[Zionist Conspirator]

These “Judaizers” weren’t merely Jews. They were Jews who were trying to enforce Talmudic law apon Christians, even when to do so posed an unreasonable burden. BY explaining who Judaizers were, I didn’t mean to accuse Jews of anything, but explain that these particular Jews were making demands of Christians that followers of Noachide laws would agree aren’t proper.

I understand what you meant and no offense was taken. What I am trying to point out is that Protestants do not understand why the rituals and commandments of Catholicism/Orthodoxy cannot likewise be disposed of as an unreasonable burden. What is the point of invoking Paul against Torah law if you're going to replace it with some other kind of law?

I realize it is extremely difficult for you to understand what I'm saying because our "centers of emotional energy are so different" (to quote William James). Once a Protestant loses his prejudice against Catholic/Orthodox traditions/laws/rituals then it's Katy bar the door. Once a Protestant is willing to listen to the Church Fathers (which is so foreign to him), what is to keep him from "keeping going" to the end, listening to heretofore unknown Jewish apologetics, and rejecting chr*stianity altogether? After all, every argument Catholics/Orthodox have for their traditions/rituals goes in spades for the laws of the Torah.

Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. That is how they interpret Paul. To learn that Paul is merely opposing Torah observance by chr*stians seems disappointing and hypocritical.

What was the point of a new religion?

[dangus]

>> What I am trying to point out is that Protestants do not understand why the rituals and commandments of Catholicism/Orthodoxy cannot likewise be disposed of as an unreasonable burden. <<

Well, when the Messiah returns and tells them to dispose of them as an unreasonable burden, that position will make sense. Catholics and (nearly all) Protestants do both agree that God himself came in the flesh and told people not to impose burdensome religious obligations on people. I understand if you don’t agree to that, but if you’re going to discuss what’s reasonable, you have to start with the same set of presumptions. The truth is Protestants don’t accept Catholic ritual not because some additional Messiah told them not to, but because they believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

>> Once a Protestant is willing to listen to the Church Fathers (which is so foreign to him), what is to keep him from “keeping going” to the end, listening to heretofore unknown Jewish apologetics, and rejecting chr*stianity altogether? <<

A belief in Christ? The difference between Catholic and Protestant is one of interpretation of revelation. The difference between Christian and Jew is over the substantial additions to revelation.

>> Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. <<

Au contraire! If you accuse a Protestant of antinomianism, you’ll likely start a brawl. Luther flirted with antinomianism, causing his refutation by Catholicism, but most Protestants are very strongly antinomianist. That’s a core cause of misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants: Protestants presume Catholics hold a lot of beliefs they don’t actually hold, because they misunderstand what it was Catholics were objecting to when they condemned Luther!

[dangus]

Ooops... excuse me... I meant to address additional issues:

>> Protestants are raised to understand that the whole point of chr*stianity was to do away with law and with the concept of reward and punishment in favor of a once-for-all antinomian salvation. <<

Well, Protestants don’t believe in antinomianism, and Catholics don’t believe that the temporal effects of sin are a matter of reward and punishment... and that there are no eternal effects of sin for the redeemed.

>> To learn that Paul is merely opposing Torah observance by chr*stians seems disappointing and hypocritical. What was the point of a new religion? <<

Well, for one, Christianity started out as a reform movement OF Judaism, until they were expelled from the synagogues for accepting converts. What Christ did was: harrow hell, allowing for spiritual resurrection into Heaven; initiate the conversion of all nations, to prepare for the second coming; justify those who believe in him in spite of their sinfulness; sanctify those who believe in him. The notion that this somehow pales in comparison to the abolition of certain rituals and dietary restrictions seems well... odd.