MurrayA wrote:
Amd of course, Casob/JD will no longer discuss anything with me.
So let me make a suggestion to Observation Post, Preacher, DJC49, and any others who are getting frustrated with him: why not simply ignore his posts completely for the incoherent drivel that they are, and have a rational discussion among ourselves? For my part, I enjoy these discussions, but Casob/JD interrupts the flow with his silly contributions.
I know, 'suffering fools gladly' has never been my forte, but perhaps I'm not alone there.

If footmen trouble him, what will horses do?

Can anyone say hypocrisy.

Just in case you missed it, read agin the gracious non abusive comments of this guy.

So let me make a suggestion to Observation Post, Preacher, DJC49, and any others who are getting frustrated with him: why not simply ignore his posts completely for the incoherent drivel that they are, and have a rational discussion among ourselves? For my part, I enjoy these discussions, but Casob/JD interrupts the flow with his silly contributions.

Observation Post wrote:
No one can prove anything to you that you WILL NOT believe because it condemns your preconceived ideas. You are the one who has ridiculed everyone for interpreting this passage exactly as the context demands it be interpreted and yet you refuse to take the same passage and show how everyone is wrong. You are intentionally being evasive in the extreme and I don't know why anyone bothers with you.

rogerent wrote:
Oh! I see, so I should rip these two books from Peter out of my bible then? And am I to beleive then that God is not willing that any of the Jews should perish? And that this does not apply to us? Why do they include these two books in our Bible then, shouldn't Thomas Nelson then ship them all to Israel?

While it is true, and I know this from other passages, that God wants everyone to be saved, the context of the passage below is to Israel. I am sorry but that is the way it is.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

DJC49,

I am the only one who took on context in Rom 2 because it supports what I have been telling you.

Let's finish this up and then lets talk about ALL Israel (as opposed to only a remnant of Israel, which is the real contrast in Rom 11). I would be happy to do it.

why don't you provide an exegesis of Rom 2:28-29 in light of it's immediate context? If everyone is wrong about Paul's intent to assign a spiritual value to the definition of a Jew in God's sight which is consistent throughout the NT writings surely a proper exegesis of the passage in light of its immediate context will establish your refusal to accept this definition
____

I am constantly amazed at these guys.

It was not I who brought this up as a proof text, it was the fellow who calls himself preacher. I have asked him to prove what he said from the text but he has done nothing but rufused.

You fellows really cannot understand can you? There seems to be a dark force clouding your minds.

Rogerant

The context will determine the "all".

All means all and all is all all means.

Then, there are three important rules for all Scripture; 1) Context, 2) Context, and 3) Context.

And, uh, excuse me, DJC49, but I did not really expect you to get it. You know I have ben talking to you for a while.

Now, the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone on these forums say is that Jews are gentiles and gentiles are Jews. If you want that argument to stand with your name on it, then excuse me while I laugh a while (heh, heh, heh, heh).

Verse 17 begins a new paragraph:

Notice as we set the context:

Ro 2:17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Who is called a Jew? Christians? Believers? Gentiles? Pagans? Louisianians? Australians? Canadians? Calvinists? Elect?

None of the above! Jews are called a Jew! That is pretty novel!

Just in case there is any doubt!

Ro 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Through ___________ Insert the antecedent. Canadians, louisianianins, Australians.

Yes, DJC, the word Jew is in Rom 2:29 and the word circumcision is in the verse and the word heart, Spirit, and letter are all there so it must mean that everyone who has their heart circumcised must be a Jew. It must mean that all gentiles becomes Jews because is that not what it is saying and so if all are spiritually circumcised do they not all become Jews? Case Closed.

The only problem is that the passage does not make that argument. I could follow it if it did but I am not sure about you. It is speaking particularly to the Jews and not to all believers. This is the great value of context.

Now if you approach this passage to prove your preconceived ideas are right and you have already figured out that gentiles are Jews and unbelieving Jews are gentiles, the only value of this text would be to proof it and it could not teach anything and it could certainly not correct your faulty premises.

So, there you are, hanging out on a limb, knowing more than God, prideful in your lack of understanding, and scoffing at the truth as foolishness.

You are not dealing with my charge that you willfully took passages out of context to establish your theology.

Sir, you took verses out of context and thus drew wrong conclusions. This is a serious charge. It is a charge of wresting the Scriptures if you persist without dealing with it. The context which you chose to validate your statements will not support them. This is not important enough for you to even acknowledge the charge I have made much less answer it.

It is not so bad to be wrong about a doctrine, none of us have arrived and we all have our misunderstanding of Scripture but the reaction should have been to examine the charge and either admitted it or to have defended it.

Now you have a list of questions on the table that bear upon your flawed view of the definition of a Jew and a gentile and do you think we will ever reach any common ground until we deal with this problem?

I am trying to be reasonable here but really this practice prevails by these commentators. One man casually quoted Jn 15:16 a while back in the context of chosen to be saved when it is clearly in the context of already justified men chosen for service (His apostles). He chose them in Matt 10.

Maybe you were, but one can not tell it from your comments and that is all I have to go with.

You are not lily white sir and some of your comments are purposely made to provoke. I suggest you stop feeling so good about yourself and try to find some humility.

And for the two of you that seem to be super sensitive like you are suffering some sort of persecution, I offer this;

Now, you asked me 3 questions and I answered all 3 in the order you gave them. Then I asked you one question and here is your reply:

"That is not relevent to the question I asked. It really doesn't matter what position I hold and has no bearing on whether or not the 3 passages are the same event or not."

And I said to myself, What? Where did this attitude come from!

So I get to answer questions but I don't get to ask any?

Then you said this with prejudice and without any provocation;

"Anyway I truly didn't expect a straightforward answer from you anyhow."

Why would you say that when I had just answered 3 questions from you? I don't get it!

I will tell you what this is. It is an elitist attitude that is proud and haughty. It is a defensive posture and it is obvious that you are unsure of yourself.

Preacher wrote:
DJC49 goes out of his way to explain that I OBVIOUSLY meant it in the spiritual sense and Casob replies with, "NO, that is not what he meant."

Quotes:

How can anyone deny that unless you are in Christ you are lost, and if you are lost you are in the same position that the Gentiles were in the Old Testament. So to call a non-Christian Jew a gentile is no insult to him. Most Jews these days are not religious and many are atheists.

God says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek." That distinction is gone. It is now Christian and non-Christian. And if you checked the bilogical history of the Jews since the dispersion you will find that there are perishingly few "true" Jews left, and most of them in Israel now are Mamsers.

This means that if you are a Jew and not a Christian you do not belong to the true Israel, therefore, Christians are Jews and non-believing Jews are Gentiles.

I know this kicks many in their theological knees, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture.
__________

Spiritual???, Yeah, right! ..and I have some ocean front property in Colorado I would like to sell you

Listen if you keep on this deductive reasoning line and making up doctrines, I am just going to have to label you as a kook in the same class as other more famous kooks.

We are not arguing about what preacher has said now, we are arguing about what you believe.

This is not worth the effort for me. I do not desire to spend time on the most basic tenants of the Christian faith This day has certainly been an eye-opener and if I ever had any doubts about the nature of your religion, they have all been eliminated with this conversation.

It has left me with an empty feeling and a terrible dread for you fellows and I don't think I can engage you in conversation in the same way as before. Neither do I think there is any hope of repentance for you because the darkness is just too great.

I am simply stunned by what I have learned today and it will take some time to come to terms with it.

No, that is not what he meant and even if it was it would not be much better but thank you for backing out of that argument. I was very concerned!

rogerant, you may think what you will. Character attacks are not saying someone is ignorant of a certain subject. It would be character attack if I said they were stupid. I am ignorant of many subjects of which I do not comment. Ignorant means I have not learned, stupid means I cannot learn. The root word of ignorance is "ignore" and that is what am accusing them of.

If I were guilty as you charge me, then Moderator Alpha would have been deleting my comments. DJC49 has been censored since I have.

the gentleman calling himself preacher made a comment that unbelieving Jews are gentiles and believers are Jews, or something very similar to that and you gave a hearty Amen.

If I have not understood you correctly, then what is your point?
I do not want to waste time with anyone debating the most basic Bible truths.

Are you actually on here arguing that Christians are Jews and that Jews are gentiles? Is that your contention because if it is there is no point at which we will ever find any common ground on even what the bible is about?

The context of the verses in Rom 2 that you are quoting is Jewish and he is making no attempt to prove that if they do not believe it makes them gentiles. That is deductive reasoning out of control! Neither is the passage where Paul addresses gentiles believers in Colossians an attempt to make them understand that becoming Christians make them Jews. The idea is preposterous!

The term Jew is a tribal designation for those who were of the physical seed of Abraham through Judah and became a word that included all those of Israel during the dispersion, save the Samaritans.

The physical circumcision found its fulfillment as a type in the conversion of the Jews because salvation is a matter of the heart, not of ones physical heritage. That is the point in Romans 2. In Clossians, a gentile context, the idea is more of a collective "body" of Christ that has it's sins removed through him.

First question:

what is the strongest proof text defending the pretrib rapture. Only one verse please.

First answer:

If you have ever believed any doctrine from the Bible based on one verse, then you have the right to demand I do it. If you can honestly say you have I will believe you and give you a verse.

Second question:

Secondly what is the strongest proof text defending the mid trib and post trib position.

Second answer:

Why would you ask me that? There are no passages that support a mid or post trib rapture unless they are taken out of context.

Third question:

do you believe that the Old Testament believers will be resurrected and translated at this pretrib rapture?

Third answer:

Do as you wish but you have not answered my challenge to your premise that Jews is a term for Christians and that non believing Jews are gentiles. You completely ignored that concern and continued to address me as if I must accept it. I said you took verses out of context to reach that conclusion. I have not changed my mind and it is I who am ignoring you until you do.

DJC49,

Jews means Jews in both Re 2:9 and 3:9 and in the former instance are said to be the synagogue of Satan and in the latter to be of the synagogue of Satan. They are not said to be Christians in these gentile churches. They are, in my view, the same people, or at least the same category.

I accept this passage of Scripture as any other passage as having a historical context as well as a prophetical context. These different churches were contemporary with one another but battled different attitudes. These attitudes were intended to outline the prevailing attitudes of church history. It was not me who wrote in the very beginning of this epistle these words to describe the whole book, not just part;

Re 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this PROPHECY, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.