Search results

I don't think that's what happened. I think most of the older material came to Moses from his father-in-law: 1) Moses married the daughter of Jethro, the High Priest in Midian. (Exo 3:1) 2) Jethro's descendants were a clan of scribes. (1Chr 2:55) 3) Jethro was a descendant of Esau. (Jud 1:16 +...

Source?

There's a lot that could be said... or at least re-capitulated. Scholarship has been analyzing and critiquing the Pentateuch for about 3 centuries now, and there are multiple theories about the authorship of these books. But let's lay all that aside, and just look at what it says within the...

I don't think so. In the gospels, I think you will find that Jesus avoided going to Judea for the most part, and only traveled there to keep the Jewish feasts. Even when He did that, He took measures to keep people from knowing that He was going there. And when He got there, He didn't stay in...

@Rella A lot of that article is fine, but there really isn't any place where that phrase refers to Jews. Speaking to actual Jews, Jesus said: I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for...

When Solomon died Israel split into two nations. The nation in the south was the House of Judah, and includes the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and most of Levi. Its capital is Jerusalem. These people are commonly called Jews. The nation in the north was called the House of Israel, and...

And who are the lost sheep? Not the Jews.

Sorry if I made you uncomfortable. Honestly that doesn't seem very controversial. o_O

Moses probably didn't write Genesis. Genesis doesn't say he did. Actually, Genesis seems to be a compilation of works. We can even separate them, because they have headings "these are the generations of _____."

The House of Israel is not the Jews (they are the House of Judah). The House of Israel is the northern kingdom - the one the Assyrians destroyed. At the time Jesus said that, the House of Israel hadn't existed for hundreds of years. He made it exist again by adopting Gentiles to create it...

I think that's more of a tradition than Scripture. It seems to originate with Philo of Alexandria in the 1st century. Deuteronomy claims internally to have been at least partly written by Moses.

Yes. I think you are looking backwards in time to the period of Abraham? Yeah, it's not there. It's later. So, the Assyrians came and destroyed the "House of Israel" - the northern half of the country - in the 8th century BC. But the prophets go right on prophesying about the House of...

Yes. Grafted. Adopted. Same thing. Yes, but we need a word for that group. Israel is the word the Bible uses, so...

No? at least not in the way I think you're asking. But in one sense, all of Christianity is an extension of Israel. Abraham's children are those who believe like Abraham. (Rom 4, Jas 3)

I see it like this... (a) God has sovereignly ordained that one man (Abraham) and his descendants shall be saved. (Rom 11:26) (b) As part of that covenant, God has declared that Abraham shall be made a "father of Gentiles." (Gen 17:4) If some Gentiles go out and join themselves to Israel via...

As I see it, God has provided salvation only for one group - Israel. But He has provided the means for anyone to become adopted in that group. The opportunity is there for the taking. Not everyone will take it. Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of...

No. Anselm was wrong. The satisfaction theory is a late-comer - part of Church Tradition, as I defined it in that other topic. ;)

There's a difference between someone prophesying, and someone being a Prophet. Anyone might prophesy on some occasion if God grants it - even a non-believer (Matt 7). Or a donkey. Chkl: I cannot think of a single person I've ever encountered - or even heard of living in my lifetime - who...

You're not wrong! A little speculation is just fine... provided we keep in mind that we are speculating, and don't get too dogmatic about it. ;)

Older is better. I bristle at the term Church Tradition, which to me denotes things in the church which were NOT original to the New-Testament-era church; things added later by emperors and popes and doctors-of-the-church, and by reformers and philosophers. The phrase "strict adherence to...