Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75

Thread: God divorced Israel?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    My posts were to TT; I don't believe he is HR either, just a fan of Fru, which is not bad but needs to be taken in with caution.
    I was trying to lighten it up a bit.

    I think the Fruch is brilliant on some things but downright crazy on others.
    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jlutz View Post
    First, what is HR?

    Secondly, if God hates divorice then why did He divorice Israel? Are you sure that divorice is what actually happened?
    Hebrew Roots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
    (2 House - that God has 2 groups of believers; those who keep the law of Judaism - the Judaisers, and the church)

    I don't think God got divorced like Newt, but He did remove His favoritism for the Jews when they went apostate and constructed a religion of works too small for God.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jlutz View Post
    First, what is HR?
    Hebrew Roots. They're cult-y messes.

    Secondly, if God hates divorice then why did He divorice Israel? Are you sure that divorice is what actually happened?
    Yeah, to me this is problematic. He does hate divorce yet He allows it for adultery (or if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave because the other is a believer.) So there is legal justification for it, some say.

    No, personally I do not believe the statement "God divorced Israel" is correct either in fact or in spirit. I believe (it's clear to me) that He left the relationship open for the sake of the remnant. There has always been a remnant who believed in Him, it was never a majority.

    ETA: Agree with Buzz on God removing His favoritism while He concentrated on building His Church.
    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    1,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    Hebrew Roots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
    (2 House - that God has 2 groups of believers; those who keep the law of Judaism - the Judaisers, and the church)

    I don't think God got divorced like Newt, but He did remove His favoritism for the Jews when they went apostate and constructed a religion of works too small for God.
    I'm with you. Wouldnt God be setting a bad precedent if He got divorced?
    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor 1:18

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jlutz View Post
    I'm with you. Wouldnt God be setting a bad precedent if He got divorced?


    Here's what Paul says and it references God's remnant (notice refers to himself as an Israelite though from the tribe of Judah):

    1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
    Romans 11
    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iSong6:3 View Post
    Hebrew Roots. They're cult-y messes.



    Yeah, to me this is problematic. He does hate divorce yet He allows it for adultery (or if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave because the other is a believer.) So there is legal justification for it, some say.

    No, personally I do not believe the statement "God divorced Israel" is correct either in fact or in spirit. I believe (it's clear to me) that He left the relationship open for the sake of the remnant. There has always been a remnant who believed in Him, it was never a majority.

    ETA: Agree with Buzz on God removing His favoritism while He concentrated on building His Church.
    Always been a seed - bloodline , a thread, a faithful remnant.

    The first team - The Jews, were benched, and the second team- the scrubs, were sent in. The scrubs will be raptured and the first team will be sent back in the last quarter for sudden death.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    Always been a seed - bloodline , a thread, a faithful remnant.
    I like how Paul describes it in Romans 11 above. God is about the remnant, wanting the rest to repent and be part of His family, be grafted back in.
    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Why not simply look at Jewish traditions on a divorce(and documentation)?

    From wiki:

    (a GET is the legal document pertaining to a divorce)

    A get must be given of the free will of the husband; however, consent of the wife is not Biblically mandated (nevertheless, Ashkenazic tradition provides that a husband may not divorce his wife without her consent). A get may not be given out of fear of any obligation either party undertook to fulfill in a separation agreement. Such an agreement may provide for matters such as custody of the children and their maintenance, and property settlement. But either party may withdraw from such an agreement, on the question of the dissolution of the marriage only, if they can satisfy the court of a genuine desire to restore matrimonial harmony. In such a situation all the recognised matrimonial obligations continue to apply. On the other hand, pecuniary conditions stipulated by the parties in the separation agreement would still be valid and enforceable, though the marriage state continues to exist.

    The last few sentences might clear some things up.


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonshaff View Post
    Why not simply look at Jewish traditions on a divorce(and documentation)?
    But why look? We have scripture Romans 11:1-5 2nd Peter 3:9 God separated from the nation of Israel but not the remnant of Israel.

    God has now given birth to Israel again (1948) to use her again as a stumbling stone to other nations that God is in control, not the other nations.

    A faithful remnant of Israel will be saved at Jesus' second coming.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    33,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    But why look?
    for perspective, i thought. i don't know enough about HR to know when i'm treading too close to a line. so i hope my confusion over this isn't a real issue so far as i have been trying to mentally digest this thread

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by icebear View Post
    for perspective, i thought. i don't know enough about HR to know when i'm treading too close to a line. so i hope my confusion over this isn't a real issue so far as i have been trying to mentally digest this thread
    We don't need Jewish law books; such as the Targum, (Mishnah · Gemara) (Midrash · Tosefta) Mishneh, Tur Shulchan, Aruch or Zohar ·they are wood, hay, and stubble compared with scripture.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    33,869

    Default

    ah, so the perspective gained would actually be the reverse of the intent

    makes sense

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by icebear View Post
    ah, so the perspective gained would actually be the reverse of the intent

    makes sense
    The made up Jewish law books are based loosely on the OT and wrapped heavily into made up traditions of men and were crafted in a fashion so there is no room for Jesus, it's religious apostasy, similar to apostate churches today who have a new gospel such as universalism, annihilation, etc...



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    england
    Posts
    700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iSong6:3 View Post
    The bill of divorcement was in Jeremiah 3:6-10, but then just a bit later in Jeremiah 6:14

    14Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:



    Does the Frucht have an explanation for that?

    I think you meant Jer 3:14 not 6:14 . Anyway, not sure exactly where I stand on this, but I had a quick look on bible.org (great resource BTW) and found this article: http://bible.org/article/divorce-pro...ry#P760_307319. The author, when speaking about Jer 3:14, gave the following explanation (not sure if Frucht would use the same argument):


    "The Jeremiah 3:14 text, which also speaks of God as a husband to previously divorced Israel (3:8) is more difficult to translate than most Bibles reveal. The term the NIV renders “husband” (and the KJV renders “am married”) is actually the verb bâ’al. Though this word can be translated that way, it could also be translated less related to marriage, and more to politics, e.g., “have dominion.” Additionally, it is the preterite perfect, a form used of this verb only here and in Jeremiah 31:32. Such a form is not clear as to time. The dominion is completed action, but that dominion may or may not extend to the present. In Jeremiah 31, the presumption is that it does not. In Jeremiah 3 the translators have chosen to translate the exact same word as if the dominion does continue in the present. Should we take 31:32 as meaning that Israel broke the covenant while bound to the Lord (as they still are), or chapter 3 as meaning that God calls the apostate sons back to himself—reminding them that they initially went astray while he had legal rights over them (though that dominion is now technically removed by the divorce writ of the same chapter)? As for the grammar itself, we can only be sure that dominion once existed.

    Recall, too, that in neither case (31 nor 3) are we assured that the “dominion” in view is connected with the marital metaphor. After all, the Israelites had a son-slave relationship to the Lord before they even ratified the Mosaic covenant—that covenant bearing the weight of the marital metaphor. Could it be that the Ba’-a-li and related words have predominately political rather than marital overtones in the Prophets? For example, in Hosea 2:16, where the noun form is used, the context before and after strongly implies that marriage does not exist when Israel calls God its master. In 1:9 God says Israel is not his people. In 2:19 he tells Israel that he will betroth them in some future day. Ba’-a-li rests chronologically between these passages. Thus, subsequent to the divorce, Israel is not considered the marriage partner of God, but merely a runaway slave. They revert back to the position of Israel before Sinai—a people redeemed out of Egypt with a strong arm."

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james46888 View Post
    I think you meant Jer 3:14 not 6:14 . Anyway, not sure exactly where I stand on this, but I had a quick look on bible.org (great resource BTW) and found this article: http://bible.org/article/divorce-pro...ry#P760_307319. The author, when speaking about Jer 3:14, gave the following explanation (not sure if Frucht would use the same argument):


    "The Jeremiah 3:14 text, which also speaks of God as a husband to previously divorced Israel (3:8) is more difficult to translate than most Bibles reveal. The term the NIV renders “husband” (and the KJV renders “am married”) is actually the verb bâ’al. Though this word can be translated that way, it could also be translated less related to marriage, and more to politics, e.g., “have dominion.” Additionally, it is the preterite perfect, a form used of this verb only here and in Jeremiah 31:32. Such a form is not clear as to time. The dominion is completed action, but that dominion may or may not extend to the present. In Jeremiah 31, the presumption is that it does not. In Jeremiah 3 the translators have chosen to translate the exact same word as if the dominion does continue in the present. Should we take 31:32 as meaning that Israel broke the covenant while bound to the Lord (as they still are), or chapter 3 as meaning that God calls the apostate sons back to himself—reminding them that they initially went astray while he had legal rights over them (though that dominion is now technically removed by the divorce writ of the same chapter)? As for the grammar itself, we can only be sure that dominion once existed.

    Recall, too, that in neither case (31 nor 3) are we assured that the “dominion” in view is connected with the marital metaphor. After all, the Israelites had a son-slave relationship to the Lord before they even ratified the Mosaic covenant—that covenant bearing the weight of the marital metaphor. Could it be that the Ba’-a-li and related words have predominately political rather than marital overtones in the Prophets? For example, in Hosea 2:16, where the noun form is used, the context before and after strongly implies that marriage does not exist when Israel calls God its master. In 1:9 God says Israel is not his people. In 2:19 he tells Israel that he will betroth them in some future day. Ba’-a-li rests chronologically between these passages. Thus, subsequent to the divorce, Israel is not considered the marriage partner of God, but merely a runaway slave. They revert back to the position of Israel before Sinai—a people redeemed out of Egypt with a strong arm."
    Yes, God removed His dominion over Israel when He ripped the Temple curtain, was His dominion restored in 1948? Could be, but definitely restored after the rapture, and His dominion will be over the faithful remnant, many Jews are still being killed today and many during the tribulation period. The nation of Israel will survive and Jesus will be king over it after His second coming. That's the real Dominionism , not the false dominionism being taught today.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  16. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    4,747

    Default

    Maybe I'm splitting hairs but perhaps a better description of God's relationship with Israel is that they are presently estranged or separated rather than actually divorced.

    I greatly dislike the concept of God "marrying" and then subsequently "divorcing" anyone. Malachi says that God hates divorce and even though Jesus stated that divorce became permissible under certain circumstances "because of the hardness of your hearts", this is presumably what He allowed in order to specifically protect the emotional or psychological well-being of genuine victims in an adulterous marriage. Then that person is free to move on and remarry (in the case of adultery).

    These considerations don't apply to God so I don't see what the purpose would be behind any move on His part to "divorce" Israel....especially since He has the advantage of foreknowledge and knows that the estrangement, even though a long one, is temporary.
    Hey, Dad......ARE WE THERE YET?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    But why look? We have scripture Romans 11:1-5 2nd Peter 3:9 God separated from the nation of Israel but not the remnant of Israel.

    God has now given birth to Israel again (1948) to use her again as a stumbling stone to other nations that God is in control, not the other nations.

    A faithful remnant of Israel will be saved at Jesus' second coming.
    First, let me say I agree 100% with looking at scripture to get a better idea of Gods relationship with Israel.

    But let me also say this, God himself says a "bill of divorce," Jeremiah 3:6-10. I believe understanding what that bill entails gives a great PERSPECTIVE of Gods relationship with Israel.

    If you look at half the GET section I pasted it clearly says that if one party doesn't adhere to the Get, it can be considered null and void.

    Obviously that describes the current status of the Jews; they still continue out a relationship with God, even though He served them papers!

    No offence, but I see people COPY AND PASTE things on here all the time that's not the "word of God," (ask a bible teacher) and its put in great perspective. Why would you shoot down Jewish customs, derived from OT scriptures, that puts things in great perspective?

  18. #38

    Default

    WOW Great Post! I have learned a lot! You guys and Girls are Great in your thoughtful answers!

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in Christ alone
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Praying View Post
    This is so very true. Thank you for posting this response, - it is one I have found few truly understand.

    I agree, Praying. Probably because most who divorce just want to get on with their lives and don't want to reconcile and remarry their former spouse.


    Back to topic...

    Quote Originally Posted by iSong6:3 View Post
    Okay, cutting to the chase: I believe God didn't divorce the whole people, He left the relationship open for the sake of the remnant (faithful/believers) and for the sake of His Name.
    I agree that God didn't divorce Israel. He separated from her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    But why look? We have scripture Romans 11:1-5 2nd Peter 3:9 God separated from the nation of Israel but not the remnant of Israel.

    God has now given birth to Israel again (1948) to use her again as a stumbling stone to other nations that God is in control, not the other nations.

    A faithful remnant of Israel will be saved at Jesus' second coming.
    You might even say the birth of Israel was legal because there was never a divorce.
    Rom. 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom. 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonshaff View Post
    No offence, but I see people COPY AND PASTE things on here all the time that's not the "word of God," (ask a bible teacher) and its put in great perspective. Why would you shoot down Jewish customs, derived from OT scriptures, that puts things in great perspective?
    I haven't copy/pasted anything in here; many Jewish customs begin with scripture but end with twisting in favoritism towards Judaism. Matthew 16:6 “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

    Not all Bible teachers are in agreement and not all popular bible teachers are good apples.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •