If faith is a gift from God...

[Hammster]

No, there was no problem. I addressed and refuted the point you made. I'm sorry that you didn't understand that.


I didn't refute a point you made. I refuted what you claimed you proved. I do know the difference.

btw, you do know that proving something is akin to proving a "point". No difference, really. But I know that you like to play with semantics.

What I proved wasn't what you refuted. Why are you not getting that? I'm sure I know what my own point was.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure why you keep doing these red herrings. You are not responding to the intent of my post, but instead only responding to something that you want.

If you didn't understand the reason for my post (especially after I said you missed the point), you could have just asked for clarification instead of making these false accusations.

So what did I not respond to that you wanted me to respond to?

Why won't you acknowledge what you do with the fallacy of biased sample?

By not responding to my demonstrating the fallacy of biased sample, and giving me some other response, you yourself have given another red herring.

Why do I also mention your use of red herring logical fallacies (a plural amount of them) and the fallacy of biased sample? It is because we cannot have a logical conversation when you use illogic - which is what logical fallacies are.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

So what did I not respond to that you wanted me to respond to?

Why won't you acknowledge what you do with the fallacy of biased sample?

By not responding to my demonstrating the fallacy of biased sample, and giving me some other response, you yourself have given another red herring.

Why do I also mention your use of red herring logical fallacies (a plural amount of them) and the fallacy of biased sample? It is because we cannot have a logical conversation when you use illogic - which is what logical fallacies are.

Oz

We cannot have a logical conversation when you insist that I meant one thing (which you responded to, out of context, at that), when the point of my post (the reason I posted what I did) was something else. You, also, have refused to follow the conversation back to its origin.

I've tried to explain this to you repeatedly. I have no idea why you aren't grasping it.

 

[OzSpen]

We cannot have a logical conversation when you insist that I meant one thing (which you responded to, out of context, at that), when the point of my post (the reason I posted what I did) was something else. You, also, have refused to follow the conversation back to its origin.

I've tried to explain this to you repeatedly. I have no idea why you aren't grasping it.

So here you go with another red herring. This is what I asked:

So what did I not respond to that you wanted me to respond to? Why won't you acknowledge what you do with the fallacy of biased sample? By not responding to my demonstrating the fallacy of biased sample, and giving me some other response, you yourself have given another red herring. Why do I also mention your use of red herring logical fallacies (a plural amount of them) and the fallacy of biased sample? It is because we cannot have a logical conversation when you use illogic - which is what logical fallacies are.

When you don't answer what I wrote and go down your own track to try to divert the conversation to your agenda, you are engaging in the use of a red herring logical fallacy.

Here you have given another red herring.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

So here you go with another red herring. This is what I asked:

When you don't answer what I wrote and go down your own track to try to divert the conversation to your agenda, you are engaging in the use of a red herring logical fallacy.

Here you have given another red herring.

Oz

Okay, here's the post that started this (originally 408):

No! You don't like the fact that I nailed your deconstruction as a demonstration of what you do with words to make non-Calvinist words mean Calvinist words. I find it to be a marvellous example of postmodern deconstruction right on CF.

I'll prove my point


"No matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was limited, for God's chosen people, for the elect, those who have a presupposition that requires unlimited atonement, will constantly make world = every single person who ever lived; world does mean everyone; everyone = all; all = all; you don't have a single verse, etcetera.

I cannot see any way through. When there is a presuppositional bias towards a certain theology, it is very difficult to move, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. This is what you and I have found in this discussion with Arminians, and others sympathetic to synergistic unlimited atonement advocates.

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

Thanks so much for trying, but the resistance will continue."

I'm bowing out of this discussion in this thread.

Oz

We know that didn't happen.











Did you respond to the point I was making? No. You responded to a part of the example I used in making my point.

Understand?

 

[OzSpen]

I choose not to respond to your mimicking. They are not your own words, they are fundamentally my words with your Calvinism inserted. This is your deconstruction, but it is really mimicking many of my words and mocking me in the process.

I did respond to these verses by you:

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

I showed that you used the logical fallacy of biased sample. But you won't own up to what you do, so we can't have a logical conversation.

Oz

Okay, here's the post that started this (originally 408):

I'll prove my point

"No matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was limited, for God's chosen people, for the elect, those who have a presupposition that requires unlimited atonement, will constantly make world = every single person who ever lived; world does mean everyone; everyone = all; all = all; you don't have a single verse, etcetera.

I cannot see any way through. When there is a presuppositional bias towards a certain theology, it is very difficult to move, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. This is what you and I have found in this discussion with Arminians, and others sympathetic to synergistic unlimited atonement advocates.

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

Thanks so much for trying, but the resistance will continue."

We know that didn't happen.

Did you respond to the point I was making? No. You responded to a part of the example I used in making my point.

Understand?

 

[Hammster]

I choose not to respond to your mimicking. They are not your own words, they are fundamentally my words with your Calvinism inserted. This is your deconstruction, but it is really mimicking many of my words and mocking me in the process.

It was mimicking, not mocking. It was to illustrate my point which I made earlier.

I did respond to these verses by you:
I showed that you used the logical fallacy of biased sample. But you won't own up to what you do, so we can't have a logical conversation.

Oz

Your response to the illustration was a red herring since the illustration was just that, an illustration.

We cannot have a honest conversation because you will not admit that.

And now that you've admitted to at least understanding that what you responded to wasn't the actual argument I was making, in finished with this little exercise.

 

[OzSpen]

And now that you've admitted to at least understanding that what you responded to wasn't the actual argument I was making, in finished with this little exercise.

That's a straw man logical fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

Here you go, Oz. You want to respond to what he posted? Here it is:

Okay, here's the post that started this (originally 408):







I'll prove my point


"No matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was limited, for God's chosen people, for the elect, those who have a presupposition that requires unlimited atonement, will constantly make world = every single person who ever lived; world does mean everyone; everyone = all; all = all; you don't have a single verse, etcetera.

Well you did not prove your point as the Bible clearly say different to your 'point'.


Don't you think it pointless grinding away every time you lose and argument - which happens in every thread.


In point of fact you are pointless.


Oh and boring.

 

[Kristen.NewCreation]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has undergone a minor clean up, but more may occur.

Remember... flaming is not appropriate. Don't direct your post toward members - direct them toward the content of the topic/post/OP.

Please stick to the topic of the OP. Side discussions make it difficult for discussion to occur.

ADMIN HAT OFF
​

 

[OzSpen]

Where is the logic in suggesting that only the Israelites received atonement? Are you suggesting that Ruth, the Moabitess was excluded too? I'm sure you are aware that she married Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of King David.

janxharris,
In another post, you asked me for my interpretation of Matt 23:39. I did prepare a response a few days ago, but there was unable to upload to CF as there was a statement of a temporary delay in uploading. I waited 45 mins while I did other things and then tried a few more times without success. I gave up and lost what material I had prepared.

So here is my second attempt.
Matthew 23:39

This verse reads: ‘For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (ESV).
There are a few constructs in the Greek language that my help with our understanding:
1. ‘For’, gar, provides the beginning of the reason for 23:38 as to why the house will be left desolate.

2. To whom is Jesus speaking? Matt 23:37 begins with ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem’, so it seems obvious he is addressing the Jews.

3. There is a double negative in this verse that is not highlighted by the English translations. The NIV translates the verse as, ‘I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”’. This is associated with the verb ‘will not see’ – a futuristic subjunctive mood (ESV, NIV). The double negative is ou me and means something like ‘by no means will see’, or as Lenski translates, ‘In no way shall you see me from now on’ (Lenski 1943:925). Jesus is referring to his death. They will not see him again until….

4. ‘You say’. The humin, humwn (‘you&#8217 of 23:38-39 is a plural pronoun and when we link the plural pronoun with the second person plural of the verbs, we know that he is addressing more than one Jew. He’s speaking to a group of Jews who are in his presence and their house is going to be ‘desolate’ with his death.

5. However, among this group there is a group that will eventually say, ‘Blessed’ to the One who comes in the name of the Lord. ‘Blessed’, eulogemenos is a perfect tense participle, so it indicates that they are saying ‘blessed’ now and there are continuing benefits. ‘He who comes’ is literally ‘the coming one’, which is common language for the promised Messiah. So,

6. There must have been a group among these Jews that was ‘blessed’ by Jesus’ presence and that blessing will have continuing results when ‘he comes’, which again is another reference to the Messiah.

7. I do not find in this verse any indication that ALL of the Jews in Jesus’ presence or all of the Jews of future Israel would welcome him at his second coming as Messiah. But,

8. If we look broader than the Gospels, we find in Paul’s writings that there is ‘a remnant’ (see Rom 10:18-11:5), a remnant of the Jewish people who started in the days of Jesus and continued in the future who repented and had faith in him. They will be the ones who will be able to mean what they say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’. That is not possible for secular Jews.

9. I know that there are people who designate themselves as chiliasts and others (premillennial pretribulation) who I’ve heard in the evangelical churches with which I have contact, who believe that there will be a final conversion of the Jews as a nation during the millennium (1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth). I do not see that, but the consistent teaching of Scripture is that a ‘remnant’ will be saved and this remnant can genuinely proclaim, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’. An extension of this is that I regard Israel and the church as distinctly different groups. That’s how I see it so far in my spiritual journey. Not all premillennial supporters support chiliasm and the conversion of the nation of Israel to Christ.

10. Now that kind of comment may get a few posters going.

In Christ,
Oz

Works consulted
Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Matthew’s gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

 

[shturt678]

janxharris,
In another post, you asked me for my interpretation of Matt 23:39. I did prepare a response a few days ago, but there was unable to upload to CF as there was a statement of a temporary delay in uploading. I waited 45 mins while I did other things and then tried a few more times without success. I gave up and lost what material I had prepared.

So here is my second attempt.
Matthew 23:39

This verse reads: ‘For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (ESV).
There are a few constructs in the Greek language that my help with our understanding:
1. ‘For’, gar, provides the beginning of the reason for 23:38 as to why the house will be left desolate.

2. To whom is Jesus speaking? Matt 23:37 begins with ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem’, so it seems obvious he is addressing the Jews.

3. There is a double negative in this verse that is not highlighted by the English translations. The NIV translates the verse as, ‘I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”’. This is associated with the verb ‘will not see’ – a futuristic subjunctive mood (ESV, NIV). The double negative is ou me and means something like ‘by no means will see’, or as Lenski translates, ‘In no way shall you see me from now on’ (Lenski 1943:925). Jesus is referring to his death. They will not see him again until….

4. ‘You say’. The humin, humwn (‘you’) of 23:38-39 is a plural pronoun and when we link the plural pronoun with the second person plural of the verbs, we know that he is addressing more than one Jew. He’s speaking to a group of Jews who are in his presence and their house is going to be ‘desolate’ with his death.

5. However, among this group there is a group that will eventually say, ‘Blessed’ to the One who comes in the name of the Lord. ‘Blessed’, eulogemenos is a perfect tense participle, so it indicates that they are saying ‘blessed’ now and there are continuing benefits. ‘He who comes’ is literally ‘the coming one’, which is common language for the promised Messiah. So,

6. There must have been a group among these Jews that was ‘blessed’ by Jesus’ presence and that blessing will have continuing results when ‘he comes’, which again is another reference to the Messiah.

7. I do not find in this verse any indication that ALL of the Jews in Jesus’ presence or all of the Jews of future Israel would welcome him at his second coming as Messiah. But,

8. If we look broader than the Gospels, we find in Paul’s writings that there is ‘a remnant’ (see Rom 10:18-11:5), a remnant of the Jewish people who started in the days of Jesus and continued in the future who repented and had faith in him. They will be the ones who will be able to mean what they say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’. That is not possible for secular Jews.

9. I know that there are people who designate themselves as chiliasts and others (premillennial pretribulation) who I’ve heard in the evangelical churches with which I have contact, who believe that there will be a final conversion of the Jews as a nation during the millennium (1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth). I do not see that, but the consistent teaching of Scripture is that a ‘remnant’ will be saved and this remnant can genuinely proclaim, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’. An extension of this is that I regard Israel and the church as distinctly different groups. That’s how I see it so far in my spiritual journey. Not all premillennial supporters support chiliasm and the conversion of the nation of Israel to Christ.

10. Now that kind of comment may get a few posters going.

In Christ,
Oz

Works consulted
Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Matthew’s gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

I'm a Mr. Chemnitz thru Mr. Loy to Mr. Lenski non-modern Lutheran, ie, Lenski's C. with the whole of Matthew is errorless (I go more with Mr. Chemnitz' C. regarding Matt.20 & 22 however); however the so called outdated and considered spurious, for the most part, by mod. Lutherans of today let alone others, eg, we cut in paste the C. in Seminary.

Just a head's up: Most consider the whole of Lenski's C. as fallacious hence be ready to duck and slide.

Just ol' old ducking and no more pasting Jack (ELCA)

 

[Jack Terrence]

Would you provide a source please?

This is common knowledge. Just google, "The Jews of the Diaspora." They were called "Gentiles."

How do you know that Israelites of the Diaspora were also called Gentiles?

The Bible itself identifies some Israelites as "Gentiles."

Paul asserted that the Gentiles had become God's people with the Jews, Rom. 9:24.

"even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Then in verse 27 he shows explicitly that their calling with the Jews fulfills Isaiah's prophecy regarding the salvation of the "children of Israel."

He said,

Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.

In verse 24 Paul separated them as Jew and Gentile. Then in verse 27 he brought them together and called Jew and Gentile "the children of Israel." The latter were the Jews of the Diaspora. They could not have been ethnic Gentiles for it says also that they "RETURN" to God (Is. 10:22-23). Ethnic Gentiles never had a covenantal relationship with God.

Ephesians 2:17 does not say that so I wont respond.

I gave the wrong reference. It is Ephesians 2:17 and it says that Christ "CAME and preached" to those Gentiles. Christ "CAME" not to ethnic Gentiles. He CAME to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. You even admitted to this! Therefore, the "Gentiles" in Ephesians 2 were the Jews of the Diaspora.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I'm quite sure that Jesus was omniscient, as was His Father. Your statement is bewildering.

Jesus didn't know the day and hour of His return.

Reformation Study Bible Note:

Jesus was conscious of His unique relationship to the Father as eternal Son, yet there was also a limitation of His knowledge during His incarnation. page 1590

The note above is R.C. Sproul's note. Many years ago I had the opportunity of meeting Sproul and we had a discussion about this in the early 1990s. He told me that Jesus while in the flesh was not omniscient and that knowledge was revealed to Him by God as all other of God's prophets. I vehemently disagreed with him then. But I have since changed my mind.

Jesus Himself said that God revealed things to Him (John 5:20).

And Jesus' comment regarding what Moses did with a bronze serpent and equated that with what He was going to do demonstrates quite clearly that He was going to die for every sinner, just as the serpent was for every one who had been bitten.

This does not help you at all. It was about Israel's sin and remedy.

The scope of Christ's death was for every sinner. Salvation is for those who believe.

Contradictory. If salvation is only for those who believe, then the scope of Christ's death cannot be for every sinner. Furthermore, Jesus went on to say that a man's coming to truth (believing) is "wrought by God" (vs. 21).

Then unless you are Jewish, He didn't come for you either. That isn't believable.

Paul later included the Gentiles. But before Paul the term "world" would have referred to the Jews only.

Your claim about who Jesus never preached to or healed is also bewildering. How do you know everything He did and didn't do? Maybe the Bible doesn't specficially mention it, but to claim what you do not know isn't helpful.

I operate under the assumption that Jesus was fully obedient to His Father.

Seems you ignored where Jesus preached to not only a Samaritan woman, but her entire village, and they believed in Him and acknowledged Him as Savior of the world. Do you consider Samaritans Jews? The Jews sure didn't. They treated them as they did Gentiles.

The Samaritan woman was a Hellenistic Jew. The Jews treated the Hellenist Jews as they treated the Gentiles. We know that she was a Hellenist Jew because she worshiped God according to the Patriarchal system and not according to Moses. The ethnic Gentiles did neither. To the mosaic Jew she was as a pagan Gentile.

Learn your history!

And thanks for ignoring all those verses that tell us who He came to seek and save.

Gentiles were not included until Paul. Come on! Jesus explicitly told His disciples to avoid the Gentiles and to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do NOT go into the way of the Gentiles,

and do NOT enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus didn't know the day and hour of His return.

Speaking from His humanity, that would be correct.

Reformation Study Bible Note:

Jesus was conscious of His unique relationship to the Father as eternal Son, yet there was also a limitation of His knowledge during His incarnation. page 1590

The note above is R.C. Sproul's note. Many years ago I had the opportunity of meeting Sproul and we had a discussion about this in the early 1990s. He told me that Jesus while in the flesh was not omniscient and that knowledge was revealed to Him by God as all other of God's prophets. I vehemently disagreed with him then. But I have since changed my mind.

How sad. RC is quite mistaken. The Bible tells us that Jesus knew what men thought. Without noting that God "told Him so".

This does not help you at all. It was about Israel's sin and remedy.

Really? John 3:14-16 is about Israel's sin and remedy? You have to ignore the significance of Jesus' words "just as..." when introducing the bronze serpent to say that. Jesus equated what Moses did with what He was going to do. If the ONLY point of the bronze serpent was about Israel's sin and remedy, then I guess what Jesus did was also ONLY about Israel's sin and remedy. If you are a Gentile, you are just out of luck then.

I'm sure you understand what a typology is. And that is what the bronze serpent was. A type of Christ.

Contradictory. If salvation is only for those who believe, then the scope of Christ's death cannot be for every sinner.

Not contradictory at all. JUST AS the bronze serpent was for all who had been bitten (check the actual context of Num 21:8-9), so is Jesus for all sinners.

Furthermore, Jesus went on to say that a man's coming to truth (believing) is "wrought by God" (vs. 21).

Because God created mankind to seek Him, and He has revealed Himself to mankind so that no one has any excuse. Of course.

God didn't create mankind and then leave him on his own to figure out anything on his own.

Paul later included the Gentiles. But before Paul the term "world" would have referred to the Jews only.

Are you suggesting that God changed His mind and later decided to let in the Gentiles???????

I operate under the assumption that Jesus was fully obedient to His Father.

Other posters have provided ample Scripture to refute your claim that Jesus never healed or preached to non-Jews.

The Samaritan woman was a Hellenistic Jew. The Jews treated the Hellenist Jews as they treated the Gentiles. We know that she was a Hellenist Jew because she worshiped God according to the Patriarchal system and not according to Moses. The ethnic Gentiles did neither. To the mosaic Jew she was as a pagan Gentile.

You must of have missed the other passages that have been posted.

Learn your history!

Ditto to you.

Gentiles were not included until Paul. Come on! Jesus explicitly told His disciples to avoid the Gentiles and to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Learn your Bible. Philip preached to an Ethiopian eunich before Paul was converted.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Speaking from His humanity, that would be correct.

Then what's your problem?

The Bible tells us that Jesus knew what men thought. Without noting that God "told Him so".

He knew what men thought experientally by observation just as I know what my wife thinks experientally by observation. Jesus was well learned in humankind. He knew some things by direct revelation from God. And He knew some things experientally by observation. Luke says that Jesus "increased in knowledge." To deny that He acquired some knowledge experientally is to deny His true humanity.

Really? John 3:14-16 is about Israel's sin and remedy? You have to ignore the significance of Jesus' words "just as..." when introducing the bronze serpent to say that. Jesus equated what Moses did with what He was going to do. If the ONLY point of the bronze serpent was about Israel's sin and remedy, then I guess what Jesus did was also ONLY about Israel's sin and remedy. If you are a Gentile, you are just out of luck then.

I have repeatedly said that the Gentiles were not included until Paul. Jesus did not know that the Father would later on include the Gentiles. Therefore, the word "world" would have meant Jews only according to the revelation He had at that point.

The people to whom Jesus spoke would have had no idea that the word "world" would come to include Gentiles. The word was not expanded to include the Gentiles UNTIL Paul.

I'm sure you understand what a typology is. And that is what the bronze serpent was. A type of Christ.

Yeah, so what? What does it prove regarding the extent of the atonement? Answer: Nada!

Not contradictory at all. JUST AS the bronze serpent was for all who had been bitten (check the actual context of Num 21:8-9), so is Jesus for all sinners.

It does NOT say that. The atonement is limited to ONLY those who believe. So your statement is contradictory. Salvation so ONLY for those who believe. Therefore, it is limited in its scope. Jesus said that the wrath of God REMAINS upon the unbelieving.

I said,

Paul later included the Gentiles. But before Paul the term "world" would have referred to the Jews only.

You replied,

Are you suggesting that God changed His mind and later decided to let in the Gentiles???????Gentiles???????

I have already answered this. I said that God did not reveal to Jesus that the Gentiles would be included. He revealed the inclusion of the Gentiles to Paul. I said that biblical revelation was progressive. Please pay attention.

Other posters have provided ample Scripture to refute your claim that Jesus never healed or preached to non-Jews.

Nope! The posters erroneosly assume that the term "Gentiles" always refers to those who are born Gentiles. It does not. The Jews of the Diaspora were also called "Gentiles" because they were not "orthodox." But they were physically of the house of Israel nevertheless. They were the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" that Christ CAME to seek and to save.

Paul told the Gentiles at Ephesus that Christ "CAME and preached" to them (Ephesians 2:17). Jesus did NOT go to non-Israelites.

I want an OBEDIENT Jesus.

Learn your Bible. Philip preached to an Ethiopian eunich before Paul was converted.

What is your proof that the Ethiopian was not an Israelite from Ethiopia? He was reading the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53:9-10. This strongly suggests that he was a Hellenist Jew. The Septuagint was the Hellenist Jew's version of the old testament scriptures. They produced it. Your theology lacks basis in scripture and in history

You are untaught in history. The Jews of the Diaspora were scattered all over the known world at that time. They did not have the Hebrew scriptures. They had the Septuagint. And to conclude that one was a Gentile because he was an Ethiopian is just as fallacious as saying that a man is a Gentile because he is an American. The Jews of the Diaspora were from "every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5-11).

 

[janxharris]

This is common knowledge. Just google, "The Jews of the Diaspora." They were called "Gentiles."

I have and found nothing.

The Bible itself identifies some Israelites as "Gentiles."

Paul asserted that the Gentiles had become God's people with the Jews, Rom. 9:24.

"even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

I am baffled by this. Your argument renders 'Gentiles' meaningless.

Then in verse 27 he shows explicitly that their calling with the Jews fulfills Isaiah's prophecy regarding the salvation of the "children of Israel."

He said,

Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.

In verse 24 Paul separated them as Jew and Gentile. Then in verse 27 he brought them together and called Jew and Gentile "the children of Israel." The latter were the Jews of the Diaspora. They could not have been ethnic Gentiles for it says also that they "RETURN" to God (Is. 10:22-23). Ethnic Gentiles never had a covenantal relationship with God.

Are you trying to suggest that no ethnic Gentile (as you define it) will ever be saved.

Sorry, but I cannot take your argument seriously.

I gave the wrong reference. It is Ephesians 2:17 and it says that Christ "CAME and preached" to those Gentiles. Christ "CAME" not to ethnic Gentiles. He CAME to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. You even admitted to this! Therefore, the "Gentiles" in Ephesians 2 were the Jews of the Diaspora.

Jesus came to the Jew, but it extends to Gentile too as we see that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles whilst Peter to the Jew.

 

[janxharris]

This is common knowledge. Just google, "The Jews of the Diaspora." They were called "Gentiles."

The Bible itself identifies some Israelites as "Gentiles."

Paul asserted that the Gentiles had become God's people with the Jews, Rom. 9:24.

"even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Then in verse 27 he shows explicitly that their calling with the Jews fulfills Isaiah's prophecy regarding the salvation of the "children of Israel."

He said,

Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.

In verse 24 Paul separated them as Jew and Gentile. Then in verse 27 he brought them together and called Jew and Gentile "the children of Israel." The latter were the Jews of the Diaspora. They could not have been ethnic Gentiles for it says also that they "RETURN" to God (Is. 10:22-23). Ethnic Gentiles never had a covenantal relationship with God.

I gave the wrong reference. It is Ephesians 2:17 and it says that Christ "CAME and preached" to those Gentiles. Christ "CAME" not to ethnic Gentiles. He CAME to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. You even admitted to this! Therefore, the "Gentiles" in Ephesians 2 were the Jews of the Diaspora.

Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.​

Jesus certainly considered this woman not to be of the lost sheep of Israel. Surely this settles it?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then what's your problem?

I don't have a problem.

He knew what men thought experientally by observation just as I know what my wife thinks experientally by observation. Jesus was well learned in humankind. He knew some things by direct revelation from God. And He knew some things experientally by observation. Luke says that Jesus "increased in knowledge." To deny that He acquired some knowledge experientally is to deny His true humanity.

These comments seem to deny His Deity. I believe He was fully human and fully Deity. Scholars call that the hypostatic union.

I have repeatedly said that the Gentiles were not included until Paul. Jesus did not know that the Father would later on include the Gentiles.

So God changed His mind and finally included Gentiles? And Paul was converted AFTER Christ went to the Cross. So the logical conclusion to what you are saying here is that Jesus died ONLY for Jews. Amazing!

Therefore, the word "world" would have meant Jews only according to the revelation He had at that point.

Jesus is fully Deity and is therefore omniscient.

The people to whom Jesus spoke would have had no idea that the word "world" would come to include Gentiles. The word was not expanded to include the Gentiles UNTIL Paul.

So then Jesus died ONLY for Jews, then.

It does NOT say that.

Let's review what I did say:

Not contradictory at all. JUST AS the bronze serpent was for all who had been bitten (check the actual context of Num 21:8-9), so is Jesus for all sinners.

What do you think Jesus meant by "just as..." if not to equate what Moses did with the serpent and what He was going to do? What point was He making?

The atonement is limited to ONLY those who believe.

1 Jn 2:2 refutes that statement.

So your statement is contradictory. Salvation so ONLY for those who believe. Therefore, it is limited in its scope.

There is no contradiction. One would see a contradiction only if one conflates the atonement with salvation. The atonement didn't save anyone. God saves those who believe, and you know there are no verses that say that God chooses who will believe.

Jesus said that the wrath of God REMAINS upon the unbelieving.

Is this another conflation of wrath and judgment?

Paul told the Gentiles at Ephesus that Christ "CAME and preached" to them (Ephesians 2:17). Jesus did NOT go to non-Israelites.

What is your proof that the Ethiopian was not an Israelite from Ethiopia? He was reading the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53:9-10. This strongly suggests that he was a Hellenist Jew. The Septuagint was the Hellenist Jew's version of the old testament scriptures. They produced it. Your theology lacks basis in scripture and in history

What is your proof that the Ethiopian was a Jew? None. He was a proselyte, no doubt. My support for this is the Council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15:19-21 -
19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The context here was a letter written to Gentile believers, so "every city" certainly didn't refer to cities in Israel.

You are untaught in history. The Jews of the Diaspora were scattered all over the known world at that time. They did not have the Hebrew scriptures. They had the Septuagint. And to conclude that one was a Gentile because he was an Ethiopian is just as fallacious as saying that a man is a Gentile because he is an American. The Jews of the Diaspora were from "every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5-11).

Do you have proof that the Diaspora included Ethiopia?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Janx,
I am having technological problems posting here today. I constructed this post off line and hoped I would be able to post it here.
Jesus indeed considered the Canaanite woman of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
In reply to the disciples wanting to send her away He said, "I was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He was AFFIRMING that she was an Israelite.
I marvel that you can believe and assert that Jesus would say that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and then promptly disobey.
Read the narrative again CAREFULLY! She addressed Jesus as the "son of David." She was an Israelite.