A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah

[Genevanpreacher]

This Jewish genealogy bit is pretty stupid in my opinion.Glad you said that!  It is a smokescreen to cover the tracks of bad theology designed to get people confused and OBsessed over genealogies that may or may not be proven. You are reaching a bit.

 

oh, wait...(here it comes folks!)

 

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and GENEALOGIES.... What about the foolish questions?

 

Why does Paul give us this instruction?  Because in the end it becomes a matter of speculation. Then why bother teaching the difference between Jew and Gentile as a Dispensationalist?

 

The Book of Hebrews

I never said that I had prOBlems understanding it, but then again, Genevan can't understand why Peter would say that Paul's letters were hard to understand....so apparently this is again a novice(unfair) who is oversimplifying things to the point that he has erased all of the "prOBlem passages." Why do you keep insisting there are these? That is discouraging to new believers and misleading. What about 'studying to show yourself approved'? There are no prOBlem passages to those who know the Author. And can read.

 

The doctrinal prOBlem passages contained in the book of Hebrews are well documented everywhere. By scholars? Hebrews 6:1-6 has been giving fundamentalist (I question this) "scholars" fits for decades.  That is just one example.  Sure - everybody has their own pet answer for all of these prOBlem passages, but the fact is that Hebrews presents more difficulties than any of the other Pauline epistles.  Anybody who has done intensive study of the NT knows that. Maybe one needs to study it without the so-called scholars!

 

But all of this is digression from the main point.  We somehow got derailed from the main topic by this smokescreen about Jewish ancestry.  You see, we are not discussing the text of Scripture anymore, just wasting time trying to determine who is a "real" Jew and who is not. Was not the question about the House of Israel and the House of Judah? These are not lands, or books, but people.

 

 

There that was kinda fun.

 

By the way, sorry about being a novice. 

So how long and how much of the Bible does one need to know the Lord before he is not a novice according to you?

 

P.S. - Scholars have always been the prOBlem with Christianity.

They make men think they are not able to understand God's word without their knowledge.

[Covenanter]

There is no way to broad brush how many Jews do or don't remember their heritage. During the Third Reich many Jews knew they were Jews yet there were also a number of "Germans" who were surprised to find out they were actually Jewish. This wasn't/isn't unique, as the same is true in many other countries. One of the things many find interesting about checking into their ancestry is finding out their heritage. It's fairly common to hear folks talk about how they didn't know they were Jewish, Germanic, Indian or whatever. Yes, some non-religious Jews still identify themselves as Jews. Others know they have Jewish ancestry but don't consider themselves to be Jews, and still others no longer even know of their Jewish ancestry.

The point I was making is that over 100,000 Jews became Christian in the first C.
_
60 generations have passed. Did they remember and treasure their Jewish ancestry? For how many generations ? Perhaps there are Palestinian Christians who know? It's 1900 years.

But there must be many millions descended from them.

Today's Jews know they are Jews, but how many who became Christian centuries ago?

[Covenanter]

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church.  It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church).  In Christ,

sorry you consider the inspired Word to be a stumbling block to the church.

[Genevanpreacher]

 Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  

 

Another thing to say about 'understanding' the book of Hebrews...here's the 'sin' in all this.

When you say that scholars agree that Heb. 6:1-6 are very difficult to understand, you destroy the ability of a fellow Christian to 'say' what is meant in those verses.

Because every good Christian knows, "if'n a scholar can't figger it out, there ain't no way we common saved people cood".

 

So when I say I understand Heb. 6:1-6, you can just ignore me.

I don't know nuffin.

I's is jes a novice.

[Covenanter]

Another thing to say about 'understanding' the book of Hebrews...here's the 'sin' in all this.When you say that scholars agree that are very difficult to understand, you destroy the ability of a fellow Christian to 'say' what is meant in those verses.Because every good Christian knows, "if'n a scholar can't figger it out, there ain't no way we common saved people cood". So when I say I understand , you can just ignore me.I don't know nuffin.I's is jes a novice.

The difficulty arises when they try to INTERPRET Scripture according to and imposed system, rather than seeking to understand it in context The whole disp system leads to wrong dividing, rather than right understaning
.

[beameup]

sorry you consider the inspired Word to be a stumbling block to the church.

There is a way to "rightly divide" scripture and Replacement Theology (or its bedfellows) will not get you there.

[Genevanpreacher]

There is a way to "rightly divide" scripture and Replacement Theology (or its bedfellows) will not get you there.

 

NOBody here teaches Replacement Theology. And what kind of term is 'bedfellows'? Please.

[Invicta]

Hebrews is anonomous for a very good reason - it was written by a woman.

Hebrews was written by Priscilla (of Priscilla and Aquila), a Heleinistic Jew 

and not a Palestinian Jew.  Priscilla and Aquila were well educated Jews

and accompanied Paul.  See Acts 18, Romans 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19.

 

The identification of Paul as author is of 4th Century Catholic origin.

Much of Catholicism is within Protestantism as Replacement Theology

and all its "bedfellows" were retained by the "Reformers" and contaminate

theology.

 

"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 

 

Prove it.

 

i am a bit fed up with you making statements about people who disagree with you coming from Catholic theology.  If you take time to study the history, which you won't, you will find that the whole of futurist teaching came from the Jesuits after the reformation to try and challenge the protestant teaching that the pope was the Antichrist. The first protestant, as far as I can trace who adopted the teaching was Mr Maitland, librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote a book on the subject in 1816.

[beameup]

Prove it.

 

i am a bit fed up with you making statements about people who disagree with you coming from Catholic theology.  If you take time to study the history, which you won't, you will find that the whole of futurist teaching came from the Jesuits after the reformation to try and challenge the protestant teaching that the pope was the Antichrist. The first protestant, as far as I can trace who adopted the teaching was Mr Maitland, librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote a book on the subject in 1816.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part

is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out

of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

60 AD  Romans 11:25-27

[Genevanpreacher]

 

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part

is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out

of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

60 AD  Romans 11:25-27

 

 

Mystery?

 

"That is, that God by revelation hath showed this mystery unto me

(as I wrote above in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may know mine 

understanding in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not opened

unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets

by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be inheritors also, and of the same body,

and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel"   (Ephesians 3:3-6.)

 

Solved!

[DaveW]

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part
is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
60 AD Romans 11:25-27

To be fair here - and I don't agree with Invicta on very much - he was asking you to prove your Hebrews authorship statement.

Your answer to my questioning of it was fine, but no more than speculation.

The point is that the book IS anonymous. There are indicators in the book, but no proof.

One thing is that it is highly unlikely that a Jewish woman would dare to instruct on Jewish issues. It is far more likely, for a variety of reasons that it was Aquila. To speculate that it was the wife ONLY because the author is not mentioned is a weak argument. The more likely scenario would be to credit the book to the husband to make it more acceptable.
Secondly, and this is speculation, if it was Aquila and Priscilla, then it is again more likely to be Aquila because he is noted as being Jewish. The first time they are mentioned is in Acts 18:2 which notes Aquila being a Jew, but come lately from Italy with his wife. Priscilla is a Latin name, not a Hebrew name. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she was Italian, not Jewish. For a non-Hebrew to have the kind of knowledge of Judaism that the writer of Hebrews has is highly unlikely.

Overall, the likelihood that Priscilla is the author is extremely low.

But again, the author is not named, therefore any conclusion involves an amount of speculation.

[beameup]

 
The point is that the book IS anonymous. There are indicators in the book, but no proof.

One thing is that it is highly unlikely that a Jewish woman would dare to instruct on Jewish issues. It is far more likely, for a variety of reasons that it was Aquila. To speculate that it was the wife ONLY because the author is not mentioned is a weak argument. The more likely scenario would be to credit the book to the husband to make it more acceptable.
Secondly, and this is speculation, if it was Aquila and Priscilla, then it is again more likely to be Aquila because he is noted as being Jewish. The first time they are mentioned is in Acts 18:2 which notes Aquila being a Jew, but come lately from Italy with his wife. Priscilla is a Latin name, not a Hebrew name. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she was Italian, not Jewish. For a non-Hebrew to have the kind of knowledge of Judaism that the writer of Hebrews has is highly unlikely.

Overall, the likelihood that Priscilla is the author is extremely low.

But again, the author is not named, therefore any conclusion involves an amount of speculation.

Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18) - note: Priscilla is mentioned before her husband's name.

Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos are all Greek names. 

Priscilla and Aquila discipled Apollos. (Acts 18:26)

The fact that Hebrews is "anonomous" should be a signal.

Internal evidence shows a high knowledge of Judiasm, but NOT intimate knowledge of Temple affairs. (Hellenist vs. Palestinian Jew).

This conclusion of authorship does not originate with me, it is due to meticulous scholarship by others.

Alternatively, the authorship of Hebrews very well could be the husband-wife (or wife-husband) team of Priscilla and Aquila.

 

It does not "fit" with Paul's role as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  And Apollos was "schooled" by Priscilla and Aquila.

[Genevanpreacher]

"For as much as diverse, both of the Greek writers and Latin’s witness, that 

the writer of this Epistle for just causes would not have his name known, it 

were curiosity of our part to labor much therein. For seeing the Spirit of God 

is the author thereof, it diminisheth nothing the authority, although we 

know not with what pen he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as it is not like) 

or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his chief purpose is to 

persuade unto the Hebrews (whereby he principally meaneth them that abode 

at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of the Jews) that Christ Jesus was 

not only the redeemer, but also that at his coming all ceremonies must have 

an end; for as much as his doctrine was the conclusion of all the prophecies, 

and therefore not only Moses was inferior to him, but also the Angels; for 

they all were servants, and he the Lord, but so Lord, that he hath also taken 

our flesh, and is made our brother to assure us of our salvation through 

himself."

 

Just a little info from my Bible.  

[No Nicolaitans]

I have to agree with DaveW on this.

 

God's precedent was for "holy men of God" to be used in recording his word (2 Peter 1:21).

 

God's precedent was for only Jews to be used in recording his word (Romans 3:2)

 

Aquila is recorded as being a Jew (and a man), but Priscilla isn't (Acts 18:2).

 

Of the 5 times that Aquila and Priscilla are named, 3 of those times Aquila is named first...(Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26, Romans 16:3, and 1 Corinthians 16:19). 

[beameup]

I have to agree with DaveW on this.

 

God's precedent was for "holy men of God" to be used in recording his word (2 Peter 1:21).

 

God's precedent was for only Jews to be used in recording his word (Romans 3:2)

 

Aquila is recorded as being a Jew (and a man), but Priscilla isn't (Acts 18:2).

 

Of the 5 times that Aquila and Priscilla are named, 3 of those times Aquila is named first...(Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26, Romans 16:3, and 1 Corinthians 16:19). 

Thanks for your comments.

Yes "holy men of God spoke" - past tense

We are in the New Covenant.

Women are greatly elevated in the New Covenant. 

Priscilla and Aquila taught (debated?) in synagogues, so their "expertise" was with the diaspora.

When they heard Apollos teaching (debating?) in the synagogue, they took him unto themselves to teach him "more perfectly".

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,

there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28