J. Jump wrote,
I Corinthians 1:22 says Jews require a sign. That can not be any more clear. If Gentiles require a sign, please so me a Scripture that is equally as clear saying Gentiles require a sign. I don’t think you are going to be able to find it. If you can find such a Scripture I will gladly eat crow.
The verse says that Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.
Based on this verse, does it make sense to conclude that no Jew in the world has ever sought after wisdom? No, of course not. That is just poor reasoning. Solomon clearly sought after wisdom. Decades later, Trypho, a Jew, would talk to Justin because he was a philosopher, and Justin would write a treatise about it. Some Jews sought wisdom. The verse does not say they didn't.
But a general characteristic of Greek people in their culture is that they sought after wisdom, and this is what happened when they heard the gospel. In Athens, the philosophers came to listen as if it were a philosophical idea.
What did Jews do? They asked for signs. They asked Jesus for a sign. No doubt they wanted Him to predict some future event, so that, if it did not come to pass, they could write Him off as a false prophet, according to the passage which speaks about prophets and the Prophet in the Old Testament.
The passage here is about what THE JEWS REQUIRE, NOT ABOUT GOD'S PURPOSES FOR SIGNS. Why do you care what the Jews require. The issue here is God's purposes for signs, not man's purposes. The Jews wanted Paul to give them a sign. What _they_ wanted has little to do with the use of signs among Gentiles.
Just look in the Bible for examples of signs and Paul did among Gentiles. For example, on the first misionary journey, among the pagan Lyaconians, Paul declared a crippled man healed. The pagans tried to sacrifice to him and Barnabas and he had to persuade them otherwise. Clearly this was a pagan audience, and yet God did signs among them.
As far as Samaritans go, Jesus said that they worshipped (bowed down toward) they know not what, and that salvation was of the Jews. So the half-Jew, half-Gentile argument is rather weak.
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did signs for spiritually blinded Jews, which contradicts your argument here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded
Ah now we are getting somewhere. Jesus did signs for spiritually “blinded” Jews. Spiritually blinded and spiritually dead are two different things. The Jews were indeed blind, but they weren’t dead.
You are missing the point. You did not quote the part of your quote I was responding to when I mentioned 'spiritually blinded.' Here it is below.
You wrote,
so if they can't even understand the message why would they need a sign to point them to something they can't even comprehend anyway. That's just silly.
Jesus did miracles for the spiritually blind Jews. He spoke in parables to people who could not understand. So your argument that God would not do signs for the spiritually dead because they would not understand does not wash.
Also, if you think the unbelieving Jews were spiritually alive, read the beginning of Romans 10.
There are two ways to be alive.
1. He that doeth these things-- the law--shall live by them.
2. The other way is 'the just shall live by faith.'
No one is justified by the works of the law, for all have sinned. So that leaves one way to live.
The unbelieving Jews did not 'live' because, as Romans 10 explains, he (Israel) 'sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law....'
So unbelieving Israel is spiritually dead, not spiritually alive, and yet they still saw the signs. So your argument about no signs for the spiritually dead is not valid. Read Romans 10.
I don’t have to read the book of Romans all I have to do is read the Gospel accounts. I will not take the time to explain this here, but maybe we could start another thread on this topic.
This is the problem. You are not taking all of scripture into account. You are making conclusions not supported by the verses you quote, that contradict other scripture. For example, your argument that GOD does not do signs among Gentiles because the Jews demanded a sign. The conclusion does not follow.
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, your argument here contradicts what happened in Acts 10 when the Gentiles heard the message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded
No it doesn’t. This was done for the benefit of the circumcised. Acts 10:45
Since the circumcised, here, are a part of the church, then you must conclude that tongues, here, were 'for the church.'
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a bizaar position to hold to. The Bible says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Do you have any scripture that says that Jesus is not acting as the Anointed One?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah there are several that tell us that Satan is the god of this age or the god of this world.
The issue is that you said that Jesus was not functioning as the Messiah. Christ is at God's right hand until all enemies are put under His feet. So the war is not over yet. Also, David was anointed BEFORE he became king. So if you are arguing that Christ has not defeated all His enemies and fully taken up His rule, then it still does not make sense to say that He is not functioning as the Messiah. Especially since kings can be anointed BEFORE they take over.
Btw, Ireneaus, argued that the passage you quote there is about God and that 'of this world' refers to the people of this world that believe not. He was combatting heretics who used this verse to argue for lesser gods.
I see no place in Scripture that says when Christ is ruling that there is going to be absolute chaos. Just look at the 10 p.m. news or read a newspaper and it is very easy to see that Christ is not currently ruling this earth. But there are other evidences as well that could be explained in another thread.
Scripture does say He must reign until all enemies have been put under His feet.
God is dealing with the church right now and not the nation of Israel.
Don't you go beyond the scripture here? Where does Paul or any other NT author say such a thing? The kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish leaders. But that does not man that God is not dealing with the nation of Israel. i heard recently that the ethnic group receiving the Gospel at the fastest rate now is Jews. I haven't seen the evidence to back it up, but some preacher claimed that recently. God is still at work in Israel. In fact, how can some of the eschatological events take place if God does not work in them before they believe? Do you think the nation of Israel as a state formed by accident?
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me one verse that says that God's signs and wonders would be done away with--temporarily-- to come back after the rapture. I can't even find this pre-tribulational rapture stuff in scripture. Paul has Jesus coming back and the resurrection all occuring together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded
I just showed you through this post. If you choose not to see it then again that is on you.
You did not such thing. You made a bunch of arguments about 7 years, etc. Like I pointed out, these verses say nothing about gifts ceasing temporarily and coming back during the tribulation. You have a bunch of theories about your time periods. I am asking for the scriptural proof to back them up.
Also, notice the title of the thread. Paul did not expect the Corinthians to come behind in any gift as they waited for the Lord's coming. His eschatology did not include a gap when the saints would come behind in spiritual gifts as they waited for the Lord's coming.
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me scripture that says that the only role of tongues is as a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already showed it to yourself. I Corinthians 14 is pretty clear.
Did you actually read my post before responding?
Again, I Corinthians 12 shows that tongues is one of the gifts that profits the BODY OF CHRIST.
This is clear from the passage. Do you believe I Corinthians 12 is scripture or not? Do you accept it as true or not?
If tongues profits the body, is that the same function of tongues as being a sign to unbelievers? Please answer this question. If the answer is 'no' then tongues has a function other than being a sign to unbelievers.
Show me where the Bible says that the ONLY function of tongues is as a sign.
If tongues edifies the church, that is another function of tongues. It contradicts your idea that tongues is ONLY for a sign to unbelievers (or as you think, the Jews.)
What about all those other verses in I Corinthians 14? Look at verses 26-28. Tongues with interpretation is to be spoken out IN THE CHURCH. Look at the beginning of the passage where we learn that if someone speaks in tongues, he edifies himself, but if there is an interpretation it edifies the church.
The church still needs to be edified. One Biblical command on tongues is 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' Do you obey this scripture?
And everything that we need gets its root from the Scripture. Faith, hope, love, spiritual gifts…whatever you want to throw into that equation all of it is given to us in the Bible. How one needs to use these things, etc. Granted love is not in the pages of the Bible, but to find out how to love is in the Bible. Therefore the Bible is the only instruction book we need. And our teacher is the Holy Spirit. And He will not teach anything that is given outside of Scripture. It will all line up. It has to.
I believe true spiritual gifts line up with scripture, too.
So do we agree that the Bible does not replace the things it tells us to have, like love faith, and spiritual gifts?
