Questions I'm Having to Answer

[Joe]

Every knee shall bow. They will not be clean until they are washed by the blood of Christ.

andersonone wrote

Collectively this would establish a much better society from which we could effectively combat the enemy. Just my thoughts

That is Building the Kingdom.

Joh 3:3 Yahshua replied and said to him: "Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh."

[Gaius]

This verse has also come up in my discussions with family.

Romans 10:9 - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

One of the most foolish and glaring errors of churchianity is to take one or two verses out of their context and build a whole dogma on them.

The verse your family cites cannot be understood in isolation; indeed in isolation is is virtually meaningless since it can mean anything any blathering "three-point sermon pastor" wishes it to mean.
This constitutes a grave and gross misuse of God's word.
It is not inappropriate to say this to such "pastors" in my humble opinion.

Here is a link to Romans chapter 10 for your family's "pastor" to look at.
As Bill says, Romans 10 itself cannot be understood alone, as it is a continuation of points made by Paul in chapter 9 and the theme continues into chapter 11. Nor is this theme itself a stand-alone point in which "pastors" may construct pet theories. The Bible is one book.

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistl ... nd-nations

[Staropramen]

Do you agree that by "saved" he means have safety? Since essentially all Israel is saved wouldn't this go without saying regardless whether or not they believed in what Christ had done? I guess that's the follow up then...what is the point of even believing in Christ for an Israelite if they are already redeemed by his sacrifice?

My guess would be that coming to the knowledge of who we are we come to the knowledge of what Christ did for us and why and from there we will live our lives here more according to his word. Collectively this would establish a much better society from which we could effectively combat the enemy. Just my thoughts.

Salvation = preservation so basically you've got it. "All Israel is saved" which is stated explicitly in both OT & NT has to be understood in the context of the prophecy that every {Israelite] knee shall bow. If enough Israelites repent here and now in any given location the society will reflect it. These Israelites will be accumulating heavenly rewards. Israelites who die worshipping kikes will bow the knee eventually but they will have no rewards. Daniel 12:2 describes them as risen to everlasting shame and contempt. I believe that there is something in the Adamic seed [1 John chapter 3] that causes all White men to repent however not all men respond to it in the same way or at the same time.

[wmfinck]

This verse has also come up in my discussions with family.

Romans 10:9 - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."


I believe this verse is one of the pillars of universalism, implying that anyone who "believes" in Jesus can be saved. I would assume that Paul is equating "being saved" with safety, security, etc. and that by confessing and believing in what Christ did we would recognize who we are and turn from our ways to create a society that would follow his laws. To that effect we would be safe and secure and be blessed by Yahweh. I could be wrong but the univeralists seem to think this is all inclusive. What is the official CI response? Would anyone like to weigh in?

All of the pillars of universalism are one line wonders, taken out of context.

I do not know about an "official" CI response, as we can always improve on what we think we know. But here is a link to my commentary.

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistles-paul-romans-part-14-07-11-2014-jacob-esau-and-nations

[matthewott]

In addressing the universalism of John 3:16 and the judaeo understanding of the use of the word "world" in that verse, I simply say, "Oh, you mean the same 'world' of Luke 2:1?" Most can't wrap their heads around that one anyway, due to the judaeo baggage

[andersonone]

In addressing the universalism of John 3:16 and the judaeo understanding of the use of the word "world" in that verse, I simply say, "Oh, you mean the same 'world' of Luke 2:1?" Most can't wrap their heads around that one anyway, due to the judaeo baggage

Nice. Excellent point. I have thought recently about the meaning of words and how even their meanings can be controlled. We have been getting demoralized by the enemy for so long that most of us dont know what anything actually means anymore, probably why there are so few CI believers.

[MichaelAllen]

In addressing the universalism of John 3:16 and the judaeo understanding of the use of the word "world" in that verse, I simply say, "Oh, you mean the same 'world' of Luke 2:1?" Most can't wrap their heads around that one anyway, due to the judaeo baggage

Nice. Excellent point. I have thought recently about the meaning of words and how even their meanings can be controlled. We have been getting demoralized by the enemy for so long that most of us dont know what anything actually means anymore, probably why there are so few CI believers.

Andersonone, what you are dealing with here is problematic in all branches of Christian theology. It is a contest between semantics and definitives. In all honesty, it does no good to read the English bible without the tools necessary to run the gamut of investigating the Greek. This is a big problem, because we were all taught our theology LONG before we ever read the Bible (even in English), and whether or not we like it, the modern meanings of words for world, man, gentile, jew, etc. are the framework upon which modern theology is built. But that makes the study of Christian academia somewhat arbitrary and subject to change agencies in our language. Semantics are meanings of words that have been applied over time that are not necessarily the concept of the original definition of the word. A definitive, by contrast, is the concept and definition of a word, as it was used originally.

Now, this gets hairy because even by the time of the New Testament, the word Jew/Judahite/Judean already had semantic meanings. When the writer of Hebrews said, "Our Lord sprang from Judah," well, that is IOUDA, referencing the Israelite tribe in the Greek language. But the nation of Judea at the time was spelled "IOUDAIA."

Now, in Greek, the word Ioudaios for "Judean" is used to reference a member of the province of Judea, but this is also the word used for a member of the tribe/house of Judah

God promised that Abraham's anointed (christos) seed (through Isaac, then through Jacob) would all be heirs to the promise that their seed would indeed become a multitude of nations. If God's ultimate plan was for universalism, why bother with the story of Israel? It's funny to me that theologians can accept the idea of genetics in the first half of the promise "a great nation" - they understand that correctly to be the Kingdom formed at Sinai circa 1450 B.C. But then they read the expansion of that promise, that Abraham's seed would become a multitude of nations, and somehow, they imagine this to be "spiritual" - in other words, "sign here to be a child of God in the New Covenant." - Now what made people see it this way? Very simply, their preconceived idea that God's ultimate plan was for a multi-racial "church" that meets a couple of times a week and does the Sunday dance.

But if that is true, why didn't God just tell Abraham to get a sword and go out and convert everyone around him, like the mohammedans did? Why bother with a genetic covenant in the Old Testament in the first place? That's kind of pointless and really is just a big confusing deterrant for the better part of 1900 years until the new covenant, which they imagine to be with everyone who signs up.

Well, Abraham's promise was that his anointed seed would become the nations and kings of the earth (land, occupied area, etc... it always has a non-global meaning).

With that in mind, when Jesus told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel unto all creation (Mark 16), and Matthew records it as "teach all nations," we can reasonably understand that "the nations" and the "creation" and the "world" are all the same.

Paul demonstrates in Romans 8 that "the creation" is the world and condition of Adamic man. And in Colossians 1:23, Paul says that the gospel HAD BEEN preached unto all creation. It was accomplished. They did what Christ told them to do. The following is just my opinion, but I believe that when Christ said in Matthew 24, "This gospel of the kingdom must first be preached into all the world as a witness to the nations, then shall the end come..." - I understand this particular "end" to be the end of the corrupted Old covenant system that had been hijacked by the Idumeans in Jerusalem, and that would fit with Paul saying that it had been preached unto all creation.

Now, Paul wrote that sometime in the 60s of the first century AD. This implies by necessary inference that the preaching of the gospel to creation was never understood by the original disciples to encompass spherical planet earth, and the other hominids.

If you are not of the ethnic stock that heard the gospel by the end of the first century, then you have neither part nor lot with anything to be called Christianity.

That link that Bill posted up to his commentary on Romans 10 hits the nail on the head.

And if you go back and read all of Romans 9 and 10 together as a single thought, you will see that Paul was bemoaning the unbelief among the Israelites of Judea. One should have expected to find more belief among those who had at least some connection to the old covenant system and the Hebrew tradition. It's sort of like how early on in my experience with Christian Identity, I tried to reach people in the churches because, hey... they read the Bible (well, kind of), and they espouse their belief in the scripture, and in Christ... so maybe they would like to understand the truth about the Bible. Well, those doors get shut fast. I think that was what happened in Judea in the apostolic era. It was under control of Edomites, and the true Judah people had a choice to make; follow a dead tradition down the path to destruction, or follow Christ and live. That's why Jesus said, "Straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life abiding, but wide the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many will enter there in." - I am convinced that this is not talking about our personal here-and-after experience.

In my opinion, the "salvation" that is being discussed in Romans 10 is also not one's existence in the here and after... but it was the salvation that Christ offered relative to their own time - that of escaping the wrath of God that came on Jerusalem. Had these Israelites in Judea that Paul is mourning over just believed what Jesus had said, they would have escaped that wrath with their lives. History records that not one believing Christian was destroyed in the Judeo-Roman war.

[andersonone]

Thank you michael for that detailed and informative post. Great points made.

On the subject i came across this verse today and would like aomeone to help explain the intent here...

Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that an edomite is our brother and that offspring with them can enter the congregation in the third generation...

Anyone?

[brucebohn]

Thank you michael for that detailed and informative post. Great points made.

On the subject i came across this verse today and would like aomeone to help explain the intent here...

Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that an edomite is our brother and that offspring with them can enter the congregation in the third generation...

Anyone?

There are many thousands of translation errors in the KJV. But there seems
to be something much more nefarious at work here. Clifton covered this in
WTL 21 or 22 I believe . This should have been translated as Syrian as he
has determined...

[MichaelAllen]

Thank you michael for that detailed and informative post. Great points made.

On the subject i came across this verse today and would like aomeone to help explain the intent here...

Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that an edomite is our brother and that offspring with them can enter the congregation in the third generation...

Anyone?

I'm not sure if Bruce's reference to Mr. Clifton's work on the matter is the same as the following, but I read one time somewhere that the word Edomite and Aramean in Hebrew are nearly identical and basically it's a very minor penstroke of a difference. Well, considering who is who... and considering that the prophets don't seem to have a problem with Israelites slaying Edomites... we cannot have the law telling us one thing and the prophets telling us another. There are ample witnesses throughout the prophets that provide us with a case that the book of Deuteronomy is likely a scribal error. Paul called the Edomites vessels of destruction... if God views them as such, He wouldn't tell us to view them any differently.