Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by TeĆ³filo
***I must say I am glad someone with the authority from the “other perspective” can tell Christians that their reading of the Tanakh is through the prism of the New Testament and that the entire perspective of the OT is thereby changed and made unrecognizable to a Jew.
And for you to compare that distortion to what the LDS are doing with Christian Scripture through the prism of the Book of Mormon is priceless.***
Very perceptive. The Christians are not Jews and do not claim to be; well, not the mainstream. The LDS are now claiming to be Christian. Very very interesting.
You're making that up...Paul was every bit an apostle as the rest of them were..
Paul did not request anone else's ordinatation nor did they offer it...Like the other apostles, Paul was ordained by God...Ordained to go out in to the world and preach the Gospel, to the Gentiles...
Totally unbiblical to suggest Paul was less than the greatest of the apostles...And then call him a bishop...What nonsense...Another fable...
God says He will preserve His words forever...He never said that about Ignatius' writings...
Interesting. Why did Peter convert the first Gentile and why did Paul split most of the next decade or so between the Jews and Gentiles if this were truly the case?
If it were the case??? You've been show these scriptures numerous times...Apparently you just refuse to believe them...
Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Of course Paul preached to everyone...But his mission was to inform the Gentiles they would be allowed into the family of God by adoption AND, without works, but by the grace of God...
***However Paul was ordained by the Church in the manner that all the next generation (after the Apostles) were ordained. That leads us to say that all future priests and bishops are ordained in the same fashion.
You’re making that up...Paul was every bit an apostle as the rest of them were..***
Really? Which of the Apostles were baptized?
***Totally unbiblical to suggest Paul was less than the greatest of the apostles...And then call him a bishop***
That would be like saying that Douglas MacArthur was not a general.
***Interesting. Why did Peter convert the first Gentile and why did Paul split most of the next decade or so between the Jews and Gentiles if this were truly the case?
If it were the case??? You’ve been show these scriptures numerous times...Apparently you just refuse to believe them...***
Actually I believe that Peter was the first to convert a Gentile and that Paul split his time between the Gentile and the Jew before he went to Rome.
***Of course Paul preached to everyone...But his mission was to inform the Gentiles they would be allowed into the family of God by adoption AND, without works, but by the grace of God...***
I guess that you only got part of Paul’s message.
ROFLMTO
Was it Kolo? I thought it was someone else...What I meant to say with what you said being priceless is is that I am no authority on Judaism, so if I make that comparison it is just me being rebellious. But to read your take on the same parallel carries more weight, I think.
Vera Lex,
I agree with some of what you wrote -
and more importantly, I appreciate that
you invested the time to do so.
I am personally unaware of any so called
“white marriages”. Is this common in your
area?
Frankly, in Greek, I just don’t see your
interpretation of Mary’s statement. Her
words literally mean, “since I have not
known a man. It is more specific than
saying “I have not known a man.”
I understand, from the quotes by early Church
Fathers that it was widely taught that Mary
remained a virgin forever. This was taught
at least as early as 248 AD. I don’t know yet
of any earlier references during the intervening
247 years. If you have access to any references
during that period, I would be in your debt,
if you would post them.
Thank you again for your efforts and time.
Best,
ampu
***Paul did not request anone else’s ordinatation ***
Doesn’t matter. It’s what God wants, not Paul, not you, not me or anyone else.
So, Christians are second-class groupies?
But let me ask you this. Would you consider an atheistic Jew a member of "true Israel?" That is to ask, do you consider someone who denies the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be a part of "true Israel?"
My understanding as far as Judaism is concerned: to the extent that he is observant of the mitzvot, yes. Even an atheist Jew can be acceptable to God. I would say as long as he did not worship false gods and lived a righteous life, he would is a part of true Israel.
You have to remember that an atheist Jew is still a Jew. A Jew who is a Christian is no longer a Jew, the way a nonpracticing Catholic is still a Catholic by baptism, but a Catholic who became an Mormon is no longer a Catholic, because he believes in an altogether different deity.
correction: “he would is a part...”=”he would be a part...”
I knew you'd understand the difference Mark.
God never spelled out what his writings are. That's why there were canon "turf wars." Who decided that Paul's letters would be scripture and Ignatius' would not? Who decided what that the Book of Enoch wold not be inspired when it was read in many churches as if it were and in the Ethiopian Church it is still considered scripture?
The only books God allegedly wrote, are the Five Books of Moses, dictated word-for-word to him, or so the Jews believe. Pretty much the way Muslims believe that Allah did the same thing to illiterate Mohammad (who, get this, memorized every word exactly, and then had a scribe write it down later! You don't believe it? I thought with God everything is possible).
So, if you really want to play it by the rules, then only the Five Books of Moses are the inspired Books. Like I said, a myth on top of a myth does not make it truth.
***Very perceptive. The Christians are not Jews and do not claim to be; well, not the mainstream. The LDS are now claiming to be Christian. Very very interesting
I knew you’d understand the difference Mark.***
The theology of Christianity in this aspect is an ‘also’. We ‘also’ get to share in everlasting salvation, albeit as ‘adopted sons’ rather than as true sons. In this way, we differ from the LDS; the LDS claims to be the only way and that both Christians and Jews are lesser or not fully on the correct path. We Catholics look on the Jews as ‘elder brethren’ who knew God first, and we’re just the second string, or perhaps Act II. :)
That doesn't follow from Christian theology, Mark. How can Jews be saved if they rejected Christ?
And why are Christians "adopted sons?" Is God not their creator as well? Or were they made by someone else and had to be "adopted?"
Is Christian God not God of all people? Are not all humans his creation? If they are, how can they be "adopted?"
We Catholics look on the Jews as elder brethren who knew God first, and were just the second string, or perhaps Act II.
That's good for Judeo-Christian relations, but I don't think I have ever heard a Jews refer to Christians as their "younger brothers." More like something they mention daily in their prayers by the name of minim, but can you blame them?!? Let's be honest, this "brotherhood" is a one-way affair, Mark.
And the Jews did know their God first and they say that we don't know their God at all. On the other hand, the One we call our God they say was an impostor.
We not only stole and then "adopted" their scripture and their God, but we even redefined their own vocabulary and concepts involved, including God. Comparing what we did to them and what the LDS did vis-a-vis Christianity is a joke.
And now we call them our elder brothers? Do you really think they see watered-down Judaism mixed with Platonism and Aristotelianism as something they can "relate" to, even consider it "adopted?"
Evangelicals go one step farther than that. Ann Coulter suggested that the Jews need to be "perfected" by becoming Christians (so they, too, can be saved)!
So, how is that better than what the LDS say about us? How would you feel if the Mormons arrogated that we are their elder "brethren" and that there is "hope" for us if we get "perfected" by eventually morphing into one of them?
Ok... in your view, God is pleased with those who do not believe in Him. What more can I say.
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.