How many Gentiles and Samaritans could have been saved if Jesus would have sent some disciples there?

[Josheb]

Abraham does not have to know about the gospel preached to us today in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, in order to have the gospel preached to him.

When Paul said THE good news was preached to him, he is not saying it was THE SAME good news that is valid TODAY, which is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

You added the word SAME into Galatians 3:8 without realizing it.

The only connection Paul is making in Galatians 3 between the good news preached to Abraham, and the good news preached to us today was that:

• just like Abraham who believed the good news preached to him in Genesis 15:5 and was justified by faith alone, before circumcision (Genesis 15:6, Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:2-3),
• so are we gentiles today who believed the good news preached to us in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 are justified by faith alone, without any works.

Yes, and purple polka-dotted, yellow-striped horse-headed, beaver-tailed slagdorfendjippers could fly through multiple dimensions without wings but we are discussing what the Bible states, not what it is imagined not to say.


The Bible states the gospel was preached to Abraham. The Bible does not state one gospel was preached to Abraham and a completely different gospel was preached to someone else. Multiple gospels are not asserted in scripture.

Are you aware that the gospel is not just any good news, but a specific type of good news? An "euaggelion" is NOT the same thing as a "kalon akoe." News that is good comes in many forms. One of them was called an evangelion. The word evangelion was a term used in Greek and Roman society to announce a great accomplishment, usually a great victory. In the Roman Empire evangelions were announced any time a Roman general one a great military victory or..... whenever a Caesar was deified. It is the word, "euaggelion" that the New Testament writers used, not kalon akoe. When speaking about Jesus they used the word used in Rome to announce a great victory or a deification. Jesus did not just do a bunch of morally right and publicly beneficial things, he accomplished an enormous victory - he defeated death, and he IS God, not just some ordinary human being promoted to the Elysian Fields.

And that is why persecution quickly moved from Jerusalem to Rome. The New Testament writers were claiming Jesus had done something not even Caesar could do: defeat death. As a consequence, this Jesus was now King of all kings and Lord of all lords - even over Caesar.


That is the exact same term Paul used when he said the "good news" had been preached to Abraham. To Abraham God had preached the evangelion.


Look it up.


And stop making up hypotheticals. Everything I posted can be found in scripture, and I am not a guy who likes to make a lot of inferences. Scripture states what it states. Some folks like to make it say a lot of things but what scripture states and what some make it say are often hugely different. Scripture states the evangelion - NOT just another kalon akoe - was preached to Abraham. That is what it states.

I encourage everyone to believe it and believe it exactly as written.

 

[Guojing]

And stop making up hypotheticals. Everything I posted can be found in scripture, and I am not a guy who likes to make a lot of inferences. Scripture states what it states. Some folks like to make it say a lot of things but what scripture states and what some make it say are often hugely different. Scripture states the evangelion - NOT just another kalon akoe - was preached to Abraham. That is what it states.

I encourage everyone to believe it and believe it exactly as written.

Precisely, Scripture states what it states.

You added the word same inside Galatians 3:8. Its not in scripture.

The good news, not the SAME good news.

Paul even made it clear in case there are people like you who need to resort to Greek, that good news was “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

You don't tell anyone TODAY that the good news they need to believe in, is also “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” Even if they believed that, they won't be saved today.

And yes, anyone can read for themselves and believe it exactly as written.

 

[Josheb]

Precisely, Scripture states what it states.

Then stop peculating hypotheses never stated in scripture!

You added the word same inside Galatians 3:8. Its not in scripture.

No, I did not. You inserted "different."

I simply pointed out scripture uses the word "gospel" in its single conjugation and never plural conjugations. Logic is our friend. If there is only THE gospel and there are not multiple gospels (plural) then logic necessitates one singular conclusion: the gospel was preached to Abraham. That is what it states.

Precisely, Scripture states what it states.

Yep, and what is states is the gospel was preached to Abraham, not "a" gospel, but "the" gospel.

The good news, not the SAME good news.

Already covered and decisively addressed. Repeating the same dissent is worthless argumentum ad nauseam.

Paul even made it clear in case there are people like you who need to resort to Greek, that good news was “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

Yes, he did..... but that is not all he or God said and selectively using one verse to define all else that scripture teaches on a matter is always and everywhere wrong. Scripture states quite a lot regarding what Abraham knw and what he knew was not limited to his being the father of many nations. I posted it, and I posted it in decisive rebuttal of this proof-texting, adding-to-scripture, ignoring what is stated nonsense you're trying to pass of as rational. The gospel was preached to Abraham.

"No, Paul, I do not believe you. I do not believe what you stated in God's word because all you said afterwards was that Abe would be the father of many nations and that is not the gospel."

May God bless you accordingly .

You don't tell anyone TODAY that the good news they need to believe in, is also “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

I most certainly do.

1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Because, according to Paul, the promises were made to Abraham and Jesus (Abe's seed), and Jesus alone is no King of all kings, Lord over all lords, the name and rule above all other names and rules, I do so very much tell people the gospel is about a great victory one such that our hope is not merely for the life on this earth but for all eternity. The non-believer can have eternity, but it is found only in Christ the King.

Even if they believed that, they won't be saved today.

All who call upon the name of God's Son will be saved. Today is the day of salvation.

And yes, anyone can read for themselves and believe it exactly as written.

I know. You could. You do not. Not doing so is not because you cannot.


The gospel was preached to Abraham. That is what scripture states. Believe it exactly as written.

 

[Guojing]

Yes, he did..... but that is not all he or God said and selectively using one verse to define all else that scripture teaches on a matter is always and everywhere wrong. Scripture states quite a lot regarding what Abraham knw and what he knew was not limited to his being the father of many nations. I posted it, and I posted it in decisive rebuttal of this proof-texting, adding-to-scripture, ignoring what is stated nonsense you're trying to pass of as rational. The gospel was preached to Abraham.

Why make an argument from silence here?

If Galatians 3:8 tells you exactly what Paul was thinking about when he tells us the gospel was preached to Abraham, if you believe scripture state what it states, you should not be adding to it.

You were the one who brought up Galatians 3:8 remember? I was not the one who "selectively using one verse"

 

[Guojing]

I most certainly do.

1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

This is written to the nation of Israel, taken from Exodus 19:5-6.

If you claim this for yourself, when you are not Israel, you are stealing God's promises that he made to others.

You are behaving like someone who claims Matthew 19:28 for themselves, believing that they will be sitting on one of the 12 thrones promised to the 12 apostles of Christ.

 

[Josheb]

Why make an argument from silence here?

Are you having difficulty looking at your own argument objectively? It is you who is making an argument from silence and ignoring what is plainly stated. You're saying that Paul doesn't mention anything other than Abe's fatherhood of nations and, therefore (due to Paul's supposed silence), there must be some other gospel.

So why are you making an argument from silence and accusing me of doing what I have not done?


I surveyed the whole of scripture and listed the many things of the gospel scripture reports Abraham knowing. Abrahem knew a lot more than simply and solely he'd be the father of many nations. When it comes to the gospel Paul preached scripture tells us - not some doctrinal bias on my, your, or anyone else's part - Abraham know many aspects of the gospel (the same holds true for a few other OT persons, too).

Apply the same standards to your own argument that you do to mine. Be an equal opportunity critic. Do not misrepresent what I posted because I did NOT argue from silence. You did.

If Galatians 3:8 tells you exactly what Paul was thinking about when he tells us the gospel was preached to Abraham, if you believe scripture state what it states, you should not be adding to it.

I did not add to it anything other than what scripture plainly states. The antithesis of the accusation of additions is that of proof-texting. It is not okay to define all of scripture by one verse. It is not okay to limit anyone's understanding of scripture to one verse. It's not okay to read one verse and understand that one verse in isolation of everything the rest of scripture has to say about what is stated in that one verse. All three are bad practice. It's not okay to single out one statement in another's posts and do the same with the other poster.

You were the one who brought up Galatians 3:8 remember?

I did brig up Galatians 3 AND I brought up a host more, but YOU aberrantly and abhorrently focused on that one mention and ignored all the rest. I know, and everyone knows you're ignoring the rest of what was posted and misrepresenting what I said because you quoted Post 533 (where a plethora of what scripture teaches is listed).

I was not the one who "selectively using one verse"

The posts prove otherwise. You've treated Galatians 3:8 is if verses 6-14 don't exist, and treated Gal. 3:8 in absence of everything stated in Genesis 12-25, Act 7, Romans 4, and Hebrews 7 and 11.


You are, in fact, demonstrably, selectively using one verse, arguing from silence to assert the gospel preached to Abraham was different than what Paul (or Jesus, or Peter, or anyone else) preached when scripture explicitly states there is only one name by which anyone can be saved. There is only one gospel. Scripture tells us many understood it in part or whole and as a consequence they looked forward to something we now possess.


Hebrews 11:32-40 (excepted for the sake of space)
And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of [the many others].............. And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

They are made perfect in us. Scripture counts Abaraham among those perfected in the bod of Christ. It was not his being the father of many nations (works) that got him there. It was his faith, his belief in all the things I listed in Post 533 and elsewhere - things you have ignored despite being asked repeatedly not to do so. Scripture has quite a lot to say about what Abraham had preached to him and it is not all stated in the one verse Galatians 3:8.

Galatians 3:8
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All nations will be blessed in you."

Any first century reader familiar with the Jewish Tanakh would have instantly considered the entire account of Abram/Abraham therein. Their understanding of "All nations will be blessed in you," would not have been limited to the one sentence in the one letter to the Galatians. Even if it were, we know to examine whole scripture. I did that. You did not. You misrepresented scripture and my posts and I'm asking you now to stop doing both.

In Galatians 3:6-14 Paul is referencing at least four, maybe five books of the OT, from Genesis, the Law, the psalms, and the prophets. The irony here is that Paul is not selectively using one verse! He's writing in the context of all that preceded him as a whole, referencing from it quite diversely.

I listed some of it.

You've ignored it.

 

[Josheb]

This is written to the nation of Israel, taken from Exodus 19:5-6.

Actually, it was not. Those words were spoken to "the sons of Israel," NOT the nation of Israel. There was no nation of Israel in Exodus 19. They did not become a nation until after they'd entered the promised land. Furthermore, the promises spoken in Exodus 19 are promises made in extension of the those made to Abraham, solely within the covenant God initiated with Abraham long before a single audience member of Exodus 19 ever drew breath.

If you claim this for yourself, when you are not Israel, you are stealing God's promises that he made to others.

Baseless accusation ad hominem. If you can't keep the posts about the posts (rather than the posters) do not expect me to continue with you.


The promises made by God to Abraham were made to Abraham and his seed (Gal. 3:16). His seed is Jesus, not Israel. Abraham has only one seed, Jesus; it is one, not many (Gal. 3:16). The promises were made to Abraham.... and Jesus. Jews did not understand that. They did not understand that because it had not been revealed to them. Thousands of years later a Jew, Paul, writing under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit revealed what had previously been veiled and hidden. Jesus was the seed, not Israel.

Romans 8:14-17
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

You do not get to keep me or anyone else here from the promises of God found in Christ, the seed to whom God spoke His promises.

You are.........

Stick to the posts, not the posters. You attack me personally again and I'll ignore your posts.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


Got a couple of questions for you:

• Are a Christian?
• If not, then how do you identify yourself (Jew, Messianic Jew, JW, LDS)?
• If so, then are you Dispensationalist or otherwise Zionist, or eschatologically a modern futurist?
• Do you hold to the premise there are two completely separte people in the Bible, Israel and the Church, for whom God has two completely different purposes and goals?
• Do you know what Dispensationalism teaches, its origins and history?

Brief answers, please. I ask these questions because your profile is not viewable and I'd like to better understand from where you come, theologically. Please keep the answers brief.

 

[Guojing]

Actually, it was not. Those words were spoken to "the sons of Israel," NOT the nation of Israel. There was no nation of Israel in Exodus 19. They did not become a nation until after they'd entered the promised land.

Interesting, you are the first Christian I have encountered who believed that "They did not become a nation until after they'd entered the promised land."

Does that mean you believed only starting from the book of Joshua, then Israel became a nation?

Throughout the whole of Moses life, Israel was not a nation? That is really a very strange doctrine, which scripture verses did you use to form this doctrine? If you prefer not to share, I am fine too.

 

[Guojing]

Baseless accusation ad hominem. If you can't keep the posts about the posts (rather than the posters) do not expect me to continue with you.

Stick to the posts, not the posters. You attack me personally again and I'll ignore your posts.

All along I am using scripture references in my posts to you.

I don't see my posts as accusing you personally. There is a difference between claiming "you are a thief" versus "you are stealing".

If the word "stealing" is especially sensitive to you, I can substitute "taking" for it, would that make you feel better?

At the end of the day, if you are one of those that cannot tell the difference between a noun and a verb, that is unfortunate.

 

[TahitiRun]

Interesting topic on what "gospel" Abraham heard. Here are my own thoughts on this. A quick read of the actual text might shed some light on what’s being discussed:

Gal 3:8 προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεὸς, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.

1Co 15:1 Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε,

In Gal 3:8 the term "προευηγγελίσατο" is a verb. Verbs are not definitized in Greek. So, it's not "the gospel was proclaimed beforehand", as usually paraphrased in English translations, but rather if we look more closely at the term used it consists of two parts: "προ + ευηγγελίσατο". The first part "προ" (like the Greek preposition means "before") + "ευηγγελίσατο" (lit: proclaimed glad tidings or good news [in the aorist/indicative form]). That's what the term actually tells us. Perhaps a better translation would be: "before proclaimed good news".

However, in 1Co 15:1, Paul uses a different term. Paul uses the noun "εὐαγγέλιον" that’s proceeded by the article "τὸ". Here, the term "εὐαγγέλιον" is specific (made definite by use of the article) and speaks to a specific proclamation of "the good news" made by Paul. Paul then tells us what "the good news" is in 1Co 15:3-4.

The question: Did Abraham hear "the gospel" or "the good news" that was spoken verbatim by Paul at Corinth? The answer according to Gal 3:8, and from my own perspective, would be no. Different words were used, though both proclamations were “good news” to those that heard.

Abraham heard a different proclamation of “good news”. Abraham heard words (translated into Greek by Paul) that said "ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη". That is what Abraham heard and believed according to scripture. And when Abraham believed God's words it was credited/reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3). The proclamation given by God to Abraham was objective. The proclamation was true whether Abraham believed it or not. Abraham's believing the proclamation, however, was subjective, and was credited to his account.

Paul uses examples of “good news” proclamations by God to Abraham (Rom 4:18, 4:22 for example), and draws a parallel between Abraham and our own justification (ie: the declaration of "good news") and the resulting imputed righteousness when believed. The issue really is not so much which words are spoken and heard, but rather who speaks the words and if they’re believed (Joh 5:24, 12:44, 13:20, etc.).

The proclaiming of our justification (ie: the declaration made to us based upon Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for our sins) is always objective. It’s true whether believed or not. However, believing that declaration is always subjective and brings with it imputed/reckoned righteousness to our account, through faith. Our justification (ie: the declaration of "good news" made to us) and imputed righteousness (believing that "good news") are really two different things.

Although the words of the proclamation are different, they achieve the same results when believed and received through faith.

Anyway, just my thoughts on this.

 

[Josheb]

Interesting, you are the first Christian I have encountered who believed that "They did not become a nation until after they'd entered the promised land."

I doubt that is true, but it is also immaterial. A simple examination of scripture will prove what I posted correct. Prior to their entrance into the promised land the Hebrews were called many things, the closest and most salient to the current exchange between us is "sons of Israel," and that is a reference to their forefather and patriarch, Jacob. Furthermore, as I am confident you know, and I point out in goodwill hoping to build from consensus, the word "israel," means "God perseveres." In the allegorical sense of the phrase, the "sins of Israel," could be understood idiomatically as "sons of God perseveres," or "sons of the God who perseveres," a moniker indicating the separateness, or holiness, their having been separated for sacred purpose.

Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with geo-political nation-state status.

This is all very easily verified by looking it up in scripture, reading the texts as written, and marking how the labels changed as the promises first made to Abraham and Jesus were applied to and clarified and expanded to Isaac, Jacob, the Hebrew, Israel, and then the Jews ("Jew" is a name that came from the tribe Judah and was later generalized to apply to all the tribes of Israel. To be a Benjaminite was to also be a Jew even though the tribe of Benjamine is entirely different from the tribe of Judah.

Look it up.


A simple word search of the word "nation" will readily show the word "nation" was not applied by God to the Hebrews until Exodus. Every single one of those mentions is prophetic. In other words, they would be a nation, but where not then, at that time, the nation God would later make them. Notice also God's use of the word "nation" is not geo-political. This use of the word continues on through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It's not until Joshua that we begin to see God use the word "nation" in any geo-political sense and even then, the usage is more in keeping with the fulfillment of the covenant promise rather than their having obtained geo-political nationhood. Logically speaking, hey could not be a nation with land and defining boundaries until they'd occupied the land. As the word search is continued, something very remarkable (shocking to some) will be discovered. The phrase "nation of Israel," never occurs in the Old Testament! It's only in the New Testament that we find that exact phrase! (Php. 3:5). In 1 Cor. 10:18 find the "Look at the nation Israel." On all the other occasions the premise of a geo-political nation-state named "Israel" is a matter of inference, not explicit report.

And, no, I do not know why our theologies and subordinate doctrines do not better reflect what is actually stated (I have my suspicions , but that's not currently germane). Whether or not I'm the only one you've ever heard say these things, they are what scripture states. Scripture states what scripture states .

Does that mean you believed only starting from the book of Joshua, then Israel became a nation?

What I believe is irrelevant. What scripture states is what is relevant. We all should be basing our views first and foremost on scripture, not doctrines later made by men. Scripture is the ultimate authority. You and I can debate our respective doctrinal differences but, on any occasion when any doctrine conflicts with what scripture plainly states, our allegiance must be to scripture, not doctrine.

Yes?

Doctrinally, the "nation of Israel" is defined diversely and said to mean many things but as far as scripture goes.... scripture states what scripture states and the Hebrews who left Egypt were not a nation until well after they'd entered the land promised to Abraham. We should adjust our thinking, our doctrines, and our practices accordingly. You and I should, for the sake of this discussion, adjust our thinking doctrine, and practice accordingly. If the phrase "nation of Israel" is used in ways different than scripture's usage I am going to point that out. I'll point it out as a discrepancy between post and scripture and then use that discrepancy to note a flaw in the case being presented because any case that does not accurately present scripture is a flawed case.

So just put a little thought into it and post accordingly. Do not give me the opportunity to make those observations and protests. I want us both to build from consensus and the consensus I would like us to build is not one based on my views, my doctrines or your views, your doctrines, but on what scripture states. If we have consensus with each other but our consensus does not agree with scripture then what we have obtained betwen us is worthless.

Yes?

Throughout the whole of Moses life, Israel was not a nation? That is really a very strange doctrine, which scripture verses did you use to form this doctrine? If you prefer not to share, I am fine too.

I'm going to wait and provide the opportunity to search the scriptures for yourself and see if what I posted is correct or incorrect. I'm going to reply to your other post (#549) and then I'll be gone until later today, maybe not until tomorrow. The thread is no going anywhere. Take the time to investigate for yourself. Stick to scripture. Look at what is stated. Make note of what is stated and what is not stated. Your mind, like mine, will naturally call up things we've been taught so make note of those occasions and return to what is stated in scripture. Don't go looking for inferences. Only after examining, recognizing, noting what is stated do you go back and look at what scripture itself implies - the places where scripture itself asserts an inference, not what post-canonical doctrines say should be inferred.

• What does scripture state?
• What does scripture itself imply?
• What do men later infer scripture to say and is what they say it says what it actually states?

I'll check back later and if you want me to proceed and answer these two questions further, then I will. If you read what I read scripture to state, then we won't need to discuss the matter further and can move on with the discussion realizing the nation of Israel is not a big part of how many gentiles and Samaritans could have been saved if Jesus had sent disciples there.

 

[Josheb]

All along I am using scripture references in my posts to you.

I am not in scripture. On every occasion when making ad hominem statements about me personally scripture is not being used. Likewise, On every single occasion when any poster makes derisive or derogatory statements about others personally, they are not practicing scripture, either.

I can be quite exacting about this.

I'd prefer not to have to be that way. If we stick to the topic and keep the posts about the posts and not the posters we will not have any difficulty - even if in the end we agree to agree to disagree.

I don't see my posts as accusing you personally. There is a difference between claiming "you are a thief" versus "you are stealing". If the word "stealing" is especially sensitive to you, I can substitute "taking" for it, would that make you feel better? At the end of the day, if you are one of those that cannot tell the difference between a noun and a verb, that is unfortunate.

I understand the words were framed in a conditional "if". "If" I think or do X then I am Y. There are a host of problems with that kind of content beginning with the fact that if the "if" doesn't apply then the comment is non sequitur, a red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. The "if" assumes an exclusive and linear causality between the if and, in this case, the conclusion I'm stealing. "Well, screw you, jerkwad," would be the normal response to such arrogance of presuming to define another waaaaaaaay before having heard their views. Blessedly, I don't reply that way . The "if" is assumed. It's not been established. The assumed "if" was assumed solely based on already existing doctrinal biases, not objective criteria established between us. All of this and more necessitates the "if" as an attack on my person and that makes it ad hominem. The argument unstated but nonetheless asserted if "if" you are stealing then nothing you ever post would have any validity or veracity. And, of course, that is incorrect.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day .

You don't see it, but I was personally attacked. I've tried to be clear and respectful, and set acceptable boundaries and goals we can, hopefully mutually agree upon and practice. Some folks don't like the attempt, but I think it worth the effort.

There is a very easy solution. Just keep the poster out of the content. Gor example, that earlier "if" could have been reworded to say something like, "If someone who is not Jewish is claiming promises made exclusively to the Jews then that would be stealing," or "I, Guojing, understand that certain promises were made by God exclusively to the nation of Israel and, therefore, it is inappropriate for any Christian to claim them for himself or apply them to the Church."

See, no mention of me, personally, at all .


Look at those two alternatives and let me know if I understood what was intended in Post 547 correctly. If I erred, then please feel free to correct what was posted. Clarify it so I understand. Correct the post, not the poster.


Keep the posts about the posts, not the poster.

 

[Guojing]

Notice also God's use of the word "nation" is not geo-political. This use of the word continues on through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It's not until Joshua that we begin to see God use the word "nation" in any geo-political sense and even then, the usage is more in keeping with the fulfillment of the covenant promise rather than their having obtained geo-political nationhood. Logically speaking, they could not be a nation with land and defining boundaries until they'd occupied the land.

No wonder, you define nation as one with "land and defining boundaries"

So even though God used the word nation to describe Israel throughout "Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy", it doesn't matter to you because that necessary condition was not fulfilled.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying.

So my point is that passage from Exodus, which is the same one quoted by Peter in 1 Peter, is to the "nation of Israel", as used through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

We gentiles are not that nation, we are the Body of Christ, whose destiny is not to be a holy nation on Earth (Zechariah 8), but our destiny is in heaven (Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:10 KJV).

 

[Josheb]

No wonder, you define nation as one with "land and defining boundaries"

Nope. I define "nation" in different ways, depending on the context. You putting your dross on me is just more dross. Stop it. It is ALWAYS better to ask, "Do you always define 'nation' as 'land and defining boundaries'"? to which the answer would have been an unequivocal "NO!" It is always best to ask rather than assume. On any occasion when you, me, Ricky, Lucy, or anyone else ever has any thought about what another might think it is always best to ask first, rather than assume.


What you should do before you post another word on the matter is check in with scripture, as I recommended.

So even though God used the word nation to describe Israel throughout "Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy"...

Never happened.

Look it up! You should have done the recommended word search before responding to Post 551. You clearly were not paying attention to my posts. Try paying attention to the Bible. The word "nation" appears a total of 14 times in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and not once is the word used to refer to the nation of Israel.

....., it doesn't matter to you because that necessary condition was not fulfilled.

You did not read my post, did you? I never posted any such thing.

I explicitly stated, "It's not until Joshua that we begin to see God use the word "nation" in any geo-political sense and even then, the usage is more in keeping with the fulfillment of the covenant promise rather than their having obtained geo-political nationhood." That's not an opinion. That is an objectively verifiable fact of scripture. It is a fact that you could have and should have verified before responding to Post 551. I mentioned the land and boundaries because God promised the land and God defined the boundaries of that land. God did that, not me. I also specified the nation in different ways, one of which was as a "geo-political nation-state." That's not the only definition of a nation but that is what the nation with a king and land defined by boundaries was according to God's word. We have very similar definitions in modernity whether we're talking in a religious, spiritual, theological sense or not. When people talk about the "nation of Israel," they are talking about the geo-political nation-state sitting on the east end of the Mediterranean. They are not talking about the Jews in Russia, Europe, or the US (there are more Jews living in the USS then there are in Israel!). No one is talking about building a temple in America.

You've assumed things about my post(s) not in evidence and it's taking your conversation further and further and further away from your own op. Step back and take a look at what you're doing all for the sake of trying to refute me because you're undermining your own position.

The fact is however "nation" is defined, Israel is not a nation until well after they entered the promised land. That nation did not exist before then and you were using the term as if it is a valid term to use prior to their entering the promised land.

It is not.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying.

So my point is that passage from Exodus, which is the same one quoted by Peter in 1 Peter, is to the "nation of Israel", as used through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Your point is wrong!

Mark..... I just stopped what I am posting, opened my eBible, ran a word search for the word "nation," and read every single one of the 14 verses. It took me 1:28.96. One minute and 29 seconds. You, apparently, would not or could not take a minute-and-a-half out of your day to read 14 verses before posting. Less than 90 seconds of your time would have prevented you from repeating the same mistake you made earlier. Neither Exodus 19:6 nor 1 Peter 2:9 says anything about the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel did not exist in chapter 19 of Exodus.

Look it up.

We gentiles are not that nation, we are the Body of Christ, whose destiny is not to be a holy nation on Earth (Zechariah 8), but our destiny is in heaven (Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:10 KJV).

Peter was writing to Christians, not Jews. Paul, was writing to Christians, not Jews.


Are you aware the position you are asserting was literally invented in the 1800s? Do you know that?

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Per the OP's request:

MOD HAT OFF​