Support your Local Jew!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Saved and regenerated Jews are not "spiritual" Jews. You won't find that term anywhere in Scripture. Why do you folks "add" terms to Scripture that aren't there?
1 Corinthians 2
13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one..

oh....right.

i forgot these blessings in Christ WERE NEVER OFFERED TO ISRAEL
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Being Jewish can mean one of several things. Once upon a time, it could mean descent from Judah. Although, I concede, the word Jew wasn't invented until the last 200 years ago or so.
Are you sure about that?

Ioudaios = Jew, Jewish, Judea (Jewry); Ioudakos = Jewish; Ioudaismos = Judaism
are common in the NT.
 
Last edited:
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
Are you sure about that?

Ioudaios = Jew, Jewish, Judea (Jewry); Ioudakos = Jewish; Ioudaismos = Judaism
are common in the NT.
I thought I was, until you questioned me about it... :D

I'm not sure if this site is a Christian site. It claims to be, but I haven't really explored their theology. Bold formatting mine. :)

Origin of the Word Jew

"In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language."
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I thought I was, until you questioned me about it... :D

I'm not sure if this site is a Christian site. It claims to be, but I haven't really explored their theology. Bold formatting mine. :)

Origin of the Word Jew

"In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language."
Thanks.

I'm wondering how the ones I've bolded in blue were pronounced, and if "Jew" is just a better spelling of that pronunciation.

If that is the case, then only the spelling of it originated later, not the utterance itself.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
Thanks.

I'm wondering how the ones I've bolded in blue were pronounced, and if "Jew" is just a better spelling of that pronunciation.

If that is the case, then only the spelling of it originated later, not the utterance itself.
I'd guess the sounds may have been slightly different, but I'm sure the words could have been recognised as "Jew", as we can recognise words today when someone pronounces them with an accent. (From memory, "j" is a fairly recent letter in English, although I can't remember any source for this).

My understanding is that in times past, the word Jew (or its equivalent) referred to those from Judea, or descended from Judah, but not the religion of Judaism (or worst of all, the Talmudism we see many Jews practice today). Today, however, Jew can mean the above, but also often an adherent of the religion of Talmudism. Those calling themselves "Jews" then proceed to state that "Jesus was a Jew", implying He was of their religion, and go about claiming the promises and inheritances due only to Christians. Which would be of small effect (I think), if so many Christians weren't so easily duped by such words.

I think I'm really saying what you already know, as your posts defend against such heresies, but just trying to explain where I am coming from.
 
A

Abiding

Guest
There is no such thing as a "spiritual" Jew or Israelite.

Romans 2:28-29 is speaking of a true Jew....one who is ethnically a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and is saved and regenerated.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Saved and regenerated Jews are not "spiritual" Jews. You won't find that term anywhere in Scripture. Why do you folks "add" terms to Scripture that aren't there?
you evaded my question really....if wordplay works for you ok! i in my question did not add to scripture...you merely postured that....if you dont think regeneration is spiritual...then fine...if you dont think to be filled with the spirit is spiritual then Ok!
And you forgot Israel....Paul makes it clear the promises do not apply to just physical decendants...but im sure you know that and that im just misunderstanding you...ok cool.
 
Jan 21, 2013
2,004
23
0
zone

the Jews who belong to God are/were either - ancient and 1st century hebrews; or they are jewish people today.
None belonged to God manifestatively unless they have His Spirit dwelling in them by New Birth. Rom 8:9

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

It does not matter what century !
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
Paul makes it clear the promises do not apply to just physical decendants...but im sure you know that and that im just misunderstanding you...
I wouldn't assume anything with these dispensationalists. There seems to be a continuum, with the one end holding that there were different periods of time (dispensations) in the old testament (even atheists can agree to this), all the way to the obvious heresy of John Hagee who claims that Jesus wasn't the Messiah for the Jews.

Somewhere in between, I think the heresy begins, but its hard to tell exactly because the individual's beliefs seem to move up and down the slide with time and evidence.
 
L

Linda70

Guest
you evaded my question really....if wordplay works for you ok! i in my question did not add to scripture...you merely postured that....if you dont think regeneration is spiritual...then fine...if you dont think to be filled with the spirit is spiritual then Ok!
And you forgot Israel....Paul makes it clear the promises do not apply to just physical decendants...but im sure you know that and that im just misunderstanding you...ok cool.
How did I evade your question? I'm not playing with words. Perhaps you need to re-word your question. I merely stated that the term "spiritual" Jew or Israelite is not found in Scripture and I used Romans 2:28-29 to respond. If that isn't what you wanted, then re-word your question, because I sure didn't understand what you meant. Since you said nothing about Israel in your original post, why are you bringing it up now? I'm not on this forum to play games.
 
A

Abiding

Guest
How did I evade your question? I'm not playing with words. Perhaps you need to re-word your question. I merely stated that the term "spiritual" Jew or Israelite is not found in Scripture and I used Romans 2:28-29 to respond. If that isn't what you wanted, then re-word your question, because I sure didn't understand what you meant. Since you said nothing about Israel in your original post, why are you bringing it up now? I'm not on this forum to play games.
well your post i responded to you mentioned jews and israelites...and my response included both jews and israelites,
you responded to the jew part with an opinion on romans 2:28 then proceeded to imply i was adding to scripture.
but 2:29 says that this real jew "is" spiritual. And romans 9:6-9 explains the Israelites are not true Israelites by linage
which is what i thought your point was....and again of you dont see something spiritual there thats ok...cuz i love to just make a post once in a while.
 
L

Linda70

Guest
well your post i responded to you mentioned jews and israelites...and my response included both jews and israelites,
My response included Jews and Israelites....both terms used synonymously
you responded to the jew part with an opinion on romans 2:28 then proceeded to imply i was adding to scripture.
I did no such thing....and it wasn't an opinion.
but 2:29 says that this real jew "is" spiritual. And romans 9:6-9 explains the Israelites are not true Israelites by linage
which is what i thought your point was....and again of you dont see something spiritual there thats ok...cuz i love to just make a post once in a while.
Not all believers (Jew or Gentile are "spiritual".....there are many believers who are "carnal". Read 1 Cor. 3. The church in Corinth was carnal. "Spirituality" has to do with our Christian walk, not lineage. Romans 9:6-9 doesn't explain who a true Israelite/Jew is. Those verses explain that just because one is an ethnic Jew/Israelite does not mean that he is saved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

jahsoul

Guest
My response included Jews and Israelites....both terms used synonymously
I know I'm still on ignore (LOL) but could someone tell Ms. Linda that these terms are not synonymous.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
I know I'm still on ignore (LOL) but could someone tell Ms. Linda that these terms are not synonymous.
Proverbs 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

If it is her choice to ignore you, let it also be her consequence to lose the wisdom she may otherwise have gained.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions.
In 1611 the English language didn't use letter "J" yet! :p

Esth 2:5 ¶ [Now] in Shushan the palace, there was a certaine Iew, ... (KJV 1611)

Esth 2:5 ¶ [Now] in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, ... (KJV PCE)
 
B

BradC

Guest
My response included Jews and Israelites....both terms used synonymously
I did no such thing....and it wasn't an opinion.

Not all believers (Jew or Gentile are "spiritual".....there are many believers who are "carnal". Read 1 Cor. 3. The church in Corinth was carnal. "Spirituality" has to do with our Christian walk, not lineage. Romans 9:6-9 doesn't explain who a true Israelite/Jew is. Those verses explain that just because one is an ethnic Jew/Israelite does not mean that he is saved.
Well said. Any believer (me, you, Jew, Gentile or anyone) who has the Spirit and has grieved the Spirit in their own life is carnal and they walk as carnal (Eph 4:30). You can have a massive amount of knowledge and doctrine and think you know everything and still grieve the Spirit and be carnally minded, which is death or the letter without the Spirit. That same believer will be oriented toward Jesus Christ and his body through the flesh and will be revealed by how they treat others, especially those of Christ's body and household. Just because we are NT believers under grace does not give us a pass or permission to judge others or speak evil of them no matter who they are or what they have done. Bringing out the sins of others or searching out their iniquities is a violation of the royal law of love and those that do have grieved the Spirit and are not Spirit filled believers. It's one thing to mention sin for the sake of conviction, but it is another to do it to speak evil and make others think evil for the purpose of discrediting and disqualifying. It's called slander with malicious intent. Those believers who practice such should be ignored without fellowship or any conversation.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
Well said. Any believer (me, you, Jew, Gentile or anyone) who has the Spirit and has grieved the Spirit in their own life is carnal and they walk as carnal (Eph 4:30). You can have a massive amount of knowledge and doctrine and think you know everything and still grieve the Spirit and be carnally minded, which is death or the letter without the Spirit. That same believer will be oriented toward Jesus Christ and his body through the flesh and will be revealed by how they treat others, especially those of Christ's body and household. Just because we are NT believers under grace does not give us a pass or permission to judge others or speak evil of them no matter who they are or what they have done. Bringing out the sins of others or searching out their iniquities is a violation of the royal law of love and those that do have grieved the Spirit and are not Spirit filled believers. It's one thing to mention sin for the sake of conviction, but it is another to do it to speak evil and make others think evil for the purpose of discrediting and disqualifying. It's called slander with malicious intent. Those believers who practice such should be ignored without fellowship or any conversation.
Are these beliefs from your own personal cult, or are they official doctrines for one I haven't heard of yet?

Jesus whipped the money changers, and called the Pharisees a brood of vipers for their wicked ways. And yet you say its slander when such false doctrines are exposed?
 
B

BradC

Guest
Are these beliefs from your own personal cult, or are they official doctrines for one I haven't heard of yet?

Jesus whipped the money changers, and called the Pharisees a brood of vipers for their wicked ways. And yet you say its slander when such false doctrines are exposed?
The accusations start to fly because you don't know and have never studied categorical doctrine. How you respond to that post indicates and tells me your frame of reference. The Pharisees thought that Jesus was a false teacher because of his 'new doctrine' and slandered him of being of the devil and accusing him of having an unclean spirit (Mark 1:27, Mt 12:24, Mark 3:30). Because you do not know doctrine or operate in the Spirit you accuse others of being under the influence of the devil when in reality they are thinking and conducting themselves under doctrine that you have never learned. They may fail through sin in the weakness of their flesh but they have the doctrine of grace and the blood of Christ to recover and be restored in their fellowship with the Lord that sin had disrupted.

If I sin today and confess my sin to God, he will forgive and cleanse me and if you bring up my sin with your tongue, that God has forgiven and cleansed, then that is evil, and if you use your it to discredit me with your tongue, that is malicious and if you falsely accuse me of any sin that is not true, then that is slander. You need to study why the word of God tells us not to let any corrupt communication proceed out of our mouth but only that which can be used to minister grace and edification. You need to study why the tongue is such a little member of the body that is set on fire of hell boasting great things which can start blazing fires and defile the whole body, that can bless God and curse men at the same time, full of unruly evil and deadly poison.

You need to learn the doctrine of the tongue and search the scriptures as a humble servant and presume nothing but learn it as a little child. Are you willing to do that and take it seriously? Isaiah in the presence of God realized that he was a man of unclean lips and an angel took a live coal from off the altar and touched his lips to purge the sin and iniquity that was spoken with those lips. This was not taken away by blood but by a burning glowing coal from off the altar.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Well said. Any believer (me, you, Jew, Gentile or anyone) who has the Spirit and has grieved the Spirit in their own life is carnal and they walk as carnal (Eph 4:30).

You can have a massive amount of knowledge and doctrine and think you know everything and still grieve the Spirit and be carnally minded, which is death or the letter without the Spirit.

That same believer will be oriented toward Jesus Christ and his body through the flesh and will be revealed by how they treat others, especially those of Christ's body and household.
[video=youtube;udBM22ZhxBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udBM22ZhxBI[/video]

John Hagee Praying For War Against Iran

Benny Hinn & John Hagee pray for The United States to go to war in the Middle East - in the Name of Jeezuz.

...


The plight of Syrian Christians is especially hard. Terrorists burn temples, attack old men, women and children. Until now the anti-Christian activities of Washington-friendly Islamic radicals have not been contained. It should be noted that some time before the US Congress suspended military and financial support to «Syrian rebels». The main reason behind the decision was the oppression the Syrian Christians are subject to. The major part of Congressmen came to conclusion the US had no moral right to render support to «liberators» involved in atrocities on foreign soil.

Unlike the «President – peacemaker» Obama, they believed that such policy leaves the Syrian minorities without any guarantees, while the support of Islamists results in conscientious and purposeful elimination of Christians. The shocking news has started to come from Syria almost daily. For instance, the town of Rableh was surrounded by rebels for a few weeks. Islamists killed everyone trying to leave the area, including the employees of Christian organizations trying to bring in medical supplies and food. It’s impossible to find a single church left undesecrated, foreign mercenaries commit atrocities, bring down crosses and bury them underground.

The US administration does its best to exacerbate inter-confessional strife in Syria and across the entire Arab world.

It looks like planned destruction of historical areas related to the birth of ChristianityIt’s not Syria only. Today the world witnesses the destruction of everything the Christians have created during two thousand years. One of core features of raging Arab Spring is the genocide of Middle East Christians.

Obama and his War Against Middle East Christians
Posted by: M. Klostermayr September 2, 2013

You can have a massive amount of knowledge and doctrine and think you know everything and still grieve the Spirit and be carnally minded, which is death or the letter without the Spirit.
" Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures"
- Charles Ryrie, 1965

Those believers who practice such should be ignored without fellowship or any conversation.
use the ignore feature.
leave the conversation.

fellowship? what fellowship?
 
Last edited:
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
So I find it hard to understand what you're saying. Are you saying Christians shouldn't expose false teaching, or we should? Jesus certainly doesn't imply that we should sweep sin or false teaching under the carpet.

Matthew 18:15 - 17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 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. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.