Does the Bible Teach A Spiritual Israel?

[praise_yeshua]

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.

The lineage of Jesus Christ preexists any context of David. David did not further the lineage of Jesus Christ in ANY way. Not one single addition. If Israel would have listened to Samuel and God/Messiah Incarnate, they would of never had a king named David. Can you imagine how different David's life would have been.......

David was not prophesied before Israel rejected God and desired a "king". They already had a King. The same Person you're referencing that was after the order of Melchizedek ALONE is the heir of Abraham. Not Isaac. Isaac died and his bones are still with us.

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Stephen echoes these truths when he preaches Jesus Christ to those who had just murdered their king.

Act 7:45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David,
Act 7:46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
Act 7:47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him.
Act 7:48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
Act 7:49 “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Did not my hand make all these things?’
Act 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

I'm going to tag a few people. No obligation to join this conversation. This is an important topic that will define whether a person preaches Jesus Christ properly or not. I have no other King Eternal. Never had one. He has been my only King. He is more than a king to me. He is my friend.

@civic @Jim @FreeInChrist

If you get this part of your theology right, then everything else will probably fall into place for you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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

Synonyms. English isn't your first language. Right?

Exalt. Does that work for you?

 

[praise_yeshua]

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. just said absolutely not. They were dead set on replacement theology, Israel does not even need to exist.

I'm not a covenant theologian. I have my own. I'm not going to face God with the nonsense of the classifications of men. I would recommend that you not learn God within the context of all these classifications of "covenant theology" and "dispensationalism". I gave such up a very long time ago. If you would require me to classify my theology, I would use the phrase "The God Experience".

Christ was "king" long before David. Long before Israel. Israel is Jacob. It was personal for Jacob to be called "Israel". Jacob's children conspired to murder Joseph. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ mirrors the very life of the single child of Israel. Joseph. Judah represents man's failures. Yet, you're promoting the exact same theology that these people who rejected Messiah promote.

Someone long ago "framed" this argument for you and you took the bait. Hook line and sinker. You've been "running" with it ever since. So go ahead and let this theology "land you" and take a look at the people that have captured/caught you......

That should tell you something in and of..... itself.

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Jesus has/had a rank that preexisted even Abraham. You should pay attention to this. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. Never has been.

 

[armylngst]

The lineage of Jesus Christ preexists any context of David. David did not further the lineage of Jesus Christ in ANY way. Not one single addition. If Israel would have listened to Samuel and God/Messiah Incarnate, they would of never had a king named David. Can you imagine how different David's life would have been.......

And there would be no God whose words you are saying would fall to the floor.

David was not prophesied before Israel rejected God and desired a "king". They already had a King. The same Person you're referencing that was after the order of Melchizedek ALONE is the heir of Abraham. Not Isaac. Isaac died and his bones are still with us.

Perhaps this will make it blatantly obvious as to how serious God is:
"19 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “This is what the Lord says: ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night do not occur at their proper time, 21 then My covenant with David My servant may also be broken, so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers. 22 As the heavenly [h]lights cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who serve Me.’”" The Messiah is of the line of David. The Messiah denotes Christ's humanity. Jesus being Son, and Lord, denote His deity.

I'm pretty sure that not only do the covenant for the day and for the night preceded King David, I'm pretty sure they preceded not only the founding of the nation of Israel, but preceded Abraham and Melchizedek. In fact, I'm pretty sure that these covenants are so old, the Dead Sea hadn't even been born yet. And Methusaleh was so old, that when he was born, the Dead Sea was only sick.

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Stephen echoes these truths when he preaches Jesus Christ to those who had just murdered their king.

Act 7:45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David,
Act 7:46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
Act 7:47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him.
Act 7:48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
Act 7:49 “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Did not my hand make all these things?’
Act 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

So, God didn't determine anything in this world, to include that Jesus would be Messiah, and how that would occur? Ephesians 1 means nothing? Election means nothing? If God could so perfectly plan the Messiah His Son, His place in history, and all that surorunds it to the point that all prophecy in the Old Testament speaks to all aspects of His life, He somehow didn't know that Israel would reject Him? He didn't know there would be some guy named David who would be king? Then He wouldn't know about Melchizedek either. So if God comes asking who invalidated His covenant to day and night, should I give your name?

I'm going to tag a few people. No obligation to join this conversation. This is an important topic that will define whether a person preaches Jesus Christ properly or not. I have no other King Eternal. Never had one. He has been my only King. He is more than a king to me. He is my friend.

@civic @Jim @FreeInChrist

If you get this part of your theology right, then everything else will probably fall into place for you.

Jesus humanity is as important as His deity. Messiah - humanity, Lord - deity. So many times scripture clearly speaks of both His humanity and His deity. Why do you keep denying His humanity? There is a reason why John has nothing good to say about the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. And why did John bring this up at all? John got wind of what would become gnosticism/dualism and spoke to it to protect the church from them. Those who would teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh at all, because matter/flesh is evil. So Jesus had no humanity, only deity. Or the believe that Jesus was just a man and not deity at all, until His baptism, where the Holy Spirit coming down to Jesus signified the deity coming to Christ, that departed before He was crucified. (I still don't get that one. The explanation is closer to Nestorianism, another heresy, if that is what Nestorius actually taught. (From what I read, the only record of what he taught came from those who hated him, who would have no burden to tell the truth. He attacked the Catholic church a lot for claiming Mary to be, not the mother of Jesus, but the mother of God. He was afraid that that would cause the Catholic church to deify Mary... and we see what happened.

As for being of the line of Melchizedek, this is big proof that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced. The Mosaic covenant would not allow any other priest other that of Levi/Aaron. No other. So on line of Melchizedek. However, there is a new covenant with an intercessor/mediator of the line of Melchizedek. The new covenant.

 

[armylngst]

Synonyms. English isn't your first language. Right?

Exalt. Does that work for you?

Humor. English isn't your first language. Right?

I know what you meant, it was you who apparently lack a humerous... [Let's see if that one gets through]

 

[armylngst]

I'm not a covenant theologian. I have my own. I'm not going to face God with the nonsense of the classifications of men. I would recommend that you not learn God within the context of all these classifications of "covenant theology" and "dispensationalism". I gave such up a very long time ago. If you would require me to classify my theology, I would use the phrase "The God Experience".

Christ was "king" long before David. Long before Israel. Israel is Jacob. It was personal for Jacob to be called "Israel". Jacob's children conspired to murder Joseph. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ mirrors the very life of the single child of Israel. Joseph. Judah represents man's failures. Yet, you're promoting the exact same theology that these people who rejected Messiah promote.

Someone long ago "framed" this argument for you and you took the bait. Hook line and sinker. You've been "running" with it ever since. So go ahead and let this theology "land you" and take a look at the people that have captured/caught you......

That should tell you something in and of..... itself.

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Jesus has/had a rank that preexisted even Abraham. You should pay attention to this. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. Never has been.

Maybe you need to pick a side. Perhaps I'm in the middle. I completely did not pay attention in class to either covenant theology or dispensationalism. I say I was sleeping, which was me just not paying attention. I already had a camp, and it was in neither. Though my eschatology fit more in the dispensational camp, I had no clue what dispensationalism was.

However, I WILL NOT, deny what God said Himself in the Old Testament. Understand that Jesus spent, what, 40 days before His ascension explaing the Old Testament to His disciples, and the only question they could come up with after all that teching was "Will you now restore the Kingdom to Israel." And, after all that teching, Jesus reply was, it is not for you to know the times and seasons established by the Father. Considering that this came after Jesus explained all the prophecies in the Old Testament to the disciples, why didn't He tell them that they have it wrong, or no, it isn't happening. Why did He basically say it is going to happen, but it isn't for you to know when, that it's the Father's business, not yours? It was something that I had forgotten... Jesus teaching the disciples for the remainder of His days on Earth about the prophecies of the Old Testament. It's like, we understand, but there is one thing you still haven't told us. When is it going to happen?

 

[praise_yeshua]

And there would be no God whose words you are saying would fall to the floor.

Perhaps this will make it blatantly obvious as to how serious God is:
"19 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “This is what the Lord says: ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night do not occur at their proper time, 21 then My covenant with David My servant may also be broken, so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers. 22 As the heavenly [h]lights cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who serve Me.’”" The Messiah is of the line of David. The Messiah denotes Christ's humanity. Jesus being Son, and Lord, denote His deity.

Pay attention to what I said.

There is no prophecy that FORETOLD of David. Not one. Provide a prophecy that foretold of David.

God didn't need David.

Remember what Jesus said that you obviously don't understand....

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.

David was never essential to the plan of God. NEVER.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Maybe you need to pick a side. Perhaps I'm in the middle. I completely did not pay attention in class to either covenant theology or dispensationalism. I say I was sleeping, which was me just not paying attention. I already had a camp, and it was in neither. Though my eschatology fit more in the dispensational camp, I had no clue what dispensationalism was.

However, I WILL NOT, deny what God said Himself in the Old Testament. Understand that Jesus spent, what, 40 days before His ascension explaing the Old Testament to His disciples, and the only question they could come up with after all that teching was "Will you now restore the Kingdom to Israel." And, after all that teching, Jesus reply was, it is not for you to know the times and seasons established by the Father. Considering that this came after Jesus explained all the prophecies in the Old Testament to the disciples, why didn't He tell them that they have it wrong, or no, it isn't happening. Why did He basically say it is going to happen, but it isn't for you to know when, that it's the Father's business, not yours? It was something that I had forgotten... Jesus teaching the disciples for the remainder of His days on Earth about the prophecies of the Old Testament. It's like, we understand, but there is one thing you still haven't told us. When is it going to happen?

Pick a side.... Geesh. How about "None of the above." When you preach the systematic theology you're preaching.... you are preaching WITHIN the limits of a man made framework.

After all this "explaining".... you appeal to..... Peter gets in control and replaced Judas. That is the way man works. The HEIR leaves and Peter takes over. The next time God speaks, He calls Paul to replace Judas. The next time God gives a vision, He rebukes Peter.

The reason Jesus told them that the time is not for them to know is because they would have abandoned God if Jesus had told them the truth. God doesn't tell us everything "UPFRONT". We can't handle it. They couldn't either.

They wanted what they wanted. Just like. YOU WANT what you WANT. That is what really matters to you. God spends the rest of your human life stripping it away from you to the point..... YOU don't CARE about it anymore. God is good like that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against Peter. He was a man just like I am. Just like you. Surely you know yourself. Maybe you don't.

You do realize that Jesus had already been with them for years. YEARS telling them over and over again things they just refused to believe. They keep it up throughout their lives. YOU are too. I am too.

I just decided years ago to not base a single thing of what I believe on any friendship with mankind. That is what most people do. They start this journey with Jesus Christ and then start following others.

If we were having a live debate, this would already have been over. I'll plan to have a live session on this topic soon.

This "Zionism" you preach is very profitable for the enemies of the Gospel.

Rom 11:28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.

Those "fathers" cared about their children much like Adam cared about Cain. Cain was beloved by Adam but Cain certainly has caused much misery among all those other children that Adam equally loved.

No man is above another. NO man. There is only one Heir. Jesus Christ. That HEIR didn't need David to be the "right heir".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Humor. English isn't your first language. Right?

I know what you meant, it was you who apparently lack a humerous... [Let's see if that one gets through]

I know what "laughing off" mistakes looks like.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus humanity is as important as His deity. Messiah - humanity, Lord - deity. So many times scripture clearly speaks of both His humanity and His deity. Why do you keep denying His humanity? There is a reason why John has nothing good to say about the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. And why did John bring this up at all? John got wind of what would become gnosticism/dualism and spoke to it to protect the church from them. Those who would teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh at all, because matter/flesh is evil. So Jesus had no humanity, only deity. Or the believe that Jesus was just a man and not deity at all, until His baptism, where the Holy Spirit coming down to Jesus signified the deity coming to Christ, that departed before He was crucified. (I still don't get that one. The explanation is closer to Nestorianism, another heresy, if that is what Nestorius actually taught. (From what I read, the only record of what he taught came from those who hated him, who would have no burden to tell the truth. He attacked the Catholic church a lot for claiming Mary to be, not the mother of Jesus, but the mother of God. He was afraid that that would cause the Catholic church to deify Mary... and we see what happened.

Yep. Sure. Adam. Of the lineage of Adam.

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Wasn't Adam the elder?

As for being of the line of Melchizedek, this is big proof that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced. The Mosaic covenant would not allow any other priest other that of Levi/Aaron. No other. So on line of Melchizedek. However, there is a new covenant with an intercessor/mediator of the line of Melchizedek. The new covenant.[/i]

Geesh. Melchizedek preexisted Moses. The priests of Levi served a group of rebels that rejected God at Sinai.

Tell me, who was offering continual sacrifices before Levi? Did Abraham make any offerings himself. How about Abel? How about Cain?

Over and over again..... you prove that you can't think outside of what you've been taught. We are all priests. That is where we are going.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[armylngst]

Pay attention to what I said.

There is no prophecy that FORETOLD of David. Not one. Provide a prophecy that foretold of David.

God didn't need David.

That is some really faulty reasoning. However, I am looking at it as a determinist. God didn't need Mary. In fact, God didn't have to have Jesus at all. He could have chosen any method to justify people and allow people to appease Him. After all, He is the one against whom is the offense.

Remember what Jesus said that you obviously don't understand....

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.

I forget how many times I have brought this up to people who say taht all Jews will be saved. They will not. Jesus told Nicodemus that those who are born of water (flesh/ethnic Jews [Jesus point]) will not enter the Kingdom, only those born of the spirit (elect of Israel). I say this because Jesus is addressing Nicodemus, a Jewish teacher. Keep it within the context. Yes it means more, however, that more wasn't Jesus' point to Nicodemus. There are PLENTY of other scriptures dealing with this topic.

David was never essential to the plan of God. NEVER.

Marry was never esential to the plan of God. NEVER. Eve was never essential to the plan of God. NEVER. (or... was she?) You do understand that God determined everything before He said "Let there be light" right? God isn't clueless. He didn't ever wonder why Israel rejected Him as King. He already knew it would happen. He already determined it would happen. Just because revelation is progressive, doesn't mean it was because God was still making it up. He was just revealing more and more of what He had already determined.

When the Jews broke the Mosaic covenant, God didn't start worrying about what to do. He had already told Moses that Israel was going to break the covenant as soon as they got to the promised land. Was God unsure about Esau and Jacob? No, he determinned before hand that he would hate Esau and love Jacob. They hadn't even been born yet, and He already decided. That is some hard determinism there. Paul brought it up to emphasize election, God's choice, not ours.

So, the fact that it was always part of God's plan, makes it essential to God's plan, or God ceases to be God.

By the way, I have no idea what this has to do with anything other than trying to make God less than God.

 

[armylngst]

Pick a side.... Geesh. How about "None of the above." When you preach the systematic theology you're preaching.... you are preaching WITHIN the limits of a man made framework.

I don't have a systematic theology. I have the Bible, which is God's revelation, and His revelation is PROGESSIVE.

After all this "explaining".... you appeal to..... Peter gets in control and replaced Judas. That is the way man works. The HEIR leaves and Peter takes over. The next time God speaks, He calls Paul to replace Judas. The next time God gives a vision, He rebukes Peter.

I didn't appeal to Peter at all. However, you are right to say that Jesus put Peter in charge. I thought it was Matthias who replaced Judas? He called Paul to be an apostle to the Jews. How many times does Paul have to say that, for you to ignore him? Was Judas an apostle to the Gentiles? Was Judas going to be an apostle to the Gentiles?

The reason Jesus told them that the time is not for them to know is because they would have abandoned God if Jesus had told them the truth. God doesn't tell us everything "UPFRONT". We can't handle it. They couldn't either.

Can you give any scripture that shows that the reason Jesus did that is for the reason you give? Any scripture at all? I mean, I have my own theory, but it is based on things Jesus Himself said. And even then, it is still a stretch. I would take it however, from your response, that you are not a Calvinist. I'm not, just calvinistic, so I know better then to assume any response that would say there is no perseverance of the saints.

They wanted what they wanted. Just like. YOU WANT what you WANT. That is what really matters to you. God spends the rest of your human life stripping it away from you to the point..... YOU don't CARE about it anymore. God is good like that.

Again, more assumption and more supposition. You assume to know WHAT they wanted. I mean, consider what you are saying with the possibility that they are hoping that Jesus will stay with them and will rescue Israel right then. They NEVER ceased caring about that. Paul especially, and he wasn't there.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against Peter. He was a man just like I am. Just like you. Surely you know yourself. Maybe you don't.

Peter was... special. An object lesson at times, Jesus chosen leader of the apostles, and the gatekeeper to the church at others. That is, those keys that Jesus gave to Peter. (ONLY to Peter. Not to the Catholic church, not to any church) They are shown used three times in scripture. The day of Pentecost, when Peter spoke with Cornelius and the Gentiles, and with the Samaritans. The case of the Samaritans was the most clear. The apostles gave them the gospel, however, they did not receive the Holy Spirit (that by which those in the church have access to God) until Peter came. Another interesting point brought up by someone I am reading is that the power to loose and bound is not given to the church, but solely to the apostles. Paul was the one who made the most explicit use of this authority, when he sentenced Ananias and Sapphirah to death, and heaven carried out the sentence.

You do realize that Jesus had already been with them for years. YEARS telling them over and over again things they just refused to believe. They keep it up throughout their lives. YOU are too. I am too.

More supposition .I finally looked up exactly what I had been saying about Christ teaching them before the ascension.

The first account I [a]composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To [c]these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of things regarding the kingdom of God."

Regarding the Kingdom of God. Their question from all that teaching, just before He ascended, was "Will you now return the Kingom to Israel?" Jesus didn't say yes or no. His answer was in response to the NOW. It isn't for the disciples to know when the Kingdom will be returned to Israel. A specific question in relation to the Messianic Kingdom. The kingdom "departed" from Israel when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Israel, and Israel went into exile. Daniel shows the Kingdom's coming in Daniel 2, with the end of/destruction of, the times of the Gentiles. When Daniel prayed to God and repented for all Israel's sins in Daniel 9, he prayed this because he believed that when the exile came to an end, the Messianic Kingdom would begin. A requirement for that to happen is that all Israel had to repent and turn to God. God sent Gabriel to tell Daniel His plans for Israel. Why? Daniel was beloved of God. He was like Abraham. His faith was just as strong as Abraham. So, unlike perhaps any person before or after, He personally sent Gabriel to Daniel to give Daniel the real scoop.

I just decided years ago to not base a single thing of what I believe on any friendship with mankind. That is what most people do. They start this journey with Jesus Christ and then start following others.

If we were having a live debate, this would already have been over. I'll plan to have a live session on this topic soon.

This "Zionism" you preach is very profitable for the enemies of the Gospel.

What Zionism? Man, you are really, really good at assuming/supposition. Sure, I believe Israel would become a nation again, but only because God said so. God never said what His modus operandi would be, so 1948 is it. However, that regathering is for judgment, not salvation.That judgment is the 70th set of seven of Daniel.

What I don't understand is how believing in the salvation of Israel (the remnant thereof) is profitable for the enemy? Is God's judgment blessing in disguise? Who would ever preach that hell is a blessing? Consider Daniel 2. That prophecy was a real blessing to Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of praise and blessing poured out on Nebuchadnezzar by God through Daniel. He was no "friend" of Israel. Just another tool used by God in His judgments of Israel.

Rom 11:28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.

Those "fathers" cared about their children much like Adam cared about Cain. Cain was beloved by Adam but Cain certainly has caused much misery among all those other children that Adam equally loved.

Somehow you completely missed what Paul was saying. They are our enemies in regards to the gospel, however, in regard to being the chosen nation of God, dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. That is what is meant by "in terms of election". God knew Israel would reject Him and His covenant, yet He still chose them because of His covenants and promises to the "fathers". (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)
A different translation (NASB, so basically literal) of the passage:
"28 In relation to the gospel they are enemies on your account, but in relation to God’s choice they are beloved on account of the fathers;"
Why does God through Paul say they are enemies "on our account" or "for our sake"? It was by the rejection of the Messiah/gospel, that the gospel went to the Gentiles. That is, in order for the gospel to go to the Gentiles, they had to become "enemies" in relation to the gospel. In other words, they had to reject it. They became enemies, that the Gentiles might find peace with God. And, when God is done with the Gentiles, that is, when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, God will turn back to dealing with Israel.
I think a better view is this, Israel started out "obedient" (in quotes because I don't mean they were sinless, or perfect, but they were God's chosen people), and the Gentiles start out "disobedient" having rejected God (in essence), or perhaps they had no part in Israel. With Christ's coming, Israel became "disobedient" by rejecting the Messiah, so the gospel went to the Gentiles who received, thus becoming "obedient" in the same way that Israel was obedient in the beginning. (That is not sinless or perfect, but accepting God) Once God is done with the Gentiles, He will turn back to Israel (the remnant of) and they will become obedient. That is, they will repent of their great trespass of rejecting the Messiah, and believe in Christ and be saved. Hence the verse that says that God has locked all in disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. And thus all Israel will be saved (Paul's words, not mine.) The only defining of terms necessary is I believe Paul is speaking of those who are truly of Israel, that is the elect remnant, or the 1/3rd found in Zechariah.

No man is above another. NO man. There is only one Heir. Jesus Christ. That HEIR didn't need David to be the "right heir".

I never thought that I would be the one to say to anyone that they somehow completely missed the point of scripture, and God's plan of salvation. What is mixed in with all the prophecies of the Messiah? Prophecies of a Messianic Kingdom.

 

[armylngst]

I know what "laughing off" mistakes looks like.

*Face palm* All you had to say was, "Oh, I get it now." You missed it because you were being all serious and all, and I slipped in a joke by changing the meaning of a word. It's not my fault that you missed it. It is your fault that you didn't take the exit that I gave you. The only response can be *Fact Palm x 1000* (I tried finding an infinity key on the keyboard... no, not seriously)

 

[armylngst]

Yep. Sure. Adam. Of the lineage of Adam.

So... how did Adam get pregnant? You are completely missing the point, or better said, God's statement in Genesis. I don't think Eve ever rolled over in bed hoping she didn't get Adam pregnant.

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Wasn't Adam the elder?

of God... um... no?

Geesh. Melchizedek preexisted Moses. The priests of Levi served a group of rebels that rejected God at Sinai.

You missed the point in style. The Mosaic covenant ended. Jesus is a priest, not of Aaron or Levi, in which case He would be mediating the Mosaic Covenant, but a priest of the line of Melchizedek. Thus the Mosaic covenant is gone, but better put, replaced by a better covenant (the new covenant), mediated by a priest of the line of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ. A covenant formed by God through the blood of His Son, not the blood of rams or goats. He is King of Israel in the line of King David, in His humanity. He is a priest of the line of Melchizedek in His deity. The difference between the priesthood of Levi/Aaron and Melchizedek is that the priesthood of Levi/Aaron is based in death. The priests ascended through death. There is no death in the line of melchizedek as Jesus is forever a priest in the line of Melchizedek. There will be no other. So the new covenant is a perfect covenant that will never pass away. A covenant that is not just for Israel, but a covenant for the whole world mediated in Christ's blood by Christ. The priest and sacrifice in one body (as one church father put it.)

Tell me, who was offering continual sacrifices before Levi? Did Abraham make any offerings himself. How about Abel? How about Cain?

I fail to see any point that you are trying to make in regards to the argument. (Considering you completely missed my point, there is no surprise.)

Over and over again..... you prove that you can't think outside of what you've been taught. We are all priests. That is where we are going.

Israel is priests. That is the covenant that God made with Israel. They would be a nation of priests. In the end, it is said that the elect remnant of Israel are priests. This is not for the church.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

"4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. "

These are people from the tribulation who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and becasue of the word of God, and also those who did not worship the beast or his image, and did not receive the mark on their foreheads and on their hands. They are the one who take part in the first resurrection, and they are the ones who will be priests of God and of Christ in the messianic/millennial kingdom. There is a lot to be said for context.