Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board Christian Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Did Jesus come to minister to the Gentiles?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1
RichardBurger

RichardBurger

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
From the post, “AN OVERVIEW OF THE BIBLE.”Most Theology and doctrines say that Jesus came to the Gentiles Too, not just to the Jews. But what does Jesus say in the Bible?Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles. The following scriptures support my view.Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."And Paul said:Rom 15:8 (NKJ)8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, NOT to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. His plan was to save the Gentiles and all that would place their faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of His Son, Jesus on the cross. This purpose was hidden in God and revealed to Paul.Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#2
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Quite obviously Jesus Christ came in the flesh with a specific purpose of coming to His own to be rejected by them.Their stumbling, including rejecting their Messiah, was directly related to the gentiles being included.

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (Rom 11:11 KJV)


  • 0

#3
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
Agreed Foc God has temporaliy divorced Jews(Judah) it is the time of the gentile but that is not to infer that Jews are left out and replaced by Christian/and or gentiles Eze 37 clearly tells us that christians and Jews are the two sticks that are seperate but will be rejoined under Christ at his coming into one stick the time of the gentile will come to an end. The old testament time covered the Jews the New testament the Christian the End times will bring the two together this is the plan of God.Christ will be King of Kings to all not just one or the other.
  • 0

#4
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans."But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand
Correct. But who is the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Is it Jews, or the other tribes in the dispersion? Let's see.And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.So, Jesus has "other sheep" not of this fold (the Jews). People are quick to pounce on the thought that these are the Gentiles. but what does Jesus call Gentiles? In the case of the Gentile woman coming to Jesus, he said:It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.So, if you were not a sheep, you were a dog. So, we have dogs, and TWO folds of sheep, i.e. the Jews, and the lost house (and tribes) of Israel.This is in agreement with Ezekiel 37 where the two stick from the house of Israel and the house of Judah will be rejoined in the end times. This was Jesus' version of it.And what did Israel find in the wilderness (the exile?)Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.That is the gospel of grace to them to which they brought to the rest of the world especially since they became many mighty nations as promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.The reason Jesus did not want them to go to Gentiles is because Israel, the physical seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, were entrusted with that message to become a blessing to the whole world. This was not the responsibility of the non-Israelite Gentiles. These Gentiles, as Paul stated, were later graphed into the olive tree.
  • 0

#5
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
I think thats really misrepresenting scripture Tim.Just because Jesus talks about dogs, does not mean that the other sheep cannot be the gentiles.He Himself performed miracles for NON Jews even AFTER talking about the dogs in your partially quoted passage there, didnt He ?Why didnt you bother to mention THAT part of the passage you quoted there?

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (Mat 15:26-28 KJV)

You toss in the part about dogs, then casually leave out the fact that Jesus did EXACTLY what the woman was seeking anyway.Nothing in your post does a thing to argue that these 'other sheep' are not the gentiles...not a single thing.
  • 0

#6
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Lets look at some evidence
This is what Jesus saidAnd other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (Joh 10:16 KJV)
He has other sheep not of this fold and these will hear His voice and these will be one fold with the other.ONE fold...ONE Shepherd.We can sit and hypothesize about it, or we can READ Gods word and see how it fits..how TWO become ONE under this covenant.

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made by hands in the flesh-- that at that time you were apart from Christ, being estranged from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, not having hope and atheists in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have come to be near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and who destroyed the dividing wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, putting to death the enmity in Himself. And having come, He preached peace to you who were far away and to those near. Because through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. So then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Eph 2:11-22 EMTV)

There is no wonder that most of christianity believes that these 'other sheep' are the gentiles....there is absolutely NO logical reason not to.It is entirely illogical to assert that Jesus' use of 'dogs' means that He was not including the gentiles since concept is present all throughout the bible that Israel would falter and the GENTILES would be brought in.Tim, in order to show that 'other sheep' arent the gentiles, Id personally need MUCH more convincing evidence, brother. What youve provided is sketchy and entirely inconclusive at best, not to mention that there is enough evidence to those that He probably DOES mean the gentiles that would need to be refuted, such as what I started supplying above.The word 'dogs' doesnt show a thing other than Christs mission while on this earth was to go directly to Israel.And His actions where He DOES end up performing the very miracles He supposedly ISNT going to perform shows conclusively that He DOESNT actually see them AS being dogs, but does care about them as well.
  • 0

#7
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
What most people do not realize is that these other sheep fit well with the dualistic nature of God's people, ie. his two nations. Take for example Isaiah 54 follows very well with the "other sheep". We have two groups of people mentioned in Isaiah 54: the 'married wife" and the wife cast away. Like it or lump it, God is a polygamist in a sense when he had two wives: Israel and Judah.The chapter starts out as such:Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.This desolate one is Israel, who in this prophecy would become a great population and have more children than the Jews and colonizing and inheriting the world (which was promised to Abraham). Now, what else does it say about them?For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.But how would Israel know of her Redeemer (Christ)? That is where they were to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Jews are not from the house of Israel. They are from the house of Judah. Get your bibles straight.Now, what does the bible say in Hosea concerning these Israelites when they are in the land of their exile?Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.These people would (unlike the Jews) lose their national identity, or I should say roots, and be known as Gentiles, but then would be known as the "sons of the Living God". Now what is that biblical language for?But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his nameSo you see, these "other sheep" was a name for His people---- a Gentile was never part of His people.Now for those who said I was implying that God did not grant grace to the Gentile thus wresting what I was saying, I never said that. I made the mention of the woman "dog" to illustrate that's what He called the Gentiles. He did not say "I have dogs as well as sheep." Indeed He could have said that, then the Jews for sure would know that He included Gentiles. But when he said "other sheep" that was a reference to the people of Israel as the Old Testament compares the sheep to.As a matter of fact, the disciples were originally clueless that the Gentiles were included until Peter's vision in Acts 10, and the revelation to Paul. That's why there were apostolic councils regarding them. Understand that the bible is a book about Israel. The Gentiles were graphed in like Paul stated. We've Gentilized and spiritualized the New Testament and Jesus' scene so much that we've failed to realize the national background to Israel.
  • 0

#8
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Im sorry Tim, I realize this issue isnt really that big a deal and we wont know for sure what Jesus meant exactly by 'other sheep', but Im just not convinced, in agreement with much of the church who has commmented on the matter, that Jesus' words there ARE about the gentiles.Please forgive me if I still assert that none of your evidence actually shows what you are trying to force of it. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#9
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
The Jews are not from the house of Israel. They are from the house of Judah. Get your bibles straight.
This is completely laim as evidence, Tim.They ALL have common descent.I think maybe YOU are the one who needs to get your bible straight style_emoticons/default/smile.gifWhen the NT speaks about Jews, are you claiming that its only refering to part of Israel ?I think you are creating an issue that doesnt actually exist.Lets look at some NT usage of 'Jew(s)' and see if we think it is ONLY refering to Judah and not the WHOLE of Isreael, shall we?

Or is He the God of the Jews only? But is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, also of Gentiles, (Rom 3:29 EMTV)Rom 9:24 even us whom He called, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles?

So God is tho God of the JEWS and clearly the Gentiles as well.I guess this missing third group doesnt get to call Him God ?Interesting verse here

Rom 11:14 if somehow I may provoke to jealousy my fellow Jews, and I may save some of them.

I guess old Paul was only interested in Judah and didnt give a hang about "House of Israel" then ?

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness,

Can we assume that Christ WASNT a stumbling block to the the House of Israel but only this group of Jews you believe believe to be separate ?

1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I suppose that NONE are called of the house of Israel ?That doesnt seem to be scriptural.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:1-2 KJV)

So ONLY Judah was entrusted with the words of God ?Sorry Tim, I just dont see how scripture is showing TWO entirely different groups in these and many other passages Israel is Israel is Israel...ALL of that peoples whether divided into two nations or not, they are ALL of the same blood.Personally I think you are taking a couple passages and REALLY distorting their intent...but thats just me, I suppose style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
As a matter of fact, the disciples were originally clueless that the Gentiles were included until Peter's vision in Acts 10, and the revelation to Paul. That's why there were apostolic councils regarding them. Understand that the bible is a book about Israel. The Gentiles were graphed in like Paul stated. We've Gentilized and spiritualized the New Testament and Jesus' scene so much that we've failed to realize the national background to Israel.
Now come on Tim...no one here is denying Israels place at all here. Lets not pretend someone is a closet anti-Semite here. style_emoticons/default/smile.gifThe facts are the facts...Israel was hardhearted and obstinate and has been partially blinded until the fulness of the gentiles come in.No one is removing PHYSICAL Israel from the picture at all, please dont play games with me and act like anything Ive said even remotely hints to that nonsense.And you have given PARTIAL evidence yet againScripture that shows that ISRAEL must be graft BACK IN...

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. (Rom 11:19-23 KJV)

NO ONE is 'in' by default under this covenant like the Hebrews were under the old covenant.ONLY those who believe and are graft IN to the olive tree (a right relationship with God)Are you claiming that the JEWS have not been blinded in this passage, but only the Jews ?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Rom 11:25 KJV)

That passage mentions that ISRAEL has been blinded, why then does Paul talk about the JEWS in this way ?

Rom 11:14 if somehow I may provoke to jealousy my fellow Jews, and I may save some of them.

Is it Israel or the Jews that need to be saved ?Or is it BOTH and the words 'Jews' and 'Israel' are entirely interchangeable when scripture is speaking about the NATION of Israel (the Jews) (which absolutely DOES still have a huge part to play as God STILL loves her) ?
So you see, these "other sheep" was a name for His people---- a Gentile was never part of His people.But when he said "other sheep" that was a reference to the people of Israel as the Old Testament compares the sheep to.
Im sorry, but you havent yet proven that case...not even remotely.
  • 0

#10
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
As a matter of fact, the disciples were originally clueless that the Gentiles were included until Peter's vision in Acts 10, and the revelation to Paul. That's why there were apostolic councils regarding them. Understand that the bible is a book about Israel. The Gentiles were graphed in like Paul stated. We've Gentilized and spiritualized the New Testament and Jesus' scene so much that we've failed to realize the national background to Israel.
Now come on Tim...no one here is denying Israels place at all here. Lets not pretend someone is a closet anti-Semite here. style_emoticons/default/smile.gifThe facts are the facts...Israel was hardhearted and obstinate and has been partially blinded until the fulness of the gentiles come in.No one is removing PHYSICAL Israel from the picture at all, please dont play games with me and act like anything Ive said even remotely hints to that nonsense.And you have given PARTIAL evidence yet againScripture that shows that ISRAEL must be graft BACK IN...

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. (Rom 11:19-23 KJV)

NO ONE is 'in' by default under this covenant like the Hebrews were under the old covenant.ONLY those who believe and are graft IN to the olive tree (a right relationship with God)Are you claiming that the JEWS have not been blinded in this passage, but only the Jews ?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Rom 11:25 KJV)

That passage mentions that ISRAEL has been blinded, why then does Paul talk about the JEWS in this way ?

Rom 11:14 if somehow I may provoke to jealousy my fellow Jews, and I may save some of them.

Is it Israel or the Jews that need to be saved ?Or is it BOTH and the words 'Jews' and 'Israel' are entirely interchangeable when scripture is speaking about the NATION of Israel (the Jews) (which absolutely DOES still have a huge part to play as God STILL loves her) ?
  • 0

#11
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
So you see, these "other sheep" was a name for His people---- a Gentile was never part of His people.But when he said "other sheep" that was a reference to the people of Israel as the Old Testament compares the sheep to.
Im sorry, but you havent yet proven that case...not even remotely. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#12
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
How about this TimfromPA.Please detail out EXACTLY what happened (briefly) to the 'house of Israel' and also the 'Jews' (as you see them).Then give us the EXACT state each is in presently as far as being 'saved' or under a covenant with God goes.Its hard to discuss the issue when your viewpoint isnt really understood (by me at least).Once youve given this information, we'll examine scripture VERY closely to see if your view can be harmonized with the details or not style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#13
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
When the NT speaks about Jews, are you claiming that its only refering to part of Israel ?
Yes. The other 10 tribes were lost to history. The Jew does not have the birthright, but the tribe of Joseph, one of the lost tribes (I Chronicles 5:1-2)
This is completely laim as evidence, Tim.They ALL have common descent.I think maybe YOU are the one who needs to get your bible straight......Sorry Tim, I just dont see how scripture is showing TWO entirely different groups in these and many other passages
You are calling this lame, but the bible over and over and over again refers to two distinct peoples the house of Israel and the house of Judah. To merge them into common stock is like saying that Rebels were the same as Yankees because they were both Americans. Yet, each have their own prophecies and destinies to fulfill. To see them as only one people when the truth is pointed out is nothing less than blind. Tell ya what, read my online book in my signature and differentiate between the two houses.As for Paul mentioning two groups, that is not altogether true. Only the Jews knew their identity and they were the tribe of the Kings and law givers (Genesis 49:10). Paul contrasted that with Gentiles, which also included the divorced and scattered house of Israel. In another passage he contrasts "Jews and Greeks" but that does not mean that's the only two groups of people on this planet.
Are you claiming that the JEWS have not been blinded in this passage, but only the Jews ? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
The meaning is "partial blindness". Israel was blinded to her identity and faltered. The Jew did not accept Christ for that matter. So, this partial blindness would be there until the fullness of the Gentiles be come which was an illusion to Genesis 48:19 where Ephraim would become the fullness of the nations. So what Paul was saying here was that this partial blindness would be in place until Ephraim fulfilled their destiny in Genesis 48:19 (many nations). This was due to the punishment in Leviticus regarding "seven times" or a long prophetic fulfillment was 2520 years as some theologians point out. For the tribe of Manesseh, 2520 years later came about 1781, a historic event when the battle of Yorktown occurred thus turning the tides in favor of the United States winning their independence from Britain. This is a long subject in and of itself that I will not go into detail here. Now here's a question for you. If the Jew only is God's people, then when was the likes of Genesis 35:11, Genesis 48:19 and II Samuel 7:10 ever fulfilled in the Jew? Yet, these are foundational covenantal promises that include promises of Messiah that the bible is based off of. If one throws these out, the promise of Messiah goes out the window by default.Oh, and one more question, just what is the birthright that Jacob felt so strongly to take from Esau?Problem is that many people mouth off at my lost tribes theology, but I have yet to hear in all my years one intelligent answer to the questions I have apart from what I stated. If nothing else, the lost tribes is an accepted historical fact prophesied many times in scripture. Bottom line, what do we want to do with them when God promised their continual existence? Do we sweep them under the rug and disgrace God by saying He does not keep his promises? Or do we believe what the bible says about them?
  • 0

#14
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
[quote name='tim_from_pa;51450]Yes. The other 10 tribes were lost to history. The Jew does not have the birthright' date=' but the tribe of Joseph, one of the lost tribes (I Chronicles 5:1-2)[/quote']Apparently you are missing the point.When Paul uses the word 'Jews' in the NT, his intent is ALL of those of the nation of Israel.[QUOTE]You are calling this lame, but the bible over and over and over again refers to two distinct peoples the house of Israel and the house of Judah. [/QUOTE]I fully understand that it does...and in many cases the use is pretty much speaking to BOTH groups as one.

For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be, (Heb 8:8 MKJV)

Speaks to them together there, and yet just a couple verses down...

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Heb 8:10 MKJV)

What...did He forget to give the details about the a new covenant with Judah here?God is giving TWO separate covenants here then..one to each house?Sorry, just not buying it[QUOTE] To merge them into common stock is like saying that Rebels were the same as Yankees because they were both Americans. [/QUOTE]Thats a VERY nice attempt, Tim, but all Americans dont have common ancestry back to one man called 'america'....a common blood line that can be traced back to one Patriarch style_emoticons/default/wink.gifIsrael was one man, Jacob (Gen 32:28), who had 12 sons who became the nation.Scripture CAN use the word 'Israel' and MEAN that mans descendants as a whole..."Israel" does NOT have to be distinct in its intent from "Jews" in the NT.[QUOTE] To see them as only one people when the truth is pointed out is nothing less than blind.[/QUOTE]It is blind in your opinion.You have not yet proven your case, other than to show that there WERE two tribes.Nothing Ive seen thus far shows that the usage of the NT terms is meant to still represent TWO distinct groups, but instead the two are used to show that Gods NEW covenant will be all inclusive of both groups and even the gentiles that believe.Again, I think you are taking some things well past their intent.[QUOTE] Tell ya what, read my online book in my signature and differentiate between the two houses.[/QUOTE]Ive got my plate full 7 days a week, quite honestly. style_emoticons/default/smile.gifI shouldnt really be wasting time in this thread as it is still having about 15 unfinished studies to put up on the website.[QUOTE]As for Paul mentioning two groups, that is not altogether true. Only the Jews knew their identity and they were the tribe of the Kings and law givers (Genesis 49:10). Paul contrasted that with Gentiles, which also included the divorced and scattered house of Israel. In another passage he contrasts "Jews and Greeks" but that does not mean that's the only two groups of people on this planet. [/QUOTE]please, Tim. While there are MANY groups of gentiles, there arent MANY groups of Jews.Paul uses the term 'Jews' very blanketly to cover Israel the nation as a whole, as "Israel" is also used blanketly.[QUOTE]The meaning is "partial blindness". [/QUOTE]Thanks for the definition, Tim...Ive looked at it fairly extensively tho, so you wont need to break out a bible dictionary for me or anything...I promise style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[quote] Israel was blinded to her identity and faltered. The Jew did not accept Christ for that matter. So, this partial blindness would be there until the fullness of the Gentiles be come which was an illusion to Genesis 48:19 where Ephraim would become the fullness of the nations. So what Paul was saying here was that this partial blindness would be in place until Ephraim fulfilled their destiny in Genesis 48:19 (many nations). [/quote]You dodged the point, methinks.WHO was blinded, the house of Israel or the house of Judah ?Please be clear in your response.[quote] Now here's a question for you. If the Jew only is God's people, then when was the likes of Genesis 35:11, Genesis 48:19 and II Samuel 7:10 ever fulfilled in the Jew? Yet, these are foundational covenantal promises that include promises of Messiah that the bible is based off of. If one throws these out, the promise of Messiah goes out the window by default.[/quote]This is twisting MY words and intents, Tim.I never said that the 'Jew only'...you are missing the point.*MY* actual point is that when "jews" is used in scripture or 'house of Israel' it does not necessarily show DISTINCTION between those descended of Jacob.When "Israel" is used in scripture, many times it simply is generically speaking about those who are Jacobs descendants.[QUOTE]Oh, and one more question, just what is the birthright that Jacob felt so strongly to take from Esau?[/QUOTE]Maybe you can enlighten me and we'll see if your thoughts hold water.[QUOTE]Problem is that many people mouth off at my lost tribes theology, but I have yet to hear in all my years one intelligent answer to the questions I have apart from what I stated. [/QUOTE]I dont know about 'mouthing off', but I will say that you still have not yet provided a shred of convincing evidence for your case....that is *IF* you are actually claiming that EVERY use of 'Jew' in the NT is entirely different in meaning than 'Israel'.Is that what you are claiming ?And Tim, YOU are the one with the theory.YOU have the burden of PROVING your theories to your peers.Its fairly absurd to demand that responses be given to your satisfaction when it seemingly is YOU that is trying to assert something .[quote]If nothing else, the lost tribes is an accepted historical fact prophesied many times in scripture. Bottom line, what do we want to do with them when God promised their continual existence? Do we sweep them under the rug and disgrace God by saying He does not keep his promises? Or do we believe what the bible says about them?[/QUOTE]Apparently you are, and have been, missing the point.*MY* point, again, is that 'Jew' does not necessarily mean 'only Judah' when it is used in the NT as you seem to be claiming.Do you post at christianforums.net ?If so, I think you and I have done this little dance before.Im 'Follower of Christ' over there.
  • 0

#15
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Very perplexing...

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Act 1:6-7 KJV)

Now, if Jesus told them to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel..

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(and we assume that this means that 'Israel' is out there in the world intermixing with the nations and THAT is who Jesus is supposedly telling them to go to)...what on earth is going on here if Israel is out lost in the world somewhere (assuming that 'Israel' is meant here as a distinct group from Judah as some claim)Shouldnt the question instead be is it be being restored to Judah or something ?I mean, is the kingdom going to be restored to those who obviously arent even present :confused:
  • 0

#16
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Heres what I think.I think 'lost sheep' here means SPIRITUALLY lost of Israel, not 'lost' as in 'cant find my car keys'

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat 10:5-6 KJV)

Just to toss up a bible scholar, since Im not one, to see if anyone agrees with my thoughts here.

Mat 10:6 - But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. To whom he himself was sent, Mat_15:24. By "the house of Israel" is meant the whole Jewish nation; for though this phrase, when distinguished from the house of Judah, designs only the ten tribes; yet here it intends all the Jews, then living in the land of Judea, among whom there were some of all the tribes: and by "the lost sheep" of this house, are meant either all the people of the Jews in general, who were wandering, and were lost in error and sin, and to whom the external ministry of the Gospel came; or rather the elect of God among them, for whose sake particularly the apostles were sent unto them. These are called "sheep", because they were chosen of God, and given to Christ to be redeemed, looked up, sought out, and saved by him; and "lost" ones, not only because lost in Adam, and by their own transgressions, so that neither they themselves, nor any mere creature, could save them from eternal ruin and destruction; but also, because they were made to go astray, and were lost through the negligence and errors of their pastors, the Scribes and Pharisees: and this character is the rather given of them, partly to reflect upon the characters of the shepherds of Israel: and partly to magnify the grace of God, in having regard to such ruined and miserable creatures; and also to excite the compassion and diligence of the apostles, to preach the Gospel to them: respect seems to be had to Jer_1:16.John Gill

I dont think it has a thing to do with their PHYSICALLY being lost, but instead is speaking about their being separated from God.
  • 0

#17
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
I want to clarify for anyone reading this thread that what Im disputing here ISNT the history of the Israel or its tribes, tho Tim seems to be trying to make it seem as tho I am....I am not arguing that point at all and frankly not even interested in it in the least in this discussion.What *I* am disputing is the usage of the words "Jews" and "Israel" in the NT and that these are often very generic terms for the Nation of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, and many times meant to be all inclusive of those descendants and not in regard to only some of the tribes as some seem to be asserting here.
  • 0

#18
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
Heres yet another passage where 'Israel' would tend to be used quite generically.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom 9:1-7 KJV)

Now Paul there calls these his brethren..kinsmen according to the flesh.But what tribes did Judah consist of and what tribe was Paul of ?Paul, in speaking to the Phillipians states very clearly that he is of the tribe of Benjamin.

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; (Php 3:1-5 KJV)

(this passage proves conclusively that Israel is used generically seeing that Benjamin was a tribe in the Kingdom of Judah)Yet Benjamin was part of the Kingdom of Judah.

The Kingdom of Judah was the nation formed from the territories of the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, and was named after Judah, son of Jacob (Israel).

So if "Israel" ONLY means the one kingdom and is NEVER meant generically, how is it that Paul speaks in Romans above about Israel as he does? Shouldnt he be using 'Judah' if he is talking about his kinsmen...*IF* the words ALWAYS mean one kingdom or the other and cannot be used generically ?Paul ALSO showing that he IS a "Jew";

Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

In one passage Paul clearly shows that it is the Israelite that is his 'kinsman' while in another showing himself a "Jew"...And yet one more clincher. Paul has just said above in no uncertain terms that he is a JEW.But look here...

I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. (2Co 11:21-22 KJV)

Paul IS an ISRAELITE by his own admission AND he IS a JEW by his own admissionhttp://studies.assem....php?f=30&t=164Im sorry, but I just do NOT agree with any assertion that 'Israel' or "Jew" in the NT cannot be a generic word that is just generally speaking about the descendants of Jacob..."Israel".
  • 0

#19
RichardBurger

RichardBurger

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
(FoC;51459)
I want to clarify for anyone reading this thread that what Im disputing here ISNT the history of the Israel or its tribes, tho Tim seems to be trying to make it seem as tho I am....I am not arguing that point at all and frankly not even interested in it in the least in this discussion.What *I* am disputing is the usage of the words "Jews" and "Israel" in the NT and that these are often very generic terms for the Nation of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, and many times meant to be all inclusive of those descendants and not in regard to only some of the tribes as some seem to be asserting here.
You have it right. The Jews were called Israelites before the nation split. I think this line of discussion is pointless and should not be on this thread. It only puts up a smoke screen that hides the subject of this thread Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#20
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
Hey FoC:Tone down a bit lad. Anyone who has to rapid fire several posts at a time must be too hot under the collar.My two questions has everything to do with Judah and Israel and what we are talking about for the NT draws off of the OT.And as is oftentimes the case I find with experience, you did not answer my questions, and certainly do not know what the birthright is, of critical importance in the bible. How can you play the game of chess when you only understand what the pieces look like but do not understand that the object is to catch the king? That's exactly what you are doing as you are not speaking from knowledge and maneuvering around scripture and rattling it off without understanding the background and purpose.Here's a thread I started about the birthright and I explain it:I'm hungry: sell me your birthrightAnd the promises involving the purpose of them go to Israel. And as a clue, the way the world is blessed today is thru Christ and Christianity if we are talking spiritually.
  • 0

#21
RichardBurger

RichardBurger

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
(tim_from_pa;51477)
Hey FoC:Tone down a bit lad. Anyone who has to rapid fire several posts at a time must be too hot under the collar.My two questions has everything to do with Judah and Israel and what we are talking about for the NT draws off of the OT.And as is oftentimes the case I find with experience, you did not answer my questions, and certainly do not know what the birthright is, of critical importance in the bible. How can you play the game of chess when you only understand what the pieces look like but do not understand that the object is to catch the king? That's exactly what you are doing as you are not speaking from knowledge and maneuvering around scripture and rattling it off without understanding the background and purpose.Here's a thread I started about the birthright and I explain it:I'm hungry: sell me your birthrightAnd the promises involving the purpose of them go to Israel. And as a clue, the way the world is blessed today is thru Christ and Christianity if we are talking spiritually.
Tim, please start your own thread about your subject. This thread is not the place for it and it clouds the issue of this thread, which is that Jesus did not come to minister to the Gentles.Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#22
Elias

Elias

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
What do learn from this Richard????The Lord said, "Most assuredly I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (Jn 10:1), "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out, and find pasture" (Jn 10:9). "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn 14:6). "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5).
  • 0

#23
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
(tim_from_pa;51477)
Hey FoC:Tone down a bit lad. Anyone who has to rapid fire several posts at a time must be too hot under the collar.
Now that is funny. How about lets not read emotion INTO my post, ok....THAT is what causes problemsMultiple posts have nothing to do with emotional state. It is solely about my spending time finding different passages to prove my stance. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
My two questions has everything to do with Judah and Israel and what we are talking about for the NT draws off of the OT.And as is oftentimes the case I find with experience, you did not answer my questions, and certainly do not know what the birthright is, of critical importance in the bible. How can you play the game of chess when you only understand what the pieces look like but do not understand that the object is to catch the king? That's exactly what you are doing as you are not speaking from knowledge and maneuvering around scripture and rattling it off without understanding the background and purpose.
No, what I am doing is speaking with knowledge of the fact that Paul calls himself 'Jew' in the NT and also 'Israelite' in the NT thereby destroying any erroneous claim that "jew" must have some meaning that is not synonymous with 'Israelite'.Both CAN be the same thing in the NT or Paul would pretty much be a liar.When we see "Jew" in the NT it does not necessary mean 'of the house of Judah"When we see "Israel", "Israelite: or "house of Israel" in the NT it does not necessarily mean "not of the house of Judah" and if it did we have a huge problem with Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin yet calling Israel his brethren.You may not like it, Tim, but Ive proven the point *I* was making fairly conclusively style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
Here's a thread I started about the birthright and I explain it:I'm hungry: sell me your birthrightAnd the promises involving the purpose of them go to Israel. And as a clue, the way the world is blessed today is thru Christ and Christianity if we are talking spiritually.
Interesting.All this and none of it actually refutes what Ive claimed which is that when we see 'Jew' or 'Israel' in the NT it does NOT necessarily mean 'kingdom of Judah' versus 'kingdom of Israel'And *IF* that were the case then Pauls claiming to be both make no sense.I have already stated that Im not interested in the least in the history of Israel in this thread.My ONLY purpose, yet again, is in showing that 'Jew' is many times in the NT speaking generically about the descendants of Jacob, not specifically the house of Judah and in that I believe I have given conclusive evidence to back that point style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#24
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
(RichardBurger;51475)
You have it right. The Jews were called Israelites before the nation split. I think this line of discussion is pointless and should not be on this thread. It only puts up a smoke screen that hides the subject of this thread Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
Well, Im specifically responding to the point that 'other sheep' means 'house of Israel' and not the gentiles.If Jesus' words 'other sheep' there mean the gentiles, and we then see him actually helping out a gentile or two, it does seem to fit within the topic of "Did Jesus come to minister to the gentiles'...kwim ?Ill take a look at the OP again, tho style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#25
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
(RichardBurger;51404)
From the post, “AN OVERVIEW OF THE BIBLE.”Most Theology and doctrines say that Jesus came to the Gentiles Too, not just to the Jews. But what does Jesus say in the Bible?Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles. The following scriptures support my view.Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."And Paul said:Rom 15:8 (NKJ)8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, NOT to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. His plan was to save the Gentiles and all that would place their faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of His Son, Jesus on the cross. This purpose was hidden in God and revealed to Paul.Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
Jesus not coming TO anyone but the house of Israel was because prophecy REQUIRED that He come to His own to be rejected by them so that that same gospel could be offered to the gentile nations.When Jesus said He only came to Israel, His intent by no means is to say that there are two different gospels, one for the Jew, the other for the gentile.Under His new covenant we are both 'one NEW man', Jews and Gentiles, and BOTH must be grafted into the olive tree....the Jew being the natural branch since that is their original state, while the gentiles who did not know God previously are more like wild branches being grafted in.After His death on the cross and the ratification of this new covenant BOTH Jew(the nation of Israel) and Gentile MUST be grafted into the olive tree equally.No one gets a free ride under this covenant by birth, but it is ONLY thru faith in Jesus Christ.

If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (Rom 11:14-24 KJV)Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Eph 2:11-22 KJV)


  • 0

#26
tim_from_pa

tim_from_pa

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
FoC:The book Judah's Sceptre /Joseph's birthright explains what Paul was saying, too lengthy to elaborate on a whole book here. But it answers some of your questions regarding Paul differentiating between Judah and Israel. You'd have time to read it I assure you if you spent less time with all your lengthy posts saying something that you don't understand. The house of Israel as a whole did not reject the gospel, but were more open to it than the Jew. In other words, I am saying the actual house of Israel brought the gospel to the world and became the nations that sent out missionaries, founded bible societies and so forth. That the Jew did not do at least on a grand scale, and the Jews never became Gentile nations. BIG difference. (See my genealogy link in my signature as well).Richard:This has everything to do with Jesus, the church, and Gentiles. You just don't see it yet. Rather, you want to define things on your own terms and understanding instead of what God's word says. However, I agree with you that I won't say any more on this thread. You are correct that there are other threads this can be discussed. For the moment, I'm going to do something that will bear more fruit and be far more productive, like contributing to the poor and then teaching my cats how to do calculus. style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif (I was the actual model for this smiley icon style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
  • 0

#27
Jackie D

Jackie D

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts
(tim_from_pa;51501)
For the moment, I'm going to do something that will bear more fruit and be far more productive, like contributing to the poor and then teaching my cats how to do calculus. style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif (I was the actual model for this smiley icon style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
you go! :cool:
  • 0

#28
RichardBurger

RichardBurger

    Advanced Member

  • Account Disabled
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • LocationSoutheast USA
The point I am making is that since Jesus came only to the "lost sheep of Israel" He did not come to the Gentiles in the Gentile nations.If this is true then why does Theology base so many things on what Jesus said to the Jews and, to a large degree, ignore the mystery gospel that was hidden in God and revealed to him. Is it because they just can't see that there was a message to the Jews and another to the Gentiles?The RCC and the Protestant religion is based on the Apostles, which agreeded not to to go to the Gentiles. --- Most people will tell you that if they must choose whether to believe the 12 Apostles or Paul they will go with the 12.A close read of James will reveal that his book is NOT about God's grace shown on the cross. However, Paul's writings are all about grace.Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
  • 0

#29
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
(tim_from_pa;51501)
FoC:The book Judah's Sceptre /Joseph's birthright explains what Paul was saying, too lengthy to elaborate on a whole book here. But it answers some of your questions regarding Paul differentiating between Judah and Israel. You'd have time to read it I assure you if you spent less time with all your lengthy posts saying something that you don't understand. The house of Israel as a whole did not reject the gospel, but were more open to it than the Jew. In other words, I am saying the actual house of Israel brought the gospel to the world and became the nations that sent out missionaries, founded bible societies and so forth. That the Jew did not do at least on a grand scale, and the Jews never became Gentile nations. BIG difference. (See my genealogy link in my signature as well).
And as Ive said I dont care about all this.You have insinuated that 'Jew' means 'House of Judah' by default in the NT and I have proven that insinuation false.I think we are done on that particular issue.
  • 0

#30
FoC

FoC

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
(RichardBurger;51505)
The point I am making is that since Jesus came only to the "lost sheep of Israel" He did not come to the Gentiles in the Gentile nations.Richard style_emoticons/default/smile.gif
His not coming TO anyone but the Israel, again, is exactly what was to occur.He came TO His own, His own rejected Him AND His good news.The gospel was then given to the gentiles and that hardhearted part of Israel was blinded..what little truth they did have was taken from them and that part of Israel will remain as such until the fulness of the gentiles has come in.His not coming TO anyone but Israel at that point is only meant to show what prophecy does...it does NOT mean that His gospel...THE gospel....was not meant FOR the gentile nations who ARE NOW "one NEW man" (those who believe) along with the Jews who do not remain in unbelief.Pauls gospel is Christs gospel. And it is given to 'one NEW man'.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users