I found this on the IsraelVideoNetwork website…an article listing “16 Things That Give Israel A Bad Name But Aren’t Really True” . The first statement listed was "Jews in Israel are White European Colonialists" Then the question “What Is Another Word for ‘Israeli?’ ” The Answer: Indigenous!
“The Jewish people are indigenous to Israel, the birthplace of their identity and unique culture, and have maintained a documented presence there for over 3,000 years. Half of modern Israel’s Jews returned home to Israel from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Jews who came from Europe were not colonialists. They did not represent a foreign power and rejected any identification with European nations. They were idealists who sought to restore and preserve their unique heritage and fought for the same rights that are granted to all peoples: self-determination and independence in their ancestral home. Over 150 years ago, Jews returned in ever-larger numbers, again became the majority in Jerusalem in the 1860s, and established Tel Aviv in 1909. In 1920 the international community officially recognized the indigenous rights of the Jewish people and endorsed the restoration of the Jewish Homeland.”
I recommend reading that entire list of 16 statements and the responses.
Israel is Israel - a nation and people chosen by God which is distinct and separate from the Church, which is the Body of Christ, composed of all the saved/redeemed, both Jew and Gentile.
The Church is the Church The church is built upon Christ. The church did not exist in the Old Testament. It is an entity distinct from Israel (1 Corinthians 10:32) . The Church is not Israel, and Israel is not the Church.
Aug 6 2014
The Latest Threat to Evangelical Support for Israel [Excerpts]
Targeting young Evangelicals at top Christian universities has also been an extremely effective tool in the hands of those seeking to erode Evangelical support for Israel.
This is particularly the case in the field of theology. One of the defining characteristics of an Evangelical is their commitment to Biblical authority. They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefore a trustworthy guide for how Christians should approach both personal and political issues.
Wheaton College’s Dr. Gary Burge has dedicated much of his work to formulating a biblical argument against supporting Israel. In addition to his endeavors inspiring young Evangelicals to abandon support for Israel, he also has worked to inspire his own denomination to take a hardline approach to Israel as well. As an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), Burge’s writings have played heavily in the recent decision of his church to divest in three companies that do business in Israel. The outrageously biased and anti-Israel study guide Zionism Unsettled included a chapter on Evangelicals and Christian Zionism taken from Burge’s work on the subject. His basic message is that the land of Israel is no longer important to God’s redemptive plan for humanity. The Kingdom of God, which was established by Jesus, fulfills all the promises God made to Abraham and the people of Israel. Thus, there is no need for an earthly “kingdom” for the Jews.
As Burge told the participants at the  “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference, “It is not that the covenant of Abraham has been rejected; nor that it has been replaced or superseded; it has been fulfilled.” Using the term “fulfilled” is, essentially, an attempt to get around the nasty history of supercessionism and replacement theology, which hold that the coming of Jesus abrogated God’s covenant with the Jews and they are no longer a chosen people. To non-Evangelicals, it may seem to be simply a matter of semantics, but its implications are extreme: The Jewish people and especially the modern State of Israel have no special significance to God. Rather than using the imagery St. Paul offers—of the gentiles being grafted on to the vine of a faithful Israel—this view sees Israel as the egg from which Jesus hatches and then discards the shell.
This message of “fulfillment theology” is often coupled with stories of Palestinian Christians who have lost their land to Jews. In the film With God on Our Side —which is routinely shown at Evangelical colleges—Salim Munayer, founder of the reconciliation ministry Musalaha, stands beneath an olive tree and describes how his family lost their land in 1948 and their subsequent mistreatment by American Christians. “Quite often I meet Christian Zionist groups that don’t understand the implications of Christian Zionism,” he says. “The implication of Christian Zionism, the way we hear it here, is [that] to accept this theology is to commit suicide as a people group.” This is an explosive challenge to the average American Evangelical: How can you support a theology that causes people to suffer?
While this challenge may be emotionally effective in persuading some younger Evangelicals to reject the idea of God’s faithfulness to Israel, it ignores the r OB ust Christian theology of suffering, as well as political realities that are hidden by fear. The Christian theology of suffering recognizes, for example, that God allows suffering for a season in order to further his redemptive plan for humanity. At the same time, the political reality is that Palestinian Christians are suffering less at the hands of Israel than those of Palestinian nationalists and Islamic radicals.
Christy Anastas, for example, a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem, has courageously broken the silence on how land is routinely stolen from Palestinian Christians by other Palestinians: Palestinians are stealing other Palestinians lands—especially Christian lands. I have four uncles who lost half their land by people from Hebron. Just like that. They went to court to ask for their rights. The judge, sadly was from Hebron. He said to them, I can’t wait to see the four of you dead in the fridges.
The price Christy paid for speaking out was significant. She was disowned by her family and forced to flee to the UK, where she received asylum. Unfortunately, films like With God on Our Side refuse to acknowledge that the price of speaking out against Palestinian corruption, or even of not hating Israel enough, is too much for many Palestinians. It’s easier to go along with the crowd and blame Israel.
Here's a link to The Berean Call's Radio program "Search The Scriptures Daily". It's the transcript and the link to the audio:
Dave & Tom Classic - What's The Difference Between Israel and the Church? (First aired on March 16, 2001 and re-broadcasted on November 14, 2014 on Search The Scriptures 24/7)
Two excerpts from the transcript:
T. A. McMahon:
Dave, our subject for today is, “ Israel and the Church” and we know from the Bible that Jesus was called the King of Israel in John:1:49, and that was a title that He didn’t repudiate. He is also referred to as, Head of the church in Ephesians:5:23. So, how are Christians to view Israel in the church? Is there a distinction and if so, how important is it for us to understand what the Bible declares about both entities?
Well, there certainly is a distinction in the Bible and any distinction the Bible makes has to be important. The Bible is talking about important things revealing God’s purposes and plans for us. For example, Israel was given a land. They are God’s chosen people. The Germans were never given a land; the Americans, whoever they are, they are a big mixture, were never given America although some professing Christians seem to think so and they think that Christians have to take it back. The church is composed of both Jews and Gentiles, it is something new. The church did not exist in the Old Testament. Christ said, “On this rock I will build my church,” Matthew 16. So, OB viously there was a beginning. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 2. So, there is no doubt that there is a difference. God still has plans for Israel . In Ephesians 2, it tells us that Christ when He died on the cross He broke down the middle wall or partition between Jews and Gentiles. There was a distinction and there still is today except in the Church there is no distinction anymore. There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free and so forth. But we are one in Christ so He made of two one new man, Jew and Gentile became one new man. Now, when the Jews became believers in Christ and part of the Church, that didn’t end Israel . It didn’t end the other Jews, nor did they cease to be Jews themselves but they are one in Christ now with Gentiles. When the Gentiles become Christians that does not end the Gentile nations. So, you can’t say that because the church was founded the nation of Israel ceased to exist. So in 1 Co. 10:32 Paul says, “Giving none offense, neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile nor to the church of God .” So OB viously, today after the Church was formed there still exist the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God . And, those in the Church of God are neither Jew nor Gentile.
I am not the one who is "mixed up". The Jews (and the nation of Israel) are God's chosen people. This is what God's Word says:
Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: Deuteronomy 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; Deuteronomy 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them : he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
God did judge, is judging, and will judge His chosen people (the Jews and the nation of Israel) for their dis OB edience to His commandments and their rejection of Christ....AND He will also judge those "that hate him (the Jew) to their face, to destroy them: (the Jews)..." (Deuteronomy 7:10)
Therefore your statement:
is in error.
Remember, you are the one who chose to post what you did in this thread, so your refusal not to continue posting in this thread is also your choice. So be it.
BTW, being a Jew, I take offense at your statement about the Jews.
No, The Church is not the Congregation of believers in the Old Testament. Using different terminology isn't going to change the facts that the Church, the BODY OF CHRIST did not begin before Pentecost. That is N OT limiting the Church to just the NT . because there was NO Church in the OT .
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said "I WILL BUILD my Church...." future tense. This means that Christ's building of His Body was yet future.
The Apostle Paul called the Church a mystery, did he not? (Ephesians 3:1-11)
The nation of Israel was not, and has never been the Body of Christ....either in the OT or the NT . Thay are two separate and distinct entities throughout Scriptures.
Therefore, the conclusion of the matter of the nation of Israel existing as the Church in the OT is erroneous and what you are teaching is indeed Replacement Theology.
The nation of Israel was NEVER called the Church in the OT ...and it is NEVER called the Church in the NT . That's what Replacement Theology teaches.
Acts 7:38 doesn't say that nation of Israel was the Church....the Greek word for "church" in that verse is "ekklesia" and it means "called out assembly". It does not mean that the nation of Israel was ever the Church, the Body of Christ. You won't find the word "church" in the OT at all.
So the reason "why it is so hard to see" is because, like SFIC said, it isn't there.
The Body of Christ/the NT Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), not in the Old Testament with the nation of Israel. Teaching that the nation of Israel was always "the church" is teaching Replacement Theology. Just because you don't use the term Replacement Theology and use Inclusion Theology, doesn't change the facts.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The past is passed, so let's get past it! Philippians 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Philippians 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.