Do You Believe Judaism is a False Religion?

[Freak]

Judaism, I believe, embraces the One & True God, but many here on TWeb reject that notion. So, do you believe Judaism is another false religion?

[Solly]

Judaism as it exists today in its many forms is not the religion God established; therefore it is false - firstly, it is untrue, secondly, it is not genuine. There is only one way, and no staging posts along the way.
A good book to read is "Judiasm is not Jewish", by Baruch Maoz, pastor of Grace and Truth church (http://www.graceandtruthbulletin.org/) in RishonLeTsion, Israel, a congregation of converted Jews. Maoz is himself a converted Jew (NOT a Messianic jew)
Biblical Judaism finished at the cross. Rabbinical Judaism took over, to be followed by various forms ranging from ultra Orthodox to liberal reform to even athiestic Judaism. If they don't embrace Jesus, they they are not enmbracing God; contrariwise, if they are, there is nothing to say that Islam, a corruption of Christianity and Judaism, does not either. Or even the other subChristian cults.

[John Reece]

Do You Believe Judaism is a False Religion?

Yes.

Recommended reading: The Judeo-Christian Tradition: A Guide for the Perplexed, by Gary North.

[Freak]

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75530#post75530)
John Reece:



Yes.

Recommended reading: The Judeo-Christian Tradition: A Guide for the Perplexed, by Gary North.

Judaism in its messianic form cultic too?

[Freak]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75506#post75506)
Solly:

Judaism as it exists today in its many forms is not the religion God established; therefore it is false - firstly, it is untrue, secondly, it is not genuine. There is only one way, and no staging posts along the way.
A good book to read is "Judiasm is not Jewish", by Baruch Maoz, pastor of Grace and Truth church (http://www.graceandtruthbulletin.org/) in RishonLeTsion, Israel, a congregation of converted Jews. Maoz is himself a converted Jew (NOT a Messianic jew)
Biblical Judaism finished at the cross. Rabbinical Judaism took over, to be followed by various forms ranging from ultra Orthodox to liberal reform to even athiestic Judaism. If they don't embrace Jesus, they they are not enmbracing God; contrariwise, if they are, there is nothing to say that Islam, a corruption of Christianity and Judaism, does not either. Or even the other subChristian cults.

Biblical Judaism embraces the triune nature of God. Moses wrote of the triune God in several different places in the Old Covenant.

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75490#post75490)
Freak:

Judaism, I believe, embraces the One & True God, but many here on TWeb reject that notion. So, do you believe Judaism is another false religion?

Let me ask you a question Freak, do you believe that those wholeheartedly embracing Judaism are saved?


(and your question about Messianic Judaism I think is misplaced - titles are meaningless, it is the meaning we power into the titles that is determinitive, and for the purposes of discussing the nature of God and our understanding of it, Messianic Jews are "Christians" )

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75839#post75839)
Freak:



Biblical Judaism embraces the triune nature of God. Moses wrote of the triune God in several different places in the Old Covenant.

We are not talking about the Judaims of Moses' day are we? It seemed apparent you were asking about "Judaism" as it commonly exists today. If not, you should clarify your question. It is my position that today's Christianity is Biblical Judaism as I am clear that there is no distinction between "Israel" and the "Church."

[SlaveofChrist]

Judaism in its messianic form cultic too?

I would like to repeat that question by FREAk because I am curious as well??

[John Reece]

Today @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75847#post75847)
Dee Dee Warren:

It is my position that today's Christianity is Biblical Judaism as I am clear that there is no distinction between "Israel" and the "Church."

:thumb:

[dizzle]

What we call Messianic Judaism for purposes of this conversation, ie, its understanding of God is the same as Christianity. And cultic is not the word I would use anyways for any other world religion. "Cultic" has specific connotations that other world religions do not fall into.

[kiwimac]

Nope,

Judaism is NOT a false religion. The Jews are still, in some sense, God's people.

Kiwimac

[The Curtmudgeon]

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM kiwimac:

Nope,

Judaism is NOT a false religion. The Jews are still, in some sense, God's people.

:thumb: What he said!

The (Deuteronomy 30) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

I think that comment is dispensationally misplaced. This is what I mean. Ethnically you can still very much believe that there is a separate and special destiny for the Jews... that has nothing to do with the religious system as it exists today. They reject Christ as Messiah and as God. Read the NT and tell me what it says about that for anyone, Jewish, Chinese, or anyone. Being Jewish in ethnicity does not exempt one from the requirement to accept Christ. That is ridiculous. Christ said that He who does not honor Him does not honor the Father. How can you have a system that Christ says is dishonoring the Father be not consider "false" at some level. No one is saying there is NO truth contained therein. Of course not. I can find a lot true in Islam and a lot of other religions..... but any religion that denies Christ is false, at least to a Christian. That is what the NT teaches.

[The Curtmudgeon]

A better explanation of my belief re Judaism is found in Jesus' own parable of the Prodigal Son:


Luke 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.


I do believe that modern Rabbinic Judaism has deliberately changed some teachings in order to distance themselves from Jesus the Messiah, and I believe that few Jews today are truly following the Lord's commandments. This is also portrayed in Ezekiel, where the people will be gathered back to the land from all the corners of the earth but with a dead soul, and that after the return they must be quickened anew by God Himself. But they will be, and I don't believe that this is merely a reference to individual salvation through Jesus Christ, which of course is always open to the Jew as well as to the 'Greek', but that it refers to a corporate renewal of Israel itself as God's Chosen People in action as well as in name (which is all they have right now, but God remembers and does not forget).

The (younger brother) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

That proves my point though Curmudgeon that they are in apostasy now. You have simply stated your hope/belief for future renewal.... that speaks even more towards the fact that the religious system as it exists now is wrong in that it denies Christ. There is no salvation apart from Christ, and it is nonsensical to speak of a "true" religion that does not save.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO MAN (and that includes Jewish people) can get to the father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Jesus also said, "Unless you believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins." (John 8)

and He was speaking as a Jew to other Jews.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 10:43 AM Dee Dee Warren:

Ethnically you can still very much believe that there is a separate and special destiny for the Jews... that has nothing to do with the religious system as it exists today.

No, because if it was merely ethnicity, there would have been no excuse for the removal of the ancient Kingdom of Israel (Northern Tribes), since their ethnicity never changed. Judaism itself--when it remains true to the Word of God--is the marker: when they obey God's Covenant they are saved, and when they do not they perish. But even the remnant, whom God promised to preserve, need to be chastised (as do all of us) from time to time, and the rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah has caused the longest and hardest chastisement of all. But God has also promised an end to their punishment, when they remember Him and return to His ways.

The (not Church = Israel, but Church + Israel) Curtmudgeon

[Freak]

Yesterday @ 10:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75844#post75844)
Dee Dee Warren:



Let me ask you a question Freak, do you believe that those wholeheartedly embracing Judaism are saved?

Judaism's God is Triune in nature. Most within Judaism fails to see this but the reality/truth is -God is revealed in the Old Covenant as triune.

[Solly]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76592#post76592)
Freak:



Judaism's God is Triune in nature. Most within Judaism fails to see this but the reality/truth is -God is revealed in the Old Covenant as triune.

The God who reveals himself in the Bible is the Triune Jehovah.
Having a Bible is not proof of embracing God or following a true religion. Many a non Jew also has a Bible and a religion to go with it, but nor are they embracing "the One & True God".
Judaism's god is not the Triune Jehovah, nor do they believe in God as such; just ask them.

[dizzle]

But God has also promised an end to their punishment, when they remember Him and return to His ways.



And that proves my point... they have forgotten Him now... thus, it is not a true religion as currently practiced, which is what is being discussed, not a future return.

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76592#post76592)
Freak:



Judaism's God is Triune in nature. Most within Judaism fails to see this but the reality/truth is -God is revealed in the Old Covenant as triune.




But the subject is not the OT and its truth, we already know that. The subject is modern Judaism and its truth or falsity. They actively reject Christ. There is no salvatin without Christ. Any Christ-less religion is false. You are inconsistent Freak in that you denounce Christadelphians, who at least accept Christ's Messiahship, but are championing a belief system that rejects both His Messiahship and His deity.

[John Reece]

Curtmudgeon:

not Church = Israel, but Church + Israel

Two instead of one???

Ephesians 2

One in Christ

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (ESV)

[Freak]

DD tells us: It is my position that today's Christianity is Biblical Judaism as I am clear that there is no distinction between "Israel" and the "Church."

This is un Scriptural and a dangerous belief being embraced by many. More on that on another thread sometime soon. But, let's get back to the topic: Do You Believe Judaism is a False Religion?

God of Israel is triune, is He not? Is God of the Old Covenant triune?

Let's look at the Old Covenant:

Come near me and listen to this:

"From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
at the time it happens, I am there."

And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me,
with his Spirit.

The Sender is no doubt the Father. The Son and Holy Spirit are the ones being sent by the Father. The triune God is present. The Jews understood the triune nature of God--perhaps not completely but in part they did. This is the God of the Jews.

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners

The Messiah is sent by the Father. The Spirit aids. Again the Triune God is present.

[Freak]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76618#post76618)
Dee Dee Warren:

You are inconsistent Freak in that you denounce Christadelphians, who at least accept Christ's Messiahship, but are championing a belief system that rejects both His Messiahship and His deity.

DD, Judaism as rooted in Scripture does not deny God's triune nature. I just proved it from the Scriptures. Do you believe that Judaism is based in the Old Covenant?

[Freak]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76618#post76618)
Dee Dee Warren:

The subject is modern Judaism and its truth or falsity. They actively reject Christ. There is no salvatin without Christ. Any Christ-less religion is false.

Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant. The OC declares that God is triune. So, Judaism has the one and true God. But, as you noted, most deny this. But the truth is: The God of Judaism is triune.

[Freak]

Today @ 05:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76604#post76604)
Solly:



The God who reveals himself in the Bible is the Triune Jehovah.
Having a Bible is not proof of embracing God or following a true religion. Many a non Jew also has a Bible and a religion to go with it, but nor are they embracing "the One & True God".
Judaism's god is not the Triune Jehovah, nor do they believe in God as such; just ask them.

Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant, correct? Well, the Old Covenant reveals God as one but triune. This is the God that most Jews have rejected but there is a remant that embraces this truth. Besides, Judaisms' God is triune regardless if they reject it or not--the truth remains!

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 11:01 AM Dee Dee Warren:

That proves my point though Curtmudgeon that they are in apostasy now.

I believe that Catholicism has likewise adulterated the Word of God with their Purgatory and Maryolatry and Popes and such--but I would not thereby call Catholicism a false religion, rather that it has lost its purity and needs to be spiritually renewed by God. But even with all the added dross, a Catholic can still be a born-again child of God (it just makes it harder to see the truth with all that clutter).

So likewise for modern Judaism, although the truth that they should be adhering to is the earlier, pre-Christ expression (God's Truth has never altered, but the presentation and expression of it has worn a different form in the past).

There is no salvation apart from Christ, and it is nonsensical to speak of a "true" religion that does not save.

Believe it or not, Dee Dee, I actually agree with you on this, although it may seem contradictory to my above statements. Because I do believe that the Promised Messiah of the Old Testament is indeed that Jesus of Nazareth whom the Jews of His day rejected (corporately, although of course not every individual), and that the renewal of Judaism will entail the final recognition and acceptance of that fact: when He returns and sets His foot on Mount Olivet, and they see that the Messiah whom they have been awaiting over the past 20 centuries and more, has been waiting for them to just open their eyes all along.

But do you believe that every OT 'saint'--by that I mean those that we can agree on were "saved by faith" as in that great roll-call in Hebrews 11--was given a revelation that the Messiah would be a man named Jesus living in Nazareth at such-and-such a time (in their future), who would be crucified on a Roman cross and buried in a borrowed grave for three days before His resurrection? I do not, yet I believe that such as these (and more not named) are truly saved by faith that God's Promised One would provide the means in God's appointed time and place. Even so I believe that true followers of Judaism today can still be saved by faith in God and God's Annointed One even if they do not realise that that Messiah for whom they still look is Jesus of Nazareth. When they do realise it, of course, it will be as Zechariah has described it (Zech 12:10 and 13:6 especially).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO MAN (and that includes Jewish people) can get to the father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Jesus also said, "Unless you believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins." (John 8)

and He was speaking as a Jew to other Jews.

Certainly He was, and I agree. But my point is that through true Judaism, the Jews can believe on Messiah and be saved, even if they don't realise exactly Whom they believe in; i.e. a belief in what Messiah is and what Messiah does can substitute for a belief in who Messiah is, as long as they still look for God's true Messiah and do not follow false ones. (The Pharisees to whom He spoke in John 8 had to all real purposes stopped believing in the Word of God already, substituting for it their rituals of keeping the letter while denying the spirit of the Law.)

The (npr) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

Freak the question isn't whether the God of the OT is triune or not. Having a Bible doesn't mean you bleieve it or follow it. You logic is terrible. Christadelphians have a NT, and not even their own translation like the JWs... is Christadelphianism a false religiion?

You are doing a bait and switch... you on one hand are asking if Biblical Judaism is a false religion. And of course the answer is no. But you then try to use that to say that todays Judaism is then not a false religion and that is getting from A to C by skipping B. Today's Jews are not practising Biblical Judaism, no matter what they call it or what roots it has.

I have other things to attend to for a while... I will be back to this thread if I can.

[John Reece]

Freak:

Do you believe that Judaism is based in the Old Covenant?

Judaism is not based in the Old Covenant. It is based in the Talmud, which is the written version of Judaism's oral tradition.

Here is what Jesus said about that:
Mark 7

Traditions and Commandments

1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)—12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 11:24 AM John Reece:
Two instead of one???

Ephesians 2

One in Christ

One House, John, although it has two doors into it. One door, if you will, has the "address" of the House shown clearly on it, the other does not, but both enter into the same House, and the Owner of the House is there to greet us whichever door we enter by.


Revelation 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The (or what's a meta phor?) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

“John Reece:

Two instead of one???

Ephesians 2

One in Christ ”

Curtmudgeon:

One House, John, although it has two doors into it. One door, if you will, has the "address" of the House shown clearly on it, the other does not, but both enter into the same House, and the Owner of the House is there to greet us whichever door we enter by.

Interpreting scripture is not an exercise in creative writing.

You are not permitted the option of disregarding the fact that the context of the scripture quoted above does not speak of one house; rather, it speaks of one Man.

[Freak]

Today @ 05:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76690#post76690)
Dee Dee Warren:

Freak the question isn't whether the God of the OT is triune or not. Having a Bible doesn't mean you bleieve it or follow it. You logic is terrible. Christadelphians have a NT, and not even their own translation like the JWs... is Christadelphianism a false religiion?

You are doing a bait and switch... you on one hand are asking if Biblical Judaism is a false religion. And of course the answer is no. But you then try to use that to say that todays Judaism is then not a false religion and that is getting from A to C by skipping B. Today's Jews are not practising Biblical Judaism, no matter what they call it or what roots it has.

I have other things to attend to for a while... I will be back to this thread if I can.

No need to hurry back.

The question offered by myself is as follows:

Do You Believe Judaism is a False Religion?

Judaism cannot be a false religion if their God is triune--which He is which you now admit is the case.

You said:

...you on one hand are asking if Biblical Judaism is a false religion. And of course the answer is no.

Biblical Judaism embraces the triune God as did Moses & Isaiah for it is rooted in Scripture. Sure, there are many who reject the triune God but some do embrace this one & true God because the Old Covenant speaks of His Trinity.

Christadelphians are rooted in the writings of John Thomas hence my declaration that this group is a cult (as they reject the triune nature of God).

[Freak]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76693#post76693)
John Reece:

Freak:

Judaism is not based in the Old Covenant. It is based in the Talmud, which is the written version of Judaism's oral tradition.



That is incorrect. Judaism embraces the Old Covenant as Holy Scripture, do they not?

Do you think Moses & Isaiah understood the triune nature of God?

[nomad]

Today's Jews are not practising Biblical Judaism, no matter what they call it or what roots it has.


which version of judaism are you referring to? conservative judaism? orthodox? reconstructionist? reform?

and, what would you consider would have to be true to be practicing biblical judaism?

if you say 'sacrifices', i give you daniel.

i am not sure where i stand on if judaism is a 'false' religion or not, but i think that several overgeneralizations have been made.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 12:14 PM John Reece:
Interpreting scripture is not an exercise in creative writing.

Sigh. Okay, John, if you cannot handle metaphors, then try this:


Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
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.
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:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The (we are grafted into Judaism, not they into us) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

The (we are grafted into Judaism, not they into us) Curtmudgeon

John would not dispute that, nor would I. But notice what happened to the unbelieving, those who rejected Christ... they were cut off. There is no salvation from those cut off from Christ for salvation is in Christ alone (even in "weak" inclusivism which you seem to be advocating).

[John Reece]

Today @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76740#post76740)
The Curtmudgeon:

Sigh. Okay, John, if you cannot handle metaphors, then try this:

we are grafted into Judaism, not they into us) Curtmudgeon

It is quite beneath my estimate of you for you to so twist my last post to you. The question has nothing to do with whether or not I can handle metaphors; the question is whether or not you can understand what Paul wrote in Ephesians, wherein the focus is always centered in One.

Furthermore, we are not grafted into Judaism, we are grafted into Israel.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 12:32 PM Dee Dee Warren:

John would not dispute that, nor would I. But notice what happened to the unbelieving, those who rejected Christ... they were cut off.

Cut out, not cut off, to be grafted back in again:

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

Also, note this:

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.

Blindness is not condemnation, and this blindness is only temporary. Just as Josiah found the Book of the Law in the Temple and realised how far he and his people had strayed, yet by revival and reading the Word were they able to regain their standing as God's People, so the modern Jews will find that they have strayed from the path and return to it for salvation.

(even in "weak" inclusivism which you seem to be advocating).

I'm not a seminarian, and so sometimes terminology goes right past me. Can you give me the two-bit explanation of "weak inclusivism", please? I may very well hold that view without knowing the name (hmm, that almost seems to play back into something I said earlier....).

The (I'm weak in a lot of things) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 12:35 PM John Reece:
It is quite beneath my estimate of you for you to so twist my last post to you. The question has nothing to do with whether or not I can handle metaphors; the question is whether or not you can understand what Paul wrote in Ephesians, wherein the focus is always centered in One.

But Paul is saying in Ephesians exactly what I said with my "Church + Israel" shorthand: that the two groups are made into a single group. He does not say that there are not two groups--he uses "we both" in verse 18, after the reference to "one man" in verse 15. Paul is, I believe, talking about the final sum, as it were, not the addition process itself. He more clearly talks about that in Romans 11, as I've shown above.

Hence, my metaphor of the house, which you quibble with, entirely agrees with what Paul says in Ephesians 2: we two groups, as Paul says, or "two doors" as I said, lead to a final unification in Christ. It's just that one group, as clearly spelled out in other passages, doesn't realise that Messiah in Whom they have faith already came once as Jesus of Nazareth, and will be terribly pained and ashamed when they come to realise it.

Furthermore, we are not grafted into Judaism, we are grafted into Israel.

A distinction without a difference, John; the fate of the Northern Tribes shows that the only True Israel is that which follows the teachings of God through Moses and the prophets, to wit Judaism.

The (thanx for the compliment BTW even if you now think I'm not worthy of it) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

:no:

[John Reece]

Curtmudgeon,

I really do admire your intellect and writing style.

With reference to this scripture:

Galatians 6

14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Do you believe that (1) modern Judaism and (2) the Israel regarding which Paul wrote in Galatians are synonymous?

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 02:31 PM John Reece:

Curtmudgeon,

I really do admire your intellect and writing style.

Pity that we don't have a blushing smiley on this board! I don't really think the :shy: one portrays my feelings here.

With reference to this scripture:

Galatians 6

14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Do you believe that (1) modern Judaism and (2) the Israel regarding which Paul wrote in Galatians are synonymous?

Sorry, John, but I call that a leading question: Assuming you aren't a Roman Catholic (and that may put me waaaay out on a limb here), do you believe that modern Catholicism, with its Purgatory, Maryolatry, papal infallibility, et al., is synonymous with the Church described and taught in Paul's epistles (or the rest of the NT)?

I have already stated above that I agree that modern rabbinic Judaism has drifted off the mark and has some teachings that were deliberately contrived to separate it from the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah. Nevertheless, the plain teaching of the Bible (plain to me, anyway, even though this whole thread makes it clear that it's not equally plain to all) is that the Jews as Jews will be redeemed when they return to the God of their fathers.

As for the Galatians quote, I agree with Paul that being circumcised or not being circumcised is not the defining mark of salvation: I am saved through Jesus Christ even though I'm a Gentile, and a Jew who believes and lives the Torah (and not the Talmud where that differs or misinterprets the Torah) is also saved through Jesus Christ even if he doesn't realise that that is the identity of the promised Messiah.

But I would have you yourself note Paul's last verse in that quote:


And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.


Why, do you think, does Paul separately mention "them who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God"?

The (we're back to two groups again) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

:smile:

The (always insisting there's two where there's only one) Curtmudgeon:

And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

This from The Expositor's Greek Testament:

Galatians 6:16 -- και is not properly copulative here, but intensive. Those who walk by the rule of the Spirit are declared to be indeed the true Israel of God, not the Jews who have the name of Israel, but are really only children of Abraham after the flesh.

This from The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians by J. B. Lightfoot:

Galatians 6:16 -- και επι τον ‘Ισραηλ ‘yea upon the Israel of God.’ . . . The ‘Israel of God’ is in implied contrast to the ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1 Corinthians 10:18); compare Romans 9:6 ου γαρ παντες οι εξ ‘Ισραηλ ουτοι ‘Ισραηλ, Galatians 3:29, Philippians 3:3. It stands here not for the faithful converts from the circumcision alone, but for the spiritual Israel generally, the whole body of believers whether Jew or Gentile; and thus και is epexegetic, i.e. it introduces the same thing under a new aspect, as in Hebrews 9:17, etc.

But of course, those who wish to see two will see two.

:smile:

Blessings,

John

[zionstructure]

Well I read most of everyones postings on this particular subject, and I must say I am quite impressed with the great behavior and respect you all have for each other. <I'm used to excite chat...if any of you have ever been there, you know why i'm impressed> Now back to the topic.

I personally think No religion is a false religion. Nor do I believe there is a perfect religion BUT most mystic circles of all faiths seem to agree on the basics. Kabbalists, Gnostics, Sufis, Buddhists, Taoists, Brahmans and on and on...so if anything, I trust the silent minority responsible for the religions we have today.
I was listening to CNN on easter when i heard a rabbi say something unbelievably true to me so I'll share it with you.

"I think my religion is right like I think my wife is the most beautiful and my children are the greatest"



:cheers:

[Blake Reas]

Judaism is so diverse as it always has been, reaching all the way back into the first century. Because they are not based on Orthodoxy which is the common belief the practice Orthopraxy. Orthopraxy is based on the practice and the traditions, that is why there is Atheistic Judaism, they are not worried about religion so much as an in crowd(I am not speaking of Ultral Orthodox). I think that true Judaism is now the Christian Church. After the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 two Jewish groups survived the Christians and the Pharaisees and they fought for the very heart of Juduaism unfortunately the Pharaisees won out and Christianity became extremely Gentile. Christianity is Jewish we worship a Jewish saviour and we are the new "Nation of Israel" (spiritual Israel, if you will). So in one since I believe Judaism is still true (Christianity), where as modern day counterfeit Judaism needs Christ the one true living and Saving Messiah!

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

:read:

[Freak]

Today @ 05:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77224#post77224)
Blake Reas:

So in one since I believe Judaism is still true (Christianity), where as modern day counterfeit Judaism needs Christ the one true living and Saving Messiah!

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

:read:

Yes. I would only point out that modern day Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant--that reveals the triune God--He is there but most of the Jews are blinded to this truth.

[dizzle]

And any religiious system that denies Christ is false. This is not complicated. Modern day Judaism, denies Christ, thus it is false. Very simple actually. Freak is advocating that a religionh without Christ is true. Unbelievable. I think he owes the Christadelphians an apology.

[John Reece]

Modern day Judaism, denies Christ

And not with only the indifference of unbelief.

It is common for Christians to think of Judaism in terms of the Old Covenant. But what do Christians know of the Talmud, and its place/role in modern day Judaism?

[Freak]

Today @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77420#post77420)
John Reece:



And not with only the indifference of unbelief.

It is common for Christians to think of Judaism in terms of the Old Covenant. But what do Christians know of the Talmud, and its place/role in modern day Judaism?

John, in Judaism is the Old Covenant believed upon as Holy Scripture?

[Freak]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77417#post77417)
Dee Dee Warren:

And any religiious system that denies Christ is false. This is not complicated. Modern day Judaism, denies Christ, thus it is false. Very simple actually. Freak is advocating that a religionh without Christ is true. Unbelievable. I think he owes the Christadelphians an apology.

Does Judaism embrace the Old Covenant as Holy Scripture?

[dizzle]

Freak you are making no sense whatsoever. Modern Jews deny Christ, Modern Judaism denies Christ. Any religion that denies Christ is a false religion.

Christadelphians embrace the OT too Freak, and so what if they embrace other writings, for so do too modern Jews, many sectors of modern Judiasm place more weight on the Talmud. They reject Christ.. and Christ Himself said that if the Jews beleived Moses they would believe in Him but since they deny Him, they deny Moses. So, by Jesus' definition, not yours, no, any Jew that denies Christ does not embrace the OT. I cannot believe you are getting soft on the importance of the deity of Christ Freak.

[Theolog]

Probably all of Judaism is totally apostate. From what I have seen even Messianic Judaism is up to it’s neck in apostasy to the point of being a false religion also. Many of reformed Theology sects are so tainted with legalism that they have become apostate. Apparently the Church of Rome was even conceived in apostasy.

Since doctrine cannot save and denominationalism is a blight and there is no known method of determining true faith I suppose that we will have to stand on the fact that God is doing a work here and that He indeed has a remnant chosen that He blesses with saving faith. Perhaps they are the ones that avoid discussions like this.
:brow:

[John Reece]

Theolog,

:smile:

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 08:48 AM John Reece:

Theolog,

:smile:

I'll second that, if only for Theolog's final statement in that post.

John & Dee Dee, didn't want you to think I'm off sulking--I had comfuser problems (and then I got busy with other things), but I'm back today and read your later responses. Don't see much if any need to respond; I'm sure we're all fairly clear now where we each stand--in a corner, like as not. :poke: (pick either end of the stick)

The (catch you on the flipflop, good buddy) Curtmudgeon

(Gee, I'm actually up to "Sophomore" = "wise fool" now! :cheers: )

[John Reece]

And here's to you Curtmudgeon:

:cheers:

[Rubia Warren]

Ummm... what good does it do to believe in a triune God, if they don't think Jesus was one of the persons of that trinity? For all they know, Sally Parker could be the second person in that trinity. So, it seems to me... triune god, one god, 42 gods, if there is no Jesus, there's no salvation.

[John Reece]

La Rubia,

Please change your avatar.

Please?

Pretty please?

Sugar on it?

If it were anyone else, I'd just hit Ignore and say nothing about it.

:smile:

(edited to correct spelling)

[Freak]

Yesterday @ 02:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77447#post77447)
Dee Dee Warren:

Freak you are making no sense whatsoever. Modern Jews deny Christ, Modern Judaism denies Christ. Any religion that denies Christ is a false religion.


Let's see if you can follow. Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant reveals there is One God yet Triune. This is their foundation. Yes, many have rejected but that doesn't change the fact that the God of their Holy Scriptures is Triune. So, my point stands--Judaism's God is the Triune God.

Yes, any religion that denies the triune God is false. But Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant and the OC reveals the One and True God.

Many Modern Jews do deny Jesus is God but many don't. To make the statement that all of them do is absurd. You're getting flaky on me. Many Jews have embraced the triune God as did their forefathers like Moses.

[Freak]

In Fact, I believe the Trinity is a uniquely Jewish concept---see this excellent article: http://www.shema.com/trinity.htm

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77416#post77416)
Freak:



Yes. I would only point out that modern day Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant--that reveals the triune God--He is there but most of the Jews are blinded to this truth.

Freak,

Do you ignore the words of Paul? We cannot be justified by the Law only by faith in Christ! I wonder if you read the Bible!:eek:
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake
:eek:

[dizzle]

04-24-2003 @ 07:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77920#post77920)
Freak:

Let's see if you can follow. Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant reveals there is One God yet Triune. This is their foundation. Yes, many have rejected but that doesn't change the fact that the God of their Holy Scriptures is Triune. So, my point stands--Judaism's God is the Triune God.

Judaism as just the Old Testament no longer exists. The NT declared that the Old Covenant has swept it away, so a faith that is just the OT and rejects the NT is false. It rejects Christ as the Messiah. You are equivocating on terms, which is typical for you. Today "Judaism" and I am not referring to ethnic Jews who accept Christ, I have been existplicit about that, so you have no excuse for misunderstanding, rejects the Trinity and rejects Christ. So I ask you Freak, is any branch of Judaism that rejects Christ a true or a false religion? Are you claiming that all of Judaism today is a true religion? Freak going soft on the deity of Christ, who would've thunk it.

Yes, any religion that denies the triune God is false. But Judaism is rooted in the Old Covenant and the OC reveals the One and True God.

And todays Judaism as defined by most Jews themselves reject all of that. Are at least those branches a false religion? Who cares what it is rooted in because the faith system denies the root. Christadelphians have the same Bible as us, so what? You have no problem saying they are a false religion but you have grown chickenfeathers here. Why?

Many Modern Jews do deny Jesus is God but many don't. To make the statement that all of them do is absurd. You're getting flaky on me. Many Jews have embraced the triune God as did their forefathers like Moses.

And I have always excluded them from this conversation so what's your point. Are you now willing to say that any Jews who deny Christ are practising a false religion?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Judaism as given by Moses and practiced before 70 ad is gone. Christ and Chrisitianity have replaced it.

Rabbinical Judaism is still around and yes; it is a false belief. It is based on the teachings of men rejecting Christ, not on the revelations of God to man.

[dizzle]

And the sounds of silence from the thread starter....

[mickiel]

05-22-2003 @ 06:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104560#post104560)
FirstSunday33ad:

Judaism as given by Moses and practiced before 70 ad is gone. Christ and Chrisitianity have replaced it.

Rabbinical Judaism is still around and yes; it is a false belief. It is based on the teachings of men rejecting Christ, not on the revelations of God to man.

Explain to me why Christianity is true, and how you can relate it to Christ? Jesus nowhere in the bible, accepts christianity as a represenitive of him. The followers of Christ were refered to as "the way", back then, and they never adhered to the doctrines of todays christianity. if your views are an example of christianity, i say its false itself. If your views represent christianity, the bible disagrees with your views, so useing you as a text, your religon is in vain.

[dizzle]

That would be a good subject for another thread... but this one is presupposing Christianity is true, and then with that presupposition, asking the question about Judaism.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113671#post113671)
Dee Dee Warren:

That would be a good subject for another thread... but this one is presupposing Christianity is true, and then with that presupposition, asking the question about Judaism.

If i may translate this language, if you want to see correctly, wear my glasses. If you want to play in my backyard, obey my rules.I will do no such thing. Your effort is transparent, i see through it. You cannot control me Dee Dee, stop trying to.

[dizzle]

Egad, Mickiel, who said I was trying to do that?

[Steven]

:pray:

[mickiel]

Today @ 03:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114060#post114060)
Dee Dee Warren:

Egad, Mickiel, who said I was trying to do that?

Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, it is said he had a great fall, none of the kings could place him together again. Christianity is reputed to be the only glue of Christ, i dissagree with this assumption. You, a firm belivever in your religon, assume christianity is this glue. I understand this serioius assumption. In Revelation 17, the apostate christiandom exerts power over the world, given a female view of the humpty, this church is clothed in purple and scarlet, beautiful and firey, the message of death to mankind. Her name is a mystery, cannot be understood.The world assumes her to be inside of the understanding of God, as you assume this post to be represenitive your view of God. There is a greater spirit that seeks to exclude truth, it knows i am here. It cannot exclude me, it knows that i know all religons are meaningless, including your christianity. This spirit cannot contain me, but it contains, and only for a while. Although it contains your view of God, i announce that you, as well as all of mankind, will be free, included, covered by the prescious blood of the Lamb, then the limitations of the understanding of men will be put together again.

[George Blaisdell]

Theolog:

Probably all of Judaism is totally apostate. From what I have seen even Messianic Judaism is up to it’s neck in apostasy to the point of being a false religion also. Many of reformed Theology sects are so tainted with legalism that they have become apostate. Apparently the Church of Rome was even conceived in apostasy.

Since doctrine cannot save and denominationalism is a blight and there is no known method of determining true faith I suppose that we will have to stand on the fact that God is doing a work here and that He indeed has a remnant chosen that He blesses with saving faith. Perhaps they are the ones that avoid discussions like this.
:brow:

One pretty straight-foreward and logical perspective from Eastern Orthodoxy is that Judaism is pre-Christian, but that is not to say a whole lot - Most in the USA are pre-Christian...

geo

[John Reece]

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115311#post115311)
George Blaisdell:

One pretty straight-foreward and logical perspective from Eastern Orthodoxy is that Judaism is pre-Christian, but that is not to say a whole lot - Most in the USA are pre-Christian...

geo

Can Judaism be both pre-Christian and anti-Christian?

[Pneuma]

All religions are inherently false religions. It is not beliefs and ritual that are the path to salvation. To scrutinize a religion for it's authenticity is to examine the finger pointing at the moon, ignoring the wonder that is in orbit.

[Timothy Leary]

Rabbinical Judaism took over, to be followed by various forms ranging from ultra Orthodox to liberal reform to even athiestic Judaism. If they don't embrace Jesus, they they are not enmbracing God; contrariwise, if they are, there is nothing to say that Islam, a corruption of Christianity and Judaism, does not either. Or even the other subChristian cults.


The above statement is not accurate. Rabbinism did not 'take over' Jewry, even though the Saducees had been massacred. Two non-talmudic Judaisms exist today : Karaite Judaism, and the Falashas (Ethopian Jewry).

After the temple was destroyed, the majority of Jewry which did not accept the Talmud as authoritive came to be known as Karaites, like myself.

Non-Talmudic Jewry was never destroyed. We may have been in small numbers, but we have always been around.

[Timothy Leary]

Biblical Judaism embraces the triune nature of God. Moses wrote of the triune God in several different places in the Old Covenant.

2 comments:

1) Shema Yisra'el YHVH Elohaynu YHVH echad!

2) There is no "old" covenant. God established an eternal covenant, as is stated many times throughout the Torah.
.

[Timothy Leary]

04-23-2003 @ 05:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76217#post76217)
kiwimac:

Nope,

Judaism is NOT a false religion. The Jews are still, in some sense, God's people.

Kiwimac

In some sense? Could you clarify?

[Timothy Leary]

04-23-2003 @ 04:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76559#post76559)
Dee Dee Warren:

They reject Christ as Messiah and as God.

Numbers 23:19 is good enough to disprove the theory that Jesus is God.

[bar Jonah]

Judaism certainly isn't a false religion.

Now, if only Jews today would practice it instead of the bevy of human wisdom they follow instead, out of the Talmud...

[bar Jonah]

yoshiah_ap:
Numbers 23:19 is good enough to disprove the theory that Jesus is God.
Uhm, Yoshiah.... When that was written, God WASN'T a man. :ri:

[dizzle]

Today @ 09:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270623#post270623)
yoshiah_ap:



Numbers 23:19 is good enough to disprove the theory that Jesus is God.

Of course that is another debate, not really relevant to the thread except that it proves my point. You are Jewish. Freak was trying to say that Christians today and Jews today both have true religions. I affirm Jesus is God. You deny Jesus is God. One or both of us has an utterly false religion. Freak, which is it?

[dizzle]

/ot that last question was rhetorical. Freak no longer participates here, but the answer is obvious from a Christian (which Freak is) point of view.

[Timothy Leary]

Malachi 3:6 (i'm not sure what the reference is in a Christian bible)
"For I am YHVH - I have not changed; and you are the children of Jacob - you have not ceased to be."

Note: Other translate it as "For I YHVH do not change"

[bar Jonah]

Yosh, stop ignoring the context. That passage is about YHWH's faithfulness to Israel. That's the way He doesn't change. It's right there in the same verse. He hasn't destroyed Israel, has He?

But you're going to say He doesn't change in ANY way?

All of the times God changes His mind, starting in Genesis 6:6 ... until He actually declares in Jeremiah 15:6 that He is weary of repenting, regarding Israel?

You can't look at God's unchanging faithfulness and take it out of context, claiming God doesn't change in any way at all, ever.

[dizzle]

My point, which is on topic of this thread, was deftly avoided.

[bar Jonah]

Of course it was.

[Timothy Leary]

11-04-2003 @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270655#post270655)
Dee Dee Warren:

My point, which is on topic of this thread, was deftly avoided.

Could you move the parts of this thread that are off-topic then, and pm me the location, so that I can reply to the post by "RightIdea" without derailing this thread more than it is?

[dizzle]

Actually I think your posts will lose their 'meat' in isolation. Why don't you start a new thread here in Comparative religions on that topic? However, FYI, my comments were not directed as a complaint that you were derailing a thread per se, but rather that you were simply avoiding the point made here. A point that logically you should agree with, but just arguing the other side of the point. One or both of us has a false religion. We cannot both be right.


PS: Don't think my "you didn't answer" comments here were made as Site Owner. They were not. Our policy here at TWeb is when a member of leadership is entrenched in debate they do not have leadership powers or privileges in that thread but are just like any other poster.

[Timothy Leary]

Yesterday @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272857#post272857)
Dee Dee Warren:

Actually I think your posts will lose their 'meat' in isolation. Why don't you start a new thread here in Comparative religions on that topic? However, FYI, my comments were not directed as a complaint that you were derailing a thread per se, but rather that you were simply avoiding the point made here. A point that logically you should agree with, but just arguing the other side of the point. One or both of us has a false religion. We cannot both be right.


PS: Don't think my &quot;you didn't answer&quot; comments here were made as Site Owner. They were not. Our policy here at TWeb is when a member of leadership is entrenched in debate they do not have leadership powers or privileges in that thread but are just like any other poster.

Oh. I didn't realize you wanted a response. I don't agree with you. Neither of us has an "utterly false religion". Obviously, since we both share a belief of the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, we share common values in some areas, so neither of us can be completely wrong.

[dizzle]

I don't think anyone is completely wrong, that was never the question. Does a religion have to be completely wrong to be false? If there was a religion that promoted child sacrificed but thought giving to the poor was a good thikng, would it not be false because it was not completely wrong.

My God is Jesus. My God is a Trinity. Yours is not. This is not an inconsequential matter. We do not have the same God. One or both of us is completely wrong. There is no PC way out of this. Niceties don't cut it.

[The_Chosen]

Freak,

I agree that Judaism embrasses the one, true God. After all, He was God to them long before He was God to Christians. Personally, it is difficult for me to see how people could say that Jews do not worship the one, true God. They are His chosen people and that fact remains true today. The question I believe would have to do with Jesus and his Godhood. Most Jews reject the notion of Jesus as a deity and I guess from that perpective, one could say that the Jews do not worship the one, true God. I disagree with this because the Jews worship YHWH just as Christians do. The two groups worship the same God. Christians simply say that Jesus is a part of the Godhead whereas Jews say God is one.

Danielle

[torquemada1106]

unless you can show that old man yahweh is any more real than zeus,it is a false religion.....all religions are "fale",in the sense that are nothing more than human constructs.talking snakes,flying jews..etc...if judaism is false,then so is xtianity.....

Please read the forum guidelines for each section before posting. Thanks.

[Jin-Roh]

Christians simply say that Jesus is a part of the Godhead whereas Jews say God is one.

Don't you think that's a pretty important distinction?

[The_Chosen]

Yesterday @ 11:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=313803#post313803)
Jin-Roh:



Don't you think that's a pretty important distinction?

I was simply stating my belief that Jews still worship the same God Christians do. He, Himself says He doesn't change. Is the trinity versus One God different? Yes. But don't Jews worship YHWH? He is still God, that has not changed. He is the same God that Christians worship except that they believe he is three persons in one God. But the point remains that the Jews believe in the Father and therefore worship the same God Christians do, just with a different view on His form.

[dizzle]

Today @ 08:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315014#post315014)
The_Chosen:



I was simply stating my belief that Jews still worship the same God Christians do. He, Himself says He doesn't change. Is the trinity versus One God different? Yes. But don't Jews worship YHWH? He is still God, that has not changed. He is the same God that Christians worship except that they believe he is three persons in one God. But the point remains that the Jews believe in the Father and therefore worship the same God Christians do, just with a different view on His form.

Have you read this thread? This whole thing was systematically rebutted from the NT which says if you deny the Son, you deny the Father. Sorry there is no getting around that.

[The_Chosen]

Today @ 08:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315024#post315024)
Dee Dee Warren:



Have you read this thread? This whole thing was systematically rebutted from the NT which says if you deny the Son, you deny the Father. Sorry there is no getting around that.

In all honesty, no, I haven't read the entire thread but I didn't have to because I grew up in a fundy Indy Baptist church where the exact same point that you guys made was taught nearly every Sunday and so I knew the general response from reading a few of the posts here and there. However, does the fact that the idea has been rebutted based on the Christian NT mean that I have to agree with it and that I can't post a differing opinion on the topic? If that is the case then, by all means, please tell me. However, using the Christian NT doesn't nessassarily prove anything. You have your faith that says the NT is correct but that doesn't mean that it is. I'm not saying you and everybody else who believes in salvation through Jesus Christ is wrong. However, I would like you to tell me who the Jews worship. If they don't worship YHWH, who do they worship?
My only point was that the Jews had been worshipping YHWH long before Christianity came onto the scene and that, even with the scriptures about denying Christ and denying the Father, you have to explain then, the entire OT where the Jews were YHWH's chosen people and still are to this day. If it is true that YHWH does not change, then He has always been, by Christian belief a triune God. However, Jews were worshipping Him long before the idea of the trinity was expressed. Wouldn't it be true that if YHWH does not change and has always been a triune God, that belief in that would be required for atonement and salvation? But the Jews were saved without such a belief weren't they? Was belief in the Trinity only required once Jesus came? Seems interesting to me that such would be the case if God never changes and was always a triune God. Just because Jesus came to be the atonement for all sins does not mean that belief in him would not have been required before that if YHWH was always a triune God. It would seem impossible to believe in only the Father and not also the Son and Spirit since, by Christian thought, all three have always been.
But I've gone off my orignial course. My original point was simply that you cannot prove something like salvation through Jesus Christ and denial equating to disbelief in the Father completely and soundly. It is impossible to prove that Christians got it right and Jews got it wrong until we die or the Messiah comes back and then we'll know. Until then, it really is simply a matter of faith. And as to denying the son and therefore denying the Father, I believe that some of those scriptures can be debated as to their meaning anyway and that some of those scriptures may have been edited or changed later. However, that is not for this post.
Also, my apologies since some of this really doesn't fit in with the post topic.

[Jin-Roh]

Well I haven't read the entire thread either, but consider this (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone brought this up already:)

They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, " If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.
"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
"You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

John 8:39-42 NASB (Jesus speaking to the Pharisees)


Based on this, how can someone reject the Son and still have the Father?

[Queen]

I believe that there is no false religion at all...it is what people make of it.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[dizzle]

And that makes no sense at all. There is truth and there is falsity. That is like saying love and hate can be the same thing. Things like that sound all fluffy and nice but they are meaningless and false.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 06:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318346#post318346)
Jin-Roh:

[quote]They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, " If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. John 8:39-42 NASB (Jesus speaking to the Pharisees) ”



Based on this, how can someone reject the Son and still have the Father?

Your question is circular unless you can also show from the above statement that Jesus claims to be God rather than saying God sent him. Ditto for your implied statement that they are rejecting the Son.

The idiom of the NRSV is easier to follow:

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.”

This quite clearly says that Jesus was not claiming to be there on his own authority, but rather, the Father had sent him. There is no mention of Son.

So, what you are faced with here is a statement that completely opposes your assumption. A statement that says Jesus is not God, but rather, a man who claims to have heard from God. There is no ambiguity in the statement:

“but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

[Queen]

LOL....Fluffy?...Dee Dee.... :teeth:

How do we know what is true or false. Maybe religion started somewhere and prophets and philosophers changed it in the course of time......People are realming this earth for so long. How do you know for sure that something is true. Believing is an emotion, not a fact......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318902#post318902)
Queen:

LOL....Fluffy?...Dee Dee.... :teeth:

How do we know what is true or false. Maybe religion started somewhere and prophets and philosophers changed it in the course of time......People are realming this earth for so long. How do you know for sure that something is true. Believing is an emotion, not a fact......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

And then so how do you know what you said before is true? And if there is no truth, why should I listen to anyone? How can you know for sure you even exist? How can you know I did. And you just stated some "truth statement' above. How do you know they are true? I am sorry Queen, but you keep making assertions that are completely self-contradictory and self-defeating. I am not saying this to be insulting or rude you know that, but I would really like you to start seriously thinking through the things that you say even if we still disagree because you are not even consistent with yourself at this point.

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318878#post318878)
Fideist345:



Your question is circular unless you can also show from the above statement that Jesus claims to be God rather than saying God sent him. Ditto for your implied statement that they are rejecting the Son.

The idiom of the NRSV is easier to follow:

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.”

This quite clearly says that Jesus was not claiming to be there on his own authority, but rather, the Father had sent him. There is no mention of Son.

So, what you are faced with here is a statement that completely opposes your assumption. A statement that says Jesus is not God, but rather, a man who claims to have heard from God. There is no ambiguity in the statement:

“but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

irrelevant. John says if you reject hte son you reject the father...

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 08:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318878#post318878)
Fideist345:



Your question is circular unless you can also show from the above statement that Jesus claims to be God rather than saying God sent him. Ditto for your implied statement that they are rejecting the Son.

The idiom of the NRSV is easier to follow:

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.”

This quite clearly says that Jesus was not claiming to be there on his own authority, but rather, the Father had sent him. There is no mention of Son.

So, what you are faced with here is a statement that completely opposes your assumption. A statement that says Jesus is not God, but rather, a man who claims to have heard from God. There is no ambiguity in the statement:

“but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”


:ahem:
The person who I had responded to had already indicated an understanding of the trinity* (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=313019#post313019), so I didn't really feel the need to bring in the Divinity of Christ into the discussion. Her agrument was that the Jews are worshipping YHWH, but this statement by Jesus is indicating that if someone rejects Jesus they really aren't. Becuase of this, I don't believe that it could be said that Judaism "embraces the one true God."

But as far as Jesus being God, you might consider reading this same passage, just a few more verses down.

[Queen]

And then so how do you know what you said before is true? And if there is no truth, why should I listen to anyone? How can you know for sure you even exist? How can you know I did. And you just stated some "truth statement' above. How do you know they are true? I am sorry Queen, but you keep making assertions that are completely self-contradictory and self-defeating. I am not saying this to be insulting or rude you know that, but I would really like you to start seriously thinking through the things that you say even if we still disagree because you are not even consistent with yourself at this point.

:teeth: DD you say that everytime. I know now how you feel. But really, how do you know you are right and I am wrong or the other way around. Why should God be not worshipped in all religions? Maybe He has just another name and there are differences in the holy books. But how do you know one religion is true and the other one is false? And I am not talking about how people express their religion. We both know that there are some sick minds in this world that use (or better abuse) religion to murder and to hate. And don't ask me another question. Explain to me how you know that one religion is true and another is false. Proof it to me with clear facts and flame my statement....destroy it....smash it with facts.

See, I must be rational in my dialogue, discussion, debate techniques...I know I am not a good debater.....I was told that here a zillion times... :hrm: but religion is not rational. It is believeing and opening your heart for that fate you have inside you. fate is emotional..........fate is an important emotion and comforts a lot of people. It is not wrong to have fate, but it is not rational......and smash this statement with facts as well.... :tongue:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[dizzle]

Queen, I will be back to address this in more depth (trying to get ready to go on vacation) but I keep repeating it for two reasons.

1. I think one day you will finally see what I have been trying to say because your last statement was also filled with internal inconistency. This has nothing to do with being a good debater, but having a consistent worldview without congnitive dissidence.

2. Others are reading this thread that will not have read my other comments along these lines. REmember that posts here are not just for htose in the thread, but the "lurkers" as well.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 02:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319026#post319026)
Dee Dee Warren:



irrelevant. John says if you reject hte son you reject the father...

I assure you it is not irrelevent.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 02:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319027#post319027)
Jin-Roh:


Becuase of this, I don't believe that it could be said that Judaism &quot;embraces the one true God.&quot;

Jesus was Jewish. To say that Jewish people did not believe in the same God Jesus did makes no sense. The language against the Pharisees in John is obviously polemic and in some cases pejorative, probably due to an incident involving Jewish Christians being expelled from their synagogue home.

But as far as Jesus being God, you might consider reading this same passage, just a few more verses down.

I've seen all those arguments many times. You may believe Jesus is/was God and I may believe Jesus is/was God. But our belief, if we hold such, is rooted in the early church fathers perceptions and interpretations of the gospels. They made their decisions based on perceived evidence. Not on plain uncontested evidence. And I assure you; none of it has ever been undisputed. The plain fact is that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make an unambiguous statement that he is God. Every purported claim that he does relies on a particular interpretation. Even the famous “I am” statements that John has Jesus speak are quite debatable. Most scholars and exegetes that have delved into the idea cannot come away with anything more that John was claiming for Jesus the authority given to him by the divine.

There are, however, statements such as, "but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." That are completely plain, and totally unambiguous.

[Jin-Roh]

Jesus was Jewish. To say that Jewish people did not believe in the same God Jesus did makes no sense. The language against the Pharisees in John is obviously polemic and in some cases pejorative, probably due to an incident involving Jewish Christians being expelled from their synagogue home.


Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and there was already a schism going on between the "Jesus sect" and all the other Jews. But I still fail to see how this backdrop would nullify Jesus's words here. He's unequivocally saying "If you aren't following me, than you're not really following the God of Abraham, and you are nothing like Abraham." There has to be little bit more here then a some kind of "religious ancestory" for someone to be a follower of God. Otherwise, folks like King Jehoiakim where true followers.

I've seen all those arguments many times. You may believe Jesus is/was God and I may believe Jesus is/was God. But our belief, if we hold such, is rooted in the early church fathers perceptions and interpretations of the gospels. They made their decisions based on perceived evidence. Not on plain uncontested evidence. And I assure you; none of it has ever been undisputed. The plain fact is that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make an unambiguous statement that he is God. Every purported claim that he does relies on a particular interpretation. Even the famous “I am” statements that John has Jesus speak are quite debatable. Most scholars and exegetes that have delved into the idea cannot come away with anything more that John was claiming for Jesus the authority given to him by the divine.

There are, however, statements such as, "but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." That are completely plain, and totally unambiguous.

The "I am" statement is unambigous, espiecally when you consider the reaction of the pharisees. But even for the sake of argument Jesus wasn't God, it still wouldn't change this fact:

1. Jesus said that if you don't follow him, you do not worship the God of Abraham.
2. Christianity believes the words of Jesus are authoritative.
3. Jews do not worship Jesus.
Therefore, Jews and Christians cannot be serving the same God. One, or both, of camps are wrong, but they cannot both be right.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 12:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319068#post319068)
Queen:

:teeth: DD you say that everytime. I know now how you feel. But really, how do you know you are right and I am wrong or the other way around. Why should God be not worshipped in all religions?

Why would God seek to confuse with many religions?

Maybe He has just another name and there are differences in the holy books. But how do you know one religion is true and the other one is false?

Because they condridict eachother. For instance, Hinduism is pantheistic, "God is all and all is God" is the saying. God is just everything, he is nothing in particular. Christianity/Judaism/Islam state that God is a creator, who is seperate from his creation. A tree is not God. A rock is not God. etc etc These things where created by God.

God cannot be both "all things" and then at the same time "be seperate" from these things. It's mutually exclusive. Either the Pantheistic, or Theistic group is wrong, or both are wrong, but they can't both be right.

Explain how Christianity and Hinduism can both be right and worshipping the same God.

And I am not talking about how people express their religion. We both know that there are some sick minds in this world that use (or better abuse) religion to murder and to hate.

Agreed.

And don't ask me another question. Explain to me how you know that one religion is true and another is false. Proof it to me with clear facts and flame my statement....destroy it....smash it with facts.

See above

See, I must be rational in my dialogue, discussion, debate techniques...I know I am not a good debater.....I was told that here a zillion times... :hrm: but religion is not rational. It is believeing and opening your heart for that fate you have inside you. fate is emotional..........fate is an important emotion and comforts a lot of people. It is not wrong to have fate, but it is not rational......and smash this statement with facts as well.... :tongue:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

I'm a little confused...

[Queen]

Jin-Roh

Because they condridict eachother. For instance, Hinduism is pantheistic, "God is all and all is God" is the saying. God is just everything, he is nothing in particular. Christianity/Judaism/Islam state that God is a creator, who is seperate from his creation. A tree is not God. A rock is not God. etc etc These things where created by God.

God cannot be both "all things" and then at the same time "be seperate" from these things. It's mutually exclusive. Either the Pantheistic, or Theistic group is wrong, or both are wrong, but they can't both be right.

Explain how Christianity and Hinduism can both be right and worshipping the same God.

So, you are saying that you don't know which religion is true or false.

You forget that hinduism has bad Gods as well.....evil Gods, not only good Gods and they have one surperior God....Shiva. Maybe these other Gods are what Christianty calls Angels. Angels that bring messages, murder on God's orders...and so on. They judge. You have many kinds of angels, also fallen angels, and you have Satan.

It is all in the names.

You haven't yet proven to me, that one religion is true and the other is false..... :huh: :wink:

I'm a little confused...

Because fate is an emotion instead of rational? That confuses me as well.....a lot lately..... :wink:

Dee Dee, :smile: :teeth: have a wonderful and beautiful vacation! Take care and be safe....

(and when I wrote it down, I sort of talked to you personally, not realizing that others would read it as well.....my mistake. :doh: )

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 11:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319306#post319306)
Jin-Roh:



[quote]Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and there was already a schism going on between the "Jesus sect" and all the other Jews. But I still fail to see how this backdrop would nullify Jesus's words here. He's unequivocally saying "If you aren't following me, than you're not really following the God of Abraham, and you are nothing like Abraham."

I don't agree. The statement was a rhetorical device. It is similar to saying, "no real Christian would do (or say) that, anyone who does (or says) that is not a Christian and therefore not of God”. Just for kicks, I went through every moderate and conservative commentary I have (Matthew Henry, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Harper’s, The Jerome [and it’s update] and the Expositors). None of them read the passage the way you do (different God). They all indicate that John has Jesus saying basically what I have indicated. It was a rhetorical statement, which apparently you have idiosyncratically decided to interpret as the Jews and Christians worshipping different Gods.

The "I am" statement is unambigous, espiecally when you consider the reaction of the pharisees.

Again, I completely disagree. The reaction of the Pharisees was the same reaction you’d get for any sort of blasphemy. Claiming that you were God’s personal representative on earth would have had the same effect.

But even for the sake of argument Jesus wasn't God, it still wouldn't change this fact:

1. Jesus said that if you don't follow him, you do not worship the God of Abraham.

Is this your reading of some passage, or is it another of your assumptions based on something else?

2. Christianity believes the words of Jesus are authoritative.

I already gave you words of Jesus that completely contradict what you say are other words of Jesus.

3. Jews do not worship Jesus.

How could Jews worship Jesus considering your preface (sake of argument)? More on this in a minute.

Therefore, Jews and Christians cannot be serving the same God. One, or both, of camps are wrong, but they cannot both be right.

Your syllogism fails on at least two counts. 1 is circular: you personally read the passage(s) this way; therefore this is what the passage says. 3 is opposed to the preface of your argument. Why would you expect Jews to worship a person who is not God? That leaves your conclusion as more circular reasoning based on your apparent assumption that Jews should have worshipped Jesus.

Back to worshipping Jesus: by the time John was written around 95 CE, there were in fact, people worshipping Jesus. It happened in such a smooth transition that nobody could have stopped it. Most likely, many the people worshipping Jesus were in the community that produced the gospel of John. And quite clearly, at least some of those in the Matthean community did as well. Some of the language in Matthew comes far closer to stating that Jesus is in fact divine, than the language in John. Anyway, this worshipping of Jesus was a huge problem, because in monotheistic thought, it constituted idolatry.

This worship of Jesus is most likely what got the John community kicked out of their synagogue. And that kicking out was probably the reason for the writers of John using such pejorative language towards people with whom they vehemently disagreed.

There were a lot of Christian groups at this time. And many of them had very different ideas about who and what Jesus was. There was quite a bit of agreement that he was a prophet like Elijah. There were some that thought he was more than a man, but still a creature. There were also some that were convinced he was a god. The up thrust of all this was that people began discussing how Jesus could be more than a man, worthy of worship and yet avoid the charge of idolatry. So, the nature of Jesus was not fixed or determined in 95 CE. Nor was it fixed or determined a hundred years later. You could pretty much believe anything about Jesus you wanted to. And people did! Some argued that he was of one nature and a man. Others argued that he was of another and was divine. Still others argued that a divine being had entered Jesus’ body. The variety of belief was vast. And all (or any) of it was acceptable. If you want a list, look up heresy. But at around 280CE, almost 200 years after John was written, virtually the entire eastern part of the church and a good portion of the western church were under the influence of Arius. He argued that God was unbegotten but Jesus was begotten and therefore was not God in the same sense as the Father. This was a heavily debated issue. So much so that Constantine ordered the bishops to meet and not end the council until the issue was settled.

A bishop by the name of Athanasius from the eastern church was successful in arguing that Jesus was God using the idea of homoousios or the two being of the same substance. So, it was at this time, that what we now call “orthodoxy” began. The nature of Christ was fixed (albeit by using reasoning that was unbiblical) as begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. So, in 325 CE at the council of Nicea, Jesus was declared God. Up ‘till then, you were permitted to think or believe whatever you wanted concerning the nature of Jesus. It was most certainly up in the air in 95 CE, when the gospel of John was written.

[Paul]

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents into the bucket ;)

I think Judaism as it was revealed by God in the Old Testament is a true religion, indeed a revealed religion. Since God can neither deceive nor be dceived, we know that that religion is true and pleasing to Him.

What we today often call "Judaism" though is not the religion which God revealed, but to some extent a man-made one. And to the extent that it is man-made, it is not a revealed religion. Also to the extent that the man-made elements contradict the truth, especially the truth as revealed in Christianity, it is a false religion.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319600#post319600)
Paul:


What we today often call &quot;Judaism&quot; though is not the religion which God revealed, but to some extent a man-made one. And to the extent that it is man-made, it is not a revealed religion. Also to the extent that the man-made elements contradict the truth, especially the truth as revealed in Christianity, it is a false religion.

The oral Torah or Talmud of the Jewish faith is no different in terms of being man-made than are the ECF documents and oral Tradition in Christian faith.

[Timothy Leary]

Which Judaism?

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319600#post319600)
Paul:

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents into the bucket ;)

I think Judaism as it was revealed by God in the Old Testament is a true religion, indeed a revealed religion. Since God can neither deceive nor be dceived, we know that that religion is true and pleasing to Him.

What we today often call &quot;Judaism&quot; though is not the religion which God revealed, but to some extent a man-made one. And to the extent that it is man-made, it is not a revealed religion. Also to the extent that the man-made elements contradict the truth, especially the truth as revealed in Christianity, it is a false religion.

[Paul]

Today @ 07:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319603#post319603)
Fideist345:



The oral Torah or Talmud of the Jewish faith is no different in terms of being man-made than are the ECF documents and oral Tradition in Christian faith.

Your analogy may work to some extent when comparing the Jewish religion as it existed prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the Gospel except that authentic oral Tradition in the Christian faith is the word of God handed down to us which cannot be said of the Jewish oral tradition. Not everything written by the ECFs is an instance of that authoritative Tradition of course. But in those cases, those opinions are submitted to the light of the word of God, which cannot be said of the Jewish counterparts.

Be that as it may, modern Judaism or what we call "Judaism" denies that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, it is a false religion and it is not the Judaism that God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed to his people in the Old Testament.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320048#post320048)
Paul:


[quote][Fideist wrote:] "The oral Torah or Talmud of the Jewish faith is no different in terms of being man-made than are the ECF documents and oral Tradition in Christian faith. ”

[Paul replied:] Your analogy may work to some extent when comparing the Jewish religion as it existed prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the Gospel except that authentic oral Tradition in the Christian faith is the word of God handed down to us which cannot be said of the Jewish oral tradition.

Not exactly. With the exception of people like Yoshiah, who are Karaites, Jewish people claim The Oral Torah goes back to Moses who received it directly from God:

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm


Not everything written by the ECFs is an instance of that authoritative Tradition of course. But in those cases, those opinions are submitted to the light of the word of God, which cannot be said of the Jewish counterparts.

Please see above.

Be that as it may, modern Judaism or what we call "Judaism" denies that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, it is a false religion and it is not the Judaism that God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed to his people in the Old Testament.

I answered a similar charge in another post that was in the Apologetic 301 section until somebody moved it (and me) here. I'll paste the beginning of the reply and the URL to the post:

[ddlewis86 pasted:]
With respect to Jesus, modern day Jews are little different than their New Testament counterparts. They reject him. However, as was also the case in the New Testament, when a Jew is brought to faith in Jesus, he is returned to the faith of the Old (and New) Testament and to worship of the true God. ”



[Fideist replied:] As the Messiah, they reject Jesus. Their criteria for a Messiah is far different from what Jesus claimed. Here are the criteria Jews look for:


1] Biological descendant of David--Jeremiah 23:5 (See also Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:21-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 30: 7-10; Jeremiah 33:14-16; and Hosea 3:4-5)

note: must also be a descendant of Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9), but can not be a descendant of Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:30).

2] Preceded by Elijah--Malachi 3:23-24

3] World Peace--Isaiah 2:4;Ezekiel 39: 9

4] Universal Knowledge of God--Isaiah 11: 9; Jeremiah 31:33; Zechariah 8:23; Zechariah 14: 9; Zechariah 14:16

5] Building of the Third Temple--Ezekiel 37:26-28 (See also Ezekiel 40-48; Isaiah 33:20)

6] Death Will Cease--Isaiah 25:8

There are 17 total requirements, the rest of which can be seen at the URL below.


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=317651#post317651

[Timothy Leary]

Today @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320048#post320048)
Paul:



Your analogy may work to some extent when comparing the Jewish religion as it existed prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the Gospel except that authentic oral Tradition in the Christian faith is the word of God handed down to us which cannot be said of the Jewish oral tradition. Not everything written by the ECFs is an instance of that authoritative Tradition of course. But in those cases, those opinions are submitted to the light of the word of God, which cannot be said of the Jewish counterparts.

Be that as it may, modern Judaism or what we call &quot;Judaism&quot; denies that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, it is a false religion and it is not the Judaism that God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed to his people in the Old Testament.

Well, we'll be discussing this in a new thread soon... where we will analyze - prophecy by prophecy - whether or not Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecies.
.

[Paul]

Today @ 06:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320159#post320159)
Fideist345:





Not exactly. With the exception of people like Yoshiah, who are Karaites, Jewish people claim The Oral Torah goes back to Moses who received it directly from God:

Thank you for telling me this. I knew about Karaites actually, but I didn't know or at least realize that other Jews considered the oral Torah to have the authority of God behind it.


I answered a similar charge in another post that was in the Apologetic 301 section until somebody moved it (and me) here. I'll paste the beginning of the reply and the URL to the post:

I don't see how that answers my "charge." That these Jews have failed to recognize their Messiah doesn't mitigate against the fact that they deny that Jesus is the Messiah when in fact He is. Regardless of what these Jews may think or feel, the fact of the matter is that Jesus is the Messiah and was revealed to be so by God. So insofar as a Jew today denies that revelation, his religion is a false one.

I noticed in your reply that you were responding to someone who held that today's Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. That is not my position just so you know.

To the extent that a Jew today worships the One whom he believes to have been revealed to Abraham, and to all the patriarchs and all the prophets, he worships the true God for that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But to the extent that a Jew today has an allegiance to the spirit that tells him that Jesus is not the Messiah, he has an allegiance to someone opposed to God. If that allegiance takes precedence in a Jew today over his allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to the God of Enoch and Elijah, then I'm not sure that one can say that such a Jew worships the true God. IOW to the extent that a Jew would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and as the only begotten Son of God even in the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob communicating this truth to him, his worship is not a worship in spirit and in truth even though his intellect may acknowledge Him just as the intellects of the fallen angels acknowledge God.

I'm speaking in the paragraph above of any hypothetical individual Jew, not anything generalized with regard to all Jews.

Peace.

[Paul]

yoshiah_ap:

Well, we'll be discussing this in a new thread soon... where we will analyze - prophecy by prophecy - whether or not Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecies.
.


hallo yoshiah,

I look forward to it; thanks for letting me know. I don't know how much I would be able to contribute though.

shalom

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 09:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320593#post320593)
Paul:



Thank you for telling me this. I knew about Karaites actually, but I didn't know or at least realize that other Jews considered the oral Torah to have the authority of God behind it.

You're welcome.


I don't see how that answers my "charge." That these Jews have failed to recognize their Messiah doesn't mitigate against the fact that they deny that Jesus is the Messiah when in fact He is.

Well, see, the Jewish people were the ones who set the criteria for the Messiah after having been (they claim) incrementally inspired by God (through the prophets) as to what those requirements would be. They say that Jesus did not meet the requirements, therefore any claim by anyone to his being the Messiah is not binding upon them; your (or my) personal beliefs notwithstanding.

I noticed in your reply that you were responding to someone who held that today's Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. That is not my position just so you know.

I would hope not.

To the extent that a Jew today worships the One whom he believes to have been revealed to Abraham, and to all the patriarchs and all the prophets, he worships the true God for that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But to the extent that a Jew today has an allegiance to the spirit that tells him that Jesus is not the Messiah, he has an allegiance to someone opposed to God.

I think you have contradicted your earlier statement. They either ally themselves to (worship) God or they owe allegiance to someone opposed to God.

If that allegiance takes precedence in a Jew today over his allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to the God of Enoch and Elijah, then I'm not sure that one can say that such a Jew worships the true God. IOW to the extent that a Jew would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and as the only begotten Son of God even in the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob communicating this truth to him, his worship is not a worship in spirit and in truth even though his intellect may acknowledge Him just as the intellects of the fallen angels acknowledge God.

Well, they just don't see it that way. They don't see a third Temple, they don't see world peace, they don't see the end of death, etc.; and as a result, they also don't see a Messiah. Most don't mind if you do though. That is not to say that no Jewish person would insist that your religion is a false one. But if someone were to do so in a forum I were participating in, I would certainly attempt to show that person the error of his or her ways.

[Paul]

No it is binding on them because it is true. Jesus is the Messiah. That is true, no matter what anyone thinks. We are bound to believe the truth as far as that truth becomes accesible to us. In this case, the truth that Jesus is the Messiah was proclaimed publically by God Himself. And so we -- everyone -- are bound to believe in this truth as a matter of faith based on the authority of God's own word. God spoke this truth to the whole of humanity, including the Jews. They are as bound to believe in this truth as is anyone else. What they think they are bound to believe in this case has nothing to do with what they are in fact bound to believe -- objectively speaking.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321276#post321276)
Paul:

What they think they are bound to believe in this case has nothing to do with what they are in fact bound to believe -- objectively speaking.

Well, no. The above is according to what you believe. What you believe is subjective unless you intend to engage in some form of religious solipsism.

[Paul]

Today @ 04:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321717#post321717)
Fideist345:



Well, no. The above is according to what you believe. What you believe is subjective unless you intend to engage in some form of religious solipsism.

According to *you* it is "subjective". You sound like a relativist of some sort... if you are then I don't think we can really have a meaningful discussion since relativism with respect to the truth is incoherent in such a way that nothing can be discussed within that framework without incoherence bleeding out of every sentence.

In moral theology or ethics some persons speak of an objective obligation versus a subjective obligation. That's the sense in which I was using the word "objective." Everyone has an objective obligation to love Jesus Christ -- whether they think they do or not. A subjective obligation is something which someone thinks is an objective obligation and is in that way obliged to do it. Just because a subjective obligation to love Jesus Christ is not present in a person does not mean that a corresponding objective obligation is not present in that case. Objective obligations do not change based on what a person erroneously thinks. If I erroneously think that adultery is OK, that doesn't change the fact that it is not. If I were brainwashed somehow into thinking that adultery is OK I may not be subjectively obliged to avoid it, but I would still be objectively obliged so. The objective obligations are thus moral realities which are present regardless of how one perceives or misperceives them.

And so again I maintain that everyone -- Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, what have you -- has an objective obligation to love and worship Jesus Christ. If they do not do that, they are committing -- objectively speaking -- a great injustice. Subjectively speaking, they may not be fully culpable for that sin just as someone who is brainwashed into say thinking that robbing banks is OK may not be fully culpable for robbing banks -- as happened in one famous case involving a kidnapped woman.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 09:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321943#post321943)
Paul:



According to *you* it is &quot;subjective&quot;.

Not exactly. I used the Encarta dictionary definition.


You sound like a relativist of some sort... if you are then I don't think we can really have a meaningful discussion since relativism with respect to the truth is incoherent in such a way that nothing can be discussed within that framework without incoherence bleeding out of every sentence.

You want to talk about me now? Why?

In moral theology or ethics some persons speak of an objective obligation versus a subjective obligation. That's the sense in which I was using the word &quot;objective.&quot; Everyone has an objective obligation to love Jesus Christ -- whether they think they do or not.

That is a personal belief. In no way can anyone demonstrate the objectivity of this statement without referring me to a religious text that is itself quite often the object of subjective interpretation. A text that can be made to back virtually any position one wants it to, simply by removing some paragraph, word, sentence or phrase from the context and stressing that.

A subjective obligation is something which someone thinks is an objective obligation and is in that way obliged to do it. Just because a subjective obligation to love Jesus Christ is not present in a person does not mean that a corresponding objective obligation is not present in that case.

That's beside the point. Unless it can be demonstrated without any doubt of error on the part of the asserter that no personal interpretation of a religious text is being used, then the position is subjective.

Objective obligations do not change based on what a person erroneously thinks. If I erroneously think that adultery is OK, that doesn't change the fact that it is not. If I were brainwashed somehow into thinking that adultery is OK I may not be subjectively obliged to avoid it, but I would still be objectively obliged so. The objective obligations are thus moral realities which are present regardless of how one perceives or misperceives them.

This is a false dichotomy. There are meaningful not-religious concepts of adultery as well as religious. The idea of a "false religion" has no clear counterpart in the not-religious world.

And so again I maintain that everyone -- Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, what have you -- has an objective obligation to love and worship Jesus Christ. If they do not do that, they are committing -- objectively speaking -- a great injustice. Subjectively speaking, they may not be fully culpable for that sin just as someone who is brainwashed into say thinking that robbing banks is OK may not be fully culpable for robbing banks -- as happened in one famous case involving a kidnapped woman.

You can maintain whatever you want. But maintaining an opinion and demonstrating objectivity are not the same. I do not mean that in any sort of smart-alecky way. All you have proved is that you believe something. I believe it is wrong to tell someone else that her religion is false, and I can assert that in a conversation. I can't prove it objectively though.

[barryrob]

Judaism, I believe, embraces the One & True God, but many here on TWeb reject that notion. So, do you believe Judaism is another false religion?
It became a false religion when it murdered it's Christ as he was to become the new King and High Priest and stayed with the Law of Moses which Christ fulfilled and ended with his death as the Great Passover. Jesus Christ (the Messiah) established the New Covernat which the followers of Judaism do not follow thus making them a false religious tradition now. But even worse than that they serve the purpose of the Devil standing opposed to The True Faith reveled through Jesus, The Messiah.
Barryrob

[Timothy Leary]

It became a false religion when it murdered it's Christ as he was to become the new King and High Priest and stayed with the Law of Moses which Christ fulfilled and ended with his death as the Great Passover. Jesus Christ (the Messiah) established the New Covernat which the followers of Judaism do not follow thus making them a false religious tradition now. But even worse than that they serve the purpose of the Devil standing opposed to The True Faith reveled through Jesus, The Messiah.
Barryrob

I guess god was just joking when he told us to follow the Torah forever, right?

[bar Jonah]

I guess god was just joking when he told us to follow the Torah forever, right?
Yes, but as you know, and as I pointed out in another thread, the Lord told Israel to stop sacrificing and burning incense and said He wasn't even going to listen to prayers at one time, in Isaiah 1. At times, the Lord repents/relents/changes His mind in response to men. (Jeremiah 18.)

Therefore, just to simply say something isn't true because He said to follow the Torah forever, doesn't necessarily mean there won't be times in which the Torah is set aside at least in certain ways, if Israel is not acting within God's will.

[Timothy Leary]

Yes, but as you know, and as I pointed out in another thread, the Lord told Israel to stop sacrificing and burning incense and said He wasn't even going to listen to prayers at one time, in Isaiah 1. At times, the Lord repents/relents/changes His mind in response to men. (Jeremiah 18.)

Therefore, just to simply say something isn't true because He said to follow the Torah forever, doesn't necessarily mean there won't be times in which the Torah is set aside at least in certain ways, if Israel is not acting within God's will.

I decided to make a new thread for this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=750737#post750737

[barryrob]

I guess god was just joking when he told us to follow the Torah forever, right?
Which text, Book. Ch. Verse, are you talking of?
Barryrob

[barryrob]

I guess god was just joking when he told us to follow the Torah forever, right?If the Torah or Old Coverant was to last forever why would Jehovah say:-



Jeremiah 31:31-33 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah."




33 "For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days," is the utterance of Jehovah. "I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people."





Barryrob

[Timothy Leary]

Please join the thread I started at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39951 that way this thread doesn't get derailed.

[tomsawyer25]

Well, it's a very big discussion. I would look to Paul for some clarity on this. Paul clearly suggests that Gentiles will be grafted in with the Jewish people eventually and in some way. This suggests a time will come when the Jewish people as a nation believe.

Also, Paul says that this will happen when the "fullness" of the Gentiles arrives so it appears there's some work to be done first. Importantly, Gentiles are to remember that they are the branch, not the root.

Paul also says that the hearts of Jews are hardened and that Jews have become partially blind. So what I see here is a partial blindness, and a temporary one. Yes, it is true that a lot of rabbinic teaching goes far astray, but I would not call Judaism a false religion. It is a people partially blinded. Just as Christains are partially blinded when they believe that Jews will case to be. I believe Israel as a nation will come to Yeshua as one man, and in doing so will not cease being Jews.

Jewish teaching, which is both deep and broad, contains a lot of material which appears to strongly parallel some Christian concepts, yet other material which embraces principals which fly in its face. Historically, Judaism swerved one way, and not the other. It will not always be this way.

Shalom

Tom

[Menachem]

This whole thread seems to me like a debate between Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest in regards to what Judaism teaches and believes. This actually makes me sick to my stomach to see such ignorant people.

[tomsawyer25]

Super-Jew responding with super-arrogance. Glad I had a light lunch, or I'd be sick too. I believe it is Jewish tradition to use our tongues wisely.

The discussion is not exactly about what Judaism believes, although that itelf is a tricky question as the rabbis have changed some things enormously through the years, but about whether the revelation and events of the New Testament make Judaism a "false religion".

Seeing as you don't accept the New Testament, I'm not sure that the accusation of ignorance is appropriate. Perhaps you yourself are ignorant of some things.

While I disagree with the broad label "false religion", name-calling doesn't make someone's arguments false.

Shalom

Tom

[abu njoroge]

No one religion could hold the complete truth, for the Ultimate truth of God can not be expressed in words. Judaism is not false. It is one path leading to the same mountain of God. Jesus was and is jewish. I do not believe he intended to form a religion. He was showing the people how to live the great commandment . Love God with all ones heart,soul and might. how does one do this? By giving compassion and kindness to others,thus love thy neighbor as thy self. He said whatever you have done to the least of my bretheren you have done onto me. Thus when we give love to others ,we are giving love to God. May the blessings be.

[Menachem]

Super-Jew responding with super-arrogance. Glad I had a light lunch, or I'd be sick too. I believe it is Jewish tradition to use our tongues wisely.

seeing how you are not a Jew you dont have the authority to speak on Jewish tradition in any capacity. Messyantic jews are not Jews they are christains so you fall right into their fold of "super ignorance." good job pal!:thumb:

The discussion is not exactly about what Judaism believes, although that itelf is a tricky question as the rabbis have changed some things enormously through the years, but about whether the revelation and events of the New Testament make Judaism a "false religion".

Gee the same ol jargon comeing from a christian....."The rabbis changed.......!" With nothing to follow to show how it was changed or evidence that it was changed or viewed differently in other times. I like that coming from you messyantics it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when you all show that you all are really christains with a little jewish window dressing to play dress up games. Whats next Cross dressing in womens clothing?

Seeing as you don't accept the New Testament, I'm not sure that the accusation of ignorance is appropriate. Perhaps you yourself are ignorant of some things.

Since when was the Greek bible any authority on Judaism. It is a christian book.

While I disagree with the broad label "false religion", name-calling doesn't make someone's arguments false.

Shalom

Tom


except for when people pretend to be something they are not. Kosher Pork anyone?!

[tomsawyer25]

seeing how you are not a Jew you dont have the authority to speak on Jewish tradition in any capacity. Messyantic jews are not Jews they are christains so you fall right into their fold of "super ignorance." good job pal!

Seeing as you are not a Jew but a Rabbinist you have no more right speaking on Jewish tradition. Rabbinism traces not much further back than Catholicism. Rabbinists claim Judaism by birthright, just as anyone else.

Gee the same ol jargon comeing from a christian....."The rabbis changed.......!" With nothing to follow to show how it was changed or evidence that it was changed or viewed differently in other times. I like that coming from you messyantics it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when you all show that you all are really christains with a little jewish window dressing to play dress up games. Whats next Cross dressing in womens clothing?

More inaccurate arguments coming from a Rabbinist. There is enormous evidence that teachings have been changed and that evidence comes from Rabbinic tradition itself. Rabbinic tradition clearly drifted away from some beliefs and took on others, and often as a reaction against Christendom. Look it up.

What’s next, changing the words of the Torah? Whoops, you’ve already done that.

Since when was the Greek bible any authority on Judaism. It is a Christian book.

The New Testament is a Jewish book written by Jews. You should try reading it sometime. Everything there traces straight back to Tanach. That's more than one can say for the Rabbi bible (talmud)

Shalom

Tom