Jew/ Gentile

[Brighten04]

In the bible the difference was in heritage and ancestry. Now, the difference is that those who say they are Jewish in today's time might not be referring to religion at all but the fact that they came from Jews. No one calls themselves Gentiles anymore...do they? We are all connected by Jesus.

Actually today all 12 tribes of Israel call themselves Jews. There is some scripture regarding that.
Revelation 3:9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Today there are just believers and unbelievers in the Lord Jesus Christ.Just mho.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #16 on Page 2 [ [with Pedrito insertion] ]:

So evidently it [John's Baptism] was something for man to do for the sake of righteousness. John's water baptism was to show repentance. So a person getting baptized would not subject himself to it unless he was repentant.I am just thinking with my fingers here.

Jesus’ mission was to substitute Himself for fallen mankind, ultimately dying the substitutionary, sacrificial death that would pay the penalty for man’s transgressions, and thereby reverse the penalty for man’s and woman’s sin (death).

Romans 6:23 tells us: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul states: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Paul then tells us in the next verse (Verse 23), when that gift of new life will be experienced by believers: “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”

==============================================================================================

What may not be commonly understood is that baptism like John’s was not unknown to the Jews. Gentile proselytes had to subject themselves to that style of ritual washing as part of their being accepted into the faith. John was saying to the people in effect, “You are just like heathen in God’s eyes. Confess that you have become like them, and rededicate yourselves to Him, in the way that Gentiles must, in their state of separation.”

By being baptised, Jesus both indicated that He understood and accepted His mission, and also as a first step subjected Himself to that baptism of repentance on behalf of the fallen mankind He had come to Earth to represent – all of them, including the much despised heathen.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Post #16 on Page 2 [ [with Pedrito insertion] ]:

So evidently it [John's Baptism] was something for man to do for the sake of righteousness. John's water baptism was to show repentance. So a person getting baptized would not subject himself to it unless he was repentant.I am just thinking with my fingers here.

Jesus’ mission was to substitute Himself for fallen mankind, ultimately dying the substitutionary, sacrificial death that would pay the penalty for man’s transgressions, and thereby reverse the penalty for man’s and woman’s sin (death).

Jesus came into the world to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45) There is no mention of substitution. In fact you will not find the word "substitution", "substitute", or "substituted" in reference to Jesus in the holy scriptures of the new testament.

Romans 6:23 tells us: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul states: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Paul then tells us in the next verse (Verse 23), when that gift of new life will be experienced by believers: “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”

==============================================================================================

What may not be commonly understood is that baptism like John’s was not unknown to the Jews. Gentile proselytes had to subject themselves to that style of ritual washing as part of their being accepted into the [Jewish] faith. John was saying to the people in effect, “You are just like heathen in God’s eyes. Confess that you have become like them, and rededicate yourselves to Him, in the way that Gentiles must, in their state of separation.”

By being baptised, Jesus both indicated that He understood and accepted His mission,

I agree with your statements thus far (with the word "Jewish" added in the place that I added it in red text). John's baptism was like proselyte baptism within Judaism in the first century AD as you say. Jesus did receive baptism at the hands of John the Baptist as you observed. And Jesus' acceptance of baptism at the hands of John did mark the beginning of Jesus' public ministry which was certainly a part of his mission from God.

and also as a first step subjected Himself to that baptism of repentance on behalf of the fallen mankind He had come to Earth to represent – all of them, including the much despised heathen.

I cannot give assent to the words you've used in this part of your statement because they imply a theology that is "man made" Jesus came to serve and to offer his life as a ransom for many he was not a representative - as if he were elected to fulfil a representative role on behalf of those who elected him - and his mission does not include any who do not want to be united with him.

 

[Josiah]

I have no clue what the current discussion has to do with this thread, just joining in on the hijack.....


The Bible states and Christians believe/trust that Jesus IS the Savior (the meaning of is is is, not "is not" or "only figurately true" or "a metaphor for")


The Bible states that (as a ACT since the word 'is' is used)... but the Bible never explains HOW that salvation was accomplished, HOW Jesus saved us - at least not in any systemmatic way. SOMEHOW... the Incarnation is critical.... somehow Jesus' moral perfection and divine love is critical..... somehow Jesus' death is critical..... and above all, Jesus' resurrection is critical. But WHY is never explained (in any systemmatic way).


The result has been the development of several theories. These are called "Atonement Theories" in theology. They were developed in the Early Church and put into final forms in the middle ages. There are many, but 4 or 5 are the most common today. ALL of them have good biblical support.... and ALL of them fall short of explaining it all. Theologians often favor one above the others but typically says all are shedding truth on the subject and should be seen together. Augustine, Luther and Calvin all tended to favor the "Christus Victor" view..... but many who came after them tended to favor the "Vicarious Atonement" one; it's the one we tend to hear from modern American "Evangelicals" but at times from other Christians, too. ALL of them have problems (the Vicarious Atonement one, for example, gives little importance to the issue the Bible gives greatest importance - the Resurrection). ALL of them have a lot of biblical support.


Frankly: I leave this as MYSTERY. All the human theories give insight (especially if we look at ALL to them, together) but ultimately, we can't answer HOW Jesus saved in any systemmatic way. ONLY what the Bible says: Jesus IS the Savior! JESUS did it all! And it involved critically His incarnation, His righteousness/morality/obedience/love, His innocent death and above all, His resurrection. THAT it is true, I affirm! HOW it is true.... I don't fully know.



- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

Josiah, Post #24 on Page 3:

The result has been the development of several theories. These are called "Atonement Theories" in theology. They were developed in the Early Church and put into final forms in the middle ages. There are many, but 4 or 5 are the most common today. ALL of them have good biblical support.... and ALL of them fall short of explaining it all.

Frankly: I leave this as MYSTERY. All the human theories give insight (especially if we look at ALL to them, together) but ultimately, we can't answer HOW Jesus saved in any systemmatic way.

Of course not!!

And Josiah has actually told us why.

“They were developed in the Early Church and put into final forms in the middle ages.” No mention of the pre-existing, apostolic doctrine, notice.


And naturally “ALL of them have good biblical support,” but only by retrofitting those doctrines into out-of-context and necessarily wrested Scripture.


==============================================================================================

Don’t forget that Jude tells us unequivocally that the original, true Gospel had been given, and had been understood in its entirety, in his lifetime.

Jude 1:3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (NIV)

==============================================================================================


Pedrito suggests once again that it would be instructive, and maybe even enlightening, to discover what that original, apostolic Gospel was.

That can be achieved by “simply” reading the Sacred Writings slowly and carefully, seeking to penetrate all obscuring doctrinal filters, and seeing what each verse and passage actually says.

Once the Writings present a totally cohesive picture for you, in which every statement of Jesus (for instance) fits snugly, you’ve discovered it!

Pedrito thinks you’ll be pleased with what you see, and overjoyed at how much it glorifies our wonderful God.



That applies whatever your background – Jew or Gentile.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Josiah, Post #24 on Page 3:



Of course not!!

And Josiah has actually told us why.

“They were developed in the Early Church and put into final forms in the middle ages.” No mention of the pre-existing, apostolic doctrine, notice.


And naturally “ALL of them have good biblical support,” but only by retrofitting those doctrines into out-of-context and necessarily wrested Scripture.


==============================================================================================

Don’t forget that Jude tells us unequivocally that the original, true Gospel had been given, and had been understood in its entirety, in his lifetime.

Jude 1:3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (NIV)

==============================================================================================


Pedrito suggests once again that it would be instructive, and maybe even enlightening, to discover what that original, apostolic Gospel was.

That can be achieved by “simply” reading the Sacred Writings slowly and carefully, seeking to penetrate all obscuring doctrinal filters, and seeing what each verse and passage actually says.

Once the Writings present a totally cohesive picture for you, in which every statement of Jesus (for instance) fits snugly, you’ve discovered it!

Pedrito thinks you’ll be pleased with what you see, and overjoyed at how much it glorifies our wonderful God.



That applies whatever your background – Jew or Gentile.

You crack me up with that spunk, that boldness.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

Post #26 on Page 3, regarding Pedrito’s Post #25 on the same page:

You crack me up with that spunk, that boldness.

Pedrito thanks popsthebuilder for what appears to be a compliment.

Pedrito did not realise he was being bold. Pedrito thought he was simply attempting to be helpful – helpful by bringing matters to people’s attention. He has been attempting to be helpful for some time now.

How many quotes-out-of-context has Pedrito highlighted in the past?

How many Scripture references that are said to mean something different from what they actually say, have been unveiled?

And what of passages that don’t fit in with established doctrine (of whatever church or churches)? – passages for which requested explanations have not been forthcoming?

Aren’t they all clues that something might well be amiss?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito merely wishes to encourage those who wave the Sola Scriptura flag, to go back to the Bible alone, and be overjoyed at finding what the original apostolic understanding actually was.

Maybe Pedrito could be accused of boldness, for suggesting that that all-embracing understanding actually exists – and that into that apostolic understanding, all in-context Scripture, as well as misinterpreted Scripture statements (when what they actually say is acknowledged), and passages for which no rational explanation appears to be findable, find a snug fit.

But is it really boldness? Or is it simply a desire that others will be freed from their current denominational shackles, and share the wonderful faith of the apostles and the apostolic church?

==============================================================================================

By the way, other people should not feel left out – i.e. people who don’t overtly wave the Sola Scriptura flag. Pedrito’s encouragement extends to them as well.

Jew and Gentile.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Post #26 on Page 3, regarding Pedrito’s Post #25 on the same page:


Pedrito thanks popsthebuilder for what appears to be a compliment.

Pedrito did not realise he was being bold. Pedrito thought he was simply attempting to be helpful – helpful by bringing matters to people’s attention. He has been attempting to be helpful for some time now.

How many quotes-out-of-context has Pedrito highlighted in the past?

How many Scripture references that are said to mean something different from what they actually say, have been unveiled?

And what of passages that don’t fit in with established doctrine (of whatever church or churches)? – passages for which requested explanations have not been forthcoming?

Aren’t they all clues that something might well be amiss?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito merely wishes to encourage those who wave the Sola Scriptura flag, to go back to the Bible alone, and be overjoyed at finding what the original apostolic understanding actually was.

Maybe Pedrito could be accused of boldness, for suggesting that that all-embracing understanding actually exists – and that into that apostolic understanding, all in-context Scripture, as well as misinterpreted Scripture statements (when what they actually say is acknowledged), and passages for which no rational explanation appears to be findable, find a snug fit.

But is it really boldness? Or is it simply a desire that others will be freed from their current denominational shackles, and share the wonderful faith of the apostles and the apostolic church?

==============================================================================================

By the way, other people should not feel left out – i.e. people who don’t overtly wave the Sola Scriptura flag. Pedrito’s encouragement extends to them as well.

Jew and Gentile.

Perhaps t is just truth that stands out in bold in comparison to what one is used to witnessing. The inkling of joy it brings in my own seemingly feeble soul is bold in contrast to my own knowing meandering.

May GOD bring you peace and blessings to the further glorifying of GOD's cause throughout creation brother.

And again; peace to you and removal of the vail of deceit for all by the will and Majesty of GOD, whom all thanks is to ultimately.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Wilhemena]

Josiah, Post #24 on Page 3:



Of course not!!

And Josiah has actually told us why.

“They were developed in the Early Church and put into final forms in the middle ages.” No mention of the pre-existing, apostolic doctrine, notice.


And naturally “ALL of them have good biblical support,” but only by retrofitting those doctrines into out-of-context and necessarily wrested Scripture.


==============================================================================================

Don’t forget that Jude tells us unequivocally that the original, true Gospel had been given, and had been understood in its entirety, in his lifetime.

Jude 1:3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (NIV)

==============================================================================================


Pedrito suggests once again that it would be instructive, and maybe even enlightening, to discover what that original, apostolic Gospel was.

That can be achieved by “simply” reading the Sacred Writings slowly and carefully, seeking to penetrate all obscuring doctrinal filters, and seeing what each verse and passage actually says.

Once the Writings present a totally cohesive picture for you, in which every statement of Jesus (for instance) fits snugly, you’ve discovered it!

Pedrito thinks you’ll be pleased with what you see, and overjoyed at how much it glorifies our wonderful God.



That applies whatever your background – Jew or Gentile.

The original apostolic Gospel points to Jesus and I was under the impression this was a Christian community and that we preach Jesus here and have already discovered him? But thank you for maybe suggesting to the Jews who have run across this site might be reading and it would be wise for them to seek the Jesus we know and love and in that I commend you, Pedrito. How pleasing it is to be on Christian message board forum where we are not persecuted for our beliefs and I tell you, I have been on other ones from time to time where Jesus is not welcomed so it is a challenge to share his message of love and grace.

 

[Pedrito]

In response to Pedrito’s statement in Post #22 on Page 3:

...By being baptised, Jesus both indicated that He understood and accepted His mission, and also as a first step subjected Himself to that baptism of repentance on behalf of the fallen mankind He had come to Earth to represent – all of them, including the much despised heathen.

We find in Post #23 on Page 3:

I cannot give assent to the words you've used in this part of your statement because they imply a theology that is "man made" Jesus came to serve and to offer his life as a ransom for many he was not a representative - as if he were elected to fulfil a representative role on behalf of those who elected him - and his mission does not include any who do not want to be united with him.

(That latter thought seems to conflict with a thought previously expressed elsewhere that people from other religions will benefit from Jesus’ death, but Protestants won’t.)

Let’s look at definitions for the word “represent”:
- to stand as an equivalent of; correspond to;
- to act as a substitute or proxy (for).

Also, acting on behalf of someone includes the idea of acting instead of someone, or as a representative of someone – not always at the behest of the person or persons being represented.

==============================================================================================

The concept of one life being substituted for another was not new. Moses represented Israel before God by offering his own life in exchange for theirs (Exodus 32:32), and Paul would have been willing to act similarly were it possible. (Romans 9:3) Paul knew it was impossible because God had rejected Moses’ offer.

However, Romans 5:19 “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

God accepted Jesus’ substitution.

Romans 15:3 “For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me."”

Isaiah 53:6 “... the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

One man, the first Adam, represented Mankind in God’s scheme of things. One man, the second Adam, likewise represented Mankind in that same scheme.


And that lead to: 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Pedrito submits that Jesus, by His actions, most definitely stood as an equivalent of, and acted as a substitute or proxy for, mankind – and that His death corresponded to man’s death sentence by being the exact substitutionary ransom price required to lift that death sentence from mankind.

Jesus represented mankind by being the required perfect human from their midst.

 

[Cassia]

(That latter thought seems to conflict with a thought previously expressed elsewhere that people from other religions will benefit from Jesus’ death, but Protestants won’t.)
...

This statement ... from this site?

 

[MoreCoffee]

This statement ... from this site?

Pedrito's post contained fragments from one of my posts but he incorrectly attributes views to somebody that I've never seen expressed here in CH. The post he quoted from says the following.

Post #16 on Page 2 [ [with Pedrito insertion] ]:

So evidently it [John's Baptism] was something for man to do for the sake of righteousness. John's water baptism was to show repentance. So a person getting baptized would not subject himself to it unless he was repentant.I am just thinking with my fingers here.

Jesus’ mission was to substitute Himself for fallen mankind, ultimately dying the substitutionary, sacrificial death that would pay the penalty for man’s transgressions, and thereby reverse the penalty for man’s and woman’s sin (death).

Jesus came into the world to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45) There is no mention of substitution. In fact you will not find the word "substitution", "substitute", or "substituted" in reference to Jesus in the holy scriptures of the new testament.

Romans 6:23 tells us: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul states: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Paul then tells us in the next verse (Verse 23), when that gift of new life will be experienced by believers: “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”

==============================================================================================

What may not be commonly understood is that baptism like John’s was not unknown to the Jews. Gentile proselytes had to subject themselves to that style of ritual washing as part of their being accepted into the [Jewish] faith. John was saying to the people in effect, “You are just like heathen in God’s eyes. Confess that you have become like them, and rededicate yourselves to Him, in the way that Gentiles must, in their state of separation.”

By being baptised, Jesus both indicated that He understood and accepted His mission,

I agree with your statements thus far (with the word "Jewish" added in the place that I added it in red text). John's baptism was like proselyte baptism within Judaism in the first century AD as you say. Jesus did receive baptism at the hands of John the Baptist as you observed. And Jesus' acceptance of baptism at the hands of John did mark the beginning of Jesus' public ministry which was certainly a part of his mission from God.

and also as a first step subjected Himself to that baptism of repentance on behalf of the fallen mankind He had come to Earth to represent – all of them, including the much despised heathen.

I cannot give assent to the words you've used in this part of your statement because they imply a theology that is "man made" Jesus came to serve and to offer his life as a ransom for many he was not a representative - as if he were elected to fulfil a representative role on behalf of those who elected him - and his mission does not include any who do not want to be united with him.

 

[user1234]

Substitute: in place of

There is no mention of substitution. In fact you will not find the word "substitution", "substitute", or "substituted" in reference to Jesus in the holy scriptures of the new testament.

The whole point is that Jesus Christ did for us
what we could never do for ourselves.
That's substitution.
HE paid a debt He didn't owe, because WE owed a debt we couldn't pay.
Substitution.
HE was delivered for OUR offenses. Substitute.
HE died for the UNGODLY. Substitute.
HE suffered for US. Substitute.
The just for the unjust. Substitute.
That's substitution.
That's why we sing His praises.
How could you miss that?

 

[Lamb]

2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It could possibly be that the word substitution was not part of the language since if you look it up in the dictionary it says Late Middle English. The verse above shows that He worked on our behalf.

 

[popsthebuilder]

2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It could possibly be that the word substitution was not part of the language since if you look it up in the dictionary it says Late Middle English. The verse above shows that He worked on our behalf.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

2Corinthioans 5:21 τὸν The (one) μὴ not γνόντα having known ἁμαρτίαν sin ὑπὲρ over ἡμῶν us ἁμαρτίαν sin ἐποίησεν, he made, ἵνα in order that ἡμεῖς we γενώμεθα might become δικαιοσύνη righteousness θεοῦ of God ἐν in αὐτῷ him.

I am not sure how this verse relates to Jew/Gentile which is this thread's topic but people seem concerned about what it says in Greek. So above is a Greek text of the verse with English equivalents shown in red text.

 

[Lamb]

2Corinthioans 5:21 τὸν The (one) μὴ not γνόντα having known ἁμαρτίαν sin ὑπὲρ over ἡμῶν us ἁμαρτίαν sin ἐποίησεν, he made, ἵνα in order that ἡμεῖς we γενώμεθα might become δικαιοσύνη righteousness θεοῦ of God ἐν in αὐτῷ him.

I am not sure how this verse relates to Jew/Gentile which is this thread's topic but people seem concerned about what it says in Greek. So above is a Greek text of the verse with English equivalents shown in red text.

My quoted part didn't come out for some reason...I was referring to the substitution part of the discussion and that verse corresponded to show how it fits the word even though the word most likely was not in use during that time period.

 

[Cassia]

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Working together with Him ... right.

 

[Lamb]

The part you added on, about working together is our sanctification, but you see righteousness is given by God.

 

[popsthebuilder]

My points are that we are, as avid believers in the Word of GOD, the spiritual remnant of Israel, and that the law that is written on the hearts of man is to be followed and not put off or ignored.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk