You are right in that the context of these verses have to do with the nation of Israel - which was in conventual relationship with God. These curses would, and did, come to Israel if they broke the conditional covenant they had with God. There are consequences as well as blessings that come with being in covenant with God.
Some say that the US also is in covenantal relationship with God from the moment the Pilgrims landed on our eastern shores. As far as I know, the US is the only other nation to be in such an arrangement. Therefore, if this in indeed true, then we should take some lessons from the fate that befell Israel for their disobedience.
The nation of Israel broke the old covenant and God made a new one with the same people. It was never with those that say they are Judeans and are not.
I did not say, nor did I intend, that we are speaking of the same covenant that existed between God and Israel. I meant that the US also made a covenant of sorts with God when they landed - it is akin to a vow/covenant. Therefore, the US would be held to the parameters and conditions of a covenantal relationship with God. Meaning, if you break it, you suffer the consequences.
Let us be clear... Jesus, his disciples, and the rest of his audience were all Jews with the exception of the Samarians and a few God fearing Gentiles, like the Centurion. Jesus interacted with those considered as Jews in the context of the time. Israel and Jewish were interchangeable terms in that day and not up for debate as it seems to be the case now. Even Paul, as well as the rest of the NT writers, made a clear distinction between who was a Jew/Israel, and who was not - the Gentiles. There was no question in their minds, so why does it have to be a question today? The Jews of Jesus' day never gave a thought to whether Jewish originated as a term for those from Judea. That argument had no meaning for them. Anyone that tries to read into these distinctions something other that how they were meant to be understood in their historical and cultural context is adding meaning not intended by the writers.
I never said you were, I'm am - if you look at the Greek and Hebrew with lexicons and other writings of the time it's quite clear. Judean is the real word, and due to Edomites flooding Judea after the Assyrian deportations, it's merely a geographical identifier, though Christ could tell the wheat from the tears, unlike the apostles. "One among you is a devil" - what group behaves the same as Judas Iscariot? Should be obvious.
The people we call jews today are "those that say they are Judeans and are not" and they have the same behavior as their ancestors that killed our God come in the flesh as Christ. Goyim means nations, and in context, only refers to the other Israelite nations scattered by the Assyrian deportation. The KJV has many translation errors, including adding universalist language in Paul's writings.
The people of the USA, only the pure Whites, were already under God's covenant, so of course OP's pic is applicable to us, same as all pure Whites around the world.
The Bible isn't archetypal, it's the history of our people, and it's been hijacked by the Edomites of today. You can't make up a new covenant without it being in there, as there are no more prophets. It's blasphemy to do so.
You are right - Judean was a geographic identifier. However, the word Ἰουδαῖος means Jewish or Jew. There is a difference. Jews from Galilee were Galileans but they were still Jewish. This is the same for any Jew no matter where they lived in Israel, or the rest of the world. When people finally stop making this about race they will start to come much closer to the truth.
The modern day Jews are not, and have never been, God's Israel people as is proven by scripture, history and even Jewish writings. Christ said, My sheep hear my voice and follow me". Scripture defines sheep as Israel and only Israel. Who has been following Christ as a people for almost 2000 years?
The Almighty made an eternal, meaning forever, covenant with the people of Israel. If the covenant between the Creator with the sun and the moon can be broken, then Israel will cease being a people before Him. Mankind does not get to come along later and redefine what is meant by Israel. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience when he made the statement you mention. He also stated that there were other sheep not of the fold he was speaking to at that moment, which were Jews. He said about the others, that he would bring them as well - meaning Gentiles.
Even Paul stated that Gentiles were grafted into Israel as part of the commonwealth. That tree of Israel was the Jewish people of that time as they understood it - not what someone centuries later decided it meant. Christianity did not make a separate redefined tree apart from the tree that already existed. They were meant to be grafted into it. Following Jesus was never a requirement definition of who constituted Israel. That is replacement theology. Israel must be understood within its Biblical context - not what someone else thinks it means.
The error comes with the word Jew. The word should not even be in the new testament. It is not found in the Greek text. Yes the covenant is with Israel and some of those who were there hearing Christ were of Israel. Some were not. Those who hated Christ and argued with him, those who He told they were of their father the devil and they admitted they were not of Israel are not a part of the covenant. There is a lot to this. The word Gentile should not be in the NT as well. The Greek says Nation. (Gentile meant non-Roman citizen at one time. You should see what a 1931 dictionary says it meant. The meaning has been changed.) Prophecy tells us all about the other sheep. Sheep is defined by scripture as only Israelites. The grafting is for the other fold of Israel, the divorced and put away and punished House of Israel, whom Christ came to return to the fold. Lots to this. If you want to continue, I'm happy to do it.
You are right in that the context of these verses have to do with the nation of Israel - which was in conventual relationship with God. These curses would, and did, come to Israel if they broke the conditional covenant they had with God. There are consequences as well as blessings that come with being in covenant with God.
Some say that the US also is in covenantal relationship with God from the moment the Pilgrims landed on our eastern shores. As far as I know, the US is the only other nation to be in such an arrangement. Therefore, if this in indeed true, then we should take some lessons from the fate that befell Israel for their disobedience.
The nation of Israel broke the old covenant and God made a new one with the same people. It was never with those that say they are Judeans and are not.
No one else was brought into it.
I did not say, nor did I intend, that we are speaking of the same covenant that existed between God and Israel. I meant that the US also made a covenant of sorts with God when they landed - it is akin to a vow/covenant. Therefore, the US would be held to the parameters and conditions of a covenantal relationship with God. Meaning, if you break it, you suffer the consequences.
Let us be clear... Jesus, his disciples, and the rest of his audience were all Jews with the exception of the Samarians and a few God fearing Gentiles, like the Centurion. Jesus interacted with those considered as Jews in the context of the time. Israel and Jewish were interchangeable terms in that day and not up for debate as it seems to be the case now. Even Paul, as well as the rest of the NT writers, made a clear distinction between who was a Jew/Israel, and who was not - the Gentiles. There was no question in their minds, so why does it have to be a question today? The Jews of Jesus' day never gave a thought to whether Jewish originated as a term for those from Judea. That argument had no meaning for them. Anyone that tries to read into these distinctions something other that how they were meant to be understood in their historical and cultural context is adding meaning not intended by the writers.
I never said you were, I'm am - if you look at the Greek and Hebrew with lexicons and other writings of the time it's quite clear. Judean is the real word, and due to Edomites flooding Judea after the Assyrian deportations, it's merely a geographical identifier, though Christ could tell the wheat from the tears, unlike the apostles. "One among you is a devil" - what group behaves the same as Judas Iscariot? Should be obvious.
The people we call jews today are "those that say they are Judeans and are not" and they have the same behavior as their ancestors that killed our God come in the flesh as Christ. Goyim means nations, and in context, only refers to the other Israelite nations scattered by the Assyrian deportation. The KJV has many translation errors, including adding universalist language in Paul's writings.
The people of the USA, only the pure Whites, were already under God's covenant, so of course OP's pic is applicable to us, same as all pure Whites around the world.
The Bible isn't archetypal, it's the history of our people, and it's been hijacked by the Edomites of today. You can't make up a new covenant without it being in there, as there are no more prophets. It's blasphemy to do so.
You are right - Judean was a geographic identifier. However, the word Ἰουδαῖος means Jewish or Jew. There is a difference. Jews from Galilee were Galileans but they were still Jewish. This is the same for any Jew no matter where they lived in Israel, or the rest of the world. When people finally stop making this about race they will start to come much closer to the truth.
The modern day Jews are not, and have never been, God's Israel people as is proven by scripture, history and even Jewish writings. Christ said, My sheep hear my voice and follow me". Scripture defines sheep as Israel and only Israel. Who has been following Christ as a people for almost 2000 years?
The Almighty made an eternal, meaning forever, covenant with the people of Israel. If the covenant between the Creator with the sun and the moon can be broken, then Israel will cease being a people before Him. Mankind does not get to come along later and redefine what is meant by Israel. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience when he made the statement you mention. He also stated that there were other sheep not of the fold he was speaking to at that moment, which were Jews. He said about the others, that he would bring them as well - meaning Gentiles.
Even Paul stated that Gentiles were grafted into Israel as part of the commonwealth. That tree of Israel was the Jewish people of that time as they understood it - not what someone centuries later decided it meant. Christianity did not make a separate redefined tree apart from the tree that already existed. They were meant to be grafted into it. Following Jesus was never a requirement definition of who constituted Israel. That is replacement theology. Israel must be understood within its Biblical context - not what someone else thinks it means.
The error comes with the word Jew. The word should not even be in the new testament. It is not found in the Greek text. Yes the covenant is with Israel and some of those who were there hearing Christ were of Israel. Some were not. Those who hated Christ and argued with him, those who He told they were of their father the devil and they admitted they were not of Israel are not a part of the covenant. There is a lot to this. The word Gentile should not be in the NT as well. The Greek says Nation. (Gentile meant non-Roman citizen at one time. You should see what a 1931 dictionary says it meant. The meaning has been changed.) Prophecy tells us all about the other sheep. Sheep is defined by scripture as only Israelites. The grafting is for the other fold of Israel, the divorced and put away and punished House of Israel, whom Christ came to return to the fold. Lots to this. If you want to continue, I'm happy to do it.