Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine
06-28-2011, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2011 12:51 PM by Ekklesia.)
RE: As Requested - My first post
(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Ok, now I get you, I think LOL...so according to you ,Christ came only for those descended from Jacob and the rest of the world can perish in their sins? How nice! not!
Rose, I'll answer your points, but I want this dialogue to remain civil as it has been. I think if we're straying into territory where we cannot do that I'm happy to concede for the sake of civility and respect. If we are able to do that so much better for us ...
WRT to your point above, please don't attribute to me Christ's words. It was he who said [Matt 15:25]. I also cannot be credited with Pauls words [/Rom 9:4], Peters [1 Peter 1:1], or James 1:1]. It is their words you are reacting to, not mine. I'm simply pointing them out and taking their meaning as plain and self-evident.
(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: And this is why you consistently try to make us think that the word gentiles are merely nations and doesnt refer to non Israelites.
My motivation for consistently pointing out the Greek meaning of ethnos is twofold. First, I believe you value God's word above all else, and therefore I believe you are more interested in what he inspired his NT writers to write, and mean above erroneous theology that translators have instilled.
If ethnos (G1484) has only ever been given the meaning 'gentiles' the 93 or so times it has been translated in the bible, and at no other point in Greek useage (out of millions of translations) has it been taken to mean anything else other than 'nations', I think this is strong evidence for translational tampering (artificial theology). I would think this should interest you, and the onus anyone who defends that translation to prove it is sound. The question is, what is of more worth; the author's intent, or the translators?
(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Even back in the OT the reference to the nations or gentiles was in differentiation to the people of Israel.
Ah but Hebrew doesn't use the word 'ethonos', and it's use of the word 'goyim' also sometimes applies to Israel as it does with non-Israel, so I'm not taking issue with the direct translation of the Hebrew, though I am with the Greek.
(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Since you reject that the Syrophoenician woman was not an Israelite ,let's try someone else.
What I rejected was the idea that Christ's show of kindness to the woman, was proof he was forging a covenant with her or her people (in contravention to His word). I believe Jesus was supremely kind (to everyone) as he was merciful. The same rain that falls on the just, also falls on the unjust [Matt 5:45]
(06-28-2011 08:45 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: How does Cornelius fit into your interpretation of Acts? Was he an Israelite or non Israelite?
Clearly he was a Roman. Are you saying the Romans have a covenant with God or that he came to forge the new covenant with them? Are you saying that that they were the sheep of his fold, and the bible says that explicity? I think you're arguing against a notion that I don't advocate. What does the bible say about a non-Israelite who joins themselves to the Lord? It says [Isa 54:1] "Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, 'The Lord will surely separate me from his people'; and let not the eunuch say 'Behold, I am a dry tree.'"
This means non-Israelites can join themselves to the Lord, but the kingdom, and the promises of the kingdom still belong to Israel (and conintue to be inherited by Israel). When a non-Israelite joins themselves to the Lord, the lord will have mercy, but the covenant is still with Israel, the blessings and the curses are also with Israel, and that non-Israelite obtains blessing only because they have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant relationship that Israel will continue to inherit. This is why God promised that Israel would be a light unto the world.
(Now realize that I see Christianity as proof we are Israel, so what I just said above about Israel applies today in Christianity (because Christians are the House of Israel)).
He was a Roman (which was his citizenship). His ethnicity may or may not have been Hebrew, it doesn't seem to say clearly (there were uncircumcised Israelite Romans), but I don't exlude the idea he was not.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)