Is our theology derived mainly from the Gospels or Epistles then?

[Martin Marprelate]

You doggedly keep doing the same thing, arguing, trying to refute Christ's words instead of understanding Christ's words, "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

And you are taking a single text and bouncing up and down on it like a trampoline rather than trying to understand it in its context. what was the Lord Jesus doing in the regions of Tyre and Sidon if He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Maybe because He doesn't define 'Israel' the same way that you do. You are blinded by your extreme Preterism, which, at the point of the Gospels, bears a remarkable similarity to extreme Dispensationalism!

For the umpteenth time, the fact that Christ refused no one that came to Him in faith in no way negates His mission as 'a prophet like unto me', sent only to Israel.

We know that He was not sent only to Israel. Read Isaiah 48:5-6.

Bingo! That's 'the issue'. Rightly dividing. Because He was at once ‘The Prophet’ who warned of the imminent demise of one dispensation and the Author and Mediator of a new one [Hebrews 12:24-29] the issue becomes rightly dividing 'His words'.

But I notice that you don't make the slightest attempt to answer my questions. The issue is whether His words apply to Gentiles as well as Jews. Do they? Does Mark 1:15 apply to you and me as non-Jews.

In as few words as possible Martin, what's your gospel [good news]? Give me the 'bare bones necessities' to make the hearer happy.

My 'good news' is my signature below.

You have no right to ask me any questions until you have answered mine. But you can have John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 1:15 if you like.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If we did not have Romans, would we be missing anything major?

Of course we would! If Romans were not important it wouldn't be in the Bible. But the Bible is one book and we must draw our doctrine from all of it. There is no such thing as 'Pauline Justification as if it were different from any other version; there is just the Doctrine of Justification.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course we would! If Romans were not important it wouldn't be in the Bible. But the Bible is one book and we must draw our doctrine from all of it. There is no such thing as 'Pauline Justification as if it were different from any other version; there is just the Doctrine of Justification.

agreed, as the Apostles all taught and wrote the same Gospel, but just see paul has having most complete view on it!

 

[1689Dave]

Ones eschatology will not determine how we read Romans in the sense of Pauline Justification!

It affects it in identifying Israel. You cannot identify Biblical Israel unless you understand Romans 11.

 

[kyredneck]

what was the Lord Jesus doing in the regions of Tyre and Sidon if He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

There you go again, still, with childish reasoning trying to refute Christ's words. Have you never pondered the truth of this?:

21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Acts 15

...or the significance of this?:

5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. Acts 2

I suppose it's too far outside the boundaries of your box to connect the dots.

Christ says:
"I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Martin says, not so:
"We know that He was not sent only to Israel."

Christ instructed the apostles:
"Go not into any way of the Gentiles...but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Martin says:
"_______________________" ??

But I notice that you don't make the slightest attempt to answer my questions. The issue is whether His words apply to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Lol, it's obvious you didn't make the slightest attempt to read my reply. It's all about rightly dividing His words.

 

[Yeshua1]

It affects it in identifying Israel. You cannot identify Biblical Israel unless you understand Romans 11.

Biblical Israel would be the Jewish nation, and Paul right there states to us that God is not finished dealing with the Jews!

 

[George Antonios]

He had already healed the centurion's servant as I pointed out above, and several Samaritans. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.' Moreover, in Christ the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile is broken down. He, Christ, has made both (Jew and Gentile) one. Read Galatians 3:27-29. You and I are both Abraham's seed, not by some wretched ethnicity, but by faith.

Both in the instance of the centurion and the phenician woman, the Gentile upon whom the miracle was performed was not in Christ's presence. As late as almost the crucifixion, Christ was still rebuffing personal audience with Gentiles, pointing them rather to the post-cross era:
Joh 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: Joh 12:21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Joh 12:22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
Christ did do some exceptions with Gentiles, but always in a restrained fashion. He never performed one miracle during the two days he was the Samaritans, and those two days picture the two millennial days of the Gentile church age during which there are no miracles.
He healed the Centurion's servant in part to the Jews' plea that he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue (Luke 7:5). And again, the miracles on Gentiles were super-rare and never in person.

As for your mentioning of Galatians, you are reading back church-age truth into the gospels. The middle wall of separation was broken by the crucifixion:
Eph 2:13 But now [not before] in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood [shed at the cross, not before] of Christ. Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross [not before], having slain the enmity thereby: Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Ditto for John 3:16, you quoted a verse that frames God's universal love in the context of the cross: Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son [at the cross], that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Before the cross, his ministry was to Israel: Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[George Antonios]

Secondly, what was He doing in 'the region of Tyre and Sidon'? This is by no means in Israel.

Preaching to the multitude of Jews who had been in the area ever since the inheritance of the tribes of Asher and Zebulun an Naphtali reached unto those regions.

 

[1689Dave]

Biblical Israel would be the Jewish nation, and Paul right there states to us that God is not finished dealing with the Jews!

You read it that way but it's not what he says. Paul says they remain cursed till the end of time. Only the elect among them will be saved. They are technically gentiles who practice the most corrupt form of Judaism ever to exist. And as gentiles, they trample down Jerusalem until the end. How so? We preach the gospel to the gentiles until the end of the world. (References available if you can't think of what they might be).

 

[Yeshua1]

You read it that way but it's not what he says. Paul says they remain cursed till the end of time. Only the elect among them will be saved. They are technically gentiles who practice the most corrupt form of Judaism ever to exist. And as gentiles, they trample down Jerusalem until the end. How so? We preach the gospel to the gentiles until the end of the world. (References available if you can't think of what they might be).

The Gentiles mentioned din scriptures are NEVER physical Jews!

 

[1689Dave]

The Gentiles mentioned din scriptures are NEVER physical Jews!

Many of the Exodus were not related to Abraham. But they were Jews because of circumcision. Any who were not circumcised were not Jews or members of the community Israel, whether related to Abraham or not. If Jesus abolished circumcision, how can any be a member of Israel apart from faith?

 

[1689Dave]

The Gentiles mentioned din scriptures are NEVER physical Jews!

“And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” Esther 8:17 (NCPB)

 

[Yeshua1]

Many of the Exodus were not related to Abraham. But they were Jews because of circumcision. Any who were not circumcised were not Jews or members of the community Israel, whether related to Abraham or not. If Jesus abolished circumcision, how can any be a member of Israel apart from faith?

You deny that there are Semitic people who are Jews then?

 

[1689Dave]

You deny that there are Semitic people who are Jews then?

Jews = a religion. If you think there are races, you are a racist. I think they will be figuring that out shortly. If you trace Israel from its roots you can see Abraham circumcised his 300+ soldiers. Among them, Ishmael was his only blood relative. But all became his covenant seed through circumcision (Genesis 17:11–13). They called them Hebrews at this point (Exodus 9:1).

 

[Yeshua1]

Jews = a religion. If you think there are races, you are a racist. I think they will be figuring that out shortly. If you trace Israel from its roots you can see Abraham circumcised his 300+ soldiers. Among them, Ishmael was his only blood relative. But all became his covenant seed through circumcision (Genesis 17:11–13). They called them Hebrews at this point (Exodus 9:1).

So there are no Jews as in a genetic people descended from Abraham thru Isaac?

 

[1689Dave]

So there are no Jews as in a genetic people descended from Abraham thru Isaac?

They are a gentile family (starting with Abraham). Made members of Judaism (a religion) or physical Israel (a nation) through circumcision. Any not circumcised or members of the religion were excommunicated and remained gentiles. There is only one human race of one blood.

 

[Yeshua1]

They are a gentile family (starting with Abraham). Made members of Judaism (a religion) or physical Israel (a nation) through circumcision. Any not circumcised or members of the religion were excommunicated and remained gentiles. There is only one human race of one blood.

There are Jewish peoples by birth since the time of the 12 Tribes of Israel!

 

[1689Dave]

There are Jewish peoples by birth since the time of the 12 Tribes of Israel!

They were gentiles who became Jews through circumcision. But related as one big family who also had nonrelative members. Moses' wife was Ethiopian. Uriah the Hittite... All foreigners were circumcised and became Jews. A "Mixed" multitude of family and nonfamily Jews were in the Exodus.

Were Jews Born or Made?

 

[Yeshua1]

They were gentiles who became Jews through circumcision. But related as one big family who also had nonrelative members. Moses' wife was Ethiopian. Uriah the Hittite... All foreigners were circumcised and became Jews. A "Mixed" multitude of family and nonfamily Jews were in the Exodus.

Were Jews Born or Made?

Jewish not due to circomcision, as they were Jewish by being ancestors to one of the 12 tribes of Israel!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There you go again, still, with childish reasoning trying to refute Christ's words. Have you never pondered the truth of this?:

21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Acts 15

...or the significance of this?:

5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. Acts 2

I suppose it's too far outside the boundaries of your box to connect the dots.

Christ says:
"I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Martin says, not so:
"We know that He was not sent only to Israel."

Christ instructed the apostles:
"Go not into any way of the Gentiles...but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Martin says:
"_______________________" ??

Lol, it's obvious you didn't make the slightest attempt to read my reply. It's all about rightly dividing His words.

It's helpful if you read the texts before replying.
Mark 7:24. From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden for a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet.'

He did not come to preach the Gospel to whatever Jews may have been in the region of Tyre and Sidon; He came, as it were, incognito. He came specifically to heal this woman's daughter, because that is all He did there. In this, He was walking in the footsteps of Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4:25-27).

And when He ministered to the Samaritan woman at the well, He also preached to many other Samaritans. Samaritans did not regard themselves as Jews (c.f. John 4:9, 20), but when they heard Him speak, they declared, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (John 4:42). Now 'world' in Greek has more than one meaning, but the context will not allow you to pretend that it really means 'Israel.'