Gentiles

[NIGHTMARE]

After the death of Solomon, ......t....

Judah and benjamin and some of levi were south,,,,,,these are the Jews....

The other tribes went north these are what is refered to as the Lost tribes......

I am well aware of the entire story of the 2 kingdoms - I have read 1 Kings and 2 Kings at least twice in the last three years. So I know all about the two kingdoms.

You are not engaging the actual content of my arguments. Paul, for example, uses the term "Jew" in a manner that forces us to conclude that he is talking about all 12 tribes. Romans 3:1 makes this case all by itself.

Can you provide any scriptural evidence that the term "Jew" was used to refer to only the members of the southern kingdom?

Hi Drew,

Jews are of Jew-dah. They are the house of Judah. (Judah and Benjamin). The larger portion of Israel is the house of Israel (10 northern tribes.) All twelve are Israel but only the house of Judah are Jews.

• * Ezekiel 37:11 Then He said unto me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost:
  
  37:16-17 "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: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
  
  37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

The house of Israel never returned from captivity so Paul was not referring to them. Consider too that Jew can mean of the tribes or simply be a resident of Judea.

I gonna bump this for ya drew...

 

[Drew]

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Who is the "they" of verse 2? Those who have been entrusted with the words of God. Who was entrusted with the words of God? Clearly those who were at Sinai and were given the Law. Who are these? They are the 12 tribes - the Jews, the circumcised.

 

[Drew]

I gonna bump this for ya drew...

I have already fully addressed this.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Who is the "they" of verse 2? Those who have been entrusted with the words of God. Who was entrusted with the words of God? Clearly those who were at Sinai and were given the Law. Who are these? They are the 12 tribes - the Jews, the circumcised.

I got ya ,,,,,all twelve tribes were not trusted with the words ,,,only one was.....

Deuteronomy 33:8 "And of Levi he said, "Let Thy Thummim and Thy Urim be with Thy holy one, Whom Thou didst prove at Massah, And with whom Thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah." "

Exodus 28:30 "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually."

It was the Job of the Levites,,,you dop know that the levites did not obtain a land inheritance becasue they were the priest,,,,Again Judah,,,,Benjamin and some of the Levites,,,,,thats the Jews,,,,Like I said maybe you just need to go back a read the old testament.......Because all 12 tribes were not to be scribes.........

 

[NIGHTMARE]

I gonna bump this for ya drew...

I have already fully addressed this.

Yes but I wanted you to understand it,,,,because its much more credible to the account of what a Jew is than Romans 3:1

 

[whirlwind]

Jews are of Jew-dah. They are the house of Judah. (Judah and Benjamin). The larger portion of Israel is the house of Israel (10 northern tribes.) All twelve are Israel but only the house of Judah are Jews. [/b]

That may well be how you see it. But for reasons that I have already provided, this is not how Paul used the term "Jew".

Paul was himself a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was aware that the house of Israel was long gone and were termed...the house of Israel.

The house of Israel never returned from captivity so Paul was not referring to them. Consider too that Jew can mean of the tribes or simply be a resident of Judea.[/b]

This cannot be. In Romans 3:1 Paul uses the term "Jew" to denote anyone who is circumcized. Please refer to my previous post.

• * Romans 3:1-2 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.

Who knows if the house of Israel were still of the circumcized or not? They didn't follow many of God's laws and for that reason God scattered them. As you know, they were taken by the Assyrian two hundred years before the house of Judah was taken by the king of Babylon and they never returned.

The "oracles of God" were committed to Judah. The house of Judah had the temple. The temple held the ark.

 

[Bick]

I disagree with your theory, Nightmare. You make too much of "Gentile" in Gen. 10:5 in the KJV.

By far the better word should have been "nations." Here are the occurrences as translated from "goi":

Gentile......30 times
Heathen.....142 times
Nation.......373 times
People.......11 times
Another......1 time

Here are the words in some other versions:

NRSV "...the coastline peoples spread..."

Rotherham V "...were dispersed [the inhabitants of] the coastlines of the nations..."

Young's V. "...the isles of the nations been parted..."

NIV "...the maritime people spread..."

According to Deuteronomy 32:8, the inheiritance of the children of Israel was originally divided to the nations, who were the SONS OF ADAM.

Deu 32:8 "When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. "

 

[whirlwind]

I disagree with your theory, Nightmare. You make too much of "Gentile" in Gen. 10:5 in the KJV.

By far the better word should have been "nations." Here are the occurrences as translated from "goi":

Gentile......30 times
Heathen.....142 times
Nation.......373 times
People.......11 times
Another......1 time

Here are the words in some other versions:

NRSV "...the coastline peoples spread..."

Rotherham V "...were dispersed [the inhabitants of] the coastlines of the nations..."

Young's V. "...the isles of the nations been parted..."

NIV "...the maritime people spread..."

According to Deuteronomy 32:8, the inheiritance of the children of Israel was originally divided to the nations, who were the SONS OF ADAM.

Deu 32:8 "When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. "

The KJV reads differently and you need to read the preceeding verse for a more complete understanding....

• * 32:7-8 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father, and he will shew thee; Thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the MOST HIGH divided to the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bound of the People According to the number of the children of Israel.

In the beginning (days of old), the Most High placed the nations (Gentiles) in their lands. Then (separate group) He separated the Adamic line from the Gentiles by setting bounds. When nation is plural, nations, it is not about Israel but refers to Gentiles, the ethnos...ethnic nations.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

I disagree with your theory, Nightmare. You make too much of "Gentile" in Gen. 10:5 in the KJV.

By far the better word should have been "nations." Here are the occurrences as translated from "goi":

Gentile......30 times
Heathen.....142 times
Nation.......373 times
People.......11 times
Another......1 time

Here are the words in some other versions:

NRSV "...the coastline peoples spread..."

Rotherham V "...were dispersed [the inhabitants of] the coastlines of the nations..."

Young's V. "...the isles of the nations been parted..."

NIV "...the maritime people spread..."

According to Deuteronomy 32:8, the inheiritance of the children of Israel was originally divided to the nations, who were the SONS OF ADAM.

Deu 32:8 "When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. "

If you want to use "nations" thats fine because your really not changing much......

Gen. 10:5 By these were the isles (coastlands)of the Gentiles (nations)divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations........

What nations could these be????? just a short while ago there were only 8 people on earth correct?????

After there families????? :Isnt there only 1 family (Noahs family) around????

After there tongue????? are you telling me, 8 people got off a ark,,,, and in less then 300 years spread there language which changed and spread and formed new languages,,,,in under 300 years huh????

 

[handy]

Kudos to you, Drew. You're far more patient than I.

Just to clarify though, I don't drink coffee and I never stamp my feet. I genteelly sip Iced Tea, and when particularly provoked have been known to raise my voice, which may or may not translate into cyberspace as a SHOUT or a bold.

WHEN YOU GET A POST LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW YOU'VE SUCCEEDING IN GETTING MY IRISH UP!
I try not to do that too often though because it frightens the dog.

So, no, I didn't slam down coffee and stamp my feet. Amusing picture though. I can see why you laughed.

One thing before I bow out. If two people had just two children and no more than two children and those two children just had two children and no more than two children and this pattern was kept with just two children for each generation, by the end of 300 years, there would be 1024 people, plus all of the previous generations that hadn't died yet. Of course, the idea of men in a polygamous society that had no practical birth control the idea of having just two kids is pretty silly, Japheth himself had seven sons and who knows how many daughters. This is calculating a generation every 30 years. The idea that the sons of Noah could not have spread out into nations by the end of 300 years is so far-fetched, I wouldn't believe it unless I was trying to force facts into a preconceived idea.

Anyway, inhopeofglory, Drew and mondar, good luck with the conversation. I'm bowing out because for me (although perhaps not for you) this is a matter where 1 Timothy 1:4 is kicking in. At the very least, it seems a waste of time, and at the worst, the poor dog might get frightened.

 

[Bick]

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.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

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....

 

[whirlwind]

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.

• * Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant: and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
  
  7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Noah and his family weren't the only "man and woman of all flesh wherein was the breath of life," aboard the ark. They were the only ones with whom God established His covenant. They were the eight Adamic souls aboard the ark....but, there were others....the non-Adamic/Gentile/Nations. A male and female of each race.

 

[Drew]

You have already been showed what to read how about just we read it again and see if you get something different......

I have already read your 1 verse,,,,,,, I repeat your 1 little verse that your using trying to claim all of Israel is Jews,,,,,,how about going and reading from 1 kings to Christ cause thats
what I am claiming will tell you what a Jew is.......

Christ was a Jew right ?????? YUP ,,,DO you know what tribes he belongs to??????

Will you just think its a coinsedence if He comes from 2 of the 3 tribes that I have told you are the Jews?????

I am sorry, but your reasoning simply is not correct.

I have never denied that the term "Jew" has one definition that relates to membership in the tribe of Judah, or perhaps more broadly denoting membership in one of the 2 or 3 tribes of the southern kingdom. And no doubt, the term is used that way in some contexts.

My argument was about how Paul uses the term. And I have shown, and no one has countered my arguments, that Paul uses the term in a manner that denotes any member of the 12 tribes (+possibly proselytes).

I trust that we all realize that terms like “Jew†can have multiple uses. Consider the term “New Yorkerâ€Â. Does it refer to a resident of New York City? Or can it refer to a person who is a resident of the state of New York? Clearly, there are 2 definitions. Your argument would not allow this.

So showing us one definition of the term “Jew†does not mean that it this is the definition that is always used. And in the case of Paul, there is no doubt – he uses the term to denote any person under the Torah or, equivalently, anyone marked with circumcision.

When Paul writes this:

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

….is he referring to residents of Judea (or members of only Judah, Benjamin, or Levi)? Of course not. He has to be referring to any member of the 12 tribes.

There are at least 2 reasons for this:

1. The equivalence he sets up between the term “Jew†and being circumcised – clearly it is not only people in the southern kingdom who were circumcised.

2. The reference to the Jew being entrusted with the words of God. What is Paul referring to? Obviously the Torah – it is the Law of Moses that comprise the words of God. Who was given the Law of Moses? Only the 2-3 tribes of the southern kingdom? Of course not! The Torah was given to all 12 tribes

Paul uses the term “Jew†to denote any member of the 12 tribes – anyone who is circumcised and under Torah.

Any argument about “Old Testament definition†do not work for precisely the reason that the same word can have multiple definitions and uses. Consider the term “Israelâ€Â. Sometimes it is used to denote the northern kingdom (the 10 tribes). But how is Jesus using it here?:

And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I trust the point is clear.

 

[Drew]

Paul was himself a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was aware that the house of Israel was long gone and were termed...the house of Israel.

As per my previous post, you cannot simply assume that Paul uses the term "Jew" to refer to members of the southern kingdom, simply because that was one legitimate definition available to him. The answer lies in the context. And as I have already argued at some detail, Paul uses the term "Jew" in such a manner that makes it clear that he is referring to all 12 tribes.

The "oracles of God" were committed to Judah. The house of Judah had the temple. The temple held the ark. [/b]

No. The "oracles of God" is a reference to the Torah. And that was delivered to all 12 tribes at Mount Sinai.

Note the following definition for the word “oracles†(from the NET Bible):

1) a brief utterance, a divine oracle (doubtless because oracles
were generally brief)
1a) in the NT, the words or utterances of God
1b) of the contents of the Mosaic law

Note this usage from Acts 7:

This is the man who was in the congregation 1 in the wilderness 2 with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, 3 and he 4 received living oracles 5 to give to you. 6

Clearly, a reference to the Torah- the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

 

[whirlwind]

Paul was himself a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was aware that the house of Israel was long gone and were termed...the house of Israel.

As per my previous post, you cannot simply assume that Paul uses the term "Jew" to refer to members of the southern kingdom, simply because that was one legitimate definition available to him. The answer lies in the context. And as I have already argued at some detail, Paul uses the term "Jew" in such a manner that makes it clear that he is referring to all 12 tribes.

The "oracles of God" were committed to Judah. The house of Judah had the temple. The temple held the ark. [/b]

No. The "oracles of God" is a reference to the Torah. And that was delivered to all 12 tribes at Mount Sinai.

Note the following definition for the word “oracles†(from the NET Bible):

1) a brief utterance, a divine oracle (doubtless because oracles
were generally brief)
1a) in the NT, the words or utterances of God
1b) of the contents of the Mosaic law

Note this usage from Acts 7:

This is the man who was in the congregation 1 in the wilderness 2 with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, 3 and he 4 received living oracles 5 to give to you. 6

Clearly, a reference to the Torah- the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

I see what you are saying. When first seeing "oracles" I thought of the literal Torah in the temple. I needed to see the spirit of the verse....

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

That Word, or Oracles....(the words or utterances of God), "were committed" to "the Jew." He was of the tribe of Judah....the Oracles (Jesus) was committed to the Jew (the tribe of Judah).

So when we read.....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, [Romans 3:1-2] we can understand that the Jew being of that same tribe, being of circumcision, profits nothing for.....

• * John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

[Drew]

That Word, or Oracles....(the words or utterances of God), "were committed" to "the Jew." He was of the tribe of Judah....the Oracles (Jesus) was committed to the Jew (the tribe of Judah).

No. You are saying that the oracles were committed to Jesus. This is clearly not what Paul is saying. Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles , not Jesus, in the first part of Romans 3.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

That Word, or Oracles....(the words or utterances of God), "were committed" to "the Jew." He was of the tribe of Judah....the Oracles (Jesus) was committed to the Jew (the tribe of Judah).

No. You are saying that the oracles were committed to Jesus. This is clearly not what Paul is saying. Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles , not Jesus, in the first part of Romans 3.

I still the the problem is simple,,,,I dont think you have read the scriptures,,,,and if you have read them it seems like you just clanced over them with follow the story.......It sounds like you do what most christians do,,,,,read alot of the new testament,,,but never read the old test and come up with these Ideas of who and where people are.......But the old test tells you exactlly......

DO you understand any of whats going on here???????????

I Kings 12:14 "And [Rehoboam] spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, "My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chasetise you with scorpions." "
I Kings 12:15 "Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the People; for the cause was from the Lord, that He might perform His saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat."
I Kings 12:16 "So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David." So Israel departed unto their tents."
I Kings 12:17 "But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them."
I Kings 12:18 "Then king Rehoboam set Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem
I Kings 12:19 "So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day."

I Kings 12:22 "But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, "

I Kings 12:23 " "Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the People, saying,"
I Kings 12:24 "`Thus saith the Lord, "Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me.' They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord, and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord

Ok now do you see wht is happening here????? Israel has split.....It has now been divided into two
houses,,,,,the house of Judah and the house of Israel........

Do you understand that they split????????? YOu really seem to be like most christians that dont know the difference ,,,,and say things like Israel =Jews ,,Im sure WW has already explained this to you but,,,Israel was scattered about 745-722 B.C by the Assyrians, went north over the mountains and settled in the americas.....

Then later Nebuchadnezzar took the house of Judah into Babylon.......... When they come out of capitvity then they will be known as Jews...... :yes

So what are you doing?????Your going directly against the word of God because your saying there is no split,,,and all Israel are Jews.,...... :naughty

 

[whirlwind]

That Word, or Oracles....(the words or utterances of God), "were committed" to "the Jew." He was of the tribe of Judah....the Oracles (Jesus) was committed to the Jew (the tribe of Judah).

No. You are saying that the oracles were committed to Jesus. This is clearly not what Paul is saying. Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles , not Jesus, in the first part of Romans 3.

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.

 

[Drew]

DO you understand any of whats going on here???????????

Your arguments do not work in the light of how both Jesus and Paul use the relevant terminology.

We have been through this before. I have never denied that the word “Jew†can be used, in some contexts, to refer to a member of the southern kingdom. And I have never denied that the term “Israel†can, in some contexts refer to the northern kingdom.

But we know from the way that Paul uses the term “Jewâ€Â, he is referring to all 12 tribes. You seem to think that there some kind of “rule†that each term should have a single unambiguous definition. That is not how language works. I pointed this out earlier with the “New Yorker†example. It does no good to hop and down and insist that the term must denote a resident of New York city, when it is otherwise clear that the term can also refer to any resident of New York State.

And this is precisely what is going on here – both the term “Jew†and the term “Israel†do not have single meanings. I have already shown how Paul uses the term “Jew†to denote any member of the 12 tribes. You have ignored those arguments and insist on making your point by an appeal to definition. Well, that appeal will not work- words can have multiple meanings. Consider how Jesus uses the word “Israel†in the following:

And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel

Now please tell me, if “Israel†always denotes the 10 lost tribes, has our Lord made a mistake? Of course He hasn’t. He is using the term “Israel†to denote all descendents of Jacob.

And, of course, the same reasoning applies in respect to the word “Jewâ€Â. It may well be that the members of the southern kingdom were called Jews. That is entirely beside the point – Paul uses the term to denote members of all 12 tribes.