Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

So at the end, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my claim?

It is irrelevant, seems to me, whether I agree with your claims or not. Who am I? What I posted for review and discussion were the words of Paul which disagree with your claims. And also, Scriptures from the Law and Prophets which disagree with your claims.

Was Rehab not a member of the Church of God that the Pharisees persecuted and wasted?

No sir, certainly in the Testimony of the Lord's Christ, every time the word "brethren" was used, did not only pertain to men "called the Circumcision, in the flesh made by hands". Sometimes the term "Brethren" meant "Faithful believers" who were not Jews outwardly.

 

[Guojing]

What I posted for review and discussion were the words of Paul which disagree with your claims.

No sir...Sometimes the term "Brethren" meant "Faithful believers" who were not Jews outwardly.

That is actually saying "No, brethren mentioned in the book of Romans, can mean gentile believers as well."

 

[Guojing]

No sir, certainly in the Testimony of the Lord's Christ, every time the word "brethren" was used, did not only pertain to men "called the Circumcision, in the flesh made by hands". Sometimes the term "Brethren" meant "Faithful believers" who were not Jews outwardly.

So what about my question to you

"would you agree that James was only writing to circumcised Jews, in his epistle, given James 1:1?

Likewise the author of Hebrews and Peter only wrote to circumcised Jews?

Is your answer also "No, Sometimes the term "Brethren" meant "Faithful believers" who were not Jews outwardly." even for James, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter?

 

[HIM]

That is actually saying "No, brethren mentioned in the book of Romans, can mean gentile believers as well."

Context here says different.
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

 

[Guojing]

Context here says different.
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

I was stating his point.

When you say "Context here says different", are you disagreeing or agreeing with his point?

 

[HIM]

You are actually agreeing with my point that brethren in the book of Romans could only mean Jews?

No.
Read it again. Pay attention to the bold emphasis. Clearly it says contrary to your doctrine.

 

[Guojing]

No.
Read it again. Pay attention to the bold emphasis. Clearly it says contrary to your doctrine.

Thanks for clarifying.

So, if what you claim about Romans 1:13 is correct, does that mean anytime you see the term "brethren" in Romans, "you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well?

 

[Studyman]

That is actually saying "No, brethren mentioned in the book of Romans, can mean gentile believers as well."

Rom. 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 1: 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

Paul didn't say, "that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Jews." in Rome.

I will concede that much of the time when Paul uses the word "Brethren" specifically in Romans, he is addressing fellow Jews (After the Flesh).

But not in the beginning of Romans. He is showing both Jew and Gentiles believers, his brethren "After the Spirit", what happened to his brethren "After the flesh".

And it seems foolish not to understand what had already been established in the Body of Christ, by Paul and his fellow apostles.

Acts 15: 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. The Pharisees did, you seem to be doing so, but Paul didn't.

And you keep narrowing your claim here. At first it was "I am curious, where is the KJV scripture that says the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision"?"

I answered this question, and then you changed the question to Paul and the term Brethren. Then you narrowed that question to only Romans.

Not sure why you seem so eager to promote a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile that Paul doesn't teach.

 

[Guojing]

In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. The Pharisees did, you seem to be doing so, but Paul didn't.

If you are believe this to be true, In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers

then can I confirm that anytime you see the term "brethren" in Romans, you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well?

 

[Studyman]

Context here says different.
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Wow, I was typing the same exact truth while you posted this.

Almost word for word. Imagine if everyone got their truth from this same source. I reckon someday that will be the case.

 

[Guojing]

And you keep narrowing your claim here. At first it was "I am curious, where is the KJV scripture that says the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision"?"

I answered this question, and then you changed the question to Paul and the term Brethren. Then you narrowed that question to only Romans.

As far as how I understand Philippians 3:1-5. Paul could only be referring to his Jewish brothers. The last 2 verses there indicated that.

But since you are disagreeing with that view, I have decided to respect your opinion, agree to disagree, and thus narrow my claim to just Romans.

It seems now that, even for the book of Romans, you also disagree with me, which is of course fine.

I am curious then about the book of James, would you also disagree with me that James was only writing to Jews? If you are willing to answer with a clear yes or no, that would be much appreciated.

 

[Studyman]

If you are believe this to be true, In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers

then can I confirm that anytime you see the term "brethren" in Romans, you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well?

No! Because I never said I believed, or posted, suggested or even implied ever, that "Anytime" Paul used the word "Brethren" in Romans, he was applying it to the Body of Christ which consists of both Jew and Gentile believers. As I said to you before, sometimes when he used the term "Brethren" he was referring to the children of the devil, Jews who had been given the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them. Sometimes when he used the term "brethren" he was referring to Jews who were ignorant of God's Righteousness, and were going about establishing their own righteousness, and refused to submit to the righteousness of God.

But sometimes when Paul used the term Brethren, he was speaking to the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, in Rome.

 

[Guojing]

No! Because I never said I believed, or posted, suggested or even implied ever, that "Anytime" Paul used the word "Brethren" in Romans, he was applying it to the Body of Christ which consists of both Jew and Gentile believers. As I said to you before, sometimes when he used the term "Brethren" he was referring to the children of the devil, Jews who had been given the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them. Sometimes when he used the term "brethren" he was referring to Jews who were ignorant of God's Righteousness, and were going about establishing their own righteousness, and refused to submit to the righteousness of God.

But sometimes when Paul used the term Brethren, he was speaking to the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, in Rome.

So when you said In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, you didn't actually meant that in an absolute sense.

Sometimes in Romans, you allow the term brethren to refer to only Jews.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying.

What about in the book of James then? I asked you several times but you avoided that question.

 

[HIM]

Thanks for clarifying.

So, if what you claim about Romans 1:13 is correct, does that mean anytime you see the term "brethren" in Romans, "you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well?

There are 19 occurrences of the Greek word in Romans. It would depend on the context as it did in 1:13, so no.

 

[HIM]

So when you said In Romans, Paul didn't put a difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, you didn't actually meant that in an absolute sense.

Sometimes in Romans, you allow the term brethren to refer to only Jews.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying.

What about in the book of James then? I asked you several times but you avoided that question.

It is not a question of one allowing it is what the text says as revealed through the context.

 

[Guojing]

There are 19 occurrences of the Greek word in Romans. It would depend on the context as it did in 1:13. So no.

So even though you said it depends on the context, you feel that for Philippians 3:1-5, the context in the last 2 verses there would not lead you to conclude that the statement by Paul, We are the circumcision, could only refer to Jews, and not gentile believers?

 

[Studyman]

As far as how I understand Philippians 3:1-5. Paul could only be referring to his Jewish brothers. The last 2 verses there indicated that.

Phil. 3: 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

It is because of this verse, and the rest of the Gospel that Paul taught, including Romans 2, that I understand what true circumcision is, according to Paul and what a true "Jew" is, according to Paul. Although if anyone would have confidence in the flesh, it would be Paul who was a Jew and more zealous to persecute the Church of God, than many of his peers.

To believe your religious claim, I would have to omit from my mind, Paul's Teaching to the Body of Christ in Romans.

Rom. 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I understand what you are promoting is what the religious philosophers you have adopted are teaching you. But if you are in error regarding the foundation of your belief, that Paul's church didn't include repentant Gentiles, who worship God in Spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ, but only Jews after the flesh, then everything built on this foundation would also be in error, Yes?

But since you are disagreeing with that view, I have decided to respect your opinion, agree to disagree, and thus narrow my claim to just Romans.

The same thing applies to Romans.

It seems now that, even for the book of Romans, you also disagree with me, which is of course fine.

It doesn't matter what I think. But it does matter what the Scriptures actually say. I disagree with your claim about Paul, because what Paul says and teaches, contradicts your claim. That's why I post his words.

I am curious then about the book of James, would you also disagree with me that James was only writing to Jews? If you are willing to answer with a clear yes or no, that would be much appreciated.

My opinion isn't worth much. But the Scriptures is where Paul said the truth is found.

James 1: 1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James is writing to fellow Jews.

 

[HIM]

So even though you said it depends on the context, you feel that for Philippians 3:1-5, the context in the last 2 verses there would not lead you to conclude that the statement by Paul, We are the circumcision, could only refer to Jews, and not gentile believers?

I will look at it later. So you do not believe that interpretation of scripture depends on context and syntax? The reason I ask is you keep saying things like "you said" as if it isn't how one should through the Spirit interpret Scripture.
Good night

 

[Guojing]

Phil. 3: 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

It is because of this verse, and the rest of the Gospel that Paul taught, including Romans 2, that I understand what true circumcision is, according to Paul and what a true "Jew" is, according to Paul. Although if anyone would have confidence in the flesh, it would be Paul who was a Jew and more zealous to persecute the Church of God, than many of his peers.

But why would any gentile believers claim to have any confidence in the flesh, when none of them are physically circumcised?

Based on that context, it won't make sense for Paul to state vs 4-5 if verse 3 "we" also includes gentile believers.

That to me is common sense, but if you want to disagree because you want to believe that we are some form of "spiritual Israel", we can agree to disagree, as I said.

My opinion isn't worth much. But the Scriptures is where Paul said the truth is found.

James 1: 1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James is writing to fellow Jews.

At least, we agree on that. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Guojing]

I will look at it later. So you do not believe that interpretation of scripture depends on context and syntax? The reason I ask is you keep saying things like "you said" as if it isn't how one should through the Spirit interpret Scripture.
Good night

I of course believe interpretation must be based on context.

But I do recognize that what I believe to be true, based on context, need not be what others believe to be true for themselves, and vice versa, as exemplified by my discussion with Studyman on Philippians 3:1-5 above.

So when I said "you said", I am respecting your opinion, even though I don't agree with it.