Gog's endtime construction?

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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?"

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

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?

[Fenris]

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...