Not sure he calls the church the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). To whom exactly he is refering is vague, but it seems that it is NOT the Galatians.
Being grafted into the olive tree does not make one and Israelite, it makes one a beneficiary of the root that supports the olive tree.
Paul also does not say that Gentiles have become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, only that they were formerly excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. Citizenship and inclusion are quite different.
PS- I'm not a dispensationalist, so how do you discredit me?
why does Paul include himself with the New Covenant Church who inherits New Jerusalem as sons of the freewoman (New Covenant), making it clear he is not in bondage to the Old Covenant (Sinai, present Jerusalem)?
Galatians 4
Sons and Heirs
1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,
a though he is the owner of everything,
2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.
3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles
b of the world.
4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Paul’s Concern for the Galatians
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
10You observe days and months and seasons and years!
11I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
12Brothers,
c I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong.
13You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first,
14and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
15What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me.
16Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?
d 17They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.
18It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you,
19my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!
20I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Example of Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;
e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
28Now you,
f brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
30But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
he-e-e-e-e-e-y......
is this that
New Perspective on Paul thingee again?
Old Perspective on Paul
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/new_p.html
New Perspective on Paul
New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
course, here's where this came from and where it's going (don't say i didn't tell ya...again):
Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle
November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison
Book Review
Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, 336 pp.
The new perspective on Paul which has completely reoriented Pauline studies over the last thirty years continues not only to inspire new theses, but to highlight still unresolved issues as well. Though arguably the majority of New Testament scholars now embrace E.P. Sanders’ principal observation that Palestinian Judaism was not a religion of legalism, nevertheless little consensus has been achieved over the question of Paul’s relationship with Judaism......etc etc....
.....
She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:
The rabbis did not think non-Jews needed to observe all the commandments of the Torah to be redeemed – in fact, they are decidedly not to observe many of them. The rabbis envisioned the Gentiles’ adhering to a small subset of law,
known as the Noahide code. Yet the rabbis did not think this counted as two separate ways to salvation. Both groups are supposed to be in concord with the will of God, both are called to obedience, and in their different roles, both are being faithful to the Torah. …
that does not mean there are two different systems of redemption (252, emphasis mine).
Nevertheless, what will likely remain challenging for most interpreters of Paul (this reviewer included) is Eisenbaum’s restatement of the position that Paul was addressing a Gentile audience as opposed to a single community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Whether this reluctance simply illustrates the degree to which the older paradigm remains entrenched perhaps remains to be seen. To that end, this book deserves widespread consideration.
Mark M. Mattison
http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/
SURPRISE! (not)
WHAT RUBBISH!
The Noahide Pledge
From English WikiNoah
Jump to: navigation, search
Maimonides says that "One who accepts these [basic laws] is called: Ger Toshav in every place, and he must be accepted in front of three judges"[1], and in the next verse says "Everyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to perform them – this person is of the Chasidei Umos HaOlam, and he has a portion in the world to come. He accepts them and performs them because they were commanded by the Kodosh Baruch Hu, revealed to us by the hand of Moshe Rabbenu that the Bnei Noah were previously commanded in these things. However, if he keeps these [laws] because of intellectual decision – he is not called a Ger Toshav and is not of the Chasidei Umos HaOlam, he is [only] one of their wise men."[2]
The following are various opinions on the appearance of the Noahide in front of three judges, commonly – although usually incorrectly – called the Noahide Oath.
http://wikinoah.org/index.php/The_Noahide_Pledge
~
to ponder:
would you take this Oath?
should anyone?
where does this come from?
where is it headed?
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/27759-noahide-laws.html