Posted on 11/07/2010 6:51:51 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
I haven’t heard that about Haggee but I would sincerely doubt it. Judaism does teach that the promises are not for the Gentiles but Haggee and others do not agree with that and say so. They understand the that the Jews don’t understand but certainly don’t capitulate to avoid being viewed as anti Semite.
Those Jews who follow Christ are still Gods chosen people. Those who once again become faithful, like the Old Testament remnant, will rejoin Gods chosen people. Those who reject Christ are "broken off" from the tree. This is the clear teaching of Romans 11. Is it not?
How could Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and all Protestant denominations prior to John Darby got this simple teaching wrong?
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (1Peter 2:9)
John Hagee denied that Jesus came as Messiah to the Jews in his book, In Defense of Israel. I was amazed when I first heard Hagee's denial on youtube. I could not find that same video but this link shows the same footage along with part of The Passion of the Christ movie. The first part of the clip has Hagee, in his own words, denying the Messiahship of Christ.
Actually not totally true as I understand what you’re meaning. The Jews who today reject Jesus will again be given that chance during the Tribulation period. According to prophecy there will be 144,000 who are saved “till the end”.
Romans 11: 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.[See here that they are now blind to the truth “until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” After the Rapture of the Gentile Church (and of course the Jews who have accepted Jesus)]
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:[This will happen during the Tribulation.
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
LOL You had me going for a few minutes on that one. Hearing that message had me doubting myself and what I have heard him say. Here is what he said about that.
“I chose to use challenging language that I hoped would confront the body of Christ to consider events from the Jewish and historical perspective and therefore develop greater empathy for our Jewish friends.
“Over the centuries, Christians have been quick to condemn the Jews for failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah. This approach led to replacement theology and the viewpoint of some that God has rejected and broken covenant with the Jewish people. These ideas, in turn, opened the door to a vicious Christian anti-Semitism that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition and countless pogroms.
Jesus came the first time as the suffering Messiah, as exemplified by His persecution, rejection and crucifixion. Jesus will come back as the reigning Messiah, who will rule the world from His throne in Jerusalem as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
The primary change will involve how I use the word “Messiah.” In the expanded version, I will clarify the clear distinction between the “Suffering Messiah,” the Lamb of God and the “Reigning Messiah,” the Lion of the Tribe of Judah!
I also hope that we can return our focus to what I had anticipated to highlight all along, the fact that we Christians must shift from condemning the Jews for what they missed to thanking them for what they gave.” John Hagee
So Hagee could not maintain his position and went back to unsay what he had previously said without admitting his mistakes.
“I chose to use challenging language that I hoped would confront the body of Christ to consider events from the Jewish and historical perspective and therefore develop greater empathy for our Jewish friends.
Even in his "clarification," Hagee admits that he presented the events of Jesus' Messiahship sympathetically from the Jewish perspective, which is directly opposed to the Christian perspective.
“Over the centuries, Christians have been quick to condemn the Jews for failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah.
Hagee implies that there is something wrong about the Christian condemnation of Jews for failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah. Clearly Hagee sympathizes with rabbinical unbelief against the St. Peter's Pentecostal message in Acts 2.
These ideas, in turn, opened the door to a vicious Christian anti-Semitism that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition and countless pogroms.
Ahh... the old scare tactic of accusing "anti-Semitism" against anyone who accepts the orthodox tenets of Christianity on the condemnation of unbelievers. Thank you for confirming everything in my previous posts to illustrate the dangers of "Christian" Zionism.
Christian condemnation of Jews? Condemnation of Jews? And then you use Acts 2 to somehow justify condemning Jews? You have got to be kidding me. If you use that logic you would condemn God himself for sending Jesus to die. The one line in Acts 2 simply points out that they denied Christ but if you read the rest of that chapter they were also all saved. You need to seriously re-examine your understanding of Scripture. Every person who does not take Jesus to be there Savior is denying Christ. To single out Jews, who are still the chosen people of God, is ludicrous.
Obviously you have fallen for the ADL position that Hagee supports their claim when anyone with an open mind understands the position Hagee holds. I’m not a total supporter of Hagee (I just don’t know enough of what he says.) but on this issue he certainly has it right. The Jews did in fact reject Jesus but it is very, very dangerous to “come against my people Israel” and if you don’t understand that part I would suggest you do some serious study.
>>Thank you for confirming everything in my previous posts to illustrate the dangers of "Christian" Zionism.<< It’s becoming more obvious to me that you are either Preterist or certainly lean in that direction. If that is your point of view I would suggest you pray about it and look at alternative views.
Nope...God's chosen people is never a reference to the 'church'...It is always a reference to Israel...
The times of the Gentiles...What is the times of the Gentiles???
God turned away from Israel, the Jews...Salvation is of the Jews...To provoke jealousy, God offered salvation to the Gentiles...That is us...It is the 'times of the Gentiles'...The Jewish nation has been cut off from the trunk of the tree...
When God is done with the Gentiles, there will be no more adoption into the body of Jesus Christ...That's when the times of the Gentiles will have been fulfilled...
Does the scripture say that Israel will at some point be grafted back into the branches of the tree??? I don't believe it does...
If individual Jews stop their unbelief, they will individually be grafted back into the tree...And in that tree are no Jews nor Gentiles...
But when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled, the tree is done growing...No one gets back into the tree after that...
The tree then, is harvested...At that point, we are headed home...Not to Israel in the Middle East...We have no interest in a piece of dirt...Our home is in heavenly places...
At THAT point, God turns His attention back to his chosen people, Israel...At that point, God says Israel will accept Him as their Messiah and all of Israel shall be saved...At that point, the promises given to Israel will be realized, including the land promises...
I don't know Darby or Schofield...Haven't read their stuff...But I do read the bible and I have found these things in the scripture and without any preconceived ideas of what my religion tells me to believe, I am free to believe what God says in the scriptures...
Obviously. We do agree with the teaching that such unbelievers are under condemnation. Do we not?
To single out Jews, who are still the chosen people of God, is ludicrous.
Believing Jews are still the chosen people of God. You propose singling out unbelieving Jews to be exempt from the general status that applies unbelievers. That is ludicrous.
The Jews did in fact reject Jesus but it is very, very dangerous to “come against my people Israel”
You are mysterious and vague. What do you mean “come against my people Israel?” Are you saying it is wrong to accept the Scriptural and traditional Christian teaching on the disinheritance of unbelievers?
It’s becoming more obvious to me that you are either Preterist or certainly lean in that direction.
I am Catholic. That is all.
2 Chronicles 2:4
“Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel.”
If the church is the true Israel, how does ‘forever’ apply?
That is quite a narrative. Here is what the text from Romans 11 actually says:
"17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."
The Deliverer out of Sion has already come. Correct? In the future, "he will come again to judge the living and the dead." He has been and still is turning away ungodliness from Jacob and will continue to do so until the End. The text of Revelations is even less clearly related to your narrative.
Such a dispensationalist narrative was proposed for the very first time during the Nineteenth Century by the Irish preacher, John Darby. Later, the Darbyist narrative was widely popularized by the massively promoted Scofield Reference Bible. Look up Scofield Reference Bible on the Internet. You will be amazed. There is no historical record of dispensationalism existing before the Nineteenth Century.
Any religious group that denies the unique divinity of Jesus Christ is a cult. Such groups include the Moonies (with a second incarnation), the JWs (recycled Arians), Mormons (we can all be gods, and service a heavenly harem on our equivalent of Kolob), and rabbinic Judaism (the pre-existent son of God did not come in the flesh).
Biblical Judaism is Christianity.
Nope...Jesus came the first time but He did not deliver anyone from anything...When He comes again, He will deliver Israel...
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
He has been and still is turning away ungodliness from Jacob and will continue to do so until the End.
Nope...
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
This prophecy is about Jews, not Christians and it is future, not present...They is not you, and you is not them...
Such a dispensationalist narrative was proposed for the very first time during the Nineteenth Century by the Irish preacher, John Darby.
Clearly, that's not accurate...That dispensationalist narrative was first given by the Apostle Paul...
The fact that Rome did not and still does not acknowledge the fact is of no consequence...Well actually, it is...And it's very bad consequence...
This happened when Christ came as the Messiah. St. Paul quotes from Isaiah prophesies on the coming of Christ:
"2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. [...]
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. 21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." (Isaiah 59)
Christ is that Redeemer and Deliverer. He has already come. He is turning away the ungodliness from Jacob and will continue to do so.
The Gentile Church is the new Israel? Is that what you are saying? If so, that is totally wrong.
This prophecy is about Jews, not Christians and it is future, not present...They is not you, and you is not them...
See my last post to CynicalBear above. Rom 11:27 is Isaiah 59:23. The passages was first said about Jews in the future, YES, long before the coming of Christ. Paul is was simple quoting a well-known OT passage.
That dispensationalist narrative was first given by the Apostle Paul...
I understand that is your opinion but nobody before Darby ever recognized the dispensationalist narrative supposedly given by Paul. Correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.