DISPELLING LEFTIST MYTHS ABOUT CHRIST

[Astral-Pepe]

I spent about 2 hours last night reading and annotating in my Bible all the stuff you’ve been linking here.

I just talked to one of my sons on the phone. He's coming to visit in a couple of days and he bought me a new KJV to put post-its in. My old one has (literally) been through the wars and it needs to be retired.

I'm working on this "gentile" thing and I think I can keep it readably concise. I'll try to post it up soon.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

John Henry Newman wrote in the 1800s so this isn't the thoughts of early church fathers.

In the link that I shared with you St. Cardinal Newman specifically states that he is writing on the unanimous, consistent interpretation of the early Church Fathers (e.g., St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome) with regard to the question of Antichrist - it isn't his opinion or that of his contemporaries.

 

[Werwolf]

I just talked to one of my sons on the phone. He's coming to visit in a couple of days and he bought me a new KJV to put post-its in. My old one has (literally) been through the wars and it needs to be retired.

I'm working on this "gentile" thing and I think I can keep it readably concise. I'll try to post it up soon.

Please @ me when you get it all worked up and posted!

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Ok, lets deal with the word "gentile". Along with "jew" it is one of those confusing words that people generally don't have any idea how to define.

One of the main reasons for the confusion is that the word "gentile", just like the word "jew", is not to be found anywhere in the original text of the Bible.

Well how did it get there Astral-Pepe?

It got translated from some Greek words that mean a number of different things. Lets take a look.

Sometimes the word is ethnos:

Which has adverb and adjective associations:

It just means race or nation. Strong's adds the more recent definition of a non-jew or a non-Israelite but this is incorrect and the word never had that meaning and was never intended to convey that message as we shall see.

The root word of ethnos is etho, which reveals a bit more:

It means to be part of something and has connotations of customs and traditions.

There is another word that gets translated as "gentile" as well and it simply means a Greek:

Sometimes that word gets translated as "heathen" but I don't want to deal with that right now.

So where does the word "gentile" come from and what does it really mean?

The Latin word "gentilis" was used to translate the above words; Jerome of Stridon is usually credited with using this word in the Latin Vulgate at around 400AD. "Gentilis" has a completely opposite meaning from how "gentile" is used today.

Take a look:

It means of the same race or nation.

It can also mean a heathen or a pagan so you can start to see why this word was chosen.

"Gentilis" got translated "gentile" but neither of these words ever meant or ever were intended to mean a non-Israelite.

Many passages in the Bible are difficult to understand without realizing what I am showing you here. Paul's letters are nearly incomprehensible without understanding this. My goal is to arm you so that you can figure this out for yourselves and never be led astray or left speechless by deceivers.

Here's a great example, from KJV, of a passage that ends up with a nearly opposite meaning because the definition of "gentile" has changed over the centuries:

Acts 9

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

There are a couple of problems in the above. The translator thought that "gentile" means a non-Israelite so he was forced to translate the entire passage sloppily in order for it to make sense in that context.

Take a look at it in Greek:

Notice how the translator took the word "te", which means "also" and translated it "then" in the second instance.

Just for clarity that word "kai" means "namely":

What this passage means is "go to the nations, and kings and children of Israel". The nations and the kings and the children here are all of Israel but we are left with a different impression by the translators.

The Vulgate is much clearer on this, you don't have to understand Latin to see what the message is:

"Go to the nations, and kings and children of Israel".

That is exactly what Paul did.

Remember the prophecy from Genesis 35:

11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

The above isn't about jews. They are not a great nation, or a company of nations and no kings have come from them.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

(e.g., St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome)

I'll have to look into it more. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen any proof that the concept is older than the Reformation.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

I'll have to look into it more. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen any proof that the concept is older than the Reformation.

I just now made mention of the Jews: it may be well {66} then to state what was held in the early Church concerning Antichrist's connexion with them.

Our Lord foretold that many should come in His name, saying, "I am Christ." It was the judicial punishment of the Jews, as of all unbelievers in one way or another, that, having rejected the true Christ, they should take up with a false one; and Antichrist will be the complete and perfect seducer, towards whom all who were previous are approximations, according to the words just now quoted, "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." To the same purport are St. Paul's words after describing Antichrist; "whose coming," he says, "is ... with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the Truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Hence, considering that Antichrist would pretend to be the Messiah, it was of old the received notion that he was to be of Jewish race and to observe the Jewish rites.

Further, St. Paul says that Antichrist should "sit in the Temple of God;" that is, according to the earlier Fathers, in the Jewish Temple. Our Saviour's own words may be taken to support this notion, because He speaks of "the Abomination of Desolation" (which, whatever other meanings it might have, in its fulness denotes Antichrist) "standing in the holy place." Further, the persecution of Christ's witnesses which Antichrist will cause, is described by St. John as taking place in Jerusalem. "Their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, (which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,) where also our Lord was crucified." {67}

Now here a remark may be made. At first sight, I suppose, we should not consider that there was much evidence from the Sacred Text for Antichrist taking part with the Jews, or having to do with their Temple. It is, then, a very remarkable fact, that the apostate emperor Julian, who was a type and earnest of the great enemy, should, as he did, have taken part with the Jews, and set about building their Temple. Here the history is a sort of comment on the prophecy, and sustains and vindicates those early interpretations of it which I am reviewing. Of course I must be understood to mean, and a memorable circumstance it is, that this belief of the Church that Antichrist should be connected with the Jews, was expressed long before Julian's time, and that we still possess the works in which it is contained. In fact we have the writings of two Fathers, both Bishops and martyrs of the Church, who lived at least one hundred and fifty years before Julian, and less than one hundred years after St. John. They both distinctly declare Antichrist's connexion with the Jews.

The first of them, Irenæus, speaks as follows: "In the Temple which is at Jerusalem the adversary will sit, endeavouring to show himself to be the Christ."

And the second, Hippolytus: "Antichrist will be he who shall resuscitate the kingdom of the Jews."

Newman Reader - Antichrist - Lecture 2

Wherever did you get the idea that the Antichrist being a single man originated in the Reformation?

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Antichrist being a single man originated in the Reformation?

I'll have to track these quotes down and get back to you:

The first of them, Irenæus, speaks as follows: "In the Temple which is at Jerusalem the adversary will sit, endeavouring to show himself to be the Christ."

And the second, Hippolytus: "Antichrist will be he who shall resuscitate the kingdom of the Jews."

I'm intrigued by this but I have a busy day going on here so it might be a while before I can deal with it.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

the Antichrist being a single man originated in the Reformation?

I don't think it originated there. What I meant was the Catholic vs Protestant accusations and counter-accusations started with the Reformers. I could be wrong about that now that I look at some of what you posted.

Like I said in my earlier post the idea was causing confusion very early on as evidenced in 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:3.

I have to go out bro, don't be insulted if I don't get back to you for a couple of hours.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

I don't think it originated there. What I meant was the Catholic vs Protestant accusations and counter-accusations started with the Reformers. I could be wrong about that now that I look at some of what you posted.

No you're right on that point, and St. Newman states plainly that he seeks to avoid the polemic, so he turns to the early Fathers.

Take care and be safe

 

[Astral-Pepe]

No you're right on that point, and St. Newman states plainly that he seeks to avoid the polemic, so he turns to the early Fathers.

Good, I'm glad we are on the same page. The Reformers were the first to take all this antichrist, number of the Beast, whore of Babylon, Man of Sin etc. and put it together into one thing.

Some of the early thinkers had ideas that approximate this but not quite.

I want to show you what I'm dealing with when I look for the work of early Popes and other early Christians:

I did a search for that Irenæus quote and all I get is a self-referential hall of mirrors pointing back at Newman. This happens way too often with this stuff.

While I was thinking about this I remembered what I read about Martin Luther believing he could get the jews to convert if only he could destroy the Papacy. He went to his death cursing the jews with his last breath. It took him 25 years to figure it out. The Reformation resulted in countless Christians killed, the jews given a free hand and Atheism/Humanism given a huge boost.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

I did a search for that Irenæus quote and all I get is a self-referential hall of mirrors pointing back at Newman. This happens way to often with this stuff.

He provides the footnote to St. Irenaeus... and other (relatively) early Church Fathers. I don't understand, are you saying he is being in some way duplicitous? The Catholic Church existed for many centuries before the schismatics of the so-called Reformation appeared.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

Good, I'm glad we are on the same page. The Reformers were the first to take all this antichrist, number of the Beast, whore of Babylon, Man of Sin etc. and put it together into one thing.

Some of the early thinkers had ideas that approximate this but not quite.

I want to show you what I'm dealing with when I look for the work of early Popes and other early Christians:

I did a search for that Irenæus quote and all I get is a self-referential hall of mirrors pointing back at Newman. This happens way too often with this stuff.

While I was thinking about this I remembered what I read about Martin Luther believing he could get the jews to convert if only he could destroy the Papacy. He went to his death cursing the jews with his last breath. It took him 25 years to figure it out. The Reformation resulted in countless Christians killed, the jews given a free hand and Atheism/Humanism given a huge boost.

The fraud, pride, and tyrannical kingdom of Antichrist, as described by Daniel and Paul.
1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped — that is, above every idol — for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.

2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: But when you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that reads understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.

3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, among whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom. Daniel 7:8, etc. Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time, Daniel 7:23, etc. that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one's] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity, 2 Thessalonians 2:8

4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: I have come in my Father's name, and you have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him you will receive, John 5:43 calling Antichrist the other, because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one who feared not God, neither regarded man, Luke 18:2, etc. to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God — that is, the earthly Jerusalem, — to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously. Daniel 8:12 And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs. Daniel 8:23, etc. And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Daniel 9:27 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.

5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet Matthew 24:15 (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge.

Primary source for St. Irenaeus:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.25 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Astral-Pepe]

I don't understand, are you saying he is being in some way duplicitous?

Not at all, I believe they are real quotes but I want to read the rest and I can't find it. I'm very interested to read some of this stuff translated into English but it isn't as easy to find as older non-English works like Plato or whatever. My Latin is good enough to plod through a line or two of something but I can't read it comfortably.

I'm using the term Reformation because it is the term I have seen in common use. I'm not a Protestant in any way and I don't have a dog in that fight at all.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Primary source for St. Irenaeus:

Thanks bro, that's a big help. I'm going to ask you for help again.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

@Italo-Canadian

Here it is as a .pdf too if anyone is looking for it like that:

Saint Irenaeus Against Heresies Complete : New Advent (Online Content) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is the complete Adversus haereses (Against Heresies) Perhaps the most popular work by Saint Irenaeus. It is the name of a two-volume work against...

archive.org

I just didn't know what I was looking for.

 

[Italo-Canadian]

@Italo-Canadian

Here it is as a .pdf too if anyone is looking for it like that:

Saint Irenaeus Against Heresies Complete : New Advent (Online Content) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is the complete Adversus haereses (Against Heresies) Perhaps the most popular work by Saint Irenaeus. It is the name of a two-volume work against...

archive.org

I just didn't know what I was looking for.

The short of it was the early Church Fathers believed that the power of the Roman Empire "withholdeth" Antichrist; the power of Rome lives on in our present day through Western Civilisation, which is heavily influenced by Ancient Rome - i.e., the white patriarchy.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

I want to deal with the tares, as requested, and I still have to deal with the word "adoption" but before we go any further we have to deal with the concept of "two witnesses".

This isn't specifically about the Revelation 11 prophecy of the Two Witnesses and I am not going to pretend to understand that prophecy entirely but the power they have, to destroy their enemies with fire, is the power of the Word of God:

Revelation 11

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

The Word of God has power because it is perfectly true.

As we have seen, there are interpretational errors regarding the meaning of certain words. We went through some of these already; "jew" and "gentile" being the most troublesome. I will deal with some other misinterpreted words eventually but there are also translational errors, some of these are quite obvious and widely known.

When you encounter something that seems to be at odds with the rest of Scripture you have a tool you can use known as the two witnesses. If you can't find support for a single passage in at least one other passage then the message of that passage is suspect. You need at least two witnesses to make a case that doctrine can be established.

This is a legal standard established in the OT:

Deuteronomy 19

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

and continued into the NT:

2 Corinthians 13

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

It is clearly meant to be used to verify truth:

Matthew 18

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Modern Judeo-Christians have built a world of lies for themselves upon a foundation of doctrines built on single passages of Scripture. They will cite Matthew 22:21 to claim that Jesus wants you to pay your taxes. They cite John 3:16 to claim that all you have to do is "let Jesus into your heart" to be saved. As if you have the power to keep Jesus out of your heart or anywhere else. The arrogance of that concept amazes me.

Anyway, I don't want to digress on that. The point is that sound doctrine is consistent throughout Scripture. It is mirrored in the OT and the NT. It can always be confirmed by at least two witnesses. This is one of the keys to knowledge.

I quoted this in an earlier post but it needs to be said again. Our enemies don't want us getting our hands on the keys lest we gain access to the power of the Word of God:

Luke 11

52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Notice that we are told that these enemies have not entered into the knowledge themselves but are hiding the key so others can't enter. They are not capable of entering. As Jesus said; they can't hear his words because they are not his sheep.

Ok, like I said we went through some of the interpretational errors earlier and we will get to some more of those soon but I want to show you two translational errors that can be stumbling blocks. Both of these errors are well known and both of them, luckily, are relevant to what I have already said in other posts.

You'll recall everything I have said about the Edomite jews. They are the descendants of Cain through Esau's mixing with mongrel Canaanites. They made up the majority of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus and he called them the children of the Devil. We are told that God will have indignation with them forever.

So how do we reconcile all of that with this single line of Scripture?:

Deuteronomy 23

7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

The above is from the KJV. It is a well known translational error which remains in Scripture to this day.

The Latin Vulgate made the same error:

(You'll recall that Idumea means Edom)

You can see that Strong's is aware of the error, which it calls a scribal error:

This is good news for us because otherwise we would remain confused.

The error occured because the word for Edom is very similar to the word Aram, which means Aramean:

Aramean is sometimes translated "Syrian" which is how it is translated soon after in Deuteronomy 26:5. The Arameans were Adamic people at that time. They were our brothers and there is nothing inconsistent about Deuteronomy 23:7.

In the NT we are told that Simon is a Canaanite. After everything we have learned about the Canaanites how can this be?:

Matthew 10

4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

This is another translational error but this time the Vulgate translated it correctly while the KJV is in error:

Strong's catches the error and corrects it:

The word is Cananean, which is distinctly different from Canaanite.

Cananean:

Canaanite:

Both of these errors exist in many current translations of Scripture but even without proving they are incorrect, in the way I have done above, you could use the principle of the two witnesses to prove that these passages are at odds with the rest of scripture.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Lets get to the word "adoption". This will be brief because the word only gets used five times in the entire Bible and all of those times it is Paul using it. Whole schools of errant doctrines have been built on the misinterpreted meaning of this word so lets take a look at the word first:

The modern meaning is to bring a child, who was not part of a family, into a family. This is not the meaning of the word "adoption" in the Biblical context, in fact, this meaning began to be attached to the word in about the 14th century as we can see from the etymology study above.

There are several instances in the OT where adoptions, in the modern sense of that word, occur but they are not referred to as adoptions. I'm thinking of Moses (Exodus 2:10) and Genubath (1 Kings 11:20) specifically but I am sure there are other instances as well.

The word Paul uses is "huiothesia", here are two instances but all five are the same word:

Strong's adds the modern meaning to this word but also shows us some more information:

As we can see this is a compound of two other words;

Huios, which just means son:

and tithemi which means to place or establish:

The word is being used by Paul to mean "a son" or "the rightful position of a son". In this context it means a son by birth who is given his rightful position after having lost it. In every chapter it is used there are other indications what it means to help us figure this out. God did not intend for us to be deceived so his words are able to support the message and keep it from collapsing even if we don't interpret all the words correctly.

Lets take a look at the context of what Paul is saying:


Romans 8

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

The above means "waiting to receive our position as sons". This is made clear by the word "redemption". Redemption is the restoration of something lost. This proves that the Romans previously had the position of sons because if they never had the position of sons they could not be redeemed as sons.


Romans 9

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

We dealt with this passage in an earlier post but I'll remind you that Paul is saying the Romans are his kinsmen by blood and they are Israelites. A more accurate way to interpret Romans 9:4 above would be "who are Israelites, whose position is as sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"


Galatians 4

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Again we have a word that means to restore something that once was but has become lost. That is what "redeem" means. You can't be redeemed unless you were previously deemed. Paul is saying that the Galatians had previously been under the law, meaning they are Israelites. The law was only give to Israel so this must be true.

Psalm 147

19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.

20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord.

With that in mind we can interpret Galatians 4:5 as "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might restore our position as sons."


Ephesians 1

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

This one is fairly obvious. Paul is saying above that the Ephesians are predestinated and part of that predestination is their rightful position as sons.


Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

Matthew 15

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

He instructed his disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

Matthew 10

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

That is precisely what they did:

James 1

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Paul makes it clear that the jews are against him because he is ministering to the twelve tribes:

Acts 26

7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

You'll recall that the jews were concerned that Jesus would go to the "dispersed" among the nations:

John 7

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

The dispersed are the twelve tribes; the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I hope this helps. An understanding of the words "jew", "gentile" and "adoption" will make your reading of the Bible more meaningful. The letters of Paul in particular will begin to make sense and I know how difficult they can be without this knowledge.

Hosea 4

6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

I'll deal with the tares and the wheat next, maybe tomorrow, that will be more interesting that this word study stuff.

 

[Werwolf]

The letters of Paul in particular will begin to make sense and I know how difficult they can be without this knowledge.

This is great, again thank you very much Astral for putting all this together. You are not kidding, it is sometimes very difficult to fully understand the mission Paul went on. I have read the letters many times, and only recently (within the last year) picked up a Strong's concordance. Even so it is still difficult to flip back and forth and attempt to pick it all up, but man alive are you really helping me fully understand all this stuff. The more you post here, the more I realize that all these churches that I have been going to are one huge waste of freaking time.
I know you have a set schedule of things you want to release, but sometime in the future can you touch on tithing? Along with salvation sermons, the next up most sermons I have had to sit through are the ones that constantly ramble on about tithing. I have never been a stingy giver, but it seems more and more the Baptist churches I have went to want to incorporate a mixture of "tithing and mission giving."
The last church I went to before I moved went from a "give your 10% tithe unto the house of the Lord" to actually holding votes and the Pastor coming out and proclaiming, "the Lord is moving on my heart for us to take on 10 more missions commitments, but that is going to come from YOU!" I even had another preacher onetime proclaim "the reason these church doors haven't shut yet, is because this church gives to missions, and the Lord will reward the church bodies that continue to give to help spread his word."
I've never been against tithing what I can, when I can, but I do not ever darken the doorways of the church again once they start pushing the missions stuff along with tithing.

 

[Astral-Pepe]

You are not kidding, it is sometimes very difficult to fully understand the mission Paul went on.

You sometimes see people who hate Paul. They call him a jew, claim he was creating a new religion - really they say a bunch of things that I don't want to strawman up right now.

The reason for this is because his simple message has been hidden under interpretational errors.

He was very highly educated and it shows in the way he wrote.

The last church I went to before I moved went from a "give your 10% tithe unto the house of the Lord"

Yeah, be cautious with that. If the church is really doing good work, and few of them are, then you should be part of that work. Making sure poor White people in the local community are getting fed is probably the #1 example of good work I can think of.

There isn't anything in Scripture about tithing money. It is usually about crops and livestock.

I know you have a set schedule of things you want to release

I don't really. I want to do the tares and the wheat next because someone asked about it and I thought looking at all these words is pertinent to the thread so I did that first.

I also think Gog and Magog will be getting talked about a lot soon so I might get ahead of that.

 

[Werwolf]

Making sure poor White people in the local community are getting fed is probably the #1 example of good work I can think of.

Agreed, but sadly they all seem to want to send money to Africa for whatever reason.

There isn't anything in Scripture about tithing money.

Church pastors all over America shudder when you type that lol!

I also think Gog and Magog will be getting talked about a lot soon so I might get ahead of that.

Very interested in that as well, so let me know when you get it posted up.

 

[anti-barabas-ite]

I thought only tithes on ABUNDANCE. Anything extra you earned above your regular harvest, you get 10% more wheat then you share that.

You get enough to sustain your clan you are good with that. ?

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Anything extra you earned above your regular harvest, you get 10% more wheat then you share that.

Yeah, a tithe is 10% of your increase and it is meant to go directly to the poor and to those who fulfil religious duties.

Deuteronomy 26:12

12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

The tribe of Levi wasn't given any land and their job was seeing to the religious activities of the community as a whole. Another thing to note is the "stranger" listed above is not a racial enemy. This would be someone who is a guest or a traveler.

It could be argued that the churches fulfil the role of the Levites today and that money should be used in place of agricultural products, since most of us are not farmers. If your church is doing good work then support it. Most of them are not doing good work unfortunately. Sending money to Africa or supporting invader refugees is the opposite of good work.

My personal belief is that part of your tithing should go to DS and the rest should be used to help poor White people who live near you if you can. Help with food is the most appropriate way you can help.

 

[Panzerhund]

Yeah, a tithe is 10% of your increase and it is meant to go directly to the poor and to those who fulfil religious duties.

Deuteronomy 26:12

12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

The tribe of Levi wasn't given any land and their job was seeing to the religious activities of the community as a whole. Another thing to note is the "stranger" listed above is not a racial enemy. This would be someone who is a guest or a traveler.

It could be argued that the churches fulfil the role of the Levites today and that money should be used in place of agricultural products, since most of us are not farmers. If your church is doing good work then support it. Most of them are not doing good work unfortunately. Sending money to Africa or supporting invader refugees is the opposite of good work.

My personal belief is that part of your tithing should go to DS and the rest should be used to help poor White people who live near you if you can. Help with food is the most appropriate way you can help.

You have before gone into a deep discussion on turning the other cheek which may be beneficial here as well.

Really appreciate all the time you have been putting into these studies @Astral-Pepe

 

[Astral-Pepe]

Really appreciate all the time you have been putting into these studies @Astral-Pepe

I think you'll like the tares and wheat study I'm working on. All this is helping me as well. Its good to write your arguments out concisely and keep them as lean as possible.

You have before gone into a deep discussion on turning the other cheek

Yeah, we should look at "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" doctrine, probably together because they get conflated anyway.