"Save the neck for me, Clark!"
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Lots of questions, Jim, but I'll do my best.
Since Jews who believed in Christ were dispersed in 70AD from Jerusalem, into different parts of the world, those Christian Jews either died off still keeping the law of Moses, or their children gradually reverted back to Judaism, or they became aware of the New Covenant and became as a Gentile, and blended into the wood work, or is there another choice?
That sounds about right. There were Judaizing sects (like the Ebionites) that endured until as late as the 700's C.E. before being assimilated/persecuted out of existence. And there have been forced converts (like the Spanish Marranos) who remained crypto-Jews, practicing Judaism in private while publicly professing to be Catholic. But eventually any of these groups either assimilated into the Christian population or returned to normative Judaism.
Are their still areas where there are Jews who do not keep the Levitical laws or the Sabbath?
Unfortunately you describe far too large a number of present day Jews. But I don't think that is what you were asking about.
Are all messianic Jews who are new or fairly new to their faith, or are there some that have a history that goes back to the time of Christ?
There is not a continuous chain of existence, but there have been Jewish converts (both forcible and voluntary) over the past 2000 years, and many of these likely retained some Jewish observance.
What happened to all those thousands of Jews who became converted to Christianity? Did they just cease to be Jews and fade into the landscape of the gentiles?
Eventually, yes. The church was strongly opposed to any Judaizing tendencies.
What did they teach their children to be, Jews who were under the New Covenant, and therefore not obliged to keep the laws of Moses?
Unless they were crypto-Jews, they were likely raised to be Christians. Many of the great saints of Catholicism (Theresa of Avila comes to mind) were from convert families.
How were they considered Jews then, if they didn’t keep the Sabbath or the dietary laws or the feast days?
By blood. I am a Jew even though my mother and grandmother never practiced Judaism (you have to go back to my great-grandmother, who was raised in an orthodox Jewish family). To Jews they would be considered apostates, but they would not need to convert to return to Judaism; they would only need to renounce their Christian belief.
Did God drop the whole plan until after the times of the Gentiles were over?
The covenant between YHVH and Israel is everlasting.
Were the Jews who became converted during the time of Christ and the apostles, was that the extent of God’s attempt at the time to convert them?
I don't believe that God ever wants Jews to convert to another religion. We are repeatedly commanded to cleave to Him and to follow His Torah no matter what.
If a man claims to be a Jew, but isn’t circumcised, doesn’t keep the Jewish Sabbath, the Jewish feast days, or the levitical dietary laws, is he still a Jew?
If his mother was a Jew, yes. He may be an atheist, or a Christian. He would be an apostate, but still a Jew by blood.
Taking away all the laws of Judaism from a Jew, aren’t they in actuality doing away with his race?
Judaism is not a race (there are Jews of all races). It is both a people (a family) and a religion. Someone who is a "prodigal son" is still a member of the family.
If a Jew becomes a Christian, isn’t he giving up his religion and his race family at the same time?
Nope.
If a Jew converts and no longer has his children circumcised, or teach them the law, isn’t he giving up his race of people?
He is disobeying any number of God's commandments, but he is never cut off entirely. He is a sinner and an apostate, but all he needs to do is repent and return to the Torah in order to reconcile himself with God.
Is that what God intended, for the Jewish race to no longer exist?
No, otherwise His promises to Abraham and all Israel were nothing but lies.
Christians who’s goal it is to convert the Jew to Christianity, isn’t that the ultimate goal, or the automatic result, to eliminate Judaism?
That may not be their direct objective, but that would be the consequence if they were completely successful. There would still be people of Jewish blood (until such time as the population was so diluted that there were no longer any Jewish mothers), but Judaism as a religion would be expunged. Jews don't like this idea any more than Christians relish the prospect of being absorbed into Islam.
They cease being a Catholic? Their baptism is annulled? They must reconvert in order to return to Catholic status?
Ok. I've about had it with this kind of nonsense. :-)
I should clarify that these were not my picks. I pulled it off the sportingnews.com web site.
Since Noah had never eaten a piece of meat in his life, when God told him to take 7 pairs of every clean animal, the reason he understood what God meant, was because he had offered each one of those animals at least 500 times in his 600 years of life, as a sacrifice or an offering.
Since he had killed the animals God required for sacrifice or offering so many times, should it be surprising that he knew which ones God meant to choose?
All the word clean meant to Noah, was that this was what God required for sacrifices.
Why would God refer to clean animals as in eating purposes, when Noah would have been repulsed to eat one.
Do you believe that after the flood when God gave them every living thing as meat, that Noah couldn't wait to slaughter one and eat it?
And this from a man who had been a vegetarian his whole life?
It probably took years before they adapted to eating flesh, just as some people who have always believed that pork had some kind of curse put on it, then later they find out that It was just a ceremonially uncleanness, but they still can never bring themselves to eat it.
Noah had never eaten meat period, do you believe he understood that some animals were constructed so as to be more or less eatable then others?
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
He probably realized that the meat God chose for sacrifice was the best choice, but to him, meat was meat, and he eventually tried other animals as well.
God told him that every moving thing that liveth was meat for him, just as all green herbs had been for meat previously.
Not once did God ever tell Adam or any man up to Noah to not eat certain herbs, everything was food for them just as with Noah, everything that lives was meat for him.
When you use the argument that not all herbs were good for food, it was up to man to figure out which ones were and which ones weren't, the same way God allowed Noah to discover which animals were the best for him.
What green herb could a man eat, that would kill him instantly ? Man didn't gobble down everything that was green just because it was green, he tasted it first, or else he observed whether animals ate it or not.
My mother was advised to eat poison ivy leaves in the early spring, by putting them in a salad to make her immune to it since she was so allergic she would brake out in the itch if she so much as got down wind from it on a damp day.
She tried it and never had the allergy again. So poison ivy isn't poison for eating, just if you don't know any better then to touch it with your hand when you're putting it in your mouth. In fact if they had touched it as they were eating it, it probably wouldn’t have effected them anyway.
So forget the analogy that God couldn't have really meant all green herbs, when He meant exactly what He said. It was the serpent that told Eve, thou shalt not surly die, go ahead and eat the fruit, God didn't really mean what he said.
You on the other hand, God said go ahead and eat any green herbs, and you say, don't eat it, God didn't mean what he said. :-)
JH
I had hoped you would simply post a picture I could put in my wallet and use for reference, but I'll settle for that post. :-)
G-nite all. JH
"The point is that they were doing no wrong, so there was no reason to stop them."
"They forbade a man to do something that was not wrong. So Jesus told them they were wrong to do that."
"Then we agree -- if someone is doing good in Jesus' Name, the Apostles are wrong to stop him."
Oh yes! The model of consistency.
Does anybody out there, besides Reggie, see anything "inconsistent" here, cause I sure as heck don't.
I thought Reggie might explain himself, but I was wrong.
SD
Why did he bother going through the crucifiction?
Duh, hello? The Crucifixion was necessary. Just like I'm arguing that an authoritative Church is necessary.
Did you mean to make the parallel you did here? That a Church having authority is just as arbitrary and unneeded as the Crucifixion?
SD
If people could, by their behavior change their "race," who would choose to be a minority in any country?
SD
Oh yes, I know this. It was simply my way of saying it is an error to say such things as "Catholics believe", "Protestants believe", and the like. It is first necessary to define exactly what is meant.
Only when dealing with unreasonable people, people who want to avoid having an actual, logical discussion.
SD
No, Jesus didn't break any of the Old Covenant laws that were in effect. But that was then, and this is now.
SD
I believe that this stems from the fact that your salvation is a personal, individual matter between you and God.
Yes, of course.
Ultimately, God holds you responsible for being sure of His word (message) to you.
Yes, yes. But how does this address my question?
The fact that we (theoretically) expect students to attain a certain level of learning before advancing tothe next level and we expect them to personally and individually do this, does nto mean that we don't provide them teachers to help them acheive this.
In that final analysis, it will not be acceptable that you have acquiesed to accept the truth from any so-called teacher, however right or wrong he/she might be. In the final analysis, you will be responsible for having properly understood and responded to God word (message) to you.
It won't be acceptable? It won't be acceptable?
What on earth makes you think that? If I have faith and I have truth, why does it matter how I got it?
If you need $20 to get in to see a show, does it matter if you got the $20 from your own pocket, or if a friend gives it to you?
You still get in, don't you?
SD
They cease being a Catholic? Their baptism is annulled? They must reconvert in order to return to Catholic status?
Don't you start now, too. They cease to be the subject of sentences like "Catholics believe..." But you knew that.
I expect Reggie to feign confusion at such usages, not you.
SD
I think you would be surprised. I was. I worked with a girl who was in a minority group, and someoe asked her this very question. I believe that the only thing that kept a cat fight starting was the fact that the girl who was the minority had alot of common sense and control. As it was she got her point across that although she was a minority she saw nothing wrong with herself and would stay that way no matter what.
Becky
Sorry Dave, but I'm not going to agree with you on this one. dadwags said "Actually, when a "Catholic" does not believe what the Church teaches, he/she ceases to be a Catholic". AS HE STATED IT, is this a true statement or not? You know that this is not true, and that's why I called him on it.
"Save the neck for me, Clark!"
Sorry Dave, but I'm not going to agree with you on this one. dadwags said "Actually, when a "Catholic" does not believe what the Church teaches, he/she ceases to be a Catholic". AS HE STATED IT, is this a true statement or not? You know that this is not true, and that's why I called him on it.
As an absolute statement, what he said is incorrect. For the purposes of sentences like "Catholics believe..." it is correct.
And that's what we were discussing. Reggie seems to not be able to understand who is meant when I use such sentences. If it were up to him, every time I wanted to say "Catholics believe..." I would instead have to write "Catholics who remain faithful and obedient to the teachings of the Church, as opposed to those who have fallen away in part or in whole, believe..."
Do I need to type this every time? Can we not come to an understanding of what is meant?
SD
| Friday, December 06, 2002 Advent Weekday |
||
|
According to your faith be it done to you. (Matthew 9:29)
Two blind men approached Jesus with a simple request. "Have mercy on us, Son of David" (Matthew 9:27). With the eyes of faith, they recognized that Jesus was no ordinary rabbi, but the Messiah--the heir to David's throne, the Anointed One who had come to fulfill God's promises to his people. While their physical blindness prevented them from seeing Jesus, they nonetheless believed in him because of what they heard. They cried out to Jesus because they knew he could offer them something they couldn't resist--healing and a new life. In response to their faith, Jesus showed them the depths of God's love, restoring them not only physically but spiritually as well.
Jesus wants us to approach him with the same kind of confidence, humbly asking for mercy and grace. What can hold us back? Indifference perhaps, or maybe unbelief, or even a feeling of unworthiness. Yet St. Paul reminds us that nothing can really separate us from the love of Christ, not even death itself (Romans 8:31-39).
We may sometimes feel that we don't have enough faith for Jesus to want to answer us when we cry out to him. We grow discouraged when we try to muster more faith by trying to pray harder! Fortunately, God knows our weaknesses better than we do. And he is always ready to give us the grace we need to respond to his word with trust and obedience.
How can we grow in faith? The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that faith is an entirely free gift that God gives to us. "We grow in faith by nourishing it with the word of God" (CCC, 162). Thus faith comes not by seeing but by hearing God's word, and by believing that his word is utterly reliable because God is its author.
Jesus wants to give us far more than we can ask or imagine. He wants intimacy with each one of us. He wants to lavish his love and friendship on us. St. Augustine once said: "God loves each of us as if there were only one of us to love." Let's draw near to the Lord in this Advent season with hopeful expectation that he will fulfill all his promises.
"Lord Jesus, I love you and give you my all."
----------
God bless.
AC
Dave, instead of saying what Catholics believe, say the RCC teaches.
Does this make sense? :) Becky
Becky
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.