"Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:lYUb9.110118$%v4.5704322 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:vPOb9.28740$Ic7.2089441 at news2.west.cox.net...> >
> > "Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:aMzb9.96395$%v4.5303758 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...> >
> > > AHA! But, you see John, in order to be "remnants", then by all of your
> own
> > > definitions, they must BE children and descendants of Abraham. They are
> > the
> > > children, the "seed" who remain. Some have died. Some have abandoned
> their
> > > faith, culture or nation. These remain! If they were never Children,
> Never
> > > descendants, never offspring, then they could not BE a "remnant". (
> Though
> > > let us remember that Remnant is just a possible implication of the term,
> > it
> > > primarily means, quite simply, and quite precicely that their line
> sprang
> > > from the sperm or seed of Abraham.
> > >
> >
> > You clearly don't understand the use of the term "remnant" here, and it's
> > probably because you're a jew, which means that you'll never "understand"
> > [read: admit] it. There isn't a single word here that suggests that
> Christ
> > claimed that anybody died off, or abandoned their faith or nation.
> >
> > By claiming that they were "remnants of Abraham", Christ acknowledged ONLY
> > that Abraham was an ancestor of these jews.
>> Yes, John. He was their ancestor, they were his children. Thank you for
> finally admitting it.
Christ said they were NOT Abraham's children, but here you are saying "they were his children".
Why do you claim they were here, and later on claim they weren't?
> They are a remnant, meaning they are not all of his children, but are those
> who remain. This also you yourself have established by your own references.
"Sperma" doesn't mean "those who remain". If Christ told them they were NOT "children of Abraham", then it can only mean that their genetic link to Abraham was very weak.
If they were 99.9999% Canaanites and 0.00001% of Abraham, as it was for the Edomites of the time, then it would certainly be weak, right?
G4690
σπέρμα
sperma
sper'-mah
>From G4687; somethng sown, that is, seed (including the male “sperm”); by implication offspring; specifically a remnant (figuratively as if kept over for planting): - issue, seed.
John 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
This is where the jews admit that they were never in bondage. But the Israelites WERE in bondage, in Egypt.
Had they been Israelites, they would have known what Christ was talking about and agreed with Him.
> >
> > He said they were NOT the "children" of Abraham, but that they WERE the
> > "children" of the devil:
> >
> > John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father
> it
> > is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not
> > in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
> > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."
> >
> > Are you getting the picture here? The word "children", which refers to
> > their genealogy, is translated from the Greek word "teknon":
>> No. as you prove below that word refers to a relationship, not to geneology.
> Thank you again for utterly demolishing your own silly deluded arguement.
>> According to your own earlier definition of "sperma" in John 8:37; you have
> proved that so far as geneology was concerned, Jesus Called the Jews, "Seed
> of Abraham"; however, so far as their spiritual relationship was concerned
> they were not John (8:39) "tekna", that is children of God. This is what I
> said in the first plact and is the opposite of your claim. You have utterly
> destroyed your own theory!
It was your own theory that you destroyed.
Above, you state: "they were his children", and now you say: "they were not John (8:39) 'tekna', that is children of God".
But Christ said: "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham".
Unless you're going to claim that this means that Christ said they WERE "Abraham's children", you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
You need to decide. Were they, or were they not, "Abraham's children"?
> >
> > John 8:37 "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me,
> > because my word hath no place in you."
>> Seed, as your material from Strong's proved, refers to geneology; So Jesus
> says that his opponents are the biological offspring of Abraham, the very
> point you want to deny.
One thing we must agree on is that Christ made a clear distinction between "sperma" [read: remnants] and "teknon" [read: children, or descendants], right?
We must agree that these are key words and that they have very different meanings, right?
> >
> > John 8:39 "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus
> > saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of
> > Abraham."
>> Children, as your own post above demonstrates refers to a non physical
> relationship, including that of pupils to teacher. It refers to the
> emotional, intellectual and spiritual bond between parent and child, not to
> the physical. They are of the geneology of Abrham, but are not acting as
> children of such a father should act..
You know something? I agree with you that the word "children" or "descendant" COULD refer to only the emotional relationship between a child and a parent (as in step-child or foster-child), and that it could even refer to the emotional relationship between a descendant and an ancestor who lived 40 generations earlier, as Abraham did (somewhat like a modern Christian's relationship with Jesus Christ).
But the context of this Scripture just makes this notion too difficult to believe. Here is Jesus Christ talking to a RACE of people who were just as different from each other as (if not more different than) the difference today between jews and White Christian Israelites, whom He knew were going to kill Him. And why did they demand that Pontias Pilate crucify Him? Did they have a legitimate reason? No. Did they succeed? Yes. Did they ever explain what it was about Jesus Christ that He deserved to die? Not to this day.
Sure, it could have been just a maverick group of jews who didn't like Israelites, but have you EVER met a jew who didn't hate Israelites, or Christians, or Muslims? This has clearly been a genetic problem from thousands of years before Christ's Birth, through that age, all the way to modern "Israel".
It's really difficult to accept your claim that the race of jews responsible for the death of Jesus Christ were the same race as Jesus Christ, or his Twelve Disciples, or the 2 billion Christians of the world today.
Yes, "children" COULD mean "spiritual" or "family" or "social" or "emotional" relationship--but that would require me to believe that Jesus Christ and Alan Dershowitz are on the same moral plane--and believe me that is almost the LAST thing on Earth I would ever accept.
John Knight
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020831/91669edb/attachment.html
