BonfireNerd04 said:

---

And many Germans never voted for Hitler. They still got treated as the enemy during the war, and still got forced out of their homes afterwards (if living east of the Oder or Neisse river).

Innocent people have to pay for the crimes of their governments. It sucks, but that's just how war works. The same in 2023 as in 1945.

---

In your analogy the goal of the Allies wasn't to wipe out the German people or remove them from their land and disperse them elsewhere.

The goal was to take out Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Once that was accomplished the West established military presence there and they had free and open democratic elections (in West Germany).

Jabin said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

And many Germans never voted for Hitler. They still got treated as the enemy during the war, and still got forced out of their homes afterwards (if living east of the Oder or Neisse river).

Innocent people have to pay for the crimes of their governments. It sucks, but that's just how war works. The same in 2023 as in 1945.

---

In your analogy the goal of the Allies wasn't to wipe out the German people or remove them from their land and disperse them elsewhere.

The goal was to take out Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Once that was accomplished the West established military presence there and they had free and open democratic elections (in West Germany).

---

The Allies did allow the Russians to forcibly remove hundreds of thousands of Germans from traditionally Germanic lands.

We also firebombed German and Japanese cities (nuking them also), killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our goal in demanding unconditional surrender from both nations may not have been to "wipe them out", but it was clearly to give us a free reign within their societies to remove what was seen as a warlike tendency and history associated with both.

Relocation is not the same as genocide and, in fact, may dilute the meaning and horror of genocide.

---

Yep, there was a lot of violence, but Germany and Japan were reformed and the German and Japanese people live in their ancestral homelands today, just as the Palestine people can live in Palestine.

Jabin said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

And many Germans never voted for Hitler. They still got treated as the enemy during the war, and still got forced out of their homes afterwards (if living east of the Oder or Neisse river).

Innocent people have to pay for the crimes of their governments. It sucks, but that's just how war works. The same in 2023 as in 1945.

---

In your analogy the goal of the Allies wasn't to wipe out the German people or remove them from their land and disperse them elsewhere.

The goal was to take out Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Once that was accomplished the West established military presence there and they had free and open democratic elections (in West Germany).

---

The Allies did allow the Russians to forcibly remove hundreds of thousands of Germans from traditionally Germanic lands.

We also firebombed German and Japanese cities (nuking them also), killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our goal in demanding unconditional surrender from both nations may not have been to "wipe them out", but it was clearly to give us a free reign within their societies to remove what was seen as a warlike tendency and history associated with both.

Relocation is not the same as genocide and, in fact, may dilute the meaning and horror of genocide.

---

Yep, there was a lot of violence, but Germany and Japan were reformed and the German and Japanese people live in their ancestral homelands today, just as the Palestine people can live in Palestine.

---

Not all of the Germans do. Millions were forcibly removed from Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. The Allies also arbitrarily cut up and created dozens of nations, frequently ignoring "ancestral homelands" and tribal boundaries.

---

Yeah, sure, and there was a country of Germany and a country of Japan after WW2.

So what are the boundaries of the country of Palestine in this analogy?

Nazi Germany (a powerful war machine attacking smaller, weaker neighbors) isn't really a good analogy here.

The better analogy to Israel would be colonial apartheids like South Africa or Rhodesia, with Hamas in the role of Marxist terrorist groups.

Whites in both African countries brought technological progress and infrastructure development, but had to deal with a demographic disadvantage.

In the mid-20th century, the white population started having to deal with barbaric terrorist attacks.

Ultimately though, the key difference was that the US and UK abandoned South Africa and Rhodesia to the Marxists and the regimes ultimately fell.

Israel was a staunch supporter of both apartheid regimes and you can be sure they are looking to the fate of those countries as historical precedents for what they want to avoid.

Serotonin said:

---

Negative ghost rider.

Modern Jews are not ancient Israel and are not a monolith.

Their views on Palestine are as diverse as the views of 'white' Americans on any issue here like abortion or MAGA.

63% of American Jews believe in a peaceful two-state solution, higher than the rest of the U.S. adult population.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/

---

I was just reading chapter 39 today and found this, now admittedly I have always heard Ezekiel 38-39 referenced but have never fully read them but it's amazing how well it correlates to to modern times.

Quote:

---

""Therefore thus says the Lord God: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name. They shall forget their shame and all the treachery they have practiced against me, when they dwell securely in their land with none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them from their enemies' lands, and through them have vindicated my holiness in the sight of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the Lord their God, because I sent them into exile among the nations and then assembled them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations anymore. And I will not hide my face anymore from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord God.""
Ezekiel 39:25-29 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/ezk.39.26-29.ESV

---

AG @ HEART said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Negative ghost rider.

Modern Jews are not ancient Israel and are not a monolith.

Their views on Palestine are as diverse as the views of 'white' Americans on any issue here like abortion or MAGA.

63% of American Jews believe in a peaceful two-state solution, higher than the rest of the U.S. adult population.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/

---

I was just reading chapter 39 today and found this, now admittedly I have always heard Ezekiel 38-39 referenced but have never fully read them but it's amazing how well it correlates to to modern times.

Quote:

---

""Therefore thus says the Lord God: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name. They shall forget their shame and all the treachery they have practiced against me, when they dwell securely in their land with none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them from their enemies' lands, and through them have vindicated my holiness in the sight of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the Lord their God, because I sent them into exile among the nations and then assembled them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations anymore. And I will not hide my face anymore from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord God.""
Ezekiel 39:25-29 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/ezk.39.26-29.ESV

---

---

Yes, God does not break his word.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

There were Christians living in Nagasaki, Japan, but that didn't stop the US from nuking them. War is hell.

---

Yes, there is violence in this world and it will get worse especially for the Jews.

Lots of nonsense like we are under a new covenant so the Jews are no longer God's chosen people.

God does not break his word.

Zobel said:

---

How do you understand what St Paul means when he says not all who are of Israel are Israel?

---

In the same vein all "Christians" are not following Christ but just culturally one in name only.

"Christians" aren't identified by who their parents are. I don't think that is applicable.

Zobel said:

---

"Christians" aren't identified by who their parents are. I don't think that is applicable.

---

Some people say they are by live antithetical lives to Christ.

While true, it is not relevant to the question at hand. He seems to be under the mistaken impression that blood is what makes you part of God's chosen people. That is not the case, and has never been the case.

Quote:

---

blood is what makes you part of God's chosen people. That . . . has never been the case.

---

Wut?

So descendants of Abraham were not, at any time in history, part of God's chosen people?

Not merely by blood, no. A mixed multitude went out from Egypt - not only descendants of Abraham. Israel was a new nation made from nothing, starting with Abram but added to by the faithful from other people. St Paul is explicit - not all who are of Israel are Israel, and nor because they are the offspring of Abraham are they his children. When St Paul affirms who are the children of promise, and who are the sons of Abraham, he speaks to gentiles and speaks of them as "we" including himself (eg Gal 4). It's not about ethnicity and it never was.

You seem to be overlooking a lot of the rest of the Bible, including the rest of Romans such as Chapter 11 and 3:1-3. You also seem to be converting the concept of God's grafting in of the Gentiles to the vine of Israel into God completely destroying or ignoring the original vine.

God seemed to want an awful lot of genealogies in the Bible if physical descent was completely irrelevant.

You also seem to believe that the statement of fulfillment in Joshua means that there can only be one fulfillment. And that passage is hard to understand since it was clearly not literally fulfilled at that time.

UTExan said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Nazi Germany (a powerful war machine attacking smaller, weaker neighbors) isn't really a good analogy here.

The better analogy to Israel would be colonial apartheids like South Africa or Rhodesia, with Hamas in the role of Marxist terrorist groups.

Whites in both African countries brought technological progress and infrastructure development, but had to deal with a demographic disadvantage.

In the mid-20th century, the white population started having to deal with barbaric terrorist attacks.

Ultimately though, the key difference was that the US and UK abandoned South Africa and Rhodesia to the Marxists and the regimes ultimately fell.

Israel was a staunch supporter of both apartheid regimes and you can be sure they are looking to the fate of those countries as historical precedents for what they want to avoid.

---

That is the problem. Remove the wall and they are looking at another infitada with civilians targeted in suicide bombings, shootings and stabbings. Keep the wall in place and they are called mean names and the subject of endless meaningless UN resolutions by countries with far more repressive regimes.
You can guess which option they take.

---

Yes, I think the goal here for Hamas is to create enough terror that Jews in Israel decide to leave and live peaceful lives elsewhere.

Once the demographic crossover point happens then Jews would become a minority the exodus would only accelerate.

I think Israel sees the current state of a place like South Africa, where white farmers are targeted, infrastructure is crumbling, the economy is collapsing and think "that could be us in 20 years if we do not fight now with everything we have."

Zobel said:

---

Not merely by blood, no. A mixed multitude went out from Egypt - not only descendants of Abraham. Israel was a new nation made from nothing, starting with Abram but added to by the faithful from other people. St Paul is explicit - not all who are of Israel are Israel, and nor because they are the offspring of Abraham are they his children. When St Paul affirms who are the children of promise, and who are the sons of Abraham, he speaks to gentiles and speaks of them as "we" including himself (eg Gal 4). It's not about ethnicity and it never was.

---

What's funny is that even if you gave on the blood thing, it is Palestinian and Lebanese Christians who are the descendants of the Israelites.

Modern Jews in Israel have much more European blood.

The Israelites of the Roman era and Christ's time are Palestinian Christians.

Palestinian Christians, excluding Samaritans, are THE closest people group TODAY to the Ancient Israelites of the time of Christ. pic.twitter.com/Us016aQoB5

— Xing, PhD (@xingtemplars) October 13, 2023

It's completely ridiculous to say that European Jews have the rightful home there over the direct descendants of the Israelites who followed Christ, but that's the state of 21st century American theology.

Edit: The question of who can run the country better from a political and economic perspective is a completely different and non-theological debate (see my post above).

Jabin said:

---

You seem to be overlooking a lot of the rest of the Bible, including the rest of Romans such as Chapter 11 and 3:1-3. You also seem to be converting the concept of God's grafting in of the Gentiles to the vine of Israel into God completely destroying or ignoring the original vine.

You have badly misunderstood. Saying that Israel was never about blood - because the formation of the nation of Israel was at Pentecost and included a mixed multitude of different ethnicities - doesn't say anything whatever like what you've constructed here.

---

I'm not overlooking anything, and Romans paints this exact picture. Romans is where St Paul quite literally says, not all who are of Israel are Israel, and not all who are Abraham's seed are his children.

I never said ANYTHING about destroying the vine. The vine is Israel, not Israel according to the flesh. You should carefully note how St Paul uses three terms - Israel, All Israel, and Israel according to the flesh. They are not interchangeable, and he does not use them interchangeably. Romans 11 is about All Israel, and how All Israel (not just the Judaeans, who only represent 3 tribes) will be saved by the ingrafting of the gentiles, bringing back the lost tribes from the gentile nations into which they were scattered.

Quote:

---

God seemed to want an awful lot of genealogies in the Bible if physical descent was completely irrelevant.

---

Didn't say it was completely irrelevant. I said that Israel, and the promises associated with it, are not based on who your parents are.

Quote:

---

You also seem to believe that the statement of fulfillment in Joshua means that there can only be one fulfillment. And that passage is hard to understand since it was clearly not literally fulfilled at that time.

---

It says what it says. They inherited the land. The scriptures also say "if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you" which also happened, first to Israel, then to Judah.

It's hard not to read your post as "St Paul is wrong, all who are of Israel ARE Israel" and "Joshua is wrong, the promises were not fulfilled".

You seem to think that it has to be one or the other. Like most things relating to God, it's possible that it's both.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Caiaphas will be a full beneficiary of all of God's promises simply because he was born a Jew. However, on the other hand, being born a Jew is clearly not irrelevant given all of the promises made by God to the Jews. How exactly that works out, I have no idea.

UTExan said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Nazi Germany (a powerful war machine attacking smaller, weaker neighbors) isn't really a good analogy here.

The better analogy to Israel would be colonial apartheids like South Africa or Rhodesia, with Hamas in the role of Marxist terrorist groups.

Whites in both African countries brought technological progress and infrastructure development, but had to deal with a demographic disadvantage.

In the mid-20th century, the white population started having to deal with barbaric terrorist attacks.

Ultimately though, the key difference was that the US and UK abandoned South Africa and Rhodesia to the Marxists and the regimes ultimately fell.

Israel was a staunch supporter of both apartheid regimes and you can be sure they are looking to the fate of those countries as historical precedents for what they want to avoid.

---

That is the problem. Remove the wall and they are looking at another infitada with civilians targeted in suicide bombings, shootings and stabbings. Keep the wall in place and they are called mean names and the subject of endless meaningless UN resolutions by countries with far more repressive regimes.
You can guess which option they take.

---

Yeah you would think its easy to understand the bind of Israel but apparently not.

Jabin said:

---

You seem to think that it has to be one or the other. Like most things relating to God, it's possible that it's both.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Caiaphas will be a full beneficiary of all of God's promises simply because he was born a Jew. However, on the other hand, being born a Jew is clearly not irrelevant given all of the promises made by God to the Jews. How exactly that works out, I have no idea.

---

You can speculate. I'll stick with what the scriptures actually say. It is not both, because St Paul says it is not. Not all who are of Israel are Israel. The scriptures say who are heirs to the promises. It is not Israel according to the flesh, but all Israel.

You may be misunderstanding Paul. It seems that Paul is saying that Gentiles who believe have been grafted in. In other words, a non-Jew can be an heir to the promises. That does not mean that God's promises specifically to the Hebrews didn't mean what God said.

And your reading would render meaningless so much of the Bible that traces the lineages of many, including Christ himself. Why would God do that in the Bible if physical lineages are irrelevant?

Jabin said:

---

You may be misunderstanding Paul. It seems that Paul is saying that Gentiles who believe have been grafted in. In other words, a non-Jew can be an heir to the promises. That does not mean that God's promises specifically to the Hebrews didn't mean what God said.

And your reading would render meaningless so much of the Bible that traces the lineages of many, including Christ himself. Why would God do that in the Bible if physical lineages are irrelevant?

---

Grafted into what? The people of God. But Gentiles being grafted in doesn't change their blood, and it doesn't make them Jewish. The gentiles remain gentiles, but become Christian gentiles, and according to the scriptures children of Abraham, heirs to the promises, and part of the people of God. Therefore being of the people of God does not and cannot have an identity relationship with your blood. Which is why St Paul literally and explicitly says that, twice: not all who are of Israel are Israel, and not all who are Abraham's seed are his children. Meaning, the promises are NOT based on who your parents are.

The gentiles are grafted in to the place created for them by the dissolution of the northern kingdom, and in bringing the gentiles in God is reconstituting the tribes from the peoples they were lost into. Thus All Israel is saved, all the tribes, not just those of Judah.

Israel was formed as a nation at Passover and Pentecost. This group of people was a mixed multitude and many of the names in the scriptures are not Hebraic. Caleb for example is introduced as a Kennezite but becomes an elder of Judah. What *made* Israel was the Passover and entering into the covenant. There were faithful people of God before Israel, and the people of Israel were not solely of one family.

This is the second time you've suggested I said lineage was irrelevant, and it the second time l will post out that I did no such thing. The lineage matters, but not for who is and is not Israel, and not for who is and is not heir to the promises. Because, again, that is not what the scriptures say.

Quote:

---

The lineage matters, but not for who is and is not Israel, and not for who is and is not heir to the promises. Because, again, that is not what the scriptures say.

---

What does it matter for, then? I've asked it twice because you keep failing to address it.

God seems to put a lot of emphasis on blood and lineage and we should not read it out because of one verse, ignoring all others.

It isn't one verse. I have not quoted one verse but many. Israel the nation didn't began as an ethnic monolith.

It matters for other promises made to people, such as Abraham and David. But the promises to the people of Israel are not dependent on your parents. Simple enough - you can become an Israelite, the scriptures tell you how. And you can become part of the people of God without becoming an Israelite as a Christian.

It is a simple matter of fact that not all of Israel are saved. St Paul says so - "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." And "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved".

Even in their disobedience they are a means to save the world. Just like Joseph, they meant it for evil but He meant it for Good. As St Paul says, "through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles". And, their being Israel means they are beloved of God, and through that love ALL mankind are beloved. "God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

But NONE of that says that somehow being born Jewish gives you some kind of unique salvation or unique inheritance. Half of the NT is arguing against this exact point. Here there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all - and again, " These were all commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect."

You're confused and interweaving two different issues. One is salvation, the other is God's specific temporal promises to the physical descendants of Abraham and to the nation of Israel.

God's promises of returning the nation of Israel and restoring the promised land to it are made numerous times throughout the OT. You can't just write those out of the Bible.

Jabin said:

---

You're confused and interweaving two different issues. One is salvation, the other is God's specific temporal promises to the physical descendants of Abraham and to the nation of Israel.

God's promises of returning the nation of Israel and restoring the promised land to it are made numerous times throughout the OT. You can't just write those out of the Bible.

---

The scriptures say those promises were fulfilled, and the exact same promises about coming to worship in Jerusalem are for the gentiles as well. It's in Isaiah, Malachi, and so on.

St Paul doesnt make that distinction. Go find it, show me where it is. He says that Christ is THE heir, and if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

St Peter uses the exact same language in his epistle as is directed to Israel in Deuteronomy - " you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

You're the one inventing this whole category distinction. It doesn't exist in the scriptures. There no asterisk that some of the promises are only for some of the heirs. No. All of it is inherited by Christ, and His co-heirs.

I agree that Christians are inheritors. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. However, what you are not addressing are two issues:

1. Can God's fulfilment occur multiple times, and
2. Does grafting the Christian Gentiles into God's Chosen people remove the promises that God made to that people.

You subsume the second question by saying that Christians are inheritors. While that is true, it doesn't remove God's promise to the physical descendants of Abraham.

Your interpretation is not uncommon, but it defies the plain reading of most of the Bible.

ETA: Why do you also keep ignoring my questions about why the statement is in Joshua about God's promises having been fulfilled, when they clearly weren't at that time?

ETA 2: Even if the passage in Joshua was the only fulfillment, it was a statement that God had given the Promised Land to the nation of Israel. The passage in Romans takes nothing away from nor adds anything to that. Your arguments seem to be attempting to make God's gift of the land to the nation of Israel null and void.

And what do you do with all of these prophetic verses about God restoring the remnant of Israel and Judah and restoring them to the land? Do you think that they mean believers only?

23 Bible verses about Land Permanently Restored To Israel (knowing-jesus.com)

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

blood is what makes you part of God's chosen people. That . . . has never been the case.

---

Wut?

So descendants of Abraham were not, at any time in history, part of God's chosen people?

---

They are, but so are we. We are grafted in. Abraham is also the father of the gentile because he was not circumcised when he was credited righteousness and when God made the covenant with him. Just as it says "the lord makes it rain in the just and the unjust" trust me there are blood Jews in hell, they may have been blessed while alive but being Jewish doesn't get you to the kingdom.

AG @ HEART said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

blood is what makes you part of God's chosen people. That . . . has never been the case.

---

Wut?

So descendants of Abraham were not, at any time in history, part of God's chosen people?

---

They are, but so are we. We are grafted in. Abraham is also the father of the gentile because he was not circumcised when he was credited righteousness and when God made the covenant with him. Just as it says "the lord makes it rain in the just and the unjust" trust me there are blood Jews in hell, they may have been blessed while alive but being Jewish doesn't get you to the kingdom.

---

I agree with you but Zobel apparently doesn't.

Jabin said:

---

AG @ HEART said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

blood is what makes you part of God's chosen people. That . . . has never been the case.

---

Wut?

So descendants of Abraham were not, at any time in history, part of God's chosen people?

---

They are, but so are we. We are grafted in. Abraham is also the father of the gentile because he was not circumcised when he was credited righteousness and when God made the covenant with him. Just as it says "the lord makes it rain in the just and the unjust" trust me there are blood Jews in hell, they may have been blessed while alive but being Jewish doesn't get you to the kingdom.

---

I agree with you but Zobel apparently doesn't.

---

lol I'm just now reading the many replies so I'm trying to track what's going.