Redstone said:
If we define "Jewish" as the Apostolic faith does (before the confusions of Vatican II, which was quite muddled but I'm not writing against its vagueness) :
Then Christianity is inherently opposed to Judaism, and is also the older faith tradition. The term was very radically re-defined, 33 to 70 AD.
The reason is that the large umbrella term "Jewish" includes the Orthodox, with a clear conception of God, to the mysticism of Kabbalah, to the many atheist founders of the nation-state of Israel.
There are positive definitions of the term. BUT the STRONGEST and CLEAREST definition is negative: the Messianic claim of the Nazarene is wrong.
In 70…
After Titus smashed the Temple, so clearly predicted by Jesus, who has the Temple (body), the Pascal Lamb (Christ), the mark of faith (baptism), the priesthood, the Ark (Mary), the Sacrifice (Eucharist) ..
Supersessionism and the "Church Fathers" as the root of Nazi Theology
7,437 Views |
76 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by TheGreatEscape
Redstone said:
So, no narrow and positive definition as Christianity obviously has?
I'll respond better when time is better. As to the Torah point, was Golda Meir and her family Jewish, if that word anchors a definition of the term?
I already said the people of Israel. It's an ethnoreligion. It's not just tied to faith. And I provided a "narrow positive definition," but it's not creedal because Judaism is not a creedal faith. The closest to a creed is the shema, which is not particularly creedal.
Quote:
already said the people of Israel.
What does this mean specifically? The nation-state? A self-conception? (Again, it's unifying characteristic would have to be anti-Nazarene, otherwise, what?)
My answer: the people Israel are those that worship Logos before and after Incarnate, including Abraham and Moses.
Quote:
It's an ethnoreligion.
Definition please.
My answer: this is an empty nonsense word.
Quote:
It's not just tied to faith.
Obviously so. There have been a great many prominent Jewish atheists. There's even Jewish Buddhists. Are there Jewish Christians? There sort of are, but definitely not from the point of Judaism.
Now, what does this suggest?
Quote:
And I provided a "narrow positive definition,"
Where? The above undefined terms?
It is not technically an ethnoreligion, as being one ethnic group doesn't bind you one way or another. It was established by a family instead of an ethnicity or nation specifically. Abraham was called after the 70/72 nations fell and worshipped their guardian angels instead of God. God sent the nations scattering after their attempt to bring God down like He was an idol. There was no nation left for God to guide into being his own, so he made one out of a man's descendants. So being an Israelite meant marrying into the family. And as a statement of faith, it was the pruning of man's vine (circumcision). So all of the Israelites came from the surrounding ethno nation city states and were grafted in.Sapper Redux said:Redstone said:
So, no narrow and positive definition as Christianity obviously has?
I'll respond better when time is better. As to the Torah point, was Golda Meir and her family Jewish, if that word anchors a definition of the term?
I already said the people of Israel. It's an ethnoreligion. It's not just tied to faith. And I provided a "narrow positive definition," but it's not creedal because Judaism is not a creedal faith. The closest to a creed is the shema, which is not particularly creedal.
Any ethnocentricity that has arisen from Judaism is solely a function of intercultural marriage, not a requirement to be ethnically set apart by God. And that was the whole point of being an Israelite. Their actions and beliefs set them apart from the other nations. They were to be the priests of the world to show God to the nations.
A "Jew" is a person whose mother is a Jew (with the first Jewish mothers being the wives and concubines of Jacob aka Israel), or who has converted to Judaism.Redstone said:
Can you offer us a specific definition of the term Jewish?
It would have to include atheism, by the way, given that many hundreds of very strongly self-identified lacked belief, including some extremely famous ones (Check out Crews bio of Freud).
There's some gray areas regarding paternal descent (the Reform and Reconstructionist movements recognize it, but not Orthodox or Conservative), what constitutes a valid conversion, and the status of Jews who convert to other religions, but the above is the basic definition that any Jewish Rabbi will agree with.
Thanks for answering directly.
The person of a Jewish mother who converts to Christianity - say Israel Zolli, former chief rabbi of Rome - was …. a Christian. Not a Jew - although Zolli was once among the most prominent Jews in the world, from a long line of rabbis. And again, Oswald Rufeisen (what a case that was), or in our time, Brother Nathaniel …. Jewish by ancestry, yet "not a Jew."
So what's happening?
IMO your answer is a definition, but a weak one. The best definition, given such facts, is negative - Jesus is not the Messiah.
"…or who has converted to Judaism."
What is the content? What exactly does this entail? A baptized Christian who does so convert affirms what, explicitly?
The person of a Jewish mother who converts to Christianity - say Israel Zolli, former chief rabbi of Rome - was …. a Christian. Not a Jew - although Zolli was once among the most prominent Jews in the world, from a long line of rabbis. And again, Oswald Rufeisen (what a case that was), or in our time, Brother Nathaniel …. Jewish by ancestry, yet "not a Jew."
So what's happening?
IMO your answer is a definition, but a weak one. The best definition, given such facts, is negative - Jesus is not the Messiah.
"…or who has converted to Judaism."
What is the content? What exactly does this entail? A baptized Christian who does so convert affirms what, explicitly?
Related to a strong v. weak definition of this seemingly difficult term:
Will anyone argue that Jewish faith and practice, from Moses (IMO, he and Aaron were generals involved in the Bronze Age collapse) to Herod's re-build 1,000 years later ….
that such practices (manna from heaven, commandments and laws, the Ark of the Covenant, Temple worship, Paschal sacrifice) is in direct and close continuity to rabbinic discourse and practice that emerged from the smoldering ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, much of it in Babylon 300 years later?
Our body is the Temple, Mary is the Ark, Eucharist is the manna and the Sacrifice, Christ is the holy lamb of God, our Apostolic priests offer sacrifice, which is God Himself.
Will anyone argue that Jewish faith and practice, from Moses (IMO, he and Aaron were generals involved in the Bronze Age collapse) to Herod's re-build 1,000 years later ….
that such practices (manna from heaven, commandments and laws, the Ark of the Covenant, Temple worship, Paschal sacrifice) is in direct and close continuity to rabbinic discourse and practice that emerged from the smoldering ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, much of it in Babylon 300 years later?
Our body is the Temple, Mary is the Ark, Eucharist is the manna and the Sacrifice, Christ is the holy lamb of God, our Apostolic priests offer sacrifice, which is God Himself.
I'm not an expert in these kinds of questions, so I'll refer you to chabad.orgQuote:
The person of a Jewish mother who converts to Christianity - say Israel Zolli, former chief rabbi of Rome - was …. a Christian. Not a Jew - although Zolli was once among the most prominent Jews in the world, from a long line of rabbis. And again, Oswald Rufeisen (what a case that was), or in our time, Brother Nathaniel …. Jewish by ancestry, yet "not a Jew."
So what's happening?
Once a Jew, always a Jew. In the sense that if an apostate Jew ever decides to return to Judaism, he's formally treated as if he were a Jew all along, and doesn't have to go through a formal conversion process.
An interesting case is Csanad Szegedi, a Hungarian politician who was antisemitic -- until he learned that he was a Jew. After a period of denial, he decided to go be Jewish. Started attending a synagogue, and learned Hebrew, and how to keep kosher, Shabbat, etc.
Quote:
IMO your answer is a definition, but a weak one. The best definition, given such facts, is negative - Jesus is not the Messiah.
Why is this a better definition than, for example, "Muhammad was not a prophet"?
The big thing is acceptance of the 613 Commandments of the Torah in front of a beth din (Rabbinical court). The process of conversion requires a lot of study, and at minimum one year, since you have to learn how to observe all the holidays.Quote:
"…or who has converted to Judaism."
What is the content? What exactly does this entail? A baptized Christian who does so convert affirms what, explicitly?
And of course, male converts have to get circumcised.
It's important to note that, unlike Christianity or Islam, Jews traditionally don't actively seek converts. Because there's nothing in the Torah that says that everyone needs to be a Jew. Non-Jews are expected to adhere to a basic moral code, but are not held to Jewish-specific laws like Shabbat observance.
Basically, the attitude towards potential converts is "Are you sure you want all this extra responsibility? You don't have to be Jewish to connect to God. But if you're really determined to be a Jew, we'll consider it."
Redstone said:
Related to a strong v. weak definition of this seemingly difficult term:
Will anyone argue that Jewish faith and practice, from Moses (IMO, he and Aaron were generals involved in the Bronze Age collapse) to Herod's re-build 1,000 years later ….
that such practices (manna from heaven, commandments and laws, the Ark of the Covenant, Temple worship, Paschal sacrifice) is in direct and close continuity to rabbinic discourse and practice that emerged from the smoldering ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, much of it in Babylon 300 years later?
You keep minimizing Jewish history in interesting ways. There's a direct line from Second Temple Judaism and the Pharisees to rabbinic Judaism across the Jewish world. What we know of synagogue meetings in the Second Temple diaspora lines up with post-Temple synagogue services. The commandments, traditions, and festivals in the Tanakh are kept as well as possible in modern Judaism, often with the rules having less wiggle room due to the lack of a Temple and Sanhedrin to rule on religious matters. The discourse in multiple locations is kept from well before 300 and the composition of the Talmud is a group endeavor that emphasizes discussion and debate.
Our body is the Temple, Mary is the Ark, Eucharist is the manna and the Sacrifice, Christ is the holy lamb of God, our Apostolic priests offer sacrifice, which is God Himself.
None of this would make a lick of sense to a Second Temple Jew. You're trying to lay claim to being the "true" continuity of Judaism, yet the structure of your services, your priesthood, and absolutely your sacrifice, Temple, and ark would be anathema to Jewish teachings and traditions. Those are specifically Christian constructs in a new theology that borrows from Judaism but is unique from it.
Sapper Redux said:Redstone said:
Related to a strong v. weak definition of this seemingly difficult term:
Will anyone argue that Jewish faith and practice, from Moses (IMO, he and Aaron were generals involved in the Bronze Age collapse) to Herod's re-build 1,000 years later ….
that such practices (manna from heaven, commandments and laws, the Ark of the Covenant, Temple worship, Paschal sacrifice) is in direct and close continuity to rabbinic discourse and practice that emerged from the smoldering ruins of Jerusalem in 70 AD, much of it in Babylon 300 years later?
You keep minimizing Jewish history in interesting ways. There's a direct line from Second Temple Judaism and the Pharisees to rabbinic Judaism across the Jewish world. What we know of synagogue meetings in the Second Temple diaspora lines up with post-Temple synagogue services. The commandments, traditions, and festivals in the Tanakh are kept as well as possible in modern Judaism, often with the rules having less wiggle room due to the lack of a Temple and Sanhedrin to rule on religious matters. The discourse in multiple locations is kept from well before 300 and the composition of the Talmud is a group endeavor that emphasizes discussion and debate.
Our body is the Temple, Mary is the Ark, Eucharist is the manna and the Sacrifice, Christ is the holy lamb of God, our Apostolic priests offer sacrifice, which is God Himself.
None of this would make a lick of sense to a Second Temple Jew. You're trying to lay claim to being the "true" continuity of Judaism, yet the structure of your services, your priesthood, and absolutely your sacrifice, Temple, and ark would be anathema to Jewish teachings and traditions. Those are specifically Christian constructs in a new theology that borrows from Judaism but is unique from it.
So we're now arguing Jesus' disciples weren't Jews? Or perhaps Jesus himself wasn't?
The definition of the term changed forever at the foot of the cross. Christ or Barabbas means the Jews had a decision:
follow "the way," the fulfillment of the prophets, OR the 3 centuries long evolution of what became rabbinical Judaism.
After 33? After 70?
Saul became Paul.
Stephen, Mary, MANY Jews were Christians as this definition radically transformed into something else - JOINED by Pilate's wife, Cornelius the centurion, Longinus the centurion, and MANY others…..
such as a major Jewish sect, the Essenes, that converted en mass.
The events of 33 and 70 changed everything.
follow "the way," the fulfillment of the prophets, OR the 3 centuries long evolution of what became rabbinical Judaism.
After 33? After 70?
Saul became Paul.
Stephen, Mary, MANY Jews were Christians as this definition radically transformed into something else - JOINED by Pilate's wife, Cornelius the centurion, Longinus the centurion, and MANY others…..
such as a major Jewish sect, the Essenes, that converted en mass.
The events of 33 and 70 changed everything.
The theology espoused is not evident from anything written in the first century and is either not supported by scholarship on early Christianity or is heavily debated, or may be an example
of competing beliefs. And while they drew from Jewish traditions, they clearly took it in ways that were not in the mainstream and it evolved beyond that.
of competing beliefs. And while they drew from Jewish traditions, they clearly took it in ways that were not in the mainstream and it evolved beyond that.
Agree. Being raised in the Baptist church, the importance of 70AD was completely neglected.
Once I read up on it, a lot of Scripture became much clearer. A lot of prophetic Scripture is talking about 70AD and not the end times.
Once I read up on it, a lot of Scripture became much clearer. A lot of prophetic Scripture is talking about 70AD and not the end times.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
See look Sapper, you were so close. I just had to make a few minor corrections to show just how much of a mirror these arguments are.Sapper Redux said:Redstone said:
You keep minimizingJewish(early christian) history in interesting ways. There's a direct line from Second Temple Judaismand the Phariseestorabbinic Judaism across the Jewish world(To the Jewish Messiah). What we know ofsynagogue(the earliest church services) meetings in the Second Temple diaspora lines up with post-Temple synagogue services. The commandments, traditions, and festivalsin the Tanakhare kept as well as possible inmodern Judaism, (The one holy, catholic and apostolic church) often with the rules having less wiggle room (due to the expansion of responsibility and duty through Christ's teachings on love, forgiveness, sacrifice, and money)lack of a Temple and Sanhedrin to rule on religious matters.The discourse in multiple locations is kept from well before 300 and the composition of theTalmud(Church fathers writing) is a group endeavor that emphasizes discussion and debate.
[Our body is the Temple, Mary is the Ark, Eucharist is the manna and the Sacrifice, Christ is the holy lamb of God, our Apostolic priests offer sacrifice, which is God Himself.]
None of this would make a lick of sense to aSecond Temple Jew.(To a modern secular atheist). You're trying to lay claim to being the "true" continuity of Judaism, yet the structure of your services, your priesthood, and absolutely your sacrifice, Temple, and ark would be anathema to (modern) Jewish teachings and traditions. Those are specifically Christian constructs in a new theology that borrows from Judaism but is unique from it.
Again, Christianity is just the messianic fulfillment of the Israelites. It is one giant fork in the road, that solidified two religions against one another. Both able to claim the ages before, and both unable to participate like in the prior ages.
Modern Jewish expression is without a Messiah, without a temple, and well beyond the 70*7 years told to Daniel by God of when the Messiah was coming. To think that modern Judaism is just this perfect continuation of Israelite living is just a farce.
This is usually where you start calling everyone anti-semitic. But since we've already addressed that on the first post, you might just have to actually do some study on who the Messiah was prophesied to be, how he was fulfilled in Jesus, and come back with points about how Jesus was right or wrong.
Divine Liturgy is at 10. Pick a sunday and come and see.
As she related many times, Golda Meir (and her family) did not believe in God - but they believed in the "Jewish people," some of whom thought about God.
This is the primary division of all the world:
the foot of the Cross
Christ or Barabbas?
This is the primary division of all the world:
the foot of the Cross
Christ or Barabbas?
Derm, every November/December there is a small group of orthodox christian families that come to service in Houston from Beaumont. I usually interact with them in the kids cry room here in Houston. Their home church is St. Michael's Orthodox Church right off of I-10 and North St. I can reach out to them if you're interested in trying out an orthodox church in Beaumont.dermdoc said:
Agree. Being raised in the Baptist church, the importance of 70AD was completely neglected.
Once I read up on it, a lot of Scripture became much clearer. A lot of prophetic Scripture is talking about 70AD and not the end times.
I think you'd immediately love the fullness of the faith. It'll take a few months getting used to all the icons, kissing icons, lighting candles, and standing during service, but once you've asked all your questions about it, you wouldn't think about not doing those things.
The 490 years were until the destruction of the Second Temple.one MEEN Ag said:
Modern Jewish expression is without a Messiah, without a temple, and well beyond the 70*7 years told to Daniel by God of when the Messiah was coming.
That rabbi's chief argument against Daniel's prophecy not being about the introduction of the Messiah on the scene is that it was off by 24.5 years. And appealing to that level of precision with years in prophecy is used no where else in the bible, nor really a thing within prophecy. Just like a millennium is not exactly 1000 years in prophecy. Its an age.
There is a reason Gamaliel says in reference to Jesus, 'If he is like all the others who claim to be the Messiah he will either die in the desert or we cannot stop Him.'
Second temple Judaisms recognized that the time of Jesus was the time of the Messiah. There were plenty of people claiming to be the Messiah. This rabbi is playing mental gymnastics saying that Daniel can't be prophesying both about the end of the temple age as well as the beginning of the messianic age. Ages hand off to one another. God doesn't let the temple fall unless he wills it. If the temple falls, what did Jews who rejected Jesus think the next age is going to be?
You usually get two answers:
A) That they're ready to kickoff the messianic age, but its just not Jesus. Any day now, Lord. And this begs the question why is there this 2000 year period where the messianic age hasn't even begun. The destruction of the first temple followed an exile that had a time length that corresponded to every missed Sabbath/Jubilee year. You don't see anything like that on the other side of the destruction of the second temple.
B) That the third temple needs to be be built before the messianic age can start. And this begs the question why is God repeating the second temple all over again? And in scripture it clearly doesn't support the idea of 'lets just keep rebuilding temples again where gonna get it right this time!' After the exile, its clearly the time of the messiah, and the time of the Holy Spirit to soften hearts. And this overlooks all the times the temple has been earnestly tried to be rebuilt only for calamity/natural/supernatural disasters to strike. (I wonder if there's anything we can glean from this.)
There is a reason Gamaliel says in reference to Jesus, 'If he is like all the others who claim to be the Messiah he will either die in the desert or we cannot stop Him.'
Second temple Judaisms recognized that the time of Jesus was the time of the Messiah. There were plenty of people claiming to be the Messiah. This rabbi is playing mental gymnastics saying that Daniel can't be prophesying both about the end of the temple age as well as the beginning of the messianic age. Ages hand off to one another. God doesn't let the temple fall unless he wills it. If the temple falls, what did Jews who rejected Jesus think the next age is going to be?
You usually get two answers:
A) That they're ready to kickoff the messianic age, but its just not Jesus. Any day now, Lord. And this begs the question why is there this 2000 year period where the messianic age hasn't even begun. The destruction of the first temple followed an exile that had a time length that corresponded to every missed Sabbath/Jubilee year. You don't see anything like that on the other side of the destruction of the second temple.
B) That the third temple needs to be be built before the messianic age can start. And this begs the question why is God repeating the second temple all over again? And in scripture it clearly doesn't support the idea of 'lets just keep rebuilding temples again where gonna get it right this time!' After the exile, its clearly the time of the messiah, and the time of the Holy Spirit to soften hearts. And this overlooks all the times the temple has been earnestly tried to be rebuilt only for calamity/natural/supernatural disasters to strike. (I wonder if there's anything we can glean from this.)
Sapper Redux said:
The theology espoused is not evident from anything written in the first century and is either not supported by scholarship on early Christianity or is heavily debated, or may be an example
of competing beliefs. And while they drew from Jewish traditions, they clearly took it in ways that were not in the mainstream and it evolved beyond that.
So what? There were always multiple Judaisms. One dunking on another and finding fulfillment doesn't mean all that you've posted regarding 'scholarship' is meaningful or accurate beyond arbitrary distinction. The theology is evident (despite your claims) much the way contemporary Judaism's is - practice and oral communication until being written down and handed down as tradition. The Bible isn't a how-to manual outlining all Christian practice and wasn't supposed to be. For instance we know the Decalogue was said in early Christian services but it's not much discussed.
Well acquainted with St. Michael's and have met the priest at one of our scholar in residence programs at my home church, Calder Baptist. Unlike most of the Baptist churches in town, we are very ecumenical.one MEEN Ag said:Derm, every November/December there is a small group of orthodox christian families that come to service in Houston from Beaumont. I usually interact with them in the kids cry room here in Houston. Their home church is St. Michael's Orthodox Church right off of I-10 and North St. I can reach out to them if you're interested in trying out an orthodox church in Beaumont.dermdoc said:
Agree. Being raised in the Baptist church, the importance of 70AD was completely neglected.
Once I read up on it, a lot of Scripture became much clearer. A lot of prophetic Scripture is talking about 70AD and not the end times.
I think you'd immediately love the fullness of the faith. It'll take a few months getting used to all the icons, kissing icons, lighting candles, and standing during service, but once you've asked all your questions about it, you wouldn't think about not doing those things.
I feel like I am where I am supposed to be at Brazos Fellowship in College Station. God has made that apparent to me through people and a Bible study that He put in my path.
And my wife would never go to an Orthodox Church.
Thanks for the invite though.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I forgot you were in College Station now. Brazos Fellowship was good to me when I was in school. I helped out with the middle school program for a bit. You're in luck, St Silouan Orthodox Church is in College Station and a great plant that has ties to the church I go to in Houston.
And my wife swore off Orthodoxy for all its 'weirdness' at first. She loves it now. Its really a common theme among orthodox church goers. Its the only church I've seen where men drag their wives to go to at first. Quite an inversion of the modern church dynamic.
My wife loved this book/audiobook and it helped explain a lot. One thing I quickly learned when asking questions about why the orthodox church does "X" is that there is usually a very good, deeply Christian reason. When I put down the mental blade of 'things that can be cut and I still go to heaven' that was when the flourishing really started to happen.
https://www.audible.com/pd/Welcome-to-the-Orthodox-Church-Audiobook/B01B6NLUQC
And my wife swore off Orthodoxy for all its 'weirdness' at first. She loves it now. Its really a common theme among orthodox church goers. Its the only church I've seen where men drag their wives to go to at first. Quite an inversion of the modern church dynamic.
My wife loved this book/audiobook and it helped explain a lot. One thing I quickly learned when asking questions about why the orthodox church does "X" is that there is usually a very good, deeply Christian reason. When I put down the mental blade of 'things that can be cut and I still go to heaven' that was when the flourishing really started to happen.
https://www.audible.com/pd/Welcome-to-the-Orthodox-Church-Audiobook/B01B6NLUQC
dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.codker92 said:dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe that when Jesus comes back, the Jewish people will accept Him as their Messiah.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:I believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.codker92 said:dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe that when Jesus comes back, the Jewish people will accept Him as their Messiah.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: none in the Old Testament knew the Angel the Lord was Jesus. Yet those in the Old Testament still achieved salvation. The point is this. Knowing Jesus is not necessary for salvation. Fun fact, All Israel included gentiles. The whole idea that gentiles were not included until Jesus arrived is a fallacy.
Actually, since Jesus is God they did know him in the OT.codker92 said:dermdoc said:I believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.codker92 said:dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe that when Jesus comes back, the Jewish people will accept Him as their Messiah.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: none in the Old Testament knew the Angel the Lord was Jesus. Yet those in the Old Testament still achieved salvation. The point is this. Knowing Jesus is not necessary for salvation. Fun fact, All Israel included gentiles. The whole idea that gentiles were not included until Jesus arrived is a fallacy.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Logos (Word, Reason, Order - a divine spirit that can incarnate) exists before and after the Incarnation.
Moses, Abraham, Joseph, the prophets - and John the Baptist - were Trinitarians, because they sought and worshipped the true God.
We see this in Catholic mysticism (ie Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich) but most importantly in the Scriptures, especially Psalms and Isaiah. When Jesus taught from these writings, he was revealing His divine person.
For the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox), the liturgy and ritual and teaching and holy Sacrifice (the Mass) not just connected to the Torah: it is fulfilled.
Moses, Abraham, Joseph, the prophets - and John the Baptist - were Trinitarians, because they sought and worshipped the true God.
We see this in Catholic mysticism (ie Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich) but most importantly in the Scriptures, especially Psalms and Isaiah. When Jesus taught from these writings, he was revealing His divine person.
For the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox), the liturgy and ritual and teaching and holy Sacrifice (the Mass) not just connected to the Torah: it is fulfilled.
Kind of, but not exactly. Your own scripture says:dermdoc said:Actually, since Jesus is God they did know him in the OT.codker92 said:dermdoc said:I believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.codker92 said:dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe that when Jesus comes back, the Jewish people will accept Him as their Messiah.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: none in the Old Testament knew the Angel the Lord was Jesus. Yet those in the Old Testament still achieved salvation. The point is this. Knowing Jesus is not necessary for salvation. Fun fact, All Israel included gentiles. The whole idea that gentiles were not included until Jesus arrived is a fallacy.
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. Hebrews 1:1-4.
The Angel of the Lord, who you call Jesus, spoke to people in the Old Testament.
Genesis 16: The Angel of the Lord speaks to Hagar in the wilderness after she flees from Sarai.
Genesis 22: The Angel of the Lord calls out to Abraham to stop him from sacrificing Isaac and speaks to him about the blessings God will give him due to his faithfulness.
Exodus 3: The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the flames of the burning bush at Mount Horeb and speaks to him about the mission to rescue the Israelites from Egypt.
Judges 6: The Angel of the Lord comes to Gideon and speaks to him, commissioning him to save Israel from the Midianites.
Judges 13: The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and his wife and speaks to them about the birth and the Nazirite vow of their son, who will become Samson.
Seems like the book of Hebrews is just down playing the life saving covenant and direct revelation people in the OT enjoyed.
a lot of bad theology was developed over the last two thousand years because of what took place in 70 AD. With no Israel state or group of self governing Jews anywhere it was easy to conclude by tbe church has replaced them. Which isn't accurate but you can see the logic of the time.
It's a very complex issue but you can see it clearly in two examples in scripture.
Number one: Jacob and his two wives. Jacob labored for Rachel who he loved but received Leah instead. Being tbe older. He then labored again and was given Rachel. But Rachel was fruitless until after his 7 years of labor for her was complete.
We see the gentiles or the "nations" preexisting Israel. Jesus labors for Israel/Rachel working signs and miracles. They reject Jesus and He instead receives Leah/gentiles. The church/Leah bears fruit and makes Rachel/Jews jealous until they cry out to God. And He will remember her and make her fruitful. Then you have the union of the two with their offspring as a new nation.
"through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Revelation 22:2 ESV
We see this union here. The Tree of life. Both its 12 seasonal fruits (12 tribes) and leaves for the healing of the nations.
The second example is the parable of the prodigal son. We see two sons of the father. Church/Jew. One lives according to His fathers will and within His house. The other rejects Him, takes his inheritance(the law) and tries to live on his own accord. This leads to poverty/destruction but before his death he realizes his error and returns to his fathers house. At which point the father greets him puts on his robe and ring and throws a feasts for the return of his son. What does he say? My son who was DEAD is ALIVE now. We being the church must guard ourselves from having the reaction to the Jews as the other son.
There are many many more but two quick ones here.
It's a very complex issue but you can see it clearly in two examples in scripture.
Number one: Jacob and his two wives. Jacob labored for Rachel who he loved but received Leah instead. Being tbe older. He then labored again and was given Rachel. But Rachel was fruitless until after his 7 years of labor for her was complete.
We see the gentiles or the "nations" preexisting Israel. Jesus labors for Israel/Rachel working signs and miracles. They reject Jesus and He instead receives Leah/gentiles. The church/Leah bears fruit and makes Rachel/Jews jealous until they cry out to God. And He will remember her and make her fruitful. Then you have the union of the two with their offspring as a new nation.
"through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Revelation 22:2 ESV
We see this union here. The Tree of life. Both its 12 seasonal fruits (12 tribes) and leaves for the healing of the nations.
The second example is the parable of the prodigal son. We see two sons of the father. Church/Jew. One lives according to His fathers will and within His house. The other rejects Him, takes his inheritance(the law) and tries to live on his own accord. This leads to poverty/destruction but before his death he realizes his error and returns to his fathers house. At which point the father greets him puts on his robe and ring and throws a feasts for the return of his son. What does he say? My son who was DEAD is ALIVE now. We being the church must guard ourselves from having the reaction to the Jews as the other son.
There are many many more but two quick ones here.
For your theory to have credibility you would need to show that members of the Nazi party attaching their beliefs to Justin Martyr or Apostle Paul,. Some famous Hitler speech that quotes Justin Martyr, then you might have a point depending on context.
Let's understand why you did not take a path of empirical evidence
You have been educated in America and were taught a country who's founders used scripture were not Christian or influenced by it. If that is true you then infer the opposite that a political party that never quoted the scriptures or the church fathers was actually influenced by it.
Self-generated truth, conspiratorial condemnation, and the largely held belief of hang em now, hold a trail later, is part of your inverted world view, that I hope you see is ridiculous.
America owes you an apology for giving a backward education but please understand your theories are not helping you become wise.
Let's understand why you did not take a path of empirical evidence
You have been educated in America and were taught a country who's founders used scripture were not Christian or influenced by it. If that is true you then infer the opposite that a political party that never quoted the scriptures or the church fathers was actually influenced by it.
Self-generated truth, conspiratorial condemnation, and the largely held belief of hang em now, hold a trail later, is part of your inverted world view, that I hope you see is ridiculous.
America owes you an apology for giving a backward education but please understand your theories are not helping you become wise.
Like most Reformed Christians…I am a soft supersessionist. That's also the historic position. I believe the Jewish brothers and sisters still have the blessings of the covenant of Hagar.
I also believe that the promise of a great revival or gathering of Jews will occur per Romans 11 (as Dermdoc mentioned).
The Reformers went to learn Hebrew from Jewish Rabbis and Scribes. The Puritan hope was for Jews and the whole world to be Christian and saved. Jews experienced much more freedom in America, partly because of the historic Reformed position towards Jews as being the major part of our foundation as Christians. That's obviously changed in recent history (yes…there were Nazi U.S. Citizens in the world war 2 era). But this was a minority of how the rest of the population felt towards Jewish brothers and sisters.
(There was some country club exclusions and other occurrences in America.) But for the most part…much, much, better for Jews living in America than in Europe, which has a long history of antisemitism. The British, because of the English Reformation traveling there from Geneva and the Puritan hope, were much more inclusive of Jews than some of the other European countries.
Also, Galatians and Romans lay out that Jews are actually not of circumcision but now of faith. The church is the new Israel because Jews who do not accept the Messiah are cut off from the vine (see Romans 11) and later will be grafted back into the vine. But we should always respect the vine and our roots.
Also, I don't see two people of God in the Bible. Are the Christians saved by grace and the Jews by the law? That's ridiculous and everything against Romans chapter 1 (Gentiles or non-Jews are bad), chapter 2 (Jews are bad), and Romans chapter 3 (everyone is bad). Romans 3 verse 10…
10 As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
After 70-73 AD when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred , as Jesus prophesied, Jews took on the Talmud as their New Testament. There are some good things in the Talmud and some bad things. But like Christians interpret the Old Testament through the lenses of the New Testament, the Jews interpret the Torah (law and prophetsOld Testament) through the lenses of the Talmud. They had no temple and sacrifices. So they reinterpreted things (the Talmud).
The Jewish brothers and sisters are an extraordinary driven culture. It's even pushed upon them from their own mothers to be the best in whatever field Jews enter. Whether it's being a doctor, attorney, film maker, writer, pornographer and casino owner (against the best interest of their mothers), and banker (see the Rothschilds), etc., the Jews or Hebrew people have a huge impact on society and culture. Hebrews do this when they are only around 1 percent of the world population. I believe they make up two percent of the U.S. population.
Today, 80% of Jews are Democrats. And we can't forget about the Jews basically leading the Bolshevik Revolution in the Red Scare in Russia.
People from Christian families have also backslidden badly.
So this isn't a slight against the Jews. Having more money than the need for God is always a battle.
I also believe that the promise of a great revival or gathering of Jews will occur per Romans 11 (as Dermdoc mentioned).
The Reformers went to learn Hebrew from Jewish Rabbis and Scribes. The Puritan hope was for Jews and the whole world to be Christian and saved. Jews experienced much more freedom in America, partly because of the historic Reformed position towards Jews as being the major part of our foundation as Christians. That's obviously changed in recent history (yes…there were Nazi U.S. Citizens in the world war 2 era). But this was a minority of how the rest of the population felt towards Jewish brothers and sisters.
(There was some country club exclusions and other occurrences in America.) But for the most part…much, much, better for Jews living in America than in Europe, which has a long history of antisemitism. The British, because of the English Reformation traveling there from Geneva and the Puritan hope, were much more inclusive of Jews than some of the other European countries.
Also, Galatians and Romans lay out that Jews are actually not of circumcision but now of faith. The church is the new Israel because Jews who do not accept the Messiah are cut off from the vine (see Romans 11) and later will be grafted back into the vine. But we should always respect the vine and our roots.
Also, I don't see two people of God in the Bible. Are the Christians saved by grace and the Jews by the law? That's ridiculous and everything against Romans chapter 1 (Gentiles or non-Jews are bad), chapter 2 (Jews are bad), and Romans chapter 3 (everyone is bad). Romans 3 verse 10…
10 As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
After 70-73 AD when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred , as Jesus prophesied, Jews took on the Talmud as their New Testament. There are some good things in the Talmud and some bad things. But like Christians interpret the Old Testament through the lenses of the New Testament, the Jews interpret the Torah (law and prophetsOld Testament) through the lenses of the Talmud. They had no temple and sacrifices. So they reinterpreted things (the Talmud).
The Jewish brothers and sisters are an extraordinary driven culture. It's even pushed upon them from their own mothers to be the best in whatever field Jews enter. Whether it's being a doctor, attorney, film maker, writer, pornographer and casino owner (against the best interest of their mothers), and banker (see the Rothschilds), etc., the Jews or Hebrew people have a huge impact on society and culture. Hebrews do this when they are only around 1 percent of the world population. I believe they make up two percent of the U.S. population.
Today, 80% of Jews are Democrats. And we can't forget about the Jews basically leading the Bolshevik Revolution in the Red Scare in Russia.
People from Christian families have also backslidden badly.
So this isn't a slight against the Jews. Having more money than the need for God is always a battle.
So you see…not even all of the circumcision were of Abrahams genetics or seed…
Genesis 17:12-13 (ESV)
"12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:12-13 (ESV)
"12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant."
codker92 said:Kind of, but not exactly. Your own scripture says:dermdoc said:Actually, since Jesus is God they did know him in the OT.codker92 said:dermdoc said:I believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.codker92 said:dermdoc said:
I agree with everything you posted except when you said my personal theology is anti semitic. You post a bunch of Christian theologians views and project that on to me and I assume all Christians. That is not correct in my opinion.
And I do not see present day theologians espousing the views of Luther and the others you mentioned.
I personally believe in the literal interpretation of Roman's 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. God does not forget His chosen people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=NIV
I have you quoted as saying that Scripture says that Jesus is the only way to God. If that is true, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 48:15-16. In that passage Jacob blesses Joseph and mentions that the Angel of the Lord redeemed him (Jacob) from all evil. Evil includes sin. Jacob did not know Christ, but he did know the Angel of the Lord. Seems to me that knowing Jesus is not required.
How do you interpret "all Israel"?
I believe that when Jesus comes back, the Jewish people will accept Him as their Messiah.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: none in the Old Testament knew the Angel the Lord was Jesus. Yet those in the Old Testament still achieved salvation. The point is this. Knowing Jesus is not necessary for salvation. Fun fact, All Israel included gentiles. The whole idea that gentiles were not included until Jesus arrived is a fallacy.
1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. Hebrews 1:1-4.
The Angel of the Lord, who you call Jesus, spoke to people in the Old Testament.
Genesis 16: The Angel of the Lord speaks to Hagar in the wilderness after she flees from Sarai.
Genesis 22: The Angel of the Lord calls out to Abraham to stop him from sacrificing Isaac and speaks to him about the blessings God will give him due to his faithfulness.
Exodus 3: The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the flames of the burning bush at Mount Horeb and speaks to him about the mission to rescue the Israelites from Egypt.
Judges 6: The Angel of the Lord comes to Gideon and speaks to him, commissioning him to save Israel from the Midianites.
Judges 13: The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and his wife and speaks to them about the birth and the Nazirite vow of their son, who will become Samson.
Seems like the book of Hebrews is just down playing the life saving covenant and direct revelation people in the OT enjoyed.
Jews in the Old Testament were saved by grace through faith; under that dispensation (for lack of a better word).
Thaddeus73 said:
Luther and the Nazis
Luther used a lot of hyperbolic speech. He's known for it.
He was trying to get the Church out of rituals of the law because the church was envious of the Jewish Religion and mirrored them in many ways and was heading that direction more and more. Luther wanted the church to not be like the Judaizers that the Apostle Paul was dealing with in his letter to the Galatians.
As the Apostle Paul taught, Christians should be provoking the Jews into jealousy by obedience to the free grace of the Gospel. But Luther saw the church was jealous of the Jews, instead.
Was Luther wrong in some of his polemics and what he said? Of course he was. But you have to understand what he was responding to…
Luther also caused a peasant revolt because of his writings, which he lamented ever happened. The masses didn't understand the ivory tower methods of the day.
Anyone who has studied classical rhetoric can tell you that character assassination (vituperative rhetorical exercise) is perfectly acceptable. And in the days of Luther, it was like pro-wrestlers talking in hyperbole to try to make a point.
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
17h ago
5.1k
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist
7:22
21h ago
7.9k
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell