Jump to content
Online Baptist


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by LindaR

  1. Pastor Charles Lawson teaches the "Ruin-Reconstruction" Gap theory.  That is a "theory that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  This means that there was a pre-adamic race before the re-creation of the earth and death before the fall of Adam.  This contradicts Romans 5:12.


  2. On 8/26/2017 at 2:59 PM, Bob from England said:

    The Berean Call conference is going on, at present, in Oregon.  Has anyone been following this?


    Hi Bob,

    I've been following The Berean Call Ministry (started by the late Dave Hunt and T. A. McMahon) for more than a decade.  I livestream their conferences, but I have listened to only one (T. A. McMahon speaking on The Perfect Storm, Part 1) message of the present conference.  As with any ministry, we need to be biblical Bereans (Acts 17:11).....checking out what they teach and preach with Scripture. 


  3. On 8/24/2017 at 9:20 AM, BabeinChrist said:

    How is that a Roman Catholic statement?

    Because I am NOT a Roman Catholic, but I do believe the KJV to be the Word of God. And of course Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, but the Jews hated Christ & one cannot read the Bible without noticing that.

    Pontius Pilate even washed his hands and declared that he is innocent of the blood of this just man.

    To which the Jews shouted, "His blood be upon us and our children".  So yes, they hated Christ.

    i believe the Bible, not Zionist ideology.

    what do you mean you are an "ethnic Jew"? They were scattered and I would think that everyone has a bit of "Jew" in them. 


    For hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic Church blamed the Jews for "killing" Christ and have called Jews "Christ killers"....I know this from personal experience.  An ethnic Jew is a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  My ethnicity is Jewish. My grandparents were Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe (Lithuania and Russia) and immigrated to the United States at the end of the 19th century.   Yes, the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world in 70AD, but they are returning to Israel (in unbelief)---fulfilling the Biblical prophecy of Ezekiel 37 (dry bones prophecy).  

    The answer is no....everyone does not have a bit of "Jew" (whatever you mean by that) in them.  There are 3 classes of peoples (1 race) living on this earth, the Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God, which is composed of saved Jews and Gentiles (1 Corinthians 10:32).

    Zionist ideology?????  I am also a Christian Zionist.  Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland in the biblically promised land of Israel. It is no more, and no less.  Bible believing Christians, who are dispensational in their understanding of Scriptures, have always believed in God’s promise of the restoration of the Jewish people back to the land of Israel.

    Irregardless of the fact that Pontius Pilate "washed his hands", it was the Romans who physically nailed Christ to the Cross. Did you ever stop and think that using such a statement like "the Jews killed Christ" or Jews are "Christ killers" just might prevent a lost Jewish soul from listening to the Gospel?  Since you are very much into soul winning, which is great....this might be something for soul winners to think about.  BTW, the world (mankind) hates Christ...not just the Jews.

    Back to the topic of this thread....repentance.

  4. On 6/25/2017 at 9:51 AM, BabeinChrist said:

    Actually, the Jews DID kill Christ. But that's another subject.


    Actually the Romans killed Christ.  The Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans to be crucified.  Crucifixion was the means of capital punishment which the Romans employed.  Christ died for the entire world. (John 3:16).  Our sin put Christ on the cross.  Blaming the Jews for killing Christ is pretty much a Roman Catholic statement.  I am an ethnic Jew and a born again Christian and I remember when our family was called "Christ Killers" (and other derogatory statements that Jews were called) until I graduated High School in 1961.

    Yes, you are correct about this being another subject.

    Back to the topic of Repentance.  Repentance defined by David Cloud and John R. Rice. (Way of Life Encyclopedia: Repentance)

    Bible repentance means a turning to God and a change of mind toward God that results in a change of life (Mt 3:1-2; Lu 5:32; 13:1-3; 18:13; Ac 2:38; 5:31; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; 2Pe 3:9). (David Cloud)

    "To repent literally means to have a change of mind or spirit toward God and toward sin. It means to turn from your sins, earnestly, with all your heart, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you. You can see, then, how the man who believes in Christ repents and the man who repents believes in Christ. The jailer repented when he turned from sin to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" (John R. Rice, What Must I Do to Be Saved?).




  5. According to Genesis 1, evening was the beginning of the day. 

    Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    Genesis 1:13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    Genesis 1:19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    Genesis 1:23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    Genesis 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

  6. 3 minutes ago, DaveW said:

    Briders and landmarkers are NOT the same thing, and I am neither.

    But the order marked in Acts 2:41 IS ABSOLUTELY PLAIN.

    And maybe you should do a study on what church is.......

    Maybe you should read that webpage before you jump all over everyone who doesn't agree with you.

    FYI, when  I speak of Landmarkism, I do not mean the parody site of the Landmark Church.  I know several people on Facebook who call themselves Landmark Baptists and hold to the same doctrines as Briderism.

  7. To: DaveW
    Read the following webpage:

    Landmark Baptists: An Analysis of the Doctrinal Errors of Landmarkism
    "Landmark Baptists, have many distinctive doctrines, which need to be examined in the light of the Word of God (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21). This group holds to the following doctrines:

    1. The terms kingdom and church are synonymous terms. Graves believed that the term kingdom referred collectively to all true Baptist churches. According to Graves, the kingdom announced by John the Baptist and by the Lord Jesus was to be identified with the establishment of Christ’s church. The kingdom of which John and Jesus spoke was, according to Graves, a kingdom composed of visible Baptist Churches.

    2. The church did not begin at Pentecost, but began prior to the cross, even before the death of John the Baptist.

    3. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus promised an unbroken historical succession of true gospel churches on earth until He returns.

    4. Only Baptist churches are Biblically qualified to function as churches.

    5. The only Christian baptism is water baptism (even in such passages as Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13).

    6. The baptism administered by John the Baptist was Christian baptism. John’s baptism and Christian baptism are one and the same.

    7. The only Biblical church is a local church. There is no such thing as one "universal" church as the body of Christ. Graves emphatically rejected the ideas of a universal, invisible church. 

    [J. M. Pendleton seemed to differ with Graves on this issue. Pendleton conceded that, in passages such as Eph. 5:25 there is one “aggregate” church of all the redeemed. See David Beale (Historical Theology In-Depth, Volume 2, page 186, footnote).]"

    is the same as Briderism.
    Water baptism in Briderism/Landmarkism is not a simple believe, be baptized and added.  Conditions are added to believer's baptism...and that is adding "works" to the ordinance of believer's baptism.  There are some people who are physically unable to be water baptized by immersion.  We knew a man at the IFB church we used to attend who was a quadraplegic who got saved but baptizing him by immersion would have killed him.  He passed away a few years ago without being water baptized.  He is with the Lord now.  He was "added" to the Church/Body of Christ/the Bride of Christ when he believed and was baptized by the Holy Spirit (regenerated).  He was just as much a member of the Body of Christ/the Church/the Bride of Christ as any other person (Baptist or non-Baptist) who believed, was water baptized and added to the Church.


    BTW---"internet theologian" is not my husband's name, so please cease and desist from using that term.



  8. This message preached by Pastor Marc Monte (Faith Baptist Church, Avon, IN) on 2/25/2007, "Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God", speaks for itself.


    Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

    Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
    Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
    Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
    Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    No...God is not finished with Israel.

  9. On 7/28/2017 at 8:50 AM, Alan said:

    Jim Alaska,

    I agree with everything that you said. When I first came on OnLine Baptist I thought, and still do think, that an internet theologian is a "know it all, "always right person." 2 Peter 2:10 says, "self-willed." These internet theologians despise IFB doctrine and will argue their erroneous teaching to the end of time; they are false teachers.

    As you stated, and I agree, it seems now these false teachers are taking their nefarious ways a step further; they are creating their own websites, forums, blogs, etc..., in an effort to promote themselves and try to destroy every good pastor and church in the process.

    One of the reasons why I am proceeding cautiously is that these internet theologians are spending hours each day promoting their teachings in forums, blogs, youtube videos that it is hard to keep abreast of what they are doing. Therefore, it is hard to sort through the mire of theological junk they are spewing out.

    If you care to sift through the teachings  of Steve Sorenson (Sorenson is a false teacher, anti-KJV, Southern Baptist), you will find the same teachings and  false representations on Abraham and Melchizedek, and the issue of tithing, that SFIC, teaches.

    These teachers are going from forum to forum teaching their pet beliefs and agendas. When you disagree with them, you are called Pharisaical, legalistic,  a cultist,  abusive, and a few other judgmental adjectives.

    One thing that is common among them is that they are out to destroy traditional IFB beliefs, practices, and the local church by mis-representation, half-truths, using fallen men in the IFB ministry, etc...




    Here's Alan's quote with the accusation against SFIC (which is the nickname for Ron Robey).  I bolded the short paragraph where it is located in the post, which is addressed to you.   SFIC does not go from forum to forum teaching any false "pet" beliefs.

  10. The Proper Teaching of Malachi 3:7-11
    by Ronald W Robey

    The proper teaching from Malachi 3:7-11 should be that tithing was an ordinance (v.7) given to national Israel, not to the Church. (Lev. 27:30-34; Mal. 1:1; 2:1)

    The proper teaching from Malachi 3:7-11 should be that Malachi was referring to a tithe of crops and livestock… not money. (Lev. 27:30-33)

    The proper teaching from Malachi 3:7-11 should be that the curse associated with not tithing was allowing the locusts to eat the crops, (v.11) and withholding of rain (Gen. 7:5; 8:2)… not loss of money, loss of job, ill health, automotive engine failures, broken families, etc..

    The proper teaching from Malachi 3:7-11 should be that the blessings associated with tithing was God sending rain from heaven (Gen. 7:5; 8:2; Mal. 3:11) and preventing the locust from eating the crops… bringing about a bountiful harvest… not more money, better job, good health, perfect running vehicles, close-knit family, etc..

    The proper teaching from Malachi 3:7-11 is that rhe rebuke and admonition was delivered to the Priests of Israel, (Mal. 2:1) not to the Church. The Church was not robbing God… the Priests of Israel were.

    Monetary tithe requirement teachers clearly distort the proper teaching of Malachi 3, turning the rebuke and admonition intended for the Priests of Israel into something that God never decreed. The monetary tithe requirement doctrine is an improper and abusive doctrine that oppresses the laborer from his wages, the widows and orphans. It has no place in the pulpit of the post-crucifixion Church. (Acts 15:19-20; 2 Cor. 9:6-7)

    Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    Pastors need to allow the light to shine upon their hearts and minds as they study God’s Word. Take off the blinders of religion, opinion, and tradition; interpret the Scripture with the mind of Christ. If they do, God will reveal to them that which He has revealed to many concerning the tithes of the Mosaic/Levitic Law. If they allow God’s Word to speak for itself, they will come to no other conclusion than that God never imposed a monetary tithe upon Tabernacle, Temple, Synagogue or Church.


  11. 11 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

    Our tithes do sustain.

    We give to our church because we KNOW our Pastor is using it to pay the church building's rent, and provide a place for saints to assemble. Also, our church is growing. House churches are a good stepping stone for Pastors who are new to the ministry & still working to get a real building for the church established, but I don't think it is practical to meet in a house indefinitely, as a church should see growth.

    And our Pastor doesn't force us to tithe, we do it because it makes sense, and our church goes soulwinning weekly, and we give hundreds of people the Gospel & collectively  get hundreds of people saved. Call it giving if you wish, because we do give joyfully, but we all give a tithe(tenth). We give 10%.

    The Biblical agricultural tithes which God commanded for the children of Israel (farmers and herders) were to FEED the tribe of Levi during their time of service working in the tabernacle (not in the wilderness) and later the temple, when they were living in the land of Canaan/Israel. 

    What do your man-made monetary tithes sustain?   Your pastor's lifestyle (which doesn't have to be lavish), paying the rent in the place/building where you meet to worship, extra-curricular activities, perhaps missions, etc.   This was NEVER the purpose of the Biblical agricultural tithe.   Tithes were EATEN....do you eat money?   Free will, sacrificial and grace giving works fine to sustain all that a church requires to meet their needs.  What you give as biblical tithes are not biblical tithes....but simply 10% of your gross income.  Biblical tithes were never monetary throughout the Bible and nobody has ever given Scriptural proof that a monetary tithe was EVER commanded by God.  It is a man-made doctrine.
    Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    Your opinions don't justify the compulsory monetary tithe, so you can stop bragging about how your man-made tithes are used.  I'm not impressed.  And as for house churches......that's a matter of opinion also.  The first century church met in houses DAILY to break bread and fellowship/worship.  Three thousand were saved on the day of Pentecost.  The upper room was somebody's house.

    Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.   

    Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls

    Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,   

    Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.   

    Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

  12. 15 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

    Do you have a website?

    So you operate  out of your home?

    That explains a lot.

    Is your home big enough to assemble 300 people?

    Do you go soulwinning?

    No, we don't have a website.

    What difference does it make where we "operate" or how many people are present  at a worship service?  Why are you so "into" numbers?  Whether there are five, ten, twenty, or whatever number are present is not important.
    Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    Soul winning should not be an "extra curricular" activity of the born again Christian.  It should be an everyday event in the life of the born again Christian.  We are to be about sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ daily.  We are not going to "win" everyone....we are to plant seeds and God will bring in the increase.
    1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
    1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

  13. 4 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

    So your church meets in a tabernacle & offers agricultural tithes?

    How does your church function from mere carrots and peas? Is that how you pay your mortgage as well?

    Even Jesus had a treasurer.

    You didn't address anything I said about the church costing money to operate.

    Our church meets in a home...not a tabernacle.  We don't tithe, we give from the heart.  The biblical tithe was always agricultural, NEVER money!

    Church functions on grace and free will GIVING and we pay our own rent and utilities.  Giving and tithing are not the same....giving is a "heart" principle and tithing is an ordinance of the Mosaic law. 

    All you said was how wonderful your pastor is and how everything was free.....then you turn around and say your rent is $6,000 a month.  Ever hear about free will and grace giving???  Since biblical tithing was never money, the purpose of the biblical tithe (which was always agricultural from the land of Canaan/Israel) was never meant for paying bills, but to sustain the tribe of Levi. 

  14. 28 minutes ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

    Okay..what in the world is a Dominionist?  That's a new one on me...


    Dominionism is not new....it was around in the late 70s and early 80s and had its beginnings in the Charismatic movement.


    The belief that we (mankind) have a mandate to build the “kingdom of God” on earth, restoring paradise, by progressively and supernaturally transforming ourselves and all societal institutions, through subduing and ruling the earth by whatever means possible, including using technology, science and psycho-social engineering; and then and only then will a “Christ” manifest his presence on earth.

    What is Dominionism? by Sarah Leslie

    Read the links I posted on the 7 Mountain Politics and Theology and Will Christians Replace Commitment to the Gospel for Commitment to a Unified Dominionist Agenda to "Save the Country?


  15. I clicked on the link "Will Calvary Chapel Lock Arms With a Dominionist Agenda?" and came up with a 404 Error on the Lighthouse Trails Research blog page.  I believe it is a dead link. 

    However I did find this link (posted August 14, 2011) called "Will the Evangelical Church Sell Out the Gospel for a Political Agenda?"

    Edited: I finally found the correct page to the OP link.  The date of this link is just 2 days earlier than the post on the "Evangelical Church" (August 12, 2011).

  16. I received this in my email from Jewish Awareness Ministries.  It was in response to my question about the origin of word Easter.       

    The De-Judification of Pascha in the Early Church

    (Author Unknown)

    At least as late as the fourth century A.D., the holiday known as Easter was called Pascha. That Greek name came from the Hebrew Pesach ("Passover" in English). Easter, however, appears to be derived from Eastre, the name or festival of the Teutonic goddess of spring, to whom sacrifices were offered in the month of April. The word is Germanic, not Greek or Hebrew. We can surmise that when Christianity began to make inroads among the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes, the name Easter was transferred to the Christian celebration, inasmuch as both occurred at the same time of year.1

    'The earliest observances of Pascha took place at the same time as Passover, on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This celebration is referred to as the "Quartodeciman  Passover" from the Latin word for "fourteenth."

    Moves toward changing the date of Pascha began early in the second century. The motivation behind this change was fear of the authorities coupled with anti-Jewish sentiment. The actual course of events appears to have been as follows.2

    Bishop Sixtus of Rome, who presided from A.D. 116-126, may have been the first to observe a Sunday date rather than the 14th of Nisan. Three reasons support this idea.

    1. According to the church historian Eusebius, a later Roman bishop named Victor sought to impose a Sunday observance on the entire Church and to break ties with those Christians who observed the 14th of Nisan. He was opposed by Irenaeus, who discouraged such a break and argued that peace should be kept among Christians who celebrated the day on different dates. He contended that even earlier church leaders who did not observe the Quartodeciman date were at peace with those who did. In mentioning the names of one church leader after another, Irenaeus used reverse chronological order, stopping at Bishop Sixtus. This seems to imply that the practice first began with Sixtus.

    2. The rule of Bishop Sixtus coincided with the measures of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that were aimed at repressing anything Jewish. (Hadrian's reign was A.D. 117-138.) It would have made sense if the church had been pressured at that time not to observe the 14th of Nisan. Any anti-Jewish feeling would certainly have, been catalyzed by Hadrian's prohibition of Jewish customs and festivals. This culminated in the expulsion of the Jews, including the Jewish Christian church leaders, from Jerusalem, circa A.D. 135. (After that, the Jerusalem Church was composed of Gentiles.).

    3. According to the fourth century Bishop Epiphanius, the Sunday observance of Pascha was first introduced in Jerusalem after A.D. 135 when the Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by Hadrian. If the new Sunday observance began with Sixtus in his tenure of A.D. 116-126, this would have allowed time for the practice to have spread to Jerusalem by A.D. 135.

    The next significant step on record comes from the late second century, the time of Bishop Victor of Rome. As already mentioned, Victor attempted to make the Sunday observance of Pascha uniform. A primary motivating factor for Victor would have been the presence in Rome of many Christians from Asia Minor who observed the Quartodeciman Passover. Their presence alongside the Roman believers would have meant that Christians were observing two different dates for the same occasion. Perhaps Victor's only motive was his desire to ensure uniformity of worship within the Church.      

    In any case, by the middle of the third century, blatant anti-Semitic statements are found in various Christian sources. In a work called De pascha computus, the author, known as Pseudo-Cyprian, wrote contemptuously of following the Jewish practice, expressing the desire for Christians not to "walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover."3

    Finally, in the fourth century; Pascha became decisively separated from Passover and restricted to a Sunday observance. Not only individuals but church councils contributed to the change of date. In 314, the Council of Arles recommended a single date for the uniform observance of Pascha, but it was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that was the watershed that solidified this motion. The date of Pascha was fixed as the Sunday following the full moon that falls on or after the vernal equinox.4 The edict of the Council of Nicaea proclaimed:

    "All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us."5

    Ultimate official support came from Emperor Constantine, whose conciliar letter to all bishops of the same time period announced it "unworthy" to celebrate Pascha on Passover.6

    Nevertheless, complications arose because some churches followed the Jewish or lunar calendar. Full uniformity in calculating the date was not secured until as late as the eighth century.7 The Eastern Orthodox Church still calculates Easter differently than the Western churches by as much as five weeks.8

    1. See J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell and Peter Toon, eds., The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition: Worship, Liturgy, and History (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), "Easter"; John C. . McCollister, The Christian Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David, 1983), pp. 230-231; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, see "Easter."

    2. As described by Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), pp. 159-163, 199-206. See also 1. Jeremias, "pa,sca [Pascha]," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament V:901-903; Jean Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 343-344; Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. I: Beginnings to 1500 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975, 1953), p. 137.

    3. Bacchiocchi, p. 206 n. 115.

    4. On this point see The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), "Easter," "Paschal Controversies," "Quartodecimanism."

    5. The word Easter appears in the English translation of this text but actually was not a term in use at this point in time. The holiday was still called Pascha. Quotation is from Bacchiocchi, p. 203 n. 104.

    6. Ibid., p. 206.

    7. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), pp. 55-56.

    8. See the articles referred to in note 4.





    Here is a website giving Friday as the day.


    What they don't say is that Jonah was a sign, a specific sign.  Jonah was in the belly of the fish "Hell" for three days and three nights.  Jesus body was to be in the body of the earth for three days and three nights'  The only sign that was given.  The body was put in the grave in a hurry as the Sabbath was fast approaching, the women came to the tomb at the same time. at the end of the Sabbath towards the dawn of the first day.  This could not be the dawn of the day as that was not the end of the Sabbath.  The women came while it was "yet dark".   No verse says he was raised at dawn.  Every verse mentioning the morning say he WAS risen, that is already risen.

    There are a number commentaries on the subject in the following site.


    I don't see that Jewish "understanding" has preference over what the bible says.  .



    My understanding is that the entire Bible (all 66 books) was penned by Jewish "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21b).

    So don't knock "Jewish understanding" when it comes to understanding "what the Bible says".
    Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
    Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

  • Create New...