I am sorry that you do not realize Paul's whole ministry was justifying God and His Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, as well as pagans or atheists in Greece. Obviously, you do not have that gift or ministry, but I think God has called me to follow in Paul's footsteps-- which may make me a foot in the body of Christ.
The Gospels and the Mystery
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- 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.
In Theology 101, this kind of blunder is taught as one of the main things to avoid. Jesus clearly did NOT say that salvation is FROM the Jews, which He could have said had that been His meaning, but rather OF the Jews, which is to say that they are only source to whom one must be bound to acquire salvation. The grammatical construct is known by the most basic of lingual analysis that Jesus was NOT meaning to say salvation being OF the Jews to merely point out a directional origin on account of His being a Jew. Thayer's Greek Lexicon states it this way:
2. of any other kind of origin: καπνός ἐκ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, Revelation 15:8; ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστι, comes from the Jews, John 4:22; εἶναι ἐκ τίνος, to proceed from anyone as the author
See that? A "kind" of origin would not make any sense if it had not been for this CONTEXT coupled with other areas of scripture that speak to this phenomenon:
Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
Those out there who dabble in subjectively choosing the definition that best fits their agenda take this to mean that the Gentile people were in grave fear of the Jews in the sense of "If you can't beat them, join them." The childishness of the practice of subjectively choosing from the list of definitions what one WANTS the meaning to be without considering the context, they most generally end up astray of the REAL meaning.
Ahasuerus did not issue a decree stating that the Jews could go around beating, killing and stealing from the general populace, as many have assumed into this text without reading what is stated in the context. The decree allowed the Jews to defend themselves from anyone who chose to act upon a previous decree making it open season upon the Jews, and THEN take from them what they have. You and I would have no reason to fear foreigners if they were told by our government that they could defend themselves against Americans who would attack them, and take from those aggressors what they have as back-payment for the aggression.
Esther 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which [were] in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, [both] little ones and women, and [to take] the spoil of them for a prey,
It's amazing to what ends some will go in order to try and force scripture to mesh with their personal interpretations and desires for meaning, but they do that routinely as armchair experts. I'm hoping we can avoid all that in this discussion. This is the weakness of English translations, in that we have so many words with varying meaning, and sometimes even opposite meanings, such as "cleave." The definitions vary as far as polar opposites from each others. One can cleave in the sense of dividing something in half, or placing two together that were not one prior to being bound together.
The Law of God is what the Jews possessed by which sins were forgiven. Nobody could obtain salvation without joining with what the Jews possessed as being the ones OF whom (being a part of) for salvation. Proselytes did not join with the Jews because of how the Jews dressed. It was because of their realization that joining with the Jewish faith and practice was the ONLY means OF salvation, which was OF the Jews. Degrading the meaning only to the nationality of Jesus is a slap in the face of grammatical consistency.
MM
2. of any other kind of origin: καπνός ἐκ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, Revelation 15:8; ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστι, comes from the Jews, John 4:22; εἶναι ἐκ τίνος, to proceed from anyone as the author
See that? A "kind" of origin would not make any sense if it had not been for this CONTEXT coupled with other areas of scripture that speak to this phenomenon:
Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
Those out there who dabble in subjectively choosing the definition that best fits their agenda take this to mean that the Gentile people were in grave fear of the Jews in the sense of "If you can't beat them, join them." The childishness of the practice of subjectively choosing from the list of definitions what one WANTS the meaning to be without considering the context, they most generally end up astray of the REAL meaning.
Ahasuerus did not issue a decree stating that the Jews could go around beating, killing and stealing from the general populace, as many have assumed into this text without reading what is stated in the context. The decree allowed the Jews to defend themselves from anyone who chose to act upon a previous decree making it open season upon the Jews, and THEN take from them what they have. You and I would have no reason to fear foreigners if they were told by our government that they could defend themselves against Americans who would attack them, and take from those aggressors what they have as back-payment for the aggression.
Esther 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which [were] in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, [both] little ones and women, and [to take] the spoil of them for a prey,
It's amazing to what ends some will go in order to try and force scripture to mesh with their personal interpretations and desires for meaning, but they do that routinely as armchair experts. I'm hoping we can avoid all that in this discussion. This is the weakness of English translations, in that we have so many words with varying meaning, and sometimes even opposite meanings, such as "cleave." The definitions vary as far as polar opposites from each others. One can cleave in the sense of dividing something in half, or placing two together that were not one prior to being bound together.
The Law of God is what the Jews possessed by which sins were forgiven. Nobody could obtain salvation without joining with what the Jews possessed as being the ones OF whom (being a part of) for salvation. Proselytes did not join with the Jews because of how the Jews dressed. It was because of their realization that joining with the Jewish faith and practice was the ONLY means OF salvation, which was OF the Jews. Degrading the meaning only to the nationality of Jesus is a slap in the face of grammatical consistency.
MM
Had you read what I've been saying in this thread, you would realize that I have already stated a number of times that because of Israel's decline on account of continued rejection of Christ as Messiah, salvation had to originate from another means other than OF the Jews. When they were cut off and cast aside for a time, salvation had to originate from another means, with GRACE now being that means, which is independent of the Jews. But, as Paul pointed out, being prideful of that fact is not good given that the Jews can and will be grafted back into the Vine along with the wild branches.
Right division is tantamount in importance, and doing so makes this very clear.
MM
Right division is tantamount in importance, and doing so makes this very clear.
MM
Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus
Luk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luk 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in hisFather's, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Luk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luk 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in hisFather's, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
No I haven't read your other comments on this. I click on latest post and work backwards on threads with a lot of responses.. So sorry.
Per the bolded above, salvation has never originated from anything other than Christ, so I don't understand what you mean. Salvation has always been what came out of the tribe of Judah, ie Christ, for both Jews and non-Jews
Per the bolded above, salvation has never originated from anything other than Christ, so I don't understand what you mean. Salvation has always been what came out of the tribe of Judah, ie Christ, for both Jews and non-Jews
I do appreciate your pointing that out and asking.
So, when we look back through history to the giving of the Law, and what that giving entailed, we see that the Law of God set the Jews apart from all other peoples, which meant that for the Gentiles to acquire salvation in the time of the Law, they had to join with Israel, which is to say, they had to become Jews as is illustrated in Esther 8. Many people today who are familiar only with the English translations of scripture have no understanding of such peoples as the "proselytes" in Judaism. They were Gentiles who BECAME Jews, having joined themselves with Judaism. The early Church in Jerusalem, they were still zealous for the Law after the ascension of Christ, which makes perfect sense given that Jesus upheld the Law throughout all of His ministry, so the Law was only set aside with Israel when they were cut off, given that they alone were the only rightful custodians of the Law of God in the world.
That's the only reason Gentiles are no longer beholden to the Law. The dispensation of grace is the only means by which the churches built up by Paul were not required to obey the Law that the Judaizers believed was still in force. They were not aware of the mystery and setting aside (cutting off) of Israel. They were only doing what they thought was right. Therein is the only reason there arose among the Jews a dispute over Gentiles being required to also be zealous for the Law, but were not. Without Israel still being a part of the Vine, they were no longer "empowered" to remain the custodians of the Law of God. Rightly dividing the word of truth is how one is able to make sense of all this. Everything written in scripture is true, but not all of it is written TO us today. James 2 was not written TO Gentiles under the dispensation of grace. If it had, then the scriptures would be a jumbled mess for anyone to understand on account of the inconsistencies that arise from jamming together into one whole the things that were not written TO us. James stated that a man is justified by works, where Paul stated that a man is justified by faith. They cannot both be true for everyone at all times.
Hope that better explains what I've been saying.
MM
So, when we look back through history to the giving of the Law, and what that giving entailed, we see that the Law of God set the Jews apart from all other peoples, which meant that for the Gentiles to acquire salvation in the time of the Law, they had to join with Israel, which is to say, they had to become Jews as is illustrated in Esther 8. Many people today who are familiar only with the English translations of scripture have no understanding of such peoples as the "proselytes" in Judaism. They were Gentiles who BECAME Jews, having joined themselves with Judaism. The early Church in Jerusalem, they were still zealous for the Law after the ascension of Christ, which makes perfect sense given that Jesus upheld the Law throughout all of His ministry, so the Law was only set aside with Israel when they were cut off, given that they alone were the only rightful custodians of the Law of God in the world.
That's the only reason Gentiles are no longer beholden to the Law. The dispensation of grace is the only means by which the churches built up by Paul were not required to obey the Law that the Judaizers believed was still in force. They were not aware of the mystery and setting aside (cutting off) of Israel. They were only doing what they thought was right. Therein is the only reason there arose among the Jews a dispute over Gentiles being required to also be zealous for the Law, but were not. Without Israel still being a part of the Vine, they were no longer "empowered" to remain the custodians of the Law of God. Rightly dividing the word of truth is how one is able to make sense of all this. Everything written in scripture is true, but not all of it is written TO us today. James 2 was not written TO Gentiles under the dispensation of grace. If it had, then the scriptures would be a jumbled mess for anyone to understand on account of the inconsistencies that arise from jamming together into one whole the things that were not written TO us. James stated that a man is justified by works, where Paul stated that a man is justified by faith. They cannot both be true for everyone at all times.
Hope that better explains what I've been saying.
MM
You know, your refusal to simply ask about my meaning of things, and instead assuming into my words what I never meant, I don't see that we are going to be able to engage a meaningful dialogue. Your accusations from pride will keep us both from progressing into any understanding of the other's meaning and position in relation to scripture.
Be blessed.
MM
Be blessed.
MM
That dispensation ended with the cross. Jesus was actually pointing the woman away from Jews as being connected to salvation when he said the temple in Jerusalem, the central focus of the Jewish religion, was no longer necessary to know and worship God
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. John 4:22-23
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. John 4:22-23
I think your lack of a sense of humor does not help.
Not sure what "words you never meant" refers to, but I disagree with your understanding that Scripture does not teach the possibility of salvation via general revelation and conscience per Paul, serving as a foreshadowing or proto Gospel. Did you mean to convey that?
I also disagree with you rejecting that the OT has been superseded by the New Covenant for all humanity per Hebrews. Did you mean to give that impression?
Not sure what "words you never meant" refers to, but I disagree with your understanding that Scripture does not teach the possibility of salvation via general revelation and conscience per Paul, serving as a foreshadowing or proto Gospel. Did you mean to convey that?
I also disagree with you rejecting that the OT has been superseded by the New Covenant for all humanity per Hebrews. Did you mean to give that impression?
This is evidence for your failure to rightly divide the word of truth, which is commonplace among so many evangelicals. As long as you believe in the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus for our sins and our salvation, that is sufficient unto salvation. The main failure for not rightly dividing the word of truth is the tendency toward intermixing elements from the Kingdom Gospel with the Gospel of Grace when sharing with unbelievers. Those who do that are accursed, according to Paul. Paul Washer and many others are prime examples of the hypocrisies behind intermixing works with grace. That's a doctrine of demons.
MM
MM
I at no time ever appealed to covenentalism or any other of the warped mixtures of doctrine that are so commonplace among so many evangelical and charismatic teachings out there. You simply are not understanding what I'm saying. You have already written me off as rejecting some things and embracing others that I do not embrace nor reject as a whole. You have great pride in your beliefs when forcing into the conversation what you THINK that I believe rather than to simply ask. That's not conducive to healthy conversation, which you obviously don't want. I prefer discussing what's written in the word of God, and keeping the aims of analysis pointed in that direction only. When you make it personal, that's when I leave that dialogue behind.
Nuff said...
MM
Nuff said...
MM
Also, please keep in mind that I can't see your facial expressions nor the inflections in your voice to know precisely when there is humor being applied. I have a great sense of humor, but since you've already written my off as lacking in that area...whatever...
I've placed you on ignore in order to avoid future problems with your inability to communicate with reason and etiquette.
MM
I've placed you on ignore in order to avoid future problems with your inability to communicate with reason and etiquette.
MM
Paul said those who proclaim another gospel than what he proclaimed are cursed. Acts 15 makes it clear that apostles to the circumcision and uncircumcision proclaimed the same gospel. The only reasons Jews in Jerusalem were so zealous for the law are because that was their culture and measure of faith. They were dead to the law as any believer is, but simply didn't understand the freedom they had in Christ.
Sorry, but I don't see that in Acts 15. The only elements of the current Gospel that Paul taught is this, as scripture clearly states:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The elements of the Kingdom Gospel that required the inclusion of works within the Law for justification (James 2) and water baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2 by Peter), as was preached before the Gospel of Grace came in through revelation to Paul, I will have to understand why you seem to be ignoring what's actually written that clearly show the differences. Paul did not at all preach the requirement of those elements from the Kingdom Gospel, or, at least, I can't find them. Please elaborate, if you would. I'd like to see where you get what you said.
MM
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The elements of the Kingdom Gospel that required the inclusion of works within the Law for justification (James 2) and water baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2 by Peter), as was preached before the Gospel of Grace came in through revelation to Paul, I will have to understand why you seem to be ignoring what's actually written that clearly show the differences. Paul did not at all preach the requirement of those elements from the Kingdom Gospel, or, at least, I can't find them. Please elaborate, if you would. I'd like to see where you get what you said.
MM