Doug Shaver

In the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which was the scope of your original question, there were no Jews or gentiles. Abraham is introduced in the last six verses of Genesis 11, but there is no suggestion there that some of his descendants would have a privileged relationship with Yahweh relative to other people.

In subsequent portions of the Old Testament, most of the authors carry on at great length about how the Israelites are obliged to follow Yahweh's commandments. As for other nations, some of the authors portray Yahweh as indifferent to them while a few show him as thinking they deserve to be exterminated because they worship other gods.

Doug Shaver

I"d already responded before I read this. No problem. You may disregard my response if it seems irrelevant to the rest of the discussion.

bacht

There was already a "covenant" for gentiles before Jesus, the Noahide rules. And gentiles were allowed to fully convert to Judaism before the Christian era.

The only new covenant I see is the re-interpretation of the Torah after the fall of the temple, with one set of rules for Jews coming from the Rabbis, and another set of rules for gentiles coming from the Catholics.

storytime

I'm still waiting for textual[scriptural] evidence for Jesus making a new covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles.

I found this info:
http://www.salvationhistory.com

"The conditions of the covenant are that men and women believe in Jesus, be baptized, eat and drink His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, and live by all that He taught. The Eucharist is the sign of the New Covenant. By this covenant, God establishes His family in its final form as a universal (katholicos or 'catholic' in Greek) worldwide kingdom, which Jesus calls His Church".

This info doesn't ring true with the text as Jesus was speaking to his Jewish disciples, not Gentiles. The Catholic church may have seen an implied covenant, but that doesn't establish a covenant for Gentiles.

My reading of the story shows the Hebrew/Israelite God as defining his people in an identity of particulars, those particulars being circumcision and law of Moses. Anyone desiring to join up as members in that group would be seen as adopted sons in Jacob-Israel. With adoption would come a new identity from Gentile to Jewish.

Jesus was a Jew. His way, truth and life was Judaism. Knowing the laws established for his Jewish tradition, why would he have wanted to override his own tradition for another? I don't see the story as portraying Jesus as a traitor in this regard.

Peter on the other hand, seems to be the instigator of treasonous action. Not only does he accuse the Jews of being Christ killers he overrides the words of his god, and he inflicts more damage to the Jewish community by and through his lying vision. Why is it a lie? Because in the old scripts God tells the dreamer of dreams and visions "ye have seen nothing!". Prophecy (dreams and visions) were then caused to cease due to them being lies, fabricated vain imaginations.

Still, no authenticated new covenant made with Gentiles, only an imposed identity theft. The attempt of one Jewish sect purposed in destruction[annihilation] of the existing Jewish ideology. And the only way the apostles such as Peter and Paul could accomplish such an overthrow was to bring in outsiders, thus Gentiles were the perfect instrument for their treasonous affair. Paul continues Peter's lie by taking his gospel to the Gentiles and telling the Gentiles the law and circumcision was abolished through faith alone. The Gentiles would then be joined at the hip to the Jewish religion, so to speak, through their ignorance of not knowing Jewish laws, and thinking they were equal to the Jews. Their argument would be against the anti-Christ Jews.

Still, no proof of Jesus making a covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. And implied consent doesn't count, at least not in my opinion. What's yours?

sschlichter

It is a matter of authority. The God of the OT showed much concern for gentiles. Jesus demonstrated that Gentiles could demonstrate the saving faith of Abraham. Jesus gave authority to the apostles who were shown by God that the new covenant is for all men (against their will), including Gentiles. Acts makes it clear, Paul makes it clear. No one was more offended than Peter by his vision. The new covenant is the covenant of faith. The NT makes it clear it is for gentiles. the sacrament of circumcision is replaced with baptism. God's concern was never foreskin. The tokens and signs are new because the covenant is new. How could a new covenant be distinguished from the old. It is all there to lead to separated hearts, not foreskins. That was the purpose of the covenant of Abraham. "to bless all nations", that was the purpose of the jewish nation, to be a "light to the gentiles". It does not need to be implied. It is explicit, loud, and clear.

Judaism can be and do whatever it wants. Peter and Paul never lifted a finger against the Jews and never instigated lifting a finger against anyone. Their positions on any form of violence were very clear. Their lives and the lives of their followers for 300 years made it very clear. What do Jews care if Christians are reading their OT. Any violence against them that has been committed is not by Christ's followers, only those that claim to be followers. Blame them, not Peter and Paul.

On another note,

I ran into this article. I am curious if you have heard anything of this tablet. Not sure the ramifications but it seems relevant to this conversation (Israel's pre-Christian view of the Messiah). I am curious if you know anything about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...t/06stone.html

~Steve

sschlichter

yes, that is my point. God's concern was universal. the problem of man's rebellion is what prompted the separation of Abraham. However, men were living in faith prior to Abram, prior to circumcision.

God's punishment was not only for Gentiles. Most was for the Jews. He did the same to the Jews when they worshipped other Gods. I posted nearly 100 places in the OT that disagree with you. Even in times of judgment, God was not without mercy. Look at the Judgment of Moab where God raises up Assyria against them. Even then God told Israel to take the Moabites in when they come to you as refugees. (Isa 14, I think)

~Steve

Toto

This was discussed in this thread.

storytime

If the new covenant were for all men, then why did Paul not include the Jews? Paul instead supported the covenant of circumcision and law of Moses for Israel. Paul said it is good in much every way because the oracles and covenants of God were given to the Jews.

Bottom line. There is no scripture evidence that Jesus made a new covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. You can have all the faith you want but until you can provide the scripture where Jesus declared a new covenant for Gentiles, then again, we must conclude that the Gentile Christians are not "a people" of the Hebrew God and Christians today are living under a false precept.

sschlichter

What makes you think Paul did not include Jews. The book of Acts starts every city with a visit to the synagogue where Paul gets kicked out and some of the beleive him. The church was primarily Jewish. Paul was Jewish. How did he exclude Jews?

The covenant was good in every way. Keep reading, he says what it was good for and what it could not accomplish.

Bottom Line: God is and always was the only God, the God of Gentiles and Jews alike. Romans 1-3 is a description of how far man strayed from that God. The separation of the Jews was a step in Gods plan of redemption.

What Jesus said to the Emmaus road disciples applies to me and you as well.

(Luke 24:25) So he said to them, "You foolish people - how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
(Luke 24:26) Wasn't it necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
(Luke 24:27) Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures.

The foolish part applies to me more than you, probably!


Here is another example from the Old Testament.

(Isa 19:16) At that time the Egyptians will be like women. They will tremble and fear because the LORD who commands armies brandishes his fist against them.
(Isa 19:17) The land of Judah will humiliate Egypt. Everyone who hears about Judah will be afraid because of what the LORD who commands armies is planning to do to them.
(Isa 19:18) At that time five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD who commands armies. One will be called the City of the Sun.
(Isa 19:19) At that time there will be an altar for the LORD in the middle of the land of Egypt, as well as a sacred pillar dedicated to the LORD at its border.
(Isa 19:20) It will become a visual reminder in the land of Egypt of the LORD who commands armies. When they cry out to the LORD because of oppressors, he will send them a deliverer and defender who will rescue them.
(Isa 19:21) The LORD will reveal himself to the Egyptians, and they will acknowledge the LORD's authority at that time. They will present sacrifices and offerings; they will make vows to the LORD and fulfill them.
(Isa 19:22) The LORD will strike Egypt, striking and then healing them. They will turn to the LORD and he will listen to their prayers and heal them.
(Isa 19:23) At that time there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will visit Egypt, and the Egyptians will visit Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together.(Isa 19:24) At that time Israel will be the third member of the group, along with Egypt and Assyria, and will be a recipient of blessing in the earth.
(Isa 19:25) The LORD who commands armies will pronounce a blessing over the earth, saying, "Blessed be my people, Egypt, and the work of my hands, Assyria, and my special possession, Israel!"

God is the God. The God Egypt, Assyria, and the God of his special possession Israel. Is this not evident!

~Steve

sschlichter

thanks, I figured it was discussed somewhere.