The Amish come to Israel, ask Jews for forgiveness

Israel Today ^

[Amerisrael]

In a seemingly unprecedented move, a group of Amish Christians from the US made widespread use of modern technology - including airplanes, tour buses and even iPhones - in order to come to Israel and apologize to the Jews.

The Amish are most notable to outsiders for their shunning of the technological conveniences that have made life so fast-paced for everyone else. But they did not shy away from using whatever means necessary to accomplish what they viewed as the vitally important task of making things right between their community and Israel.

The Amish, both in the US and Europe, have a long history of anti-Semitism and have traditionally been firm proponents of Replacement Theology, which claims that God cast aside the Jews for their widespread rejection of Jesus as their messiah. Many Amish once believed the Nazi Holocaust was God’s punishment for that rejection of Jesus, and actually applauded Hitler.

“We are here to say we are sorry,” group leader Ben Girod told Israel’s Channel 2 News as the group visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem. “God reminded me that this is not who He is. We no longer want to reject you or look at you as not being God’s people. You were God’s people long before we were.”

[mas cerveza por favor]

Dispensationalism is objectively heretical by the standards of traditional Christianity.
So is Protestantism, depending on your definition of "traditional."

Dispensationalism is objectively heretical even by the standards of all Protestantism more than 200 years old.

[GOPJ]

Thanks - I’ll try it as a tag...

[porter_knorr]

Wow, that has got to be the most ill represented position I’ve ever seen on this subject.

[Uri’el-2012]

first century AD, or for non believing folks C.E.

You do understand that Anno Domini suggests
that YHvH did not exist before 0(zero) CE.

Anno Domini
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.:

It seems less blasphemous to use
Current Era and Before Current Era.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[GOPJ]

Here’s the link to the original thought:

Franz Rosenzweig:

“Christian civilization of the West, he argued, was to give witness to this, even as the Christian Church worked within the currents of history to convert the pagan world to the God revealed by the Hebrew Bible.”

http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/paulmonk.html

[Buggman]

However, the doctrines and practices of traditional Christianity were firmly established under the tutelage of the Jewish Apostles. It was Paul of Taurus who, not only criticized Greeks for Judaizing, but who castigated Peter himself for relapsing to the Mosaic dietary laws.

Your grasp of the New Testament is tainted by your Gentilization, I see. Where on earth did you get the idea that Peter withdrawing from table-fellowship with the Gentiles in Galatians had anything to do with the "Mosaic dietary laws"? As for Paul, if he himself wasn't keeping the Torah, then he was a liar and a purjurer when he claimed under oath before the Sanhedrin to still be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6)--read that, "Orthodox Jew." Why on earth do you pay attention to the writings of such a liar?

That, plus Acts 21, utterly destroys the basis for your anti-Judaic interpretation of Paul's letters. Either Paul was a hypocrite and a liar and should be expunged from the canon or you have grossly misinterpreted his writings. Paul was not saying that Jews should stop being Jews--he was defending the rights of Gentiles to remain Romans, Greeks, Americans, or whatever as followers of Israel's God and King.

But he never told any Jew not to continue keeping the Torah, circumcizing our sons, or following our traditions.

You and I agree that one who tells a Gentile that he must become a Jew in order to be saved is preaching another "gospel" and is anathema. What you fail to comprehend is that telling a Jew that they must become a Gentile in order to be saved is worse.

[Buggman]

Oh, are we playing the “mine is older than yours” game now? My tradition goes back at least 2000 years more than yours, so . . .

[mas cerveza por favor]

The temple sacrifice of Moses has ended because it was completed by Christ and because the temple was demolished by the pagan Romans as prophesied by Christ. What is the legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion?

The New Testament teaches that Christianity is the sole continuation and that Jewish nonbelievers are cut off. Rabbinical Judaism is based on the post-Messianic Talmud scripture. It teaches that non-Christian Jews are the sole inheritors and rejects Christianity as polytheistic. For 1800 years there was never a doubt among Christians as to their own inheritance until John Darby came along to concede the argument in favor of non-Christian Jewish inheritance.

The term "replacement theology" is an artifice used to disguise the real issues at stake. If Jesus was not the Christ according to prophesy and His own words, that would make Him an impostor and Christianity a misnomer.

Jesus DID tell the truth about Himself and His Gospel is the legitimate continuation of OT religion, not a replacement. The Jewish Apostles clearly lived and died for the belief that Jesus DID come for them. Darby's Dispensationalism trades in this inheritance for a mess of pottage.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I see. Where on earth did you get the idea that Peter withdrawing from table-fellowship with the Gentiles in Galatians had anything to do with the "Mosaic dietary laws"?

There is no way that Peter, Barnabas, and Paul could have kept kosher while eating meals cooked by the Gentiles. Peter was inspired by divine revelation to brake kosher laws at the household of Cornelius.

As for Paul, if he himself wasn't keeping the Torah, then he was a liar and a purjurer when he claimed under oath before the Sanhedrin to still be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6)--read that, "Orthodox Jew." Why on earth do you pay attention to the writings of such a liar?

Not all Jews were Pharisees but Paul had been trained as one, as had his father. Paul was certainly a Jew and considered himself an orthodox follower of the Jewish Messiah.

You and I agree that one who tells a Gentile that he must become a Jew in order to be saved is preaching another "gospel" and is anathema. What you fail to comprehend is that telling a Jew that they must become a Gentile in order to be saved is worse.

The rules against Jewish converts maintaining Mosaic customs did not come until many centuries later. Therefore, they have no bearing on whether the Early Church founded by Jews could have "replaced" the Jews. The latter-day rules against Mosaic customs were established to guard against those who used baptism as a veneer, but did not really become followers of Jesus. Don't blame me for the hard sayings and teachings of Christianity. Jesus Himself had the most hard sayings of anybody. I am only trying to follow God's will.

[Buggman]

The temple sacrifice of Moses has ended because it was completed by Christ . . .

So why the heck was Paul making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the express purpose of offering sacrifices and paying for the sacrifices of four other Jewish believers thirty years later? Did he not get the memo?

Seriously, have you ever actually studied the book of Acts?

Rabbinical Judaism is based on the post-Messianic Talmud scripture.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call into question your qualifications to speak for Judaism. Exactly how many hours have you spent actually reading the Mishnah again? Do you even know what it is, or how it fits into Jewish life? Do you know how many compilations of Jewish law have been made since? Do you know the rabbinic addage, "Rabbi Judah's mishnah was only for the generation of Rabbi Judah," and what it means?

No, and I doubt you'll go look it up, either. You're too caught up in your little fantasy that those stiffnecked and impious Jews tossed aside the Scriptures for another book while you, noble Christian that you are, are keeping the true faith and have been true to the Bible.

Well, you know, except for that first 4/5ths that you pretty much ignore except when it suits you. Why? Because that's what your Christian tradition tells you to do. All too well you set aside the Word of God for the sake of your tradition.

And quit playing the word games. David was the Mashiach (annointed with oil by Samuel) long before he sat enthroned in Jerusalem as King. Why should it surprise you that the Son of David might also experience a gap between His being Mashiach and actually sitting on His father's throne in Jerusalem?

Again, Hagee's point was that Yeshua did not come to be the Melekh HaMashiach, the Annointed King, and lead Israel's armies to victory--which is what the word "Messiah" means to most Jews--in His First Coming. Like Joseph, Moses, David, and others before Him, He was first rejected by his brothers and went for many years among the Gentiles.

But like Joseph, Moses, David, et. al., He will return to rule over the brothers who initially rejected Him.

You are correct that the true Gospel is a continuation of the religion of the Torah. But what you are preaching is not the true Gospel.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

You have, I have, and others have, repeatedly.

It's one of those unfortunate facts, like the Scriptural doctrine of the Rapture (which has also been posted numerous times), and the indisputable Scripture which makes it more than clear that God has not abandoned His chosen people and never will, which totally nuke their false doctrines so they simply refuse to acknowledge either the Scripture or the accounts of the Christians who came before before their crutch John Darby who believed the Bible as God wrote it rather than how Origen and other fallen men decided to re-write it to make it more to their liking.

It's that simple. They can't deal with the truth because it demolishes their entire world, so they discard it.

[Buggman]

There is no way that Peter, Barnabas, and Paul could have kept kosher while eating meals cooked by the Gentiles.

Really? Where is that in the Torah? Book, chapter, and verse please.

Not all Jews were Pharisees but Paul had been trained as one, as had his father.

So? If a person who had a Calvinist father and had been trained in a Calvinist seminary went around preaching Arminianism, would you let him get away with continuing to call himsef a Calvinist? In a court of law, no less?

Paul was certainly a Jew . . .

That's not the issue. Was he or was he not still of the sect of the Pharisees, which meant keeping their traditions and falling within the parameters of their theology?

The rules against Jewish converts maintaining Mosaic customs did not come until many centuries later.

I agree. So why then did you ascribe them to the Apostles by claiming that they considered keeping kosher contrary to the Gospel?

The latter-day rules against Mosaic customs were established to guard against those who used baptism as a veneer, but did not really become followers of Jesus.

So, like I said, the Gentile adoptees came in and started beating up on those born in the house, saying they weren't "true" brothers unless they stopped living as Jews and started living as Gentiles. How is that different from the Judaizers putting rules into place making Gentile converts live as Jews "to guard against those who used baptism as a veneer, but did not really become followers of Jesus"?

You realize that you're agreeing with me, but just trying to put a positive spin on the sin of preaching another Gospel ("Jesus alone isn't enough for the salvation of Jews! You must also live as Gentiles to prove that you're saved!") right?

Don't blame me for the hard sayings and teachings of Christianity.

I'm not. I'm blaming you for distorting them.

Really, I'm not even blaming you. You're the product of the general ignorance of Judaism, first century or otherwise, in Christianity. However, since you like to go around proclaiming heresy, and since a person is judged acording to their own yardstick, I'm rightly giving you a hard time.

Jesus Himself had the most hard sayings of anybody.

Absolutely true. Here's one for you:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law (read that "Torah") or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Tell me, are you so careless of your place in the Kingdom that you are going to go around teaching others to annul (cease to follow) the least commandment of the Torah?

I'm not.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Awesome, Buggman. Just awesome.

Thank you.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Hello, dear Uri'el-2012!

A wonderful post from you as usual!

[mas cerveza por favor]

The temple sacrifice of Moses has ended because it was completed by Christ . . .
So why the heck was Paul making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the express purpose of offering sacrifices and paying for the sacrifices of four other Jewish believers thirty years later? Did he not get the memo?

Matthew 27:50 "And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent."

The import of of the taring of the temple veil was probably not fully understood until the destruction of the temple took place as prophesied by Christ.

Rabbinical Judaism is based on the post-Messianic Talmud scripture.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call into question your qualifications to speak for Judaism.

I do not profess any qualifications but I had understood that rabbinical Judaism uses the Talmud as Scripture and that it considers the Trinity doctrine to be a belief in three gods instead of one.

You're too caught up in your little fantasy that those stiffnecked and impious Jews tossed aside the Scriptures for another book while you, noble Christian that you are, are keeping the true faith and have been true to the Bible. Well, you know, except for that first 4/5ths that you pretty much ignore except when it suits you. Why? Because that's what your Christian tradition tells you to do. All too well you set aside the Word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You are not the reader of my soul. Yes, I try to put forth arguments that are based on Sacred Tradition, inclusive of Scripture. If you find my argument lacking, point out the flaw. That should be enough.

2 Thes 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle"

Hagee's point was that Yeshua did not come to be the Melekh HaMashiach, the Annointed King, and lead Israel's armies to victory--which is what the word "Messiah" means to most Jews--in His First Coming.

It was clear that most of the Jews at first misunderstood the mission of the Messiah, even His own disciples:

Acts 1:6: "They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."

After receiving the Holy Ghost, Peter says:

Acts 2:32: "This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. 33 Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. 34 For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus"

But what you are preaching is not the true Gospel.

I am only trying to repeat what I understand to be the Tradition passed down from the Apostles.

[AnalogReigns]

So tell me, is there one people of God, headed by one Messiah, Jesus, or two peoples of God, the Church headed by Jesus, and the Jews headed by ???

[Karliner]

Huh Buggman? No way would i think of speaking for Jews. I'm merely a student. As for Christianity I'm a little more versed. Let's see, Pastor Hagee? I've heard him twice, didn't like his message. Too rich, and got most of it flecing his followers, also i think, not sure he's into replacement theology also, could be wrong.Re: Mishnah, a couple times but as I said, nope not a scholar. I've only a few years studying hebrew, so I read like, maybe a third grader, B avg, not great, not bad. I'm terrible sans vowels.

I've even read the talmud also, some of maiminodes( didn't understand all he was writing by far, Nachmiodes, and have a couple Torah's and a tanakh both in Hebrew,English, one by herch the other, dang can't remember off the top of my head.

What exactly set you off on my comments to another person? I didn't read the links all the way through; was there something in them you are pertubed about? I'm a bit confused here. one person I was responing to was speaking aout a certain person that started dispensationalism. itried explaining re that and replacement theology that Christians have been using this theology to rationalize and justify killing Jews for a long time.

As for the Amish as I stated, I thought it was kind of them to fly all the way to Israel to apologize for their past spite toward Jews. But being one I believe I can speak for myself. Sorry but it's in the blood despite my messianic beliefs.

[AnalogReigns]

The goal of interpreting ANY kind of historic writing, especially the bible, should be to understand it as the original writer intended, and the original readers understood it. That may, or may NOT, be in a "literal" sense...depending on the genre, or type of literature in which it was written.

Take the proverb: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Prov. 22:6)

Wooden literalism takes that statement as a fact, or actually an absolute promise. A LOT of parents of wayward offspring have suffered a tremendous amount of guilt from such an interpretation...thinking that if their child as an adult has chosen to walk away from the Lord, this verse is stating unequivocally it is THEIR fault.

However, the book of Proverbs, having the genre of Wisdom literature, and being proverbs, or truisms, means that the original writer (Solomon) did NOT intend to be writing a promise, nor did his original readers understand it that way.... rather these are truisms, or an "all things being equal, then..." statements. Many such proverbs also speak of wealth and prosperity too....and the (heretical) "health and wealth" gospel is built on a general ignorance on the nature of proverbs and Wisdom literature genre in the Bible.

It is no accident either that amidst the most narrow, back-woods fundamentalist churches, wooden literalistic interpretation (ignorantly ignoring the genre...and therefore the author's original intent) is the norm, along with concomitant dispensational theology.

[AnalogReigns]

So tell me Quix, do you agree with Rev. Hagee that Jesus didn’t come as the Messiah?