Then why respond with "I trust them" when i showed to apostles wanting Judaizers to be cut off or castrated, or reproving Judaizers for placing their yoke upon the disciples, while i am charged with mocking the Torah and the Jews, and being antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean simply because i pointed out the inconsistency of modern-day Christian (if they can even be called "Christian) "Judaizers," using that fitting label.
I blame history, which has shown what has come from assigning such labels to Jews in a highly charged religious polemic.
This is simply liberalism 101, in which if the reaction to truth makes a guilty "victim status" party angry, like Islam gets, then it should not be said!
Certainly context and the audience must be considered, and which i was doing in making my remark, but you were not. Had i been trying to reach a typical Jewish bystander then calling them Judaizers would not be fitting, but my remark was after many posts contending against souls preaching an admixture of law and grace, making obedience under the New Covenant as requiring the literal observance of the ceremonial law.
And thus both pointing out their inconsistency and calling them Judaizers was contextually and polemically fitting. But you jump in censuring me as mocking the Torah and the Jews, and sounding antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, which can hardly be justified contextually, and as Scripturally fitting or wise.
That term itself sounds as if it applies to all Jews who follow and teach Torah
Which is irrelevant as my audience was not all Jews but "Christian" Judaizers!
I was not all mocking the Torah and the Jews, as the reproof was against either, but against "Christian" Judaizers insistently imposing, if inconsistently, literal observance of the ceremonial law on Christians, contrary to Scripture
. These are the ones doing the mocking, that of obedience to the Lord being under the New Covenant, which the Lord instituted with His own sinless shed blood! But instead of siding with us, you instigated an attacked on me, and continue to engage in laborious attempt to justify it rather than apologize for your rash response.
Consider Martin Luther.
And Hilterians and white supremacists and atheists quote Paul to justify their hatred, but once again the misuse of a term does not invalidate its proper use, which mine was! Stop trying to defend your vain attack.
In addition, as is typical of Roman rage against Luther, you fail to consider your own house:
“The Popes Against the Jews,” Part 1
The Popes Against the Jews, Part 6: The Show So Far Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Luther was hardly alone in his exasperated cynicism, which is not excused, but for context see Luther and the Jews .
That is why I object to the term. We have Torah Observant Jews among us here.
Yet again, I was not even addressing Torah Observant Jews for following the Torah, but souls who profess Christ yet adamantly contend we must keep the ceremonial law. It is these to whom the term "Judaizer applies, and i doubt any Torah Observant Jew would have a problem with me calling professed Christians by that term as befitting, while their objection would be to Christians claiming both obedience to the Torah and faith in Christ.
Meanwhile, the Lord termed Gentiles a "dogs" (Mt. 15:22-28) in using a women of faith to actually reprove Jews via her response (who would have been indignant at far less), and there were sincere Pharisees when the Lord unloaded on them with His broadsides, (Mt. 23) and Paul warned of the "concision" in the same breath as "dogs" and "evil workers," (Phil. 3:2) and of Cretians always being "liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." (Titus 1:2) And the Holy Spirit recorded it for all generations, and their decedents can read it.
Thus since these can be misunderstood by the unlearned and unstable who wrest such to their own damnation, not understanding context, as you evidently failed to do with me, then you need to censor the Lord and His Spirit for using words that may appear to be "antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean." Or whatever.
. Can you use another term that honors your biblical argument without having such a connection with Judaism ?
Are you serious? I must only censor "Christians" who profess faith in the Jewish Messiah, but who insist obedience to Christ means obeying the ceremonial laws of the Torah, without having such a connection with Judaism? Am i on MSNBC?
Instead of this being what is Scripturally objectionable, it is is that of your censure of me for calling "Christians" by the term "Judaizer," as if this was mocking the Torah and the Jews, and antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean by my words. And then making it an issue of lack of trust of me when faced with apostolic censure of the like! And then trying to defend it all with more sophistry. Just admit it was a rash response due to misunderstanding the context, or reprove the Lord and apostles for their broadsides.
Why not allow that this was a rash reaction on your part, which i dare say we would not see by a regular RC here if a Catholic has made my response.
Paul was an approved Apostle. I trust him implicitly and completely. That is my answer when someone points to his writings as being antiSemitic. Luther was not an apostle. He was a rebellious Catholic who established his own re-formed version of the religion, not unlike thousands of others, before and after him. What distinguishes him is that he is relatively recent in that history testifies extensively (his writings survive), millions followed him, and millions died, both in the Thirty Years War, and later. Luther became completely and rabidly antiSemitic and his published work was the blueprint for the Holocaust, and his legacy to the world.
Luther was hardly alone in his exasperated cynicism, which is not excused, but for context see Luther and the Jews .
exasperated cynicism ?
Do you really mean to defend Luther's blueprint for the Holocaust as exasperated cynicism ?
I detest all the antisemitism that stained, or still stains, the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I see blessed John Paul II, a frail and completely genuine man, putting his prayer for forgiveness, in one of the cracks of the Western Wall; and I simply melt. He is a bridge over the chasm of history.
No, I do not need to censor the LORD in any fashion whatsoever. I already made my objections to a word, which does not appear in the Scriptures, clear. I suggested using words which actually appear in the Scriptures, and see that suggestion has been rejected.