The Bible, Israel, significance

[Desert Snake]

1 God said he would dwell their forever.

2 Jesus has to return to the nation of Israel as king

3 Jesus said in Luke that the Jews after being expelled from Jerusalem would return and govern it again (1968)

4 Paul said that Christians are grafted into Israel as unnatural branches

Yes, but the details aren't as clear eh? Are all the Jews going to convert to Christianity? Are Christians going to move to the 'new Israel'

This raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Shermana]

4 Paul said that Christians are grafted into Israel as unnatural branches

Which is supposed to mean that they will live like the rest of the Israelites and be like the rest of the tree. You don't graft an apple branch onto an olive tree. You may graft a Wild olive branch, but its still an olive tree. The tree doesn't change to conform to the branch, the branch conforms to the tree.

 

[allright]

Which is supposed to mean that they will live like the rest of the Israelites and be like the rest of the tree. You don't graft an apple branch onto an olive tree. You may graft a Wild olive branch, but its still an olive tree. The tree doesn't change to conform to the branch, the branch conforms to the tree.

No as Paul said the Jews (the natural branches) who didnt accept Jesus were cut off from the Olive Tree, but in the end times many will accept Jesus as the Messiah and be grafted back into the Olive Tree

Moses said concerning Messiah "God will raise up a prophet like unto me and anyone who does not obey him will be cut off from the people"

 

[allright]

Yes, but the details aren't as clear eh? Are all the Jews going to convert to Christianity? Are Christians going to move to the 'new Israel'

This raises more questions than it answers.

As I said before many Jews are going to accept Jesus as the Messiah in the end times
Its already starting

 

[Shermana]

No as Paul said the Jews (the natural branches) who didnt accept Jesus were cut off from the Olive Tree, but in the end times many will accept Jesus as the Messiah and be grafted back into the Olive Tree

Moses said concerning Messiah "God will raise up a prophet like unto me and anyone who does not obey him will be cut off from the people"

So you're unaware that the original Disciples were all Torah obedient Jews?

 

[allright]

So you're unaware that the original Disciples were all Torah obedient Jews?

Really, than why did Paul when rebuking Peter say to Peter "If you a Jew live like a Gentile "

Your saying James was put to death by the Sandhedrin while being a Torah obedient Jew

 

[fallingblood]

*Post Removed*

The writers of Matthew and Revelations weren't Christians. They simply weren't. They were Jews. To be more specific, they were Jews who believed that the Messiah had come. That doesn't make them Christians, it makes them Jews who accept that the Messiah had come. And Jesus was hardly the first so called Messiah. This is accepted by nearly all Bible scholars.

As for your second quote, it is dishonest. You took what I said out of context, and made it appear that I said something that I did not. That is simply lying.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Which is supposed to mean that they will live like the rest of the Israelites and be like the rest of the tree. You don't graft an apple branch onto an olive tree. You may graft a Wild olive branch, but its still an olive tree. The tree doesn't change to conform to the branch, the branch conforms to the tree.

I don't want to take this off topic and I don't want to make this personal but I do find your beliefs interesting, partly because of their uniqueness. You're always quick to remind us gentiles of the fact that you see it as our calling to follow the mosaic law. Here's what I find incredibly peculiar and please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. You don't actually believe that Jesus is God even if he is the messiah if I'm not mistaken. You know very well that we Christians worship him as a diety. You reject the doctrine of "saved by faith"as opposed to us who accept it. You believe in a works based system of justification which seems to me that you are essentially a Jew who tries to follow some of the improvements that Jesus ushered in like "turning the other cheek." If that's the case, I would think that our failure to acknowledge the mosaic law as relevant would be the least of your qualms with our beliefs. I would think that your biggest qualm with our ways would be what you perceive as the idolatry of worshipping a false god as well as how we believe we are justified. Then way way way down the list I would think that Jewish dietary laws and the like would register.

 

[Shermana]

You're always quick to remind us gentiles of the fact that you see it as our calling to follow the mosaic law.

Reflex quick.

Here's what I find incredibly peculiar and please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. You don't actually believe that Jesus is God even if he is the messiah if I'm not mistaken.

You are not mistaken.

You know very well that we Christians worship him as a diety.

"Orthodox Christians", yes. I regard him as "a deity" too. Angels are called gods after all.

You reject the doctrine of "saved by faith"as opposed to us who accept it.

Got that right.

You believe in a works based system of justification which seems to me that you are essentially a Jew who tries to follow some of the improvements that Jesus ushered in like "turning the other cheek."

Essentially.

If that's the case, I would think that our failure to acknowledge the mosaic law as relevant would be the least of your qualms with our beliefs.

Why?

I would think that your biggest qualm with our ways would be what you perceive as the idolatry of worshipping a false god as well as how we believe we are justified.

Au contraire, the Trinity is far less of a concern to me than the total disregard for the commandments of God or the belief that they aren't binding, let alone actually adhering to the teachings of Jesus. Angels were bowed down to, King David was bowed down to. My main issue with the Trinity is that it leads to an incorrect understanding of what Jesus was as Messiah to begin with. On another level, I see the Trinity as a major linchpin of which the entire antinomian orthodox structure relies on, so removing that linchpin is a quick way to get it to crumble.

As for how you are justified, that's all part of the obedience and commandments part which I think is the most important concern.

Then way way way down the list I would think that Jewish dietary laws and the like would register.

Nope, up high on the list is the things like the dietary Laws because that's the main thrust of what it meant to actually be a Christian originally. If you believe Jesus was God incarnate, I'm going to disagree but the main reason for doing so is it because it's related to issues regarding what his mission was and opposing the structure which relies on such a teaching.

 

[allright]

The writers of Matthew and Revelations weren't Christians. They simply weren't. They were Jews. To be more specific, they were Jews who believed that the Messiah had come. That doesn't make them Christians, it makes them Jews who accept that the Messiah had come. And Jesus was hardly the first so called Messiah. This is accepted by nearly all Bible scholars.

As for your second quote, it is dishonest. You took what I said out of context, and made it appear that I said something that I did not. That is simply lying.

I did not take it out of context, you said your a Christian and you said Jesus was a failure as the Messiah Now your calling him a so called Messiah ?


Christian means a follower of Christ the word Christ means Messiah Christian means a follower of Messiah

 

[Shermana]

Really, than why did Paul when rebuking Peter say to Peter "If you a Jew live like a Gentile "

Because he visited Gentiles' homes which was against Jewish custom at the time and was not following Rabbinical rulings, yet at the same time there is no real ruling that gentile converts must circumcise themselves, which was the issue of contention there. It didn't necessarily mean he was now violating Sabbath and eating catfish.

Your saying James was put to death by the Sandhedrin while being a Torah obedient Jew

We have no idea how James died or if he was executed, but I'd bet everything I own and ever will own that he was a Torah obedient Jew who believed Jesus was Messiah and went by Jesus's teachings at the time of his death.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Shermana: just out of curiosity do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[Shermana]

Yes I do.

 

[fallingblood]

I did not take it out of context, you said your a Christian and you said Jesus was a failure as the Messiah Now your calling him a so called Messiah ?


Christian means a follower of Christ the word Christ means Messiah Christian means a follower of Messiah

You did take it out of context and now you're jumping to irrational conclusions. I did not say, and you misquoted, that Jesus was a failure. I don't believe that and have never stated such. What I stated, as the context would have shown, is that Jesus failed as a Jewish messiah. As in, Jesus did not fulfill messianic expectations as thought of by Jews.

Also, Christ, and Messiah for the matter, translate to anointed one. Kings were also anointed ones. Just thought I would throw that out as Christ does not mean Messiah. It means anointed one.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, the backstory, but Christianity basically developed outside Israel and Judaism, Judaism doesn't accept the precepts of Christianity, are you saying that it makes sense to combine the two beliefs? They oppose each other theologically.

They can't drop the OT because they are basing their "legitimacy" on Jesus being the Moshiach of the OT, and him being part of the OT God.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Justin point out a flaw in reasoning. It really is not logical to try to define another's persons beliefs based on a single statement or single term. The definition you are implying For agnostic simply does not match my beliefs. And yes, Evangelicals are orthodox in the sense that they don't adhere to doctrines considered heretical by orthodoxy

As for orthodox or unorthodox, those ideas really have died out. Evangelical Christians are not orthodox, unless one redefines orthodoxy.

Just something to keep in mind.

If you feel you want to redefine the word "agnostic" I guess you have that right. I think it be more clear if you simply chose a word with an already existing definition that you feel fit your beliefs better. Besides if Jesus is dead then he's unknowable anyways. It seems to me you picked the perfect word. And yes, Evangelicals are orthodox in the sense that they don't adhere to doctrines considered heretical by orthodoxy

ag·nos·tic

/ægˈnɒs

tɪk/ Show Spelled [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

[fallingblood]

If you feel you want to redefine the word "agnostic" I guess you have that right. I think it be more clear if you simply chose a word with an already existing definition that you feel fit your beliefs better. Besides if Jesus is dead then he's unknowable anyways. It seems to me you picked the perfect word. And yes, Evangelicals are orthodox in the sense that they don't adhere to doctrines considered heretical by orthodoxy

I'm not redefining the word. I'm using agnostic in the sense in which it means. First and foremost, I am only agnostic when it comes to God, or a supreme being. I do not think it is possible to know if God exists. I may believe that God exists, but belief and knowledge are separate. I accept the possibility that I may be wrong. Simply put, I do not think that we have the required knowledge needed in order to make a rational decision on whether or not God exists. Thus, it falls into the realm of faith, and for me, I must then stay open to the possibility that I am wrong.

This does not effect that manner in which I view Jesus though, so your statement before simply was not correct.

Also, one can know a person who is dead (or as I said, died. I never stated that Jesus was still dead. In fact, I was silent on the matter). I can know my grandfather, who I never met, by examining his life through other witnesses.

As for the orthodox matter, the idea of orthodoxy was created by the Catholic church. Once one begins to distance themselves from the Catholic Church (and one could even make the case that once when moves away from the historical Roman Catholic Church), one moves away from orthodoxy. The matter gets a little muddled as there is also the Orthodox church, which split from the Catholic church. Here, we get two sets of orthodoxy.

If we push this further, when the reformation began, other forms of Christianity formed, which also took on a idea that they were the orthodox. Each time, we have a new form of orthodoxy, and new sects being called heretics. And yes, the Evangelicals were called heretics as well.

The problem is that the term orthodox basically means right thinking. Since there is no more central authority for the church, there has become a plethora of right ways to think. And the term orthodox or orthodoxy really has become pointless unless talking about one of the Orthodox churches.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm not redefining the word. I'm using agnostic in the sense in which it means. First and foremost, I am only agnostic when it comes to God, or a supreme being. I do not think it is possible to know if God exists. I may believe that God exists, but belief and knowledge are separate. I accept the possibility that I may be wrong. Simply put, I do not think that we have the required knowledge needed in order to make a rational decision on whether or not God exists. Thus, it falls into the realm of faith, and for me, I must then stay open to the possibility that I am wrong.

This does not effect that manner in which I view Jesus though, so your statement before simply was not correct.

Also, one can know a person who is dead (or as I said, died. I never stated that Jesus was still dead. In fact, I was silent on the matter). I can know my grandfather, who I never met, by examining his life through other witnesses.

As for the orthodox matter, the idea of orthodoxy was created by the Catholic church. Once one begins to distance themselves from the Catholic Church (and one could even make the case that once when moves away from the historical Roman Catholic Church), one moves away from orthodoxy. The matter gets a little muddled as there is also the Orthodox church, which split from the Catholic church. Here, we get two sets of orthodoxy.

If we push this further, when the reformation began, other forms of Christianity formed, which also took on a idea that they were the orthodox. Each time, we have a new form of orthodoxy, and new sects being called heretics. And yes, the Evangelicals were called heretics as well.

The problem is that the term orthodox basically means right thinking. Since there is no more central authority for the church, there has become a plethora of right ways to think. And the term orthodox or orthodoxy really has become pointless unless talking about one of the Orthodox churches.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong. Do you believe Jesus is the Lord? Do you believe he died for our sins and rose from the dead? Do you believe that through faith in him one can have their sins forgiven and know God the father? Or do you make no judgement either way effectively making you an agnostic? Simple yes or no answers will suffice. Mind you there is a huge difference between taking a step and believing these things to be true as opposed to believing that it's theoretically possible that they could true. The former takes faith, the latter does not. Answering these questions will just help clarify which perspective of "Christianity" you speak for. Also, you're the guy that said we don't what Jesus said because of your claim that he didn't leave us any of his sermons. That being the case, I can't begin to imagine what your dicernment process looks like when judging which NT witnesses are trustworthy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

May I play?

Do you believe Jesus is the Lord?

No.

Do you believe he died for our sins and rose from the dead?

No.

Do you believe that through faith in him one can have their sins forgiven and know God the father?

No.

Or do you make no judgement either way effectively making you an agnostic?

No.

Mind you there is a huge difference between taking a step and believing these things to be true as opposed to believing that it's theoretically possible that they could true.

No. The huge difference is believing that it's theoretically possible that they could be true.

The former takes faith, the latter does not.

The latter takes gullibility.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The thing I appreciate about Jay is that he isn't coy about his beliefs nor does he cloak his statements in ambiguity. He leaves no doubt whatsoever about which perspective he speaks from. Readers appreciate that level of honesty. In fact, writers who act like they're trying to hide something only raise serious suspicions about their true motives thereby breaking trust with the reader.