When did the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God begin?

[armylngst]

Your bold and enlarged, colored letters seem to indicate anger. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you need to display anger.

So how was it possible for those under the Law to have their sins forgiven, since Jesus had not yet literally offered His blood and His body? Isn't there a record in the gospels of Jesus forgiving people of their sins, even though He had not died yet? He told the man on the stretcher: "Your sins are forgiven." He told the woman who wiped His feet with her hair: "Your sins are forgiven. He told Zaccheus: "Today salvation has come to this house." Did that not include forgiveness of sins? David said in Psalm 32:1 "How blessed is the man who sins have been forgiven", also quoted in Romans 4:7-8.

How was it possible that every disciple of Jesus during His lifetime could have their sins forgiven, even though Jesus had not yet been crucified?

In fact, isn't one of the provisions of the New Covenant to have our sins forgiven? - Jeremiah 31:34

Do you not see that what Jesus did on the cross - forgiving our sins - was retroactive all the way back to Adam and Eve? What about the OTHER parts of the New Covenant? Were they also retroactive? I believe they were, but ONLY back to the point that the scripture allows, which was the beginning of the New Testament.

"The Law and the Prophets (were proclaimed) until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached." Luke 16:16
"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John." Matthew 11:13
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

So the preaching of the Law came to an end just before John appeared on the scene. (At least the preaching that God sanctioned. God wanted the gospel of Jesus to be preached at this time - not the Law. John started that process by proclaiming One who was greater than him.) Then grace and truth came with the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ - i.e. the New Covenant.

So what new or different thing occurred when John appeared on the scene? The New Covenant. The preaching of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as the KING. The gospel of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

Jesus DID NOT say that forgiveness could not happen before His death. He in fact forgave sins BEFORE His death, which was a provision of the New Covenant.

Luke 22:20 "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood."

Jesus DID NOT say that the New Covenant could not begin until He died. His death ratified the New Covenant but forgiveness of sins was already happening before that.

1 Cor.11:25 " ... This cup is the New Covenant in My blood ..."

Again, Jesus DID NOT say that the New Covenant could not go into effect until His body and blood was literally offered. You are misreading those verses.

The covenant was made when Christ died on the cross. What Christ did was indirectly written into the Abrahamic Covenant. In you shall all the nations of the world be blessed. It is speaking of Christ, Abraham's seed, as Paul says.

Christ's death saved all believers for all time, including all the Old Testament saints. So any forgiveness Jesus gave before His death is on par with God crediting Abraham's faith as righteousness. Jesus could forgive because of what He was going to do. This is the kind of issue that develops whenever there is a crossover episode. Where eternity crosses over with the temporal world. It's not worth trying to delve to deep into it, because it is more than we could ever hope to fully grasp. Jesus said this cup is the New Covenant. Okay, it is the New Covenant. In His blood spilled for us. That points to the moment of His crucifixion as being the blood sacrifice that enacts the covenant. However, it is an ETERNAL covenant, so in that is the crossover. The covenants made with Abraham and Israel are temporal, since this universe is temporal. What Jesus did is eternal.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The covenant was made when Christ died on the cross. What Christ did was indirectly written into the Abrahamic Covenant. In you shall all the nations of the world be blessed. It is speaking of Christ, Abraham's seed, as Paul says.

Christ's death saved all believers for all time, including all the Old Testament saints. So any forgiveness Jesus gave before His death is on par with God crediting Abraham's faith as righteousness. Jesus could forgive because of what He was going to do. This is the kind of issue that develops whenever there is a crossover episode. Where eternity crosses over with the temporal world. It's not worth trying to delve to deep into it, because it is more than we could ever hope to fully grasp. Jesus said this cup is the New Covenant. Okay, it is the New Covenant. In His blood spilled for us. That points to the moment of His crucifixion as being the blood sacrifice that enacts the covenant. However, it is an ETERNAL covenant, so in that is the crossover. The covenants made with Abraham and Israel are temporal, since this universe is temporal. What Jesus did is eternal.

There were thirteen Jewish men there at the last Passover.
What? You don't believe Jesus who told the twelve representing the twelve tribes of Israel:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke 22:19–20.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Galatians 4:4–5.

You obviously do not believe Jesus.
Or Saul.
Or God.

The Bible/Scripture is a love letter from God to Israel.
On Pentecost three thousand Jews were born again and NO GENTILES.
Every day after that thousands of Jews were born again and NO GENTILES.

 

[Behold]

The KOG was always there, because God amd Son are the KOG.
This is why when you are born again, you are born again "IN Christ" amd "ONE with God"... and are "translated from Darkness TO Light".

See that "Light"?

That is the KOG..... or "GOD exists IN LIGHT".........and it can be also understood like this.....when you become "the Temple of the HS" then.... "the KOG is within you".....Jesus explains, because HE is in you......as "Christ in you".

And, the New Covenant began with The Cross of Christ that birthed the NT Church.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The KOG was always there, because God amd Son are the KOG.
This is why when you are born again, you are born again "IN Christ" amd "ONE with God"... and are "translated from Darkness TO Light".

See that "Light"?

That is the KOG..... or "GOD exists IN LIGHT".........and it can be also understood like this.....when you become "the Temple of the HS" then.... "the KOG is within you".....Jesus explains, because HE is in you......as "Christ in you".

And, the New Covenant began with The Cross of Christ that birthed the NT Church.

The birth of the New Covenant Church Christ promised to build began with the advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise on the Jewish Feast of Harvest (ca. AD 34.) On this day three thousand Jews were baptized into the Body of Christ with thousands being born-again daily such as should be saved.

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Acts 2:46–47.

 

[Jim]

Strictly speaking, the sins of those who believed, lived and died before Christ's death, burial and resurrection were forgiven. Even so, the debt owed for those sins still remained. In order for them and the rest of us to obtain eternal life it was necessary that the debt for those sins be paid. That was actually what was accomplished at the cross. That is precisely what Christ meant when He said, just before dying, "It is finished". He meant that the debt for all the sins of the world had been paid. The only thing now remaining is for the believer to have his sins forgiven.

 

[armylngst]

There were thirteen Jewish men there at the last Passover.
What? You don't believe Jesus who told the twelve representing the twelve tribes of Israel:

I dont' get why Paul said there are no distinctions in the body of Christ, but you immediately call for distinctions. I looked it up, and Paul apparently wrote using Paul because he was going to the Gentiles (Paul being his Gentile name/latinized). God had him write as Paul to make the distinction you refuse to accept.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke 22:19–20.

His disciples are the foundation of the church. This was passed on to the church, by which we remember what Christ has done. If you really want to see how things went, look at the early history of the church. It really is quite something.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Galatians 4:4–5.

John 1:29: "29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus died for all men... without distinction. He did not die for all men without exception. Who you are, what you have done, etc. does not matter. No distinction. Faith is all. Consider this verse in Galatians 4:
" 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh [a descendant of Abraham] persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit [descendant of Abraham through Isaac], so it is even now.

So it is even now, here, everywhere. Jesus death is for all without distinction. That does not mean all without exception. It means it doesn't matter who you are, what you have done, what you look like, etc. If God chose you before the foundation of the world, before covenants were even a gleam in His eye or a thought on His mind, you are His, and Jesus came to die for you. Israel had first dibs. They rejected as a nation. It went out to the Gentiles, who, considering how it worked with Israel, accepted. Those who had no law, but of which some were a law unto themselves. No longer unclean, as God showed Peter in a vision. Understand, what Peter said about being around people from another nation was a made up rabbanical thing. There were foreigners and strangers all over Israel who more than fit that law, who did business and even lived with and among the Israelites. (That is within their nation.) Some proselytized, but not all.

Consider Abraham's slaves, who were not Hebrews at the time of the covenant. They became a part of the covenant through circumcision. Everyone in his household was to be circumcised. Consider Melchizedek who was not a Hebrew, but was both a king and a High Priest of the Most High God. Who was he?

You obviously do not believe Jesus.
Or Saul.
Or God.

I do, however, I question you. Jesus spoke to a "Gentile" who was a Gentile. He did as she asked. Why? She got the gospel in a nutshell and believed it. Even the dogs eat crumbs that fall from the masters table. Jesus wasn't insulted by her saying that the dogs also get the crumbs of salvation. He said her faith was great to believe such a thing, and state it.

The Bible/Scripture is a love letter from God to Israel.
On Pentecost three thousand Jews were born again and NO GENTILES.
Every day after that thousands of Jews were born again and NO GENTILES.

Salvation as first to the Jew. Afterwards it went to the Gentiles, due to the rejection of Israel of Christ. And, Paul preached earnestly to the Gentiles hoping to stir up jealousy within his own people, that they too would be saved. (The jealousy was that God was Israel's God, yet now God was going out to the Gentiles and not to Israel. Instant jealousy, or not.) It was to the point that there were Gentiles out there who hated (I think that term applies here) Jews, and would openly brag. Paul did not have kind words for them. In fact, he said that God would cut them out, and put those Jews in their place. A total lack of humility, of which Paul wrote extensively to one church.

Salvation is for all mankind without distinction. It is not for all mankind without exception. (Universalism is a heresy.) The church is made up of every tribe and nation whom God chose to save for Himself. Here is another place where Jesus tries to explain this to the Jews:
Matthew 22:
" Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven [a]is like a king who [c]held a wedding feast for his son. 3 And he sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened cattle are all butchered and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast!”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went their separate ways, one to his own [d]farm, another to his business, 6 and the rest seized his slaves and treated them abusively, and then killed them. 7 Now the king was angry, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. 8 Then he *said to his slaves, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 So go to the main roads, and invite whomever you find there to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good; and the wedding hall was filled with [e]dinner guests.

11 “But when the king came in to look over the [f]dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet, and throw him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that place.’ 14 For many are [g]called, but few are chosen.”

Who were the one's originally invited into God's kingdom and to the wedding? Covenant Israel. Am I saying Israel is shut out? No. However they are who believe their place is in the covenant. Those who believe their place is in who they are. Both Jesus and Paul attacked those notions, as did others. Faith is what matters. It matters so much that when a Gentile woman, who Jesus wouldn't even speak to because He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, spoke out in faith, Jesus was visibly moved. I'm not sure He would have done the same if she just spit out memorized 10 commandments.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I dont' get why Paul said there are no distinctions in the body of Christ, but you immediately call for distinctions. I looked it up, and Paul apparently wrote using Paul because he was going to the Gentiles (Paul being his Gentile name/latinized). God had him write as Paul to make the distinction you refuse to accept.

Of course there are distinctions in the body of Christ. Here is one example laid out by the apostle Saul:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:28.

After naming the various offices in the body of Christ, Saul identifies the distinctions by asking in the negative:

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1 Corinthians 12:29–30.

Here we have various offices in the body of Christ but we do not all have the same gifts in which to accomplish these offices:

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 1 Corinthians 12:4–6.

Here, we see the Trinity of God involved in each distinct identification of a believer in Christ (Spirit, Lord, God.)
It is the Holy Spirit that provides the gifts, the Son (Lord) who as Head of the Church directs each gifts administration, and God [the Father] who directs its overall operations of each administered gift by the Spirit directed by the Son [Lord.]
In other words, Saul is saying that everyone in the body of Christ might be in service to the One God, it is each gift of the Spirit that is administered by the Son in service to the One God. By making these distinctions known to the body of Christ we learn that each believer is not the same, that there are no "cookie-cutter" Christians. Saul further makes these distinctions understood by identifying that it is the "same God which worketh all in all" (verse 6.)

Another distinction in the body of Christ separates the hierarchy of authority.
The spiritual order:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28.

By naming "Christ" before the human name of "Jesus" Saul is addressing the spiritual order of authority in the body of Christ ("Christ" English for the Greek "Christos" transliterated from the Hebrew "Messias" which means "Anointed.") In other words the hierarchy of authority in spiritual matters is Christ--->then, everyone else in the body of Christ.

The natural order:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:2–3.

The hierarchy of authority in the natural order is God--->Christ---> man--->woman.

God is a God of order and God rules both realms - spiritual and natural - but there are distinctions of authority in each realm so that God's people operate within that established order so that there be no confusion for confusion is not of God.

His disciples are the foundation of the church. This was passed on to the church, by which we remember what Christ has done. If you really want to see how things went, look at the early history of the church. It really is quite something.

The foundation is Christ, NOT the disciples:

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11.

John 1:29: "29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus died for all men... without distinction. He did not die for all men without exception. Who you are, what you have done, etc. does not matter. No distinction. Faith is all. Consider this verse in Galatians 4:
" 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh [a descendant of Abraham] persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit [descendant of Abraham through Isaac], so it is even now.

So it is even now, here, everywhere. Jesus death is for all without distinction. That does not mean all without exception. It means it doesn't matter who you are, what you have done, what you look like, etc. If God chose you before the foundation of the world, before covenants were even a gleam in His eye or a thought on His mind, you are His, and Jesus came to die for you. Israel had first dibs.

The covenant is made by God and it is made with a man called "Abram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13.)
By identifying Abram as a Hebrew we can now track the covenant and its scope (who it covers.)
In this covenant God is identifying which Abram is being addressed out of the more than millions of people alive at the time. By identifying Abram's family line ["the Hebrew"/of Eber) God makes distinction between Abram the Hebrew as opposed to others who may also be named "Abram."

The narration continues through the five books authored by Moses who recorded the history of this one family of Abram, and the covenant that is passed on to the son, Isaac, and later, Jacob, with each son dying without God fulfilling said covenant. Thus, the covenant God made with Abram the Hebrew is passed to the next generation through his biological seed:

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Genesis 17:20–21.

They rejected as a nation. It went out to the Gentiles, who, considering how it worked with Israel, accepted. Those who had no law, but of which some were a law unto themselves. No longer unclean, as God showed Peter in a vision. Understand, what Peter said about being around people from another nation was a made up rabbanical thing. There were foreigners and strangers all over Israel who more than fit that law, who did business and even lived with and among the Israelites. (That is within their nation.) Some proselytized, but not all.

God declared that everyone shall bear the burden and punishment of their own sin:

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: Jeremiah 31:30.

Scripture declares that EVERYONE rejected Jesus at His time of need, everyone except God the Father:

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. John 1:11.

But thankfully we are taught that salvation is OF THE LORD and that while EVERYONE rejected Christ, Christ died for the ungodly, that the salvation in Christ is given to "HIS PEOPLE" (the Jews.)

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:21.

"His people" are identified as the Hebrew people as a whole. Non-Hebrew Gentiles are NOT "His people" for Christ was prophesied as coming (being born) from among the Hebrew people to and for the Hebrew people (Deut. 18:15, 18.)

Your error is that the Scripture has God as the center and the Jews who through covenant are related to God and the Bible records that relationship through the centuries and through the "books" of the Bible, but you take everything God promised the Jews and apply it universally, which is not true. That teaching is called "Universalism" and it is not taught in the Bible. God made covenant with ONE people through Abram and the Scripture records the history of not only that one people and their descendants but records their relationship with the God who gave them the covenant they now 'enjoy.'

Consider Abraham's slaves, who were not Hebrews at the time of the covenant. They became a part of the covenant through circumcision. Everyone in his household was to be circumcised. Consider Melchizedek who was not a Hebrew, but was both a king and a High Priest of the Most High God. Who was he?

The text identifies the covenant God was making with Abram was to and for Abram and his biological seed.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Genesis 17:7.

I do, however, I question you. Jesus spoke to a "Gentile" who was a Gentile. He did as she asked. Why? She got the gospel in a nutshell and believed it. Even the dogs eat crumbs that fall from the masters table. Jesus wasn't insulted by her saying that the dogs also get the crumbs of salvation. He said her faith was great to believe such a thing, and state it.

The "Gentiles" in the NT are identified as mixed heritage Hebrews (Hellenized Jews.) These are the Jews who did not return with Hezekiah and Ezra but remained in the Gentile lands where God scattered them. This number is in the millions through 29-35 generations of Jews that grew up in Gentile lands heavily influenced and assimilated into Greek culture having lost their own heritage as Jews.

Salvation as first to the Jew. Afterwards it went to the Gentiles, due to the rejection of Israel of Christ. And, Paul preached earnestly to the Gentiles hoping to stir up jealousy within his own people, that they too would be saved. (The jealousy was that God was Israel's God, yet now God was going out to the Gentiles and not to Israel. Instant jealousy, or not.) It was to the point that there were Gentiles out there who hated (I think that term applies here) Jews, and would openly brag. Paul did not have kind words for them. In fact, he said that God would cut them out, and put those Jews in their place. A total lack of humility, of which Paul wrote extensively to one church.

The New Covenant is between God and the House of Israel and the House of Judah. The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah shows that there are no requirements in this covenant of the Jews and instead shows God as the one who arbitrarily "forgives the Jews" (in covenant) and remembers their sin no more.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD:
For they shall all know me,
From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
For I will forgive their iniquity,
And I will remember their sin no more.
Jeremiah 31:34.

God required nothing from the Jews of both houses as conditions for being forgiven. It simply states "[God] will remember their sin no more." This is their atonement and the mechanism that brought about their salvation is through the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices commanded by God.

Salvation is for all mankind without distinction. It is not for all mankind without exception. (Universalism is a heresy.) The church is made up of every tribe and nation whom God chose to save for Himself. Here is another place where Jesus tries to explain this to the Jews:
Matthew 22:
" Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven [a]is like a king who [c]held a wedding feast for his son. 3 And he sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened cattle are all butchered and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast!”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went their separate ways, one to his own [d]farm, another to his business, 6 and the rest seized his slaves and treated them abusively, and then killed them. 7 Now the king was angry, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. 8 Then he *said to his slaves, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 So go to the main roads, and invite whomever you find there to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good; and the wedding hall was filled with [e]dinner guests.

11 “But when the king came in to look over the [f]dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet, and throw him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that place.’ 14 For many are [g]called, but few are chosen.”

Who were the one's originally invited into God's kingdom and to the wedding? Covenant Israel. Am I saying Israel is shut out? No. However they are who believe their place is in the covenant. Those who believe their place is in who they are. Both Jesus and Paul attacked those notions, as did others. Faith is what matters. It matters so much that when a Gentile woman, who Jesus wouldn't even speak to because He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, spoke out in faith, Jesus was visibly moved. I'm not sure He would have done the same if she just spit out memorized 10 commandments.

Then what you believe in is called "Universalism" and this is not taught in Scripture.

The Abrahamic Covenant was made by God and included Abram the Hebrew and Abram's Hebrew seed.
The Mosaic Covenant was made by God and includes God and the children of Israel.
The New Covenant is made by God and includes God and the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes.)

God saves through covenant and God's covenants are with the Hebrew people through Abraham and his biological Hebrew seed.

God made no other covenant than the ones He made with Abram and his descendants, whom Scripture identifies as the children of Jacob (Israel.)

God made no covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles. None.
And there is NONE recorded (in Scripture.)

 

[armylngst]

I left out the first part because of length. You are mostly correct, yet the word "faith" seems anathema to you. You left it out completely. Just as you said that you do not outright except the whole idea of faith with Abraham, even though it says that God credited his faith as righteousness. That is, even Abraham's salvation was by faith. Even the promise made was by Abraham's faith.

"15 Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your [f]seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand, which is on the seashore; and your [g]seed shall possess the gate of [h]their enemies. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall [j]be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Why because he obeyed God's voice? It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God's voice. He truly believed God when He said that it was through Isaac that the promise would be fulfilled. However, that couldn't be if Isaac was dead. He believed God would raise Isaac up from the dead, because that is what would need to happen for God to fulfill His promise. Abraham never doubted that God would. He just didn't realize that all God really had to do was stop him right before he killed Isaac. That is why it is faith. He never thought/knew/believed God would stop him. He was actually going to do it.

The foundation is Christ, NOT the disciples:

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11.

You missed my meaning, but it is difficult to convey everything one is thinking. They built the church on Christ, but they are the beginning. The first. Well, include the 120 that were with them according to Acts. Consider what scripture says next:

5 Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they were bewildered, because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own [e]language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “[f]Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own [g]language [h]to which we were born? 9 Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and [j]visitors from Rome, both Jews and [k]proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own [l]tongues of the mighty deeds of God.”
Why weren't any of the Jews called Gentiles, since you said that these people would be consider Gentiles. Not only that, they are said to be devout. It's nice when God defines terms for us. So apparently your take on "Gentiles" is... well... wrong.
To whom did God reach out, specifically in each of their native tongues? EVERYONE. If it wasn't God's intent to save "Gentiles" at this time, then why did God allow them to hear the message of salvaiton in their own native tongue? It has been said that the miracle wasn't so much that Peter spoke in many different languages, but that many languages came from one set of vocal cords. It wasn't one language at a time, but all at once.

"14 But Peter, taking his stand with the other eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, [n]know this, and pay attention to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you assume, since it is only the [o]third hour of the day; 16 but this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:

‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour out My Spirit on all [p]mankind;
And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
And your old men will [q]have dreams;
18 And even on My male and female [r]servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
And they will prophesy.
19 And I will display wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, fire, and [t]vapor of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
21 And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Now, all mankind kinds of lays it out. ALL MANKIND. Now, it doesn't mean every single person, so it isn't without exception. It is all mankind without distinction. So... Jews, Gentiles, slaves, non-slaves, etc. It doesn't matter... without distinction. Any who are God's. And at the very end it is clear, everyone [without distinction] who calls on the name of the Lord [defined] will be saved.

Now, since you have been telling me that these kinds of people would be known as "Gentiles", coming from areas where you say that that is what they are known as, why were they baptized? You will note that none of them spoke in tongues, even after salvation. Yet, in order to enter the church back then, one had to be baptized. It is clear from Peter that if the actual Gentiles, so defined by Peter and his statement of not being allowed to have any dealings with them, did not speak in tongues, or show any sign of the Holy Spirit, they would not have baptized them into the church. They would be considered a different church, separate and distinct from the Jewish church.

"44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the [ae]message. 45 All the [af]Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

Why did Peter respond as such if they were Jews of any king? Baptism is just an extension of a Jewish ritual ceremony. Why would Peter talk as though if the idea had come up, they would have rejected them, except for God showing that they are all the same by them speaking in tongues when the Holy Spirit came down. That didn't happen with the crowds in Jersualem. It wasn't required because all those people who came from all nations were Jewish, not Gentiles. Even those non-Jewish people who were proselytes were included, and Cretans and Arabs. The people with Cornelius were not proselytes.

The covenant is made by God and it is made with a man called "Abram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13.)
By identifying Abram as a Hebrew we can now track the covenant and its scope (who it covers.)
In this covenant God is identifying which Abram is being addressed out of the more than millions of people alive at the time. By identifying Abram's family line ["the Hebrew"/of Eber) God makes distinction between Abram the Hebrew as opposed to others who may also be named "Abram."

The narration continues through the five books authored by Moses who recorded the history of this one family of Abram, and the covenant that is passed on to the son, Isaac, and later, Jacob, with each son dying without God fulfilling said covenant. Thus, the covenant God made with Abram the Hebrew is passed to the next generation through his biological seed:

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Genesis 17:20–21.

God declared that everyone shall bear the burden and punishment of their own sin:

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: Jeremiah 31:30.

Scripture declares that EVERYONE rejected Jesus at His time of need, everyone except God the Father:

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. John 1:11.

That is speaking of the Israelites. As you made very clear in your last comment, Jesus was a Jew, so there were 13 Jews in the upper room. He came to His own (Israel/Jews) and they received Him not.

But thankfully we are taught that salvation is OF THE LORD and that while EVERYONE rejected Christ, Christ died for the ungodly, that the salvation in Christ is given to "HIS PEOPLE" (the Jews.)

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:21.

While this is true, everyone missed that salvation is for all without distinction. You have to follow the whole context of scripture. They rejected Christ, so therefore He was not (at that time) saving them from their sin. The elect of Israel throughout time are saved, at their appointed time, but God is dealing with the Gentiles right now. There is a gap in the 70 weeks prophecy where God is not dealing with His children, but He has for 69 weeks, and He decreed for 70, so that last week must be on hold. A commercial break/half-time of sorts. Then God comes back and finishes His decreed 70 weeks with Israel, and that is when Paul's "and all Israel will be saved" is fulfilled. When the realities of what is to come when God is done dealing with Israel, comes to pass. (Such as everlasting righteousness in Jerusalem... I don't see that right now, do you?)

"His people" are identified as the Hebrew people as a whole. Non-Hebrew Gentiles are NOT "His people" for Christ was prophesied as coming (being born) from among the Hebrew people to and for the Hebrew people (Deut. 18:15, 18.)

Yes. If you want to know who the non-Hebrew Gentiles are, they are the sheep of a different fold that He will gather and make one flock. Jesus mentioned that. Different from the Jews from every nation mentioned in Acts 1. ALL Hebrews/Jews/Israelites are of the house of Israel. Jesus said He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.When they rejected Him, such as all those who turned down the wedding invitations, the gospel went to the Gentiles, who accepted. However, that is all without distinction, not all without exception. Hence the one guy who was kicked out of the wedding.

Your error is that the Scripture has God as the center and the Jews who through covenant are related to God and the Bible records that relationship through the centuries and through the "books" of the Bible, but you take everything God promised the Jews and apply it universally, which is not true. That teaching is called "Universalism" and it is not taught in the Bible. God made covenant with ONE people through Abram and the Scripture records the history of not only that one people and their descendants but records their relationship with the God who gave them the covenant they now 'enjoy.'

7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no [g]circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8 For in finding fault with [h]the people, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care about them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord:
[j]I will put My laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From [k]the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful toward their wrongdoings,
And their sins I will no longer remember.”

The text identifies the covenant God was making with Abram was to and for Abram and his biological seed.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Genesis 17:7.

"15 Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your [f]seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand, which is on the seashore; and your [g]seed shall possess the gate of [h]their enemies. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall [j]be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they got up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham lived in Beersheba.

All the nations of the world shall be blessed. You understand that Abraham was not even a nation yet? So all the nations of the world, to Abraham, meant all the nations of the world. And I believe Hebrews says that in this instance, the seed is Christ. God just lifted Abraham way up by saying all the nations of the world would be blessed in His seed because He obeyed God. This is a PROMISE, this was not a covenant. Salvation, at this time, was extended to the world by Abraham's faith, and salvation is by faith. By faith Abraham obeyed God.

The "Gentiles" in the NT are identified as mixed heritage Hebrews (Hellenized Jews.)

No they are not. The Gentiles are identified as "uncircumcised". The hellenized Jews were circumcised because they were Jews. Acts defined Jews as :

5 Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

"7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “[f]Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own [g]language [h]to which we were born? 9 Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and [j]visitors from Rome, both Jews and [k]proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs"
(All descendants of Abraham except the proselytes, who as proselytes would have entered the covenant through circumcision.)

These are the Jews who did not return with Hezekiah and Ezra but remained in the Gentile lands where God scattered them. This number is in the millions through 29-35 generations of Jews that grew up in Gentile lands heavily influenced and assimilated into Greek culture having lost their own heritage as Jews.

Acts is clear that they are still JEWS, not Gentiles. Also, apparently Cornelius was not there...hmmm...

The New Covenant is between God and the House of Israel and the House of Judah. The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah shows that there are no requirements in this covenant of the Jews and instead shows God as the one who arbitrarily "forgives the Jews" (in covenant) and remembers their sin no more.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD:
For they shall all know me,
From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
For I will forgive their iniquity,
And I will remember their sin no more.
Jeremiah 31:34.

That will happen... end of time. See Zechariah.

God required nothing from the Jews of both houses as conditions for being forgiven. It simply states "[God] will remember their sin no more." This is their atonement and the mechanism that brought about their salvation is through the Mosaic Covenant sacrifices commanded by God.

If they know of Christ, then they are saved, right? What does it say? "For they shall all know me." In Galatians and Hebrews it states that the Law is nothing for salvation, if you live under the law, you will die under the law, and the sacrifices availeth nothing. However, Jesus sacrifice availeth everything. You are teaching another gospel, a person of which Paul said is accursed of God (anathema), or the meaning from the Catholic church... damned to hell. Even in Isaiah it is clear "For by His stripes are we healed." That is after speaking of sin as an "infirmity" a weakness or sickness.

Then what you believe in is called "Universalism" and this is not taught in Scripture.

The Abrahamic Covenant was made by God and included Abram the Hebrew and Abram's Hebrew seed.
The Mosaic Covenant was made by God and includes God and the children of Israel.
The New Covenant is made by God and includes God and the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes.)

No. Apparently you do not know what Universalism is. When it says All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (God tells us through Paul), it is All without EXCEPTION. However, when it says that salvation is for ALL, it is all without DISTINCTION. The Bible is clear that all will not be saved without exception. The Bible is clear that all who are saved are saved without distinction. From every tribe, tongue and nation. It doesn't matter. It is without distinction. However, it is FROM every tribe, tongue and nation because it isn't without exception. Yet there is still Israel and the church, because God is clear that He is not done with Israel yet. Their ultimate salvation is yet to come.

God saves through covenant and God's covenants are with the Hebrew people through Abraham and his biological Hebrew seed.

God saves through the blood of the lamb, through Christ's sacrifice. That covenant of sacrifices was violated and broken by Israel long ago, and the Bible is clear. Even in Hebrews it says that if the first covenant had not been broken there would be no need for a second one.

God made no other covenant than the ones He made with Abram and his descendants, whom Scripture identifies as the children of Jacob (Israel.)

Ah so you deny a New Covenant made by the blood of God's only Son? Covenants are made in blood. So God made a covenant to Abraham when He and He alone passed through the sacrifices that Abraham made. If it were a two party covenant, Abraham would have also passed through. That is how covenants were made between God and man, and, for instance, between Jacob and Laban.

God made no covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles. None.
And there is NONE recorded (in Scripture.)

Consider this one verse from Peter, the leader of the apostles:
11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

 

[jeremiah1five]

I left out the first part because of length. You are mostly correct, yet the word "faith" seems anathema to you. You left it out completely. Just as you said that you do not outright except the whole idea of faith with Abraham, even though it says that God credited his faith as righteousness. That is, even Abraham's salvation was by faith. Even the promise made was by Abraham's faith.

I never said Abraham didn't have faith, I said that in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, faith is not a requirement in this covenant.
Nor is faith a requirement in the Mosaic Covenant or the New Covenant.

"15 Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your [f]seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand, which is on the seashore; and your [g]seed shall possess the gate of [h]their enemies. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall [j]be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Why because he obeyed God's voice? It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God's voice. He truly believed God when He said that it was through Isaac that the promise would be fulfilled. However, that couldn't be if Isaac was dead. He believed God would raise Isaac up from the dead, because that is what would need to happen for God to fulfill His promise. Abraham never doubted that God would. He just didn't realize that all God really had to do was stop him right before he killed Isaac. That is why it is faith. He never thought/knew/believed God would stop him. He was actually going to do it.

Abram was already someone who worshiped God and was in a positive relationship with God when we first pick up the narrative in Genesis 12.

You missed my meaning, but it is difficult to convey everything one is thinking. They built the church on Christ, but they are the beginning. The first. Well, include the 120 that were with them according to Acts. Consider what scripture says next:

5 Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they were bewildered, because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own [e]language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “[f]Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own [g]language [h]to which we were born? 9 Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and [j]visitors from Rome, both Jews and [k]proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own [l]tongues of the mighty deeds of God.”
Why weren't any of the Jews called Gentiles, since you said that these people would be consider Gentiles. Not only that, they are said to be devout. It's nice when God defines terms for us. So apparently your take on "Gentiles" is... well... wrong.
To whom did God reach out, specifically in each of their native tongues? EVERYONE. If it wasn't God's intent to save "Gentiles" at this time, then why did God allow them to hear the message of salvaiton in their own native tongue? It has been said that the miracle wasn't so much that Peter spoke in many different languages, but that many languages came from one set of vocal cords. It wasn't one language at a time, but all at once.

These named locations in Acts 2 are all places where these Jews lived. First and foremost, Gentiles were never under the Law as they were idol worshipers. Jews were enemies of the Gentiles and Gentiles were the enemy of the Jews. The locations are Gentile locations in the Roman Empire. Gentiles do not attend Jewish Feasts and neither do they observe Jewish holydays. They are all idol-worshipers, uncircumcised, and not in any of the three major Hebrew covenants described in Scripture.

My position is reasonably studied and held.
The Abraham Covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 does not mention or include non-Hebrew Gentiles.
The Mosaic Covenant mediated by Moses does not mention or include Gentiles either.
And a look at the New Covenant prophecy by Jeremiah it is clear with whom God made this covenant with. He made it with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. There are no Gentiles named, mentioned, or included in this covenant. So WHY do supposed Gentiles add Gentiles into this covenant when there are no Gentiles named or identified. God is clear, any adding or subtracting from His Word is a sin and the person(s) that do this God calls "LIARS!"

Jesus says He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill. What does it mean to "destroy" the Law and what does it mean to "fulfill" the Law? Jesus didn't change the Law. There is no record of Him doing this in the gospels or in the epistles, nor does John say such a thing in his prophecy (Revelation.) But many in our past see the word "Gentile" in the New Testament writings and the first thing they do is identify "Gentiles" as non-Hebrews. But if we look at the three Hebrew covenants God does not include Gentiles in these covenants. And if "Gentiles" in the New Testament are in fact actual non-Hebrews, then SOMEONE changed the Law and by changing the Law they destroy the Law. Not even God Himself changed the Law. Jesus didn't do it, so who did? The answer is NO ONE changed the Law. But that's not entirely true. It is the interpretation of "Gentiles" that has changed the Law, but that only applies to Gentiles, NOT to Jews. I don't discount non-Hebrews are not mixed in with the twelve tribes. They are. What was the nationality of Bilhah and Zilpah? Bilhah was the mother of Jacob's children (Dan and Naphtali), and Zilpah was the mother of Jacob's other children (Gad and Asher.) Jacob married Rachel and Leah and both were his cousins, so he married in the family. Was Bilhah and Zilpah of mixed heritage? Were they Hebrew and Gentile birth? It doesn't say. But according to their culture under which Jacob married Rachel and Leah, both Bilhah and Zilpah are given by Laban as "handmaidens" and part of the dowry and as such any children born to these handmaidens would be seen as sons (or daughters) of the husband, or in this case, Jacob.

I also accept that Ruth was a Moabite and not Hebrew. Yet she is NOT a biological ancestor of Jesus. She was biologically an ancestor of Joseph, but Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. But for the sake of legality these things are established that certain non-Hebrew women (Rahab, Tamar, and Ruth) are connected legally to Jesus being a descendant of David.

Now, let's talk about Samaritans. Samaritans primarily identify as descendants of the Northern Kingdom's tribes (and Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi) who remained in the land after the Assyrian exile. They maintained a distinct religious and ethnic identity separate from the Jews (Judah and Benjamin.) And yet Jews call them "Samaritan" and not Israelites of the ten northern kingdom tribes with Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph with an Egyptian mother, but they are mixed heritage Israelites. Why is that? But what about the two southern kingdom tribes of Judah and Benjamin? Where in the New Testament are these descendants of Judah and Benjamin mentioned or identified? On the face of it they seem to be missing. Why doesn't the New Testament mention the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the mixed heritage Jews of their ancestry? Surely, not all the two tribes taken in the Babylon conquest returned to Israel and none remained in Babylon, right? Is this correct? And that none of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin intermixed with Babylonians, whether through marriage, rape, concubinage, or slavery? I find that most unusual and highly improbable. Let's see...the Jews call the descendants of the ten northern kingdom tribes mixed with Gentiles "Samaritan" and not Israelites, right? And Jews had no dealing with Samaritans, right? But Jesus crossed that prejudicial line in John 4. Jesus accepted these mixed heritage Israelites as still descendants of Abraham and also heirs of his promises from God. Maybe the two southern kingdom tribes are mentioned in the New Testament writings. Maybe they are mixed heritage Jews of Gentile descent and are the "Gentiles" of the New Testament. These Gentiles of the New Testament can very well be mixed heritage Hebrews of the two southern kingdom tribes and Gentile. Jesus said, Scripture cannot be broken. If these "Gentiles" in the New Testament are non-Hebrew Gentiles would Judaizers seek to circumcise the males who became born-again? Would Jews try to compel these non-Hebrew Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses and to be circumcised? If so, then this is Scripture being BROKEN.

"14 But Peter, taking his stand with the other eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, [n]know this, and pay attention to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you assume, since it is only the [o]third hour of the day; 16 but this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:

‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour out My Spirit on all [p]mankind;
And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
And your old men will [q]have dreams;
18 And even on My male and female [r]servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
And they will prophesy.
19 And I will

You do know that Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel? That Peter was not addressing non-Hebrew Gentiles for if Peter was addressing non-Hebrew Gentiles in the crowd of Hebrews, then this, too, is Scripture being broken. If there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in any of the three Hebrew covenants - Abraham, Mosaic, and New - then anyone seeking to add Gentiles in these covenants would be breaking Scripture.
The Holy Spirit of Promise was promised to Israel by the prophet Joel. Nowhere in Joel's prophecies does he claim the Holy Spirit of Promise was promised to Gentiles. It doesn't exist. So, if the Holy Spirit of Promise was not promised to Gentiles and yet today Gentiles who claim to be Gentile who also claim to be born-again by a Spirit never promised to Gentiles, then someone is trying to break Scripture. Now answer me this:

1. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does God make covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles and what is this Gentile's name.
2. What are the particulars of this God-Gentile covenant?
3. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does it record the names and persons of Gentiles that are in this God-Gentile covenant and what are the names of important (prophets) Gentiles who claim inclusion in a God-Gentile covenant?
4. Where in the Hebrew Scripture is there record of holy days and holy feasts that accompany a God-Gentile covenant as it does a God- Hebrew covenant which is written up and down the Hebrew Scripture?
5. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does God promise His Spirit to non-Hebrew Gentiles?

Provide Scripture and answer these important questions and then you'll have an argument for the inclusion of non-Hebrew Gentiles having a salvation covenant with God.

Go for it.

 

[armylngst]

I never said Abraham didn't have faith, I said that in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, faith is not a requirement in this covenant.
Nor is faith a requirement in the Mosaic Covenant or the New Covenant.

You keep leaving out Genesis 22. EVERY TIME. I thought you placed value in scripture. I am beginning to believe that you do not. Genesis 22 is a PROMISE from God. A promise that states that the nations of the world (all) would be blessed in Jesus the seed (singular) of Abraham. No talk of any covenant here. A PROMISE. God does not break His promises. God does not break covenants.

Abram was already someone who worshiped God and was in a positive relationship with God when we first pick up the narrative in Genesis 12.

Do not assume this. Genesis 12 does not say this. It just says that God came to Abraham and told him to go, and he went. That's it. Oh, and Abram almost singlehandedly destroyed the entire Egyptian civilization in his sin...in Genesis 12. However, the Law was not out yet, so technically....

These named locations in Acts 2 are all places where these Jews lived. First and foremost, Gentiles were never under the Law as they were idol worshipers. Jews were enemies of the Gentiles and Gentiles were the enemy of the Jews. The locations are Gentile locations in the Roman Empire. Gentiles do not attend Jewish Feasts and neither do they observe Jewish holydays. They are all idol-worshipers, uncircumcised, and not in any of the three major Hebrew covenants described in Scripture.

Where were those Jews living. Read it again. In Jerusalem. Those places are where they were born/from. Jews and Gentiles were not enemies. You don't seem to understand. Gentiles lived amongst the Hebrews in the past. They were called stangers and foreigners. God actually had a lot to say AGAINST Israel for forgetting the past.

My position is reasonably studied and held.
The Abraham Covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 does not mention or include non-Hebrew Gentiles.
The Mosaic Covenant mediated by Moses does not mention or include Gentiles either.
And a look at the New Covenant prophecy by Jeremiah it is clear with whom God made this covenant with. He made it with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. There are no Gentiles named, mentioned, or included in this covenant. So WHY do supposed Gentiles add Gentiles into this covenant when there are no Gentiles named or identified. God is clear, any adding or subtracting from His Word is a sin and the person(s) that do this God calls "LIARS!"

You apparently did not study ENOUGH. There is a New Covenant in Christ's blood. Jesus said so Himself at the last supper. That was for the whole world, and does NOT add Gentiles to ISRAEL. They are DISTINCT. Gentiles do NOT gain the promises of the covenant made with Israel. They do gain the promises made by God to Abraham in Genesis 22. It was not a covenant, but a promise. All the nations of the world would be blessed in Christ, the seed (singular) of Abraham. It is an EXTENSION to what had already been promised, based, as it says in Genesis 22, on Abraham's faith. That is why Paul keeps speaking of faith.

Jesus says He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill. What does it mean to "destroy" the Law and what does it mean to "fulfill" the Law? Jesus didn't change the Law. There is no record of Him doing this in the gospels or in the epistles, nor does John say such a thing in his prophecy (Revelation.) But many in our past see the word "Gentile" in the New Testament writings and the first thing they do is identify "Gentiles" as non-Hebrews.

Sure, that is what Gentiles are. Hebrews are the "circumcised" and Gentiles are the "uncircumcised", which specifically means they are not Hebrews. They are, by God giving the covenant to Abraham in Genesis 17... dead people. (to be cut off from his people is to be executed.)

Genesis 17 "14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

So consider Paul's Christian companion Titus:

The Gentiles in the New Testament are the "uncircumcised". Given God's definition of uncircumcised - "dead people", it is understood that Paul and everyone else are speaking of non-Hebrew people when they say Gentile.

But if we look at the three Hebrew covenants God does not include Gentiles in these covenants. And if "Gentiles" in the New Testament are in fact actual non-Hebrews, then SOMEONE changed the Law and by changing the Law they destroy the Law.

How are you going from covenant to Law? They are not the same thing. The Law came 490 after the promise, according to Paul, and it came before the Mosaic covenant, according to Exodus. The Mosaic covenant was made when God had the Israelites make their statement, and following that Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on all the people. Covenants were made by blood. There is no covenant without blood. The sign of the covenant made WITH Abraham was circumcision, which isn't exactly bloodless.

Not even God Himself changed the Law. Jesus didn't do it, so who did? The answer is NO ONE changed the Law.

That is absolutely true. What is the Law? The TORAH. And, if you do a little research, you will find there is nothing in the Torah that is either for or against Gentiles. They don't appear. You know what else doesn't appear? Hebrews. The Law is the standard by which we know sin. God's "plan" was that the Israelites would be a light to the nations by the Law, and by that, the nations would come to learn and live the Law. They wouldn't be a part of the covenants, but they would be under the Law.

But that's not entirely true. It is the interpretation of "Gentiles" that has changed the Law, but that only applies to Gentiles, NOT to Jews. I don't discount non-Hebrews are not mixed in with the twelve tribes. They are. What was the nationality of Bilhah and Zilpah? Bilhah was the mother of Jacob's children (Dan and Naphtali), and Zilpah was the mother of Jacob's other children (Gad and Asher.) Jacob married Rachel and Leah and both were his cousins, so he married in the family. Was Bilhah and Zilpah of mixed heritage? Were they Hebrew and Gentile birth? It doesn't say. But according to their culture under which Jacob married Rachel and Leah, both Bilhah and Zilpah are given by Laban as "handmaidens" and part of the dowry and as such any children born to these handmaidens would be seen as sons (or daughters) of the husband, or in this case, Jacob.

The Law was not changed. It is the Torah. The ritual laws, civics and such were for Israel. Even Peter spoke against making the Gentiles follow the Law as the Jews did. He said it was a burden even the Jews could not bear.

I also accept that Ruth was a Moabite and not Hebrew. Yet she is NOT a biological ancestor of Jesus. She was biologically an ancestor of Joseph, but Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. But for the sake of legality these things are established that certain non-Hebrew women (Rahab, Tamar, and Ruth) are connected legally to Jesus being a descendant of David.

Um... wow. God's impressed. What did it take you to accept that Ruth was a Moabite? The fact that scripture specifically states this? Or did you have to battle it out in your mind? Perhaps God included them in Jesus' genealogy to upset you personally?

Now, let's talk about Samaritans. Samaritans primarily identify as descendants of the Northern Kingdom's tribes (and Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi) who remained in the land after the Assyrian exile. They maintained a distinct religious and ethnic identity separate from the Jews (Judah and Benjamin.) And yet Jews call them "Samaritan" and not Israelites of the ten northern kingdom tribes with Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph with an Egyptian mother, but they are mixed heritage Israelites. Why is that?

I believe it is called hate. Racism. Sibling rivalry? Jesus made it clear that Samaritans are a part of the covenant, just like everyone else.

But what about the two southern kingdom tribes of Judah and Benjamin? Where in the New Testament are these descendants of Judah and Benjamin mentioned or identified? On the face of it they seem to be missing. Why doesn't the New Testament mention the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the mixed heritage Jews of their ancestry?

Well, they made up this nation known as Judah, and were thus known as... Jews. It isn't that difficult. I mean you have a nation known as Israel, but Israel wasn't a tribe, but was made up of 10 tribes.

Surely, not all the two tribes taken in the Babylon conquest returned to Israel and none remained in Babylon, right? Is this correct?

Well, let's make assumptions in the face of zero facts.

And that none of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin intermixed with Babylonians, whether through marriage, rape, concubinage, or slavery?

Again, let's make assumptions in the face of zero facts.

I find that most unusual and highly improbable.

No way God could keep them pure, right?

Let's see...the Jews call the descendants of the ten northern kingdom tribes mixed with Gentiles "Samaritan" and not Israelites, right?

To Jesus... they were Israelites. They did not follow God's command to not intermarry, but that doesn't change who they are. God did not say they couldn't intermarry under punishment. He gave his reasons. And apparently it was related solely to the conquest of the promised land:
"3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them: you shall not give your [c]daughters to [d]their sons, nor shall you take [e]their daughters for your [f]sons. 4 For [g]they will turn your [h]sons away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. "

Why would God destroy them? For marrying them? No. For the sons serving other God's. Also, this is not part of the Law, but a warning for their conquest of the promised land.

And Jews had no dealing with Samaritans, right? But Jesus crossed that prejudicial line in John 4. Jesus accepted these mixed heritage Israelites as still descendants of Abraham and also heirs of his promises from God. Maybe the two southern kingdom tribes are mentioned in the New Testament writings. Maybe they are mixed heritage Jews of Gentile descent and are the "Gentiles" of the New Testament. These Gentiles of the New Testament can very well be mixed heritage Hebrews of the two southern kingdom tribes and Gentile.

Another assumption without scriptural bases. As you say "Maybe they are...."

Jesus said, Scripture cannot be broken. If these "Gentiles" in the New Testament are non-Hebrew Gentiles would Judaizers seek to circumcise the males who became born-again? Would Jews try to compel these non-Hebrew Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses and to be circumcised? If so, then this is Scripture being BROKEN.

Absolutely the Judaizers would seek to make them proselytes. Not proselytes for Christianity, but for Judaism. My brother and his wife are proselytes, I believe. The wedding was... interesting, and took place in a Messianic Temple/Synagogue.

You do know that Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel? That Peter was not addressing non-Hebrew Gentiles for if Peter was addressing non-Hebrew Gentiles in the crowd of Hebrews, then this, too, is Scripture being broken. If there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in any of the three Hebrew covenants - Abraham, Mosaic, and New - then anyone seeking to add Gentiles in these covenants would be breaking Scripture.

You keep bringing up covenants. You need to stop. Even Paul's discussion in Galatians is between the Law and faith. The Law being tied to the covenants since the Mosaic Covenant was founded under the rules of the Law. Violate the Law and break the covenant. However, the Law existed apart from the Mosaic Covenant.

The Holy Spirit of Promise was promised to Israel by the prophet Joel. Nowhere in Joel's prophecies does he claim the Holy Spirit of Promise was promised to Gentiles. It doesn't exist. So, if the Holy Spirit of Promise was not promised to Gentiles and yet today Gentiles who claim to be Gentile who also claim to be born-again by a Spirit never promised to Gentiles, then someone is trying to break Scripture. Now answer me this:

However, the Holy Spirit went to non-Hebrew Gentiles at Cornelius house. It came to the point that Peter had to ORDER the baptism of these Gentiles, where there was no such order made for the proselytes in Acts 2, for the Samaritans, or for John the Baptist's disciples. The church is the body of Christ, not the body of some covenant. However, a covenant was made in Christ's death, as He told the disciples at the last supper. The cup was the covenant in His blood. A covenant made when He died on the cross. A covenant of FAITH, not for those whose circumcision was of the flesh (the Abrahamic covenant), but of the heart. So, it had nothing to do with the old covenants. It was separate.

1. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does God make covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles and what is this Gentile's name.

Not needed.

2. What are the particulars of this God-Gentile covenant?

There is none, other then the church, which is the body of Christ, with a covenant made and bestowed by the blood of Christ. (Figuratively)

3. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does it record the names and persons of Gentiles that are in this God-Gentile covenant and what are the names of important (prophets) Gentiles who claim inclusion in a God-Gentile covenant?

Titus. Cornelius (who was a non-Hebrew "God fearer", who may have been a proselyte. However, completely unlike the proselytes in Acts 2, because Peter had to order them to be baptized to enter the church. The only group where such an order had to be made. Peter was specific that something incredible had occurred in that place because they had received the Holy Spirit just like the Jews had. They were seeing the full vision of God's salvation to the world, the revealing of the church which was a mystery in the Old Testament, but revealed in the New.

4. Where in the Hebrew Scripture is there record of holy days and holy feasts that accompany a God-Gentile covenant as it does a God- Hebrew covenant which is written up and down the Hebrew Scripture?

Oh that's an easy one. At the end of time Gentiles will be compelled to follow these days, or their countries will be destroyed. (It specifically speaks of the feast of booths.)

5. Where in the Hebrew Scripture does God promise His Spirit to non-Hebrew Gentiles?

Paul is the one who reveals the depth of the prophecy.

Provide Scripture and answer these important questions and then you'll have an argument for the inclusion of non-Hebrew Gentiles having a salvation covenant with God.

The salvation covenant is in Christ, and Christ alone. You, who bind yourself to the Law, are as Paul says, one who renders Christ's death meaningless.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You keep leaving out Genesis 22. EVERY TIME. I thought you placed value in scripture. I am beginning to believe that you do not. Genesis 22 is a PROMISE from God. A promise that states that the nations of the world (all) would be blessed in Jesus the seed (singular) of Abraham. No talk of any covenant here. A PROMISE. God does not break His promises. God does not break covenants.

I don't leave Genesis 22 out of discussion. There were no Gentiles involved in the narrative. None. Read the text:

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Ge 22:15–18.

Again, God identifies "in thy seed" shall all YOUR families (Ishmael's, and Esau's to name a couple) who will be blessed. It's part of the covenant for it is a covenant that comes with both blessing and covenant (Abraham and his Hebrew seed), while Ishmael's and Esau's families that shall only possess blessings. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles identified in Genesis 22.

Do not assume this. Genesis 12 does not say this. It just says that God came to Abraham and told him to go, and he went. That's it. Oh, and Abram almost singlehandedly destroyed the entire Egyptian civilization in his sin...in Genesis 12. However, the Law was not out yet, so technically....

Technically what?

Where were those Jews living. Read it again. In Jerusalem. Those places are where they were born/from. Jews and Gentiles were not enemies. You don't seem to understand. Gentiles lived amongst the Hebrews in the past. They were called stangers and foreigners. God actually had a lot to say AGAINST Israel for forgetting the past.

Gentiles had their own areas where they lived, and the twelve tribes had theirs. And Gentiles were enemy of the Jews. The Jews saw Gentiles as "dogs" and "uncircumcised," non-covenant idol-worshipers. And the Gentiles know what they themselves thought of these monotheist Jews. It reached a culmination in AD 70. Gentiles came in and destroyed Israel and their Temple.

You apparently did not study ENOUGH. There is a New Covenant in Christ's blood. Jesus said so Himself at the last supper. That was for the whole world, and does NOT add Gentiles to ISRAEL. They are DISTINCT. Gentiles do NOT gain the promises of the covenant made with Israel. They do gain the promises made by God to Abraham in Genesis 22. It was not a covenant, but a promise. All the nations of the world would be blessed in Christ, the seed (singular) of Abraham. It is an EXTENSION to what had already been promised, based, as it says in Genesis 22, on Abraham's faith. That is why Paul keeps speaking of faith.

Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken." He also said He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill. So, any teaching that seeks to add Gentiles as included in the Abraham and Mosaic Covenants BREAKS Scripture and insert a teaching that contradicts the covenants of the Hebrew people. At Jesus' last Passover He established a New Covenant in His blood and in keeping with the sacrificial system under the Law. The advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL (Joel) was the beginning of the New Covenant, the birthday of the Jewish Church for that was the ONLY Church Christ promised to build. Jesus died for the sins of the Hebrew people. The high priest never left Israel, went to Gentiles, and offered sacrifices to atone for their sin. Neither did Jesus Christ, as High Priest, die for Gentiles but under the Law and in its fulfillment, He died for the sins of the children of Israel That's what the sacrificial system of worship was about. God gave His Law in three parts to the children of Israel and NOT to Gentiles.

There are no Gentiles in the Abraham or the Mosaic Covenants. So, trying to add Gentiles after the fact does not fulfill Scripture, but breaks it, destroys it, and Jesus will have no part in such disgraceful teachings.

The New Covenant is recorded and described in Jeremiah 31:31-34. God names the House of Israel and the House of Judah. WHERE does it say Gentiles in Jeremiah's prophecies? Scripture must agree with itself, but to add Gentiles where Gentile were never part of the Law of Moses makes Jesus out to be a liar and destroyer of the Law. Is that what you want to teach Jesus as doing?

Sure, that is what Gentiles are. Hebrews are the "circumcised" and Gentiles are the "uncircumcised", which specifically means they are not Hebrews. They are, by God giving the covenant to Abraham in Genesis 17... dead people. (to be cut off from his people is to be executed.)

Don't forget the Jews who grew up in Gentile lands heavily influenced by Greek culture. These are the mixed heritage Jews and from the Assyrian conquest 29-35 generations of Jews grew up without a Temple, without their own land. Many Jews assimilated into Gentile lifestyle and grew up heathenistic and uncircumcised. But once these mixed heritage Jews were being born again because they were Abraham's covenant seed, Judaizers sought to have them circumcised which led to the Jerusalem Council. NO JEW or any priest or Judaizer would ever seek to circumcise Gentiles or include them into their synagogues. No Jew or priests would ever seek to force the Law upon Gentiles for ALL Jews knew the Abraham and Mosaic Covenant was between the God of Abraham and the children of Israel. If the Jews sought to circumcise Gentiles and bring them under the Law there would be riots and leaders of the people would lose all credibility as Jews under the Law. Read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and tell me are there any Gentiles included in this covenant?

Genesis 17 "14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

So consider Paul's Christian companion Titus:

The Gentiles in the New Testament are the "uncircumcised". Given God's definition of uncircumcised - "dead people", it is understood that Paul and everyone else are speaking of non-Hebrew people when they say Gentile.

Saul enjoyed great credibility among the Jews and Jewish Christians. Saul was an observant Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses throughout his life, and the people all saw him as such.

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

and

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts 21:26.

It says Saul KEPT THE LAW. He NEVER taught that the Law was "abolished" or "obsolete." He kept the Law. It says right there in the passage. Saul said, "follow me as I follow Christ." So, the Law of Moses was a part of true, Biblical Christianity. And as rabbi and Pharisee he kept the Law of Moses and God was glorified. Are you going to contradict the Scripture above? Yea or nay?

How are you going from covenant to Law? They are not the same thing. The Law came 490 after the promise, according to Paul, and it came before the Mosaic covenant, according to Exodus. The Mosaic covenant was made when God had the Israelites make their statement, and following that Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on all the people. Covenants were made by blood. There is no covenant without blood. The sign of the covenant made WITH Abraham was circumcision, which isn't exactly bloodless.

Jesus taught the Law to His covenant people. I don't bifurcate the Law of Moses and the Mosaic Covenant for they are one the same. The Commands of God are Law, and the Law of God are His Commands.

That is absolutely true. What is the Law? The TORAH. And, if you do a little research, you will find there is nothing in the Torah that is either for or against Gentiles. They don't appear. You know what else doesn't appear? Hebrews. The Law is the standard by which we know sin. God's "plan" was that the Israelites would be a light to the nations by the Law, and by that, the nations would come to learn and live the Law. They wouldn't be a part of the covenants, but they would be under the Law.

God is against Gentiles:

17 All nations before him are as nothing;
And they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isaiah 40:17.

If God was for the Gentiles there would be Scripture of Gentiles joined at the hip of Israel and part of their covenants. But there is none. Taking words, "families of the earth" and "nations" to mean Gentiles is weak. If God meant Gentiles He would unambiguously say "Gentiles" when He meant Gentiles, NOT hide it through obscure meanings or terms. God would flat out call Gentiles, Gentiles. Instead you have many trying to make these terms refer to Gentiles.
You're big on the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is the only place where a New Covenant is mentioned. YOU tell ME are there Gentiles in the New Covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah?

Where in the Torah does it say the high priest left Israel and went to Gentiles and offered sacrifices to atone for their sins? WHERE? Gentiles were NEVER under the Law and this meant that neither did Jesus' death atone for their sins or else you are teaching Jesus changed the Law and in so changing it destroyed the Law. What a sinner! Not even God Himself can change what He's said under, above, below, and through the Law. Jesus, as lamb of God, died to atone for the sins of the Hebrew people ONLY.

The Law was not changed. It is the Torah. The ritual laws, civics and such were for Israel. Even Peter spoke against making the Gentiles follow the Law as the Jews did. He said it was a burden even the Jews could not bear.

There you go. If there were no Gentiles in the two Hebrew covenants (Abraham and Mosaic) and there are no Gentiles named in the New Covenant, then Gentiles are STILL NOT included in the Law.

Um... wow. God's impressed. What did it take you to accept that Ruth was a Moabite? The fact that scripture specifically states this? Or did you have to battle it out in your mind? Perhaps God included them in Jesus' genealogy to upset you personally?
I believe it is called hate. Racism. Sibling rivalry? Jesus made it clear that Samaritans are a part of the covenant, just like everyone else.

Then God is racist:

17 All nations before him are as nothing;
And they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isaiah 40:17.

Well, they made up this nation known as Judah, and were thus known as... Jews. It isn't that difficult. I mean you have a nation known as Israel, but Israel wasn't a tribe, but was made up of 10 tribes.
Well, let's make assumptions in the face of zero facts.
Again, let's make assumptions in the face of zero facts.
No way God could keep them pure, right?

To Jesus... they were Israelites. They did not follow God's command to not intermarry, but that doesn't change who they are. God did not say they couldn't intermarry under punishment. He gave his reasons. And apparently it was related solely to the conquest of the promised land:
"3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them: you shall not give your [c]daughters to [d]their sons, nor shall you take [e]their daughters for your [f]sons. 4 For [g]they will turn your [h]sons away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. "

Why would God destroy them? For marrying them? No. For the sons serving other God's. Also, this is not part of the Law, but a warning for their conquest of the promised land.

It's called being unequally yoked and God is against that. Then God turns around and scatters the Jews among Gentiles. The ONLY WAY a Gentile is included as beneficiary of the covenants and the blessings is to have at least ONE Hebrew parent in your ancestry. The promise is to Abraham and his seed and so being of Abraham's seed no matter the dilution with Gentile DNA, if they are seed of Abraham, then they are heirs according to the promise.

Another assumption without scriptural bases. As you say "Maybe they are...."
Absolutely the Judaizers would seek to make them proselytes. Not proselytes for Christianity, but for Judaism. My brother and his wife are proselytes, I believe. The wedding was... interesting, and took place in a Messianic Temple/Synagogue.

You keep bringing up covenants. You need to stop. Even Paul's discussion in Galatians is between the Law and faith. The Law being tied to the covenants since the Mosaic Covenant was founded under the rules of the Law. Violate the Law and break the covenant. However, the Law existed apart from the Mosaic Covenant.

However, the Holy Spirit went to non-Hebrew Gentiles at Cornelius house. It came to the point that Peter had to ORDER the baptism of these Gentiles, where there was no such order made for the proselytes in Acts 2, for the Samaritans, or for John the Baptist's disciples. The church is the body of Christ, not the body of some covenant. However, a covenant was made in Christ's death, as He told the disciples at the last supper. The cup was the covenant in His blood. A covenant made when He died on the cross. A covenant of FAITH, not for those whose circumcision was of the flesh (the Abrahamic covenant), but of the heart. So, it had nothing to do with the old covenants. It was separate.

Not needed.

There is none, other then the church, which is the body of Christ, with a covenant made and bestowed by the blood of Christ. (Figuratively)

Titus. Cornelius (who was a non-Hebrew "God fearer", who may have been a proselyte. However, completely unlike the proselytes in Acts 2, because Peter had to order them to be baptized to enter the church. The only group where such an order had to be made. Peter was specific that something incredible had occurred in that place because they had received the Holy Spirit just like the Jews had. They were seeing the full vision of God's salvation to the world, the revealing of the church which was a mystery in the Old Testament, but revealed in the New.

Oh that's an easy one. At the end of time Gentiles will be compelled to follow these days, or their countries will be destroyed. (It specifically speaks of the feast of booths.)

Paul is the one who reveals the depth of the prophecy.

The salvation covenant is in Christ, and Christ alone. You, who bind yourself to the Law, are as Paul says, one who renders Christ's death meaningless.

It is recorded in Scripture God made covenants with the Hebrew people. God saves through covenants for the promise of atonement is included in the Mosaic Covenant. How did we get the New Covenant?
By Jesus fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant for that's all the New Covenant is but the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ.

The salvation covenant is in Christ and Christ is represented throughout the Tabernacle. The Mosaic Covenant made provision for God to atoned the Hebrew people and by having Christ fulfill that covenant we come to the New Covenant.

Jeremaih 31:31-34. Read it.

Are there ant Gentiles included in this covenant, the covenant that is existing today?

Yea or nay?

 

[David Koberstein]

Correction - the wise men came after Jesus' birth.

Salvation is of the Lord, not of men. Where exactly is the "kingdom" located? Where do we see news of people "pressing in?" Pressing into what? Where? How do I get there? Flight? Car? Train? Boat?
Do you even know what "kingdom of God" is?
I don't think so.

Are YOU for real??

Luke 16:16 Up to the time of Yochanan (John) there were the Torah and the Prophets. Since then the Good News of the
Kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is pushing to get in.

Commentary "Up to the time of Yochanan there were the Torah and the Prophets." The Torah and the prophets gave
their witness to the coming of the kingdom of God. The verse does not mean that the authority of the Torah and
the prophets came to an end when Yochanan (John) appeared. The New Testament defends the legitimacy of
Torah in the life of the believer. (John14:15; 2 Tim. 3 :16-17).

Kingdom of Heaven The word "Heaven" was used in pious avoidance of the word "God." To this day Hebrew
malkhut-haShammayim ("Kingdom of Heaven") substitutes in Jewish religious literature for "Kingdom of God,"
an expression found frequently in the New Testament. "Heaven" is capitalized when it refers to God and
lowercase when it refers to the sky or paradise. The concept of the Kingdom of God is crucial to understanding
the Bible. It refers neither to a place nor to a time, but to a condition in which the rulership of God is
acknowledged by humankind, a condition in which God's promises of a restored universe free from sin and
death are, or begin to be, fulfilled.

In relation to the Kingdom of God history can be divided into four periods: before Yeshua, during his lifetime,
the present age (the 'olam hazeh) and the future age (the 'olam haba). There was a sense in which the Kingdom
was present prior to Yeshua's birth; indeed. God was king over the Jewish people (see 1 Samuel 12:12).
Yeshua's arrival brought a quantum leap in the earthly expression of the Kingdom. "For in him, bodily, lives
the fulness of all that God is" (Co 2:9).

Today the Kingdom of God comes immediately and truly---but partially--- to all who put their trust in Yeshua
and his message, thus committing themselves to live the holy lives God's rulership demands. As an example
of the "partialness" they have peace in their hearts even though there is not peace in this world. But in the
future , at the end of the present age of history, when Yeshua returns, he will inaugurate the Kingdom truly
and completely (Rev. 19:6), then God will fulfill the rest of his Kingdom promises. One of the most profound
spiritual studies a person can undertake in the Bible is the Kingdom of God in both the Tanakh and the New
Testament.

Shabbat Shalom

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are YOU for real??

Luke 16:16 Up to the time of Yochanan (John) there were the Torah and the Prophets. Since then the Good News of the
Kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is pushing to get in.

Commentary "Up to the time of Yochanan there were the Torah and the Prophets." The Torah and the prophets gave
their witness to the coming of the kingdom of God. The verse does not mean that the authority of the Torah and
the prophets came to an end when Yochanan (John) appeared. The New Testament defends the legitimacy of
Torah in the life of the believer. (John14:15; 2 Tim. 3 :16-17).

It doesn't defend the legitimacy of the Torah. They are only letters from men God used to explain the New Covenant era Israel found itself in. If anyone who wrote letters or gospels which became "our New Testament" and makes a claim that cannot be supported by the Old Testament, then that teaching is not of God but of men. Things like "Gentiles can be saved" and "rapture." The Church Christ promised to build is populated by only Jews and Hebrews that are the seed of Abraham.

And you can't add 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture" reference to be identified as the New Testament for some of us know the New Testament wasn't written yet nor does it equate with the Hebrew Scripture, which is the Scripture Saul was referring to when he wrote that letter to Timothy.

Kingdom of Heaven The word "Heaven" was used in pious avoidance of the word "God." To this day Hebrew
malkhut-haShammayim ("Kingdom of Heaven") substitutes in Jewish religious literature for "Kingdom of God,"
an expression found frequently in the New Testament. "Heaven" is capitalized when it refers to God and
lowercase when it refers to the sky or paradise. The concept of the Kingdom of God is crucial to understanding
the Bible. It refers neither to a place nor to a time, but to a condition in which the rulership of God is
acknowledged by humankind, a condition in which God's promises of a restored universe free from sin and
death are, or begin to be, fulfilled.

In relation to the Kingdom of God history can be divided into four periods: before Yeshua, during his lifetime,
the present age (the 'olam hazeh) and the future age (the 'olam haba). There was a sense in which the Kingdom
was present prior to Yeshua's birth; indeed. God was king over the Jewish people (see 1 Samuel 12:12).
Yeshua's arrival brought a quantum leap in the earthly expression of the Kingdom. "For in him, bodily, lives
the fulness of all that God is" (Co 2:9).

Today the Kingdom of God comes immediately and truly---but partially--- to all who put their trust in Yeshua
and his message, thus committing themselves to live the holy lives God's rulership demands. As an example
of the "partialness" they have peace in their hearts even though there is not peace in this world. But in the
future , at the end of the present age of history, when Yeshua returns, he will inaugurate the Kingdom truly
and completely (Rev. 19:6), then God will fulfill the rest of his Kingdom promises. One of the most profound
spiritual studies a person can undertake in the Bible is the Kingdom of God in both the Tanakh and the New
Testament.

Shabbat Shalom

I don't receive "kingdom of God" as a location or condition. To me the "kingdom of God" is Christ Himself.
He is God's reign over heaven, earth, and man.
And some of us understand which finger Jesus used to cast out "devils" out of people.
Those that call others "fool" without justification are the ones the angels will gather out of God's kingdom because such things really do offend.


20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
That put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
That put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20.

It says "woe" not "whoa."
When the amusement ride ends people need to get off because the line to ride is great and closing time is near.

 

[armylngst]

I don't leave Genesis 22 out of discussion. There were no Gentiles involved in the narrative. None. Read the text:

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Ge 22:15–18.

Again, God identifies "in thy seed" shall all YOUR families (Ishmael's, and Esau's to name a couple) who will be blessed. It's part of the covenant for it is a covenant that comes with both blessing and covenant (Abraham and his Hebrew seed), while Ishmael's and Esau's families that shall only possess blessings. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles identified in Genesis 22.

You are still leaving it out. This is NOT a covenant. God says "By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou has done this thing, and has not witheld thy son, thine only son:" This is a promise, sworn by God Himself. It is not a covenant. The covenant is the blessing, and God says That in blessing, I will bless you. So God will fulfill the covenant made with Abraham. However, it says "in thy seed [which Hebrews says is Jesus] ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH be blessed. And the reason God gives is because of Abraham's faith, because Abraham obeyed God in His command to sacrifice his only son Isaac, the one whom God said that the covenant would be fulfilled. A normal person would have balked, thinking, how could God bless me through a dead child. Abraham, in faith, was like, well, that means God's gonna have to do some resurrecting. He believed that even with Isaac's death, God would STILL fulfill His promise through Isaac.

Technically what?

Wait. You have to ask? Do I, a gentile, have to walk you through scripture? Paul spoke about it. There was no Law when Abraham was alive. That came 490 years later. What did Paul say about the Law? It was by the Law that sin became known. So... technically, no law, no sin. That doesn't mean people didn't sin, but God had not given the standard that, as Paul put it, "made sin alive." I guess that would mean that Abraham was a law unto himself. The strong point that Paul made was that even though the Law as not around, people still died from Adam and Eve all the way up to Moses. So, consider what that means.

Gentiles had their own areas where they lived, and the twelve tribes had theirs. And Gentiles were enemy of the Jews. The Jews saw Gentiles as "dogs" and "uncircumcised," non-covenant idol-worshipers. And the Gentiles know what they themselves thought of these monotheist Jews. It reached a culmination in AD 70. Gentiles came in and destroyed Israel and their Temple.

You seem to have forgotten who the foreigners and strangers who lived amongst the 12 tribes were. non-Hebrew Gentiles. If you look at the Torah, there is not one single law against Gentiles. They are mentioned in Exodus, but not as part of the Law, but as God's commands as to what to do when they enter the promised land. They were free to marry non-Hebrew Gentiles, but, in regards to the conquest, in specific circumstances. They had to be virgins.

Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken."

Where? Direct statements like this should be handled with direct reference, so context can be revealed. General ideas that are understood don't have to be.

He also said He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill.

Not exactly. He said He didn't come to abolish the law. The nuance hits differently... very differently. He did not come to put an end to the law, that is, to remove God's standard. He came to fulfill/live God's standard, to fulfill/live the Law in himself. And how was that to be done? He had to die. Why? To fulfill the law where we cannot. As John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." His fulfillment became our fulfillment, as the death on the cross was a substitutionary one.

So, any teaching that seeks to add Gentiles as included in the Abraham and Mosaic Covenants BREAKS Scripture and insert a teaching that contradicts the covenants of the Hebrew people. At Jesus' last Passover He established a New Covenant in His blood and in keeping with the sacrificial system under the Law. The advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL (Joel) was the beginning of the New Covenant, the birthday of the Jewish Church for that was the ONLY Church Christ promised to build. Jesus died for the sins of the Hebrew people. The high priest never left Israel, went to Gentiles, and offered sacrifices to atone for their sin. Neither did Jesus Christ, as High Priest, die for Gentiles but under the Law and in its fulfillment, He died for the sins of the children of Israel That's what the sacrificial system of worship was about. God gave His Law in three parts to the children of Israel and NOT to Gentiles.

There are no Gentiles in the Abraham or the Mosaic Covenants. So, trying to add Gentiles after the fact does not fulfill Scripture, but breaks it, destroys it, and Jesus will have no part in such disgraceful teachings.

That is absolutely not true. There are poselytes (non-Hebrew Gentiles who take up the Jewish heritage (no history though), and take up Judaism as their faith), so there are non-Hebrew Gentiles who became a part, and that by circumcision. Consider that Joseph's brothers were not lying when they said that the guy who raped their sister, and his people could become part of Israel by circumcision. They didn't lie. It was absolutely true. However, they lied in that that was not their intention. They wanted them incapacitated so they could slaughter them all. As one can see, proselytes were considered the same as Jews in that they heard Peter's preaching, and joined the church along with the rest of the Jews on the day of Pentecost.

The New Covenant is recorded and described in Jeremiah 31:31-34. God names the House of Israel and the House of Judah. WHERE does it say Gentiles in Jeremiah's prophecies? Scripture must agree with itself, but to add Gentiles where Gentile were never part of the Law of Moses makes Jesus out to be a liar and destroyer of the Law. Is that what you want to teach Jesus as doing?

True. Read what is said about the covenant.
"31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

It should be blatantly obvious from this passage that this covenant has not yet been made. It is also clear that you have no shelter in the Mosaic covenant as God says that that covenant is broken. Because that covenant is broken, they have not received the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Keeping the Mosaic covenant was part of being blessed by the Abrahamic covenant. Once God institutes this new covenant, which I believe occurs right before the Millennial Kingdom where Jesus reigns over the world from Jerusalem sitting in David's throne, all these thing will be true. And other prophecies about non-Hebrew Gentiles in the Old Testament in regards to the millennial kingdom will also come true. Which is, they will go to the Jews to learn of God. They will also partake in the festival of booths under penalty of God punishing their nations if they do not.

Saul enjoyed great credibility among the Jews and Jewish Christians. Saul was an observant Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses throughout his life, and the people all saw him as such.

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts 21:26.

Considering you seem to have completely misinterpreted the context, one can understand why you missed the point of these verses. Leaving out later verses, does even further damage to the context. But there is no surprise as those scriptures run contrary to your beliefs.

It says Saul KEPT THE LAW. He NEVER taught that the Law was "abolished" or "obsolete." He kept the Law. It says right there in the passage. Saul said, "follow me as I follow Christ." So, the Law of Moses was a part of true, Biblical Christianity. And as rabbi and Pharisee he kept the Law of Moses and God was glorified. Are you going to contradict the Scripture above? Yea or nay?

That is not the point. The point for this situation is to show that Paul has not abandoned his Jewish ancestry. He has not cast it aside, and was not teaching Jews to cast aside their ancestry. He taught not to be bound/enslaved to it. We are bondservants (slaves) of Christ. So, for the sake of the gospel, he, for the sake of these Jews, followed what was requested of him. He understood why he should. He may not have exercised these things among the Gentiles, but he had not abandoned it.

Jesus taught the Law to His covenant people. I don't bifurcate the Law of Moses and the Mosaic Covenant for they are one the same. The Commands of God are Law, and the Law of God are His Commands.

Yes but the Law is not the covenant. That is where you are stumbling around. Again, there is nothing in the Torah against Gentiles. Nothing at all. You won't find it.

God is against Gentiles:

17 All nations before him are as nothing;
And they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isaiah 40:17.

If I use your understanding of Genesis 22 here, it means that God hates the 12 tribes of Israel, as you say that "All nations" in Genesis 22, means all of Abraham's descendants. Are you beginning to understand the vast damage your beliefs are doing to scripture?

If God was for the Gentiles there would be Scripture of Gentiles joined at the hip of Israel and part of their covenants

Not at all. The Israelites are God's chosen people, chosen to be a light to the nations, and a guide. They were to teach the law to the nations, so that the nations would come to know and follow God. However, Israel would still be Israel and the Gentiles would still be Gentiles. It's just that Israel would be the chosen people of God, and the Gentiles would be God fearers, or God followers. They would be blessed by Abraham's descendants. However, foreshadowing from God, instead they would be blessed by Abraham's descendant (singular). That does not mean that they would be part of Abraham's covenant, but would be blessed as a consequence of God's promise to Abraham.

. But there is none. Taking words, "families of the earth" and "nations" to mean Gentiles is weak.

True. So God hates the 12 tribes of Israel, for to take "nations" in the "all nations" above to mean Gentiles is weak. Again, it is your blind beliefs that are causing you to pick and choose how to interpret exact same words. All the nations are blessed not by the Abrahamic Covenant, but by Abraham's seed Jesus. The Gentiles are the sheep of "another fold" that Jesus will also gather and make one body. (The church, or the body of Christ.) It is not under covenant, but in the body of Christ.

If God meant Gentiles He would unambiguously say "Gentiles" when He meant Gentiles, NOT hide it through obscure meanings or terms.

Exactly. So again, the prophecy is against Israel, not against Gentiles, or He would have said something other then "nations" which is obscure. (I mean really??) No. Genesis 22 says the all nations of the world to mean all nations of the world, will be blessed not in the Abrahamic covenant, but in Abraham's seed (which Hebrews says is Jesus.)

God would flat out call Gentiles, Gentiles. Instead you have many trying to make these terms refer to Gentiles.

I'm not trying. That is what it means. However, your BELIEFS run contrary to what the Bible clearly states. What you aren't understanding is that to understand correctly is a tweak, not a full deconstruction/reconstruction. It is the understanding that while Israel has their covenants, Abrahamic/Mosaic, the church is in Christ, not in Israel. The body of Christ. Jews and Gentiles are a part of the church by faith in Christ. This is not the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant, but the covenant of grace. It is not the new covenant found in Jeremiah, for the stipulations of that covenant are no where to be seen. However, in scripture, it is seen in Zechariah after Jesus comes to Jerusalem as the "one who was pierced" and saves His people. In other words, it is still future. I believe it will be right before the Messianic kingdom (the Millennial Kingdom) where Jesus reigns over the whole world from Jerusalem/Israel. No matter how this world appears now, this will happen. God will visibly, literally, and gloriously fulfill His promises to Israel and the forefathers. (to include Abraham.) It will happen. And the Gentiles will get to see it. I believe it will be glorious, but that's just me. To see everything God has in store for Israel is a dream that I have, though I feel I will pass before then. (So, I'm a hopeless romantic... it will still be glorious.)

You're big on the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is the only place where a New Covenant is mentioned. YOU tell ME are there Gentiles in the New Covenant as prophesied by Jeremiah?

No. That is between God and Israel. However, you ignore scripture in your beliefs. Paul did a great job of defining Gentiles, those Gentiles he preached to, as non-Hebrew Gentiles. What does he spend Galatians telling them. Stay away. Do not be enslaved under the Law and covenants. I would say he was saying not to be proselytes. This seems to be something you are forgetting. Non-Hebrew Gentiles can become proselytes. They can be circumcised into the covenant, however Paul said that would be death. And the passage you use from Acts showed that they told the Gentiles they did not have to.

Where in the Torah does it say the high priest left Israel and went to Gentiles and offered sacrifices to atone for their sins? WHERE? Gentiles were NEVER under the Law and this meant that neither did Jesus' death atone for their sins or else you are teaching Jesus changed the Law and in so changing it destroyed the Law. What a sinner! Not even God Himself can change what He's said under, above, below, and through the Law. Jesus, as lamb of God, died to atone for the sins of the Hebrew people ONLY.

This is where you are wrong. Paul said that Jesus was the propitiation for our sins (Jewish/Gentile believers (his audience)), but also for the whole world. (Sounds pretty specific.) It doesn't mean the whole world without exception, but without distinction. Again, it does not make anyone part of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant. Paul is clear that salvation in Christ is by FAITH. Abraham's faith was not because He was Hebrew. God was clear it was because Abraham obeyed God, even to the sacrificing of his one and only son Isaac. That is why God swore to bless Abraham. His faith through action, not who he was.

There you go. If there were no Gentiles in the two Hebrew covenants (Abraham and Mosaic) and there are no Gentiles named in the New Covenant, then Gentiles are STILL NOT included in the Law.

What did Paul and the church make very clear in Acts? Gentiles are not included in the Law, and they don't have to be. That is what you are missing here. Paul said "For by covenant you have been saved, through keeping the law, not of faith, lest any man shouldst boast", right? (Ephesians 2:8-9) No. Not even close. "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man shouldst boast." We are not saved by being a part of a covenant, or by keeping the Law. Each would be a case of boasting. Our boast is only to be in the Lord, who saw fit within His will to save anyone at all.

To make it clear, your take on the covenant is wrong, and does great damage to scripture. Salvation is not in the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants, and is not in the Law. Salvation is in Christ. For Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by/through HIM.

To make clear my position. The CHURCH is NOT ISRAEL. Replacement theology should be a damnable heresy. The church does not supplant Israel, it did not take the place of Israel in the covenants, and it did not become or supercede Israel. The church is not found in the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosaic covenant, but in Christ. As Paul said, the gospel is Christ and Christ crucified. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. That is salvation without distinction. It is not to become part of Israel, or to force oneself into a covenant, but to become a part of the body of Christ. And that is through the blood of Christ, not through the blood of sheep or goats.

The new covenant in Jeremiah has yet to be seen. I believe it is yet to come, and it will come when Christ is revealed in all His glory, in person, before secular Jerusalem in Revelation 20, and in Zechariah, with Zechariah giving the details. I believe the blessings belong to Israel, always have, and always will, at least until the consummation where this creation ends, and eternity begins. When the first things, such as heaven, earth, pain, crying, etc have all passed away. You seem to forget the passage that God will gather people together who are not His people, and will call them His people, and they will call Him their God. (Without digging, I would consider this to be Revelation 21 or related to Revelation 21, though I'm sure it could mean a different time. I did say without digging.) God planned to reconcile with ALL humanity without distinction, and Israel was His chosen conduit/instrument through whom this reconciliation would come.

Edited to correct spelling...