Why are they called Hebrews?

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(56)

Paul does talk about the land promises. When he speaks of national Israel he is talking about the land and nation of Israel as promised to Abraham. See (Rom. 9-11). (Rom. 9:4) (Rom. 9:6-10) (Rom. 11:1-2) (Rom. 11:25)

I see why you don't like to give the verses of many of the Bible references you give. Paul in (Acts 26) does not say the Resurrection has fuflilled or negated the promises to Israel. He says Israel is still looking for the fulfillment. (Acts 26:6-7) Israel was not wrong in looking for and anticipating the promises of the land and their nation Israel once again being the 'Kingdom of God'. They were wrong in rejecting their King, Jesus.

Explain your references to (Acts 2-4), (Rom. 1), (Acts 13), how that the land and national promises have been fulfilled in the Resurrection.

Paul's knowledge of Hebrew didn't lead him to Christ. Christ blinding him and knocking him to the earth led him to Christ.

You say concerning (Gal. 3:16), "where it is not many people meant by the seed, but the one Seed, Jesus Christ". By which you discount the seed promise to national Israel. But being the 'One Seed', the fulfillment of the Seed promise, does not discount others counted for the seed as you recognize when you say, "and those who enter through Him".

You don't want to count national Israel as also the seed, but you do count the believing in the Church as the seed.

Lees

None of those verses you mentioned are necessarily about the land. The issue being cleared up is whether lineage automatically includes a person in "Israel" of which there are two. Actually, I would say that, going back to 3:3, the automatic question is all through Romans. Even in 2B.

The term "saved" in Rom 11 is about justification by Christ for our sins, so that we become its messengers. John the Baptist started this word choice by referring to the one who 'takes away sins' (not the doing, but the debt problem). But you can clearly see that that 'coming to Zion' is in the historic sense; it has taken place, when Paul quotes Isaiah.

 

[EarlyActs]

re Acts 26
I generally avoid individual verses because it is far to easy to slip into brittle proof-texting of an idea.

You are wrong about the fulfilled hope. He absolutely meant that the resurrection fulfilled this hope; this is all through Acts, Rom 1, Eph 1-3 (extensive). Acts 2-4 show that the resurrection fulfilled all that Israel hoped for--a Davidic enthronement to which the world was to be subject. The grammar there in Acts 2 is quite clear: David saw the resurrection as the enthronement of Christ. The apostles consistently declare this. It is not a 'private' truth, and there is no future kingdom to watch for, as he snapped about in ch 1 (it is not for you to know). In fact his next line there is that they would shortly be made king-priests (you will be endowed with Levitical clothing when the Spirit speaks through you), which is where the 'kingdom of priests' expression is sourced in Rev and I Peter 2. It is absolutely current reality.

The kingdom is imperative. It is what should be. That means you can look at today's news and not see it at all! The nations continue to rage, Ps 2. But because of his phenomenal accomplishment in the Gospel, God has honored Christ exactly as Ps 2 and 110 say: higher than any name, and all the world is on notice to honor him, or be smashed. Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, Heb 1, etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

re Acts 13
I have an interesting history with Acts 13. I grew up in an excited modern Israel fulfillment church, dispensational theology, went to their best local college. In the 2nd year, I was a conference by two Australian speakers on the Reformation, and that was the first time anyone ever taught me Acts 13--in 10 years!

I just let you read it 10x and get back to me. Remember, it is an official transcript of what Paul said in synagogues, with 'echo' (feedback) by Jews, who could not believe how he handled Isaiah (see v47). They were to be lights to the world through the Light to the world.

The land promise served its function until David's time, but the Abraham narrative and earlier Genesis were never confined to it. Thus Paul quotes Isaiah saying the oaths made to David were transferred to Christ, who "fulfilled all that was promised to the fathers." That promise was justification by Christ, which would also become a message to the nations. This is why early Luther hoped Jews would 'be the missionaries that Romans envisioned them being;' later Luther was a very confused person.

 

[Lees]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

@EarlyActs: concerning post #(60)

Big deal. Conflict between law and grace is not the discussion. The land promises and seed promise to Israel are the discussion. I have showed you in Scritpure that they are forever, and everlasting. Conflict between law and grace doesn't change any of it. Nice attempt to dodge though.

You tried to use (Gal. 3:16) to show the seed promise was to only One, Christ. Yet at the same time you acknowledged that the seed promise pertained to the Church. In other words, you acknowledge Seed as only One to negate any seed promise to Israel. Then you contradict yourself saying the seed is for the Church also.

Concerning post #(61)

The verses I gave in (Romans) does speak to the land because, as I said, they speak to national Israel. (Gen. 12:1-2) "...unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation...." The land is for the nation Israel.

The rest of what you say makes no sense and is not supported.

Concerning post #(62)

No, you like to avoid giving the individual verses because they make you accountable. And when one does not know what they are talking about, one does not like to be acountable. The same with the way you present your replies to me. They are confusing as to which post you are addressing. That is what you want. Hides your ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong and clear up the mud you are creating.

No, I was not wrong concerning (Acts 26). Israel was not wrong in anticipating and looking for the promise of the land and the Kingdom to return to the nation of Israel. (Acts 26:6-7) And Paul wasn't indicating the Resurrection of Christ proved that they were. Israel's error was rejection her King, Jesus.

The Davidic hope you speak of has the reign ruling from Jerusalem. See (Deut. 30:1-10) (Deut. 30:3-5) "That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy god hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."

There is no problem with the resurrected Christ being on the throne. He will be...in the land promised to Abraham. It is future as Christ is not yet on the throne in the land.

The Kingdom is God's will being exercised on earth. The Kingdom of God come upon the earth. "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." (Matt. 6:10)

Concerning post #(63)

I have read (Acts 13). Why don't you just give me the verses and how they show what you are telling me.

No, I have showed you the land promise is eternal. Everlasting. (Gen. 13:15) (Gen. 17:8) (Jer. 31:35-37)

Luther is not the only one.

Lees

I wish everyone would ignore @EarlyActs. He posts inflamatory posts which are clearly against the plain reading of Scripture. Just ignore the guy.