₦airaland Forum

AngelahFlo:
Thanks for making him see his folly. In all honesty his kind has been given to delusions that he can't see the truth. Left for me I'll leave him at this point. You've proved your point. You gave him the bait and he took it. How can Gentiles be Israelites? Wow
Again thank you sir
I tried making him see but he kept sticking to his Jesus of Israel ideology.

Anti-spam bot dealing with me!
Thanks. No mind am. You're the second person to tell him!

Kobojunkie:
Yes, Jews are Israelites after all. And there were also Gentiles— non-Jewish Israelites— also.

2. Their argument has nothing to do with anything since Jesus Christ of Israel never said anything about the need for circumcision. It's like arguing whether one will eat meat or no meat. It means nothing.

3. It is only established for those who prefer the plagiarized religious narratives. There is no evidence that the Romans persecuted the Jesus Christ of Israel movement.

4. The definition of the word comes from Scripture itself, and the term Gentile is used to refer to members of the same family/clan/bloodline inhabiting other nations or homes away from their fatherland. The many examples of the use of the term established beginning in Genesis 10 vs 2 - 5, provide you with all you need to know of the term and its application.

By centurion, I assumed you meant the one spoken of in the book of Acts, to whom an angel appeared, and all the rest. He was an Israelite. The Canaanite woman, however, made certain to expose the fact that she was not one of the Master's children but rather a dog— a non-Israelite —cattempting to eat from the crumbs that fell from the Master's table as His children ate their food. If you have been paying attention, you would note that Jesus Christ of Israel warned His followers not to give that which is Holy — the Gospel — to the dogs, aka the non-Israelites.

The very etymology of the word itself reveals that at its roots, it was used to refer to people of the same family/clan/bloodline, etc. That information has survived to this day despite the many campaigns by those of the religion of Christianity to see it vanish.

5. It is your religious delusions that fuel your biased take on the conversation between Jesus Christ of Israel and the Samaritan woman. I don't see anything remotely wrong with the way He spoke to them. The fact that He went on to spend days with the community further reveals that He held no particular grudge or disdain for them, as your religious glasses would have you believe.

6. That is the same world which in John 3 vs 14 - 18, Jesus Christ had described as the same world that Moses raised the bronze snake to in the Wilderness in Numbers 21. That world is comprised only of the bloodline of Jacob, condemned to die by YHWH.

Oga, ALL Israelites were circumcised. So again who were Paul and Peter arguing about wether they needed to go through circumcision as new converts to Christianity??
You don't need to answer - I don't want to continue humiliating you.

No evidence? How about this evidence bellow?

You are the ONLY person in the world who defines gentile that way. So until you form your own language, gentile means non-Israelite, which is how everyone else defines it!

The centurion I mean is the one whose servant was healed by Christ (see next post)

Proves nothing, he equally interacted with Gentiles (see next post). That doesn't make him "Jesus of Gentiles"

Nope. By "world" here they mean MANKIND because lots of them were actually not Israelites at all (read up on the make-up of Samaria)

.

QuinQ:
➜Oga, ALL Israelites were circumcised.
➜ So again who were Paul and Peter arguing about wether they needed to go through circumcision as new converts to Christianity??
➜You don't need to answer - I don't want to continue humiliating you.
➜ No evidence? How about this evidence bellow?
➜ You are the ONLY person in the world who defines gentile that way. So until you form your language, gentile means non-Israelite, which is how everyone else defines it!
➜ The centurion I mean is the one whose servant was healed by Christ (see next post)
➜ Proves nothing, he equally interacted with Gentiles (see next post). That doesn't make him "Jesus of Gentiles"
➜ Nope. By "world" here they mean MANKIND
➜ because lots of them were actually not Israelites at all (read up on the make-up of Samaria)

. That isn't true, as we see from the case of Timothy, Paul's friend, who was not circumcised as a child by his mother.

2. As I previously explained to you, their argument has nothing to do with anything since Jesus Christ of Israel never said anything about the need for circumcision. It's like arguing whether one will eat meat or no meat. It means nothing.

3. You are not even close to humiliating me, as all you continue to display is your sheer inability— or complete refusal — to step out of the religious mentality that you have been brainwashed with. It seems clearly the hardest thing for the religious to do, even if it would allow one to objectively assess the information that has been before them for almost 2000 years now. It is sad!

4. Again, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ of Israel or any of His Israelite disciples were directly assaulted by the Romans for their beliefs. Yes, there are numerous Religious fabrications of the accounts that seem to twist the narrative in favor of the Christian religion. But when you examine the actual accounts from the time, you immediately realize the fraud that has been perpetrated by Christianity all of this while, against our collective intelligence.

5. The image explaining the etymology of the word Gentile actually comes from the Oxford dictionary. The verses I posted from Genesis 10, along with all the others, come from Israelite Scripture. So, no, I am not the only one here who realized the actual meaning of the term Gentile separate from the deceitful meaning intended and adopted primarily by those of the religion of Christianity.

6. As for that particular man, since all Jesus Christ of Israel gave him, much like he gave the Canaanite Woman, was a miracle— the same crumbs that fall from the Master's table as the Master's Children eat their food. Jesus Christ of Israel did not preach salvation to the man, leading me to believe the man may not have been an Israelite.

7. Gentiles are Israelites; Timothy, Paul's friend, for instance, was a Gentile, not a Jew, and hence an Israelite.

8. The author of the book of John, who used the phrase The World — a metonymy — provided a clear explanation of the subset to which it referred in John 3 vs 14 - 18.

9. The Samaritans were not Israelites, yet their ancestor was Jacob?

11 The woman said, “Sir, where will you get that living water? The well is very deep, and you have nothing to get water with.
12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob? He is the one who gave us this well. He drank from it himself, and his sons and all his animals drank from it too.”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again.
14 But anyone who drinks the water I give will never be thirsty again. The water I give people will be like a spring flowing inside them. It will bring them eternal life.” - John 4 vs 11 - 14

The same Jacob who is ancestor of all Israelites?

Kobojunkie:
. That isn't true, as we see from the case of Timothy, Paul's friend, who was not circumcised as a child by his mother.

2. As I previously explained to you, their argument has nothing to do with anything since Jesus Christ of Israel never said anything about the need for circumcision. It's like arguing whether one will eat meat or no meat. It means nothing.

3. You are not even close to humiliating me, as all you continue to display is your sheer inability— or complete refusal — to step out of the religious mentality that you have been brainwashed with. It seems clearly the hardest thing for the religious to do, even if it would allow one to objectively assess the information that has been before them for almost 2000 years now. It is sad!

4. Again, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ of Israel or any of His Israelite disciples were directly assaulted by the Romans for their beliefs. Yes, there are numerous Religious fabrications of the accounts that seem to twist the narrative in favor of the Christian religion. But when you examine the actual accounts from the time, you immediately realize the fraud that has been perpetrated by Christianity all of this while, against our collective intelligence.

5. The image explaining the etymology of the word Gentile actually comes from the Oxford dictionary. The verses I posted from Genesis 10, along with all the others, come from Israelite Scripture. So, no, I am not the only one here who realized the actual meaning of the term Gentile separate from the deceitful meaning intended and adopted primarily by those of the religion of Christianity.

6. As for that particular man, since all Jesus Christ of Israel gave him, much like he gave the Canaanite Woman, was a miracle— the same crumbs that fall from the Master's table as the Master's Children eat their food. Jesus Christ of Israel did not preach salvation to the man, leading me to believe the man may not have been an Israelite.

7. Gentiles are Israelites; Timothy, Paul's friend, for instance, was a Gentile, not a Jew, and hence an Israelite.

8. The author of the book of John, who used the phrase The World — a metonymy — provided a clear explanation of the subset to which it referred in John 3 vs 14 - 18.

9. The Samaritans were not Israelites, yet their ancestor was Jacob?
The same Jacob who is ancestor of all Israelites?

😅 A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing!
See how you are confusing yourself and those who may be taking you seriously. You don't know, yet you refuse to do some research to know, instead you keep repeating the same miseducation you got at some point.

Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"

You seem wholly ignorant of Jewish history, yet refuse to learn.
Several times you've mentioned the nation of Judah as existing at the time of Christ - a nation that disappeared almost 600 years before Christ!
One thing you don't understand is that by the time of Christ the term "Jew" had become synonyms with OT Israelites because Samaritans were a mixture of peoples.

722 BC the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel and deported many of its inhabitants. The Assyrians replaced the deported Israelites with foreign settlers from other regions, such as Babylon, Cuthah, and Avva.
OT Israelites who remained in the region, or who later returned, intermarried with these foreign settlers. The resulting population became known as the Samaritans, a distinct ethnoreligious group that were neither OT Israelites nor Jews.

GENTILES
God designated the descendants of Abraham, the Israelites, as His chosen people. He made a covenant with them and revealed His commandments to them, which they were to live according to. Those outside of the nation of Israel were considered gentiles.

CIRCUMCISION
Circumcision was part of this covenant (Genesis 17:10-14) and any uncircumcised male would be "cut off from his people,"

Cornelius – He was a Roman centurion, a Gentile, who converted to Christianity. He, along with his family.
Philemon – He was a wealthy Gentile who converted to Christianity
Luke – He was the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. He was a Greek physician who became a believer in Jesus.

I'm tagging everybody on the thread in case anybody bought Kobo's miseducation!
AngelahFlo, Petalss, LordReed, DeepSight, 22jumpstreet, delkuf, achorladey, MaxInDHouse
Jashub, Zaheertyler

Kobojunkie:
This shows you have not been paying attention to the details of the conversation at all.

https://www.nairaland.com/8433825/jesus/5#135507100

Note here that there are two different groups:
➜ The Israelites-only movement created by Jesus Christ of Israel back in Jerusalem of Judah
➜ and then the non-Israelites led movement, which was a plagiarized(terribly flawed) copy of the original movement.

The original followers of Jesus Christ of Israel, all of them Israelites— beginning with Jesus Christ Himself— were persecuted, not by the Romans but by their fellow Jews. That is what is indicated in Scripture. There is no record that any of the members of this group survived beyond the Last Day of YHWH's Judgement against the nation of Israel(Judah) back in the 1st century AD.

However, after 70 AD and the eventual destruction of Judah around 130 AD, the plagiarized movement, led by non-Israelites mostly of Roman descent, gained ground and adopted for themselves the formerly derogatory term "Christian", and grew their numbers through the spreading of diverse doctrines and traditions in Rome. They were eventually persecuted by others within their movement and eventually by the Roman State.

What I addressed was your definition of persecution, not the overall discussion of the debate. But it seems you think Christians are persecuted, not just by the Romans but by the Jews. I think this is wrong. Yes the Jews started the persecution of christians but it became widespread by the Roman authorities. Let me give you an example.
‭Acts 12:1 NIV‬
[1] It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. ‭Acts 12:2 NIV‬
[2] He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.
‭Acts 12:3 NIV‬
[3] When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.


These verses show without doubt that Herod, a roman, appointed by the emperor as the king of Judea persecuted Christians.

Now you can go back and forth to argue the meaning of persecution. That's why addressed that first.

- I wanted to address more of your argument particularly your argument that the word gentiles only applies to the lost tribe of Israel and not outsider non-jews. I believe it's wrong. I can give you some versed from Paul letters but I
feel you are someone who don't believe Paul's letters as true, or not flawed?

Jesus asked his disciples:

“Who are men saying the Son of man is?"

They responded:

“Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

This made him face his own disciples and asked:

“You, though, who do you say I am?”

Peter responded:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus said:

“Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it" Matthew 16:13-18

I'll stop here!

So Jesus' church (congregation) will be built on the foundation of what Peter said:
"You are the Christ, Son of the living God"
Jesus further said the gates of Hell will not overpower his church!

What does all these sayings mean?

Well as many as those claiming Jesus is more than the Son of God they will just say so and walk away each to his business and what happens to their claims? That's where it ends as they don't know anything else to do further but those that believe Jesus is God's Son will be energized by God's Holy Spirit to work together as ONE body {Act 1:8} preaching and teaching in all their neighborhood what the son of God commanded them! Matthew 28:19-20

So the gates of Hell (Grave) will overpower any other teachings as those claiming something else will only carry it in their heads unable to work together as true Christians who are dedicated to preach and teach about God's Kingdom throughout the earth.

Abeg mention just one church that you know where members are active globally preaching and teaching about God's kingdom just as Jesus commanded his disciples to do.

Only Jehovah's Witnesses are organized in doing this with zeal.

Why?

Well Jesus said God's holy Spirit will energies his real disciples {Act 1:8} and the gates of Hell (inactivity) will not stop them! Matthew 16:18

broIZ:
➜What I addressed was your definition of persecution, not the overall discussion of the debate.
➜ But it seems you think Christians are persecuted, not just by the Romans but by the Jews. I think this is wrong. Yes the Jews started the persecution of christians but it became widespread by the Roman authorities. Let me give you an example.
➜ These verses show without doubt that Herod, a roman, appointed by the emperor as the king of Judea persecuted Christians.
➜Now you can go back and forth to argue the meaning of persecution. That's why addressed that first. - I wanted to address more of your argument particularly your argument that the word gentiles only applies to the lost tribe of Israel and not outsider non-jews. I believe it's wrong. I can give you some versed from Paul letters but I feel you are someone who don't believe Paul's letters as true, or not flawed

1. I posted the definition I applied earlier for all to note.

per·se·cu·tion

hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs.

2. Wrong! Again, my stance remains that the actual followers of Jesus Christ of Israel — all of them Israelites — were persecuted by their fellow Jews. In contrast, the non-Israelite groups that plagiarized the original movement — those of the religion of Christianity —were instead persecuted by their fellow Romans for mostly political purposes. I have repeated this several times, but it seems you are dead set on ignoring this so you can continue arguing about other things instead.

3. The persecution suffered by the followers of Jesus Christ came only from the Jews against the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel, even until the destruction of Jerusalem and eventually Judah. There is no Scriptural evidence to say that the Romans attacked the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel for their beliefs.

4. The king of Judea had to be of Jewish descent— the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and/or Levi—, and Herod was born a Jew.

5. I have read through Paul's letters, but yes, I am not a believer in Paul; I have nothing to gain from believing his words. Anyway, I know for a fact that Paul never said that Gentiles meant those who are not of Israelite roots.

MaxInDHouse:
Upon all your arguments here all your so called "CHRISTIANS" have run away to leave you with the OP with whom you spoke against JWs.

And by the end instead of agreeing with you OP is better acquainted with an atheist who doesn't even believe in whatever is written in the Bible.

See individuals who have discussed or reasoned with MaxInDHouse in the past:

AngelahFlo no mind am. A hundred times more people say negative things about him on NL.
They even gave him a nickname, something to do with "mad". Max what's that your nickname again?😆. Meanwhile see my next post for more stuff on JW and their Governing Body (GB)

.

QuinQ:
AngelahFlo no mind am. A hundred times more people say negative things about him on NL.
They even gave him a nickname, something to do with "mad". Max what's that your nickname again?😆. Meanwhile see my next post for more stuff on JW and their Governing Body (GB)

Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”‭ John 10:20 NIV‬


Jesus said you people will say the same to his disciples too! Matthew 10:24-25


So you are fulfilling what our Master, Lord and King said!

QuinQ:
➜😅 A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing! See how you are confusing yourself and those who may be taking you seriously. You don't know, yet you refuse to do some research to know, instead you keep repeating the same miseducation you got at some point.
Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"
➜You seem wholly ignorant of Jewish history, yet refuse to learn. Several times you've mentioned the nation of Judah as existing at the time of Christ - a nation that disappeared almost 600 years before Christ!
➜ One thing you don't understand is that by the time of Christ the term "Jew" had become synonyms with OT Israelites because Samaritans were a mixture of peoples. 722 BC the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel and deported many of its inhabitants. The Assyrians replaced the deported Israelites with foreign settlers from other regions, such as Babylon, Cuthah, and Avva. OT Israelites who remained in the region, or who later returned, intermarried with these foreign settlers. The resulting population became known as the Samaritans, a distinct ethnoreligious group that were neither OT Israelites nor Jews.

I am not certain what aspect of what is stated in the passage of Matthew 10 vs 1 - 6 you seem to be having a problem with there. You would need to provide more details for me to understand where you were thinking of going with this, as I am not a mindreader.

2. Let me try to get this straight! You assert that the nation of Judea, in which Jesus Christ of Israel was born around 4 BC, did not exist at all? So, what nation was under captivity by the Romans if not Judea, the Jewish Nation? What nation was eventually renamed Syria Palaestina by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt around 132-136 AD?

3. So, what you are trying to have us believe here is that an entire nation of over 10 tribes of Israel was condensed and reduced down to these Samaritans who barely occupied a small community in Judah during the time of Jesus Christ? Considering the history of the people in question is contained in the very pages of Scripture, this patch you have here reads a lot like gobbledegook than the history of the Samaritans.

Kobojunkie:
1. I posted the definition I applied earlier for all to note.


2. Wrong! Again, my stance remains that the actual followers of Jesus Christ of Israel — all of them Israelites — were persecuted by their fellow Jews. In contrast, the non-Israelite groups that plagiarized the original movement — those of the religion of Christianity —were instead persecuted by their fellow Romans for mostly political purposes. I have repeated this several times, but it seems you are dead set on ignoring this so you can continue arguing about other things instead.

3. The persecution suffered by the followers of Jesus Christ came only from the Jews against the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel, even until the destruction of Jerusalem and eventually Judah. There is no Scriptural evidence to say that the Romans attacked the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel for their beliefs.

4. The king of Judea had to be of Jewish descent— the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and/or Levi—, and Herod was born a Jew.

5. I have read through Paul's letters, but yes, I am not a believer in Paul; I have nothing to gain from believing his words. Anyway, I know for a fact that Paul never said that Gentiles meant those who are not of Israelite roots.

Since your definition doesn't say anything about lawful or unlawful, we can agree that christians were persecuted.

No the Herods were not Jewish by birth. They were Jewish by religion, i.e they practiced Judaism but their allegiance is with Rome.

If you don't believe Paul letters, then I cannot convince you.

Kobojunkie:
I am not certain what aspect of what is stated in the passage of Matthew 10 vs 1 - 6 you seem to be having a problem with there. You would need to provide more details for me to understand where you were thinking of going with this, as I am not a mindreader.

😅🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣😂
You know how to make person laugh out loud indeed!!

broIZ:
➜Then you can agree, since your definition doesn't say anything about lawful or unlawful, you can agree that christians were persecuted.
➜No, Herods were roman citizen, not Jews.
➜ If you don't believe Paul letter I don't need to convince you about gentiles not only restricted to Jews.

I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead continue to insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

QuinQ:
➜😅🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣😂

I am to take this to mean that you mean you do not wish to share your thoughts at all? Again, I am not a mindreader!

Kobojunkie:
I am to take this to mean that you mean you do not wish to share your thoughts at all? Again, I am not a mindreader!

😅🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣😂
You know how to make person laugh out loud, I give you that. This is the hardest I've laughed in a long time on NL!!😂😂😂😂😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣

Here's someone who has been vociferously arguing since forever that Samaritans were the lost sheep of Israel and that's why Jesus stayed with them two days, etc

Kobojunkie:
I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead continue to insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

I have modified my initial answer for better clarification. I am not brainwashing anyone. I am stating my facts. Please check the histories of the family of Herods. They were not Jewish by birth.

QuinQ:
➜Here's someone who has been vociferously arguing since forever that Samaritans were the lost sheep of Israel and that's why Jesus stayed with them two days, etc

Again, I can't read your mind there so I don't know or understand what you are struggling with there. So, here again, I ask you. Why can't Samaritans be among the Lost sheep of Israel?

broIZ:
➜I have modified my initial answer for better clarification.

Your modification does not warrant any change in my previous retort, which still stands as is.

1. I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

Kobojunkie:
2. Let me try to get this straight! You assert that the nation of Judea, in which Jesus Christ of Israel was born around 4 BC, did not exist at all? So, what nation was under captivity by the Romans if not Judea, the Jewish Nation? What nation was eventually renamed Syria Palaestina by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt around 132-136 AD?

3. So, what you are trying to have us believe here is that an entire nation of over 10 tribes of Israel was condensed and reduced down to these Samaritans who barely occupied a small community in Judah during the time of Jesus Christ? Considering the history of the people in question is contained in the very pages of Scripture, this patch you have here reads a lot like gobbledegook than the history of the Samaritans.

2. Why not simply Google when the nation of Judah seized to exist. The same "nation of Judah" (your exact words) you've been saying was around durring Christ's time.

3. Never mind what I'm trying to make you believe, just research it yourself. Or Google "lost tribes of Israel". Why do you think they are called the LOST tribes?

Kobojunkie:
Your modification does not warrant any change in my previous retort, which still stands as is.

1. I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

What do you mean by dishonest interpretation. I gave you the definition of persecution according to ICC. If it's wrong then tell me. and what's skirting? My issue was with your argument about definition of persecution and your wrong notion that it was only Jews that persecuted the christian, both which I have addressed.

And also I am not arguing about Paul, I don't know why you are giving Paul as example. I said Herod was a roman citizen, and not Jewish by birth.

Kobojunkie:
Again, I can't read your mind there so I don't know or understand what you are struggling with there. So, here again, I ask you. Why can't Samaritans be among the Lost sheep of Israel?

You really know how to make someone laugh!🤣
Here's Mathew again:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye NOT: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

QuinQ:
2. Why not simply Google when the nation of Judah seized to exist. The same "nation of Judah" (your exact words) you've been saying was around durring Christ's time.
3. Never mind what I'm trying to make you believe, just research it yourself. Or Google "lost tribes of Israel". Why do you think they are called the LOST tribes?

1. The Bible says the nation existed and Jesus Christ was born into it. History has it that Hadrian is the one who removed it from Judea to Syrian Palestine approximately 100 years after the death of Jesus Christ. So, what Google tells you is that the nation ceased to exist 600 years before Jesus Christ?

3. Well, the "Lost tribes of Israel" myth was created by those of the Religion of Christianity, a myth which contradicts Scripture itself, which indicates that living among the Jews( the tribes of Benjamin and Judah) were the Levites and Samaritans. If we did deeper, we might find that many more individuals from the other tribes also resided in Judah at the time. There could not have been 10 lost tribes if members of at least 2 of the 10 were documented to have been resident in Judah at the time of Jesus Christ. This isn't rocket science.

QuinQ:
➜You really know how to make someone laugh!🤣
Here's Mathew again: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye NOT: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Again, I don't have mind reading abilities, hence the reason why I keep insisting that you tell me why you seem confused by the content of the above passage.

---

Here's my understanding of the passage, which incorporates facts from the rest of the Gospels. According to the passage, when Jesus Christ of Israel first sent His disciples out, He told them to
➜ Avoid Samaritans*, whom we already confirmed are Israelites — descendants of Jacob
➜ Avoid Gentiles*
➜ Go to the Lost Sheep of Israel**


By process of elimination, my understanding of the above is that Jesus Christ of Israel sent His followers, at that time, to visit only the Jewish Lost sheep of Israel.

* Ezekiel 34 vs 1 - 31 does not exclude any of the 12 tribes from among those who would eventually be counted among the Lost sheep of Israel.
** Elsewhere, Jesus Christ of Israel already established that He did not come for the righteous among the people, but the sinners.

broIZ:
➜What do you mean by dishonest interpretation. I gave you the definition of persecution according to ICC. If it's wrong then tell me. and what's skirting?
➜ My issue was with your argument about definition of persecution
➜ and your wrong notion that it was only Jews that persecuted the christian, both which I have addressed.
➜ And also I am not arguing about Paul, I don't know why you are giving Paul as example. I said Herod was a roman citizen, and not Jewish by birth.

1. The Oxford definition I used surfices. I keep insisting that there are two separate groups in contention here, and each group was persecuted by different people. But you keep ignoring that fact of the discussion to continue to assert your washed-up ideas instead. Why?

2. Definition has nothing to do with this. Rather, at the core of all of this is pointing out the difference between the persecutions of the followers of Jesus Christ vs the persecutions of the Roman Christians.

3. See what I mean! You twist what I say and then expect me to retort in agreement or disagreement. Does any of that make sense?

Again, my claim from the beginning until now has been that the Christians who are of the religion of Christianity— all of them non-Israelites, aka dogs — were never persecuted by the Jews. Their persecution came solely from the Romans. This much I continue to make clear in my posts.

4. Herod, like Paul, was a Jew born to a Jewish parent and was also a Roman citizen. Why can't I use Paul as an example in this case?

P.S. Please make sure to read through the response carefully before you respond! I am having to repeat myself over and over, and it is getting tiring!

QuinQ:
➜Kobo, you have issues. Either that or you just enjoy making me laugh.
* I told you the Samaritans were a mixture of peoples and there was no way a purist like Christ would consider them covenant (OT) Israelites.
* I told you the way Christ spoke to the Samaritan woman was not how you spoke to someone you consider part of you
* I told you Jews were the only OT Israelites at that point - unless you say living in that area makes you an OT Israelite, which it doesn't because some who lived there had no Israelite blood whatsoever while others were mixed. You have to realize these peoples had been intermarrying for over 700 years by the time of Christ.
* I told you Jesus also dealt with and performed miracles for Gentiles. That's when you went crazy with children and dogs - to you saving someone's life is crumbs that fell to dogs!
➜Samaritans were NOT covenant Israelites - (of course anybody can consider themselves anything. It doesn't mean they are that!)
You ought know when to concede defeat and move on!

WoW... You haven't realized at this point in the discussion that your religious gobblegook tales mean absolutely nothing to me?

2. Covenant Israelites? What the f-ck does that even mean? Where in Scripture do you get this notion that there exist Israelites who were excluded from the Covenant by the God of Israel, who is instead written to have chosen all of Israel as His people?

Kobojunkie:
1. The Bible says the nation existed and Jesus Christ was born into it. History has it that Hadrian is the one who removed it from Judea to Syrian Palestine approximately 100 years after the death of Jesus Christ. So, what Google tells you is that the nation ceased to exist 600 years before Jesus Christ?

3. Well, the "Lost tribes of Israel" myth was created by those of the Religion of Christianity, a myth which contradicts Scripture itself, which indicates that living among the Jews( the tribes of Benjamin and Judah) were the Levites and Samaritans. If we did deeper, we might find that many more individuals from the other tribes also resided in Judah at the time. There could not have been 10 lost tribes if members of at least 2 of the 10 were documented to have been resident in Judah at the time of Jesus Christ. This isn't rocket science.

Sorry, not being arrogant but this one is beneath me.
You really ought go immerse yourself in a study of history of Israel before I can continue this discussion with you. Also study the 400 years between the old and new testaments
(For comparison, USA is only 200+ years old)