my issue with Judaism

[RandyPNW]

The following is why I believe that the Jews formulated a false brand of Judaism. I'm not interested in discussing this with Jews here--only Christians.

Jews are entirely free to represent their religion or to characterize their religion in any way they see fit. I'm only interested here in establishing what I, as a Christian, think about Judaism.

I'm not setting the rules--just trying to avoid problems. This is, after all, a Christian forum.

1) When Jesus appeared, his forerunner, John the Baptist, was a recognized prophet of God who declared Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah. For whatever reason, the Jews, as a people, rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

The small minority who did accept Jesus as Messiah were marginalized, rejected and persecuted by the Jewish majority. Even today, Messianic Jews may be accepted as legitimately "Jewish," having a Jewish mother, but not representative of legitimate Jewish religion.

In fact, Messianic Jews are not trying to represent what I call "Rabbinic Judaism," but rather, legitimate New Testament Judaism. MJs are presenting Christianity as the true heir of Judaism, and not as a corrupted form of Judaism.

2) Jesus said that the Jewish People had turned to follow their corrupt religious leaders, instead of to God Himself. Jesus said this in his own time and place. This point cannot be disputed.

3) The Jews were about to have their covenant with God nullified, due to their moral and theological corruption. They were immoral because they hid their sins underneath a façade of religious works. And they were heretical because they rejected the Messiah, which their religion was designed to acknowledge as authoritative.

In losing their covenant, the temple worship was being abandoned by God to Roman destruction, just as God had done with the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC. This meant that something had to displace temple worship on behalf of those who wished to repent of their sins.

Christianity was substituted for this covenant of temple law as a "new covenant." The Jews rejected that.

I don't know a lot about Judaism. But I do know that these were reasons that I, as a Christian, believe Judaism went "south." I don't believe this makes Jews in Judaism evil people, but I do believe the problem began in the time of Jesus. Jews today are just following the lead of the Rabbinic Judaism that began at that time.

[Athanasius]

So... Your issue with Judaism, that you "don't know a lot about" is that it's theologically corrupt and has been for at least the last ~2,000 years and that corruption comes at the behest of immorality that may or may not be practiced today, but definitively was in first century and ANE world (with talk of new Covenants typically starting in Jeremiah)? And also... replacement theology? But you don't want the one Jewish member who is highly educated to reply?

What are we meant to discuss? Is this meant to be a discussion, or an affirmation of the 'Christian' view of Judaism?

[RabbiKnife]

The following is why I believe that Christians formulated a false brand of The Way. I'm not interested in discussing this with Christians here--only Followers of TheWay.

Christians are entirely free to represent their religion or to characterize their religion in any way they see fit. I'm only interested here in establishing what I, as a Follower of The Way, think about Christianity.

I'm not setting the rules--just trying to avoid problems. This is, after all, a Follower of The Way forum.

1) When Jesus appeared, his forerunner, John the Baptist, was a recognized prophet of God who declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World.  For whatever reason, Christians after the death of Jesus, as a people, rejected Jesus and began following a religion created by His followers, with dramatic anti-Christian and pro-religious power implications.

The small minority who did accept Jesus and continued in The Way were marginalized, rejected and persecuted by the Christian majority. Even today, Followers of The Way may be accepted as legitimately "Christian," having a Christian heritage, but not representative of legitimate Christian religion.

In fact, Followers of The Way "Christians" are not trying to represent what I call "Cultural Christianity," but rather, legitimate New Testament Following of The Way . FOTWCs are presenting Christianity as the true heir of The Way, and not as a corrupted form of Christianity.

2) Jesus said that the Cultural Christians had turned to follow their corrupt religious leaders, instead of to God Himself. Jesus said this in his own time and place. This point cannot be disputed.

3) The Cultural Christians rejected their covenant with God , due to their moral and theological corruption. They were immoral because they hid their sins underneath a façade of religious works. And they were heretical because they rejected Jesus, which their religion was designed to acknowledge as authoritative.

In rejecting their covenant, the Cultural Christian religious worship was substituted for the true religion and worship as practiced by The Followers of The Way. This meant that something had to displace false Cultural Christian practices on behalf of those who wished to repent of their sins.

Cultural Christianity was substituted for this "new covenant." The Cultural Christians rejected the Way.

I don't know a lot about Cultural Christianity. But I do know that these were reasons that I, as a Follower of The Way, believe Cultural Christianity went "south." I don't believe this makes Cultural Christians evil people, but I do believe the problem began in the time of Jesus. Cultural Christians today are just following the lead of the false teachers of Cultural Christianity that began at that time.

[RandyPNW]

The following is why I believe that Christians formulated a false brand of The Way. I'm not interested in discussing this with Christians here--only Followers of TheWay.

Christians are entirely free to represent their religion or to characterize their religion in any way they see fit. I'm only interested here in establishing what I, as a Follower of The Way, think about Christianity.

I'm not setting the rules--just trying to avoid problems. This is, after all, a Follower of The Way forum.

1) When Jesus appeared, his forerunner, John the Baptist, was a recognized prophet of God who declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World.  For whatever reason, Christians after the death of Jesus, as a people, rejected Jesus and began following a religion created by His followers, with dramatic anti-Christian and pro-religious power implications.

The small minority who did accept Jesus and continued in The Way were marginalized, rejected and persecuted by the Christian majority. Even today, Followers of The Way may be accepted as legitimately "Christian," having a Christian heritage, but not representative of legitimate Christian religion.

In fact, Followers of The Way "Christians" are not trying to represent what I call "Cultural Christianity," but rather, legitimate New Testament Following of The Way . FOTWCs are presenting Christianity as the true heir of The Way, and not as a corrupted form of Christianity.

2) Jesus said that the Cultural Christians had turned to follow their corrupt religious leaders, instead of to God Himself. Jesus said this in his own time and place. This point cannot be disputed.

3) The Cultural Christians rejected their covenant with God , due to their moral and theological corruption. They were immoral because they hid their sins underneath a façade of religious works. And they were heretical because they rejected Jesus, which their religion was designed to acknowledge as authoritative.

In rejecting their covenant, the Cultural Christian religious worship was substituted for the true religion and worship as practiced by The Followers of The Way. This meant that something had to displace false Cultural Christian practices on behalf of those who wished to repent of their sins.

Cultural Christianity was substituted for this "new covenant." The Cultural Christians rejected the Way.

I don't know a lot about Cultural Christianity. But I do know that these were reasons that I, as a Follower of The Way, believe Cultural Christianity went "south." I don't believe this makes Cultural Christians evil people, but I do believe the problem began in the time of Jesus. Cultural Christians today are just following the lead of the false teachers of Cultural Christianity that began at that time.

I do not believe truth is relative. Therefore, God is completely free to say there is only one standard by which we may live. It is not a matter of justice to say that Christians should have freedom to live holy lives and to assert that murderers equally have a right to murder others. If you place your "Way" in the same category as Christianity, then you are abusing the truth of Christianity, trying to make it equal with false religion.

This is the whole reason why I disagree with Liberal Democracy and a Constitution that recognizes freedom for all religions. It isn't biblical.

Nevertheless, as I've said many times before elsewhere we have to live under the system that rules. If there is freedom for all religions in our society, then we must live by those rules. I just don't have to agree with them.

[RabbiKnife]

Christianity as currently practiced by the majority of so-called "Christians" in North America is a false religion.

Only true Followers of The Way are following in Jesus' footsteps.

However, as you are apparently not a Follower of the Way, you are not qualified to discuss the issue with me.  I am not interested in discussing this with so-called "christians" here -- only Followers of The Way.

I have decreed it.
"As it is written, so is it done."

[RandyPNW]

Christianity as currently practiced by the majority of so-called "Christians" in North America is a false religion.

Only true Followers of The Way are following in Jesus' footsteps.

However, as you are apparently not a Follower of the Way, you are not qualified to discuss the issue with me.  I am not interested in discussing this with so-called "christians" here -- only Followers of The Way.

I have decreed it.
"As it is written, so is it done."

The only reason I wouldn't want to discuss your "Way" in connection with my Christian view of that is because you may not properly understand my points and may get angry, being in that "Way." Provoking you to anger does not serve my interests.

Your example, therefore, does not fit the conditions by which I made my statements. I'm only too happy to discuss your "Way" if you are not provoked by any concerns about it I may have.

[RabbiKnife]

No, I have determined that my understanding of Christianity is superior to yours, and that your understanding of Christianity is the result of your worship of a false Jesus that does not comport with my understanding of Follower of the Way, as a result of your having been led astray by historical teachers of a false Christianity.

As such, you are incapable of discussing my understanding of Christianity because I have decreed that my understanding of your false Christianity is superior to yours, who claim to be a Christian, I suppose.

[Athanasius]

...'the Way' (ἡ ὁδός) is how the early followers of Christ described themselves. Note that they weren't Mandalorian, as followers of the latter often say, "this is the way". RK isn't talking about _his_ way, but _the_ Way.

[RandyPNW]

...'the Way' (ἡ ὁδός) is how the early followers of Christ described themselves. Note that they weren't Mandalorian, as followers of the latter often say, "this is the way". RK isn't talking about _his_ way, but _the_ Way.

I'm fully aware. I'm also fully aware of the point he was trying to make, that what's made exclusive for Christianity can be made exclusive for any other religion as well. I've heard this argument against the "narrowness" of Christianity all my life. And so, I've argued for a version of "Christian theocracy" all my life, or at least, for many years, because I was forced into that hole by the Scriptures. God never apologized for "being right." And smarter people never admit to being wrong to their inferiors.

We are answerable to God. And so, I get my truth from the Scriptures, not from a "humanized" version of it, or a political dumbing down of it.

[Athanasius]

No that's not quite his point.

[RandyPNW]

No that's not quite his point.

I'm saying I'm fully aware of his use of "The Way" as a typical expression of early Christianity. And I know he was being tongue in cheek about it, regardless of how I viewed it. I'm sure he might want to put a different "take" on it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. How far off could I be?

[Athanasius]

I'm saying I'm fully aware of his use of "The Way" as a typical expression of early Christianity. And I know he was being tongue in cheek about it, regardless of how I viewed it. I'm sure he might want to put a different "take" on it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. How far off could I be?

See, you asked to talk only with other Christians, and when a first-century follower of the Way showed up, you said a few things:

- I do not believe truth is relative (no one claimed truth was relative)
- It is not a matter of justice to say that Christians should have freedom to live holy lives and to assert that murderers equally have a right to murder others (no one claimed murderers should have the right to murder, but I will claim that just as people ought to have the right to be wrong, they ought to have the right to sin, within reason, i.e.,  don't murder)
- That to place "the Way" in the same category as Christianity is to abuse the truth of Christianity and make it equal with a false religion, which is... The Way? That is, Christianity? It's a confusing statement.
- Freedom for all religions isn't biblical (are we currently living in an ancient Jewish state?)

Regardless, for intents and purposes, you are now Fenris arguing against RandyRNW, as expressed by RK. Except, you want to reserve for yourself what you deny to Fenris. He is as convinced by his beliefs as you are by yours, but you think you know better than he does, just as RK of the Way thinks he knows better than you, and you don't like that very much.

Just as you think Jews have formulated a false brand of Judaism, those who follow the Way think you have formulated a false brand of Christianity. Pot and kettle and all that.

[RandyPNW]

I'm saying I'm fully aware of his use of "The Way" as a typical expression of early Christianity. And I know he was being tongue in cheek about it, regardless of how I viewed it. I'm sure he might want to put a different "take" on it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. How far off could I be?

See, you asked to talk only with other Christians, and when a first-century follower of the Way showed up, you said a few things:

Again, there may be some kind of misunderstanding here. I was trying to explain to Fenris that I was judging his religion by my knowledge of Christianity and Judaism based on my experience and education as a Christian--not as a Jew. I can't hope to know much like how a Jew in Judaism knows his own religion!

And you told me repeatedly to cease and desist in discussing this with Fenris because things were heating up. And this is why I initiated my discussion elsewhere without Fenris involved. That is the "Jew" I wished to exclude from my discussion! I'm *not* saying I wished this to be so--I was only complying with *your rule!*

I will answer further questions on the subject once you understand that the exclusion of Jews has no real bearing on my discussion. If I was free to discuss it with this person, I would continue to do so. But you are in charge.

I spent 10 years on an unmoderated forum (Usenet) called alt.messianic. I had no problems, heated or not, discussing any issue. There are pros and cons about moderated forums, and I prefer them now, because over time, unmoderated forums get gobbled up by trolls and nut cases.

[RandyPNW]

Just as you think Jews have formulated a false brand of Judaism, those who follow the Way think you have formulated a false brand of Christianity. Pot and kettle and all that.

Yes, I understand that. That's why I said, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." I was acknowledging RK's argument--though not agreeing with it.

I also do not believe in relative truth, and I agree with you that there is a more reasonable approach towards tolerance than equating freedom of religion with freedom to murder?

But it does get sketchy. You've said you're familiar with F. Schaeffer? He wrote a lot on the gradual decline in standards in Western society. What was a no-no yesterday is "normal" today. Homosexuality was verboten yesterday, but today it's a fad. Pedophilia is still considered a social blight. But tomorrow, who knows?

So I believe Christianity was intended by God to be a constant, not just in society but also in government. Government's job is to preserve the society. A Christian government can help preserve a Christian society.

But if a Christian society erodes over time, then a Christian government will look and become dictatorial. A Christian government requires a Christian society, and I believe vice versa.

[RandyPNW]

So... Your issue with Judaism, that you "don't know a lot about" is that it's theologically corrupt and has been for at least the last ~2,000 years and that corruption comes at the behest of immorality that may or may not be practiced today, but definitively was in first century and ANE world (with talk of new Covenants typically starting in Jeremiah)? And also... replacement theology? But you don't want the one Jewish member who is highly educated to reply?

What are we meant to discuss? Is this meant to be a discussion, or an affirmation of the 'Christian' view of Judaism?

I was clarifying what I meant outside of the discussion between Fenris and me in compliance with your directions. Perhaps you wish to be more clear about what I'm prohibited from doing?

The discussion I had with Fenris earlier left a muddled impression of what I was trying to say, and I wished to explain it away from the discussion between Fenris and myself. I was once banned on a Christian forum for supposedly arguing for annihilationism. I was given no opportunity to defend myself--I simply was given a "vacation" from the discussion. Thank you for allowing me here to explain what I've been trying to say, apart from a discourse that was becoming "unprofitable!"

I spent 10 years discussing Judaism in limited ways on Usenet, and am not entirely ignorant of Judaism. But my argument never was about things that required specialization in Judaism. I can discuss issues regarding my car even though I'm not a car mechanic!

In the case of Judaism vs. Christianity, I feel I don't need a doctor's degree in Judaism to discuss it. The NT Bible does a more than adequate job explaining the opposition between the two religions, in particular Hebrews. It just has to be discussed between not just one, but two, interested and friendly parties. Fenris and I weren't doing so well--so here we are!

Yes, Rabbinic Judaism remains corrupted theologically from the time the Rabbis insisted that Jesus be rejected. Judaism had required adherence to  the Prophet who comes in the name of God, namely Jesus. The Jewish leadership in Jesus' time not only rejected Jesus as their Messiah, but they encouraged his crucifixion.

This is not to say that Jews in this corrupted religion are corrupt people. If I was raised in Judaism I would certainly be a Jew, as well. This doesn't mean I'm in the correct religion--it just means my choice of religion does not implicate me as a corrupt person.

I would love for Fenris to join in *any* of my conversations--just not in one that I'm warned will be "locked up."