Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:20 pm
rgprice, I offer this (from John chapter 8) in support of your frustration.
Is there in this an implication that the Jews are the children of Ishmael? Is there anywhere in Paul's letters wherein he twists and bends things so as to seemingly arrive at this very same implication?
And then there is (per April D. DeConick) the more properly literal translation which states: You are from the father of the Devil....37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” You Are of Your Father the Devil 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and uI am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
Is there in this an implication that the Jews are the children of Ishmael? Is there anywhere in Paul's letters wherein he twists and bends things so as to seemingly arrive at this very same implication?