Parable of the Talents

[J. Jump]

Okay, I would agree that the servant wasn’t incapable, but unwilling

Here's what gets me. You agree with the context of the passage which is the guy was capable, just unwilling and then in the next part of your sentence you completely change the context from one of works to one of eternal salvation.

His faith isn't in question. It's whether or not he is going to be obedient. Only saved people even have a shot at being obedient.

If God actually “expected” the servant to bring a profit he would have.

That is not true, because God expected the children of Israel to be obedient and go into the promise land, but we know that didn't happen for a generation of folks. Then the ones that did go in weren't obedient and didn't take all the land like they were supposed to.

The reason he decided to hide his talent in the earth is from fear of the Lord, he did believe and like I said before so does the devil but I would still contend that if he was saved, in Christ, by faith, he would have produced or otherwise it sounds you are contending that Christ did not produce.

He did believe. Exactly! The devil doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Satan can not be saved, so what he believes is of no matter.

Christ can only produce if we allow Him to. If we quench or grieve the Spirit then there is no work that is going to get done.

Also a saved person is told we have not received the spirit of bondage (to be a slave) again to fear, so if he had the Spirit why was he so fearful…it was a lack of faith not a lack of producing that wound him up in utter darkness, one that is a light is not going to be in darkness.

We don't have to be in bondage to fear or sin, but some choose to be for whatever reason. This guy obviously didn't completely understand his master or he would have been obedient.

But obedience or lack of obedience has nothing to do with eternal salvation.

God would not take away the inheritance from a son as you suggested earlier in this tread.

I agree with that statement, so please show me where I said otherwise. If a son then your inheritance will not be taken away. But not all children become sons. That's the difference.

We’re being instructed in the parable how to live in the kingdom

No we are not. We are being taugth what it takes to get there, because of what is expected of us when we do get there. Obedience is required and expected. Why would God allow someone that can't even be obedient in this lifetime rule over people in the next life time knowing they aren't going to be obedient? That doesn't even make sense.

you’re clearing up a controversy in the scripture by separating a kingdom salvation from eternal salvation.

The only controversy that is placed on the Bible is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. These are two separate and distinct messages and unless they are kept that way controversy will ensue.

 

[J. Jump]

I see the parable as instruction (to who would be those that will believe) so as to be prepared and use the goods that our Lord will give us, to remain in the faith, to be a good workman.

Exactly! That's what I have been saying the whole time.

To me it is about being created in Christ and entering the kingdom by faith and being kept by the Spirit, a true slave in Christ is maintained in faith by hope in the love of God as a son. Unfortunately some would have you to deny this fact.

That's a nice sounding sentence, but it's not backed up by Scripture. We are created in Christ, but our eternal salvation is not kept, because there is nothing to keep. Eternal salvation is a one-time event and once the matter is done it is done.

Being kept by the Spirit would have to do with the kingdom not eternal life. There is no such thing as a true slave and a false slave. You are either owned by the Master or you are not. Now just because you are owned doesn't mean you are obedient!

There were a number of slaves in the US that tried to escape their master's. Some did it successfully. And there are some Christians that try to escape the control of their Master. And He will let you go if that's what you want (prodigal son).

God only looks at the heart through the blood of Christ, never animal blood; He certainly searches “every individual”.

So then He just forgot to mention to Israel in Exodus 12 that He really wasn't looking for the blood of the lamb like He said He was He was really peering into the windows of the houses and checking out their hearts.

Wonder why He lied to them?

the only thing that was required for their eternal salvation is faith.

That's what I have said all along, but you keep putting words into my mouth that haven't come out of my mouth or been typed on a keyboard

It does matter when you make statements that sound as if the OT people were actually cleansed in the blood of animals to support your view.

Again it wasn't the blood that saved them it was their faith that saved them. Killing the animals was just what God told them to believe in. They didn't believe in the animal sacrifices, they believed what God said about the animal sacrifices.

No, I think I just disagree with the attempt to separate eternal salvation with the dispensational kingdom twist (sounds like a dance doesn’t it?) :smilewinkgrin: and you are having a problem accepting that and think that those who disagree are blind to a believers responsibilities. Faith in God and love of the truth produces good works through the Spirit.

So what is it then that you are held responsible for if not the kingdom? Why does God want you to be faithful? What is at the end of your road?

No, you can’t if you’re suggesting the works of the blood of animals actually accomplished salvation for them and then compare that to the blood of Christ in the NT, and that’s exactly what I mean about trying to have it both ways, You said: … “but what were they told by God. That He would look at them through the blood of the animals,” that is comparing their own works of sacrifice in obedience to God’s propitiation with the false assumption that God looked at them through that carnal animal blood. You say faith apart from works but you plainly don’t stick to it.

Again it was their faith in what God told them that saved them. Not the actual animal blood. The death and blood was for God's benefit not theirs.

Again go read Exodus 12. That's exactly what God did. He looked at them through the death and shed blood of the lambs that they killed, becuase it was a picture of the death and shed blood of His Son. It was their faith that saved them. It was the death and shed blood that satisfied God.

I differ with the this dispensationalist program of “rightly dividing” the Word to mean separating these type of things to prove doctrines and see “rightly dividing” to mean as a clean single clean cut to look into the Word to examine it as a whole, a complete picture, not to chopping it into pieces however it suits ones theology.

I'm not proving anything. The Bible needs no defense. You either see the Truth or you don't. Rightly dividing the Word is exactly as you say. You make separation where Scripture makes separation and by doing this you get the complete big picture.

That's EXACTLY what this does. It gives one the correct big picture of the Bible. It takes the overall picture of the Bible and allows the details to be plugged in correctly.

 

[Benjamin]

Quote:
God would not take away the inheritance from a son as you suggested earlier in this tread.


I agree with that statement, so please show me where I said otherwise. If a son then your inheritance will not be taken away. But not all children become sons. That's the difference.

"If we lose our inheritance and are separated from God, does it really matter where we will be?"
Ring a bell?

 

[Benjamin]

Quote:
God only looks at the heart through the blood of Christ, never animal blood; He certainly searches “every individual”.

So then He just forgot to mention to Israel in Exodus 12 that He really wasn't looking for the blood of the lamb like He said He was He was really peering into the windows of the houses and checking out their hearts.

Wonder why He lied to them?

What do you think of that the blood of the lamb, a promise, and where was the promise written? I gave you plenty of scripture showing God searches all the hearts, which you had clearly denied. You have to compare scripture to scripture for the understanding. Looks like we're back to the blood of animals accomplishing salvation, you're totally missing the point and changing the subject. I'm starting to feel like a broken record so why don't you go back and study all the scripture I have posted to your none and have a nice day.

 

[J. Jump]

God would not take away the inheritance from a son as you suggested earlier in this tread.

I agree with that statement, so please show me where I said otherwise. If a son then your inheritance will not be taken away. But not all children become sons. That's the difference.

"If we lose our inheritance and are separated from God, does it really matter where we will be?"
Ring a bell?

Yeah. It proves you were making stuff up. Nowhere in my statement does it say that God takes the inheritance away from a son. You added that part for some reason, ethier by accident or purposefully I don't know which.

 

[J. Jump]

I gave you plenty of scripture showing God searches all the hearts, which you had clearly denied.

Again why are you making stuff up? Please show me where I said I deny those verses. If we are going to be able to continue you are going to have to stp making things up and just deal with what is said.

Looks like we're back to the blood of animals accomplishing salvation

No we are not, unless you think that. I have stated from the beginning that it was their faith that saved them. And I will always say that is was their faith that saved them. They were just told to believe something different than we are today.

you're totally missing the point

Funny how I stated you were missing the point earlier and you were very quick to point out otherwise, but you want to say that I'm missing the point.

study all the scripture I have posted to your none and have a nice day

So when did Exodus 12 stop being Scripture? Last time I checked Exodus was still part of the Bible. So it looks like I have posted Scripture that you just don't want to deal with because it shows exactly what I have been talking about.

Nowhere did God say He was going to examine their hearts. He said the death angel was going to look for the blood! Because where there was blood there was death and he could passover them.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It's important to remember that the feast was for all the children of Israel and those who joined them. The blood was just for the firstborn. Christ died for all (that they may be saved), but his blood was shed for many.

 

[Benjamin]

J Jump,

I am not making stuff up, you will add things to this like, “all the children are not His sons” in support of your preaching of the kingdom. You said this doctrine has cost you friends, church family and got you called every name in the book. Well, I am one that has a bit of admiration for the message you are trying to preach in regards to believers responsibilities and the kingdom, otherwise I would not be wasting my time. What I am objecting to is your phrasing and pointing out why, as you admit, it sounds strange to many, and to me. This is not because I am blind to the truth, which BTW this will cause you conflict and defeat your purpose every time.

I believe when you state “faith apart from works” that that is what is in your heart as you won’t let go of confessing it. But much of your phrasing sounds like double talk to me and it is not because I am blind or denying the truth, it is because I see it differently. You are taking a parable, making it sound literal, and attempting to force fit your interpretation and sorry but with what I perceive as a bit of arrogance in what God has revealed to you in your belief that you have it all exactly figured out in your interpretation of the kingdom.

It is instructions to a believer, as you agree, and I understand God is a God of wrath, but God is also a God of love, as He is Love, and to take a literal interpretation out of the parable making it sounds as a son, born again in the Spirit is being called by his loving Savior wicked and all the like from an evil tyrant for not producing sounding as if it is their works that save them from God’s wrath, well, this will always meet with my objection on many accounts. Now if you tell me this is the plain reading of the scripture well friend I have a brain that reasons and I am seeing a deeper meaning to this plain reading that can not be quickly explained in a few words that you are not giving me credit for and I find this approach belittling. That is what it sounds and that is why I was for lack of a better word “hassling” you, so I will apologize for the harshness. We could go round and round on this forever trying to articulate our beliefs here and I think we would do much better in person and find we are rather likeminded in the long run and both learn from each other.

I think your enthusiasm for preaching a believer’s responsibilities is great and I am looking for a better approach to expound on this myself and I know how hard it is to express God’s mercy along side His justice. Sometimes I think the only way is to do it in a teeter-totter fashion while at the same time stressing a God of Love giving a free gift then all the implications of accepting that gift and becoming a slave that is not free to do as he pleases, yet, in Christ he is free indeed; what a complicated message! I agree with you it so often is given and taken without conviction of the depth of the price paid by our loving Creator so that we could be righteous in Him and what it means to be a true believer in the kingdom.

You ride a lot on Exodus 12, pretty much alone against an abundance of what I’ve been trying to explain to you about my perception of the blood of animals and I can’t point to the meaning out of just that one passage. The best comparison that I can think of to maybe explain better is from Eph 6 where we are told to put on the whole armour to be able to withstand in the evil day the fiery darts of Satan/death. We don’t believe it is literal armour but a spiritual shield and God’s saints will pray petitioning in the spirit that they will persevere in the Spirit because of faith. I do not think the OT saints literally counted on that blood to save them but obeyed in conscience this being contained in the differences of ministration of the HS but still being glorious and kept in the Spirit of Christ by the promise to come whether that or the promise fulfilled it was what was written in their hearts is what saved them and what God looked at.

The blood signifying believing the promise, but the work of the (animal) blood God did not desire or require (Psalms 40:6), yes they had to be obedient to the law as a saint saved by faith in that time and yes so does a saint today have to be obedient and they will because of what is in their heart, the difference being ministry of life or death, (2Cor 3:7-9). To say God looked at them through the blood of animals looks like an attempt to say it was the work of their hands that saved them and relating it back to the NT and comparing it to the blood of Christ to support your view of the kingdom is plain wrong in my eyes.

Anyway trying to explain this has been a learning experience for me and hopefully next time I will articulate it better and more fully but at this point I think it will take more time than I have. It’s a hard subject to discuss and many points to address and be missed. I hope my bluntness has not offended you.

Peace,

Ben

 

[Hope of Glory]

J Jump,

I am not making stuff up, you will add things to this like, “all the children are not His sons” in support of your preaching of the kingdom.

----------

But much of your phrasing sounds like double talk to me and it is not because I am blind or denying the truth, it is because I see it differently. (edited for comment by me)

The thing about it, the reason it sounds like double talk is because the KJV translators, which almost everyone here is familiar with, translated many things all willy-nilly. (Although, the notes that were included with the 1611 version are very interesting and destroy much of the KJVO myths; if you want a copy, I can email them to you, although some modern KJV's still include them.)

The Greek has several words for "child". In English, you would call your newborn your "son" (even still in the womb, if you know it's a male), you would call your teenager "son", you would call your adult child your "son", you would call your friend's adult child his "son" or the "son of my friend". But, the Greek is much more specific. "Adoption" is from "huiothesia" and it means placing into authority; son-ship; not simply placement into a family. (Princeton gives the primary definition of "adoption" as "the act of accepting with approval; favorable reception".)

The Greek is not confusing; it's very precise. (Well, there are a few places that seem a bit ambiguous, but not nearly as many as in the KJV.) But, it often contradicts what we grew up learning in the KJV. There are many English translations that are very good that would seem confusing because they contradict what we all grew up with.

You see things such as in the parable of the virgins that their lamps "were going" out; they had oil. The wise virgins took oil in their vessels and they took their vessels along with their lamps. So, that puts you in the position to see that they had oil, so what does it mean that they ran out? It makes you investigate it more closely.

When you see "child" or "son", knowing the original word helps clarify the passage. When you see a present, active, participle, it clarifies a passage. When you see two things attached by the same preposition, it means something different than when it's two separate prepositional phrases. Knowing that the KJV translators translated "age" several different ways (5, if I remember correctly) helps understand certain passages.

So, it sounds "odd" in the sense that it's not what we're used to. But, it certainly is not odd and clarifies many different things.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

The thing about it, the reason it sounds like double talk is because the KJV translators, which almost everyone here is familiar with, translated many things all willy-nilly. (Although, the notes that were included with the 1611 version are very interesting and destroy much of the KJVO myths; if you want a copy, I can email them to you, although some modern KJV's still include them.)

The Greek has several words for "child". In English, you would call your newborn your "son" (even still in the womb, if you know it's a male), you would call your teenager "son", you would call your adult child your "son", you would call your friend's adult child his "son" or the "son of my friend". But, the Greek is much more specific. "Adoption" is from "huiothesia" and it means placing into authority; son-ship; not simply placement into a family. (Princeton gives the primary definition of "adoption" as "the act of accepting with approval; favorable reception".)

The Greek is not confusing; it's very precise. (Well, there are a few places that seem a bit ambiguous, but not nearly as many as in the KJV.) But, it often contradicts what we grew up learning in the KJV. There are many English translations that are very good that would seem confusing because they contradict what we all grew up with.

You see things such as in the parable of the virgins that their lamps "were going" out; they had oil. The wise virgins took oil in their vessels and they took their vessels along with their lamps. So, that puts you in the position to see that they had oil, so what does it mean that they ran out? It makes you investigate it more closely.

When you see "child" or "son", knowing the original word helps clarify the passage. When you see a present, active, participle, it clarifies a passage. When you see two things attached by the same preposition, it means something different than when it's two separate prepositional phrases. Knowing that the KJV translators translated "age" several different ways (5, if I remember correctly) helps understand certain passages.

So, it sounds "odd" in the sense that it's not what we're used to. But, it certainly is not odd and clarifies many different things.

What translation of the Bible do you use? I've recently gotten a copy of the ESV because it was recommended as an excellent translation. Do you agree or can you suggest something else?

 

[Hope of Glory]

I prefer the KJV, but yes, I like the ESV from what I've read of it; it's more easily readable and at least as good as the KJV. For study in English, I usually use the CLV or Rotherham's Emphasized Version, but prefer the NA27 Greek text. I would like to get a copy of the KJV with the translators' notes actually printed in the book, but cannot find an interleaved version with them.

 

[Benjamin]

HoG,

Personally I read the KJV because I do find it a very good translation and when needed the ease of using the Strongs Concordance for a help is mostly all I need as it is not hard to find the in depth meaning of things without being a linguist while comparing scripture to scripture. For instance using the virgins for example since we’re on the same page here I had no problem understanding they had oil to begin with out of the KJV alone upon closer investigation..

Thanks for the offer of the notes but I read those years ago about the KJV and never did abide in the myths. For a long time I read a KJV/NIV parallel but grew to prefer the KJV.

I have looked into the traditions of Jewish adoption and have heard the controversies pertaining to the C vs. A debate along with observing linguists commentaries conflicting each other as it suits their theology. Still being received in the spirit of adoption has powerful implications especially when you add it to, whereby we cry Abba Father.

Now if someone directly said, “ALL God’s children are not His sons.” what would matter is the context in what they meant by “God’s children” and what is intended to imply. Some linguists say Jesus had no brother, and Mary died a virgin, because a brother would have meant a cousin. I just take it for what it’s worth. Sure would be nice to have the knowledge though.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Rejecting the Messiah has nothing to do with eternal salvation.

Know Jesus, Know Heaven...
... No Jesus, Know Hell

 

[Linda64]

You haven't shown where God stopped accepting that and started telling Israel to believe something else. They were never told to believe in Jesus as the eternal Savior, but they were told to believe in Him and to continue to believe in Him as King. That was because they were already saved

Do a study on the entire book of Hebrews--especially chapters 9 & 10.

Show from Scripture where the Jews were told NOT to believe in Jesus as Eternal Saviour. The Jews rejected Jesus because ALL they were looking for was a KING to save them from the Romans--they were NOT looking for an Eternal Saviour to save them from their sins. I am a born again Jew--and I know this to be true.

 

[J. Jump]

Do a study on the entire book of Hebrews--especially chapters 9 & 10.

Linda if you want to be taken seriously then just post the passage where God told them that He was no longer going to look at them through the blood on animals.

You have all kinds of problems saying that Israel had to believe what we have to believe today, because one it doesn't just say it anywhere in the Gospel accounts on the first few chapters of Acts where the offer of the kingdom is still open to Israel.

Second the disciples didn't even really believe He was going to die until just before it happened, or even after the fact.

So you would have to say that the disciples weren't even saved until almost near the end of His earthly ministry, which is not even remotely close to being true.

I'll continue to wait for the passage that says God changed the venue. But I won't hold my breath that you are going to produce something.

Show from Scripture where the Jews were told NOT to believe in Jesus as Eternal Saviour.

That Scripture doesn't exist and neither does yours that says they had to. So we just have to go back to step one and let the Bible context tell us what is being discussed. And the context of the gospels is not eternal salvation, because they were already saved, but rather the kingdom. That's exactly what Christ came to preach and what He did preach. We all know that His kingdom is going to be 1,000 years in length before the throne becomes the throne of God and the Lamb, so to say everlasting life was available in the Gospels is just silly. He was talking about life for the age or age-lasting life.

If the KJ translators would have gone back to the original languages instead of relying on the Latin Vulgate which mistranslated the word they would have seen this. But man is not inerrant and so we have our church tradition today because of it.

The Jews rejected Jesus because ALL they were looking for was a KING to save them from the Romans

That's because that is ALL they needed. He came to deliver them once and for all, but they rejected Him.

they were NOT looking for an Eternal Saviour to save them from their sins.

That's because Christ did not come to them as Eternal Savior. He came to them as King. If He would have came to them as Eternal Savior then He would have been coming as the Lamb only. Because it is our belief in the Lamb that saves us not the belief in the King. That comes later.

I am a born again Jew--and I know this to be true.

Why do Jews think they have all the answers? I had a rabbi visit my speech class in college one time and he ripped Christians for saying that Genesis was literal and not figurative. His statement, which I don't think I will ever forget was we wrote the Bible so how do you think you can tell us what it means.

I mean no offense by this, but just because you have a Jewish heritage doesn't mean you have all the Biblical answers.

 

[Hope of Glory]

From the Jewish scholars that have been in my life, I would say they are as varied as Baptists, if not more so. It was a Jewish scholar who taught me about Genesis 1:1-2a.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Linda if you want to be taken seriously then just post the passage where God told them that He was no longer going to look at them through the blood on animals.

Hebrews 10:1 - 7 should narrow it down considerably. He became the sacrifice, once for all.

You have all kinds of problems saying that Israel had to believe what we have to believe today, because one it doesn't just say it anywhere in the Gospel accounts on the first few chapters of Acts where the offer of the kingdom is still open to Israel.

John 14:6 During Jesus life here on earth, He said 'No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.' Christ said in John 10 that He is the Door. Yes, I believe Christ taught that even the Jews must come through Him when He said 'No man.'

Second the disciples didn't even really believe He was going to die until just before it happened, or even after the fact.

Funny, I don't remember all the disciples not believing Him. I remember Simon Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee (Matthew 16),' but not the others. But Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee' does not necessarily mean He did not believe the Lord. He could very well have meant, 'Don't let it happen.'

So you would have to say that the disciples weren't even saved until almost near the end of His earthly ministry, which is not even remotely close to being true.

When do you think they were saved?

I'll continue to wait for the passage that says God changed the venue. But I won't hold my breath that you are going to produce something.

Hebrews 10:1-9 KJV Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

That Scripture doesn't exist and neither does yours that says they had to.

Our scripture exists. If one studies to show himself approved unto God, one would see those sacrifices have been done away with.

So we just have to go back to step one and let the Bible context tell us what is being discussed. And the context of the gospels is not eternal salvation, because they were already saved, but rather the kingdom.

Luke 19:10 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

That's exactly what Christ came to preach and what He did preach. We all know that His kingdom is going to be 1,000 years in length before the throne becomes the throne of God and the Lamb, so to say everlasting life was available in the Gospels is just silly. He was talking about life for the age or age-lasting life.

Christ also preached Salvation. See above verse.

If the KJ translators would have gone back to the original languages instead of relying on the Latin Vulgate which mistranslated the word they would have seen this. But man is not inerrant and so we have our church tradition today because of it.

I can agree man is not inerrant... I see many fallacies in your doctrine.

That's because that is ALL they needed. He came to deliver them once and for all, but they rejected Him.

Many today still reject Him and His truth.

That's because Christ did not come to them as Eternal Savior. He came to them as King. If He would have came to them as Eternal Savior then He would have been coming as the Lamb only. Because it is our belief in the Lamb that saves us not the belief in the King. That comes later.

Luke 2:30 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Just because they rejected Him does not mean He was not sent as their Eternal Savior. He was the Son of God; does that mean that since many did not recognize Him as the Son of God that He was not? Of course not!

Why do Jews think they have all the answers? I had a rabbi visit my speech class in college one time and he ripped Christians for saying that Genesis was literal and not figurative. His statement, which I don't think I will ever forget was we wrote the Bible so how do you think you can tell us what it means.

That is an arrogant attitude. Had to be an orthodox Jew. Not all Jews are like that. Genesis was, of course, literal.

I mean no offense by this, but just because you have a Jewish heritage doesn't mean you have all the Biblical answers.[/quote]

Linda never claimed she had all the answers. But, my wife does study and God has revealed much to her through her faithfulness to study His Word.

 

[J. Jump]

Hebrews 10:1 - 7 should narrow it down considerably. He became the sacrifice, once for all.

That doesn't say anything about God changing what they must believe in. If you are going to show that you are going to have to find it somewhere in the OT or in the Gospels, not Hebrews, but nice try. Doesn't even remotely come close to proving your point.

John 14:6 During Jesus life here on earth, He said 'No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.' Christ said in John 10 that He is the Door. Yes, I believe Christ taught that even the Jews must come through Him when He said 'No man.'

That's because He was the King!

Funny, I don't remember all the disciples not believing Him. I remember Simon Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee (Matthew 16),' but not the others. But Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee' does not necessarily mean He did not believe the Lord. He could very well have meant, 'Don't let it happen.'

Sorry but I don't want to rely on "he could have meant" this and that. Let's just let the Text say what It says!

When do you think they were saved?

They were saved when they believed what God had said regarding animal sacrifices. That's what God had told them to believe.

Peter even said that thou are the Christ. Jesus told him that the Holy Spirit taught him that not man. You don't call Him Christ (Annointed, Messiah) as a spiritually dead man.

Hebrews 10:1-9 KJV Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Yeah the second came AFTER His death not before. You proved my entire point once again. God didn't change things until AFTER the death of Christ. Before the death of Christ God still looked at Israel through the blood of the animals which pointed to the blood His Son was going to shed.

Our scripture exists. If one studies to show himself approved unto God, one would see those sacrifices have been done away with.

Yes they were done away with AFTER the death of Christ, not before.

Luke 19:10 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Christ also preached Salvation. See above verse.

So exactly how can something be lost that was never a possession of the owner. You are saying that the Jews were unsaved (did not belong to God) until the believed in Jesus' death and resurrection.

So how can they be lost if God never owned them?

[quoteLuke 2:30 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Just because they rejected Him does not mean He was not sent as their Eternal Savior.[/quote]
No just because you see the word salvation doesn't mean eternal salvation is what it being discussed!

Linda never claimed she had all the answers.

But she claimed she was right on that point becuase she was a Jew. And that doesn't mean anything.

But, my wife does study and God has revealed much to her through her faithfulness to study His Word.

And I guess I don't study and just make up this stuff all on my own and that God has chosen to keep me in the dark huh.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

And I guess I don't study and just make up this stuff all on my own and that God has chosen to keep me in the dark huh.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. I will continue to receive the things of the Spirit of God.

 

[J. Jump]

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. I will continue to receive the things of the Spirit of God.

So now not only am I doctrinally wrong, but now I'm lost even though I have believed in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, for the payment of my sin.