As of 01/20/2017, the exchange could be found here: https://youtu.be/FCQL-K85T3c
Mr. Don Preston said this in his video’s description:
Paul’s use of harvest imagery in 1 Corinthians 15 absolutely demands that we honor the Jewish concepts of the harvest- taken from Torah- as well as what the rest of the NT has to say about that end of the age harvest. When we do, it is undeniably true that the resurrection at the end of the age- the harvest- was truly imminent. An examination of John the Bapitzer, as Elijah makes the point very powerfully– and irrefutably!
My initial response is this:
” …. absolutely demands that we honor the Jewish concepts of the harvest …”
The Israelites were not jewish. The jews descend from Esau/Edom not Judah. They tell you that themselves.
“A brief History of the Terms for Jew” in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: “STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS INCORRECT TO CALL AN ANCIENT ISRAELITE A ‘ JEW’ OR TO CALL A CONTEMPORARY JEW AN ISRAELITE OR A HEBREW.” (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3).
Your entire teaching is based upon a false premise.
This follower of Mr. Preston replied:
David Morsillo1 day ago (edited)
With all respect Charles, if the 1st century (the context of Don’s presentation) Israelites were not Jewish, should you not be quoting from a first century source to corroborate your assertion, rather than a 20th century source?
This fellow Kevin replied:
Kevin a full preterist1 day ago
+David Morsillo Amen and Amen
Give us your evidence that the Israelites were jewish. Any date will suffice.
Notice: no reply from Kevin. Most “christians” don’t read much less study Scripture, they simply listen to “leaders” like Mr. Preston, and if the teaching sounds reasonable, and they agree with it, they are, as they say, “good to go” with their teacher’s teaching. The blind leading the blind, and we know where they both end up, in the ditch of error.
I am well aware of when the term “Jew” came into usage. I am using it in its most well understood way. My premise is not wrong when taking that into consideration. Jesus himself “Salvation is of the Jews” so, I am on pretty safe ground in my usage of the term.
Sorry, Mr. Preston, but you might want to check the Greek. You do know the New Testament wasn’t written in English, don’t you? You’re reading an English mis-translation from the Greek. If you check you’ll find that phrase reads. “Salvation is of the Judaeans.” You do know there is a huge difference between “jews” and Judaeans, don’t you?
You might also want to check the 1560 version of the Geneva bible and figure out why you won’t find the word “jew” used.
Do you know it is admitted by many Scripture scholars that there are thousands of mistakes, errors, omissions and mis-translations in the KJV and many more in later versions of Scripture? Robert Young of Young’s Analytical Concordance being one of those scholars. You’d be well-advised to check and then double check very carefully whatever translation you are using so as not to be misled.
I visited your channel hoping to learn from you and that is when I discovered your mistake in thinking the Israelites were/are the jews. On that false premise your entire house will not be plumb, level or square.
Finally, do you think you can learn from others, or do you already have Scripture all figured out?
(CF:Let’s see if Mr. Preston thinks he can learn from others, shall we?)
I am very well aware of the Greek of John 4:22. You do not really believe that Jesus was saying that salvation was of “Judea” do you? How does that work?
When one examines the use of “Ioudaiown” in the NT it may indeed sometimes refer to “Judeans” or, it may also refer to those following the “Jewish religion” (CF: falsely) or, it may indeed refer to people that were descended from Abraham, (CF: again, false. Abraham was not a Judaean, neither was Isaac, and neither was Jacob/Israel, as none ever resided in Judea, nor where they descendants of Judah.) and now, that term, which had been in use for centuries, was (CF: does Preston mean is?) being used inclusively of Abraham’s seed.
I am more than aware of many of the shortcomings of the KJV– and not a defender of the KJV only view by any means. Not sure why you could make this an issue. (CF: I make it an issue because every translation has errors, mistakes, omissions and outright deception, a point Mr. Preston completely ignores, as evidenced by his following statements.)
BTW, I normally use the NKJV, which is a greatly improved translation. (CF:see what I mean?)
Now, I am more than happy to learn. I make no claim to know it all. But, (CF: what’s that saying, “When you use the word But, that oftens means we can disregard everything said before you used the word “But.”) you have built your house on a flimsy linguistic foundation that does not consider carefully the range of meanings that Ioudaiown can and does have in the NT.(CF: It is Mr. Preston who is failing to consider the range of meanings the word Ioudaios not, Ioudaiown as Mr. Preston uses the word, has, not me.)
And let me remind you that committee translation after committee translation, of men that I am assuming know more about the Greek than you or me almost invariably translate Ioudaiown as “Jews” in John 4:22. In fact, I have not found a committe (sic) translation that renders it otherwise.
My question to you is, are you willing to learn as well, or do you think you already have the scriptures figured out?
“You do not really believe that Jesus was saying that salvation was of “Judea” do you?” I most certainly do. Jesus Christ, the Kinsman Redeemer, (look up what a Kinsman is – you can’t redeem something that you have no prior claim to) said Himself twice, “I have not come but for the lost (dispersed) sheep of the house / descendants / offspring of Jacob/Israel.” His words, not mine.Yeah, I know, His words won’t fit with your paradigm so you’ll find a way to dismiss them, just like the Roman Catholics, with their universalism.
As for your “committee after committee,” that is nothing more than an appeal to authority added to an appeal to popularity, both logical fallacies. I have used the Scofield Reference Bible all life, put together by a committee of “Greek and Bible scholars” and the footnotes are filled with mistakes, lies and outright deception. I discuss that issue here: http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2009/12/scofield-reference-bible-deception.html here: http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2011/05/scofields-false-teaching-part-1.html and here: http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2009/01/ever-wonder-why-christian-zionism-has.html
I also discuss the fact that neither Abraham or Moses, or any of the other Israelites were jews, here: http://keruxreplies.blogspot.com/2008/09/was-abraham-or-moses-jew.html
It’s the Spirit of Yahweh that leads us unto all truth, not committees of fallible men with an agenda.
“it may also refer to those following the “Jewish religion”. The “jewish religion” is the tradition of the elders, as described in Scripture, and condemned by Christ Himself. These “traditions of men” were devised by the Edomite jews while they were in Babylon and are now known as the Talmud. You’re saying Jesus changed his mind and the “jewish religion” is for us Israelites?
“that term, which had been in use for centuries, was being used inclusively of Abraham’s seed.” Is a logical fallacy – appeal to tradition. Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form: X is old or traditional Therefore X is correct or better.
So far, in our discussion, you’ve used at least three logical fallacies. Not a great way for a self-appointed teacher to defend his views, is it? Like I said, are you willing to learn, or do you think you’ve got things all figured out? If you do, I’ll not waste my time here any longer.
I was not appealing solely to tradition. I also– if you would have read my comments more carefully– demonstrated that in the NT that is a range of meanings and applications for the word. Now, I have noted that virtually committee translations disagree with you– but you have ignored this. Unless you are qualified to counter the world’s linguistic scholars, I am confident in my use of the term, especially when I find it confirmed in scripture. Let me observe very quickly that Paul said he was a “Jew, (Iodaios) born in Cilicia”. That rather effectively negates your claims. Likewise, Apollos was a Jew, born in Alexandria. We have other examples of this.
(CF: Notice how Mr. Preston avoids four issues I brought up? 1) Kinsman Redeemer, 2)”I have not come but for the lost (dispersed) sheep of the house / descendants / offspring of Jacob/Israel.” 3)”You’re saying Jesus changed his mind and the “jewish religion” is for us Israelites? And 4)”You might also want to check the 1560 version of the Geneva bible and figure out why you won’t find the word “jew” used.).
I did read you comment(s) carefully. Did you read mine? “Paul said he was a “Jew, (Iodaios) born in Cilicia”.
No. Paul did not say he was a jew. He said he was a Judaean. BlueLetterBible, Strong’s G2453. Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaîos, ee-oo-dah’-yos; from G2448 (in the sense of G2455 as a country); Judæan, i.e. belonging to Jehudah Strong’s G2448 – Iouda the fourth son of the patriarch Jacobthe tribe that were the offspring of Judah.
You’re assuming Jehudah is the same as jew, aren’t you? Where’s your evidence, other than your appeals to authority, appeals to tradition, appeals to popularity?
The jews are not Judah. Jews descend from Esau. That is why Christ told the Edomites in John 8:33 “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed” offspring – descendants – but through Cain/Esau, not Jacob/Israel.
Second witness? John 8:44 “Ye (the Edomite jews) are of your father the devil ….” Through Cain, the first murderer.
Third witness? 1 John 2: 18 “…now there are many antichrists. They went out from us – us Judaeans- but they were not of us (Judaeans).” The antichrists are the jews you claim Paul was one of. Absurd.
Fourth witness? Rev. 2:9, 3:9.
Bring your best evidence here supporting your view that the jews are Judah. Don’t confuse the issue. Your best piece.
Let’s see, Paul said he was a “Jew” born in Cilicia- in Tarsus. Apollos was a “Jew” born in Egypt. (CF: this is Mr. Prestons “best piece?”And yet, you claim that they were Judeans. Sorry, that argument is not very convincing. It violates everything that the Bible says– they were not Judeans, they were of Cilicia and Egypt. (CF: Preston again ignores his very own statement:”demonstrated that in the NT that is a range of meanings and applications for the word.” Apparently, Mr. Preston doesn’t even read his own comments and he most certainly chooses the meaning that best fits his preconceived ideas, while ignoring contrary usage.)
BTW, your appeal to Revelation 2:9 / 3:9 reveals the fallacy of your paradigm. They claimed to be “Jews.”
Now, per your definitions, these people were claiming to be Judeans, but Jesus called them liars. That means that they did not even know their own “nationality” or “homeland!”
Did Paul not know he was a Judean, instead of claiming he was born in Cilicia? What was wrong with him? Was Luke wrong in claiming that Apollos was a Jew born in Egypt, and not Judea?
In Acts 11:19f- Paul and Barnabas went to “Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, ” preaching, but, they preached “to none but the Jews (sic Judaeans) only.” Now, it is kinda hard to preach to Judeans who lived in these “non-Judean” geographical regions. They were preaching to those practicing the Jewish religion, (CF:no, they were preachingto fellow Judaeans) not to people who lived in Judea. The same is found through Acts. For your view to be correct, then every single mention of people that lived in Asia, Achaia, Macedonia, Corinth, etc.- had to have originally lived in Judea and migrated to all of those places.
However, even that will not work when Paul said he was a Jew (sic Judaean) born in Cilicia! This makes no sense at all. You are grasping at presuppositional straws.
I notice that all you have done is to scoff at my reference to virtually committee translations, as if they have no bearing on the issue. You chide me for appealing to authorities, but then, you turn around and appeal to the (very questionable) Strong’s Greek Lexicon as if it is an authority, and you have cited other “authorities.” This is a somewhat hypocritical argument. It is wrong for Preston to cite scholarship, but, it is powerful when you do so. I have given you the scriptural evidence. You have made some distorted claims. BTW, I am really curious about your claim that Jews were descended from Esau. What is your “proof” for this? John 8:44 says nothing to support your claim. The research I have done on this issue in the past says that the “Jews” were from Judah, so your denial of this is interesting, but, not very convincing. It is a presuppositional claim, for which I did not see any evidence.
BTW, let me add, that the Jews themselves claim that the term “Jew” was tied to Judah– Not Esau.
“Bring your best evidence here supporting your view that the jews are Judah. Don’t confuse the issue. Your best piece.” You purposely post a lot of male cow dung to confuse your “followers” don’t you? If you can’t convince them with logic, baffle them with male cow dung, that is, obfuscation, is obviously your approach.
“The research I have done on this issue in the past says that the “Jews” were from Judah, so your denial of this is interesting, but, not very convincing. I asked you to bring that very evidence here. You refuse to perform that simple straight forward request. Why is that? Is it because you have no evidence? Methinks so, in fact I know so. You have nothing but appeal to authority, popularity and tradition. All logical fallacies.
Of course my evidence is not very convincing to you: you’d have to admit your error if you admitted the evidence refutes your long held teaching. Yahweh often commands us to “repent.” Re-pent means to re-think our thoughts and actions and then turn in the new direction our re-thinking dictates. You are refusing to do just that. You may have most of your audience fooled, but not this lifelong student of Scripture. I’m done here and leave you with this: “Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment.: James 3:1.
CharlesFockaert2 hours ago (edited)
Your using the jews claim that they are the jews of Judah is like quoting a murderer saying “I didn’t murder the victim” as evidence he didn’t commit the crime. Your thinking is illogical.
And no they don’t. (the Jews themselves claim that the term “Jew” was tied to Judah– ) Did you even read my previous comment? “A brief History of the Terms for Jew” in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: “STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS INCORRECT TO CALL AN ANCIENT ISRAELITE A ‘ JEW’ OR TO CALL A CONTEMPORARY JEW AN ISRAELITE OR A HEBREW.” (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3).
As for this: “Now, it is kinda hard to preach to Judeans who lived in these “non-Judean” geographical regions.” That’s exactly what Paul’s mission was: to bring the gospel to the dispersed Israelites, the scattered sheep of the lost house of Israel.
“I have other sheep not of this fold; them also I must bring.” John 10:16. You do know some Israelites left Egypt before the Exodus with Moses, don’t you? These are the Israelites that “have not the law.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKUqjxe5fQ
Also, other Israelites migrated away from Palestine after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the dispersion scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithyia.”I Peter 1:1.
James: ” … to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.” 1:1.
Paul: ” ….unto the churches (plural) of Galatia.” “to all that be in Rome.”
Your knowledge of Scripture may be a mile wide, but it’s only an inch deep.
I am an American. I lived in many foreign nations. Was I not still an American even though I lived in those nations?
You’ve got what I call “pretzel theology:” all twisted up.
You go on though, sitting there with all those books behind you, sipping your coffee, acting as if you know what you’re taking about. And you’re what I refer to as a “flat stone teacher.” You skip over passages of Scripture that contradict your teaching and thus end up with pretzel theology.
As for your preterist views, I can refute those with one verse: Revelation 1:19. Revelation was written somewhere around 90 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 70 A.D. Read the verse, do the math. I’m outta here and leave you to your false teachings.
“Let’s see, Paul said he was a “Jew” born in Cilicia- in Tarsus. Apollos was a “Jew” born in Egypt. And yet, you claim that they were Judeans. Sorry, that argument is not very convincing.It violates everything that the Bible says– they were not Judeans, they were of Cilicia and Egypt.”
Man oh man. How does anyone take what you teach serious?
I am an Israelite / Caucasian. I was born in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA. Now, am I “of Michigan?” like you say, or am I an Israelite / Caucasian born in Grosse Pointe, a city in Michigan? Paul said, to fellow Israelites, “I am a man (who is) a Judaean of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.” Paul and Appollos were Judaeans – of Judah – born in Tarsus in Cilicia and Egypt respectfully.
You don’t see that obviously, which might explain why you don’t see so many other Scriptural facts. “Did Paul not know he was a Judean, instead of claiming he was born in Cilicia? What was wrong with him?”
The question is, what is wrong with you? Paul said he was “of the stock of Israel, (that is, an Israelite) of the tribe of Benjamin.” Phil. 3:5. The men in Acts 21-22 were fellow Israelite / Hebrews. See verse 22:2: “When they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more quiet.” Paul was making the point that he was one of them, a fellow Israelite and had a message for them. The gospel. Paul was not speaking to jews. He was speaking to Israelites. verse 22:21 Paul tells us the Lord told Paul, “I will send thee far from here unto the Gentiles nations, the dispersed Israelites.”
You need to stop taking verses out of context, you’re a flat stone teacher. Skipping over passages that contradict your strongly held erroneous views.
“you turn around and appeal to the (very questionable) Strong’s Greek Lexicon as if it is an authority, and you have cited other “authorities.”
I was keeping it simple using only Strong’s. Do you care to refute Strong’s definition of the Greek words? re: your ((very questionable). If so, what other authority would you prefer? Liddell-Scott?
Further, I back up my arguments with Scripture, providing not just one witness, but several. You?
“What is your “proof” for this? John 8:44 says nothing to support your claim.” Sure it does. Can you think critically? Jesus says “I know Abraham is your father.” And “ye are of your father the devil.” If Jesus is speaking to fellow “jews” then he is saying that he himself, as a descendant of Abraham, (Matthew 1:1), is also of the devil. The word “of” is important, it means descendant of. See the genealogies. Eg., Luke 3 “of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, etc. But since, the “jews” descend from Esau, not Jacob/Israel, my assertions holds.
You have to refute, instead of just disagreeing.
You don’t know your bible very well, do you?
Kerux Replies 