Synagogue of Satan

  • 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.
C

cdan2

Active member
#61
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#61
FrancisClare said:
Still don't follow - you've set up an argument. Can you draw a clear conclusion?
Click to expand...
The concluion is as stated, "So any way you slice it, the plain text reading stands. Those claiming to be Jews who are not."

In Hebrew hermeneutics there can be many conclusions drawn from a single statement, however the plain text meaning of the scripture can not be changed. I believe that is Hillel's 1st rule, as well as several other Hebrew sages. And lest we forget, these were Jews writing these texts; men well acquainted with the rules of scriptural interpretation when they wrote.
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#62
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#62
FrancisClare said:
What does it mean to claim to be Jews but not be so? And what point do you draw from that?
Click to expand...
As I said, it was likely they were trying to gain credibility by claiming to be Jews. You have for example a congregation of converts in Galatia but their teacher (Paul) has moved on. Then these seemingly knowing "Jews" come in, say they are believers, then try to pollute the gospel by saying you must follow the "law" before you can be saved. That is just backwards to the gospel. We first are saved, then we obey:

John 14:15 KJV If ye love me, keepmy commandments.

There is an order there: we love Christ, then we obey. But even the Jews of the time would have told you, if you are depending on keeping the law to save you, then you are in for a rude awakening at the judgement! Only one man ever perfectly did that, and He was fully man and fully God!
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#63
#63
cdan2 said:
The concluion is as stated, "So any way you slice it, the plain text reading stands. Those claiming to be Jews who are not."

In Hebrew hermeneutics there can be many conclusions drawn from a single statement, however the plain text meaning of the scripture can not be changed. I believe that is Hillel's 1st rule, as well as several other Hebrew sages. And lest we forget, these were Jews writing these texts; men well acquainted with the rules of scriptural interpretation when they wrote.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true.
I'm sorry I'm still not quite there - can you take it a little further?
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#64
#64
You're quite interesting. But I'm not following your conclusion. Very sorry if I'm being dense!
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#65
Jun 30, 2015
25,491
13,799
113
#65
cdan2 said:
Yes, we are grafted in as believers. In that context this could mean those were non-believers as well (and they were- my opinion). But Revelation was almost certainly written prior to the destruction of the Temple, so at best Gentiles were just starting to show up in significant numbers. So this was addressing primarily Jewish believers. Gentile believers would have been accepted as converts, but converts need a lot of teaching to get up to snuff. Jewish believers would simply have changed sects to that of the Nazarenes (the one where Paul was said to be a ringleader). All would have accepted Jesus (or Yeshua at the time) as the long awaited Messiah. But some, who apparently didn't claimed they were Jews (according to the text).

Galatians 3:1-3 ESV 3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Apparently there were those preying on congregations of mostly Gentile converts, telling them that they had to keep the "law" before they could be saved! They preyed on these because most Jews knew better. No one keeps the law perfectly, however with repentance comes grace. It has always been that way, otherwise it all would have ended with Adam. Or Abraham if you like. Or Moses. Or any of us. So any way you slice it, the plain text reading stands. Those claiming to be Jews who are not.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you regarding the Revelation being written before 70 AD, I still believe that you're using the wrong definition of "Jew". I contest that Jesus used the correct definition. One could not reasonably claim that John was confused about the matter because he was quoting Jesus verbatim. Jesus Himself said these people were not Jews; why would He use an old cultural definition instead of the true faith-related definition?

Paul's letter to the Galatians actually supports my argument, not yours. Jesus, having inspired Paul to write Galatians 3:28, would not have made a distinction between Gentile believers and non-Gentile believers twenty-odd years later.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but in light of Scripture, I don't think that your contention holds any water.
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#66
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#66
FrancisClare said:
That is certainly true.
I'm sorry I'm still not quite there - can you take it a little further?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you want or need. The plain text reading is they claimed to be Jews but were not. The possible (and plausible) example I gave was of the congregation in Galatia being swayed by someone to believe something that goes completely against scripture: that one must be adherent to all the "law" before they can be saved. It was NEVER this way! Did Rahab even know all the law when she helped the spies, believed what they said and was saved? Yet if I am not mistaken she ends up in the lineage of the Messiah. I know that is disputed, but never really proven false that I am aware of. Regardless, she was saved. And all she knew of the God of these Hebrews was that He was more powerful than all the gods she worshiped. That's all the "law" she needed to convert!

Remember that the letters in Revelation were written to specific people in specific places and at a specific time in history. Those congregations were undergoing trials, and they would have known exactly what is meant, so there was no need for further explanation. We must draw on other scripture to fill in the blanks, so to speak. Unlike others here I label my "fillers" as conjecture, but based in scripture. But I also insist that the plain text reading stands as written- they were saying they were Jews, but they were not. Revelation ends with a warning:


Revelation 22:18-19 ESV 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I take that very seriously.
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#67
#67
Ok, bad things happen when we don't follow God. But I think you are making a larger point than that...
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#68
#68
Just can't quite get there with you...
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#69
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#69
Dino246 said:
While I agree with you regarding the Revelation being written before 70 AD, I still believe that you're using the wrong definition of "Jew". I contest that Jesus used the correct definition. One could not reasonably claim that John was confused about the matter because he was quoting Jesus verbatim. Jesus Himself said these people were not Jews; why would He use an old cultural definition instead of the true faith-related definition?

Paul's letter to the Galatians actually supports my argument, not yours. Jesus, having inspired Paul to write Galatians 3:28, would not have made a distinction between Gentile believers and non-Gentile believers twenty-odd years later.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but in light of Scripture, I don't think that your contention holds any water.
Click to expand...
Blunt is better than wishy-washy. I can understand blunt. It is the rudeness in other posts I find objectionable.

And yet you use that "old cultural definition" in your posts, so it is still valid. Why would He not use it if that is what He meant? Christians tend to spiritualize everything, but reality is still real.
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#70
#70
Truly I'm not trying to be a rhetoric teacher here - just trying to clearly understand your conclusion.
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#72
#72
So your conclusion is 'follow Christ or rue the day?'
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#73
#73
cdan2 said:
Nope. Just bringing it back to the basics. It says what it says and means it.
Click to expand...
Very few things/people actually do. Clarity is not a forgone conclusion.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#74
Jun 30, 2015
25,491
13,799
113
#74
cdan2 said:
Why would He not use it if that is what He meant? Christians tend to spiritualize everything, but reality is still real.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that Jesus meant the cultural definition; that's circular reasoning. On the basis of Scripture, I am concluding that He meant the faith-based definition.
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#75
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#75
FrancisClare said:
So your conclusion is 'follow Christ or rue the day?'
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, that's probably a very good idea. Really I am taking a stand against the antiSemitic views stated here and in this case saying while we can look at scripture to explain other scripture, we can NOT change the plain meaning of the text. I clearly label mine as conjecture, because I will not try to change scripture. Those teaching dogma are with their opinions trying to do just that. It says what it says, and it means it.
 
Blik

Blik

Senior Member
#76
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#76
FrancisClare said:
What does it mean to claim to be Jews but not be so?
Click to expand...
Under the old covenant the Jews were told to obey fleshly type commands to lead them to the true commands like having their flesh cut as a sign they were circumcised. Christ changed this, now those commands are not required, but the spiritual commands are required, and required of all people.

We are no longer required to watch our diet, but to watch the spiritual food we take in. We are no longer required to cut flesh as a sign we belong to the Lord, but we are to belong to the Lord in our hearts and mind.

There are people who obey the old covenant fleshly commands but ignore what they were to lead to, and say because of this obedience they are Jews. They watch their diet but not their spiritual food. They are physically circumcised but not circumcised in the heart. They say then they are Jews, but they aren't Jews.
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#77
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#77
Dino246 said:
You're assuming that Jesus meant the cultural definition; that's circular reasoning. On the basis of Scripture, I am concluding that He meant the faith-based definition.
Click to expand...
You keep coming back to that, but with no real evidence: the very definition of circular reasoning. I just read what is there, the very meaning of simplicity. When pressed I backed it up with scripture, but clearly labeled mins as a possible explanation. You throw out dogma as fact and claim another meaning. You call it scripture, but is is opinion. Be honest enough to label it that and I have no problem with it. But as fact it changes the written word; something I am compelled to argue against.

More than one "truth" can often be drawn from scripture. I know that twists our little Greek minds. We like things laid out for us: believe this, not this. But it is the infinite word of God. As long as it does not change the written word, even seemingly opposite views can hold truth:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement; but the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” Neils Bohr.

LOL, now try and wrap your mind around that!
 
C

cdan2

Active member
#78
Dec 2, 2021
141
39
28
#78
Hey, you wanted to complicate it. I can do complicated ... :)
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#79
#79
cdan2 said:
Well, yeah, that's probably a very good idea. Really I am taking a stand against the antiSemitic views stated here and in this case saying while we can look at scripture to explain other scripture, we can NOT change the plain meaning of the text. I clearly label mine as conjecture, because I will not try to change scripture. Those teaching dogma are with their opinions trying to do just that. It says what it says, and it means it.
Click to expand...
Ok now I follow!
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#80
#80
Yup good thinking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.