BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: RandyPNW on January 23, 2022, 01:00:33 PM
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
Right now, Russia is decompressing from the fall of the Soviet Union, and trying to establish itself as a major player, having isolated itself during the Cold War. I expect that instead of taking on the entire world, Russia will have to concede a lot in order to become the powerful player it already is.
Russia is still able to rely on partner China to be the rogue operator on the world stage. As long as it has China as an ally, what is to prevent it from being adventurous, particularly since China itself operates freely as a bully on the world stage?
At some point, I think Russia will opt for European relations, instead of its alliance with China. And that becomes more feasible as Europe loses its Christian identity and becomes more socialist. That's a sad state of affairs, and yet the reality, as I see it.
There is this great battle of Gog mentioned in the Bible. The one in Rev 20 appears to be the same player, but at a different time, after the Millennium, or at the end of it. This player is likely Russia, in my view.
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
-
I think everything will become clear- after it happens.
-
I think everything will become clear- after it happens.
Yes, everything is always clear *after* it happens. ;)
Did you read today how Israel is waiting to commit one way or the other in this Ukraine/Russia problem? Lots of Jews with relatives in Ukraine. Israel very dependent on Russia's cooperation on their northern border!
What would you do? I hope you just wouldn't wait until after the dust settles to "know" what happened?
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
Right now, Russia is decompressing from the fall of the Soviet Union, and trying to establish itself as a major player, having isolated itself during the Cold War. I expect that instead of taking on the entire world, Russia will have to concede a lot in order to become the powerful player it already is.
Russia is still able to rely on partner China to be the rogue operator on the world stage. As long as it has China as an ally, what is to prevent it from being adventurous, particularly since China itself operates freely as a bully on the world stage?
At some point, I think Russia will opt for European relations, instead of its alliance with China. And that becomes more feasible as Europe loses its Christian identity and becomes more socialist. That's a sad state of affairs, and yet the reality, as I see it.
There is this great battle of Gog mentioned in the Bible. The one in Rev 20 appears to be the same player, but at a different time, after the Millennium, or at the end of it. This player is likely Russia, in my view.
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
russia, china, usa, will be involved in www3. matt 24,6.7
gog is a demonic kingdom which god will destroy.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
-
What would you do?
Why do I have to "do" anything? God has this.
Ez 39, same chapter as the Magog prophecy:
From that day forward the people of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God. And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me. So I hid my face from them and handed them over to their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. I dealt with them according to their uncleanness and their offenses, and I hid my face from them.
“Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will now restore the fortunes of Jacob and will have compassion on all the people of Israel, and I will be zealous for my holy name. They will forget their shame and all the unfaithfulness they showed toward me when they lived in safety in their land with no one to make them afraid. When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will be proved holy through them in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind. I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.”
-
russia, china, usa, will be involved in www3. matt 24,6.7
gog is a demonic kingdom which god will destroy.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Yea, good point. Satan's final activity appears to take place in conjunction with Gog. If that is Russia, then the Russian political leadership has a "special place in Hell?"
I'm sure I have relatives in the Ukraine right now. My grandfather escaped from there.
Atheistic Communism forced itself upon Russia, and upon many satellite countries. And it has led to the deaths of millions upon millions of people, not just in the former Soviet Union, but also in other countries, like China, where it has spread.
-
What would you do?
Why do I have to "do" anything? God has this.
Ez 39, same chapter as the Magog prophecy...
Everything written in the Bible is supposed to prompt thought and action from us, in one way or another. If you feel that it means nothing, then that's okay. Sometimes we don't get anything out of reading the Scriptures.
-
Everything written in the Bible is supposed to prompt thought and action from us, in one way or another.
I think we can both agree that our mission in this world is to carry out God's will and repent when we fall short. Not to prep for end times (stockpile supplies and ammo? Prepare to be raptured?!)
I'm not going to worry about the end times because God already has this. The message that I take away from the end time prophecies is that I'm not going to worry. A lot of crazy, earth shaking events are going to happen and in the end everything is going to turn out ok. I know this because God said so.
EZ 39 "When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will be proved holy through them in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind. I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.”
Ez 37 ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land...They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever
Is 49 Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.” Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! ...
This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "See, I will beckon to the nations, I will lift up my banner to the peoples;
they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their hips. Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers.
And on and on and on...
-
I think we can both agree that our mission in this world is to carry out God's will and repent when we fall short. Not to prep for end times (stockpile supplies and ammo? Prepare to be raptured?!)
Well yes--certainly not like lunatics and drama queens, who think every political leader is the Beast and who are busy prepping for the next revolution. But in another sense, if there is an actual nuclear threat, I wouldn't fault anyone for building a bomb shelter. Back in the 70s I contemplated doing that, because the Cold War presented a real and constant threat.
We have a minimal amount of preservable foods because it makes sense when the economy here in the US is so shaky. I do wish I had a large storage building where I could buy things at their lowest costs, and make out well when prices skyrocket. ;)
As for the "Rapture," I'm not a follower of those who think they're going to be ejected from this planet at any moment. Nothing in the New Testament indicates that. The "Rapture," according to Paul, is merely a promised transformation of our bodies into something that becomes immortal. You can't prepare for that except by choosing to follow God the best you can. So we're in agreement on that much.
I'm not going to worry about the end times because God already has this. The message that I take away from the end time prophecies is that I'm not going to worry. A lot of crazy, earth shaking events are going to happen and in the end everything is going to turn out ok. I know this because God said so.
I agree. I do think it's worthwhile to take stock of what's happening in our country and in the world. That prompts us to make the right decisions, because we can judge the things our leaders are doing against the word of God. Even if nobody listens to us, God takes note of our own personal decisions. And perhaps our meager voices can make some difference? I believe they can!
Thanks for your calm, reasoned words. :)
-
Well yes--certainly not like lunatics and drama queens, who think every political leader is the Beast and who are busy prepping for the next revolution. But in another sense, if there is an actual nuclear threat, I wouldn't fault anyone for building a bomb shelter. Back in the 70s I contemplated doing that, because the Cold War presented a real and constant threat.
I understand this sentiment.
I do think it's worthwhile to take stock of what's happening in our country and in the world. That prompts us to make the right decisions, because we can judge the things our leaders are doing against the word of God. Even if nobody listens to us, God takes note of our own personal decisions. And perhaps our meager voices can make some difference?
Yes, of course. All we can do is try to lead a Godly life. If we can influence others to do so as well then so much the better.
Thanks for your calm, reasoned words. :)
You're very welcome. God bless.
-
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
No, there will not be any military invasion of Israel in the current decade-2020 to 2030. What will fulfill LITERALLY is Revelation 11:v. 1-2 and Revelation 13:v.2 and 5:
Revelation 11:v.1-2
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the COURT which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; FOR IT IS GIVEN UNTO THE GENTILES : and the HOLY CITY -JERUSALEM- shall they tread UNDER FOOT forty and two months.
REVELATION 13:v.2 and 5-7
2 And the Beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:(these three animals reveal the roots of the Beast) and the Dragon (Revelation 13:v.11) gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.[/color]
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make WAR with the saints,(THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH an invasion of Russia or any other country against Israel), and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. (In fact, will never have any kind of military invasion in Israel but a satanic religious invasion, and Satan will be enthroned as God in the holy city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.- Revelation 11:v.8.
-
No, there will not be any military invasion of Israel in the current decade-2020 to 2030.
I don't even know if Russia will invade the Ukraine tomorrow, but you know for a fact that Israel won't be invaded any time in this decade?
Does your crystal ball also provide lottery numbers?
-
No, there will not be any military invasion of Israel in the current decade-2020 to 2030. What will fulfill LITERALLY is Revelation 11:v. 1-2 and Revelation 13:v.2 and 5:
Are you *prophesying* that there will be such and such, or are you saying that *based on your interpretation of Scriptures* there cannot be such and such? If you are a self-proclaimed prophet, then I suppose our dialogue is at an end, because you can proclaim anything you want on authority of your own self-proclamation. And I see nothing spiritual whatsoever in it.
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
Right now, Russia is decompressing from the fall of the Soviet Union, and trying to establish itself as a major player, having isolated itself during the Cold War. I expect that instead of taking on the entire world, Russia will have to concede a lot in order to become the powerful player it already is.
Russia is still able to rely on partner China to be the rogue operator on the world stage. As long as it has China as an ally, what is to prevent it from being adventurous, particularly since China itself operates freely as a bully on the world stage?
At some point, I think Russia will opt for European relations, instead of its alliance with China. And that becomes more feasible as Europe loses its Christian identity and becomes more socialist. That's a sad state of affairs, and yet the reality, as I see it.
There is this great battle of Gog mentioned in the Bible. The one in Rev 20 appears to be the same player, but at a different time, after the Millennium, or at the end of it. This player is likely Russia, in my view.
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
It is certainly an interesting time that we live in. For me, it is more telling concerning the U.S. Slowly the U.S. has been moving away from it's Christian roots. And this has many ramifications. One of which is our support for Israel. We have come to a place now where Israel does not know if she can trust us anymore for support.
And rightfully so. She can't. And when you read of the attack of Gog and Magog in Scripture against Israel, you will see that there is no country opposing them. Which begs the questions, where is the U.S.? Surely the U.S. would step in and support their old ally Israel? But no...we are not there. So, what happened?
Granted...Israel must be weaned off of the U.S. in order to get her to turn back to God. Israel alone will cause her return back to God. But what happened to the U.S.?
Were we destroyed by Russia first in this war brewing between Ukraine and Russia? Or, did we just simply become another third world country with no world leadership capabilities?
Both are possible in the direction the U.S. is going. In my opinion.
Lees
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
Right now, Russia is decompressing from the fall of the Soviet Union, and trying to establish itself as a major player, having isolated itself during the Cold War. I expect that instead of taking on the entire world, Russia will have to concede a lot in order to become the powerful player it already is.
Russia is still able to rely on partner China to be the rogue operator on the world stage. As long as it has China as an ally, what is to prevent it from being adventurous, particularly since China itself operates freely as a bully on the world stage?
At some point, I think Russia will opt for European relations, instead of its alliance with China. And that becomes more feasible as Europe loses its Christian identity and becomes more socialist. That's a sad state of affairs, and yet the reality, as I see it.
There is this great battle of Gog mentioned in the Bible. The one in Rev 20 appears to be the same player, but at a different time, after the Millennium, or at the end of it. This player is likely Russia, in my view.
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
It is certainly an interesting time that we live in. For me, it is more telling concerning the U.S. Slowly the U.S. has been moving away from it's Christian roots. And this has many ramifications. One of which is our support for Israel. We have come to a place now where Israel does not know if she can trust us anymore for support.
And rightfully so. She can't. And when you read of the attack of Gog and Magog in Scripture against Israel, you will see that there is no country opposing them. Which begs the questions, where is the U.S.? Surely the U.S. would step in and support their old ally Israel? But no...we are not there. So, what happened?
Granted...Israel must be weaned off of the U.S. in order to get her to turn back to God. Israel alone will cause her return back to God. But what happened to the U.S.?
Were we destroyed by Russia first in this war brewing between Ukraine and Russia? Or, did we just simply become another third world country with no world leadership capabilities?
Both are possible in the direction the U.S. is going. In my opinion.
Lees
I'm really concerned. The US is so morally compromised now, and this from a country that has had two great awakenings and some of the greatest evangelists this world has ever known! Tremendous satellite broadcasts into all the world, and many missionary programs and compassionate efforts at helping the world.
So if Sodom and Gomorrah perished, how will the US escape? My only confidence is that there remains many good people still here in the US. I'm hoping the pendulum will swing back towards God and morality.
The lack of info in the Bible about America is of little concern--it's an old book. When it mentions the 4th Beast, which I believe is European Civilization, that would include the far parts of the earth that European Civilization reaches into, including the US.
I don't think God is ever quick to destroy any nation. Even the Canaanite nations went unpunished to any great degree for hundreds of years before God told Israel to defeat and to destroy them. A long as the righteous are here, we can pray. If necessary, judgment will come as God sees fit. In reality, judgment is already partly here.
-
I'm really concerned. The US is so morally compromised now, and this from a country that has had two great awakenings and some of the greatest evangelists this world has ever known! Tremendous satellite broadcasts into all the world, and many missionary programs and compassionate efforts at helping the world.
So if Sodom and Gomorrah perished, how will the US escape? My only confidence is that there remains many good people still here in the US. I'm hoping the pendulum will swing back towards God and morality.
The lack of info in the Bible about America is of little concern--it's an old book. When it mentions the 4th Beast, which I believe is European Civilization, that would include the far parts of the earth that European Civilization reaches into, including the US.
I don't think God is ever quick to destroy any nation. Even the Canaanite nations went unpunished to any great degree for hundreds of years before God told Israel to defeat and to destroy them. A long as the righteous are here, we can pray. If necessary, judgment will come as God sees fit. In reality, judgment is already partly here.
I agree that the U.S. has been a great Christian light in the world. And she has been used by God to further the Gospel and the support of missionaries around the world. Which, in my opinion, is worse for her as she has sinned though having that light. She had the light and actively participated in getting the truth of God to the world. She now actively participates in stifling the truth of God.
As to America not being mentioned in the Bible, you could be right that we become part of the 4th beast. But I am not of that opinion. It's my opinion that God created America for a purpose. That purpose being a place of refuge for the Jews and Christians in the world and an instrument to help establish and support the nation Israel back in the land. As time draws near the end when God will begin His work in bringing Israel back to Him, our purpose has ended. Thus revival would no more be needed and judgement would result.
As to God not being quick to judge a nation in the past, that is true. But you must remember that as man progresses, or digresses, so does wickedness. What may have taken hundreds of years in the past now takes but a few years. And, as I mentioned, we have sinned against a lot of light. But, of course our judgement would coincide with God's purpose now turning back to Israel.
As to God not destroying the righteous with the wicked, that is a valid point. But just as with Israel when God destroyed her with Babylon there were believers there. But even they had been corrupted so that judgement was necessary. To those who did remain true to God I believe God would take care of them in their captivity.
I see most here reject the Rapture as Biblical. I disagree. And it is here that I believe the Rapture plays a role. Why? Because it removes all the believing from the earth allowing God to turn lose His judgements upon the world. It is my opinion that most countries will have minimal damage or affect as their Christian population is minimal. That includes Europe which is now only Christian in name. But, the U.S. has many Christians in it from every class and position in society. Thus she would be terribly affected allowing a swift destruction to follow.
Lees
-
It is certainly an interesting time that we live in. For me, it is more telling concerning the U.S. Slowly the U.S. has been moving away from it's Christian roots. And this has many ramifications. One of which is our support for Israel. We have come to a place now where Israel does not know if she can trust us anymore for support.
And rightfully so. She can't.
I'm not certain if this is true or not. This country didn't support Israel in the run up to the 6 day war in 1967, and that made the war inevitable. We didn't initially support Israel in the Yom Kippur war in 1973, until the IDF was running out of ammunition and spare parts and communicated to President Nixon that the state was in danger of being overrun. At that point he instructed the Joint Chiefs to "send everything that can fly."
Regardless, Israel's survival is guaranteed at this point. God did not fulfill biblical prophecy and bring the Jews from the four corners of the world back to their ancestral homeland just to kill them all. In order for that to be true, the radical Jihadist Muslims would have to have the correct theology, and none of us here believe that's possible. Rather, the important point is what role this country serves in Israel's survival. In the book of Esther, Mordechai exhorts Esther to intercede with the king on behalf of the Jewish people, whose very existence is being threatened. He says, "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14). Do we want to play a positive role in Israel survival? Or are we going to be bystanders and let someone else get the merit of being God's tool? The choice is ours.
-
It's always a bit odd this idea of America "moving away from" its Christian roots. Were expansionist policies Christian? Did the US only install Christian dictators? Was American's interference in Iran what lead to the current Christian treatment of women and minorities over there? What about the slave trade or the treatment of native Americans? How about the treatment of Japanese Americans? There's always experimentation on its citizens, or allowing its companies to experiment on African populations. And on, and on, and on.
If America were Christian at its roots, wouldn't it have started moving away a few hundred years ago? Or maybe we should simply dispel this myth of America the great Christian nation! Not from where I'm sitting.
-
It's always a bit odd this idea of America "moving away from" its Christian roots. Were expansionist policies Christian? Did the US only install Christian dictators? Was American's interference in Iran what lead to the current Christian treatment of women and minorities over there? What about the slave trade or the treatment of native Americans? How about the treatment of Japanese Americans? There's always experimentation on its citizens, or allowing its companies to experiment on African populations. And on, and on, and on.
If America were Christian at its roots, wouldn't it have started moving away a few hundred years ago? Or maybe we should simply dispel this myth of America the great Christian nation! Not from where I'm sitting.
Look, you're just made because you are from Canuckistan and fled your homeland to live with the First Losers, I mean, the British! Or Scotchists.
:o
It is unquestionable that the USA was founded more on the ideas of independence and ideals arising from the Enlightenment than from the Bible. Granted, the original colonies were in some part colonized by those escaping religious persecution, but the USA was hardly a missionary endeavor. For instance, Georgia was a penal colony, Maryland was for those blasted Catholics, the silver buckle boys with the square hats were in Massachusetts, but ALL of them were for the purposes of commerce.
The fact that many of the leaders of the country at the time of the revolution were Godly men doesn't change the fact that the USA was not First Baptist - North America or even Congregationalist. The individual states could establish denominations to receive tax dollars, but not nationally.
So yes, from the time of the revolution and some before many of the principles of government aligned with Biblical principles, and many (but not all) of the Founders believed in basic morality as the core principles of life and government,and some believed that only a godly people could govern themselves, but I've always been bothered a bit by this false narrative that "THE USA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION"
And yes, I've read everything that whatshisname has written on the topic and its just not compelling argument.
-
Look, you're just made because you are from Canuckistan and fled your homeland to live with the First Losers, I mean, the British! Or Scotchists.
:o
The Scots are just mad they couldn't expel the English as the Americans did. In fact, they're still going on talking about oppression and imposition. I think they should get together with Quebec and have a good cry over afternoon tea.
-
Look, you're just made because you are from Canuckistan and fled your homeland to live with the First Losers, I mean, the British! Or Scotchists.
:o
The Scots are just mad they couldn't expel the English as the Americans did. In fact, they're still going on talking about oppression and imposition. I think they should get together with Quebec and have a good cry over afternoon tea.
The Scots and the Quebecs... two peoples separated by at least 3 languages...
-
As to America not being mentioned in the Bible, you could be right that we become part of the 4th beast. But I am not of that opinion. It's my opinion that God created America for a purpose. That purpose being a place of refuge for the Jews and Christians in the world and an instrument to help establish and support the nation Israel back in the land. As time draws near the end when God will begin His work in bringing Israel back to Him, our purpose has ended. Thus revival would no more be needed and judgement would result.
I don't think God would create a nation for a strictly utilitarian purpose. He loves people, and gives them a home in a nation in which they can be protected and experience fulfillment in families. Yes, the US has served a useful purpose in protecting Jews and Christians. And yes, if we stop being useful to God, our usefulness is diminishing. I wouldn't bring the curtain down immediately, since only God knows when the time has come for overwhelming judgment. God is not quick to wrath.
As to God not being quick to judge a nation in the past, that is true. But you must remember that as man progresses, or digresses, so does wickedness. What may have taken hundreds of years in the past now takes but a few years. And, as I mentioned, we have sinned against a lot of light. But, of course our judgement would coincide with God's purpose now turning back to Israel.
I have no idea how much God may wish to "speed things up." The barometer is the degree of wickedness that is emerging. Things sometimes look like they've gone too far and beyond repair. But the pendulum swings.
As to God not destroying the righteous with the wicked, that is a valid point. But just as with Israel when God destroyed her with Babylon there were believers there. But even they had been corrupted so that judgement was necessary. To those who did remain true to God I believe God would take care of them in their captivity.
The innocent righteous don't always "survive" judgment from God against a nation. There are tragic casualties who are in the line of fire--victims of "friendly fire," if you will. A few righteous must remain in the worst of nations that once were Christian as a testimony to God's justice. Jeremiah is an example of this, though for a time he did survive.
I see most here reject the Rapture as Biblical. I disagree. And it is here that I believe the Rapture plays a role. Why? Because it removes all the believing from the earth allowing God to turn lose His judgements upon the world.
But you're providing a reason for the Pretrib Rapture without even proving there will be one! And I would suggest that there is no such thing taught in the Scriptures at all. Thanks for your comments.
-
It's always a bit odd this idea of America "moving away from" its Christian roots. Were expansionist policies Christian? Did the US only install Christian dictators? Was American's interference in Iran what lead to the current Christian treatment of women and minorities over there? What about the slave trade or the treatment of native Americans? How about the treatment of Japanese Americans? There's always experimentation on its citizens, or allowing its companies to experiment on African populations. And on, and on, and on.
If America were Christian at its roots, wouldn't it have started moving away a few hundred years ago? Or maybe we should simply dispel this myth of America the great Christian nation! Not from where I'm sitting.
I have long believed that the US started out as a "Christian country," but set up the State in a compromise between Deism and Conventional Christianity. And so, this "truce" was basically a "freedom of religion" pact, based on the plight of Christians escaping establishmentarian religion in places like England.
We've always been a mixed country, therefore.
-
Look, you're just made because you are from Canuckistan and fled your homeland to live with the First Losers, I mean, the British! Or Scotchists.
:o
The Scots are just mad they couldn't expel the English as the Americans did. In fact, they're still going on talking about oppression and imposition. I think they should get together with Quebec and have a good cry over afternoon tea.
The Scots and the Quebecs... two peoples separated by at least 3 languages...
On a side note, it's interesting that in the Revelation God Himself supports the distinction of tribe, language, people, and nation.
Rev 5.9 you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
These distinctions can either separate or unify based on the need for resources, defense, or comradery. Self-government that is actually *government by the laws of God, or a veiled theocracy, is the best and most successful. And diversity adds strength--not weakness, when unity is based on spirituality and morality.
As for the Scots, geographical determinism commends unity imposed by the greater tribal group of the islands, English government. And this government itself was originally imposed from without, by the Normans.
Though it was a marriage of convenience, the diverse nature of the two groups apparently required that this unity be imposed. It is a unity necessitated for the purpose of a unified defense of the terrain, as well as for internal peace.
The Scots, as a "tribe," can take pride in the fact that per population, they have produced more "great men" than any other tribal group in history. The Quebecans can take solace in the fact they have their own language and culture, but should recognize the need for Canadian unity from coast to coast. Any smaller, and I think the US would completely dominate that country!
-
Assets from Quebec:
1. James Tiberias Kirk
2. Crane, Denny Crane
3. The Transformed Man (vinyl, 1968)
and Poutine. Mustn't forget the poutine.
-
I mean, God was the one who did the dividing in the first place :P
-
Assets from Quebec:
1. James Tiberias Kirk
2. Crane, Denny Crane
3. The Transformed Man (vinyl, 1968)
and Poutine. Mustn't forget the poutine.
In reality he was Jewish, but that's neither here nor there....
-
Careful.
You're talking "Race" or "ethnicity," and I'm talking "nation of origin."
Don't WhoopiGoldberg youself!
:o
-
I don't think God would create a nation for a strictly utilitarian purpose.
Why not?
-
Careful.
You're talking "Race" or "ethnicity," and I'm talking "nation of origin."
Don't WhoopiGoldberg youself!
:o
Seriously, don't compare me in any way with Whoopi Goldberg.
I heard what she said, and hated it the moment I heard it.
-
I don't think God would create a nation for a strictly utilitarian purpose.
Why not?
That's like saying your wife is only good for sex.
-
Seriously, don't compare me in any way with Whoopi Goldberg.
I heard what she said, and hated it the moment I heard it.
And then she doubled down. Like, what the heck?!
-
I don't think God would create a nation for a strictly utilitarian purpose.
Why not?
That's like saying your wife is only good for sex.
I don't think that God's motives can be understood by man. And it's not important. Do what God told us to do and stop speculating why He does things.
-
I don't think God would create a nation for a strictly utilitarian purpose.
Why not?
That's like saying your wife is only good for sex.
I don't think that God's motives can be understood by man. And it's not important. Do what God told us to do and stop speculating why He does things.
I actually think it's good to explore God's motives. Obviously, He can handle it.
-
I actually think it's good to explore God's motives. Obviously, He can handle it.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Fear God. Not understand God. Because God's IQ is infinite and its impossible for us to understand Him. Just do what he has told us to do.
-
I actually think it's good to explore God's motives. Obviously, He can handle it.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Fear God. Not understand God. Because God's IQ is infinite and its impossible for us to understand Him. Just do what he has told us to do.
Sorry, I understand what you're saying, and there's certainly truth in it, but I disagree. God made us in His image, I believe, so we can understand Him. What would be the purpose of God in making creatures that cannot relate to Him at all?
He has the same humor you have. He has the same interest in making things interesting, in making things mysteries, adventures, and plots within plots. I suggest you take more time to try to figure out what hidden gifts He put within you to express His unique personality?
-
Sorry, I understand what you're saying, and there's certainly truth in it, but I disagree. God made us in His image, I believe, so we can understand Him.
There's a weird sort of cognitive dissonance going on. You made a claim. I showed a bible verse that says otherwise. And you respond with "I believe..." It's great that you believe, but if there's no biblical support for your idea, and in fact the bible seems to imply otherwise, what gives you the right to override this with your own personal belief? This shows a shocking lack of humility.
Let's look at the book of Job. The book tells us that Job is blameless, yet has terrible things happen to him. And he insists that he doesn't deserve his fate, in spite of what his friends say. He insists that God has an answer for him. And finally, in chapter 38, God does answer him. What does God say?
“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
“Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
“Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
What is God saying to Job here? He's saying I am God and you are not. You can't do the things that I do, or understand how I do them, or why."
God follows up His challenge with (Job 40),"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”
And Job answers “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer— twice, but I will say no more.”
Job accepts God's answer and can say no more.
And that's all any of us can do.
What would be the purpose of God in making creatures that cannot relate to Him at all?
We don't need to relate to God. We don't need to understand God. That has nothing whatsoever to do with why He created us.
He has the same humor you have. He has the same interest in making things interesting, in making things mysteries, adventures, and plots within plots.
God doesn't need to make things interesting. God is already perfect. He doesn't get bored or curious or playful.
-
Sorry, I understand what you're saying, and there's certainly truth in it, but I disagree. God made us in His image, I believe, so we can understand Him.
There's a weird sort of cognitive dissonance going on. You made a claim. I showed a bible verse that says otherwise. And you respond with "I believe..." It's great that you believe, but if there's no biblical support for your idea, and in fact the bible seems to imply otherwise, what gives you the right to override this with your own personal belief? This shows a shocking lack of humility.
Let's look at the book of Job. The book tells us that Job is blameless, yet has terrible things happen to him. And he insists that he doesn't deserve his fate, in spite of what his friends say. He insists that God has an answer for him. And finally, in chapter 38, God does answer him. What does God say?
“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
“Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
“Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
What is God saying to Job here? He's saying I am God and you are not. You can't do the things that I do, or understand how I do them, or why."
God follows up His challenge with (Job 40),"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”
And Job answers “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer— twice, but I will say no more.”
Job accepts God's answer and can say no more.
And that's all any of us can do.
What would be the purpose of God in making creatures that cannot relate to Him at all?
We don't need to relate to God. We don't need to understand God. That has nothing whatsoever to do with why He created us.
He has the same humor you have. He has the same interest in making things interesting, in making things mysteries, adventures, and plots within plots.
God doesn't need to make things interesting. God is already perfect. He doesn't get bored or curious or playful. You're ascribing human characteristics to God, anthromorphizing Him, as it were. God is not man.
-
Sorry, I understand what you're saying, and there's certainly truth in it, but I disagree. God made us in His image, I believe, so we can understand Him.
There's a weird sort of cognitive dissonance going on. You made a claim. I showed a bible verse that says otherwise. And you respond with "I believe..." It's great that you believe, but if there's no biblical support for your idea, and in fact the bible seems to imply otherwise, what gives you the right to override this with your own personal belief? This shows a shocking lack of humility.
Nice try, Fenris! ;) A lack of humility...because I disagree with *your position?*
Anyway, there is no contradiction, no pulling, on my part, out of thin air--no ignoring of Scriptures you present. On the contrary, I acknowledge the truth in what you shared from Scriptures. But on the other hand, you failed to acknowledge the Scripture I shared in defense of my position.
I shared that we are "made in the image of God," which is clearly in Scriptures. This means that we can be called children of God. This suggests that we can call God our Father, and can identify with His word, among many other things, including His personality, His gifts, etc. etc. etc.
Let's look at the book of Job. The book tells us that Job is blameless, yet has terrible things happen to him. And he insists that he doesn't deserve his fate, in spite of what his friends say. He insists that God has an answer for him. And finally, in chapter 38, God does answer him. What does God say?
“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
“Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
“Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
What is God saying to Job here? He's saying I am God and you are not. You can't do the things that I do, or understand how I do them, or why."
God follows up His challenge with (Job 40),"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”
And Job answers “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer— twice, but I will say no more.”
Job accepts God's answer and can say no more.
And that's all any of us can do.
I fully understand the story, and empathize with Job, with all due deference to his individual case. Job was generally speaking a righteous man, exemplary in his generation. Personal flaws does not undo a generally-good reputation. The reputation is not marred by a particularly-difficult trial with its extenuating circumstances.
I'm sure God understood the unusual circumstances, prompting Job's uncharacteristic attack on God. Job was, of course, right to say his righteousness was not to be questioned, and was not the cause of his sufferings. That is, he was not being cursed due to his secret sins.
On the other hand, even under duress Job did not have a right to question God's methods. That's the principle here. Job could understand this. He just couldn't understand it until later, when under a better state of mind.
-
Nice try, Fenris! A lack of humility...because I disagree with *your position?*
Because you think you can understand God.
Scientists can't even understand all the laws of nature, yet you think you can understand the One who created the laws of nature.
Anyway, there is no contradiction, no pulling, on my part, out of thin air--no ignoring of Scriptures you present. On the contrary, I acknowledge the truth in what you shared from Scriptures.
Not that I've observed, but whatever.
But on the other hand, you failed to acknowledge the Scripture I shared in defense of my position.
I shared that we are "made in the image of God," which is clearly in Scriptures.
That means we have intellect and free will, not that we are gods.
I fully understand the story...
On the other hand, even under duress Job did not have a right to question God's methods. That's the principle here. Job could understand this. He just couldn't understand it until later, when under a better state of mind.
Job isn't questioning God's methods. He wants to understand why. And God clearly answers him. You can't understand why, because you're a human being, and I am God. I posted all of chapter 38, and you ignored it.
-
Because you think you can understand God.
Scientists can't even understand all the laws of nature, yet you think you can understand the One who created the laws of nature.
Yes, if you're a little guy standing on a whale, you can understand the part of the whale you're standing on. And you can know it's a whale. You can even see purpose in the whale's movements. And if the whale can communicate to you, you know even more.
But on the other hand, you failed to acknowledge the Scripture I shared in defense of my position.
I know the passage. I know what it says. And the argument isn't just saying, "Don't ask why." It's saying, "Don't judge things when you don't know why. Just know that I know why, until it's time for you to know why." The whole book of Job is written to show us why.
That means we have intellect and free will, not that we are gods.
Being made in the image of God means that we can know God as His people. We aren't dumb slaves. We are sons and daughters. Nobody said anything about being "gods." Knowing things about God does not require that we be gods. We can know the part of the whale that is presented to us by the Almighty.
Job isn't questioning God's methods. He wants to understand why. And God clearly answers him. You can't understand why, because you're a human being, and I am God. I posted all of chapter 38, and you ignored it.
As I said, the book of Job is written because sometimes we won't know why until later. It is our job to trust until we understand later. It is judgmentalism we have to avoid. It is presumption we have to avoid. If we can keep our mouth shut when we want to scream, perhaps that will mean something?
-
I know the passage. I know what it says. And the argument isn't just saying, "Don't ask why." It's saying, "Don't judge things when you don't know why. Just know that I know why, until it's time for you to know why." The whole book of Job is written to show us why.
No, it isn't. It's to show us that God does things for reasons that make sense to Him even if they don't make sense to us. The whole point of the book is that Job can't understand, and neither can we.
Being made in the image of God means that we can know God as His people.
The bible doesn't speak of "knowing God" or "understanding God". The bible is about what we are supposed to do and who we are supposed to be. God created us in His image, which is to say, gave us intellect and free will, so that we can make choices. Not so that we can "understand Him".
As I said, the book of Job is written because sometimes we won't know why until later.
Job never "finds out why". Because that isn't what the book is about.
-
I know the passage. I know what it says. And the argument isn't just saying, "Don't ask why." It's saying, "Don't judge things when you don't know why. Just know that I know why, until it's time for you to know why." The whole book of Job is written to show us why.
No, it isn't. It's to show us that God does things for reasons that make sense to Him even if they don't make sense to us. The whole point of the book is that Job can't understand, and neither can we.
Well, I won't make this disagreement too long. I think the "Why" in Job's book is explained as Satan's challenge to God that His people are superficial and will "break" when it is made clear that "things" are more important to men than God. The "Why" is to show to heavenly powers that they have done wrong to choose themselves over God, and to use men as a form of condemnation of the angels who rebelled against God. Job was seen to be a victim of malicious accusation, and his suffering resulted in Satan's condemnation.
We may disagree. But this is as far as I can go for now.
Being made in the image of God means that we can know God as His people.
The bible doesn't speak of "knowing God" or "understanding God". The bible is about what we are supposed to do and who we are supposed to be. God created us in His image, which is to say, gave us intellect and free will, so that we can make choices. Not so that we can "understand Him".
As I said, the book of Job is written because sometimes we won't know why until later.
Job never "finds out why". Because that isn't what the book is about.
Don't agree. Yes, it's about "doing." But we know why we must "do" and not always "understand." The "Why" comes after our heart has been exposed. And we are given this example to show us that we must choose for the good even when we don't understand. So we agree on that apparently?
-
Well, I won't make this disagreement too long. I think the "Why" in Job's book is explained as Satan's challenge to God
Then why doesn't God tell Job this? Probably because it isn't an answer at all. How can this truly be the reason? Job suffers the loss of his family, his loved ones, everything he owns- because Satan challenged God? That's why Job suffers? It's not an answer at all.
Don't agree.
A couple of years ago I met a Christian convert to Judaism. He came from a family of pastors and was studying to become one himself. Rather interesting fellow. In a discussion that we had, he made a rather cutting observation of Christianity. He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion. Sure there were great Christian thinkers, but the religion itself is more about feeling than about thinking. I must be honest, I didn't agree with him at the time. But some of the discussions that I have had here lately are making me reflect on what he said. A couple of posters here have flat out ignored biblical verses I've posted, or like you, have claimed that the plain text doesn't mean what it says. And I can't help but wonder if it's because the verses don't "feel right" to a Christian, even if the plain meaning isn't opposed to Christian theology or dogma per se.
Just something to think about.
-
He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion.
It depends where you look. The modern Western Christian church? It's easy to encounter an air of suspicion concerning anything intellectual. I wish I were joking, but I still remember one time I walked into a local church a few minutes late, and the first thing I heard the pastor say was, 'intellectuals are ruining the church!' (I mean, I guess he'd think he was right if he knew me now). But there are still the Moorelands, Plantingas, Craigs, Kreefts, Fesers, et al, to name a modern few.
I'd wager that Christianity has a deep intellectual history that has very much succumbed to the feels.
And you're right. God never tells Job why; what we would regard as the trivially petty reason his world was disregarded with horrific abandon. "I allowed your life to be ruined including the murder of multiple people to prove to Satan just how faithful you were, be happy okay?" It's absurd. Maybe it's satirical. Of course, God is going to give him the talk. The truth of the text as presented is ridiculous.
-
Well, I won't make this disagreement too long. I think the "Why" in Job's book is explained as Satan's challenge to God
Then why doesn't God tell Job this? Probably because it isn't an answer at all. How can this truly be the reason? Job suffers the loss of his family, his loved ones, everything he owns- because Satan challenged God? That's why Job suffers? It's not an answer at all.
Don't agree.
A couple of years ago I met a Christian convert to Judaism. He came from a family of pastors and was studying to become one himself. Rather interesting fellow. In a discussion that we had, he made a rather cutting observation of Christianity. He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion. Sure there were great Christian thinkers, but the religion itself is more about feeling than about thinking. I must be honest, I didn't agree with him at the time. But some of the discussions that I have had here lately are making me reflect on what he said. A couple of posters here have flat out ignored biblical verses I've posted, or like you, have claimed that the plain text doesn't mean what it says. And I can't help but wonder if it's because the verses don't "feel right" to a Christian, even if the plain meaning isn't opposed to Christian theology or dogma per se.
Just something to think about.
Yes, as much as I'd like to say Christianity is entirely rational, I must admit the "feeling" part. It is intuitive because it applies to the heart and to the conscience. That is something that it intuitive, much like trying to explain the love of music, or the love of art. Some things just aren't easily explained.
I would contrast this with irrational religions, such as cults and religions that deny reality. I don't find that Christianity, in its more sublime forms, denies reality. The Catholic leadership, in the time of Copernicus and Galileo, was not at its finer moments. It denied reality, or at least didn't want to face reality.
I don't find solid Christian thinkers, such as Francis Schaeffer, denying reality. At the same time, he is criticized for relying on "revelation" as much as on "rational argument." Schaeffer would not deny the application of "faith" as something that is as much intuition as it is rational. At least that's what I think.
Your charge that I deny the message of Job is, I think, a matter of personal judgment. My position does not deny that certain things are not said. Rather, I believe that the account itself recommends certain conclusions be drawn, even if not explicitly stated.
What is explicitly explained is that this is a celestial argument between God and Satan. And man is let in on this by virtue of the story being told. Clearly, Job did not fully understand while he was being tested. He was to remain godly in the midst of confusion. But ultimately, we can see purpose in it.
I understand the Jewish and the Christian experiences--suffering abuses en masse, which seems to have little rational purpose. But to deny who you are and to deny your moral standards is not something that is always affected by the circumstances. Ultimately, the hope is to understand when the trial is over.
-
He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion.
It depends where you look. The modern Western Christian church? It's easy to encounter an air of suspicion concerning anything intellectual. I wish I were joking, but I still remember one time I walked into a local church a few minutes late, and the first thing I heard the pastor say was, 'intellectuals are ruining the church!' (I mean, I guess he'd think he was right if he knew me now). But there are still the Moorelands, Plantingas, Craigs, Kreefts, Fesers, et al, to name a modern few.
I'd wager that Christianity has a deep intellectual history that has very much succumbed to the feels.
And you're right. God never tells Job why; what we would regard as the trivially petty reason his world was disregarded with horrific abandon. "I allowed your life to be ruined including the murder of multiple people to prove to Satan just how faithful you were, be happy okay?" It's absurd. Maybe it's satirical. Of course, God is going to give him the talk. The truth of the text as presented is ridiculous.
You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.
-
You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.
No, I'm not rejecting Job? "Bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle" is not what Job teaches (there was no 'battle'), and if you take the book of Job at Westernised face value, we either have to conclude that (1) Job suffered because God bragged about him to Satan, or (2) Job suffered and we have no idea why. I'm inclined towards (2). But I'm also not convinced that Job is anything other than a theological/philosophical thought experiment; it's a theodicy and a good one at that. This is a minority view as far as I'm aware.
Just imagine if you were brought to ruin, and God's explanation was: 'yeah, so the reason why is because Satan said you only had faith because I blessed you, so I wanted to demonstrate to Satan that he was wrong, so I let him murder your entire family, and destroy your wealth, and take away your health'. Like, wow, what purpose. What a privilege. That's not a why.
Job 1:
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.
10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.
11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Job 2:
3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”
4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life.
5 But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
6 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”
Contrast that with Job 38, Alyosha. If this is concrete history, then we only think we understand because the words are so ordered. But really? God's Socrates to Satan's Thrasymachus, with immediate real-life stakes, not just political theory. This is what Job and his friends differed over: justice, God's justice. Isn't it interesting that God sides with Job, who seeks to accuse God of being unjust (cf. Job 40:8 ff)?
I'm not rejecting Job. In reading the book I agree with what Job has to say throughout chapters 9 - 10 and following, in arguing against his friends that he has not sinned. But I don't know, this reads like a solid theodicy written by a gifted philosophical theologian. That ending especially, beginning at 42:10. God restores Job's fortunes doubly so, but too bad about all the other people who died in the process, I guess.
-
You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.
No, I'm not rejecting Job? "Bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle" is not what Job teaches (there was no 'battle'), and if you take the book of Job at Westernised face value, we either have to conclude that (1) Job suffered because God bragged about him to Satan, or (2) Job suffered and we have no idea why. I'm inclined towards (2). But I'm also not convinced that Job is anything other than a theological/philosophical thought experiment; it's a theodicy and a good one at that. This is a minority view as far as I'm aware.
Just imagine if you were brought to ruin, and God's explanation was: 'yeah, so the reason why is because Satan said you only had faith because I blessed you, so I wanted to demonstrate to Satan that he was wrong, so I let him murder your entire family, and destroy your wealth, and take away your health'. Like, wow, what purpose. What a privilege. That's not a why.
Well, to be honest I've wondered how Job could have such a phonographic memory of each argument from each of his detractors? Does sound like a treatise of some kind.
But I've chosen to believe that he understood the arguments against him, and decided to deliver it later, after consulting with his friends, who by then had repented. They probably worked up the story, and remembered in consultation with each other.
These were pretty memorable arguments, so maybe it stuck easier in their memories? Anyway, it sounds literal because the Bible is a serious set of books, all of which are looked to as real history, and not mythical, symbolic history like fables, legends, and embellished stories.
I certainly don't see Satan in a less than serious way. If God created us, warts and all, He certainly created angels, with the capability of falling. And what we see in human history can only be explained as something much deeper than even evil people can conceive of. Really, would man really set about destroying himself?
The story is another allusion to Christ, who gave up his life on Calvary. Can't you see that? It isn't in the least a silly description of God arguing with Satan to prove how much Job can give up. It is completely against Job's will, and he has to go on loving the One who is letting it happen for an unknown reason.
In the end Job does find out Why. And it is indeed a celestial battle--I use "battle" metaphorically, because there is no real contest between God and Satan. And yet, even the battle of Armageddon is described as a contest. So, I can only conclude it's real. My view....
-
Well, to be honest I've wondered how Job could have such a phonographic memory of each argument from each of his detractors? Does sound like a treatise of some kind.
Maybe the same way Plato remembered all those Socratic dialogues?
Anyway, it sounds literal because the Bible is a serious set of books, all of which are looked to as real history, and not mythical, symbolic history like fables, legends, and embellished stories.
While this isn't the argument I'm making, a book or set of books is no less serious if it's not real history. I alluded to The Brothers Karamazov earlier, and that's quite the serious book.
Really, would man really set about destroying himself?
Yes.
The story is another allusion to Christ, who gave up his life on Calvary. Can't you see that? It isn't in the least a silly description of God arguing with Satan to prove how much Job can give up. It is completely against Job's will, and he has to go on loving the One who is letting it happen for an unknown reason.
Where did I say God arguing with Satan was silly? And no, I don't understand the book of Job to be an allusion to Christ, Calvary, and so forth. I see it as an ancient theodicy that examines the idea of a just God and what exactly is God's justice. Hence, Socrates and Thrasymachus in the Republic. Or Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra... Well, maybe not that last one.
In the end Job does find out Why.
He doesn't. God spends Job 38 - 41 putting Job in his place, against Job's intent to accuse God of being unjust because he's suffered while being blameless. God doesn't tell Job why he suffered, He tells Job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why. Job understands this in 42:3. In Kierkegaardian terms, we have to engage in a teleological suspension of the ethical. Job never learns what the opening chapters reveal to us. We never learn why God entertained the Satanic accusations in the first place. Neither Job nor the reader get a why.
Why, God, did you even entertain Satan? Why did you point out Job to Satan in the first place? That seems... not just.
“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”
Why do we suffer? It doesn't matter, we're still called to faithfulness. As much as we want to know why, we still have that duty before us.
And it is indeed a celestial battle--I use "battle" metaphorically, because there is no real contest between God and Satan. And yet, even the battle of Armageddon is described as a contest. So, I can only conclude it's real. My view....
It's not even a metaphorical battle. God brags about Job to Satan and Satan does what he wants with Job because God lets him (and doesn't do what God doesn't let him do). Job pulls through because God knows Job's character. If anything, it's God rubbing Job in Satan's face. A battle just isn't there.
-
Seems like an essential, age-old yet timely treatise or warning against presumptuous religion which defines suffering as punishment.
Also a strong rebuke of those who would contemplate and assess the mind of God, whom they don't actually know.
A lesson worth elaborating imo.
-
While this isn't the argument I'm making, a book or set of books is no less serious if it's not real history...
We have NT reference to Job. Sounds like James viewed Job's life as *real history.*
James 5.11 As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
Where did I say God arguing with Satan was silly?
You may not think it was silly, but that's how many would delegitimize biblical history, by denying the supernatural as a silly fabricated moral lesson.
And no, I don't understand the book of Job to be an allusion to Christ, Calvary, and so forth. I see it as an ancient theodicy that examines the idea of a just God and what exactly is God's justice.
Well, you're wrong. Jesus in effect said *all* of the Scriptures were fulfilled in him.
John 5.39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.
Luke 24.27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
He doesn't. God spends Job 38 - 41 putting Job in his place, against Job's intent to accuse God of being unjust because he's suffered while being blameless. God doesn't tell Job why he suffered...
Again, the book starts out explaining why Job suffered. It was to prove Satan wrong. I would agree that Job did not understand Why as he went through his trial. He was supposed to suffer without having to know Why.
John 20.29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
He tells job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why. Job understands this in 42:3. In Kierkegaardian terms, we have to engage in a teleological suspension of the ethical. Job never learns what the opening chapters reveal to us. We never learn why God entertained the Satanic accusations in the first place. Neither Job nor the reader get a why.
I do find Kierkegaard very interesting. There is definitely something beyond appearances that tell us what is good and what is not. You do have to suspend judgment at times, so as to not judge by appearances. It is the inner voice of God, speaking to the human conscience, that tell us: "don't judge."
But none of this means we cannot see and judge, when God's voice confirms our judgment. It is a rational world. We simply must wait until all the facts come in, and the picture becomes clearer.
It's not even a metaphorical battle. God brags about Job to Satan and Satan does what he wants with Job because God lets him (and doesn't do what God doesn't let him do). Job pulls through because God knows Job's character. If anything, it's God rubbing Job in Satan's face. A battle just isn't there.
I'm not sure you understand how I'm using "battle," or "celestial warfare." This is a contest between God and Satan to prove that Job will hold up under extenuating circumstances. God wins. That's the battle.
It's not a battle to see how much pain Job can suffer. Rather, it's a battle over loyalty to the conscience, over loyalty to faith in God that He is good above all.
-
Seems like an essential, age-old yet timely treatise or warning against presumptuous religion which defines suffering as punishment.
Also a strong rebuke of those who would contemplate and assess the mind of God, whom they don't actually know.
A lesson worth elaborating imo.
I would agree with you at least in part. When we don't know what God is doing with us, and it appears to be unfair, then perhaps it can be said that we don't know the mind of God? In the end, though, we can know what the mind of God had been.
Sometimes when you're riding down the rapids, you're not sure what will happen next, and don't have time to be philosophical about anything. But when the ride is done, and you survived, then you know that the purpose was simply to get from A to B. ;)
I like how you explained this as presumptuous judgment. I do think that's a big part of the lesson of Job, who actually presumed to judge God over something that was true.
It was true that Job was an innocent man, not deserving what he was going through. But God was not unjust to let it happen to him.
Mankind had let sin into the Garden to begin with, and it is in the heart of God, and therefore in our heart, to forgive other men. It is in our created nature to keep our love even when others have determined to go the wrong way, and it costs us.
We all suffer from the decisions others have made. Instead of being filled with hatred, we can choose to follow our conscience and keep a gracious attitude towards all others, in the hope that they start making good choices.
-
We have NT reference to Job. Sounds like James viewed Job's life as *real history.*
James 5.11 As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
What does this have to do with the seriousness of a work?
I noted earlier that my view isn't the majority view, and I'm fine with that. If Job is historical then I think we really do have legitimate questions to ask about God's justice. Chapter 38 ff doesn't cut it, if chapters 1 and 2 are part of the why.
For what it's worth if someone doesn't catch my "I'm not convinced the book of Job is historical" then they're going to think I think Job is a historical figure too because that's the nature of language.
You may not think it was silly, but that's how many would delegitimize biblical history, by denying the supernatural as a silly fabricated moral lesson.
No one who reads Job seriously is going to do that, and the person who does do this would do it regardless. It's not as if such a person is going to enjoy Esther, think the book of Job is silly fabrication, then launch into the Psalms wholeheartedly.
Well, you're wrong. Jesus in effect said *all* of the Scriptures were fulfilled in him.
John 5.39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.
Luke 24.27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
This doesn't mean what you think it means, but I appreciate the misguided confidence.
Again, the book starts out explaining why Job suffered. It was to prove Satan wrong. I would agree that Job did not understand Why as he went through his trial. He was supposed to suffer without having to know Why.
John 20.29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
It doesn't answer why God entertained Satan at all. That's the foundational why, and we don't have an answer for it.
I'm not sure you understand how I'm using "battle," or "celestial warfare." This is a contest between God and Satan to prove that Job will hold up under extenuating circumstances. God wins. That's the battle.
It's not a battle to see how much pain Job can suffer. Rather, it's a battle over loyalty to the conscience, over loyalty to faith in God that He is good above all.
I understand battle, celestial, warfare, and contest the way they're meant to be understood. If there is a battle somewhere then it's between Job, his friends, and his relation to God.
-
I understand your arguments because I've thought of them myself. Some things just depend on our own presuppositions and on our own personal experience. I really don't have much more I can say about it. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
God doesn't tell Job why he suffered, He tells job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why.
Yes. Yes! This is exactly how Jews understand the book. I could not put it better myself.
-
I never realized that anyone interpreted a job any other way…
-
I never realized that anyone interpreted a job any other way…
RK, that wasn't precise enough to show the disagreement. Fenris is apparently speaking for all Jews, right or wrong, when he says that Job expresses the unknowable mind of God, the "Why" of Job's suffering.
On the other hand, I'm arguing that even though God is transcendent (we all agree on that), the book of Job is an actual explanation as to "Why" God subjected Job to his suffering. It was due to a conversation between God and Satan in which Satan refused to believe that faith in God is any deeper than physical suffering. The moment one suffers, he will choose against God and for his own pleasure and health.
Satan was wrong. And though Job did not understand the "Why" during his trial, he proved that faith in God was more important to him than letting his suffering disrupt him from his righteousness. He did not have to know "Why" he was suffering to choose righteousness. But God gave Job the reason Why after the trial was over.
Some might think it's insufficient to just say one suffered to prove Satan wrong about our motive for choosing righteousness. But I believe that is the basis of our justification, that we choose Christ even though we suffer the repercussions of human sin in our fallen world.
-
I'm slightly amused, but not in a good way, that of all books, Job is not to be read, understood and comprehended literally, whether or not historicity is a factor (not a factor, imo).
I've read the positions of several modern theologians in recent years who have complained of an "intellectually unsatisfying summation to the morale of the book, an argument I find ludicrous at best.
If, as God states, there exists a proactive discussion or even a contest between Himself and Satan, and even if God's faithful become subjected to suffering as a direct result, then there is a dimension to reality we can barely ponder in the here and now - one that reveals a depth to the tragic relationship between God and this fallen angel.
-
Most modern"Christians" have no appreciation of the metaphysical, and in particular, of the intense nature of warfare in the heavenlies. Daniel was shocked to learn that the angel bringing an answer to his prayer was delayed by 3 weeks of battle with the demonic Prince of Persia, and that only the combined power of that angel (who may have been Gabriel) and Michael -- an archangel -- were able to get the messenger free to get through to Daniel.
I know, sadly, that some see a demon behind every shadow and completely over-Peretti the issue, but for we humans to assume that the cosmic war between God and Satan doesn't include us is such huberis.
-
No, there will not be any military invasion of Israel in the current decade-2020 to 2030.
I don't even know if Russia will invade the Ukraine tomorrow, but you know for a fact that Israel won't be invaded any time in this decade?
Does your crystal ball also provide lottery numbers?
Why crystal ball, if it is a devilish squeme used by deceiver spirits like frogs? I work with the Word of GOD, the Word is GOD. But what will really happen in Israel in near days to come, or even what kind of invasion will happen in Israel? I will try to describe it of the best manner I can, English is not my native language.
Your thinking is from a human perspective, not from GOD's perspective! I see that the line up of your vision still needs of some corrections to fit with the real and true events that will happen from now on, day after day, strictly, yes, strictly according the Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, understand? GOD is in control of history, nothing random happens.
Israel will not be invaded by Russians' armies or other nation.
How really will Israel be invaded?
What will really happen in Israel is that the false messiah will manifest himself (he was born decades ago) and he will sit on his throne in Jerusalem saying he is God, showing himself that he is God by great signs and wonders of lie he has power to do. THIS SATANIC EVENT will cause a great impact in the world, even the CHRISTIANS BELIEVERS will be astonished with this event and the great wonders that will be made by the false messiah: And now: Believe or not believe in that Jewish Man messiah of the Jews?
Then, as a God, he will make a COVENANT with the Beast of sea, in fact he will give his Power, and his Throne, and great Authority to the Gentile Beast of sea enthroned in Jerusalem, and the CURT will be given to the Gentile peoples, Gentile nations, and the Holy City shall they tread under foot AS AN INVASION forty and two months-1.260 days. THIS IS/WILL BE THE FIRST HALF OF THE WEEK 70th Daniel 9:v.27.
THERE WILL NOT BE WWIII, the only World War that will happen from now on and until the END of the times is written in Revelation 11:v.15 to 18, and 12:v.7, combined with Revelation 16:v.13-16, and Revelation 19:v.11 to 21, and 1Corinthians 15:v.24-28.
You and ALL must be ready.
What does the Word of GOD say?
JESUS warned: Matt. 24:v.6-8:
VERSE 6 - Ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet. (Comment: This is fulfilling literally and will continue in future by indefinite days, day after day).
VERSE 7 - For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: (Comments: Understand: For now the fulfilment of this prophecy is in stand by because we are in the beginning of sorrows. Actually, the extension of this prophecy goes far, very far, inimaginable, because the chastisements have its beginning, yeah, its beginning, but it WILL NEVER END, it WILL NEVER STOP, BUT NEVER, the punishment is ETERNAL, it is for ever and ever, understand? Once the Word of GOD says it is nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, understand it, there will not be any kind of "Federation" or Confederations-for examples-,and also united groups that still there are today as follow :
UN - United Nations Organization
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OAS - Organization of American States
WTO - World Trade Organization
UNESCO - United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture
OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
BIRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
IMF - International Monetary Fund
WHO - World Health Organization
ILO - International Labor Organization,
ALL, but ALL, will be destroied, will be DISSOLVED, yeah, DISSOLVED, like an GIGANTIC IMPLOSION, by analogy, something like the INIMAGINABLE fall of the two TOWERS of the WTC-Word Trade Center, so the confusion or mess is done, in other words, the hell's fire starts to burn, the eternal fire, yeah, forever and ever.
For better understand of you and ALL, I remember 2 Peter 3:v.7 to 18:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
...
-
Granted...Israel must be weaned off of the U.S. in order to get her to turn back to God. Israel alone will cause her return back to God. But what happened to the U.S.?
Israel will not return to GOD. Israel never was linked to GOD. What Israel's king did what was good before GOD?
HOW could Israel return to GOD once GOD will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie? That THEY ALL (EXCEPT 144K) they all might be DAMNED who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. THIS PROPHECY WILL FULFILL LITERALLY IN NEAR DAYS TO COME.
Those which will really be saved of Israel is written in Revelation 7:v.1 to 17, mainly verses 1 to 4.
-
On the other hand, I'm arguing that even though God is transcendent (we all agree on that), the book of Job is an actual explanation as to "Why" God subjected Job to his suffering. It was due to a conversation between God and Satan
If this was the reason why, God could have answered Job in a single sentence. But He doesn't. Instead God goes on for some length about how man can't understand God because we are only man.
-
How really will Israel be invaded?
What will really happen in Israel is that the false messiah will manifest himself (he was born decades ago) and he will sit on his throne in Jerusalem saying he is God
Yeah so umm... Jews don't believe that the messiah is God manifest on earth. The messiah will be an exemplary human being, someone on the order of Moses. Only not quite Moses, because the messiah's power of prophecy will be less than Moses's was. You might not have come across it (although how one could miss such a thing, I do not know) but one of the reasons that the Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah is precisely those claims of divinity. So to say that they will somehow accept messianic claims of divinity is just...yeah. Not gonna happen.
-
Israel will not return to GOD.
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock."
Israel never was linked to GOD.
Jeremiah 2: Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them,’ ” declares the LORD.
What Israel's king did what was good before GOD?
Oh, I dunno. Kings David and Solomon come to mind.
HOW could Israel return to GOD once GOD will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie?
So God prevents Israel from returning to God, and then punishes Israel for not returning to God. Some nice theology you got there.
-
You should work with the Word of GOD - the Word is GOD - instead to work with speculations, imaginations, presumptions, and conjectures, and even your own opinion.
Yeah so umm... Jews don't believe that the messiah is God manifest on earth.
Mere presumption of you. You are saying that, but what did JESUS say to the Jews? "I am come in my Father's name, and you receive me not: if another (AN IMPOSTOR, A FALSE MESSIAH) shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can you believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that comes from God ONLY?
What prevails is the Word of GOD. GOD is Truth. God shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie, that is, they believe in the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist messiah, the satanic Man Beast like a lamb with two horns and he speaks as Dragon.
It seems you prefer to believe in false interpretation instead a true interpretation of the Word of GOD, unfortunately. The Word is GOD, understand?
The messiah will be an exemplary human being, someone on the order of Moses.
Now a mere imagination of you. The devilish, esoteric, kabbalistic, spiritist false messiah is a ruthless and wicked man, he will give his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the FIRST Beast, the MONSTROUS Gentile Beast of sea with 7 heads and 10 horns, and he will cause the earth -Israel - and all them which dwell therein to worship the FIRST Beast, the Gentile Beast of sea, whose deadly wound will be healed - healed by the false messiah - exactly when he gives his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the Gentile Beast, the Beast of sea.
Only not quite Moses, because the messiah's power of prophecy will be less than Moses's was.
By your own words it seems the false messiah is familiar to you. In fact, he was born decades ago and will manifest himself soon.
You might not have come across it (although how one could miss such a thing, I do not know) but one of the reasons that the Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah is precisely those claims of divinity. So to say that they will somehow accept messianic claims of divinity is just...yeah. Not gonna happen.
If you had ever read the Bible some time, I mean the Old and New Testaments, you would see that the Jewish people would reject Him, and they really rejected Him for many reasons, and not just for the single reason you mentioned. Sorry, you are wrong.
Oh, I dunno. Kings David and Solomon come to mind.
OK, you were cunning in your answer, but the reality is that the 10 tribes of Israel rebelled against the house of David, and established a terrific and evil kingdom in Samaria, Israel is a Samaritan people, their kigs were evil, wicked, demoniac men, FULL OF SATANIC IDOLATRIES, and they killed all MEN OF GOD, the true prophets of the LORD, and left alive THE SATANIC FALSE PROPHETS, and they have nothing to do with the Kingdom of Judah.
Read the Bible.
So God prevents Israel from returning to God, and then punishes Israel for not returning to God. Some nice theology you got there.
The probem is that your thinking is from a human perspective, not from God's perspective. This behaviour is very danger. Matthew 16:v.21-22
-
You should work with the Word of GOD - the Word is GOD - instead to work with speculations, imaginations, presumptions, and conjectures, and even your own opinion.
Yeah, and I generally quote the bible too.
Yeah so umm... Jews don't believe that the messiah is God manifest on earth.
Mere presumption of you.
Haha yes of course. But you misunderstand my point here. I'm not debating whether Jewish beliefs are correct or not. That's for another discussion. What I'm saying is that Jews are not going to worship a "false messiah" who claims to be God because Jews don't believe the messiah is God on earth. Understand?
What prevails is the Word of GOD. GOD is Truth. God shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie, that is, they believe in the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist messiah, the satanic Man Beast like a lamb with two horns and he speaks as Dragon.
It seems you prefer to believe in false interpretation instead a true interpretation of the Word of GOD, unfortunately. The Word is GOD, understand?
We differ because I don't believe the NT is divine writ, and you do. Makes a big difference in what one believes you see.
The messiah will be an exemplary human being, someone on the order of Moses.
Now a mere imagination of you. The devilish, esoteric, kabbalistic, spiritist false messiah is a ruthless and wicked man, he will give his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the FIRST Beast, the MONSTROUS Gentile Beast of sea with 7 heads and 10 horns, and he will cause the earth -Israel - and all them which dwell therein to worship the FIRST Beast, the Gentile Beast of sea, whose deadly wound will be healed - healed by the false messiah - exactly when he gives his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the Gentile Beast, the Beast of sea.
Umm yeah. I wasn't aware that the idea of a "false messiah" was accepted Christian doctrine. If I'm not mistaken, most Christians don't believe in this idea. Anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone?
Only not quite Moses, because the messiah's power of prophecy will be less than Moses's was.
By your own words it seems the false messiah is familiar to you. In fact, he was born decades ago and will manifest himself soon.
Yeah he lives up the block from me. Sometimes he shovels snow in a unicorn costume. I don't know why he does that but I assume he must have a good reason. I have pictures if you're interested.
You might not have come across it (although how one could miss such a thing, I do not know) but one of the reasons that the Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah is precisely those claims of divinity. So to say that they will somehow accept messianic claims of divinity is just...yeah. Not gonna happen.
If you had ever read the Bible some time, I mean the Old and New Testaments, you would see that the Jewish people would reject Him, and they really rejected Him for many reasons, and not just for the single reason you mentioned. Sorry, you are wrong.
Have you met my wife? She tells me I'm wrong all the time, too. Is there some conspiracy against me or wot?
Oh, I dunno. Kings David and Solomon come to mind.
OK, you were cunning in your answer, but the reality is that the 10 tribes of Israel rebelled against the house of David, and established a terrific and evil kingdom in Samaria, Israel is a Samaritan people, their kigs were evil, wicked, demoniac men, FULL OF SATANIC IDOLATRIES, and they killed all MEN OF GOD, the true prophets of the LORD, and left alive THE SATANIC FALSE PROPHETS, and they have nothing to do with the Kingdom of Judah.
Read the Bible.
One second. You said, and I quote, "What Israel's king did what was good before GOD?" And I just named two, David and Solomon. Hezekiah comes to mind also. What's this ranting and raving about? It has nothing to do with the topic.
So God prevents Israel from returning to God, and then punishes Israel for not returning to God. Some nice theology you got there.
The probem is that your thinking is from a human perspective, not from God's perspective. This behaviour is very danger. Matthew 16:v.21-22
So from God's perspective, it's ok to prevent someone from returning to God and then punishing them for that. That seems, I dunno, needlessly sadistic? Look it up.
Also going to repost these verses, since you seem to have missed them. Or maybe they're not in your bible.
You said Israel will not return to GOD.
And I replied-
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock."
You also said
Israel never was linked to GOD.
and I replied
Jeremiah 2: Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them,’ ” declares the LORD.
-
I know, sadly, that some see a demon behind every shadow and completely over-Peretti the issue, but for we humans to assume that the cosmic war between God and Satan doesn't include us is such huberis.
I agree, but I don't like the term "over-Peretti." He is from our area, and at least one friend knows him. And a number of my friends love his books. In fact, one friend, who now lives in another state, just mentioned him a few days ago. It is often said that Peretti had unique insight into angels.
I don't wander too close to the subject of angels, because it is annoyingly obscure--probably deliberately so. We all seem to have our "angel-stories." ;)
-
On the other hand, I'm arguing that even though God is transcendent (we all agree on that), the book of Job is an actual explanation as to "Why" God subjected Job to his suffering. It was due to a conversation between God and Satan
If this was the reason why, God could have answered Job in a single sentence. But He doesn't. Instead God goes on for some length about how man can't understand God because we are only man.
Think about it, friend. God answered the way He did because He chose to.
The answer explained via a long discourse focusing on something that was critical to focus on--the shortsightedness of our nature. We tend to see things by appearances, and fail to see through the eyes of faith, that even in the midst of suffering a good God has designed the universe.
We both know that. And yet we still are tempted to anger and depression--at least I am. I hope you don't suffer the anguish I sometimes feel?
-
I'm not rejecting Job. In reading the book I agree with what Job has to say throughout chapters 9 - 10 and following, in arguing against his friends that he has not sinned. But I don't know, this reads like a solid theodicy written by a gifted philosophical theologian. That ending especially, beginning at 42:10. God restores Job's fortunes doubly so, but too bad about all the other people who died in the process, I guess.
John 21:19 - This he [Jesus] said to show by what kind of death he [Peter] was to glorify God.
-
I know, sadly, that some see a demon behind every shadow and completely over-Peretti the issue, but for we humans to assume that the cosmic war between God and Satan doesn't include us is such huberis.
I agree, but I don't like the term "over-Peretti." He is from our area, and at least one friend knows him. And a number of my friends love his books. In fact, one friend, who now lives in another state, just mentioned him a few days ago. It is often said that Peretti had unique insight into angels.
I don't wander too close to the subject of angels, because it is annoyingly obscure--probably deliberately so. We all seem to have our "angel-stories." ;)
I generally like Perretti.
My point is that some don’t understand he was writing fiction and not a systematic theology
-
Think about it, friend. God answered the way He did because He chose to.
The answer explained via a long discourse focusing on something that was critical to focus on--the shortsightedness of our nature. We tend to see things by appearances, and fail to see through the eyes of faith, that even in the midst of suffering a good God has designed the universe.
We both know that. And yet we still are tempted to anger and depression--at least I am. I hope you don't suffer the anguish I sometimes feel?
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God. This has nothing to do with the tendency to judge things by their appearance, or neglect 'the eyes of faith'. It's a hard limit on our existence. Go ahead and imagine a tesseract in your mind. You can't. You could maybe describe it with math, but not being a fourth or even fifth-dimensional creature you simply lack the perspective and frame of reference to do such a thing. These hard limits aren't bad; they're just facts of our existence. Why do you think we humans have these ideas of ascending to higher planes of existence, to better understandings of reality?
God comes from a place external to our very reality. Why would anyone think that they could understand the mind of a being who hasn't always existed within our present creation? Is it even proper to say that 'God comes from'? And what do we mean by 'place'? We're talking about a being whose very revelation of Himself to us is, like... condescending. We are tiny little creatures who hold to a pretence of understanding. How stupid are we to sin against that. How so incredibly stupid.
God didn't give Job a why. Nor did Job say to God, "I am blameless". I wonder why.
Job 40:8
“Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
And what does Job do with all of this?
Job 42:
Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Job was going to go for it, but what can you possibly do or say against the majesty of God? "Yes God you're wonderful, but look, this was unjust!" Good luck. I can't recall a time when I've discredited God's justice, but I have wondered at God's seeming apathy. But I know that this is nothing to do with some divine character fault. I can spend 37 chapters talking myself up, but I'd be right there with Job in 42:6.
(When Job's family is killed. Maybe that tells us something about bad things: they can happen to people and not just because of sin or disobedience in one's life.)
-
I'm not rejecting Job. In reading the book I agree with what Job has to say throughout chapters 9 - 10 and following, in arguing against his friends that he has not sinned. But I don't know, this reads like a solid theodicy written by a gifted philosophical theologian. That ending especially, beginning at 42:10. God restores Job's fortunes doubly so, but too bad about all the other people who died in the process, I guess.
John 21:19 - This he [Jesus] said to show by what kind of death he [Peter] was to glorify God.
I think the point was to show that suffering wasn't always because of sin or disobedience. I wouldn't apply John 21 to Satan's killing of Job's family. John 21 was about Peter.
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God.
1Corinthians 2:v.9-11
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of GOD. (GOD is Spirit, but two thousand years ago He was made flesh, and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. And JESUS said: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.-John 7:v.38-39. The Word is GOD. The Bible by entire reveals, and shows clearly how GOD is).
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him.
JESUS said: Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. (In consequence, he will wither completely like the fig tree.
-
Think about it, friend. God answered the way He did because He chose to.
God answered that way because he was reaching Job the same lesson meant for us to learn: God does things for reasons that make sense to Him even if they don't make sense to us. Even if they can't make sense to us, because we are frail mortals of limited intelligence and can't understand God's unlimited intelligence.
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God.
1Corinthians 2:v.9-11
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of GOD. (GOD is Spirit, but two thousand years ago He was made flesh, and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. And JESUS said: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.-John 7:v.38-39. The Word is GOD. The Bible by entire reveals, and shows clearly how GOD is).
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him.
JESUS said: Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. (In consequence, he will wither completely like the fig tree.
Why are you inserting commentary like you're writing in the 18th century? Also, what does this have to do with what I wrote?
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God. This has nothing to do with the tendency to judge things by their appearance, or neglect 'the eyes of faith'. It's a hard limit on our existence. Go ahead and imagine a tesseract in your mind. You can't. You could maybe describe it with math, but not being a fourth or even fifth-dimensional creature you simply lack the perspective and frame of reference to do such a thing. These hard limits aren't bad; they're just facts of our existence. Why do you think we humans have these ideas of ascending to higher planes of existence, to better understandings of reality?
I happen to love this example you give, and can even provide another one. In math, the constant Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius. It's also a number that has an infinite amount of non repeating, non patterned numbers after the decimal point, starting with 3.141592.... So we might conclude that Pi is about circles. And we wouldn't be wrong. The problem is that Pi shows up in lots of places in mathematics that have nothing whatsoever to do with circles. Why should that be? Nobody knows. Perhaps if our IQ was 1,000, or 10,000, or 100,000 we would see some obvious connection- but it isn't, so we don't. So to for God's motives. If we were only as smart as God, we could understand Him. But we're not. That's how He created us, and that's his lesson to Job.
-
Why are you inserting commentary like you're writing in the 18th century?
Maybe he's trying to raise the debate to a higher level by using archaic speech? "I'm chucked all of a heap" about this. "You fly beyond fate's control." "I'le rather doubt an Oracle than question what you deliver." "The grace of eloquence is seated on your lips." "They are the jammiest bits of jam." "Your virtues give a commanding power to every mortal." "They are truepenny and straight-fingered." "Your goodness hath forced me to a silence."
Well, I'm exhausted. That's enough work for today.
-
Why are you inserting commentary like you're writing in the 18th century?
Maybe he's trying to raise the debate to a higher level by using archaic speech? "I'm chucked all of a heap" about this. "You fly beyond fate's control." "I'le rather doubt an Oracle than question what you deliver." "The grace of eloquence is seated on your lips." "They are the jammiest bits of jam." "Your virtues give a commanding power to every mortal." "They are truepenny and straight-fingered." "Your goodness hath forced me to a silence."
Well, I'm exhausted. That's enough work for today.
Thusly, spake Zarathustra,
Though in a state of quiescence mine fingertips flicked to life oh joyous do they write these words to thee and thine for it is the wish of the celestials that thee shouldest also dwell upon the majestic beauties of wisdom herself. She, the queen of the heavens whose brilliance shineth brighter than even the most sparkling of the sinister smiles of those who wish you harm. Feareth not and hearken to me for I in my gnosis shall reveal to you the secrets thereupon the foundations of the earth were wrought. Heed not the oracles who speak of fate as if they comprehend even the most basic goings on of this or that emmet. Steel thyself, for it is wisdom herself that utters against you.
Did I do that right?
-
Think about it, friend. God answered the way He did because He chose to.
God answered that way because he was reaching Job the same lesson meant for us to learn: God does things for reasons that make sense to Him even if they don't make sense to us. Even if they can't make sense to us, because we are frail mortals of limited intelligence and can't understand God's unlimited intelligence.
So God is just like the charlatan down the street who says, "Just trust me?" I don't think so! My Bible reads:
Mal 3.10 Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty.
Isa 1.18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the Lord.
The God I know does reserve knowledge to Himself, and the vast amount of it is beyond us. All of it is dependent on His choice.
But God explains things. As such He made us in His own image, and expects us to be rational, as well as comprehend revelation that comes from Him.
The things we understand are from God must have the flavor of divinity. We have to know His character so that we can judge what is of Him, and what logically belongs to His character. Only then can we trust the direction we're going in.
We have to know and understand what righteousness is. Otherwise, our place within our circumstances could be misplaced. We may be suffering due to our own naivete.
Maybe we're just looking at two different sides of a coin? We believe the same Jewish Scriptures! But I can't see the book of Job as being anything less than rational.
Every rational argument under the sun is thrown at Job. And yet he is directed by something transcendent and still rational.
Otherwise, he would have no sense that he was still faithful to God. He would have nothing to base his trust in, no sense that his righteousness could determine his secure position with God.
And his faithfulness was, I think, all-important in this story.It is an argument for faithfulness in the midst of confusing circumstances. It is very Kierkegaardian!
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God. This has nothing to do with the tendency to judge things by their appearance, or neglect 'the eyes of faith'. It's a hard limit on our existence. Go ahead and imagine a tesseract in your mind. You can't. You could maybe describe it with math, but not being a fourth or even fifth-dimensional creature you simply lack the perspective and frame of reference to do such a thing. These hard limits aren't bad; they're just facts of our existence. Why do you think we humans have these ideas of ascending to higher planes of existence, to better understandings of reality?
I happen to love this example you give, and can even provide another one. In math, the constant Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius. It's also a number that has an infinite amount of non repeating, non patterned numbers after the decimal point, starting with 3.141592.... So we might conclude that Pi is about circles. And we wouldn't be wrong. The problem is that Pi shows up in lots of places in mathematics that have nothing whatsoever to do with circles. Why should that be? Nobody knows. Perhaps if our IQ was 1,000, or 10,000, or 100,000 we would see some obvious connection- but it isn't, so we don't. So to for God's motives. If we were only as smart as God, we could understand Him. But we're not. That's how He created us, and that's his lesson to Job.
I found that interesting. A curve by its very nature would avoid the predictability of an infinite line. As such, it is finite and constantly changing.
But I don't think it has a thing to do with Job. No, we can't challenge God's authority, and cannot grasp the basis of His decisions. But nothing God does is unreasonable or something we are unable to see as just.
-
Thusly, spake Zarathustra,
Though in a state of quiescence mine fingertips flicked to life oh joyous do they write these words to thee and thine for it is the wish of the celestials that thee shouldest also dwell upon the majestic beauties of wisdom herself. She, the queen of the heavens whose brilliance shineth brighter than even the most sparkling of the sinister smiles of those who wish you harm. Feareth not and hearken to me for I in my gnosis shall reveal to you the secrets thereupon the foundations of the earth were wrought. Heed not the oracles who speak of fate as if they comprehend even the most basic goings on of this or that emmet. Steel thyself, for it is wisdom herself that utters against you.
Did I do that right?
Poetry to the ear and the mind. Bless you.
-
So God is just like the charlatan down the street who says, "Just trust me?"
It's not about trust. God is just far more intelligent than we are. It's the way it is. I personally find it the height of arrogance to even assume that we can understand God.
I don't think so! My Bible reads:
Mal 3.10 Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty.
Isa 1.18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the Lord.
And mine reads (Is 55)
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
The God I know does reserve knowledge to Himself
It's not about "reserve". We're simply not smart enough to understand how God thinks. We can't even understand the physical laws that He created, yet you think we can understand His motives? I mean, really. Get ahold of yourself.
But God explains things. As such He made us in His own image, and expects us to be rational, as well as comprehend revelation that comes from Him.
And yet, when God says that we can't understand Him in Job, you tell Him otherwise.
We have to know and understand what righteousness is.
God tells us what is righteous. Follow His laws. That's it. Why look for more than what He already told us?
Maybe we're just looking at two different sides of a coin? We believe the same Jewish Scriptures! But I can't see the book of Job as being anything less than rational.
It is rational. God says "You can't understand my because I'm God and you're not."
Otherwise, he would have no sense that he was still faithful to God. He would have nothing to base his trust in, no sense that his righteousness could determine his secure position with God.
Having faith means believing God does things for the best, even if we can't understand why.
. It is very Kierkegaardian!
I don't think you understand what this means.
-
I found that interesting. A curve by its very nature would avoid the predictability of an infinite line. As such, it is finite and constantly changing.
You don't even understand the mathematics I'm saying. How can you understand God?
But nothing God does is unreasonable or something we are unable to see as just.
Why does Job's family die? Why do little kids get cancer? Why did the six million have to die? I don't know the answers to these questions, but God does. Knowing that should be sufficient.
-
You should work with the Word of GOD - the Word is GOD - instead to work with speculations, imaginations, presumptions, and conjectures, and even your own opinion.
Yeah, and I generally quote the bible too.
OK, but only the letter, the letter kills, in the way the Devil likes. He is a killer of souls.
Yeah so umm... Jews don't believe that the messiah is God manifest on earth.
Mere presumption of you.
Haha yes of course. But you misunderstand my point here. I'm not debating whether Jewish beliefs are correct or not. That's for another discussion. What I'm saying is that Jews are not going to worship a "false messiah" who claims to be God because Jews don't believe the messiah is God on earth. Understand?
Haha the JEWS always worshipped false gods/false prophets and their horrend idols, inclusive golden calf, a god whom his fathers knew not, as Daniel the prophet said, according their evil spirit. By the way, JESUS CAST out legions of spirits from the Jews who were possessed by evil spirits. The idolater Jews never linked to the true GOD, so when He came in flesh they received Him not, this is the why they believed not in JESUS, the true Messiah, and GOD. But they will believe and worship in their messiah that will manifest in this current decade, actually AN IMPOSTOR, a false messiah, because NOW is their own FATHER who was made flesh decades ago, in fact a former Cherub, the son of perdition, yeah, their father will manifest NOW in the end of the times as God, and they will worship him and will acclaim him in a thunderous way, resoundingly, before the whole world, his world.
What prevails is the Word of GOD. GOD is Truth. God shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie, that is, they believe in the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist messiah, the satanic Man Beast like a lamb with two horns and he speaks as Dragon. It seems you prefer to believe in false interpretation instead a true interpretation of the Word of GOD, unfortunately. The Word is GOD, understand?
We differ because I don't believe the NT is divine writ, and you do. Makes a big difference in what one believes you see.
Of course we differ; JESUS left very clear to the Jews: Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world (He meant:world of Devil - their father-John 8:44); I am not of this world, said JESUS. John 8:v.23
What about the NT preached by the prophets was not received by the Jews because they reject the GOD of the fathers.
The messiah will be an exemplary human being, someone on the order of Moses.
Now a mere imagination of you. The devilish, esoteric, kabbalistic, spiritist false messiah is a ruthless and wicked man, he will give his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the FIRST Beast, the MONSTROUS Gentile Beast of sea with 7 heads and 10 horns, and he will cause the earth -Israel - and all them which dwell therein to worship the FIRST Beast, the Gentile Beast of sea, whose deadly wound will be healed - healed by the false messiah - exactly when he gives his Power, and his Throne and great Authority to the Gentile Beast, the Beast of sea.
Umm yeah. I wasn't aware that the idea of a "false messiah" was accepted Christian doctrine. If I'm not mistaken, most Christians don't believe in this idea. Anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone?
John 5:v.43-47
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name (AN IMPOSTOR, A FALSE MESSIAH, WE CAN SAY AN ESOTERIC, AND KABBALISTIC, AND SPIRITIST MESSIAH, THE FUTURE GUIDE AND RULER OF ISRAEL IN THE LAST WEEK, THE WEEK 70th DANIEL 9:v.27 AS WAS PROPHESIED) him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Oh, I dunno. Kings David and Solomon come to mind.
OK, you were cunning in your answer, but the reality is that the 10 tribes of Israel rebelled against the house of David, and established a terrific and evil kingdom in Samaria, Israel is a Samaritan people, their kigs were evil, wicked, demoniac men, FULL OF SATANIC IDOLATRIES, and they killed all MEN OF GOD, the true prophets of the LORD, and left alive THE SATANIC FALSE PROPHETS, and they have nothing to do with the Kingdom of Judah.
Read the Bible.
One second. You said, and I quote, "What Israel's king did what was good before GOD?" And I just named two, David and Solomon. Hezekiah comes to mind also. What's this ranting and raving about? It has nothing to do with the topic.
The Ancient of days is at door, and Judgment is given to the saints of the most High, the Judgment shall sit, and they shall take away the dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
So God prevents Israel from returning to God, and then punishes Israel for not returning to God. Some nice theology you got there.
The problem is that your thinking is from a human perspective, not from God's perspective. This behaviour is very danger. Matthew 16:v.21-22
So from God's perspective, it's ok to prevent someone from returning to God and then punishing them for that. That seems, I dunno, needlessly sadistic? Look it up. Also going to repost these verses, since you seem to have missed them. Or maybe they're not in your bible.
You said Israel will not return to GOD.
And I replied-
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock."You also said
Israel never was linked to GOD.
and I replied
Jeremiah 2: Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them,’ ” declares the LORD.
[/quote]
Of course, GOD was speaking of the true ISRAEL, the 144K, the remnant exclusively, 12K of each tribe, except the tribe of Dan, from whom Jacob prophesied saying Dan would be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, by the way the serpent as a stumblingblock tempted JESUS with his traps.
Jeremiah prophesied also their shameful captiviy by 70 years in Babylon. The history of Israel, even after the return from the capitivity and rebuild of the temple is very very sad due their extreme corruption and desecration,
so GOD stoped to send prophets among them until the Messiah - JESUS - who was murderered by the Jews, for they preferred Barabbas, an evil and devilish man, instead JESUS. They crucified JESUS and after 40 years, the people of Israel was severely punished, hundreds of thousands were killed, the temple and the holy city were destroyed, Israel was scattered around the world AND THEY REMAINED PUNISHED SEVERELY FOR 1.878 years in fulfillment deuteronomy 28v.15 to 68, 53 verses of extreme punishments and curses. And they returned in 1.948, returned in 1948 for the false messiah to be born, and to do what is commanded in the Scriptures, I mean, to establish the Abomination of Desolation in the middle of the week as Daniel prophesied, then the end will come.
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God.
1Corinthians 2:v.9-11
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of GOD. (GOD is Spirit, but two thousand years ago He was made flesh, and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. And JESUS said: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.-John 7:v.38-39. The Word is GOD. The Bible by entire reveals, and shows clearly how GOD is).
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him.
JESUS said: Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. (In consequence, he will wither completely like the fig tree.
Why are you inserting commentary like you're writing in the 18th century? Also, what does this have to do with what I wrote?
Haha, it is not of the 18th century, but 1.611.
-
Haha the JEWS always worshipped false gods/false prophets and their horrend idols,
Really? ALWAYS? Even during the time of king David and Solomon and Hezekiah? Have you actually read the bible, or are you just spewing your own preconceived ideas about Jews without any biblical support whatsoever?
inclusive golden calf, a god whom his fathers knew not, as Daniel the prophet said, according their evil spirit. By the way, JESUS out legions of spirits from the Jews who were possessed by evil spirits. The idolater Jews never linked to the true GOD, so when He came in flesh they received Him not, this is the why they believed not in JESUS, the true Messiah, and GOD. But they will believe and worship in their messiah that will manifest in this current decade, actually AN IMPOSTOR, a false messiah, because NOW is their own FATHER who was made flesh decades ago, in fact a former Cherub, the son of perdition, yeah, their father will manifest NOW in the end of the times as God, and they will worship him and will acclaim him in a thunderous way, resoundingly, before the whole world, his world.
Why are you using 18th century speech?
Of course we differ; JESUS left very clear to the Jews: Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world (He meant:world of Devil - their father-John 8:44); I am not of this world, said JESUS. John 8:v.23
What about the NT preached by the prophets was not received by the Jews because they reject the GOD of the fathers.
And yet they worshipped God and still do to this day. I actually pray to God thrice a day.
John 5:v.43-47
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name (AN IMPOSTOR, A FALSE MESSIAH, WE CAN SAY AN ESOTERIC, AND KABBALISTIC, AND SPIRITIST MESSIAH, THE FUTURE GUIDE AND RULER OF ISRAEL IN THE LAST WEEK, THE WEEK 70th DANIEL 9:v.27 AS WAS PROPHESIED) him ye will receive.
Umm did you just add words to the bible? All those words in the parenthesis are not in the bible.
Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
I'd say you are in big trouble young man.
The Ancient of days is at door, and Judgment is given to the saints of the most High, the Judgment shall sit, and they shall take away the dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Has nothing to do with what I just said, but whatever.
Of course, GOD was speaking of the true ISRAEL
Ohh right, of course. That's what God was talking about in Jeremiah 2. How silly of me not to see it.
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them..."
I mean, it's talking about an event that took place hundreds of years earlier, and
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock.
is talking about a distant future event, but sure, it's the same 144,000. They're immortal or something. "There can be only one!" He also speaks with 18th century idioms. Sometimes.
Jeremiah prophesied also their shameful captiviy by 70 years in Babylon. The history of Israel, even after the return from the capitivity and rebuild of the temple is very very sad due their extreme corruption and desecration,
so GOD stoped to send prophets among them until the Messiah - JESUS - who was murderered by the Jews, for they preferred Barabbas, an evil and devilish man, instead JESUS. They crucified JESUS
Umm so wasn't that the Romans? I mean, it's right in your bible and everything.
and after 40 years, the people of Israel was severely punished, hundreds of thousands were killed, the temple and the holy city were destroyed, Israel was scattered around the world AND THEY REMAINED PUNISHED SEVERELY FOR 1.878 years in fulfillment deuteronomy 28v.15 to 68, 53 verses of extreme punishments and curses.
Weirdly enough, mostly by so called Christians.
And they returned in 1.948, returned in 1948 for the false messiah to be born, and to do what is commanded in the Scriptures, I mean, to establish the Abomination of Desolation in the middle of the week as Daniel prophesied, then the end will come.
You still haven't explained how Jews are going to worship a person who claims to be God when Jews don't believe a person can be God. Still awaiting your explanation.
-
It's not that we're shortsighted by nature, it's that as created creatures we don't have the capacity to understand the things of God.
1Corinthians 2:v.9-11
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of GOD. (GOD is Spirit, but two thousand years ago He was made flesh, and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS. And JESUS said: He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.-John 7:v.38-39. The Word is GOD. The Bible by entire reveals, and shows clearly how GOD is).
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him.
JESUS said: Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. (In consequence, he will wither completely like the fig tree.
Why are you inserting commentary like you're writing in the 18th century? Also, what does this have to do with what I wrote?
Haha, it is not of the 18th century, but 1.611.
I know. :) And even then, the 1611 was using somewhat archaic English. Replace all those s' with f's.
-
I found that interesting. A curve by its very nature would avoid the predictability of an infinite line. As such, it is finite and constantly changing.
No encryption algorithms for you young man!
-
So God is just like the charlatan down the street who says, "Just trust me?" I don't think so! My Bible reads:
Mal 3.10 Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty.
Isa 1.18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the Lord.
That's not how God operates beginning in Job 38, though. Starting in 38:4 He evidences His character to Job by appealing to His role as creator. He makes an appeal to His intricate involvement in creation, and to the care that He provides it (who provides food for the lion, lioness, and raven?). He cares for the mountain goats, the doe, the wild donkey, the ox, the ostrich, the horse, the hawk. He appeals to his glory and power -- just look at Behemoth, Ozymadias Job! Or Leviathan. Look around yourself, Job, does this creation look like the work of an unjust God? (Stephen Fry would say yes, but when it comes his time to argue with God I don't think He'll hold up too well.)
To risk the anachronistic:
Matthew 6:26
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
God isn't just saying "trust me". He's saying, "look around you (you're more valuable than they are), trust me". God is just and yet Job suffered. God is just and yet we suffer. Job's friend's tried to justify his suffering as punishment for sin; in this way, they suggest that God's justice in this scenario is predicated on Job's sin, and if Job didn't sin, then God is unjust. This is partly way they can't accept Job's argument. This is the issue with everyone who views suffering as punishment.
And his faithfulness was, I think, all-important in this story.It is an argument for faithfulness in the midst of confusing circumstances. It is very Kierkegaardian!
What part of Job was Kierkegaardian?
-
I found that interesting. A curve by its very nature would avoid the predictability of an infinite line. As such, it is finite and constantly changing.
No encryption algorithms for you young man!
I suppose everything is somewhat predictable. ;) I wish I could say I was a "young man." So maybe I'm less predictable than you thought? ;) Only as long as you think in terms of a line will a curve be unpredictable--you're right about that! But once you anticipate a turn, you can anticipate such--you just don't know which direction the turn will take...
-
Haha the JEWS always worshipped false gods/false prophets and their horrend idols,
Really? ALWAYS? Even during the time of king David and Solomon and Hezekiah? Have you actually read the bible, or are you just spewing your own preconceived ideas about Jews without any biblical support whatsoever?
Don't you know? Since they went out from Egypt the idolatry was in their hearts, tought of the wonderful works made before them by GOD , the GOD of their Fathers, the Patriarchs. That generation was terrible, actually since Abel was killed, don't you know? Even GOD thought to destroy them, Moses interceeded before GOD to do not the destruction of the rebbel people. Have you ever read a Torah?
inclusive golden calf, a god whom his fathers knew not, as Daniel the prophet said, according their evil spirit. By the way, JESUS out legions of spirits from the Jews who were possessed by evil spirits. The idolater Jews never linked to the true GOD, so when He came in flesh they received Him not, this is the why they believed not in JESUS, the true Messiah, and GOD. But they will believe and worship in their messiah that will manifest in this current decade, actually AN IMPOSTOR, a false messiah, because NOW is their own FATHER who was made flesh decades ago, in fact a former Cherub, the son of perdition, yeah, their father will manifest NOW in the end of the times as God, and they will worship him and will acclaim him in a thunderous way, resoundingly, before the whole world, his world. Why are you using 18th century speech?
Why don't you believe in the Word of GOD? The Word is GOD. GOD, the Word, is from Eternity to Eternity, without beginning and ending. JESUS is the beginning, and the ending, understand?
Of course we differ; JESUS left very clear to the Jews: Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world (He meant:world of Devil - their father-John 8:44); I am not of this world, said JESUS. John 8:v.23
What about the NT preached by the prophets was not received by the Jews because they reject the GOD of the fathers.
And yet they worshipped God and still do to this day. I actually pray to God thrice a day.
They don't worship GOD, but never, for they do not know GOD until this day, how could they worship GOD, if they are uncircumcised in heart? They are spiritist, they are esoteric and kabbalistic and their religion is pure spiritism,
as ALL religions invented by the spirit of Devil. JESUS came to save them from the hands of the astute Devil and to make them free from deceitful and diabolical religions of Devil, but they had rejected and still reject this wonderful deliverance and to be free from the power of Satan. They preferred Barabbas, a son of Devil.
John 5:v.43-47
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name (AN IMPOSTOR, A FALSE MESSIAH, WE CAN SAY AN ESOTERIC, AND KABBALISTIC, AND SPIRITIST MESSIAH, THE FUTURE GUIDE AND RULER OF ISRAEL IN THE LAST WEEK, THE WEEK 70th DANIEL 9:v.27 AS WAS PROPHESIED) him ye will receive.
Umm did you just add words to the bible? All those words in the parenthesis are not in the bible.
Don't you know? There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit (who is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person) : and these three are One. By the way, the Holy Spirit is the lesser, the smallest, of the three. By the way, whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Sspirit shall not be forgiven unto men.
Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Now, now, are you believing in the NT for now? You have said to me in prior post that you "don't believe the NT is divine writ". What's that? OK, it is good to see you are starting to believe in the NT.
I'd say you are in big trouble young man.
Oh no, There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One.
The Ancient of days is at door, and Judgment is given to the saints of the most High, the Judgment shall sit, and they shall take away the dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Has nothing to do with what I just said, but whatever.
It is what the Word of GOD says. The Word is GOD, understand?
Of course, GOD was speaking of the true ISRAEL
Ohh right, of course. That's what God was talking about in Jeremiah 2. How silly of me not to see it.
You have not learned to differentiate true Israel from uncircumcised and deceiving Israel. Read 1Kings 20:v.13 to 15 and try to understand the why the TRUE Israel had only 7 thousands true Israelites. By the way, now, even now, in the end of the Devil's world only and only 144K will be gathered and sealed by the Most High and Almighty GOD. The others, well, the others, ... Matthew 23:v.31-33
Continues in the next post later.
-
Quote
Of course, GOD was speaking of the true ISRAEL
Ohh right, of course. That's what God was talking about in Jeremiah 2. How silly of me not to see it.
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them..."
I mean, it's talking about an event that took place hundreds of years earlier, and
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock.
is talking about a distant future event, but sure, it's the same 144,000. They're immortal or something. "There can be only one!" He also speaks with 18th century idioms. Sometimes.
What does he Word of GOD say? Jeremiah 11:v.15:
15 - What hath MY BELOVED to do in mine house seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
And Isaiah said: Is. 5:v.1 to 6
1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
Jeremiah 11:v.14-17
14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
Jeremiah 30:v.23-24
23 Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he hath done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.
Get ready
-
Quote
Jeremiah prophesied also their shameful captiviy by 70 years in Babylon. The history of Israel, even after the return from the capitivity and rebuild of the temple is very very sad due their extreme corruption and desecration,
so GOD stoped to send prophets among them until the Messiah - JESUS - who was murderered by the Jews, for they preferred Barabbas, an evil and devilish man, instead JESUS. They crucified JESUS
Umm so wasn't that the Romans? I mean, it's right in your bible and everything.
[/quote]
No, was not the Romans, was really the Jews. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine, and Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing, so why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said, and when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Then Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
JESUS was led to Caiaphas unto the hall of Judgment, it was early and they themselves went not into the Judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto the Jews and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Pilate said unto the Jews, Take you him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Pilate entered into the Judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Say you this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what has you done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate said unto JESUS: Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heares my voice. Pilate said unto JESUS: What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and said unto the JEWS: I find in him no fault at all.
But you have a custom, that should release unto you one at the passover: will you that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Then ALL THE JEWS cried again, saying: Not this man, not JESUS, but Barabbas. And Barabbas was a robber. By the way, even the temple was transformed in a den of robbers.
-
Quote
and after 40 years, the people of Israel was severely punished, hundreds of thousands were killed, the temple and the holy city were destroyed, Israel was scattered around the world AND THEY REMAINED PUNISHED SEVERELY FOR 1.878 years in fulfillment Deuteronomy 28v.15 to 68, 53 verses of extreme punishments and curses.
Weirdly enough, mostly by so called Christians.
Have you never read Deuteronomy 28:v.15 to 68 in the Torah? If the Jews had believed in Moses certainly they had avoid the severe chastisements and CURSES according the Word of GOD written in the Torah. The Word is GOD, understand?
-
Quote
And they returned in 1.948, returned in 1948 for the false messiah to be born, and to do what is commanded in the Scriptures, I mean, to establish the Abomination of Desolation in the middle of the week as Daniel prophesied, then the end will come.
You still haven't explained how Jews are going to worship a person who claims to be God when Jews don't believe a person can be God. Still awaiting your explanation.
What you are saying has not any sense, I explained and now by your own words you are confessing that you didn't understand???
See, the idolater Jews never was linked to the true GOD, of course, so when He came in flesh they received Him not, GOD was made flesh and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS- and this is the why the JEWS believed not in JESUS, the true Messiah, and GOD.
But they will believe in their false messiah and worship him as soon he manifest himself among the people of Israel, by the way, today Israel is full of idolatries and witcheries. The false messiah of the JEWS will manifest himself in this current decade, actually AN IMPOSTOR, a false messiah.
They rejected JESUS because JESUS is GOD made flesh.
But NOW they will worship the false messiah as God because he is THEIR own FATHER. Their father was born decades ago, he was made flesh decades ago, in fact a former Cherub, the son of perdition, yeah, their father will manifest NOW in the end of the times as God, and they will worship him and will acclaim him in a thunderous way, resoundingly, even before the whole world, actually his world, after all he is their father and they will worship their father, of course.
-
I suppose everything is somewhat predictable. ;) I wish I could say I was a "young man." So maybe I'm less predictable than you thought? ;) Only as long as you think in terms of a line will a curve be unpredictable--you're right about that! But once you anticipate a turn, you can anticipate such--you just don't know which direction the turn will take...
When I was a teenager some of the people I knew best were in their 100s. I figure, if you studied the trinity in the 1970s (or were otherwise involved in a modalist cult), then at a minimum you're in your 60s or more likely, pushing or in your early to mid-70s. That's like, ~30-something years to go before you catch up to the oldest person I've known, and a ~30-year difference is nothing to scoff at. That makes you young.
P.S. I didn't know anyone over 100 who wasn't ready to move on from this life. If you can help out, don't try to set any longevity records or anything.
-
I suppose everything is somewhat predictable. ;) I wish I could say I was a "young man." So maybe I'm less predictable than you thought? ;) Only as long as you think in terms of a line will a curve be unpredictable--you're right about that! But once you anticipate a turn, you can anticipate such--you just don't know which direction the turn will take...
When I was a teenager some of the people I knew best were in their 100s. I figure, if you studied the trinity in the 1970s (or were otherwise involved in a modalist cult), then at a minimum you're in your 60s or more likely, pushing or in your early to mid-70s. That's like, ~30-something years to go before you catch up to the oldest person I've known, and a ~30-year difference is nothing to scoff at. That makes you young.
P.S. I didn't know anyone over 100 who wasn't ready to move on from this life. If you can help out, don't try to set any longevity records or anything.
All that when I just wanted to explain, "I'm not a young man." I'm just correcting your mischaracterization--nothing personal.
I'm not particularly bright, but I am in fact getting old. Not rushing things either way. Just enjoying the ride. :)
For what it's worth, I'm still in my 60s, and act perpetually young. I've always had a ton of energy, and never try to hide my boyish excitement about things of the Lord.
-
All that when I just wanted to explain, "I'm not a young man." I'm just correcting your mischaracterization--nothing personal.
I'm not particularly bright, but I am in fact getting old. Not rushing things either way. Just enjoying the ride. :)
For what it's worth, I'm still in my 60s, and act perpetually young. I've always had a ton of energy, and never try to hide my boyish excitement about things of the Lord.
Well, that was a bit of cheek rather than a mischaracterization.
I know you don't think you're a "young man" nor are considered such by broader society. But, let's say you're going to be the equivalent of one trillion years old one day. You've lived what, 6.5 × 10-9% of your life? So much time on this earth, and of such significance, only for it to pale with respect to eternity. Will we have perfect memories? Will there one day come a 'time' where this will be as if it never happened? Will the new creation be so awesome that we'll pay not think further on this life mere seconds after arriving? Existence is burdonsome. What a terrifying gift.
So old man, it sounds like you're already resting easy in the slow decay of your body.
-
All that when I just wanted to explain, "I'm not a young man." I'm just correcting your mischaracterization--nothing personal.
I'm not particularly bright, but I am in fact getting old. Not rushing things either way. Just enjoying the ride. :)
For what it's worth, I'm still in my 60s, and act perpetually young. I've always had a ton of energy, and never try to hide my boyish excitement about things of the Lord.
Well, that was a bit of cheek rather than a mischaracterization.
I know you don't think you're a "young man" nor are considered such by broader society. But, let's say you're going to be the equivalent of one trillion years old one day. You've lived what, 6.5 × 10-9% of your life? So much time on this earth, and of such significance, only for it to pale with respect to eternity. Will we have perfect memories? Will there one day come a 'time' where this will be as if it never happened? Will the new creation be so awesome that we'll pay not think further on this life mere seconds after arriving? Existence is burdonsome. What a terrifying gift.
So old man, it sounds like you're already resting easy in the slow decay of your body.
Are you always this fun? I mean that--you're an interesting guy, but less so, because you know it. ;)
I really have to think about what you're saying. Yes, I think we'll remember things. And yes, it will so pale in comparison with our new life in eternity that we won't give it much thought. All of the dread of looking at our mistakes repeatedly for all eternity will seem like so much spilled water.
I tend to think the next world will be just like the present world, absent the ability to get hurt and die. No procreation, but clearly, something better....
There will be no more need for maturing, or progressing. I suppose the only "progress" will be churning out a constant productivity, expressing our individual gifts in contribution to the whole.
It may be like an artist with an endless number of ideas for doing paintings. Or, a builder who feels unrestrained in his designs. But zero boredom, and a continuous sense of fulfillment.
-
Don't you know? Since they went out from Egypt the idolatry was in their hearts, tought of the wonderful works made before them by GOD , the GOD of their Fathers, the Patriarchs. That generation was terrible, actually since Abel was killed, don't you know? Even GOD thought to destroy them, Moses interceeded before GOD to do not the destruction of the rebbel people. Have you ever read a Torah?
I dunno, have you?
Exodus 29:42 “So I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar and will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests. Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God. They will know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the Lord their God."
Whoa! I can't believe that's in the Torah!
Why don't you believe in the Word of GOD? The Word is GOD. GOD, the Word, is from Eternity to Eternity, without beginning and ending. JESUS is the beginning, and the ending, understand?
I know you believe this. But why should I? Nothing you've said has been convincing in the least I'm afraid. Or coherent for that matter.
They don't worship GOD, but never, for they do not know GOD until this day, how could they worship GOD, if they are uncircumcised in heart? They are spiritist, they are esoteric and kabbalistic and their religion is pure spiritism,as ALL religions invented by the spirit of Devil.
So I'm praying to the devil three times a day? Wait, lemme check. No, my prayer book very clearly says "God". Actually in Hebrew.
Umm did you just add words to the bible? All those words in the parenthesis are not in the bible.
Don't you know? There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit (who is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person) : and these three are One. By the way, the Holy Spirit is the lesser, the smallest, of the three. By the way, whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Sspirit shall not be forgiven unto men.
OK, so basically you're perfectly fine with adding words to the bible. Your credibility is shot with me.
Now, now, are you believing in the NT for now? You have said to me in prior post that you "don't believe the NT is divine writ". What's that? OK, it is good to see you are starting to believe in the NT.
Apparently you don't believe it either, or you wouldn't be adding words as you see fit.
You have not learned to differentiate true Israel from uncircumcised and deceiving Israel. Read 1Kings 20:v.13 to 15 and try to understand the why the TRUE Israel had only 7 thousands true Israelites.
Umm all this says is that there were 7,000 soldiers of Israel in a battle. It says nothing about who are "true Israelites". This is just so much nonsense, why am I even responding?
Continues in the next post later.
I can barely contain my excitement.
-
Quote
Of course, GOD was speaking of the true ISRAEL
Ohh right, of course. That's what God was talking about in Jeremiah 2. How silly of me not to see it.
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem that this is what the LORD says: ‘I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of His harvest. All who devoured her found themselves guilty; disaster came upon them..."
I mean, it's talking about an event that took place hundreds of years earlier, and
Jeremiah 31: Hear, O nations, the word of the LORD, and proclaim it in distant coastlands: “The One who scattered Israel will gather them and keep them as a shepherd keeps his flock.
is talking about a distant future event, but sure, it's the same 144,000. They're immortal or something. "There can be only one!" He also speaks with 18th century idioms. Sometimes.
What does he Word of GOD say? Jeremiah 11:v.15:
15 - What hath MY BELOVED to do in mine house seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
And Isaiah said: Is. 5:v.1 to 6
1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
Jeremiah 11:v.14-17
14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
Jeremiah 30:v.23-24
23 Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he hath done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.
Get ready
I don't understand what these verses have to do with anything. It's like you just posted a bunch of verses at random.
-
No, was not the Romans, was really the Jews.
snip
Pilate entered into the Judgment hall again
Pilate was a dictator. Pilate could do whatever he wanted, and he always did. To say that at this one moment Pilate was beholden to anything other than the Roman legions is just silly.
And who put Jesus on the cross? Roman soldiers. Who pierced him with a spear? A Roman soldier. Whose sins did he die for? All of humanity. But sure, lets blame the Jews for this. And everything else that goes wrong for that matter.
But you have a custom, that should release unto you one at the passover:
There is no evidence for this "custom".
-
Have you never read Deuteronomy 28:v.15 to 68 in the Torah?
Weirdly enough, at least once a year.
If the Jews had believed in Moses certainly they had avoid the severe chastisements and CURSES according the Word of GOD written in the Torah.
They could believe Moses and still fell short because they were human. Or do you lead a perfect, sinless life? Yeah I didn't think so.
-
What you are saying has not any sense, I explained and now by your own words you are confessing that you didn't understand???
See, the idolater Jews never was linked to the true GOD, of course, so when He came in flesh they received Him not, GOD was made flesh and chose a NAME for He Himself-JESUS- and this is the why the JEWS believed not in JESUS, the true Messiah, and GOD.
But they will believe in their false messiah and worship him as soon he manifest himself among the people of Israel, by the way, today Israel is full of idolatries and witcheries. The false messiah of the JEWS will manifest himself in this current decade, actually AN IMPOSTOR, a false messiah.
They rejected JESUS because JESUS is GOD made flesh.
But NOW they will worship the false messiah as God because he is THEIR own FATHER. Their father was born decades ago, he was made flesh decades ago, in fact a former Cherub, the son of perdition, yeah, their father will manifest NOW in the end of the times as God, and they will worship him and will acclaim him in a thunderous way, resoundingly, even before the whole world, actually his world, after all he is their father and they will worship their father, of course.
Yeah I don't think you're understanding me at all.
Jews don't believe that God can be a person. It's one of the reasons that they reject Jesus's claims of messiahship. Yet somehow they're going to accept a false messiah who claims to be God? Are you even reading what I'm saying at all?
-
So, to summarize:
We have one Christian trying to teach me about Judaism and another spouting random verses from the bible and telling me that I really worship the devil.
Let's try and elevate the level of discourse.
-
May we flirt with boredom once more (Oseas won't be participating further).
-
So, to summarize:
We have one Christian trying to teach me about Judaism and another spouting random verses from the bible and telling me that I really worship the devil.
Let's try and elevate the level of discourse.
Please allow me to correct what I think is an error here. I am not sure whether you are referring to me, as the one who trying to "teach you about Judaism?" But having just today discussed this with you I can see that you haven't understood my point.
In case you think so let me first set you straight: I am *not* trying to teach you Judaism as that religion defines itself. It is for Jews to define Judaism for themselves, since it is their practice--not mine.
But when it comes to the Scriptures, these books can be called either the Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible. Both Jews and Christians lay claim to the Bible, and Christians would say that they are both, since both testaments were written by Hebrews.
Since Christians have their own interpretation of the Jewish Bible, as explained in the NT Bible, we Christians have every right to present what our own faith is, and how it views Judaism. We can place our own stamp of approval on Judaism or not.
As such, Christians don't believe Judaism in the NT era, has in any way represented what the Jewish Bible intended for that religion to be. We believe it was intended to become Christianity, a Jewish religion that we believe God intended to go international.
Christianity believes in ecumenism, and Judaism believes in inclusivism. Both are respectable traits. But never have I tried to define how Jews practice their own religion. I'm just judging whether Jewish religion properly conforms to their Bible, based on how Christians interpret it.
I'm sure there have been many Hebrews in ancient history who believed that they could mix idol worship with their practice of the Law. And they would've had the right to define their own religion as such.
But other Jews would've retained the right to judge this mixture of polytheism with monotheism as inconsistent, based on their own interpretation of the Law, and based on their own religious standards. It is not a matter of dictating what a religion, like Judaism, is, but rather, a matter of judging whether it is right or not.
-
Please allow me to correct what I think is an error here. I am not sure whether you are referring to me, as the one who trying to "teach you about Judaism?"
Yes, you're trying to teach me about Judaism. Obviously you're the expert.
-
Please allow me to correct what I think is an error here. I am not sure whether you are referring to me, as the one who trying to "teach you about Judaism?"
Yes, you're trying to teach me about Judaism. Obviously you're the expert.
OK, we're done. I think just about any objective observer can see that I'm not trying to teach you about Judaism's beliefs. I don't even know Judaism's beliefs that well.
I'm trying to teach you what I think Judaism *should be teaching,* based on my own beliefs and interpretation of the Bible.
-
I think just about any objective observer can see that I'm not trying to teach you about Judaism's beliefs. I don't even know Judaism's beliefs that well.
I'm trying to teach you what I think Judaism *should be teaching,* based on my own beliefs and interpretation of the Bible.
Sigh, let's try to take a break without me locking the thread. For now, I'm going to steal the last word --
The objective observer will understand that teaching someone about what some thing ought to teach, is to make a judgment on what that some thing does teach, such that knowledge of both teachings (in this case, beliefs) is assumed if one is going to say, "don't teach X, instead, teach Y". If there is no such knowledge, or the knowledge is lacking, then there is a problem.
Now, let's resist the temptation for a day or so because if I have to lock the thread that will be a lame indictment of our self-control.
-
I think just about any objective observer can see that I'm not trying to teach you about Judaism's beliefs. I don't even know Judaism's beliefs that well.
I'm trying to teach you what I think Judaism *should be teaching,* based on my own beliefs and interpretation of the Bible.
Sigh, let's try to take a break without me locking the thread. For now, I'm going to steal the last word --
The objective observer will understand that teaching someone about what some thing ought to teach, is to make a judgment on what that some thing does teach, such that knowledge of both teachings (in this case, beliefs) is assumed if one is going to say, "don't teach X, instead, teach Y". If there is no such knowledge, or the knowledge is lacking, then there is a problem.
Now, let's resist the temptation for a day or so because if I have to lock the thread that will be a lame indictment of our self-control.
Yes, we should do everything to build others in Christ up, and to be a good testimony to others. At various times, regardless of how we feel about something, if nothing good will take place, it's good to resist the temptation to "get the last word!"
Sadly, when closure doesn't happen, issues tend to pop up again later. If they do, I hope that it will come across in a less offensive way.
I don't want to think the worst of this forum, so I will try one more time to present my thoughts on this subject, apart from this particular thread, and hopefully avoid any more discussion with Fenris.
Has it occurred to anybody that he is not a Christian and is trying to paint Judaism as "truth" for the Jewish People? It is only *his truth,* and not *truth for the Jewish People!* If Christians allow that to stand, it completely nullifies our witness to the Jewish People!
If I become a victim of a kind of Cancel Culture, then I know I have no place here. I can tolerate a lot of things--the one thing I cannot tolerate is censorship, particularly when it cancels Christian thought and offers no defense.
-
Has it occurred to anybody that he is not a Christian and is trying to paint Judaism as "truth" for the Jewish People? It is only *his truth,* and not *truth for the Jewish People!* If Christians allow that to stand, it completely nullifies our witness to the Jewish People!
I think we're more in danger of confusing Fenris for an Asgardian than we are of forgetting that he's Jewish. You knew what conversation you were getting to when you replied to him: you were going to get his Jewish view of the matter.
So, what exactly am I allowing to stand that's nullifying our witness 'to the Jewish People!'? Are you asking me to censor or otherwise restrict the things Fenris can write while raising the demon of 'cancel culture' for yourself?
If I become a victim of a kind of Cancel Culture, then I know I have no place here. I can tolerate a lot of things--the one thing I cannot tolerate is censorship, particularly when it cancels Christian thought and offers no defense.
If you want to be 'cancelled' you need only say things like, "the father of all Jews is Satan" and otherwise put forward any number of Biblically misinformed, anti-semitic views. But then, you aren't being 'cancelled', and you're in no danger of being 'cancelled' as far as I can see. It's a forum, the views you present are often taken to task. Welcome to the conversation. Taken aback much?
-
I've known many Jews over the years who have come to Christ and who have remained friends and continue to be active witnesses, particularly in the mission field.
Several are very steeped in Jewish culture and most are highly skilled in the scriptures and transmission of the Bible.
I am especially familiar with "Jews For Jesus" and continue to follow their work.
The common denominator among these Jewish Christians is a conviction that is shared with Protestant believers of all sorts: the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures.
If "Christ in all the Scriptures" does not convince, isms and culture are near hopeless tools and endless arguments.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn 5:39
-
I've known many Jews over the years who have come to Christ and who have remained friends and continue to be active witnesses, particularly in the mission field.
Several are very steeped in Jewish culture and most are highly skilled in the scriptures and transmission of the Bible.
I am especially familiar with "Jews For Jesus" and continue to follow their work.
The common denominator among these Jewish Christians is a conviction that is shared with Protestant believers of all sorts: the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures.
If "Christ in all the Scriptures" does not convince, isms and culture are near hopeless tools and endless arguments.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn 5:39
I agree. I favor a Christian culture because God indicated that in the OT Bible, and also because it is in our interest to have a just society.
The culture is to allow for the greatest freedom for Christian expression, and that expresses the heart of God. I'm not interested in pleasing man, but rather, in pleasing God.
Those who don't wish to follow my vision of godliness are entitled to do so up to the standards that a Christian society will allow under the Scriptures. And God's theocracies of the past have never required Inquisitions--only reasonable good behavior.
In a Christian society one doesn't have to sign on to the Christian Constitution--he only may not speak out against it as a form of sedition. God's theocracies have never been liberal democracies, except in the modern world.
-
And God's theocracies of the past have never required Inquisitions--only reasonable good behavior.
You uh, super duper confident about that? I mean, if we look at the ANE for just a little bit...
-
What is the acronym ANE? What country are you speaking from?
-
What is the acronym ANE? What country are you speaking from?
Ancient
Near
East
-
What is the acronym ANE? What country are you speaking from?
Ancient
Near
East
Gotcha. Yes, I'm referring to God's *ideal* theocracies. He gave His Law to Israel--that was the ideal setup--no Inquistions.
Many liberals have tried to paint God's Law as evil, bigoted, and inhumane. After all, God wanted Israel to completely erase the 7 pagan nations of Canaan. They ignore the fact that God is patient and gave these nations ample opportunity to repent, and only acted when their violence and rebellion against God's Law became so great that He was done with them.
There is a lot of mercy and understanding, as well as tolerance under the Mosaic Law. In fact, the Law contained within it the means of forgiveness, as well as cleansing--something that is foreign to our judicial systems today. There is a taint and a record that goes along with doing wrong in our societies today.
But God is forgiving and forgets sins, so to speak. That is, He doesn't hold anything against us, even if it seems so, due to the need to "correct us" and "change us."
So the Law was a theocracy but it was also merciful and compassionate. It did not judge pagan nations who didn't know any better except in ways to correct them over time through the human conscience.
And so, Christian nations could live with Jews in their midst without forcing them to sign onto the Christian religion. Christians were largely, by the Gospel, to witness to Christ, and not judge by appearances, nor to be quick to judgment. Our goal is to *win* the soul, not force it down their throat. I think we are agreed on that?
-
Gotcha. Yes, I'm referring to God's *ideal* theocracies. He gave His Law to Israel--that was the ideal setup--no Inquistions.
Did God have non-ideal theocracies? I'm not sure I know what this means.
Sure, the Abrahamic, let's say, theocracies of the past won't have Monty Python showing up any time soon, but let's not pretend that there weren't severe consequences of lapses of faith and disobedience. If you don't want to use the word 'inquisition' that's up to you, but I don't think anyone else is buying.
But why are you even making such a claim in the first place?
Many liberals have tried to paint God's Law as evil, bigoted, and inhumane. After all, God wanted Israel to completely erase the 7 pagan nations of Canaan. They ignore the fact that God is patient and gave these nations ample opportunity to repent, and only acted when their violence and rebellion against God's Law became so great that He was done with them.
The problem isn't what liberals have tried to do, it's what people try to do with the w/Word of God. If the liberals try to paint as evil, then the conservative temptation is to apply without love. There's no left and right division, or red and blue, or Republican or Democrat. This group politik doesn't help anyone. Liberals aren't your enemy.
There is a lot of mercy and understanding, as well as tolerance under the Mosaic Law. In fact, the Law contained within it the means of forgiveness, as well as cleansing--something that is foreign to our judicial systems today. There is a taint and a record that goes along with doing wrong in our societies today.
If it were possible I'd say there were some rose-tinted glasses lying around. Judaism at the time wasn't without its issues, and I don't know about you, but the Law seems pretty harsh to me. But that's just coming from would-have-been-stoned-4,000-years-ago-little-old-me.
And so, Christian nations could live with Jews in their midst without forcing them to sign onto the Christian religion. Christians were largely, by the Gospel, to witness to Christ, and not judge by appearances, nor to be quick to judgment. Our goal is to *win* the soul, not force it down their throat. I think we are agreed on that?
Win the soul --> "my issue with Judaism"
"If Christians allow that to stand, it completely nullifies our witness to the Jewish People!"
You still haven't told me what I'm allowing to stand that's nullifying... 'our'? Witness to the Jewish person!
-
Gotcha. Yes, I'm referring to God's *ideal* theocracies. He gave His Law to Israel--that was the ideal setup--no Inquistions.
Did God have non-ideal theocracies? I'm not sure I know what this means.
It's clear what I mean--God wanted people to live up to the ideal. In reality, Israel did not always live up to that ideal--they apostacized. The fact they apostacized does not indicate that the ideal theocracy was bad, nor should theocracies be characterized by their failure.
I wouldn't say that monarchies don't work because they didn't work during the French Revolution, nor would I say that democracies don't work because they are sometimes democracies in name only.
I feel the same about theocracies. I would define them with the understanding that people always show their imperfections in them.
People show their imperfections in every political system. The question is, what system works best when it is functioning properly?
I would argue that God proposed the Christian Theocracy as the best system. And I believe it can assume different political forms and still be viewed as a kind of "theocracy," even though it may not be how we typically define a theocracy.
I have this problem all the time, and it is basically an argument over definitions. I would argue that theocracy in its most basic form is the choice, of a society, to be ruled by God. We can still choose or elect political leaders and choose, at the same time, to be ruled by God. We simply choose Christian leaders.
If one wishes to distinguish between "the Way" and my definition of Christianity, there has to be standards by which to objectively distinguish between them. In this case, RK doesn't provide any such objective standards--only assumes that there is a difference between them, and that when one suffers the other is not being given equal justice.
In reality, my view of Christianity, as a theocracy, is synonymous with "the Way," although RK has left his definition of "the Way" wide open. So it's a matter of how he is defining "the Way," and how he wishes to distinguish between his "Way" and my "Christianity?"
If his only objective is that I don't wish to discuss Judaism with a Jew who is angry with me, he's blowing up a very small issue into a much larger one. You yourself know that I'm trying to comply with your rules by ending my previous argument with him!
If his issue is that Jews have a right to judge their religion as right and I do not have the right to judge their religion as wrong, because it is "their religion," then I'd have to disagree. That Jew can more properly explain what it is Jews do and believe. But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!
The problem isn't what liberals have tried to do, it's what people try to do with the w/Word of God. If the liberals try to paint as evil, then the conservative temptation is to apply without love. There's no left and right division, or red and blue, or Republican or Democrat. This group politik doesn't help anyone. Liberals aren't your enemy.
Some liberals are my enemy. The leaders of the Enlightenment in the 18th century were indeed my Enemy. But many who were raised with a liberal education have certain presuppositions built into them, such as "Western democracies are the best political system in history."
I don't at all believe that to be true. A Christian government is much to be preferred, in whatever political form, to secularistic democracies that place Christianity as just one of many gods.
As long as a secular democracy begins with a Christian public, it maintains a Christian memory and may function for quite some time. But eventually, liberty for pagans will overwhelm the Christian consensus, and Christianity will be marginalized and depreciated. The society will, I believe, suffer.
If it were possible I'd say there were some rose-tinted glasses lying around. Judaism at the time wasn't without its issues, and I don't know about you, but the Law seems pretty harsh to me. But that's just coming from would-have-been-stoned-4,000-years-ago-little-old-me.
I believe you're sincere in your beliefs and more than willing to argue them. That separates you from stone cold ideologues who would kill to have their political system established no matter what.
I don't know how open-minded you are to other ideas, but so far I respect what you say even though I disagree with some of it. I'll have to deal with some of your other points later. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
God never wanted a theocracy.
First he wanted free humans
Then in order to facilitate the necessary redeemer, He wanted a kingdom of priests.
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
As a poor second best to get the Messiah, God instituted a prophet/priest led theocracy
When Israel rejected that for an earthly monarch, all bets were off .
God only approved governmental system at this point is a future Jesus monarchy
There is no such animal as a Christian government
-
God never wanted a theocracy.
First he wanted free humans
Then in order to facilitate the necessary redeemer, He wanted a kingdom of priests.
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
As a poor second best to get the Messiah, God instituted a prophet/priest led theocracy
When Israel rejected that for an earthly monarch, all bets were off .
God only approved governmental system at this point is a future Jesus monarchy
There is no such animal as a Christian government
Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?
You're playing word games. The Byzantine Empire was a Christian government that lasted a thousand years. You may want to banter around the word "theocracy" in association with various kinds of governments. But as I said elsewhere, I define a "theocracy" as rule by God, or a nation's majority choice to be ruled by God's Law.
In the OT that was Israel choosing to be ruled by the Law of Moses. In NT times, it is any government whose people choose to be guided by Christian leaders.
Part of the confusion is, I think, due to the modern association with abusive forms of theocracy, such as rule by the ayatollahs. Some of it has to do with the protest, by liberals, of any attempt at establishing Christianity in the government.
-
Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?
I'm sure you could also do a search for people who justify pederasty in ancient Greece, but just because the argument exists doesn't mean the argument is valid, compelling, and so forth. Maybe though you'd like to live in Vatican city?
As we've discussed before, you can try to point out 'Christian governments' and then we can point out all the nasty ways they acted very not Christlike.
You're playing word games. The Byzantine Empire was a Christian government that lasted a thousand years. You may want to banter around the word "theocracy" in association with various kinds of governments. But as I said elsewhere, I define a "theocracy" as rule by God, or a nation's majority choice to be ruled by God's Law.
Yes, you have a lot of special definitions.
The Byzantine Empire was a purportedly Christian empire. Now tell me: in recent threads you've decried liberals, those who allow Jewish people to participate in biblical discussions, those who risk abusing the truth of Christianity, and on, and on, and on. And those are just the people on this forum. These examples would be qualified as 'Christian', not Christian, so why would you appeal to an entire empire and say 'look, Christian!'? It'll take the whole of 1 second of applying the same standard to see that the Byzantine was only really a so-called purportedly 'Christian' empire that was in no way reflective of the 'ideal' Christian state you espouse.
Oh gosh darn it, there go the Byzantines again waging a Christian massacre.
Part of the confusion is, I think, due to the modern association with abusive forms of theocracy, such as rule by the ayatollahs. Some of it has to do with the protest, by liberals, of any attempt at establishing Christianity in the government.
Do you think the Ayatollahs are especially evil people? They are just people, and the temptation is always to go in their direction in any theocracy. These 'abusive forms of theocracy' is just a fancy way of saying 'theocracy'. As someone who is a committed Christian, the last thing I want is a 'Christian government', because I understand that 'Christian government' means the particular conception of Christianity held by those in power, who then force this on everyone else, and who can't live to their own standard. You're not going to get your academic ideal, you're going to get Ayatollahs.
But just look at Solomon who was so wise he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
But just look at David who slept with a man's wife then conspiratorially killed him.
But just look at Saul who went insane.
Even the best of us screw up, and that's the problem. You're never going to get the ideal you want, and people like me are the one's who get to suffer under the banner of Christian principles. It has nothing to do with the protestation of nasty liberals. The only reason we're in a circumstance today where 'Christian principles' are being pushed back against is because the Christians of the past were utterly imbecilic in the civic application of their faith. Yeah, it was real good idea, and now people my age either aren't in the church or have to spend years convincing people that Christians don't actually hate X, Y, Z person. Wow, consequences.
'Christian goverment', as if. I'll wait for the new creation, personally.
-
The fundamental issue is the false and scripturally unsupportable assertion that God’s plan for human government has always been a theocracy, now somehow transferred from the Nation of Israel to a “Christian theocracy.”
God NEVER wanted a theocracy. He warned against it but allowed it because of the hardness of the nation of Israel’s heart and their national desire for a king.
God desires— and has always desired— a people of kings and priests to serve him face to face without mediator or governmental representative. Some day that will occur
To assume that God wants to impose a so called “Christian theocracy” now in the affairs of men absent the physical presence of Jesus simply is speculative and has zero scriptural basis
For Pete’s sake, Paul wrote about governing authorities in Romans 13 in regard to Nero…
And Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world, yet we would impose our will on Him
Where is my “shakes head” emoji???
-
Unless I get to be King and Potentate For Life of the Christian theocracy, in which case if nominated I will serve
-
The objective observer will understand that teaching someone about what some thing ought to teach, is to make a judgment on what that some thing does teach, such that knowledge of both teachings (in this case, beliefs) is assumed if one is going to say, "don't teach X, instead, teach Y". If there is no such knowledge, or the knowledge is lacking, then there is a problem.
And in this particular place, such knowledge is lacking.
I don't appreciate being lectured to on what Judaism should teach by someone who can't even read the texts in their original language and so is forced to use problematic translations; who knows nothing of the commentaries or oral knowledge that accompany said holy books; whose sole knowledge of the faith - absent any books written over 2,500 years ago- are books of another faith that are "only" 2,000 years old and whose sole purpose is to replace that faith; and who claims, at the end, to be arguing in good faith.
There's a good name for such people. We call them "Christians" because that is their religion. And it's not their place to expound upon what Judaism is "supposed to be", because they already have their own idealized form of what Judaism is "supposed to be". And it's called "Christianity".
-
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
I beg to differ. :)
Exodus 24: Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
-
Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?
I'm sure you could also do a search for people who justify pederasty in ancient Greece, but just because the argument exists doesn't mean the argument is valid, compelling, and so forth. Maybe though you'd like to live in Vatican city?
As we've discussed before, you can try to point out 'Christian governments' and then we can point out all the nasty ways they acted very not Christlike.
As I said, theocracies are not invalidated by those who fail to live properly by them, anymore than democracies are invalidated by those who fail to live properly by them.
The purest form of a democracy, for me, would be a Christian Democracy, rendering that, in my definition, one kind of "theocracy." It is the exclusivity of the Christian religion that renders a political system "theocratic."
Inviting "religious pluralism" can be confusing because it can mean freedom for many kinds of Christianity, or it can mean freedom for all religions. A Christian theocracy can be democratic and invite Christian pluralism, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, separatist, etc.
Yes, you have a lot of special definitions.
For a very good reason I have special definitions. I wish to maintain the general exclusivity of Christianity in government. At the same time I wish to preserve freedom from religious tyranny.
The Byzantine Empire was a purportedly Christian empire. Now tell me: in recent threads you've decried liberals, those who allow Jewish people to participate in biblical discussions...
Now wait just a minute. It was *you* who told me to cease and desist my discussion with a particular Jewish person because it was getting a little "testy," right? I was just complying with your rule, and trying to speak to an issue while meeting your concerns. None of that had anything to do with my political or religious philosophy.
To be honest, I was a bit concerned you were going to ban me, perhaps misreading my intentions. I tried and tried and tried to explain to Fenris that I was not trying to define in detail what Judaism is for him. I was judging his religion using a moderately enlightened view of Judaism from a Christian viewpoint, which is exactly what our NT Bible teaches us.
...It'll take the whole of 1 second of applying the same standard to see that the Byzantine was only really a so-called purportedly 'Christian' empire that was in no way reflective of the 'ideal' Christian state you espouse.
At what point in the thousand year history of the Empire would you say that the society or government stopped being "Christian?" As imperfect as Christian governments are at times, I prefer, in theory, Christian government, which is imperfect, but tolerant of Christian practice and employs justice along Christian lines. I don't believe Islamic government would be as good, nor as blessed.
-
But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!
Only in religious spaces will a person say that they don't need to be an expert in a subject to critique it.
-
But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!
Only in religious spaces will a person say that they don't need to be an expert in a subject to critique it.
I would love to talk with you about this, but I've been warned not to. So I've specifically tried to avoid discussing anything more on the subject with you. Sorry.
-
The fundamental issue is the false and scripturally unsupportable assertion that God’s plan for human government has always been a theocracy, now somehow transferred from the Nation of Israel to a “Christian theocracy.”
God NEVER wanted a theocracy. He warned against it but allowed it because of the hardness of the nation of Israel’s heart and their national desire for a king.
God didn't want Israel to have a monarchy. But nowhere does He state He was opposed to what I'm calling a "theocracy."
Clearly, we have different definitions of a "theocracy," which may be some of our problem. But you also seem opposed to Christian government.
So I'm supposing you fall in line with your liberal education, informing you that you *must* accept liberty for all religions in government?
Why would that be?
God desires— and has always desired— a people of kings and priests to serve him face to face without mediator or governmental representative. Some day that will occur
I don't believe in rejecting a monarchy initially God was rejecting representative government.
-
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
I beg to differ. :)
Exodus 24: Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
I could explain it to you but you would have to be a Christian to understand it, nu?
(Ducking and hiding now as Fenris unleashes the mighty Jewish Space Laser)
I was thinking of the immediacy of the people's fear of God speaking directly to them in Exodus 20 and their desire for Moses to be the intermediary as compared with God's desire for "you will be a nation of priests and kings before me"
And then that whole magic golden calf debacle thereafter
Not suggesting in any way that the covenant at Sinai was invalid
-
I could explain it to you but you would have to be a Christian to understand it, nu?
(Ducking and hiding now as Fenris unleashes the mighty Jewish Space Laser)
I was thinking of the immediacy of the peoples fear of God speaking directly to them in Exodus 20 and their desire for Moses to be the intermediary
Ah but the rendition of the event in Deuteronomy 5 makes it sound like they were justified. To wit-
... as soon as you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. And you said, ‘Behold, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire. This day we have seen God speak with man, and man still live. Now therefore why should we die? For this great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived? Go near and hear all that the Lord our God will say, and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it.’
“And the Lord heard your words, when you spoke to me. And the Lord said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken.
Not to minimize the episode of the golden calf in any way.
-
I would love to talk with you about this, but I've been warned not to. So I've specifically tried to avoid discussing anything more on the subject with you. Sorry.
That's ok, I can still call you out for outlandish statements like this one.
-
"I don't have to be an expert in Christianity to critique them. I just have to read what the Ebionites wrote about them"
"I don't have to know anything about America to critique the country. I just have to read what the Soviets wrote about them".
"I don't have to know anything about police work to critique cops. I just have to read what BLM wrote about them."
-
"Because the bible says that Jews should not associate with pagans, I believe that Jews should also not associate with Christians. Because I believe that Jews should view Christians as pagans".
-
Well, there is also this: Christianity is to be based upon the scriptures regardless of whether one would obscurely charge that those scriptures have been corrupted or not. Point being: The "once delivered faith" has never been the result of "tilt-a-whirl" socio/theological/political considerations, or certainly was never meant to be - and that has become an increasingly pertinent problem of late.
The faith is based upon scriptural authority that has been searched and researched for over 2000 years and has remained consistent. I have never studied any comprehensive work that has significantly challenged the Christian tradition of "Christ in the scriptures," nor have I seen any credible sources for the charge that the NT did not actually happen as we have come to understand it. Contradictions, however, abound, such as the arguments over the relative culpability of Pontus Pilate versus the Jewish council - where is the denial that it happened?
Why this gets pulled away from chapter and verse is beyond me - all this ruminating about theocracies and cultural trends is, respectfully, invalid in the case of the Savior who is God.
Guess I would be upset too.
-
The faith is based upon scriptural authority that has been searched and researched for over 2000 years and has remained consistent.
Here's the thing though. If one can prove that their beliefs are correct, where does faith enter into the equation?Doesn't the word "faith" imply that one is believing in something that can't be proved?
I have never studied any comprehensive work that has significantly challenged the Christian tradition of "Christ in the scriptures," nor have I seen any credible sources for the charge that the NT did not actually happen as we have come to understand it. Contradictions, however, abound, such as the arguments over the relative culpability of Pontus Pilate versus the Jewish council - where is the denial that it happened?
That a Jewish person should be tried and crucified by the Romans was not such an unusual occurrence. Indeed, more than 100,000 Jews were subjected to such in the first century. It also does nothing to prove the NT's claims of Jesus's divinity or messiahship. And that, I would posit, it where faith comes in.
-
God never wanted a theocracy.
...
As a poor second best to get the Messiah, God instituted a prophet/priest led theocracy
When Israel rejected that for an earthly monarch, all bets were off .
I don't believe that this is true, though.
It was always intended that Israel be led by an earthly monarch. For starters, Jacob gave the blessing "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet..." Why would he say this if there was never going to be a scepter? Furthermore, Deuteronomy 17 clearly states that God is not opposed to this phenomena-
“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
There is no such animal as a Christian government
This is true. But Christianity is different from Judaism in this way. The NT states "Render unto Caesar " (Mark 12) because Christianity was never meant to be a set of laws for governance in the way that the Hebrew bible was. The Mosaic code was actually used as a set of criminal and civil laws for a country.
-
I would love to talk with you about this, but I've been warned not to. So I've specifically tried to avoid discussing anything more on the subject with you. Sorry.
I didn't warn you, so unless Tim did, go for it.
-
I don't believe that this is true, though.
It was always intended that Israel be led by an earthly monarch. For starters, Jacob gave the blessing "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet..." Why would he say this if there was never going to be a scepter? Furthermore, Deuteronomy 17 clearly states that God is not opposed to this phenomena-
That's debatable. God did get annoyed that Israel turned to a monarchy *in place of* the use of His then-current prophetic mouthpiece, Samuel. Clearly, God relented, and gave Israel a monarchy. And ultimately, God put His complete stamp of approval on the monarchy by establishing David's royal line.
There is no such animal as a Christian government
This is true. But Christianity is different from Judaism in this way. The NT states "Render unto Caesar " (Mark 12) because Christianity was never meant to be a set of laws for governance in the way that the Hebrew bible was. The Mosaic code was actually used as a set of criminal and civil laws for a country.
This is where we disagree. I do agree that the Law was a civil and criminal code, as well as a redemptive covenant to keep God and Israel in good relations with one another. I call this a "theocracy."
But I believe that Jesus took the theocracy from Israel in a time of irreligiosity among the Jews and gave the same general sense of theocracy to other nations. Of course, you will disagree with this, but it is what I personally believe.
Gen 17.5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.
Matt 21.43 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
I believe the difference in our religions is based on the acceptance of Jesus as the redemptive element linking our Christian religion with God. I don't think that Judaism, as it existed, was corrupt at all. The only corruption that I agree exists with present Rabbinic Judaism is the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, which renders null and void all of the religious ceremonies that speak of a redemption that has already been completed in Jesus. No need for temple, animal sacrifice, or priesthood. It is a new messianic priesthood.
As such, a theocracy under Judaism was not only acceptable to God, but was embraced by God, becoming part of God's covenant with Israel. And as Christians, we can see the same reality with other nations as happened with that one nation. Christians used to recognize this. Today, in an age of apostasy and so-called "enlightenment,* we reject theocracies as corrupt. Indeed, in an age of apostasy they have indeed become corrupt.
I would add this, my friend. The State of Israel, to be consistent with the Jewish Bible, should want to be less a liberal democratic republic than a more religiously-orthodox theocracy. That doesn't mean Israel can't have a democracy. It should just be a *Jewish* theocracy.
Some more liberal Jews might believe that you've "grown out of" biblical Judaism, thinking that there should be no more divisions between Jews and non-Jews? But it can't be disputed that the same Bible still remains, warning Jews not to mix with pagans.
And as you said earlier, this doesn't mean that you have to completely avoid people outside of Judaism when they aren't truly "pagans," or corrupt people. But I do think that allowing equal government with Muslims in Israel can be dangerous to the State, and should always be a consideration in how *liberal* you wish the Jewish government to be.
-
That's debatable.
Did you read Deuteronomy 17? How is it debatable? God is clearly ok with the idea.
When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose.
God did get annoyed that Israel turned to a monarchy *in place of* the use of His then-current prophetic mouthpiece, Samuel.
Ah. So perhaps God was unhappy that Israel asked for a king at that time. But as Deut 17 clearly shows, God intended for them to have a human king eventually.
This is where we disagree. I do agree that the Law was a civil and criminal code, as well as a redemptive covenant to keep God and Israel in good relations with one another. I call this a "theocracy."
But I believe that Jesus took the theocracy from Israel in a time of irreligiosity among the Jews and gave the same general sense of theocracy to other nations. Of course, you will disagree with this, but it is what I personally believe.
Being as Christianity is clearly a non-political religion, I do not see how this is possible. What does "render unto Cesear" mean?
The only corruption that I agree exists with present Rabbinic Judaism is the rejection of Jesus as Messiah,
I don't need the rabbis to tell me that Jesus isn't the messiah. Remember, Judaism had near universal literacy since time immemorial. Jewish knowledge was always democratic and available to all.
As such, a theocracy under Judaism was not only acceptable to God, but was embraced by God, becoming part of God's covenant with Israel.
Yes, I agree with this. But Christianity is not Judaism. The Christian idea of the "kingdom of God" is a spiritual construct, not a physical kingdom.
I would add this, my friend. The State of Israel, to be consistent with the Jewish Bible, should want to be less a liberal democratic republic than a more religiously-orthodox theocracy. That doesn't mean Israel can't have a democracy. It should just be a *Jewish* theocracy.
Even if this were desirable (and I do not believe that it is) there exists no universally accepted body in Judaism today that could carry this out. We would need an actual revived Sanhedrin.
Some more liberal Jews might believe that you've "grown out of" biblical Judaism, thinking that there should be no more divisions between Jews and non-Jews? But it can't be disputed that the same Bible still remains, warning Jews not to mix with pagans.
The Talmud has an Aramaic phrase for "pagans", roughly translated as "worshippers of the stars". Idolatry. On the other hand, Christians (and Muslims!) are fellow monotheists who live by an ethical code from our very bible. So while we can't marry them, there's no reason not to be business partners or close friends. I did two decades surrounded by gentiles while working in law enforcement and made some very close friends indeed.
-
Did you read Deuteronomy 17? How is it debatable? God is clearly ok with the idea.
...Ah. So perhaps God was unhappy that Israel asked for a king at that time. But as Deut 17 clearly shows, God intended for them to have a human king eventually.
Yes, for the most part I was preparing to agree with you. It may be a debatable point because of God's unhappiness with Israel asking for a king.
But I wasn't disagreeing with your point about God accepting a monarchy. I would call this a "theocratic monarchy." ;) God certainly did accept that. The initial appointment of King Saul was, I think, intended to make the point. Israel's ulterior motives were not all that pure. They wanted a leader who would lead them in battle, and war wasn't God's great interest.
David came later and showed how God viewed warfare. Again, because of his many battles, God denied David the right to build a permanent temple. That was left for Solomon. But David showed a proper heart attitude about war when he had to fight them. And he did have to fight them. I suppose we could argue that God saw the inevitable need for a king, as well. And yes, I think Israel's timing was off for asking for one.
Being as Christianity is clearly a non-political religion, I do not see how this is possible. What does "render unto Cesear" mean?
Quite frankly, Christians have different views about what their religion encompasses, just as Jews have different views about Judaism. I happen to believe that Christianity was intended to be political, just like Judaism was. To properly model a Christian theocracy after Israel's theocracy one cannot avoid the political implications.
While it is true that Christianity is suppose to be tolerant and kind, as well as love enemies, this does not mean a good political system cannot be set up if the vast majority of society are themselves Christians. I don't believe in imposing a Christian political system on a country that has no dominant Christian majority. Christianity was born as a minority religion, and only became the majority religion later. Thus, Christianity can be both.
The only corruption that I agree exists with present Rabbinic Judaism is the rejection of Jesus as Messiah,
I don't need the rabbis to tell me that Jesus isn't the messiah. Remember, Judaism had near universal literacy since time immemorial. Jewish knowledge was always democratic and available to all.
I consider my native faith to be ancient Judaism, as well as Catholicism, even though today I'm a Protestant. Why do I say that? It is because the Christian faith began with Judaism! I have nothing bad to say about ancient Judaism. I only disagree with you about Jesus--I believe he was and is the Jewish Messiah.
The advantages God gave the Jewish People from time immemorial is what has made you great even to the present day. And I believe Christians today are enjoying the same Divine blessing, if we remain true to love and kindness. This is a tall order for either Jew or Christian, but it is, I believe, the cost for having God's blessing.
So obviously, Judaism was not always backslidden and corrupt, even though ignorant Christians read the Christian Bible and get this false impression. Jesus was talking only about a certain time in history when Judaism began to reject him--you've just inherited this tradition, and apparently independently agree with it?
As I said, this does not spell moral corruption for the Jewish people, but rather, theological corruption at its roots. We disagree, but that's just how Christians should view it, I believe, and not see Jews as a corrupt, rejected people.
Yes, I agree with this. But Christianity is not Judaism. The Christian idea of the "kingdom of God" is a spiritual construct, not a physical kingdom.
Based on what I've said here in this post, I hope you can appreciate that I view this differently, even though many Christians today disagree with me. I owe that to modern liberal education in the West, as well as dilution with Eastern philosophy and mysticism. The thought is to compromise Christian spirituality with a general human spirituality that is inclusive. Certainly in a mixed population there should be legal rights expressed as liberty for all of the major groups, and certain inalienable rights for the individual.
Even if this were desirable (and I do not believe that it is) there exists no universally accepted body in Judaism today that could carry this out. We would need an actual revived Sanhedrin.
Well you know the problem. Israel does not take in Arabs in exile because readmitting them would form a Muslim majority, ending the Jewish State. Something has to be done legally to protect the Jewish People! To destroy their culture is to destroy their identity.
The Talmud has an Aramaic phrase for "pagans", roughly translated as "worshippers of the stars". Idolatry. On the other hand, Christians (and Muslims!) are fellow monotheists who live by an ethical code from our very bible. So while we can't marry them, there's no reason not to be business partners or close friends. I did two decades surrounded by gentiles while working in law enforcement and made some very close friends indeed.
Well of course. I never meant to suggest separation from people who share in your occupation. Some associations, like trade unions, are more a necessity for some than an alliance. But some would call it a necessary evil! ;)
-
Yes, for the most part I was preparing to agree with you. It may be a debatable point because of God's unhappiness with Israel asking for a king.
Excellent.
But I wasn't disagreeing with your point about God accepting a monarchy. I would call this a "theocratic monarchy." ;) God certainly did accept that. The initial appointment of King Saul was, I think, intended to make the point. Israel's ulterior motives were not all that pure. They wanted a leader who would lead them in battle, and war wasn't God's great interest.
Israel had enemies at the time that had to be fought.
David came later and showed how God viewed warfare. Again, because of his many battles, God denied David the right to build a permanent temple. That was left for Solomon. But David showed a proper heart attitude about war when he had to fight them. And he did have to fight them. I suppose we could argue that God saw the inevitable need for a king, as well. And yes, I think Israel's timing was off for asking for one.
OK, so we're kind of in agreement on this point.
Quite frankly, Christians have different views about what their religion encompasses, just as Jews have different views about Judaism. I happen to believe that Christianity was intended to be political, just like Judaism was. To properly model a Christian theocracy after Israel's theocracy one cannot avoid the political implications.
All right. Well, this is a topic you'll have to debate with your fellow Christians, as indeed you are.
I consider my native faith to be ancient Judaism, as well as Catholicism, even though today I'm a Protestant.
That's because you consider ancient Jews to be some sort of proto-Christians. They were not. If I were to accept Christianity as the truth, I would still insist that biblical Jews did not practice Christianity. The whole point of the law, according to Paul, was to show that it was impossible. But how could someone know that it was impossible without trying? Hence biblical Jews were "under the law" until such time as Jesus "freed them from the curse of the law". Which means they were not practicing Christianity.
I have nothing bad to say about ancient Judaism.
Modern Judaism, on the other hand...
So obviously, Judaism was not always backslidden and corrupt, even though ignorant Christians read the Christian Bible and get this false impression. Jesus was talking only about a certain time in history when Judaism began to reject him--you've just inherited this tradition, and apparently independently agree with it?
I wouldn't consider it a "tradition". Jews rejected Jesus (to the extent that they even heard of him. Remember, there was no cable news and no internet and no newspapers. So if in Jesus's three or so years in ministry he spoke to 60,000 people- a large number- that would only be 1% of the Jews alive at the time) because he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies. Just as Jews back then, I too am capable of reading the bible and seeing a long list of messianic prophecies, all unfulfilled.
As I said, this does not spell moral corruption for the Jewish people, but rather, theological corruption at its roots.
But you see, Judaism isn't a theological religion. It's a rules based religion that stresses ethics and morality. If Jews are behaving morally, then they are fulfilling their biblical mission. Christianity makes a big deal about having the "proper theology" (Catholics especially, with their carrying out inquisitions to enforce "proper theology", torturing and killing and whatnot). But it just doesn't have the same significance in Judaism.
Based on what I've said here in this post, I hope you can appreciate that I view this differently, even though many Christians today disagree with me.
I'm of the opinion that pretty much all Christians would disagree with you.
Well you know the problem. Israel does not take in Arabs in exile because readmitting them would form a Muslim majority, ending the Jewish State. Something has to be done legally to protect the Jewish People! To destroy their culture is to destroy their identity.
Yeah this has nothing to do with the issue that there's no modern day Sanhedrin.
Well of course. I never meant to suggest separation from people who share in your occupation. Some associations, like trade unions, are more a necessity for some than an alliance. But some would call it a necessary evil! ;)
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
-
Israel had enemies at the time that had to be fought.
I agree. My point was that there is such a thing as adventurism and illicit warfare, which we sometimes refer to as a "Viking mentality." Wanting Saul as king was a desire to be like surrounding nations, who engaged in these kinds of illicit wars.
That's because you consider ancient Jews to be some sort of proto-Christians. They were not.
I disagree. And yes, I do consider ancient Judaism to be proto-typical Christians. I see little difference between the ethics and spirituality of ancient Judaism and New Testament Christianity. The only difference is in how Christians view the religious structure of Judaism in regard to redemption from sin. Christians believe it to be a final act, involved in Jesus' death and resurrection. And Jews may feel that the various ceremonies, separating them from other religions, where purely a "Jewish" thing to do? There was no need in Rabbinic Judaism for any specific act of Messianic Redemption, except as in the prophecy of Israel's final national salvation.
If I were to accept Christianity as the truth, I would still insist that biblical Jews did not practice Christianity. The whole point of the law, according to Paul, was to show that it was impossible.
I don't find this to be true. Paul felt that continuing under the Law remained impossible except as a courtesy and for purpose of evangelism. You live under the culture of the State where you wish to befriend and encourage others to join you in your own religion.
Paul modeled Judaism while in Israel because it was a courtesy to fellow Jews. But in abandoning the Law theologically he in no way considered his own Jewishness to be lost. There are some verses that Replacement Theologians use to dismiss Jewishness in Christianity. But I believe those to be misinterpretations.
But how could someone know that it was impossible without trying? Hence biblical Jews were "under the law" until such time as Jesus "freed them from the curse of the law".
Jews consider practicing the Law with respect to its cultural value important, and in varying degrees, depending on whether you are Orthodox or Reform. The idea is to remain "Jewish" religiously, by giving lip service to the practice of the Law in some way.
By contrast, Paul and others stated definitively that the matter of the Law did separate religious Judaism from identification as a Jew. One no longer practiced Judaism as under the Law by becoming a Christian. But neither did he stop being a Jew! The basic ethics of God remained the same for the Jew who converted to Christianity. And the spirituality was felt to be the same. Redemption matters of law were all that separated the two religions, either accepting Christ in place of the Law or retaining the Law against Christ's claim to its total fulfillment.
I have nothing bad to say about ancient Judaism.
Modern Judaism, on the other hand...
Again, much of NT biblical notions about the Jews is centered on how the Jews treated Jesus' claim to messianic redemption. It was, as stated, a time of deep corruption among the Jews, but by no means, a complete rejection. Some Jews, eg the Ebionites, continued in Christianity along with some of the Law, but were later considered heretics. But the fact they remained indicated they saw little conflict in becoming Christians as Jews.
Modern Jews are following the theological construct of Rabbinic Judaism, which Christians view as the rejection of Jesus. So we consider that wrong theology, though not indicating that that makes Jews bad people. All groups are bad or good depending on the time in history. The theological construct of Judaism began as good for Christians and only was marred by the Rabbis' rejection of Jesus--it was not a rejection of its moral system. Jesus said the Jewish leaders "sat on Moses' seat" and should be heard and respected, as well as obeyed. So Jesus' ministry began with a complete acceptance of the Law--not even a partial acceptance of the Law.
I wouldn't consider it a "tradition". Jews rejected Jesus (to the extent that they even heard of him. Remember, there was no cable news and no internet and no newspapers. So if in Jesus's three or so years in ministry he spoke to 60,000 people- a large number- that would only be 1% of the Jews alive at the time) because he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies. Just as Jews back then, I too am capable of reading the bible and seeing a long list of messianic prophecies, all unfulfilled.
This is too big of a subject to deal with here and now. It's true Jesus' did not exhaust all of the Messianic Prophecies. But he certainly fulfilled *some* of them! And that doesn't mean that he can't fulfill the rest later.
I do think Jesus made a bigger impact among the Jews than you indicate. I'm assuming the Jewish People visited the temple 3 x per year, as the Law prescribed. And Jesus also showed up at that time, and was recognized in a very big way.
I'm of the opinion that pretty much all Christians would disagree with you.
A large eschatological position in modern Christianity is Postmillennialism, and they positively believe in bringing Christianity into politics. Kingdom Now theologians positively believe in impacting the government with our religion. You are only hearing Christians of a particular kind in the places you visit.
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
-
I agree. My point was that there is such a thing as adventurism and illicit warfare, which we sometimes refer to as a "Viking mentality." Wanting Saul as king was a desire to be like surrounding nations, who engaged in these kinds of illicit wars.
Umm the point is debatable.
I disagree.
Of course you do. And in taking this position, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of Jews and the vast majority of Christians. You're directly contradicting Paul. You are, in essence, creating a new Christian sect. Which is your right to do, I suppose.
And yes, I do consider ancient Judaism to be proto-typical Christians. I see little difference between the ethics and spirituality of ancient Judaism and New Testament Christianity.
Of course. They both draw their ethics from the Jewish bible. And yet, Jews were under the law while the new revelation (which is what the term "New Testament" means) removed Christians from observance of the law. You ignore this. You're arguing against the text of both the Jewish bible and the Christian one. This is a sort of anti intellectual position.
The only difference is in how Christians view the religious structure of Judaism in regard to redemption from sin.
And also such "trivial" things as Sabbath observance, keeping Kosher, celebrating the holidays, and on and on.
And Jews may feel that the various ceremonies, separating them from other religions, where purely a "Jewish" thing to do?
You mean the ceremonies that God told us to do? In the bible? Those ceremonies?
There was no need in Rabbinic Judaism for any specific act of Messianic Redemption, except as in the prophecy of Israel's final national salvation.
Yeah, and that's not a small thing either. Jewish exiles returned to their land? World peace and universal knowledge of God? Just sweep that under the rug because it's so minor that who cares?
I don't find this to be true. Paul felt that continuing under the Law remained impossible except as a courtesy and for purpose of evangelism. You live under the culture of the State where you wish to befriend and encourage others to join you in your own religion.
Paul modeled Judaism while in Israel because it was a courtesy to fellow Jews. But in abandoning the Law theologically he in no way considered his own Jewishness to be lost.
Then you've missed the point. Paul is invoking a new idea here. The law can't save and with Jesus's death is no longer in effect. This is standard Christian theology. Why am I explaining this to you?!
Jews consider practicing the Law with respect to its cultural value important
You admit to being no expert in Judaism, so allow me to explain this to you. Jews do not follow the law because of it's "cultural value". Jews follow the law because it's what God commanded. That's it. End of story.
By contrast, Paul and others stated definitively that the matter of the Law did separate religious Judaism from identification as a Jew. One no longer practiced Judaism as under the Law by becoming a Christian. But neither did he stop being a Jew!
That's because one can't stop being a Jew. I'm glad that Paul understood this, too. One may be a practicing Jew, or a lapsed Jew, or even an apostate Jew. But being a Jew is both a religious affiliation and an ethnic one. When Ruth pledges to stay with Niaomi, she says "Your people will be me people, and your God will be my God", because she's pledging to both join the Jewish religion and also the Jewish nation.
Again, much of NT biblical notions about the Jews is centered on how the Jews treated Jesus' claim to messianic redemption.
Yes. Well, there's that small bit about those unfulfilled prophecies. Anyway.
It was, as stated, a time of deep corruption among the Jews, but by no means, a complete rejection. Some Jews, eg the Ebionites, continued in Christianity along with some of the Law, but were later considered heretics. But the fact they remained indicated they saw little conflict in becoming Christians as Jews.
And they no longer exist, perhaps this is evidence that this is a line that can't be straddled.
Modern Jews are following the theological construct of Rabbinic Judaism
No. Modern Jews follow the legal structure of rabbinic Judaism. As I've said, theology is a very secondary thing.
The theological construct of Judaism began as good for Christians and only was marred by the Rabbis' rejection of Jesus--
Blaming "the rabbis" is inaccurate. As I've said, I too am capable of reading the bible and rejecting Christian claims. I don't consider myself any different in this regard than first century Jews.
Jesus said the Jewish leaders "sat on Moses' seat" and should be heard and respected, as well as obeyed.
He specifically named the pharisees actually.
So Jesus' ministry began with a complete acceptance of the Law--not even a partial acceptance of the Law.
Yes, and this is some of the internal tension of the NT. A sort of debate between Jesus and Paul. Paul wins out and that's why Christianity has the form that it does. That's probably a good thing, because without Paul, Christianity becomes a strictly Jewish sect and doesn't survive just as other Jewish sects didn't survive. The dropping of the law is what allows Christianity to become a gentile religion, giving the world access to the bible's ethics.
This is too big of a subject to deal with here and now. It's true Jesus' did not exhaust all of the Messianic Prophecies.
"Didn't exhaust"? What a clever play on words! How about "didn't fulfill"?
But he certainly fulfilled *some* of them!
I say none. Probably a better topic to have in "contro" though.
And that doesn't mean that he can't fulfill the rest later.
God can do as He wishes, but no place in the bible does it say that the messiah comes "a second time".
I do think Jesus made a bigger impact among the Jews than you indicate. I'm assuming the Jewish People visited the temple 3 x per year, as the Law prescribed. And Jesus also showed up at that time, and was recognized in a very big way.
Yes, throwing tables around and such.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
This is disgusting. And yes, I have a close Muslim friend from my PD time. A devout and religious Muslim friend.
-
Of course you do. And in taking this position, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of Jews and the vast majority of Christians. You're directly contradicting Paul. You are, in essence, creating a new Christian sect. Which is your right to do, I suppose.
Absolutely: first-century Jews were Jewish, and first-century Christians were Christian (excuse the slight anachronism). There was no prototyping from one to the other; Judaism wasn't and isn't a prototype religion. Either you accepted Jesus' teachings or you didn't.
This is like saying that Jews and Christians are proto-Muslims, and that example should illustrate the point just fine.
-
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
Sigh. This is entirely uncalled for. Don't do it again.
-
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
Sigh. This is entirely uncalled for. Don't do it again.
Fenris was just Sikhing a friend for the end of the world...
And that's not a detonator.... That's a bag of Mrs. Fenris' (may she be eternally blessed) Knishes and rugelach.
-
This is like saying that Jews and Christians are proto-Muslims, and that example should illustrate the point just fine.
I gotta admit, I laughed out loud at this one. :)
-
And that's not a detonator.... That's a bag of Mrs. Fenris' (may she be eternally blessed) Knishes and rugelach.
If you're ever in NY...
-
I'm not rejecting Job. In reading the book I agree with what Job has to say throughout chapters 9 - 10 and following, in arguing against his friends that he has not sinned. But I don't know, this reads like a solid theodicy written by a gifted philosophical theologian. That ending especially, beginning at 42:10. God restores Job's fortunes doubly so, but too bad about all the other people who died in the process, I guess.
John 21:19 - This he [Jesus] said to show by what kind of death he [Peter] was to glorify God.
I think the point was to show that suffering wasn't always because of sin or disobedience. I wouldn't apply John 21 to Satan's killing of Job's family. John 21 was about Peter.
I was responding on the (sound) argumentation you made (the bold part) that Job (probably) isn't a historical person. In contrast I put forward the question why Peter's death would glorify God. Did the story of Job glorify God? It definitively reads that way.
-
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
This is disgusting. And yes, I have a close Muslim friend from my PD time. A devout and religious Muslim friend.
If you want an honest answer, show that you're able to have a sense of humor. I wasn't characterizing all Muslims as Islamic Terrorists! My brother-in-law declared himself, at one point, a Muslim, having married a Muslim woman from Morocco. They have two grown up Muslim children in England, as we speak.
I consider Radical Islam a religion not remotely connected to more civilized religions. I can respect religious views other than my own, except that I cannot respect terrorists, or any religion that invites terrorism. I suppose Islam is open to question, because it does appear to be an aggressive religion at its heart, although there clearly does exist more moderate forms of the religion.
So I suppose if you don't want a discussion, you can falsely accuse me of prejudice. And if this particular forum wants to impose strict standards on those it disagrees with, but considers anything it agrees with "within the limits," then I'm done here.
I actually thought it was becoming a pretty good, tolerant place for diverse discussions, excluding the occasional troll. But now I'm hearing veiled or not so veiled threats of banning people, or the warning, "don't do that again." Let me know, and I'll be on my way....
-
You are, in essence, creating a new Christian sect. Which is your right to do, I suppose.
Not at all doing that.
And yes, I do consider ancient Judaism to be proto-typical Christians. I see little difference between the ethics and spirituality of ancient Judaism and New Testament Christianity.
Of course. They both draw their ethics from the Jewish bible. And yet, Jews were under the law while the new revelation (which is what the term "New Testament" means) removed Christians from observance of the law. You ignore this. You're arguing against the text of both the Jewish bible and the Christian one. This is a sort of anti intellectual position.
I've ignored none of this. On the contrary, I explained it and you ignored the explanation.
Once again, cultural Judaism, or life under the Law, was never the issue with Jesus. On the contrary, he supported Jews following 100% of the Law. He did not thereby make a "new religion." In his view, his coming death would in effect fulfill Judaism, properly making the laws secondary to a final redemption that no longer needs those laws.
We have to be careful here. The Law of God can either refer to Judaism under the Law of Moses or to God's generic Law apart from Judaism. The Law of God preexisted the Law of Moses!
So the ethics of the Law are eternal, whereas the laws pertaining to purification, atonement, and all temple and priestly law, were invalidated at the point where Christ's sacrifice rendered them redundant and unnecessary.
A final atonement by definition implies that no more legal actions need to be taken to reconcile with God, with the exception of living up to what that means.
Those Jews who rejected Jesus' death as a "final atonement" continued in laws that Christians viewed as no longer necessary. And so, they were harmless indulgences in cultural practices except for the fact it was, in the eyes of Christians, a choice to reject Christ.
While we might rightly criticize, as Christians, what Jews did with Jesus in the 1st century, the same cannot be said of Jews in ensuing generations. Over time, the choice is made for "Jewish Religion," and no longer against anything more than a stereotype of Jesus as a "Jew-hater."
Being Jewish is a matter of ethnicity and nationhood. It does not necessarily determine an association with Judaism. There are people with Jewish mothers who have converted to Christianity, and would be viewed by Jews as "apostate Jews." They nevertheless remain "Jewish."
And many Messianic Jews tend to adopt cultural practices of Judaism, including Sabbath, Festival keeping, etc. Again, the important matter to Christians is getting Eternal Life, and this comes not by the Law, but by the redemption of Christ exclusively.
Go ahead and not work on the Sabbath, but make sure you embrace Christ's death for your sins and the accompanying gift of his righteousness. Now if I'm banned because you wish to treat opponents as bigoted, so be it.
-
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
Sigh. This is entirely uncalled for. Don't do it again.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this! Don't do *what* again? Are you suggesting my statement was a "bigoted" statement? The only thing I'm directing my ridicule towards is Islamic Terrorism. And I don't think you're trying to protect that?
Perhaps I need to use an emoticon showing I was joking?
-
And yes, I do consider ancient Judaism to be proto-typical Christians. I see little difference between the ethics and spirituality of ancient Judaism and New Testament Christianity.
Of course. They both draw their ethics from the Jewish bible. And yet, Jews were under the law while the new revelation (which is what the term "New Testament" means) removed Christians from observance of the law. You ignore this. You're arguing against the text of both the Jewish bible and the Christian one. This is a sort of anti intellectual position.
Christianity claims to be both old and new revelations at the same time. Jesus and the Apostle John both used that terminology. Christianity is not separate from Judaism, but built upon Judaism, and as such as a fulfillment of Judaism. It is new, and contains a limited amount of the old.
It retains the ethics of the Law, but not the ceremonial parts of the Law. The sacramentalism, the liturgical aspect of the Law was fulfilled in the death of Christ to cover all sin.
Israel, as a nation, failed under the Law, and thus, all of the requirements of the Law and their disobedience were forgiven by the atonement of Christ. This had happened before in history, during the Babylonian Judgment. But this time, the problems of forgiveness under the Law were resolved by a final redemption from sin, no longer requiring all of the obedience under the Law.
The Law only temporarily cleansed Israel until the next sin again threatened them from separation from God, and thus from the hope of Eternal Life. But Christ's work on the cross completely cleanses people from all sin, meaning that not even future sins can separate them from God and from Eternal life. Rituals of cleansing from sin are no longer necessary.
NT theology considers that the body of Law, expressing Man's approach to God, as being inept with respect to eternal redemption, but useful until that eternal redemption is actually accomplished.
It was never meant to be self-sufficient in expressing righteousness, and something that evil spirits would condemn as being worthy of derision. Thus, Paul spoke of life under the Law as being subject to the "elemental forces of this world," ie under condemnation.
The only difference is in how Christians view the religious structure of Judaism in regard to redemption from sin.
And also such "trivial" things as Sabbath observance, keeping Kosher, celebrating the holidays, and on and on.
Yes, Sabbath, Dietary laws, Festival laws, etc. were all ephemeral, being subject to condemnation by the spirits that recognize human observances as being hopelessly flawed. Though God provided a temporary pass for these legitimate expressions of human devotion, they could not get past the eternal ban from the Tree of Life.
And Jews may feel that the various ceremonies, separating them from other religions, were purely a "Jewish" thing to do?
You mean the ceremonies that God told us to do? In the bible? Those ceremonies?
Yes, God told Jews to do these things, and included many things that were only for Jews. And when the Jewish Messiah came along, speaking for God, he told the Jews to believe in him, because his spiritual life would become an eternal gift, if so accepted. The ceremonies would no longer be needed.
And even though Jews remain a separate ethnic identity, the legal difference between Jews and others would no longer be the core issue. Rather, accepting Christ as the all-encompassing atonement for sin would be the all-important matter in unifying the world.
There was no need in Rabbinic Judaism for any specific act of Messianic Redemption, except as in the prophecy of Israel's final national salvation.
Yeah, and that's not a small thing either. Jewish exiles returned to their land? World peace and universal knowledge of God? Just sweep that under the rug because it's so minor that who cares?
Who is sweeping that under the rug? ;) Rabbinic Judaism will not, in my view, ever obtain world peace and the universal knowledge of God. It will be the coming of Messiah to judge mankind that will separate the sheep and the goats. Then world peace will commence.
I don't find this to be true. Paul felt that continuing under the Law remained impossible except as a courtesy and for purpose of evangelism. You live under the culture of the State where you wish to befriend and encourage others to join you in your own religion.
Paul modeled Judaism while in Israel because it was a courtesy to fellow Jews. But in abandoning the Law theologically he in no way considered his own Jewishness to be lost.
Then you've missed the point. Paul is invoking a new idea here. The law can't save and with Jesus's death is no longer in effect. This is standard Christian theology. Why am I explaining this to you?!
No, I haven't missed the point at all. The whole point is that the Law is, for Christians, a vestige of Judaism, which is of no more than cultural value. It may have some practical usefulness, and embrace good ethics, but as I said, it has no value with respect to obtaining eternal life.
So the point is that the externals of Judaism are ephemeral, transitory, and unimportant to Christians except as a note of respect to those who in their own environment believe in that and find usefulness in it. What harm does it do me, as a Christian, to not work on Saturday? But if it shows respect for Jewish People in their neighborhood, why not show respect?
The aspect of respect is what's important in Christianity--not keeping the Law or not. Theologically, it is very important to the Christian to present our Gospel as *requiring acceptance of the life and spirituality of Jesus.* But if people aren't interested, neither should it be important to us to convey our message to them.
Jews consider practicing the Law with respect to its cultural value important
You admit to being no expert in Judaism, so allow me to explain this to you. Jews do not follow the law because of it's "cultural value". Jews follow the law because it's what God commanded. That's it. End of story.
This requires no expertise at all. I already know that some Jews consider following the Law mandatory. I've not questioned that. My point was that Christians do *not* consider it mandatory, and consider observing the Law in Jewish neighborhoods as a sign of respect.
The theological construct of Judaism began as good for Christians and only was marred by the Rabbis' rejection of Jesus--
Blaming "the rabbis" is inaccurate. As I've said, I too am capable of reading the bible and rejecting Christian claims. I don't consider myself any different in this regard than first century Jews.
I'm stating how *I* view it! How I view it is accurate because it expresses how I feel! I blame 1st century rabbis and regular Jews who formed mobs and propelled Jesus to his cross. They knew what they were doing because they heard Jesus, and rejected his message.
Whether you reject him in your time is your business. You may certainly read Jesus' words and reject him as well, although I consider our own time well removed from the 1st century. Quite often Jews are motivated by false stereotypes or influenced by bad examples of Christianity. I wouldn't judge them for rejecting a false reflection of who Jesus really was.
This is too big of a subject to deal with here and now. It's true Jesus' did not exhaust all of the Messianic Prophecies.
"Didn't exhaust"? What a clever play on words! How about "didn't fulfill"?
Nothing "clever" about it. This is the standard Christian approach! ;) Why does an honest assessment have to represent something "clever" to you?
It isn't difficult to follow. Jesus came the 1st time to fulfill the part of Messianic Prophecy that had to do with his rejection by the Jewish People--not all, but the majority. This was in order to provide a framework for forgiving the entire human race, all of whom rebel at one time or another against God.
The 2nd time he comes he will fulfill the other part of Messianic Prophecy, having to do with producing a better world. 1st the opportunity for redemption, and later, the opportunity for repentance expires with world judgment.
-
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
Sigh. This is entirely uncalled for. Don't do it again.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this! Don't do *what* again? Are you suggesting my statement was a "bigoted" statement? The only thing I'm directing my ridicule towards is Islamic Terrorism. And I don't think you're trying to protect that?
Perhaps I need to use an emoticon showing I was joking?
Fenris is writing with his friends in mind, and you're joking about suicide bombers... to someone who is Jewish. I don't think an emoticon is saving you from how poorly thought out that comment was. Better to have stuck to the subject than attempt to joke your way out of it.
Now is the time for discussion, not dank memes.
-
If you want an honest answer, show that you're able to have a sense of humor.
I don't laugh at jokes that disparage other religions. If you made a joke about another's person's race I would likewise find it to be unfunny and offensive.
So I suppose if you don't want a discussion, you can falsely accuse me of prejudice.
Your joke made fun of a billion because of the faith that they practice. I don't see how pointing this out is a "false accusation of prejudice". It was a bigoted, ignorant comment. And rather than apologizing, you're doubling down on it. This is not the Christian thing to do.
I actually thought it was becoming a pretty good, tolerant place for diverse discussions
Yet it is you who is behaving intolerant.
-
Once again, cultural Judaism, or life under the Law,
Life "under the law" is not "cultural". It comes from God's direct orders. You're comparing it to Jews who wear furry hats or eat Cholent on Shabbos, which does not come from God.
He did not thereby make a "new religion." In his view, his coming death would in effect fulfill Judaism
And that's the new religion. Right there.
We have to be careful here. The Law of God can either refer to Judaism under the Law of Moses or to God's generic Law apart from Judaism. The Law of God preexisted the Law of Moses!
Who is to say that "God's law" and "The law of Moses" are not the same law?
So the ethics of the Law are eternal, whereas the laws pertaining to purification, atonement, and all temple and priestly law, were invalidated at the point where Christ's sacrifice rendered them redundant and unnecessary.
Which is, again, a new religion. That doesn't mean it's not correct, but it is clearly not the same thing.
A final atonement by definition implies that no more legal actions need to be taken to reconcile with God, with the exception of living up to what that means.
Who says that the purpose of the law is to "reconcile with God?" That's not in my bible anyplace.
Those Jews who rejected Jesus' death as a "final atonement" continued in laws that Christians viewed as no longer necessary.
They didn't reject Jesus's death as a "final atonement". They rejected the entire concept that a "final atonement" is even necessary.
While we might rightly criticize, as Christians, what Jews did with Jesus in the 1st century, the same cannot be said of Jews in ensuing generations. Over time, the choice is made for "Jewish Religion," and no longer against anything more than a stereotype of Jesus as a "Jew-hater."
You mean as opposed to the 20 centuries of antisemitism in Christian Europe? Yeah, fun times.
Being Jewish is a matter of ethnicity and nationhood.
And also religion. Ruth 1: Your people will be my people and your God my God.
And many Messianic Jews tend to adopt cultural practices of Judaism, including Sabbath, Festival keeping, etc. Again, the important matter to Christians is getting Eternal Life, and this comes not by the Law, but by the redemption of Christ exclusively.
Which is, again, a new and different religion from Judaism.
Go ahead and not work on the Sabbath
And disobey God? Not gonna happen.
Exodus 31:
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”
Exodus 20: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Deuteronomy 5: “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
Ezekeil 20: I am the Lord your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.
Isaiah 58 If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the Lord’s holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
then you will find your joy in the Lord,
and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
Lev 23: There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the Lord.
-
Christianity claims to be both old and new revelations at the same time. Jesus and the Apostle John both used that terminology. Christianity is not separate from Judaism, but built upon Judaism, and as such as a fulfillment of Judaism.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
It retains the ethics of the Law, but not the ceremonial parts of the Law. The sacramentalism, the liturgical aspect of the Law was fulfilled in the death of Christ to cover all sin.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
Israel, as a nation, failed under the Law
There is no such thing as "failure under the law". There are times when the majority of Jews followed the law, and times when the majority did not. And the bible mentions consequences for each. But no place does it say that there is "failure" in the sense that it invalidates the law or God's covenant with the Jews. As I have pointed out, Lev 26, which gives all the warnings for disobedience, says the exact opposite: Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.
The Law only temporarily cleansed Israel until the next sin again threatened them from separation from God, and thus from the hope of Eternal Life.
This is...not in the bible.
But Christ's work on the cross completely cleanses people from all sin, meaning that not even future sins can separate them from God and from Eternal life. Rituals of cleansing from sin are no longer necessary.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
It was never meant to be self-sufficient in expressing righteousness, and something that evil spirits would condemn as being worthy of derision. Thus, Paul spoke of life under the Law as being subject to the "elemental forces of this world," ie under condemnation.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
Yes, Sabbath, Dietary laws, Festival laws, etc. were all ephemeral
This is not in the bible. The opposite, let's use the Sabbath as an example- Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever
Sounds like God intends for it to be permanent.
Yes, God told Jews to do these things, and included many things that were only for Jews. And when the Jewish Messiah came along, speaking for God, he told the Jews to believe in him, because his spiritual life would become an eternal gift, if so accepted. The ceremonies would no longer be needed.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
And even though Jews remain a separate ethnic identity, the legal difference between Jews and others would no longer be the core issue. Rather, accepting Christ as the all-encompassing atonement for sin would be the all-important matter in unifying the world.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
Who is sweeping that under the rug?
Well, you are. And I don't see why I should listen to you and not God.
Rabbinic Judaism will not, in my view, ever obtain world peace and the universal knowledge of God.
That's not the mission of Judaism. Our mission is to follow God's law, as commanded in the bible. To be a "light unto the nations". What God does in the messianic era is His business and not ours.
No, I haven't missed the point at all. The whole point is that the Law is, for Christians, a vestige of Judaism,
And that's great for Christians. But this is hardly compelling evidence for Jews to accept.
So the point is that the externals of Judaism are ephemeral, transitory, and unimportant to Christians
Nobody expects you to follow them. So what's the problem?
This requires no expertise at all. I already know that some Jews consider following the Law mandatory.
Not "some Jews". Observant Jews.
I'm stating how *I* view it! How I view it is accurate because it expresses how I feel!
It's your own personal truth. And that's fine. But don't confuse that for fact.
I blame 1st century rabbis and regular Jews who formed mobs and propelled Jesus to his cross. They knew what they were doing because they heard Jesus, and rejected his message.
Or Pilate, who was a dictator, decided to rid himself of yet another Jewish rebel.
Quite often Jews are motivated by false stereotypes or influenced by bad examples of Christianity.
Or we just read the bible and conclude that God expects us to uphold our part of the covenant.
It isn't difficult to follow. Jesus came the 1st time to fulfill the part of Messianic Prophecy that had to do with his rejection by the Jewish People--not all, but the majority. This was in order to provide a framework for forgiving the entire human race, all of whom rebel at one time or another against God.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
The 2nd time he comes he will fulfill the other part of Messianic Prophecy, having to do with producing a better world. 1st the opportunity for redemption, and later, the opportunity for repentance expires with world judgment.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
-
I wouldn't call my non Jewish friends a "necessary evil". They are my friends. What religion they practice isn't important to me.
I appreciate that. I'm sure you might be careful if your friend wears a turban and has a big bag under his shirt with what looks like a detonator. But I digress...
Sigh. This is entirely uncalled for. Don't do it again.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this! Don't do *what* again? Are you suggesting my statement was a "bigoted" statement? The only thing I'm directing my ridicule towards is Islamic Terrorism. And I don't think you're trying to protect that?
Perhaps I need to use an emoticon showing I was joking?
Fenris is writing with his friends in mind, and you're joking about suicide bombers... to someone who is Jewish. I don't think an emoticon is saving you from how poorly thought out that comment was. Better to have stuck to the subject than attempt to joke your way out of it.
Now is the time for discussion, not dank memes.
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe Fenris had any business characterizing what I said the way he did.
-
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe Fenris had any business characterizing what I said the way he did.
*I* was offended that you referred to Muslims as suicide bombers.
You have no issues with referring to your own personal feelings as objective fact but somehow when I express my feelings it's objectively wrong.
-
I don't laugh at jokes that disparage other religions. If you made a joke about another's person's race I would likewise find it to be unfunny and offensive.
This just shows the poverty of your argument. I already told you the inference was an attack on Islamic Terrorism--not Islam itself. But there are elements about Islam itself that are worthy of ridicule, as well, though not in the same way.
I wouldn't joke about someone growing up in Islam, like my former sister-in-law. How is it her fault that she was raised up in her family's religion? And if I expect to have a decent conversation with her, I have to show her respect.
But I have no concern to have a conversation with a terrorist, unless he or she is willing to repent. One thing we should all agree on--terrorist suicide bombers are bad! I've told the joke a number of times, that when I go into an airport and get on a plane, I'm careful to look out for guys with turbans on their heads.
Most people laugh. Others, like yourself, fight for their rights to speak, and try to cancel those who criticize them. Most people I know realize I'm not talking about all Muslims, or even Hindus, who may be wearing turbans. If you're critical inside, anything said may appear to be evil.
So I suppose if you don't want a discussion, you can falsely accuse me of prejudice.
Your joke made fun of a billion because of the faith that they practice. I don't see how pointing this out is a "false accusation of prejudice". It was a bigoted, ignorant comment. And rather than apologizing, you're doubling down on it. This is not the Christian thing to do.
You should apologize for trying to misrepresent my attempt at humor. I explained the difference between Islamic Terrorism and Modern Islam, but you want to double down on your seedy effort at characterizing my comments as corrupt and malicious.
I suppose you can joke when you like, and expect everybody will give you lots of latitude for whatever reason--trying to be a "good witness?" And I feel that way too--why drive off someone you wish to belong in the Christian world? I want to go the "2nd mile" if it helps to cure this sick "war" between Christians and Jews in history. But some would rather continue in the bitterness, and in the process, tear up the landscape.
-
Life "under the law" is not "cultural". It comes from God's direct orders. You're comparing it to Jews who wear furry hats or eat Cholent on Shabbos, which does not come from God.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that for Christians like Paul, observing Jewish customs was a token of respect, recognizing that something no longer of legal value to God could be done out of courtesy to the Jewish culture.
He did not thereby make a "new religion." In his view, his coming death would in effect fulfill Judaism
And that's the new religion. Right there.
Obviously, Christianity is both "new" and old. It is a new religion, but it is, for Christians, the fulfillment of Judaism, or what Judaism itself was intended to be.
Who is to say that "God's law" and "The law of Moses" are not the same law?
I am, and I gave you the reason. God's Law preexisted the Law of Moses. So those who believe the Law of Moses is passé also believe the Law of God continues after the Law of Moses.
So the ethics of the Law are eternal, whereas the laws pertaining to purification, atonement, and all temple and priestly law, were invalidated at the point where Christ's sacrifice rendered them redundant and unnecessary.
Which is, again, a new religion. That doesn't mean it's not correct, but it is clearly not the same thing.
Yes, Christianity is a new religion! But that doesn't mean it isn't the old religion as well, if indeed the old religion was intended to be modified or succeeded by the new religion. Even some within Judaism believe that some of the many requirements of the Law will be modified in the future when they are no longer needed. Jer 31.32
A final atonement by definition implies that no more legal actions need to be taken to reconcile with God, with the exception of living up to what that means.
Who says that the purpose of the law is to "reconcile with God?" That's not in my bible anyplace.
It is not interpreted by Jews to be in their Bible perhaps. But Christians, including Jewish believers, do find it to be in the Jewish Bible, which is also the Christian Bible.
Since the fall of Man, and the accompanying curse, Christians believe that God has maintained a tenuous relationship with Man until a final fix can be forged. All of the extraneous regulations of the Law dealing with temporary appeasement before God would go away once this final atonement was made. If it wasn't explicit everywhere it certainly was implicit in God's overall plan to "fix things" with Israel.
Those Jews who rejected Jesus' death as a "final atonement" continued in laws that Christians viewed as no longer necessary.
They didn't reject Jesus's death as a "final atonement". They rejected the entire concept that a "final atonement" is even necessary.
In a number of places in the Prophets it is said that there will be a culminating event, in which the Lord will save Israel for all time, never to be oppressed again by outsiders. That is for Christians the equivalent of "final atonement." Much of Christianity is expressed in Judaism in the form of a parable so that "eyes that will not see will go blind."
But it is promised that one day Israel's eyes will be opened fully, when those who gloss over the truth will be removed. When straight forward facts don't work, the best God could do was create a diorama and let the chips fall where they may.
While we might rightly criticize, as Christians, what Jews did with Jesus in the 1st century, the same cannot be said of Jews in ensuing generations. Over time, the choice is made for "Jewish Religion," and no longer against anything more than a stereotype of Jesus as a "Jew-hater."
You mean as opposed to the 20 centuries of antisemitism in Christian Europe? Yeah, fun times.
Says the guy who gets mad at my "turban joke?" I thought you don't like to berate other religions?
-
This just shows the poverty of your argument. I already told you the inference was an attack on Islamic Terrorism--not Islam itself.
Yes, I'm sure of there were a Muslim here, he or she would see it that way and laugh right along with you. Or not.
I wouldn't joke about someone growing up in Islam, like my former sister-in-law. How is it her fault that she was raised up in her family's religion?
Why is it anyone's "fault" if they believe differently than you do?
But I have no concern to have a conversation with a terrorist, unless he or she is willing to repent. One thing we should all agree on--terrorist suicide bombers are bad! I've told the joke a number of times, that when I go into an airport and get on a plane, I'm careful to look out for guys with turbans on their heads.
Yes, because a devout Christian who loves God and their fellow man should speak this way. Or not.
Most people laugh. Others, like yourself, fight for their rights to speak,
And this is the funniest of all. You, who feels that "free speech" should not extend to anyone speaking disparagingly of Christianity or Christians, thinks that free speech does extend to you making fun of other people's faiths. "Rules for thee but not for me".
You should apologize for trying to misrepresent my attempt at humor. I explained the difference between Islamic Terrorism and Modern Islam, but you want to double down on your seedy effort at characterizing my comments as corrupt and malicious.
Making fun of other people's faith is malicious.
I want to go the "2nd mile" if it helps to cure this sick "war" between Christians and Jews in history.
A war you blame solely on Jews, weirdly enough.
-
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe Fenris had any business characterizing what I said the way he did.
*I* was offended that you referred to Muslims as suicide bombers.
That's where you went wrong. I did not refer to Muslims as suicide bombers. I referred only to Islamic Terrorists, and not to Muslims in general.
-
This just shows the poverty of your argument. I already told you the inference was an attack on Islamic Terrorism--not Islam itself.
Yes, I'm sure of there were a Muslim here, he or she would see it that way and laugh right along with you. Or not.
I wouldn't joke about someone growing up in Islam, like my former sister-in-law. How is it her fault that she was raised up in her family's religion?
Why is it anyone's "fault" if they believe differently than you do?
But I have no concern to have a conversation with a terrorist, unless he or she is willing to repent. One thing we should all agree on--terrorist suicide bombers are bad! I've told the joke a number of times, that when I go into an airport and get on a plane, I'm careful to look out for guys with turbans on their heads.
Yes, because a devout Christian who loves God and their fellow man should speak this way. Or not.
Most people laugh. Others, like yourself, fight for their rights to speak,
And this is the funniest of all. You, who feels that "free speech" should not extend to anyone speaking disparagingly of Christianity or Christians, thinks that free speech does extend to you making fun of other people's faiths. "Rules for thee but not for me".
You should apologize for trying to misrepresent my attempt at humor. I explained the difference between Islamic Terrorism and Modern Islam, but you want to double down on your seedy effort at characterizing my comments as corrupt and malicious.
Making fun of other people's faith is malicious.
I want to go the "2nd mile" if it helps to cure this sick "war" between Christians and Jews in history.
A war you blame solely on Jews, weirdly enough.
What a shame! If you can't take a joke, it's not for you.
-
No, I'm not. I'm saying that for Christians like Paul, observing Jewish customs was a token of respect, recognizing that something no longer of legal value to God could be done out of courtesy to the Jewish culture.
Actually, Paul says he did it win converts.
1 Corinthians 9 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
We don't need "courtesy". The law is not binding on Gentiles and it doesn't matter to us whether you follow it or not.
Obviously, Christianity is both "new" and old. It is a new religion, but it is, for Christians, the fulfillment of Judaism, or what Judaism itself was intended to be.
From the Christian perspective. Again, not objective fact.
I am, and I gave you the reason. God's Law preexisted the Law of Moses.
Who is to say that the law of Moses (from God, actually) is also God's law? The law of Moses (as you refer to it) did not come into existence at Sinai. That is simply when God communicated it to man. Subtle difference, see?
Yes, Christianity is a new religion!
Yay! Finally.
But that doesn't mean it isn't the old religion as well, if indeed the old religion was intended to be modified or succeeded by the new religion.
Which isn't in the bible. Again, "perpetual covenant" "throughout your generations" etc.
Even some within Judaism believe that some of the many requirements of the Law will be modified in the future when they are no longer needed. Jer 31.32
Nope. Says "new covenant" and not "new law". And what is this "new covenant"? The following verse say "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" Same law. Just on the inside.
It is not interpreted by Jews to be in their Bible perhaps.
Because it isn't there?
Remember, I'm not saying that Christianity is wrong, but it certainly is new and contains information and concepts not in the Jewish bible. No matter how hard you look.
Since the fall of Man, and the accompanying curse, Christians believe that God has maintained a tenuous relationship with Man until a final fix can be forged.
Right. Christians believe.
In a number of places in the Prophets it is said that there will be a culminating event, in which the Lord will save Israel for all time, never to be oppressed again by outsiders. That is for Christians the equivalent of "final atonement."
Yes. But it doesn't say anything about any "final atonement". The opposite. All of the prophets (besides Ezekiel) describe the atonement bringing in the messianic era. Not the other way around. Hey, how about Deut 30? That's still in effect, right?
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back.
See, we atone, and God brings us back. The messianic era is the reward for returning to God. You're saying the messiah has to come first.
Says the guy who gets mad at my "turban joke?" I thought you don't like to berate other religions?
This isn't a joke. Unfortunately it happened. Your so called "Christian kings" and their Christian subjects in Europe were most unkind to the Jews.
-
What a shame! If you can't take a joke, it's not for you.
Yeah let's speak disparagingly towards other people who are different from us. If they can't take a joke it's not for them.
-
Israel, as a nation, failed under the Law
There is no such thing as "failure under the law". There are times when the majority of Jews followed the law, and times when the majority did not.
This is what I meant by "failure under the Law." It is when the majority did not follow the Law, and the result was Divine Consequences. So yes, there is "failure under the Law." Let's be clear about that.
And the bible mentions consequences for each. But no place does it say that there is "failure" in the sense that it invalidates the law or God's covenant with the Jews.
Again, I want to be clear before you muddle my argument by dismissing all of the important terms I need to use. What was "invalidated" was Israel's ability to remain in good standing with God under the Law once those Divine Consequences were set in motion.
When the temple was destroyed, Israel could no longer observe the laws regarding the temple. When the priests were scattered and the people exiled, they could no longer observe "3 x per year in Jerusalem."
In effect, the Law was in a "backup plan," not functioning normally. And that meant the covenant had been broken by Israel's idolatry and infidelity. It did not, of course, mean that some semblance of the Law could not be maintained. Nor did it mean the Law could not be restored.
My point here is that the Law was "broken." It failed, and much of it no longer operated in a way that enabled Israel to be blessed in their land.
The Law only temporarily cleansed Israel until the next sin again threatened them from separation from God, and thus from the hope of Eternal Life.
This is...not in the bible.
Again, I need to be clear about what I'm saying, because you can't so casually dismiss what I'm saying as "Christian, and not Jewish." Your own Bible indicated that Israel's good covenant standing with God could be broken in times of apostasy, such as during the Babylonian Captivity. But this covenant relationship could be properly restored to a *blessed* relationship once the punishment ended.
However, if Israel returned to idolatry and to apostasy once again, the Divine Punishment would once again be set in motion. That's what I meant by saying that the obedience of the Law sufficed to keep Israel in good standing with God only until the next big sin.
Christianity claims to have the final fix for this constant national cycle of blessing and curse. Christ's atonement promises a judgment that will separate out those who wish to always be blessed from those who wish always to return to sin.
Yes, Sabbath, Dietary laws, Festival laws, etc. were all ephemeral
This is not in the bible. The opposite, let's use the Sabbath as an example- Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever
It is certainly interpreted as such by believing Jews in our Bible, the New Testament. And it is clear that during the Exile of Israel in ancient times Festival Laws, for example, could not be kept, because they had to be kept in Jerusalem.
This makes clear that legal observances were not always critical in the mind of God for Israel to keep them. They were important only insofar as they could actually be kept, or as long as they needed to be kept. That is not, obviously, "forever," since Israel did not keep them in times of punishment.
Furthermore, Christians see no need for laws of animal sacrifice when a final sacrifice has been made that fulfills all of them. In fact, all the temple, priestly, and sacrificial laws are no longer needed when final redemption has already been made.
Yes, God told Jews to do these things, and included many things that were only for Jews. And when the Jewish Messiah came along, speaking for God, he told the Jews to believe in him, because his spiritual life would become an eternal gift, if so accepted. The ceremonies would no longer be needed.
For those who believe it, sure. But it's not an objective fact.
Spiritual Experience has objective evidence associated with it. It's like drinking kool-aide--once you drink it, you get a sugar high, and demonstrate an energetic countenance. ;)
Well, apply that to the presence of God. You enter into His presence, and you experience a spiritual high. You are filled with joy. It is evident, and in that sense, it's an objective reality.
I would go farther and suggest that when one comes into God's presence, and covenants with Him, there are objective benefits in the form of blessings. These are supernatural signs and wonders of God's favor. God has had favor on Israel, in both good and bad times because they covenanted with Him to be His people. It is objectively true.
So when you accept the claims of Christ, you either experience a spiritual difference or not. You either experience righteousness, or nothing. I've been blessed to have been raised up in a Christian home. But I never experienced Christ quite like when I made a personal covenant with him.
Who is sweeping that under the rug?
Well, you are. And I don't see why I should listen to you and not God.
You should listen to anybody who tells you the truth and evidently cares about you.
Rabbinic Judaism will not, in my view, ever obtain world peace and the universal knowledge of God.
That's not the mission of Judaism. Our mission is to follow God's law, as commanded in the bible. To be a "light unto the nations". What God does in the messianic era is His business and not ours.
Becoming a "light to the nations" is in fact the goal of bringing about world peace. When all nations go to the "mountain of the house of the Lord," then they will turn their swords into farm implements.
So the point is that the externals of Judaism are ephemeral, transitory, and unimportant to Christians
Nobody expects you to follow them. So what's the problem?
It isn't a problem for me. It's a problem if the key to having Eternal Life rests with the need to hear the Gospel of Christ.
-
What a shame! If you can't take a joke, it's not for you.
Yeah let's speak disparagingly towards other people who are different from us. If they can't take a joke it's not for them.
If you're in a bad mood, and wish to believe the worst about it, then it's not for you. I suppose serious religious disagreements can lead to "moodiness?"
-
This is what I meant by "failure under the Law." It is when the majority did not follow the Law, and the result was Divine Consequences. So yes, there is "failure under the Law."
It's still not "failure". "Failure" implies that it's over. But as Lev 26 and elsewhere states, it's not over. It's a process.
Again, I want to be clear before you muddle my argument by dismissing all of the important terms I need to use. What was "invalidated" was Israel's ability to remain in good standing with God under the Law once those Divine Consequences were set in motion.
I don't know what "good standing" means. Disobedience means punishment. Obedience means reward. One can go from being disobedient to being obedient again, and then the punishment ends. Nothing in the bible says otherwise.
When the temple was destroyed, Israel could no longer observe the laws regarding the temple. When the priests were scattered and the people exiled, they could no longer observe "3 x per year in Jerusalem."
And then, when the temple was rebuilt 70 years later, they could again observe these rites.
In effect, the Law was in a "backup plan," not functioning normally. And that meant the covenant had been broken by Israel's idolatry and infidelity. It did not, of course, mean that some semblance of the Law could not be maintained. Nor did it mean the Law could not be restored.
Why not? Because you say so?
My point here is that the Law was "broken." It failed, and much of it no longer operated in a way that enabled Israel to be blessed in their land.
Why not? Because the bible states otherwise. 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Again, I need to be clear about what I'm saying, because you can't so casually dismiss what I'm saying as "Christian, and not Jewish." Your own Bible indicated that Israel's good covenant standing with God could be broken in times of apostasy, such as during the Babylonian Captivity. But this covenant relationship could be properly restored to a *blessed* relationship once the punishment ended.
So far so good...and yet
However, if Israel returned to idolatry and to apostasy once again, the Divine Punishment would once again be set in motion. That's what I meant by saying that the obedience of the Law sufficed to keep Israel in good standing with God only until the next big sin.
Yes, and it's a process. No place does the bible say that we can't repent "anymore" or that God patience is somehow expired.
Christianity claims to have the final fix for this constant national cycle of blessing and curse.
Yes. Christianity claims.
This makes clear that legal observances were not always critical in the mind of God for Israel to keep them. They were important only insofar as they could actually be kept, or as long as they needed to be kept. That is not, obviously, "forever," since Israel did not keep them in times of punishment.
But they remained in effect. Breaking a law doesn't end that law.
Furthermore, Christians see no need for laws of animal sacrifice when a final sacrifice has been made that fulfills all of them.
Yes. Christians see.
Spiritual Experience has objective evidence associated with it.
No. Spiritual experience is personal and anecdotal. Jews also have spiritual experiences. So do Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. None of these prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Well, apply that to the presence of God. You enter into His presence, and you experience a spiritual high. You are filled with joy. It is evident, and in that sense, it's an objective reality.
No. It's a subjective reality to the individual experiencing it.
Some definitions.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I would go farther and suggest that when one comes into God's presence, and covenants with Him, there are objective benefits in the form of blessings. These are supernatural signs and wonders of God's favor. God has had favor on Israel, in both good and bad times because they covenanted with Him to be His people. It is objectively true.
Is it now?
The modern state of Israel is materially blessed, in wealth and in military prowess. According to the bible this must mean that they are presently being obedient to God. Wouldn't you agree?
You should listen to anybody who tells you the truth and evidently cares about you.
People in history have done horrible things in the name of "caring".
Becoming a "light to the nations" is in fact the goal of bringing about world peace.
Umm you just made that up. No place does the bible describe that as being the Jewish mission. Being a light uno thte nations means living the law and showing other people how to lead a fulfilling life. To wit: Deut 4: I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” For what nation is great enough to have a god as near to them as the LORD our God is to us whenever we call on Him?
It isn't a problem for me. It's a problem if the key to having Eternal Life rests with the need to hear the Gospel of Christ.
Well, I've heard it. Now let's move on.
-
If you're in a bad mood
Rejecting bigotry is not being in a bad mood. It's enough, just apologize for your ignorant comments and we can move on.
-
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe Fenris had any business characterizing what I said the way he did.
I'm not talking about how Fenris characterised anything, I'm talking about how I understood the 'joke', and how any reasonable person reading what was written would have taken 'the joke'. It was a poorly thought out comment said in bad faith.
"Haha you wouldn't be saying that if your friends were suicide bombers haha no I don't mean all Muslims just the ones that are terrorists haha yeah Fenris don't you get it I suggested your friends were inauthentic Muslim suicide bomber extremists haha"
"Others, like yourself, fight for their rights to speak and try to cancel those who criticize them" No one is buying it. If you want to tell bad jokes at the airport you go for it. This is not the airport. And this "well actually" you're engaged in is coming across disingenuously. To then suggest Fenris is "moody"? Unreal. Fenris reacted as anyone would. At least Jimmy Carr understands that jokes involve reading the room.
Speaking of serious religious discussion, where's the gospel in that kind of humour, anyway? What does it matter what Christianity teaches, or Scripture says, or that this-or-that argument can be made if concern and empathy for Fenris and others are missing? Is he going to remember your posts or the joke? Rhetorically, I ask, because he'll remember the joke. It's the joke that caused affront, as it should have. It was an insensitive comment that shouldn't have been made.
Oh look at me writing with emotional awareness, may God have mercy. Amazing what's possible now that I'm not fighting with myself.
Listen.
Fenris is looking for an apology, and with the awareness of the life of Christ that you possess, I don't see why that's a problem. The joke wasn't taken as you thought it would be, it was a swing and a miss, and that's all there is to it. "I'm sorry Fenris, I didn't mean for the joke to come across as it did, but I recognise that I didn't think it through, I understand how it can be taken in poor taste, and I'm truly sorry for any offence caused".
If you don't want to apologise, or can't, then speak no more of this. I've reserved the last word. But think carefully on how you expect Fenris to receive your words when what has been demonstrated is facetiousness at best. What's been demonstrated is a lack of respect and Godly love. You will argue for the sake of arguing. If you hoped to convince Fenris of anything it will never happen.
I mean that. It's an apology or else not a single word more about this.
-
You will argue for the sake of arguing. If you hoped to convince Fenris of anything it will never happen.
I mean that. It's an apology or else not a single word more about this.
I don't know why you're threatening me--I have zero interest in pursuing this, and never did. The ones who have kept this going are those who are demanding an apology out of me.
And so, here is it: I apologize. I really didn't know my sense of humor would trouble any of you the way it has. Even my wife and daughter think I should apologize, so here I am: I apologize.
Now we can continue debating other subjects, or not. If all you want to do is send me packing, then get it over with. I can take it.
-
If you're in a bad mood
Rejecting bigotry is not being in a bad mood. It's enough, just apologize for your ignorant comments and we can move on.
I'm submitting an apology for offending you, but I *will not* apologize for being a bigot! And that's because I'm not a bigot.
I have no animosity towards Liberal Christians, Jews, or Muslims. I just think that they need to access Eternal Life from Jesus.
Believing in a Christian Theocracy is not bigotry either. Christian standards are the prerogative of the vast number of people who make up the State.
It has nothing to do with whether you consider yourself a Jew, a Muslim, or a Liberal Christian. It only has to do with the moral practices that conservative Christianity considers out of line in a Christian society.
-
This is what I meant by "failure under the Law." It is when the majority did not follow the Law, and the result was Divine Consequences. So yes, there is "failure under the Law."
It's still not "failure". "Failure" implies that it's over. But as Lev 26 and elsewhere states, it's not over. It's a process.
I'm defining "failure under the Law" as failure to maintain blessings in the Promised Land. To be exiled for disobedience is a punishment, and that's how I'm defining "failure."
I didn't say that this failure automatically brings an end to the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, some aspects of its rituals and certainly its morality continued until restoration of the temple worship took place. But the *failure,* as I'm defining it, did in fact take place.
I don't know what "good standing" means. Disobedience means punishment. Obedience means reward. One can go from being disobedient to being obedient again, and then the punishment ends. Nothing in the bible says otherwise.
"Good standing" means being blessed in the Holy Land. It is the reward for obedience to the Law. Failure to obey results in failure under the Law, together with its consequences--punishment and exile.
And then, when the temple was rebuilt 70 years later, they could again observe these rites.
Yes, I said as much.
Yes, and it's a process. No place does the bible say that we can't repent "anymore" or that God patience is somehow expired.
I never said otherwise. Obviously, when Israel failed under the Law, they could be restored from exile, and were. I already said that.
It seems our point of disagreement is in my saying they came to a place where they failed and could not return to the Law. Yes, I say that not because there came a time when they could not repent, but rather, because a time came when Eternal Life became accessible.
Repentance is always available, but it is no longer available under the system of Law, not because repentance is no longer being made available to the Jewish People, but only because they've been offered a better kind of repentance, leading to Eternal Life.
Obedience has always been a matter of doing what God tells God's People, whether it was before the Law, during the Law, or at times when the Law failed. I'm just arguing, from my point of view, that the Law was intended to come to a place not where Israel could no longer be forgiven, but to a place where continuing under the Law made no sense.
It came to a place where rejecting the Messiah's fulfillment of the Law was an affront to his work and to God's word. It was a rejection of the final sacrifice for sin, meaning that a return to animal sacrifices was in effect a rejection of his all-encompassing act of atonement.
If indeed that act of Jesus was God's word to the Jewish People, then their rejecting it meant that they sought forgiveness in the Law where it was no longer located. With the entry of Eternal Life, choosing to continue making sacrifices was an insult to Jesus' own all-encompassing sacrifice, which was, I believe, the entire goal of the Law.
And yes, this is what Christians believe--not what Jews believe. Final forgiveness for the Jewish People, however, is, I believe, in the Jewish prophecies.
Christianity claims to have the final fix for this constant national cycle of blessing and curse.
Yes. Christianity claims.
Of course.
Spiritual Experience has objective evidence associated with it.
No. Spiritual experience is personal and anecdotal. Jews also have spiritual experiences. So do Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. None of these prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Yes, I know. But what I was trying to say is that objective reality has an appearance, whether it is joy on the face of someone experiencing God, or a visible display of love and purity that does not normally proceed from someone otherwise preoccupied with selfishness, greed, and hate. The appearance is an objective reality, but yes, it is largely subjective and experiential.
Righteousness itself is viewed as an empirical reality, but yes, there can be ulterior motives and hidden mischief behind "acts of love." I tend to be very cautious with claims, as well. No argument from me there.
But the Gospel of Christ is one that appeals to our subjective experience. What we objectively do with that commends itself to others who choose to believe the evidence in those who display it. They then either experience it, or not.
-
Sometimes, when we start arguing in the potential philosophy outside of actual Scripture— or even within our biases as to Scripture- we fail to understand the exact nature of the struggle. How often we fail to see the dividing line. How often we fail to understand that until we promote the positive aspects of our proposals instead of merely attacking the perceived negatives of our opponents, that our efforts are likely mediocre at best. Said another way…
“Any philosophy, whether of a religious or political nature - and sometimes the dividing line is hard to determine - fights less for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology than for the positive promotion of its own. Hence its struggle is less defensive than offensive. It therefore has the advantage even in determining the goal, since this goal represents the victory of its own idea, while, conversely,it is hard to determine when the negative aim of the destruction of a hostile doctrine may be regarded as achieved and assured. For this reason alone, the philosophy's offensive will be more systematic and also more powerful than the defensive against a philosophy, since here, too, as always, the attack and not the defence makes the decision. The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support,the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine.”
Does that make sense? Can we at least agree with this?
-
I'm defining "failure under the Law" as failure to maintain blessings in the Promised Land. To be exiled for disobedience is a punishment, and that's how I'm defining "failure."
But such "failure" is only temporary.
"Good standing" means being blessed in the Holy Land. It is the reward for obedience to the Law. Failure to obey results in failure under the Law, together with its consequences--punishment and exile.
And Israel is again blessed in the Holy Land. What does that mean to you?
It seems our point of disagreement is in my saying they came to a place where they failed and could not return to the Law. Yes, I say that not because there came a time when they could not repent, but rather, because a time came when Eternal Life became accessible.
But the bible doesn't even discuss "eternal life". In this sense Christianity is introducing something new. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it is only solving a problem that it itself created to be solved.
If
"If" is the longest two letter word in the English language.
And yes, this is what Christians believe--not what Jews believe. Final forgiveness for the Jewish People, however, is, I believe, in the Jewish prophecies.
You'll have to show me where. Because Judaism isn't about final anything. It's about the daily struggle of being human. You fall short, you try to do better next time.
Yes, I know. But what I was trying to say is that objective reality has an appearance
This "appearance" is also visible on the faces of Jews, Muslims, Hinudus, and so on...
-
Sometimes, when we start arguing in the potential philosophy outside of actual Scripture— or even within our biases as to Scripture- we fail to understand the exact nature of the struggle. How often we fail to see the dividing line. How often we fail to understand that until we promote the positive aspects of our proposals instead of merely attacking the perceived negatives of our opponents, that our efforts are likely mediocre at best. Said another way…
“Any philosophy, whether of a religious or political nature - and sometimes the dividing line is hard to determine - fights less for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology than for the positive promotion of its own. Hence its struggle is less defensive than offensive. It therefore has the advantage even in determining the goal, since this goal represents the victory of its own idea, while, conversely,it is hard to determine when the negative aim of the destruction of a hostile doctrine may be regarded as achieved and assured. For this reason alone, the philosophy's offensive will be more systematic and also more powerful than the defensive against a philosophy, since here, too, as always, the attack and not the defence makes the decision. The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support,the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine.”
Does that make sense? Can we at least agree with this?
I think I know what you're saying. I'll assume I do, and you can correct me if I miss the mark. In my personal life have unending stress, to some degree, and absolutely zero in on the negative more than a positive. Although I've never had trouble making friends, I largely choose to reduce my friends to a minimum, basically because I'm an unhappy person. The conflict in me is that at the same time I love people I hate them--I know--not a very Christian thing!
We sometimes have to accept where we are because God does. I wish I could be a positive person instead of a negative nelly. But we can only be who we are until God heals us and changes us for the better--I do believe we change. Only part of it involves the will--some of it is well beyond our ability to change without God's transforming power, working gradually in our lives.
Take for example Sampson. He was a greater man than is often understood. And yet he is looked at in terms of his weaknesses, and he suffered greatly for his weakness. Many forget the fact he acted as a judge in Israel for decades--they only see him literally blinded by Delilah, and view him as worse than David who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed.
But in Sampson's death he won a greater victory than he had in his life. This great act of contrition and grace enabled him to do something greater than he had ever done before.
But note how grace took effect. It was not immediate. Sampson's weaknesses had remained with him for many years, from the time he married a foreign woman until he met up with Delilah.
Well, the healing took place more quickly, but also gradually. The Scriptures say he gradually regained his hair, along with his vow. And when he was recovered, he remained blind, because his carnality could not really be healed. But his commitment could over-ride his weakness and carnal inclinations.
This is how I see myself, as incapable of being as positive as I'd like. But grace is able to keep me going, even when it seems I accomplish nothing at all, due to all of the negativity.
Still, I can only follow Scriptures the best I can, even with my shortcomings. The Scriptures say don't befriend the world, don't even love family more than God. And we should accept the Scriptures whole, which contain a lot more judgment than salvation and blessing.
So am I in the ballpark, or have I struck out?
-
All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf
His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews. We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress
-
I don't know why you're threatening me--I have zero interest in pursuing this, and never did. The ones who have kept this going are those who are demanding an apology out of me.
The hint is in the grammatical tense: it's a predictive utterance. If your hope is to impact Fenris in such a way that he comes to know Christ (for instance), but you write in such a way that a lack of love for Fenris is conveyed, then you will only ever argue with each other, and Fenris will never find anything you have to say compelling. Likewise, you won't find anything he has to say compelling. The relationship essentially becomes one of antagonism. In this circumstance, that antagonism would be framed by one side holding to the perception that it's speaking the obvious truth, which the other side doesn't know, while the other side will maintain that the truth is indeed known, and insensitivity betrays a lack of love.
-
I don't know why you're threatening me--I have zero interest in pursuing this, and never did. The ones who have kept this going are those who are demanding an apology out of me.
The hint is in the grammatical tense: it's a predictive utterance. If your hope is to impact Fenris in such a way that he comes to know Christ (for instance), but you write in such a way that a lack of love for Fenris is conveyed, then you will only ever argue with each other, and Fenris will never find anything you have to say compelling. Likewise, you won't find anything he has to say compelling. The relationship essentially becomes one of antagonism. In this circumstance, that antagonism would be framed by one side holding to the perception that it's speaking the obvious truth, which the other side doesn't know, while the other side will maintain that the truth is indeed known, and insensitivity betrays a lack of love.
I understand and agree. However, at some point a person has already decided to reject Christ, no matter how compelling the argument, no matter how loving the person. And that's fine--people are entitled to decide for the religion they wish to live for.
But believing, as we do, that Christ is the only way, those who reject him may reject him either because they remain unconvinced or because they simply reject the offer, even if offered by Christ himself. These both John the Baptist and Jesus rejected as unworthy of the Kingdom of God.
I don't wish to judge someone's heart in this matter, but do recognize when there is antagonism towards the Christian proposal. At that point I can either continue to discuss issues or not. If the person I discuss these things with is hostile, then there is no interest on my part for discussing things any more.
I don't dislike anybody on this forum. And I'm fine when people mock, in a friendly way, my views on things like a Christian theocracy, the Sin Nature, or the like. But I have no interest in conversations where my positions become an opportunity for depicting me as a bigot.
At the very least, the position should be discussed and questioned. But when there is no interest other than depicting me as a bigot, then there is no more "love" I can give such a person. Neither would they want to "love" a person they think is a bigot.
-
All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf
His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews. We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress
Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be? ;)
I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?
But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.
I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.
-
I understand and agree. However, at some point a person has already decided to reject Christ, no matter how compelling the argument, no matter how loving the person. And that's fine--people are entitled to decide for the religion they wish to live for.
But believing, as we do, that Christ is the only way, those who reject him may reject him either because they remain unconvinced or because they simply reject the offer, even if offered by Christ himself. These both John the Baptist and Jesus rejected as unworthy of the Kingdom of God.
I don't wish to judge someone's heart in this matter...
Quite right, we shouldn't judge such matters and we aren't in a position to judge.
It's easy to gloss over the reality that to reject Christ one must have knowledge of Christ, and we Christians are just arrogant enough to think that our every presentation of Christ is in fact of presentation of Christ. But this is not assured, and there are plenty of so-called Christians who present an unrecognisable Christ, or claim Christ while acting in ways inconsistent with the claim "I believe in Jesus".
Or it could be that a person has been so hurt by those within the church that Christ was never on offer, so what's really being rejected? And I don't know about you, but I'm neither John the Baptist nor Jesus. To even speak about worthiness, as in, being worthy of the Kingdom of God. Well, let me get to the back of the line and dwell on that one.
Actually, that reminds me of a song. There's a refrain that goes:
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you alone
Remember me
Remember me
Remember me
My Chemical Romance. There are plenty of outright worship songs with similar lines but I don't know, that one gets me. How do even I know my faith is pure and orientated towards God? Going back a thought, I think the difference is "us" and "I" language. The more I think about that the more existential it gets.
but do recognize when there is antagonism towards the Christian proposal. At that point I can either continue to discuss issues or not. If the person I discuss these things with is hostile, then there is no interest on my part for discussing things any more.
Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel, and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.
I don't dislike anybody on this forum. And I'm fine when people mock, in a friendly way, my views on things like a Christian theocracy, the Sin Nature, or the like. But I have no interest in conversations where my positions become an opportunity for depicting me as a bigot.
As I was saying, we only know each other through what we write. This is missiology, or communication 100: what's intended is not always what's understood. Fenris didn't say what he said arbitrarily, and not without warrant. This is perhaps an opportunity to think on why such a thing could be said of what you've written.
-
Quite right, we shouldn't judge such matters and we aren't in a position to judge.
It's easy to gloss over the reality that to reject Christ one must have knowledge of Christ, and we Christians are just arrogant enough to think that our every presentation of Christ is in fact of presentation of Christ. But this is not assured, and there are plenty of so-called Christians who present an unrecognisable Christ, or claim Christ while acting in ways inconsistent with the claim "I believe in Jesus".
Or it could be that a person has been so hurt by those within the church that Christ was never on offer, so what's really being rejected? And I don't know about you, but I'm neither John the Baptist nor Jesus. To even speak about worthiness, as in, being worthy of the Kingdom of God. Well, let me get to the back of the line and dwell on that one.
Actually, that reminds me of a song. There's a refrain that goes:
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you alone
Remember me
Remember me
Remember me
My Chemical Romance. There are plenty of outright worship songs with similar lines but I don't know, that one gets me. How do even I know my faith is pure and orientated towards God? Going back a thought, I think the difference is "us" and "I" language. The more I think about that the more existential it gets.
Yes, catchy tune and I'm sure some deep-felt experience involved in that. Music really touches me too. Music has been big in my growing up family, both my father and brother being musicians on top of their regular jobs. My own unique talent was listening to the music, and loving to learn the words. ;)
But yes, I'm not John the Baptist, nor Jesus--just like you. That being said, at some point we hopefully get lined up enough with God and mature enough that we can make sound judgments about people without losing our sense of who we are, and aren't.
Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel, and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.
That's true. I try not to confuse my own personal message with the message of the Gospel. I just hope that somehow *some* of the Gospel message is contained in my beliefs, because I really do try to tailor my beliefs and statements after the Scriptures.
As I was saying, we only know each other through what we write. This is missiology, or communication 100: what's intended is not always what's understood. Fenris didn't say what he said arbitrarily, and not without warrant. This is perhaps an opportunity to think on why such a thing could be said of what you've written.
But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.
Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."
But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.
On a more positive note, my daughter, who has refused to talk with me for 6 months, actually called and talked with me for over an hour tonight. I'm in 7th heaven! She had to state honestly what she felt about my manners, and I was completely accepting--I didn't want to lose her.
I'll bend over backwards if it will help somebody. I just can't lie to make them feel better. I have to say what I think.
-
All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf
His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews. We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress
Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be? ;)
I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?
But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.
I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.
Yeah you completely missed the point
The point was to demonstrate that humans of all kinds … both the most benevolent and the most malevolent… often claim the authority of God in support if their twisted ideas of utopian theocracy…
Mein Kampf is a window into the mind of pure evil…. It is important that we never forget the subtleties of satan
-
All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf
His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews. We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress
Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be? ;)
I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?
But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.
I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.
Yeah you completely missed the point
The point was to demonstrate that humans of all kinds … both the most benevolent and the most malevolent… often claim the authority of God in support if their twisted ideas of utopian theocracy…
Mein Kampf is a window into the mind of pure evil…. It is important that we never forget the subtleties of satan
Point taken. Taken on its face there was a certain amount of rationale to it, and you didn't cite, from the onset, who the quote was from--I thought it was from you.
But in the hands of a corrupt individual like Hitler, the most rational of statements is an attempt to mislead. I understand that.
Next time, will you please give proper credits to your quote so that I'm not misled? Thanks. I don't want to be in the position of giving any validity to something Hitler said.
As I said I had Mein Kampf. I started reading it because I wanted to understand his demented thinking. But I couldn't stomach it, and threw it away. No matter how he was raised, I could never justify what he did or what he believed.
-
But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.
Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."
But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.
Maybe eventually you'll understand that you haven't been demonised, and Fenris, myself, and others, are doing nothing more than replying to the words you're writing and the ideas you're conveying insofar as both betray an idea of the person behind the screen.
I don't know that I look very brotherly these days.
-
But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.
Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."
But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.
Maybe eventually you'll understand that you haven't been demonised, and Fenris, myself, and others, are doing nothing more than replying to the words you're writing and the ideas you're conveying insofar as both betray an idea of the person behind the screen.
I don't know that I look very brotherly these days.
I consider you a brother. Fenris, I don't. But I have called him a "friend," though that relationship is now pretty tenuous.
I think it's fantastic when people of different religions get along. But I'm realistic about it.
When a belief system clashes with another, sometimes emotions run high. The baggage connected to Jews in their relations with Christians is extensive. I understand that.
-
Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel,
I am not, in fact, hostile to Christianity. It took a barbaric and pagan continent and turned it into a land of ethical monotheists. This is obviously a Good Thing.
That doesn't make it "true", or "correct". But I'm capable of recognizing that something can be good, and even from God, even if it does not conform to my belief system.
and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.
This is a Bad Thing and I oppose it wholeheartedly, as any person of conscience should. Again, man is fallen and should not be trusted to force their beliefs on others.
-
The baggage connected to Jews in their relations with Christians is extensive. I understand that.
"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.”
— Benjamin Disraeli
-
I consider you a brother...
I know, what I mea... ah, nevermind.
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
....
Old thread, but still very important for today.
I highly recommend a book named New Lies For Old by Anatoliy Golitsyn.
He was an ex-KGB colonel who defected to the U.S. in the 1960's. That book he wrote in 1984, but in it he predicted that in the Soviet's 3rd Phase of their long-range disinformation strategy against the west, they might allow the Berlin Wall to come down. That happened in 1989-1990. You can find a facsimile copy of the book on archive.org.
Golitsyn wrote another book in 1990 called The Peristroika Deception, continuing revelations about the Communist's long-range disinformation strategy against the west. He even quoted Gorbachev when he was asked after the Berlin Wall was taken down, if he still believed in the plan for world Communism, and Gorbachev said definitely yes.
So Golitsyn basically said the 'cold war' and Communism being over is nothing but a HOAX and part of the Russian Communist's long-range disinformation strategy against the West. In Golitsyn's book, he even mentions how Russian held religious summits inviting Christian pastors from the West are designed to plant disinformation in the Churches in the West to preach their idea of 'social religion' and not 'revealed religion', an idea that ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen also mentioned in his book The Naked Communist.
And one of the goals Golitsyn said that was part of the Soviet long-range disinformation strategy is the plan for a one-Socialist Europe, from the Urals to the Atlantic.
Thus I believe world Communism is being used as a 'tool' to bring in the coming one-world beast government and kingdom. It simply ain't over, because the fat lady has not sung yet. And if one reads Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley's 1960's book Tragedy and Hope, one will find that he says "the establishment" often works with Communism and has no problem doing so. Quigley himself was an "establishment" insider, as even ex-President Bill Clinton was taught under him at Georgetown University, and Clinton endorsed Quigley in his inaugural speech.
-
Which direction will Russia go, particularly in light of the Gog prophecy?
It's a darn good question. I have a bit unusual perspective, though I got my ideas from others. I think the Beast Empire will be European Civilization uniting East and West, including Russia and the US, and all of Europe. However, until that happens Russia and the US are like the thumbs on left and right hands, and they seek the sphere that enables them to be dominant in the roles they play.
Right now, Russia is decompressing from the fall of the Soviet Union, and trying to establish itself as a major player, having isolated itself during the Cold War. I expect that instead of taking on the entire world, Russia will have to concede a lot in order to become the powerful player it already is.
Russia is still able to rely on partner China to be the rogue operator on the world stage. As long as it has China as an ally, what is to prevent it from being adventurous, particularly since China itself operates freely as a bully on the world stage?
At some point, I think Russia will opt for European relations, instead of its alliance with China. And that becomes more feasible as Europe loses its Christian identity and becomes more socialist. That's a sad state of affairs, and yet the reality, as I see it.
We often see prophecy through a west-centric paradigm. "Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" Actually refers to the modern state of Turkey. This fact aligns closely with the idea that future beast kingdom will be an Islamic union rather than a European one.
There is this great battle of Gog mentioned in the Bible. The one in Rev 20 appears to be the same player, but at a different time, after the Millennium, or at the end of it. This player is likely Russia, in my view.
So yes, there is this great battle coming to invade Israel. I'm just not sure if it will be with adventurous Russia that we now see, with China's support, or in an alliance with Europe in the Antichristian alliance?
I am of the opinion that it will be an Islamic union as the nations mentioned are all middle eastern ones. It's only our western paradigm that causes us to see "Gomer" as Germany and "Russ" as Russia. The deadly wound healed is a resurrection of the Ottoman caliphate.
-
We often see prophecy through a west-centric paradigm. "Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" Actually refers to the modern state of Turkey. This fact aligns closely with the idea that future beast kingdom will be an Islamic union rather than a European one.
I mean, maybe, but the biggest killers of Jews historically were Europeans. Rome, in 70 and again in 120, and then in modern times Nazi Germany.
-
I think everything will become clear- after it happens.
Absolutely, I sometimes think the intent of prophecy is not so much to predict the future as it is to built faith once it happens. I am taking this verse out of it's intended context but I think it has a global application:
Jn 14:29
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.[/color
We often see prophecy through a west-centric paradigm. "Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" Actually refers to the modern state of Turkey. This fact aligns closely with the idea that future beast kingdom will be an Islamic union rather than a European one.
I mean, maybe, but the biggest killers of Jews historically were Europeans. Rome, in 70 and again in 120, and then in modern times Nazi Germany.
I can't argue with that. However, I believe there is coming a much greater persecution instigated by the rabid radical Islamic sects. Once they rise to political power, I see the beast kingdom arising from the ashes of the Ottoman empire and united for the single reason to destroy Israel(may God protect her)
-
Absolutely, I sometimes think the intent of prophecy is not so much to predict the future as it is to built faith once it happens.
Perhaps. Although since I think that all prophecy in the Jewish bible is to bring repentance, I think it's just telling us what the reward will be when we do repent.
I can't argue with that. However, I believe there is coming a much greater persecution instigated by the rabid radical Islamic sects. Once they rise to political power, I see the beast kingdom arising from the ashes of the Ottoman empire and united for the single reason to destroy Israel(may God protect her)
It is possible.