Gentiles

[Drew]

No Drew, I'm not saying "the oracles were committed to Him." I am saying He IS the Oracles. He IS the Word. He, the Word/Oracles, was born (committed to) the tribe of Judah.

But the first part of Romans 3 is not even talking about Jesus. As you will see if you read on, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles in the first part. And the "oracles" is a reference to the Torah, given to the 12 tribes at Sinai. Thus Paul concludes asks this question:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles and the fact that they are both equally lost.

He is not talking about Jesus yet. The treatment of Jesus begins in vers 21 and following.

 

[Drew]

...Israel was scattered about 745-722 B.C by the Assyrians, went north over the mountains and settled in the americas.....

I would be interested in any specific evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that the 10 tribes wound up in America.

 

[whirlwind]

No Drew, I'm not saying "the oracles were committed to Him." I am saying He IS the Oracles. He IS the Word. He, the Word/Oracles, was born (committed to) the tribe of Judah.

But the first part of Romans 3 is not even talking about Jesus. As you will see if you read on, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles in the first part. And the "oracles" is a reference to the Torah, given to the 12 tribes at Sinai. Thus Paul concludes asks this question:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles and the fact that they are both equally lost.

He is not talking about Jesus yet. The treatment of Jesus begins in vers 21 and following.

I must disagree with that Drew. The oracles, which I agree is the Torah, is also the Word and the Word is Jesus, as you yourself demonstrated with the description you provided. And, it was given to all the tribes as well as to the world but that isn't what is being discussed in Romans 3. The Son of God/Word/Torah/Oracles/ were committed to them...the Jews. He was born of the tribe of Judah/Jews.


And too, the first part of Romans 3 is about Jesus...

• * 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

What were they to believe in? In Jesus, the Oracles that were committed to them...the Jews! :yes

The Jews and Gentiles are lost without the Oracles, The Word....Jesus, just as the house of Israel is lost without Him.

 

[Drew]

We need to understant the fluidity of terms. It is simply not correct reasoning to say that term "X" is defined in some circumstance as having a meaning "M1", and therefore all other uses of the term must have the meaning M1.

Consider the term "rough riders". The "Rough Riders" was the name bestowed on the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, one of three such regiments raised in 1898 for the Spanish-American War. Fair enough.

But there is a professional football team named "Rough Riders" here in Canada. So if you read this in the paper:

"The Rough Riders lost 31-29 on the final play of the game"

.....would it be sensible to insist on the primacy of the regimental definition and draw a conclusion that these 19th century American soldiers were playing football? Of course not.

Same with terms like "Israel" and "Jew". They have multiple definitions and context must be used to figure out which definition is being used.

 

[Drew]

I must disagree with that Drew. The oracles, which I agree is the Torah, is also the Word and the Word is Jesus, as you yourself demonstrated with the description you provided.

Not correct reasoning. The fact that the phrase "the word" is sometimes used to denote Jesus, does not mean that it is always used to denote Jesus. And in Romans 3, verses 1-20, Jesus is nowhere in sight. The word "oracles" here refers to the Torah, just as in the usage from Acts;

This is the man who was in the congregatio in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you.

Was Jesus given at Mount Sinai? Obviously not. So we cannot simply take the word "oracle" to denote Jesus just becuase "oracle" means "word".

[And too, the first part of Romans 3 is about Jesus...

• * 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Paul is not talking about the Jews not believing in Jesus, he is talking about the Jews not having faith in the covenant God. He is making an historical argument here - showing how the Jew has not been faithful to the covenant.

 

[whirlwind]

We need to understant the fluidity of terms. It is simply not correct reasoning to say that term "X" is defined in some circumstance as having a meaning "M1", and therefore all other uses of the term must have the meaning M1.

Consider the term "rough riders". The "Rough Riders" was the name bestowed on the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, one of three such regiments raised in 1898 for the Spanish-American War. Fair enough.

But there is a professional football team named "Rough Riders" here in Canada. So if you read this in the paper:

"The Rough Riders lost 31-29 on the final play of the game"

.....would it be sensible to insist on the primacy of the regimental definition and draw a conclusion that these 19th century American soldiers were playing football? Of course not.

Same with terms like "Israel" and "Jew". They have multiple definitions and context must be used to figure out which definition is being used.

The two houses are still split Drew. There is still a separation in the house of Judah and the house of Israel. It does make it more difficult when "Israel" refers to all twelve tribes while the "house of Israel" is about the ten tribes but....that's the way it is. Throw into the mix references to Ephraim, which often denotes the ten tribes as well as Jacob being all tribes. :crazy However the term Jew NEVER refers to the house of Israel.

 

[Drew]

The two houses are still split Drew. There is still a separation in the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Please read my posts. Not only have I never denied this, I have repeatedly affirmed it. However, Paul still uses the word "Jew" to denote all twelve tribes.

However the term Jew NEVER refers to the house of Israel.

I have demonstrated otherwise, through a series of detailed arguments. You (and NIGHTMARE) have not engaged these arguments, and choose to stand by a clearly flawed principle that the word "Jew" can only mean one thing. Where do you get that rule? We know that Jesus used the term "Israel" to denote the 12 tribes, even though the term also can be used to refer to the 10 tribes. So why can't the word "Jew" also denote the 12 tribes. You really need to engage my specific arguments as to why Paul is only making sense if he is using the word "Jew" to denote all 12 tribes.

 

[Drew]

More evidence that Paul uses the term "Jew" to refer to all 12 tribes:

For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too?

What are the "works of the Law"? Clearly, they are the works of Torah - the Law of Moses. Paul is saying that since God is the god of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, righteousness cannot be based on following Torah, since only Jews follow Torah.

Who is it that follows Torah? Jews. Who is that follows Torah? The 12 tribes to which Torah was given at Mount Sinai.

 

[whirlwind]

I must disagree with that Drew. The oracles, which I agree is the Torah, is also the Word and the Word is Jesus, as you yourself demonstrated with the description you provided.

Not correct reasoning. The fact that the phrase "the word" is sometimes used to denote Jesus, does not mean that it is always used to denote Jesus. And in Romans 3, verses 1-20, Jesus is nowhere in sight. The word "oracles" here refers to the Torah, just as in the usage from Acts;

This is the man who was in the congregatio in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you.

Was Jesus given at Mount Sinai? Obviously not. So we cannot simply take the word "oracle" to denote Jesus just becuase "oracle" means "word".

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

[And too, the first part of Romans 3 is about Jesus...

• * 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Paul is not talking about the Jews not believing in Jesus, he is talking about the Jews not having faith in the covenant God. He is making an historical argument here - showing how the Jew has not been faithful to the covenant.

But he is talking about belief in Jesus...That was Paul's mission. Paul wrote about the "oracles of God," which is Jesus Christ and said....For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Was Paul there to make others believe as the Jews or as those that follow Christ?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

...Israel was scattered about 745-722 B.C by the Assyrians, went north over the mountains and settled in the americas.....

I would be interested in any specific evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that the 10 tribes wound up in America.

Thats why im trying to get you to read 1 kings and then once you see the split you can just simply track the houses,,,,,but yes the 10 tribes went north over the mountains and settled in the americas,,,,remember this has alot to do with pure ole history........

Ezekiel 34:5 "And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered."

Ezekiel 34:6 "My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, My flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them."

YO if you wanna we can track them but I say again,,,,,, alot of this is history,,,,,and I havent heard a scholar yet say the ten tribes didnt go north over the mountains,,,,The caucus mountains,,,hey you think thats where the name caucasians come from??????

 

[researcher]

Again, if you think there were 'Gentiles' who survived the flood beside Noah and his family, then what does it mean in Gen. 7:21-22 when in the NRSV we read?:

"And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth and all HUMAN BEINGS every thing on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died." Capitals mine.

I only use the kj version with study tools,,,,,I dont believe the flood was worlwide,,,but we would need to go back to Genesis 6 for me to explain why I believe this.......But if your up i am....

Probably a local flood. Yes. :o :P

 

[Drew]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Obviously incorrect reasoning as has already been shown. If the word "oracles" always denotes Jesus, then this verse:

This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you.

....means that Jesus Christ was given to the Jews in the wilderness. Please. The word "oracles" here can only denote the Torah - it is the Torah, not Jesus Christ, that was given to the people in the wilderness.

 

[Drew]

Thats why im trying to get you to read 1 kings and then once you see the split you can just simply track the houses,,,,,

I have read 1 and 2 Kings many times.

You are simply not engaging my arguments.

 

[whirlwind]

The two houses are still split Drew. There is still a separation in the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Please read my posts. Not only have I never denied this, I have repeatedly affirmed it. However, Paul still uses the word "Jew" to denote all twelve tribes.

However the term Jew NEVER refers to the house of Israel.

I have demonstrated otherwise, through a series of detailed arguments. You (and NIGHTMARE) have not engaged these arguments, and choose to stand by a clearly flawed principle that the word "Jew" can only mean one thing. Where do you get that rule? We know that Jesus used the term "Israel" to denote the 12 tribes, even though the term also can be used to refer to the 10 tribes. So why can't the word "Jew" also denote the 12 tribes. You really need to engage my specific arguments as to why Paul is only making sense if he is using the word "Jew" to denote all 12 tribes.

Paul doesn't use Jew for the twelve tribes. You are mistaken on this point. I didn't mean to say that there is only one use of Jew. I thought I wrote that it can also mean a resident of Judea. I would add...one of the Jewish faith, a convert, is also a Jew.

Israel doesn't refer to the ten tribes. They are the "house of Israel," not Israel. "Jew" cannot denote all the tribes because it is not taken from all tribes it is....Jew-dah, Judah - Jew.

Please repost your argument where you believe Paul is using Jew for all tribes. I thought that had been refuted already but perhaps I missed what you are speaking of.

 

[whirlwind]

More evidence that Paul uses the term "Jew" to refer to all 12 tribes:

For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too?

What are the "works of the Law"? Clearly, they are the works of Torah - the Law of Moses. Paul is saying that since God is the god of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, righteousness cannot be based on following Torah, since only Jews follow Torah.

Who is it that follows Torah? Jews. Who is that follows Torah? The 12 tribes to which Torah was given at Mount Sinai.

The Torah was given to all tribes. No one disputes that. I have added...It was given to the world. This in no way shows Paul is referencing all tribes when He uses the term Jew.

 

[Drew]

Paul doesn't use Jew for the twelve tribes. You are mistaken on this point.

I believe I am not mistaken. I have argued this point in many posts, not of which have been engaged successfully.

Here is yet another argument to add to the many already provided. Consider this from Romans 2:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.

Clearly, Paul sees the "Jew" as one who is circumcised. Who is circumcised?

All male members of the 12 tribes.

 

[Drew]

Whirlwind:

I do not think that you and agree on what constitutes a valid exegesis. I will not pursue this matter with you further. No hard feelings.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

The two houses are still split Drew. There is still a separation in the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Please read my posts. Not only have I never denied this, I have repeatedly affirmed it. However, Paul still uses the word "Jew" to denote all twelve tribes.

However the term Jew NEVER refers to the house of Israel.

I have demonstrated otherwise, through a series of detailed arguments. You (and NIGHTMARE) have not engaged these arguments, and choose to stand by a clearly flawed principle that the word "Jew" can only mean one thing. Where do you get that rule? We know that Jesus used the term "Israel" to denote the 12 tribes, even though the term also can be used to refer to the 10 tribes. So why can't the word "Jew" also denote the 12 tribes. You really need to engage my specific arguments as to why Paul is only making sense if he is using the word "Jew" to denote all 12 tribes.

But we are engaging directly in what you speek.........and the more you speek the more it becomes evident you have not read these things......

Ezekiel 37:16 "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"

DO you see???? Here in Exzkiel they are already split God hHmself makes that evident......

U have lolly gagged on one verse,,,you have basically made a doctrine out of it,,,dont you understand how silly your argument is?????? I mean come on,,,how many scriptures do you need showing your in err????? we place scripture after scripture in front of you and you go back to the same one verse that was never ever meant for anyone to conclude what a Jew is from it........

Drew,,,,you are expected to know and understand what a Jew is before you get to Romans.....I dont think you did......DO you even believe the house split at all?????????? All I can say is unless you want to go back to 1 kings and study then you will continue incorrectly render what a Jew is which will lead you to not understand things like this::::

9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

 

[Drew]

Hello NIGHTMARE:

We obviously do not agree on what constitutes valid argument. I will not pursue the matter with you futher. No hard feelings.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Hello NIGHTMARE:

We obviously do not agree on what constitutes valid argument. I will not pursue the matter with you futher. No hard feelings.

Indeed maybe later we can revisit and see if any new knowledge and undetanding has surfaced...