Gentiles? Not Anymore!

[Allen of the Cross]

at the time frame of the apostles, it was not...

Do you mind, friend, explaining what exactly you are trying to discuss with me? Because to be honest I can't make sense of what you're trying to discuss. I was just telling you that catholic doesn't mean Catholic, and Catholic doesn't mean catholic. They're entirely different words with different connotations and different meanings.

 

[HARK!]

Paul said this covenant gendered to bondage ... why in your opinion do you think he would say something like that?

Let's look specifically at the verse you speak of, in Paul's words, in context.

 

[visionary]

Do you mind, friend, explaining what exactly you are trying to discuss with me? Because to be honest I can't make sense of what you're trying to discuss. I was just telling you that catholic doesn't mean Catholic, and Catholic doesn't mean catholic. They're entirely different words with different connotations and different meanings.

At the time of the apostles, "catholic" would not been an applicable application to describe the followers of Yeshua.

 

[Allen of the Cross]

At the time of the apostles, "catholic" would not been an applicable application to describe the followers of Yeshua.

I would debate that with the guy who called the church catholic. I was just correcting you as kindly as possible, that he wasn't jumping to the Catholic faith, but was referring to the entire church of the followers of Jesus Christ. I was just talking about English!

 

[HARK!]

Here is the full sentence, without your sudden stopping it:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

The verse does not say we are not Gentiles anymore, it says that we, who are Gentiles, are now citizens of Israel.

As you can be a Russian or Chinese by birth, but have American citizenship.

διο THRU+WHICH, wherefore
μνημονευετε REMINDED-be, remember
οτι WHICH+ANY, that, seeing that, for
υμεις ?+WHICH+BESIDES, ?-when, once, some time, at any time

This verse is in past tense; so obviously being of the nations in this case has no bearing on the geographic location of your birth.

It's saying that when you are reborn into Israel; your Pagan ways are behind you.

 

[visionary]

I would debate that with the guy who called the church catholic. I was just correcting you as kindly as possible, that he wasn't jumping to the Catholic faith, but was referring to the entire church of the followers of Jesus Christ. I was just talking about English!

I know, but there is nothing broad, universal, etc about the Jewish faith, even this branch of Yeshua's.

 

[Scott Husted]

Let's look specifically at the verse you speak of, in Paul's words, in context.

The context of scripture must be seen in the whole of scripture as the narrative that leads to the unveiling of Gods purpose before the world began. The lesson of the law begins with a man who does not keep his garden ...

 

[HARK!]

Jesus' faith was Judaism doesn't quite make sense when you look at scriptures as a whole narrative

I don't believe that Yahshua's "faith" was Judaism. He believed in YHWH, and was dedicated to YHWH's Torah.

 

[Allen of the Cross]

Hello Hark, I hope the day has found you well. God be with you.

 

[Minister Monardo]

So out of curiosity, if I see an Amalekite, should I kill him? (Deuteronomy 25:19)

This is a mistaken interpretation of the passage you are quoting.

Exodus 17:14. Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this for a memorial (zikrown) in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance (zeker) of Amalek from under heaven.


While a memorial (zikrown) exists to help perpetuate a memory (zakar); a remembrance (zeker) refers to the effect the memory has on a person, or people. For example, the memorials of the Confederacy continue to be controversial in the South. Statues of Civil War heroes have been removed. The Confederate flag, the most visible memorial of that period, has been banned from flying over municipal and state buildings. This has been necessary, because the remembrances associated with them are polarizing to society. Ideally, memorials should unite the people in a society. For the Memorials found in the Torah, the purpose is to bind the people to God.


Notice the verse states that this memorial exists for the sake of Joshua. The incident with Amalek occurred shortly after passing through the Red Sea. So God intends to settle this issue later, by the hand of Joshua. This ultimately will not take place until much later, in the time of King Saul.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19. Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.

Now forty years later, Moses addresses the next generation on the steppes of Moab in preparation for entering the promised land. The older generation who came out of Egypt has all passed away. The text says “zakar Amalek”, and the translation implies that the people are being instructed to remember this incident. This would not be the case, for the narrative of the Exodus would have included this as a part of the stories told by the adults to the children they were raising. The stories involving Amalek were not just about a merciless attack, but also a rousing tale of Joshua and a group of valiant men who went out against them. They could not prevail unless Moses held his staff above them on the overlooking mountain.

The correct translation, therefore, would be ‘you have been perpetuating the memory of Amalek’. With this story comes the concern over the remembrance of what the Amalekites did in attacking the weakest of the people. God is dealing with bitterness, hatred and the desire for vengeance. This is the remembrance which must be blotted out.

The avenging of blood is one of God’s priorities and the Law of Moses required the establishment of sanctuary cities for a man to flee to if he witnessed an accidental death. If he feared that he would be held accountable for the death by a family member, ‘the avenger of blood’ would seek to slay him. (Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 29).

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense...Deuteronomy 32:35.

The avenging of blood has to be handled only in accordance with God’s instructions.
Once the vengeance has been granted, the remembrance must be blotted out.

The final word of the text in Deuteronomy 25:19 is ‘shahach’ and means ‘forgotten, to become oblivious to’, and yet the translator decides to translate into the exact 180 degree opposite, ‘Do not forget’. (?)
Thus the instruction becomes, ‘do not ever let go of that bitterness, that hatred. No! That is not God’s Will for the heart of man, and especially His people. The instruction is shahach, Let it be forgotten!. Blot out the remembrance. This was not a plan for genocide, this was a plan for healing the hearts of man. This is God’s heart for man, not vengeance.[/QUOTE]

 

[Minister Monardo]

Cornelius was welcomed as a member of the Christian faith in Jesus Christ.

Peter was sent to Cornelius after receiving his vision correcting his understanding of the Gospel "for all nations". Why would Cornelius NOT be welcomed? He was already a friend of Israel, and not just politically, he was a devout man.

 

[Scott Husted]

My view is Levite as Mary was cousin to Elizabeth wife of Zacarihas who was a levite priest. By law to be a priest in service to temple he had to be married to a Levite woman, therefore to be her cousin she was a Levite. That give Yeshua rights to be a priest, just like His cousin, John, the Baptist.

As to Yeshua's right to the throne, now that is another story. Prophecies about the Messiah in the Tanach (Old Testament) speak of Him coming from the lineage of King David (Jer. 23:5; Ezk. 34:23, etc.) and a number of New Testament Scriptures reflect that, saying that Yeshua is from the Seed of David (as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah). Now that is a study that deserves its own thread. I will not go further as it would cause a rabbit trail away from this thread's purpose.

I don't see it as a rabbit trail ... the progression that brought about the Levites being chosen over every firstborn of Israel was the same reason Adam and the woman were driven from the garden, or Jesus driven into the wilderness, or why Sari chose Hagar, an Egyptian as the mother of Abram's/her son ...

 

[Minister Monardo]

I don't see it as a rabbit trail ... the progression that brought about the Levites being chosen over every firstborn of Israel was the same reason Adam and the woman were driven from the garden, or Jesus driven into the wilderness, or why Sari chose Hagar, an Egyptian as the mother of Abram's/her son ...

Romans 9:11. (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

 

[Scott Husted]

I don't believe that Yahshua's "faith" was Judaism. He believed in YHWH, and was dedicated to YHWH's Torah.

I believe his relationship went far beyond any law that needed to be kept to prove himself, which really is what Satan's supposed argument is based on from the very beginning, though this same argument can be approached from different vantage points.

 

[HARK!]

I believe his relationship went far beyond any law that needed to be kept to prove himself

Absolutely! If we love YHWH we will keep his law. Just because the law tests our love; it does not define the depth of our love. Love of YHWH precedes the obedience to his law. Obedience to his law is an expression of our love for him.

 

[expos4ever]

Think again.

15 (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees,

δογμασιν
dogmasin
decrees
dogma
G1378

You are not helping your case - the fact that one of the meanings here is "decrees" leaves open the possibility that the author of Ephesians is referring to the Law of Moses.

 

[HARK!]

You are not helping your case - the fact that one of the meanings here is "decrees" leaves open the possibility that the author of Ephesians is referring to the Law of Moses.

Nonsense. YHWH's word is not dogma.

look at the Greek, "dogmasin" for context of decree. It is not of YHWH.

 

[Scott Husted]

Absolutely! If we love YHWH we will keep his law. Just because the law tests our love; it does not define the depth of our love. Love of YHWH precedes the obedience to his law. Obedience to his law is an expression of our love for him.

For us ... as a son of man (or earthly so to speak) love is at first measured and this by thought ... what measure you understand you have been forgiven to is what measure you love in.

We have not yet abode in the word that is God to the extent in which Jesus had as the truth of himself (which only the father could reveal, though there be no end to this truth). He came to those who were in debt to the law via their consciousness, not knowing that their conscious is the truth of what the law was revealing to begin with, much like the Commandment not to eat ...

 

[expos4ever]

(CLV) Ga 3:28
in Whom there is not Jew nor yet Greek, there is not slave nor yet free, there is not male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus.

Come on, you know me better than that.

Your argument here makes the huge assumption that, this side of the Cross, the Jew and the Gentile are to follow the Law of Moses. You are basically arguing thus:

1. The Law of Moses remains in force;
2. Both Jew and Gentile are subject to the Law of Moses;
3. Therefore, any statement about Jew and Gentile being "one" implies that the Law of Moses could not possibly be a barrier between Jew and Gentile.

This argument only works if the Law of Moses remains in force. And what does Paul say about this matter?:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[HARK!]

For us ... as a son of man (or earthly so to speak) love is at first measured and this by thought ... what measure you understand you have been forgiven to is what measure you love in.

When you are in a relationship; thinking about what you are going to get out of the deal is not an expression of love.