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).
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. 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).
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.
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. 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).