QUESTIONS concerning 1Cor.15 & 1Thes.4

[heyvavhey]

Just now, inchrist said:

Again how do you get replacement theology from engrafting theology?

 

Pretty simple. Your theology is usurping a promise made to the descendants of Jacob. Not a single gentile or christian has a reason to be at this reunification of the Tribes of Jacob, which is the point of the promise made. 

[heyvavhey]

Just now, inchrist said:

And i provided you scripture refuting you postion.

 

 

 

 

 

No you didn't !??

You provided debunked opinions and alternative definitions of what you think "Ephraim" might mean according to a metaphor applied unilaterally, but declared divinely inspired!

I disagree as soon as it starts becoming speculation, which means we parted quickly.

But feel free to keep trying for another metaphor that you think is equal to scripture. I'll keep reminding you that anyone can speculate. 

 

 

 

[heyvavhey]

Quote

 

The new covenant was to go out to the house of Ephraim...Christ came to do just that by stating he has come for the house of Ephraim.

The gospel did just that to go out to the house of ephraim.

God calls ephraim the first born

Scripture acknowledges Ephraim is the first born and assigns the church to the first born.

Your statement completely undermines the work of the Cross and Ephraim accepting the new covenant at this juncture.

You have no scriptual backing to deem otherwise.

Your doctrine is an apartheid breed heresy

 

 

That is an active imagination! There is so much error in that one paragraph that I can see this is going to take a while. 

Lets start with this one metaphor you've apparently confused as equal to scripture: The Cross and Ephraim have nothing to do with each other so I can't "undermine" either by accepting what the verses literally say about either.

Why do you feel it's necessary to make the verse have a hidden mysterious meaning? Is there some good reason why God is hiding what He meant to say, instead of accepting the plain language that He used?

 

 

 

 

[heyvavhey]

8 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Enlighing me with interpretation of this verse

The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

 

It means: The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah.

 

...and nothing else. Please show me where there's a Christian mentioned in that sentence.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by heyvavhey

[heyvavhey]

26 minutes ago, inchrist said:

One does not become a first born unless you accept Jesus Christ, unless you are in Christ

 

Really, every sentence you've just made is pure speculation but this one is the most egregious presumption in assigning any relevance to what was said to the people of Israel by God during their Babylonian captivity, and what was said about 700 years later in a letter to jews who had gentiles among them and had entered into the new covenant. 

 

When you can show when Ephraim "accepted Jesus Christ" I'll consider that any usage of the term "firstborn" can only mean "saved" (as defined by you?)

Otherwise, my position is that God means exactly what He (actually) says....and nothing else. 

 

If this amazing revelation He has given you is true, then why isn't it mentioned by any of the Apostles? Seems like this would be important, right? They could have told us but I don't see it. Which Prophet have you accepted as equal to them? 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by heyvavhey

[n2thelight]

"A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel" - (Luke 2:32)

 

It is generally taught in the Christian churches of America, that the world is divided into three main religious groups - Jews, Gentiles and Christians.

These religious groups teach that anyone who is not a Jew, must belong to one or the other of these remaining groups, and is either a Gentile or a Christian. The modern definition of a "gentile" as given in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary is: "relating to the nations at large, as distinguished from the Jews."

But here is something important you MUST know, if you are to understand the Bible. The word GENTILE is not used in any of the ancient manuscripts, simply because there was no such word in the Hebrew or Greek languages. The word GENTILE as used in our modern Bible versions, including the "much loved" King James Version, in the Old Testament, always comes from the Hebrew word "goy," (singular) and "goyim", (plural). It is translated five different ways in the Old Testament, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible; "goy or goyim (singular or plural)", a foreign NATION hence GENTILEGENTILE; (2) HEATHEN; (3) NATION, and (4) PEOPLE, or ANOTHER."

Notice that the Hebrew word "goy, or goyim," is NEVER translated to mean "non-Jew."

The word "goy" is found in the Old Testament some 557 times. Thirty times it has been translated GENTILE; eleven times as people; 142 times as heathen; 373 times as NATION, and one time as ANOTHR. But not once as "non-Jew."

Let's examine a few specific verses of Scripture in the Old Testament, using the word GENTILE in place of the word NATION, as used by the translators. It should be remembered that the word "goy" or "goyim" was used in every instance in the original Hebrew.

1) - (Genesis 12:2) - "I will make of thee (Abraham) a great GENTILE (nation.) Doesn't make much sense, does it?

2) - (Genesis 17:4, 5) - ". . . and thou (Abraham) shall be a father of many GENTILES (nations), neither shall thy name any more be called Abram; for a father of many GENTILES (nations) have I made thee."

3) - (Genesis 25:23) - "And the Lord said to her (Rebekah the wife of Isaac, the son of Abraham) two GENTILES(nations) are in your womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from your bowels; the one people  shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

4) - (Genesis 48:19) - ". . . And his seed (Abraham's descendants) shall become a multitude of GENTILES (nations)."

This kind of translation does not make much sense. But if you will look closely at your King James Version, you will find the translators used the Hebrew word "goy" as NATIONS in one place and as GENTILE in another. Could it be that they were influenced by the Church doctrine of their time, since the word GENTILE never appeared in earlier manuscripts? The King James Version, for instance was written because King James, disliked the footnotes of the Geneva Bible, which was the Bible of the Reformation fathers.

Now for comparison let us use these same verses as the modern translations would have us use them, with "non-Jew" in the place of "tribe or nation." This should be a clear indication of how the modern translators, beginning with the King James Version, changed the meaning of these verses:

1) - (Genesis 12:2) - "I will make of thee (Abraham a great non-Jew (nation)."

2) - (Genesis 17:4, 5) - ". . . And thou (Abraham) shall be father of many non-Jews . . . for a father of many non-Jews have I made thee." Let me remind you again, that the Hebrew word "goy or goyim", meaning "tribe or nation," is used every time in the original Hebrew.

3) - (Genesis 35:11) - "Two non-Jews are in thy (Rebekah's) womb."

4) - (Genesis 48:19) - "Thy seed (Abraham's) shall become a great multitude of non-Jews." (Of course this prediction is accurate.)

You can see, with a little effort, that the modern translators, using "goy" to mean GENTILE, with it's connotation of meaning "non-Jew" doesn't make very much sense. Yet this is the way most of our preachers translate it.

It is also interesting to a student of grammar, that the Hebrew word "goy" and the five words which are used to translate it into English are all "collective nouns, in Hebrew and as such cannot be used to refer to an individual. These words are HEATHEN; NATION; TRIBE; PEOPLE; or simply, ANOTHER. This means there can be no such individual as a GENTLE, yet I have heard Judeo-Christian preachers brag about how they are a "Gentile saved by grace. This is either intellectual stupidity or dishonesty, take your pick.

Now it is very possible that some who read this pamphlet may be one of those "brainwashed" Christians who will say: "But what you have told us is all from the Old Testament. We are New Testament Christians living in the age of grace and love, and in this age, the word GENTILE does refer to anyone who is not a Jew. My pastor said so!" So let's go to our Bible authority, Strong's Concordance and see how the word GENTILE is defined in New Testament Greek.

If you understand even a little concerning New Testament history, you know that it was written in Greek, not in Latin or English. As a result, we find the English word GENTILE, comes from the Greek word "ethnos," or on a very few occasions "Hellen." The word ETHNOS, which is the most frequent word used means: "race, i.e., tribe, specifically a non-Judean (notice not non-Jew, but non-Judean) tribe, by implication a heathen. Also translated GENTILE, HEATHEN, NATION, OR PEOPLE. No place does it mean "non-Jew."

In a few places where this word has been translated "Hellen", it means "A Hellen (Greek) or inhabitant of Hellas (Greece). A Greek speaking person, especially a non-Jew."

In the New Testament the word ETHNOS occurs 164 times, while the word HELLEN is used but 27 times. Yet in spite of its original meaning, the transiators of the King James Version, 1611, used ETHNOS, as GREEK 93 times; as HEATHEN 5 times; as NATIONS64 times and as PEOPLE, two times. The word HELLEN, as translated from the Greek is GREEK 20 times, and GENTILE 7 times.

Now take a close look at the word ETHNOS and see how it has been translated. Notice two things in particular: (1) The definition in Strong's contains the words: "a race, i.e., a tribe." (2) The words "non-Jew" are italicized which indicates that this is an improper use.

So once again, as we did in the Old Testament, let us look at a few verses and see how the word ETHNOS was used:

(1) - Luke 7:5 - "He (the Roman centurion) loveth our NATION (Ethnos) and hath built us a synagogue." Here the verse has been translated correctly to mean NATION, since the verse and its context refers to the Judean nation which was living in Galilee at this time. There should be no argument about how it is used here.

(2) - John 11:48, the Chief Priests and Pharisees are speaking: ". . . the Romans shall come and take away our place and our NATION" (Ethnos), again the word ETHNOS has been given its correct meaning. (But notice carefully now, it says absolutely nothing about "Jews, or non-Jews.") It also shows that the word ETHNOS can refer to both JEWISH and NON-JEWISH nations and peoples. It is never specifically used to mean a "non-Jew" and since it is again a "collective noun," it cannot be used to refer to an individual.

(3) - (Acts 24:17), Paul speaking: "I come to bring alms to my NATION (Ethnos)." He was speaking correctly of his Judean nation. (Note that he was a Roman by birth, see Acts 22:25-28). There is only one conclusion we can make and this is that the word ETHNOS, should never be translated to mean "non-Jew."

Let's look at an example of how the word HELLEN was translated to GENTILE in John 7:35. ". . . will He (Jesus) go to the dispersed among the GENTILES (the word HELLEN was used here), and teach the GENTILE (again HELLEN?)

Since the word HELLEN always refers to Greeks, why did the translators not say: "Will He go to the Greeks and teach the Greeks?" Can you see how translators by changing the original meaning of the word, bring confusion to Bible truths?

Many of our fundamental preachers teach only three classes of people on this earth: (1) Jews, (2) Gentiles, (3) Christians. This understanding comes from their interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:32, which says: "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, (here the word was HELLEN) nor to the church of God."

Who was Paul writing to? It was obviously the church at Corinth. Corinth was in Greece and three major classes of people lived there - Jews, Greeks, and Christians. If he had been writing to the church at Rome, he would have said: "Give no offense, either to the Judeans, or to the Romans, or to the Christians." To translate HELLEN here as GENTILE, is not only sloppy scholarship, it is downright mis-leading.

Pastor's love to use Paul's phrase: "to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles," and this has created a lot of theological confusion. In the first two chapters of Romans we find this phrase used three times. The Greek word HELLEN is translated GREEK in Romans 1:16 - ". . . to the Jew (Judean) first and also to the HELLEN (Greek)." But in Romans 2:9 and 10, where the same identical word is used, it has been translated GENTILE, which is incorrect and mis-leading.

If you will take time to do a bit of honest Bible study, and will read this verse in its context, you will see that Paul is simply stating: "The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation, coming first to the Judeans (Jews), then to the Greeks." It has no implication, as many preachers attempt to make it say, that the "Jews were first in the heart of God." It does not even imply that!

This verse is simply giving the sequence in which the Gospel was preached. First to the inhabitants of Judea, and we know that many of these were not Israelites since Jesus told the Pharisees in John 10:26 - "Ye believe not, because ye are NOT OF MY SHEEP." Then the gospel went to the Greeks in Asia Minor, who were members of the Israelite tribes in captivity, and lastly to the rest of the world.

To whom did Jesus send His disciples in Matt. 10:6. He told them "But go rather, (or go only) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He never said anything about going to the Jews, or even the Judeans. Although many pastors says this meant "lost Jews," this is not what it says, since the Greek word "lost," as used here is APPOLUMI. It comes from two root words, APO which means "to separate or put away," and OLLUMI, which means to "banish for punishment," exactly what had happened to the Israel nations when they went into Assyrian captivity.

At this time, the ten tribes had completely lost their identity as Israelites. They had been joined by the majority of the House of Judah, since only the inhabitants of Jerusalem had stood against the Assyrians, and they were later taken into captivity in Babylon. After Christ's ascension, when He had given His disciples the Great Commission found in Acts 1:6, they went West and North to areas populated by white people who were members of the "lost tribes of Israel." These had settled in Greece, Italy, Europe and Western Asia.

You may remember how when Paul wanted to take his missionary efforts into the mainland of Asia, (Acts 16:6) he was constrained by the Holy Spirit who sent him North and West. Why? Because it was here, in these areas, that the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" were to be found.

All the Epistles of the New Testament were written to these "lost sheep". Notice specifically the greeting of James n 1:1 - "James, a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greetings." The Book of Hebrews was written specifically to these "lost sheep." It was not written to those who were known as GENTILES, or to those who called themselves JEWS, but whom our risen Lord referred to as "those who say they are Jews, and are not; but are of the synagogue (meeting house) of Satan." (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). These people were Hebrews, Israelites to be more precise, to whom the promises of God had been given.

[heyvavhey]

1 hour ago, inchrist said:

You would expect common sense to previel here

 

 

Common sense would accept what God actually says. Nothing less and nothing more. 

Obviously there are many who want to be Israel so bad that they figure out a way. This particular version of it is no better than another. 

 

That ethnos stuff is flimsy. Ask any Jewish person what a gentile is. They aren't as confused about it as you apparently are. 

 

[heyvavhey]

6 hours ago, eileenhat said:

Excellent article.  The article goes on to explain the deception.

Favorite line from it "True Israel, for the most part - White, Anglo-Saxon and related peoples, certainly do not know that they are the people of the Book. Why? "Because God has given them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear." This verse in no way describes Jews, for they have boasted for centuries about their special status with God, while repudiating His Son. These are the liars of Rev. 2:9; 3:9."

 

 

This white supremacists interpretation is very similar to the 2House version. 

[heyvavhey]

1 minute ago, eileenhat said:

I am not that. And of course, calling someone that is against forum rules.

 

I didn't call you anything? I pointed out that this is the same interpretation that white supremecists use to reinterpret Israel as referring to  themselves. That's nothing new, it's been around for a century now.

But I never forced you to believe it. 

[n2thelight]

6 minutes ago, heyvavhey said:

 

This white supremacists interpretation is very similar to the 2House version. 

Just so you no even though it should'nt matter,Im black...