#41
|
||||
|
||||
Virtually every Christian before the 1800s believed in supersessionism, not dispensationalism; even the old Protestant churches did not immediately reject every tenet of Church teaching. Dispensationalism really ratcheted up with the propagation of the Schofield reference Bible, and it became the more politically correct position for Christians to take after WW2 and this resurgent, what I would call Israelophilia of the modern era.
Most of the people we refer to as Jews in the western world are Ashkenazim who have a genetic admixture with Europeans. Jews worldwide be they Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, or any others, do not profess the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They don't even keep the faith of the Sanhedrin at the time Jesus died. The Biblical Judaism died and modern rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism took its place. The second temple was destroyed. No third temple has been built. The Church is the new Israel and the people who believe in Christ are God's people regardless of their race, as despite our differences all men are equal in dignity before God. So we have a group of people who are only tangentially related, by several degrees of separation, from the religion of the Bible, even that which preceded the New Testament, but there are some who claim because of that geographical location, or some limited genealogy, some fragment of DNA, these people have some persistent, imperishable, special position that never changed? Jesus said not to be concerned with this very sort of thing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by an actual gun; 10-27-2019 at 9:46 PM.. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. And those are just the one's that were sealed.
__________________
If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. - Ronald Reagan |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Is that meant to contradict something I've said? Everyone can be justified, God's grace is freely given and the response to grace is faith and then works. People who call themselves Jewish today can be saved. And so can any multitude of nations, which is what it says in the 9th verse of the same chapter you are quoting from. Not to mention is the reading here into the future, to the end of the world. There are two possible ways of viewing it: 1) of the people who rejected Christ there are those who came to believe 2) God can save who he wishes, he has bound us to the sacraments but cannot be bound by his own. It could be a mixture of both here. But with the language of "sealed" I think in this case it would be more about the former than the latter. But I see nothing in this passage that contradicts supersessionism.
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Meh, religions change. Like all living things, even ideas have to adapt to changing environments or risk extinction. Judaism is a classic example. Judaism today isn't the Judaism of Jesus. Jesus's Judaism wasn't the Judaism of David. David's wasn't that of Moses. Moses's wasn't the same as Abraham. It's a testament to the people and culture that they change, not that they stay the same.
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
They didn't really change though, not through all of the valid covenants of God that extend from proper Judaism through Christianity. We have dogma and doctrine that have been defined and set in stone. Lower levels of teaching and theological opinions can change, but higher levels of teaching and divine revelation do not. Have a look at this, full disclosure it is written from the Catholic perspective which is what I can deal in: In addition, for us it's not as if the Old Testament, and the various covenants God made with man were mistakes so God just made new ones. Noahide, Abrahamic, and Mosaic law were not all just reset buttons. Similarly Christian law was not just a do over. All of these involved new revelation by God. My Church can show in everything it does a fulfillment of the law, directly fulfilling all of these. We can show typology between the Old and New Testament to further demonstrate these points. Those covenants were either all fulfilled one after the other resulting in Christianity, or resulting in Judaism. Or they ended along the way somewhere. Or they never began and it was all a lie. But it can't be all of these things at once. To go further, if you insist on calling it an evolution and not a fulfillment then we can work with that terminology for the sake of argument. One is the true evolution, or the approved change, while the other evolved into something else entirely, it changed into the wrong thing by deviation from the truth. By the law of the excluded middle, modus ponens, et al, the two cannot both be true. If you want to make the case for one, or for none at all, that is fair, but it is post-modern and wishy-washy to say well didn't they all just change? Does any one particular view matter? Aren't they all the same? Does anything really mean anything? The flag has to be planted somewhere, otherwise you essentially believe nothing. I learned this the hard way when I was coming of age. It led me to simply reject everything. I hope and pray that does not happen to you. Last edited by an actual gun; 10-30-2019 at 1:55 AM.. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How exactly a religion started by a Palestinian Jew became so much like Hellenistic state religion with philosophical roots owing more to Plato than Moses is nothing if not a huge change/evolution to meet the demands of an empire & gain wider acceptance. Let's just hope that some of the latest chatter about relaxing the celibacy laws gets further traction. If that's not a change that needs to happen yesterday, I don't know what is. I respect caution on change. In fact, I respect conservatism simply because it is resistant to change. Our culture is, in my opinion, obsessed with the new. Yet time is the biggest indication of an idea's fitness. If people have believed something for a long time, I find that far more convincing than anything new. But, being frank here, a couple thousand years or even six thousand years is a wink of time in our evolutionary history -- a mere 2-3% of our time as homo sapiens at best (far less if you count the other hominid primates). These "new" ideas of monotheist Gods, saviors and prophets haven't yet proven themselves as good for our species. In fact, they may yet be a contributor to our extinction. Time will tell. And because I won't be around to find out if I'm right, I don't think being right is all that useful. So it's not really worth arguing about. It's just a thought. Reject everything? Hardly. I don't mind a little post-modern deconstructionism. To a point, it serves as a good reminder of the BS we feed ourselves at the interests of institutions. But rather than "planting my flag," as you put it, with a set of doctrines, I prefer to "plant my flag" with my community -- family, clients, neighbors, non-profits I work with, etc. I don't have to agree with them -- spiritual matters least of all. But we can help each other. That, to me, is far more meaningful than any institutional code of beliefs. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, popularized the observation that “people would rather die than think, and, in fact, they do.” Almost a hundred years ago he put that it one of his books; how much more true of humanity is that today?
As I observed in a different thread, you’re at least as narrow as the Christians you are disagreeing with, or attacking, saying, in effect, “it’s so intolerant and narrow to think that there is just one way to God, you’re quite wrong, but my opinion is right.” Unfortunately, almost everyone excels at ignoring the obvious, just like it is self-refuting to say, “doctrine is unimportant” (that statement is itself a doctrine), or “there are no absolute truths” (that statement is itself an absolute). Mankind is made to worship, and we all worship something. As William Temple famously observed, “your religion is what you do with your solitude.” If a person wants to know what they worship, they should look at what they spend time on, because every idol demands a sacrifice. I think it is safe to say that syncretism is part of human nature. I heard a Tim Keller message on Ecclesiastes 2 (“The Professor’s Disillusionment”), in which he made a very trenchant observation regarding what this book teaches about “life under the sun,” a worldview that he describes as “optimistic agnosticism.” This perspective, more or less, is the modernish notion that there probably is no God, and there is no way to know either way; we’re products of evolution, and this life is all there is (no Heaven or Hell), religion is largely meaningless superstition, but it still makes sense to believe in right and wrong, moral truths, human dignity, human rights, and that life still has some meaning. And the key point he is making is that the teacher, the professor, of Ecclesiastes is demolishing that optimistic agnosticism in chapter 2. He cites some modern sources on this, like Sartre, who wrote: Quote:
People do the same thing. They look at individual parts of their lives and constantly assess, why do this, or what good is that, but they refuse to look at the whole. If someone asked another to go and stand at a particular location— say, a street corner— for ten minutes at a particular time and date, no one would be willing to do that without knowing the reason why, or what good it was. They do this with every part of their lives, but they refuse to do it with the whole of their life. Keller comes right out and says, “If your origin is insignificant— you come from nothing— and your destiny is insignificant— you’re going to nothing— have the guts to admit, your life is insignificant.” In other words, “what does a man get for ALL his anxious toil under the sun?” Look at the whole, don’t be like Mutt.
__________________
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I don't feel that I'm necessarily right on my own religious ideas either. The only thing I can say confidently on my own religious ideas is that they are harmless to you whether I'm right or wrong. And that is a useful ideology in a country founded on religious freedom. Religion and spirituality is as old as humanity. I believe that it is simply a part of our nature to be religious, at least to an extent. If you feel that I am a die-hard atheist, you are mistaken. A true atheist wouldn't bother engaging in discussions about religion at all -- there would be nothing to discuss. Makes you wonder about guys like Dawkins -- is he simply like the homophobic gay man? Makes me wonder if there's a painful story about his personal religious history there somewhere. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As regards the Church being the new Israel, I don't know enough about Christianity to know what Christians say, but there is no support in the Torah and no support in Judaism for a new people replacing the Jewish people as G-d's chosen, the light unto the nations. We are all servants of G-d, but every single one of us each has a different role, just as all peoples have a different role. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
It was mentioned upthread but ignored: seeing as how David’s great-grandmother was from Moab, and Solomon’s mother was probably a Hittite, how did the Jews come to hold that Jewishness is passed through the mother?
__________________
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Out and greet strangers. This was the job of the men. So this display of ingratitude and baseless hatred could therefore only be attributed to the men and not the women. For anyone interested the artscroll series of books is fascinating. If you want an in depth explication of Torah that includes deep commentary look up artscroll anything book series. The artscroll stone chumash (Torah) is amazing. I’m currently reading the majesty of bereishis by rabbi Scherman and I think everyone here will find it fascinating. Deep discussions, not kindergarten level stories. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The fact that we know how little the texts changed from the earliest to latest manuscripts confirms that it was dead. Nothing living is preserved in-tact. There is not one single language alive today that was the same 1000 years ago. Living languages age just as people and cultures age. We can say that Yiddish was a natural evolution of Hebrew for a disbursed culture, post diaspora. The characters are Hebrew. But words, verb endings, grammatical structure, etc. are, arguably, more European than Hebrew. My Ulpan instructor, whenever we said something in Hebrew that she didn't understand or that didn't quite make sense, would say, "What is this? This is Yiddish. It makes no sense. Try again." Those early Zionists had to strip a lot of Yiddish from the language to get it to work as a living language again. Even so, modern Hebrew still has to borrow from Yiddish, along with many other languages. I had one professor in Jerusalem (modern Israeli history), who argued that Hebrew is still a dead language simply because new words still come from other languages. That's a little extreme but he has a point. Last edited by CVShooter; 11-04-2019 at 9:18 AM.. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That was my point - Hebrew has been in continuous use in prayer and in Torah study for 4,000 years. There has never been a time this was not so. Was it used as a common language? As you mentioned Aramaic was for a time the common Middle Eastern language. Modern Hebrew is simply an updating for modern times the language my people has known since antiquity. The Torah is written in Hebrew. David, the sweet singer, wrote in Hebrew. The Prophets' writings are in Hebrew. And the Zionists updated the language to fit modern times. That is all. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
I appreciate the quick response. Your response prompted me to search a bit, and I have to admit, I was quite surprised at the number of various answers that are out there to this question. I'll make an attempt to answer your question:
Quote:
In this book-- I'm happy to provide a more specific citation if you are interested-- the author describes the transition that took place from Biblical Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism. From what I read, a school of rabbis had arisen after the return from the Babylonian Captivity. This rabbinic school was the Sopherim, and their intent was to put a fence, so to speak, around the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law, to keep people from violating Torah commandments. In other words, people might break the fence-- traditions created by the Sopherim-- but not the Torah commandments. As an example of their logic, he provides a command given to Moses (Exodus 23, et al.)-- namely, "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk"-- and explains the fences that were created to protect this commandment. The writer explains: Quote:
__________________
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I won't bother to debate whether or not the Torah was handed down by a divine being or not -- that's a question of faith. Either you take it or leave it. But it makes sense that IF it was handed down by G-d, that he would do so in a language that was actually spoken at that time. That, to me, doesn't make Hebrew special in any way other than it was what was the most expedient at the time. If Jews feel a cultural bond with the language, then, that is certainly legit. But it doesn't make the language magical any more than the type of ink used to write it or the mineral composition of the tablets given to Moses. The continued use of dead languages for transcription is incredibly important for the legal context of any religion. Languages change over time. As we know, the word "bad" could mean completely different things between depending on the context and time period (think 1955 vs 1985). Locking in the word choices narrows the scope of possible meanings. It's partly why we still don't update the US Constitution to modern language. Instead, we leave it alone and then revise our interpretations of that static document. Judaism is, of course, the poster child for legalistic traditions. If you want to believe that Hebrew is special or magical, go for it. But there are far simpler explanations that make more sense to me. Just as a side point, I certainly appreciated how grammatically simple it is. It made even Latin-based languages seem overly complicated. Christians spend a lot of time on Greek but I feel most of them would be better served learning Hebrew. It's much easier and closer to what Jesus knew and spoke anyway. Last edited by CVShooter; 11-04-2019 at 2:52 PM.. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
*At the time of the Exodus, G-d prepared to free the Jews and destroy the Egyptians. The angels proclaimed how can you destroy these and not those? These worship idols and those worship idols. The Jewish people were separated from the Egyptians by three things - throughout the enslavement they maintained their dress, their names, and their language. The importance of this is beyond this discussion. But the point was that Hebrew was the spoken language of the Jews at that time and continued at least until the first Temple's destruction. Even further back, in the Joseph saga, Hebrew played a pivotal role. The brothers spoke freely in front of Joseph because no gentile spoke Hebrew. They spoke freely knowing that the Egyptian viceroy could not understand them. **That the oral Torah - the Talmud - exists and must exist is logically clear. The Torah says you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Well that is the easiest law to obey. It obviously means more, but what exactly? If it means to separate milk and meat, what does that mean? Not cook with? Not eat with? Probably a better example is tefillin. The written Torah talks about Totafos but what does that mean? It does explain it. It is necessary to have an oral Torah to explain it. A better example would be an eye for an eye. In all the years we had a Sanhedrin there is not a single time an eye was taken out. If that is the case - why is it there? If the Jews knew that was not permitted why the commandment? The oral Torah is necessary to explicate the laws. Finally there is no such thing as a Messianic Jew. What you are talking about is a Christian. Christians who proselytize found they could convert few Jews. As far from the practice of Judaism some may have fallen, deep inside, a Jew knows he cannot convert. Thus was born "Messianic Judaism." It is Christianity designed to convert Jews but must be covered up and disguised as an open Christian is unlikely - at least until recently - to entice a Jew. I typed too much to address the other part... I'm tired... Will try to address that too if I remember. Nice conversation so far. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Hahahaha! Loved that one. Seriously - I'm not being sarcastic in any way here. That's the best kind of horse sense I've seen on this board in a long time. Cheers to you, my friend!
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
While we have the Ten Commandments in common, the underlying philosophy of Judaism and Christianity is not the same. I recall a conversation in this section of Calguns about the role of Satan. Not only did G-d create this existence but he continuously recreates it. That is to say, this existence is a series of instances of re-creation that gives the illusion of continuous objective reality. Everything that exists - not only your computer, your car, and your body - but even time and space - exists only from moment to moment at G-d’s will. There is no objective reality outside of G-d’s will. The idea that there could be any power that opposes G-d’s will is ludicrous in Judaism. The idea that there is an angel who has even the tiniest amount of power independent of G-d’s constant creation of the angel is ludicrous. Satan is G-d’s agent. Satan is His servant. His job is to tempt us to sin. When we fail and fall his job is to deliver the report to the Heavenly Court. At the right time his job is to prosecute us with the evidence he arranged. And at the right time he is the angel of death and he removes us from this world. He is more like a coach. He pushes and pushes and pushes. But our job is to succeed and to do G-d’s will. If we had no temptation, how could we receive a reward? If you have no coach telling you to work harder, how hard can you work? In the absence of darkness, of what use is light? We need temptation in order to resist it, to do G-d’s will. It is because of Satan, because of the yetzer hara, that our decisions can result in merit. Without Satan, without temptation, of what use is it to be good? Now it is said at the end of days, the Satan will be sacrificed (slaughtered). Why, if he is only doing his job? Because his job is to tempt us openly. He is to show us something forbidden and tempt us to take it. But he goes beyond that. He “colors” that which is forbidden to make it appear holy. If he put something I should not do in front of me and makes it look delicious, I should know it is forbidden and not take part. For example perhaps you just bought a delicious hamburger and you are hungry and you can’t wait to eat it. You see a homeless person who is obviously hungry. You know you can just eat later and he is hungry now. Satan is who tells you that you work hard, you earned your money, and the other person is in his situation because he made bad choices so you deserve the hamburger not him. The truth is, you have more than enough blessings, the homeless person has few, and a righteous person would give the hungry man his hamburger. But he tricks us into thinking what is forbidden is allowed or even holy and that is beyond his job description. For that he will be punished. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
No offense, but your post has little to do with the OP.
Too, you're entitled to your opinion regarding Messianic Jews, but to be direct, it comes across as dismissive, not respectful. I have no interest in being quarrelsome or offensive, but when I see these testimonies, they do not strike me as a bunch of people who have been deceived by some Christian conspiracy, as you paint it. I don't think you can view these testimonies and disagree.
__________________
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There's a reason why Paul was hand-slapped by James (made to go through purification rites & prove his Jewishness) and arrested shortly thereafter. Paul's Jesus was not Jesus of Nazareth. He was the Christ -- something totally different. A Hellenized Jesus figure. After all, Paul never met Jesus, unless you count his hallucination (I don't). The whole account of Paul meeting Jesus is straight out of Monte Python: "Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government." Can we all agree that megalomaniacs having hallucinations of people long since executed in public is no basis for divine authority? Please? Don't worry -- I'm not holding my breath for that one. I suspect that few Protestants on this board could agree with that request. Last edited by CVShooter; 11-13-2019 at 3:11 PM.. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
These are secular Jews (ie not Torah-observant) who never had an understanding of their heritage and so never knew what they abandoned. They are not BAD people - they are ignorant and to be pitied that there was a treasure chest under their bed but they never knew about it and so abandoned the house, never knowing its value. Very sad. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Every one of them was secular, not Torah-observant, and was ignorant of what Judaism is. They were exposed to a philosophy dedicated to conversion or prosyletization (?) especially of Jews and they succumbed. Again - no one with a Jewish education, no Torah observant Jew would fall for this because the Messiah of Christianity is foreign to Judaism. In Judaism, action is the thing, not belief. Is there judgment based on your thoughts? To some degree. But you are judged nearly completely on your actions. Our writings are clear as to what it looks like when the Moshiach comes. It is in I think Yeshiahu (Isaiah) - Man will bend his sword into plowshares. The lion will lie down with the lamb. King Moshiach will bring not only spiritual peace but world peace. I don’t read the news anymore but last I read we don’t have world peace. Observant Christians are frequently the best friend of the Jew. But the Christian worldview is very different than the Jewish worldview. By no means am I saying it is bad - but it is very different. And there is no real basis for the Christian worldview in the Torah. Ergo, any educated Jew, any Torah observant Jew, will find no resonance, not attraction in Christianity. Jews with no education sadly, Jews with little external attachment to Torah, sadly, will find themselves lost and adrift - more commonly in secularism but yes in Christianity as well. These are the examples you gave. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If we're just discussing Israelis, we also have to include Palestinian Muslims (plenty of sects there), Palestinian Christians (yes, there are many Palestinian Christians living in Israel), Mormons, Druze... The list is very long. All could be Israelis by nationality but not Jewish. Chasing a rabbit here -- It may surprise American Protestants to know that the Muslim leaders (one family) in Israel still hold the keys (or did in 1999) to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The church is divided into 6 sections for 6 of the main sects of Christianity (none of which are Protestant). The Muslims still hold the keys because of how much fighting the Christians have done among themselves over the centuries, especially around Easter Sunday. If tensions rise, the Muslim leadership intervenes & locks everybody out until folks can cool off. Yes, it's the Muslims who have helped to keep the peace among Christians for centuries! I say this in hopes that helps some folks get better perspective on whether Islam is somehow inherently violent. In my stay in Israel, I have never been given such kindness and hospitality by complete strangers than I did by Palestinian Muslims. Even the famed "Southern Hospitality" of our country pales in comparison. And here in the States, I stopped by a local mosque when I was in college to inquire about learning Arabic. Within an hour, the Imam introduced me to a kind man of very humble means, who invited me to his house, put a book in my hand and started me on the alphabet. When I asked if he charged, he said I could pay him whatever I could afford. I wish I could have stuck with it -- good folks. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
In the sense it is used here, catholic simply means "relating to the church universal." It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church, which-- to be direct-- many Protestants view with skepticism. Why is that included in the creed? Very briefly, because the fall of man caused alienation-- alienation from God, alienation from fellow humans, alienation from ourselves-- and even though modern Americans have a hard time with that, partly because our culture (we celebrate and value the individual), it is in there to claim the promise that saving faith makes it possible for believers to be reconciled to themselves, and to others, and to God. It is very deliberately included. It is a separate issue why so many carry the Name of God, as Prager puts it, sinfully. The video embedded below will clarify that reference. But this thread keeps drifting. The OP asked whether Ezekiel 37 pertains to the state of Israel that came into existence in 1948.
__________________
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On the "fall of man," I'd say the fall put us much closer to the God of Israel, with all his laws, empires, wars and jealousy, and much further away from our original and far more loving god -- Nature itself. But that is certainly a long deviation from the topic of this thread. Another day, perhaps. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly who are the people of Israel?
Like the rest trying to thrive and survive in this crazy world...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life. John 3:16 NRA,,, Lifer United Air Epic Fail Video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|