Dumb Question

dvd_holc said:

The Talmud was around before Christ and many rabbis took part in it.

Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean when you talk about the Talmud. It's true that there was an oral law, which the Jews claim they faithfully recorded in the Mishnah. But we have no reason to believe that this is true. As for the oral law itself, remember that Jesus hated the oral law. He accused the Jews of adding the traditions of men to the teachings of God. Even if the Talmud did accurately record oral teachings that were (supposedly) passed on for over 1800 years, is this really something that we should be overly fond of?

dvd_holc said:

It has been very interesting when I get into their world view and way of thinking. I will keep a open mind to absorb all the knowledge I can of the truth.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, I've gained spiritual insight even by reading the Qur'an (though I usually gain that insight by believing the opposite of what it says). Just remember that Judaism isn't special simply by virtue of their belief in the Tanakh. Their interpretation of it is so different that Judaism shouldn't be treated differently than any other false religion.

dvd_holc said:

Some people want to remove all the Jewishness of it which is redicilous to me.

Click to expand...

This depends on what you mean by "Jewishness." If you simply want us to understand the Jewish culture of the first century, that's fine. For that matter, I wouldn't even mind if you incorporated modern Jewish culture into Christianity, since multiculturalism is always a good thing. But if by Jewishness, you're referring to Rabbinic teaching, then I couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't trust the rabbis anymore than I would trust the Dalai Lama (in fact, I might trust the Dalai Lama a bit more, since he at least doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ).

arunma said:

True, Messianic Jews are Christians. But the Rabbinic opinion comes from a non-Christian source. ………… I'm just saying that it doesn't actually have any basis in the Bible, the opinions of the church fathers, or any other Christian source.

Click to expand...

See my comments at the end of this post.

arunma said:

My issue is the religion of Judaism.

Click to expand...

Since Jesus was a Torah observant Jew as were the authors of the New Testament this statement seems a bit biased to say the least.

arunma said:

When you read the Talmud or Rabbinic writings, you may think that you're gaining insight into Christianity. But just remember that every Rabbi who contributed to the Talmud firmly denied that Jesus was the Christ.

Click to expand...

In Romans 2 Paul says that people who don’t even have the Torah sometimes by their nature do what is required by God, sometimes people who don’t know God do and say true things. So they denied Jesus, according to the Bible they have the potential of saying some true things. Why would I want to cut myself off from truth just because it doesn’t have a Christian label on it?

arunma said:

But I think that modern Judaism is a very different than the ancient religion of the Israelites, and that the church is the true inheritor of the Israelite religion.

Click to expand...

With all due respect brother this borders on replacement theology…………..which IMHO is disgusting.

arunma said:

If you want to learn more about Christianity, why not read the early church fathers? Christianity has a rich historical tradition, and one need not be Catholic in order to learn from it.

Click to expand...

Since many of the early church fathers circa 325 AD did their best to erase the Hebraic roots of Christianity and replace them with practices from pagan roots I personally view many of their teachings as highly suspect and full of both political and theological agendas.

arunma said:

But if by Jewishness, you're referring to Rabbinic teaching, then I couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't trust the rabbis anymore than I would trust the Dalai Lama (in fact, I might trust the Dalai Lama a bit more, since he at least doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ).

Click to expand...

Remember the word Christian in the Bible is a noun not an adjective.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 says “all things are yours whether life, death, present or future – all are yours, because you are of Christ, and Christ is of God (and He made everything). Paul in Acts 17 and in Titus 1 quotes pagan poets and prophets and says what they said was true. Paul didn’t quote Christian or Jewish sources, he quotes pagan sources which indicates Paul didn’t just study Jewish material or Christian material. So to have the attitude that “I’ll only read Christian books” or only study Christian sources is not really a Biblical attitude.

One thing to keep in mind Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist as Jewish rabbi’s would have had the entire Jewish Oral Torah memorized, which as Christians we do not consider Christian, or Biblical – and yet they studied stuff that was extra Biblical. With this in mind a disciples sole purpose in life (in the 1st century Hebraic perspective) was to learn what their rabbi knew (in a Christians case this is Jesus), do what their rabbi did, so they can become like the rabbi (Paul speaks of being conformed into the image of the Messiah).

All truth is God’s truth, if it’s not true then it’s not of God. Jesus even says He is "the Truth"..............anything that isn't true isn't of Jesus and anything that is true is of Jesus, there is no truth outside of Jesus He is the ultimate reality.

Just because it has a Christian “label” on it doesn’t make it true, just because it doesn’t have a Christian label on it doesn’t not make it true either. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “test everything, hold on to the good” – notice he doesn’t say “test only Christian things”.

Andyman said:

With all due respect brother this borders on replacement theology…………..which IMHO is disgusting.

Click to expand...

I hope we can continue to maintain a spirit of Christian fellowship, but in the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should express my view on this issue. "Replacement theology" is actually a derogatory term for Covenant Theology, which is a doctrine that the church has always embraced (at least until John Darby attacked it in 1830). I absolutely believe that the true Israel of God is, and always has been, the church which trusted in the Christ (so we never "replaced" anyone). Before Christ, Israel trusted that they would be redeemd by Christ. And now we have faith that we have been redeemed by him. Therefore I argue that the church is Israel.

arunma said:

I hope we can continue to maintain a spirit of Christian fellowship, but in the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should express my view on this issue. "Replacement theology" is actually a derogatory term for Covenant Theology, which is a doctrine that the church has always embraced (at least until John Darby attacked it in 1830). I absolutely believe that the true Israel of God is, and always has been, the church which trusted in the Christ (so we never "replaced" anyone). Before Christ, Israel trusted that they would be redeemd by Christ. And now we have faith that we have been redeemed by him. Therefore I argue that the church is Israel.

Click to expand...

Since the Apostle Paul says we are grafted in, note we are not “the Tree” I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this brother.

My comment was not meant as a personal attack on you per se – I however personally find the covenant/replacement theology literally stomach turning in regards to it’s treatment of the church and Israel.

Again, just because something is a doctrine the church has historically held does not IMHO make it authoritative by any means.

Anyway we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point brother………….please accept my humble apologies if I seemed a bit “fangs out” on that issue that was not my intent.

Amen, by brother Andy!

Thanks for asking that question; I've wondered myself

Andyman_1970 said:

Since the Apostle Paul says we are grafted in, note we are not “the Tree” I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this brother.

Click to expand...

I'm all for respectful disagreement. But if you don't mind, I'd still like to discuss the issue. Paul does say in Romans 11 that we are grafted into the tree. But he also says that some branches (the unbelieving Jews) are cut off. Since he refers to the unbelieving Jews as branches (in Romans 11:17), the Jews aren't the root of the tree either. Like us, they are branches. Paul also says "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23). So being a part of Israel is about faith, not lineage. Wouldn't you agree?

Andyman said:

I however personally find the covenant/replacement theology literally stomach turning in regards to it’s treatment of the church and Israel.

Click to expand...

But why? I think it is an excellent testimony of God's work to bring ungodly people into the commonwealth of Israel, through faith in Jesus Christ. And it fulfills the words of John the Baptist, that God can make a people out of the very stones, should he desire.

Andyman said:

Again, just because something is a doctrine the church has historically held does not IMHO make it authoritative by any means.

Click to expand...

Certainly not. But it does mean that many godly men who were well-versed in the Bible believed in it. This means that we should at least think about it.

Andyman said:

Anyway we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point brother………….please accept my humble apologies if I seemed a bit “fangs out” on that issue that was not my intent.

Click to expand...

No problem at all. But I would still like to know why you're so opposed to Covenant Theology, if you don't mind.

arunma said:

I'm all for respectful disagreement. But if you don't mind, I'd still like to discuss the issue. Paul does say in Romans 11 that we are grafted into the tree. But he also says that some branches (the unbelieving Jews) are cut off. Since he refers to the unbelieving Jews as branches (in Romans 11:17), the Jews aren't the root of the tree either. Like us, they are branches. Paul also says "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23). So being a part of Israel is about faith, not lineage. Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

I would agree that to be truly connected to God is through faith. I however disagree that through faith we as Gentiles somehow become or take over Israel, Israel is Israel God’s chosen people with whom He has made some very specific promises with.

arunma said:

But why? I think it is an excellent testimony of God's work to bring ungodly people into the commonwealth of Israel, through faith in Jesus Christ. And it fulfills the words of John the Baptist, that God can make a people out of the very stones, should he desire.

Click to expand...

God calling out Gentiles is not a new thing, read Jonah, and there were Gentiles who were with the Israelites when the Torah was given and could partake in that relationship to YHVH, so this is not a new concept Biblically.

arunma said:

Certainly not. But it does mean that many godly men who were well-versed in the Bible believed in it. This means that we should at least think about it.

Click to expand...

True as Paul said test everything hold on to the good, but there are parts of that theology I disagree with.

arunma said:

No problem at all. But I would still like to know why you're so opposed to Covenant Theology, if you don't mind.

Click to expand...

Well Covenant Theology finds it’s roots in Reformed Theology and Calvin – who along with Luther had some very slanted and inaccurate understandings about 1st century Judaism and that biased their writings especially with regards to Paul and the Torah. So there are parts of that philosophy that I find interesting and the parts that have been influenced by Reformed theology and Calvinism that I disagree with. I assume with it’s connection to Reformed theology and Calvin Covenant theology holds the idea of original sin which I disagree with to some extent as this was not held by the tradition Jesus and the early church (read Jewish) came from.

Anyway that’s a few of my thoughts on the subject…………..pretty far removed from the OP.

Not a dumb question at all.
God knows our thoughts, fears, and everything else about us.
Way, way, before we think or say it our loudly ourselves.
And that He wants us to say those things even when He knows those things Himself.
Point well taken you all.