St. Paul says that the Jews are by no means rejected. The point he makes is that the Jews, despite having opposed God and killed the prophets, are not rejected from the new covenant and entering in communion with the Church, as he is himself a Jew.
“The people of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (Kings 1, 19,:10).
“The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers … which they broke” (Jeremiah 31:31, 32).
Accordingly, St. Paul teaches in his Letter to the Hebrews that God “abolished the first in order to establish the second” (10:9).
Catholics believe they are Israel, does that mean they are Israelites? What does it mean that the Old Testament talks about patrilineal descent to be an Israelite, but the Church is Israel now? How is this consistent with geographic biblical description and prophecy?
It means that it is consistent with Jeremiah’s prophecy that God would make a new covenant which will be written on hearts unlike the old.
What does that mean for all Tanakh (Old Testament) prophecy for/of Jesus/the messiah? I have questions for how Christ, as the prophesied descendant of King David, can only be represented by a place that is not at the historic temple of the King, or the land that God set aside for his people.
No land is set aside for the Jews, the first covenant was broken by them and has been abolished. The new covenant, as Jeremiah prophesied in God’s name, will not be “like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
When the Messiah comes to establish the Israel on Earth, it would seem it would be from Jerusalem rather than Rome? Since New Testament authors knew about Rome.
Yes, Christ established the Church in Jerusalem. We do not claim that it was established in Rome.
I believe in Jesus Christ, however, my views are somewhat unconventional to the modern Church.
Unconventional too in the Apostolic Church. Christ is referred to as God by Ignatius of Antioch in his letters to the Romans and Ephesians. Ignatius was likely a student of the Apostle John, as we know from Irenaeus that his friend Polycarp was. Other early Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr, all refer to Christ as a deity without controversy. As far as I know, there no evidence to suggest that the belief that Christ is God developed over a period of time.
(I believe the messiah is at the right hand of God, not identical to ha’Shem;
As you probably know, we also believe that Christ, as we say in the Apostles Creed, “is seated at the right hand of the Father.” It is a figure of speech expressing a divine attribute.
John 1:18, 1 John 4:12; the difference between Theos and ha’Shem/Y’hvh).
I do not see how John 4:12 is relevant to your point. Also, read the next verse.
“No man has seen God at any time.” This statement is not concerned with seeing in a physical sense, but with seeing in the sense of understanding. We can have a logically consistent conception of God, but to see God, in the sense of understanding, is impossible because we cannot have a sufficiently complete conception of such a being.
“The Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”
Which is precisely why Christ is divine, only God can know himself.