captainbryce
Active Member
I don't need to prove a negative. Where in the bible does it say that YOU ARE? The bible says that Jews must live by certain rules, or they have broken the covenant, and are thus cut off from their people. Their bloodline becomes irrelevant at that point, as they are no different from Gentiles at that point. Moreover, slaves of Jews, or other members of their household (either adopted or natural born) are part of the covenant if they are circumcised in accordance with God's commandment. As you've already pointed out, Gentiles could also be included into the covenant (if they were circumcised), and allowed to participate in Passover. So clearly, one does not have to have a Jewish bloodline to be included into the covenant. Conversely, there are people who have Jewish bloodline that are not part of the covenant. At least, that is my interpretation of the following passages:
Genesis 17:14
Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Deuteronomy 31:20
When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant.
In any case, I was merely asking for your opinion on this question. I take it from your response that you do in fact believe that simply being part of the bloodline automatically makes you part of the covenant, yes? You're entitled to that opinion, but I don't think that opinion is logical considering that adherence to the law is a requirement of the covenant. But again, this is clearly an opinionated matter that we can agree to disagree on.
What? That is not an answer to my question! That is once again you answering a question with another question (one that doesn't even answer the question).
The scripture is fine. I simply don't see how it fits with your interpretation.
You said: If an uncircumcised Israelite parent has a child, that child is still a part of the House of Israel if the parent was a bloodline member.
But that answer had nothing to do with my question. I wasn't asking about an uncircumcised parent's child. I was asking about the uncircumcised individual (ie: the parent). Would they still be included in the covenant. Because scripture seems to say otherwise.
Right. That's what I was getting at.
No, actually you don't seem to know anything about what I think at all.
Yeah, but you gave your opinion as if it was a fact (as you usually do). If you had said, "in my opinion", then I would have understood. But you gave an opinion that is obviously not consistent with the plain reading of the text (which is what I was pointing out). Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I just want to make sure I'm correctly deciphering your opinions from your facts.
I just did. You used a straw man argument to falsely accuse me of claiming what makes someone else a Christian.
I'm not here to debate "historical controversies", I'm only here to talk about what my beliefs are (according to what the scripture says). Whenever you interpretation contradicts what is written, you default to "historical controversies", but that never relevant to what I am discussing.
Risk is irrelevant as are your challenges. Again, I didn't come here to pray with you. I'm not interested in your prayers, I'm interested in whether or not people can justify their so-called Christian beliefs with what scripture says. You balk at basic questions that you can't answer. You balk when you inject irrelevant "historical controversies" into a discussion about what scripture actually says. You have balked continuously throughout this debate. And that is all I need to know.
Then I suggest your read Matthew 6:5-8, and that spells out exactly what I'm talking about.
It's also a straw man argument. I never insisted that my interpretation was right and yours is wrong. That is a lie that you just made up because you are chance the parameters of the debate at every chance you get.
My intention is always merely to explain my beliefs in accordance with scripture. When people like you challenge me, then I try to get them to justify their interpretation using scripture. I don't insist that someone else's interpretation is right or wrong, I merely state why I don't accept it. You can believe what you want to believe.
I am doing not such thing. That is what YOU are doing. The only time I will say whether you are right or wrong is when you say something that contradicts what the scripture says. You did that with the circumcision debate remember? But as far as your "opinion" goes, there is no such thing as a "wrong" or "right" opinion. There are only opinions that you can agree with or disagree with. As Paul says: "Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."
Okay, good luck with that mission. But don't conflate that with mine. I am neither trying to convince you of my beliefs, nor anyone else. I merely tell people WHY I believe the way I do. If you feel like God has called you to cast judgement on others like me, and recruit others to your philosophy, by all means continue to do so.
