Biblical claim vs not

[LIMS]

There is a discussion fueling on another board regarding the Jews and the land of Israel. Someone said it is a historical claim the Jews have but they do not have a bibilical claim whatsoever b\c the land was never actually promised to the Jewish people as a continued inheritance and since 70 ad, there's nothing to claim Bibilically.

What says you?

I find it ironic the Jews's whole history is in the Bible. I had quite a hard time getting the person to say the basis of their historical claim came from.

Any thoughts from our respective Jewish posters?

[LIMS]

I have to say this... I think it sounds strange to say it isn't biblical because it implies the claim came somewhere else.

[hupo]

Sounds to me like the age old replacement theory

Very easy to say it doesn't exist anywhere in the bible. You don't have to back that up with scripture

What do they say about just the first promise made to Abraham? (Gen 12 ESV)
Gen 12:1  Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2  And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

Gen 12:6  Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
Gen 12:7  Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

(my emphasis)

David

[LIMS]

Hmmm. You used that ESV version the guy likes. LOLOL. Anyhoo.......

I do find it interesting that this is a "forever" situation. I've discovered some interesting stuff in Exodus and Deuteronomy as I'm re-reading it. God had already laid it all out to the Jewish people what would happen and STILL allowed the generation after that (who left Egypt) to enter in the Promised Land.

I noticed that God gave a condition that He commanded them to love Him with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength and to follow His commands then they could live long and be blessed in the land but if they strayed after false idols and became disobedient then they would not be blessed with living long lives and be blessed in the land. They would be cursed with curses and also be kicked out and put among the Gentiles and so on. That is not the same as saying they will never "have" a claim to the land.

And another thing that struck me as I was reading is that God wanted them to be abundantly clear that He wasn't giving the land to them and their descendants based on their righteousness. Wowzer. He also mentioned about establishing/giving the Gentiles THEIR own lands but it wasn't to be Israel that they were going to get. Very interesting.

And Jesus told the Jews that they would not 'see' Him until they say "Blessed Is He who comes in the Name of the Lord'. THere would need to be Jews living for that to come true. And so forth.

I will reread Daniel and Ezekiel and the other prophets later on as I progress.

Thoughts?

[LIMS]

I apologize BUT.... I forgot to mention this:

For the sake of argument say those who say the promises and the land promises are all in Christ. Nobody gets the land outside of Christ.

Awright.

Let's play around with this.

Jesus was born as a Jew, correct? He was born to a Jewish woman and adopted by Joseph as a Jewish male son. Not only that BUT, he also came from the lineage of the House of David, correct? He has to fufill these "requirements". And He will return to the land of Israel- in fact, He is to set on the Mount of Olives and so forth and claim the throne in Jerusalem.

In order for Him to do all of these- he would have to be a descendant of a Jew living in the land of Israel. In other words, there *IS* a claim that the Jews are associated with the land of ISrael because this is a divine establishment personally by God through Abraham then again with Issac and Jacob to create a people to populate the land of Israel. Ishmael is not involved. The sons of Keturah is not involved. Only the Jews are involved and directly linked to the land of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethelehem. He HAD to be born in Bethelehem. It HAD to be in Israel.

He is the King of the Jews. So, there is still a claim to the land of Israel for the Jews because then... the Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus get to remain in the land. They are the descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I mean, even if these people argue that it is only in Christ then they STILL unwittingly admit there *IS* a claim for the Messianic Jews because in the first place, they are of the children of Jacob/Israel and Jews have ties to the land of Israel.

It almost begs a circular reasoning, I think. I don't think they can ever remove the Jews from any association to the land of Israel even if they argue Jesus only has any claim to it.

[Ruth Ann]

There's no way to counter his stance and it is RT.

He goes round and round and round and round. Dizzy, he is.

[a2jgrammy]

Yep he is RT to the core.

He says he isn't, but he is .

He isn't going to change his mind with anything given to him, as he thinks he's the only one there who can interpert the bible.   He also loves the labels.

He has said he has it 100% correct, so.......how do you deal with someone who comes to a Messianic board and says such thing as he has.