David (Davo) said:
Well, we will start there! 
Thanks Davo…
The term “Jew” in the New Testament, represented all Israelites. It represented the nation of Israel. Also, Israelites who lived outside of Israel were called “Jews” in the New Testament.
The law was not just given to the tribe of Judea. It was given to all Israelites who were termed “Jews” in the New Testament.
The important point to take away is that (and I’ll make this “Christian” friendly for you) 
is that the Law was given to Israel. It was not given to the nations. The nations never covenanted with God to do the law. Only Israel did. The Sermon on the mount is the law and then some. Again, the nations never covenanted with God to do that law.
This might be helpful: timberlandchurch.com/faqs/586-is-there-a-difference-between-hebrews-jews-and-israelites-.html
Eusebius said:
Israelites that lived outside of Israel? What is that? I think you are mixing up ‘a people’ and a ‘geography’ Where was ‘Israel’ (geographically) in the NT? 
Also, I would like a few verses to show that the term Jew represents the 10 northern tribes as well as the two southern tribes. I would appreciate it.
I looked at your link… Kind of weak 
A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh–
And yet Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision and Peter, the Circumcision.
Eusebius said,
But you miss the point entirely. I’m not talking “resting upon a consensus of scholars” but about Divine guidance. If we accept that God inspired the authors to record meaning He imparted to them specifically to be recorded as Scripture, why is it unreasonable to conclude He has also steered Biblical scholarship over the last 2,000 years to refine with at least fundamental accuracy the meanings He conveyed to His authors? I wonder if you realize that your disavowal of traditional Biblical scholarship in lieu of the writings of a single man draws uncomfortable parallels with Mormonism’s claims that Joseph Smith was given special understanding of God’s doctrines that supersedes those of tradition?
So why would the majority of scholars be wrong about what the authors meant? Having inspired His authors, is God not powerful or wise enough to also keep the preponderance of His meaning true in the hands of Bible scholars?
I think it’s safe to say I’m now reasonably familiar with your view on the topic E, thanks anyway.
We now have something else to disagree on E. “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.” Ezek 18:4, which corresponds with Rom 6:23. Yes, we die from what Adam did, but he just got the ball rolling. We pick up quite enthusiastically where he left off as everyday experience abundantly teaches.
qaz said,
I don’t necessarily think death means being wiped out of existence and feel I made this clear in previous posts. All I’m defending is *the annihilationist’s right to incorporate the idea of “death” into a shared unity of meaning with those texts that suggest the destruction of sinners. * Am just saying death has some degree of “fit” with destruction, but I also concede the biblical concept of death may also be used—though probably with less force—in the notion of eternal torment. Death also is not a wholly discordant idea in Universalism, though it seems to fit here in a more mystical or metaphoric sense beyond what Scripture already allows. Separately, the notions of “death” and “destruction” of sinners poses some problems–while at the same time corresponds in various senses–with each position.
You are arguing from a false premise. We know for a fact, at least biblically, that God has steered the concensus of theologians away from the truth:
Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;" (1Ti 4:1-2)
And:
Act_20:29 Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet."
But why did the person sin? He sinned because he, as the law breaker was dying. And since the person was dying (a process of death operating in him) he sinned. And since he sinned UNDER THE PRESCRIPTS OF THE LAW THEY WERE UNDER, that person was to die according to the curses of the law. Ezekiel was not telling all mankind that they die because they sin. He wrote that ONLY to those under the law and who knew that if they sined (broke the law) they were liable to all the curses of the law. You can’t just isolate a verse like you have done and try to put apply it to the whole human race.
Which makes me wonder regarding two cases:
My Protestant mom Lucille - deceased at 92.5 years old, has the lifelong gift of prophesy and discernment of spirits.
A Roman Catholic priest I call Father A., has the gift of healing and hearing the voice of God
I have had amply opportunity to observe these individuals myself - close up. Neither advertised, charged money nor sold tickets.
Why didn’t either of these 2, agree, side with or teach - your understanding of theology? My mom believed traditional Protestant theology (mainly Moody Bible) and Father A. believed in traditional Roman Catholic theology.
And as we discussed before, God has created an apparent mess…by allowing the bible, to be translated…into the language of the average person. Right? Wrong?
Could it be that God is free to distribute His gifts to those that don’t have a perfect grasp of theology???
Do you have any scripture, Dave or Eusebius, to back that premise up?
Dear HFPZ,
If anyone says they heal people they are a fraud. Healings went away long ago shortly after Stephen was killed. Healings were a part of the kingdom powers. As God set Israel aside, so also did the powers of that subside. Paul, who used to heal people with just a handkerchief, now left Trophimus sick and told Timothy to take a little wine for his often infirmities.
Likewise, prophecy and discernment of spirits went away as well since Paul completed the word of God.
Because the god of this eon blinded them to it.
Now, if our evangel is covered, also, it is covered in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this eon blinds the apprehensions of the unbelieving so that the illumination of the evangel of the glory of Christ, Who is the Image of the invisible God, does not irradiate them."
(2Co 4:3-4)
Randy said:
Because they did not NEED to agree. God deals with people… Individuals. Once the new covenant came about, there where /are I guess many folks with all kinds of revelations in their lives. That is the Holy Spirit at work I would say. 
And I would also say that that spirit is at work in everyone… We just need to look for it and realize it’s value.
It really is about love.
This is just an observation Eusebius, but you do seem to really stretch credulity by these kind of statements AND subsequent mishandlings of biblical texts, i.e., nothing above says “God has steered” anyone anywhere with regards to those cited texts. What the Spirit explicitly says in NO WAY implies that said steering is divinely controlled, forced or otherwise… it was simply a statement of fact to come; and THUS be aware of.
IOW… Paul is NOT saying nor making the claim you are… THUS YOUR premise is entirely false.
And typically Eusebius you will say the likes of…
…but then summarily break your own rule and claim the likes of…
It is wholly inconsistent to attempt a rebuff of HFPZ’s example in seeking to dismiss such by applying a text out of context, BECAUSE that in itself demonstrates YOUR OWN pretext i.e., excuse of an answer. IOW… you cannot apply the words “Because the god of this eon blinded them to it” to HFPZ’s scenario BECAUSE to use your own rule… “You can’t just isolate a verse like you have done and try to put apply it to the whole human race.” And yet here you are doing that very thing.
You are right, in that only God can heal people. And “real” people with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, are only channels for God and the Holy Spirit. And they never say, they can heal anyone.
And if healings went away, then what have I (and others) experienced with this Catholic priest?
Why does the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches - insist they still exist (in the saints and even among lay people)?
Why does the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches also insist, these gifts are still available today?
Andy why do Protestant ministers, who visit churches in third world countries, insist they still have miracles there today - because the people believe in them?
And are all those miracle stories of real people, by TV evangelists like Joel Osteen - just hogwash? Like his own mother being healing of cancer, when all the medical experts - said it was terminal?
I, for one, have witnessed the real thing and experienced the real thing. And I’m not someone, who is easily duped.
If someone touches me and I fall down, overwhelmed by energy and power - what am I experiencing, from this Roman Catholic priest?
If my mom tells me to bring an umbrella, during a Boy Scout parade. And I as a teenager, distinctly listen and watch, the weather “experts” on TV. And they all say, it will be sunny and warm. No chance of rain or rain in the forecast. And midway thought the parade, there is a downpour. Can you explain this away? This is just one, of many such examples - regarding my mom.
It’s like trying to describe snow, to folks in Africa - who never experienced it. 
CARM Calvinist theology Matt Slick, addressed this question at:
Have the Charismatic Gifts Ceased?
He says this:
Then he goes on to give 3 solid and detailed arguments, why he feels this way.
Even the Calvinist site Got Questions, tries to answer this at:
Are the miraculous gifts of the Spirit for today?
Here’s some nuggets I found interesting - from their answer:
The Protestant site Let Us Reason, had this to say in conclusion at:
Are there Spiritual Gifts today or have they Ceased?
If you - or others here and elsewhere, prefer not to believe in them…or your spin on scripture, doesn’t allow you to believe in them - so be it. I won’t stop you. You have to find out, the truth for yourself.
2Th 2:10 and with every seduction of injustice among those who are perishing, because they do not receive the love of the truth for their salvation."
2Th 2:11 And therefore God will be sending them an operation of deception, for them to believe the falsehood,
**^^^^^**Again Eusebius… this above was pertinent to THEIR “end of the age”. It applied (past tense, though it was still yet future to them when written) to them NOT us. You need to leave it in its biblical and historical setting.
The point is that it is God Who gives them the deception. I’m not saying all modern scholars are deceived. One has to take what they say and see how it agrees with Scripture. There are many very good theologians. But just the fact that many of them adhere to the false teaching of eternal torment should cause one to pause and question.
We have the future deception as told us by Paul: “In subsequent eras, some will be withdrawing from the faith.” And they will give heed to teachings of demons.
If I had a nickel for every time someone dragged verses out of context to “prove” their pet doctrine…the way you did here…I’d have money in the bank. It’s disingenuous to smear these passages onto Biblical scholars, E. The authors had no such target in mind when these words were penned.
This is absurd. Part of virtually any discussion of Scripture’s meaning includes references to various passages as support for a particular concept. To the contrary I gently suggest that it is you who are borrowing verses and twisting concepts to fit a legalistic doctrinal structure. I’ve seen it done hundreds of times in discussions on numerous religious message boards. The building of these doctrinal “fortresses” is all too common my friend. The problem I see with this is that using the mortar of literalism–e.g., trying to piece together the spiritual word of God into principles based on a highly literal [and thus legalistic] understanding of Scripture–inevitably leads to incoherence and contradictory beliefs. In fact, I find it odd that a universalist even argues from premises like these. The power of the Holy Spirit is that He inspired His word in a way that finds application to everyman. The spiritual has a universal nature; the literal has a particular nature. One can never imo establish anything like a proper set of non-contradictory doctrines of the salvation of all using the literalist mechanisms. God gave His word to all His authors as authoritative mouthpieces to teach every human, and to detract from this seems to me to demean the power of God to say what He intends in His word.
Since you don’t have money in the bank, you have not received a nickel for me taking anything out of context.
I don’t need to twist anything. The verses I quoted speak for themselves. Re-read Romans 5:12 and try to get it to say mankind dies because they sin.