Gog's endtime construction?

[Fenris]

"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."

[Fenris]

"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".

[IMINXTC]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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!

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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...

[Fenris]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[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.

[RabbiKnife]

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.