealogies to point it out. Why? Again. God's promises.

Don't miss verse #5.
Now reconcile your claim that the Kingly line of David is necessary when God said without any context of repentance that Christ is FOREVER after the order of Melchizedek.

I believe God keeping His promises is VERY necessary, and that He NEVER speaks presumptuously in His own name. NEVER. Not even that one time you seem to be bringing up. You know, that time when God said that Messiah is from the line of David. Again, this is an aspect, it isn't everything. I'm not sure why you believe it is. It is, however, very important for eschatology. God's prophecies fall flat unless we have the Kingly line of David. Again, I don't know what you beleive, but I don't believe God speaks presumptuously in His own name... EVER. This part is important to Israel (the Remnant of) as in this is all their hope. For the world, Jesus is the priest of the line of Melchizedek. Why is this important? Apparently Melchizedek's order was a universal order. A priest intercedes for their people. So if Jesus was a priest in the Jewish line of Levi, Jesus would only intercede for Israel. However Jesus is not a priest in that line of death. He is priest of the line of Melchizedek, and thus intercedes for the world. It is not a line of death. Priestly ascension (become a priest) is not by death. Jesus is priest forever, and will not die to give way to another.

David wasn't a priest. Jesus Christ is the Priestly King of all of humanity.

No, David was a king. God had Pilate place that sign "King of the Jews" on the cross for a reason. Note, it did not say priest of the Jews. Jesus is the King of the Jews due to promises and prophesies made in the Old Testament. Though He is King of the Jews, which will be fulfilled in the Messianic Kingdom, His intercession as priest is for the whole world.

 

[armylngst]

You don't really understand Trinitarianism. God seeks agreement. The Unity of the Holy Trinity never seeks to "rule one another" among their "Persons/Personages". This is the very nature of God.

Not sure what this has to do with the Trinity. God seeks... relationship. That's different. The love God has for the world is a reflection of the love that is integral to God. The relationship that exists between the three. Look at Allah of Islam. He is one they say, and they mean it. And he means it to. He is not love, but more like hate/apathy. He doesn't care. He is alone, and doesn't seek relationship. Their belief is completely different and comes out of the fact that they say that he is literally... one. Alone. God is love. God seeks relationship because of this. God is love, I would say, because He is not alone. While HE is One as God, this being is made up of three persons in a coexisting/coeternal relationship.

You present "The Son" as a conqueror..... When.....we are His Ambassadors.

The BIBLE presents the Son as a conqueror. However, the Jews missed the fact that there aren't two Messiahs but one. He first comes to suffer, then He comes to conquer. We are His Ambassadors to the world, but the world as an entity/group rejects Him. (Not speaking of individuals, also known as the elect.) It will reach the point that war will break out between the world (Satan's dominion) and heave, and Jesus will come as conqueror. (You read Revelation 20 right? It isn't pretty. God's angels call even the birds of the air to feast on human flesh.) Where is this seeking of agreement?

2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Yes.

The Son seeks peace with all nations of the earth.

Why not let Jesus speak for Himself?
Luke 12
"49 “I [ah]have come to cast fire upon the earth; and [ai]how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism [aj]to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I came to provide peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”"

Will you rejoice when God conquerors all these people you think God hates? That is what your Jewish roots wanted. That is why you preach what you preach. I refuse to believe such nonsense. Such is not within the nature of God.

I think King David did a pretty good job of that in the Psalms. My viking roots would love it. However, you apparently haven't been listening to anything. What would I rejoice in? I pray to God about it often. To see God's redemption of Israel. Paul's words, and his heart in the matter... deep. It would just be mind blowing to be able, to be permitted, to see God in all His glory rescue and reconcile with the Remnant of His people Israel. The Bible makes it sound like a great salvation. Heart rending the depths of emotion presented. To the point that the mourning of Israel (remnant of that) is of that of the mourning of a lost child/son. That is deep. That is heart felt. They will feel the full weight of what they have done, and it will break them. And God will save them. God will redeem and reconcile them. Perhaps I read to much from Paul? I mean, he would have gladly seem himself under anathema if it meant the salvation of Israel. So much love he had for his people.

You don't own Jesus. I don't either. Jesus is the Great "I AM". He doesn't need me and doesn't need you. You seem to think He does. That is what your theology teaches. That God is bound to you. That God needs you/Jews. He doesn't. Never has.

I don't think you want to enter here. I don't think He needs Me. At times I don't think He even wants Me. And, for the umpteenth time, I am Scandinavian, I am NOT Jewish. Not one iota. As for the Jews, if anything happens to them, God fails and Satan wins. Why? God's promises, prophecies and covenants. What hope can a Gentile have in trusting God for salvation, if God won't even keep His promises, covenants, and prophecies concerning Israel and the Jews. I mean, could you accept it if He broke promises in front of you and then says "Trust Me. I got you." Do you even understand Abraham's faith? What was the content of Abraham's faith? The undying, unwavering belief that God will do exactly what He said He would do no matter what. Unwatevering. Abraham didn't even falter when God told him to sacrifice Isaac. Why not? Well, God kind of made a covenant and promises that said that Abraham would be the father of a great nation through Isaac. What is one way to ensure that never happens? Well.... perhaps... killing Isaac. Why didn't Abraham falter at such a command from God? Because he believed with all his heart that God would have no choice but to bring Isaac back from the dead, because no matter what, God is going to do what He said He would do, and that required, REQUIRED, Isaac. So Abraham is thinking win/win. He gets to fulfill God's commands, and go home with Isaac. He'd have to clean all the blood off first before Sarah sees anything, but everything would be fine because... God will do everthing He said He would do, exactly as He said He would do it.

I beleive Abraham received VIP treatment from God, because God gave Abraham a glimpse of what would happen in the future by supplying a replacement, a substituted for Isaac on the altar. A parallel to what would have hundreds of years later on a cross, where a lamb was provided for all mankind, and God Himself was that lamb. Well, the fleshy part. God can't exactly die.

I've said this several times here and I'll say it again. "Jews/Messianic Jews" were the first Calvinists.

I wouldn't know. The one I was reading is a four pointer, and someone said believers in amyraldianism. I personally think he has hit the same speed bump as others have. Limited atonement sounds harsh, and that word limited gets people. It does not speak to how Jesus death on the cross is universal in scope, and is offered to the whole world. It isn't limited. However, only those of the elect will respond and be saved. I think the terminology trips people up. Just what do they mean by atonement? I always equated it to salvation. However I think some have separated those two ideas, in which case, it changes things drastically. If they don't define the terms as intended, it changes the meaning enough that some people can't reconcile with it.

If Messianic Jews were the first calvinists, yet they didn't exist before 1950, how can they be first? Messianic Jews as a stated thing as in denomination or movement, not an idea. The idea has existed for quite some time, is recent. I say 1950, because the first Messianic Jewish Bible translation didn't come out until after 1950. Jewish Christians (they were first called CHristian in Antioch as a pejorative) were said to be "followers of the way" by Josephus, and their religion was "The Way" if I recall. Jesus is the way... I think that's all they needed.

My understanding is changing as I read more, but I am reading books of a Messianic Jew. His doctoral thesis was on Israeology, or a proper systematic theology on Israel, and it was over 2000 pages. It was rejected for being too long. He broke it down to about 240 pages I believe, and they almost rejected it again for being too long. His commercial book version is just over 900 pages. The thing that got my attention was his book on the gospels, written from a Messianic Jewish viewpoint. Eye opening.

You are the "chosen"... Right?

You ask one of the most perplexing existential questions one can ask. And I will give the same answer I give myself. I... do... not... know. And then I add what I must "...the mind of God." I would never venture myself to claim it, because I don't deserve it. If God has chosen, then I will find myself before Him with nothing more than myself. Nothing I can offer to gain it, nothing I can offer to secure it, nothing I can offer to be awarded it. It will truly be in God's grace that I fall flat on my face, no right to stand. If that gives you a glimpse of my heart on the matter, so be it.

 

[armylngst]

I don't command anyone. I promote Jesus Christ.

How do you promote someone who already holds the highest rank? (I couldn't help myself...)

I never said He was. YOU are the one presenting HIM as a "wicked king" that seeks to rule and create subjects of those he "owns".

I don't preach such nonsense. That is not my gospel. YOU present a King that seeks to subject all of humanity under "Jewish rule".

Wow. I would have only said that you drive a semi between the lines, but this is more of an ocean liner or a 747. You need to go back to the idea of the sovereignty of God. You are right to say He owns us, because He created us. One thing western logic got right was the rules of property.

And I'm not sure how putting all humanity under His rule (subjecting all things to His authority as scripture says) is sujecting all humanity under "Jewish rule". Unless of course, you are a unitarian, so Jesus is simply a Jew. I could then see it being Jewish rule and all. That isn't what the Messianic Kingdom is. It is CHrist, the Messiah's, Kingdom, with its capital in Israel, as God promised to King David. It is His Kingdom, with its center in Israel, and, as Daniel says in Daniel 2, it will cover the whole Earth.

"44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [ap]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Just as you saw that a stone was broken off from the mountain without hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aq]in the future; so the dream is certain and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Which goes back to:
" 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces [aj]all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the entire earth."

This has nothing to do with Jewish rule. It is Christ's kingdom, and it was that in which He prophesied a kingdom to Israel. However, scripture is pretty clear that it affects the entire earth. Gentiles clinging to Jews and asking about God and all. Why? Because they are His chosen people, and know God. Who better to go to?

Lust after the flesh is sin in and of itself. You don't understand lust. Lust is fostered. Even among the 'late" early church.... Augustine got this wrong. He believed there was an inherent lust within all mankind. Even among the innocent. It is called "con·cu·pis·cence". Don't attribute such to the experience of Jesus Christ. "Puberty" didn't affect Christ like it did you or me.

The point is Satan hit all three, the lust of the eyes (He showed Jesus the whole world, and said it is all His if He simply bow down and worship Satan.), the lust of the flesh (trust in yourself and make bread out of stone to satisfy your hunger. (It had been 40 days, so Jesus would be feeling it...), and the pride of life. Jesus as "bullied" for claiming to be God, was doubted by people, etc. Satan tells Jesus to jump off the pinnacle of the temple and the angels would come to keep his foot from striking the ground, and everyone around would see exactly who Jesus is. No more people rejecting Him, instead, people serving Him hand and foot. All sin falls into these categories, and since Jesus hit all the categories, He faced all the temptation that we face.

As for puberty, Jesus went through exactly what we went through, except that He was alive thousands of years ago, so the experience would be... different. The main point is that, even in the face of puberty, Jesus did not sin. Let's just leave it there.

The "king" you believe Christ seeks to be....... wouldn't have healed the ear of his enemies.

Do you mean, His subjects? Somehow you have the completely wrong idea of what I believe. Are you projecting someone else onto me? He isn't seeking to be the King, He IS the King. His Kingdom is yet to come (Danel 2), and will be the Messianic Kingdom promised in the Old Testament. It isn't a Jewish Kingdom, it is HIS Kingdom. Hence it is called the Messianic Kingdom and not the Jewish Kingdom. What do you have against Jesus fulfilling God's will in ruling the world from David's seat in Jerusalem? Did Jesus say "Not gunna happen" when the disciples asked, "Will you now return the Kingdom to Israel"? And they asked this after Jesus spent almost 40 days going through the Old Testament with the disciples explaining EVERYTHING to them. They learned about it from Jesus, and so they asked Him if it was going to happen "now". Jesus told them it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. So, no, not now, but it will happen, and... it isn't for you to know when. That's the Father's business.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have KNOWN that for, perhaps, decades.

Knowing the words doesn't equal actually meaningfully considering what they present.

I am more than text. A person wrote this. And if you think it is just a person, then you are wrong, because it is MORE than just a person. It is more than you claim is just "times new roman text". You do understand that Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is simply an aspect? I understand you are trying to completely erase something that is against your beliefs. You're probably still upset that God made that promise in the first place. How dare He, am I right? How dare He promise a Messiah to the Jews. How dare He promise this Messiah would be of the line of David. How dare He!!! Not only that, how dare He not be a priest of the Jewish line of Levi. I mean, He is only supposed to be a priest of Israel, right? The only one's He is to intercede for is Israel, right? So how dare He not be a priest of Israel. A priest makes intercession for those He represents, and by being of the line of Melchizedek, He then represents the world and not Israel. How dare HE!!!

I never said he wasn't a priest for Israel. If He is a priest for the entire world, then why do you insist upon focusing upon Israel?

The ENTIRE WORLD INCLUDES ISRAEL......

This is all about what you chose to say. You LEAD with Israel when most everything that is about Israel has already culminated in work of Jesus Christ in His advent. You do realize that death will meet all of us long before any particular events you expect to happen right before you eyes.

Take the words of Jesus to heart.

Luk 10:24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Stop acting like you're the center of anything. You're not. I'm not. Many Christians think they are the ones that are going to be the ONES... to see what all you believe happen right before their eyes. Be humble. Realize you're projecting. Such beliefs as you're holding lead to great evil being dismissed by these supposedly "chosen" people.

My... Jewish... fathers? What are you getting on about? Was there some Jewish viking out there that I am not aware of? I'm full blood Scandinavian.

You never know. Even those claiming to be Jews are really not. By your own standards, you probably have a "little Jew" in you somewhere. Abraham had several children and you only want to focus upon Isaac. I'm not going to do that. I believe Abraham LOVED all his children. Every last one of them.

Those that love the name "Jew" (from Judah) have been indiscriminately having intercourse with Gentiles their entire history. You might be 1 percent Jew while those claiming to be Jews are 2 percent Jew. It really is crazy how those who call themselves "Jew" ignore this. Judah himself had a child through Tamar. I wonder where that lineage went. The SOLE HEIR of Abraham is Jesus Christ. There is no other. NONE. The SOLE HEIR of all things.

You might pay attention when Paul said that he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews". He was making the point that he came from among basically the only tribe that ever seriously tried to remain "pure"... the Tribe of Benjamin. Yet, he abandoned it all to win Christ.

Now I'm going to stop right here. Lets go through this one more time. Line by line. Precept by precept. Lets see who waivers.

There is so much wrong with what you've said that I can't deal with it in this format.... the way it is going, it will not be beneficial to anything.

You can accurately deal with the couple responses that I made above and we can see where it goes. I'll offer again to host a live debate on this subject. Anyone can record it and do whatever they want to do with it.

 

[armylngst]

Knowing the words doesn't equal actually meaningfully considering what they present.

I have known. The eye opener when I first looked into it is that the seat of David, and Melchizedek are in the same place. Hence Jesus is King, seed of David, and priest of the line of Melchizedek. Both priest and King, and in the same seat as David and Melchizedek. No Jewish king could be priest. God tore the kingdom from Saul, and struck Uzziah with leprosy for doing so. However, while Jesus is a Jewish King, which is simply saying, He is of the line of David, He is not a Jewish priest. His position is different.

I never said he wasn't a priest for Israel. If He is a priest for the entire world, then why do you insist upon focusing upon Israel?

He is the King of Israel, that is Messiah of Israel, since He is the seed of David. The problem is that covenant theologians say God has rejected Israel, and the church has replaced Israel. That is not true. There is a distinction between the remnant of Israel that is not in the church (not saved yet), and the church. There is also this thing about covenants made with Abraham, that while those people want God to violate those covenants because...well... Jews... it just isn't going to happen. Paul dealt with this in Romans. God has not rejected Israel. I still feel one of the most important verses in his discussion on Israel is the one that says that God has locked up all in disobedience, that He may have mercy on all. It is by the rejection of Israel of the Messiah (determined by God, which is how deep this goes) that the gospel went to the Gentiles.

The ENTIRE WORLD INCLUDES ISRAEL......

Sure does. But each nation still exists as each nation. The point is, the church is not Israel. It is not a spiritual Israel. Israel remains Israel, even if it is just those who are both physical descendants of Abraham and spiritual descendants. (The remnant elect of Israel). The covenants and promises God made with Abraham, the forefathers, and Israel remain because... God made them. And God will fulfill them. Why are you so dead set against the idea that Israel will be treated a little differently then the church? Envy? We all end up in the same place. So what if Israel is in first class, and you're stuck in business. At least YOU ARE ON THE PLANE AT ALL. I beleive you said you are a messianic Jew, so that doesn't really affect you, because you would be in first class. Just realize if you are looking for me, you'll find me in cargo.

This is all about what you chose to say. You LEAD with Israel when most everything that is about Israel has already culminated in work of Jesus Christ in His advent. You do realize that death will meet all of us long before any particular events you expect to happen right before you eyes.

Yep. I do. That is why the prayer is more a dream. I'll still be there to see it, but it won't be the same. Better... safer...

Take the words of Jesus to heart.

Luk 10:24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Stop acting like you're the center of anything. You're not. I'm not. Many Christians think they are the ones that are going to be the ONES... to see what all you believe happen right before their eyes. Be humble. Realize you're projecting. Such beliefs as you're holding lead to great evil being dismissed by these supposedly "chosen" people.

I'm not the center of anything. I'm not Jewish. I'm Scandinavian. However, the completeness of scripture is found at understanding the distinction that exists between Israel (the remnant thereof), and the Gentiles. (I won't say church, because the church is made up of Jews and Gentiles, so it would totally gum up the works.) The Jews have certain promises that come from covenants and promises that God made wtih Abraham, and with their forefathers. Those are for the Jews alone. However, the blessings of Christ, the seed of Abraham, is for all who believe, both Jew and Gentile. Those spiritual blessings are shared by all.

I am speaking to the OP that asks if the Bible teaches a spiritual Israel, and speaking against replacement theology.

You never know. Even those claiming to be Jews are really not. By your own standards, you probably have a "little Jew" in you somewhere. Abraham had several children and you only want to focus upon Isaac. I'm not going to do that. I believe Abraham LOVED all his children. Every last one of them.

Yes, but God's promise came solely through Isaac. This is the whole reason why scripture speaks of God loving Jacob, but hating Esau. Paul speaks of this to show that it is God's election, and that it is not of works, but by God's choice. It's always possible there is a little Jewish in a lot of people, but Noah had three sons. Shem wasn't the only one. I focus on Isaac because that is the crux of all we are. Abraham's faith rested on God's covenant/promise that had Isaac as the focal point.

Those that love the name "Jew" (from Judah) have been indiscriminately having intercourse with Gentiles their entire history. You might be 1 percent Jew while those claiming to be Jews are 2 percent Jew. It really is crazy how those who call themselves "Jew" ignore this. Judah himself had a child through Tamar. I wonder where that lineage went. The SOLE HEIR of Abraham is Jesus Christ. There is no other. NONE. The SOLE HEIR of all things.

Isaac was technically, given covenants and promises, the sole heir, holding Sarah as the focal point, again, due to God's covenants and promises. Isaac was the only child Abraham had with Sarah. Jesus Christ is the sole heir of God, and is God, but that's a little complicated to discuss. The terminology is beyond what we, who have no shared experience of that kind of existence, can understand. We can discuss theoretically, but that discussion could completely fail to reflect reality. The children of Abraham are the children of Abraham. Jesus rubbed His people (He was Jewish in His human form) the wrong way, by basically saying, children of Abraham? So what? God can raise children of Abraham from these here rocks. A dime a dozen. His point, I beleive, is reflected in Paul continually stating that it is not the physical descendants of Abraham that matter, but those who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. And, going with the OP, what matters are those who are BOTH physical descendants of Abraham, and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Those are the one's who will partake in the fulfillment of the covenants and promises made to Abraham. Again, the church will partake as well, but only in the spiritual blessings. The land promise belongs to Israel, not the church.

You might pay attention when Paul said that he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews". He was making the point that he came from among basically the only tribe that ever seriously tried to remain "pure"... the Tribe of Benjamin. Yet, he abandoned it all to win Christ.

I'm probably wrong, but I believe you missed his point. I have paid attention. In reading the context, he appears to be saying that if you were to look at his previous life, you would leave thinking, there is no one as Jewish as he is. The only thing someone could say is that he was Hebrew/Jewish in every conceivable way. According to the Pharisees, he was on the fast track into the kingdom. All Jews are according to the Pharisees. All are saved. Why? Because they are JEWS, the covenant people of God. All of that, Paul abandoned. He used his knowledge greatly for the kingdom, but he left behind every advantage that a Pharisee would say Paul had in life for Christ. That is how I understand it. He was the perfect model of a Hebrew in every way.

Now I'm going to stop right here. Lets go through this one more time. Line by line. Precept by precept. Lets see who waivers.

There is so much wrong with what you've said that I can't deal with it in this format.... the way it is going, it will not be beneficial to anything.

You can accurately deal with the couple responses that I made above and we can see where it goes. I'll offer again to host a live debate on this subject. Anyone can record it and do whatever they want to do with it.

Again, I don't see myself as the center of anything. I would see a live debate as shameless self promotion for me if I were to be in one, so I must, for my own sake, decline. But if you want to deal with it, consider I have been going with the OP. Does the Bible teach a spiritual Israel, with my understanding being that it is asking if Israel is the church. And my answer is no. That is all I have been trying to say. You keep adding all these things that mean nothing in regards to the OP.

1. God's covenants and promises with Abraham stand, and, in the grand scope of scriptural context, will be realized not in the church, but in the remnant elect of the nation of Israel. (So not all Israel, or all Jews.) I also believe that it will be realized in those Jews who are part of the church, because the covenants and promises I speak of are the ethnic ones. I do not speak of the promise that said that in Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. That is a universal promise for any who would come to Christ in faith. So in this way, the church is not Israel.

2. Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, so the Messianic (not Jewish) Kingdom will have its capital in Israel, in Jerusalem. This is in fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies to Israel in the Old Testament. It is best visualized in Daniel 2 with the rock not cut by hands destroying (figuratively bringing an end to) the times of the Gentiles. And that stone will become a mountain that covers the whole Earth. The Messianic kingdom is universal to the whole planet, but it's captital, its center is the seat of David in Jerusalem, where Jesus reigns as Messiah.

3. None of what I says has anything to do with Salvation. It is all in response to the OP. Jesus is priest of the line of Melchizedek, and not of any line in Israel. If He was a priest of Israel, His intercession would only be for Israel. However, He is not, and HIs intercession is for the whole world.

So please, look at the OP. I am against any replacement theology that would say the church is Israel, or would say that God has rejected Israel. The story of the world is not simplistic. It is rather complicated. If you look at the beginning and the end only, simple. God created -- the beginning. All mankind is redeemed and is one before God -- the end. However, that leaves out the middle, which no one seems to want to deal with honestly. I know. I asked someone about talking about it, just to talk, and they just said absolutely not. They were dead set on replacement theology, Israel does not even need to exist.