Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?
- Thread starter Churinga
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Is Jesus and Paul in danger of hell fire? They both called others fools.
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Why is self defense forbidden? If someone strikes your wife, are you going to turn the other cheek?
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
If you are being sued, don't fight it, give unto the guy more than he's asking.
If anyone asks to borrow from you, give it to him and don't ask him to return it.
Are you going to spiritualize these verses and say, "well, what it really says is this..." Or are you going to accept the plain text?
Is Jesus and Paul in danger of hell fire? They both called others fools.
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Why is self defense forbidden? If someone strikes your wife, are you going to turn the other cheek?
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
If you are being sued, don't fight it, give unto the guy more than he's asking.
If anyone asks to borrow from you, give it to him and don't ask him to return it.
Are you going to spiritualize these verses and say, "well, what it really says is this..." Or are you going to accept the plain text?
Correct, but this is why the argument you picked is so weak. All you can do is fall back on a fallacy of omission.
Now, if we are going to appeal to authority I like the way Dr. Thomas McCall addresses the issue here:
"The matter cannot be settled conclusively, because the Scriptures never specifically tell us Luke’s background, but the arguments for his being a Jew appear to far outweigh those for his being a Gentile.
The main advantage that Paul recognizes in the Jewish people was that when God gave revelation to the human race, He gave it to and through the Jews. He did not utilize the Gentile people for this purpose. This was the rule: that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. If Luke was an exception, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is an exception.
Thus, one has to prove conclusively that Luke was a Gentile before one should abandon the clear rule about the Jewish writing of Scripture. We must assume that Luke is a Jew unless the evidence is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is a Gentile. As we have seen above, the evidence from the lists in Colossians is so weak that it does not meet that criterion. Gentiles are blessed in many ways, especially during this Church Age, but God has never indicated that He has changed His rule of using only Jews to record His revelation."
Was Luke a Gentile?
Why is it a weak argument? Because you can just as easily point out that the bible never mentions nor defines 'the Trinity' by name, but that doesn't negate the fact that God reveals himself through the Father, Son, and Spirit. Scripture also does not say you can't be a transgender, but would you stand on that argument to prove you can be? Arguments of omission are weak. If I left this at 'Luke didn't say he wasn't a Jew' we would be bound in a weak circular argument.
The matter can't be solved conclusively. But the presupposition rests on Luke being a Jew, not a Gentile. So the burden of proof lay with proving the latter. Which only can be proved by omission. Hence the presupposition stands.
Now, if we are going to appeal to authority I like the way Dr. Thomas McCall addresses the issue here:
"The matter cannot be settled conclusively, because the Scriptures never specifically tell us Luke’s background, but the arguments for his being a Jew appear to far outweigh those for his being a Gentile.
The main advantage that Paul recognizes in the Jewish people was that when God gave revelation to the human race, He gave it to and through the Jews. He did not utilize the Gentile people for this purpose. This was the rule: that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. If Luke was an exception, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is an exception.
Thus, one has to prove conclusively that Luke was a Gentile before one should abandon the clear rule about the Jewish writing of Scripture. We must assume that Luke is a Jew unless the evidence is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is a Gentile. As we have seen above, the evidence from the lists in Colossians is so weak that it does not meet that criterion. Gentiles are blessed in many ways, especially during this Church Age, but God has never indicated that He has changed His rule of using only Jews to record His revelation."
Was Luke a Gentile?
Why is it a weak argument? Because you can just as easily point out that the bible never mentions nor defines 'the Trinity' by name, but that doesn't negate the fact that God reveals himself through the Father, Son, and Spirit. Scripture also does not say you can't be a transgender, but would you stand on that argument to prove you can be? Arguments of omission are weak. If I left this at 'Luke didn't say he wasn't a Jew' we would be bound in a weak circular argument.
The matter can't be solved conclusively. But the presupposition rests on Luke being a Jew, not a Gentile. So the burden of proof lay with proving the latter. Which only can be proved by omission. Hence the presupposition stands.
When it is all boiled down the Bible must be read in context and the sure rule of basic grammar as to who is speaking, to whom and what is the subject matter and do not read a single verse in isolation. When it comes to the matter under discussion and the Jews were not the target audience alone, then there must be a raft of contradictions in the text and i cannot go down that path, our Lord is the culmination of so many prophetic scriptures that to say that Gentiles are included as His target audience makes a nonsense of His other sheep which are not of the same sheepfold as the Jews.
Many people do not realize the same command was given by Jesus in Luke 12, this time to the "innumerable multitude of people"".
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Don't just stick to the Matthew version and comfort yourself with the words, "Oh Jesus is addressing the rich young ruler ONLY".
My point is, if you really believe the 4 Gospels contain instructions to the Gentile Church, don't pick and choose which you want to follow. Similar to the case if you believe in keeping the Law, follow it perfectly.
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Don't just stick to the Matthew version and comfort yourself with the words, "Oh Jesus is addressing the rich young ruler ONLY".
My point is, if you really believe the 4 Gospels contain instructions to the Gentile Church, don't pick and choose which you want to follow. Similar to the case if you believe in keeping the Law, follow it perfectly.
Then put yourself under some strict pauline legalism,since you preach that mess to us.
Shave your head like paul,take a vow,and go to corinth to straighten out backsliders,disrupt every synagog you come to to purposefully get arrested and preach the gospel with many miracles done at your hand like paul.
Put that mess on yourself like you do anyone the believes Paul is not a deity.
Shave your head like paul,take a vow,and go to corinth to straighten out backsliders,disrupt every synagog you come to to purposefully get arrested and preach the gospel with many miracles done at your hand like paul.
Put that mess on yourself like you do anyone the believes Paul is not a deity.
Then get that same overemphasis with paul.
Duplicate everything you read about him.
And by all means report to us all the miracles done by you as paul performed or else dont read any of it.
Put that same disqualifyer on your mess.
Either do it legalally like you put it on others,or deport those pauline books under your same strict application
Duplicate everything you read about him.
And by all means report to us all the miracles done by you as paul performed or else dont read any of it.
Put that same disqualifyer on your mess.
Either do it legalally like you put it on others,or deport those pauline books under your same strict application
There was salvation before Christ, we are told so in Psalms. In Matt 27: 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christ changed salvation from the OT sleep, but the saints had salvation.
They were saved by Paul's gospel that they did not know about through their faith in the words and instructions of the Lord.
Christ changed salvation from the OT sleep, but the saints had salvation.
They were saved by Paul's gospel that they did not know about through their faith in the words and instructions of the Lord.
They were saved because of they sacrificed bull/lamb/doves for their sins, which was commanded by the law of Moses.
God saved them because those animal sacrifices reminded him of his Son's death on the cross. Even though it is in the future, God is not bounded by time.
However, for the Jews of the OT, they had no reason to be aware that all those sacrifices pointed towards Jesus, during their lifetime. They will of course realized that later in Heaven.
God saved them because those animal sacrifices reminded him of his Son's death on the cross. Even though it is in the future, God is not bounded by time.
However, for the Jews of the OT, they had no reason to be aware that all those sacrifices pointed towards Jesus, during their lifetime. They will of course realized that later in Heaven.
-
1
- Show all
I see we are in agreement on the main points. You regard this as "being saved by Paul's Gospel".
For my case, its more straightforward, during the dispensation of the law, you exhibit faith by "obeying the law", all the Jews have to obey the law. It is true that all the saints of past ages were saved through the merits of Christ's shed blood, but not through their faith in that shed blood.
Those of past ages were expected to believe only what God had thus far revealed, or what He had revealed to them. In other words, they were saved simply because they trusted God and believed what He said. The full plan of salvation has since been unfolded, but the Scriptures make it crystal clear that these believers were saved without even understanding that Christ would die for them.
When God says, "Sacrifice an animal every time you sin," what will faith do? Just one thing: sacrifice an animal whenever you sin. We know, thanks to Hebrews, that such sacrifices are a mere shadow of the coming Jesus as the final Lamb, yet not one of their hearers would have interpreted this action to mean what it meant in Paul's Gospel: "Trust in the death of Christ for salvation."
But when God now says, thru the Apostle Paul, "BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21); "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5); "Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24); "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7); "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5); "Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9) -
When God now says this, what will faith do? Faith will say, "This is the most wonderful offer ever made by God to man. I cannot refuse it. I will trust Christ as my Savior and accept salvation as the free gift of God's grace."
For my case, its more straightforward, during the dispensation of the law, you exhibit faith by "obeying the law", all the Jews have to obey the law. It is true that all the saints of past ages were saved through the merits of Christ's shed blood, but not through their faith in that shed blood.
Those of past ages were expected to believe only what God had thus far revealed, or what He had revealed to them. In other words, they were saved simply because they trusted God and believed what He said. The full plan of salvation has since been unfolded, but the Scriptures make it crystal clear that these believers were saved without even understanding that Christ would die for them.
When God says, "Sacrifice an animal every time you sin," what will faith do? Just one thing: sacrifice an animal whenever you sin. We know, thanks to Hebrews, that such sacrifices are a mere shadow of the coming Jesus as the final Lamb, yet not one of their hearers would have interpreted this action to mean what it meant in Paul's Gospel: "Trust in the death of Christ for salvation."
But when God now says, thru the Apostle Paul, "BUT NOW the righteousness of God without the law is manifested" (Rom. 3:21); "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5); "Being Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24); "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7); "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5); "Not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9) -
When God now says this, what will faith do? Faith will say, "This is the most wonderful offer ever made by God to man. I cannot refuse it. I will trust Christ as my Savior and accept salvation as the free gift of God's grace."
He said follow me as I follow Christ.
So you would be wrong and no Jesus never ceased. You have no basis. None.
You made that up.
A miracle does not need your permission or to fit your powerless religion.
Again lets see you imitate paul or cease preaching such a tiny cross section of his COMMAND to follow him.
So you would be wrong and no Jesus never ceased. You have no basis. None.
You made that up.
A miracle does not need your permission or to fit your powerless religion.
Again lets see you imitate paul or cease preaching such a tiny cross section of his COMMAND to follow him.
In 2 Corinthians 12:12 (in the section where Paul is vindicating his apostleship, chpts 10-12 at the very least, tho the entire 2nd Cor could be examined to show this context), Paul states, "12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." There are no "apostles" today.
We do agree, except for your words "a mere shadow". That seems to me belittling to a shadow, something that has the same form and shape of what it shadows, a miracle.
We even reply to requests God makes of us with "works won't save". Then we toss out what God asks in the name of works because we have no faith.
We even reply to requests God makes of us with "works won't save". Then we toss out what God asks in the name of works because we have no faith.