Weird

[Josheb]

I had a weird experience earlier this evening during an online discussion elsewhere. Someone reported he'd been told the Jews are not God's people, despite "from everything I've read it's pretty clear that they are His chosen people," and then he asked for everyone's thoughts.

I asked one question: Can you provide the people in this group with a verse that explicitly states, "The Jews are My people"?

To which he cited Deuteronomy 7:6.

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.


Which makes absolutely no mention of Jews. I noted that there were no Jews existing at the point Deuteronomy 7 occurred. Up to this point God had addressed all of his words to "the sons of Israel," or just plain "Israel." I then summarized how Israel was not yet a nation-state, and that no one was called "Jew" until long after the Hebrews had entered, cleared out, and settled the promised land. I also provided a little history pertaining to the fact that those people to whom Giod was speaking were descendants of Abraham, which made the Babylonians (Eber --> Ur --> Chaldea --> Babylon - I explain all that if necessary).

His response was to cite Romans 9-11, so I again pointed out there's no mentions of Jews in those three chapters, except for Paul's statement about there being no distinction between Jew and Greek in the Lord. I briefly described how the word "Israel" was used, but Paul stated not all Israel is Israel and he defined the descendants of Abraham and identity of Israel by way of God's promises and those who have faith in them, NOT bloodline or the Law.

The other guy then affirmed the fact there are no jews or Gentiles in Christ and "Yes, the Jews must be saved the same as us," but (and this is the weird part) he then stated,

"These verses I have said are full proof. Deuteronomy 7:6 is plainly stated. It is talking to the Israelites which happen to be called Jews."​

This is self-evidently not true. Dt. 7:6 is not written to Jews, and it can't possibly be made to be said to the Jews because no Jews then existed. It is many years in scripture before the word "Jew" is used by God to describe anyone. It took nearly fifty years for the Israelites to rid the land of its inhabitants and a few more to settle the tribes into their respective lands.

My point of discussion pertains to two points. The first is "How can a person be asked for an explicit statement, not provide one but claim a verse says something it does not state?" Most of you are very familiar with the fact people make scripture say things it never states AND there is a fundamental difference between what is stated and what might be said about that statement's meaning AND what people say a verse says. Most of you are also familiar with my practice of asking for explicit statements for a variety of reason. The second point of discussion is "How, after acknowledging a verse does not state something a person can later go back to that verse contradict their prior agreement and again claim a verse says something it clearly does not state?" Usually, a person citing a verse they think says something will never concede what the verse states or acknowledge a difference between what is stated and what the verse is made to say. This guy acknowledged the verses did not explicitly state what he claimed they said and acknowledging that fact in Deuteronomy 7:6 he openly and willing vacated that verse to appeal to Romans 10-11...... only to return later to say Dt. 7:6 was "proof" of his position!

I see nonsense in DBs every day but that was just weird .

1. How can a person be asked for an explicit statement, not provide one and then claim a verse says something it does not state?
2. How, after acknowledging a verse does not state something, can a person later go back to that verse and contradict themselves and again claim a verse says something it clearly does not state?

Have at it .

Anyway, I thought this might prompt an interesting set of conversations. It's going to be mostly speculation and anecdotal report because none can read that guy's mind, but we've all had similar experiences.

 

[fastfredy0]

Most of you are very familiar with the fact people make scripture say things it never states AND there is a fundamental difference between what is stated and what might be said about that statement's meaning AND what people say a verse says.

Yep.

1. How can a person be asked for an explicit statement, not provide one and then claim a verse says something it does not state?
2. How, after acknowledging a verse does not state something, can a person later go back to that verse and contradict themselves and again claim a verse says something it clearly does not state?

They might be stupid, have a bad sense of logic, have a different foundation of knowledge like the R.C.s who follow the teaching of the magisterium, pride, unfounded indoctrination ... I find people often don't define terms/words that are the basis for the discussion. The definition of "free will" is an example. Also, lengthy responses can be tedious.

If the person is bad enough I put them on "ignore". Of course, I assume I'm not the person with a problem.

 

[atpollard]

Was everyone killed in Germany during WW2 from the tribe of Judah?
What IS the definition of "Jew" in modern English?
Are the "Jews" [modern English] the same as "my people" of Deuteronomy 7:6?
Is this semantic hair-splitting?

Paul said HE was a Jew ... but he was a Benjaminite! Were the Priests NOT JEWS ... they were Levites!

 

[Josheb]

Was everyone killed in Germany during WW2 from the tribe of Judah?

No

What IS the definition of "Jew" in modern English?

A member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham, according to the dictionary.

Are the "Jews" [modern English] the same as "my people" of Deuteronomy 7:6?

No.

Is this semantic hair-splitting?

No.

Paul said HE was a Jew ... but he was a Benjaminite! Were the Priests NOT JEWS ... they were Levites!

Paul and the priests were Jews.


Post #3 is a very good red herring. Try this: Do a word search of the word "Jew" or "Jews" in your Bible and tell me in which book of the Bible the word first appears. Post it. I think everyone will be surprised. I recommended to man with whom I was discussing these things take some time to study the facts I'd provided and draw his own conclusions. He blew me off. We live in a time when a large portion of Christendom conflates Jews with a variety of other monikers found in scripture. They ignore things like the definitions that scripture provides, the newer revelation's revelation, and the continuity of scripture from Old to New. Their conflation is doctrinal, not scriptural.

But all of that is irrelevant to the op because this op is about the other guys looking scripture in the face and being double-minded about it when realizing it does not state what he thinks it says. His original question was what I and others presumed was an honest inquiry pertaining to who are God's people. It turned out he had a pre-conceived notion that he would not relinquish, not matter what scripture states and his inquiry, therefore turned out to be disingenuous. Why ask people a question if you do not want to know their answer? Why ask any question if you're sure you know the answer and everyone else (or at least everyone who disagrees) is wrong? Why do any of that and in the midst of the conversation openly acknowledge what a verse states and does not state and then lie* about it later?

I'm telling you all the conversation was weird.

So don't try to mete out doctrine in this thread, @atpollard. That's not the purpose of the thread. This is not about determining the identity of God's people. It's about a Christian (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) looking at scripture and, at first, acknowledging what is stated, but moments later denying what he'd seen and his own profession of the facts!* Think about yourself doing what I've described. Have you ever thought you knew what scripture "said," only to look up a verse and find out what it states is not what you thought it said? Did you, in that moment, bow to scripture or deny what is stated and persist in what you then, in that moment, knew to be incorrect? Were you to do that in the present of witnesses persist and try to convince the others - brothers and sisters in Christ who'd just read the exact same verse(s) with you - would you try to convince them their eyes lied to them; they and scripture are wrong and you are rights? If commended in goodwill to study further, would you dismiss the matter and claim you have proof and need no more study? Would you do such a thing? If not, what might you say to a person who did it with you? To what would you attribute such conduct?










*1 A factual error is a falsehood. A falsehood told knowingly with an intent to deceive is a lie.
*2 Perhaps there is a verse that explicitly states, "The Jews are My people," but such a verse was never provided in the other group's discussion.
.

 

[atpollard]

No

A member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham, according to the dictionary.

No.

No.

Paul and the priests were Jews.


Post #3 is a very good red herring. Try this: Do a word search of the word "Jew" or "Jews" in your Bible and tell me in which book of the Bible the word first appears. Post it. I think everyone will be surprised. I recommended to man with whom I was discussing these things take some time to study the facts I'd provided and draw his own conclusions. He blew me off. We live in a time when a large portion of Christendom conflates Jews with a variety of other monikers found in scripture. They ignore things like the definitions that scripture provides, the newer revelation's revelation, and the continuity of scripture from Old to New. Their conflation is doctrinal, not scriptural.

But all of that is irrelevant to the op because this op is about the other guys looking scripture in the face and being double-minded about it when realizing it does not state what he thinks it says. His original question was what I and others presumed was an honest inquiry pertaining to who are God's people. It turned out he had a pre-conceived notion that he would not relinquish, not matter what scripture states and his inquiry, therefore turned out to be disingenuous. Why ask people a question if you do not want to know their answer? Why ask any question if you're sure you know the answer and everyone else (or at least everyone who disagrees) is wrong? Why do any of that and in the midst of the conversation openly acknowledge what a verse states and does not state and then lie* about it later?

I'm telling you all the conversation was weird.

So don't try to mete out doctrine in this thread, @atpollard. That's not the purpose of the thread. This is not about determining the identity of God's people. It's about a Christian (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) looking at scripture and, at first, acknowledging what is stated, but moments later denying what he'd seen and his own profession of the facts!* Think about yourself doing what I've described. Have you ever thought you knew what scripture "said," only to look up a verse and find out what it states is not what you thought it said? Did you, in that moment, bow to scripture or deny what is stated and persist in what you then, in that moment, knew to be incorrect? Were you to do that in the present of witnesses persist and try to convince the others - brothers and sisters in Christ who'd just read the exact same verse(s) with you - would you try to convince them their eyes lied to them; they and scripture are wrong and you are rights? If commended in goodwill to study further, would you dismiss the matter and claim you have proof and need no more study? Would you do such a thing? If not, what might you say to a person who did it with you? To what would you attribute such conduct?

*1 A factual error is a falsehood. A falsehood told knowingly with an intent to deceive is a lie.
*2 Perhaps there is a verse that explicitly states, "The Jews are My people," but such a verse was never provided in the other group's discussion.
.

Thank you for proving my point (which was not about DOCTRINE ... but about SEMANTIC hair-splitting.)
[It was "weird" because you and he were talking past one another pedantically.]

But carry on with what a terrible person THEY are ... It is none of my business.
(Time for me to watch an Erroll Flynn movie and take a break from Christians.)

 

[Josheb]

They might be stupid, have a bad sense of logic, have a different foundation of knowledge like the R.C.s who follow the teaching of the magisterium, pride, unfounded indoctrination ... I find people often don't define terms/words that are the basis for the discussion. The definition of "free will" is an example. Also, lengthy responses can be tedious.

Yes! Yes! and Yes! But.....

....even a stupid person can see the obvious and/or be honest, and/or have a personal sense of integrity.

If the person is bad enough I put them on "ignore". Of course, I assume I'm not the person with a problem.

This was in an online group dedicated to former Dispensationalists, now populated (like this former) predominantly by people of the Reformed Theology persuasion and Dispies who like to troll the group (I do not know why the admins allow them membership, but it's supposed to be under the auspices of their sincere inquiry about DPism). There are no ignore options other than to stop posting when discussions become inane.

 

[fastfredy0]

There are no ignore options other than to stop posting when discussions become inane.

Too bad. I find the "ignore" function to be a time saver and a personal, mental health aid. *giggle*

 

[Josheb]

Too bad. I find the "ignore" function to be a time saver and a personal, mental health aid. *giggle*

I don't like it because it results in the posts of those on ignore not showing so they cannot be read, and then the flow of a thread may not be able to be followed. I use it only in the most extreme cases. In some cases, to tell someone they are going to be put on ignore is a form of trolling. That message is posted to provoke, not to inform. Ironically, I've had folks post "You are now on my ignore list" and demonstrate a problem similar to the one described in this op because 1) it's not ignoring a poster to tell the poster they're being ignored, and 2) those posting that message rarely follow through. It's just a matter of time before responses occur that demonstrate posts are not being ignored. If there was truth to being put on ignore the ignored person would never know it.

It's very much like looking at a verse that states "X" and then stating, "It says 'Y'."


Why would someone do that?

 

[makesends]

I had a weird experience earlier this evening during an online discussion elsewhere. Someone reported he'd been told the Jews are not God's people, despite "from everything I've read it's pretty clear that they are His chosen people," and then he asked for everyone's thoughts.

I asked one question: Can you provide the people in this group with a verse that explicitly states, "The Jews are My people"?

To which he cited Deuteronomy 7:6.

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.


Which makes absolutely no mention of Jews. I noted that there were no Jews existing at the point Deuteronomy 7 occurred. Up to this point God had addressed all of his words to "the sons of Israel," or just plain "Israel." I then summarized how Israel was not yet a nation-state, and that no one was called "Jew" until long after the Hebrews had entered, cleared out, and settled the promised land. I also provided a little history pertaining to the fact that those people to whom Giod was speaking were descendants of Abraham, which made the Babylonians (Eber --> Ur --> Chaldea --> Babylon - I explain all that if necessary).

His response was to cite Romans 9-11, so I again pointed out there's no mentions of Jews in those three chapters, except for Paul's statement about there being no distinction between Jew and Greek in the Lord. I briefly described how the word "Israel" was used, but Paul stated not all Israel is Israel and he defined the descendants of Abraham and identity of Israel by way of God's promises and those who have faith in them, NOT bloodline or the Law.

The other guy then affirmed the fact there are no jews or Gentiles in Christ and "Yes, the Jews must be saved the same as us," but (and this is the weird part) he then stated,

"These verses I have said are full proof. Deuteronomy 7:6 is plainly stated. It is talking to the Israelites which happen to be called Jews."​

This is self-evidently not true. Dt. 7:6 is not written to Jews, and it can't possibly be made to be said to the Jews because no Jews then existed. It is many years in scripture before the word "Jew" is used by God to describe anyone. It took nearly fifty years for the Israelites to rid the land of its inhabitants and a few more to settle the tribes into their respective lands.

My point of discussion pertains to two points. The first is "How can a person be asked for an explicit statement, not provide one but claim a verse says something it does not state?" Most of you are very familiar with the fact people make scripture say things it never states AND there is a fundamental difference between what is stated and what might be said about that statement's meaning AND what people say a verse says. Most of you are also familiar with my practice of asking for explicit statements for a variety of reason. The second point of discussion is "How, after acknowledging a verse does not state something a person can later go back to that verse contradict their prior agreement and again claim a verse says something it clearly does not state?" Usually, a person citing a verse they think says something will never concede what the verse states or acknowledge a difference between what is stated and what the verse is made to say. This guy acknowledged the verses did not explicitly state what he claimed they said and acknowledging that fact in Deuteronomy 7:6 he openly and willing vacated that verse to appeal to Romans 10-11...... only to return later to say Dt. 7:6 was "proof" of his position!

I see nonsense in DBs every day but that was just weird .

1. How can a person be asked for an explicit statement, not provide one and then claim a verse says something it does not state?
2. How, after acknowledging a verse does not state something, can a person later go back to that verse and contradict themselves and again claim a verse says something it clearly does not state?

Have at it .

Anyway, I thought this might prompt an interesting set of conversations. It's going to be mostly speculation and anecdotal report because none can read that guy's mind, but we've all had similar experiences.

I was at friends' house, one day this week, and they had some kind of conspiracy theorist's blog up, where he quoted some other dude who claimed that the current residents of Israel, who claimed to be Jews, had (if I remember right) less than 25% 'Jewish' blood in them, compared to the Palestinians, who averaged 95% of Jewish blood, the benchmark I guess being old Jews, (I assume 2000 years ago?). There was obviously no documentation to back that up, but it was curious that this kind of guy who studied all about "who really runs this world" and the evils that abound in government and the New World Order and Alien/demons and on and on, would claim that the current "Jews" are not real Jews.

 

[Josheb]

I was at friends' house, one day this week, and they had some kind of conspiracy theorist's blog up, where he quoted some other dude who claimed that the current residents of Israel, who claimed to be Jews, had (if I remember right) less than 25% 'Jewish' blood in them, compared to the Palestinians, who averaged 95% of Jewish blood, the benchmark I guess being old Jews, (I assume 2000 years ago?). There was obviously no documentation to back that up, but it was curious that this kind of guy who studied all about "who really runs this world" and the evils that abound in government and the New World Order and Alien/demons and on and on, would claim that the current "Jews" are not real Jews.

Yeah, that's eyeball-rolling stuff on a magnitude that might cause one's eyeballs to leave one's skull. What, exactly, would "Jewish" blood be? I wonder if he understood how racist that sounds. I wonder how he'd define a Jew relative to scripture??? Would he look at any mention of "Jew" in the Bible and say, "Ah, pure Jews no longer exist because Jews no longer have Jewish blood. Palestinians are the ones that verse is now written about."???

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Maybe I should try to arrange my guy and your guy sitting down together and have them sort it out .

 

[Mr GLee]

One thing, remember. Chosen people not chosen race.

In that was a Jew dying mankind is not one outwardly according to dying flesh but one inwardly born again of the Spirit of Christ

God is not the racist

The father of lies is king of racism. Kill them all. not having a spiritual unseen understanding called faith that comes from hearing the gospel. He Not subject to salvation. Has no ears to hear the living abiding word.

Sound the Trump expose the true leader of racism( Satan). Pray for humbleness before honor . three more days .

 

[makesends]

Yeah, that's eyeball-rolling stuff on a magnitude that might cause one's eyeballs to leave one's skull. What, exactly, would "Jewish" blood be? I wonder if he understood how racist that sounds. I wonder how he'd define a Jew relative to scripture??? Would he look at any mention of "Jew" in the Bible and say, "Ah, pure Jews no longer exist because Jews no longer have Jewish blood. Palestinians are the ones that verse is now written about."???

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Maybe I should try to arrange my guy and your guy sitting down together and have them sort it out .

Yeah, I couldn't help but wonder about that benchmark. Did they dig up from somebody buried in the promised land before/during or after the 40 years in the desert and the conquest?? How in the world would they KNOW? They did mention DNA, come to think of it, not blood. Thus more technical and impressive and obscure.

The thesis of the blog's discussion that day had to do with the banks/rich ruling the world, so maybe that's why he was so willing to accept what the other guy said about the Jews, since there are Jews involved in banking.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I do hope this will silence this attrocious racist thread.

[Zec 2:12-13 LSB] 12 "Then Yahweh will inherit Judah as His portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 "Be silent, all flesh, before Yahweh; for He is aroused from His holy habitation."

[Zec 2:8 LSB] 8 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, "After glory He has sent Me against the nations which have taken you as spoil, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.

In fact, read all of Zechariah 2 for the complete context.

 

[Josheb]

I do hope this will silence this attrocious racist thread.

[Zec 2:12-13 LSB] 12 "Then Yahweh will inherit Judah as His portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 "Be silent, all flesh, before Yahweh; for He is aroused from His holy habitation."

[Zec 2:8 LSB] 8 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, "After glory He has sent Me against the nations which have taken you as spoil, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.

In fact, read all of Zechariah 2 for the complete context.

It doesn't silence anything. The reason it silences nothing is because the thread is not about the identity of God's chosen people. Every single attempt to make the discussion about the identity of God's people is, therefore, off topic (see rule 3 of the tou) and violates the tou. Likewise, any post that does not address the motives and practices of anyone who looks a verse and acknowledges what it states only to later deny that fact is, again, off topic and in violation of the tou.

 

[Josheb]

So as to keep that digressions about the identity of God's chosen people out of this thread, I have started a new op HERE specifically so that topic can be discussed in a dedicated thread. I'll weigh in with greater detail when I have the time to do so.

 

[Mr GLee]

I do hope this will silence this attrocious racist thread.

[Zec 2:12-13 LSB] 12 "Then Yahweh will inherit Judah as His portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 "Be silent, all flesh, before Yahweh; for He is aroused from His holy habitation."

[Zec 2:8 LSB] 8 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, "After glory He has sent Me against the nations which have taken you as spoil, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.

In fact, read all of Zechariah 2 for the complete context.

It would seem to silence the gospel against all nations to include the nation of Jews whom as his one bride Israel .He promised to rename in Isaiah 62. Christian literally meaning . . ."residents of the heavenly city of Christ prepared for his bride the church". A more befitting name to name the bride of all nation

God is not man a racist

[Zec 2:8 LSB] 8 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, "After glory He has sent Me against the nations which have taken you as spoil, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.

Romans 2:28-29;For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It doesn't silence anything. The reason it silences nothing is because the thread is not about the identity of God's chosen people. Every single attempt to make the discussion about the identity of God's people is, therefore, off topic (see rule 3 of the tou) and violates the tou. Likewise, any post that does not address the motives and practices of anyone who looks a verse and acknowledges what it states only to later deny that fact is, again, off topic and in violation of the tou.

The verse provided answers the original post. And that you don't think so, does not make it so.