Evidence for God from Science

So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?

Wasn't that the case anyway, from OT times?

August wrote:

So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?

Wasn't that the case anyway, from OT times?

Yes, but there wasn't two gospels back then. Apparently only Israelite Jews have the gospel of the kingdom, whereas the rest of us have the gospel of Christ crucified. So I have to wonder about gentile to Jew converts, since Jesus only came for the lost sheep of fleshly Israel, and Paul's gospel was for gentiles. Do they have both gospels, or neither.

A few more items that need to be addressed:

jlay wrote:Considering that at these times Israel was under the covenant of the Law it seems far fetched.

I find your use of the term "covenant" interesting, as the typical phrase from your side is the "Dispensation of Law", in contrast with the "dispensation of grace" that you mentioned earlier. What was the "Covenant of the Law"? How was justification provided for under this covenant?

jlay wrote:And then you would also need to show how the dispensationalism "Gospel of the Kingdom," precludes blessing for the Gentiles. I'm all open to hear your proofs on this. How would the Kingdom program if fufilled(as defined in Dispensationalism) have prevented the Gentiles from being blessed, and ultimately justified? I can see no where and no way that it does.

I'm confused. I thought Jesus came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel. How does the "gospel of the kingdom" as you define it, provide for the justification of gentiles if it is indeed a different gospel than Christ crucified? And if it does, then to what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

Doesn't the existence of multiple covenants through time imply different aspects of that same "good news" or gospel message based upon the time of the covenant and the participants in it?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Doesn't the existence of multiple covenants through time imply different aspects of that same "good news" or gospel message based upon the time of the covenant and the participants in it?

Yes. That's Covenant Theology (Reformed). But like you say, it is the same "good news", not a separate gospel. That's why I found jlay's choice of words interesting.

So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?

Only if you trust God's Word.
Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

I'm confused. I thought Jesus came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel.

Those were Jesus' Words. And certainly we see that His earthly ministry was to fulfill what the law and prophets had written regarding Israel. Matt 5

How does the "gospel of the kingdom" as you define it, provide for the justification of gentiles if it is indeed a different gospel than Christ crucified?

I think I've already covered that in depth.

And if it does, then to what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

Why would the purpose change?

Yes. That's Covenant Theology (Reformed). But like you say, it is the same "good news", not a separate gospel. That's why I found jlay's choice of words interesting.

It aint my choice of Words.
"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
!" Gal 1: 6-9

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11-12
If it is the same gospel, then why would Paul say such things?

jlay wrote:

So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?

Only if you trust God's Word.
Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

You are assuming that Old Covenant Judaism and New Covenant Judaism are one and the same, which they clearly, as a matter of observation, are not. One was rooted in Christ, the other, in Paul's words, is dung. In any case, that leads to the next question. If I would prefer to be part of the gospel of the kingdom as opposed to the gospel of Christ crucified, would you suggest that I renounce my faith in Christ, move to Israel, and start practicing Judaism?

jlay wrote:

I'm confused. I thought Jesus came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel.

Those were Jesus' Words. And certainly we see that His earthly ministry was to fulfill what the law and prophets had written regarding Israel. Matt 5

You didn't answer my question. We aren't talking about His earthly ministry. That's over and done with. I asked, "How does the "gospel of the kingdom" as you define it, provide for the justification of gentiles if it is indeed a different gospel than Christ crucified? And if it does, then to what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? You wrote, "I think I've already covered that in depth." Where? If the gospel of the kingdom, which you claim was only for Israel, and is not the gospel of Christ crucified, then where is the justification for the gospel of the kingdom, and to what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? I need detailed answers, because I'm not following you. The two separate gospels don't make sense.

jlay wrote:

Yes. That's Covenant Theology (Reformed). But like you say, it is the same "good news", not a separate gospel. That's why I found jlay's choice of words interesting.

It aint my choice of Words.

The Words "Covenant of Law" are what I was referring to. Most dispensationalists refer to the "dispensation of law". I was wondering what you refer to in those words, and how that Covenant provide justification.

I was going to refer to the Galatians 1 passage for a different reason, but I thought it best to hold off for now.

You are assuming that Old Covenant Judaism and New Covenant Judaism are one and the same, which they clearly, as a matter of observation, are not. One was rooted in Christ, the other, in Paul's words, is dung. In any case, that leads to the next question.

For one, I am NOT assuming they are the same. I fail to see the relevance of the distinction in new in old in regards to the the question you asked. Does that not answer your question?

"So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?"

Yes or no. You are not coming across as sincere, but dogmatic and unwilling to even receive an answer.

If I would prefer to be part of the gospel of the kingdom as opposed to the gospel of Christ crucified, would you suggest that I renounce my faith in Christ, move to Israel, and start practicing Judaism?

Obviously you didn't read Paul's warning that i included in my post. Do you want to be accursed? Further, why do you think one is required to renounce their faith in Christ? Where are you getting this stuff?

If the gospel of the kingdom, which you claim was only for Israel, and is not the gospel of Christ crucified, then where is the justification for the gospel of the kingdom, and to what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? I need detailed answers, because I'm not following you. The two separate gospels don't make sense.

You are clearly twisting what is being said. The Gospel of the Kingdom was Israel's Gospel. To do what? To bring the Kingdom on Earth, and be the city on the Hill, a light to all the nations. Gentiles? Hello? I've already explained this ad-naseum. Please show how the dispensational view of the Kingdom Gospel prevents the gentiles from being blessed. I've already asked you, and you haven't been able to. You are obviously stuck in some twisted understanding of what someone has told you Dispensationism teaches.

what purpose was the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

Why do you keep assuming the purpose is different? 1 Cor 15:3 1 Pet 3:18
Christ death, burial and resurection was not the mystery. That was KNOWN to the prophets. Isaiah 53.
Just what are fishing for here?

I was wondering what you refer to in those words, and how that Covenant provide justification.

As far as covenant I refer to what is written in the scriptures.
Deut 5:1-31 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

As far as justification. Paul clearly points out that there was no justification in the Law. Where are you getting the idea that I am claiming there is justification in the Law?

Honestly I am also more confused than ever J. So what is the ultimate purpose of this other 'Israel' gospel if not for salvation? And how do adherents to this gospel get saved?

John 3:16

If you are confused, I suggest you read a concise overview of dispensational theology.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html

BUt after reading that, it still seems convoluted....why would we even feel the need to preach to Jews if they will simply receive their KIngdom? It does seem very drastic to read that there are two gospels, as if salvation does not need to come to Christ. I did read through that article and still came away with that conclusion. So if I converted to Judaism and accept that their will be a coming Kingdom, why would I still need Christ?

The entire point of telling peopel to repent in the Gospels and, of course, the law, is to reveal our complete inability to fulfill the law and our need for a savior. I don't see at all the idea that just because they used repent that this is somehow indicative of a second gospel.

Yikes!!! There's a mess to clean up here. Let's start with this question: Why did Paul preach the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 4:20, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:21, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 1:13)?

jlay wrote:You are clearly twisting what is being said. The Gospel of the Kingdom was Israel's Gospel. To do what? To bring the Kingdom on Earth, and be the city on the Hill, a light to all the nations. Gentiles? Hello? I've already explained this ad-naseum. Please show how the dispensational view of the Kingdom Gospel prevents the gentiles from being blessed. I've already asked you, and you haven't been able to. You are obviously stuck in some twisted understanding of what someone has told you Dispensationism teaches."

You are straying from mainstream dispensationalism into dual-covenant theology. I need to know how "Israel's gospel" is supposed to work. How does it bring light to the nations, and what are the nations supposed to do with it?

jlay wrote:Why do you keep assuming the purpose is different? 1 Cor 15:3 1 Pet 3:18
Christ death, burial and resurection was not the mystery. That was KNOWN to the prophets. Isaiah 53.
Just what are fishing for here?

Several things. If Israel's gospel (Christ's earthly ministry), per Galatians 3:8, justifies the Gentiles by faith, than to what purpose was the Gentile gospel (Christ's death, burial, and resurrection)? If the first gospel can accomplish this, why do we need the second? (I'm also curious how one can be a "kingdom of Israel" theologian and not be a zionist).

jlay wrote:As far as covenant I refer to what is written in the scriptures.
Deut 5:1-31 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

As far as justification. Paul clearly points out that there was no justification in the Law. Where are you getting the idea that I am claiming there is justification in the Law?

I don't object to the use of the word "covenant", for I am a Covenant Theologian. I'm just a little surprised that you use it this way. Since we agree that there is no justification by law, and since there was no justification by grace through faith in the OT (which you claimed in an earlier post), then how were the OT saints justified? You still haven't answered that question, nor have you explained how the OT prophets could have seen that the Gentiles would be justified by faith, while at the same time not being able to see the "church age".

In all sincerity, you are trying to defend the indefensible, based more on theological desperation than sound exegesis or logic.. This is no small matter. According to Galatians 1:6-9, one of us in on dangerous ground.

You are straying from mainstream dispensationalism into dual-covenant theology. I need to know how "Israel's gospel" is supposed to work. How does it bring light to the nations, and what are the nations supposed to do with it?

Believe it. Mark 16:15-16
John 5:24
And that is exactly what Peter did. "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

per Galatians 3:8, justifies the Gentiles by faith, than to what purpose was the Gentile gospel (Christ's death, burial, and resurrection)?

The difference is just that. How it is being dispensated. Through Israel, or through Paul's revelation.

(I'm also curious how one can be a "kingdom of Israel" theologian and not be a zionist).

Maybe if I get some time I can put in a response on the zionism thread.

and since there was no justification by grace through faith in the OT (which you claimed in an earlier post), then how were the OT saints justified?

Where did I claim that thre wasm't justification through faith in the OT? It certainly wasn't being preached.
You are the one claiming that the blessing promised was clearly revealed as justification by faith.
-Hebrews 11 explains how.

You still haven't answered that question, nor have you explained how the OT prophets could have seen that the Gentiles would be justified by faith,

It says THAT they would be blessed. Not how. Where does it say in the OT, that the OT prophets saw that they would be justified by faith? What Paul writes in Gal 3 is finished revelation, not limited. And is in the context of what he is sharing with the Galatians. Paul is very careful to ascribe this to scripture.
v.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
In v.14 Paul is in explaining what was not revealed, and how it was ultimately fulfilled.

Gal 3:15-18 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.(Abraham's) 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise."
-Israel's covenant in law didn't remove the promise to Abraham.

why would we even feel the need to preach to Jews if they will simply receive their KIngdom?

Zoe, That is a key point. You are talking about a program for a people, v. the plan of salvtiaon for a person. You do understand that God was dealing with Israel as a people, right? A Jew today is saved just like you and I. That is why Paul said, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him"
Let me ask you this. Was there a distinction before??

The entire point of telling peopel to repent in the Gospels and, of course, the law, is to reveal our complete inability to fulfill the law and our need for a savior.

Are you sure about that? Are you a Jew. When were you called to fulfill the law? By saying, 'our,' you would appear to be including yourself in that. What is the definition of repentance? And who was being told to repent? Why were JTB and Jesus preaching repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand? Was it to show them they were incapable of keeping the law. What would a proper exegesis tell us regarding how these people would take these words? Why didn't Jesus just plainly tell people in the sermon on the mount? Even his own disciples didn't understand until after he appeard ressurected.

jlay wrote:Where did I claim that thre was justification through faith in the OT? It certainly wasn't being preached. You are the one claiming that the blessing promised was clearly revealed as justification by faith.

For clarification, you claimed that there was NO justication by faith in the OT, and contrary to Scofield, you also claimed that there was no justification by law. So how were the OT saints justified? You still haven't answered that.

jlay wrote:It says THAT they would be blessed. Not how. Where does it say in the OT, that the OT prophets saw that they would be justified by faith?

Genesis 18:18. It says so in the NT (Galatians 3:8). Was Paul mistaken?

In any case, the OT prophets saw it, and it happened in the church age. You still need to explain this.

This is at least the third time I've asked these two questions, and you haven't given anything close to an answer. For clarification, I will ask once more:

1.) How were the OT saints justified?

2.) How did the OT saints see the blessing/justification of the Gentiles when they supposedly could not see the church age?

Sadly, I don't think you'll be convinced of your very serious error, as every question I ask exposes that you are straying further and further from the true gospel. At least I've done my part to see that others who may read this won't be led astray.

A Jew today is saved just like you and I. That is why Paul said, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him"
Let me ask you this. Was there a distinction before??

You need to clarify then what it means for the Jews to come into their kingdom....does this not imply that they have been saved? Is there some time in the future that God essentially declares to them "ok guys, you really did mess up in rejecting Christ...He really is my son and you really need to be saved through Him...believe in Him now or you will not be allowed into your Kingdom?"

And why in the world would there be a distinciton between fulfilling the law between Jews and Gentiles? The Jews were called to be God's people as an example to the nations around them but why would that imply that we were not under the law? The law reveals our sin nature. No one can come to God unless he or she is righteous. What does the law do but reveal that we cannot follow the law. In that respect, we would certainly have been under the law.