Originally posted by FMF
You think I have contempt for you jaywill?

This forum is interesting - in part - because of all the competing, contradictory, overlapping and mutually exclusive cherry picking Christians like you and robbie and RJHinds and Rajk999 and jospephw and so on and so on, do, day after day - and for the raw contempt you all often seem to take glee in exhibiting towar ...[text shortened]... t being Christians' and all the rest. And you think my contributions exhibit contempt for you?

I don't know about the contempt thing. But it seems to me you should feel right at home, being as opinionated as anyone else.

I take no "glee" in competing or debating. I admit when a question is too hard. And I usually distinquish where I am sure about something and where I think I could be incorrect.

And I do learn from others.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know about the contempt thing.

You introduced the word "contempt" into the discussion. Not me.

Originally posted by FMF
You introduced the word "contempt" into the discussion. Not me.

And it was probably a mistake to do so.

But I had to use some word to reflect the flavor of your put down of some of us theists participating in the discussions.

For some reason it sounded like contempt. Read your post rather objectively, and maybe you'll taste it.

Well, billions of theists don't 'believe in' Jesus. If - according - to the competing theologies of Judaism and Christianity - Jesus's status and 'meaning' was not clear to the Chosen People, why would God - in your view - not make the revelation clearer and make it less open to religionist cherry picking and speculation?

Originally posted by jaywill
But I had to use some word to reflect the flavor of your put down of some of us theists participating in the discussions.

My opinions strike you as "contempt" for you, while the smackdown and if-in-doubt- cite-Satan approach of so many of your fellow Christians towards each other and towards non-Christians strikes you as what? Not contempt?

I see you and others citing your religion's literature inconsistently and in ways that suit you for the purposes of landing blows on each others chins, day after day. For me to point out this self-evident feature of this forum's daily life, rather unsurprisingly, finds you trying to pass it off as "contempt".

Originally posted by jaywill
For some reason it sounded like contempt. Read your post rather objectively, and maybe you'll taste it.

It's a straight forward question: With Jesus's status and 'meaning' obviously being unclear to the "Chosen People", why would God not make the revelation clearer and make it less open to religionist cherry picking and speculation?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So it was preordained and there was nothing the jews could have done about it?

sooo wrong, note the qualifying statement, those 'producing its fruits', clearly many
of the ancient Hebrews accepted Christ as the Messiah individually and thus became
what the scriptures term, part of a new nation, but as whole, he wad rejected as the
prophetic word states and thus the opportunity to be part of the Kingdom was
withdrawn as a nation although still open to individuals.

(1 Peter 2:7-10) . . .but to those not believing, “the identical stone that the builders
rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,”  and “a stone of stumbling and a
rock-mass of offence.” These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the
word. To this very end they were also appointed.  But you are “a chosen race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should
declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called you out of darkness into his
wonderful light.  For you were once not a people, but are now God’s people; you
were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been
shown mercy.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
clearly this is in contradiction to the old testament when the covenant was made to be eternal.

Gen 17:7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an [b]everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 I will give to you and to your descendants after ssiah... put the point is moot. biblegod said his covenant is everlasting and you are wrong.[/b]

the agreement to which you refer is the Abrahamic covenant or agreement, literally
a promise, it differed from the Law covenant as it was unilateral. The covenant
promises were passed on to Abraham’s posterity through Isaac (Ge 26:2-4) and
Jacob. (Ge 28:13-15; 35:11, 12) The apostle Paul says that Christ (as primary one)
and those in union with Christ are the real “seed.”—Ga 3:16, 28, 29.

God revealed the purpose and accomplishments of the Abrahamic covenant, saying
that through Abraham the seed of promise would come; this seed would possess the
gate of his enemies; Abraham’s seed through Isaac would number many,
uncountable to man at that time; Abraham’s name would be made great; the seed
would possess the Promised Land; all families of the earth would bless themselves
by means of the seed. There was a literal fulfillment of these things, which was
typical of the greater fulfillment through Christ. Paul gives additional information as
to the symbolic and prophetic nature of the terms of this covenant when he says
that Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, and Ishmael enacted a symbolic drama.—Ga
4:21-31.

Originally posted by FMF
It's a straight forward question: With Jesus's status and 'meaning' obviously being unclear to the "Chosen People", why would God not make the revelation clearer and make it less open to religionist cherry picking and speculation?

Do you want me to reply with "glee" or a sigh ?

Joseph's status was unclear to his brothers for a season.
Moses's status was equally unclear to the Hebrews in bitter bondage to Egypt, at least for awhile. David's status was unclear to Israel at least during the rebellion of Absalom.

Many of the prophets "status" was severly questioned.
In all these cases though, usually a remnant was not completely unclear.

The early church was composed of "clear" Jews. And though there is much unclarity among both Christians and Jews, at time is coming when everything will be clear.

There are only a few tenets of my faith that I think are worth really fighting for. There are a great many things in which I am general. I may have an opinion. It doesn't mean I have no view. But I can be accomodating because it is not a criticial point always.

There are many many more of those matters than the four of five matters that I would really fight for.

Anyway, many Jews these days are coming to Christ. There is as of yet not a national turn. But one is coming.

We witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall. Unimaginable.
We witnessed the Soviet Union break up. Again this was unimaginable.

We may also see Israel in our lifetime TURN fully to Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus the Lord. We who believe in prophesy know this is the inevitable of history for the nation of Israel.

But for the record, as far as I am concerned. There are thousands of minor points that I do not feel are worth a major dispute, though I may have a view and spoeak up for that view. There are a few matters that I would fight for with more seriousness.

I think if you collect all of my posts, you would see that many things I do not insist on too strongly once I have stated my view. So I think you have a bit of a caricature in picturing us Christians as at each other's throats on every subject.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sooo wrong, note the qualifying statement, those 'producing its fruits', clearly many
of the ancient Hebrews accepted Christ as the Messiah individually and thus became
what the scriptures term, part of a new nation, but as whole, he wad rejected as the
prophetic word states and thus the opportunity to be part of the Kingdom was
withdrawn as ...[text shortened]... you
were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been
shown mercy.

Good stuff. And in fact the first chosen to be of this Royal Priesthood were from the Jews there that did follow Jesus. So this promise was fulfilled and this was the beginning of the "Little Flock" Jesus spoke of which is the 144,000 that will go to heaven to rule with Jesus over the Kingdom.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the agreement to which you refer is the Abrahamic covenant or agreement, literally
a promise, it differed from the Law covenant as it was unilateral. The covenant
promises were passed on to Abraham’s posterity through Isaac (Ge 26:2-4) and
Jacob. (Ge 28:13-15; 35:11, 12) The apostle Paul says that Christ (as primary one)
and those in union w ...[text shortened]... he says
that Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, and Ishmael enacted a symbolic drama.—Ga
4:21-31.

sorry, your rationalization is nonsensical. my reply concerning galvestron75's assertion that the jews are no longer biblegod's people remains. the contract with isaac was eternal and not subject to them accepting some future and as yet (at that time) undeclared messiah.

ergo, the hebrews (including the jews) remain biblegod's people. he kind of stresses this point throughout the bible.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
sorry, your rationalization is nonsensical. my reply concerning galvestron75's assertion that the jews are no longer biblegod's people remains. the contract with isaac was eternal and not subject to them accepting some future and as yet (at that time) undeclared messiah.

ergo, the hebrews (including the jews) remain biblegod's people. he kind of stresses this point throughout the bible.

Prove it.....

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
sorry, your rationalization is nonsensical. my reply concerning galvestron75's assertion that the jews are no longer biblegod's people remains. the contract with isaac was eternal and not subject to them accepting some future and as yet (at that time) undeclared messiah.

ergo, the hebrews (including the jews) remain biblegod's people. he kind of stresses this point throughout the bible.

Paul dealt with that Romans 11. Apparently that was also an issue then. The chapter starts off with ..

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

God did not abandon Israel. Paul also warns Gentiles against thinking that they are superior to the Jews because thats the same mistake the Jews were making at the time about the Gentiles .. [verse 16-20]

There are also other verses which makes the same point... that is that becuse of Christ the Jews and Gentiles now stand on the same footing. Nobody is better in the eyes of God.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
sorry, your rationalization is nonsensical. my reply concerning galvestron75's assertion that the jews are no longer biblegod's people remains. the contract with isaac was eternal and not subject to them accepting some future and as yet (at that time) undeclared messiah.

ergo, the hebrews (including the jews) remain biblegod's people. he kind of stresses this point throughout the bible.

not only does it make perfect sense its biblically sound. Its not my fault you had no
idea that Paul elucidated upon the covenant and what it meant is spiritual terms, is
it. Your last point is also a falsehood, clearly as Paul , Peter and Christ
demonstrate, a new spiritual nation was born, what the Bible refers to as the Israel
of God. That it would include non natural Jews is clearly indicated by Peter when he
quotes directly from Isaiah and Amos,

(Isaiah 55:5) . . .Look! A nation that you do not know you will call, and those of a
nation who have not known you will run even to you, for the sake of Jehovah your
God, and for the Holy One of Israel, because he will have beautified you.

(Acts 15:16-18) . . .After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David
that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again,  in order that
those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of
all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing
these things,  known from of old.. . .

Clearly only a small remnant of naturalised Jews would be present in this new
nation, as the apostle noted, those who remained together with the people of the
nations. Clearly God had withdrawn both his blessing and protection of natural
Israel when he permitted the Romans to prophetically fulfil Christ's words and
vanquish both the temple and the people in 70AD.

These Biblical and historical facts are incontrovertible.

Originally posted by josephw
Ask God.

I did and he didn't answer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not only does it make perfect sense its biblically sound. Its not my fault you had no
idea that Paul elucidated upon the covenant and what it meant is spiritual terms, is
it. Your last point is also a falsehood, clearly as Paul , Peter and Christ
demonstrate, a new spiritual nation was born, what the Bible refers to as the Israel
of God. T ...[text shortened]... e temple and the people in 70AD.

These Biblical and historical facts are incontrovertible.

there are no facts that you listed. the facts are that the covenant made with isaac was eternal. that means it won't change and refer to someone else in the future. it's not a spiritual thing. it's a physical covenant; the descendants of isaac will be god's people and he their god.

christ/paul or whoever in the new testament changing things around is of no consequence to the original, eternal covenant. ergo it was rejected by the jews, for it presented falsehoods about their god that simply was not compatible with what their god had told them earlier through the prophets.

so it stands on sound biblical scripture that the hebrews remain god's people; that the covenant is eternal; that it refers to physical descendants; and finally that you are completely wrong.

but thanks for trying.