I bet saint john w can answer thatFor the general audience.
Theology Club: both in one Body by the cross
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I bet saint john w can answer that
Probably so, but being so extremely humble, he may defer to another.
Phenice is in Syria, not Greece, and was then part of the Roman Empire.
Jews referred to Gentiles as Greeks as a result of the Greek's prior Roman like empire over all.
And way back before that; they referred to Gentiles as Cannanites.
All as a derogatory just as the term "UNcircumcision" was also a derogatory by the Jew.
Mark is relating that account to fellow Jews; which is why; and you'll appreciate this; why he is so blunt in his derogatory description of her.
The sense is the woman was a Gentile; an unclean person.
Jesus practically spit on her.
She was no "blesser."
What she was though; in spite of her "far off...without God; with out hope in the world" was a mom.
Out of that she cornered Him; reminded Him of His parable about crumbs, and because she was actually dealing with a Member of the Godhead; He broke from His pattern; reached all the way over to the other side of Romans 11:25 and blessed her in line with Gentile blessing within Israel's coming Millennial Sabbath rest from a sickness.
It is an astounding account - this man Jesus was no ordinary Priest, Prophet, or King of Israel; here was the very Lord of Israel's promised Sabbath or Millennial rest.
He blessed her within a scope and context He alone had the authority to break with as He saw fit, as Deity.
Astounding also, because He had not come to heal in that manner.
But, people make something else out of it all, much like they do with what is actually a similar, anomalous moment also - Peter's experience in Acts 10.
Jews referred to Gentiles as Greeks as a result of the Greek's prior Roman like empire over all.
And way back before that; they referred to Gentiles as Cannanites.
All as a derogatory just as the term "UNcircumcision" was also a derogatory by the Jew.
Mark is relating that account to fellow Jews; which is why; and you'll appreciate this; why he is so blunt in his derogatory description of her.
The sense is the woman was a Gentile; an unclean person.
Jesus practically spit on her.
She was no "blesser."
What she was though; in spite of her "far off...without God; with out hope in the world" was a mom.
Out of that she cornered Him; reminded Him of His parable about crumbs, and because she was actually dealing with a Member of the Godhead; He broke from His pattern; reached all the way over to the other side of Romans 11:25 and blessed her in line with Gentile blessing within Israel's coming Millennial Sabbath rest from a sickness.
It is an astounding account - this man Jesus was no ordinary Priest, Prophet, or King of Israel; here was the very Lord of Israel's promised Sabbath or Millennial rest.
He blessed her within a scope and context He alone had the authority to break with as He saw fit, as Deity.
Astounding also, because He had not come to heal in that manner.
But, people make something else out of it all, much like they do with what is actually a similar, anomalous moment also - Peter's experience in Acts 10.
:rotfl: You absolute fool...
Kiss up to heir and STP all you want; they still view our faithful brother Justin Johnson and others under some supposed Romans 16:17 anathema.
You just don't know what you are agreeing with in STP and heir.
They actually hold they alone are faithful to the Mystery in this Acts 28 like two mystery understanding of theirs.
Not O'Hair, not Baker, not Stam, not Jordan, not Enyart, not Justin, not anyone who holds to one Mystery; the Lord's Supper and what ever else that is held by the 28ers that these two have confused A9D doctrine with...
All I can say to that is more of the same :rotfl:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Am beginning to realize how Greek you and heir are :chuckle:
Feel free to do so yourself. You won't find it in Rom. 16:26 :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
As I said before, you are not dumb. Pagan Gentiles were promised nothing in the prophets but a curse.
Yet, many were blessed with the hearing of the gospel after Acts 28. Why you will not accept it, I don't know.
Neither I, nor heir, nor you, is dumb.
If anything, we each excel above many.
At the same time, I am not an Almost 28er, lol
heir
TOL Subscriber
No, only a curse as per Genesis 12:3 KJV.
Galatians 3:8 KJV as per Genesis 12:3 KJV by Paul's gospel Romans 16:25-27 KJV
heir
TOL Subscriber
Here comes the real danoh
I told you in another thread I avoided justin's site. I have many reasons why i came to Romans 16:17 KJV where he is concerned.
How do you know what he knows?
that's a slanderous report
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117303-A28D&p=4670892&viewfull=1#post4670892
There are a plethora of differences between what those men believe and why. "Do your homework, man".
The same mocking behavior from a man who refuses to put his traditions away...
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
The woman was a Greek{1 Corinthians 1:22 KJV}, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. She knew she could be blessed (Genesis 12:3 KJV). She knew who the Lord was.
Matthew 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
She knew that her place was a dog under the master's table!
Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
She was a dog, but not a double dog! She knew from the scriptures that if she blessed Israel (knowing who the Lord was and acknowledging her proper place under Israel) she would be blessed and she was!
Mark 7:29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
Mark 7:30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
heir
TOL Subscriber
:jump:
heir
TOL Subscriber
No, again, Paul was speaking to Gentiles (Romans 1:13 KJV, Romans 11:13 KJV) so when he says, "thou art called a Jew" he is speaking to a Gentile who is calling himself a Jew as he is a proselyte (to be circumcised is the only way for a Gentile to be "called a Jew")!
Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Furthermore, if Paul was speaking to Jews as you insist, in Romans 3 when Paul writes that the Jew hath the advantage, if Paul was speaking to Jews he would have said "you", but he doesn't. He says "them".
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.
Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
That kind of take on a word is your frequent pattern; heir.
And that is what I mean when I use the phrase "surface level; first impression" reading.
You take that as a derogatory. But it is not meant as one, rather; it is meant as a challenge to you - that you might want to reconsider how you study the sense of such words out.
Since when is such a challenge a bad thing?
Quit applying that same practice to my words to you.
In Romans 1-3, Paul is laying how both the Gentile and the Jew in unbelief, ended up that way - how "they" and "them" ended up that way, but then pauses to point out the Jew still has his Covenant Promise (albeit, on hold, Paul will later elaborate).
Just now, I used the phrase "the Jew" and noted how that "he" still has "his" Covenant Promise.
Obviously, I am neither referring to the Jew who remains in unbelief during the Trib, nor to one Jew, though I used the phrase "the Jew" and "he" and "his."
You both need to get back to some basic English Grammar...
The sense in Romans 2:17 is Paul's being in their face - "thou art" and "you."
As he nears the end of that scathing indictment, they are behind him; he has shaken the dust off his spiritual feet; moved on and his "thou art" and "you" is now "them."
He has gone from 2nd, to 3rd person.
heir
TOL Subscriber
The O man of Romans 2:17 KJV is clearly a proselyte. I am in agreement with what saith the scriptures on the matter. You aren't.
heir
TOL Subscriber
bump for Danoh
So the proselyte is the one causing the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles through them (the proselyte) though that "is written" - of Israel - in unbelief?
Nice bit of confusion you have going there.
Also; you know what: heir and STP; we will not get anywhere with one another anymore than we three do with non-MADs for the same reason we do not get anywhere with them...
This sound byte back and forth does not work.
heir
TOL Subscriber
The "thou art called a Jew" was called one because he was circumcised and I have already showed from the scriptures how and why. You don't want to believe it, but that's YOUR failure to 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV by 1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV.
We will never know how many we actually do plant seeds with. We'll have to wait until the day declares it (1 Corinthians 3:10-15 KJV). Until then, I will 2 Timothy 4:2 KJV as I endevour to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV). You have placed yourself in the way of that and I believe you will suffer for it.
Then don't get involved in any discussion ever. How stupid.
- Status