As Far As Christianity is Concerned

[Pancho Frijoles]

Dear readers

As you can see, brother @jeremiah1five is either unable or unwilling to respond a crucial question I made on post 17
This strongly suggests that his theology cannot answer simple questions in a moral way.
This is the question:

How does God save the soul of Congolese little girl who dies of malaria?
Does He need a written covenant in a book to love her and bring her to His presence?

View attachment 1022

 

[jeremiah1five]

Dear readers:

God’s love is predicated in millions of ways, INCLUDING written covenants.
When Jesus asked us to love our enemies, He used as example of God’s love the fact that He made rain and sunshine bless good and evil men alike. Therefore, since no people is deprived from God’s rain and sunshine, written covenants are not a condition for God to extend his mercy.
The theology defended by brother @jeremiah1five that equals God intersctions and love with the presence of a written covenant is false, and its implications are perverse.

Dear readers

The passage in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 simply describes the love of God for Israel, and how it was connected to the promises done to their ancestors.
The Torah was not meant to describe why God loved the Incas, Celts or Bantus.
So, brother @jeremiah1five is trying to guess how to treat malaria from reading a book of Oncology.


That’s why you shouldn’t limit your understanding of God to Hebrew Scripture.
Study science. Study History of every nation. Study arts, archeology and geopolitics. Study the Quran*
But more importantly, study the notions of good and evil that you got from mom and grandma.

*In the Quran, for example, God considers in equal terms the covenant made from Prophet Muhammed and Noah with the covenants made from Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

That argument is a non-sequitur.
From a lack of a written covenant with Nordic people it does not follow that God does not love Nordic people.

Documentation or stories? What documentation or stories had the people at the Areopagus?
Furthermore, what is the validity of any story a person could bring to a discussion versus a DNA test?
Is brother @jeremiah1five recommending all people in the world to perform a DNA test (considering that even this test is not fully reliable to track ancestors back to Israel?


Absolutely not.
That is why the author, writing at the end of the first century (perhaps as late as 90 AD, when thousands of non-Hebrews were converting) makes every effort to include in his terminology every nation, TRIBE, language and PEOPLE, and that is why he stresses that gospel is preached to those WHO DWELL ON EARTH.
The twisted theology of brother @jeremiah1five , therefore, has been refuted.

It's typical for unbelievers to contradict the written Word of God so I'll just make this point and leave it at that.
I'm not going to put in work just to have you reject what the Scripture has to say about it all.

This verse declares the extent of who is in God's covenant and who is redeemed from sin and death: The Hebrew people whom Christ died to save and like Moses, deliver them from death and eternal separation from God.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

The ONLY people in covenant with God are the Hebrew people.

And if you as an unbeliever don't want to accept God's Word well, that's up to you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Dear readers

As you can see, brother @jeremiah1five is either unable or unwilling to respond a crucial question I made on post 17
This strongly suggests that his theology cannot answer simple questions in a moral way.
This is the question:

You ask a wrong question.
But here is the answer for the wrong question and the right question from God's Word:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

The only people "under the Law" are the children of ISRAEL.

That's all. And the Hebrew people are the ONLY recipients of God's love and care and redemption.

Case closed.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You ask a wrong question.
But here is the answer for the wrong question and the right question from God's Word:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Dear readers

Our brother @jeremiah1five does not understand who is Paul addressing his letter. He should read it all again from the start.
Paul is not addressing his letters only to "mixed heritage Hebrew Gentiles", but to true Gentiles, who thought as Gentiles and lived as Gentiles.

Paul couldn't be more explicit:

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal 3:7-9)​

​

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-29)​

If Paul were addressing only people who were children of Abraham through some ancestor,He wouldn't have had the need to explain that the status of children of Abraham corresponds to those with faith.

That´s why in Gal 4:4-5, that @jeremiah1five has quoted, Paul goes from taking in third person about the Hebrews, to the first person in plural, that encompasses all ethnicities. Paul counts himself (as he did with the Greeks in the Areopagus) along with all believers of all ethnicities as part of the new people blessed along Abraham.
In the verse, I am highlighting in red the people Paul refers in third person, and in green the ones addressed in first person.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Again, if Paul had been addressing hybrid Jews, and not true Gentiles, why would he have need to stress the equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ? Nobody in Galatian churches had DNA testing to prove who was of Hebrew descent. They interacted in terms of his self-identification as Jews or Gentiles. If someone thought as a Gentile, spoke as a Gentile, and lived as a Gentile, he/she was a Gentile. Period.

That's all. And the Hebrew people are the ONLY recipients of God's love and care and redemption.

Case closed.

Dear readers

As you see, according to the theology of our brother @jeremiah1five , God does not love the Congolese little girl (see post 17), as she is not of Hebrew descent.

If God does not love a Congolese girl, why should @jeremiah1five love her?
If God will destroy most members of the Forum due to our non-Hebrew lineage, what stops @jeremiah1five from feeling morally justified to destroy us all?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Dear readers

Our brother @jeremiah1five does not understand who is Paul addressing his letter. He should read it all again from the start.
Paul is not addressing his letters only to "mixed heritage Hebrew Gentiles", but to true Gentiles, who thought as Gentiles and lived as Gentiles.

Saul is a rabbi and Pharisee. He knows better than to take that which is holy and give it to dogs (Gentiles) who are outside the covenants God has with Abraham and the children of Abraham through Jacob/Israel.
The whole bible is written to God's covenant people. From Genesis to Malachi is a history and culture and religion and relationship between God and the Hebrew people. The same goes for the writings of Matthew to Revelation.

Paul couldn't be more explicit:

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal 3:7-9)​

​

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-29)​

If Paul were addressing only people who were children of Abraham through some ancestor,He wouldn't have had the need to explain that the status of children of Abraham corresponds to those with faith.

The Samaritans are offspring of Jew and Assyrian and are still seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.
Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well proved this (John 4)
Now you have a greater majority of Jews that remained in Gentile lands and did not return with the remnant (10%) and Nehemiah back to Israel in 522 BC. Until Messiah arrived are about 15-20 generations of Jews and mixed heritage Hebrews who lived in Gentile lands under the influence of Greek culture. They are called "Hellenized" Jews. They lost their heritage and were not circumcised. They were the subject of the Jerusalem Council in 50AD and whether they should as mixed heritage Hebrews should be circumcised. The decision they made? They gave these Jew-Gentile Hebrews four things from the Lasw to obey. They would not give non-Hebrew Gentiles the Law to obey for that is a no-no and the Jews would be in uproar. But there is nothing recorded. But there's nothing in violating the Law of Moses to give these Jew-Gentile Christians four aspects of the Law to obey.

That´s why in Gal 4:4-5, that @jeremiah1five has quoted, Paul goes from taking in third person about the Hebrews, to the first person in plural, that encompasses all ethnicities. Paul counts himself (as he did with the Greeks in the Areopagus) along with all believers of all ethnicities as part of the new people blessed along Abraham.
In the verse, I am highlighting in red the people Paul refers in third person, and in green the ones addressed in first person.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Again, if Paul had been addressing hybrid Jews, and not true Gentiles, why would he have need to stress the equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ? Nobody in Galatian churches had DNA testing to prove who was of Hebrew descent. They interacted in terms of his self-identification as Jews or Gentiles. If someone thought as a Gentile, spoke as a Gentile, and lived as a Gentile, he/she was a Gentile. Period.



Dear readers

As you see, according to the theology of our brother @jeremiah1five , God does not love the Congolese little girl (see post 17), as she is not of Hebrew descent.

If God does not love a Congolese girl, why should @jeremiah1five love her?
If God will destroy most members of the Forum due to our non-Hebrew lineage, what stops @jeremiah1five from feeling morally justified to destroy us all?

The Word of God was spoken then written to the children of Israel ONLY. The Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were given to the children of Israel ONLY.
But what do you know about the Holy Word of God? You adhere to an eastern religion of Baha'i. And your ignorance of Scripture is evident.

Now that I know you're not a born-again Christian I've lost all interest in responding to you because it's supposed to be iron sharpens iron. But you're not iron and I receive no sharpening from you. My words and the Scripture is wasted on you.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Saul is a rabbi and Pharisee. He knows better than to take that which is holy and give it to dogs (Gentiles) who are outside the covenants God has with Abraham and the children of Abraham through Jacob/Israel.

Peter needed a vision to understand that God had cleansed what he considered impure.
Do you need a vision?

Paul, the rabbi and Pharisee, needed a vision to understand that He was fighting truth.
Do you need a vision?

The Scripture was NOT broken by preaching to non-Hebrews, because God's love is NOT subject to God's covenant to Israel.

The Samaritans are offspring of Jew and Assyrian and are still seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.
Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well proved this (John 4)

Jesus interaction with the Samaritan woman, and the story about the good Samaritan, proves Jews considered Samaritans impure and not seed of Abraham.
So Jews were not convinced by the presence of traces of "seed of Abraham" in the people they met. All the contrary, they were convinced by traces of impurity.
Gentiles were true Gentiles, and that's why Jews were surprised, confused and even opposed.

Now you have a greater majority of Jews that remained in Gentile lands and did not return with the remnant (10%) and Nehemiah back to Israel in 522 BC. Until Messiah arrived are about 15-20 generations of Jews and mixed heritage Hebrews who lived in Gentile lands under the influence of Greek culture. They are called "Hellenized" Jews. They lost their heritage and were not circumcised.

If they had arrived about 15-20 generations before... how on earth could anybody identify them as "Mixed heritage Hebrews"?
Paul was preaching to people whose 15-20 past generations Paul couldn't know.
So, your argument has been refuted.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The Word of God was spoken then written to the children of Israel ONLY. The Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were given to the children of Israel ONLY.
But what do you know about the Holy Word of God? You adhere to an eastern religion of Baha'i. And your ignorance of Scripture is evident.

My brother: our knowledge of Scripture, History, science, good and evil, is evident through our posts.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Peter needed a vision to understand that God had cleansed what he considered impure.
Do you need a vision?

Paul, the rabbi and Pharisee, needed a vision to understand that He was fighting truth.
Do you need a vision?

The Scripture was NOT broken by preaching to non-Hebrews, because God's love is NOT subject to God's covenant to Israel.


Jesus interaction with the Samaritan woman, and the story about the good Samaritan, proves Jews considered Samaritans impure and not seed of Abraham.
So Jews were not convinced by the presence of traces of "seed of Abraham" in the people they met. All the contrary, they were convinced by traces of impurity.
Gentiles were true Gentiles, and that's why Jews were surprised, confused and even opposed.



If they had arrived about 15-20 generations before... how on earth could anybody identify them as "Mixed heritage Hebrews"?
Paul was preaching to people whose 15-20 past generations Paul couldn't know.
So, your argument has been refuted.

Why God loves Abraham and his Hebrew seed:

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.
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:
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.
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;
Deut. 7:5–9.

In short, God loves the Hebrew people and the covenant is proof of that love.
Gentiles do not have covenant with God and are outside God's covenant therefore outside His love.
There is no passage in Scripture of God declaring His love for Gentiles nor of making them ABOVE the Hebrew people. It is the opposite which is true as Moses declares.

 

[jeremiah1five]

My brother: our knowledge of Scripture, History, science, good and evil, is evident through our posts.

I'm not your brother because we do not have the same Father.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Why God loves Abraham and his Hebrew seed:

I invite you to read again Verse 8 … it presents implies two reasons: One is just because He loved them. The second is because the oath.

You come to this Fórum with the supposition that the Hebrew Scriptures should be the exclusive basis to learn about the relationship of God with the Inuit or Mongol. That is an error.

The reason why I love my wife is not the same reason why I love my mother and not the same reason why I love you.
So, don’t expect to learn about the reasons why I love you by reading a letter I wrote to my wife.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'm not your brother because we do not have the same Father.

Let’s double check.
My Father is One, Eternal, Almighty, Creator of everything and He loves a man who calls himself jeremiah5five.
That’s my Father. What about yours?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I invite you to read again Verse 8 … it presents implies two reasons: One is just because He loved them. The second is because the oath.

You come to this Fórum with the supposition that the Hebrew Scriptures should be the exclusive basis to learn about the relationship of God with the Inuit or Mongol. That is an error.

The reason why I love my wife is not the same reason why I love my mother and not the same reason why I love you.
So, don’t expect to learn about the reasons why I love you by reading a letter I wrote to my wife.

I don't have to give an answer in the negative when the answer is given in the positive and written as such.

God loves Abraham and his seed because of the covenant God has with Abraham and his seed and no other reason. God's love is tied to God's covenant promises to Abraham and his seed, and such promises God never gives or gave to non-Hebrew Gentiles.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Saul is a rabbi and Pharisee. He knows better than to take that which is holy and give it to dogs (Gentiles)

It seems he made no effort to tell dogs from non-dogs.

The Samaritans are offspring of Jew and Assyrian and are still seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.
Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well proved this (John 4)
Now you have a greater majority of Jews that remained in Gentile lands and did not return with the remnant (10%) and Nehemiah back to Israel in 522 BC. Until Messiah arrived are about 15-20 generations of Jews and mixed heritage Hebrews who lived in Gentile lands under the influence of Greek culture. They are called "Hellenized" Jews.

I understand your point.
But such point is never considered relevant in Scripture.

Throughout Scripture, Gentiles are approached
1) Without any inquiry about their genealogy
2) Without any effort to calm down Judaizers by appealing to a mixed Hebrew heritage

The distinction between a "Hellenized Jew" after 15-20 generations, who worships as a Pagan, and a "non-Hebrew Gentile" was impossible.
It was impossible, and God made no effort at all to make it possible.
God didn't provide the apostles with any genealogic documentation, DNA testing, or list of cities, neighborhoods or families to avoid. Nothing.

They lost their heritage and were not circumcised. They were the subject of the Jerusalem Council in 50AD and whether they should as mixed heritage Hebrews should be circumcised. The decision they made? They gave these Jew-Gentile Hebrews four things from the Lasw to obey. They would not give non-Hebrew Gentiles the Law to obey for that is a no-no and the Jews would be in uproar. But there is nothing recorded. But there's nothing in violating the Law of Moses to give these Jew-Gentile Christians four aspects of the Law to obey.

If by Scripture circumcision was a permanent covenant with all descendants of Abraham, why did the Council of Jerusalem lift that requirement from Jew-Gentile Hebrews?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I don't have to give an answer in the negative when the answer is given in the positive and written as such.

God loves Abraham and his seed because of the covenant God has with Abraham and his seed and no other reason. God's love is tied to God's covenant promises to Abraham and his seed...

It's the other way around.
God made a convenant with Abraham because He loved him.
God's love precedes all covenants and is the source of all interactions with mankind. It is inherent to the essence of God and that's why the Scripture says "God is Love".

Your claim that God's love is tied to a God's specific covenant shows your misunderstanding of God's love.

Next time your wife asks you why you love her, I hope you won't answer: "I love you because I married you, and I have to keep the promises made at our wedding".
You loved your wife BEFORE the wedding, and that's why you married her.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It seems he made no effort to tell dogs from non-dogs.

It was as evident as looking at their dress and listening to their speech or by looking at their facial features or the people they hung out with. Out of two people, one a Hebrew and the other mixed heritage...which do you suppose is clearly more ascribed to the Law of Moses? No matter how close your best friend of different parents is to you, you still cannot make them biological family. But a half-brother from another mother you can.

I understand your point.
But such point is never considered relevant in Scripture.

Throughout Scripture, Gentiles are approached
1) Without any inquiry about their genealogy
2) Without any effort to calm down Judaizers by appealing to a mixed Hebrew heritage

The distinction between a "Hellenized Jew" after 15-20 generations, who worships as a Pagan, and a "non-Hebrew Gentile" was impossible.

Not only possible but reality. Why do you think "Hellenized" comes from? It doesn't identify non-Hebrew Gentiles; it identifies mixed heritage Hebrews who were the seed of Abraham, grew up in Gentile lands and heavily influenced by Greek culture. They were assimilated.

It was impossible, and God made no effort at all to make it possible.
God didn't provide the apostles with any genealogic documentation, DNA testing, or list of cities, neighborhoods or families to avoid. Nothing.

Of course He did. Ever read Matthew 1 and Luke 3 where Jesus' genealogy is recorded? It was after the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests and subsequent exiles that genealogy became important. Half-Jews were seen as outcasts and tainted.

If by Scripture circumcision was a permanent covenant with all descendants of Abraham, why did the Council of Jerusalem lift that requirement from Jew-Gentile Hebrews?

They didn't lift anything. They just didn't apply it after becoming born-again. Just as cleansings and washings under the Law was in preparation for service, then later these same washings and cleansings (aka baptism) was in preparation of the coming of Israel's Messiah. But before all that circumcision was the benchmark and the beginning of everything that was to be inherited. Why circumcise if the Holy Spirit had already come? Everything from Abraham and circumcision was in preparation to receive the Holy Spirit according to Redemptive history (that means we can look back and see more of God's plan than Abraham could looking forward.) It's a cart/horse situation.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It's the other way around.
God made a convenant with Abraham because He loved him.

That's true in the sense that that's how God contemplated His elect in His Mind before He created heaven, earth, and man. There were promises made before creation.

God's love precedes all covenants and is the source of all interactions with mankind. It is inherent to the essence of God and that's why the Scripture says "God is Love".

Scripture also says, "God is Light" and "God is Truth" but you don't hear those truisms being spoken in church. God is also Sovereign, God is also gracious, God is Good, etc.
God loves and God hates. But God's love is established by covenant and promises (Gen. 15.)

Your claim that God's love is tied to a God's specific covenant shows your misunderstanding of God's love.

Next time your wife asks you why you love her, I hope you won't answer: "I love you because I married you, and I have to keep the promises made at our wedding".
You loved your wife BEFORE the wedding, and that's why you married her.

Few people escape a broken heart before marriage. Most don't.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It was as evident as looking at their dress and listening to their speech or by looking at their facial features or the people they hung out with.

First you say that those hybrid Hebrews had been Hellenized heavily after, who knows, 15-20 generations.
Now you claim that it was evident who was who based on their dress, speech, facial features or companies.

The inconsistency of your arguments, and your racist leanings are more than obvious.

You have been refuted over and over by your same arguments.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

... But God's love is established by covenant and promises (Gen. 15.)

Covenants and promises are built upon the foundation of God's love.
God's love is not a byproduct of covenants, but its source.

God sent Jesus Christ to the world not out of hate, but out of love (John 3:16).
Even divine punishment has its source in God's love. (Rev 3:19)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

? Everything from Abraham and circumcision was in preparation to receive the Holy Spirit according to Redemptive history (that means we can look back and see more of God's plan than Abraham could looking forward.)

I agree.
But such understanding did not derive from the text of the Hebrew Scripture.
If you were at the Council of Jerusalem, debating this with a Judalizer, you could not bring to the table a single verse in all the Tanakh that says that circumcision would end to be a requisite in the future. Same with Sabbath keeping, for example.

The apostles were teaching something new.
They were changing not the essence or spirit of Scripture, but their symbols and rituals.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Of course He did. Ever read Matthew 1 and Luke 3 where Jesus' genealogy is recorded? It was after the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests and subsequent exiles that genealogy became important.

I'm talking about the genaology of the hundreds of people that Peter and Paul addressed and who thought, lived and worshiped as Pagans.
God did not provided Peter or Paul with any geneaological documentation.
What God provided Peter was the assurance that He had righteous people in every country. No genealogies.

Heavily Hellenized Jews would have lost any interest in keeping a personal genealogy.
But even if that were true, when does the New Testament present Paul and Peter inquiring about people genealogic documentation?
In the speech in the Areopagus, did Paul make any effort to remind his audience about the religion of their ancestors, or the sacred literature of their ancestors?
Indeed, Paul is presented as taking for granted that his audience had no Hebrew heritage to leverage on.