the Great Tribulation

[David in NJ]

No, the last thing you said is a lie. It's not a fabrication at all. It's a belief of theologians who see what Paul taught in passages like these:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4:25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

What these passages indicate is that there are two Israels. The ancient nation of Israel and what many call spiritual Israel or true Israel. Being part of the nation of Israel only requires being a natural descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel. Being part of spiritual or true Israel (the Israel of God) has nothing to do be anything natural or physical, but rather has to do with being a spiritual child of Abraham and spiritual child of God by way of faith. And it has to do with being, like Isaac, a spiritual child of the promise. And that includes all Jew and Gentile believers together as one in the Israel of God. This is what scripture teaches and is not a fabrication at all.

@Spiritual Israelite says: "What these passages indicate is that there are two Israels"

Gospel of John and Acts = Galatians & Ephesians = ABSOLUTE TRUTH

NEVER COMPROMISE the TRUTH for the comfortable weakness of religion/unbelief

 

[Timtofly]

The 42 month reign of the beast precedes satan's little season, not parallels it.

By a thousand years. The little season is not until after Satan is bound for a thousand years.

If you are talking about this:

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

That would only be 3.5 days until he is bound in the pit. Unless God extends time for 42 months. That extended time of 42 months is the 8th kingdom. There is no FP, nor beast system, unless that 42 months happens.

So both things happen here:

"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child (3.5 days). And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time (that 42 month extension of time), from the face of the serpent.... And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (those beheaded, mentioned in Revelation 20)."

The beheaded are the only reason time is extended (Daniel 9:27). The beheaded are the many who are confirmed still under the Atonement Covenant. Only God knows if these beheaded have not already been removed prior to Satan being cast out of heaven along with his angels.

If Satan gets 42 months this is perceived:

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months..... And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

This point of overcoming them is in reference to the verse in the previous chapter, where Israel escapes:

"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."

Yet we see that where Israel goes is to the sea of glass before the throne, and not even on the earth. So being overcome is just the point Israel is no longer on the earth, nor relevant to what is going on, on the earth. During those 42 months, Jesus and the 144k are on heavenly mount Zion. The final harvest are on the sea of glass, all removed from the earth and any persecution, many think the redeemed would go through. Those last 42 months are not Great Tribulation. They are just abomination of desolation, because human morality would be what the flesh desires, that would be abomination in God's sight.

 

[Timtofly]

Regardless of what we believe about promises God supposedly made to Abraham, we can *never* say that a nation cannot convert to Christianity as a nation, just as we cannot say that the unsaved cannot be saved. Though it is sometimes denied, there have been many Christian nations in history. This doesn't have to mean that an entire nation is saved--only that the population has generally embraced Christianity as their national religion. Israel could certainly do this if they so chose to do so.

My claim is not refuted by this passage, ie Rom 11.7-8. Paul was describing the present state of national Israel. At this time there is only a small remnant of Christians among the Jewish People as a whole. Christianity is resisted among the Jews.

And yet Paul argued that in the future prophecy would be fulfilled in which the whole nation converts to Christianity and is no longer oppressed by other nations as a judgment from God.

Rom 11.25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

I'm not really interested in engaging with a hostile spirit. However, others deserve to know where I stand on this.

The point was not that all would be converted as per universalism who were alive.

A remnant would be removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and live without sin. Thus 100% of all Israel and all their offspring for dozens of generations would all be born without sin. All of the earth will be saved, during the millennium reign. No one will have to be converted, so being a Christian is redundant. They will all be human, just no longer under the bondage of sin. Redemption no longer necessary because no one will be born "of Adam". I am not sure why people cannot see the two physical body types: one of sin and death, and the other of obedience and life?

That is why the promise in Daniel 9:24 has four points that sound the same:

"to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,"

The transgression is Adam's punishment of death passed down to all his offspring. That stops at the end of the 70th week. No one is no longer conceived in sin. The final harvest is the end of sin. All on earth will have righteousness in their genetic makeup at conception. Jeremiah 31:33

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

This is not a change sometimes after physical birth. This is the genetic makeup given at conception. A disobedient child will be considering cursed or an oddball, that did not quite get all that should have transfered genetically. Isaiah 65:20

"for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

If a person is born who goes against nature and disobeys the law, they will be killed physically and removed as sinners, not because they were born as sinners, but because they did not follow what they were naturally born with, but decided to do their own thing, instead of God's Law. They will not be allowed to remain in society, and pass on sin, like Adam and Eve did. Isaiah points out that after 100 years, the immaturity of youth will have been left behind.

So we see this covenant with Israel, Paul mentions; in both Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 30:33, and described in Isaiah 65 on a practical level. People will build a house, and live in that same house for the entire thousand years. Their offspring will move out, build their houses, and repeat the process. This will go on generation after generation, until the entire earth is subdued.

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Paul echoes Genesis 1 in 1 Corinthians 15.

That is why all are saved. The Day of the Lord is a Sabbath and set apart as Holy unto God. There will be a rest from sin, the transgression, inequity, and death.

Only after the thousand years will Satan be allowed to deceive humans like he did Eve, to get them to wholesale turn on God, like Adam.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The point was not that all would be converted as per universalism who were alive.

A remnant would be removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and live without sin.

I have no idea where you get this?

Thus 100% of all Israel and all their offspring for dozens of generations would all be born without sin. All of the earth will be saved, during the millennium reign. No one will have to be converted, so being a Christian is redundant. They will all be human, just no longer under the bondage of sin. Redemption no longer necessary because no one will be born "of Adam". I am not sure why people cannot see the two physical body types: one of sin and death, and the other of obedience and life?

It doesn't sound likely to me. I don't see this in the Scriptures at all. But there are a number of speculations about what the Millennium will be. And I don't blame you for coming up with your own opinion on this. What happens in the present age is most important to us.

That is why the promise in Daniel 9:24 has four points that sound the same:

"to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,"

I see this all fulfilled in the time of Christ's 1st Coming. He finished Israel's transgression by forcing them to make a decision about him. He made an end of their sin by condemning them to Roman destruction. He provided eternal redemption for them based not on their righteousness but on his own righteousness. When Israel turns to him they'll be saved.

The transgression is Adam's punishment of death passed down to all his offspring. That stops at the end of the 70th week. No one is no longer conceived in sin. The final harvest is the end of sin. All on earth will have righteousness in their genetic makeup at conception. Jeremiah 31:33

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

This is not a change sometimes after physical birth. This is the genetic makeup given at conception. A disobedient child will be considering cursed or an oddball, that did not quite get all that should have transfered genetically. Isaiah 65:20

I Think you're conflating Israel's turn back to righteousness with immortality and glorification. I agree that there will be new things in the Millennium that appear to be supernatural. But I just think the world will reach an advanced stage of blessing, and not immortality.

Since these things are matters of speculation I'm not sure much can be proven one way or another?

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, the last thing you said is a lie.

That is too harsh, I think, because it suggests I'm deliberately trying to deceive. Obviously, we're expressing our own opinions. It is *not* a lie. There's reasonable basis for my belief in this.

The Church Fathers came to the conclusion Israel would not get saved in the way it appeared the Scriptures suggested it would happen. So they determined to change the definition of "Israel" to "the International Church." That is in fact a "fabrication," because there is no basis for it in the Scriptures.

There is evidence for that position, but it is not stated as a matter of doctrine. "Israel's" definition is not explicitly changed in Scriptures from a single nation that lived in Canaan to a company of nations spread out across the world.

It's not a fabrication at all. It's a belief of theologians who see what Paul taught in passages like these:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul is talking about believing *Jews.* That is what he was quoting, and the OT was all about the physical nation of Israel!

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul is extrapolating, indicating that based on the *same principle,* God's promise can apply equally to Gentiles as to Jews, when we are called and chosen from among the nations. The failure of nations does not prohibit anybody form being called of God. It is not purely limited to Israel, as it was in the OT era. The promise prohibits such partiality since the promise itself was given both on behalf of Israel and on behalf of many nations who share the faith of Abraham.

I don't mind the term "Spiritual Israelite," as long as we understand we're not talking literally about a physical Israelite. The Church is modeled after Israel as they had been designed to be spiritual. The fact they fell, as all nations fall, does not remove the promise given on their behalf as well as on the behalf of many nations.

 

[Davidpt]

By a thousand years. The little season is not until after Satan is bound for a thousand years.

Exactly! That's my point. The 42 month reign of the beast is connected with Christ's bodily return in the end of this age. And Scripture shows, thus proves, when satan is loosed, this 42 month reign of the beast isn't just beginning, it has already been entirely fulfilled earlier.

It would look like this. In the final days of this present age we are living in, the 42 month reign of the beast occurs. Thus explaining the martyrdom recorded per the following---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4).

This 42 month reign then leads to the bodily return of Christ eventually. Followed by the thousand years, keeping in mind that Revelation 20:4 records saints living and reigning with Christ after they have been martyred, where, once again, the 42 month reign of the beast explaining the reason they were martyred. Followed by satan's little season.

And once again, Christ bodily returns during the event pertaining to the 42 month reign of the beast. Unlike what some Amils claim, that He returns at the end of satan's little season. No He doesn't. How could He if when He returns it has to be during the period of time involving the 42 month reign of the beast and that that 42 month reign has already been fulfilled and way in the past when satan is initially loosed?

Obviously, when the beast reigns for 42 months he can't be in the pit at the time. There are only two choices for when he is not in the pit. Before the thousand years and after the thousand years. Can't be the latter if Revelation 20:4 via this---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---is already undeniably proving that the 42 month reign of the beast precedes satan being loosed from the pit.

Leaving only one thing to conclude, the 42 month reign precedes the beginning of the thousand years, not follows it instead. That obviously equals Premil and certinly not Amil. Amil needs the 42 month reign of the beast to follow the thousand years in order for that view to be correct. Obviously, the 42 month reign of the beast can't follow the thousand years if it already preceded the beginning of the thousand years earlier.

Therefore, someone has to obviously twist Scripture to make it appear that it is their view that is correct here, and it for sure isn't Premils doing that in this case.

 

[David in NJ]

That is too harsh, I think, because it suggests I'm deliberately trying to deceive. Obviously, we're expressing our own opinions. It is *not* a lie. There's reasonable basis for my belief in this.

The Church Fathers came to the conclusion Israel would not get saved in the way it appeared the Scriptures suggested it would happen. So they determined to change the definition of "Israel" to "the International Church." That is in fact a "fabrication," because there is no basis for it in the Scriptures.

There is evidence for that position, but it is not stated as a matter of doctrine. "Israel's" definition is not explicitly changed in Scriptures from a single nation that lived in Canaan to a company of nations spread out across the world.

Paul is talking about believing *Jews.* That is what he was quoting, and the OT was all about the physical nation of Israel!

Paul is extrapolating, indicating that based on the *same principle,* God's promise can apply equally to Gentiles as to Jews, when we are called and chosen from among the nations. The failure of nations does not prohibit anybody form being called of God. It is not purely limited to Israel, as it was in the OT era. The promise prohibits such partiality since the promise itself was given both on behalf of Israel and on behalf of many nations who share the faith of Abraham.

I don't mind the term "Spiritual Israelite," as long as we understand we're not talking literally about a physical Israelite. The Church is modeled after Israel as they had been designed to be spiritual. The fact they fell, as all nations fall, does not remove the promise given on their behalf as well as on the behalf of many nations.

Do you know what 'Foundation Truth' means and how God established it???

 

[Randy Kluth]

Do you know what 'Foundation Truth' means and how God established it???

No, don't know anything about "Foundation Truth." What is it?

 

[Timtofly]

What are you meaning when you say---If you have the great multitude of Gentiles in Revelation 7:9 being saved during the 42 months of the Revelation 13 beast?

I'm not a Pretribber Dispy that thinks a rapture precedes the 42 month reign and that it then equaling those left behind becoming saved during this 42 month reign. That is not my view. My view is that they are already saved before the 42 month reign even begins. And because they are already saved, it then leads to the martyring of many of them because they will refuse to worship the image of the beast.

What you and I both need to keep in mind is this, more you than me, the fact you think Revelation 7:9 & 14 can somehow logically fit the first century.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Meaning this----a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues

There has to be millions, if not billions, meant here. And you would have us believe something profoundly absurd, that there were millions, maybe even billions, of martyrs during the first century?

As to my view, how many ppl are currently on this planet? Apparently, around 8 billion. Wonder how many of those might be professed Christians? The consensus seems to be maybe 2.4 billion. Assuming that might be correct, or at least close, then assuming the following is still future---and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed(Revelation 13:15)---and that this leads to at least half of the professed Christians on the earth being martyred during this 42 months, as an example, already this would be agreeing with an amount of martyrs no man can number.

The text doesn't say these martyrs can't be numbered. It says no man can number them. Meaning to me that no man is going to stand there and try and count them all one by one until he has managed to count them all.

As an example, assuming the following is correct or at least close.

-----------------------------------------
How long would it take to count to 1 billion? Too long! Counting to 1 billion nonstop would take almost 32 years.

NCU Home - Navigator Credit Union

navigatorcu.org

-----------------------------

No wonder the text says a great multitude no man can number.

Between your proposed scenario and mine, at least mine can fit this---a great multitude, which no man could number. Yours certainly can't, not even remotely. And here you are insisting that my proposed scenario makes no sense and that---a great multitude, which no man could number--fits the first century better. LOL. :) I for sure needed a good laugh this morning even if my proposed scenario also doesn't fully explain a great multitude, which no man could number. At least what I'm proposing is thousands of times more reasonable than what you are proposing. Or better yet, what you are proposing is not reasonable, period.

John is not seeing this multitude in the first century. John is seeing everyone from every millenia from Noah to the Second Coming. Part of that multitude is the entire OT redeemed, and all those who lived in the first century. Yes, at the first century time frame there would have been too many to number, even then, after 4500 years. While the church has added many more into the heavenly kingdom in the last 2 Millennia, probably even more than the previous 5, the point is that this multitude did not all come out of a single 42 month period many call the GT.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is too harsh, I think, because it suggests I'm deliberately trying to deceive. Obviously, we're expressing our own opinions. It is *not* a lie. There's reasonable basis for my belief in this.

There is no basis for saying that "The idea that the Church is the "true Israel" is a fabrication of theologians who felt they had to explain why Jews never recovered after they lost their national calling.".

The word "fabrication" means an invention, a lie. That suggests that people just made up that idea out of nowhere just because they wanted it to be true and needed to make up a lie in order to explain something. That is not the case. As I showed, this belief is based on what is written in scripture. If you disagree with that belief, so be it, but it is not a fabrication which suggests that it was a lie that theologians purposely made up to explain something. I would not call your doctrine a fabrication because it's based on what you see written in scripture. So, I believe you are just mistaken and not purposely making things up to fit your doctrine. You should have enough respect to say the same about doctrines that you disagree with, but that you know people are basing on what they see written in scripture rather than purposely making up lies to support their doctrine.

The Church Fathers came to the conclusion Israel would not get saved in the way it appeared the Scriptures suggested it would happen. So they determined to change the definition of "Israel" to "the International Church." That is in fact a "fabrication," because there is no basis for it in the Scriptures.

You are obsessed with the church fathers. My belief isn't based on what those people believed. Plus, they had a lot of disagreement back then just as we still do today. It's silly to give so much attention to them. Regardless of how some may have come to that conclusion, others like me came to that conclusion from what is written in scripture as I showed. So, it's not a fabrication to believe that the church is true Israel because the way Paul described the Israel which those of national Israel are not automatically part of is that it is made up of the spiritual children of God and of Abraham and has nothing to do with who or what someone descended from physically. And elsewhere he described the spiritual children of God and of Abraham as being those who belong to Christ which includes all Jew and Gentile believers.

There is evidence for that position, but it is not stated as a matter of doctrine. "Israel's" definition is not explicitly changed in Scriptures from a single nation that lived in Canaan to a company of nations spread out across the world.

No one is saying that Israel's definition was changed. What some of us are saying is that there are two Israels. That's not a fabrication, that is exactly what Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8.

Paul is talking about believing *Jews.* That is what he was quoting, and the OT was all about the physical nation of Israel!

Paul is extrapolating, indicating that based on the *same principle,* God's promise can apply equally to Gentiles as to Jews, when we are called and chosen from among the nations. The failure of nations does not prohibit anybody form being called of God. It is not purely limited to Israel, as it was in the OT era. The promise prohibits such partiality since the promise itself was given both on behalf of Israel and on behalf of many nations who share the faith of Abraham.

I don't mind the term "Spiritual Israelite," as long as we understand we're not talking literally about a physical Israelite.

Being a Spiritual Israelite has nothing to do with being a physical Israelite which I've said many times. That is the point Paul makes in Romans 9:6-8. That's why, after saying "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel", Paul said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". He was emphasizing the fact that being a physical descendant had nothing to do with being part of spiritual Israel as a spiritual child of God and of Abraham.

The Church is modeled after Israel as they had been designed to be spiritual. The fact they fell, as all nations fall, does not remove the promise given on their behalf as well as on the behalf of many nations.

What promise are you talking about exactly? What the New Testament reveals is that God promises eternal life to His people and He made the way for that by way of sending His Son to die for the sins of Israelites, but not just them only, but also the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). That was a mystery in Old Testament times (Ephesians 3:1-6).

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no basis for saying that "The idea that the Church is the "true Israel" is a fabrication of theologians who felt they had to explain why Jews never recovered after they lost their national calling.".

The word "fabrication" means an invention, a lie. That suggests that people just made up that idea out of nowhere just because they wanted it to be true and needed to make up a lie in order to explain something. That is not the case. As I showed, this belief is based on what is written in scripture. If you disagree with that belief, so be it, but it is not a fabrication which suggests that it was a lie that theologians purposely made up to explain something. I would not call your doctrine a fabrication because it's based on what you see written in scripture. So, I believe you are just mistaken and not purposely making things up to fit your doctrine. You should have enough respect to say the same about doctrines that you disagree with, but that you know people are basing on what they see written in scripture rather than purposely making up lies to support their doctrine.

I don't always use the most tactful language myself, but the word qualifies with no harm intended. What I'm saying is that *from my point of view,* there is not enough Scriptural basis to assert that literal Israel has now become, in the NT, spiritual Israel. And so, the logic behind the opinion was a combination of what was thought to be common sense and Scripture.

As you know, Scripture references do not always prove things. They may be evidence for things without being a direct doctrinal assertion.

This is one of those cases. There are references indicating that the Church is kind of like a spiritual Israel. But there are no direct claims of such.

And so, for me it is a kind of fabrication, and I apologize if this sounded too harsh. I did not mean to say it was an intentional lie--I don't believe that at all. In fact, had I been there I probably would've come to the same conclusion that absent Israel's repentance and conversion within 3 centuries it was not likely that God would ever forgive Israel.

You are obsessed with the church fathers.

There you are with your strident language again! I'm "obsessed" with them? Don't you realize the important role the Church Fathers played in proximity to the apostles and in terms of setting precedents for the Church? They are *very* important! Certainly they are not always right, but they are not to be ignored.

My belief isn't based on what those people believed. Plus, they had a lot of disagreement back then just as we still do today. It's silly to give so much attention to them.

It's "silly?" Do you consider Christianity important? Is it silly to become obsessed with Christianity and spend time forming truth from it? If focusing on the Church Fathers is "silly," just what isn't silly to you?

Regardless of how some may have come to that conclusion, others like me came to that conclusion from what is written in scripture as I showed.

Your Scriptural references do not prove what you claim, is not doctrinal in form.

So, it's not a fabrication to believe that the church is true Israel because the way Paul described the Israel which those of national Israel are not automatically part of is that it is made up of the spiritual children of God and of Abraham and has nothing to do with who or what someone descended from physically.

Not being automatically related to Israel has never been the basis of Salvation. If that was true, then Noah was lost!

And Abraham had everything to do with physical descendancy! Abraham was promised a fatherhood of physical Israel, and he was also promised a spiritual fatherhood over many nations. Without recognizing the diversity of nations in the Church God's promises could not be fulfilled!

And elsewhere he described the spiritual children of God and of Abraham as being those who belong to Christ which includes all Jew and Gentile believers.

I recognize that spiritual children of God are taken from both Jewish and Gentile believers. It does not in the least say that the definition of "Israel" had changed. Nor did "Israel" ever strictly refer to spiritual Jews.

The term applied to backslidden Jews as well as to apostate Jews. Paul was only saying that bad Jews are not "true Jews" because they were not true to the faith. It had nothing to do with them not being valid Jews or part of Israel. They were simply to be exiled as bad Jews.

No one is saying that Israel's definition was changed. What some of us are saying is that there are two Israels.

Saying there are 2 Israel's is a matter of changing the definition of "Israel" to include a 2nd Israel. So when you say there is a 2nd Israel, you're saying that the definition of Israel for physical Israel can change from physical Israel to spiritual Israel.

It cannot. That is your unproven claim, and certainly not biblical doctrine. Where in the Scriptures does it say that there is a 2nd Israel that is not physical Israel but spiritual Israel?

Being a Spiritual Israelite has nothing to do with being a physical Israelite which I've said many times.

You may have said it many times, but every time you've said it it isn't true. One cannot be a spiritual Israelite unless you are 1st a physical Israelite because that is how "Israelite" is defined, by their physical characteristics.

Once it is established that someone is a physical Israelite then it can be determined whether he or she is a "spiritual" Israelite or not.

That is the point Paul makes in Romans 9:6-8. That's why, after saying "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"

No, Paul was declaring that untrue or unfaithful Israelites were always, under the Law, to be excommunicated. That didn't mean they stopped being Israelites! There were simply "untrue" or "unfaithful."

You don't understand the term "true!" Being cut off from Israel didn't stop them from being Israel, even if they were bad Israelites. They were simply to be "cut off" as unfaithful.

What promise are you talking about exactly? What the New Testament reveals is that God promises eternal life to His people and He made the way for that by way of sending His Son to die for the sins of Israelites, but not just them only, but also the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). That was a mystery in Old Testament times (Ephesians 3:1-6).

The promises God gave to Abraham were recorded as applying both to Israel and on behalf of many nations. Gen 12-17. You can read Paul's explanation of the promises being fulfilled in Gentile nations in Galatians and in Romans.

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

 

[David in NJ]

No, don't know anything about "Foundation Truth." What is it?

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
Matthew 21:42-44

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
Matthew 21:42-44

If you intended to make a point you sure failed at it! ;)
Weren't you going to tell me what "Foundation Truth" is? Or, were you just going to give me the Dictionary definition of "foundation?"

Yes, God temporarily cast Israel aside, due to their rejection of Christ. The majority had conspired together to reject their Messiah, and God, as a result, sent them away. They've spent many years in Diaspora, with only a relative few embracing the truth.

But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will. At least, this is what I believe.

 

[Keraz]

But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will. At least, this is what I believe.

God will restore Israel, just not the fake Israel; those who call themselves jews and the nation - Israel. They face punishment and only a remnant will survive.
The true House of Israel was exiled for their sins circa 700 BC, by Assyria. God does know who and where they are; Amos 9:9
THEY are the people who Jesus came to save. Matthew 15:24
THEY are the peoples who have accepted Christianity and they will live in the very palace where their ancestors were exiled from. Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:24-26. In the new nation of Beulah; Isaiah 62:1-5

 

[Randy Kluth]

God will restore Israel, just not the fake Israel; those who call themselves jews and the nation - Israel. They face punishment and only a remnant will survive.
The true House of Israel was exiled for their sins circa 700 BC, by Assyria. God does know who and where they are; Amos 9:9
THEY are the people who Jesus came to save. Matthew 15:24
THEY are the peoples who have accepted Christianity and they will live in the very palace where their ancestors were exiled from. Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:24-26. In the new nation of Beulah; Isaiah 62:1-5

I'm aware of your position, which in my view isn't remotely biblical. However, I know you use biblical references to support your view.

Paul said in the clearest language possible, "all Israel will be saved." This refers to the whole nation--obviously, that will happen by elevating a repentant remnant and by discarding the rebellious majority.

Jesus was specifically asked when this would happen. He did not deny it would happen, but instead focused on the question *when* it will happen. He said predicting the times and seasons were not our main focus.

It is a matter of history that the 10 tribes were lost forever. Tribes, at best, could only be restored as "Jews," who have come to represent all 12 tribes, as they had converged into a single nation after the captivities.

So when Rev 7 speaks of the 144,000 from all 12 tribes it is really speaking of all tribes being equally represented in the endtimes. The number is emphasized because it is the equality of the tribes being emphasized--they are all equally represented in the Jewish minority who are believers in Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't always use the most tactful language myself, but the word qualifies with no harm intended. What I'm saying is that *from my point of view,* there is not enough Scriptural basis to assert that literal Israel has now become, in the NT, spiritual Israel. And so, the logic behind the opinion was a combination of what was thought to be common sense and Scripture.

Will you then retract your claim that "The idea that the Church is the "true Israel" is a fabrication", keeping in mind that a fabrication is a purposely made up lie? There's a big difference between that and just simply misinterpreting scripture despite an honest attempt at doing so.

As you know, Scripture references do not always prove things. They may be evidence for things without being a direct doctrinal assertion.

That's really beside the point. My main point in my response is that the belief that you claimed is a fabrication, which suggests a made up lie not based on anything written in scripture, is instead a belief that is based on what is written in scripture such as the scriptures I posted (Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3:26-29, Galatians 4:25-28). Can you acknowledge that? I'm not asking if you agree with me, I'm asking if you can acknowledge that the view regarding the church being true Israel is based on an interpretation of scripture rather than being a fabrication.

This is one of those cases. There are references indicating that the Church is kind of like a spiritual Israel. But there are no direct claims of such.

Does everything that's true in scripture need to be spelled out directly to us? Does Paul not indicate that scripture must be spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? The concept is strongly implied even if it isn't explicitly stated. It's unforunate that isn't enough for you.

And so, for me it is a kind of fabrication, and I apologize if this sounded too harsh. I did not mean to say it was an intentional lie--I don't believe that at all.

Are you sure you know what the word fabrication means? A fabrication is a lie. How about trying a different word to describe what you mean?

In fact, had I been there I probably would've come to the same conclusion that absent Israel's repentance and conversion within 3 centuries it was not likely that God would ever forgive Israel.

I don't even know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with why I believe that the church is true Israel. I believe it because that's what I see in scripture. Forgiveness is not a national thing, it's an individual thing. Plenty of Israelites have put their faith in Christ over the years and have been forgiven. Why act as if none of them have?

There you are with your strident language again!

Says the guy who called my doctrine a fabrication. It's okay for you and not for me then? Yeah, that's fair.

I'm "obsessed" with them?

Okay, you don't like that word. I can respect that. You don't have to have a meltdown about it. So, I'll say it like this. You seem to put too much focus on them. Let's just stick with scripture and not put too much emphasis on what the church fathers may have believed. There's relatively few of them who actually wrote down what they believe and it's clear that there was plenty of disagreement amongst them back then just as there is amongst Christians now.

Don't you realize the important role the Church Fathers played in proximity to the apostles and in terms of setting precedents for the Church? They are *very* important! Certainly they are not always right, but they are not to be ignored.

Goodness sakes. Where did I say they should be ignored? Nowhere. I'm just saying to not put too much importance on what they believed. Especially considering the fact that they had a lot of disagreements about things just like we still do now. We need to study the scriptures for ourselves.

It's "silly?" Do you consider Christianity important?

Are you seriously taking major offense to the word "silly"? Okay then. Just give me a list of words I can use that you won't be offended by. That will make it easier for me. As for your question, that is sil....not an appropriate question to ask a Christian and can't be taken seriously since all Christians obviously consider Christianity to be important.

Is it silly to become obsessed with Christianity and spend time forming truth from it?

Why are you asking me questions like this when you know full well that I would not consider that to be silly? Come on, Randy.

If focusing on the Church Fathers is "silly," just what isn't silly to you?

Lots of things. Are you purposely missing my point? Do you think we should interpret scripture based on what some church fathers wrote or should we study it for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit tell us what scripture means? Can we learn some things from what they wrote. Sure. But, it's more important to be like the Bereans and study the scriptures for ourselves to see if what they said is really true

Your Scriptural references do not prove what you claim, is not doctrinal in form.

What does that mean? They certainly support my view with how I interpret them every bit as much as yours support your view with how you interpret them. It all depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You are not the authority to decide what is a legitimate doctrine or not.

Not being automatically related to Israel has never been the basis of Salvation. If that was true, then Noah was lost!

Of course not, but many people haven't understood that. That's why Paul wrote what he did so that people who were mistaken about that would learn what salvation is really about.

And Abraham had everything to do with physical descendancy! Abraham was promised a fatherhood of physical Israel, and he was also promised a spiritual fatherhood over many nations. Without recognizing the diversity of nations in the Church God's promises could not be fulfilled!

My point is simply that what Paul wrote about in Romans 9:6-8 in regards to spiritual Israel was that it had nothing to do with being physically descended from Abraham, which is why he said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.".

I recognize that spiritual children of God are taken from both Jewish and Gentile believers. It does not in the least say that the definition of "Israel" had changed.

Again, I never said that the definition of Israel changed. I'm saying that there is more than one Israel. I'm not redefining national Israel, I'm defining spiritual Israel.

Nor did "Israel" ever strictly refer to spiritual Jews.

I didn't say it did. I'm getting the impression that you're not understanding half of what I'm saying.

The term applied to backslidden Jews as well as to apostate Jews. Paul was only saying that bad Jews are not "true Jews" because they were not true to the faith. It had nothing to do with them not being valid Jews or part of Israel. They were simply to be exiled as bad Jews.

So, it seems that you are acknowledging here that they are two types of Jews, but not in the same way that I would describe it. In your view one type are "bad Jews" and another type are "true Jews". I agree that there are two types of Jews, but according to Romans 2:28-29 one type is a Jew "outwardly" by way of physical things like physical circumcision while another type of Jew is someone who is a Jew "inwardly" and has been spiritually circumcised by the Holy Spirit.

Saying there are 2 Israel's is a matter of changing the definition of "Israel" to include a 2nd Israel. So when you say there is a 2nd Israel, you're saying that the definition of Israel for physical Israel can change from physical Israel to spiritual Israel.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say a boy had one friend. And he would define that friend a certain way. Then, later he made a second friend and got to know him and would define that friend another way. So, now there are two friends instead of just one. Would the way the boy would describe his first friend change just because he also has another friend? No, of course not. So, how does a second Israel redefine the first Israel? It doesn't. That makes no sense. Physical Israel remains physical Israel regardless of the nature of Spiritual Israel. It's two different Israels. One doesn't define the other.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It cannot. That is your unproven claim, and certainly not biblical doctrine. Where in the Scriptures does it say that there is a 2nd Israel that is not physical Israel but spiritual Israel?

Are you under the mistaken impression that your doctrine is proven, as if it is proven fact instead of your interpretation? If not, what do you mean by "unproven claim"? As for your question, Romans 9:6-8 is one scripture which says that, as I've already indicated. And I've already explained why I see it that way.

Then there is this one as well:

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

In this passage, Paul defines "the Israel of God" as being comprised of those who have experienced being made new creations, which obviously refers to Christians. So, clearly, "the Israel of God" that Paul references here is spiritual in nature rather than physical.

You may have said it many times, but every time you've said it it isn't true. One cannot be a spiritual Israelite unless you are 1st a physical Israelite because that is how "Israelite" is defined, by their physical characteristics.

That completely contradicts what Paul wrote in Romans 9:6-8 where he clearly indicates that being part of the Israel that not all physical descendants of national Israel are part of, has nothing to do with being a physical descendant of Israel. Which is why Paul said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". He said those things to explain what he meant by saying "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel".

Once it is established that someone is a physical Israelite then it can be determined whether he or she is a "spiritual" Israelite or not.

Where does scripture teach this? I'm basing my view on scripture like Romans 9:6-8. What are you basing yours on? I can't just take your word for it. Show me the scripture that backs up what you're saying.

No, Paul was declaring that untrue or unfaithful Israelites were always, under the Law, to be excommunicated. That didn't mean they stopped being Israelites! There were simply "untrue" or "unfaithful."

What you're saying doesn't line up with what Paul said. He didn't say anything about untrue/unfaithful and true/faithful Israelites. He said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". Clearly, Paul has two different Israels in mind here. All who are descended from national Israel are national Israelites. So, clearly, Paul was not only talking about national Israel here or else his statement would not be true. The only way to make sense of what he said is to conclude that he was referring to two Israels and was saying that not all who were part of one Israel were also part of the other Israel.

You don't understand the term "true!" Being cut off from Israel didn't stop them from being Israel, even if they were bad Israelites. They were simply to be "cut off" as unfaithful.

I never said that being cut off from national Israel made someone no longer an Israelite. That isn't where we differ! You are arguing with a straw man. Instead, we differ in that you only allow for there to be one Israel while I believe there are two. So, if you're going to argue against what I believe then you need to argue against what I actually believe instead of acting as if I agree with you that there is only one Israel.

The promises God gave to Abraham were recorded as applying both to Israel and on behalf of many nations. Gen 12-17. You can read Paul's explanation of the promises being fulfilled in Gentile nations in Galatians and in Romans.

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

That is talking about individuals from all nations. If you continue reading through the end of the chapter you can clearly see that Paul was talking about salvation because he talked about those who believe in Christ, including both Jews and Gentiles, are the ones who are counted as Abraham's seed (spiritually speaking, obviously). Salvation is an individual thing. Nations don't put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, individuals do.

 

[David in NJ]

If you intended to make a point you sure failed at it! ;)
Weren't you going to tell me what "Foundation Truth" is? Or, were you just going to give me the Dictionary definition of "foundation?"

Yes, God temporarily cast Israel aside, due to their rejection of Christ. The majority had conspired together to reject their Messiah, and God, as a result, sent them away. They've spent many years in Diaspora, with only a relative few embracing the truth.

But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will. At least, this is what I believe.

If i failed by showing you the Truth, then the LORD Jesus Christ failed by speaking the Truth.

Perhaps it went over your head and you need to dwell on the Truth of His Word...........

@Randy Kluth says: "But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will."
@David in NJ says: i AGREE with you Randy = 100% Truth = Romans 11:13-27

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If you intended to make a point you sure failed at it! ;)
Weren't you going to tell me what "Foundation Truth" is? Or, were you just going to give me the Dictionary definition of "foundation?"

Yes, God temporarily cast Israel aside, due to their rejection of Christ. The majority had conspired together to reject their Messiah, and God, as a result, sent them away. They've spent many years in Diaspora, with only a relative few embracing the truth.

But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will. At least, this is what I believe.

Where does scripture teach that "God temporarily cast Israel aside"? Nowhere.

You are directly contradicting what Paul taught in scripture.

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Randy says: "God temporarily cast Israel aside".

Paul says: "Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself...".

Who should I believe? You or Paul? It's not a hard question to answer.

Now, if you want to say that God temporarily cast unbelieving Israelites aside rather than saying He cast the entire nation of Israel aside, then you would be lined up with what Paul taught, which was that unbelieving Israelites of his day were cut off temporarily because of their unbelief, but were later given the opportunity to be grafted in again if they believed. That's why Paul said regarding the Israelites of his day who had been blinded and cut off "I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." (Romans 11:13-14).

 

[Randy Kluth]

Will you then retract your claim that "The idea that the Church is the "true Israel" is a fabrication", keeping in mind that a fabrication is a purposely made up lie? There's a big difference between that and just simply misinterpreting scripture despite an honest attempt at doing so.

No, I won't retract it because I've explained it as an example of lack of tact and yet understood properly represents what I think. As I said, my use of the word "fabrication" did not mean an "intentional lie," and words mean what they mean as the user meant to use them.

When I say I lacked tact, I was admitting I sometimes lack sensitivity as to how others may understand use of the term. But now that I've explained it, I have to wonder why you double down on your complaint? I've already told you I'm not using "fabrication" as a reference to "intentional deceit."

Again, a "fabrication," as I use the term, does not mean "intentional dishonesty," but rather, something invented more out of common sense, using Scripture references, than relying on explicit doctrinal statements in the Scriptures. If I'm wrong you should be able to point to an explicit doctrinal statement stating that there are 2 distinct "Israel's" and not just 2 different *kinds* of Israelis?

Instead, you rely upon an assumed meaning for "spiritual Israel" that distinguishes it from "unspiritual Israel," when this is only expressing 2 different qualities of the exact same entity!

Carnal Israelites may be different from spiritual Israelites, and they may be separated in the future. But they will always be an "Israelite." All physical or ethnic Israelites will always be "Israelites," whether carnal or spiritual.

As I told you, "spiritual Jew" or "spiritual Israelite" would refer to a Jew or to an Israelite who happens to be spiritual. And this does not re-define him as without an ethnicity! Rather, he retains his ethnicity and simply adds the "spiritual" component.

That's really beside the point. My main point in my response is that the belief that you claimed is a fabrication, which suggests a made up lie not based on anything written in scripture, is instead a belief that is based on what is written in scripture such as the scriptures I posted (Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3:26-29, Galatians 4:25-28). Can you acknowledge that?

I did not say this! Here's what I did say:

What I'm saying is that *from my point of view,* there is not enough Scriptural basis to assert that literal Israel has now become, in the NT, spiritual Israel. And so, the logic behind the opinion was a combination of what was thought to be common sense and Scripture.

As you can clearly see, I did *not* say Scriptures are not used by those who believe as you do. Rather, I'm saying non-doctrinal forms of Scripture are being used to support what are thought to be "common sense, logical beliefs." So "common sense" here trumps biblical statements that are explicitly presented as doctrine.

Does everything that's true in scripture need to be spelled out directly to us?

Doctrinal statements must be spelled out, yes. No, not all truth has to be spelled out in this way--just doctrinal truth.

Does Paul not indicate that scripture must be spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? The concept is strongly implied even if it isn't explicitly stated. It's unforunate that isn't enough for you.

Spirituality is discerned by the spiritual and hidden from the carnal. How can the carnal understand spiritual truth unless they are willing to be spiritual? Those who reject the revelation of God will not be able to clearly see or understand God and what He is like.

This is not saying that truth is gnostic. It is not like a mystery religion, revealing secret truths to the initiated.

Walter Martin used to say, "God does not lisp. He is able to deliver truth clearly so that it is not misunderstood. This is the nature of fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Certain truths in the Bible attain to the level of doctrinal truth, and determine your orthodoxy as a Christian.

Are you sure you know what the word fabrication means?

Yes, it's an invention. I used the word. I know how I intended to use it.

I don't even know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with why I believe that the church is true Israel. I believe it because that's what I see in scripture. Forgiveness is not a national thing, it's an individual thing. Plenty of Israelites have put their faith in Christ over the years and have been forgiven. Why act as if none of them have?

You've missed an awful lot of Scriptures, brother! A lot of biblical history, and a lot of biblical prophecy, concerned the salvation of national Israel from her enemies!!

When the nation tolerated sin, it spread until it engulfed the majority. And that's when national judgment began. So forgiveness becomes a matter of national repentance, much as we see in the story of Nineveh in the time of Jonah.

Are you seriously taking major offense to the word "silly"? Okay then. Just give me a list of words I can use that you won't be offended by. That will make it easier for me. As for your question, that is sil....not an appropriate question to ask a Christian and can't be taken seriously since all Christians obviously consider Christianity to be important.

Yes, it's your tone that's caused you to get upset over my use of the word "fabrication." So I'm trying to persuade you to use less insulting rhetoric. Then we may read less hostility into each other's words.

Lots of things. Are you purposely missing my point? Do you think we should interpret scripture based on what some church fathers wrote or should we study it for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit tell us what scripture means? Can we learn some things from what they wrote. Sure. But, it's more important to be like the Bereans and study the scriptures for ourselves to see if what they said is really true

I concur.

What does that mean? They certainly support my view with how I interpret them every bit as much as yours support your view with how you interpret them. It all depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You are not the authority to decide what is a legitimate doctrine or not.

The apostles and the Scriptures are the authority. And I said that if we are to make a doctrine out of Scriptural truth we need doctrinal statements from the Scriptures--not just truths that have to be organized to fit our assumed "truths."

My point is simply that what Paul wrote about in Romans 9:6-8 in regards to spiritual Israel was that it had nothing to do with being physically descended from Abraham, which is why he said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.".

Paul was not discounting Jewish ethnicity when he spoke of both spiritual and unspiritual Israelites. He was saying the unfaithful were to be cast out as rogue--not identified as a separate category of "Israelite."

Again, I never said that the definition of Israel changed. I'm saying that there is more than one Israel. I'm not redefining national Israel, I'm defining spiritual Israel.

There is no "2nd Israel!" One may say there is a spiritual Israel and a carnal Israel, but this is not saying there are 2 different Israel's.

I may say there are 2 kinds of students in a classroom, 1 kind are good students and the other kind are lousy students. But they do not become 2 distinct classes. Rather, they are just 2 different kinds of students in the same class.

There are good and bad Israelites. But they are not separated into "2 Israel's." They are both in the same classification: "Israel."

Israel has always had good and bad people and they've all been called "Israel." So "untrue Israel" has been often misinterpreted to mean "invalid Israel," as if a "bad Israelite" can suddenly become a "non-Israelite" or a "separate Israel."

Can't be done. They are all the same "Israel," both good and bad included in the same category. The fact Paul distinguishes one group as belonging in the Church and the other has being disqualified from the Church does not mean any of them stop being "Israel!"