Do Jews go to heaven?

[blike]

Hey guys! I'm new here, so I'm not sure exactly where everything goes. I just have a quick question... Do Jews go to heaven?? The other night I was reading Romans 11 and I stumbled across these verses:

Rom 11:25 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.

Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Any thoughts?

[GrayPilgrim]

Welcome Blike! I moved the thread here as it seemed more of a text based question. If you would prefer there not to be debate, and just the question asked then you can say so and as thread originator people should respect that request. Once again, welcome! :yipee: :yipee:

[blike]

hey! thanks for the direction. I'd rather people not debate with each other, I'd just like to see what people think of it.

[GrayPilgrim]

Sounds good. Well here's my take. I think one needs to look at the coventants, i.e. the particular covenants of Scripture and how they relate to one another (I am going to argue against what is commonly called "Coveantn Theology" which is a completely different duck than what I am discussing). Thus we need to start with the first explicit covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 15 and 17. Notice that the prerequisite for that was faith the text says that Abram believed in God and it was accredited to him as righteousness. Thus Abraham was justified by his faith, read trust, in God to do what he said he would do.

Then we need to look at the Mosaic Covenant. A common misunderstanding is that it teaches that one can work their way to God. However, upon what is the Mosiac Covenenant predicated? Faith as seen in the Abrahamic Covenant. Notice if you will that in the Covenant Blessings and Curses of Leviticus 26 reference is explicitly made to the Abrahamic Covenant. Moreover, as Wenham cogently argues in his commentary one is completely misreading Leviticus if one does not see the grace of God in it. What is God doing? He is providing a way for sinful humans to enter into his presence and thus to breach the gap between Himself and sinful humans. Not exactly the acts of a despotic narcisist who is make immpossible hurdels for people.

[I'll skip the Davidic, at thist ime, as it serves a seperate role than that under discussion, though it does bear on it as Jesus is the concumation of that covenant]

Now unfortunately the New Covenant is too often divorced from this Canonical Context and thus "faith in Christ " is not seen as actually relating to Abraham's faith as seen in Genesis 15 and 17 other than illustrative. However, this cuts Christian salvation free of its canonical anchor.

Thus we see that salvation has always been predicated on faith thus, I would say that anyone Jew or Gentile who continues in unbelief towards God will not be saved, read delviered from the curse placed upon Adam and Eve in the Garden. [Hey I just noticed how both Adam and Jesus were tested in a Garden, and Jesus passed the test whereas Adam failed]. So I woudl say that someone descended from Abraham who fails to put their trust in the finished work of Christ is accursed, just as any Gentile who also fails to put their trust in Christ.

GP

[mossrose]

I absolutely agree with Grey Pilgrim. It is wonderful to talk to a Jew who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah. There are many Jews who have come to the Lord in faith, and I feel that there is something very special to God about a Messianic Jew. Not that they are better than anyone else who is a believer, but that their covenant with God is completely fulfilled in Jesus, and they have finally recognized that and have accepted Him.

If you think about it, the majority of the authors of the New Testament were Jewish believers, the only exceptions being the books of Luke and Acts, both written by Dr. Luke, a Gentile, and possibly Hebrews. No one is sure who that author is. And, many, many of the epistles were expressly written for the benefit of Jewish believers.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thus we see that salvation has always been predicated on faith thus, I would say that anyone Jew or Gentile who continues in unbelief towards God will not be saved, read delviered from the curse placed upon Adam and Eve in the Garden. [Hey I just noticed how both Adam and Jesus were tested in a Garden, and Jesus passed the test whereas Adam failed]. So I woudl say that someone descended from Abraham who fails to put their trust in the finished work of Christ is accursed, just as any Gentile who also fails to put their trust in Christ.



Exactly! I think the question had an improper unspoken assumption. The question is simply, does someone who rejects Christ go to heaven, be they Jew or Italian or Canadian. The answer is no.

[mossrose]

The question is simply, does someone who rejects Christ go to heaven, be they Jew or Italian or Canadian. The answer is no.

But, but, I thought ALL Canadians went to heaven, even the Italian ones!!

(Nobody but me, a Canadian, can pick on another Canadian) :fight:

[Dee Dee Warren]

haha!!! when I wrote that I did not realize you were Canadian! How bout some pop eh?

[mossrose]

haha!!! when I wrote that I did not realize you were Canadian! How bout some pop eh?

What, eh? You haven't been following the "same-sex marriage" thread, eh? I am constantly :bonk: my own country in that one, eh?

P.S. eh? We don't all go around adding eh? to the end of every sentence like you Yanks think we do, eh?

:rofl:

P.P.S. If you knew how many "discussions" my husband and I have had over the years on the pronunciation of certain words, and "pop" and "soda", etc., you would not have brought up such a sore subject. lolol

He was born in Boston, and I am from Alberta, so we have the occasional moment.......


(sorry to have gotten off the topic...)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Eh?

[mossrose]

:rofl:

[fiddlerzvi]

It is wonderful to talk to a Jew who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

Uh -- these people are no longer Jewish, except in the status of apostates.

[fiddlerzvi]

I think one needs to look at the coventants, i.e. the particular covenants of Scripture and how they relate to one another ...Thus we need to start with the first explicit covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 15 and 17. Notice that the prerequisite for that was faith the text says that Abram believed in God and it was accredited to him as righteousness. Thus Abraham was justified by his faith, read trust, in God to do what he said he would do.
Yet Genesis specificly conditions the covenant on an action -- circumcision. Genesis Chapter 17-10 This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised.


Then we need to look at the Mosaic Covenant.Deuteronomy Chapter 4-1 And now, O Israel, hearken to the statutes and to the judgments which I teach you to do, in order that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord, God of your forefathers, is giving you.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I AM trying to show you that there are more interpretations to the text than perhaps you realize. Now, if you want to start comparing different verses, I suppose we should move this to a different board since this is supposed to be just for stating of views, not debating.

[mossrose]

Uh -- these people are no longer Jewish, except in the status of apostates.

They may very well be Jewish by nationality.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166525#post166525)
fiddlerzvi:

Uh -- these people are no longer Jewish, except in the status of apostates.

And יהוה has appointed you שפט to decide who is and who is not Jewish, נו?

[GrayPilgrim]

The problem is definition as either Greenberg or Weinfeld (I can't remember which one) said in a recent essay put out by leading Jewish scholars concerning the question "Who is a Jew?", modern Judaism, especially American Judaism, had redfined Judaism to mean anyone whose mother was Jewish who is not a Christian. They maybe an athiest, an agnostic, a Zoroastrian, a Budhist, Hindu or a Sikh and still be a Jew, but they cannot be Christian. It is the old defition game. Needless to say this essay was not well recevied by the editors of the volume.

GP

[blike]

08-02-2003 @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165349#post165349)
Dee Dee Warren:

Exactly! I think the question had an improper unspoken assumption. The question is simply, does someone who rejects Christ go to heaven, be they Jew or Italian or Canadian. The answer is no.

No, I understand that.

The verse that caught my attention is Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. "

I understood that as far as Jesus and the Gospel, they (Jews) are enemies because they do not accept Christ. However, concerning the election, they are beloved because of their forfathers.

[mossrose]

I understood that as far as Jesus and the Gospel, they (Jews) are enemies because they do not accept Christ. However, concerning the election, they are beloved because of their forfathers.

And, at the time the epistles were written, the majority of Jews were not believers in Christ. But, having said that, Paul himself was a Jew, in fact every author of the New Testament was a Jew, (as well as most of the followers of Christ that were in Jerusalem and around the known world) with the exception of Luke and possibly the author of Hebrews, who is an unknown. There are many, many Jews who have become believers in Jesus Christ, but, there are also many more who technically are enemies of the Gospel because they reject Jesus as their Messiah.

There is always a remnant of any race that will turn to the Lord. Even the Ninevites turned to God after Jonah finally got there and told them what they needed to do. So, the Gospel is not exclusive to Gentiles.

[fiddlerzvi]

08-05-2003 @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167110#post167110)
GrayPilgrim:

The problem is definition as either Greenberg or Weinfeld (I can't remember which one) said in a recent essay put out by leading Jewish scholars concerning the question "Who is a Jew?", modern Judaism, especially American Judaism, had redfined Judaism to mean anyone whose mother was Jewish who is not a Christian. They maybe an athiest, an agnostic, a Zoroastrian, a Budhist, Hindu or a Sikh and still be a Jew, but they cannot be Christian. It is the old defition game. Needless to say this essay was not well recevied by the editors of the volume.GP

The question of who is or is not a Jew is one of the favorites for the "two Jews, three answers" catagory, but I gotta say I never heard that one which specifically excludes Christianity but no other religion.

In particular, if someone whose mother was Jewish but who then adopts Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) beliefs decides later to return to Judaism, they do not have to undergo a conversion procedure. This is because adopting those foreign beliefs made them apostates, but did not strip them of their Jewishness.

Now, some people may make an exception for Buddhism because some aspects of Buddhism are a-theistic. But there is generally no exception for religions like Islam or the Hindu religion -- or Christianity.

Who gets to decide? Well, until there is a flash of lightning and a proclaimation from the heavens, I think we Jews get to decide who we are, and not people from another belief system.

[GrayPilgrim]

I would agree, but I was just telling you what he said, and what I experienced within the Hebrew Department at OSU when I did my undergrad, as in that was the general sentiment amongst my Jewish friends and professors there.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171006#post171006)
fiddlerzvi, replying to:


GrayPilgrim:

The problem is definition as either Greenberg or Weinfeld (I can't remember which one) said in a recent essay put out by leading Jewish scholars concerning the question "Who is a Jew?", modern Judaism, especially American Judaism, had redfined Judaism to mean anyone whose mother was Jewish who is not a Christian. They maybe an athiest, an agnostic, a Zoroastrian, a Budhist, Hindu or a Sikh and still be a Jew, but they cannot be Christian. It is the old defition game. Needless to say this essay was not well recevied by the editors of the volume.

The question of who is or is not a Jew is one of the favorites for the "two Jews, three answers" catagory,


Indeed it is. See my post More on defining a Jew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=132146#post132146).


... but I gotta say I never heard that one which specifically excludes Christianity but no other religion.

Oh but they do. GP is totally right. The Israeli Law of Return excludes Jews who believe in Jesus. This is a black spot in Israel, a country I strongly support in most things.


In particular, if someone whose mother was Jewish but who then adopts Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) beliefs decides later to return to Judaism, they do not have to undergo a conversion procedure. This is because adopting those foreign beliefs made them apostates, but did not strip them of their Jewishness.

This was true in the Old Testament too. Conversely, Gentiles who converted to Judaism were always called "proselytes" not "Jews".


Now, some people may make an exception for Buddhism because some aspects of Buddhism are a-theistic. But there is generally no exception for religions like Islam or the Hindu religion -- or Christianity.

I'm glad you think so anyway.


Who gets to decide? Well, until there is a flash of lightning and a proclaimation from the heavens, I think we Jews get to decide who we are, and not people from another belief system.

That's the whole point though! Which Jews do you mean? What about Christian Jews?

[fiddlerzvi]

...The Israeli Law of Return excludes Jews who believe in Jesus.
Let's be precise. The law of return does not mention Jesus or any other religion. The case of brother Daniel, which I assume is what you are referring to, is a specifical case decision that states that people who convert to another religion are not eligible to return to Israel as Jews.
Christianity is not singled out.


This was true in the Old Testament too. Conversely, Gentiles who converted to Judaism were always called "proselytes" not "Jews".
Where is Ruth refered to as a prosetlyte? The "ger" was a resident alien, not a convert, perhaps comparible to the modern noahide.
"Jews by choice" are every bit as Jewish as Jews by birth.


That's the whole point though! Which Jews do you mean?99% percent of self designated Jews.

What about Christian Jews?
The tail doesn't wag the dog.

[fiddlerzvi]

I understood that as far as Jesus and the Gospel, they (Jews) are enemies because they do not accept Christ...

I can't believe the things I'm finding in this board.

And later someone says that people like me are technically "enemies' of the Gospel, as if a book could have an enemy.

I thought attitudes like this had died out after the Shoah. Just shows how naive I am.

[GrayPilgrim]

Ummm...they were quoting Romans 11:28


As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.


Moreover, when someone says the Gospel (i.e. singular) they are talking about the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is they are reffering to the Good News that Jesus Christ died on the cross, to take away the sins of the world.

Moreover, the reason my first point is relevent is that we are currently in the Biblical Exegesis forum, which means we are in fact attempting to discuss the exegesis of Romans 9-11.

Gp

[fiddlerzvi]

Ummm...they were quoting Romans 11:28

I'm sorry, Gray, but verses like that do your Bible no credit.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171189#post171189)
fiddlerzvi:

Let's be precise. The law of return does not mention Jesus or any other religion. The case of brother Daniel, which I assume is what you are referring to, is a specifical case decision that states that people who convert to another religion are not eligible to return to Israel as Jews.
Christianity is not singled out.

But converting to atheism is apparently OK.


Where is Ruth refered to as a prosetlyte?

It's a later term. But she is always referred to as a Moabitess, never a Jewess.


The "ger" was a resident alien, not a convert, perhaps comparible to the modern noahide.
"Jews by choice" are every bit as Jewish as Jews by birth.

In your opinion, but it has no biblical evidence, so is irrelevant.


99% percent of self designated Jews.

According to the survey I cited about Jewish opinions on what a Jew is, you're just wrong.


[Re Christian Jews] The tail doesn't wag the dog.

And who says that Jews who follow the New Testament, entirely authored by Jews, are not Jews; while Jews who follow the Talmud are? Come on, let's have some logical criteria here, not just stipulative definitions.

[fiddlerzvi]

But converting to atheism is apparently OK.
It doesn't make you an apostate because you aren't adopting a different religion. Whether it is OK is a different question.


It's a later term. But she is always referred to as a Moabitess, never a Jewess.
There is no Biblical term for the modern word "Jew". The closest is the Hebrew word "yehudi." In Biblical times, yehudi meant Judean. Today it means Jew.
The point is that Ruth adopted and was completely accepted into the religion founded by Abraham and continued by Moses. If you have a Biblical verse to indicate differently -- I'm interested to see it.


According to the survey I cited about Jewish opinions on what a Jew is, you're just wrong.
As I recall, your survey asked different questions.


And who says that Jews who follow the New Testament, entirely authored by Jews,
You throw in that last as if it was generally accepted. Care to discuss it?


are not Jews; while Jews who follow the Talmud are? Come on, let's have some logical criteria here, not just stipulative definitions.

Tell you what -- give me a definition of Christian that uses "logical criteria" so I'll know just what you mean. Then I'll answer you.

[bar Jonah]

Howabout this as a definition of a Christian?

Someone who believe the prophet Yirmeyahu when he says that the name of the mashiach, the Branch of David, is actually Hashem/Adonai/the Tetragramaton?

Someone who believes that God can and has walked on Earth, just as it describes in Genesis and other places in the Torah. (In the Garden of Eden, for example, or the fiery furnace.) Who knows God walked on the earth in a bodily form on many occasions, some of those times being referred to as the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord -- the same one who Joshua dropped to his knees to worship?

Someone who knows the answer to the question posed in Proverbs 30:4?

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?
Someone who believes the prophet Daniel when he says that the 70 weeks will conclude with the coming of the mashiach, and that this will happen no later than the destruction of the temple? (Which, as you well know, happened in 70 AD?)

Someone who believes the prophet Yesha'yahu when he desribes the mashiach as one who will be called wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, father of eternity, and Mighty God.

Someone who believes in the promise if the Lord's passover, in the redemption of the blood of the sacrifice of the true Passover Lamb, who was brought into the house of Jerusalem for four days to be judged, who was sacrificed on the day of Passover, whose blood covers us so that the judgement of death will pass over?

Someone who understands that water baptism and Communion/the Eucharist/the Lord's Supper aren't New Testament inventions but come from the Torah itself? Who knows that Pentacost was a Jewish feast day? Who knows the meaning of the Afikomen, the three matza in the Passover seder -- three pieces of unlevened bread, the middle one taken and broken and hidden away temporarily... until it returns later in the ritual? Who knows that "Afikomen" comes from a Greek word, not Hebrew, and that it probably originated among Messianic Jews in Greece in the 1st century after the Diaspora, symbolizing the Trinity - Father, the Son (broken, buried, resurrected, by whose stripes we are healed), and the Ruach Hakodesh or Holy Spirit of God?

Is that a good working definition?

Shalu shalom Yerushalayim! :pray:

[mossrose]

Is that a good working definition?

Shalu shalom Yerushalayim!

Yeah!! What he said!!

:highfive:

[Jaltus]

Today @ 09:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171572#post171572)
fiddlerzvi:
I'm sorry, Gray, but verses like that do your Bible no credit.

I believe you need to continue to read what is written in that chapter to see what the passage as a whole really says.

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!


Paul is talking about how ANY who reject Christ are then enemies of Christ, but that the Jews are still special, they are still the chosen of God. Paul even says that he gives the Gentiles the opportunity for salvation not just for their own sakes, but so that he might make the Jews jealous. Everything Paul did was motivated by his love for the Jewish people and his need to get them saved.

Think about it this way:

THe Messiah has come, but no Jews are willing to follow him. However, one of them does finally realize this is the Messiah, and he wants all the Jews to follow this guy. He appeals and implores and begs and does everything he can, but barely a handful are willing to follow this Messiah. Then, knowing that his case before the Jews is lost for the time being, he turns to the Gentiles, obviously recalling the lesson of Jonah. He tries to make the Jews jealous by means of bringing the Messiah to the Gentile.

If you understand Paul this way, you will see the he knows there is a new classification of all people now. It used to be Jews and Gentiles, but now it has gone beyond that to Saved and Unsaved, and this section (Romans 10-11) is about Paul trying to reconcile this new order with his previous understanding. Because of how special the Jews are to God, however, Paul is saying that there is the saved, the unsaved, and the Jew. The Jews become the only question mark in his system.

I hope you will read Romans 10-11 (the full argument begins in Romans 9) in order to see that it is a man crying out for the salvation of his people, much like Abraham pleading for Lot or Moses pleading for Israel.

[fiddlerzvi]

Yesterday @ 08:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172124#post172124)
RightIdea:

Howabout this as a definition of a Christian?

Someone who believe the prophet...

Hey -- if you want to define yourself that way -- go to it. I doubt many will agree, but that isn't my problem.

If these are the kinds of "logical criteria" you mean, I'll have no problem justifying any definition of 'Jewish' that I want.

You do realize, I hope, that I'm ready to discuss with you reasons why the assumptions you make in that definition are just that -- assumptions. If you want to know what scriptural reasons I have for rejecting them your assumptions -- just ask.

And if you don't care what my scriptural reasons are, you won't ask.

[fiddlerzvi]

I believe you need to continue to read what is written in that chapter to see what the passage as a whole really says.

[verse]28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable...
Paul is talking about how ANY who reject Christ are then enemies of Christ, but that the Jews are still special, they are still the chosen of God...

Jaltus, I understand what you are saying. And I understand Holding's point (at least, I think I understand it -- let me know if I'm wrong) that the writers and readers of Koine Greek did not intend or understand the comments in the book ascribed to John as being anti-semitic.

I don't know any Greek and I certainly am not an expert on your Bible so I cannot say if you two are right or wrong.

What I can most definitely say is that this is not how your scriptures have been understood by all too many Christians for thousands of years. And lest you (generic you) start complaining again that I'm whining, I'll leave it at that. You know full well what I am referring to.

[bar Jonah]

Zvi, my point was that you seem to be inferring that of all the religions in the world to which a Jew can convert, the only most unacceptable one is Christianity. (This attitude is pervasive in non-messianic Judaism. Individuals have been disowned and disinherited from their families just for becoming Messianic Jewish. But no one decries Barbra Streisand being a Buddhist, or other Jews being atheists and agnostics.)

My point is that Christianity is very Jewish. It was founded by Jews, originally for Jews, stemming from the teachings of the Tanakh. (When this sect of Judaism first appeared, there was no Brit Hadashah/New Testament in existence yet, obviously.)

So I always wince everytime I hear a non-messianic Jew decry Christianity while ignoring every other religion on earth. What is so accursed about this particular sect of your religion that you must attack it so specifically?

[Jaltus]

I'll give you that, Zvi, but at the same time your TNK was used to enable slavery, also.

[fiddlerzvi]

Hiya Right,

First, it's a pleasure to talk to someone who presents their case without insults.


Today @ 02:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172617#post172617)
RightIdea:

Zvi, my point was that you seem to be inferring that of all the religions in the world to which a Jew can convert, the only most unacceptable one is Christianity...
Please tell me what I've said that gives you that impression. The point I've been trying to make is that conversion to any other theistic religion renders a Jew an apostate. (An example of a non-theistic religion, AFAIK, would be Zen.)


My point is that Christianity is very Jewish.
Many Christians say this. I emphatically disagree. If you want, we can discuss the details.


What is so accursed about this particular sect of your religion that you must attack it so specifically? You're right that Christianity is attacked more than other religions by Jews, but it isn't because it is more cursed. It is because Christianity tries more than any other religion to convert us to their beliefs.

I assure you that the few times a Muslim has tried, I get the same visceral reaction as when a Christian tries.

The sad history between our two peoples is another factor, but if I elaborate on that, someone will complain that I'm whining.

[RevSteve45]

Fiddlerzvi,

You said,


You're right that Christianity is attacked more than other religions by Jews, but it isn't because it is more cursed. It is because Christianity tries more than any other religion to convert us to their beliefs.

I assure you that the few times a Muslim has tried, I get the same visceral reaction as when a Christian tries.

The sad history between our two peoples is another factor, but if I elaborate on that, someone will complain that I'm whining.

Fiddler, "the sad history" between Christians & Jews is well known. The history of Anti-Semitism is no secret. The history of forced "conversions" of Jews is no secret either. However, MOST Christians are not anti-semitic these days. I am not responsible, as a Christian for what Hitler did. Or for what Martin Luther did. Or for what numerous popes or the Inquisitions did. I am very sorry for the Jews that these things happened, but they did.

I want you to realize, howevr, that the efforts of Christians to convert Jews are NOT based on Anti-Semitism. They are based on the fact that that you reject Yeshua Hammashea as Messiah. I, as a Christian would witness to you if you were Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or any other religion. WE as Christians preach the Gospel. We try to convert people. It is what we as Christians do.

Please do not think you are being "singled out" as a Jew to be converted. You are being witnessed to because you are an unbeliever. Like any other unbeliever, if you decide to reject Yeshua, that is your choice. I, at least, will respect that choice. But before I walk away from you, I will do my best to show the reality in serving Yeshua.

In His Service,
Steve

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172751#post172751)
fiddlerzvi:

Please tell me what I've said that gives you that impression. The point I've been trying to make is that conversion to any other theistic religion renders a Jew an apostate. (An example of a non-theistic religion, AFAIK, would be Zen.)

Oh, very logical. Abandoning belief in the one true God altogether doesn't disqualify a Jew from being a Jew. But retaining this belief as well as believing that Yeshua of Nazareth was the Messaih prophesied in the Tanakh makes one non-Jewish? :argh:

:huh: Are we going to see any actual logic from the anti-missionaries, as opposed to self-serving stipulative definitions?

[fiddlerzvi]

Hi Steve,


Fiddler, "the sad history" between Christians & Jews is well known. The history of Anti-Semitism is no secret. The history of forced "conversions" of Jews is no secret either. However, MOST Christians are not anti-semitic these days. I am not responsible, as a Christian for what Hitler did. Or for what Martin Luther did. Or for what numerous popes or the Inquisitions did. I am very sorry for the Jews that these things happened, but they did.

Thank you for acknowleging some of the past horrors. I do not blame you for what others have done. And just as an aside, I've never said that Hitler was Christian, though I think he was influenced by some aspects of Christianity.


I want you to realize, howevr, that the efforts of Christians to convert Jews are NOT based on Anti-Semitism.
I've tried to avoid the words "anti-semitic" because they are so emotionally charged. Let me put it this way -- if Jews were all to be converted to Christian belief, in a few generations there wouldn't be any more Jews.


They are based on the fact that that you reject Yeshua Hammashea as Messiah. I, as a Christian would witness to you if you were Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or any other religion.

I understand, but the point is not that you preach to them as much; my point is that they do not preach to us Jews as much. And that's why we talk about their preaching much less.


You are being witnessed to because you are an unbeliever.
To an evangelizing Christian, "unbeliever" means someone with a different viewpoint. Please remember that other people have beliefs of their own, and to invalidate their beliefs in this manner --- well, it doesn't make for good communication.


But before I walk away from you, I will do my best to show the reality in serving Yeshua.

Will you let me show you the unreality in your beliefs? Do you think you have something to teach me, but that I don't have anything to teach you?

[fiddlerzvi]

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172935#post172935)
Socrates:



Oh, very logical. Abandoning belief in the one true God altogether doesn't disqualify a Jew from being a Jew. But retaining this belief as well as believing that Yeshua of Nazareth was the Messaih prophesied in the Tanakh makes one non-Jewish? :argh:

:huh: Are we going to see any actual logic from the anti-missionaries, as opposed to self-serving stipulative definitions?

I'll ignore the insults and sarcasm. Instead, I'll just answer you straight. Thinking that Jesus was the messiah does not make you an apostate any more than thinking Shneersohn, Zevi, or Bar Kochva were the messiah (though the further back you go, the sillier the idea becomes.) Thinking that Jesus -- or anyone else -- was G-d is what puts you beyond the pale and makes you an apostate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 10:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172751#post172751)
fiddlerzvi:

The sad history between our two peoples is another factor, but if I elaborate on that, someone will complain that I'm whining.

Because you have done a bit of that quite a few times. You attack every bit as much, you just cloak it better, and then complain about those that are just a bit more forward.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172945#post172945)
fiddlerzvi:

Thank you for acknowleging some of the past horrors.

More than you'll do, evidently.


I do not blame you for what others have done. And just as an aside, I've never said that Hitler was Christian, though I think he was influenced by some aspects of Christianity.

No he wasn't. He was influenced by Teutonic paganism via Wagner's operas and Darwinian evolution via Haeckel and Nietzsche.


I've tried to avoid the words "anti-semitic" because they are so emotionally charged. Let me put it this way -- if Jews were all to be converted to Christian belief, in a few generations there wouldn't be any more Jews.

Yes there would be, because nothing would stop them being descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the [i]true definition of being a Jews (i.e. based on the Bible not traditions of men). Similarly, evangelizing Australia would not mean that Australians would cease to exist.

[RevSteve45]

Fiddlerzvi,

You said,


Will you let me show you the unreality in your beliefs? Do you think you have something to teach me, but that I don't have anything to teach you?

Fiddler, I have NO PROBLEM admitting that I can learn things from Jewish people. As a matter of fact, I fellowship with some Messianic Hebrews, who are a great blessing.

However, let me say this: The people who claim the title of "Jew," are, imo, NOT able to observe the tenets of Judaism. Do you offer animal sacrifices for your sin? Do you follow the guidelines for clean & unclean? Do you observe the year of Jubilee? Do you have a priesthood of Levites, as well as a High Priest descended from Aaron? Do you even have an altar to offer sacrifices on, much LESS a tabernacle OR a Temple to worship in? Do you keep the Law of Moses IN ITS ENTIRETY? Do you observe the Day of Atonement, NOT as modern-day Judaism observes it, but as it is described in the Law?

Now, I do not blame the Jews for the loss of their Temple & priesthood, which was through no fault of their own. But even by the time of Yeshua, Judaism has largely degenerated into Legalism, with competing sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, etc. The traditions of men were ALREADY regarded higher than the commandments of God, according to Yeshua. But SINCE that time, Judaism has followed, NOT the Mosaic Law, but the teachings of a group of rabbis, who got together & wrote the Talmud. The Day of Atonement is now a "day of meditation on our sins." I don't know about you, but meditating on MY sins never atoned for a single ONE of them. The writer of Hebrews said,

Heb 9:22, And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (KJV)

So if there is NO shedding of blood, WHERE is the REMISSION of your sins? There is none.

However, even IF the Temple were rebuilt TOMORROWm and the priesthood re-established, and EVERY JEW on the PLANET began keeping the Law PERFECTLY, thy would STILL be unbelievers. Why? Because the would have rejected Yeshua as their Messiah. In their eagerness to look for a ROYAL Messiah, they FORGOT about Scripture like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which prophesy about the SUFFERING Messuah, who, in the words of Isaiah:

Isa 53:4-11, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (KJV)

THAT, Fiddler, is why the Jews as a people have suffered. They rejected their Messiah, even during the First Century A.D., and so God turned to the Gentiles. Thank God many Jews today do INDEED believe that Yeshua is their Messiah, and many become Messianic Hebrew. Others just become plain old Christians. I have heard some say they now consider themselves "completed" Jews, because they have, at long last, ACCEPTED their Messiah. That is a Jew, not just racially, not because they observe modern-day Judaism, but because they receive thir Messiah whom God sent.

In His Service,
Steve

[fiddlerzvi]

Fiddler, I have NO PROBLEM admitting that I can learn things from Jewish people. As a matter of fact, I fellowship with some Messianic Hebrews, who are a great blessing.
This is almost a joke -- yes, I learn from Jews, particularly if they are Christians.


However, let me say this: The people who claim the title of "Jew," are, imo, NOT able to observe the tenets of Judaism. Do you offer animal sacrifices for your sin?...
Is this all rhetorical, or do you want an answer?


Do you keep the Law of Moses IN ITS ENTIRETY?
Part of your mistake is shown in this question.


The traditions of men were ALREADY regarded higher than the commandments of God,
Here is another part.


The Day of Atonement is now a "day of meditation on our sins." I don't know about you, but meditating on MY sins never atoned for a single ONE of them.
You really need to learn more about Judaism.


The writer of Hebrews said,... ... something which has no authority for Jews.


So if there is NO shedding of blood, WHERE is the REMISSION of your sins? There is none.
Lev 5:11; Is 1:11; Micah 6:6-8; Hosea 3:4-5; Hosea 14:2; Ps 40:6; Ps 50:7-15; Ex 30:15-16; Num 17:11; Num 31:50 -- see http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/verses.html for full texts.


Because the would have rejected Yeshua as their Messiah.I'm begining to think you're hopeless.


Isa 53:4-11, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Look at my webpage (URL below) and click on the link for Isaiah 53.


5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed...
THAT, Fiddler, is why the Jews as a people have suffered.
Right. We were wounded by your transgressions, and you then salved your consciences by blaming us. THAT is the meaning of the chapter.

You don't like to hear that. You say I'm crying martyr.

Perhaps I am.

I'd rather I didn't have reason to.

[fiddlerzvi]

...the [i]true definition of being a Jews (i.e. based on the Bible not traditions of men). Similarly, evangelizing Australia would not mean that Australians would cease to exist.

You have no more right to define who is a Jew than I do to define who is a Christian -- e.g. whether Mormons and others are included.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176853#post176853)
fiddlerzvi:

You have no more right to define who is a Jew than I do to define who is a Christian -- e.g. whether Mormons and others are included.

Oh but you feel comfortable in defining Christian doctrine for us? And you feel comfortable in defining for other Jews that they are not Jews any more. Keep running, you may eventually catch your tail. And I notice you still have not posted to that Brown article.

[fiddlerzvi]

Oh but you feel comfortable in defining Christian doctrine for us?

No. I feel comfortable in reminding you that huge numbers of Christians do not share your views and that, until Christians develope some consensus, I'm not going to be convinced by any one sect as to what "true" Christianity is.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176865#post176865)
fiddlerzvi:



No. I feel comfortable in reminding you that huge numbers of Christians do not share your views and that, until Christians develope some consensus, I'm not going to be convinced by any one sect as to what "true" Christianity is.

Huge numbers of Jews do not share your views on many topics, and by your own admissions (but again I find your reasoning very often self contradictory) you would not presume to want to define what true Christianity is to begin with as you are not a Christian. Your backpeddling is apparent.

You said you are here to instruct Christians on proper Christian doctrine. What standing do you have to do that? And if you can do that, then we have no issue doing the same with you.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 10:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176853#post176853)
fiddlerzvi:
You have no more right to define who is a Jew than I do to define who is a Christian -- e.g. whether Mormons and others are included.
But as we are a sect of Judaism, we DO have just as much a right to define Judaism as you have a right to define Judaism. And if you have a right to say certain Jews are no longer Jews or are apostate based on their doctrine, we have just as much a right to define you as not being a true Jew or as apostate from God's way.

You can deny that we are correct in our interpretation of scripture, just as you do in regards to those who follow what we both agree are false messiahs. But what you cannot deny is that Christianity is born out of Judaism, founded as a branch of Judaism in the 1st century by Jews based on Jewish scripture. That, you cannot deny and still be intellectually honest with yourself or with us.

So call us wrong in our interpretation of the Tanakh and of additional writings of men, call us apostate, but only do so in the sense that you would any other sect of Judaism in their interpretation of scripture and of additional writings of men.

[fiddlerzvi]

Huge numbers of Jews do not share your views on many topics,
And when I bring up those topics, I generally make it clear that my views are my own. Why generally? Because sometimes I think it's too obvious to mention, and sometimes I forget.


You said you are here to instruct Christians on proper Christian doctrine.

Huh? When did I say that? Please provide the quote with the context, as I strongly suspect I was trying to say something else.

Note I'm not calling you a liar, though I'm pretty sure you are wrong in this.

I neither know -- nor do I really care -- what "proper Christian doctrine" is. My interest is that my brothers and sisters not be lead astray. Yes, astray -- from my viewpoint, that's what it is.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176947#post176947)
fiddlerzvi:



Huh? When did I say that? Please provide the quote with the context, as I strongly suspect I was trying to say something else.

Note I'm not calling you a liar, though I'm pretty sure you are wrong in this.

I neither know -- nor do I really care -- what "proper Christian doctrine" is. My interest is that my brothers and sisters not be lead astray. Yes, astray -- from my viewpoint, that's what it is.


You said:


I try to convince evangelizing Christians that their religion does NOT require them to convert Jews.

You are presuming to instruct Christians on a point of Christian doctrine. And you knew you said this, which makes me wonder about the cagey-ness of your comment.

[Pitiricus]

And יהוה has appointed you שפט to decide who is and who is not Jewish, נו?
I don't know about HaShem, but the rabbis who make the Torah with HIM have said it...

Good enough for me

(and try to see the story of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua to know what I mean)...

[Pitiricus]

Zvi, my point was that you seem to be inferring that of all the religions in the world to which a Jew can convert, the only most unacceptable one is Christianity. (This attitude is pervasive in non-messianic Judaism. Individuals have been disowned and disinherited from their families just for becoming Messianic Jewish. But no one decries Barbra Streisand being a Buddhist, or other Jews being atheists and agnostics.)

My point is that Christianity is very Jewish. It was founded by Jews, originally for Jews, stemming from the teachings of the Tanakh. (When this sect of Judaism first appeared, there was no Brit Hadashah/New Testament in existence yet, obviously.)

So I always wince everytime I hear a non-messianic Jew decry Christianity while ignoring every other religion on earth. What is so accursed about this particular sect of your religion that you must attack it so specifically?
It's quite complicated... Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, thus by converting to it you don't go against the First commendment, bowing to another God... Same with atheism and agnosticism...

OTH with Christianity and Islam, you do...

Yes Christianity began as a Jewish sect but very fast adopted avoda zara...

[Anitra]

In my opinion, if anyone goes to Heaven, Jews who do justice and mercy will go to Heaven. In my opinion, if anyone goes to Hell, Christian evangelists who abuse and insult others in the name of Jesus will go to Hell.

According to Jesus Himself, as quoted in the Bible, it is those who do as God commands who go to Heaven -- not those who say the right words, speak the correct creed.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Jesus does not describe loving your neighbor as preaching at him or warning him about hellfire. Jesus portrays loving your neighbor in very practical terms; feeding him, clothing him, giving him water, tending him in illness, freeing him from person, defending him from persecution.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Winning converts does not have a greater value than doing justly and mercifully by others, regardless of what their beliefs are. Neither is abusing others likely to win converts to one's creed.

[Menachem]

It's quite complicated... Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, thus by converting to it you don't go against the First commendment, bowing to another God... Same with atheism and agnosticism...

OTH with Christianity and Islam, you do...

Yes Christianity began as a Jewish sect but very fast adopted avoda zara...


I always considered buddhism a philosophy rather than a religion

[Pitiricus]

A bit of both in my opinion... There is a book about Buddhist Jews, I don't remember the title (something about flowers...)

[Sacrificial Ram]

A bit of both in my opinion... There is a book about Buddhist Jews, I don't remember the title (something about flowers...)
It is called 'The Jew in the Lotus'

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060645741/104-0965902-8304763?v=glance

[reasonabledoubt]

Just my 2 cents- the Catholic Church does not advocate proselytizing Jews. It is not needed, according to them. So fiddlerzvi is quite correct that many Christians do not see the need for evangelizing Jews.

[Menachem]

Just my 2 cents- the Catholic Church does not advocate proselytizing Jews. It is not needed, according to them. So fiddlerzvi is quite correct that many Christians do not see the need for evangelizing Jews.

well said reasonabledoubt....one of the main reasons why I can get along better with a Catholic better than a southern baptist

I can ask a Catholic Priest "where a good place is to secure a Kosher meal?"
and get a good response of "here at this place" while the southern baptist might say "jesus made everything Kosher." and not tell me anything...

my two cents....

[Pitiricus]

It is called 'The Jew in the Lotus'

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060645741/104-0965902-8304763?v=glance
Thank you... But what it shows is that Judaism and Buddhism are compatible... While Judaism and Christianity aren't...