For Whom Did Jesus Christ Die To Atone?

[jeremiah1five]

The 37 'books' of the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets says the Promised Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and King died for the children of Israel.
He was prophesied in the Torah:

15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deut. 18:15.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deut. 18:17–18.

The Holy Spirit through the angel Gabriel gave command to Joseph and Mary what to name Him (Israel's Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and King) and why:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matt. 1:20-21.

"His people" being the Hebrews also known as the children of Israel. And when Jesus was ready to begin His Ministry TO and FOR "His people" the children of Israel, John said this:

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. Jn 1:30–31.

Jesus Himself declares this truth when He says:

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt. 15:23–24.

The Mosaic Covenant God made with the children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle with all the implements of the Tabernacle prefiguring Jesus Christ, along with the Passover Feast and the animal sacrifices that were done and practiced TO and FOR the children of Israel, all of it was done TO and FOR Israel. The Day of Atonement with the animal sacrifices were done yearly to cover the sins of the children of Israel with a view to Isaiah's prophecies about the Lord's Servant who would be the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the children of Israel - NOT GENTILES.
One thing you WILL NOT FIND in the 37 'books' of the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets is the high priest after sacrificing animals to atone the sins of the children of Israel for one year did not leave Israel and go to any Gentile peoples living around Israel and offer sacrifices or pray for Gentiles. That never happened.
So, what is all this false, Constantinian Gentile theology of the last 1900 years that Jesus Christ, ISRAEL'S Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and King, died for Gentiles? This is very, very, far from the truth.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and He did this as per covenant and prophecies that said He will come to do this and to do it all TO and FOR the children of Israel.

For whom did Jesus Christ die?

He died (and resurrected) for those that were in covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a people known as the children of Israel.

 

[CrowCross]

For whom did Jesus Christ die?

ME!!!!!!

 

[jeremiah1five]

ME!!!!!!

Noooooooooooooooooo!

 

[Arial]

He died (and resurrected) for those that were in covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a people known as the children of Israel.

Can you tell me when and to whom God first promised redemption?

 

[Mr GLee]

The 37 'books' of the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets says the Promised Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and King died for the children of Israel.
He was prophesied in the Torah:

Who is your brother, brother .. . Jesus? ?

Yes the Son of man Jesus our brother in the Lord the propmised deliver demonstrating the powerful work of the father, eternal God working in the Son of man Jesus .Our brother in the Lord .

I would offer.

Matthew 12:50 for whoever may do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.'

Mark 3:35 for whoever may do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Matthew 23:9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[CrowCross]

Noooooooooooooooooo!

So, Jesus didn't die for my sins?

Oh my, my...you are so anti-christ.

 

[Arial]

Rebuttal to the OP

The Mosaic Covenant God made with the children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle with all the implements of the Tabernacle prefiguring Jesus Christ, along with the Passover Feast and the animal sacrifices that were done and practiced TO and FOR the children of Israel, all of it was done TO and FOR Israel. The Day of Atonement with the animal sacrifices were done yearly to cover the sins of the children of Israel with a view to Isaiah's prophecies about the Lord's Servant who would be the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the children of Israel - NOT GENTILES.
One thing you WILL NOT FIND in the 37 'books' of the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets is the high priest after sacrificing animals to atone the sins of the children of Israel for one year did not leave Israel and go to any Gentile peoples living around Israel and offer sacrifices or pray for Gentiles. That never happened.
So, what is all this false, Constantinian Gentile theology of the last 1900 years that Jesus Christ, ISRAEL'S Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and King, died for Gentiles? This is very, very, far from the truth.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and He did this as per covenant and prophecies that said He will come to do this and to do it all TO and FOR the children of Israel.

For whom did Jesus Christ die?

He died (and resurrected) for those that were in covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a people known as the children of Israel

The OP shows a very limited and uninformed view of both covenant and redemption. It restricts covenant to one area and one ethnic people, disregarding the continuation of the unfolding of redemption as one purpose, many parts, but all a part of the progression towards full redemption, not isolated from the whole, but part of it. It restricts it to people only, completely alienating it from creation itself. It reduces the person and work of Christ to one tiny dot amidst the whole world, and a people according to DNA.

So, lets first establish what a biblical covenant is. Any covenant establishes a relationship between two or more parties, whether biblical or secular or pagan.The ancient pagan world was filled with covenant relationships. A covenant with God is always initiated by Him and it establishes the parameters of His relationship to us and us to Him. There are many types of covenants, but it is always the greater who determines who will be in the covenant, the covenant obligations of both Himself and those He covenants with, and their responsibilities and obligations to Him, and the consequence of covenant breaking. If it contains covenant language in the Bible, it is a covenantal relationship, whether it is officially named a covenant or is not.

We start with God in Gen chapter 1, at creation of our world. God, as the Creator of all that is, and sovereign over it, is always the covenant maker. The world is created covenantally in that God creates everything, with an established purpose, duty, obligation to Him, and He supplies every need for these obligations to be met. He establishes the covenant relationship with every created thing and we see it in Gen 1 and 2. He does not create and then walk away, but is faithful to all he creates, and interacts historically with it.

In the case of mankind, the only created being that was made in His image and likeness, there is another covenant, specifically with them but that affects all the rest of creation. He gives man dominion over the creation to tend and care for it. But this dominion is not independent of His dominion. It is under His dominion, and is to mirror His moral character. If they do this, He will continue to dwell with them, provide for every need, and give them access to the Tree of Life. If they eat of the one forbidden tree, they will die.

What happened, is as they say, history. But at that time God sets His plan into forward motion with a promise of redemption---that is man restored to fellowship with God. A promise of once again His dwelling among us. And as all else in creation propagates and multiplies by seed, so too does redemption. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." This is a covenant promise.

The Mosaic covenant at SInai was serving the covenant God had with creation itself, and that was renewed after the flood. And it was the preeminent seed that was always the goal. Everything, even the Mosaic covenant with Israel is working towards the coming of the Seed, the offspring, that would win the war that began when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden and God subjected all of creation to futility. (Romans 8:18-25)

Israel becoming a nation had a particular purpose in redemption, and that was to be a witness to all those nations surrounding them, that there were not many gods, but only One God who made all things and governs all things. They were not intended to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but were intended to not adopt the ways of the pagans, having other gods before Him. They were intended to be a living witness of both His sovereignty, His covenant promises and power, and His character. In all of this they failed, breaking the covenant. But it did not stop God's redemption of creation, through the redemption of mankind, because redemption was not coming through just the genetic offspring of Abraham, but but through the line of Seth.

This Seed was in Isaac. It was not in Esau, it was in Jacob. It was not in all twelve of Jacob's sons, it was in Judah. Then David, who God made a specific covenant promise. That his kingly throne was forever. And Christ is that King. The promised Seed.

In Christ this covenant promise is fulfilled, the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled, the promised new covenant came into effect at His death, resurrection, and ascension. And it is not with Israel only for Paul explains this. Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named," This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." The promise goes back to the promise of the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent's head. And the promise to Abraham of faith being counted as righteousness.

Romans 9:22-26 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory---even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

Any people who are called His people are in a covenant relationship with Him. Anyone who is called a son of the living God, is in a covenant relationship with Him. And not only a covenant but a family covenant relationship. Father, children.

The disconnection between the Mosaic covenant from the covenant of redemption is what causes dispensationalist of all forms, to only be able to read the OT through their dispensationalist lens. And it is what causes the distortion and ungodly statements in the OP of God making no covenant with Gentiles, and of Christ not dying and atoning for any Gentiles, only Jews.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Can you tell me when and to whom God first promised redemption?

Many Gentiles (and I mean "Christian") would give the textbook answer and knee-jerk response and say "Adam" (and the woman), but I will disagree and say "Abraham."
The life that God promised to Adam, contingent upon his obedience and refraining from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was not one of total redemption (i.e. body, soul, human spirit.).
According to the reasoning of my understanding and belief that God created Adam body, soul, and human spirit and also created fallen short of the glory of God (sinful.) Given that God said, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17), is not eternal life if he didn't eat thereof (and there is no duration attached to the command and this logically leads me to believe God knew of the sinful desire of the woman to eat it), and the fact that in eating they both died "in the day." Since they were both sinners before the command concerning the Tree is concerned, the 'death' that occurred was not physical, but a death of the human spirit because again, death is the punishment for sin and they were already sinners and physical death was every moment creeping upon them because they didn't possess eternal life to begin with (Gen. 3:22), and second, by adding to the Word of God "Neither shall ye touch it" reveals no "death" for mentioned for adding to God's Word. Being created sinful, physical death was already a part of their existence. The death God was referring in my mind was a spiritual death, but nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but death of the human spirit. And it was the human spirit that died "in the day" they both ate from the Tree.

As we have the advantage of looking back, we see from Scripture three progressive salvation covenants God entered with the Hebrew family line beginning with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and ending with the salvation of the Hebrew people in Jesus Christ, Israel's Deliverer, Redeemer, Messiah, and King.
This family line Abram was born into were already in some form of relationship with God because these people were already worshiping Creator God (which is what "calling on the Name of the Lord" means - Gen. 4:26), and beginning with Salah who "crossed over" the Jordan in obedience "to fill the earth" as opposed to the other Adamites who stayed together in a group, a distinction between the obedient class and a disobedient class emerged.

Redemption began with a covenant between God and Abraham and the sign of this covenant which divided and separated Abraham from the rest of the Adamites was circumcision of the flesh which prefigured a circumcision of the heart in spiritual conversion and salvation. The offering up as sacrifice of Isaac by his father, Abraham, also prefigures a salvation sacrifice wrought in time by the Son of God Jesus Christ.

 

[jeremiah1five]

So, Jesus didn't die for my sins?

Oh my, my...you are so anti-christ.

Nooooooooooo!

 

[CrowCross]

Nooooooooooo!

So, Jesus didn't die in your place?

Perhaps that explains your strange theology.

 

[Arial]

Many Gentiles (and I mean "Christian") would give the textbook answer and knee-jerk response and say "Adam" (and the woman), but I will disagree and say "Abraham."

And you would be wrong. And what you call a textbook and knee-jerk response would imply that no thought or study was applied, and again, you would be wrong.

The life that God promised to Adam, contingent upon his obedience and refraining from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was not one of total redemption (i.e. body, soul, human spirit.).

It wasn't redemption at all. Until he fell it did not need to redeemed.

According to the reasoning of my understanding and belief that God created Adam body, soul, and human spirit and also created fallen short of the glory of God (sinful.)

That is neither sound reasoning or understanding. If God created us sinful that itself would be sinful, as it is in direct violation of who He declares Himself to be. Man wasn't created fallen short of the glory of God, he fell short of that glory. He was created in the image and likeness of God. Meaning he could reflect that image and that likeness in all his ways. He also was created a sentient being, and one with a will---actions motivated by desires. Therefore he could sin and he did, but he did not have to sin.

Given that God said, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17), is not eternal life if he didn't eat thereof (and there is no duration attached to the command and this logically leads me to believe God knew of the sinful desire of the woman to eat it), and the fact that in eating they both died "in the day." Since they were both sinners before the command concerning the Tree is concerned, the 'death' that occurred was not physical, but a death of the human spirit because again, death is the punishment for sin and they were already sinners and physical death was every moment creeping upon them because they didn't possess eternal life to begin with (Gen. 3:22), and second, by adding to the Word of God "Neither shall ye touch it" reveals no "death" for mentioned for adding to God's Word. Being created sinful, physical death was already a part of their existence.

That second sentence exceeds even the longest of Paul's compound sentences.

They were not both sinners before they ate of the forbidden tree, otherwise God would not have been walking with them. Of course God knew she would eat of the tree. That does not mean she had sinful desires. She was deceived and there is no record that she heard the command directly from God, for she repeats it is a slightly distorted manner. They did not die a physical death on that day, but they did die and condemned the entire human race to the same fate. In addition, everything increation also began to die. God subjected it all to futility. And the human spirit did not die, or they would have died on the spot. They, and consequently us, no longer had God, the source of eternal life, dwelling with them. They were cast out of the garden with no access to the tree of life---which byw I believe is Christ, given that it is said that He is Life, and life everlasting.

They did not inherently possess eternal life but only be eating of the tree of life. They were not created as immortal beings or created incorruptible. They were capable of dying if they became corrupted. At the fullness of our redemption we will be immortal and incorruptible. That is the goal.

The death God was referring in my mind was a spiritual death, but nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but death of the human spirit. And it was the human spirit that died "in the day" they both ate from the Tree.

It was a spiritual death but that is not the same thing as the death of the human spirit. And the Holy Spirit has everything to do with this fallen man becoming a new creation in Christ.

 

[Arial]

As we have the advantage of looking back, we see from Scripture three progressive salvation covenants God entered with the Hebrew family line beginning with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and ending with the salvation of the Hebrew people in Jesus Christ, Israel's Deliverer, Redeemer, Messiah, and King.

See my rebuttal.

This family line Abram was born into were already in some form of relationship with God because these people were already worshiping Creator God (which is what "calling on the Name of the Lord" means - Gen. 4:26), and beginning with Salah who "crossed over" the Jordan in obedience "to fill the earth" as opposed to the other Adamites who stayed together in a group, a distinction between the obedient class and a disobedient class emerged.

They were all disobedient---even Abraham. It isn't about obedience or disobedience it is about God's election. And His election is always according to His purpose, and His ultimate purpose is redemption of His entire creation and all who will then dwell in it---and through them, since it was through them (mankind) that redemption of the entire creation became necessary. Israel is not the whole, it is one historical portion---that is, taking place historically.

Redemption began with a covenant between God and Abraham and the sign of this covenant which divided and separated Abraham from the rest of the Adamites was circumcision of the flesh which prefigured a circumcision of the heart in spiritual conversion and salvation.

No it didn't. Redemption began with "He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel." It is Seth who carries that Offspring.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Rebuttal to the OP
...A covenant with God is always initiated by Him and it establishes the parameters of His relationship to us and us to Him. There are many types of covenants, but it is always the greater who determines who will be in the covenant, the covenant obligations of both Himself and those He covenants with, and their responsibilities and obligations to Him, and the consequence of covenant breaking. If it contains covenant language in the Bible, it is a covenantal relationship, whether it is officially named a covenant or is not.

First, Scripture, Jesus said, cannot be broken.

And you are correct. It is the greater party that determines who is in a covenant, and by your own agreement God determined who was to be in covenant with Him and Scripture in Genesis identifies who is to be in covenant with God:

Abram the Hebrew and his seed:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen. 17:6–7.

In other words the Hebrews also known as the Children of Jacob/Israel and the House of Israel (identified in all three salvation covenants.)

And non-Hebrews do not come from Hebrew parents. But since Abraham there have been intermarriages, rapes, fornication, concubinage, between Hebrews and non-Hebrews (Gentiles). They are not full Hebrew and/or full Gentile but a mix of both, and as I also said, anyone who is born-again and saved who believes themselves to be Gentile (non-Hebrew) may have Abraham's DNA/seed in their family lines because God is a Promise Keeper to Abraham The existence of a great number of Samaritans sets to shadow for a Jew-Gentile people that have come from the three exilic captures and driving away of the Hebrews from their homeland (Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

So, Jesus didn't die in your place?

Perhaps that explains your strange theology.

Truth has to start somewhere and it usually begins with one.
Thank you, Matin Luther.

 

[jeremiah1five]

See my rebuttal.

I did. Typical Gentile response that exclude the true Bride and Church and apple of God's own eye: The Hebrews.

They were all disobedient---even Abraham. It isn't about obedience or disobedience it is about God's election. And His election is always according to His purpose, and His ultimate purpose is redemption of His entire creation and all who will then dwell in it---and through them, since it was through them (mankind) that redemption of the entire creation became necessary. Israel is not the whole, it is one historical portion---that is, taking place historically.

Just as there are born-again Christians who are disobedient at times. Even Abraham. God told him to leave his family behind, but he took his father-in-law and Lot. Disobedient. And he didn't follow the LORD to a place He was to show him. He kicked back in Haran until his father-in-law died. THEN he got up and the LORD led him onward, Christian soldier.
Finally.

No it didn't. Redemption began with "He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel." It is Seth who carries that Offspring.

You said and I agree covenant comes with covenant language between two parties and that's what happened between God and Abram the Hebrew. It continued with the children of Israel (Mosaic) and again with the House of Israel (New.) And in all three there are no Gentiles in these covenants.
Then, there are promises God makes without terms such as the Davidic Covenant and the "seed of the woman/seed of the serpent." That's not a covenant because God is speaking to the serpent.
Seth was an obedient man and from whom the Abrahamic family line can be traced to, but there was no salvation/redemption covenant with anyone except beginning with Abram the Hebrew and such covenant that passed to his seed (Isaac, Jacob.)

 

[Arial]

Typical Gentile response that exclude the true Bride and Church and apple of God's own eye: The Hebrews.

You can ignore it if you like. That is to your own detriment. You can use the fallacious argument that it is a Gentile response. But fallacious arguments are the result of not having any support but one's own shortcomings of study, and just spouting what they think something sounds like. Your view is no different than the one that Jesus was attempting to break in the Jews of His day. Or for the very reason that God scattered the Jews into other nations. And that is, that they had turned their allegiance to and and the grace and blessing of God as their God, into a national and political one. The covenant to them, with a few exceptions, was no longer a matter of reflecting the image of God to the world, and revealing it to all nations, as was God's intention, to being a political entity of power. They alone were special. They alone had God. They worshiped Him according to Law while also being brutal, without compassion on the poor and needy, violating left and right the moral code, even worshiping other gods. In essence, God was obligated to them by covenant but they were not obligated to Him.

Just as there are born-again Christians who are disobedient at times. Even Abraham. God told him to leave his family behind, but he took his father-in-law and Lot. Disobedient. And he didn't follow the LORD to a place He was to show him. He kicked back in Haran until his father-in-law died. THEN he got up and the LORD led him onward, Christian soldier.
Finally.

Red herring. Does not address my post.

You said and I agree covenant comes with covenant language between two parties and that's what happened between God and Abram the Hebrew. It continued with the children of Israel (Mosaic) and again with the House of Israel (New.) And in all three there are no Gentiles in these covenants.

Redemption is not about Jew and Gentile. And the new covenant establishes a relationship with God and all types of people, in Christ. Just as Paul tells us in both Romans and Gal. If Jesus did not atone for Gentiles, then who atoned for you?

 

[Arial]

First, Scripture, Jesus said, cannot be broken.

And you are correct. It is the greater party that determines who is in a covenant, and by your own agreement God determined who was to be in covenant with Him and Scripture in Genesis identifies who is to be in covenant with God:

Abram the Hebrew and his seed:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen. 17:6–7.

In other words the Hebrews also known as the Children of Jacob/Israel and the House of Israel (identified in all three salvation covenants.)

And non-Hebrews do not come from Hebrew parents. But since Abraham there have been intermarriages, rapes, fornication, concubinage, between Hebrews and non-Hebrews (Gentiles). They are not full Hebrew and/or full Gentile but a mix of both, and as I also said, anyone who is born-again and saved who believes themselves to be Gentile (non-Hebrew) may have Abraham's DNA/seed in their family lines because God is a Promise Keeper to Abraham The existence of a great number of Samaritans sets to shadow for a Jew-Gentile people that have come from the three exilic captures and driving away of the Hebrews from their homeland (Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman.)

That pretty much ignores the entire rest of my post in which the reason Gentile believers are in a covenant with God and the place of Israel within the entire covenant of redemption, is expounded on. As opposed to your view that has the covenant of redemption beginning and ending with geographic Israel and ethnic Jews. Not even when I first became a Christian did I ever think God was that small, and His concerns for His creation that restricted.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You can ignore it if you like. That is to your own detriment. You can use the fallacious argument that it is a Gentile response. But fallacious arguments are the result of not having any support but one's own shortcomings of study, and just spouting what they think something sounds like.

Your response is entirely Gentile in origin and mostly devoid of Hebrew and Jewish character. Gentile theology is unmoored from true, biblical Christianity and its Hebrew roots. You pay no mind to the commandments of God because as Gentiles have taught for 19 centuries after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and no Jew or Jews to guide Gentiles in Hebrew history, culture, and society, therefore, not connecting whatever beliefs Gentiles in their own understanding in the vanity of their minds were able to glean from word of mouth, even through gossip about the Jewish Christianity of Completed Judaism of the first century, the Church that Christ promised to build was completely Jewish with proselytes and God-Fearers in very low minority. Gentiles after the destruction of the Jewish Temple did not have the Torah, Psalms, or the Prophets since the Jews fled with their lives and their sacred scrolls, so, upon what then did Gentiles use as foundation of their warped version of so-called "Christianity" which broke from its Jewish roots? And through the centuries Gentiles stole biblical Christianity and not having Jew or scrolls upon which to instruct them in Jewish history and culture had nothing concrete upon which to proceed. So, with Gentile mindset they proceeded whenever they did gain any access to Hebrew scrolls but not in every fellowship throughout the empire, which is why the library in Alexandria became a center of false doctrine and other heresies developed by people like Marcion and Arius, and the rest.

Your view is no different than the one that Jesus was attempting to break in the Jews of His day.

Incorrect. Jesus dealt with a religious order in Israel that elevated the traditions of the elders over the Scripture itself. I have never done that. But I have kept connected true, biblical Christianity to its Hebrew roots and post the Scripture accordingly, not traditions of the elders. I know better.

Or for the very reason that God scattered the Jews into other nations. And that is, that they had turned their allegiance to and and the grace and blessing of God as their God, into a national and political one.

Jesus IS King of the Jews. He never chided his disciples nor the people over their desire to have the kingdom unified under their Messiah except when their desire went against the mission at hand. Even Jesus makes attempt to bring unification in Matthew 5:43 where He teaches about the original command to the children of Israel at the time of the Tabernacle lessons on love and WHO to love (brother=member of the same tribe, neighbor=member of another tribe.) Jesus' words are in context to the people He is speaking to, that is, His people the Hebrews/Jews, that same people He came to save (Matt. 1:21.) He was, after all, sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the Hose of Israel.

The covenant to them, with a few exceptions, was no longer a matter of reflecting the image of God to the world, and revealing it to all nations, as was God's intention, to being a political entity of power. They alone were special. They alone had God. They worshiped Him according to Law while also being brutal, without compassion on the poor and needy, violating left and right the moral code, even worshiping other gods. In essence, God was obligated to them by covenant but they were not obligated to Him.

I think you're confusing the religious leaders with the common folk that came from all over Israel to hear Him teach and receive blessings in His miraculous power to heal. It was the common folk in Jerusalem of the Feast of Harvest that became born-again by their Holy Spirit of Promise and 3000 Jews were converted and redeemed. Later, several years later, a "great company of priests were obedient to the New Covenant faith (Acts 6:7.)

7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7.

Greatly is the word. Multiplication is mathematics. And once saved the continued to be obedient to the Torah as thousands and thousands of Jews were born-again and continued true, biblical Christ-ianity and to them the Torah came alive.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:19–20.

Even Saul after meeting Messiah continued to be obedient to the Torah. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of their covenants. The embodiment of the Torah itself.

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:23–24.

If obedience to the Torah was the faithful practice of the first Christians, why don't Gentiles obey the Torah as well? It's the same Torah by which God will judge them with on the Great Day when all accounts are settled. Jesus said, "if you love me obey my commandments." Disobeying His commandments proves the Gentile doesn't truly love the Lord. I'm beginning to hear "Depart from me ye that worketh wickedness. I never knew you."

Saul did say, "be ye followers of me," right? He obeyed the Torah and was a glaring model to emulate. But Gentiles fail in this respect as well. Sad.

Red herring. Does not address my post.

What is that? Seafood? I'm allergic to seafood. I'm a fisher of men not of fish.

Redemption is not about Jew and Gentile. And the new covenant establishes a relationship with God and all types of people, in Christ. Just as Paul tells us in both Romans and Gal. If Jesus did not atone for Gentiles, then who atoned for you?

The New Covenant established a continued relationship between God and the House of Israel and Judah. There are no Gentiles in this covenant either.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer. 31:31.

Scripture cannot be broken so where are you going with that hammer?

 

[jeremiah1five]

That pretty much ignores the entire rest of my post in which the reason Gentile believers are in a covenant with God and the place of Israel within the entire covenant of redemption, is expounded on. As opposed to your view that has the covenant of redemption beginning and ending with geographic Israel and ethnic Jews. Not even when I first became a Christian did I ever think God was that small, and His concerns for His creation that restricted.

Scripture cannot be broken and no amount of Gentile elbowing will break it.
The New Covenant is between the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the House of Israel and Judah.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:31.

There is no mention of Gentiles in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Jesus is Named "Jesus/Yeshua" for the very reason that He comes to save "His people from their sins."

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt. 1:20–21.

Gentiles are NOT "His people." The Hebrews/Jews are.
Let's stop breaking Scripture. Take it as written. I do. That's why YOU THINK I am in error in this OP. I am not in error. I am seeing the same Jesus of the bible and saying the same thing as God. To do otherwise is to oppose God.
So, do you agree with the Scripture in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that the New Covenant is with the House of Israel (northern tribes) and Judah (southern tribes)?
Yea or nay?

 

[Arial]

Your response is entirely Gentile in origin and mostly devoid of Hebrew and Jewish character.

If this were a moderated formal debate, that sentence would disqualify as a substantive argument. It presumes that the other debater is uninformed with no supporting evidence. It presumes that what is non Jewish in origin is wrong with no supporting evidence. It presumes that only arguments that are Hebrew and Jewish in character are valid---and is done so by one who says he is not Jewish, so also presumes the authority of the poster in all things Jewish, without any supporting evidence. The fact that this is not a moderated formal debate does not lessen the fallacies in the statement made by you.

Gentile theology is unmoored from true, biblical Christianity and its Hebrew roots.

Another disqualifying remark. It presumes something unsupported and also untrue. Christianity comes from the Hebrew roots in the OT, and was given through the apostles by the Hebrew, Jesus. And there is no such thing as Gentile theology. There is only theology, and this is given in the totality of the scriptures, most vividly in the OT and applied in the NT. The NT interprets what was not fully revealed in the OT.

You pay no mind to the commandments of God because as Gentiles have taught for 19 centuries after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and no Jew or Jews to guide Gentiles in Hebrew history, culture, and society, therefore, not connecting whatever beliefs Gentiles in their own understanding in the vanity of their minds were able to glean from word of mouth, even through gossip about the Jewish Christianity of Completed Judaism of the first century, the Church that Christ promised to build was completely Jewish with proselytes and God-Fearers in very low minority.

Compound sentences do not usually contain such a conglomeration of points, so I will break it down into parts that are handleable with color coding.

That is an untrue accusation, and assumes your ability to know the operation of my mind.

You never say what it is the Gentiles teach.

Not even all the Jews in Jerusalem were killed, and Jews were scattered throughout the surrounding nations, so your entire premise for Gentiles being wrong is destroyed. It was Jewish men who were the apostles spreading the gospel, and Paul specifically sent to who? The Gentiles.

A complete fabrication and in direct opposition to historical facts both internal to Scripture and external through historical records. And where does the Bible say that the church that Christ built---not promised to build---was completely Jewish? Wasn't it Jews---the apostles---who said Christ died for the whole world? Wasn't it Jesus who said in John 10 that He had sheep not of Israel (this flock) that He would gather?

Gentiles after the destruction of the Jewish Temple did not have the Torah, Psalms, or the Prophets since the Jews fled with their lives and their sacred scrolls, so, upon what then did Gentiles use as foundation of their warped version of so-called "Christianity" which broke from its Jewish roots?

Then where did the Greek translation of the OT come from? Where did the Hebrew and Greek texts that we have in our modern Bibles come from? What you are calling the warped version of Christianity is what we have to this day in our Bible. The NT books are deeply rooted in the OT books. The writers of the NT are constantly quoting from the Law and the Prophets, and correctly applying it to the new covenant. Here is just one example. Romans 9:22-26 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people," there they will be called 'sons of the living God..'"

And through the centuries Gentiles stole biblical Christianity and not having Jew or scrolls upon which to instruct them in Jewish history and culture had nothing concrete upon which to proceed.

That is historically incorrect. The Bible contains all that is necessary of Jewish history and culture within itself. Christianity is based on the Scriptures, always has been, always will be.

So, with Gentile mindset they proceeded whenever they did gain any access to Hebrew scrolls but not in every fellowship throughout the empire, which is why the library in Alexandria became a center of false doctrine and other heresies developed by people like Marcion and Arius, and the rest.

Which is it. They had none or they had some? And no, that is not the reason why Alexandria or anywhere else, became a center of false doctrine and heresies. Which heresies and false doctrine you do not name in any case, so pretty much a wasted space of a statement in trying to prove your theory.