Random Questions Thread

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

Probably from the mouth of John Hagee

It's an extreme hyperdispensationalist view, held by a minority, usually radical Baptist types. These people also maintain that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were "under the law and for Israel only, not the church" and therefore likewise do not apply to us at the present.

[Amanah]

Shag:

Here are scripture references to help:

- Romans 11:17-24 (olive tree analogy)
- Hosea 1:9-10 (Israel declared "Not My People")
- Genesis 12:3; 15:5; 17:4-6 (Abraham's descendants to become a multitude of nations)
- Ezekiel 37:15-28 (reunion of Judah and Israel under Messiah)
- Ephesians 2:11-22 (unity of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ)
- Galatians 3:28-29 (no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ)

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Acts 17:26 KJV
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The bible says "made of one blood all nations of men", not "made from one man every nation of mankind".

The Alexandrian Text vs the Textus Receptus.

What the theological difference between one man vs one blood?
The concept of original sin?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The Alexandrian Text vs the Textus Receptus.

What the theological difference between one man vs one blood?
The concept of original sin?

Original sin doctrine plays into it, note however the Latin Vulgate of the RCC and it's English translations do not say "of one man" but simply "made of one all nations" etc.

It's not that big of a deal except for the fact people read universal statements in the Bible and press them to the literal extreme which winds up creating contradictions with other parts of the Bible or with common sense.

Caesar declared "all the world is to be taxed" but the Mayans and the Chinese never got the memo.

[shag]

Esaias, have you or Amanah ever been accused of being a “jew hater”?
I’m guessing probably so.
That’s where I’m at, (siblings wise).
Ain’t that something

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by shag

Esaias, have you or Amanah ever been accused of being a “jew hater”?
I’m guessing probably so.
That’s where I’m at, (siblings wise).
Ain’t that something

People who know me know that isn't case.
I just explain that people in Israel are just like us, people who God wants to save through the gospel.

Israel isn't a Jewish nation anymore than the US is a Christian nation.

[shag]

I probably just need to better watch how I communicate what I believe

There’s something about bringing what-why John called anti-Christ and liars in it that seems to rub people the wrong way

imagine

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

I probably just need to better watch how I communicate what I believe

There’s something about bringing what-why John called anti-Christ and liars in it that seems to rub people the wrong way

imagine

People have been programmed to think that criticism of anything "Jewish" is literally Hitler, "antisemitic", and evil. Meanwhile being antichrist gets a pass with no outrage.

[shag]

It was mentioned about a week ago That some of the tribe of Levi, had joined Judah after the splitting of the northern and southern kingdoms
Did that make those from the tribe of Levi that joined the tribe of Judah, Jews?

I would think not, but I’m just verifying.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

It was mentioned about a week ago That some of the tribe of Levi, had joined Judah after the splitting of the northern and southern kingdoms
Did that make those from the tribe of Levi that joined the tribe of Judah, Jews?

I would think not, but I’m just verifying.

Again, it depends on the definition of "Jew" that is being used. The word, just like "gentile", has a lot of different connotations in peoples' minds.

Judah, Benjamin, parts of Simeon, and parts of Levi were all part of the southern House of Judah. So they could be identified as part of the House or Kingdom of Judah. Parts of Levi were also part of the northern House of Israel, too.

Suppose some Chinaman converted and got circumcised back in the first century AD. He would be classed as a "Judean" because he was a practitioner of the Judean religion. Even though he was not an Israelite at all.

And none of this really has anything to do with the people today known as "Jews", because those people for the most part are also not Israelites, but Khazars, Turks, Edomites, and Arabs who have converted to the religion of "Judaism".