Posted on 08/10/2006 12:22:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Not the only reason, no. But if it was impossible for us to put stumbling blocks in the path of the blind, why does the Bible command us not to?
Besides, how do you know that God hasn't predestined me and others like me to be the instrument by which some of the elect are brought into the Kingdom? Indeed, your attack betrays that you don't really understand your own Calvinism all that well, since by your implication, the Apostles could've sat on their hands and never left Jerusalem, and yet somehow God would just make all of the elect believe miraculously. (Which He could have, but He doesn't seem to have worked that way.)
And if our actions have no bearing on bringing people to the Lord, then why did Sha'ul say,
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Torah, as under the Torah, that I might gain them that are under the Torah; To them that are without law (mistranslation--the word here is anomos, which means "lawless" or "wicked"), as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to the Messiah,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.You are actually attributing to OPie a position more powerful than that of Satan.
--1 Corinthians 9:19-23
No, but I am attributing his words to the Adversary.
You may disobey scripture and pretend that there is something wrong with the plain teachings of Christ and His disciples . . .
There's not a darn thing wrong with the "plain teachings" of Yeshua HaMashiach or His apostles--there have been, however, a number of errors in the way those temporally and culturally separated from the original text have interpreted it.
Now, show where I have disobeyed Scripture or taught incorrectly from them--using specifics and real exegesis, not broad generalities--on this forum, and I will be happy to repent. If you cannot, then I suggest that you publicly withdraw the ad hominem.
(As warning, so I won't be accused of running away later, I'm going to be gone pretty much all weekend after five o'clock or so tonight, so if you don't get an answer back right away, it's just that I'm not near a computer.)
And, while it undoubtedly makes you feel extra special and extra holy, dribbling Hebraisms is just annoying.
I'm sorry that you find the original Hebrew names of our Lord and His Apostles annoying.
As opposed to those evil stupid Jews in the New Testament like Paul and Peter and who actually wrote it and taught,
In case you haven't noticed, I've been citing Sha'ul and Kefa (Peter), as well as Yeshua--obviously I don't think they got it wrong. But I do think that Sha'ul has been broadly misinterpreted, which was apparently happening even in his own day: "As also in all his [Sha'ul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:16).
. . . like Jesus, doctrines extremely offensive to most Jews of their time and ever since?
Yes, but those offensive doctrines are not what you imagine them to be. Yeshua never taught not to keep the Torah, just the opposite (Mat. 5:17-19). And Sha'ul taught that Jews should remain Jewish (1 Co. 7:18) and actually sacrificed in the Temple to refute the charge that he was teaching Jews not to keep the Torah (Acts 21:20-26). He even taught that the whole Church, Jew and Gentile alike, should keep the feast of Passover (1 Co. 6:6-8).
Yeshua was offensive simply because of who He is, but His enemies were never able to convict Him of any sin, least of all the sin of teaching against Torah, or even of teaching from it incorrectly.
Sha'ul was offensive because he was brining the Gentiles into the Church in record numbers without forcing them to circumcise--that is, to give up their nationalities and become fully Jewish. Read Acts 22 carefully. Sha'ul's audience listens in peace and apparent respect all through his personal testimony, through his witness that Yeshua is the Messiah and was raised from the dead. It is not until he announces his mission to the Gentiles that they erupt into anger (vv. 21-22)--and it was that part of the Gospel, that Gentile as well as Jew had a place in God's Kingdom, that put Sha'ul into chains.
Now, was that the only point of contention? No. Kefa and Yochanan (John) were arrested because of the offense of holding the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem--and by extension, the whole nation--accountable for Yeshua's death: "Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us" (Acts 5:28).
However, at no point was the issue ever that the Apostles were teaching Jewish believers not to keep the Torah, not to circumcise their children, not to keep the Sabbath, etc. Every time they were accused of such, they refuted it.
And why did this preservation of which you speak so glowingly take 1800 years for some Messianic Jews to actually believe?
It didn't. We have the (hostile) testimony of the early Church fathers that Messianic Jews were alive and well, if a minority, well into the fourth century, and that they were not universally rejected by their Gentile brethren--Justin Martyr is on record as saying that he accepted them as true Christians, if "weak" and John Crysostom's anti-semetic rants reveal that there were indeed Gentile believers who were joining the Jews in keeping the Feastdays of the Lord. Moreover, Shlomo Pines, an Islamic scholar, has found texts proving that Messianic Jewish believers survived well into the 11th century. It was not coincidental that Christopher Columbus and his crew left on the midnight of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain--his diary, though professing Christ, also shows distinctly Jewish terminology. In fact, the entire Spanish Inquisition was mustered for the purpose of hunting down Jews who had professed Christ (under duress or otherwise) but who kept Torah and Jewish tradition. And Martin Luther wrote two tracts, Against the Sabbath Keepers and Against the Judaizers which showed that in his day he was also in fact encountering Christians who wanted to keep the Torah.
The fact is that God has always kept a remnant of believing Jews to Himself, just as He promised, and we see repeatedly through history Gentiles like myself who have seen in the Scriptures that we too should keep the Torah--not for salvation, and not to put ourselves "under the Law" (i.e., under its punishments, under its fear), but because our Lord and Savior did, and we want to be like Him.
However, the fact is also that in every instance since the fourth century, those who have done so have been persecuted by the government-sanctioned Church as being "too Jewish" and "heretics"--so it's hardly surprising that we have never had much political power. Those who wanted to follow a Jewish Messiah in a Jewish way had to keep their heads down, or be persecuted, tortured, and killed.
It was only in the last two centuries, with the religious freedom that we take for granted in America, that Messianic synagogues could come about. And it is also because of America's acceptance and love for the Jewish people, inspired in no small part by Dispensationalism and Evangelicalism, that the walls have been slowly coming down. We're finally at the point where the overwhelming majority in Israel (75%, according to one poll that I've not been able to find online) accept Messianic Jews (that is, born Jews, not Gentiles like myself) as nevertheless being fully Jewish and able to make aliyah. We're seeing Orthodox Jews like Avi Lipkin crusading to give Christians in Israel their own representation in the Knesset.
Even many Jews who don't yet accept Yeshua as the Messiah are doing something unprecedented: They're reading the Gospel accounts. They're finding out what He taught on the Torah. They're recognizing Him as being one of their own in body, mind, and soul.
Has there been a recent turnaround? Yes, but it is not one disconnected from history, nor from the Bible. And it is the Bible that we must ultimately accept as our mutual authority.
You've challenged me to show how the whole Church could've gotten it wrong for 1800 years. I've shown that not all did, that there has always been a remnant. The only counter to that is to say that well, they weren't accepted by the Church as a whole, so they must've been wrong, and heretics. Of course, that not only is a faulty appeal to popularity, it also ignores the fact that the Reformation was kicked off because a young monk was willing to stand on the Word of God against what was then 1400 years of Church tradition. I am willing to do the same.
So let's put an end to appeals to popularity and tradition and get to the Word of God: Show me from the Bible that I am wrong--and not by a single verse ripped out of context (Gal. 3:28, which as P-Marlowe has shown is being just as falsely used to promote homosexuality), but by careful exegesis.
You can start by either showing how the Church is partially blind until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, and that it is an enemy of the Gospel because of the Gentiles, or concede that "Israel" in Rom. 9-11 really does mean the Jewish people who are currently in disbelief.
"And with midjudice, ajudice, and postjudice, too, for that matter"
A young Irishman sat at a pub in the New World drinking beer and conversin' with the barkeep. Another comes in and sits besides him. He says how you do and hers the lilt and says you to be Irish? Yes I am. The first man yells barkeep give us another round and one for my friend here he's from mother country as well. The second man asks - so where in the old country ye from. Dublin responds the first. Dublin you say - so am I and the second man hollers barkeep bring us another round and a shot of your best Irish whiskey for me and my friend here. Afterwards the first man asks from where in Dublin and the second man responds with the street and the first man says well I'll be - so am I and yells another pair of beers and Irish whiskey for the pair of us. The phone behind the bar rings and the barkeep answers it. The owner of the bar asks - how is business. The barkeep responds - not too bad - The O'Maley twins are here getting drunk again.
It's Friday and the Neeners (whoever they are since there is no list) are at it again!!
About 10% and rising in Israel, or so I'm told. That's not counting the Jews who have become Christians who failed to maintain their Jewish heritage (to their great loss), of course.
Eh, scratch that last comment. Estimates seem to be all over the place based on a quick Google search, so I'll withdraw the assertion until I can actually find some valid data.
And b'gorry we are a jolly lot...
(Where was the whiskey, did you say?)
Assuming these inflated figures are accurate they're still lower than the oft estimated 1/6th pre-70ad figure. Last figures I heard were 250,00 of 13 million. Hardly a scratch on the end of your nose.
Guess who wins? ;-)
I'm especially partial to all of Chapter 11.
Bourbon-Glazed Pork Chops
6 bone-in pork chops, 1" thick
1/2 cup brown sugar
3 tablespoons Dijon mustard
2 tablespoons soy sauce
2 tablespoons bourbon
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon pepper
Add all ingredients to a large zipper bag to coat. Marinate for 30 minutes. Grill on a hot barbeque for 10-12 minutes or until done. Reserve marinade. In small saucepan bring reserved marinade to a boil. Boil for 2 minutes (will reduce slightly). Pour over grilled chops. Enjoy with grilled sweet potatoes!!
Mmmmmmm...mmmmm....delicious!
I don't put up with "give up" rules not on the Acts 15 list. :>)
Mmm. I'll give that a try sometime, substituting lamb-chops.
You are not Catholic. Further, you make the mistake of thinking Wipikedia is a reliable source for Catholic Doctrine.
I think it risible that non-Catholics pontificate so dogmatically about that which they know little of.
Sadly, I know that won't stop.
As for Johannes Paulus Magnus, even in his debilitating illness, he never gave any sign his mental acuity had diminished.
So you don't "give up" a money offering? :- o
Just messing with ya. I still maintain that kosher was never manditory for Gentile believers even before the New Covenant. Anyway, I never much cared for ribs, and I've found that all other parts of the pig have a lamb equivalent that tastes better.
The only thing I really miss is shrimp. :-(
"Southern Baptists give up booze. I gave up pork."
Well you are half right.
According to the doctor who takes my blood-pressure, I'm all right. But that's another issue entirely. :-)
The problem with lamb-chops is that they are so flippin' tiny.
Have you ever noticed that?
It's like eating popcorn shrimp. ("Here have a bite." "You call that a bite!")
Actually, the solution is to go down to Sam's and get the lamb roasts in bulk, freeze them, and then cut them up into steaks when you feel like it. Mmmm, good.
Sha'ul and Kefa (Peter), as well as Yeshua
I can't keep track of what he's for here
Does he wear a beanie and carry a shofur?
Yes, I do. Next silly question in poetic verse?
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.