Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re:
>    and European whites, biblically known as the Gentiles.  
and:
>    The disciples of Jesus, were sent to the "Isles of the Gentiles," and
>    specifically instructed not to go into Asia.  Also, Africa is not
>    mentioned as a being a target for evangelism.  ...
    
    Hmm, interesting assertion.  How does F. Sheed back this up?

    --Simon

    

    Playtoe,

    I admire your willingness to be open to the idea of a special role for
    European (white) Gentiles in spreading the Gospel, but I doubt that the
    concept has any foundation in the New Testament Scriptures.  The book
    of Acts and subsequent Epistles of Paul record his extensive evangelism
    efforts in southern Europe AND ASIA.  On one specific occasion, while
    on a preaching tour of Asia, he was told by the Holy Spirit to leave
    Asia and go on to Greece, but this does not imply that he avoided or
    ignored Asia in subsequent trips. 

    I would suggest that you test the references this author gives for the
    Biblical evidence of a special role for Europe or while Gentiles.  I
    (being of the Caucasian race) would encourage you be skeptical of this
    of theory.

    regards

    David
    

    Could someone please provide support for the use of the word "gentiles"
    as a strictly European reference ?  My impression was that it meant,
    essentially, "not one of us". 

    I infer from the following passage of Paul's that, at least as far as
    he was concerned, the Christian faith he was espousing was available
    and open to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, social status,
    or sex:
    
    "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free,
    there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ
    Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring,
    heirs according to the promise."  (Galatians 3:28-29)
    
    -- Mike

    
    I believe the New Testament is the embodiment of the teaching of
    European Gentilehood, and there is plenty of scriptural support for
    that.  In general, let me point this out:
    
    1)	Paul's 'magnified' office is "Minister to the Gentiles".
    
    2)	Every one of Paul's books are addressed to the Gentiles, in Europe.
    Where are the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collosians,
    Thessalonians, Galatians (Gentiles in Galilee).  Paul's messages are
    for Gentiles.  
    
    3)	There are no books addressed to the Asians or the Ethiopians or the
    Africans.  If you read the bible carefully, it's a talking to three
    fundamental groups (i.e. Israel, Jews and Gentiles, Jews appear to be a
    branch of Israel, Israel and Jew is not interchangeble) and then to
    sinners everywhere.
    
    If you don't care to discuss it, that's fine, but don't start telling
    me I'm wrong, because your vehement disagreement won't prove a thing to
    me...show me your scriptural backup...mines, of course, is found
    throughout the New Testament, as sited above.

Re: .5 Playtoe

>    1)	Paul's 'magnified' office is "Minister to the Gentiles".
    
Yes, but Paul isn't the only apostle, and "gentiles" doesn't mean just
Europeans.

>    Where are the ..., Ephesians

They're from Ephesus, which is in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey, near Smyrna).

>, Collosians,

They're from Colossae, which is also in Asia Minor.

> Galatiansn (Gentiles in Galilee)

Oh really?  I'd have though they'd have come from Galatia, which was a
province in Asia Minor.

>  Paul's messages are for Gentiles.  
    
Isn't that pretty much what you said in (1)?

>    3)	There are no books addressed to the Asians or the Ethiopians or the
>    Africans.

Not true, since the Ephesians, Colossians and Galatians were in Asia Minor.
Or by "Asia" did you mean places like India and China?

>    Jews appear to be a
>    branch of Israel, Israel and Jew is not interchangeble
    
Evidence?

How do you interpret this verse, Playtoe:

	Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
	the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...
					Matthew 28:19 (RSV)

    
    Perhaps, the term "European" confuses you and me.  Europe and Asia
    Minor, were not the names used in those days.  I believe the Greeks and
    Romans had conquered all that region, so when the bible speaks of the
    Isles of the Gentiles, it refers to the present day holdings of the
    Greeks and Romans, and not our modern boundaries.
    
    In those days Asia Minor, previous "Hittite" country, was ruled by the
    Romans.  Paul, was an ex-Roman officer, he was sending letters to all
    the areas under Roman control, where Gentile Christians were.  He was
    told by the "Holy Spirit" not to go into Asia.  Why?  Because he wasn't
    qualified to preach there.  He was given a message that was based upon
    his experience in the Roman empire, which was not specific enough for
    Asian redemption...Asia being east of Arabia.  Of course, it couldn't
    mean Asia Minor because Paul is allowed to preach there as those
    messages are in the Bible.
    
>>    Jews appear to be a
>>    branch of Israel, Israel and Jew is not interchangeble
  >  
>Evidence?
    
    That there is a difference between Israel and Jews is not debatable,
    Israel and Jew are mentioned in the New Testament, and if you compare
    the usages you can clearly see a distinction.  I imagine that one could
    debate that the difference is one between the leaders/Jews and the
    congregation/Israel, but that won't explain all the usages.  
    
    I don't have a bible at work, and another thing that has really hurt my
    noting is that my Strong's Concordance is still in Michigan, I'm not
    able to locate scriptures as speedily as necessary to respond in a
    timely manner.  But if someone could enter instances of a few usages of
    Israel and Jew, particularly in Romans, I'll be glad to comment.
    
    All Israel were not Jews, but all Jews are Children of Israel.  Paul
    had to make this distinction himself, "A Jew is not one outwardly, but
    inwardly, not a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart".  We see by
    this that Jew, in those days, had become a confusing term.  Some were
    saying they were Jews for reasons other than what the term, according
    to Christ, meant to dennote.  Being circumcized and obeying the rituals
    of the Jewish church, did not make a Jew in Pauls eyes...it was
    something more to it than that.  
    
    The Jew, most often spoken of in the bible, however, is that other Jew,
    and not the Jew Paul feels is a Jew.  The Jew Paul considers to be the
    real Jew, spans everyone who is raised in the law, in the knowledge of
    God, and DOES accordingly.  But, that Jew is not Israel either, though
    Israel in of that group.  This Jew includes Gentiles, who know the law
    and do it.  These Jews are in Christ, the other Jew's were/are not.
    
    The bible says, "God is no respecter of persons".  I ask you this, "If
    a man doesn't accept Christ, shall he see heaven?"  If Jesus said, "Ye
    must be born again" and you have not been, shall you see heaven?  Who
    is the man to who "God does not impute sin"?
    
>How do you interpret this verse, Playtoe:

>	Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
>	the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...
>					Matthew 28:19 (RSV)
    
    "All nations", means Gentile nations.  If you don't understand that
    like that, then you make the bible contradict itself, when we read that
    the Holy Spirit tells Paul not to go to Asia.  Also I was reading the
    bible last night, and I'll have to bring the verses tomorrow, but in the 
    New Testament it read, "so that it might be as the prophet Isaiah saith 
    of the land of Zebulan and of Nephtali and the land of the Gentiles" 
    (something like this) but if you turn to the verse in Isaiah, the term
    "Gentiles" is replaced with the term "nations".  
    
    Playtoe

    re .7 (SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST)
    
>    In those days Asia Minor, previous "Hittite" country, was ruled by the
>    Romans.  Paul, was an ex-Roman officer, he was sending letters to all
>    the areas under Roman control, where Gentile Christians were.
    
    	Paul was a Roman citizen (Act 22:25), but what sort of "Roman
    officer" was he?  An army officer?  He says (in the Bible) that he was
    a Pharisee, but I don't recall any place in which he admits that he
    served the Roman state in any official capacity as an "officer."
    
    								-mark.

    RE: 8
    
    Under who's authority did Saul persecute and kill Christians?  Or, was
    this something he did on his own?  I believe he had "writs" which
    authorized him to capture, kill and arrest Christians, issued by the
    Roman government, making him an "officer".
    
    Playtoe

    re .9 (SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST)
    
>    Under who's authority did Saul persecute and kill Christians?  Or, was
>    this something he did on his own?  I believe he had "writs" which
>    authorized him to capture, kill and arrest Christians, issued by the
>    Roman government, making him an "officer".
    
    	Luke wrote:
    
    		"But Saul [after the death of Stephen], still
    		breathing threats and murder against the
    		disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
    		and asked him for letters to the synagogues
    		at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging
    		to the Way, men or women, he might bring them
    		bound to Jerusalem [where the Jewish High Court
    		was located]."  (Acts 9:1,2 RSV)
    
    Evidently, the Jewish religious authorities were given a certain degree
    of legal autonomy by the Romans, and were permitted to police
    themselves, at least so far as religious affairs were concerned. 
    Notice that Paul received his authority from the Jewish high priest,
    and not the Roman authorities.
    
    								-mark.

    	It has been my impression, though I certainly can't support it,
    that Paul was a Roman citizen and an official of some sort. What he was
    NOT was a Jew. He was not of the "Children of Isreal". Paul's ideas of
    what a Jew might be have about as much validity as some of our ideas on
    what a Shiite might be. You said you believed he went to Isreal with
    writs against Christians, unlikely as the sect was hardly important
    enough to capture official attention in Rome. I thought he went to
    collect taxes. We both share the opinion that he went to Isreal as to a
    subject nation. Your quote "A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly,
    not a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart." reflects his
    attitude that the Jews were, to him, lesser creatures, people with
    mutilated hearts. Paul has no context of "the Law" on which to measure
    a Jew, except the Roman law. Is it your belief that this belief that
    Paul brought with him to this land, this denigrating understanding of
    what a Jew is, is the word of God ?  Given to Paul before he ever heard
    of Christ ?  And that God would so accuse his chosen of having
    mutilated hearts, one and all ?
    	If you intend to take the Bible literaly then you must take it so,
    you cannot pick and choose and define your meanings as you go. This is
    the message several of the more conservative members here have given us
    many times. Thus your unsupported redefinition of "All nations" to mean
    "All European nations" is just that, unsupported. And if Paul was not
    to go to Asia, what is that to the others? Or to any followers?
    Nothing.

Re: .7  Playtoe

>    Perhaps, the term "European" confuses you and me.

Well, it certainly is confusing if you use the word "Europe" as including
Asia Minor.  Would you also include Egypt as part of the "Europe" that Paul
was sent to preach to, since Egypt was part of the Roman empire?

Let's see what the Bible says about Asia:

	And they [Paul and Silas] went through the region of Phrygia and
	Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking
	the word in Asia.
					Acts 16:6 (RSV)

	And you see and hear tha not only at Ephesus but almost throughout
	all Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away [from the worship
	of Artemis] a considerable company of people, saying that gods made
	with hands are not gods.
					Acts 19:26

	Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for
	Christ.
					Romans 16:5

	For we do not want you to be ignorant, bretheren, of the affliction
	we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed
	that we despaired of life itself.
					2 Corinthians 1:8

	John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
	  Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to
	come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne.
					Revelation 1:4

It seems that there were indeed early churches in Asia, and that Paul
visited Asia at some point  (I'm not sure whether this was before or after the
warning in Acts 16).

Here's something interesting: in one of the maps at the back of my RSV,
Asia is shown as the name of a *province* in what is now Asia Minor.  This
explains a lot.  It explains why Galatia is not considered part of Asia in
Acts 16 but Ephesus is considered part of Asia in Acts 16.

At any rate, it's not at all clear from the verse in Acts 16 that the Holy
Spirit commanded Paul to stay out of Asia for all time or only in that
specific instance.

>    so when the bible speaks of the
>    Isles of the Gentiles, it refers to the present day holdings of the
>    Greeks and Romans, and not our modern boundaries.
    
This is not inconsistent with the word "gentile" meaning "anyone who is
not a Jew".  The Roman empire in the those ways pretty much encompassed the
entire known world. I doubt that very many people cared one way or the other
about places and people who were outside the empire.

>    He was
>    told by the "Holy Spirit" not to go into Asia.

Where Asia means the part of Asia Minor that included Ephesus (at according
to the map I referred to earlier).

>    Of course, it couldn't
>    mean Asia Minor because Paul is allowed to preach there as those
>    messages are in the Bible.
    
What it could mean is that Paul was allowed to peach in the province of
Galicia but was not allowed to preach in the neighboring province of Asia
*at that time*.

>    That there is a difference between Israel and Jews is not debatable,
>    Israel and Jew are mentioned in the New Testament, and if you compare
>    the usages you can clearly see a distinction.

I don't have time right now to look this up, but I'd be interested in seeing
any verses you can cite.

>    All Israel were not Jews, but all Jews are Children of Israel.  Paul
>    had to make this distinction himself, "A Jew is not one outwardly, but
>    inwardly, not a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart".

	Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you
	break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.  So, if a
	man who is uncirumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not
	his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?  Then those who
	are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you
	who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.  For
	he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision
	something external and physical.  He is a Jew who is one inwardly,
	and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not
	literal.  His praise is not from men but from God.
					Romans 2:25-29

I don't think that Paul is saying here that not all of Israel are Jews.
He's making a distiction between the old covenant, which applied to physical
Jews, and the new covenant, which applies to what Paul calls "real Jews",
i.e. spiritual Jews.  All of Israel are physical Jews, but not all of them
are spiritual Jews under the new covenant.  Gentiles are not physical Jews,
but they can become spiritual Jews.

As far as I can tell, this distinction between physical Jews and "real",
spiritual Jews was just a literary device used by Paul to show that the
gospel applied to gentiles as well as Jews.  It didn't change the meaning of
the word Jew.  There was no confusion about who was a Jew and who was not
(at least that I know of); the confusion was about whether gentiles could
become Christians.

>>	Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
>>	the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...
>>					Matthew 28:19 (RSV)
>    
>    "All nations", means Gentile nations.

No doubt, but "Gentile nations" means more than just Europe.

>  If you don't understand that
>    like that, then you make the bible contradict itself, when we read that
>    the Holy Spirit tells Paul not to go to Asia.

And yet Paul *did* go to Asia, and there were churches in Asia, so apparently
that command was not for all time.

				-- Bob

Re: .11  Dave

>    What he was
>    NOT was a Jew. He was not of the "Children of Isreal".

Are you sure about that, Dave? It was my impression that Paul *was* a Jew.
Are there verses that show otherwise?

>    Your quote "A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly,
>    not a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart." reflects his
>    attitude that the Jews were, to him, lesser creatures, people with
>    mutilated hearts.

What???  That's not my reading at all.  A "real Jew" in that verse means
someone who obeys God, not a lesser creature with a mutilated heart.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    	no, I cannot support my contention that he was not a Jew. Would
    that I could. I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar and I
    certainly lack most of the cross-filed reference works many others in
    this file possess. There are those that I can ask.
    	Circumcision is an act of mutilation. It has long been a ritual of
    Semitic peoples. The theoretical reason for the mutilation is to
    promote cleanliness although some peoples also use it as part of a
    coming of age ritual. How would you interpret "circumcision of the
    heart" ?  
    
    Circumcise  v.  1.to remove the prepuce of (a male) 2. to remove the
    clitoris of (a female)   from the latin cumcidere, to cut around

    	Regarding the matter of whether Paul was a Jew (or not), here's
    what Paul wrote about himself:
    
    		"If anyone else things he has reason to put
    		confidence in the flesh, I have more: 
    		circumcised on the eight day, of the people
    		of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew
    		of Hebrews; in regard to the law a Pharisee;
    		as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for
    		legalistic righteousness, faultless."
    		(Phil 3:4b-6 NIV)
    
>    	no, I cannot support my contention that he was not a Jew. Would
>    that I could. I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar and I
>    certainly lack most of the cross-filed reference works many others in
>    this file possess. There are those that I can ask.
    
    	I'll confess that I had to use a concordance to find this passage,
    but that's only because I couldn't remember where I had read it.  You
    don't have to be a "Bible scholar" to read the Bible and know what it
    contains; you just have to read it with some regularity.
    
    								-mark.

    Bob, this is kind of a rathole, but you made an interesting comment
    when you said, "The Roman empire in those days encompassed the entire
    known world.  I doubt that very many people cared one way or the other
    about places and people who were outside the empire."

    That is actually clearly the case as far as the author of Luke-Acts was
    concerned.  He noted in Luke 2:1 that "In those days a decree went out
    from Emperor Augustus that all the world would be registered."   The
    "world" in that passage (oikoomenin) was obviously not what we know to
    be the entire habitable lands of planet Earth--it was simply the Roman
    Empire, which as far as Luke was concerned, was the "world".  Known
    lands outside the Roman Empire, not to mention unknown lands (such as
    the Americas), were not part of the census, obviously; yet Luke uses
    the same word (oikoomenin) to describe the world as a whole elsewhere. 
    This either indicates that the word "world" had multiple meanings in
    Koine, or else that the inhabitants of the Roman Empire simply
    considered anything outside of it irrelevant.

    For example, Luke used that same word (oikoomenin) to describe the world
    in his description of the the temptation of Jesus, where Satan showed
    him the entire world.  He also uses that word in Luke 21:26, when
    talking of the end days:  "People will faint from fear and foreboding
    of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be
    shaken."  He uses the word in Acts, a couple of times in chapter 17,
    including verse 31, where he refers to the "day on which he will have
    the world judged in righteousness."

    -- Mike

Re: .12  (me)

A couple of corrections to my earlier note:

>It seems that there were indeed early churches in Asia, and that Paul
>visited Asia at some point  (I'm not sure whether this was before or after the
>warning in Acts 16).

In Acts 19 Paul is said to have travelled through nearly all of Asia (meaning
the province, I would guess).  It seems most likely that this happened after
Acts 16.

>It explains why Galatia is not considered part of Asia in
>Acts 16 but Ephesus is considered part of Asia in Acts 16.

I meant to say "but Ephesus is considered part of Asia in Acts 19".

Re: .14 Dave

>    I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar and I
>    certainly lack most of the cross-filed reference works many others in
>    this file possess.

What I've found very useful is an edition of the Revised Standard Version
with a limited concordance at the back.

>    	Circumcision is an act of mutilation.

In your eyes but not theirs.   The Jews considered it a sign of their
covenant with God.

>    How would you interpret "circumcision of the heart" ?  
    
Circumcision of the heart means obedience to and love of God.  It is the
sign of the new covenant.  In other words, a Christian doesn't have to be
physically circumcized and become a Jew in order to be saved; instead, a
Christian is saved by faith (and arguably by obedience -- keeping the law).

				-- Bob

    Mark,
    	you will agree that it's a large volume and that not everyone has
    read every page ?  The passage you quoted - with typo - does speak of a
    Jewish male, and you say it was a self-reference which was not obvious
    from the quote.

    re .18 (DELNI::MEYER)
    
>    	you will agree that it's a large volume and that not everyone has
>    read every page ?
    
    	Yes ... in fact, it's probably true that a good many people, and
    *maybe* even the majority of people, who consider themselves Christian
    have not read every page of the Bible, or even every page of the New
    Testament writings.  But this doesn't mean that it's an impossible
    task.
    
    	Since late July, I've been rereading the NT as a personal project,
    keeping track of how much I've read and when, and it's now November and
    I still have Matthew and John to read (because I haven't been reading
    the books in order).  Although I've been taking notes as I've gone
    along, it's still pretty obvious to me that it takes a concerted
    effort, and quite some time, to read the Bible at length, and read it
    all the way through, at that.  But once you get started, it isn't too
    hard to keep it up, even at a rate of just a few pages (or chapters) a
    day.
    
>                       The passage you quoted - with typo - does speak of a
>    Jewish male, and you say it was a self-reference which was not obvious
>    from the quote.
    
    	Well, that's as may be; but if you read Phillipians yourself,
    you'll see that what I said about it is true.  It's only got 4 chapters
    in it, and you could probably read the whole thing in 15 or 20 minutes.
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    	I was not doubting you, that WOULD seem rather silly at this point.
    So I'll look it up myself over the weekend.
    	I would like to set one record straight, though. I only ONCE had a
    pet named Erik (K, not C) but he was such a marvelous cat that we named
    our second child after him. Not much physical resemblance, but their
    attutudes seem much alike. Erik - the cat - died long before my son
    Erik went off to B.U. 

    
    Indeed Paul was never sent to evangelize the children of Ishmael,
    Isaac's brother, who also received the covenant from God.  God
    apparently had other plans for them (i.e. Islam, via Muhammad).  Pauls
    ministry in Asia, nearly cost him is life, moreso than in any other
    place he visited.  I would also contend that Paul directed his ministry
    in Asia to Gentiles (Greeks/Europeans) in Asia and not to the
    descendents of Ishmael.
    
    Also, Paul was not sent to the Ethiopians/Hamitic peoples, of the
    south, and apparently that had been taken care of by "Queen Sheba" via
    her visit to Solomon.  
    
    Thus, Asia and Africa had their own destiny or calling or purpose in
    God's plan.
    
    I don't like the sound of Mr. Meyer's accusation that Paul isn't a Jew
    and don't no nothing about Jews, and that ANY scripture was written to
    grind axes against any other group, or that the Bible is not God's
    inspired Word...I can't respond to those kind of doubts and
    representations of scripture.
    
    Have we pretty much decided that Gentiles is basically Europeans?  Some
    say that the Ethiopean who was met by the disciple and apparently
    converted, to be the first Ethiopean "Gentile", but I don't find
    scriptural support that this Ethiopean was a "Gentile".
    
    I still feel, in light of the discussion so far, that the basenote is
    basically valid as stated...shall it be entertained or not?

    Playtoe,
    	if you'd read the last few you might have noticed that "Mr.Meyer"
    had bowed to superior scholarship on the question of Paul being a Jew.
    
    No, we have not decided/agreed that "gentile" = "european". Only that
    it means "non-Jew". Even if we concede that it only refers to those
    non-Jews of the official "known world" (Roman territory) we still have
    a substantial portion of Asia Minor and more than a few square miles of
    Africa to consider. Some have shown that (Roman territory) was indeed
    refered to in Scripture as the world or all nations, but that only
    validates that such was one valid understanding - not that it is the
    only one. I am a little surprised that we have no Hebrew scholars in
    the group, given the number of Greek/Biblical scholars here.

Re: .21  Playtoe

>    Indeed Paul was never sent to evangelize the children of Ishmael,
>    Isaac's brother, who also received the covenant from God.

Scripture doesn't state this.  If anything, it states the opposite: that the
gospel is open to all people regardless of their race.

>    Have we pretty much decided that Gentiles is basically Europeans?

No.  That's not the way Jews use that word today, and I haven't seen any
convincing evidence to show that the word had a different meaning in ancient
times.

				-- Bob

    Re 22
    
    The "substantial portion of Asia Minor and more than a few square miles
    of Africa" could refer to Gentiles in those lands, as opposed to the
    natives, could it not?  The bible does not clearly say otherwise.
    
    Furthermore, if we examine the storehouse of evidence or events
    involving the Europeans, that correspond to biblical prophecy, we find
    that Europeans, primarily, to this day constitute the Gentiles, in the
    opinions of most people...and this prepondence of opinion cannot be
    easily set aside.

    Re: 23
    
    The Bible may not necessary state that the ministry was or was not
    intended for Ishmael's children.  But the fact remains, the Ishmael's
    lineage was blessed and separated from the Hebrew line, long long ago,
    and that they are no longer referrenced indicates something to the
    effect that they had their own destiny.
    
    Of course, your statement about "race" is better called "nationality".
    
    How Jews might use the term "gentile", may not be appropriate,
    evidenced by the other tendencies to view themselves as the center and
    everyone else peripherals.  Ishmael's children are not gentiles, nor
    are they Jews, IMO.  Neither are they Israel, but they are the seed of
    Abraham.