TibiasDad
Well-known member
Yes, Neb wrote the edict, which Daniel included in his writing. Neb did not write this for use in Daniel’s book, but Daniel used it. This, it is Daniel’s book but Neb’s written words.
Doug
Exegesis and Eisegesis. What Are These Terms?
- Thread starter jeremiah1five
- Start date
Doug
TibiasDad
Well-known member
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Not even half-Jews called Samaritans were allowed to be called Jew. So, if a half-Jew was rejected from any kind of interaction a totally non-Jew is totally out of the question.
Hellenized is the word for it. I'd say drop your Constantinian Gentile theology and do some real study of the Word of God without all that garbage you've fed yourself.
Your good buddy, Saul, likes to molest the Word of God as written, change a word in one of the major prophet's prophecies and make up his own doctrine. Isaiah says a remnant shall return and Saul changes a word in this prophecy thereby stepping all over Jesus' word that Scripture cannot be broken. Saul comes in with a sledgehammer and destroys Jesus' words. Is that the apostle you have faith in? Not only that but Saul contradicts himself in a couple of statements he makes in his letters. And you want to call that "inspired of God?" Since when is God double minded?
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
What about her?
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
The word "perdition" which was used of Jesus to describe Judas is the Greek word "apōleia" and this is an important word when considering Judas and anyone in covenant with God. It even is used to describe someone who is not in covenant with God like Adam. It means "ruin" [Strong's.]
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. Jn 17:12.
So, Judas is the "son of ruin" which is better than being the father of ruin which is impossible. But the word has three senses in which to understand its meaning when used. No one who is the seed of Abraham can lose their covenant status for salvation is given of God without condition. Each covenant (Abraham, Mosaic, and New) does not require one to have faith in these covenants. But God does require obedience in the Mosaic Covenant. Still, the promises God makes in each covenant lead up to one thing: Jesus came to save His people (the Hebrews in covenant) from their sin. It has nothing to do with the person being saved but the focus is on God who does the saving. God saves through covenant. God is not obligated to save anyone (non-Hebrew Gentiles) who is not in covenant. Everything points to God's covenants with the Hebrew people.
A Hebrew can be a non-believer and still be in covenant. Just as the man who was about to receive his sight, "Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief." And so, there are those that need help believing and God can answer the prayer or not. It is His prerogative. There is nothing synergistic in God's salvation of those He loves and those He loves are the Hebrew children of Israel. Those God kills in the desert were the descendants of Abraham and were among those counted as being in covenant with God. Are you seriously going to tell me that an unbelieving person in covenant with God will prevent God from keeping His promises to Abraham and to his seed? That one can lose their salvation. Seems to me someone needs to ask God, "help thou, my unbelief." Because if you attach "belief" to the covenants of God when there is none, then you are adding to the bible and putting conditions on salvation. Spend some time with the prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and tell me where is "faith", where is "believing"? Do you see it anywhere in this prophecy? There is none. But let me also say based upon your setting conditions upon God for salvation that you play both ends against the middle and need to further understand God's covenants with the Hebrew people and descendants of Abraham in order to come to the knowledge of the truth. You sound like a man who believes one can lose their salvation. But according to the covenants of God no one born of Abraham can lose their covenant. If one is the seed of Abraham, then God's covenant promises has them covered, and if anyone in covenant with God is led astray or fails to believe God, He has the option to take them out, but He cannot change the promises He made to Abraham and his seed. Otherwise, God is a liar. The good thing about God when He makes a promise is that He keeps His promises. All of them. And if for some reason you fail to reach your potential on this side of glory, it matters not to God who is the Author and Finisher of your faith. And while you consider that don't miss opportunity to understand that each and every person in covenant with God, like Judas, is promised eternal life no matter their measure of faith or lack thereof. If you have these two things as the basis from which you move forward - salvation is of the Jews, and salvation is of the Lord - then there is no need to look for "salvation is of the Gentiles" because there is no such thing. God made no covenant with Gentiles. None. I can tell you don't have the faith to understand what covenant means if you think those that died in the desert lost their covenant status. The real question is one to answer and if you answer correctly then the answer you give will be the basis upon which you understand God's covenant promises. Does God keep His promises?
Or like the blind man who understood his blindness did not affect the truth of the man that stood before him still was able to believe but prayed nevertheless, "Lord, help thou mine unbelief." Did any of his unbelief prevent him from receiving the blessings of God to cure his blindness? Did his blindness exclude him from the Abraham Covenant? Answer that and you will have your answer about those that died in the desert.
Last edited:
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Sounds more like recounting to Daniel than him writing it down. But that's the problem with the work put in by Westcott & Hort and the spurious Greek translation they developed from which ALL modern-day, new age bibles are translated from. I suggest you study how the KJV came together as opposed to the Revised Version of Westcott & Hort.
Cornelius was mixed heritage. He was among the "other flock" Jesus said He was to bring together with the original flock in John 10. Cornelius would have to be mixed heritage (Jew-Gentile) because the Holy Spirit of Promise was NOT promised to non-Hebrew Gentiles. The Holy Spirit was Promised to Israel, NOT Gentiles. If you understood this then you would not contradict Scri[pture by saying Cornelius was Gentile and the Holy Spirit was promised to Gentiles. Show me through Scripture Gentiles were promised the Holy Spirit.
All Saul is talking about is being born-again and the pass-over from flesh to flesh. The foreskin is part of the body just as the proverbial heart is part of the body. God required Abraham and all his seed be circumcised and they were as children. This means the person is still of the Hebrew lineage of Abraham whether they are circumcised or not. And a Hebrew in covenant is still in covenant even if not born-again. The three thousand that were born again on Pentecost were all circumcised. So what?
Yes, your modern-day translation does use "Gentile" when the word is Greek "Hellēn." This word "Hellēn" applies to Hebrews of Greek culture, NOT Gentiles. It is never used to identify "Gentiles."
What Saul is saying that those Samaritan type of Jew born of mixed heritage (Jew/Gentile parents) are still Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise (God made to Abraham.) In other words, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. If Abraham's DNA is of their makeup they are still Abraham's seed.
Get a KJV. It is way better than the corrupt translation you're using now.
The Jews called Jews of mixed heritage born after the Assyrian conquest "Samaritan." They were not considered Jew by Jews but Samaritan. The same with those like Cornelius who were of mixed heritage but not descendant from Assyrians. There were a whole lot of ethnicities Jews intermarried with, not just Assyrians later on after the Babylonian conquest.
Saul was a rabbi and a Pharisee. He knew the Abraham and Mosaic Covenant did not include non-Hebrews and he would not contradict and break Scripture. It is your interpretation that contradicts and breaks Scripture to see "Gentiles" as non-Hebrew. It is your interpretation that adds to the bible, breaks and contradicts Scripture.
If there were non-Hebrews mentioned in any of the three Hebrew covenants when God made them, I would be a champion for non-Hebrews in God's covenants, but I can't because adding non-Hebrews to the covenants will break and contradict Scripture. So, it's your interpretation that breaks and contradicts Scripture, not the apostles who wrote the New Covenant writings.
Micaiah
Active member
“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.” (2 Peter 2:18, KJV)
These are just great swelling and useless words, vain inventions, a device of the intellectual sect in order to usurp the authority over the plainly written word of God. To control the people… So that one cannot refute their lies with the Holy Bible.
It’s been very effective.
Look at the thousands and thousands of separate and unique “Christian” groups out there…
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Rom 3:21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in h Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Doug
civic
Well-known member
most people read their own ideas or biased opinions into the Bible which is eisegesis. All religions do this its the norm. Few people are not honest enough to leave their ideas, opinions, beliefs aside when they open up their bible so they can learn from God.
You do this every time you challenge someone with a different interpretation than you on a verse or passage. You are just as guilty as the next person. To say otherwise is only deceiving yourself.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
And they are ALL non-Hebrew groups who try to steal Israel's inheritance, even to the point of applying God's identification marks made to Israel and make them apply to non-Hebrew Gentiles.
Words like "Bride," and "Church" and "saint(s).
Israel is betrothed to God and is His Bride. Israel is the "Great Congregation" or "Church" ("ekklesia" = "called out - as in called out of Egypt) in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle. And "saints" is used of Israel when one of the Lord's "saints" dies. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of (one of) His saints. None of these words are ever used of non-Hebrew Gentiles.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
The Jews called half-Jew/half-Assyrian Samaritan in the same prejudice they call half-Jew/half-Gentiles Gentile and not Jews.
If they were of mixed heritage they were seen by the Jews as "mutts" especially for the Hebrews who did not return with the remnant (10%) who returned to the Holy Land but lived in Gentile lands heavily influenced by Greek culture. From the time of the remnant return in 522BC about 20 generations of mixed heritage were born in Gentile lands and influenced by Greek culture and were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world"
They were not even circumcised which is when these half-Jew/half-Gentiles began to be born-again the question of whether they should be circumcised led to the Jerusalem Council to deal with this question. The result? They decided these half-Jew/half-Gentile were still Abraham's seed and so they placed upon them several instructions from the Law of Moses to obey "and they would fare well." These would not be non-Hebrew Gentiles because they would not give Gentiles any instructions from the Law of Moses to obey.
So, when you see the word "Gentile" in the New Testament it refers to Hellenized Hebrews who did not return with the remnant but whose parents and families remained in Gentile lands living in a Greek culture that influenced them for about 20 generations. Would you be able to retain your Hebrew heritage if your father was Greek and the children intermarried with Gentiles throughout their generation?
All of a sudden Jews that were observant Jews returned from their Pentecost Feast telling them about Israel's Messiah had come, an outline of Peter's sermon, and the Holy Spirit of Promise shining in their ever-loving countenance. Through their witness and testimony many half-Jew/half-Gentile Gentiles became born again because they were of Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
But God made no covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles. None. So, it's not Saul or Peter or James that were breaking and contradicting Scripture, it was the erroneous interpretation by non-Hebrews of those same Scriptures in which they fail in the first place to understand the Abraham Covenant is between God, Abraham, and Abraham's seed, and that the Mosaic Covenant is between God and the children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle, and the New Covenant is between God and the Houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
You should take a closer look. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in ANY of the three Hebrew covenants.
None.
Micaiah
Active member
dwight92070
Well-known member
First, you continually dishonor Paul and the word of God by not accepting the other name that God had given Saul. His name is Paul.
Acts 13:9 says, "But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit ...". So maybe Saul was also his name, as several in the New Testament seem to have more than one name, but after this verse, the scripture always refers to him as Paul, but you reject this, because you reject much of what Paul wrote.
It is obvious that you seek to dishonor Paul by insisting on calling him Saul, and thereby associating him with, not only the Old Testament Saul, who was a wicked man, but also the man who Paul used to be, also a wicked man, before Jesus totally changed him into a new creation.
Jesus said. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives me receives Him who sent Me." John 13:20
Jesus sent Paul, who you reject, therefore you actually reject Jesus as well.
This is why you twist scripture, because you're not even a true Christian or a true believer. You twist the meaning of Galatians 4:3-5. When Paul says here that God sent His Son to redeem those under the law, he was not denying the fact that Jesus also died for all mankind, as the apostle John said - that He died for the sins of the whole world.
civic
Well-known member
Nope I spoke the truth
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Jesus is Hebrew. Saul is Hebrew. One rabbi to another and Jesus called him, "Saul," which is his Hebrew name. As a follower of Christ, I call Saul, Saul, until I meet Saul, and he asks me to call him by his birth name of "Saul" which is appropriate.
That's well and good. There is possibility that Gentiles would rather use his Roman name, which is evidence of Constantinian interpretational theology in a nutshell.
King Saul was not wicked, but corrupt. He was exactly the man God told Samuel to tell the people he would be in taking their daughters, taking their land, conscripting their sons into the military, etc. Being anointed is clue that king Saul is saved, especially since he was in covenant with God and God keeps His promises. Every Hebrew born from Abraham and Sarah is in the Abraham Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and in the New Covenant and will be saved which is why God told Abraham to look to the stars and see the number of his descendants to be without number. God saves through covenant. This much is true as we see in the Hebrew Scriptures of Law, Psalms, and Prophets a record of God's dealing with this people. The whole record describes the children of Abraham in covenant with God. There is no covenant like it anywhere on the planet and in human history. This is one reason why Saul writes to Jewish Christians in Rome that, "all Israel shall be saved." The vehicle of that salvation is covenant. And with Jesus' words "It is finished," on His cross the work in providing eternal salvation to God's people is complete. Everyone "kept" under the Law is delivered once the arrival of the Holy Spirit of Promise arrived. He is the seal of that salvation bought by the Son. This is a seal promised to Israel by God. There is no such promise given to non-Hebrew Gentiles. Israel holds all the cards. She is the Bride and Church of the Living God.
Jesus didn't send Saul to me. He sent Saul to his brethren the Jews and later Saul understood that his mission was to go into Gentile lands (Asia Minor) to the majority of Hebrews who remained in Gentile lands in 522BC when Cyrus gave Nehemiah leave to return to Israel. From that date - even before it - the children of Israel went through approximately 20 generations influenced by Greek culture which people were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, and God needed to reach out to the people He scattered to let them know their Deliverer had come in the Person of Jesus bar Joseph, from the tribe of Judah. It was important to God that He let them know their Messiah had come and that they "[were] no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
Notice the quotation about the "cornerstone." That comes from the Hebrew Scripture and is meant for the Hebrew people no matter if they were of mixed heritage. If they were Abraham's seed - and they were - then they are heirs according to the Promise God gave Abraham.
There is nothing to twist. Here is that passage again.
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.
It says that God sent His Son, born from a woman under the Law, lived under the Law to redeem those under the Law which identifies the children of Israel who are the children of Isaac, who are the children of Abraham. There is no comparable statement in Scripture that says the same thing about non-Hebrew Gentiles because Gentiles were NEVER under the Law and this being true are outside all covenantal promises of God. Here's another passage by the rabbi and Pharisee, Saul, in Romans:
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites;
to whom pertaineth
the adoption,
and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the giving of the law,
and the service of God,
and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 9:3–5.
The above encapsulates the doctrine of salvation and you'll notice that Saul is addressing his brethren, Israel, of the flesh. None of this is ever said of non-Hebrew Gentiles. It is all said about God's Chosen people Israel.
There is nothing to twist. IF YOU are honest with Scripture, you would agree that these things that accompany salvation is written to the children of Israel in covenant with God. THEY are the people whose names are in the book of life of the lamb slain from [BEFORE] the foundation (CREATION) of the world.
The book of life contains no names of any non-Hebrew Gentiles for the covenants beginning with Abraham, then to Moses, then to the Houses of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes) and Judah (two southern kingdom tribes.) I find no covenant in Scripture between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles.
None.
So, your accusation that I twist Scripture is unfounded. What now must happen is whether or not you believe the Scripture above that lays the groundwork for the salvation of the Chosen people of God who are the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.
Do you believe the Scripture above? Can you say the same thing as God?
Now you're vomiting out your vitriol against everyone's favorite Apostle, Paul. You're not just taking issue with him, you're downright nasty. That's your Ethnic Cleansing spirit that's talking and it needs to be exorcised.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Repeat after me (especially the underlined)
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.
There is nothing in the bible that non-Hebrew Gentiles were ever under the Law thus establishing in the above passage that ONLY those under the Law are atoned by their Messiah.
Now, God want you to acknowledge this, His truth, and to believe it as true. If you refuse to believe the scope of God's atonement is to and for those under the Law, then you are in effect calling God a liar.
Believe the Word of the LORD.
The verse doesn't say that only Jews are to be redeemed by Christ. It's your Ethnic Cleansing spirit that's reading that non-existent word into the verse. Besides, those are Paul's words that you just crucified in your previous comments. Your vitriol filled spirit doesn't know if it's coming or going. It's time for an exorcism.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Your defiled conscience is causing your antisemitic, racist, mind to refuse the most probable conclusion to this question. First, the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) is a record by God of His relationship with the Hebrew people covering thousands of years and Gentiles who claim to be in the Abraham Covenant (THEY ARE NOT) don't have anything like this to call their own so they steal what God gave to Israel by way of covenants and salvation and make the Hebrew Scripture their own; second, that it is true that ONLY Hebrews have salvation covenant with God and that they are the only people to be delivered from sin and death and that the Abraham Covenant that started it all is strictly and biblically between God, Abram the Hebrew, and Abram's Hebrew seed and that if a presumed "Gentile" who is having trouble with this truth must have a Hebrew parent in their ancestry the way the Samaritan woman at the well had a Hebrew in her ancestry and that the only way to salvation is to be Abraham's seed.
Your racist mind refuses to understand that you must have a Hebrew parent somewhere in your ancestry and that just causes tremendous shudders in your racist soul.
Doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
So, racist, how does it feel to have a Hebrew parent in your family? Do you experience persecution for your race? Probably not since you've chosen to be Gentile despite having at least one Hebrew parent in your family.
