If you’re a Christian and you support the modern geopolitical state of Israel, you deny that Christ is the Messiah. It's that simple.

[The Gospel of Christ]

(Just make sure you don't skip over your own quotes....)

Yes, it's exactly that; if one can be honest and read the actual Greek text... DIRECTLY, without the bias of Church Tradition that is suffused throughout English translations.

I've been using the Greek text of the New Testament for over 50 years now, and learned the language, precisely because bad translations push a false theological bias.


And yet it isn't. Even by your own words... A Gospel of Repentance and Forgiveness is not a Gospel of atonement through His blood. That ought to be obvious.


Indeed, but should a minister of the Gospel go beyond what Jesus taught? If so, then he's preaching a different Gospel. (Remember, Paul didn't have Matthew, Mark, and possibly John available. We don't know when Luke published his account.) There are claims in the epistles of Paul that are not reflected in the Synoptic Gospels. Period.


THINK..... and I mean take more than a three second brain fart to burp out your pre-programmed indoctrination.

ASK yourself... "What is the THIS?"

Furthermore, whatever translation you're using is lying. The word "out" isn't in the text. The Greek reads εις (into) - "poured into." A bad translation creates bad doctrine.

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured INTO many for the forgiveness of sins.​

(Matthew 26:27-28)

So what is the "this"? What did Jesus have them drink? What is to be poured into you? Then you'll know what the blood of the covenant of Christ is (even though you likely think you already do).


I accept what the Greek text reads as shown above. Can you? Meaning you didn't give me a direct quote - just a quote from a bad translation.


You added in the word "nice." (That's not nice.) Playing Straw-man with the gospel is pretty evil if you ask me.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;​

(Matthew 5:44 KJV)

Agape has nothing to do with being "nice." So yes, "the gospel that Jesus preached was indeed not merely “be nice and repent.”" It was REPENT and OBEY my teachings.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.​

(Matthew 9:13 KJV)

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.​

(Matthew 12:7 KJV)

I'm not sure you know what this meaneth. Jesus did foretell of his death, but he never used the word sacrifice. (You seem to keep adding in words....) Do a simple search, and you will not find what you posted. He did NOT foretell of His own death "as the sacrifice." If he did, quote a verse that actually says this.

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:​

- Psalms 49:7 KJV

You think Mark 10:45 is a slam dunk to turn Jesus into a human blood sacrifice for the gods (okay just one God) to appease His wrath? Have you noticed the Greek word ANTI (against) in this verse? Why do your Bibles omit this word?

Mark 10:45 και γαρ ο υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν διακονηθηναι αλλα διακονησαι και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι (ANTI) πολλων​

GOC; "anti" doesn't mean "for." It never did. It means (in general) against, or opposite.

LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for G473 ἀντί anti

C. IN COMPOS. it signifies,​

2. against, in opposition to​

But we must note that ANTI as a preposition follows its noun (cf. The Cambridge Greek Lexicon). So to account for English word order we would see αντι (ANTI) λυτρον πολλων. Or "anti ransom." Whatever one might think "anti ransom" might be, it most certainly is not "ransom."

So here is Mark 10:45

και (AND) γαρ (FOR) ο (THE) υιος (SON) του (OF) ανθρωπου (MAN) ουκ (NOT) ηλθεν (CAME) διακονηθηναι (TO BE SERVED) αλλα (BUT) διακονησαι (TO SERVE) και (AND) δουναι (TO DEVOTE) την (THE) ψυχην (LIFE) αυτου (OF HIM) αντι (AGAINST) λυτρον (A RANSOM) πολλων (OF MANY)​

(Mark 10:45 KGRK)


And I would agree with you, if the word ANTI wasn't in the text, and omitted by your translators. (Yeah... ALL of them, because it goes against (anti) the Evangelical Narrative.) Look it up for yourself. Jesus never once uttered the word sacrifice with regards to himself. But he most certainly suffered to preach the true Gospel, and they (the Jews) certainly had him crucified and slain for it - even tortured trying to make him recant.

But Mark 10:45 (in the Greek) doesn't say what you think it does. That's why I keep asking for just one verse where Jesus buys into (preaches) your Gospel Narrative of him being a human blood sacrifice.


So none of the twelve could explain it ??? Peter, after having been immediately baptized in the Holy Spirit couldn't explain what Jesus accomplished? Balderdash. Because if one cannot rely upon the accuracy and sufficiency of a sermon preached right after the Holy Spirit was given, then none of it can be relied upon.


Again, ONE verse. Support your claim that it was the same gospel.


To say, "Jesus said He would pay for your sins" is to REJECT what He truly said about his being betrayed, delivered, slain, and raised. Especially when you cannot quote even one verse where Jesus said that He would pay for your sins.

Jesus was betrayed, delivered and slain because he preached a Salvation that stood against (ANTI) Moses.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. ... Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

- Acts 2:22-24, 36 KJV

Interestingly enough, the tone of your post is extremely similar to those I've received from hyper-Mormons, hyper-Jehovah's Witnesses, hyper-Catholics, even Scientologists. An emotional certainty that is so ingrained that it looks impossible for such a person to even think that he or she might be wrong, let alone have a rational conversation. I hope this is not the case.


But I don't see where you believe the Gospel that Jesus taught - that the Father Forgives Sin.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

- Acts 2:37-38 KJV

Is this insufficient for salivation?


But you proclaim the Son as a human blood sacrifice offered up to God as a payment for sin. (Do you not?) So you are Not acknowledging the Son, or you would proclaim that the Son preached that the Father Forgives Sin. (Which He did.)


To add the words of another is to adulterate the full testimony of Christ. That's what adulterate means... to add in.

Now if you wish to condemn me as a Red Letter Christian, then so be it. But I will not adulterate the Gospel.


He wasn't a moral teacher? Yes, he was. But even more so, in that "mere moral teachers" have no basis to command you to Repent. To reduce the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain to "moral teaching" is to belittle the full breadth and power of that teaching. But to add to it is pure heresy.

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​

- Luke 5:39 KJV

Learn what the New Wine is. (Or if you know then tell me.)

In the LOGOS (Teaching of Jesus),
Rhema

What you’re doing is exactly what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for—straining at gnats while swallowing camels. You twist Greek prepositions and cherry-pick translation nuances to deny the plain, overwhelming message of the Gospel. Jesus absolutely tied His blood to the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28 doesn’t need your spin—it speaks for itself, and no amount of grammatical gymnastics can erase what He said: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” You say, “What is the THIS?” — it’s His blood. He said it while holding the cup, knowing full well He was walking to the cross to be slain like the Passover Lamb.

You claim the Greek word “anti” in Mark 10:45 doesn’t mean “for” — but in the very context of ransom, it clearly carries the idea of substitution, as any first-year Greek student would know. That’s not Evangelical bias, that’s linguistic integrity. Paul didn’t invent the atonement. He explained it. Jesus Himself said He came to give His life as a ransom. He quoted Isaiah 53 about Himself. He spoke of His death repeatedly—not just as a martyr but as a fulfillment of the Scriptures. If you’re going to insist Jesus never used the word “sacrifice” about Himself, you might as well rip Isaiah 53 out of your Bible too, since He directly applied it to His own death.

This isn’t about translations—it’s about your refusal to believe that the blood of Jesus actually did something. You want a Gospel without the cross. You want Christ without the crucifixion. But without the blood, there is no covenant, no forgiveness, and no resurrection that matters. You’re not standing for truth; you’re running from it—because it offends your modern sensibilities to think that sin is so serious, and love is so costly, that God Himself would bleed to save us.

You don’t get to redefine the Gospel because it makes you uncomfortable. Jesus didn’t just preach it. He became it.

 

[Curtis]

I read an account of a Jewish Rabbi who had a near-death experience. He said that he had died, and as he was descending into a dark pit, he saw all of his rabbi professors, who had taught him, hanging on the walls of this dark pit, they kept saying "we were all wrong!!!!. Then he saw a very bright light approaching him, who said to him he was Jesus, whom he had rejected as the messiah. Jesus said to him "I will let you choose if you want to stay here or return to the land of the living."

The rabbi said he wanted to go back. As soon as he was resuscitated to life, he began to tell everyone Jesus was the messiah, and that is what he has been doing ever since his near-death experience.

 

[th1bill]

You don't even know who, or what Israel even is.. It's not Rothschildsland and a bunch of secular, Polish carpetbaggers, it's the body of Christ. Until you get your head around this, you're beyond lost.

I'm certainly happy that you, in spite of your self-promotion, are not my savior. No, I am part of the Church Yashuah will return for but I am grafted in, an adopted child of The King..

 

[Rhema]

You twist Greek prepositions

And what do you know of the Greek language? Be honest. (Can you? I'm not sure you can, now.) How many classes have you taken to learn Greek? (Years?)

I'm not surprised, but I am very disappointed to merely receive a knee jerk rejection to my well written and reasoned analysis that challenges the tradition of your faith, and that indeed you would post a three second brain fart to burp out your pre-programmed indoctrination. (What a waste.)

You twist Greek prepositions ... You claim the Greek word “anti” in Mark 10:45 doesn’t mean “for” — but in the very context of ransom, it clearly carries the idea of substitution, as any first-year Greek student would know.

Please. What nonsense. A first-year Greek student would know that ANTI means opposite or against. I even gave you a link to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for you to read. It's obvious that you didn't even take the time to read it.

But to claim that ANTI means "for" ?? Like with ANTI-Christ ??? You would claim that any first-year Greek student would know that anti-Christ means FOR Christ?

So... have you EVER been a "first-year" Greek student? Again, can you be honest and give a truthful answer?

You rail against those having been indoctrinated by the Scofield Reference Bible, but seem unable to recognize your own indoctrination. Yes, I know it's hard. That's why the Jews ultimately crucified Jesus - because they couldn't accept the New Wine.

Jesus taught against animal sacrifice, as did the prophet Jeremiah:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.​

- Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV

Jesus' rejection of animal sacrifice (as a ransom) is found in all the Gospel texts, especially Mark, where Jesus even forbade the grain offering.

And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.​

- Mark 11:15-16 KJV

But you have made Jesus into a human blood sacrifice to pay for your sins, not knowing what the scriptures say about ransom and sacrifice. How wonderfully pagan. You have turned the Messiah into a pagan blood sacrifice. (I am sure the Romans are well pleased.)

He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.​

- Isaiah 66:3 KJV

“What is the THIS?” — it’s His blood.

No, GOC.

Blood was not in the cup. (Unless you believe in Transubstantiation. Hmmm maybe you do.)

Exactly what was in the cup?
THINK. I beg you.

You know the answer, and you know I know you know the answer, but are too stubborn to admit you are wrong. It's just a shame.

knowing full well He was walking to the cross to be slain like the Passover Lamb.

Jesus himself never once said that he was the Passover Lamb. SHOW ME. Or admit that you can't. Again, while you rail against the Scofield Reference Bible for all the doctrines he invented, you still cling to the invented doctrines of your own religious traditions.

What you’re doing is exactly what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for—straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

The camel being swallowed is the rejection of Jesus' teaching that the FATHER forgives sin when one repents in prayer. The camel being swallowed is where the Messiah is turned into a human blood sacrifice when neither He nor Peter ever taught such a thing.

Matthew 26:28 doesn’t need your spin—it speaks for itself, and no amount of grammatical gymnastics can erase what He said: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Accurate translation is not a spin. EIS doesn't mean "for." That's a tradition of your church - (the Church of England if you use the KJV). But please, be my guest - provide me with YOUR translation (I'll help to get you started by providing the link that proves EIS means INTO. You're welcome.):

Mat 26:28 τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου το της καινης διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυνομενον εις (INTO) αφεσιν αμαρτιων

Then ask yourself WHAT? is being poured into....

This isn’t about translations—

It's EXACTLY about translation. Translations that change the words to destroy the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

it’s about your refusal to believe that the blood of Jesus actually did something.

It's about you being indoctrinated into a Roman Blood Cult, where mystical powers are transferred by blood.

Acts 2 - nothing about blood. Acts 13 nothing about blood. Are you now going to claim that these sermons didn't preach the Gospel?

Jesus Himself said He came to give His life as a ransom.

Blind as a Pharisee. Jesus Himself said και γαρ ο υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν διακονηθηναι αλλα διακονησαι και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι πολλων

ANTI - RANSOM. The text would need to be written "λυτρον γάρ πολλων" to say what you (and others) claim it says.

Truth be told, you might be worse than Scofield.

He quoted Isaiah 53 about Himself.

Exactly WHERE did Jesus quote Isaiah 53 about Himself? Instead of you blathering, give a scripture verse. Prove yourself. Prove me wrong, because Jesus NEVER once even uttered the word Lamb.

You twist Greek prepositions...

Then show me. Explain explain HOW I am twisting a Greek preposition. (If you can.) I explained my claim to you. But you won't. Because you can't. All you can do is post is an unfounded and unsubstantiated accusation. Disspointing. But I understand why you can't enter into a civil conversation. (You'll lose your religion.)

You want a Gospel without the cross. You want Christ without the crucifixion.

Nonsense. You have NO CLUE what I want. You can't even read your own holy writings. I doubt you even realize that the Jews crucified Christ. PLEASE, let me know that you know this.

But without the blood, there is no covenant, no forgiveness, and no resurrection that matters.

Again, you have no clue what the blood of the covenant is, even after Jesus Himself directly told you what that blood was.

WHAT WAS IN THE CUP, GOC ???? (Did Jesus slit his wrists and pour blood into the cup?)

to deny the plain, overwhelming message of the Gospel.

Whose Gospel?

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

- Mark 1:14 KJV

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is EVERYTHING JESUS preached.

Most people heavily indoctrinated into a cult just can't see reason and truth.

I pray you get rescued,
Rhema

Jesus didn’t just preach it.

You're right. Jesus didn't preach it. And you can't show me where he did. (Not without using a twisted translation.)

You don’t get to redefine the Gospel because it makes you uncomfortable.

Neither do you.

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

- Mark 1:14 KJV

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached. But that's not what you're preaching. Is it.

 

[Moon888]

The Dispensationalist brainwashing that gripped the U.S. beginning in the 1950s wasn’t just bad theology—it was spiritual sabotage. A deliberate, well-funded distortion of the Gospel that helped drive tens of millions away from Christianity. It replaced the teachings of Christ with fear-based loyalty tests to a modern nation-state, twisting Scripture into a political weapon.

What began as subtle shifts in interpretation became a full-blown cult of deception—where televangelists like Jerry Falwell raged from TV screens night after night, proclaiming that anyone who didn’t blindly support Israel was “cursed by God.” No nuance. No Gospel. Just threats. Just fear.

Falwell, Hagee, Lindsey, Robertson—they didn’t just mislead. They built platforms on lies, with the Bible in one hand and a Zionist agenda in the other. They weren’t confused. They were complicit. And it’s almost impossible to believe they didn’t know exactly what they were doing.

Because the truth was always there. Jesus said, “It is finished,” not “It will be continued after a geopolitical reset.” The Cross ended the old covenant—it didn’t hit pause. And yet these men preached another gospel entirely. One that made Christ's sacrifice feel… incomplete. Contingent. Nationalized.

The irony? The very tool used to usher in this counterfeit theology—the Scofield Reference Bible—was mass-printed and distributed in the early 20th century, bankrolled by the Rockefellers, whose fingerprints are all over modern propaganda. It wasn’t an accident. It was infiltration.

And the damage? Generation after generation now mocks Christianity. A nation spiritually lost in confusion. And millions who associate the message of Jesus not with grace and truth—but with war, money, and curses.


This wasn’t just bad doctrine. It was a deception with eternal consequences.

We must be clear about what Scripture says about rejection of Christ—not just in a future prophetic sense, but right now, in terms of spiritual reality.

1.​

So when modern Judaism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ, it doesn’t result in a partial or temporary disconnection—it’s total. There is no shared worship of the same God if the Son is denied.

---

2.​

They claimed to worship Yahweh. Jesus told them point-blank: you don’t know Him.


Modern Judaism—built upon the rejection of Christ and post-Temple Rabbinic tradition—is no different. There is no neutral middle ground.

---

3.​

Romans 11:25 says blindness has happened “in part” until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. But even Paul, in the same chapter, warns severely:


That’s not a side note—it’s spiritual severance. And the olive tree metaphor shows that only through faith in Christ can anyone—Jew or Gentile—be grafted in.

---

4.​

It reduces the absolute centrality of Christ to a doctrinal footnote. But Scripture doesn’t leave that door open:


If Christ is the only way, then anyone—Jew or Gentile—who rejects Him is not worshiping the Father at all. Period.

---

​

We can acknowledge a future moment of prophetic redemption for a remnant of Israel (Romans 11:26), but that does not erase the current reality: modern Judaism has fashioned a god that explicitly rejects the Son—and therefore cannot be the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

So no, we don’t worship the same God. And any theology that claims otherwise stands against the very words of Jesus Christ Himself

My question is what would Jesus say today about the "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza, and what would Jesus say about DJ Trump supporting Isreal and the Temple build? Thanks : )

 

[th1bill]

My question is what would Jesus say today about the "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza, and what would Jesus say about DJ Trump supporting Isreal and the Temple build? Thanks : )

The Temple will be built, Matthew 24, Revelation 11, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The Gaza situation is dumb and Israel should deal with this in a military manner and remove, forever, the Jew hating Arabs forever.

 

[Rxlx]

The Temple will be built, Matthew 24, Revelation 11, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The Gaza situation is dumb and Israel should deal with this in a military manner and remove, forever, the Jew hating Arabs forever.

OldBill you really live in a cuckooland of your own making.

The only way a third temple could be built on temple mount is if the Islams and Jews agreed to join forces and cooperate.

As they both deny Jesus is the son of GOD and are antichrists they probably think they will build a temple and live happily ever after with Islams worshipping the black stone they call allah and Jews worshipping an idol of their own devising.

All will be slaughtered when Jesus returns.

 

[Rhema]

My question is what would Jesus say today about the "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza, and what would Jesus say about DJ Trump supporting Isreal and the Temple build? Thanks : )

He would say, "Take away and remove (toss off) your cross and follow me." The cross was the inevitable end result of insurrection against the Roman Empire. Many Jews back then were in rebellion to overthrow the Roman Empire, just as many Jews today wish to kill Arabs and Muslims and Palestinians. None follow Christ. And God has given them over to their hatred.

Rebellion and insurrection, is not a light burden.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.​

(Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

One is not to take up a cross and join the rebellion.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.​

(Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.​

(Matthew 5:43-45 KJV)

In the Teachings (LOGOS) of Jesus,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Israel should deal with this in a military manner and remove, forever, the Jew hating Arabs forever.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.​

(Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.​

(Matthew 5:43-45 KJV)

Do you have a different Lord, Bill?

 

[Rhema]

The only way a third temple could be built on temple mount

The "temple mount" was the sight of the Antonia Fortress.

Compare sizes with the Roman Fort outside of Masada.

The actual City of David has been found, and a third temple will be built when the archaeologists finally dig up the second one.

Homepage - City of David

The City of David invites you to an experience that will connect you to the roots of the glorious past of the biblical city of Jerusalem.

cityofdavid.org.il

 

[KingJ]

My question is what would Jesus say today about the "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza,

Joy, another troll on this site.

The Palestinian population has doubled over the last 20 years, reaching approximately 14.3 million by mid 2022. To suggest Jews wanted to wipe out Palestinians when this fact is true and there being 1.8 million happy and prosperous Muslims in Israel, is simply evidence of the grey matter between your ears no longer working properly.

What is happening there is terrible, but if you are going to pass blame, it is 100% on Hamas and Iran. Jews would prefer to not have to ALWAYS be defending themselves from Muslims who want to see their extinction.

Please try be honest and at least use a brain cell or two.

and what would Jesus say about DJ Trump supporting Isreal and the Temple build? Thanks : )

I believe you are ignorant of the fact that you are on a Christian site.

According to the bible God gave Israel to the Hebrews / Jews and has always protected them.

Imagine not supporting a tiny little country with good God fearing people in it who are surrounded by so many that want to see their extinction.

Jews are not building the temple to mock God. Their intentions are good.

 

[Rxlx]

Rhema wrote:

But you have made Jesus into a human blood sacrifice to pay for your sins, not knowing what the scriptures say about ransom and sacrifice. How wonderfully pagan. You have turned the Messiah into a pagan blood sacrifice.

Exodus 12:5-6
Your lamb must be an unblemished year-old male, and you may take it from the sheep or the goats. / You must keep it until the fourteenth day of the month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel will slaughter the animals at twilight.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

1 Peter 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.

Rhema has a curious mindset - half Jew half Jesuit fully idiot?

 

[Rhema]

According to the bible God gave Israel to the Hebrews / Jews and has always protected them.

But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:​

(1 Kings 9:6-7 KJV)

 

[Rhema]

Rhema has a curious mindset - half Jew half Jesuit fully idiot?

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. ​

(Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV)

How can you say, "We are wise, and the law (TORAH) of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? ​

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)

 

[KingJ]

But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:​

(1 Kings 9:6-7 KJV)

Have all the Jews turned from following him?

As always another extremely low IQ reply and cherry picked scripture from you. You never fail to disappoint and waste other peoples time.

 

[Garee]

You’ve spent more time attacking how I quoted Scripture than actually responding to any of it.

You claim to have taught the Bible for 30 years, yet you just dismissed direct quotations from Jesus, Paul, and the apostles as “hot air.” You didn’t refute a single passage. Not one. You didn’t engage with Galatians 3. You didn’t address Hebrews 13:4. You didn’t touch 1 Corinthians 6:18 or Acts 15:20. You just waved your hand and said, “context.”

So let’s talk context.
The context of Galatians is Paul correcting a group of believers who were being tempted to go back under the old covenant system. Sound familiar?
“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” – Galatians 3:1

That’s the context. Paul rebuking those who were being convinced that there was still something spiritually significant about being a blood descendant of Abraham apart from Christ.

And how does Paul respond?

“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” – Galatians 3:29
That’s not a half-verse. That’s a full theological stake through the heart of Dispensationalism. There’s no ambiguity there. The “seed” is Christ. The heirs are those in Him. Not a geopolitical nation. Not a tribe. Not a DNA test.

You say I’m breaking the Word by quoting “partial sentences”? Tell me — when Jesus said, “It is finished,” should we disregard that because it’s a single sentence? Was He wrong to condense the entire plan of redemption into three words?

No, the problem isn’t verse divisions. The problem is that the Word is cutting through your tradition, and you’re dodging.
If you really want to walk line by line, I’m right here. Let’s open the Word and look at:

Galatians 3:16 says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning Christ.”

Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 2:14 proclaims, “He has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of separation.”

Hebrews 8:13 states, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ He has made the first one obsolete.”

And Romans 9:6–8 explains, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

If you want to debate context, fine. But that means you have to deal with every single verse — not dismiss them wholesale because they threaten your theological system.

You said I’m teaching “half-truths.” Then finish them. Show me where I’m misquoting. Correct me with Scripture — not tradition, not emotional appeals, and not vague references to paragraph structure.

You said the Word isn’t divided. I agree. But Christ divided truth from error, light from darkness, and spirit from flesh. And what He divided, I won’t mix back together just to protect someone’s comfort.

So again I say: If the Scriptures I quoted disturb you, your issue is not with me. It’s with the Word of God.

Either show me the full context that refutes what I’ve laid out…
Or admit what’s really happening here — that the truth is hitting too close to home, and it’s easier to call it “hot air” than to submit to it.

Because if you really taught the Word for 30 years, then you already know:
The Gospel has no room for two covenants, two peoples, or two salvations. There is only one body, one faith, one baptism — and one Seed.

And His name is not “Israel.”
It’s Jesus Christ.

The name of the son of God as His bride is called Isreal, the born-again bride previously called her Jacob the deceiver

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Not a tribe. Not a DNA test but is a outward testimony as a temporal sign to the world using the temporal historical things seen to give the unseen understanding of faith. And perhaps draw unbelieving mankind to His living word..

It remains an outward testimony until the last day under the Sun called forever, the temporal.

Forever and ever without end, the eternal.

The new name that the father promised to rename the bride (Isaiah 62) as a demonym (residents by location) is Christian literally meaning "residents of the heavenly City prepared for His bride" named after its founder and husband Christ (Zion) The forever and ever without end .

Christian a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations as families.

A distinction between forever as long as under the Sun and forever and ever, eternal must be made.

Like below

Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite (gentile) shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation (all of the temporal earthly generation) shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:(under the Sun)

Ruth a Moabite (gentile) entered forever and ever without end

Exodus 15:18 The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[Rhema]

Have all the Jews turned from following him?

As always another extremely low IQ reply and cherry picked scripture from you. You never fail to disappoint and waste other peoples time.

What a circus. It's always fun and giggles to watch you make a post that trashes a scripture verse.

Are they Jews if they turn and follow Christ?

Are those now in charge of the nation of Israel Christian?

According to the bible God gave Israel to the Hebrews / Jews and has always protected them.

OOPS... A.D. 70

(And I think loosing six million of them is not much protection.)

You have a good day, DK.

 

[Brad Huber]

What a circus. It's always fun and giggles to watch you make a post that trashes a scripture verse.

Are they Jews if they turn and follow Christ?

Are those now in charge of the nation of Israel Christian?


OOPS... A.D. 70

(And I think loosing six million of them is not much protection.)

You have a good day, DK.

There are some christians with Jewish heritage, just like in the time of Christ. They try and uphold both paths "just like the jewish converts to christianity in the first century AD did". Surely you know that scripture speaks of this??

 

[B-A-C]

Are they Jews if they turn and follow Christ?

That is the question in another thread.

Rom 2:26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

To me at least, the Bible uses the word "Jew" in 3 contexts, with (at least) three different meanings.
1. You can be a biological Jew, a biological descendant of Isaac. Gen 17:19; Rom 9:6-7;
2. You can be a person that follows Judaism, the Jewish religion. (even if you are a Gentile) Esther 8:17; Rom 2:17;
3. Or you can be saved-believer, a born-again Christian. Gal 3:28-29;

Possibly Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9, as well (but I know you aren't a fan of Revelation)

 

[Rhema]

There are some christians with Jewish heritage, just like in the time of Christ. They try and uphold both paths "just like the jewish converts to christianity in the first century AD did". Surely you know that scripture speaks of this??

And surely you know that Paul cursed them??