The Jews remain God's chosen. God cannot be unfaithful to his promises. The covenant was to be renewed with Israel. Ultimately they rejected it. But God has not rejected them!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
The Jews remain God's chosen. God cannot be unfaithful to his promises. The covenant was to be renewed with Israel. Ultimately they rejected it. But God has not rejected them!
But not in the sense of love.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Deuteronomy 31:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
Israel was God's chosen nation, but not anymore. You can't find pure Israelites anymore after the Diaspora.
What you see now are Israelis, not Israelites. They have a different mode of Judaism. For example Kapparot
Kapparot - Wikipedia
Matthew 15:9
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”
That is why God sent his only Son.
John 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Did the Jews believed God's only begotten Son?
Matthew 27:24-26 New International Version (NIV)
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
So the Jews murdered the Lord Jesus Christ like God's prophet were killed by their ancestors.
Acts 7:52
Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—
That is why God made the New Covenant, the old is obsolete. The New Covenant extends to the Jews and the Gentiles - if they accepted the covenant.
Romans 3:29
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
There is no more distinction who are Jews and Gentiles.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
It is either you believe in Christ [saved] or do not believe in Christ [condemned] John 3:18
MjFlores
You have given your 'thought of the Catholic Church'. But, understand that your thoughts do not reflect Catholic Church teaching. The Church, in its doctrine nor in its interpretation of Scripture does not stagnate. You are coming from a fundamentalist mindset which the Church rejects.
Divino Afflante Spiritu opened the doors to critical scholarship. Then came Vatican II. In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical Commission distinguished three stages in Jesus traditions: first, what Jesus said and did; second, the church’s passing down information about Jesus, selecting and adapting it for its own purposes; finally, the evangelists writing the gospels, drawing on traditional material but adapting, rearranging, and synthesizing it. Vatican II accepted this in Dei Verbum. A statement by the Commission in 1993 rejects biblical fundamentalism, which it defines as uncritical literalism in reading the Bible. Notable is the following:
"In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus)." Other documents go further in defining fundamentalism as a form of intellectual suicide.
You have given your 'thought of the Catholic Church'. But, understand that your thoughts do not reflect Catholic Church teaching. The Church, in its doctrine nor in its interpretation of Scripture does not stagnate. You are coming from a fundamentalist mindset which the Church rejects.
Divino Afflante Spiritu opened the doors to critical scholarship. Then came Vatican II. In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical Commission distinguished three stages in Jesus traditions: first, what Jesus said and did; second, the church’s passing down information about Jesus, selecting and adapting it for its own purposes; finally, the evangelists writing the gospels, drawing on traditional material but adapting, rearranging, and synthesizing it. Vatican II accepted this in Dei Verbum. A statement by the Commission in 1993 rejects biblical fundamentalism, which it defines as uncritical literalism in reading the Bible. Notable is the following:
"In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus)." Other documents go further in defining fundamentalism as a form of intellectual suicide.
In the presence of God the prophet takes the part of the people. In the presence of the people he takes the part of God.
It is a love that cannot let his people go.
So when Jesus behaved unlovingly, this is because God is unloving?
Jesus never behaved unloving, love is not sentimental gibberish, but wanting what is best for the other.
And you think that sometimes "what is best for the other" includes lash wounds or "wailing and gnashing of teeth"?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Just reading the Bible and if you put 2 and 2 together everybody could figure it out.
Romans 3:2-11New International Version (NIV)
Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
But this is my opinion: That the Covenant given by God to the Israelites is obsolete. There are no more Israelites to begin with. The old Covenant was exclusively made for the Israelites - not the Egyptians, not the Canaanites, not the Babylonians, etc etc - only the Israelites. Are there any Israelites today? None. What you have is a mixed race - of Jews of varying beliefs and traditions which are totally different from the Old Testament "Jewish" beliefs.
Jewish religious movements, sometimes called "denominations" or "branches", include different groups which have developed among Jews from ancient times. Today, the main division is between the Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative lines, with several smaller movements alongside them.
That is why the Lord Jesus Christ said to Jews during his ministry on earth:
Mark 7:9
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Mark 7:8
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
What you are reading is post resurrection interpretation of Jesus. It does not address the question as the historical Jesus intention towards a establishing a new religion.
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. Mt 23:2-3
Since when does a warning of catastrophic consequences not serve a persons best interest?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Post resurrection? Everything is valid as long as it is in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 4:2 New International Version (NIV)
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
Revelation 22:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
"It does not address the question as the historical Jesus intention towards a establishing a new religion."
John 10:1-18 New International Version (NIV)
“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
...Jesus intention towards a establishing a new religion."
Matthew 16:18 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
So I tell you, you are Peter. And I will build my church on this rock. The power of death will not be able to defeat my church.
George Lamsa Translation of the Pe****ta
Acts 20:28
Acts 20:28 - GLT - Take heed therefore to yourselves and...
Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.
He did.
Once again, does not address the consciousness of the historical Jesus. The NT is a product of the church and is composed from post resurrection faith. By the time John wrote, or a Johannine school, Christians had already separated from the Jews. Each evangelist addressed the needs peculiar to their community.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Didn't the 11 choose via lots when they wanted to fill the empty spot? I would assume voting is how they'd go about it. That John didn't win doesn't wake me at night.
Jesus griped his apostles were stupid. That they wouldn't follow his teachings shouldn't be a shock.
Who cares? If God can make a messiah out of some random construction worker's kid, why should being an apostle mean anything? Didn't Jesus say that the last shall become first? John thought pretty highly of himself in terms of his relationship to Jesus. Many apostles assumed they'd be sitting at Jesus' right hand, a position of honor. He made up those humiliating parables about kicking the VIPs out into the cheap seats for a reason.
I think he's egotistical enough (no canon or gnostic gospel paints him in a good light, to be honest) to declare himself one and then argue Jesus said it was okay.
I'll agree only because it's obvious via the overt ceremony of voting that it's the voting that gets you the chair and the robes, not any divine command.
And doesn't it depend on how you print out your calendar? Some people have Monday as the first day and Sunday the last, after all...
Peter had to learn an important lesson: God can choose whomever He likes. He didn't think pagans should get to be Christians but God showed in a dream and at a pagan dinner that this was not the case at all.
Do not say to yourselves, I have been Jesus' follower, for truly I tell you, God can make followers for Jesus out of rocks.... (to paraphrase).
I mean, I'm with you in that I roll my eyes at the succession as well, but you ignore many plot points that justify their opinion on the matter.
Because while John loved to put his head on Jesus' lap, we don't see such love requited. Sad, really ...
Why do you assume the actual winners of the posts didn't?
I'm a nurse. I love God by going to work on my workdays, including Sundays or Saturdays, to help care for the people HE let get sick, so ...
And even then, it was supposed to be a metaphor to drive home the fact he shouldn't be considering pagans unclean.
Why does Jesus complain they are idiots?
Matthew 16:9New International Version (NIV)
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
Matthew 16:11New International Version (NIV)
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Mark 4:13New International Version (NIV)
13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?
etc, etc
Well, apparently he didn't choose John for Pope ...
Changing the covenant is also necessary when you have broken from your parent religion and need to make deals to increase your numbers. It's kind of like when politicians promise you a whole bunch of stuff while campaigning and then go do what they wanted to do anyway when in office.
Look at everything they went through. If that's how God treats treasure, I'd hate to see how He treats trash.
When you're warning about a flash flood and you're the one breaking the dam.
When the person speaking is also the one who will ensure that the consequences are carried out, it isn't a warning; it's a threat.
Do parents never warn teenagers before handing over the car keys, are they not prepared to carry through if their warnings are ignored, does the doctor not warn of the consequences of continuing an unhealthy lifestyle? Etc.
The consequences will come to pass independent of the doctor.
Though there was a dark side in the image of Peter, one of a week and sinful man, this is outweighed by NT testimony that images Peter as early witness risen Jesus, leader and spokesman of the Twelve, the missionary. In the first half of John 21 Peter is portrayed as the shepherd (pastor) of the sheep. It is Peter who commanded the baptism of Cornelius. It is Peter who received the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. It becomes clear to the Christian community with this faith Peter is the rock upon whom Jesus has founded his church. In 2 Pt Peter speaks as a magisterial voice that can interpret the prophecies of Scripture (1:20), and can correct misinterpretations based on the authority of other apostles, as Paul (3:15).
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Peter was a great apostle. God's church is built on Jesus who is called the "rock" many times.
Except that's not the case here. The post-death "woe" that Jesus warns of is entirely within God's control and is not independent of him.
I don't believe it is in God's control. Clearly we cause our own destruction, God has given his word and he cannot change it.