Gog's endtime construction?

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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...

[ProDeo]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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....

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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?

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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?