Jesus acknowledged that the Jews were the descendants of Abraham, but that they weren’t the “children of Abraham” or the “children of God” anymore, but the “children of the devil”. Since Abraham is not their father, but the devil is, the promises that God gave to Abraham of those blessing Abrahams children being blessed does not apply to the Jews. They rejected Christ and are the children of the devil and not Abraham.
In John 8:37 Jesus said “I know you are Abraham’s descendants”.
in vs. 38, “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did.”
In vs 42, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God.
In vs 44, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.“
Not at all. "Children of Abraham" always had the dual meaning. If it hadn't, then Ishmaelites and Midianites would be children of Abraham in every sense, but they were not accounted as his children because they didn't have the faith of Abraham. If you don't do what your father does, everyone knew your father dismisses you as a child.
You have this wrong division to the word "anymore" like something changed. The spiritual covenant was always the same: believe on the Seed of the Woman to be revealed. Tribal and national covenants arose at many points in history and are easily separable. Because we're so far from the origin we made up other paradigms where we blur the two types of covenant, and that requires us to invent presto-changeo work on Jesus's behalf, but Jesus did not change one serif of the covenant.
You need to figure out what it is that's driving you so illogically. It appears to be some unstated objection that, if this is true, you'd have to do something crazy that may sound Jewish. I'm not proposing anything crazy or Jewish; I am proposing equal self-determination for all. Maybe you should come straight out and say what you think my position logically entails that you cannot accept, and then I can explain why the position doesn't logically entail it as you might mistakenly believe. (Or perhaps we can get to the real binary proposition separating us.)
Hypocrite. If Muslims aren’t children of Abraham today then neither are jews.
Oh, I agree Muslims are children of Abraham, Semites, Hebrews, as to biology. But the Bible records that these terms narrowed in meaning over time, and also that one could be naturalized into the biology. The interlocutor here has a very rigid replacement view of two eras without any connection between them or any era before, so I'm speaking in that context; but you and I understand both meanings without confusion so that's not at issue.
That isn’t even what I’m saying. Im saying the people called “jews” today have no spiritual connection to the “jews” of the Bible. Or atleast, a less than or equal to connection compared with the Muslims of today.
The people you call jews are more accurately called Talmudists.
Talmudism was a rejection of true Judaism.
Thus they are rejected by their Father. According to your own logic.
Well, Talmudic Semites uphold every letter of the OT, while Muslim "Semites" believe it was corrupted. But comparatively the two claims should always be kept in tension and perhaps when being diplomatic there is no need to compare them rashly.
To the degree that Talmudism rejects the Torah Judaism of Messianics (and Christians), it is rejected by the Father. When evangelizing Jews I find it helpful not to lay out what degree that is because while one upholds every letter of the OT there is hope that one will accept the truths there. There is no monolithic rejection of God (nor even of Jesus) across the board in Rabbinical Judaism, I've searched for it and haven't found it. They are still pre-Christian, unlike most other nations being evangelized.
This is false, Isaac and Jacob were chosen before they were born. It wasn’t because they had more faith than their siblings. The blessings to the “chosen people” were chosen to be through Jacob’s line.
The covenant God made to Abraham were to the “children of Abraham”, or the biological Jews. Jesus came and said that anybody could be a “child of abraham” by believing in him and lineage didn’t matter.
There is no “Jew or greek” in Christ. There is no special promise to any group based off lineage anymore. How is this so hard to understand??
See now you're taking your invention and reading it into the OT too. Your inability to see the text because of your blinder laid over it is the whole problem.
You define "child of Abraham" or "covenant" person as (1) biological Jews for a period and then (2) believers in Jesus for a later period. This allows you to cut history into two periods where (1) lineage gave promises and (2) it doesn't (with no reason for the change other than misreading Jesus's words). But you immediately also change the promises because Christians haven't controlled the Holy Land most of 2,000 years either. If you actually believed the land promise hadn't changed you'd accept the idea of Israel being run by majority Messianic Jews in the future because they would be Christian; but you don't speak like you do. So your position is wholly inconsistent and based on a proposition that isn't there, the idea that all national texts are spiritualized and the thousands of years where they were taken as literal promises have been broken by God.
Test questions: How did people get saved or in covenant before Abraham?
How did non-biological Jews get saved or in covenant, like Shuah's daughter, the mixed multitude of Egyptians, the Gibeonites, the Kenites, Ruth, the Samaritans, etc.?
How did those Jews who apostasized from God in the OT get handled, did they receive the covenant no matter how evil they were, or were they excluded by being recognized as not having the faith of Abraham?
Why do you say "biological Jews" to refer to "children of Abraham" when Jews are only descended from Judah the great-grandson of Abraham; do you mean "biological Israelites"?
Why were Ishmael, Midian, and grandson Esau not "children of Abraham" in your view if they had the same genes and, you say, had no less faith than their siblings; do you mean God chose Abraham and Isaac but not all their children?
But if God was free to choose from among the biological children of Abraham and Isaac, then why do you act like he was not free to chose from among the biological children of Israel or Judah but that the spiritual covenant was biological?
Are you racist when you imply biological Jews got the national and spiritual covenant for 1,800 years without reference to their lack of faith but only with reference to biology (sounds like a preference among races to me)?
Are you prepared to exposit every passage about biology to say that its meaning changed from what people always took it to mean literally and all such literal passages once were literally accurate but God changed their meaning secretly with a single proclamation of Jesus?
Why don't you exposit Ezekiel 36:24-26 that way and explain how Christians enter into a spiritual land before they are given a new heart?
These people were only the "COA" by joining the Israeli nation. In no way could you be a "COA" when you didn't join the Jewish nation before Christ.
The Jews were descended from Abraham and Jacob. The biological descendants of Jacob had a covenant from God. The Jews claimed they were the "COA" because of there biological descent. Jesus said they weren't and instead the children of the devil because they didn't believe in him. Therefore the covenant given to "COA" doesn't belong to them anymore.
They were the "COA", but had a different set of covenants and blessings than the bloodline of Jacob. If they don't believe in Jesus, then they aren't the "COA" anymore.
Jews are the "children of the devil" and not messianic according to God HIMSELF. Get that in your head. The promise land doesn't belong to them. If the Jews become Christian, it still won't because there is no "ethnic" separation in Christianity.
"COA" as an abbreviation is your own invention, nobody uses it, it makes you look even sillier as you don't realize you're inventing it.
Naaman the Syrian. Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4).
So you're agreeing with me that different races have different covenants. And Ishmael's land covenant seems to be alive and kicking, despite their rejection of Jesus (1-2 billion Muslims). I wonder why you don't think Israel's land covenant is. You somehow think that the blessings to Jacob were all one (spiritual and national) rather than divisible into ordinary biological and spiritual open to all (as the OT regularly shows).
You still haven't answered how the covenant worked before Abraham. Seems like before then the spiritual covenant was available to all too.
Only said to a handful of Jews by another Jew who had a million Jewish followers that century and another million Jewish followers right now who call themselves Messianic and worship Jesus. Sounds like you want to make a comment to a single crowd applicable as a national cursing to tens of millions of people indefinitely.
You finally drop your endgame. You believe Jewish Christians have no greater right to the Holy Land than Gentile Christians. Well, I don't argue eschatology, but it seems that in the end where all Christians are agreed then there would be no reason to forbid the Jewish Christians from carrying out their Hebrew culture in the Holy Land any more than we would forbid Chinese Christians from carrying out Chinese culture in China.
Work on that covenant prior to Abraham and see if you're not excluding people that God doesn't exclude.