Who decided the “church†should replace Judaism? Why don’t believers in Christ practice Judaism and the Sabbaths commanded by God? Where did Jesus tell his followers to ignore the Torah? Is the confusion among followers of the Messiah (Christ) caused by the injection of a theology that tries to replace what God had established and commanded with new “Sabbathsâ€Â, created by philosophies and traditions of men?
Shouldn’t believers be a congregation that is divided over whether or not the Messiah is coming for the first time or the second time? Why are believers divided over issues like how much water it takes to be baptized?
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
http://www.comparative-religion.com/
http://www.comparative-religion.com/art ... racy12.php
Without question, the entire basis for the theology of Christianity has come down to us as a result of Paul's philosophical and theological imagery. There is nothing in the synoptic gospels, in the teachings of Jesus, or the practice of the Apostles, that would have led the world into a religious practice the nature of which we find today. The result of that worship is evidenced by the unjustifiable history of the Church, and the moral and spiritual decay of our world society.
It is unfortunate that the words of men must always be subject to the whims of those who come after them, but thus it is with Ephesians. In the origin of this letter, there was no congregation or city named as is common with the other letters in the Pauline corpus.
I am not a christian, i find this kind of debate endlessly fascinating. So just before there is any kind of misunderstanding I am not out to antagonise, offend, irritate anyone.
The early schisms in the christian church make fascinating reading.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/art ... racy12.php
Without question, the entire basis for the theology of Christianity has come down to us as a result of Paul's philosophical and theological imagery. There is nothing in the synoptic gospels, in the teachings of Jesus, or the practice of the Apostles, that would have led the world into a religious practice the nature of which we find today. The result of that worship is evidenced by the unjustifiable history of the Church, and the moral and spiritual decay of our world society.
It is unfortunate that the words of men must always be subject to the whims of those who come after them, but thus it is with Ephesians. In the origin of this letter, there was no congregation or city named as is common with the other letters in the Pauline corpus.
I am not a christian, i find this kind of debate endlessly fascinating. So just before there is any kind of misunderstanding I am not out to antagonise, offend, irritate anyone.
The early schisms in the christian church make fascinating reading.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Clint: Thanks for the great thread! I love this particular topic.
Christianity was not designed by the Master Designer to replace Judaism, but to be a continuity of His promises to mankind. Paul described what God intended Judaism and Christianity to be in Romans 11:17, and 15:12. Judaism is an olive tree. The Root of this tree is Christ. The Jews who rejected their Messiah were branches cut off from the olive tree. Gentiles who accepted Him were wild olive branches grafted on.
Paul elaborated on this in Romans 9:6-8 saying, “…not all who are descended from Israel are Israel,†in other words, not everyone physically born a Jew is really a spiritual Jew. In Romans 2:28,29 Paul wrote, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly…No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit.†And in Philippians 3:3 Paul spells out what circumcision really means: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“ In other words, Paul made it clear that circumcision was only a symbol of putting no confidence in the flesh (like, “I’m confident I’m saved because I was born a Jew,â€Â) But putting all our confidence in the Messiah. Paul made it clear that after Calvary the only true Jews are the ones who believe in their Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jews who reject Christ are cut off from the spiritual tree of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They may share their genetic code, but they have forfeited all the promises God made to our patriarchs, because all those promises are fulfilled in Christ.
Gmc was so right when she gave the quote saying that the churches today don’t resemble the movement God designed and described in the Bible. Here’s the rub for Gentile Christians. Since Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and the fulfillment of all the promises God made to His people from Adam on, why doesn’t Christianity more resemble Judaism? The reason is simple. Most of the Christian churches have fallen into the same pit that the Israelites fell into in Old Testament times. When the Israelites mingled with the pagans around them, they adopted their practices. They started worshipping the same gods that the Pagans worshipped, and their religion became less and less pure and Biblical and more and more idolatrous and worldly. Guess what. The same thing has happened to the Christian churches in the era since the cross. As the message spread into pagan lands (Rome, for example) the churches forgot their purity and started incorporating more and more pagan sacraments and Greek philosophical ideas that have no biblical basis whatsoever into their theology, worship and practice.
Gmc: the early schisms you were talking about occurred because true believers saw how corrupted the church was becoming by paganism and tried to split off to pursue a purer, more biblical form of religion, in many cases only to find their own movements become corrupted again over time. Whenever churches follow men rather than Christ, they are bound to become corrupted, and to do the world around them more harm than good. There still are a few movements on earth that accurately understand the Bible and faithfully reflect Christ, but they are not in the majority. A “remnant,†according to Paul in Romans 11:5undefined
Christianity was not designed by the Master Designer to replace Judaism, but to be a continuity of His promises to mankind. Paul described what God intended Judaism and Christianity to be in Romans 11:17, and 15:12. Judaism is an olive tree. The Root of this tree is Christ. The Jews who rejected their Messiah were branches cut off from the olive tree. Gentiles who accepted Him were wild olive branches grafted on.
Paul elaborated on this in Romans 9:6-8 saying, “…not all who are descended from Israel are Israel,†in other words, not everyone physically born a Jew is really a spiritual Jew. In Romans 2:28,29 Paul wrote, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly…No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit.†And in Philippians 3:3 Paul spells out what circumcision really means: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“ In other words, Paul made it clear that circumcision was only a symbol of putting no confidence in the flesh (like, “I’m confident I’m saved because I was born a Jew,â€Â) But putting all our confidence in the Messiah. Paul made it clear that after Calvary the only true Jews are the ones who believe in their Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jews who reject Christ are cut off from the spiritual tree of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They may share their genetic code, but they have forfeited all the promises God made to our patriarchs, because all those promises are fulfilled in Christ.
Gmc was so right when she gave the quote saying that the churches today don’t resemble the movement God designed and described in the Bible. Here’s the rub for Gentile Christians. Since Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and the fulfillment of all the promises God made to His people from Adam on, why doesn’t Christianity more resemble Judaism? The reason is simple. Most of the Christian churches have fallen into the same pit that the Israelites fell into in Old Testament times. When the Israelites mingled with the pagans around them, they adopted their practices. They started worshipping the same gods that the Pagans worshipped, and their religion became less and less pure and Biblical and more and more idolatrous and worldly. Guess what. The same thing has happened to the Christian churches in the era since the cross. As the message spread into pagan lands (Rome, for example) the churches forgot their purity and started incorporating more and more pagan sacraments and Greek philosophical ideas that have no biblical basis whatsoever into their theology, worship and practice.
Gmc: the early schisms you were talking about occurred because true believers saw how corrupted the church was becoming by paganism and tried to split off to pursue a purer, more biblical form of religion, in many cases only to find their own movements become corrupted again over time. Whenever churches follow men rather than Christ, they are bound to become corrupted, and to do the world around them more harm than good. There still are a few movements on earth that accurately understand the Bible and faithfully reflect Christ, but they are not in the majority. A “remnant,†according to Paul in Romans 11:5undefined
Look what the cat dragged in.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Gmc: the early schisms you were talking about occurred because true believers saw how corrupted the church was becoming by paganism and tried to split off to pursue a purer, more biblical form of religion,
Can't say i agree with you. A lot of the reasons lie in the debate whether to be a follower of christ you had to be a jew first, paul thought not and in so doing won the arguement, if the requirement for circumcision for instance remained the take up of the new religon would never have happened, to the Romans, Greeks and everyone else such mutilation was an abhorrent practice. Paul was a Roman and a pagan before he met christ and knew how that would be looked upon and decided that being a christian didn't mean you had to be jewish first.
It's whether you think christianity is a religon on it's own or an offshoot of judaism, as the latter it would not have survived. The version of the crucificion we all were brought up to believe in does not stand up to scrutiny, Palestine was an occupied territory, part of the roman empire. On one level JC was just a troublemaker crucified to get rid of him by the romans. Paul put his own spin on it and blamed the jews therin lies centuries of prejudice.
On the other hand to me that doesn't necessarily detract from the reality of christ. Yes he did exist whether you believe he was the son of god is perhaps another question. It makes sense that paul would have to embellish the story to get his message about Jesus out
“For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“ In other words, Paul made it clear that circumcision was only a symbol of putting no confidence in the flesh (like, “I’m confident I’m saved because I was born a Jew,â€Â) But putting all our confidence in the Messiah. Paul made it clear that after Calvary the only true Jews are the ones who believe in their Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jews who reject Christ are cut off from the spiritual tree of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They may share their genetic code, but they have forfeited all the promises God made to our patriarchs, because all those promises are fulfilled in Christ.
You have to hand it to Paul he knew his audience, if the brothers of Christ had won the dabate christianity wiuld have been a historical footnote.
The early jews probably practiced child sacrifice, circumcision is a symbolic alternative or a practical hygenic move in a desert country take your pick.
The thing is are you a follower of christ or a believer in judaism, if a follower of christ how do you equate an eye for an eye with forgive trespassers against you? Seeing christians using the bible to justify their own prejudices against homosexuals, interracial marraiges, votes for women (pick a prejudice) does rather beg the question of whether they get christ's message. Love your fellow man except those ones who are different and you you don't approve of do not quite go hand in hand.
I'm afraid I equate fundamentalist of any religon with dangerous bigot. Any sympathy I mioght have disappears as soon as they try to get me to conform to their belief system.
Sunday worship is a good example, keep your day sacred just don't try and force me to join you, I don't believe what you do, respect my beliefs and I will respect yours.
Personally I find the belief in the old testament as the word of god unchanged from time beyond time patently ridiculous and a dangerous belief if those who believe it ever get in to a position of power. The most repressive regime you can have is a religious theocracy.
Clint: Thanks for the great thread! I love this particular topic.
So do I
What I find sad is that often the debate falls in to a kind of rabid ranting from both sides, believers and non believers, at the end of the day you can always just agree to disagree. But if it makes you think about what you believe than why is that a bad thing?
Can't say i agree with you. A lot of the reasons lie in the debate whether to be a follower of christ you had to be a jew first, paul thought not and in so doing won the arguement, if the requirement for circumcision for instance remained the take up of the new religon would never have happened, to the Romans, Greeks and everyone else such mutilation was an abhorrent practice. Paul was a Roman and a pagan before he met christ and knew how that would be looked upon and decided that being a christian didn't mean you had to be jewish first.
It's whether you think christianity is a religon on it's own or an offshoot of judaism, as the latter it would not have survived. The version of the crucificion we all were brought up to believe in does not stand up to scrutiny, Palestine was an occupied territory, part of the roman empire. On one level JC was just a troublemaker crucified to get rid of him by the romans. Paul put his own spin on it and blamed the jews therin lies centuries of prejudice.
On the other hand to me that doesn't necessarily detract from the reality of christ. Yes he did exist whether you believe he was the son of god is perhaps another question. It makes sense that paul would have to embellish the story to get his message about Jesus out
“For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“ In other words, Paul made it clear that circumcision was only a symbol of putting no confidence in the flesh (like, “I’m confident I’m saved because I was born a Jew,â€Â) But putting all our confidence in the Messiah. Paul made it clear that after Calvary the only true Jews are the ones who believe in their Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jews who reject Christ are cut off from the spiritual tree of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They may share their genetic code, but they have forfeited all the promises God made to our patriarchs, because all those promises are fulfilled in Christ.
You have to hand it to Paul he knew his audience, if the brothers of Christ had won the dabate christianity wiuld have been a historical footnote.
The early jews probably practiced child sacrifice, circumcision is a symbolic alternative or a practical hygenic move in a desert country take your pick.
The thing is are you a follower of christ or a believer in judaism, if a follower of christ how do you equate an eye for an eye with forgive trespassers against you? Seeing christians using the bible to justify their own prejudices against homosexuals, interracial marraiges, votes for women (pick a prejudice) does rather beg the question of whether they get christ's message. Love your fellow man except those ones who are different and you you don't approve of do not quite go hand in hand.
I'm afraid I equate fundamentalist of any religon with dangerous bigot. Any sympathy I mioght have disappears as soon as they try to get me to conform to their belief system.
Sunday worship is a good example, keep your day sacred just don't try and force me to join you, I don't believe what you do, respect my beliefs and I will respect yours.
Personally I find the belief in the old testament as the word of god unchanged from time beyond time patently ridiculous and a dangerous belief if those who believe it ever get in to a position of power. The most repressive regime you can have is a religious theocracy.
Clint: Thanks for the great thread! I love this particular topic.
So do I
What I find sad is that often the debate falls in to a kind of rabid ranting from both sides, believers and non believers, at the end of the day you can always just agree to disagree. But if it makes you think about what you believe than why is that a bad thing?
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Gmc: I enjoyed your post immensely! Just wanted to share a few ideas.
Paul never was a pagan. Before he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee (Acts 26:5, Phillipians 3:5), a student of Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3-5). He was the ringleader of the mob that stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1). He was a promising young Jewish scholar. Then he became a Christian, an Apostle, and wrote a large portion of the New Testament. Paul received his teaching by special revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:12). Peter regarded Paul’s writings as wisdom from God (2 Peter 3:15,16), so I don’t think he embellished or put a spin on anything.
I quoted Paul because as a great Jewish scholar, and New Testament writer, he was undoubtedly the best authority on what it means to be a Jew and what it means to be a Christian.
I misunderstood you when you wrote about schisms in the church. I immediately thought of Papal times. We agree that the church debated whether Gentile converts to Christianity had to first become Jews and keep the Law of Moses or not, but I did not think of that as a “schism,†because the church leaders met in Jerusalem and arrived at a consensus on the subject (Acts 15:4-29).
Christianity was at first regarded as a sect (Gk “hairesisâ€Â) of Judaism, same as the Pharisees (Acts 24:5 compare to Acts 26:5). I agree with you that it would not have survived, because the pure form the Apostles taught did not really survive. As you pointed out before the modern church is very unlike the Church as described in the Bible.
When Jews sacrificed child sacrifice they were not practicing the religion God intended, but Paganism. (Jeremiah 32:25) As far as Roman or Greek attitudes toward circumcision, I don’t know what contemporary writers to study about it, but it’s human nature for cultures to view other cultures whose habits differ from theirs with skepticism.
No one is supposed to use the Bible to support any prejudice- that’s not what it’s for. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.†(2 Timothy 3:16)
Gmc, a person who tries to force anyone to conform to their belief system is worse than a bigot. But is it bigotry to try to pursuade someone? Then all the Apostles were bigots. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19,20, to “…go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.†Then was Jesus a bigot? Are we bigots for trying to do what He told us to do? I hope not!
As far as Sabbath-keepers trying to force you to keep the Sabbath, excuse me, but it’s the other way around. I and others like me have lost our jobs because we kept the Sabbath. There are Sunday laws on the books in many states. The Pope has called all Christians to lobby for Sunday legislation. I would never advocate forcing a style of worship on anyone. Worship is personal and voluntary. But ask me what the Bible says about it and I will tell you what the Bible says so it won’t be my own prejudice or opinion. I respect Sunday Christians and can’t imagine Heaven without them- all of the Christians in my family are Sunday Christians.
My older sister is an accomplished Pagan- I love her dearly, and we talk about our beliefs freely without arguing.
Gmc, reject the Old Testament if you wish, but Jesus rested his authority on it (John 5:46,47, Acts 10:43, etc.). When one reads the Old Testament with the understanding that God never changed, one gets a completely different picture- a more beautiful and loving picture of God. For example, “an eye for an eye,†wasn’t a command for revenge, it was what we would call “Tort Reform.†Moses was saying, that if you insist on suing someone, don’t sue them for more damages than they have caused you to suffer. Sometimes it’s a long story, but there is always a good reason for everything God did in the Old Testament.
Theocracy- (shudder!) definitely the worst form of government on earth, because it is mere imperfect men ruling over others as if they were God. The Evangelical Christian right- they make me ill!- are trying to do just this. Many non-Christians try to lump all of us Christians in with the Evangelicals. Now that would be prejudiced and bigoted. Just because someone believes everything the Bible says and tries to live it, and in a loving way try to persuade others of it doesn’t mean they are a bigot or a theocrat. See how many things we agreed upon!
Paul never was a pagan. Before he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee (Acts 26:5, Phillipians 3:5), a student of Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3-5). He was the ringleader of the mob that stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1). He was a promising young Jewish scholar. Then he became a Christian, an Apostle, and wrote a large portion of the New Testament. Paul received his teaching by special revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:12). Peter regarded Paul’s writings as wisdom from God (2 Peter 3:15,16), so I don’t think he embellished or put a spin on anything.
I quoted Paul because as a great Jewish scholar, and New Testament writer, he was undoubtedly the best authority on what it means to be a Jew and what it means to be a Christian.
I misunderstood you when you wrote about schisms in the church. I immediately thought of Papal times. We agree that the church debated whether Gentile converts to Christianity had to first become Jews and keep the Law of Moses or not, but I did not think of that as a “schism,†because the church leaders met in Jerusalem and arrived at a consensus on the subject (Acts 15:4-29).
Christianity was at first regarded as a sect (Gk “hairesisâ€Â) of Judaism, same as the Pharisees (Acts 24:5 compare to Acts 26:5). I agree with you that it would not have survived, because the pure form the Apostles taught did not really survive. As you pointed out before the modern church is very unlike the Church as described in the Bible.
When Jews sacrificed child sacrifice they were not practicing the religion God intended, but Paganism. (Jeremiah 32:25) As far as Roman or Greek attitudes toward circumcision, I don’t know what contemporary writers to study about it, but it’s human nature for cultures to view other cultures whose habits differ from theirs with skepticism.
No one is supposed to use the Bible to support any prejudice- that’s not what it’s for. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.†(2 Timothy 3:16)
Gmc, a person who tries to force anyone to conform to their belief system is worse than a bigot. But is it bigotry to try to pursuade someone? Then all the Apostles were bigots. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19,20, to “…go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.†Then was Jesus a bigot? Are we bigots for trying to do what He told us to do? I hope not!
As far as Sabbath-keepers trying to force you to keep the Sabbath, excuse me, but it’s the other way around. I and others like me have lost our jobs because we kept the Sabbath. There are Sunday laws on the books in many states. The Pope has called all Christians to lobby for Sunday legislation. I would never advocate forcing a style of worship on anyone. Worship is personal and voluntary. But ask me what the Bible says about it and I will tell you what the Bible says so it won’t be my own prejudice or opinion. I respect Sunday Christians and can’t imagine Heaven without them- all of the Christians in my family are Sunday Christians.
My older sister is an accomplished Pagan- I love her dearly, and we talk about our beliefs freely without arguing.
Gmc, reject the Old Testament if you wish, but Jesus rested his authority on it (John 5:46,47, Acts 10:43, etc.). When one reads the Old Testament with the understanding that God never changed, one gets a completely different picture- a more beautiful and loving picture of God. For example, “an eye for an eye,†wasn’t a command for revenge, it was what we would call “Tort Reform.†Moses was saying, that if you insist on suing someone, don’t sue them for more damages than they have caused you to suffer. Sometimes it’s a long story, but there is always a good reason for everything God did in the Old Testament.
Theocracy- (shudder!) definitely the worst form of government on earth, because it is mere imperfect men ruling over others as if they were God. The Evangelical Christian right- they make me ill!- are trying to do just this. Many non-Christians try to lump all of us Christians in with the Evangelicals. Now that would be prejudiced and bigoted. Just because someone believes everything the Bible says and tries to live it, and in a loving way try to persuade others of it doesn’t mean they are a bigot or a theocrat. See how many things we agreed upon!
Look what the cat dragged in.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Paul never was a pagan. Before he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee (Acts 26:5, Phillipians 3:5), a student of Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3-5). He was the ringleader of the mob that stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1). He was a promising young Jewish scholar.
O.K. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, I knew he was a roman citizen so I assumed he was pagan, must have been a collaborator though. The spin I referred to was the the emphasis of the part the Romans played to shift the blame on to the jews.
As far as Roman or Greek attitudes toward circumcision, I don’t know what contemporary writers to study about it, but it’s human nature for cultures to view other cultures whose habits differ from theirs with skepticism.
They saw it as mutilation and therefore abhorrent. Let's face it as an adult would you want to?
From the Oxford English dictionary
bigot // n.
an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.
bigotry n.
[16th c. from French: origin unknown]
bigoted // adj.
unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.
Gmc, a person who tries to force anyone to conform to their belief system is worse than a bigot. But is it bigotry to try to pursuade someone?
The semantic differences between english and american english are a forum subject on their own.
I mean bigot in the above sense with the emphasis on the intolerance. Trying to persuade someone to your belief is not bigotry. setting fire to them because they are different religons is. Bigot is not a word that could be applied to a true follower of christ or Islam come to that. I happen to live in an area where sectarianism still has a hold, the blind hatred I always find shocking. Religious intolerance towards muslims is growing in this country as are attacks on them.at least it unites the protestant bigots with the catrholic bigots against a common enemy.
irony1 // n. (pl. -ies)
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
(I'm told americans don't understand irony so I thought a definition might help just in case you think I'm being serious)
Gmc, reject the Old Testament if you wish, but Jesus rested his authority on it
Glad to see you are not bigoted about it
Reject is the wrong word, i just don't believe it is the word of god but rather the record of primitive people coming to terms with the world about them, in a harsh environment where fate is fickle a harsh god must be all to believeable.
The so called apocalyptic prophecies I think may be written accounts of oral history of people passing down what they have seen to their descendants. It makes a lot more sense than them being prophecies.
O.K. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, I knew he was a roman citizen so I assumed he was pagan, must have been a collaborator though. The spin I referred to was the the emphasis of the part the Romans played to shift the blame on to the jews.
As far as Roman or Greek attitudes toward circumcision, I don’t know what contemporary writers to study about it, but it’s human nature for cultures to view other cultures whose habits differ from theirs with skepticism.
They saw it as mutilation and therefore abhorrent. Let's face it as an adult would you want to?
From the Oxford English dictionary
bigot // n.
an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.
bigotry n.
[16th c. from French: origin unknown]
bigoted // adj.
unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.
Gmc, a person who tries to force anyone to conform to their belief system is worse than a bigot. But is it bigotry to try to pursuade someone?
The semantic differences between english and american english are a forum subject on their own.
I mean bigot in the above sense with the emphasis on the intolerance. Trying to persuade someone to your belief is not bigotry. setting fire to them because they are different religons is. Bigot is not a word that could be applied to a true follower of christ or Islam come to that. I happen to live in an area where sectarianism still has a hold, the blind hatred I always find shocking. Religious intolerance towards muslims is growing in this country as are attacks on them.at least it unites the protestant bigots with the catrholic bigots against a common enemy.
irony1 // n. (pl. -ies)
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
(I'm told americans don't understand irony so I thought a definition might help just in case you think I'm being serious)
Gmc, reject the Old Testament if you wish, but Jesus rested his authority on it
Glad to see you are not bigoted about it
Reject is the wrong word, i just don't believe it is the word of god but rather the record of primitive people coming to terms with the world about them, in a harsh environment where fate is fickle a harsh god must be all to believeable.
The so called apocalyptic prophecies I think may be written accounts of oral history of people passing down what they have seen to their descendants. It makes a lot more sense than them being prophecies.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Gmc: you don’t have to be a bible scholar to talk to threads on “Christian†subjects. You make some good points Christians need to hear.
By the time I learned about circumcision, if I had wanted to opt out, it was way too late. In California in 1955 it was done to all male infants.
Back on the subject. In a way Paul imitated Moses. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, and found the people dancing around the golden calf, He went back to God and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin--but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." (Exodus 32:31,32).
Paul showed the same attitude when he wrote in Romans 9:3,4, “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel…†As it happens, Paul was arrested while trying to make friends among the Jews at the temple in Jerusalem. They accused him of bringing an uncircumcised Gentile into the temple courts and so, defiling the place. This began a series of legal battles, with Paul in the custody of the Romans (to protect him from the Jews he was trying to save). He appealed to Caesar. In the end He was beheaded in a Roman prison. Paul was okay with that.
This sort of flies in the face of most people’s concept of Christianity, as something people grab on to in hopes of saving their necks. Moses and Paul were willing to suffer- even be lost if it meant their people could be saved.
If Christians aspire to “take the place of Judaism,†in a godly sense, we should be quicker to bear the burden of others, instead of expecting them to bear the burden of accommodating us.
By the time I learned about circumcision, if I had wanted to opt out, it was way too late. In California in 1955 it was done to all male infants.
Back on the subject. In a way Paul imitated Moses. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, and found the people dancing around the golden calf, He went back to God and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin--but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." (Exodus 32:31,32).
Paul showed the same attitude when he wrote in Romans 9:3,4, “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel…†As it happens, Paul was arrested while trying to make friends among the Jews at the temple in Jerusalem. They accused him of bringing an uncircumcised Gentile into the temple courts and so, defiling the place. This began a series of legal battles, with Paul in the custody of the Romans (to protect him from the Jews he was trying to save). He appealed to Caesar. In the end He was beheaded in a Roman prison. Paul was okay with that.
This sort of flies in the face of most people’s concept of Christianity, as something people grab on to in hopes of saving their necks. Moses and Paul were willing to suffer- even be lost if it meant their people could be saved.
If Christians aspire to “take the place of Judaism,†in a godly sense, we should be quicker to bear the burden of others, instead of expecting them to bear the burden of accommodating us.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
I wanted to recommend to anyone who is interested in this subject an excellent website:
www.btlministries.org
There are fascinating insights on Christian faith from understanding the Jewish background of some things in Scripture. Check it out! :-6
www.btlministries.org
There are fascinating insights on Christian faith from understanding the Jewish background of some things in Scripture. Check it out! :-6
Look what the cat dragged in.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Drivers were speeding by the school and parents became fearful for their children’s safety. They went to the City Council who debated the need to reduce speed. Finally, they concluded that the speed should be 20mph in the school zone. The police, understanding that the spirit of the law was to reduce speed, only wrote tickets to those who drove dangerously fast. Years later, those police officers had retired and new ones took their place. The new officers knew nothing of the spirit of the law and began writing tickets for 21mph based on the letter of the law.
Jesus put a great deal of effort into trying to get the legalists of the day to understand the spirit of God’s laws. He wanted both them and us today to understand that the laws are for our good and we should follow them understanding that.
In Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua said exactly what he meant regarding the Law. He went so far as to say that; “…until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,...â€Â.
Paul was an observant Jew who went to great lengths and expense to be sure everyone understood that he was. It wasn’t until the Crusade loving Romans had a political need to control the Jews that the “church’ began ignoring the Law. What we see today, is a distorted view of what the followers of The Christ, during and immediately after His incarnation were like.
Jesus put a great deal of effort into trying to get the legalists of the day to understand the spirit of God’s laws. He wanted both them and us today to understand that the laws are for our good and we should follow them understanding that.
In Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua said exactly what he meant regarding the Law. He went so far as to say that; “…until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,...â€Â.
Paul was an observant Jew who went to great lengths and expense to be sure everyone understood that he was. It wasn’t until the Crusade loving Romans had a political need to control the Jews that the “church’ began ignoring the Law. What we see today, is a distorted view of what the followers of The Christ, during and immediately after His incarnation were like.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Clint wrote: Drivers were speeding by the school and parents became fearful for their children’s safety. They went to the City Council who debated the need to reduce speed. Finally, they concluded that the speed should be 20mph in the school zone. The police, understanding that the spirit of the law was to reduce speed, only wrote tickets to those who drove dangerously fast. Years later, those police officers had retired and new ones took their place. The new officers knew nothing of the spirit of the law and began writing tickets for 21mph based on the letter of the law.
Jesus put a great deal of effort into trying to get the legalists of the day to understand the spirit of God’s laws. He wanted both them and us today to understand that the laws are for our good and we should follow them understanding that.
In Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua said exactly what he meant regarding the Law. He went so far as to say that; “…until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,...”.
Paul was an observant Jew who went to great lengths and expense to be sure everyone understood that he was. It wasn’t until the Crusade loving Romans had a political need to control the Jews that the “church’ began ignoring the Law. What we see today, is a distorted view of what the followers of The Christ, during and immediately after His incarnation were like.
Your right, the law shall not pass, but its condemnation of us will pass. The law was given to us as a schoolmaster. It taught us what sin was, for without the law we would not have known sin. It in fact made us sin more and actually drove us further away from God in that what we could not perform under the law, we added laws we could.. a system of do's and dont's. The law condemned us but Christ fulfilled the law in that he prefected us apart from the law. What the law could not do, he did. He made us free from the ordinances of man which "became" the law. As the Father said.."I will put and write my words on the fleshy tablet of their hearts and not on stone." Im sure that is in response to.."They do always honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.", which is the condition that the law produced.
Jesus put a great deal of effort into trying to get the legalists of the day to understand the spirit of God’s laws. He wanted both them and us today to understand that the laws are for our good and we should follow them understanding that.
In Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua said exactly what he meant regarding the Law. He went so far as to say that; “…until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,...”.
Paul was an observant Jew who went to great lengths and expense to be sure everyone understood that he was. It wasn’t until the Crusade loving Romans had a political need to control the Jews that the “church’ began ignoring the Law. What we see today, is a distorted view of what the followers of The Christ, during and immediately after His incarnation were like.
Your right, the law shall not pass, but its condemnation of us will pass. The law was given to us as a schoolmaster. It taught us what sin was, for without the law we would not have known sin. It in fact made us sin more and actually drove us further away from God in that what we could not perform under the law, we added laws we could.. a system of do's and dont's. The law condemned us but Christ fulfilled the law in that he prefected us apart from the law. What the law could not do, he did. He made us free from the ordinances of man which "became" the law. As the Father said.."I will put and write my words on the fleshy tablet of their hearts and not on stone." Im sure that is in response to.."They do always honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.", which is the condition that the law produced.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
gabrell wrote: Your right, the law shall not pass, but its condemnation of us will pass.
One small correction please, I’m not right, it was Yeshua who said it. Just because the law is written on my heart doesn’t mean that it no longer exists. It means that it is written on stone, paper and my heart.
If you are one who argues that because of the popular definition of, “we are no longer under condemnation†we need only go along for the ride, please explain Revelation 22:2.
One small correction please, I’m not right, it was Yeshua who said it. Just because the law is written on my heart doesn’t mean that it no longer exists. It means that it is written on stone, paper and my heart.
If you are one who argues that because of the popular definition of, “we are no longer under condemnation†we need only go along for the ride, please explain Revelation 22:2.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Clint wrote: One small correction please, I’m not right, it was Yeshua who said it. Just because the law is written on my heart doesn’t mean that it no longer exists. It means that it is written on stone, paper and my heart.
If you are one who argues that because of the popular definition of, “we are no longer under condemnation†we need only go along for the ride, please explain Revelation 22:2.
more than not being under condemnation of the law, we are now free to live by faith...which the law did not allow...
in Galatians, the word of
God says... "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
*****************************************************************
Like I said, no longer under the law..the law cannot justify you, because you cannot keep the law..
As far as a ride??? Ya,... i guess you can say that..i wouldnt use those words...but feel free to. I have family that still follow many of points of the law and who have faith in Jesus Christ, but they are clear that their keeping of the law is not what justifies them in the sight of God...its their faith in His death on the crooss to be the sin offering for them...that this is the means God has chosen to justify us and sanctify us.
If you are one who argues that because of the popular definition of, “we are no longer under condemnation†we need only go along for the ride, please explain Revelation 22:2.
more than not being under condemnation of the law, we are now free to live by faith...which the law did not allow...
in Galatians, the word of
God says... "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
*****************************************************************
Like I said, no longer under the law..the law cannot justify you, because you cannot keep the law..
As far as a ride??? Ya,... i guess you can say that..i wouldnt use those words...but feel free to. I have family that still follow many of points of the law and who have faith in Jesus Christ, but they are clear that their keeping of the law is not what justifies them in the sight of God...its their faith in His death on the crooss to be the sin offering for them...that this is the means God has chosen to justify us and sanctify us.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
gabrell wrote: more than not being under condemnation of the law, we are now free to live by faith...which the law did not allow...
In my view, you are right when you say that we are not saved by the law. We are saved by the sacrifice Yeshua made. However, He did not come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it, which means He was the One the Torah spoke of and the Prophets said was coming. He completed or fulfilled Torah (Law). The "Law" is the Torah or the first five books of the Bible, not just some rules so many have come to beleive are the "Law".
You say the law didn’t allow us to live by faith. Tell that to Abraham.
What changed with the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah was that the Law (Torah) was brought to life by Him. He is a continuation of it, not the end of it. The just, just like Abraham, will live by faith. Yeshua ha Machseyah (Jesus the Messiah) taught the law then put it into action by providing the ultimate sacrifice. People before He came were saved by faith, looking forward to Him and we are saved by looking back to when He came and forward to when He comes again.
Faith without works is dead. Works proceed from faith…they don’t replace it. We know our works are acceptable by the law written on stone, paper and our hearts…the same law. Yeshua taught us the spirit of that law so we are not bound by the letter of it.
In my view, you are right when you say that we are not saved by the law. We are saved by the sacrifice Yeshua made. However, He did not come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it, which means He was the One the Torah spoke of and the Prophets said was coming. He completed or fulfilled Torah (Law). The "Law" is the Torah or the first five books of the Bible, not just some rules so many have come to beleive are the "Law".
You say the law didn’t allow us to live by faith. Tell that to Abraham.
What changed with the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah was that the Law (Torah) was brought to life by Him. He is a continuation of it, not the end of it. The just, just like Abraham, will live by faith. Yeshua ha Machseyah (Jesus the Messiah) taught the law then put it into action by providing the ultimate sacrifice. People before He came were saved by faith, looking forward to Him and we are saved by looking back to when He came and forward to when He comes again.
Faith without works is dead. Works proceed from faith…they don’t replace it. We know our works are acceptable by the law written on stone, paper and our hearts…the same law. Yeshua taught us the spirit of that law so we are not bound by the letter of it.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
jarofcandy wrote:
He fulfilled the need for the Holy days because they exist simply to remind followers of God what was done for them in the past. (Ref- Lev chap23-25, Gal chap4). When He sent us the Holy Spirit they were no longer needed to remind us. The important thing to remember is that the Gods Word is not contradictory. It all compliments itself. The plan of God was never to send His Son to die on the Cross. In Genesis He made Adam and Eve to have a relationship with. They were perfect beings, whole in every aspect of existence. When they chose of their own free will to disobey what God had told them and follow what Satan had told them they became Knowledgeable of what Good an Evil was. That is when sin entered the human race. Because God can have no part of sin he was unable to commune with them the way He once had. His motive behind doing everything He did from that time on was so He could have a relationship with His Creation once more. That is why He had to send His Son to the Cross. To reestablish a heart relationship with His Creation. To nullify the effects of sin on our eternal destiny.
For you to believe that the Old Testament is of God. You have to take with it the unparralled 360 prophecies that point to the existence and work of Jesus Christ.(All of which are accurate) For you to take the Existence of Jesus and His work you also have to take with it the completeness of redemption which fulfills the Law and allows us to have a personal relationship that teaches us specifics of what He intends to do in our life.
God entire plan was centered around us having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
In fact if you pray the sinners prayer you can have that.
It goes like this:
Dear Jesus,
I acknowledge that I am a sinner. I ask you forgive me of my sin. Come into my life. I believe you lived 2000 years ago, that you shed your blood on the cross for sin, that you rose from the dead for my victory. I make confession with my mouth, and I believe in my heart that you are my Lord and Savior.
In Jesus Name Amen.
I agree on one thing. Sacrifices are no longer called for because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. The sacrifices that preceded Yeshua were for the purpose of preparing the people for the sacrifice to come. If sacrifices occur in the future they will also point to Yeshua and what He has done for us. Sacrificing points to Yeshua in spite of the intent of those doing the sacrificing.
Yeshua didn’t fulfill the need for Holy Days. He brought additional meaning to them and they give additional meaning and understanding regarding Him. Yeshua was observant of the Holy Days just as His disciples were. There is no better depiction of His life, death and resurrection than in the feast of the Passover. It is not coincidence that the so called “last supper†was actually the Passover Seder.
You reference Lev. 23. Read that chapter and see how many times God say these are “perpetual statutesâ€Â. I know what perpetual means and I also know that my God never changes.
My challenge to you is to find the command by Yeshua (the only one with enough authority to rescind a statute) to stop observing Holy Days. I further challenge you to find a command from God for the holidays the Church observes today. I can tell you without hesitation that I give the most credence to the Holy Days God commanded.
About that sinner's prayer you quoted. Where do I find that in the Bible? You quoted it like it was canonized. You also implied that I had a need to use it. It's a pretty good format for someone accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior but it isn't the only prayer that will work. I've been blessed with the opportunity to assist a quit a few folks in that process and it is as individual and personal as the relationship we have with our Lord once we are saved.
He fulfilled the need for the Holy days because they exist simply to remind followers of God what was done for them in the past. (Ref- Lev chap23-25, Gal chap4). When He sent us the Holy Spirit they were no longer needed to remind us. The important thing to remember is that the Gods Word is not contradictory. It all compliments itself. The plan of God was never to send His Son to die on the Cross. In Genesis He made Adam and Eve to have a relationship with. They were perfect beings, whole in every aspect of existence. When they chose of their own free will to disobey what God had told them and follow what Satan had told them they became Knowledgeable of what Good an Evil was. That is when sin entered the human race. Because God can have no part of sin he was unable to commune with them the way He once had. His motive behind doing everything He did from that time on was so He could have a relationship with His Creation once more. That is why He had to send His Son to the Cross. To reestablish a heart relationship with His Creation. To nullify the effects of sin on our eternal destiny.
For you to believe that the Old Testament is of God. You have to take with it the unparralled 360 prophecies that point to the existence and work of Jesus Christ.(All of which are accurate) For you to take the Existence of Jesus and His work you also have to take with it the completeness of redemption which fulfills the Law and allows us to have a personal relationship that teaches us specifics of what He intends to do in our life.
God entire plan was centered around us having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
In fact if you pray the sinners prayer you can have that.
It goes like this:
Dear Jesus,
I acknowledge that I am a sinner. I ask you forgive me of my sin. Come into my life. I believe you lived 2000 years ago, that you shed your blood on the cross for sin, that you rose from the dead for my victory. I make confession with my mouth, and I believe in my heart that you are my Lord and Savior.
In Jesus Name Amen.
I agree on one thing. Sacrifices are no longer called for because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. The sacrifices that preceded Yeshua were for the purpose of preparing the people for the sacrifice to come. If sacrifices occur in the future they will also point to Yeshua and what He has done for us. Sacrificing points to Yeshua in spite of the intent of those doing the sacrificing.
Yeshua didn’t fulfill the need for Holy Days. He brought additional meaning to them and they give additional meaning and understanding regarding Him. Yeshua was observant of the Holy Days just as His disciples were. There is no better depiction of His life, death and resurrection than in the feast of the Passover. It is not coincidence that the so called “last supper†was actually the Passover Seder.
You reference Lev. 23. Read that chapter and see how many times God say these are “perpetual statutesâ€Â. I know what perpetual means and I also know that my God never changes.
My challenge to you is to find the command by Yeshua (the only one with enough authority to rescind a statute) to stop observing Holy Days. I further challenge you to find a command from God for the holidays the Church observes today. I can tell you without hesitation that I give the most credence to the Holy Days God commanded.
About that sinner's prayer you quoted. Where do I find that in the Bible? You quoted it like it was canonized. You also implied that I had a need to use it. It's a pretty good format for someone accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior but it isn't the only prayer that will work. I've been blessed with the opportunity to assist a quit a few folks in that process and it is as individual and personal as the relationship we have with our Lord once we are saved.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
jarofcandy wrote:
He fulfilled the need for the Holy days because they exist simply to remind followers of God what was done for them in the past. (Ref- Lev chap23-25, Gal chap4). When He sent us the Holy Spirit they were no longer needed to remind us. The important thing to remember is that the Gods Word is not contradictory. It all compliments itself. The plan of God was never to send His Son to die on the Cross.
Interesting, Jarocandy. I just wanted to add a little to what you've said.
Somewhere in Revelation, Jesus is referred to as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Maybe you'll agree with me that God foreknew the sin problem, and that Jesus volunteered Himself to be the sacrifice that takes away the sins of the whole world, even before Eden and the fall.
I agree with you about the annual holy days, like Pesach, Succoth, Yom Kippur- are no longer required for believers to observe. But not all of them describe only what God has done for His people in the past. The Spring festivals do represent events in the ministry of Jesus which have been fulfilled, but the Fall festivals prophetically prefigure events that are ongoing now or yet to be fulfilled. Consider the seven sanctuary scenes in the Book of Revelation. The sanctuary service, and the festivals that revolved around it were teaching tools God used to show His ancient people the gospel. One cannot rightly interpret Revelation without a full understanding of the sanctuary and the significance of those festivals. We may not keep those ceremonial laws, but there remains a prophetic significance in them that God provided to the ancients and us moderns alike, to help us better understand His Word and our destiny. :rolleyes:
He fulfilled the need for the Holy days because they exist simply to remind followers of God what was done for them in the past. (Ref- Lev chap23-25, Gal chap4). When He sent us the Holy Spirit they were no longer needed to remind us. The important thing to remember is that the Gods Word is not contradictory. It all compliments itself. The plan of God was never to send His Son to die on the Cross.
Interesting, Jarocandy. I just wanted to add a little to what you've said.
Somewhere in Revelation, Jesus is referred to as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Maybe you'll agree with me that God foreknew the sin problem, and that Jesus volunteered Himself to be the sacrifice that takes away the sins of the whole world, even before Eden and the fall.
I agree with you about the annual holy days, like Pesach, Succoth, Yom Kippur- are no longer required for believers to observe. But not all of them describe only what God has done for His people in the past. The Spring festivals do represent events in the ministry of Jesus which have been fulfilled, but the Fall festivals prophetically prefigure events that are ongoing now or yet to be fulfilled. Consider the seven sanctuary scenes in the Book of Revelation. The sanctuary service, and the festivals that revolved around it were teaching tools God used to show His ancient people the gospel. One cannot rightly interpret Revelation without a full understanding of the sanctuary and the significance of those festivals. We may not keep those ceremonial laws, but there remains a prophetic significance in them that God provided to the ancients and us moderns alike, to help us better understand His Word and our destiny. :rolleyes:
Look what the cat dragged in.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Clint wrote: In my view, you are right when you say that we are not saved by the law. We are saved by the sacrifice Yeshua made. However, He did not come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it, which means He was the One the Torah spoke of and the Prophets said was coming. He completed or fulfilled Torah (Law). The "Law" is the Torah or the first five books of the Bible, not just some rules so many have come to beleive are the "Law".
You say the law didn’t allow us to live by faith. Tell that to Abraham.
What changed with the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah was that the Law (Torah) was brought to life by Him. He is a continuation of it, not the end of it. The just, just like Abraham, will live by faith. Yeshua ha Machseyah (Jesus the Messiah) taught the law then put it into action by providing the ultimate sacrifice. People before He came were saved by faith, looking forward to Him and we are saved by looking back to when He came and forward to when He comes again.
Faith without works is dead. Works proceed from faith…they don’t replace it. We know our works are acceptable by the law written on stone, paper and our hearts…the same law. Yeshua taught us the spirit of that law so we are not bound by the letter of it.
i agree with all you wrote..yes. Abraham was indeed saved by faith..he and a few others got it (understood).
You say the law didn’t allow us to live by faith. Tell that to Abraham.
What changed with the arrival of Yeshua the Messiah was that the Law (Torah) was brought to life by Him. He is a continuation of it, not the end of it. The just, just like Abraham, will live by faith. Yeshua ha Machseyah (Jesus the Messiah) taught the law then put it into action by providing the ultimate sacrifice. People before He came were saved by faith, looking forward to Him and we are saved by looking back to when He came and forward to when He comes again.
Faith without works is dead. Works proceed from faith…they don’t replace it. We know our works are acceptable by the law written on stone, paper and our hearts…the same law. Yeshua taught us the spirit of that law so we are not bound by the letter of it.
i agree with all you wrote..yes. Abraham was indeed saved by faith..he and a few others got it (understood).
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
The story of Adam and Eve is pure myth.
The Bible was not written to be a history book it was and is purely and religious book though it does contain some kernels of history. The Bible was written in a style called Midrash and also metaphor. When one understands this then a literal reading of the Bible is simply not appropriate. It does not get at the very powerful truths found in the Bible. In fact as Midrash the Bible is far more powerful then as history.
Shalom
Ted
The Bible was not written to be a history book it was and is purely and religious book though it does contain some kernels of history. The Bible was written in a style called Midrash and also metaphor. When one understands this then a literal reading of the Bible is simply not appropriate. It does not get at the very powerful truths found in the Bible. In fact as Midrash the Bible is far more powerful then as history.
Shalom
Ted
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Jaro :-6
"The the Bible is an historical book," does not stand up to the scruitiny of its discrepencies and inconsistencies both internal and external. The archaeological record does not support the premise that the Bible is historically accurate. What it does support is that there are kernels of history in the BIble.
One example: though I could give many is the fact that there was no Exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible. It simply did not happen that way.
The Bible is made up of myth(which has a particular meaning in literary history), legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, some history etc. It is also written in a particular way that the ancient Jews used to write in called Midrash. It contains a great deal of metaphor. In fact the Bible is mostly Midrash. As such it is somewhat if not impossible to understand and certainly loses much of its power when read without that knowledge.
A second example is that the Birst stories of Jesus are midrashic and not meant to be taken as history. This does not demean the story but in fact makes it even more powerful.
Shalom
Ted :-6
"The the Bible is an historical book," does not stand up to the scruitiny of its discrepencies and inconsistencies both internal and external. The archaeological record does not support the premise that the Bible is historically accurate. What it does support is that there are kernels of history in the BIble.
One example: though I could give many is the fact that there was no Exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible. It simply did not happen that way.
The Bible is made up of myth(which has a particular meaning in literary history), legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, some history etc. It is also written in a particular way that the ancient Jews used to write in called Midrash. It contains a great deal of metaphor. In fact the Bible is mostly Midrash. As such it is somewhat if not impossible to understand and certainly loses much of its power when read without that knowledge.
A second example is that the Birst stories of Jesus are midrashic and not meant to be taken as history. This does not demean the story but in fact makes it even more powerful.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Jaro :-6
Regarding your web sites: I've been there and done that. The latest scholarship leaves no doubt about the lack of correspondence between the Bible and the Archaeology.
This is not just my opinion but the opinion of a great many Biblical scholars from around the world some of whom are known by myself personally.
Now I make no pretense to know everything but my formal training has convinced me that this is the correct approach. I am trained in translating and interpreting both Hebrew and Greek and in Biblical HIstory. I've spent many years in both formal and informal studies. I have spent many years in discussions with theologians and Biblical scholars. I was invited to participate in an archaeological dig in the Holy Land. However, dure to lack of cash, which happens to most students I was unable to go. I was also invited to participate in the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However in this case my career took a different turn.
I will draw to your attention the latest publication concerning the archaeology of the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both obviously Jewish and both along with many other scholars who have pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible.
At any rate the Midrashic understanding of the BIble makes all of this unimportant and inconsequential since it does not denegrate the powerful messages to be found in the Bible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Regarding your web sites: I've been there and done that. The latest scholarship leaves no doubt about the lack of correspondence between the Bible and the Archaeology.
This is not just my opinion but the opinion of a great many Biblical scholars from around the world some of whom are known by myself personally.
Now I make no pretense to know everything but my formal training has convinced me that this is the correct approach. I am trained in translating and interpreting both Hebrew and Greek and in Biblical HIstory. I've spent many years in both formal and informal studies. I have spent many years in discussions with theologians and Biblical scholars. I was invited to participate in an archaeological dig in the Holy Land. However, dure to lack of cash, which happens to most students I was unable to go. I was also invited to participate in the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However in this case my career took a different turn.
I will draw to your attention the latest publication concerning the archaeology of the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both obviously Jewish and both along with many other scholars who have pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible.
At any rate the Midrashic understanding of the BIble makes all of this unimportant and inconsequential since it does not denegrate the powerful messages to be found in the Bible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Ted wrote: Jaro :-6
Regarding your web sites: I've been there and done that. The latest scholarship leaves no doubt about the lack of correspondence between the Bible and the Archaeology.
This is not just my opinion but the opinion of a great many Biblical scholars from around the world some of whom are known by myself personally.
Now I make no pretense to know everything but my formal training has convinced me that this is the correct approach. I am trained in translating and interpreting both Hebrew and Greek and in Biblical HIstory. I've spent many years in both formal and informal studies. I have spent many years in discussions with theologians and Biblical scholars. I was invited to participate in an archaeological dig in the Holy Land. However, dure to lack of cash, which happens to most students I was unable to go. I was also invited to participate in the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However in this case my career took a different turn.
I will draw to your attention the latest publication concerning the archaeology of the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both obviously Jewish and both along with many other scholars who have pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible.
At any rate the Midrashic understanding of the BIble makes all of this unimportant and inconsequential since it does not denegrate the powerful messages to be found in the Bible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
not one shred of evidence yet... many aspects of the bible have been proven by archeology, for example... there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate was gov. of judea until an archeological dig proved so... There are many such discoveries the have substantiated biblical truths..enough to allow any student of the bible to have confidence. If I am not mistaken, there is very little proof that Shakespear actually wrote any of the works we ascribe to him but...
Regarding your web sites: I've been there and done that. The latest scholarship leaves no doubt about the lack of correspondence between the Bible and the Archaeology.
This is not just my opinion but the opinion of a great many Biblical scholars from around the world some of whom are known by myself personally.
Now I make no pretense to know everything but my formal training has convinced me that this is the correct approach. I am trained in translating and interpreting both Hebrew and Greek and in Biblical HIstory. I've spent many years in both formal and informal studies. I have spent many years in discussions with theologians and Biblical scholars. I was invited to participate in an archaeological dig in the Holy Land. However, dure to lack of cash, which happens to most students I was unable to go. I was also invited to participate in the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However in this case my career took a different turn.
I will draw to your attention the latest publication concerning the archaeology of the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. Both obviously Jewish and both along with many other scholars who have pointed out that there is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written in the Bible.
At any rate the Midrashic understanding of the BIble makes all of this unimportant and inconsequential since it does not denegrate the powerful messages to be found in the Bible.
Shalom
Ted :-6
not one shred of evidence yet... many aspects of the bible have been proven by archeology, for example... there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate was gov. of judea until an archeological dig proved so... There are many such discoveries the have substantiated biblical truths..enough to allow any student of the bible to have confidence. If I am not mistaken, there is very little proof that Shakespear actually wrote any of the works we ascribe to him but...
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Jaro :-6
I have absolutely no problem with you believing as you do. I understand from what you have said that you would identify with the phrase a transforming relationship with the risen living Lord. Thereto is my faith.
I was raised in a fundamentalist/literalist church. The fact of the matter is that it did not speak to me in any way that would promote and sustain a faith. Yet I also have the experiential reality of the risen living Lord.
Thus my journey of some 40 years. Don't be impressed by that though because the more one learns the more one realizes how little we know.
You ask about the foundation of the world or if you will how it all began. Apparently it began with a big bang and that was followed by a very long evolutionary process. Contrary to what many creationists will say the evidence is irrefutable. There are transitional fossils etc. I have accepted the findings of science. It is a self correcting process. This does not of course make it perfect. But when answering the questions concerning the physical reality it is the best we have and I believe accurate.
This however is not the questions that we as humans ask concerning: Why life? What does it mean? What is its purpose? How do I come to have a conscience? and a whole host of others questions concerning the non-physical. Science looks at the physics of life and our religious faith looks at the meaning and purpose.
The real short answer to all of your questions is rather simple "God". There is no other.
How do our answers of meaning and purpose come about. Basically through the revelations of God which happens in many ways. The Bible is a very human book written by, albeit, inspired folks. They recorded their experiences of the Divine. They also had a unique way of writing called Midrash and Metapho. These are necessary because there is no human language that can adequately express our experiences of the Divine nor define nor describe the Divine. We lack the language and we lack the conceptualization ability.
That being said the Bible becomes for Christians "The Word of God" because God does in fact speak to us through the Bible. (He), there is the first problem, does so through the MIdrashic writings and the ancient metaphors.
As history has evolved so has our knowledge and conceptualization abilities as well as our language. For example ancient Hebrew had absolutely no way of discussing or presenting the abstract. They could only talk in terms of their experiences based on their very primitive language. We can now look back with greater knowlege, better and more complex language and a much greater ability to conceptualize. Thus we read the ancient scriptures in light of our present stage of development and we can see even more powerfully the great truths that are presented in the Sacred writings.
When we get to the NT we face the same problems but once we understand Midrash and the use of metaphor whether or not some of the Bible is historically true is immaterial. Because something is not historical does not make it false. Midrash can and does present the great truths of man relationship with God down through the centuries.
You ask for proof for my "opinions". I have neither the time nor the inclination at this point to write a book although that has crossed my mind. I have looked at and considered the Bible, the writings of the Great Christian thinkers of the past and present, modern science, philosophy, my own formal and informal studies, my discussions, a great deal of prayer, yes I believe in prayer, meditation, communal discussions within the church and probably a whole host of others that have slipped my mind for the moment.
Hans Kung, Marcus Borg, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, J. D. Crossan, Sallie Mcfague, Geza Fermes, Finkelstein and Silberman, John Spong, Michael Ingham and literally dozens of other scholars. If you wish more names I can give them to you.
My constant prayer over the years has been for wisdom, knowledge and understanding in terms of my experiential reality of God. I believe that God has led me to where I am today, a devout Christian Pluralist. That is the will of God in my life and where (He) leads I will follow. I sing with great compassion "here I am Lord, send me." He has not failed me yet nor will He.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I have absolutely no problem with you believing as you do. I understand from what you have said that you would identify with the phrase a transforming relationship with the risen living Lord. Thereto is my faith.
I was raised in a fundamentalist/literalist church. The fact of the matter is that it did not speak to me in any way that would promote and sustain a faith. Yet I also have the experiential reality of the risen living Lord.
Thus my journey of some 40 years. Don't be impressed by that though because the more one learns the more one realizes how little we know.
You ask about the foundation of the world or if you will how it all began. Apparently it began with a big bang and that was followed by a very long evolutionary process. Contrary to what many creationists will say the evidence is irrefutable. There are transitional fossils etc. I have accepted the findings of science. It is a self correcting process. This does not of course make it perfect. But when answering the questions concerning the physical reality it is the best we have and I believe accurate.
This however is not the questions that we as humans ask concerning: Why life? What does it mean? What is its purpose? How do I come to have a conscience? and a whole host of others questions concerning the non-physical. Science looks at the physics of life and our religious faith looks at the meaning and purpose.
The real short answer to all of your questions is rather simple "God". There is no other.
How do our answers of meaning and purpose come about. Basically through the revelations of God which happens in many ways. The Bible is a very human book written by, albeit, inspired folks. They recorded their experiences of the Divine. They also had a unique way of writing called Midrash and Metapho. These are necessary because there is no human language that can adequately express our experiences of the Divine nor define nor describe the Divine. We lack the language and we lack the conceptualization ability.
That being said the Bible becomes for Christians "The Word of God" because God does in fact speak to us through the Bible. (He), there is the first problem, does so through the MIdrashic writings and the ancient metaphors.
As history has evolved so has our knowledge and conceptualization abilities as well as our language. For example ancient Hebrew had absolutely no way of discussing or presenting the abstract. They could only talk in terms of their experiences based on their very primitive language. We can now look back with greater knowlege, better and more complex language and a much greater ability to conceptualize. Thus we read the ancient scriptures in light of our present stage of development and we can see even more powerfully the great truths that are presented in the Sacred writings.
When we get to the NT we face the same problems but once we understand Midrash and the use of metaphor whether or not some of the Bible is historically true is immaterial. Because something is not historical does not make it false. Midrash can and does present the great truths of man relationship with God down through the centuries.
You ask for proof for my "opinions". I have neither the time nor the inclination at this point to write a book although that has crossed my mind. I have looked at and considered the Bible, the writings of the Great Christian thinkers of the past and present, modern science, philosophy, my own formal and informal studies, my discussions, a great deal of prayer, yes I believe in prayer, meditation, communal discussions within the church and probably a whole host of others that have slipped my mind for the moment.
Hans Kung, Marcus Borg, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, J. D. Crossan, Sallie Mcfague, Geza Fermes, Finkelstein and Silberman, John Spong, Michael Ingham and literally dozens of other scholars. If you wish more names I can give them to you.
My constant prayer over the years has been for wisdom, knowledge and understanding in terms of my experiential reality of God. I believe that God has led me to where I am today, a devout Christian Pluralist. That is the will of God in my life and where (He) leads I will follow. I sing with great compassion "here I am Lord, send me." He has not failed me yet nor will He.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
I once heard it said and now accept it as truth, that there is only one uninspired page in the Bible. That page is the one between Malachi and Matthew that says “The New Testamentâ€Â. It is a page that doesn’t belong there because God’s word is continuous from Genesis to Revelation. It didn’t stop, then start over or something when the Messiah arrived. The portion that follows Matthew can’t be understood without the part that precedes it.
How would you know that Yeshua is the Messiah unless you read Isaiah? The prophecies of the millenniums preceding Him are what validate Him. If He hadn’t fulfilled those prophecies we wouldn’t be talking about Him now.
How would you know that Yeshua is the Messiah unless you read Isaiah? The prophecies of the millenniums preceding Him are what validate Him. If He hadn’t fulfilled those prophecies we wouldn’t be talking about Him now.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
very true Clint
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
I'm very interested in this Clint, but I am beginning to believe that Judaism was the 1st. All others are watered down religions. As for JC, I believe he was a messager. We are All "sons of God'.
The old testament is fascinating to read. :-6
The old testament is fascinating to read. :-6
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
capt_buzzard wrote: I'm very interested in this Clint, but I am beginning to believe that Judaism was the 1st. All others are watered down religions. As for JC, I believe he was a messager. We are All "sons of God'.
The old testament is fascinating to read. :-6
Judaism was indeed, first. It is also the present. The others have taken on beliefs that are disconnected and have watered down what was a practice of faith according to instructions by God.
The difference between Judaism as it is and what it should be, is Yeshua. Most Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come. Some Jews (Messianic Jews) believe He has come and is coming again. Many Christians are becoming Messianic Jews. This movement to Messianic Judaism is prophetic.
The fulfillment of prophesy is what confirms the Deity of Yeshua. Yes, we are all “sons of God†but there is only one “Son†who is a necessary part of God. It is Yeshua’s role as The Son that teaches us what our roles as sons should be.
It is His role as The Son that teaches us how to recognize Him when He returns as the Victorious Messiah, the second and last time. You might find it interesting to study the role of the Jewish bridegroom as it relates to his father and his waiting bride. It is a beautiful picture of the Messiah's first and second comming.
The old testament is fascinating to read. :-6
Judaism was indeed, first. It is also the present. The others have taken on beliefs that are disconnected and have watered down what was a practice of faith according to instructions by God.
The difference between Judaism as it is and what it should be, is Yeshua. Most Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come. Some Jews (Messianic Jews) believe He has come and is coming again. Many Christians are becoming Messianic Jews. This movement to Messianic Judaism is prophetic.
The fulfillment of prophesy is what confirms the Deity of Yeshua. Yes, we are all “sons of God†but there is only one “Son†who is a necessary part of God. It is Yeshua’s role as The Son that teaches us what our roles as sons should be.
It is His role as The Son that teaches us how to recognize Him when He returns as the Victorious Messiah, the second and last time. You might find it interesting to study the role of the Jewish bridegroom as it relates to his father and his waiting bride. It is a beautiful picture of the Messiah's first and second comming.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Clint wrote: I agree on one thing. Sacrifices are no longer called for because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. The sacrifices that preceded Yeshua were for the purpose of preparing the people for the sacrifice to come. If sacrifices occur in the future they will also point to Yeshua and what He has done for us. Sacrificing points to Yeshua in spite of the intent of those doing the sacrificing.
Yeshua didn’t fulfill the need for Holy Days. He brought additional meaning to them and they give additional meaning and understanding regarding Him. Yeshua was observant of the Holy Days just as His disciples were. There is no better depiction of His life, death and resurrection than in the feast of the Passover. It is not coincidence that the so called “last supper†was actually the Passover Seder.
You reference Lev. 23. Read that chapter and see how many times God say these are “perpetual statutesâ€Â. I know what perpetual means and I also know that my God never changes.
My challenge to you is to find the command by Yeshua (the only one with enough authority to rescind a statute) to stop observing Holy Days. I further challenge you to find a command from God for the holidays the Church observes today. I can tell you without hesitation that I give the most credence to the Holy Days God commanded.
About that sinner's prayer you quoted. Where do I find that in the Bible? You quoted it like it was canonized. You also implied that I had a need to use it. It's a pretty good format for someone accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior but it isn't the only prayer that will work. I've been blessed with the opportunity to assist a quit a few folks in that process and it is as individual and personal as the relationship we have with our Lord once we are saved.
hmmmm very interesting. Are you a Rabi/ Teacher?
Yeshua didn’t fulfill the need for Holy Days. He brought additional meaning to them and they give additional meaning and understanding regarding Him. Yeshua was observant of the Holy Days just as His disciples were. There is no better depiction of His life, death and resurrection than in the feast of the Passover. It is not coincidence that the so called “last supper†was actually the Passover Seder.
You reference Lev. 23. Read that chapter and see how many times God say these are “perpetual statutesâ€Â. I know what perpetual means and I also know that my God never changes.
My challenge to you is to find the command by Yeshua (the only one with enough authority to rescind a statute) to stop observing Holy Days. I further challenge you to find a command from God for the holidays the Church observes today. I can tell you without hesitation that I give the most credence to the Holy Days God commanded.
About that sinner's prayer you quoted. Where do I find that in the Bible? You quoted it like it was canonized. You also implied that I had a need to use it. It's a pretty good format for someone accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior but it isn't the only prayer that will work. I've been blessed with the opportunity to assist a quit a few folks in that process and it is as individual and personal as the relationship we have with our Lord once we are saved.
hmmmm very interesting. Are you a Rabi/ Teacher?
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
capt_buzzard wrote: hmmmm very interesting. Are you a Rabi/ Teacher?
Reply sent by personal message.
Reply sent by personal message.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Does the church actually replace Judaism?
Ted wrote: At any rate the Midrashic understanding of the BIble makes all of this unimportant and inconsequential since it does not denegrate the powerful messages to be found in the Bible.Ted :-6Midrash is men's opinions. A religion based solely on men's opinions is a fashion accessory, because men's opinions change. If the Bible itself is midrash, the Bible itself is unimportant and inconsequential.
The only value midrash has is when it is men giving their collective perspective on a common source they they all agree upon to posess authority above the mere words of men. No genuine Bible commentator takes his own opinions, or those of any other man as being of equal authority to the Canon of Scripture. But if all our faith were based on midrash layered upon midrash with no foundation at the bottom- no Canon of God's authoritative word, prophecy and recorded, factual events of a real, living, personal God and His dealings with men like us, then the religion is man-made and therefore false.
A false religion is no better than no religion at all. Seeking God isn't something we do for entertainment. We are flesh and blood- we have average 70 years or less to prepare for our life to end. We have those 70 years to conduct relationships with others in a loving way and leave a mark on the world that gives our Creator a good reputation. We are not up to the task. We need supernatural help. There is an evil one, a deceiver who is more than happy to mislead us. His work is also evident all throughout history. This is a struggle of monumental proportions, bigger than any of us and our puny lives.
Men's opinions may satisfy you, Ted, and if that works to make you a better person, I salute you. You have my sincere respect and support as a brother in any case. But forgive me if I insist on the need for a more authoritative and supernatural Source than the opinions of finite men
Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
.
The only value midrash has is when it is men giving their collective perspective on a common source they they all agree upon to posess authority above the mere words of men. No genuine Bible commentator takes his own opinions, or those of any other man as being of equal authority to the Canon of Scripture. But if all our faith were based on midrash layered upon midrash with no foundation at the bottom- no Canon of God's authoritative word, prophecy and recorded, factual events of a real, living, personal God and His dealings with men like us, then the religion is man-made and therefore false.
A false religion is no better than no religion at all. Seeking God isn't something we do for entertainment. We are flesh and blood- we have average 70 years or less to prepare for our life to end. We have those 70 years to conduct relationships with others in a loving way and leave a mark on the world that gives our Creator a good reputation. We are not up to the task. We need supernatural help. There is an evil one, a deceiver who is more than happy to mislead us. His work is also evident all throughout history. This is a struggle of monumental proportions, bigger than any of us and our puny lives.
Men's opinions may satisfy you, Ted, and if that works to make you a better person, I salute you. You have my sincere respect and support as a brother in any case. But forgive me if I insist on the need for a more authoritative and supernatural Source than the opinions of finite men
Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
.
Look what the cat dragged in.