[af_vet_1981]

And thus he/she must yet provide evidence of why i cannot be trusted to speak such words without these being antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, or otherwise show how my words of reproof in calling for consistency are trying to mock the Torah and are antisemitic antiChristian and unclean.

1. I assign no personal motive. I blame history, which has shown what has come from assigning such labels to Jews in a highly charged religious polemic. That term itself sounds as if it applies to all Jews who follow and teach Torah (yes, I know that is not how most Christians use it, and especially not here). Historically it was played out that way which laws passed to restrict Jews from teaching, and then even practicing Judaism. All the Jewish people were targets because of the religious polemic.
2. A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium Prepared by Jerry Darring
3. Consider Martin Luther. I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.
4. Look where his polemical book led: The prevailing view[28] among historians is that Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[29] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party's attacks on Jews.[30] Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. Diarmaid MacCulloch argues that Luther's 1543 pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies was a "blueprint" for the Kristallnacht.[31] Shortly after the Kristallnacht, Martin Sasse, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Thuringia, published a compendium of Martin Luther's writings ; Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues" and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."[32] In 1940, Heinrich Himmler wrote admiringly of Luther's writings and sermons on the Jews.[33] The city of Nuremberg presented a first edition of On the Jews and their Lies to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, on his birthday in 1937; the newspaper described it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[34] It was publicly exhibited in a glass case at the Nuremberg rallies and quoted in a 54-page explanation of the Aryan Law by Dr. E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks.[35] On December 17, 1941, seven Lutheran regional church confederations issued a statement agreeing with the policy of forcing Jews to wear the yellow badge, "since after his bitter experience Luther had [strongly] suggested preventive measures against the Jews and their expulsion from German territory."
5. That is why I object to the term. We have Torah Observant Jews among us here. Can you use another term that honors your biblical argument without having such a connection with Judaism ? Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

[daniel1212]

I assign no personal motive.

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 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

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.