ALL habitual sinners are NOT in a saved state

Ing Bee · Feb 13, 2019

BCsenior said:
All of the many NT warnings apply to EVERYONE!

Hello-

That's not actually correct. First, not all of the NT warnings apply to everyone. I would say that all of the warnings in the New Testament fit into one of about eight categories:

warnings to those who have rejected the Son (e.g. Matthew 11:20-24, Matthew 23)
warnings to those who have not yet chosen the Son (e.g. Acts 2:36,40, Acts 17:30-31)
warnings to those who think they are in the faith, but aren't (2 Corinthians 13:5, James 2:26)
warnings to protect Jesus's sheep from harm (e.g. Matthew 24:15-28)
warnings to churches who are not healthy (e.g.Revelation 2 -3, 1 Corinthians)
warning to churches regarding false teaching (e.g. Galatians)
warning about things to come as encouragement to the suffering (e.g. Revelation 13-14)
personal warnings to individual leaders and churches (e.g. 2 Timothy 4:14-15,

BCsenior said:
Re: the taking of the disastrous mark of the beast is very clear in Revelation 13 and Revelation 14.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, like parts of Daniel and Ezekiel and some of Jesus's sayings in the gospels. A distinguishing feature of this biblical genre is that it is designed to encourage the suffering faithful regarding their vindication through God's righteous judgement of the wicked.

I would say that verse 12 of Chapter 14 shows that the saints persevere in the midst of the persecution through continued obedience to Jesus, the King. I think you would agree with that. I just don't see additional warrant to assume there is the possibility of those who are actually sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) being in danger of losing their salvation. That is an extrapolation based on an assumption, one that is inconsistent with the genre and not explicit in the text.

On the other hand Jesus is very clear about this in the text of John 6:37-40-

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Key points:

All the Father gives will come and be saved
Whoever comes will never be cast out
God's will is that the Son should lose nothing of all that have been given to the Son
God's will is that everyone who puts personal trust in Jesus's identity (John 1:9-13) will have eternal life

BCsenior said:
If ANYONE is a habitual (unrepentant) sinner,
he/she is obviously on his/her way to hell. This is what all of the dozens of NT warnings are all about. Why would they be written to non-believers? For non-believers are already on their way to hell.
Hello!

No argument with the first statement; it's a paraphrase of 1 John 3:4-6 which is parallel to 1 John 1:6 and 1 John 2:4-6 and However, these passages are studies in contrast: John is comparing true knowing with false knowing, light with dark, righteousness with evil. John is not saying true Christians can fall out of knowing, he is saying that if you don't abide, practice righteousness, walk in the light, forgive, etc. you don't actually know him. Jesus will say to those unhappy ones, "I NEVER knew you", not "I used to know you but you wandered off". To know him is to love him. "All the Father gives me WILL come to me...and I WILL raise them up on the last day."

As for the rest of this final paragraph, I think I've shown by my bullet point list above that since not all NT warnings are directed to Christians, and since Jesus and the apostles attest to the "perseverance of the saints" (all the Father gives will come (John 10:14-16), none will be lost), we should consider carefully, in context, which category each warning should go to.

A thought experiment might be helpful. Imagine that , like Schrödinger's cat, eternal life may be either:

100% guaranteed by those who have authentically trusted in Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit,
or
is contingent upon continuing works (confession, repentence, whatever) to secure eternal life

Without knowing which is actually true, what is the benefit to a believer for adopting either understanding?

What words would describe a life experiencing confidence in Christ's finished work in cooperation with the already-given Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14, Titus 3:3-7, 1 Corinthians 6:11), with no fear of losing salvation?
What words would describe a life whose eternal future is contingent upon personal effort?

As a mentioned in my previous post, I think we agree on the pieces, I just object to your arrangement of them.

Another thought experiment: How would these two lives look to outsiders?

In Christ, the Father saved me and gave me the Holy Spirit (at least in a contingent way), but I need to pursue godliness, turn from sin, confessing and repenting when necessary in order to secure eternal life. If I slip and fall away, I may be lost.
In Christ, the Father saved me and gave me the Holy Spirit as a permanent seal guaranteeing my eternal inheritance with Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14). Now I live a life empowered by the divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-5). I'm immersed in the life of Jesus (Romans 6:4-11). I'm kept by the power of God until he completes the work he has begun in me (Phil.1:6). Yet I'm an active participant as I, in amazed wonder at God's kindness, cooperate with the Spirit to work out the implications of my salvation (Philippians 2:12-13).

I've met both of these people. They are comparable in their personal holiness (at least from the outside), but the second type is full of joy, wonder, and gratitude in a way the first type of people aren't.

I've also met plenty of people who think they know Jesus because they:

were born to believing parents
or were born in America or some other Christian nation,
or are a church member,
or attend church on Christmas and Easter
or think they are good people (i.e. haven't killed anyone)
or were baptized as a child
or know many bible passages/the Lord's Prayer, etc.
or have a systematic theology
or have attended seminary

To say that " no one born of God makes a practice of sinning" (1 John 3:9) requires that the person has been born. Born people can't be unborn. If God's seed is in you, it doesn't leave. Seed is a euphemism for sperm; the idea is from John 3 and Jesus's talk with Nicodemus. You live like your Father because you are a child. You don't act like the Father to become his child: that's what Jesus did for us.

DamianWarS · Feb 13, 2019

BCsenior said:
Are you sure that you mean the above?
The NT teaches in many verses ...
sin that is habitual is the condition of an unsaved state!

did Paul not describe habitual sin in Rom 7? If not what do you call it? The OP already puts the weight of the issue within unrepentant habitual sin suggesting that repentant habitual sin doesn't fit its criteria. Paul would seem to fit in the latter but not the former. I would suggest the word "habitual" doesn't seem to be the crux of the OP at all but more repentant vs unrepentant or the desires of our heart. If we desire sin and seek it this would be the issue

Der Alte · Feb 13, 2019

Ing Bee said:
. . .Revelation is apocalyptic literature, like parts of Daniel and Ezekiel and some of Jesus's sayings in the gospels. A distinguishing feature of this biblical genre is that it is designed to encourage the suffering faithful regarding their vindication through God's righteous judgement of the wicked.
. . .

Where can we find this clearly explained in scripture? I have heard many explanations of what various passages "really mean." And very few of these "explanations" agree with one another. How do we know which one is right?
.....Here is something important which has not been considered. For the sake of this discussion let us assume Revelation is "apocalyptic literature" with some hidden meaning. John was a Jewish Christian with a Jewish mindset. How would John's intended audience Asian, not Jewish, Christians understand these hidden meanings?
.....If Revelation was "apocalyptic literature" Jews might have understood it but John did not include a book of instructions with his letter to the 7 churches of Asia, modern day Turkey, informing them that the letter was "apocalyptic literature" and he did not inform them of the hidden meaning of the letter.

BCsenior · Feb 13, 2019

Ing Bee said:
... not all of the NT warnings apply to everyone.

Sorry, I just meant that each of the NT warnings
applies to everyone, if it actually applies to them!

I have chosen to respond to your passage
to point out the fallacy of your thinking:
John 6:37-40
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,
and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me,
but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

A. Jesus will not cast out anyone whom the Father
has given, but anyone can cast himself out.

B. Father God does not will/desire to lose anyone
whom He has given to Jesus (but see A).

C. Father God does not will/desire to lose anyone
who looks on Jesus and believes in Him (but see A).

God's will/desires do not always pan out.
E.G. He was sorry that He created man (Gen 6:5-7).
Howso?
Because man has free will, he is not a robot, etc.

Father God's will/desire is that all BACs
who were chosen and called to be holy
would co-operate with being sanctified unto holiness!
But, man has his part to play in his salvation.
Indeed, he is free to choose to NOT co-operate.

E.G. Jesus repeated 4 times in John 14 that
those who love Him will obey His commandments!
Just how many in today's churches obey His commandments!
And who gets to heaven who does not love Jesus?
And therefore, who gets to heaven who
does not obey His commandments?
Completely ditto with Jesus' friends in John 15.

All spiritual Truth comes via spiritual revelation
from the precious Holy Spirit. (Let's just talk
about with regard to understanding Scripture.)
It does not come via man's intellect,
and it does not come from Satan's demons.

Ing Bee · Feb 13, 2019

Der Alter said:
Where can we find this clearly explained in scripture? I have heard many explanations of what various passages "really mean." And very few of these "explanations" agree with one another. How do we know which one is right?
.....Here is something important which has not been considered. For the sake of this discussion let us assume Revelation is "apocalyptic literature" with some hidden meaning. John was a Jewish Christian with a Jewish mindset. How would John's intended audience Asian, not Jewish, Christians understand these hidden meanings?
.....If Revelation was "apocalyptic literature" Jews might have understood it but John did not include a book of instructions with his letter to the 7 churches of Asia, modern day Turkey, informing them that the letter was "apocalyptic literature" and he did not inform them of the hidden meaning of the letter.

Hi there-
I can sense you exasperation and I am sympathetic because there is a lot of nonsense out there. I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing (I don't know what you've studied about how translation or hermeneutics is done), but an understanding of literary genre in the bible is a basic part of the work any bible teacher needs to do in order to understand first century Christian (jewish or greek) would. You are correct: there are no "hidden meanings" in scripture. The first century Christians knew exactly what John was doing, especially since they were aware of the old testament examples of the literary genre he was writing in.

However, there are literary features in the text just like literature today.

For example, when a story begins "Long ago in a land far away" we know we are reading a fairytale, because many fairy tales begin that way. Sleeping Beauty doesn't begin "By the way, this is a Fairytale", it begins with fairies and castles, things we associate with the literary genre "fairy tale". If Snow White starts discusses post-modern economic theory, we may have shifted into satire.

There is no argument anywhere by any credible bible scholar I've heard of that Revelation has all the tell-tale signs of what we refer to as "apocalyptic literature". In the Bible, there are many genres: poetry, proverbs, parable, inventory, narrative, greco-roman biography, etc. Within these genres, there are features that are common not just to the Bible texts, but with comparable texts. Plutarch's "Lives" have literary design features that are very similar to that of the gospels (I refer you to Dr. Mike Licona's excellent work on this subject).

If you are interested, I would be happy to compile some sources for additional study on the subject. Any decent commentary on Revelation will address this issue in the introduction to the book. Gordon Fee's "How to Read the Bible for All its worth" is very helpful for understanding each genre of scripture. Alternately, you could meet with one of the teaching pastors/elders at your church and ask them for resources. This is standard stuff for anyone who has been to seminary or is familiar with solid biblical interpretive practice.

By the way,he word "genre" (like "trinity") doesn't appear in the Bible, but the very first word in the greek manuscript of John's book is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalypsis), so the word apocalypse is the self-description of John. It means "unveiling" or "revelation". Like other writings of this vein, it includes future visions, fantastic creatures, angelic beings, etc.

I hope that is helpful for you in your learning journey.

May the Peace of Christ dwell in you richly.

Ing Bee · Feb 13, 2019

BCsenior said:
Sorry, I meant each of the NT warnings
apply to everyone, if it applies to them!

I have chosen to respond to your passage
to point out the fallacy of your thinking:
John 6:37-40
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,
and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me,
but raise it up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

A. Jesus will not cast out anyone whom the Father
has given, but anyone can cast himself out.

B. Father God does not will/desire to lose anyone
whom He has given to Jesus (but see A).

C. Father God does not will/desire to lose anyone
who looks on Jesus and believes in Him (but see A).

Hi BC,
Thanks for your response.

You've added words to scripture in your letter "A". That's not what the text says. You've imposed it based on your presuppositions, and therefore your implications for B and C aren't valid.

BCsenior said:
God's will/desires do not always pan out.
E.G. He was sorry that He created man (Gen 6:5).
How so?
Because man has free will, he is not a robot, etc.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with this passage. If you say that God's will has not been acheived, the Jesus failed in his service because he says in v. 38 that HE came to do the Father's will, that all would be saved who were given to him. Did Jesus fail in doing the Father's will? If so, he's not our Savior, he's a fraud. I don't think he failed. To recap, the person doing the Father's will in the passage is not us, it is Jesus.

Additionally, the many passages I gave in my post point to the Holy Spirit as a permanent seal guaranteeing our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

In order to fit your conception reader would be forced to:
1) add words not in the text
2) discard passages that use strong language like "guarantee" "has been given" and past tense terminology intended to give us great joy and confidence.

I am not talking antinomianism; good fruit comes from those who are empowered by the Spirit. You cannot live righteously apart from him, you will live righteously with him since he is a guarantee.

I absolutely believe in humanities freedom to enter into relationship, but he enters into one with the Magnificent Three who are more committed than the most effective coach to transforming us into the likeness of the Son.

You haven't really engaged with the other texts I mentioned which sufficiently address your other points.
There doesn't seem to be much of a quarrel here, but I will let other readers draw their own conclusions. All those who actually have a permanent life-giving connection to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit WILL HAVE a permanent, life-giving connection to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. Yes, we actively participate, as in any relationship, but God is the initiator, the sustainer, and guarantor.

May the Peace of Christ Dwell in you Richly.

aiki · Feb 13, 2019

Oldmantook said:
What is the reason for such joy? The verse plainly states "over one sinner who repents" in v.7. You overlook the obvious reason for such joy.

No, I haven't. In fact, I state the reason for the joy a number of times in my last post to you. Clearly, you aren't really reading my remarks carefully.

Oldmantook said:
You also neglect to note the difference in that the sheep WAS of the fold but wandered/got lost.

??? This is so obviously false I don't know how to respond except to say so.

Oldmantook said:
The other sheep HAD NO NEED OF REPENTANCE.

??? Sheep don't repent. They're animals.

Oldmantook said:
This lost sheep obviously HAD NEED OF REPENTANCE - thus being referred to as a SINNER.

Again, sheep are animals and so do not repent.

Oldmantook said:
Sinners are lost souls who are unrepentant and unsaved.

Which is exactly why trying to draw a parallel between a sinner repenting and a lost sheep being found doesn't work. As much as you might want the sheep to be figurative of the sinner, it simply isn't. Making such a parallel wasn't Jesus' goal. Giving an instance of joy was what he was trying do in the parable. For reasons I already outlined in my last post, Jesus was not intending the sheep to be symbolic of a sinner.

Oldmantook said:
Because contrary to your belief the parable instructs that saved persons can become lost sinners. How else can you explain that this lost sheep referred to as a sinner, was originally part of the flock who need no repentance??

The sheep is never actually likened to the sinner, or vice versa, by Christ. This is something you're merely assuming about the nature of the parable. You seem to think that the sheep must be analogous to the sinner, but there is actually nothing in the parable itself that mandates such a reading. The only parallel Christ explicitly makes in the parable is between the joy of the shepherd finding his sheep and the joy of heaven at a sinner repenting. Certainly, if he had intended the sort of bizarre parallel your proposing between sheep and sinner, Jesus would have plainly articulated it, as he did the parallel between the shepherds' joy and heaven's joy.

Oldmantook said:
The verse plainly states "one sinner who repents." Just who does that refer to in this story?

It refers to no one in the parable - just as is the case in the very next parable Jesus gave about the lost coin which made the very same point about joy. If the sheep is representative of the sinner in the one parable, the coin ought to be representative of the sinner in the other. But what sort of parallel can be drawn between a sinner and a lost coin? None! The same is true of the sheep. It was never intended to be compared directly to the sinner.

Oldmantook said:
Yes there is joy in heaven but you conveniently overlook the fact that repentance has to occur first.

??? Conveniently? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Oldmantook said:
How can there be joy in heaven without repentance? God does not lose anything. It is we who choose to become lost/estranged in our relationship with God through unbelief and/or habitual sin - which is the evidence of an unrepentant heart.

What does any of this have to do with my point about the Lost Coin parable? Nothing, as far as I can see.

Oldmantook said:
In the parable of the prodigal in Lk 15, Jesus repeats himself twice in verses 24 & 32. He states that the prodigal "was dead and is alive again." We both know that when Jesus repeats himself, it is for emphasis and often the main point of his teaching. So my question to you is just how is someone made alive AGAIN? We physically die but once and the prodigal son did not physically die in this parable so physical death is not the subject here, so how was the prodigal made alive again?

For those who don't read the parable of the Prodigal Son through a SAL lens, it is obvious that the Prodigal was "dead" insofar as his fellowship with his father had been completely broken. The Prodigal's relationship to his father as progeny was intact all throughout the story, but his direct, personal interactions with his father - his fellowship with his father - had totally ceased while he was off living a profligate life. When the Prodigal returned to his father, his fellowship with his father was restored and he was once again "alive" to his father.

Oldmantook said:
This can only refer to being spiritually dead and being made spiritually alive again.

Nope. See above.

Oldmantook said:
But subsequently through unbelief or habitual sin (as exemplified by the prodigal's lifestyle) he becomes spiritually dead and separated from God.

I understand very well this view you've taken of the story, but, as I've shown, there is a perfectly reasonable alternative reading that requires no eisegetical spiritualizing at all.

Oldmantook said:
If a believer remains in his sins, he remains spiritually dead, but if he repents he is made alive again.

No, the parable teaches, at least in part, that when a child of God wanders from Him, their fellowship with Him is broken. But when the wandering child of God returns to Him in repentance and confession of their sin, their fellowship is restored. Just like the Prodigal never ceased to be his father's son, however, the wayward child of God never ceases to be the child of their Heavenly Father. Among other things, what the parable teaches, then, is that the breaking of our fellowship with God does not mean the breaking of our relationship to Him.

Der Alte · Feb 14, 2019

Ing Bee said:
Hi there-
I can sense you exasperation and I am sympathetic because there is a lot of nonsense out there. I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing (I don't know what you've studied about how translation or hermeneutics is done), but an understanding of literary genre in the bible is a basic part of the work any bible teacher needs to do in order to understand first century Christian (jewish or greek) would. You are correct: there are no "hidden meanings" in scripture. The first century Christians knew exactly what John was doing, especially since they were aware of the old testament examples of the literary genre he was writing in.
However, there are literary features in the text just like literature today.
For example, when a story begins "Long ago in a land far away" we know we are reading a fairytale, because many fairy tales begin that way. Sleeping Beauty doesn't begin "By the way, this is a Fairytale", it begins with fairies and castles, things we associate with the literary genre "fairy tale". If Snow White starts discusses post-modern economic theory, we may have shifted into satire.
There is no argument anywhere by any credible bible scholar I've heard of that Revelation has all the tell-tale signs of what we refer to as "apocalyptic literature". In the Bible, there are many genres: poetry, proverbs, parable, inventory, narrative, greco-roman biography, etc. Within these genres, there are features that are common not just to the Bible texts, but with comparable texts. Plutarch's "Lives" have literary design features that are very similar to that of the gospels (I refer you to Dr. Mike Licona's excellent work on this subject).
If you are interested, I would be happy to compile some sources for additional study on the subject. Any decent commentary on Revelation will address this issue in the introduction to the book. Gordon Fee's "How to Read the Bible for All its worth" is very helpful for understanding each genre of scripture. Alternately, you could meet with one of the teaching pastors/elders at your church and ask them for resources. This is standard stuff for anyone who has been to seminary or is familiar with solid biblical interpretive practice.
By the way,he word "genre" (like "trinity") doesn't appear in the Bible, but the very first word in the greek manuscript of John's book is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalypsis), so the word apocalypse is the self-description of John. It means "unveiling" or "revelation". Like other writings of this vein, it includes future visions, fantastic creatures, angelic beings, etc.
I hope that is helpful for you in your learning journey.
May the Peace of Christ dwell in you richly.

"The first century Christians knew exactly what John was doing, especially since they were aware of the old testament examples of the literary genre he was writing in."

I asked this question before but you did not really answered it. How could former pagan gentile Christians in lands outside of Israel, e.g. Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, Babylon etc. be aware of "old testament examples of the literary genre" John was supposedly writing in when they had never heard of the OT, let alone read it?
.....I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and formally studied both Biblical languages and other Biblical subjects, at the graduate level, about 2 decades afterward. Therefore, I don't put much stock in special, esoteric "revelations" some folks claim they have had. There's a lot of that going around JW, LDS, WWCG, OP, UPCI, UU etc.

BCsenior · Feb 14, 2019

Ing Bee said:
There doesn't seem to be much of a quarrel here, but I will let other readers draw their own conclusions.

I actually see a big difference in our points of view.
You believe in eternal security.
The Scriptures teach against it on almost every page!

Seals are meant to be broken (or can be broken).
Guarantees depend on WHO is being spoken to!
E.G. Ephesians and Colossians were written
ONLY to "the faithful", not to the unfaithful.

I didn't see any response to my Genesis 6:5-7,
which also makes it clear that God does NOT always
get His way ... because He gave man free will.
Ditto for Lucifer and all of God's created angels,
1/3 of whom rebelled and followed Lucifer.

In the NT, God's warnings to His people are seen
on just about every page! There are so many of them because many people don't seem to be able to see them.

Many BACs are fast asleep, believing in hyper grace, etc.

More lately, His warnings are coming through His prophets/watchmen. Also more warnings through
people to whom He has given tours of hell.
Most of His people are oblivious to all of these warnings!

Oldmantook · Feb 14, 2019

aiki said:
The sheep is never actually likened to the sinner, or vice versa, by Christ

I find it quite remarkable that someone can believe as you do Do you not know that all parables have application to HUMANS - not animals? In this case Jesus, uses the illustration of a sheep to depict human behavior. A sheep being quite a dumb animal is prone to wandering and getting lost. Jesus uses this well-known trait to illustrate the fact that his followers are also prone to wandering and getting lost. At that point they are SINNERS and in NEED OF REPENTANCE. While the sheep was originally in the flock, it had no need of repentance which can only indicate a saved believer. Sheep have no need to repent; only humans do.

To make matters worse, your opinion that this parable does not refer to human sinners "sheep are animals and so do not repent" is refuted by Jesus himself as He does refer to sheep as humans. Did you not forget John 10:27 where Jesus refers to His followers as MY SHEEP? Do you think Jesus referring to animals or humans here??

As far as the parable of the prodigal goes, is not eternal life all about our abiding relationship with the Father? If one does not abide but instead sins without repentance does he still have a loving relationship with God? John 14:21 certainly does not indicate that as God only loves those who obey Him.
Your argument is that you claim that being dead does not mean loss of eternal life but merely loss of fellowship with God. I suggest you read the Greek text. The word for "dead" in the Greek is "nekros" which can either refer to physical death or spiritual death. It is never defined as loss of fellowship as you believe. In order for you to interpret this parable as you do, you have to ignore what the verse itself states as indicated by the Greek itself, in order to cling to your interpretation. That is not a good practice.

Ing Bee · Feb 14, 2019

Der Alter said:
"The first century Christians knew exactly what John was doing, especially since they were aware of the old testament examples of the literary genre he was writing in."
I asked this question before but you did not really answered it. How could former pagan gentile Christians in lands outside of Israel, e.g. Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, Babylon etc. be aware of "old testament examples of the literary genre" John was supposedly writing in when they had never heard of the OT, let alone read it?

My apologies. I missed that question somehow. Here's what James the brother of Jesus said at the first Jerusalem Castle in Acts 15:21: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Because of the Jewish dispersion during the Babylonian captivity and going forward through the Hellenistic period, all major cities had synagogues. This is why:

in Acts 2, though the apostles spoke in many languages, but to Jews and Jewish converts who were living all over the Roman empire.
Paul's practice on his missionary journey was to first go to the synagogues in each gentile city (Acts 17:17). Those who believed in the coming Messiah because of the Jewish scriptures were the logical first choice to hear the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had come!
Paul tell's Timothy that his knowledge of the scriptures (taught by his Jewish mother) made him wise unto salvation. (2 Timothy 3:15). The New Testament had not been written, it was the Jewish scriptures. Timothy's father was Greek and Timothy was not born or living in Israel.
Part of the whole curriculum of discipleship for Paul was in grounding his listeners in the Old Testament, hence 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (twice he mentions "according to the scriptures"). This is further evidenced in Paul's frequent references it Abraham, Moses, etc. The "Old Testament" was well-known throughout the Roman world and was taught in the churches (see Hebrews 11 for one of many examples).

Also, John's Apocalypse was one of many contemporary Apocalypse's of the same time period. These books are not part of the New Testament Canon but were in circulation during the same period in history. This genre no longer exists, so the characteristics that identify a piece of literature with the genre are clear and obvious. Again I refer you to Gordon Fee's chapter on Revelation in "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth."

Der Alter said:
I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and formally studied both Biblical languages and other Biblical subjects, at the graduate level, about 2 decades afterward.

I'm with you. There are no hidden messages. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "gnostic" interpretations. This isn't theory it's fact. There are many interpretations about how the symbology in Revelation is intended for the modern church. I'm not addressing that. I'm only pointing out what kind of literature Revelation is. This is BASIC, uncontested scholarship.

Der Alter said:
Therefore, I don't put much stock in special, esoteric "revelations" some folks claim they have had. There's a lot of that going around JW, LDS, WWCG, OP, UPCI, UU etc.

I agree. The main reason all those groups come up with wacky ideas is that they don't do exegesis, they do eisegesis. The very first step of faithful, exegetical study (i.e. "what did this author intend to communicate in this writing?") is to understand the genre of the writing. Again, there may be many different opinions about tricky passages that faithful, Jesus-loving bible students can come to, but they can have no confidence in that opinion if they don't understand the texts genre, historical context, audience, language, cultural references, etc.

For example, if I told you my work was a "piece of cake", and you didn't know I was using a figure of speech you would assume I was a baker instead of what I meant, "my work is easy". If I was writing about being "sacked by Oakland Raiders" and you thought I was writing a historical study of the Vikings instead of my recent experience in the NFL you would come to the wrong conclusion.

Make sense?

Der Alte · Feb 14, 2019

Ing Bee said:
My apologies. I missed that question somehow. Here's what James the brother of Jesus said at the first Jerusalem Castle in Acts 15:21: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Because of the Jewish dispersion during the Babylonian captivity and going forward through the Hellenistic period, all major cities had synagogues. This is why:in Acts 2, though the apostles spoke in many languages, but to Jews and Jewish converts who were living all over the Roman empire.
Paul's practice on his missionary journey was to first go to the synagogues in each gentile city (Acts 17:17). Those who believed in the coming Messiah because of the Jewish scriptures were the logical first choice to hear the good news that the long-awaited Messiah had come!
Paul tell's Timothy that his knowledge of the scriptures (taught by his Jewish mother) made him wise unto salvation. (2 Timothy 3:15). The New Testament had not been written, it was the Jewish scriptures. Timothy's father was Greek and Timothy was not born or living in Israel.
Part of the whole curriculum of discipleship for Paul was in grounding his listeners in the Old Testament, hence 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (twice he mentions "according to the scriptures"). This is further evidenced in Paul's frequent references it Abraham, Moses, etc. The "Old Testament" was well-known throughout the Roman world and was taught in the churches (see Hebrews 11 for one of many examples).Also, John's Apocalypse was one of many contemporary Apocalypse's of the same time period. These books are not part of the New Testament Canon but were in circulation during the same period in history. This genre no longer exists, so the characteristics that identify a piece of literature with the genre are clear and obvious. Again I refer you to Gordon Fee's chapter on Revelation in "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth.
I'm with you. There are no hidden messages. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "gnostic" interpretations. This isn't theory it's fact. There are many interpretations about how the symbology in Revelation is intended for the modern church. I'm not addressing that. I'm only pointing out what kind of literature Revelation is. This is BASIC, uncontested scholarship.
I agree. The main reason all those groups come up with wacky ideas is that they don't do exegesis, they do eisegesis. The very first step of faithful, exegetical study (i.e. "what did this author intend to communicate in this writing?") is to understand the genre of the writing. Again, there may be many different opinions about tricky passages that faithful, Jesus-loving bible students can come to, but they can have no confidence in that opinion if they don't understand the texts genre, historical context, audience, language, cultural references, etc.
For example, if I told you my work was a "piece of cake", and you didn't know I was using a figure of speech you would assume I was a baker instead of what I meant, "my work is easy". If I was writing about being "sacked by Oakland Raiders" and you thought I was writing a historical study of the Vikings instead of my recent experience in the NFL you would come to the wrong conclusion.
Make sense?

-Acts 2 was an isolated incident. We cannot assume that everywhere Christians went they spoke in tongues to pagans who never heard of, let alone read the OT.
-Another unproveable assumption, that there were other apocalypses that just happened to have vanished, somehow.
-Jesus said His followers would be dragged into and thrown out of the synagogues, beaten, scourged, killed, crucified, imprisoned etc. Jesus did not say that uncircumcised formerly pagan Christians would regularly fellowship side by side with Jews in the synagogues. Matthew 10:17, Matthew 23:34, Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12, John 16:2
-Paul and Timothy were Jews, as such, would be permitted in the synagogues.
-Paul, although he was a circumcised, Torah observant Jew, was persecuted throughout his ministry. stoned, scourged, imprisoned, left for dead etc. and ultimately executed for his Christian faith, Gal 6:13, Acts 9:29, 13:50, 14:5, 14:19, 16:22, 18:12, 21:36, 22:22, 23:10, 1 Co 4;12, 2 Co 4:9, 11:24, 2 Tim 2:9, 3:11.
-There is no record that former pagan gentile Christians knew or were taught the OT except for the few quotes in the NT. There is no record that former pagan gentile Christians were taught about Bible genres etc.

Ing Bee · Feb 14, 2019

I'll briefly respond to each of your comments. At this point because I don't think you actually want to critically examine your assumptions. That's fine, I'm not trying to upset your apple cart. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am only attempting to be helpful. I have given you suggestions for sources to look up and it's up to you to be convinced by the existing evidence. Denying it exists is ignorant. You don't have to agree with it, but you must engage all the facts if your assertions are to be considered credible.

You said:

Der Alter said:
Acts 2 was an isolated incident. We cannot assume that everywhere Christians went they spoke in tongues to pagans who never heard of, let alone read the OT.

1. My use of Acts 2 was simply to show that Jews from many other places outside of Israel had come. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah, having come to Jerusalem as a convert to Judaism. Therefore, Jewish practice and scrolls were known beyond Israel. My point had nothing to do with tongues. Read the book of Acts and note Paul's pattern of going to synagogues in virtually every community he went to (the exception being Philippi where he went to the river because Jewish ordinances required a synagogue to have at least 10 men to be established. This was not the case which is why women feature prominently at the river meeting). Side note, the Old Testament was widely available in Greek at the time. This is called the "Septuagint". Practically everyone in the Roman world spoke Greek thanks to Alexander the Great, this is known as Hellenism.

You said:

Der Alter said:
-Another unproveable assumption, that there were other apocalypses that just happened to have vanished, somehow.

2. Look up Apocalyptic literature on Wikipedia. These manuscripts actually exist. We have them. They are not scripture, not inspired, not part of the canon, but share the same features that John's Apocalypse employs. There are 15 different writings listed in the main article under "non-canonical" that you can look up under their own entries.

You said:

Der Alter said:
-Jesus said His followers would be dragged into and thrown out of the synagogues, beaten, scourged, killed, crucified, imprisoned etc. Jesus did not say that uncircumcised formerly pagan Christians would regularly fellowship side by side with Jews in the synagogues. Matthew 10:17, Matthew 23:34, Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12, John 16:2

3. Paul, in a synagogue setting, addresses Jews and gentile converts to Judaism in attendance (Acts 13:14, 26). This means that gentiles had regularly been hearing the Old Testament readings and their Jewish lifestyle would have been conspicuous among their gentile neighbors. Hence, the Old Testament was known in the Roman world which again, is both what James said in the Jerusalem council and my main point.

You said:

Der Alter said:
-Paul and Timothy were Jews, as such, would be permitted in the synagogues.

4. Timothy was not circumcised until AFTER Paul met him, although he was half jewish and a believer who had been trained by his Jewish mother and grandmother. As you perhaps know, Timothy was NOT circumcised until after Paul met him (Acts 16:1-5) though he was already a believer whose jewish mother had also become a believer. Circumcision was not a requirement for synagogue attendance. The synagogue was NOT the temple. Even today, uncircumcised gentiles are welcome to visit synagogues as long as they are polite. I know; I've been to one and I am not Jewish. I was treated cordially.

You said:

Der Alter said:
-Paul, although he was a circumcised, Torah observant Jew, was persecuted throughout his ministry. stoned, scourged, imprisoned, left for dead etc. and ultimately executed for his Christian faith, Gal 6:13, Acts 9:29, 13:50, 14:5, 14:19, 16:22, 18:12, 21:36, 22:22, 23:10, 1 Co 4;12, 2 Co 4:9, 11:24, 2 Tim 2:9, 3:11.

5. I fail to see the connection with the topic. I agree, all those things happened to Paul. They were done to him by Jews, non-Jews incited by Jews, and pagans whose economic prosperity was damaged by the gospel Paul was preaching. This happened to Jesus and the other apostles too.

You said:

Der Alter said:
There is no record that former pagan gentile Christians knew or were taught the OT except for the few quotes in the NT.

6. Gentile Christians weren't taught the Old Testament scripture? That would come as a surprise to Paul. Read 2nd Timothy 3:15-1. What scriptures did Timothy have as a child? The Jewish scriptures. The New Testament hadn't been written yet. If they are able to make Timothy "wise unto salvation" and are useful for correcting, training, rebuking and are "god-breathed", would he not teach them to his gentile charges? In fact, that's exactly what was happening in 1 Timothy 4:13! What scriptures do Peter and Paul and the writer of Hebrews and the writer of James constantly reference? When Paul tells the Ephesians in Acts 20 that he has not withheld anything that would be of benefit to them wouldn't he tell them about all the things Jesus had shared "beginning with Moses and the prophets concerning himself" in Luke 24? By the way Luke the man was possibly a greek, writing an account of Jesus for a Greek Christian (Theophilus) that was distributed to the churches.

You said:

Der Alter said:
There is no record that former pagan gentile Christians were taught about Bible genres etc.

7. Your last sentence is barking up the wrong tree. While "genre" is a modern french term we have adopted in literature classes in high school and college (and bookstores), the concept of literary genre is universal to all cultures that have literature, even oral literature. For example, Paul quotes from a greek poet in Titus and indicates that he is quoting a poem. Paul knew that "poetry" is distinct from "prose". The Psalms are poems. Proverbs is a collection of...proverbs. An Egyptian "book of the dead" had a repeatable format. Prophetic pronouncements typically started "Thus says the LORD". The idea of literary styles and forms, whatever it is called, is something even a child knows (fairytale vs. tax insrtuctional manual). Read Mike Licona's excellent work on genre if you'd like to know how (for example) Greek literary forms shed light onto how the gospels where written.

Saying "there's no record that former pagan gentile Christians were taught about Bible genres" is like saying, "there's no record that gravity was working in the ancient world" since they never used the word "gravity". There is plenty of evidence that gravity was working (arrows, ladders, falling down, people being hanged, etc.) and everyone understood that you shouldn't jump from a tower onto sharp rocks.

Be well.

Blade · Feb 14, 2019

Forgive me.. not wise to go on. Well you are adding to the word. With each verse you posted YOU added "ALL habitual sinners will" <---this is not written. And if its not part of the word.. its a lie.

Not wise to keep going. Well you added to His word
From the start you missed it...as God asked me one time "what is righteousness"? Its right standing with God. "how do you get righteousness" He asked after that "by believing in Jesus". Rom 3:22. So in that 1st verse you posted is it not written "Do you not know that the unrighteous". oK who in this world are the "unrighteous"? Those that do not believe in Jesus. Not talking about saved.

The 1st verse you posted... did you miss the word UNRIGHETOUS? That is talking about sinners not saved. We are righteous because we believe in JESUS.. as it is written. You add to His word and didnt even blink a eye. I wonder how some got to heaven. The thief.. where did he even repent? Just said remember me. Seems JESUS kept His word.. as in John 3:15.

I am unsure what you really believe. "This is our bare minimum in our hope of salvation." " Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.". Christ for me can not die again. He took away ALL sins of the world. There is no sin that sends anyone to hell. Have to forgive me if I dont take some one from YOUTUBEs dream vision nde's view for it. One would be hard pressed to find two that agree..then that even go inline with the WORD!

How in the world will you or I get into heaven is SIN keeps us out? Didnt John say if you say you have no sin you deceive your selfs and the truth is not in you? You really think you will be ALL Repented the day death comes knocking at your door? Every verse in the bible is true.. but one must ALWAYS read before and after..CONTEXT.

I don't any believer that wants to freely sin..always. I don't know one. I have read about one or two believing about grace...yet what gets left out... not sure why.. but they said and is written by them..those I herard about then searched.. they repent.

Careful where walk. Well since you have must admit no matter what you SEE HEAR or FEEL you like the rest of us can not know the heart. We only see flesh.. we then judge based on some moment in time and then apply that to the whole life. Each verse you posted.. has a story.. yet you just took each and put them together to say SEE! SEE! Does not work like that. Your no ones God.. God..by His spirit convicts the world of? SINS? Nope.. of SIN! read it.. what sin? Cant be SINS since Christ took away ALL the sins of the word. John said.. behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world..

So.. the holy Spirit that is given by the Father to those that ask as written in luke. He convicts the world of sin. The sin of not knowing Jesus. YES we must repent.. YES we dont freely walk in sin. But the way you present it..is NOT how its written. I know I know.. your right... you believe that.. so.. this is why I said.. it might not be wise to say anthing.. I am not right.. HE IS. I always pray ..Father change ME 1st.. I am willing to get it wrong and make it right. I am willing to LISTEN and hear and search and pray..

Kenny'sID · Feb 14, 2019

Blade said:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous". oK who in this world are the "unrighteous"? Those that do not believe in Jesus. Not talking about saved.

There are several things i disagree with the op on, however I can't just sit here and watch sheer denial take place without commenting.

Blade said:
The 1st verse you posted... did you miss the word UNRIGHETOUS? That is talking about sinners not saved.

Actually, you missed it

Did you happen to even think about what you just posted? Look closely at that term "unrighteousness". Now who is the one who is actually changing the word of God?

The term unrighteousness is self defining, as in un-right-eousness or someone who is wrong, or doing wrong, so unrighteousness means those who do wrong. See it in there? again, it means those who are unright or those who do wrong, and not "sinners not saved" the term doesn't even hint at what you claim it means.

But I have seen this so often here before. People want so bad to sin, and to make the bible actually agree with the made up theology that their wilful sin cannot send them to Hell, that they go into complete denial about the truth. It can be right there in front of them, just as the term unrighteousness was clear as a bell here, but they will not see it. They try to change the bible often but fail, at least towards those who can see clearly.

It really is sad, and all we can do is speak against it often so others don't head down that road. But I'm afraid once one convinces themselves they can have it both ways, the likelihood of pulling them out of that is slim, at least much slimmer that if they never fell into that hole to begin with. That's just so you know why this is so important to some of us and worth the time taken to stand against it.

BCsenior · Feb 14, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
There are several things i disagree with the OP on ...

Please, I am interested to know what they are
(and why you disagree).

Der Alte · Feb 14, 2019

Ing Bee said:
I'll briefly respond to each of your comments. At this point because I don't think you actually want to critically examine your assumptions. That's fine, I'm not trying to upset your apple cart. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am only attempting to be helpful. I have given you suggestions for sources to look up and it's up to you to be convinced by the existing evidence. Denying it exists is ignorant. You don't have to agree with it, but you must engage all the facts if your assertions are to be considered credible.

I studied theology etc. at the graduate level I don't need to look up any sources online. If you think you have some relevant evidence quote some and give me a link.

IB said:
You said:

IB said:
1. My use of Acts 2 was simply to show that Jews from many other places outside of Israel had come. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah, having come to Jerusalem as a convert to Judaism. Therefore, Jewish practice and scrolls were known beyond Israel. My point had nothing to do with tongues. Read the book of Acts and note Paul's pattern of going to synagogues in virtually every community he went to (the exception being Philippi where he went to the river because Jewish ordinances required a synagogue to have at least 10 men to be established. This was not the case which is why women feature prominently at the river meeting). Side note, the Old Testament was widely available in Greek at the time. This is called the "Septuagint". Practically everyone in the Roman world spoke Greek thanks to Alexander the Great, this is known as Hellenism.

The Ethiopian official from Queen Candice's court was a Jewish convert. He would have a copy of the LXX because as a court official he could purchase very expensive scrolls of the OT. Only the rich could afford scripture scrolls. Poor people would not have that option.

IB said:
2. Look up Apocalyptic literature on Wikipedia. These manuscripts actually exist. We have them. They are not scripture, not inspired, not part of the canon, but share the same features that John's Apocalypse employs. There are 15 different writings listed in the main article under "non-canonical" that you can look up under their own entries.

Only the rich would have been able to buy scrolls. It was not until the invention of the printing press that people who were not rich could afford to buy books.

IB said:
3. Paul, in a synagogue setting, addresses Jews and gentile converts to Judaism in attendance (Acts 13:14, 26). This means that gentiles had regularly been hearing the Old Testament readings and their Jewish lifestyle would have been conspicuous among their gentile neighbors. Hence, the Old Testament was known in the Roman world which again, is both what James said in the Jerusalem council and my main point.

One example does not make a general rule. Synagogues would have scripture scrolls. The common people could not afford them. See my quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia at the end as to the attitude of Jews toward gentiles.

IB said:
You said:
4. Timothy was not circumcised until AFTER Paul met him, although he was half jewish and a believer who had been trained by his Jewish mother and grandmother. As you perhaps know, Timothy was NOT circumcised until after Paul met him (Acts 16:1-5) though he was already a believer whose jewish mother had also become a believer. Circumcision was not a requirement for synagogue attendance. The synagogue was NOT the temple. Even today, uncircumcised gentiles are welcome to visit synagogues as long as they are polite. I know; I've been to one and I am not Jewish. I was treated cordially.

What did Jesus say would happen to His followers? Did you even read my post? Do you just ignore scripture which contradicts your agenda? Jesus said that His followers would be dragged before the synagogues, thrown out of the synagogues, imprisoned, beaten, scourged, killed and crucified. Jesus never said that gentile Christians would be worshiping side by side with Jews in the synagogues.

IB said:
You said:
5. I fail to see the connection with the topic. I agree, all those things happened to Paul. They were done to him by Jews, non-Jews incited by Jews, and pagans whose economic prosperity was damaged by the gospel Paul was preaching. This happened to Jesus and the other apostles too.

I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. I explained why I mentioned Paul's persecution. Paul was a circumcised, Torah observant Jew yet he was persecuted by the Jews everywhere he went. He was beaten, scourged, stoned, left for dead because of this Christian faith. But you would have us believe that Jews routinely welcomed gentile Christians into the synagogues. See Jewish Encyclopedia article at the end.

IB said:
6. Gentile Christians weren't taught the Old Testament scripture? That would come as a surprise to Paul. Read 2nd Timothy 3:15-1. What scriptures did Timothy have as a child? The Jewish scriptures. The New Testament hadn't been written yet. If they are able to make Timothy "wise unto salvation" and are useful for correcting, training, rebuking and a

IB said:
re "god-breathed", would he not teach them to his gentile charges? In fact, that's exactly what was happening in 1 Timothy 4:13! What scriptures do Peter and Paul and the writer of Hebrews and the writer of James constantly reference? When Paul tells the Ephesians in Acts 20 that he has not withheld anything that would be of benefit to them wouldn't he tell them about all the things Jesus had shared "beginning with Moses and the prophets concerning himself" in Luke 24? By the way Luke the man was possibly a greek, writing an account of Jesus for a Greek Christian (Theophilus) that was distributed to the churches.

Timothy's father was a Jew. Did you forget that? All gentile believers did not have a Jewish father to teach them. One incident does not make a general rule.

IB said:
7. Your last sentence is barking up the wrong tree. While "genre" is a modern french term we have adopted in literature classes in high school and college (and bookstores), the concept of literary genre is universal to all cultures that have literature, even oral literature. For example, Paul quotes from a greek poet in Titus and indicates that he is quoting a poem. Paul knew that "poetry" is distinct from "prose". The Psalms are poems. Proverbs is a collection of...proverbs. An Egyptian "book of the dead" had a repeatable format. Prophetic pronouncements typically started "Thus says the LORD". The idea of literary styles and forms, whatever it is called, is something even a child knows (fairytale vs. tax insrtuctional manual). Read Mike Licona's excellent work on genre if you'd like to know how (for example) Greek literary forms shed light onto how the gospels where written.

None of this clearly shows that former pagan gentile believers in Greece, Rome, Asia etc. would know anything about OT Biblical genres.

IB said:
Saying "there's no record that former pagan gentile Christians were taught

IB said:
about Bible genres" is like saying, "there's no record that gravity was working in the ancient world" since they never used the word "gravity". There is plenty of evidence that gravity was working (arrows, ladders, falling down, people being hanged, etc.) and everyone understood that you shouldn't jump from a tower onto sharp rocks.

Argumentation. You have not provided one piece of credible evidence that former pagan gentile Christians would have the slightest idea about OT scripture genres. Most pagan gentiles would have been illiterate and too poor to buy biblical scrolls if they were available. Here is what ancient Jews thought about gentiles. Nothing written by ancient Jews indicates routine fellowshiping with gentiles in the synagogues.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Gentiles
Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah.
Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). …
Resh Lakish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone," ... Rabbina, who lived about 150 years after the Christians had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not quite understand the principle underlying Resh Lakish's law, and, commenting upon it, added: "not even on Mondays [is the Gentile allowed to rest]"; intimating that the mandate given to the Noachidæ that "day and night shall not cease" ((Heb.)Lo yshabti = "have no rest ") should be taken in a literal sense (Gen. viii. 22)—probably to discourage general idleness
"The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Miḳ. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.)
Johanan bar Nappaḥa … the Torah was given as a heritage to Israel, a non-Israelite deserves death if he studies it (Sanh. 59a).
Gamaliel also expresses himself to the same effect, adding that the Gentiles, by their impure motive, incur the penalty of Gehenna. Eleazar of Modi'im sides with him, saying that "the Gentiles practice benevolence merely to taunt Israel."
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus is …, the mind of every non-Jew is always intent upon idolatry (Giṭ. 45b). The cattle of a heathen is unfit for sacrifices ('Ab. Zarah 23b). Explaining Prov. xiv. 34, he maintains that the non-Jews only practise charity in order to make for themselves a name (B. B. 10b; Pesiḳ. 12b; Gamaliel is credited with the same opinion in B. B. 10b).
Joshua b. Hananiah, … as a rule Gentiles cling to vain things and are rejected (Prov. xxviii. 19; Gen. R. lxxxii.).
Eleazar of Modi'im, in reference to Micah iv. 5, explains that Israel, though guilty of the same sins as the Gentiles, will not enter hell, while the Gentiles will (Cant. R. ii. 1). .. On the whole, he is very bitter in his condemnations of the heathen. "They profit by their deeds of love and benevolence to slander Israel" (referring to Jer. xl. 3;B. B. 10a).
Among Akiba's disciples Tarphon is noted for his antipathy to the Judæo-Christians, whose books he would burn without regard for the name of God occurring therein, preferring the temple of idolaters to them (Shab. 116a).
Simon ben Yoḥai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Heb.) Shob (Yer. Ḳid. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-laḥ, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "Ṭob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").
On the basis of Hab. iii. 6, Simon b. Yohai argued that, of all the nations, Israel alone was worthy to receive the Law (Lev. R. xiii.). The Gentiles, according to him, would not observe the seven laws given to the Noachidae (Tosef., Soṭah, viii. 7; Soṭah 35b), though the Law was written on the altar (Deut. xxvi. 8) in the seventy languages. Hence, while Israel is like the patient ass, the Gentiles resemble the easy-going, selfish dog (Lev. R. xiii.; Sifre, Deut., Wezot ha-Berakah, 343).
Judah ben 'Illai recommends the daily recital of the benediction. "Blessed be Thou . . . who hast not made me a goi" (Tosef., Ber. vii. 18: Men. 43b, sometimes ascribed to Meir; see Weiss, "Dor," ii. 137). Judah is confident that the heathen (Gentiles) will ultimately come to shame (Isa. lxvi. 5; B. M. 33b).The Gentiles took copies of the Torah, and yet did not accept it (Soṭah 35b).
Eliezer, the son of Jose the Galilean, calls the Gentiles poor "goyyim dawim," because they would not accept the Torah (Mek., Yitro. 62a), referring to Hab. iii. 6 and Ps. cxlvii. 20
Josiah holds that every idolatrous heathen is an enemy of Israel (Mek., Mishpaṭim, 99a).
Jonathan insists that eclipses are of bad augury for Gentiles only, according to Jer. x. 2 (Mek., Bo, 19b).
Simon ben Jose likens Israel to a stone, and the Gentiles to a potsherd (Isa. xxx. 14), applying the proverb: "If the stone falls on the pot, wo to the pot; if the pot falls on the stone, wo to the pot." This he offered as a consolation to persecuted Israel (Esther R. iii. 6).
Hezekiah b. Hiyya deduces from II Kings xx. 18 that he who shows hospitality to a heathen brings the penalty of exile upon his own children (Sanh. 104a).
Johanan bar Nappaḥa … lays stress on the fact that God offered the Law to all nations, who refused to accept it ('Ab. Zarah 2b); therefore while the virus of lust that the serpent injected into Eve was neutralized in Israel, the "nations of the world" still have it in their blood (Shab. 145b; Yeb. 103b; 'Ab. Zarah 22b)…. the Torah was given as a heritage to Israel, a non-Israelite deserves death if he studies it (Sanh. 59a).
Assi is the author of the injunction not to instruct the Gentile in the Torah (Ḥag. 13a).
Tanhuma …likens the nations to wolves and Israel to a lamb (Pesiḳ. R. ix. [ed. Friedmann, p.32a]).
The seven nations in the Holy Land were to be exterminated for fear they might teach the Israelite conquerors idolatry and immoral practises (Deut. vii. 1-6, xviii. 9-14, xx. 16-18);
The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls ('Ab. Zarah ii. 1).
GENTILE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

BCsenior · Feb 15, 2019

Oldmantook said:
(Some) claim that being dead does not mean loss of eternal life but merely loss of fellowship with God. I suggest you read the Greek text. The word for "dead" in the Greek is "nekros" which can either refer to physical death or spiritual death. It is never defined as loss of fellowship as you believe.

Some also claim erroneously that
1 John 1:6-9 refers to fellowship ...
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him,
and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son
cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Kenny'sID · Feb 15, 2019

BCsenior said:
Please, I am interested to know what they are
(and why you disagree).

I think it's mostly Charismatic ideals. why? probably the same disagreements anyone who disagrees with them might have.

Nothing new.

BCsenior · Feb 15, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
I think it's mostly Charismatic ideals. why? probably the same disagreements anyone who disagrees with them might have. Nothing new.

Sorry, but that's just not good enough!
You'll have to be more specific.

ALL habitual sinners are NOT in a saved state

Son of Encouragement

Follower of Isa Al Masih

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Still an evangelist

Son of Encouragement

Son of Encouragement

Regular Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Still an evangelist

Well-Known Member

Son of Encouragement

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Son of Encouragement

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Still an evangelist

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Still an evangelist

Well-Known Member

Still an evangelist

Similar threads