Are Jews still God's Chosen People?

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

And what's more a name he was not called despite the imagined angel saying he should be ...

 

[bretzter]

Why is it Solomon has to recognize his error in judgement?.
I actually think you´re mistaking him with Job.
Why would the wisest of all men to ever walk the face of the
earth,with the exception of Christ of course,actually error in
his judgement?.
Truth is,he knew good and well what it was he meant when he
said what it was he said.
Make no mistake about that.
And like his father David before him,who was loved by God btw,
he had to know the difference between the true God and those
that were in his day called gods.
Since I´m sure that his father passed his name to him,andwas
foretold by God himself to David,that it wouldn´t be him,but his
son who would build the first temple,or house of worship to the
true God.
Please read Proverbs 30:4 again and after reading it,and not
just skimming over it,contemplate on that what you´ve read.
And as for Psalms 83:18,the mention of God´s personal name
in the verse,Jehovah/Yahweh,or Jah for short,was generally
used in earlier translations of the Holy Scriptures,even in the
King James version.
As for your assuming Muhammed is/was the Messiah,why is it
Muhammed himself calls Christ,who was crucified,the Messiah?.
And presuming Muhammed were to be a prophet,why didn´t he do
works according to those of a prophet?.
Where are the works,miracles,ability to prophecy,etc.?.
And If Christ possessed them,shouldn´t/wouldn´t that also mean
Muhammed too had them were he a prophet of God,or sent by God?.
It would have to qualify imo.
And like it was with Christ,where the miraculous birth,was Muhammed
birth miraculous?.
Or did Christ speak Arabic,or Muhammed Aramaic?.
And Immanuel was just one of many names referring to the coming
as promised by God Messiah.
Such "Prince of Peace","Lord of Lords","King of,Kings","Wonderful
Counselor",among others.
Would those/Do those describe Muhammed,or his lifestyle?.
And to my recollection,Jesus was born a Jew,was Muhammed then
not of Arab descent?.
Was not the Koran originally written in Arabic,meant to be for the Arabs
only?.
This could go on and on,back and forth,but my comments are long enough
as is,so I think I´ll bow out.

 

[rosends]

Why is it Solomon has to recognize his error in judgement?.

Because he made a series of mistakes in his life which led to very bad situations.

Rashi explains with these statements:

" he relied on his wisdom to increase gold, horses and wives, which he was forbidden to increase, and so he said, ” God is with me, and I will be able. I will increase wives, and they will not turn my heart away; I will increase gold, and I will not turn away; I will increase horses, and I will not take the people back to Egypt."

"Because I relied on my wisdom in a matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, is concerned lest one come to sin."

" nor do I know the knowledge of the holy ones, for I subtracted or added to the words of Moses."

Why would the wisest of all men to ever walk the face of the
earth,with the exception of Christ of course,actually error in
his judgement?.

Because textually, we know that that is what he did. Read Kings 1, 11:1-11

Please read Proverbs 30:4 again and after reading it,and not
just skimming over it,contemplate on that what you´ve read.

Trust me, I have, especially after reading verses 1-3 and understanding who the speaker is and why, and what he is talking about.

And as for Psalms 83:18,the mention of God´s personal name
in the verse,Jehovah/Yahweh,or Jah for short,was generally
used in earlier translations of the Holy Scriptures,even in the
King James version.

The 4 letter name of God is in there, sure. It is all over the place in my text. Why do you call it a "personal" name?

As for your assuming Muhammed is/was the Messiah,why is it
Muhammed himself calls Christ,who was crucified,the Messiah?.

You completely misread what I wrote. Your claim was that a certain person is mentioned in the text because you believe YOUR interpretation. I pointed to the Islamic interpretation which would support that Mohammed was named in the text. (I never said anything about Mo's being a messiah). Since another person's understanding of the text can be shown to refer to Mohammed, do you accept that as fact? If not, why not?

And Immanuel was just one of many names referring to the coming
as promised Messiah.

So it is a name. OK. You said it wasn't.

 

[bretzter]

Solomon asked God for wisdom,and not earthly,material possessions.
And for the reason Solomon didn´t ask for the other things,God gave
them to him anyway.
He never once killed,or stole from anybody in order to acquire them.
And as for his going after so-called gods,it was it not because of his
many concubines he took of other nationalities?.
And Israel was not divided up into two seperate kingdoms until the sons
of Solomon,Jeroboam and Rehoboam,sat on their respective thrones.
Thus the creation of Israel,or the 10 tribes,and Judah,along with Benjamin.
The latter of whose seat of government happened to be the city of David.
Jerusalem,the holy site of the Temple,or the house of worship to the Jews.
And at no time was I implying that Solomon never made any/many mistakes.
He too is also only human,born into sin,and therefore bound to make his
share of them.
But like it was with his father before him,unlike his sons after him,he realized
he´d made them,and repented of them.
I also am aware of who it was that wrote Proverbs,but after reading verse 4,
it couldn´t get any clearer that God had a Son.
And if it´s written he does in black and white for the entire world to see,how
is it then one can deny it?.
And a four-letter word for God?.
That´s the first time I´ve ever heard of such a thing,especially coming from a
person who is supposed to be of the Jewish faith.
Unless you meant the YHWH,or initials for God´s personal name.
But what is God´s personal name if you in fact do know it,and that of his Son?.
I forgot,you´re not allowed/permitted to pronounce it in the Jewish faith.
Therefore names like Elohim,Zebaoth,Adonai,etc.,all of them titles of respect.
And if God never had a Son,why did Moses himself refer to the "sons of God",
as the"bene elohim"?.
and if it were impossible for God to have a son,why then believe that with God
all things are possible?.
Was it not he that created Adam and Eve from nothing,meaning without human
parents?.
And if he did,as we know he did,when God says be,it is.
So what makes it so hard for people to actually fathom that that very same God
who created Adam and Eve couldn´t do the miraculous and take the firstborn of
his creations and insert him through his Holy Spirit,into the womb of a virgin named
Mary?.
Or are you insinuating that such a thing were to small of a thing for God to make
that what would seem impossible to men,possible?.
Or at the ripe ages of Abraham and Sara,did she not give birth to a son,Isaac,as
the angels that earlier visited them predicted would happen at the appointed time?.
Remember,to men all things seem impossible,but with God,all things are possible.
When God says it will be,believe,it will be.

 

[Moishe3rd]

It is true that the Jewish leaders condemned and crusified Christ a fellow Jew for Blasphemy and claiming to be King of the Jews.

It seems that not long after the Gospels were circulated it was thought that the Jews were synonymous with God killers.
From time to time, certainly up to and throughout the middle ages this was seen as good reason to persecute Jews. However large numbers lived throughout Europe and the middle East. As they no longer had a homeland . Indeed they had not had one since the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple.

Indeed it is hard to find a time when they were other than a barely tolerated gests in any country. As a people they have had a very tough existance.
My memory of Jews and their problems goes as far back as WW2 , my maternal grand mother was a Jew and I made a point of visiting Belsen after the war whilst serving in the army. To see for myself.
At no time during my life have I ever heard a priest or member of the Anglican or other church blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. This is neither what we believe nor what we teach.
The question of Israel and its political and military decisions are an intirely different matter, and rightly come in for some heavy critism by virtually evey European country.
If this makes some Jewish people nervous, then so be it. Perhaps they will have some influence on their government to change course. This is what politics is about.

Your opening statement is incorrect as your statement regarding having never heard a priest or other church blame the Jews, indicates.
The Christian Church only formally recognized that the Romans did indeed condemn and crucify Jesus (as it does indeed say in your gospels) in the mid 20th Century. Church doctrine was changed to reflect this fact.

As far as the Jewish State of Israel is concerned, it is of course blatant Jew Hatred on the part of Europeans and others when they condemn Israel. Whenever their is a question concerning Jewish practices; the Holocaust; the Torah; or anything else concerning Judaism by any government, the hatred of the Jewish State of Israel is ALWAYS a factor when Jewish questions that have nothing to do with Israel are being legislated or discussed.

As Arabs and Muslims slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands in the most horrific ways; as Russia attempts to take over various former Soviet states; as Egypt specifically declares Hamas to be a terrorist organization and sends its armed forces against it - Europe and others continue to want to vilify the Jewish State of Israel for being at war with those who want to annihilate Israel and all Jews everywhere.
But - according to you, the Israeli government needs to "change its course" and this has nothing to do with Jew Hatred.
Gezunt heit. You should live and be well....

 

[Moishe3rd]

I've read the NT over 20 times and in multiple versions. Demonizing the Jews is not there in context, ever--if it was, I couldn't be a believer. And if it was, again, the 1st century adherents, wouldn't be.

I've heard the Sanhedrin prohibition against a Passover meeting before, yes. Y'shua came to Yerushalyim annually. He was expected and anticipated and the meetings were held thusly.

Well, Mr. Ball - I would humbly suggest that you reread what I had previously written, part of which is here:

For your historical edification:

From the earliest days of the Constantine and the Christian Roman Empire, Christians learned about the Jews in the context of how their god, Jesus, was killed by wicked Jews. In Christianity, Jews were always synonymous with Christ-killers – they were the Race of Deicides.
It begins with Book of Matthew 27:20 “And the whole people answering said: ‘His blood be upon us and our children.’”
The Book of John puts the proverbial nails in the crucifixion of the Jews when he relates the various evils that “the Jews” performed.
“… therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus because he did these things on the Sabbath.” (John 5:16)
“… The Jews then took up stones to stone him…” (John 10:31)
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:33)
“The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.’” (John 19:7)
“’Here is your king,’ Pilate said to the Jews.
But they shouted, ‘Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!’” (John 19:14,15)

Apparently the early Christian theologians believed that these passages specifically meant that the Jews first rejected, and then killed Jesus. And, that the Jews were therefore cursed.
Origen, one of the most distinguished writers of the early Christian Church, wrote: “The Jews nailed Christ to the Cross.”
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, took time to detail the crimes of the Jews in his “Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.”
Augustine argued that Jews should be left alive and suffering as “a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ.”
Gregory of Nyssa named the Jews “Slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, adversaries of G-d, haters of G-d … advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers… assemblies of demon… and haters of righteousness.”
John Chrysostom (347-407), flatly stated (contradicting Peter who claimed the Jews acted without knowledge) “the Jews erred, not ignorantly, but with full knowledge.”
Chrysostom’s virulent hatred of the Jews, as the Archbishop of Constantinople, along with these other Church Fathers, forever influenced the theology that became Law under the Eastern Orthodox Empire, and he, like the rest of these early Church Fathers, became a “saint.”
Among his many sermons castigating, excoriating, and cursing the Jews, he called them “the assassins of Christ” and named their synagogues “the refuge of devils and abyss of perdition.”

 

[metis]

If someone told you, "My kingdom is not of this world" what would you make of that person?

Well, my first reaction is that this person is really into themselves. If I'm a Roman political figure, I think I'd be inclined to make certain that your "kingdom is not of this world", if you know what I mean.

 

[Moishe3rd]

All,

I have not lost the irony that Jesus and the leaders of His day fought over what was scripture, what was tradition, and what was the will of G_d. I know the Sanhedrin policies. This is not the first time I've heard the argument that "we know they never met on Shabbat because they said so". We have examples in our own day of Presidents and parliaments and etc. contravening their own rules of order for Midnight laws, pardons, illegal wars, police actions, etc. The leaders of Jesus's day were angry--again, His custom was to preach, particularly at Pesach, Festival of Lights, etc. and they were waiting for Him, and he told Herod "Tell the fox three days from now I will be in town", etc.

You cannot wins points with born again Christians and Jews by telling them that tradition defeats the Tanakh and gospels. Nor with statements like "there's no such thing as an emergency trial in Jewish law". Right, except for the times Moishe convened bodies to meet and made decisions for cases that were new, as when daughters wanted to split the inheritance with no sons present!

If I can make a little point here, I was thinking of Barbara Streisand's Yentl yesterday. All this poor little shtetl girl wants to do is learn with the boys. And she does and does and does and does--and they talk about nothing but Talmud for two hours in the film as if there is no Tanakh. The Tanakh says it is the word of G_d thousands of times within, as does the NT. The Bible, gentlemen, the Bible!

You are stating a Christian worldview. That's peachy but, the Jewish worldview is much older.
Christianity and other religions are claiming that their newer (improved; bright and shiny; "believe me this time because you got the Word!") interpretation of Torah and Tanach is the correct one as opposed to the over 3,000 year old interpretation of Torah and Tanach which places the Oral Torah; the Talmud as the clear G-d Given understanding of what G-d is telling us to do in both Torah and Tanach.
According to your particular interpretation of "the bible," you should certainly be an atheist by now, no? After all, the current new and improved version of "the bible" is that there is no god and it's all a bunch of fairy tales.
Good luck with that.

 

[rosends]

And at no time was I implying that Solomon never made any/many mistakes.

So when you said "Why would the wisest of all men to ever walk the face of the
earth,with the exception of Christ of course,actually error in
his judgement?."

You meant "yes, he would err in his judgment"?

I also am aware of who it was that wrote Proverbs,but after reading verse 4,
it couldn´t get any clearer that God had a Son.

Then you haven't read all 4 verses. The speaker says clearly that he doesn't know God or understand the divine so he asks questions. If I say "I don't know anything about my boss...is he green?" That doesn't mean he IS green, only that I have no idea.

And a four-letter word for God?.
That´s the first time I´ve ever heard of such a thing,especially coming from a
person who is supposed to be of the Jewish faith.
Unless you meant the YHWH,or initials for God´s personal name.

The four letter name of God is often written in English as YHWH or something like that. The technical term is the "tetragrammaton" which means "consisting of 4 letters."

But what is God´s personal name if you in fact do know it,and that of his Son?.

God is not a person that he has a personal name. He has many "sons" including Solomon:

I Chronicles 22:9--10

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

Therefore names like Elohim,Zebaoth,Adonai,etc.,all of them titles of respect.

All the words we use are titles, including the 4 letter name. You didn't know that? OK, now you do.

And if God never had a Son,why did Moses himself refer to the "sons of God",
as the"bene elohim"?.
and if it were impossible for God to have a son,why then believe that with God
all things are possible?.

God is not human. God fathers no children. And yet, God calls certain people his "sons". Why is that? Maybe because not everything in the text is literal. But if you want to say it is, then look here:

Psalms 2:7

I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, "You are My son; today I have begotten you."

Israel:

Exodus 4:22

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

So if those are the case then being called "son" is nothing special. And he didn't need to impregnate anyone to do these -- king David was born of a mom and dad and yet God says that David is his begotten son. So much for the Jesus theory.

Take a look at these passages. Believe them. When God says it...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes it´s true that 1st commandment may seem the same,they´re actually not though imo.
Who was it that God said he was,but the God of whom,"Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob",and
that is contrary to that what those of the Islamic faith believe,in their belief that he also is
the God of Ishmael...

Huh?
What are you saying? That we all have 'different gods' ?
That's absurd! There IS only one god .. and that is Almighty God, the Creator and maintainer of the universe.

I'm not interested in petty squabbles eg. Which son of Abraham is the biggest/best?

Almighty God is the Best!

 

[bretzter]

Hallelu-jah,for opening not only our minds,but giving us not a
heart of stone,but one of flesh.
For giving us eyes to see what others can´t,and ears that hear
what others can´t hear,or simply refuse to see,or hear.
Thanks for uncovering that what was covered,as it was your
will it be done.
And thank you for your love and abundance of grace and mercy.
And for the sending of your only begotten Son as a ransom for
us all that once were lost and unrecognized,but in our belief in
both you and your son,are not only recognized,but accepted into
your flock..
For once we were as unbelieving,and yet now we believe ,
No longer considered illegitimate,bt thanks to the belief in your son,
who you yourself sent for s into the world,to call us all who believe
in him,your children.
The world may have carved up one side and down the others,yet we
are aware of the fact,they turnedheir backs to you, to you,but we will
declare you and your name,
Your one and only begotten sons Father,a well as that our own.
Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
And thank you also "Son of God",for doing what you did for all of us.
For without you and your perfect sacrifice,we´d be nothing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are stating a Christian worldview. That's peachy but, the Jewish worldview is much older.
Christianity and other religions are claiming that their newer (improved; bright and shiny; "believe me this time because you got the Word!") interpretation of Torah and Tanach is the correct one as opposed to the over 3,000 year old interpretation of Torah and Tanach which places the Oral Torah; the Talmud as the clear G-d Given understanding of what G-d is telling us to do in both Torah and Tanach.
According to your particular interpretation of "the bible," you should certainly be an atheist by now, no? After all, the current new and improved version of "the bible" is that there is no god and it's all a bunch of fairy tales.
Good luck with that.

1. The Christian worldview is a Jewish worldview as expressed by the Jews who spoke and wrote it.

2. You cannot say you can confirm oral tradition that is 3,000 years old unless it is proved to be written. Portions of the Tanach, however, may be that old or nearly so, in them I put my hope and not in Talmud. Tanach speaks of redemption, Messiah, hope, Judaism, the future and all things.

 

[roger1440]

Right, except that the entry into Jerusalem narrative is clearly the result of conflating a separate ur-text narrative incident into the Last Supper/Crucifixion narrative.

Think about it: Jesus enters into Jerusalem, and everyone is waving palm branches and singing "hosannas." Hosanna = hosha na. Do we wave palm branches (lulavim) and sing hosha na at Pesach?! No, of course not: that narrative is clearly depicting Jesus coming to Jerusalem for Sukkot, not Pesach! So unless he came at Sukkot, had no problems, stayed there for the next half a year, and only then became an imminent threat right before Pesach-- which seems like a fairly unlikely reading-- you have to conclude that the entry to the city story originally had nothing to do with the Last Supper/Crucifixion story, but the two were redacted together long after for one reason or another.

As for the "kingdom" angle-- again, there were hundreds of guys running around claiming to be the moshiach, and thus technically were claiming rightful kingship of Israel. The Romans mostly didn't bother with them, unless they actually tried to lead armed insurrections. The only reason anyone seems to be able to give for why Jesus would have been treated differently is the Christian presumption that Jesus was so special that everything revolved around him.

It could also mean The Feast of Tabernacles may serve as a sort of back plot or theme to the story. This feast does take place in the seventh month. A time of harvest. The palm leaves or branches are only found in the Gospel of John. The very last words John’s Gospel puts on Jesus’s mouth is “It is finished”. Coincidently, God said the same in Genesis when his work was finished. This feast also has two special days of rest. It’s also about cycles. John writes about being born again or born from above.. Being reborn would start a new cycle or a new creation. The creation account in Genesis flows throughout John as a undercurrent to his story.

 

[roger1440]

Think about it: Jesus enters into Jerusalem, and everyone is waving palm branches and singing "hosannas."

When Jesus comes to town, the Jews pretty much throw a parade for him. In less then a week, everybody wants him dead. I don't think anyone could have that much bad luck. I doubt the Last Supper story is factual. Think about it. He tells his 12 buddies he has a death wish. Metis, would know. He was a waiter at the Last Supper.

 

[Kolibri]

Boastful men inflame a town, - Proverbs 29:8a

The tongue is also a fire. - James 3:6a

The mob was stirred up by the religious leaders when they had the pretense of doing something legal and binding. Most of these people may have not even known what they were getting wrapped up in as this was a time when Jerusalem was flooded with visitors.