Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine

[Ekklesia]

(07-08-2011 11:06 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  We have translations by reputable scholars, such as the KJV, and yet you would have us believe that their translations are wrong and yours are the right ones?

Rose, you're using a fallacious way of arguing. Simply because someone is a 'reputable scholar' doesn't mean they're correct. The Pharisees were all reputable scholars but were not correct. I would rather be correct then reputable. But since you ask, what I would have you believe is that no English translation is perfect, and simply ignoring the Greek is foolish. I would think that anyone willing to test all things would 'test ALL things' (including word meaning), but apparently the santitity of a favoured translation is not one of those things.

(07-08-2011 11:06 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Even so the issues you raise are not just a matter of translation.You also want to totally subvert the meaning behind the words used.

You've accused me of this a number of times, with no evidence. If I correctly point out a word in your doctrine means something there was not in the underlying Greek word, I am subverting nothing. I'm doing the opposite; I'm restoring. Show me what I'm subverting, or stop accusing me of this offense.

(07-08-2011 11:06 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  When I asked you whether Cornelius was an israelite or non israelite and asked how that fitted into your interpretations of acts you said: ... (cut out)

There you are never answered my question with a simple yes or no but instead gave us your interpretation of things which still fail to tell us whether you think he was an israelite or not.

Rose, do you know what a false dilemna is? It is when a person is only given 2 choices but there are actually more. The bible see's more categories than Israelite and non-Israelite. The bible says nothing more than he was a Roman. There were Israelite Romans and non-Israelite Romans. I answered your question by referencing the bible which tells us ONLY that he was a Roman. Don't fault me for refusing to speculate.

(07-08-2011 11:06 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Additionally your explanation leads me to think that according to you, non israelites somehow have a lesser place in the New Covenant since you say the covenant was not made with them.

Rose, Jesus called non-Israelites 'dogs', yet you are offended that I don't focus upon them when I read about the 'new covenant'. When I think about the new covenant, I focus on those who the bible says were to be the recipients of it (non-Isralites are not specifically mentioned). I think if I were to call them 'dogs' you could accuse me of 'thinking lesser' of them, but simply not thinking about them at all, is hardly 'thinking lesser'.

Lets go back to the bible, which says [Jer 31:31-33] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people"

This is the only verse in the OT that directly speaks of the 'new covenant'. The NT book written to the Israelites, says the same thing in [Heb 8:8].

Could you please show me anywhere in the bible where the '[b]new covenant' is specifically promised to anyone other than Israel? If your doctrine is biblically sound, this should be easy, you should be able to show me a promise that clearly extends the covenant beyond Israel. If you cannot show me where the bible promises a new covenant with non-Israelites, you'll understand why I focus my attention elsewhere.

The only reason we've spoken about non-Israelites, is because you've brought them up. I know that your doctrine is more concerned with someone other than those the new covenant was targeted to, but that is not a deficiency on my part, just because I share the bible's focus. Eisegesis is when people read into the text, things that are not there (thy impose their understanding on the text). If you cannot show references which extend the promise of the new covenant to non-Israelites, you are engaging in Eisegesis (such doctrine is false). So, the way to avoid being offended, or causing offense, I think is to avoid speculation, show me where the bible specifically says Cornelius was NOT an Israelite. If you can do this, we'll talk about what Cornelius' faith means WRT to the 'new covenant'. Everything else is mere speculation.

(07-08-2011 11:06 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  That means that your doctrine flies in the face of what happened with Acts and Cornelius and the vision of the sheet.And the fact that Gentiles or if you prefer,nations though Cornelius and his household wasn't exactly a nation, had also received the Holy Spirit and thus been included in the Covenant.Paul comfirms this when he calls gentiles fellow heirs of the promises.

Lets reserve judments on this until you can actually prove Cornelius was a non-Israelite.

Here's a suggestion, please take it charitably; I appreciate that you post lots of biblical quotes (I like them too!), but it is more useful to show your understanding of them. I sometimes wonder if you understand what you quote. It doesn't always seem you do.