***
LOL, you make accusations against me and all the while it is you that will not believe what Jesus said in two places, He said He only came to those of the House of Israel. You make Jesus to be a liar when you will not believe Him.
Who is "Israel"? Did Paul ever write that he was a "Jew"? [cf Acts 21:39] For if he did, he was calling himself one of the House of Judah. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin.
At the split, we have the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The House of Israel reigned in Samaria. Sheds a different light upon the "Good Samaritan". Just as the ten that were cleansed, only the Samaritan appeared [cf Luk 17]. Which perhaps goes to show, that those who have been forgiven much, love much. In Matthew 10:5, Jesus specifically stated not to go to any city of the Samaritans. Just as Jesus said unto the Samaritan woman, you worship what you know not [cf John 4]. For salvation is of the "Jews", the "House of Judah".
It was not until Acts 1:8, that they were to witness in Samaria.
Under Hezekiah, some from Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun [from the House of Israel] came to Jerusalem [to the House of Judah] [cf 2 Chr 30:11]. By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, we have nothing indicative as to how many from any of the ten tribes were present or represented.
So if you wish to split hairs and get into a case of semantics over the "House of Judah" vs. the "House of Israel". That's fine. However overall Jesus did not go unto those of Samaria, which consisted in large part of those of the "House of Israel".
Paul writes, to the Jew first. Not those of the tribe of Judah, but of the House of Judah.
As for "accusations", you are welcome to bring them forth and I shall apologize for them.
However when I stated according to that which you wrote, basically Jesus taught "another" gospel, you clearly stated that was "correct" according to your perception(s). Thus, it is not really an accusation.
So call me a "liar" and say that I don't believe Jesus because I used the term the House of Judah rather than the House of Israel. But at least I don't excuse myself of listening or doing according to the words of Jesus, nor do I call His word "another" gospel. Remember ... as you have judged ... Oh, that's right, those words are "another" gospel, one that doesn't apply to you.
So, to give an example regarding the "House of Israel" and the "House of Judah", allow me to pose another question to you: In the year he was crucified, did Jesus eat the Passover, or was he the Passover? For it can not have been both, and thus, just as House of Israel vs. House of Judah is reflective of one's perception(s), knowledge and understanding, so also is the answer to my question.
I believe some people are brain dead when they refuse to connect the dots. In Acts 2 we see Peter preaching to the Jews. Some say it was to everyone. But covenant promises were only made to the Jews, not the Gentiles. ---- DOT #1
Yet, from the time of the Exodus, "Gentiles" were clearly allowed to be "grafted" in. And were "grafted" in. How many of those were present and a part of either the House of Israel or the House of Judah, we have no way of knowing. However, they like we, were grafted in. They, like we, can choose to bind ourselves to YHVH. To walk in His ways. The only difference being, our various "perceptions" as to what that actually is or means. Thus, why we have so many splintered groups.
<snip>