Ichthys Acronym Image

Home             Site Links

Israelology, Anti-Semitism,

the Remnant, Gentiles, Lost Tribes, and Jewish Myths

Word RTF

Question #1: 

Bob Luginbill 

In your website : http://ichthys.com/Bible-Basics-Home-Page.htm, on the "Essential Doctrines of the Bible" there no mention of one of the major subjects taught in the Bible ... "The study of Israelology?" Why is that? It seems to me that by avoiding such a topic in most theological teachings, much room is given to the development of "replacement theology" which has had major consequences to the Christian believer toward the Jew and has fostered greater antisemitism resulting in the likes of the Holocaust and condescending attitude toward the nation of Israel today.

Response #1: 

Dear Friend,

If you spend some time at this ministry I think you quickly see that the assumption that the important topic of Israel has been avoided, omitted or in any way overlooked is unfounded. Here is a very short snippet from part 5 of the Satanic Rebellion series, just to prove that point:

Israel: God's Perfect Standard

Twelve is, of course, the number of full and overflowing wholeness, a principle most perspicuously seen from the number of the tribes of Israel according to which (and into which) the entire saved complement of humanity will ultimately be organized:

1) Israel is the ultimate measure: According to Deuteronomy 32:8, the boundaries of the nations were established by God "according to the number of the sons of Israel", making their number the standard in conformity to which the Lord has planned human history.

2) Israel is the ultimate root: Following the cross, Jew and gentile are now one in Christ (Gal.3:28; Eph.2:11-22; Col.3:11), but it is the root of Israel into which gentiles are grafted, not the other way around (Rom.11:18).

3) Israel is the ultimate foundation: The prophets (including, for example, Moses, David, Elijah, and Elisha), all writers of scripture (see above), all the apostles, all of the ultimate evangelists (viz., the 144,000 of Rev.7), and, last and most significantly, the Messiah, all come from Israel (Eph.2:20; 2Pet.2:6; cf. Rev.21:14).

4) Israel is the ultimate goal: We are all looking forward to the day when we shall inhabit the New Jerusalem, the capital of eternal Israel, a place where the twelve gates will bear the names of twelve tribes of Israel and whose wall's twelve foundations will bear the names of the twelve Jewish apostles of the Lamb (Rev.21:12-14).

And . . .

(i.) The Uniqueness of Israel: It should not be overlooked that in the preceding passage, gentile believers of the present day are portrayed as having become part of the household of God along with Israel, rather than replacing Israel. This picture is consistent with every other passage in the New Testament where the issue is discussed. The gentiles are the wild olive branch that has been grafted into the natural olive tree Israel (Rom.11:13-24). The truth of the matter is that the Church is composed of Jews and gentiles, and that Jewish believers are the foundation for the holy building that God is erecting – not only in the Jewish age, but in the Church age as well:

1) All of the apostles of Christ were Jewish. And although the New Testament is written almost exclusively in Greek, the dominant gentile language of the time, all of the writers of the Bible, New Testament as well as Old Testament, were Jewish (cf. Deut.4:6-8; Ps.147:19-20; Is.59:21; Rom.3:1-2).(30)

2) Though many first century Jews rejected the gospel in the same way that their Judean countrymen had rejected their own Messiah, even a cursory reading of Acts and the Epistles demonstrates clearly that Jewish believers were both the original foundation of the Church and continued to play a huge role after the influx of the gentiles had begun.

3) Jewish believers not only exist but have played and continue to play a critical part in all generations of the Church (Rom.11:5). For the gospel is theirs by first priority, and ours (as gentiles) by the grace of God: "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (i.e., gentile)" (Rom.1:16; cf. Matt.10:5; 15:26; Acts 13:46; Rom. 2:9-10).

One could go on at great length, but it seems to me that your criticism is based not upon any particular content (or even a lack thereof as the above indicate), but merely upon the organizational rubrics of the Basics series. I certainly have no problem with someone writing a systematic theology containing "Israelology" as a major heading. But consider that by doing so one would be playing right into the false idea of the Church replacing Israel. After all, if I have "Israelology" along with "Ecclesiology", won't it look like I think there is a major difference between Israel and the Church? They would then have separate sections. But the Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church, and as true as that is today it will be even more so on that great day when all of us are subsumed into true Israel at the resurrection as the indivisible Bride of Christ who is the Messiah, the Lion of Judah, the Son of David. So, honestly, I don't know exactly what I would put in "Israelology" that would be different from "Ecclesiology", except to draw an unnecessarily large distinction between Old and New Testament practices which we both agree is unhelpful to over-emphasize.

One of the ways this particular ministry helps to elucidate the organic connection between all believers from Eden to the 2nd Advent is by correcting some of the more egregious mistakes of "Dispensationalism". Rightly understood, a "dispensation" is a regime of dispensing God's truth. That is to say, rightly understood, dispensations divide the means God uses to dispense His Word: they do not divide believers. We all belong to Christ, with believers before Abraham looking forward to the coming of God's chosen people whereas after the first Pentecost of the Church, during this time when the gentiles are streaming into God's family, we all look forward now (or should) to the restoration of Jewish leadership (during the Tribulation and Millennium), and to the ultimate incorporation of all believers into God's special people in the New Jerusalem.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Romans 11:17-18 NIV

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Hebrews 12:22-24  NIV

Below are some other links which may be helpful in navigating how some of these subjects are covered at Ichthys:

Dispensations and the Composition of the Church

anti-Semitism

Some Jewish Issues

Zionism

There is much to say on these topics, and I certainly invite your further comments and questions.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Question #2: 

Bob:

Thanks for the in depth response. I'm sorry you took my question as criticism of your site. It was not my intention. I just recently came across your site while searching for Hebrews 10:26. I appreciated your insights on this verse and bookmarked your website as a resource for my future studies. Granted, I'm not familiar with all of your material. But, it appears you are not into "replacement theology" which is a concern I have, in that much of Christendom seems to accept that point of view. I can't imagine how they come to accept that point of view if they read and studied the Bible. God has certainly not transferred or fulfilled all of His specific promises to Israel by giving them to the Church. He does have a plan for both Israel and the Church.

I look forward to exploring your site. Thanks again for taking your time to contact me.

Response #2: 

Thank you, friend!

I appreciate your position and I want you to know that I most certainly do not believe in "replacement theology" and oppose it every time the issue comes up.

Please do feel free to write back about that or any other issue in making use of this ministry.

Yours in Jesus Christ, our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L. 

Question #3: 

What is meant by 'not a people' in 1 Peter 2:10-12? What were the people before they received mercy?

Response #3: 

This is a quotation of Hosea 1:9-10 where God rejects unbelieving Israel for unfaithfulness to Him. The Hebrew text says "not my people", and that is what Peter means: before believing in Jesus, these gentiles were of no account to God, that is "not a people [with any relationship to God]". For the sake of economy Peter doesn't continue the quotation to what would be the next word in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, mou, "my". As your question indicates, one essentially has to understand the "my" for the quotation and use of it by Peter to make any sense (i.e., the quote doesn't mean and Peter is not modifying to mean that his gentile recipients didn't exist before faith in Christ; rather he means that they were alienated from God before being born again. Peter's audience would likely have known this quote – or would have looked it up, realizing it was a quote since this whole section of the chapter is filled with quotes from the Old Testament.

Question #4: 

In respect to the issue of what prophecy was fulfilled when Matthew says (2:23) that 'he would be called a Nazarene', I would like to know which specific prophecy did he have in mind that foretold this - whether it was Isaiah 11:1 (neser), Genesis 49:26 (nazir), Isaiah 49:6 (nasur), or a different one?

Response #4: 

Matthew 2:23 is referring to the prophecy in Isaiah 11:1. Jesus is "the Branch" (Zech.16:12 cf. Is.53:2; Jer.23:5; 33:15; Ezek.17:22ff.; Zech.3:8; Rom.1:3; Rev.5:5), and the association with the name Nazareth was a sign that His contemporaries missed. See the link: "Branch".

As always, I very much appreciate your questions, your persistence in the Word, and your attitude. Please feel free to write me any time.

To the glory of the One who bought us with His blood, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Question #5: 

Hello Brother Bob,

It has been a while since I have written, but have a new question about the 7000, the elect and the remnant. Are the remnant the dispersed nation of Israel, and the 7000 those of the remnant? The elect those saved by grace?

As always , thanks for your comments.

God's blessings to you

Response #5: 

Always good to hear from you. Although it is true that many contemporary theologians have made much of the concept, the actual word "remnant" itself as used in scripture usually has the special meaning of that portion of the Jewish nation which is saved and survives whatever catastrophe or trial is found in context. Most commonly the word refers to those who – in reverse order – survive the Tribulation, subsequently believe, and are then restored to the land of Israel under Messiah's rule (e.g., Gen.45:7; 2Ki.19:4; 19:30; Ezra 9:13; Is.10:20; etc.). The Hebrew word itself, sha'ar, along with its cognates, only means "remainder" or "what's left over" (cf. Rom.9:27 quoting Is.10:22). Paul also uses the Greek equivalent term once for present day Jewish believers in Jesus (Rom.11:5) , and should any such today survive into and through the Tribulation, they would of course be resurrected along with the rest of us at our Lord's return (rather than forming any part of the prophetical "remnant" restored to the land to propagate the nation – only Jews who survive the Tribulation as unbelievers and convert when they see the Messiah return fall into that group; see the link: in CT 5 "The Repentance of Israel").

As to "the 7,000" of 1st Kings 19:18, this is a particular group who did not apostatize under the influence of pagan idolatry at the time of Elijah's ministry. I think it is correct to see them as symbolic of those Christians (gentile or Jewish) who, during a somewhat similar though perhaps more intense period of persecution during the Tribulation, are likewise unwilling to let go of their faith despite the threat of loss of life through the persecution of false religion. The number of the faithful who remain so during the Great Persecution I would imagine to be much larger than this number of 7,000, however.

The elect are all those who have believed in Jesus and persevere unto eternal life with this word "remnant" sometimes applied to all believers of all time (Rom.8:33), sometimes to those of a particular period only (Matt.24:24).

And all of these are "saved by grace" – as are we all, praise the Lord!

Hope this helps – feel free to write back if any "fine tuning" is desired.

In Him,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Sir,

In my email the other day I was making reference to your remarks about tattoos in "Culture & Christianity II", when you quoted 1 Peter 2:12 as "Keep your manner of life among the gentiles (unbelievers) good . . .". Although where I saw it in your text is moot considering you were quoting the Bible anyway. But, the gentiles were NOT non-believers, the title applied to ANYONE who was non-Jewish- a goy, if you will. It was, however, the gentiles that accepted Christ as the Saviour and Messiah, while most Jews did not.

Also, reading through your words in several sections regarding tattoos and piercings, you seem to gently skirt around the direct issue as though you don't want to offend anyone (Political Correctness). On Question #4 regarding body piercings and tattoos, you say, "In short, this is a non-issue", and later, "Spiritually speaking, it has zero value one way or another . . ." Really?

You do point out Lev. 19:26-29, but you failed to drive the point home with 1 Corinthians 6: 19-20- "Do you not know that that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own . . . So glorify God in your body". Sounds very much anti-tattoo and body piercings to me, as well as abortion (I'm referring to the feminist claim that a woman can do as she pleases with her body, blah, blah, blah).

I'm not arguing with you, but I do think you should more strongly emphasize the importance against tattoos and piercings. Thank you.

Response #6: 

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, this is a quote from scripture. The word "gentile" (from Gr. ethnos; cf. "ethnic") in 1st Peter 2:12 is used in the Bible in two senses: 1) to distinguish Jews from non-Jews; 2) to distinguish believers from unbelievers (NIV, for example, has "pagans" here, and rightly so). This is standard practice to the end of the New Testament; so any time we find the word "gentile" we need to see from context which of the above two possibilities is meant. It's usually pretty easy to make that determination, even from one's English translation (there is the added "issue" that "gentile(s)" often translates "Greek(s)" in many of the versions, although in such contexts the words are virtual synonyms). For example, when Paul says in Romans 11:13, "I am speaking to you gentiles", or when he speaks of "all the churches of the gentiles" in Romans 16:4, he is clearly talking about believers. But when Paul says at 1st Corinthians 1:23 that the cross is "foolishness to the gentiles", he is most certainly speaking of unbelievers; or compare 1st Corinthians 5:1 where he is addressing a congregation in Corinth which is, by all evidence, made up of many and possibly a majority of non-Jews, he expresses his exasperation with the sinner of that chapter by saying that the sin is such as to occur "not even among the gentiles" (i.e., unbelievers). The KJV distinguishes in this last case by saying "pagans", and that is a fine translation. However, the word in both sets of passages is the same throughout: ethnos, the Greek word for nation(s) (of which the Latin equivalent is gens, gentis – the word from which our English word "gentile" is derived).

As to tattoos, in the article you cite there are about half a dozen links to other places where this subject is discussed on the site, and I think it would be difficult to read all of the material posted and come to the conclusion that I am somehow skirting the issue. That is, unless one takes a position beyond what scripture actually says. In a godly and circumspect way, I always try to dissuade those who ask my opinion on this subject from getting a tattoo. However, I do not say "it is a sin" or "the Bible prohibits it", because as a minister of the Word of God I am not permitted to "go beyond what is written". I would counsel everyone not to equate tattoos with abortion. However questionable the practice of body-marking may be, it is nowhere near being in the same category as abortion, and I would be concerned that in using this argument instead of heightening a person's reluctance to get a tattoo it might backfire and reduce their reluctance to be party to an abortion instead. In any case, the two have nothing to do with each other.

It is true that I do not use 1st Corinthians 6:19-20 to "drive home" an anti-tattooing message. That is because, in my opinion, the passage does not apply to this issue. That passage is speaking of refraining from gross sin, that is, from practices which the Bible identifies very clearly as highly sinful. Since scripture does not do that with tattoos, 1st Corinthians 6:19-20 cannot be used to suggest they are forbidden for believers or somehow sinful (i.e., gross sin is what dishonors the body, so unless and until we can prove from scripture that tattoos are gross sin, we cannot use this passage to claim that they are gross sin – that is circular logic). It is true that we are to "honor God" with our bodies, but just because you may find a tattoo dishonoring does mean that everyone has this view. The real question is "what is God's view?", and that is my point. Since scripture does not say definitively, the issue falls into the realm of personal application. If a person feels it is wrong, then he/she should not get a tattoo. Everyone is certainly free to try and convince our brothers and sisters in Christ that it is a bad idea, but telling them outright that it is a sin or that it dishonors God is not something that the Bible authorizes. The rule of love applies here: in "disputable matters" (Rom.14:1ff), the one who partakes must not be a stumbling block to the one who does not, and the one who does not partake must not seek to impose his/her will on the one who does.

As a Christian dedicated to the spiritual growth of the Church of Christ, I know that as my fellow believers grow in the Lord they will find that many things are permissible, but will begin to put aside for the sake of the kingdom of God and their service thereto childish things which are not profitable. My job is to bring them along in truth, not to impose legalistic burdens on them which they are not ready to bear, especially when these are of little import according to scripture and when they may cause them to stumble in the bargain. After all, many people make mistakes. In our culture, as far as I can judge, those among the young who do not have (or have not at least flirted with the idea of getting) a tattoo are in the minority. I can't think of much worse than turning a person away from Christ for what really is a fairly petty matter, given that the scriptures do not in fact give a determinative verdict on this question.

All that said, I do appreciate your email, and I think it is very important for Christians to get these matters settled and straightened out in their own hearts. The way forward in all these things is spiritual growth through consistent Bible reading, Bible teaching, belief and application of the truth. That is the mission of Ichthys, and I wish to assure you that you are welcome here any time (even if we occasionally have to agree to disagree).

In the love of Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #7: 

Dear Professor,

As always, your answers are very helpful and even though I wanted to refer back regarding a few issues, I decided to postpone that and write with a different set of questions. Our Lord Jesus has been the subject of my study and I was wondering why Jews never accepted Him. Below are the reasons that Jews themselves quote. Could you refer, even if briefly, to each of the points made below (not by me).  I know that some more detailed answers may be required, so please take your time; you have probably already answered at least some of these questions and could direct me to particular texts.

In Jesus and with constant prayer,

Response #7: 

I am happy to give a brief response. When it comes to false religions, it is usually sufficient to point out how they are wrong because of misunderstanding basic principles of truth. In my view, it is never particularly profitable to go into detail in terms of a false religion's own doctrines or traditions, and I am even skeptical about that from an apologetics point of view (although those gifted in that area have their own ministries which they are required to perform as unto the Lord of course).

1) Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

1. There are two advents. Everything referred to in point one has to do with the second advent. When Jesus returns, He will fulfill these prophecies. So the argument is foolish and illogical. If there were another Messiah, by this logic even he could not be "the" Messiah because none of these things have yet been fulfilled. What this viewpoint fails to take into account is that "the Messiah had to suffer" (Lk.24:26; Acts 17:3), and this particular hardness on Israel's part in only wanting to accept the conquering Messiah and not the suffering Servant was at the core of their refusal to accept Jesus at the time and God's offer of salvation thereafter (cf. Rom.11:25).

2) Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah

A. Messiah as Prophet

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

2A. Same false logic. If all prophecy has ended, then no Messiah can ever arise – at least not one who could possibly fulfill this requirement. As it is, it is God establishes prophets and inspires prophecy (2Pet.1:20-21), not human beings. This argument says, in effect, "Jesus was not a prophet because we do not accept Him as a prophet". But in the end it is God's Word which will stand, not the false opinions of those who have rejected Him.

B. Descendent of David

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

2B. The scriptures quoted say absolutely nothing about the Messiah coming from "the father's side". They only say the Messiah will be a descendent of David – which indisputably Jesus is. This is a very odd argument too in that by Jewish tradition it is the mother's lineage which is key: it is those born of Jewish mothers who are Jewish, the father being irrelevant (according to Jewish tradition, that is).

C. Torah Observance

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

2C. Nothing in scripture talks about "full Torah observance". And in fact, Jesus says ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt.5:17 NIV). The Sabbath is a key "break-point" because our Lord fulfilled it in truth, not in the hypocrisy of legalism (cf. Lk.13:15). And that is why the fourth commandment is the only one not repeated in either the gospels or the epistles, namely, because now that the ritual of the Law has been replaced by the reality of Jesus come in the flesh, we who are of God are to maintain a moment by moment Sabbath rest with Him in our Lord and not a special day observance (Heb.4:9). See the link: "The 'Sabbath Rest' in Hebrews".

3) Mistranslated Verses "Referring" to Jesus

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. Virgin Birth

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

3A. This is just flat-out wrong (please see the link: "Almah vs. Parthenos").

B. Suffering Servant

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

3B. So is this. Any neutral observer reading this chapter would never take it in such a strained metaphorical way. Consider:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth." (quote from Isaiah 53:7-8). The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Acts 8:30-35 NIV

If the strained interpretation were true, then Israel would be the atonement for the sins of the world!

My righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11 NIV

For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:12 NIV

But as any honest person knows, no mere human being or group of human beings is sinless so as to be worthy to atone for sin. As Solomon said, "there is no one who does not sin" (1Ki.8:46 NIV).

4) Jewish Belief is Based Solely on National Revelation

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show assuming they are genuine is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

4. What is the difference between Abraham and Paul? Jesus spoke to them both. The only difference is that unbelieving traditionalist Jews claim to accept Abraham but reject Paul. But what does the scripture say?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad."
John 8:56 KJV

Jesus IS the Word of God (Rev.19:13). The fact that many do not accept Him does not change the fact (just as the fact that atheists do not believe in God does not render God non-existent).

When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles."
Acts 13:46 NIV

The greatest believers of all time have been Jews, and the entire Bible, New Testament included, was written under divine inspiration by Jews. "Hardness in part" (Rom.11:25) has settled on the Jewish people by and large since the time of the first coming of the Messiah, but the faithlessness of the many has never cancelled out the faithfulness of the few – and God has always left Himself with a remnant of true Israel who are pleased to embrace the truth that Jesus is the One, the only way to eternal life. As Paul, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", writes to his fellow Jewish believers in Jerusalem:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Hebrews 1:1-3 NIV

Failure to accept the Son for whatever reason is a direct rejection of the Father's will and the entire message of divine truth. From whatever motivation, that is the biggest mistake and the most terrible willful choice a human being can make.

Hoping for better things in Jesus Christ who is our Creator, our Master, our Lord, and most certainly our Savior.

Bob L.

Question #8: 

Thank you Dr. Luginbill for taking the time to write and give me comfort in these trying times. I agree entirely with assessment of my situation and that of believers in these strange times. My faith is unswerved by the curves thrown at me by life. I just need a break from God of trials, as I don't know where else to turn. It all seems too bizarre for words. It's like there is a wall.. I've even wondered if there is some secret list that my name is on! One thing where I don't agree is your assessment the role of the so called Jews. It is an undeniable fact that the leadership in Israel, and the "Jewish" powers in the Israel lobby/Wall Street/neocons, DON'T represent the true Jews. It is a fact that the state of Israel is a repressive state. God does not condone slaughter, nor Wall Street greed, nor can He support those that deny His Son. They are behind the secularization of America, hiding behind ACLU, or openly manipulating the imperialist policies of the US through AIPAC an ADL. I have been targeted by one of these organizations for being a Christian. I don't agree with the sanctification and uniqueness of the Kazharian Ashkenazis nor the label that they are God's chosen people. The selling out of Chriistianity to Zionism is a grave mistake. We are a royal priesthood. How can these deniers of Christ, enemies of the faith, be the Israel of prophesy? I have read much on the subject, and agree with you labeling as nonsense the designation of the ten lost tribes as the Anglos alone, as it is racist and ethnocentric. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that khazarians are the Ashkenazi, and converted Jews. The behavior of that particular leadership is far from being God driven, I am sorry to tell you. I understand that this is a delicate subject, as they have shielded themselves from any criticism behind hate laws enacted in the US, and have become our oppressors. Additionally, a great majority of so-called Jews want nothing to do with their leadership, just as many Christians reject Churchianity or Muslims the extreme radicals. I believe that we have to be very careful not to fall into complacency or acceptance, condoning everything Israel does. I find it offensive their assault on Christianity in the US, something unheard of in Latin America. Have you asked yourself who is behind all this? Isn't it interesting that Judaism during the last two thousand years has been kidnapped as well, by Talmudic, Babylonian beliefs?. Doesn't the Talmud call Our Lord a thief and many other epithets? I understand how dangerous it is to even mention these subjects in mainstream academia, as one could lose one's job and be marginalized, yet it might be better to approach the subject in a historical way, not labeling as rubbish the research done by Kessler and many others on the subject of the true racial/religious nature of what later became the Jews of Eastern Europe. The main assault from the descendants of Essau and Edomites is something that must further be researched, as you well put it that the Antichrist will have a Jewish mother. I doubt that she would be a true Jew, but a converted one, a falsification, just like everything the enemy does.

I am aware that one must compromise certain things, and be politically correct. But the Spirit has shed some light on this subject, and I prefer to see things for what they are. Many years ago, I resented God and his church because of the ignorant, Zionist driven agenda of the "Christian" church which supported the fascist, aggressive and criminal actions of the Zionist state of Israel. Now that I have seen the light of who they truly are, and of how the Zionists have kidnapped Judaism from the true Jews, descendants of Judah, I feel different. I am not anti semitic for opposing the slaughter of women and children, or for disliking the secularization of America, or for resenting the rampant corruption in Wall Street, Hollywood and in the corridors of power in Wahington, al dominated by the Azhkenazis. They are Talmudist, and have no love for GOD. Otherwise they would not be doing what they are doing. I know that I am right in this, but my perspective may be off.

Thanks!

Response #8: 

Glad to be of help.

On Israel, I disagree with this screed entirely and would wish to caution you and others about the extreme spiritual dangers of getting anywhere near anti-Semitism by whatever name. I am certainly not in the political support for Israel "right or wrong" camp either. In fact, as you may know, I am not a believer in Christians getting involved in politics of any sort, national or international. Believers have (or should have) a completely different perspective. As our Lord said, "My Kingdom is not of this world" (Jn.18:36).

Do not be overly righteous, and do not be overly wise – why should you ruin yourself? Do not be overly wicked and do not be a fool – why should you die before your time? The best thing for you [to do] is to lay firm hold on the former (i.e., wisdom and righteousness), while not completely releasing your hand from the latter, for the man who fears God will escape both [extremes].
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18

These verses show that in disputable matters the middle position is often the spiritual one. Antisemitism is a very dangerous cocktail of sins; glorification of the secular state of Israel (something many Christian groups are heavily involved in) is also a big mistake and fraught with many spiritual dangers too. The problem with Israel is essentially the same as the problem with any country, namely, the proportion of unbelievers to believers. In Israel, very few people are believers at present, much smaller than is the case here in the US. Still and all Israel historically and Jews individually come under a special sort of protection that is not the case with gentiles. Gentile unbelievers receive no particular special concern from the Lord (though He wants all to be saved); Gentile believers are part of His Body and Jewish believers are so as well. It is Jewish unbelievers (the vast majority of the present day state of Israel) who constitute the exception. In accordance with the promises to Abraham – and easily verifiable from history – they tend to be blessed above other people(s) and protected above other people(s), but when they are disciplined for their unbelief it is usually much more intense than in the case of other peoples. That is why we have situations like the great prosperity of Jews in Germany before the Nazis, followed by the holocaust, followed by the devastation of Germany as God "cursed those who cursed them". The best policy for Christians is to confine their concerns to spiritual ministrations like prayer (which is what we should do in all potentially political situations anyhow) and absolutely avoid taking sides in a negative way. God treats Israel as "the apple of His eye" (Zech.2:8), and anyone who has ever stuck his finger in God's eye has found out pretty quick what a bad idea that is. Believe me when I say that I know very well of what I speak.

Scripture is very clear about the need to stay away from "endless genealogies" (1Tim.1:4; Tit.3:9), and when it comes to Israel that is doubly true. From my own historical studies, it would be, in my opinion, an impossible task to trace the lineage of Jews generally. Just for example, Jeremiah 3:14 and 3:17 show that survivors from all of the northern tribes are prophesied to be brought to Jerusalem after Christ's return. As other passages in Chronicles detail historically, there was a surviving remnant of all twelve tribes (e.g., 1st Chronicles 12 shows how some of these will have stayed in Jerusalem as part of the royal administration).

And when it comes to individuals, though in my view most indications are that Jews are really Jews (and I do know something about this), it is even more of an endless, pointless and impossible task. I am aware of the arguments you are alluding to, but I would advise you to let them drop and not worry about the matter. After all, the Jews of our Lord's day were most definitely Jews, but the majority of them refused to respond to His ministry, and even many that did respond positively apparently fell away when He did not bring on the Kingdom as they were anticipating (before the first Pentecost of the Church there are only about 120 who are gathering together: Acts 1:15). Hardness in Israel is prophesied to continue until Moses and Elijah return (Rom.11:25), and even this revival will be comparable to John the baptist's revival, significant but by no means a majority movement. The problem is not that the unbelievers are not really Jews; the problem is that they are still refusing God's will to believe in Jesus Christ, the God-Man and the true Messiah. Still and all, in every generation there has been "a remnant according to grace" (Rom.11:5), and it is into Israel that we gentiles have been grafted, not the other way around (Rom.11). This will become very clear when we enter the New Jerusalem in resurrection, with each and everyone of us elected to one of the twelve tribes when God is "all in all" (1Cor.15:28; see the links: The Gemstone Foundations and the Tribal Gates of New Jerusalem; and "Israel the Ultimate Measure").

In case you are interested in pursuing the issue at Ichthys, here is a list of links, some of which it is possible you have not yet seen:

Some Jewish Issues

Zionism

Satan's Attack on the Line of Messiah

Who is True Israel?

Are the Celts the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?

Who are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?

Here's hoping to hear some good news you soon, my friend. I am keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

Thank you for responding to my somewhat incomprehensible email! I have read that in the times of Jesus, Edomites populated what is known as Judea. As a matter of fact, King Herod was an usurper of the throne from the rightful royal Jewish family, killing its rightful heirs. He was an Edomite. The Bible distinctively records the Lord expressing his hatred of Essau. Or is this another allegory? Additionally, I have always understood that the inhabitants of Samaria were different from those of the south, and thus the hatred inculcated on the population by hundreds of years of edomite control on Judea. I distinctively remember Our Lord calling Sadducees and Pharisees "sons of your father the devil", and their belief system the synagogue of Satan. This is reinforced in Apocalypse, when he outs those self-proclaimed Jews as not being Jews at all. I am not an anti-Semite, as I have Middle Eastern blood as well, and we are all Semites. That the Judaists of today have appropriated the term is another thing. Now our freedom of speech has been compromised: any analysis of history that even remotely questions this subject is liable to libel suits and will soon entail prison as well. It is my belief, and I may be wrong and will only learn the truth on the day the Lord returns, that the Judaists of today are spiritually dead, regardless of their genetic pool. I disagree with the definition that all the descendants of Abraham are Jews, as Judah was born centuries later. To label all Hebrews as Jews is a misnomer. I was led to believe we are the Israel of prophesy, and that we have been grafted into the body of Christ. I also have a hard time reconciling faith with unfaithfulness: God does not make distinction of persons, otherwise His sacrifice was meaningless. I do not doubt that God has a special place for so called Jews, but only as it relates to the promises given to Abraham, which includes them among the his descendants the Hebrews. And then only if they accept Christ. For God there areno Romans, Greeks or Jews. I understand your reservation concerning some of the research done by others on the subject of the historical migrations of the Jews, but there are telltale signs that validate these findings, and some are of a spiritual nature. A lot of nonsense has been writeen on the subject, but also there exists a body of literature that I find difficult to discard. At the end of the day, what you say about keeping out of politics and endless discussions of genealogy is very true, yet I respectfully disagree with you on this one issue, and pray to God that He will enlighten us all on the subject. In the meantime, I will set my eyes on the final prize, which is the salvation of my soul, as you so aptly put it.

May God bless you and keep you always.

Response #9: 

You are very welcome. As to your latest comments:

1. Herod and the Edomites. Herod's family was of questionable racial origin. But he and his represent one family which took control of Judea, not any sort of population shift at all (there is no evidence for Edomites becoming part of the polity of Israel en masse).

2. Samaritans are not Jewish. This was recognized in New Testament times and the distinction between this group and the Jews is drawn very clearly in the Bible (e.g., Jn.4:22).

3. The Pharisees and Sadducees are called this by our Lord because of their spiritual status and spiritual loyalties (to the evil one and not to Him), not because of any doubt about their racial origin or makeup.

4. The references in Revelation to "those claim to be Jews but are not" is referring to "those who claim to be Jews but are not". That is to say, these references cannot be used to suggest that those who identified themselves racially as Jews were no true Jews at that time; rather, the passages prove that there were genuine Jews at that time. In fact, this description is a reference to the false Church, not a comment upon the racial makeup of Jews generally or in particular (please see the link: "The slander of those who say they are Jews").

In short, I have never found any of these "tell-tale" signs to which you allude to be anything more than smoke without fire. As to slander, political correctness, and coercion of free speech, even were I to concede this point, that would not be an argument for your position. The fact that one side of a political debate may be in the wrong and may be engaging in propaganda and intimidation does not mean that what the other says (in what may be felt to be self-defense) is true. Beyond all argument, the Jewish people have been the target of all sorts of slanders, myths, and lies over the centuries. I am interested in facts, history, and the truth. As I say, I have and support no political agenda. God is working all things out to His predetermined end. No amount of political posturing, campaigning, military oppression or terrorism is going to change the "end game" one iota. Christians need to understand this and stay well clear of the controversy, not only practically, but also in their hearts. Becoming overly invested in one side or the other will be a major stumbling block to their spiritual growth, and, once the Tribulation begins, will be one of those factors that causes many to fall away from Christ and/or be destroyed contrary to God's will by having become entangled in the power politics of the beast or those of his opponents.

In Jesus to whom we look and for whose return we breathlessly wait.

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Might find some useful info at this link: "How Many Tribes Do The Jews Represent?"

Response #10: 

Dear Friend,

If secular sources and uninspired opinions counted as for much as scripture, there might be something to your false theory about the "lost tribes" not being known today as Jewish. However, at one point you admit that the other tribes are, in fact, represented by name among the returnees in Ezra, and that should be the end of the story for all Bible-believing Christians: i.e., there was always a remnant from every tribe, even if the majority of the northern tribes was deported and vanished from history. But you seem to suggest that because by your calculation the percentage of that remnant is low in comparison with those of Judah that the Jewish people today cannot represent the other so-called "lost tribes". Remember, however, that nothing is impossible with God. From a mere six hundred surviving men only (Judg.20:47), the tribe of Benjamin grew to be one of the more numerous tribes in Israel. And, after all, each of the tribes grew to what it later became from only one patriarch each.

Also, I might have missed it, but it is typical in articles of this sort for the conclusion or true "point" to be obscured. So, OK; I'll bite: Who are the "ten lost tribes" if they are not Jewish? Let me guess: you happen to be one of them (whoever this mysterious "they" are).

Here are some verses that you and others who doubt the power of God and refuse to listen to the Word of God should take into account, all of which describe the situation after the Assyrian deportation of the northern tribes:

Now the first inhabitants that [dwelt] in their possessions in their cities [were], the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims. And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh;
1st Chronicles 9:2-3 KJV

But as for the Israelites who were living in the towns of Judah, Rehoboam still ruled over them.
2nd Chronicles 10:17 NIV

Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the LORD, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the LORD, the God of their fathers.
2nd Chronicles 11:16 NIV

Then he assembled all Judah and Benjamin and the people from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who had settled among them, for large numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
2nd Chronicles 15:9 NIV

Josiah removed all the detestable idols from all the territory belonging to the Israelites, and he had all who were present in Israel serve the LORD their God. As long as he lived, they did not fail to follow the LORD, the God of their fathers.
2nd Chronicles 34:33 NIV

There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,
Luke 2:36 NIV

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
James 1:1 NIV

Clearly, there is more than enough evidence in scripture to account for the survival of a remnant from every tribe, even by human viewpoint accounting – how much more is that not the case then with God Himself superintending the process!

In Jesus the Lord,

Bob Luginbill

Question #11: 

Bob,

A while back we had an email exchange concerning the ten tribes and I sent you my article How Many Tribes Do The Jews Represent?

During our exchange you mentioned II Chron. 30 to support your position---I'd like you to do me a favor---open the article and scroll down to about half way down and read "Hezekiah's Invitation" which covers II Chron. 30 and tell me what you think.

I found some serious math problems in this chapter and I'd like for you to read it and get back to me. I had to revise that entire section of my article.

Response #11: 

On the issue of "Hezekiah's Invitation", no one is arguing (at least I am not) that at the time of the invitation at 2nd Chronicles 30:1 the Assyrians had not already killed and deported much if not most of the population of Israel. Indeed, here is what I read from Hezekiah's letter later in the chapter:

"People of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that he may return to you who are left, who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria."
2nd Chronicles 30:6b NIV

Thus, this invitation was to the remnant of the northern tribes who had not yet been destroyed.

As to the issue of named tribes, in the salutation given in the verse above and in verse one "all Israel" is said to be the recipient of the invitation. It is true that not every tribe is mentioned in this chapter by name, but "all Israel" clearly is meant to cover the entire northern kingdom, leaving out none of the tribes, remnants of their former selves though they no doubt were at this time. Short of a list of all the tribes, I suppose from your article you will not be satisfied that this passage demonstrates the survival of at least some small number from every tribe, but consider: How likely is it that the Assyrians were able to destroy or take captive every single member of the tribe of Naphtali which is not mentioned in chapter thirty, especially when the tribes which surrounded its territory, Manasseh, Issachar and Dan, are mentioned?

In verse eighteen, we are expressly told that "most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves". This cannot be taken to mean that no one came from Naphtali or Asher, for example: it may be that "many" did not come from these two and from the other unnamed tribes (or that in some cases those few who did come from them were more diligent in the matter of purification).

The initial description of the invitation as to "all Israel and Judah" is specifically expanded to "Ephraim and Manasseh" in verse one, naming, it seems to me, the two sons of Joseph who were historically very numerous and who, because of their number, genealogy and, perhaps most importantly, their geographic distribution at the near and far ends of the northern kingdom, stood as a kind of shorthand for the northern kingdom as a whole (cf. 2Chron.31:3; 34:9; Ps.60:7; 80:2; 108:8; Is.9:21). And, surely, when it says in verse five that the proclamation was sent "from Dan to Beersheba", according to the standard usage of that phrase to sum up all the tribes, the entire northern kingdom is being encompassed to include whatever remnant still remained from each of the tribes. For that reason too, absent a perfect 100% total slaughter and deportation – something that would make this proclamation a bit odd in the first place – it seems to be necessary to assume that all the tribes could very well have been represented.

This much is clear from the chapter itself, and it doesn't seem to me that Hezekiah's regnal years or the precise chronology of the Assyrian invasions of the north have anything to do with it – unless a person wants to find fault with the content of chapter 30 on that score (something I would not personally accept).

And speaking of peoples who have disappeared from history, I would advise you and all who have an "itch" to pursue these false theories to read Ezekiel chapter 25 very careful and consider what happens to those who are bent on opposing the Jewish people (from whatever motivation).

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #12: 

Can a Jew be Saved? "Hebrew is a language with 22 letters, all consonants, and no vowels. Even the letter "A" is a consonant" – Moder Reference Encyclopedia/Languages – 1967. So then, the Jews do not have a God. [el, elohim, Yahweh, Yahshua] are all fake. The original Jewish platform was:

"We believe that the name of God is too holy to be pronounced. [The above article is a sin then.] David Bivens, JerusalemPerspectives.com/name of God/ -- "When we come to the name of God WE CHANGE IT." [The above article agrees with Mr. Biven.]

Joel 2.32: "And being all of [them] that he will call in name [of] ‘He Is’ (HWHY) he will escape, for in Mount Zion [Third Heaven – Rev. 141] and in ‘He [is] Prince [of] Peace’ (New Jerusalem; Rev. 21 & 22) she will be [man’s soul is consistently recorded, "she"] delivered as that ‘He Is’ (HWHY) saying, remaining of them that ‘He Is’ (HWHY) calling."

A) He will call in name of "He Is" …

B) "He Is’ (HWHY) calling"

The Jews had added [which is condemned] "fake" vowels to – corrupt the names of the Two Gods – ‘He Is’ and Anointed of Him … ‘He Is’ and Son of Me – Psalm 22, 7.

The words of God are beautiful "to the saving of the soul." The Jewish words have no god and no prophecy fulfillment and no resurrection.

Response #12: 

Dear Friend,

I'm not following your logic or your arguments here, but I do find a few important scriptures that you might want to consider:

[Jesus declared . . .] "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."
John 4:22 NIV

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Romans 1:16 NIV

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Romans 3:1-2 NIV

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Romans 11:11-12 NIV

According to the above verses, Israel is the source of the Messiah, and therefore the source of salvation. Israel is God's chosen nation, and therefore was first in line for the offer of salvation from the Messiah Himself. Being of Israel is of the greatest spiritual advantage, first and foremost because the Word of God was entrusted to Israel (and even the New Testament was written by Jewish authors). Finally, Israel is the rich olive tree into which we gentiles who have come to Christ in faith have been grafted, therefore we should remember that we do not bear the root but the root bears us.

Beyond all question, Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, whether for Jew or gentile, so that whatever advantages accrue to being of Israel by natural birth are of no eternal consequence if Jesus is rejected; on the other hand, we who are "gentile sinners" yet forgiven and brought near through faith in the blood of Christ are members of God's family and of the Bride of Christ for all eternity. We can rejoice and exult in this, but we should also never forget Paul's words later on in Romans chapter eleven:

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans 11:19-23 NIV

We are all saved by God's grace through simple faith in Jesus Christ (Eph.2:8-9), the true Jewish Messiah. Let us pray and work for the salvation of all whom God has called, Jew and gentile alike.

You might find the following links of some interest and help as well:

The Uniqueness of Israel

Satan's Attack on the Line of the Messiah

Some Jewish Issues

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #13: 

Hello, Robert D:

"The Mark of the Beast in te Forehead (Mind)" is: 3 = 2. Peter idetified the, "Three Ages of Man on Earth" -- 2 Peter 3.6, 7-10. 13.

1) Preflood - dated 2483 BC.

2) Old Heavens (including Israel) dated 2483 BC to AD 77 Resurrection.

3) New Heavens AD 77 to Final Resurrection -- before End of the Earth - Genesis 8.22: "... you not remaining in them" (summer and winter).

Thank you for your comment. Please note you had no "original thoughts." This means that you are "captive to a creed." Your quotes of Scripture had only one true statement: "Iesous is Savior of the world." -- This is eternal truth. See ny article, "Miracle of August 2011." The Hebrew origin of "Iesous" was -- 'SWHY = He (Y) The (H) [One] Saving ('SW). The Jews were "blinded" and "divorced" and "Satan and Antichrist." Iesous did not quote the Scriptuire but the "corrupted" Septuagint. You cannot "read" the Bible without the "presence" of the Spirit of God - 1 Cor 2.14, 2 Cor. 3.13-16. The man without the Spirit of dead Romans 8.9. The apostles and the Gift of the Holy Spirit and their prophecies HAVE BEEN DONE AWAY - 1 Cor. 13.8-10. God is Eternal -- but the Jews and the Roman Catholics do not believe this. Beast and False Prophet (Paacy & Pope) cast into "lake of fire" (Rev. 19.20) on: September 20, 1870 -- Dictionary of the Popes, Oxford Press and Modern Reference Encyclopedia, 1967, and three Bible Commentaries. Believe these sources -- God is alive -- and fulfilling prophecy. Rev.20.10 - Pope into lake of fire -- is reported every week since AD 2004 -- in secular press -- reporting legal settlements with Catholic Churches for – Child Abuse -- by homosexual priests! No doubt abouit it! -- God is alive! Revelation is true! But all of your other scriptures were "temporary" and "replaced truths." "Iesous" is a mistranslation by the "blinded" Jews. Hebrew: 'SWHY = Greek: Autos o Swthria = He The [One] Saving.

Please, Keep up our correspondence.

In love,

Response #13: 

Dear Friend,

First, I do not understand your introductory remarks (they are incorrect, obviously, but I do not understand what their applicability would be even if they were true).

Second, I am impressed by your ability to render the judgment "you had no original thoughts" based upon such a short email, especially given the fact that the particular points made and, more particularly, the way in which they were made, are not to be found anywhere else as far as I am aware.

Third, your assumption that anyone who does not agree with you is "creed bound" is logically incorrect (as, obviously, you will be able to find millions of people who do not agree with you who have never even read a creed, let alone given allegiance to one).

As to your new points:

1) Paul speaks of the "hardness in part" under which Israel of that day was presently suffering, a hardness prophesied to continue "in part" until our Lord's return (Rom.11:25). However, there has always been a "remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom.11:5). For Paul was, as he says, "a Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil.3:5). To condemn all Jews on the basis of the hardness of the majority would be like me taking a poll of everyone who lives on your block and then assuming you have exactly the same political opinions as all the rest do.

2) By no means are all quotations in the New Testament direct quotations from the LXX (that is a common misconception); often they are complete or partial translations directly from the Hebrew. But that is not the real point. The gospels are in Greek. Our Lord spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore while the words of the gospels are inspired, the notion that our Lord never quoted from the Hebrew Old Testament is completely incorrect.

3) I certainly agree that the Spirit's ministry is necessary for imparting all truth. However, I have often seen people use this truth as a sort of self-deceptive affirmation of whatever they want to believe. All Christians have the Spirit, but not all Christians agree on every point of doctrine. Clearly, then, some are listening and some are not. Also, neither the Spirit nor the Lord endorse sloppiness. We are all enjoined to be diligent in our effort to demonstrate ourselves as being "approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." But to claim that one has a right to throw some scriptures out of the Bible and engage in a wide latitude of interpretation on others to the point where a verse means whatever a person wants it to mean (claiming it's "from the Spirit"), is a huge mistake.

4) I am no supporter of the RC church, but your statement "all of your other scriptures were 'temporary' and 'replaced truths' " I find particularly disturbing. Scripture is the Word of God. If you do not accept the inspiration of all of God's Word, there is little point to this conversation. All of the Bible has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it is not permissible for anyone seeking the truth to throw out passages that don't agree with a particular pet theory. That is the quickest route I know of to heresy and apostasy.

In Jesus who is the Living Word of God,

Bob L.

Question #14: 

Robert D";

Your statement, "All scriptre is inspired by God" is the "Key to Captivity." "The Canon" by J.J. Bruce, stated that "Esther" and "Song of Solomon"are not cannonical. [The KJV added, "The Apocrypha.] Mr. Bruce went on to say (which I had already discovered for myself) that these books are not cannonical, BECAUSE -- they do not contain any of the names of the Gods. Then he added, Many scholars, both Jewish ad Christian agree with this. "Esther" is unbelievable "Jewish propaganda." God declared that they would be "captives" 70 years. Any king giving slaves permission to kill the native sons would have been hanged or stoned. The history of Persia merntions no Jewish Queen or Jewish rebellion. "Song of Solomon is pornography -- obsessed with the naked female body . God's picture of His love affair with Israel is found in Ezekiel 16.1-14.

1 John 5.7-8: is hogwash but has been corrected by recent translations. John 21.22-55 is Atheism by your Great Whore "creed." The Lord said "John will remain till I come (in AD 77)." Verses 22-25 were added to explain that He did not meant it -- to support (3-2); only two resurrections. The Bible has Three General Resurrections (Anointed the firsfruit; AD 32, and Coming of Anointed; AD 77 and Then the End (of Time 1 Cor 15,22-24). Revelation mentions these three resurrections -- each repeated several times. The Sic Particular Resurrections were and will be: Enoch (Genesis 5), Elijah (2 Kings 2), Lamb of God (Matt 28), "this generation" (Matt 24, John 21, Matt 16.27-28, 1 Thes. 4.16-17, Rev 2.10, eyc., eyc., ad infinitum), Martyrs resurrrection, Rev. 14.9-10; Rev. 15.1-5; Rev. 20.4-6), Final Resurrection (Rev. 20.11-15; Rev. 21.6-8).

The wind blows = the Spirit breathes;

Inherit the earth = inherit name (ONOM) of the (TOU) Earth (New Jerusaelm);

Godhead = holy God abbreviated - THE IO THS = THEOU AGIOU THS.

Brimstone = Theiou = Theou Agiou = of Holy God.

"It" (AUTH) = "Her"

There is not muCH TRUTH IN YOUR Pagan (without names of the Gods) "alleged" Roman Catholic Bible translations.

Hoping for the best,

Pray that your physical health is fine. Your spiritual condition is awful. Maybe we can work on that.

Response #14: 

Do you consider yourself to be a believer in Jesus Christ, saved by grace through faith in His perfect person, human and divine, and in His perfect work, being judged for your sins on the cross?

If so, where did you get that information in which you believed, and how do now have confidence that it is so, seeing as how you reject the authority of the Bible?

Unless God is speaking to you verbally and giving you different revelation from what He has given everyone else (in which case it is not God who is speaking to you), then you have clearly made a tragic mistake in undercutting the entire ground of God's truth out from under yourself.

Absent verbal, divine revelation to do so, if any verse in the Bible can be thrown out because you don't immediately understand it, then you cannot have confidence in any verse not thrown out, even if you think you understand it.

That is a bad enough situation for your own personal spirituality (if, indeed, it has not actually swamped your faith, assuming you once had faith). But be advised that if you are undermining the faith of other believers with this sort of eclectic approach, you will have to answer for it.

In Jesus who is the Word of God.

Bob L.

Question #15: 

Robert D:

How old are you? You sound like a little boy. When I was a little boy I was taught these gems The simple believes every speaking but the prudent he has understanding to bless him" - Prov. 14.15. Fool, he says, in heart of him, there are no [plural] (MYHLA) Gods, the corrupting of him, the vileness of deed, no [one] doing good - Psalm 14.1. Wise fearing and shunning from evil and fool she [soul] from raging and safety of her [soul] - Prov 14.16. Prov 12.15: Way of fool right in eyes of him, and listening to advice wise man (contrasted). Prov, 13.16: All of prudent [man] he does from knowledge and he exposes folly. Prov. 17.28: Even fool from silence, wise, favor of God. -- To: "Robert D." -- The word, "Bible" is not in the word of God, but Greek "Biblos" is rendered "book" - 134 times. 1 Peter 4.11: If anyone speaks as words of God ... -- written to "Robert D." In our correspondence, all you have spoken has been blasphemies of the Antichrist (Antianointed) Jews and the Great Whore Catholics. You are "dead" because you do not possess the "Spirit."

In hope,

Response #15: 

So, you have no answer to my pertinent questions, merely some ridiculous ad hominem attacks.

If you wish to have a serious discussion, kindly give a serious answer to these serious concerns.

Question #16: 

You speak Atheism. I speak, "as the words of God" - 1 Pet 4.11. 

Response #16: 

Anyone who asks you to explain what you're talking about is an atheist?

That's pretty defensive. Why?

 

Ichthys Home

Bible Options
Bible Study Software