For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[captainbryce]

1) But being part of the bloodline doesn't necessarily mean that you are part of the covenant.

Says where?

I don't need to prove a negative. Where in the bible does it say that YOU ARE? The bible says that Jews must live by certain rules, or they have broken the covenant, and are thus cut off from their people. Their bloodline becomes irrelevant at that point, as they are no different from Gentiles at that point. Moreover, slaves of Jews, or other members of their household (either adopted or natural born) are part of the covenant if they are circumcised in accordance with God's commandment. As you've already pointed out, Gentiles could also be included into the covenant (if they were circumcised), and allowed to participate in Passover. So clearly, one does not have to have a Jewish bloodline to be included into the covenant. Conversely, there are people who have Jewish bloodline that are not part of the covenant. At least, that is my interpretation of the following passages:

Genesis 17:14
Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Deuteronomy 31:20
When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant.

In any case, I was merely asking for your opinion on this question. I take it from your response that you do in fact believe that simply being part of the bloodline automatically makes you part of the covenant, yes? You're entitled to that opinion, but I don't think that opinion is logical considering that adherence to the law is a requirement of the covenant. But again, this is clearly an opinionated matter that we can agree to disagree on.

So the Israelites of Joshua's time weren't part of the Covenant until right before Passover? Got it.

What? That is not an answer to my question! That is once again you answering a question with another question (one that doesn't even answer the question).

You misunderstand, as usual. They would be part of the House of Israel. What part of scripture do you think doesn't reconcile?

The scripture is fine. I simply don't see how it fits with your interpretation.

You said: If an uncircumcised Israelite parent has a child, that child is still a part of the House of Israel if the parent was a bloodline member.

But that answer had nothing to do with my question. I wasn't asking about an uncircumcised parent's child. I was asking about the uncircumcised individual (ie: the parent). Would they still be included in the covenant. Because scripture seems to say otherwise.

It says they will be cut off.

Right. That's what I was getting at.

I know you think only your interpretation counts

No, actually you don't seem to know anything about what I think at all.

but it's kind of a grey area. I gave you my opinion on the matter.

Yeah, but you gave your opinion as if it was a fact (as you usually do). If you had said, "in my opinion", then I would have understood. But you gave an opinion that is obviously not consistent with the plain reading of the text (which is what I was pointing out). Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I just want to make sure I'm correctly deciphering your opinions from your facts.

You've pointed out neither.

I just did. You used a straw man argument to falsely accuse me of claiming what makes someone else a Christian.

You can claim I am a hypocrite according to your own interpretations as if there's no historical controversy on these issues

I'm not here to debate "historical controversies", I'm only here to talk about what my beliefs are (according to what the scripture says). Whenever you interpretation contradicts what is written, you default to "historical controversies", but that never relevant to what I am discussing.

It's quite obvious you're not willing to actually put yourself at such risk, when it comes to putting your feet to the fire, you balk. I don't. That's all you need to know.

Risk is irrelevant as are your challenges. Again, I didn't come here to pray with you. I'm not interested in your prayers, I'm interested in whether or not people can justify their so-called Christian beliefs with what scripture says. You balk at basic questions that you can't answer. You balk when you inject irrelevant "historical controversies" into a discussion about what scripture actually says. You have balked continuously throughout this debate. And that is all I need to know.

And I don't see the basis of your accusations as "Superficial sense of pride".

Then I suggest your read Matthew 6:5-8, and that spells out exactly what I'm talking about.

I demonstrated them just fine. Obviously you will never agree with it because you insist that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, it's one of the problems of debate without a moderator.

It's also a straw man argument. I never insisted that my interpretation was right and yours is wrong. That is a lie that you just made up because you are chance the parameters of the debate at every chance you get.

Then your intention is to expose your debating tactics to the pigeon method?

My intention is always merely to explain my beliefs in accordance with scripture. When people like you challenge me, then I try to get them to justify their interpretation using scripture. I don't insist that someone else's interpretation is right or wrong, I merely state why I don't accept it. You can believe what you want to believe.

You are claiming that you are right and that I am wrong.

I am doing not such thing. That is what YOU are doing. The only time I will say whether you are right or wrong is when you say something that contradicts what the scripture says. You did that with the circumcision debate remember? But as far as your "opinion" goes, there is no such thing as a "wrong" or "right" opinion. There are only opinions that you can agree with or disagree with. As Paul says: "Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."

The only "recruiting" I am trying to do here is to show my fellow Hebrew how fallacious the Non-Nazarene Antinomian position and why they should not let your blasphemy represent our Messiah who you supercessionists have been attempting to steal for centuries with your grand cultural theft.

Okay, good luck with that mission. But don't conflate that with mine. I am neither trying to convince you of my beliefs, nor anyone else. I merely tell people WHY I believe the way I do. If you feel like God has called you to cast judgement on others like me, and recruit others to your philosophy, by all means continue to do so.

 

[captainbryce]

How so? How do you define taking his name in vain? Is it vain that I ask him to put those who blaspheme His truth to shame and silence?

When you do so publicly in order to make a display out of it (the way you've done). YES! That's why Jesus said NOT to do that. :yes:

So what do we do when come to an impasse where each side believes they are right and its a matter of controversial interpretation of where there are many ways of viewing verses and there's no right or wrong answers,

We agree to disagree. We don't judge other people as being blasphemers. At least, that's what reasonable people who were truly living by Christ would do.

and important contentions get brushed off as "Red herrings" and false accusations of not answering questions

Bringing up "historical controversies" is introducing red-herrings to the debate. As I've already explained, I'm only here to discuss what I believe in accordance with scripture. Not what others in the past have debated about scripture. As far as not answering questions goes:

A) Do you consider yourself a Christian - yes or no?
B) When is the last time Israel stoned rebellious children?
C) When's the last time Jews practiced capital punishment for homosexuality?
D) Does Genesis 17:11 say that YOU (speaking to Abraham) will be circumcised - yes or no?

You "sort of" answered question A in a roundabout way (I think). But these are all questions that I've raised, to which you provided no direct answer for. I'm just bringing this up to let you know why that accusation wasn't false. I no longer care at this point what the answers are because I've accepted the fact that you're not going to answer, and that's fine. Your lack of answers essentially makes my case for me.

and personal attacks get flung around?

If you were so worried about personal attacks, then why do you keep personally attacking me?

It is my way of showing that you refuse to put yourself on the line after you take the gloves off, and you have taken the gloves off each and every time.

And that's exactly why it's vain and against the instructions of Christ. That's not what prayer is for! You have answered your own question now.

Sounds like you're doing an immediate about face. By accusing me of mocking the Bible you are indeed preaching and acting as if we are in church.

Well, we don't do that at any church I've ever been to. So if this sounds like that to you, then maybe your church practices differently than the ones I'm used to.

Like when Jesus prayed with the Disciples?

That's not what Jesus did!

Matthew 6:6
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Matthew 14:23
After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone,

Mark 1:35
Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.

Luke 5:16
But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.

Luke 9:18
Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”

WHEN Jesus prayed with the disciples (after he taught them how to pray), they did so in private (among themselves). It was never in a public forum, and he specifically says NOT to do that. Jesus never advertised to the world that he was going to pray. He never yelled out in the town square "Come disciples of mine, let us go pray to God together, unlike the rest of these heathens".

You misunderstand what Jesus meant.

Really, in what way exactly?

Besides, he says when two are gathered in his name, he will do what they ask.

But two of us are NOT gathered in his name. You are shouting out OVER THE INTERNET that you want us to pray to find out which one of us is a liar. Is that what you think Jesus was talking about? :sarcastic

You apparently refuse to do that. Why?

See above!

Because you have something to lose, big time. I don't. And you know it.

What do I have to lose exactly? The reality is, I have nothing to gain! I am not seeking pride here like you are. I don't need to partake in these vanity exercises.

Well then Jesus contradicted himself quite handily when he taught his Disciples the Lord's prayer and told them about 2 gathering in his name.

No. Jesus never contradicted himself. It's okay if you choose to interpret it that way, but that's not how I interpret it, and that's not how most Christians interpret it either. So what religion did you claim to be again?

 

[captainbryce]

Oh wow... I don't even know where to start with this. Don't have the energy right now, will do it later.

Okay, see ya then.

 

[Shermana]

. So what religion did you claim to be again?

I claim to be a follower of Christ, who actually knows the Logos personally.

You claim to be a "Christian", but as far as I'm concerned, and I believe I speak for the Logos as well on this, you are only a "Christian" in the corporatized sense. Just as you continually claim I am not one, I claim you aren't either.

 

[captainbryce]

I claim to be a follower of Christ, who actually knows the Logos personally.

You claim to be a "Christian", but as far as I'm concerned, and I believe I speak for the Logos as well on this, you are only a "Christian" in the corporatized sense. Just as you continually claim I am not one, I claim you aren't either.

I have never "claimed" that you were not one. I assumed that this was your claim in the beginning based on everything you were saying about the NT. I've asked if you were one several times and you avoided the question until your last couple of responses. Up until that point, all you did was contradict most of the NT and reject the teachings of the Apostle Paul (sometimes). The natural assumption at that point would be that you were not a Christian. Now, since you have finally answered question A, and are now claiming to be a Christian, I take back my previous assumptions about you.

But just out of curiosity, do you think that your claims about me are some concern of mine? Because you keep sharing your opinion about me for some reason that I can't quite fathom.

Also, even though you failed to address questions B, C, and D, I trust that there is no more confusion on your part about which questions I said you ducked, right?

And, do you have any intention to responding to everything else I wrote in my answer?

opcorn:

 

[Shermana]

And, do you have any intention to responding to everything else I wrote in my answer?

Maybe when I have a spare hour.

 

[captainbryce]

Maybe when I have a spare hour.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I'll take that as a no.

Captain,

You are correct about Shermana. He also cut off talking to me, as did the other Ebionites, etc. like Zardoz and Messianic Jew.

Are you a convinced Trinitarian? If not, then perhaps we could talk at the "Messianic Judaism Discussions" thread I started in "Same Faith Debates" (NOT the DIR, because debates are not allowed there).

The Orthodox Jew who did the OP missed the obvious about Jesus, as do Shermana and the others: Jesus indeed affirmed the books of Moses (which I will henceforth refer to as "Torah", not "Oral Torah"), while calling Oral Torah mere "traditions of men". He also prioritized Torah, saying that all the commandments hung on the two most important:

1. Love God with all your heart, etc.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

The Jews of today are like a Doctor X who is very careful to do all the things a doctor must do: He sets up an office, hangs out his sign and advertizes in the Yellow Pages. Doctor Y was talking with Doctor X one day, and "X" noted that "Y" was not a good doctor, because he had not advertized in the Yellow Pages. Doctor "Y" responded, "Yes, but at least I've been to medical school, which you haven't". Doctor X was then all the more convinced that "Y" was not a proper doctor; because not only didn't he advertize in the Yellow Pages, but he had insulted Doctor X, whom "X" considered the model of a true doctor.

Jesus wants us to love God with all our hearts (which the rich young man of the gospels did not do, because he loved his riches), and then to love one another. Without doing that, our righteousness is, as Paul calls it, "tinkling brass".

I would that Shermana, Messianic Jew and Zardoz would show at least enough love for the brethren, to continue to answer our questions; but they do not. Like the Pharisees, they say, "And who is my brother, or my neighbor?", and so they dismiss us.

Shalom shalom.

 

[dantech]

Captain,

You are correct about Shermana. He also cut off talking to me, as did the other Ebionites, etc. like Zardoz and Messianic Jew.

Are you a convinced Trinitarian? If not, then perhaps we could talk at the "Messianic Judaism Discussions" thread I started in "Same Faith Debates" (NOT the DIR, because debates are not allowed there).

The Orthodox Jew who did the OP missed the obvious about Jesus, as do Shermana and the others: Jesus indeed affirmed the books of Moses (which I will henceforth refer to as "Torah", not "Oral Torah"), while calling Oral Torah mere "traditions of men". He also prioritized Torah, saying that all the commandments hung on the two most important:

1. Love God with all your heart, etc.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

The Jews of today are like a Doctor X who is very careful to do all the things a doctor must do: He sets up an office, hangs out his sign and advertizes in the Yellow Pages. Doctor Y was talking with Doctor X one day, and "X" noted that "Y" was not a good doctor, because he had not advertized in the Yellow Pages. Doctor "Y" responded, "Yes, but at least I've been to medical school, which you haven't". Doctor X was then all the more convinced that "Y" was not a proper doctor; because not only didn't he advertize in the Yellow Pages, but he had insulted Doctor X, whom "X" considered the model of a true doctor.

Jesus wants us to love God with all our hearts (which the rich young man of the gospels did not do, because he loved his riches), and then to love one another. Without doing that, our righteousness is, as Paul calls it, "tinkling brass".

I would that Shermana, Messianic Jew and Zardoz would show at least enough love for the brethren, to continue to answer our questions; but they do not. Like the Pharisees, they say, "And who is my brother, or my neighbor?", and so they dismiss us.

Shalom shalom.

You say I completely missed the point, but all the points I made are supported by scripture whereas what you just wrote, is not.

If you are a believer of what you call "The OT", then there is no logical reason for you to believe in the NT. if you still somehow believe in the NT, then all logic and most scripture will point you towards the Torah which asks you not to eat pork, to keep the Sabbath ON THE SEVENTH day because IT is holy. It's all nice and well to make things easy and "keep" the Sabbath on any other day, but that's not what scripture asks of us.

I am Jewish, these laws are binding to me. You are not Jewish, these laws are NOT binding to you. If you are however a believer that Jesus was the most righteous and perfect person ever, then wouldn't you, logically, want to be as much like him as you could? He was Jewish, the law was binding to him. If he never sinned, then he never ate pork, and he kept the Sabbath on the 7th day, every Sabbath until his death.

If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way.

Again this all depends on whether or not you believe in the Torah. If you don't then just move on. But if you do, please show me, logically, and with the help of scripture, that you don't need to eat kosher, you don't need to keep the Sabbath, you don't need to follow all of our written laws to the dot.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts about hot Jesus fulfilled the law.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Finally I have finished slogging through this long thread! What a labor of love! Naturally I'm going to add a little bit more! This is a reply to Dantech's posts #'s 1, 3 & 77.

Much of the original scripture is skipped over by the Church Fathers. What might be helpful is a quote from a book Greek Orthodox Patrology (which I bought for a few dollars many years ago but have not read yet sorry-about-that). Here are a few comments of choice:

Prof Panagiotes K. Chrestou of Aristotle U. in the book Greek Orthodox Patrology
pp 93-94
"A good look at the entire hermeneutical literature indicates that after Genesis and Exodus the Fathers as a rule jump to the Psalms and from there to the Prophets. Even Origin, who was himself a toilsome defender of the authority of the OT, does not interpret the whole of it. The other books of the OT were initially put aside, but with the passage of time, they reentered into the Church one by one, until the canon of the Church's Bible included all the known texts that we have today."

"In addition, the use of the OT by the Fathers is not the same as that of the Jews. If it was used at all by Christ and the Apostles, this happened because it was necessary to specify the right connection between the old and the new. The two parts of Scripture were combined on the basis of the schema of promise and fulfillment, or preparation and completion, or shadow and body, or law and grace. The OT texts that were read at Church gatherings during the early centuries were taken from the above-mentioned books (the Pentateuch, the Psalms and the Prophets) and were chosen for the purpose of confirming the Christian kerygma, the fulfillment of all God's promises to Israel in the person of Christ."

pg 95 "...The idea concerning the Messiah (the Christ), indeed, has its roots in the OT, but it is certainly fully revised. Christ is not the Messiah of the Jews, He is not the suffering servant, or the worldly redeemer, but the Word or Son of God who became man and ascended into heaven..."

pg 95 "...other noteworthy observations have to do with the borrowings of patristic literature from the OT, which are weaved around their theology as types of the events and the persons of the incarnation and of the renewal of humanity that was thereby brought about."

There you have it. 'Our Scholars' do not agree with current mainstream sentiments. As for me I don't perfectly agree with our neo-Ebionites as they tend to want to completely destroy Paul. I prefer to view Paul as misunderstood but have been forced by neo-Ebionites to see his writing in Galations is very difficult to accept as authentic. (Thank you Shermana.) I don't know what-all has happened to the NT over the centuries, but I know Paul cannot simply be thrown out. I was originally 'Sola Scriptura' brought up charismatic, but Paul provided many insights into Jewish writings for me, bringing me out of so-called fundamentalism. (Well, mostly Jesus quotes brought me out + life experiences, but Paul has helped.) His exhortations while easily misunderstood are useful at times. I cannot simply let him be erased. In any future understanding between mainstream Christians and Judaism he will play a pivotal role I think. For one thing he has become so large that pulling him out leaves a hole, and what can replace him? I'm inclined to disagree or reinterpret his Galations paradox in order to understand him as continuous with Jesus.

My understanding of Paul (excluding Galations) is that he views Judaism as Jews do. I disagree very much with the Professor Crestou whom I have quoted, in many areas such as the meaning of Jesus "Don't throw your pearls before swine!" (Matthew 7:6) The late Prof Chrestou apparently thought that the hidden doctrines of the early Church Fathers were referred to as 'Pearls' by that passage. Not me. I simply cannot accept that and would rather think that the passage means something else in line with a more gnostic line of thought, that people are pearls. Jesus is very unassuming to me, very open to other people's interpretations. I think Paul is similar. I think (for I cannot withhold my own opinion its too hard) that Jesus objects to the storybook 'Pharisees' in that they insist upon doing things according to formulas.

In contrast to 'Mainstream modern Christians' I don't think Paul rejects Moses laws at all or that so called 'Early Christians' would have rejected the laws. In that I am in league with the Church Fathers. I am not in league with them in that Jesus rejects formulas for teaching people and of hard-conclusions about things in the heavens. I see Paul as someone who is able to accept multiple interpretations, on the whole, who accepts the Laws of Moses for Jews as equivalent to life in Christ for everyone else. I don't buy into the combination of Greek philosophy with Judaism as a formula for everyone, like apparently the Roman Missal appears to, nor do I see the 'Church Fathers' as fairly represented in the writings that have been passed down. For me Paul is proof that things are not all ok (are not continuous with) the supposed church fathers, and to me Paul disagrees with himself. Everything must continually be re-evaluated. Do we really know the thoughts of the 'Early Christians'? I doubt it.

 

[dantech]

Finally I have finished slogging through this long thread! What a labor of love! Naturally I'm going to add a little bit more! This is a reply to Dantech's posts #'s 1, 3 & 77.

A lot of goodies, isn't it?

Much of the original scripture is skipped over by the Church Fathers. What might be helpful is a quote from a book Greek Orthodox Patrology (which I bought for a few dollars many years ago but have not read yet sorry-about-that). Here are a few comments of choice:

It was indeed helpful.

There you have it. 'Our Scholars' do not agree with current mainstream sentiments. As for me I don't perfectly agree with our neo-Ebionites as they tend to want to completely destroy Paul. I prefer to view Paul as misunderstood but have been forced by neo-Ebionites to see his writing in Galations is very difficult to accept as authentic. (Thank you Shermana.) I don't know what-all has happened to the NT over the centuries, but I know Paul cannot simply be thrown out. I was originally 'Sola Scriptura' brought up charismatic, but Paul provided many insights into Jewish writings for me, bringing me out of so-called fundamntalism. I just cannot simply let him go. In any future understanding between mainstream Christians and Judaism he will play a pivotal role I think.

My understanding of Paul (excluding Galations) is that he views Judaism as Jews do. I disagree very much with the Professor Crestou whom I have quoted, in many areas such as the meaning of Jesus "Don't throw your pearls before swine!" (Matthew 7:6) The late Prof Chrestou apparently thought that the hidden doctrines of the early Church Fathers were referred to as 'Pearls' by that passage. Not me. I simply cannot accept that and would rather think that the passage means something else in line with a more gnostic line of thought, that people are pearls. Jesus is very unassuming to me, very open to other people's interpretations. I think Paul is similar. I think (for I cannot withhold my own opinion its too hard) that Jesus objects to the storybook 'Pharisees' in that they insist upon doing things according to formulas.

In contrast to 'Mainstream modern Christians' I don't think Paul rejects Moses laws at all or that so called 'Early Christians' would have rejected the laws. In that I am in league with the Church Fathers. I am not in league with them in that Jesus rejects formulas for teaching people and of hard-conclusions about things in the heavens. I see Paul as someone who is able to accept multiple interpretations, on the whole, who accepts the Laws of Moses for Jews as equivalent to life in Christ for everyone else. I don't buy into the combination of Greek philosophy with Judaism as a formula for everyone, like apparently the Roman Missal appears to, nor do I see the 'Church Fathers' as fairly represented in the writings that have been passed down. For me Paul is proof that things are not all ok (are not continuous with) the supposed church fathers, and to me Paul disagrees with himself. Everything must continually be re-evaluated. Do we really know the thoughts of the 'Early Christians'? I doubt it.

So the only real difference between your beliefs and Shermana's are about Paul? You believe more of Moses' law should be followed by Christians?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So the only real difference between your beliefs and Shermana's are about Paul? You believe more of Moses' law should be followed by Christians?

No, I disagree with Shermana; but thank you for asking. I don't know enough to tell you what should be followed by Christians. I don't know how Christians would integrate Moses laws in, and I also am not messianic. I'm just interested in improving conditions for Christians.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ok, I think Sherman has some strong points. Maybe it would help, but I couldn't predict that as I've never seen Christians living under the law. I've met a lot of 'Messianic' people, and they are all very different. They are themselves very few and much misunderstood among Christians. I also don't know what Shermana is talking about when they say they want Jews to take Jesus back. The entire messianic question is complex to me. I have been involved in it indirectly all of my life through a series of coincidences, but it has different meanings to different people. To some people a messianic is a Jew who has 'Asked Jesus into their heart', and I mean that in all seriousness. To other people it means intermarriage. Some people think Christians ought to wear tassels and say 'Yeshua' instead of 'Jesus'. Lots of Christians call themselves 'Messianic' but don't think they need to follow the Mosaic law. Others think its simply a matter of rejecting the Trinity. Others think the Trinity is very important for messianics. Its a hodge-podge right now.

 

[CMike]

You say I completely missed the point, but all the points I made are supported by scripture whereas what you just wrote, is not.

If you are a believer of what you call "The OT", then there is no logical reason for you to believe in the NT. if you still somehow believe in the NT, then all logic and most scripture will point you towards the Torah which asks you not to eat pork, to keep the Sabbath ON THE SEVENTH day because IT is holy. It's all nice and well to make things easy and "keep" the Sabbath on any other day, but that's not what scripture asks of us.

I am Jewish, these laws are binding to me. You are not Jewish, these laws are NOT binding to you. If you are however a believer that Jesus was the most righteous and perfect person ever, then wouldn't you, logically, want to be as much like him as you could? He was Jewish, the law was binding to him. If he never sinned, then he never ate pork, and he kept the Sabbath on the 7th day, every Sabbath until his death.

If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way.

Again this all depends on whether or not you believe in the Torah. If you don't then just move on. But if you do, please show me, logically, and with the help of scripture, that you don't need to eat kosher, you don't need to keep the Sabbath, you don't need to follow all of our written laws to the dot.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts about hot Jesus fulfilled the law.

You are asking questions that they can't logically answer.

I feel that they contradict themselves. They intellectually make no sense.

 

[roger1440]

You say I completely missed the point, but all the points I made are supported by scripture whereas what you just wrote, is not.

If you are a believer of what you call "The OT", then there is no logical reason for you to believe in the NT. if you still somehow believe in the NT, then all logic and most scripture will point you towards the Torah which asks you not to eat pork, to keep the Sabbath ON THE SEVENTH day because IT is holy. It's all nice and well to make things easy and "keep" the Sabbath on any other day, but that's not what scripture asks of us.

I am Jewish, these laws are binding to me. You are not Jewish, these laws are NOT binding to you. If you are however a believer that Jesus was the most righteous and perfect person ever, then wouldn't you, logically, want to be as much like him as you could? He was Jewish, the law was binding to him. If he never sinned, then he never ate pork, and he kept the Sabbath on the 7th day, every Sabbath until his death.

If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way.

Again this all depends on whether or not you believe in the Torah. If you don't then just move on. But if you do, please show me, logically, and with the help of scripture, that you don't need to eat kosher, you don't need to keep the Sabbath, you don't need to follow all of our written laws to the dot.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts about hot Jesus fulfilled the law.

A person can believe in Martin Luther King Jr. without being black or a Baptist. A person can believe in Gandhi without being a Hindu. Why can’t a person believe in Jesus without being a Jew?

 

[Brickjectivity]

A person can believe in Martin Luther King Jr. without being black or a Baptist. A person can believe in Gandhi without being a Hindu. Why can’t a person believe in Jesus without being a Jew?

That is not related to what was being discussed whatsoever. Different thread.

 

[roger1440]

That is not related to what was being discussed whatsoever. Different thread.

How so?
He wrote, "If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way."
I don't agree with that. That was my point.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh, I follow what you're saying.

 

[roger1440]

You say I completely missed the point, but all the points I made are supported by scripture whereas what you just wrote, is not.

If you are a believer of what you call "The OT", then there is no logical reason for you to believe in the NT. if you still somehow believe in the NT, then all logic and most scripture will point you towards the Torah which asks you not to eat pork, to keep the Sabbath ON THE SEVENTH day because IT is holy. It's all nice and well to make things easy and "keep" the Sabbath on any other day, but that's not what scripture asks of us.

I am Jewish, these laws are binding to me. You are not Jewish, these laws are NOT binding to you. If you are however a believer that Jesus was the most righteous and perfect person ever, then wouldn't you, logically, want to be as much like him as you could? He was Jewish, the law was binding to him. If he never sinned, then he never ate pork, and he kept the Sabbath on the 7th day, every Sabbath until his death.

If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way.

Again this all depends on whether or not you believe in the Torah. If you don't then just move on. But if you do, please show me, logically, and with the help of scripture, that you don't need to eat kosher, you don't need to keep the Sabbath, you don't need to follow all of our written laws to the dot.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts about hot Jesus fulfilled the law.

I’ll answer it from my own perspective. I am not Jewish. All 613 laws in the Torah are binding to Jews only. Only 7 of the 613 laws in the Torah are binding to non-Jews. These 7 laws are known as the “Noahide Laws”. The Noahide Laws are binding to all of mankind. I interpret the canonical Gospels as a concise allegorical representation of the Torah, a sort of Midrash. The Jesus in these gospels is portrayed as the Israel that never went astray. This Jesus is God’s son, just as Israel is God’s son. The Jesus in these gospels points his readers back to the Torah. Since I’m not Jewish I’m directed to the 7 Noahide Laws. Jews on the other hand are directed to the entire 613 laws. The purpose of the 7 laws is to lead us to God. The additional laws the Jews have gives them identity. It defines who they are, where they came from and there hope. The fulfillment of the law is to be God centered. To put it another way, to embrace God. I do not believe in any virgin birth or dead people coming back to life, but if Jesus really turned water into wine, then he is most definitely invited to my next party. Do I believe in the Torah? I’m not sure if I understand it all, not yet anyway.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That was Dantech responding to Bland Oatmeal.

If you are a believer of what you call "The OT", then there is no logical reason for you to believe in the NT. if you still somehow believe in the NT, then all logic and most scripture will point you towards the Torah which asks you not to eat pork, to keep the Sabbath ON THE SEVENTH day because IT is holy. It's all nice and well to make things easy and "keep" the Sabbath on any other day, but that's not what scripture asks of us.

Makes sense. I think as this was a response to BlandOatmeal. I'm not defending their position, just making my own comment.

I am Jewish, these laws are binding to me. You are not Jewish, these laws are NOT binding to you. If you are however a believer that Jesus was the most righteous and perfect person ever, then wouldn't you, logically, want to be as much like him as you could? He was Jewish, the law was binding to him. If he never sinned, then he never ate pork, and he kept the Sabbath on the 7th day, every Sabbath until his death.

Thinking... the problem is logistical. I brought this up before, that if someone starts following all of the Torah, then I think that makes them Jewish or nearly so. (Shermana disagreed don't know on what basis) Jesus appeared to be interested in the entire world, and I don't think his goal was to make everyone Jewish. It goes back to the question of what his death was supposed to be for, which I was discussing on another thread. I wouldn't want to establish levels of Jewishness within the Jewish world by making some people partly Jewish. That seems counter to his mission. I understand your logical argument, but the practical logistical question is "Now, what is to be done with all of these Christians?" I don't think we're supposed to all become Jewish. Seriously you'd be overrun.

If to you, being the most perfect person in the world in God's perspective means being like Jesus, then you would need to be Jewish to be that way.

Again this all depends on whether or not you believe in the Torah. If you don't then just move on. But if you do, please show me, logically, and with the help of scripture, that you don't need to eat kosher, you don't need to keep the Sabbath, you don't need to follow all of our written laws to the dot.

I hadn't heard this point of view before. I don't have the same view as Oatmeal. Its again not logical but practical-logistical, kind of timey wimey as I explain below. The answer to your question lies in the basis of Christianity.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts about hot Jesus fulfilled the law.

I'm not trying to correct you on anything. The explanation is not strictly logical, because Christianity literally is supposed to be a bubble-universe to Judaism. You are expecting Elijah to come. Early Christians excepted that there would be two Elijahs, first a type and shadow -- John the Baptist --- followed by the real one later or not (not sure). These two are counterparts within two universes. Jesus and all of his followers exist in a universe apart which is termed a new creation. Within that universe the law is fulfilled in a future sense, as in its going to be fulfilled. Outside of that universe it has not been fulfilled yet. You may have picked up on passages in the NT if you read it where it says Jesus is the 'Author and finisher' and others that call him 'Alpha and omega'. This new universe is what its talking about. *If you think your head hurts from hearing me explain it, believe me my head hurts much more.* Jesus preached 'The kingdom of God has arrived!' which in his universe it had, but his universe was in the future or in some kind of other place, meanwhile literal Israel was oppressed by Rome.

Out of this arises all the various forms of Christianity throughout the last two eons, the more recent ones trying to reconstruct Christianity (and hence also Judaism) from scratch. I would say the law has not been fulfilled literally, but it has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus for the faithful since they will ultimately triumph through love! You, as a modern Jewish person, could think of the Christian new creation of Jesus as a quantum fluctuation trying to gain mass. Its a not that is trying to become.