Posted on 09/24/2009 8:55:54 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
I am curious. You say you were once a Christian. Why did you convert? Jews are forbidden to prosletyze, and most Christians are not that aware of the Noahide Laws.
If you prefer not to answer, that’s okay. But I find that converts are much more knowledgeable about the technicalities of Judaism, (but not the nuances,) than many Jews who were born to it.
It is fascinating to me that you would ascribe a task like this to yourself.
Was that a typo?
What, that they didn’t try to convert every Jew in sight? Or that they weren’t “fundamentalist Protestants?” (That was a joke, BTW.) Obviously they were knowledgeable Jews who were quite comfortable with the notion that their fellow Jews who did not believe in Christ would die in their sins and suffer eternal condemnation.
Of course you reject that idea, that what we have in the NT portion of God’s revelation is, in fact, God’s revelation and that the testimony of Jesus, Peter, Paul, et al is authentic.
You don’t want to argue theology, but yet you have made questionable statements about what “fundamentalist Protestants” believe, and how that is somehow radically different than what Christ and His Church has always taught.
What were you expecting with this sort of post?
However, speaking objectively again, all non-Jews are commanded to relinquish all false religions (including "monotheistic" ones like chr*stianity and islam) and accept and abide by the Seven Noachide Commandments and all their implications (with repentance always available for our failures, thank G-d!).if you wish to retain the caucus or ecumenical label on a thread. Otherwise loud mouths like me are bound to show up and question your sanity.
The purpose of this article is only to clear. As part of your misrepresenting both Fundamentalists and God, you state,
“In the Fundamentalist chr*stian worldview, every human being born into the world since the sin in the Garden is born “damned.” and that is it their sinful nature that damns them.
This is not what Fund. believe, and the closest you can come the Calvinism, but which does not believe all are born damned. Moreover, many Arminian Fundamentalists hold that man is a free moral agent, and that souls go to Hell for the sins they committed, and not for Adam’s, though rejecting Christ, who alone can save, effectively is the ultimate sin.
Now here is just what you feared, some Bible quotes:
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20:13)
Notice “their works”, not those of Adam’s, or possessing a sinful nature. For The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Dt. 24:16)
The Bible also make clear that you are not a Christian or a Fund. one because you were raised that way, so may you get on the Lord’s side and stop misrepresenting His word.
It has the opposite effect. * is a wildcard operator, so it picks up any letter and could inadvertently include other gods or places, such as Gilead.
While Fund. Christians are agreed on the means of salvation, and such as repent and believe on Christ enjoy a basic spiritual unity, to treat them as a monolithic group as concerns the basis for damnation, as regards the deep subject of election, shows a critical ignorance of them.
Actually, they didn't. James, Peter and John explained/showed to Paul how many converts were zealous for the Law. They were converting heathens/non Jews to their religion at that time, which we today call Judaism. It had no name at that time.
If we go back to the time of the flood, when all the wicked perished and only the family of Noah survived, all the people that survived at that time were gentiles. The covenant made at that time, in Genesis 9, is known as the Noahic Covenant, and was for all people.
Later at Sinai another covenant was made, this time with those that became the Israelites. This covenant consisted of the same things as the Noahic covenant, but it had additional commandments as well. These additional commandments pertained to the Israelites because they were to be a light unto the nations. They were to be an example to the gentiles. The Israelites were to be a Holy nation. The extra commandments pertained to dietary guidelines for purity, they also contained commandments for their 'priesthood', and Sabbath keeping.
Now, back to Noah and his family. As people dispersed, they took the Noahic Covenant with them. This is why we see so many similarities between so many religions of the world. There are differences too. These differences are what we call today 'traditions of man'. Remove these differences, and focus on the similarities and you find 3 things.
1. Belief in G-d
2. Instructions in moral conduct (we know them as the 10 commandments, but other religions call them other things, such as the 10 fold path, the negative confessions, the precious garland, the 10 charges, etc.)
3. The Golden rule, or Royal rule. We know this as 'do unto others'.
Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. (Confucianism - Mencius VII.A.4 )Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. (Christianity - Bible, Matthew 7:12)
Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." (Confucianism - Analects 15.23)
Confucious predates Yehoshua/Joshua (Jesus) by about 500 years.
As you can see, 'universality' was already set into place long before christianity came along. One faith, one family.
As a Christian I do not believe Jews are going to hell for denying Christ, I do think at some point they will know Jesus Christ is the one they have been waiting for....
GOD knows that for many Jews especially in a Modern World do not recognize the Jesus of the Christians to be there Messiah, although many Jews have come to believe in Jesus Christ..
For me personally I have a real relationship with Jesus Christ, it is not based upon any particular religion, it is based on his gospel message and on his guidance and on his gift of salvation...
it is a relationship that enhances my life for the good in every way, who makes me want to please GOD and other’s.
And what about those Jews who died and never realized that?
You cannot post an article which is antagonistic toward a group and then exclude them from responding in kind. It is you who make Fund. out to be “duped”.
Hello, Zioniest Conspirator. Most interesting post. You have some aspects of Christianity correct. But you have misunderstood some others. Even thought these misunderstandings are subtle, they are important. First of all, correct Christian theology does not put the blame on the devil for man’s sinful condition. Further, God did not, in fact, create man “perfect.” The Bible never says that. It says He created everything “good” or “very good.” God, did in reality, create man with the ability to sin—because he created him with free will. Just what happened to mankind at the Fall as described in Genesis is not well-defined either by the Bible or by Christian theologians, so speculation about it is pointless. Let it be simply said that the Bible—including the Old Testament—in numerous places teaches that all men are sinful. Just a few Old Testament passages: Gen 6:5, 8:11, 1 Kngs 8:46, Job 14:1-4, 25:2-6, Ps 14, Ps 51:3-5, 58:3-5, 143:1-2, Pr 14:12, Ecc 7:20, Is 53:6, 55:8-9, 59:2, 64:6, Jer 17:9, Dan 9:1-11.
You have also mischaracterized the doctrine of justification. Even Calvinists, who believe that those saved are chosen by God, believe that one must persevere (in faith and love, etc by free will) during one’s life to enter heaven.
You are invited to check out our website: http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course
>Actually, they didn’t. James, Peter and John explained/showed to Paul how many converts were zealous for the Law. They were converting heathens/non Jews to their religion at that time, which we today call Judaism. It had no name at that time.<
No, while Noahide laws may be seen being a requirement in Acts 15, Judaism did/does not preach, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38) which Peter did to 3k+ Jews, and afterward to other Jews and Gentiles as well (Acts 10). This was Christianity whether it was called that or not, and it was in Acts 11:26 that that the name Christian was given to those who previously were seen as distinctive from Judaism. In Acts 21, James did give the well-meaning advice for Paul to go to the Jewish celebration of Pentecost, which only showed that what the apostles preached (Acts 15) was unacceptable to Judaism. And John was certainly not preaching Noahide laws as a means of salvation either.
The Bible itself does not claim that no moral truth exists outside it, and in fact the N.T. confirms that God provides a basic moral enlightenment to all, including Gentiles. (Romans 2) Paul himself quoted a truth from a pagan philosopher on Mar;s Hill. (Acts 17) But as “the law of the Lord is perfect”, (Ps. 19) all must be tested by the Scriptures.
As far as the ethic of reciprocity, its reiteration in the positive sense is rare, esp. as a concise command before the N.T., and as it is Christ who is declared to be the word and wisdom of God, that the law was uttered in various forms before its most sublime form in Matthew is of no challenge to Him as its source.
There are two Genesis stories. In neither one was Eve forbidden to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
AND YET, Christianity blames women for the sins of the world.
Wrong, as your statement requires negating that Adam was the head of the wife, and thus the wife was commanded through him not to eat of the forbidden fruit.
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (Gn. 3:2,3)
As for your second statement, the N.T. does affirm that the women did break God’s law, but recognizes this as being due to deception, which is a basis for exclusion for female leadership over men, (1Tim 2) but Adam is recognized as being the more accountable and evil-affecting his posterity by his disobedience.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. (Rom. 5)
Actually Yehoshua/Joshua/Jesus did preach that people needed to repent.
Matthew 3
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 3:
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Mark 6
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
In Acts 10 which you happen to cite. Read closely. The Holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius prior to baptism, which just goes to show that baptism isn't necessary. Cornelius had already been found to be acceptable to G-d.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (Deut) The "Two Tablets of the Law".
Acts 10:2 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people (Second Tablet of the Law), and prayed to God alway (First Tablet of the Law) (KJV)
The First Tablet of the Law contained the commandments and obligations given to man concerning maintaining his relationship with God. In other words these commandments were "vertical"; between man and God. These commandments in the First Tablet of the Law dealt with man's relationship with God and when obeyed guaranteed man's continued acceptance with God. These Laws, or should I say "categories" of Laws were manifestations of man's Covenant stipulations with God whereby if observed "kept" man in good relationship with God within his respective Covenant. The Second Tablet of the Law contained the commandments and obligations given to man concerning man's relationship with man
Cornelius, not a Jew mind you, and not a convert to Judaism, keeping the Laws of God written on his heart which happens to be parallel to the Laws of Moses. Cornelius, the Gentile Godfearer mentioned in Acts 10, was a centurion at Caesarea and serves as a good example of what a Godfearer did religiously. First, he and his household were devout (the Greek word is eulabes) and Godfearing (Phoboumenos Ton Theon), which is a double adjective referring to him and his family which shows their exemplary lives characterized by Jewish norms and values.
2126 eulabes yoo-lab-ace' from 2095 and 2983; taking well (carefully), i.e. circumspect (religiously, pious):--devout.
2095 eu yoo neuter of a primary eus (good); (adverbially) well:--good, well (done).
Acts 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did (Second Tablet of the Law) (KJV)
Both Dorcas and Cornelius gave alms to the needy? This is taught by Judaism to result in a life that is honoring to God and the fruit of which earns one Eternal Life. Is it an accident that we see a resurrection from the dead of a person where the only thing mentioned is that she "did good works" and "gave alms" which just happens to be obedience to the Second Tablet of the Law? Is this just a coincidence?
This was Christianity whether it was called that or not, and it was in Acts 11:26 that that the name Christian was given to those who previously were seen as distinctive from Judaism.
Yehoshua was Jewish and he never left Judaism. His followers were Jewish as well.
James also told Paul to go purify himself with several men that had a vow on them. (nazarite) to show the people that he (Paul) still followed the Law!
Maybe certain christians got that idea from this:
From the Council of Nicea (325):(excerpted)
It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them?
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].
The church has done nearly all it could to distance themselves from the root that they 'claim' to be grafted unto. Yet, it resembles nothing of the root anymore.
An actual admission that the church has deviated from 'the way' and gone after 'another way'!! And to top it off, they give credit to Yehoshua for this 'new way'. The church admits that this 'other way' is more CONVENIENT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.