Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8 say that the New Covenant was promised to, and made with
"...the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Jesus, speaking to a Canaanite woman said,
"...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs" (Matt. 15:24, 26). Roman's 9:4-5 says:
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. A'-men. Romans 9:4-5
Since Essau also, was of Abraham, it was necessary for Paul to explain that his descendants were not those
"to whom pertaineth." This is stated as
"...these are not the children of God" (v. 8), and
"...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (v. 12).
Question number one: Do the above references agree with a Jesus who came to, and died for, all men without exception?
Question number two: If, as taught by the religious establishment, everything listed in Romans 9:4-5 pertaineth also to Edomites, Canaanites and other non-Israelites why is it not found equally distributed among them?
Question number three: If, as seminaries teach, the Christian "Gentiles" were not non-Jew Diaspora Israelites (the covenant people), where in the context of Paul's epistles are they identified as Edomites, Canaanites and/or other nearby non-Israleites?
Question number four: If, as the seminaries teach, there was a wholesale rejection of Jesus by Israel, why, for most of Christian history, have the essentials of Christianity listed in Romans 9:4-5 not been equally found among non-European people. Why has the New Covenant, that which was promised to, and made with,
"the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" been so disproportionately found among the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and related European people?
Why does the religious establishment ignore and/or claim that this is mere coincidence?
Question number five: Why is Jesus and the New Covenant, that which was promised to, and made with
"...the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8) so disproportionately absent among those the seminary professors say pertaineth the covenants and everything mentioned in Romans 9:4-5? Why?
Question number six: Why do seminary professors tell we who accept Jesus as Messiah
"come in the flesh" (2 John v. 7) to bless and support those who deny that Messiah
"is come in the flesh?" The apostle John, in the verses that follow said the opposite. Why then does the religious establishment tell us that we must bless and support
"...them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)---
or God will curse us!
For a good source of uncensored truth on this subject go to
Home