Eph. 2:8-9 parallel with Titus 3:5 on good works

[DHK]

You deny the Jews. Paul calls himself an Israelite even after he is saved.

--according to the flesh!

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

--according to the flesh
It doesn't matter what skin color I am. Are you prejudiced. Do you think like some others do that blacks will be excluded from heaven. I just read of someone who held to that belief. Paul was speaking of skin color, his ethnicity.

Why would you bring up Muslims? That is no argument for you.

Because you bring it up. Paul is saying it doesn't matter what color you are or who your grandfather is. He gave his ancestry. So what! That is not what gets you into heaven. Faith in Christ does.

A Jew does not have to give up their customs.

Then, by the same reasoning, a Muslim does not have to give up his.
Hindus do not have to give up theirs.

Why are you adding to what Paul said? Paul said, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law,” 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Paul was speaking about culture not religion.
He did not say he would become a Hindu to win the Hindus; a Muslim to win the Muslims: a Buddhist to win the Buddhist. Nor as some have put forth, using the same reasoning you are doing did Paul say:
a drug addict to win drug addicts, an alcoholic to win alcoholics, a gambler to win gamblers, etc. Paul did not countenance these things, and yet that is what you are doing with this Scripture as you pervert it.

Again, why would you say Paul said he became like a Muslim and converted to Islam?

Because that is the way you are interpreting that Scripture. Paul gave up Judaism.

You have no grounds for an argument. What you speak here has nothing to do with the truth.

It does but you conveniently ignore truth.

Paul says circumcision and uncircumcision means nothing. A person can follow the Jewish customs.

Read the Book of Hebrews. The entire book is a book which encourages Hebrew believers to look unto Christ and forsake ALL of their Hebrew customs. They had to make a choice. The author urges them to go on and live for Christ, for to go back would be devastating. It would mean they were never saved in the first place, but the author really doesn't believe that. They had gone through many trials, persecution, and it would be easier to just go back and not face persecution any longer. Instead the author compares all the BETTER things we have in Christ to the LESSER things of the OT system.

Paul even says that if the Jews do not persist in unbelief they can be grafted back in, and EASIER.

No he does not.

Romans 11:24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

This is prophecy. You have no understanding here.

No way am I speaking like a hyper Calvinist. You say such things to draw suspicion on me. Do not say things you hear me go against all the time. That is not a good debate tactic.

Stop with trying to pretend I sound like a Calvinist. Do not go that route with this debate when you were doing so much better than your usual name-calling etc. Why do you not answer my questions? I will ask it again: If you are not sorry for your sins, then why in the world would you come to Christ, and why would God give you His Spirit?

We do have a choice in the matter.

No, I have not explained that to you. If you do not understand what I said I will gladly explain more.

I know how I know for me personally, but not everyone has had the kind of experience that I have had. The scriptures tell us to examine ourselves. I would tell them to ask themselves if they still doubt God and Jesus exist. I would tell them to examine themselves to see if they have given up any sins. I would ask if they feel different towards sin in their mind and heart. Other things I would tell them to ask themselves.

Let me point out some things that you said that one would find confusing. I know you are not a Calvinist, but you said some things that one could read as coming from a Calvinist.

God who knows the heart gives the Holy Spirit to those He accepts.

This sounds like something a Calvinist would say.
God knows our hearts and he only gives the Spirit to the elect (those whom He accepts). Isn't that what the Calvinist believes?

First, He gives the Holy Spirit to all that come to Him. He doesn't reject anyone.
Second He accepts all who come to him; all who believe in him as Lord and Savior.
Third, there are no works involved. Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of works.
--Your statement does sound Calvinistic.

Here is another:
God knows those who love Him. We love God when we obey God. God does not even know you if you do not obey. Therefore, how did God save you if He did not know you yet?

You seem to be talking of the elect again.
There are some major mistakes here. God knows everyone, whether they love him or not. It doesn't matter whether I obey God or not; God loves me. God saved me on the basis of the shed blood of Christ, not on the basis of whether he knew me. He knew me before the foundation of the world. He knows all things. You are taking away from his omniscience.

And once again, God accepts those on the basis of their faith in Christ. Works cannot save. Being sorry for one's sins cannot save. Faith in Christ alone saves. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."

 

[Moriah]

Mt. 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

"TO HIM give ALL THE PROPHETS WITNES that whosoever believeth upon his name shall RECEIVE REMISSION OF SINS" - Acts 10:43

Are you trying to say now that the people of Nineveh believed in Jesus?

Do you want to call Christ a liar too! He said they would rise up in judgement against those who were rejecting Christ on judgment day! That means they were God's people!

Think about it carefully…why would Nineveh rise up in judgment against the Jews Jesus was speaking too? Think of why Jesus did not use another group of Jews. Jesus said Nineveh would rise up in judgment against those Jews who rejected Jesus BECAUSE the Jews were God’s children and did not obey, yet the Ninevehs who were NOT God’s children obeyed.

YOU are wrong and your theology is false and you preach and teach another gospel straight from hell.

Your fruits alone show you do not have truth.

Do you actually believe who she married and what she believed or did CHANGE HER BIRTH ETHNICITY???? Give us a break!

Jesus was a Jew. Ruth is the grandmother of David. Are you now claiming Jesus was not a Jew?
There were converts to Judaism.

This is one of the stupidist response ever posted on this forum!!!! What human being is not related to Adam blood? What human being after the flood is not related to Noah by blood?

What is stupid is that you think your ancestors are mentioned in the lineage from Noah to Jesus.

Noah’s three sons were responsible for the repopulating of the world after the flood. Noah had three sons; one named Shem. From Shem is whom the “promised seed of the woman” would come. Shem is the father of the Semitic line of descent, which included the Jews, Syrian, and Armeans, and others.

Do you think that is your lineage too?

Moriah do you believe Pauls' words when he said:

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

According to your bizzare logic then ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE JEWS because all human beings are "made of ONE BLOOD"! Give us a break!

You are the one who claims there is no difference from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and your Gentile ancestors.

“Rahab lived among the Jews. Those who lived among the Jews had to obey God.”
Do you honestly believe that your religion changes YOUR BIRTH ETHNICITY??? That is the foolishness that you are suggesting here!

This is the kind of absolute foolishness you are driven to defend your false doctrines and your perverted gospel of works.

Rahab lived among the Jews and obeyed God. There is a belief that Rahab married Salmon and was the mother of Boaz.
Ruth married into the Jewish line and married Boaz. Ruth is the great-grandmother of David. Do you think that makes Jesus a non-Jew since he had non-Jews, according to you, in his lineage? Of course not.

 

[Moriah]

Of course Rom.10:13 is in the NT, as is Acts 10:43, and 1Cor.15:1-4, all of which clearly spell out the gospel message which is for both Jew and Gentile alike. Salvation is through Christ alone without works. Ask Jesus in John 14:6.

You cannot grasp that is not before the New Testament.

That is not what he did in Acts 17:11.
That is not what any of his sermons were about. Read the Book of Acts.
What disturbed the people when he preached? Whenever he mentioned the Gentiles, the Jews got angry. Whenever he mentioned the Resurrection, the Gentiles got upset. "Covenants" had nothing to do with his preaching. If it did, show it through Scripture.

You have proved nothing by what you just said. Paul explained to Jews and Gentiles how Gentiles could now be included in salvation.

Acts 17:3-4 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
--Here it was the resurrection that was the turning point. It was at this point also that persecution began as well.

Acts 17:19-20 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
Acts 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
--Again, they heard him up to the resurrection, and then began to mock.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

And Paul giving his testimony:
Acts 22:21-23 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,
--He didn't preach covenants; he preached Christ.

You have no argument and what you say is senseless.

The Old Testament means Old Covenant. The New Testament means New Covenant. You have a Bible; it tells you about the Old Testament/Covenant and the New Testament/Covenant.

And he was. The gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews. The Jews rejected Christ. That has nothing to do with covenants, but with the gospel, the Christ whom they rejected.

For you to claim Paul did not explain about the Jews being God’s people and many were cut off to graft in the Gentiles through the blood Covenant of Jesus is boggling. Read Romans 11.

"This do in remembrance of me." That is not the Gospel. That is the beginning of the Lord's Supper. Where does this red herring come from?

Jesus is speaking of the blood Covenant.

Who taught the Gentiles about the Law. Who was their teacher. The Jews would not even enter their houses. It was against their (Rabbinical) law to come in contact with them. They were ignorant about Jewish law as they were ignorant about Christ.

You do not think the Gentiles knew the Jews were not allowed to associate with them. Let the Readers judge for themselves what is the correct thing to believe. They could believe your false teaching that the Gentiles knew nothing about the Jews and the law, and that the apostles never explained it; or, the reader can believe that many Gentiles knew about the Jews and the law, and that the apostle did explain how it was and now is with salvation.

No, you perverted Scripture that you have no idea what it means, and then you expect others to believe your perversion of Scripture.

“’After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord who does these things that have been known for ages.

The scriptures are clear that even the Gentiles know about the God of Abraham, for the Lord who does “these things” that have been known for ages.

So what? I can show you the gospel from the Book of Genesis. What does it matter what book I use, as long as the gospel is presented?

You said the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached in the Old Testament, as it is in the New Testament. You tried to use the Ethiopian reading the Book of Isaiah as an example. Philip had to explain about Jesus who HAD come, which is New Testament knowledge. You are shown you are wrong then you say,"So what" as if nothing happened. You were shown you were wrong.

The protoevangelium, or "first gospel" is in Genesis 3:15. Someone once said:
In the OT Christ is concealed;
In the NT Christ is revealed.
But Christ is in all the Bible, OT and NT, nevertheless. There is nothing stopping one from believing in Christ from the OT.

And your point is??

Jesus was not revealed until the New Testament.

The Jews gave up their religions as the pagans gave up theirs.

Gave up their religion you say. That is ridiculous. The Old Testament pointed to the Christ. Jesus fulfilled the laws. Romans 11:24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

You have no argument because you refuse to come to an understanding of this verse. Of course many things have been known for ages, like:
There is a God; He created the world; He dwells in the heavens not made with hands; and many other things. The heavens declare the glory of God.
But that is not the point of Acts 15. They were instructions given to silence the Judaizers who were saying (like you) that works were necessary for the gospel to save.

That is not true, I do not say that which you say I do. The Jews were trying to get them to be circumcised, that IS the works of the law we are not longer required to obey.

But it is only faith in Christ that saves. That message Paul was to take to the Gentiles and to condemn these Judaizers that had been following him. The matter had been settled now once and for all.
You have been taking this Scripture out of context because you don't understand it.

I understand the scriptures. It is always about believing and obeying.

No he cannot. There is one sacrifice. The sacrifices have stopped.

Here you go again saying something as if you have corrected me. Where did I say the Jews could continue sacrifices? Do you not even know that the Jews understood Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb of God?

The Jewish religion is over. It is wrong. Just as one cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time; one cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time.

The Jews can still observe special days, be circumcised, etc, as long as they were not trying to be justified by doing these things of the law.

Just like the Muslims are today. All who do not believe in Jesus are "cut off." They will end up in the Lake of Fire.

The Muslims were not ever a part of the cultivated olive tree, so how do you think they were cut off?

They WILL be saved. That has nothing to do with the first century or the present century, but only with the future.

Paul was speaking of the Jews at his time.

You can't pull a verse like that out of its context. The context is grace. Read verse 6.

The remnant of Jews who were chosen by grace.

 

[DHK]

You cannot grasp that is not before the New Testament.

Do you know what the title of this thread is:
Thread: Eph. 2:8-9 parallel with Titus 3:5 on good works
I am not concerned with salvation in the OT.
Both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way in the NT without the works of the law, without good works, without any works at all. That is the teaching of Eph.2:8,9 which you reject.

You have proved nothing by what you just said. Paul explained to Jews and Gentiles how Gentiles could now be included in salvation.

Gentiles have always been included in God's plan of salvation. Rahab the harlot was a Canaanite. She is in the ancestry of Jesus. So is Ruth the Moabitess in the the ancestry of Jesus. How did these pagan women get such a preeminent position to be right in the line of Christ. Not even you can claim that. God bestowed his love upon them, and granted them salvation. He also did so to an entire nation of cruel Ninevites, as they repented at the preaching of Jonah. OT Gentiles were loved and saved by God.

You have no argument and what you say is senseless.

The Old Testament means Old Covenant. The New Testament means New Covenant. You have a Bible; it tells you about the Old Testament/Covenant and the New Testament/Covenant.

Read the book of Acts. That is where you find Paul and Peter's sermons. They did not preach on covenants. They preached on the gospel, on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every sermon preached included the resurrection. Not one was on a covenant. A person is saved through the gospel not through a covenant. You have no argument here. You can preach all you want about Calvin, Berkhouf, Piper, Thiessen, Grudem, and any other theologian, and learn all about covenant theology if you so desire. But that is not what the Bible is about. The Bible centers around the gospel as I have previously shown you. People don't get saved through a covenant. They get saved through faith in Christ. Why are you putting your faith in men and covenants??

For you to claim Paul did not explain about the Jews being God’s people and many were cut off to graft in the Gentiles through the blood Covenant of Jesus is boggling. Read Romans 11.

I got it all right. You didn't. I will say it again.
The gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews. The Jews rejected Christ. That has nothing to do with covenants, but with the gospel, the Christ whom they rejected.

Romans 11 speaks prophetically of the Jews. Paul is explaining to the saints at Rome what will become of the Jews. My statements refer to the gospel, not to the theological soteriology that Paul references in the eschatological position of the nation of Israel as he teaches the saints in Rome. That has nothing to do with his preaching to the unsaved Jew, does it?

Jesus is speaking of the blood Covenant.

So what? Answer these questions:
1. Does a dispensation save?
2. Does a covenant save?
3. Does the gospel save?

Look at the title of this thread. What is it? Don't derail it by talking of covenants. It is the gospel that saves--faith in Christ: both in the OT and in the NT.

You do not think the Gentiles knew the Jews were not allowed to associate with them. Let the Readers judge for themselves what is the correct thing to believe.

Why don't you answer my questions instead of tooting your horn!
The Jews would not step foot in the house of a Gentile. Peter told the Lord that the Gentiles were unclean. He refused to go and enter their house. He refused to go and eat with them. In fact he refused to go and preach to them--until the Lord, through a vision convinced him otherwise.
Jesus, in his ministry, referred to the Gentiles, as "dogs." That was the Jews attitude toward the Gentiles.
Now I ask you again: What Jew would enter the household of the Gentile to teach them about the law?

They could believe your false teaching that the Gentiles knew nothing about the Jews and the law, and that the apostles never explained it; or, the reader can believe that many Gentiles knew about the Jews and the law, and that the apostle did explain how it was and now is with salvation.

The Gentiles knowledge of the law is irrelevant. They needed to know about Christ. Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian Eunuch.
Paul preached Christ, and Christ crucified to the Corinthians. He did not preach to them the law.

“’After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord who does these things that have been known for ages.

The scriptures are clear that even the Gentiles know about the God of Abraham, for the Lord who does “these things” that have been known for ages.

This is still future. It is speaking of the Millennial Kingdom. The Temple still is not built is it? And the Gentiles of the world live in ignorance.

You said the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached in the Old Testament, as it is in the New Testament. You tried to use the Ethiopian reading the Book of Isaiah as an example. Philip had to explain about Jesus who HAD come, which is New Testament knowledge. You are shown you are wrong then you say,"So what" as if nothing happened. You were shown you were wrong.

No, I am not wrong. The Ethiopian Eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading. His answer was, "How can I understand unless some man help me." Then Philip, preached from the same Scripture, Jesus.
An unsaved man doesn't have the Spirit to enlighten him. But a saved person can use any book of the Bible to show the unsaved "Jesus."

Jesus was not revealed until the New Testament.

He is revealed in every book of the Bible to those who understand the Bible, and thus can be explained to those who don't understand it. Many Jews have been shown Christ by using the book of Isaiah.

Gave up their religion you say. That is ridiculous. The Old Testament pointed to the Christ. Jesus fulfilled the laws. Romans 11:24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

It is the gospel that saves; faith in Christ and his atoning work that saves, and that alone. Why do you keep going back to prophetic passages in Romans that were teaching the saints in Rome about eschatology and the nation of Israel's role in the end times. That has nothing to do with their salvation or ours.
If the Jews are to be saved today, they must come to Christ in the same way that we do. That is by faith through Christ, the Christ that they rejected, and that means they must give up their religion.

I understand the scriptures. It is always about believing and obeying.

Salvation is always the same for both Jews and Gentiles. It is by faith in Christ, by faith and faith alone, not by works, not by the works of the law, not by good works, not by any kind of works. This you do not understand, but deny. Salvation is not by obeying but by grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--It is evident that works cannot exist in God's plan of salvation by this verse and by Eph.2:8,9. Thus the religion you preach is not the faith of the Bible.

Here you go again saying something as if you have corrected me. Where did I say the Jews could continue sacrifices? Do you not even know that the Jews understood Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb of God?

I must correct you over and over again. Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works--any kind of works.
For a Jew to become a Christian he must give up his religion: the works of the law, the sacrifices, the festivals, the feasts, the entire religion, of which you say he doesn't. He must give it all up.
Paul never attended another Day of Pentecost, another Day of Atonement, another Day of feasts, etc. He gave it all up.

The Jews can still observe special days, be circumcised, etc, as long as they were not trying to be justified by doing these things of the law.

Circumcision is not uniquely Jewish. Muslims do it. Some Christians do it. It is practiced according to culture and custom. WHO estimates that 30% of males world-wide are circumcised. Yet there are only 15 million Jews in world.
Christians don't observe Jewish festivals and feasts. Once a Jew becomes a Christian he remains a Christian and does not go back to celebrating those old religious feasts.

The Muslims were not ever a part of the cultivated olive tree, so how do you think they were cut off?

It makes not difference. Once a Muslim converts to Christianity he does not go back and celebrate the old Islamic feasts and festivals. Neither does the Jew. They now rejoice as a Christian rejoices.

Paul was speaking of the Jews at his time.

The remnant of Jews who were chosen by grace.

No he wasn't. He was speaking of God preserving a remnant. No time limit was given. God will still preserve a remnant. That remnant will be present when Christ comes again. Jesus said not to predict the time of His coming. Paul also knew of that instruction of Jesus. Do you count Paul a fool to disobey the command of Jesus? All Israel shall be saved, he said. When? When Christ comes again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you trying to say now that the people of Nineveh believed in Jesus?

Are you denying that Jonah was a prophet?

Are you denying Peter said that ALL PROPHETS preached faith in Christ for remission of sins - Acts 10:43

You have not and cannot honestly and candidly deal with the language of Acts 10:43. You must ignore it, contradict its wording and deny it.

Think about it carefully…why would Nineveh rise up in judgment against the Jews Jesus was speaking too? Think of why Jesus did not use another group of Jews. Jesus said Nineveh would rise up in judgment against those Jews who rejected Jesus BECAUSE the Jews were God’s children and did not obey, yet the Ninevehs who were NOT God’s children obeyed.

Spiritually all human beings are either children of God or children of Satan - no other kind of human exists any time and any where on earth. If you don't think so then answer this. Who on judgement day will be cast into the lake of fire?

Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Are you saying that Abel, Seth, Noah, Job and the Ninevites who did repent before God were not found written in the "book of life" on judgement day?

Jesus was a Jew. Ruth is the grandmother of David. Are you now claiming Jesus was not a Jew?

That does not make a MOABITE a child of Jacob and that is what you are claiming.

There were converts to Judaism.

Converting to a JEWISH RELIGION does not change their ETHNIC NATIONALITY. Do you think Sammy Davis junion ceased being negroid when he converted to judaism? Ruth did not cease being a Moabitess nor did Rahab did not cease being a Canaanite! But that is the imaginary world you live in.

What is stupid is that you think your ancestors are mentioned in the lineage from Noah to Jesus.

Do you even realize what you are saying? I don't think so! Let me wake you up to reality. If YOU did not come through NOAH then from what planet did you and your race originate from? If you did not come from Adam then what planet and race did you come from.

You are calling Paul a liar when he said ALL NATIONS are of ONE BLOOD! I will believe Paul.

Noah’s three sons were responsible for the repopulating of the world after the flood. Noah had three sons; one named Shem. From Shem is whom the “promised seed of the woman” would come. Shem is the father of the Semitic line of descent, which included the Jews, Syrian, and Armeans, and others.

Are you saying YOUR RACE did not come from one of Noah's sons which came from Noah which came from Adam???????? If not, what planet did your race come from? Did your race come from monkeys?

What drug are you on? All RACES and NATIONS come from "ONE BLOOD" the blood of Adam and there was NO JEWISH RACE prior to the twelve Sons of Jacob or "the children of Israel." All people prior to those Son's were the children of GENTILES = meaning NON-JEWS - NON-ISRAELITES.

Do you think that is your lineage too?

This question is so unbelievably stupid. Where do you think you came from as a human being? From monkeys? From another world of Aliens?

You are the one who claims there is no difference from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and your Gentile ancestors.

Unbelievable???? You do not even know what a "GENTILE" is!!!! It is a NON-ISRAELITE and there were no Israelites until Israel had children! All human being prior to Israelites and outside of Israelites are GENTILES!!!!!!!!!

Rahab lived among the Jews and obeyed God. There is a belief that Rahab married Salmon and was the mother of Boaz.
Ruth married into the Jewish line and married Boaz. Ruth is the great-grandmother of David. Do you think that makes Jesus a non-Jew since he had non-Jews, according to you, in his lineage? Of course not.

Being in the lineage of Jesus does not make Rahab a non-Canaanite. Being in the lineage of Jesus does not make Ruth a non-Moabite. They were born that way and they died that way. Changing RELIGIONS cannot change your birth origin and ethnicity any more than Sammy Davis Junior becoming Jewish changed his color from black to olive or Negroid to Semetic!

You are not qualified to teach anyone. You need to be taught the a,b,cs.

 

[Moriah]

Are you denying that Jonah was a prophet?

Are you denying Peter said that ALL PROPHETS preached faith in Christ for remission of sins - Acts 10:43

You have not and cannot honestly and candidly deal with the language of Acts 10:43. You must ignore it, contradict its wording and deny it.




Spiritually all human beings are either children of God or children of Satan - no other kind of human exists any time and any where on earth. If you don't think so then answer this. Who on judgement day will be cast into the lake of fire?

Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Are you saying that Abel, Seth, Noah, Job and the Ninevites who did repent before God were not found written in the "book of life" on judgement day?




That does not make a MOABITE a child of Jacob and that is what you are claiming.

Converting to a JEWISH RELIGION does not change their ETHNIC NATIONALITY. Do you think Sammy Davis junion ceased being negroid when he converted to judaism? Ruth did not cease being a Moabitess nor did Rahab did not cease being a Canaanite! But that is the imaginary world you live in.




Do you even realize what you are saying? I don't think so! Let me wake you up to reality. If YOU did not come through NOAH then from what planet did you and your race originate from? If you did not come from Adam then what planet and race did you come from.

You are calling Paul a liar when he said ALL NATIONS are of ONE BLOOD! I will believe Paul.



Are you saying YOUR RACE did not come from one of Noah's sons which came from Noah which came from Adam???????? If not, what planet did your race come from? Did your race come from monkeys?

What drug are you on? All RACES and NATIONS come from "ONE BLOOD" the blood of Adam and there was NO JEWISH RACE prior to the twelve Sons of Jacob or "the children of Israel." All people prior to those Son's were the children of GENTILES = meaning NON-JEWS - NON-ISRAELITES.



This question is so unbelievably stupid. Where do you think you came from as a human being? From monkeys? From another world of Aliens?




Unbelievable???? You do not even know what a "GENTILE" is!!!! It is a NON-ISRAELITE and there were no Israelites until Israel had children! All human being prior to Israelites and outside of Israelites are GENTILES!!!!!!!!!




Being in the lineage of Jesus does not make Rahab a non-Canaanite. Being in the lineage of Jesus does not make Ruth a non-Moabite. They were born that way and they died that way. Changing RELIGIONS cannot change your birth origin and ethnicity any more than Sammy Davis Junior becoming Jewish changed his color from black to olive or Negroid to Semetic!

You are not qualified to teach anyone. You need to be taught the a,b,cs.

You only speak false doctrines and brute hostile words that are not biblical nor of fruits of the Spirit. Just read what you say and how you say it.

 

[The Biblicist]

You only speak false doctrines and brute hostile words that are not biblical nor of fruits of the Spirit. Just read what you say and how you say it.

Truth hurts doesn't it? Tell you truth, if you had continued to defend these wild assertions, I would have simply concluded you don't have the sense of a monkey. However, you have for the first time shown some intelligence by refraining from further humiliating yourself. Congratulations, perhaps there is some hope for you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't give me your TALIKING POINTS and WORTHLESS PERSONAL OPINION. I gave you hebrews 4:2 which contradicts YOUR PERSONAL WORTHLESS OPINION!

QUESTIONS:

1. Is it is "THE GOSPEL" that was preached unto them, or those described in the wilderness under Moses in Hebrews 3 or is the writer of Hebrews lying in Hebrews 4;2 when he sayd "the gospel was preached as well as UNTO THEM"???

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does that text actually state??


2. Was it their failure to mix "faith" with it in their heart as the only reason
for their condemnation? What does the text state?

I don't want your theological talking points or your personal worthless opinion but what does the text actually say?

It says THE VERY SAME GOSPEL which was preached after Pentecost was preached before Pentecost and required the very same "FAITH." Does the gospel preached after Pentecost require faith in Christ? Then according to this text it required faith in Christ before Pentecost just as Acts 10:43 says.

I don't give two cents for your theological talking points or your worthless personal opinion when it directly contradicts what Acts 10:43 and Hebrews 4:2 clearly and explictly says to the contrary!

Be honest with these Biblical texts instead of contradicting what they say!

was the Church in the Old Covenant, in the OT?

NO

rather those saved by grace thru faith in the promised coming messaih, who knew the sacrificies were all pointing towards he who was to come...

They were saved under covenant between Isreal and God, while those of us niow in Church age saved under new covenant, personal individual one between us and god!

OT believers were in the Coprorate election God had with the jewish nation, but since Yeshaua death/resurrection, ALL under new covenant established, in which we are saved in him and placed in his body, the Church!

SO ot believers saved by proto gospel, in that they had incomplete/partial awareness of messiah, but took new Covnenat to flesh it all out for us!

 

[DHK]

SO ot believers saved by proto gospel, in that they had incomplete/partial awareness of messiah, but took new Covnenat to flesh it all out for us!

The point was simply being made that OT believers are saved in the same way that NT believers are--by faith. If you read Romans 4:1-5 Paul spells that our very clearly. Abraham was justified by faith. Righteousness was imputed unto him because of his belief, not because of his works. Works do not save; faith in Christ does. This goes for the OT as well as for the NT.

 

[The Biblicist]

was the Church in the Old Covenant, in the OT?

NO

rather those saved by grace thru faith in the promised coming messaih, who knew the sacrificies were all pointing towards he who was to come...

They were saved under covenant between Isreal and God, while those of us niow in Church age saved under new covenant, personal individual one between us and god!

OT believers were in the Coprorate election God had with the jewish nation, but since Yeshaua death/resurrection, ALL under new covenant established, in which we are saved in him and placed in his body, the Church!

SO ot believers saved by proto gospel, in that they had incomplete/partial awareness of messiah, but took new Covnenat to flesh it all out for us!

May I suggest unto you that there is a difference between the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION of a covenant and the actual application of the covenant itself.

For example, "the way of cain" is the way of works for salvation whereas in contrast Abel was the way of faith (Heb. 11:4-5). Hence, from the beginning of the world Christ was the lamb slain and in direct contrast the way of works were parallel convenant applications.

The book of Hebrews speaks of both but when it comes to the redemption application the "new covenant" is called "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" although in the sense of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (Heb 8-10) Moses preceded Christ in establishing the New Coveant by public ratification and by establishement of a public Administration (the church).

Also, with the public ratification and administrator was a change of mission that was to be Gentile centric which was a direct contrast to the previous JEWISH centrix.

 

[Yeshua1]

The point was simply being made that OT believers are saved in the same way that NT believers are--by faith. If you read Romans 4:1-5 Paul spells that our very clearly. Abraham was justified by faith. Righteousness was imputed unto him because of his belief, not because of his works. Works do not save; faith in Christ does. This goes for the OT as well as for the NT.

we agree that the OT were saved by same process, in that they had faith in messiah to come, saw him in the sacrifices, just was saying that they did NOT have fullness of the message, as he had not come yet, so they had "bare essentials" presented them!

 

[Yeshua1]

May I suggest unto you that there is a difference between the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION of a covenant and the actual application of the covenant itself.

For example, "the way of cain" is the way of works for salvation whereas in contrast Abel was the way of faith (Heb. 11:4-5). Hence, from the beginning of the world Christ was the lamb slain and in direct contrast the way of works were parallel convenant applications.

The book of Hebrews speaks of both but when it comes to the redemption application the "new covenant" is called "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" although in the sense of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (Heb 8-10) Moses preceded Christ in establishing the New Coveant by public ratification and by establishement of a public Administration (the church).

Also, with the public ratification and administrator was a change of mission that was to be Gentile centric which was a direct contrast to the previous JEWISH centrix.

understand what yu are sdaying here, but also believe the Lord had a distince corporate election with nation of isreal, the jews, but under New covenant, have individual thru the Church!

 

[The Biblicist]

understand what yu are sdaying here, but also believe the Lord had a distince corporate election with nation of isreal, the jews, but under New covenant, have individual thru the Church!

There is no salvation for anyone OUTSIDE of Christ and all who will be saved were chosen "IN HIM" before the foundation of the world AS INDIVIDUALS (Eph. 1:4; 2 Ths. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:7) including Abel and all Old Testament saints.

National election of Israel has its ultimate fulfillment in personal individual election because when Israel as a nation is saved it will be on an individual as well as a corporate level.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no salvation for anyone OUTSIDE of Christ and all who will be saved were chosen "IN HIM" before the foundation of the world AS INDIVIDUALS (Eph. 1:4; 2 Ths. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:7) including Abel and all Old Testament saints.

National election of Israel has its ultimate fulfillment in personal individual election because when Israel as a nation is saved it will be on an individual as well as a corporate level.

All were savd by same way, by the death of Jesus upon the Cross as atonement for their sins, but the OT believers were under an inferior relationship, as it was based upon physical blessings from the Lord concerning the promised land, while we in chuch age have allspiritual blessings in christ!

We are under a surer/better covenant, as we can go directly to God, something not able to be done in OT, as they needed to go through priesthood, but ALL of us now priests before God!

 

[The Biblicist]

All were savd by same way, by the death of Jesus upon the Cross as atonement for their sins, but the OT believers were under an inferior relationship, as it was based upon physical blessings from the Lord concerning the promised land, while we in chuch age have allspiritual blessings in christ!

We are under a surer/better covenant, as we can go directly to God, something not able to be done in OT, as they needed to go through priesthood, but ALL of us now priests before God!

The Psalms are the only extended personal testimony of anyone in the Old Testament concerning their personal relationship with Christ as their "Lord."

I would challenge you or anyone else to produce a comparable relationship between a believer and Christ more closer or greater than what has been recorded in the book of Psalms.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Psalms are the only extended personal testimony of anyone in the Old Testament concerning their personal relationship with Christ as their "Lord."

I would challenge you or anyone else to produce a comparable relationship between a believer and Christ more closer or greater than what has been recorded in the book of Psalms.

David was the King of isreal, so he had the annoiting of the Lord as regarding the Holy Spirit... That was NOT the same for all others, as the Holy Spirit ONLY moved upon those such as prophets/Kings in OT times, but He indwells and works with ALL today!

 

[The Biblicist]

David was the King of isreal, so he had the annoiting of the Lord as regarding the Holy Spirit... That was NOT the same for all others, as the Holy Spirit ONLY moved upon those such as prophets/Kings in OT times, but He indwells and works with ALL today!

Salvation was not discrimitory between David and others but stands on the same equal basis - faith in the gospel of Christ with remission of sins and imputated righteousness.

If any writer in the Old Testament gave an extended description of his relationship with Christ you would respond the very same way. Hence, the only possible way to repudiate you on the basis of personal testimony would be if an Old Testament writer provided something he could not possibly provide and that is the personal relationship testimony of somebody else. However, Abraham never wrote anything and yet we have an extended record of Abraham and he is given as the example of walking by faith to New Testament believers.

To think that David could walk in fellowship with the Lord EQUALLY as we do today (and that is the testimony of the Psalms) and yet no other believer in his kingdom had personal relationship with God is so irrational and inconceivable that it is hard to see how anyone can justify it.

Romans 8:8-9 completely and thoroughly repudiates your interpetation of salvation in the Old Testament and uses the terms "ANY MAN" not as you would like to read it as "Post-Pentecostal man."

 

[Yeshua1]

Salvation was not discrimitory between David and others but stands on the same equal basis - faith in the gospel of Christ with remission of sins and imputated righteousness.

If any writer in the Old Testament gave an extended description of his relationship with Christ you would respond the very same way. Hence, the only possible way to repudiate you on the basis of personal testimony would be if an Old Testament writer provided something he could not possibly provide and that is the personal relationship testimony of somebody else. However, Abraham never wrote anything and yet we have an extended record of Abraham and he is given as the example of walking by faith to New Testament believers.

To think that David could walk in fellowship with the Lord EQUALLY as we do today (and that is the testimony of the Psalms) and yet no other believer in his kingdom had personal relationship with God is so irrational and inconceivable that it is hard to see how anyone can justify it.

Romans 8:8-9 completely and thoroughly repudiates your interpetation of salvation in the Old Testament and uses the terms "ANY MAN" not as you would like to read it as "Post-Pentecostal man."

There was no OT verses though saying that under the old covenant ALL would have the Spirit, as he had not yet come in that fashion, just came upon those with select roles/offices!

Had prophetic verses stating that in the future, God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh when time of the annoited One/messiah came!

 

[The Biblicist]

There was no OT verses though saying that under the old covenant ALL would have the Spirit, as he had not yet come in that fashion, just came upon those with select roles/offices!

Had prophetic verses stating that in the future, God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh when time of the annoited One/messiah came!

Since when does silence on the part of the Old Testament in regard to specifics (although many inferences) invalidate explicit revelation by N.T. writers that such was the case - Rom. 8:8-9???

You would have to equally reject such statement as Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Romans 4:5-11 as well, as these are N.T. revelations of realities prior to Pentecost. You have to reject John 3:3-8 as a pre-Pentecost reality because the precise terms "born again" cannot be found in Genesis to Malichi but Jesus rebukes Nicodemus as a teacher of the scriptures for being ignorant of that fact.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since when does silence on the part of the Old Testament in regard to specifics (although many inferences) invalidate explicit revelation by N.T. writers that such was the case - Rom. 8:8-9???

You would have to equally reject such statement as Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Romans 4:5-11 as well, as these are N.T. revelations of realities prior to Pentecost. You have to reject John 3:3-8 as a pre-Pentecost reality because the precise terms "born again" cannot be found in Genesis to Malichi but Jesus rebukes Nicodemus as a teacher of the scriptures for being ignorant of that fact.

Could the OT believer in yahweh been saved by the Cross of Chrsit looking forward, but NOT have the Holy Spirit as we do today, to indwell and infill us?