No, I'm saying Israel is among the Nations rather than apart from the Nations, and Torah proves it (there are other such passages). I'm also not dispensational; the word translated "dispensation" in the Bible refers only to two eras, which Jesus calls the present age and the coming age, which is not a uniquely dispensational system. HTH.
I don't see new categories as you do, but new blessings. As a covenantalist I see one people throughout history. Jacob gave that people a national aspiration and Christ gave it an organic foundation and a new spiritual unity; at other times the same people has made other quantum leaps into new blessings. The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential. As an Orthodox you may see more in the organic foundation event "thou art Peter" than I do, but I trust you won't see something that isn't there.
Do you agree that a word can have different meanings depending on context? Do you think Jeff Epstein used the world goyim in the same sense as it was used in the Bible? I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ, because the tribal distinction was transcended by the ultimate distinction between Christians vs. non-Christians. After they produced the Messiah, jews no longer have a covenantal relation with God - their covenant was fulfilled. They still have a role in the eschatology though but they're no longer God's people - Christians are.
The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential.
Again, it's not arguing over semantics but over God's covenant and our eschatological progression through history. I notice Protestants really struggle with historicity which makes sense since they reject tradition and latch onto abstract ideas that aren't grounded historically (e.g. the Solas). Protestantism is necessarily ahistorical and this makes it breeding ground for various heresies that would otherwise be easy to root out.
One such heresy is judaizing and dispensationalism which comes from lack of proper understanding of covenantal continuity in the Old and New Testaments, the role of Israel and the ending of OT law with Christ and OT worship with the destruction of the Temple (yes, the period between the Resurrection and the 70AD was transitory and given to the jews to acclimate themselves to the new covenant and to become fully Christian).
I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ
Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.
Obviously Epstein uses "goy" differently, which is why I point him to the correct meaning from his own professed religion. We'd agree the religion shouldn't be countenancing definition change and can be criticized when it does.
Again you're tempting discussion to go into a number of other matters, and I respect you enough not to rehash those between us when we don't have good agreement on definitions as shown by the main issue I commented on, i.e. Masonry is a judgment upon Jew and Gentile alike, as the verse suggests. If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.
Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.
I knew you'd go there. That's why I qualified it with 'in relation to God'. You know very well I didn't mean that all distinctions suddenly disappeared because of Christ. Very sneaky of you to equivocate ontological distinctions based on nature (sex) to a historic role given by God to a person, a tribe or a people. God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.
If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.
I am simply stating a fact, which is that Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism. It is satanic but so is Judaism from the Christian perspective - 1 John 2:22 and 4:3 (this is not just my opinion, but the Orthodox position on the Judaism as evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers and subsequent saints up to our present day).
No, it's what Paul does, because tribe is as genetic as gender.
God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.
Nice narrative, it's almost covenantal. I guess I'll try to spell it out again. The spiritual covenant for whomever will did indeed pass through Noah, Abraham, many Jews often a majority, and the apostles and all professing, believing Christians. There are also national covenants for many nations (and in fact covenantal male-female roles too), and Israel's national covenant includes things like its restoration in this day and its hope (like many nations) that it will become a majority Christian nation thus completing its original Jewish covenant. Some nations are guaranteed to be destroyed by the end; some nations are guaranteed to be preserved through the end; nations are given various blessings and cursings often in combination. Since both types of covenant flow together they can be distinguished (even though for 1500 years they mostly related to the same people). As long as you don't see the national covenants like other national covenants but spiritualize them away, you act like the part of physical Israel is done. Should I say that all the nations being destroyed that were prophesied to be, and all the nations remaining today that were prophesied to be, are all just flukes and all such texts are to be read only spiritually? No, the Church routinely takes those prophecies literally, but denies them as to Israel. Ezekiel 36 (cf. 37) is particularly important here, because it promises that Israel will return to the land in unbelief before its heart is awakened to God. You don't spiritualize that away into some application to the Church, do you? The first half literally happened to Israel.
Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism.
And by Jesuitry and by Islam. They work together is my point.
No, I'm saying Israel is among the Nations rather than apart from the Nations, and Torah proves it (there are other such passages). I'm also not dispensational; the word translated "dispensation" in the Bible refers only to two eras, which Jesus calls the present age and the coming age, which is not a uniquely dispensational system. HTH.
I don't see new categories as you do, but new blessings. As a covenantalist I see one people throughout history. Jacob gave that people a national aspiration and Christ gave it an organic foundation and a new spiritual unity; at other times the same people has made other quantum leaps into new blessings. The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential. As an Orthodox you may see more in the organic foundation event "thou art Peter" than I do, but I trust you won't see something that isn't there.
Do you agree that a word can have different meanings depending on context? Do you think Jeff Epstein used the world goyim in the same sense as it was used in the Bible? I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ, because the tribal distinction was transcended by the ultimate distinction between Christians vs. non-Christians. After they produced the Messiah, jews no longer have a covenantal relation with God - their covenant was fulfilled. They still have a role in the eschatology though but they're no longer God's people - Christians are.
Again, it's not arguing over semantics but over God's covenant and our eschatological progression through history. I notice Protestants really struggle with historicity which makes sense since they reject tradition and latch onto abstract ideas that aren't grounded historically (e.g. the Solas). Protestantism is necessarily ahistorical and this makes it breeding ground for various heresies that would otherwise be easy to root out.
One such heresy is judaizing and dispensationalism which comes from lack of proper understanding of covenantal continuity in the Old and New Testaments, the role of Israel and the ending of OT law with Christ and OT worship with the destruction of the Temple (yes, the period between the Resurrection and the 70AD was transitory and given to the jews to acclimate themselves to the new covenant and to become fully Christian).
Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.
Obviously Epstein uses "goy" differently, which is why I point him to the correct meaning from his own professed religion. We'd agree the religion shouldn't be countenancing definition change and can be criticized when it does.
Again you're tempting discussion to go into a number of other matters, and I respect you enough not to rehash those between us when we don't have good agreement on definitions as shown by the main issue I commented on, i.e. Masonry is a judgment upon Jew and Gentile alike, as the verse suggests. If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.
I knew you'd go there. That's why I qualified it with 'in relation to God'. You know very well I didn't mean that all distinctions suddenly disappeared because of Christ. Very sneaky of you to equivocate ontological distinctions based on nature (sex) to a historic role given by God to a person, a tribe or a people. God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.
I am simply stating a fact, which is that Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism. It is satanic but so is Judaism from the Christian perspective - 1 John 2:22 and 4:3 (this is not just my opinion, but the Orthodox position on the Judaism as evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers and subsequent saints up to our present day).
No, it's what Paul does, because tribe is as genetic as gender.
Nice narrative, it's almost covenantal. I guess I'll try to spell it out again. The spiritual covenant for whomever will did indeed pass through Noah, Abraham, many Jews often a majority, and the apostles and all professing, believing Christians. There are also national covenants for many nations (and in fact covenantal male-female roles too), and Israel's national covenant includes things like its restoration in this day and its hope (like many nations) that it will become a majority Christian nation thus completing its original Jewish covenant. Some nations are guaranteed to be destroyed by the end; some nations are guaranteed to be preserved through the end; nations are given various blessings and cursings often in combination. Since both types of covenant flow together they can be distinguished (even though for 1500 years they mostly related to the same people). As long as you don't see the national covenants like other national covenants but spiritualize them away, you act like the part of physical Israel is done. Should I say that all the nations being destroyed that were prophesied to be, and all the nations remaining today that were prophesied to be, are all just flukes and all such texts are to be read only spiritually? No, the Church routinely takes those prophecies literally, but denies them as to Israel. Ezekiel 36 (cf. 37) is particularly important here, because it promises that Israel will return to the land in unbelief before its heart is awakened to God. You don't spiritualize that away into some application to the Church, do you? The first half literally happened to Israel.
And by Jesuitry and by Islam. They work together is my point.