Jews vs Christians

I feel the same way. But here is what I am convinced of: Amillennialism is dangerously close to a denial of God's faithfulness and truthfulness. I don't think you or most others intend that, but I think you have no way out of it without doing extreme injustice to Scripture.

This is a topic on which you should seriously consider that someone else knows more than you do.

REad the OT on the kingdom and you will see that an earthly kingdom is the only kind there is. That is what was taught and that is what was expected. When Jesus and the Baptist said, "The kingdom of God is at hand," they were talking about the kingdom described in the OT which was an eaerthly kingdom. When Jesus said, "The kingdom is in your midst," he was talking about what was going on on the earth around them.

So the simple fact is the kingdom of the Bible is at least an earthly kingdom.

The rest of your 10 things include things that are simply false -- whether out of ignorance or dishonesty I am not sure. Some if it has been addressed here directly, and so you should know that you made false statements. Some of it should have been addressed elsewhere in your study if you have actually studied this, which seems suspect based on some of the things you have said here. I am fairly familiar with dispensationalism and can say without fear of contradiction that many of your statements are flat out wrong, and some of them are merely differences of interpretation.

Let's look:

No, not really. it is the way you talk and listen everyday. You use the dispensationalist hermeneutic everywhere but certain places in the Bible. You even use it in the Bible itself. You just don't use it consistently.

Well, look up the word and its usages, and you will see that I am correct.

Except the description given of the kingdom involves things on this earth.

False on both counts.

Again, simply false.

False, and you have been corrected about this enough times to mean this is not made out of mere ignorance.

[quoet]6. Some dispensationalists insist that dispensationalism was the teaching of the early church, which was premillennial, denying the historical truth that dispensationalism is the brainchild of John Darby, who hopefully was not influenced by the supposed revelation to MARGARET MACDONALD.[/quote]False. I don't know many who teach that dispensationalism was hte teaching of the early church, but it certainly predates Darby. In fact, dispensationalism as a system is older than covenantalism as a system.

What was the work? To come and die for sin. Some dispensationalists say that, but not all and it doesn't mean they ignore Christ's words in any event.

Nonsense. I actually used this text this morning in my message. You are simply wrong.

Again, wrong. We don't ignore it.

Wrong. We fully affirm that Jesus Christ , God the Son, took upon Himself the nature of man for the purpose of dying for the sins of His elect and the Church. It is quite silly to accuse dispensationalists of denying the incarnation and the atonement. That is pure nonsense.

What we see in this list is a mix of ignorance and reaching in a effort to disprove a view. It doesn't work. It won't be convincing to anyone with the least bit of knowledge and honesty about what dispensationalism believes.

I urge you to study this topic apart from your biases. Take it from someone who knows dispensationalism better than you do: You are wrong about a lot of it.

It is fine to differ on matters of the interpretation of a text. It is not fine to say we believe stuff or deny stuff that we don't.

 

Hmmm, beat up on Pastor Larry Day...

I’m with Pastor Larry here and I also don’t know where to begin…

For the sake of the discussion I will call myself a "dispensationalist" because I believe the root definition of dispensationalism that God has dealt with mankind under different economies. It (IMO) is not a systematic theology but a method of interpreting the Scriptures.

Otherwise, we would have 613 mitzvoth (the alleged number of commandments in the law) governing our lives.

If the Church is Israel why then do we not keep the 7th day? why do we eat our bacon, ham, lobster, rabbit and do so many other things forbidden by the law of Moses given to Israel and yes is even called an "abomination"?

Leviticus 11
4 'Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
5 'the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
6 'the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;
7 'and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
8 'Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
9 ' These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers -- that you may eat.
10 'But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.

Because the Church is not Israel. The governing rules are different as clearly taught in the Book of Acts and many of the apostolic epistles.

Jesus predicted this
Matthew 21:
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

In Matthew 24 Jesus speaks of the Roman invasion to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Clearly the times of the Gentiles has not been fulfilled or “they” would have seen Him coming in a cloud and great glory.

Yes we can allegorize these passages and all are free to do so.

However, the literal is my own personal preference. These events in Mathhew 24 are detailed in the Book of Revelation in the 7 trumpets, 7 seals and finally the wrath of God, the 7 bowls poured out upon the earth and the destruction of in Revelation 16 (the Wrath of God) upon MYSTERY BABYLON Revelation 17-19.


Some say this has already happened but how far does one have to go in the Book of Revelation see that it has not.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Again, allegory? Personally I think not.

See next page...

 

Part 2

The apostles asked this question of Jesus:

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The apostles were not presently given the answer. They had a mission to fulfill and the final revelation of God to be codified.

The times of the Gentiles is still upon us and our task is to disseminate this Gospel to the entire world, salvation by grace through faith in the death (through the shedding of His blood) His burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin for every person Jew or gentile who will receive it.

Then when the time is right He will come in all His Glory, then He will put an end to our quarrelling:

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


HankD

 

Actually, I did give Scripture on several occasions. I pointed out that both Jesus and John the Baptist said "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," a term that has specific reference to the OT description of the kingdom which is an earthly kingdom. When Jesus said in Luke 17 that "The kingdom of God is in your midst," it certainly wasn't inside the Pharisees. It was around them where they could see it. That is earthly, it seems to me.

I don't think there is a single passage that proves a pre-trib Rapture. I think it is correct because of the correlation of Scripture, but I am fine if people differ with me on that.

Then show how. You didn't even make much of a response to my arguments about your point, if I recall correctly. I think you have to deal with the other uses of "hour" and the fact that the Bible teaches more than one resurrection. The fact is that there are a number of ways to interpret John 5:28, 29 that don't involve your position, which I think ignores other Scriptures and if I remember correctly you never addressed that. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But you must realize that you have some major problems you have to deal with.

If you read McClain you would recognize this as the universal kingdom of God as opposed to his mediatorial kingdom.

I have no real issue with this, provided it is not considered the kingdom in completeness. The Bible says it is much more than this.

I completely agree with this.

I fully affirm this.

If you think this, then make a serious argument about it. There are some to be made, but I don't think you have gotten very close to it. The idea that it came from MacDonald is simply irrelevant. The question is What does Scripture teach? The tenets of dispensationalism have been around since the garden of Eden, since God said "Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Godd and Evil" and Adam and Eve didn't think he was telling them not to take a vacation at the beach. So in the end, the question is about the teaching of Scripture. The tenets of dispensationalism have existed all throughout church history. Read for instance Renald Showers There Really Is a Difference.

Your point #1 doesn't address the incarnation so far as I can see. As a dispensationalist, I believe that Jesus came to die for sin, to redeem his church. He will come again a second time without reference to sin, as Hebrews says. If you disagree with that, fine.

That's not an implication at all. That may be your inference, but it is not an implication. My interpretation is not infallible. I am not even sure it is correct on many points, but it is what I have discerned from studying the Bible. I will continue to study and evaluate what I believe in light of Scripture. If that is a problem for you, then so be it.

And this applies to you as well. The fact that you make charges against dispensationalism does not mean that those charges are true.

Nor does it make them true. You can say anything you want, but in the end, if you say something incorrect, it is incorrect. In order to show something false, you have to actually make an argument about it, not just an assertion. For instance, you said the dispensationalist ignores the teaching of Genesis 3:15, but you don't say how. I don't know any dispensationalists who ignore that, and I probably know more than you do. You made a number of similar statements, but that doesn't make them true.

Of course not, but sometimes they are. I am ignorant about a lot of stuff. I try to have the good sense to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what I am talking about. But the fact is that some of the things you say reveal ignorance about a particular issue. You say that dispensationalism denies the clear literal teaching of John 5:28, 29. Yet I specifically refuted that and showed that we do accept the plain literal teaching. We simply disagree on what the plain literal teaching is. Yet having been shown that we do not deny the passage, you still repeat that we do. So since you know the truth about our position, why do you say something untrue about it.

Knowing what I believe is not arrogance at all. I don't think it is wrong to know what I believe and I don't think it is arrogant to point out when someone else doesn't know what I believe. If you think that is arrogant, then show how. Do you consider yourself arrogant for knowing what you believe? Do you consider it arrogant to launch the kind of attacks against Christian brothers that you have launched here? I doubt it. Somehow I think you hold yourself to a different standard.

I can't help but notice that you here launch into pure personal attacks and ad hominem. This contributes nothing to the discussion. In fact, here again in this post, you deal very little with Scripture. Why not? Why not lay off the personal stuff and talk about the Word? If you are convinced I am wrong, then show it by the Scripture. Don't make personal attacks.

I don't usually imply it. I usually state it when I think the facts back it up. I think sometimes people are dishonest about what others believe. Sometimes they are simply ignorant (not in pejorative sense).

I think when I have said that, it is been demonstrable.

Again, I think when I have said that, it has been demonstrable.

I think when I have said that, it has been demonstrable.

Perhaps this is because I am correct on these three issues.

Honestly, I don't get your anger at dispensationalism. I think it is misplaced. You have accused dispensationalists of all kinds of things that simply aren't true, like denying Gen 3:15 and denying the purpose of the incarnation. We are on the same side here, OR.

I don't know you apart from here. Perhaps if we met in person, things would be different. But I hope if you are going to continue to talk about dispensationalism as you have you will allow others to respond and point out where we believe your understanding is flawed. If you don't like to be challenged you are in the wrong place, my friend.

I disagree with a lot of stuff that some dispensationalists say on here, and distance myself from it at least as far as I distance myself from your position. But I am not angry about it. I think discussion and debate is good, but I think it needs to be on issues, not on people.

I hope in the future, if you are going to continue this, that you will be more congenial towards those with whom you disagree than you have been so far. I hope you will be more willing to deal with Scripture.

 

Larry,

Keep in remind. Abraham, himself was Gentile before God called him to leave land of Ur.

in Romans 3:29 makes the point: "Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also."

Salvation is not just for "Jews only" as supposed, dispensationalism teaches that 'Israel' is deal with Jews as physical nation rather than Church is Israel. They always keep on saying that both Church and Israel are distiction in God's program.

In Romans 2L11 tells us, God doesn't care either Jew or Gentile person is more special to him. In Romans 3:9 tells us, are the Jews better than Gentiles? No. Both are all under sin. There is no one is righteous under the eyes of the Lord. All of the world are sinners.

That why Christ came to earth to died on the cross for all nations, that means he dioed for BOTH Jews and Gentiles. Salvation is for everyone,

Romans 10:12 tells us very clear- "For there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over ALL is rich unto ALL that call upon Him."

God doesn't interesing what our religion is, God doesn't interesting what country, where we come from. God doesn't interesting which Jew or Gentile, I am. God interests in us that we have to put our faith UPON Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way for salvation no other else.

When we come to Romans chapter 11. That chapter is not discuss about supposed future restored of physical 'Jewish' nation again. That chapter talking about salvation in Jesus Christ. "Olive Tree" is all about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Israel. Church does not replace Israel. Church is always Israel from the begiing to the end- Eph. 3:21. Israel is now expanded because God grafted Gentiles upon Olive Tree join with believing Jews together became one. It fulfilled in Ephesians 2:12-16. Christ already reconcile both Jews and Gentilles became one by Calvary.

That what "All Israel shall be saved" of Romans 11:26 is all about.

We are now part commonwealth of Israel. That means we are citizenship as member of Israel. Because Christ already graft us(Gentiles) upon Olive Tree join with believing Jews.

In sense, Jesus Christ is the Olive Tree, well as He is the vine -John 15:1.

Bible is all about Jesus Christ, not political or government, or nation. Our salvation is all about Jesus Christ. Christ is the only way that we can have eternal life. Christ was never make an offer earthly kingdom to unbelieving Jews, when He was on earth 2000 years ago. Christ was not discuss on politicals or governements. He was teaching people of SALVATION. That what the "Gospel" is all about. Gospel simple mean good news of Christ's death, buried and his resurrection - 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Church never replaced Israel. Church is always Israel, Israel is always Church. Church simples mean people. Israel simples mean people. Both are no difference. Israel is now expanding, because God already graft Gentiles join with believing Jews, because of Calvary's result.

I hope that you understand what I am talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Here's what DeafPostTrib says: Church is always Israel Havensdad said: Not only is Israel the Church, Israel has ALWAYS been the Church. Jim1999 says that the church is the new Israel. You yourself, OR, have said similar things which I won't take time to look up.

I think you play slippery with words, and this is an example of it.

If I accused you outright of not believing Scripture you would take huge offense (as you did when I intimated it). Yet you charge us with not believing Scripture. Why the double standard? If it is wrong for us to make that charge about you, then it is certainly wrong for you to make it about us. You can't have it both ways, although your whole system here is a good attempt to have it both ways, IMO.

 

I understand what you are saying. But I think it leaves out too many Scriptures, and changes too many others. It deals too little with the actual text.

 

I said it, and stand by it. The Church and Israel are two names for the same body. Other names for the same body are: the "vine" the "sheepfold", the "Body of Christ" etc.

Great error has crept into our doctrine because of some kind of "Hindu Caste System" that has been injected by dispensationalists, as if their are Bhramins (Jews, the priestly class) and the "untouchables" (us poor Gentiles).

The fact is, Christianity is not racist. There is no distinction according to race. Scripture says if you are Christ's, you ARE Abrahams seed (offspring); "Abraham's seed" and "children of Abraham" are phrases used by Jews to denote ethnic Israel.

At the same time, replacement theologians (Covenant), have ALSO introduced great error, and a racist mentality in the opposite direction. Anti-antisemitic attacks have their root in a replacement theology, which teaches God somehow "messed up"choosing the Jews in the first place, and so gave their inheritance to others. This is erroneous!

Since Adam's fall, God has had ONE group of people: His "chosen". This is my challenge to the two groups:

Amillennial and postmillennial folks: Demonstrate to me WHERE in scripture it says there is ONLY one resurrection.

Dispensationalists: Show me WHERE in the Old Testament, those Gentiles who are circumcised into Israel, which "become as a 'native of the land'"(in other words, a native born Israelite) had lesser rights than OTHER Israelites. EVEN in Jesus' time, if you look at the complaints of the Jews, it is NOT the mixing with "ethnic" Gentiles, but "uncircumcised" people.

Under the old covenant, people entered into Israel by faith, and the outward symbol was circumcision. They were then expected to keep the commandments in the Torah.

In the new covenant, people are grafted into Israel by faith, and the outward symbol is baptism. They are then expected to "pick up their cross" and follow Christ.

 

And you know OldRegular, I agree with you when you say that the Church is "one" with the Spiritual Israel and in this point I somewhat disagree with some/many/most (not sure which) dispensationalist.

Not only in Romans 11 but this oneness is foretold in Revelation as signified by the 24 elders (12 of Israel, 12 of the Church) although they are not specifically identified as such.

Revelation 11

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.​

But "oneness" does not mean "one and the same".​

Jesus said "I and my Father are one" and obviously didn't mean one-and-the-same but one in essence yet distinct as Persons of the Godhead.​

So, IMO even in the eternal state there will be a distinction between Redeemed Israel and the Church which Christ built, both of which were visible manifestations of the Kingdom of God on earth yet under differing rules of government and economy.​

You spoke of national Israel. Of course it is not Spiritual Israel. And history has repeated itself in regards to "Christendom" as Jesus said it would in Matthew 13. There would be an infiltration of children of the devil among the children of God (Wheat and the tares). ​

Not all who are church members are members of the Matthew 16:18 Church.​

The Lord Himself will give the order to cleanse His Church at the end of this age.​

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

HankD​

 

And you know Havensdad I agree with almost all of what you are saying. Read my previous post. There will be no difference in God's love showered upon all His children, just a distinction between those who were redeemed as true Israelites of the Nation of earthly Israel or members of the Church Christ built here on earth.

When you speak of racism, I agree that there are those who misunderstand because they think they are special. None of us are uniquely special but we are different both individually, nationally and in the plan and economy of God.

I believe our Heavenly Father wants to keep those national differences both Jew and Gentile distinct but in the unity of Christ through out eternity to enhance His glory.

Isaiah 19

23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.​

We know that God didn't "mess up" anything concerning Israel:


Romans 11 RE: The "fall" of Israel:

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?​

In this age there is no difference between the Jew or the Gentile.
God's salvation is freely open to all:

Revelation 22

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

But, IMO from Scripture, Israel will one day be restored as a believeing Christian Nation:​

Romans 11
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.​

There is that phrase "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come".​

Can we ask the same question the Apostles asked in Acts 1:6​

...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

In Revelation Chapter 7 a clear distinction is made between the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel and the "great multitude".

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.​

Distinction and difference does not equal racism except in the unregenerate heart.​

HankD

 

Yes, and it's wonderful and marvelous!

HankD

 

Whatever this may be, it is not dispensationalism. Distinctions in purpose or function do not equate to racism. No country is racist because it gives priority to its own citizens. When God chose Israel to be his people above all other peoples on the earth, he wasn't being racist. So I think the racism argument is simply misguided.

This is true, but again, Christianity is a NT thing, not an OT thing. They were called Christians first at Antioch. And in Christianity there are not distinctions. But that doesn't mean that God makes the same promises to everyone, or that he is racist or unfair because he treats people differently.

 

You understand that the word "hour" can demonstrate a long period of time, correct? This does not mean there is only one timing of the resurrection.

I don't think ever, one time in scripture, is "National Israel" ever promised anything. "Believing Israel" is all there ever was. So on this, I agree.

Definitely agree.

I like the 2000 message: it definitively is negative towards the Classic dispensationalist.

 

Pastor Larry,

Classical dispensationalism teaches that all Jews will have a place of pre-eminence over their gentile brothers for all eternity, because of the color of their skin (their race). This is absolutely the very definition of racism.

The Bible never teaches this. All men are to be rewarded equally according to their works. The ONLY group that has pre-eminence, and that only in the Millennium, are martyrs, which are specifically described as being of all nations.

This is backed up by Jesus himself, who stated that many of the last, will be first.

Can you please show me:

#1 Where the "ekklesia" is only in the New Testament?

#2 Where there is a distinction shown in the Old Testament, between "ethnic" Israel, and those who become "Natives of the Land"(native born Israelites) through circumcision?

We, in fact, were "in Christ" "before the foundations of the world". The Church extends from creation till now. "Israel" and "The Church" and "The Vine" and "The Sheepfold" and "The Body of Christ" are all synonymous words for the one people of God, from the beginning of time.