Are the Jews still God's people?

...then I can't help you...I got it from the Bible.

 

Who is saying what? I've posted in post 197 my view about the whole Jew thing. So whos for who's against?

 

Jews are not Israelites, Jews are those who followed the law. Otherwise you are correct.

 

Doesn't matter either way My view still holds firm. But to be honest Jews that have genetic links to Abraham are Israelites. And many Israelites are Jewish. So you seem to be parcing words. Christanity is the fulfillment of the OT. Jews or Israelites who are not christians aren't participators in the Heavenly promise. But there is still that genetic link.

 

No they do not and it cannot be proven, unless you have Abraham's DNA. When you are reading the N.T. it is important to know who is being spoken to and for what cause. Only Judah and Benjamin lived in Israel when Christ walked the earth. Paul, when addressing jews, was referring to those who followed the law. At that time many non Israelites were jews. This distinction is crucial to understanding Paul’s epistles.

 

Judah and Benjamin are Jewish and are decended from Abraham. They returned from Bablyon 400 years before and were pretty much that way at the time of Jesus. Which is why they made such a distinction from the Samerians because they were half breeds. Note there is also a distinction in the NT of God fearers or Gentiles who followed the Law but they were only allowed in the Gentile court. Now there were many mixed Jews from the diaspora certainly who practice the Law faithfully as they could but a distinction is made here and note how Paul reveals his ancestry and connection with Abrahamic lineage. So I think these should be taken into account of what paul meant.

 

Esther 8:17

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.


Where did this term jew come from? Read every passage that contains the term jew and you will find it refers to the religion of the law.

 

You forgot about Levites - they came back with Judah and Benjamin - Ezra Chapter 1.

Look in Nehemiah Chapter 9 and you will see this:

1] Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackclothes, and earth upon them.
[2] And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

So there is definitely a DNA reference there... "seed".....

 

Yes, you are correct; I should have mentioned them as well. The point I was trying to make was that the northern ten tribes never returned to Israel. Those pure Israelites who returned to Israel did so to facilitate the birth of Messiah. After 70 A.D. there was not an Israelite left in Israel. I believe Joseph and Mary (Israelites) practiced the pure Law of Moses and by such were likely called jews. However, the majority of those who called themselves jews favored the Babylonian Talmud version of Judaism. This is what Christ spoke out against. Christ was a pure Israelite who flawlessly followed the law of God. He was called a jew but never called himself a jew. The term jew is religious in nature. No man alive today can prove he is blood realted to Abraham.

 

Are you sure about that? Your statement comes close to being a universal negative--an illogical fallacy and impossible to prove. To demonstrate it you would have to take a census of every six billion plus person in this world just to make sure you don't miss anyone (for the Jews are still scattered throughout the world), and go through a detailed genealogy with each one.
I can trace back my genealogy right back to the time of the Reformation without too much difficulty. I am sure that there are many that can do better than I can especially when they have much more interest than I in doing so.
(I am not even an Israelite).

 

Now you’re being silly. There is not a person alive that can trace their ancestry back to Abraham. Please use the proper term, Israelite, a jew can be of any race and it only confuses people who know the difference.

 

I am not being silly at all. Think it through. As I said, without any trouble at all I can trace my lineage as far back as the Reformation. If others took the trouble they could no doubt trace it farther. I know the Mormons have taken great pains in this area.
Now at the time of Christ all the Jews were sure of their ancestry. We are given the lineage of both Joseph and Mary right in the Bible. They had to be sure of the lineage of Christ in order that he might legitimately sit on the throne of David. The Pharisees proudly proclaimed: "But Abraham is our father."
The Israelite of today has only to trace his lineage back to the time of Christ.
I doubt if it is that difficult for Israelites who, in their families, have kept meticulous records can trace their lineage back two thousand years. We have greater technology than the Israelites of the time of Christ, and they could do it.

 

You are wrong on several accounts.

First, Jesus was a Jew because He was born of a Jewish mother. That's how Jewish people trace ancestry.

Next, you are wrong that no Jews lived in Israel after 70 AD.

Masada was not destroyed until 73 AD, for one thing. Next, excavations have found a Jewish settlement near Jerusalem dating between 70 and 132 AD. See here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361068205&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Next, you are wrong about the DNA. Genotyping proves that Cohens as well as some tribes in Africa are Jewish from the priestly tribe (Levi) in their DNA and that Jews have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile:

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp

Plus what DHK said.

 

Non-sequistur. We are not speaking of nor refering to cults or their views but historical data gathered in relation to early church views.

I have not reasoned anything in a circle. I have set forth established fact of early church views as noted by writings and historical veracity of said truth. The fact is you can not deny what has been give but must give your circular reasoning to try to move it aside. The views of them 'might' be subject on 'certain' points but I was not stating what is or is not considered subjective. I gave what is considered factual data regarding the historical views of the early church till about or around 450 ad. Which means the pre-mil view in the early church was the main and undisputed view for nearly 300 years that began with the apostles. You see you point has a great flaw in it with regard to 'proported scholars' "trying to line up with a particular line of thought". What is it? Many in that List were Amil'ers, thus it was not all done by Dispy's tring to rewrite history but that is simply a fact found by all views.

Lol.. You can't even admit the fact that you are wrong. It is fact and historically verified. If you will not acknowledge it that is not my problem but yours. Also we are not talking about one writer but the majority of them. Sure one might change their minds but we have nothing from them NOR their students/disciples who make any such claims. It was an undisputed view for nearly 300 years after the apostles which taught them to their disciples.

Fine. Then show us some that prove otherwise. The list I gave were not all dispensationalist but also Amill's and Post's as well. So I would say the statement stands upon Historical data. This said because it said also by those who do not even believe in the view.

Of course. so prove it otherwist. I stated the Early church held a Pre-mill view till about 400'ish ad. (I updated the correction from bc.). You challenged that, and I gave historical proof it was from both the dispy's and Amil's alike. They need not show their faces they have given us their writings and that is enough. It is funny how you can't actually prove anything contrary but continue with the circular reasoning that leads you no where but back here - face to face with the facts. Deny them if you want but you can't dispute them.

No. If you want to debate then I suggest 'you' go to each and every Christian college, University, and Seminary and tell them all the books on church history are wrong and that you can prove it. THEN show your proof. Till then I will stick with what the last couple of hundred of years of Church Historians have said.

We are not discussing the validity of Pre-mil but the valitdity that it was the promiant and undisputed view of the early church for nigh 300+ years or so.

Again, you scoot around the issue. We are not discussing whether they were right or wrong but whether or not the Pre-mil view was infact the prominant and undisputed view for nigh 300+years in the early church. Answer- Yes it was.

 

HP I asked you the most simple question that you have yet to answer unless I missed a post. One of the first names I recall that was on the list was Andrew, was it not? I asked you to verify how and where he taught a pre-mil view.

You throw around claims such as ‘undisputed’ etc. Why do not you attempt to prove your claim with some real evidence instead of rhetoric? Show us the real facts, facts that can be examined in light of Scripture not simply man’s opinion. Show us the Scripture(s).

 

I do not need to. I gave church historians who have already done this. Research for yourself a little. Why must I do all your work for you.

Editted - I help you out, start with George N. H. Peters, more specifically start with his presentation of Justin Martyr's declarion -such as this:

It was Peters, the Church historian, who gives us this listing of names that all (both Amils and Dispy's)have agreed with and do not dispute- at least I have not yet found any. Not because of him but because the writtings of the times and people bear this out. Read His work in Volume IV, Chapter XIV, V, pg. 271 where you will see a complete reference to those apostles who taught this.

 

However HP, if you want the exact sourse. It was Papias, the disciple of the apostle John who wrote the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

The babylonian Talmud was written 500 years after Jesus Christ in an entirely different era. No comparison. The Jerusalem Talmud was written 300 years after Christ. Things were different in the time of Christ. I believe that Judaism and Israel of Abraham came to an end in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Since then the lineage of Abraham has mixed with just about every peoples so there are no pure original Israelis or Jews. Lineage was important at the time of Jesus and there were Pure Jews and Israeli and not so pure. And this distinction is evident in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

 

If you think the modern Jews are not God's chosen people just ask the Germans. Do ever wonder why the Pres. of Iran is so quiet these days?? He knows who those people are!! Why do so many people on this board try to rationalize away the Bible?

 

who are you speaking to?