It really is that simple and a clear reading of Scripture will bear that out.
You're right, it's that simple, but when people read the Scripture is when the "catch" begins. That "catch" is the way that we interpret those words. I think most get it right, and understand it clearly, but others do not, and think their view is right, and everyone else's is wrong.
Just look at the way the Bible is interpreted, with people handling snakes, drinking poison, and such, all because it's mentioned. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be one, but the fact is that perhaps no book ever written can be as confusing as the Bible is to some, yet as clear as it is to others. It may all depend on just what one is looking for.
How does one interpret 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 in any other way than according to what it appears clearly to say? Seems like it would require a great deal of mental gymnastics to do so.
Paul appears clearly not to be referring, when he says "the Jews," to those (like himself) of Jewish ancestry who've embraced faith in Christ.
I was referring to a particular scene described in John's Gospel, which had particular circumstances, and referred to people who denied he was the Christ, who were themselves Jews, which only makes sense since only a Jew at that time could have an opinion on whether someone was the Christ foretold by their prophets.
So you are still blaming modern Jews, for what those long ago did. I figure each man stands on His own, come judgement day. miles
I was referring to a particular scene described in John's Gospel, which had particular circumstances, and referred to people who denied he was the Christ, who were themselves Jews, which only makes sense since only a Jew at that time could have an opinion on whether someone was the Christ foretold by their prophets.
So you are still blaming modern Jews, for what those long ago did. I figure each man stands on His own, come judgement day. miles
The Talmud applauds the crucifixion, and hatefully condemns Christ and Christians. Therefore, attachment to Judaism in any sense (the Talmud being their central sacred text), also attaches one to Christ's rejection by his own, and to their seeking and bringing about his crucifixion. It's not rocket science.
PS, Christ made quite clear that any Jew who rejected him also rejected the Torah and the Prophets (and, in fact, all of what we call the Old Testament), so the Torah and the Prophets (etc.) stopped being among the Jews' sacred texts the moment they rejected Christ, even if they maintain the pretense that they continue to be that. Since then, only the anti-Christ teachings of the rabbis (now contained within the Talmud) became their central sacred body of belief. The Torah and the Prophets (along with the entirety of the Old Testament) belong to Christians, not properly to the Jews, who rejected these texts.
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" - John 5:46-47
I was referring to a particular scene described in John's Gospel, which had particular circumstances, and referred to people who denied he was the Christ, who were themselves Jews, which only makes sense since only a Jew at that time could have an opinion on whether someone was the Christ foretold by their prophets.
So you are still blaming modern Jews, for what those long ago did. I figure each man stands on His own, come judgement day. miles
Not defending TRH at all (he has me on ignore) but you’re actually quite incorrect here, at least speaking from a historically Protestant point of view.
All men are condemned under Adam. (I Cor 15: For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die...) We are not judged as individuals but as groups; we either follow Adam and are judged accordingly, or Christ, in which case He has suffered God’s wrath in our stead.
Now in terms of the context of your statements the Jews are as freely offered the latter as are any other people group and will therefore be held to account accordingly, so in that sense I understand what you’re saying.
I personally am grateful not to stand on my own merits at the judgment...
Seems like a logical distinction between Jews and Judaism (since 70 AD & destruction of the temple there is no such thing, but for sake of the conversation) ought to be something we could agree on that’d make this conversation easier, but TRH blocked earlier when he muddied the distinction between the ethnic & religious facets of the two (and they are two and distinct).
It really is that simple and a clear reading of Scripture will bear that out.
You're right, it's that simple, but when people read the Scripture is when the "catch" begins. That "catch" is the way that we interpret those words. I think most get it right, and understand it clearly, but others do not, and think their view is right, and everyone else's is wrong.
Just look at the way the Bible is interpreted, with people handling snakes, drinking poison, and such, all because it's mentioned. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be one, but the fact is that perhaps no book ever written can be as confusing as the Bible is to some, yet as clear as it is to others. It may all depend on just what one is looking for.
There’s too many people following Paul instead of allowing the Spirit to instruct them FOR THEIR OWN EDIIFICATION, not in order to teach others or show off their intellect.
A Concordance is second only to a Seminary when it comes to brainwashing folks.
Some who are so critical of the individual Jew have become just as dogmatic and artificial as the Pharisees of Jesus time.
It really is that simple and a clear reading of Scripture will bear that out.
You're right, it's that simple, but when people read the Scripture is when the "catch" begins. That "catch" is the way that we interpret those words. I think most get it right, and understand it clearly, but others do not, and think their view is right, and everyone else's is wrong.
Just look at the way the Bible is interpreted, with people handling snakes, drinking poison, and such, all because it's mentioned. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be one, but the fact is that perhaps no book ever written can be as confusing as the Bible is to some, yet as clear as it is to others. It may all depend on just what one is looking for.
How does one interpret 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 in any other way than according to what it appears clearly to say? Seems like it would require a great deal of mental gymnastics to do so.
Paul appears clearly not to be referring, when he says "the Jews," to those (like himself) of Jewish ancestry who've embraced faith in Christ.
A plain reading of the letter indicates that the Thessalonians were being persecuted by “ their countrymen” who were Pagan, not Jews. Paul is pointing out that HIS countrymen, who WERE Jews, opposed him in the same way......... by holding on to their old teachings.
By mentioning, as did Jesus Himself, how they had killed God’s Prophets, he appears to be condemning the Temple Jews. His most urgent warnings are reserved for the false teachers yet to come, not the Jews who rejected him.
Personally, I find Paul’s constant bragging on himself to be such a turnoff that I don’t give much credibility to his Theology, and I sure as hell ain’t gonna use his words as justification for HATE.
My distaste for most all things Jewish is rooted in the defining characteristics of their Ethnicity, not for anything some of them did over two thousand years ago.
It takes a twisted mind to use the death of Billy Graham to push a hateful agenda.
A plain reading of the letter indicates that the Thessalonians were being persecuted by “ their countrymen” who were Pagan, not Jews. Paul is pointing out that HIS countrymen, who WERE Jews, opposed him in the same way......... by holding on to their old teachings.
I suggest that you have a corrupted English translation of the verse.
King James Version: "... the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men."
Douay-Rheims Bible: "... the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men."
If you insist on a more modern translation, here's how the International Standard Version has it: "... the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, who have persecuted us, and who please neither God nor any group of people."
A plain reading of the letter indicates that the Thessalonians were being persecuted by “ their countrymen” who were Pagan, not Jews. Paul is pointing out that HIS countrymen, who WERE Jews, opposed him in the same way......... by holding on to their old teachings.
I suggest that you have a corrupted English translation of the verse.
King James Version: "... the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men."
Douay-Rheims Bible: "... the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men."
If you insist on a more modern translation, here's how the International Standard Version has it: "... the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, who have persecuted us, and who please neither God nor any group of people."
I read the NIV, but the particular version of the Bible used has no bearing on the point I made, which you missed entirely. I’ll complicate it up to the level of your comprehension:
Paul is drawing a parallel between the experiences of two churches who are facing opposition.
In one case, the opposition comes from SOME Jews..... the same ones whose fathers killed the Prophets.
In the present case, the opposition comes from Pagans who cling to their idols.
I’ve seen the Larry King clip and Graham did not deny Christ.
But B-G does express approval of Abortion in cases of rape which he then corrects to 'violent rape'..???? and in cases where the mothers life is in danger.
which is at odds with many self-proclaimed christians...BG advocating murder of unborns imagine that!
BG was great at convincing others(even maybe himself) that he had 'found' God, but only GOD really knows the level of personal relationship that BG has with GOD. BG himself has to wait till the he is resurrected from the grave to face judgement before he finds out if he had what it really takes to get into heaven and eternal life.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Billy Graham was so busy traveling and saving the world's souls that he neglected his own family, leaving them to alcohol and drug addiction, divorce and, depression.
I’ve seen the Larry King clip and Graham did not deny Christ.
But B-G does express approval of Abortion in cases of rape which he then corrects to 'violent rape'..???? and in cases where the mothers life is in danger.
which is at odds with many self-proclaimed christians...BG advocating murder of unborns imagine that!
BG was great at convincing others(even maybe himself) that he had 'found' God, but only GOD really knows the level of personal relationship that BG has with GOD. BG himself has to wait till the he is resurrected from the grave to face judgement before he finds out if he had what it really takes to get into heaven and eternal life.
all true enough. it remains important to remember or at least recall that a lot of true hebrews never talked (or believed?) much in the afterlife. whereas, the egyptians and greeks did. different thought patterns i assume. but anyways, jesus's followers did tend to lean toward the greek philosophy more or less? christians reduced the number of greek gods to be worshipped down from over 100 to about three, more or less.
Yes Gus, and many early christians did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, so much so that centuries later, it was decided by vote.., and when they didn't like the voting outcome,.. they tried to manipulated the results till they got the resolution they wanted....ended up they both had to compromise... the outcome being that Jesus was now not one or the other ....but both mere mortal and divine.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Gratitude for the grace shown me will inevitably flow out as grace toward others. If I am perpetually ungracious it is because I need to meditate upon the fact that I have nothing in this world that I have not received.
A proper Gospel sermon humbles me it doesn’t make me feel “better than”.
Pharisees always felt “better than” for they had earned their good standing and therefore needed no gratitude.
