An interesting quote.

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Parousia -
You're welcome. (The tagline under your handle gave it away.)

Really? Usually it's the "parousia70" that gives it away.

What do you mean by "obedience to Moses"? Do you mean "obedience to the Law"?

If you prefer, yes.

No, the only ones who are accepted today, are those whose beliefs and practices are both apostolic and Biblical.

And any person of any race or ethnicity, who's beliefs and practices are both apostolic and biblical,  is indeed freely accepted in Christ without DNA or marraige or circumcision requirements.

Yes, there is.[a Jewish race today] You will find its remants all over the world - but particularly in Israel and the USA.

 After the destruction of Jerusalem, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was indeed scattered throughout the earth, and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the Temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
"The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthroinappropriate contentetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . ." "Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (vol. 16, p. 71).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

 Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

John Bray said, "Many Christians do not know that the vast majority of so-called Jews in the world today are the Ashkenazim Jews, while the remainder of them are the Sephardim Jews. The Ashkenazim Jews have as their background not the nation of Israel but a country called Khazaria, which country at one time was the largest country in Europe. The settlers of Khazaria were Turks and Huns. In A.D. 740 King Bulan of Khazaria decided to adopt the Judaistic religion for his country. A number of Jews were already living there. So he converted to Judaism, along with all his officials, and whole nation ended up being known as a nation of Jews. In 970 Russia came in and dominated the situation, and the Khazars were scattered, many of them going down into Poland and Lithuania. Where at the dawn of our modern civilization the largest concentration of Jews were found. Today, the largest percentage of so-called Jews in the world have as their background this group of people." (This information is fully documented in detail in John Bray's book, Israel in Bible Prophecy)

Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970)
"In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert." (vol. 14, p. 214)

H.G. Wells
"There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Turkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).  

We can, and I do, clearly and confidently assert that there is no longer such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be.

No, the Church is only the community of adopted sons and daughters. Without the Jews, we would have no hope of salvation.

Thou art the wild olive tree, Parousia - and the root beareth thee. Boast not against the branches, nor be wise in your own conceit... lest thou be cut off.

Jesus and His JEWISH followers were "true Israel", and the rest were cut off, as scripture fortold they would be.

I boast not against Jesus and His Jewish followers (the native branches), I rejoice in them, and they in me (the wild graft).

Unbelievers never had any part.

 

[cenimo]

Re: the OP the quote to me sounds like something Replacement Theology folks would come up with, even though it may sound like it came from the Third Reich.

 

[Evangelion]

Parousia70 -

And any person of any race or ethnicity, who's beliefs and practices are both apostolic and biblical, is indeed freely accepted in Christ without DNA or marraige or circumcision requirements.

Agreed. What's your point?

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was indeed scattered throughout the earth, and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the Temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race.

*snip*

I see that we are dealing with two different definitions of "race." I should have been more specific.

The point I am making is that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive and kicking today - and that they (with their antecedents) will one day receive the promises which were made to the patriarchs.

Contest this point, and you make God a liar.

Jesus and His JEWISH followers were "true Israel", and the rest were cut off, as scripture fortold they would be.

But what saith the Scriptures...?

Romans 9:6-13, from the RSV:

• 
  and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."
  This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
  For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
  And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
  though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call,
  she was told, "The elder will serve the younger."
  As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The point he is making here is that not all of Abraham's descendents belong to Israel. Esau and his family were cut out; the promise was not made to them, but to Jacob and his family. In the same way, Ishmael and his family are not counted as "Israel" even though they too are descended from Abraham, because the promise of God was that Isaac would continue the line of the chosen seed.

Paul explains this in considerable detail. There is no possible way that you can ignore his references to Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob and Esau. None of these references make any sense in the context of your argument.

• 
  Romans 11:1-5.
  I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elijah? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
  Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
  But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
  Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

It's just so incredibly clear. Paul's specific references to his own family line, leave absolutely no room for argument.

I boast not against Jesus and His Jewish followers (the native branches), I rejoice in them, and they in me (the wild graft).

*snip*

But Paul doesn't say that "Jesus and his Jewish followers are the native branches." He specifically mentions natural Israel; Israel after the flesh.

Thus:

• 
  Romans 11:24-32.
  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
  For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
  For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
  Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
  For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

In summary:

• Abraham and the patriarchs - the root.
  
• Believing Israel - those natural branches which remain.
  
• Wild branches - the Gentiles, who are grafted into Israel against nature.
  
• Unbelieving Israel - those natural branches which were cut off. Some will be grafted back onto the olive tree, while others will never return.

 

[Evangelion]

cenimo -

Re: the OP the quote to me sounds like something Replacement Theology folks would come up with, even though it may sound like it came from the Third Reich.

Well, they're the same sort of thing, really. So your analogy holds true.

 

[Data Guy]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Yes, there is such a thing as "orthodox Judaism", and it is OT Judaism.

I think it is important to differentiate between an OT believer and one who follows Rabbinical (man-made) schools of thought during the time of Christ or today. OT worship is usually not referred to as Judaism. The Jews (religious leaders) altered the OT worship which, according to Jesus, made the 'words of God' of no effect but rather imposed 'commandments of men' upon the common Jew. "Orthodox Judaism" today is nothing like OT worship.

Originally posted by Evangelion ...
There is no such thing as a genuine belief in the OT that is inconsistent with OT Judaism and all that it taught.

There most certainly is an inconsistency here. Else why did Jesus constantly say to the leaders of his day, "You say .... , but I say ...". He frequently pointed out where they erred in their interpretation of the OT scriptures. They always "strained at gnats and swallowed camels"!

Originally posted by Evangelion
Trinitarianism is clearly inconsistent with OT Judaism.

Huh? Trinitarians totally believe the great Hebrew Shema - "The Lord our God is One". I don't want to digress here, though.

 

[Data Guy]

Evangelion -

You said you agree with David on this point - "those who do not believe in christ do not believe in the Old Testament".

DG:
To carry out this thought, then you must agree that Judaism does not really believe the OT , since it rejects Christ as Messiah. Use of the OT does not mean belief in them. Judaism's hope is placed in an utopia and the promise of political superiority.

Evangelion:
"The God of Judaism - regardless of what form it takes - is the God of Israel".

DG:
Impossible! Are you saying that God was responsible for Saul (later Paul) persucuting and having Jewish/Gentile believers murdered? Paul practiced Judaism blamelessly. That is the form that Judaism took in the first century. Hence the context of the letters to the seven churches. I would not accuse God of authoring a religion that attacks the very believers He died to save.

God cannot contradict Himself. The OT sciptures explicitly say that God set in motion the Mosaic Covenant and required it's observance. Nowhere do we see God orchestrating nor asking obedience to the Rabbinical system of worship and legalism. In fact, He (Jesus) repeatedly pointed out the gross inconsistencies in the Rabbinical teachings of His day. Jesus often asked questions from the OT which they did not understand and/or could not answer.

Bottom line - "Israel" and "Judaism" are NOT synonymous terms. And neither are the "god of Judaism" and the "God of Israel". Much confusion comes from using them interchangeably.

 

[Evangelion]

Data Guy -

I think it is important to differentiate between an OT believer and one who follows Rabbinical (man-made) schools of thought during the time of Christ or today.

Agreed. I already made this very clear in my posts.

OT worship is usually not referred to as Judaism.

Well, that's just stupid. OT Judaism is true Judaism, and anyone who claims otherwise will have the God of Israel to deal with.

The Jews (religious leaders) altered the OT worship which, according to Jesus, made the 'words of God' of no effect but rather imposed 'commandments of men' upon the common Jew. "Orthodox Judaism" today is nothing like OT worship.

I agree with all of this. I already made this very clear in my posts.

quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion ...
There is no such thing as a genuine belief in the OT that is inconsistent with OT Judaism and all that it taught.

There most certainly is an inconsistency here. Else why did Jesus constantly say to the leaders of his day, "You say .... , but I say ...". He frequently pointed out where they erred in their interpretation of the OT scriptures. They always "strained at gnats and swallowed camels"!

You have just proved my point - viz., that they did not have a genuine belief in the OT. They had a sincere belief, but their conclusions were awry. Having added much more to God's own Law, they no longer had an unsullied belief system. So, in a very real sense, theirs was no longer "a genuine belief in the OT." It was little more than a belief in a particular interpretation of the OT, with a whole bunch of manmade additions.

quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion

You said you agree with David on this point - "those who do not believe in christ do not believe in the Old Testament".

Yes.

DG:
To carry out this thought, then you must agree that Judaism does not really believe the OT , since it rejects Christ as Messiah.

They do not accept its true message, no. And why not? Because they have misunderstood it. So in one sense, they do believe in the OT, but in another sense they reject it.

Use of the OT does not mean belief in them.

Agreed. Trinitarianism is a case in point.

Judaism's hope is placed in an utopia and the promise of political superiority.

...through the return of Messiah, yes.

Evangelion:
"The God of Judaism - regardless of what form it takes - is the God of Israel".

DG:
Impossible!

Why? The God of OT Judaism is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of modern Judaism is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

How much simpler does it have to get?

Are you saying that God was responsible for Saul (later Paul) persucuting and having Jewish/Gentile believers murdered?

No, that's a complete straw man.

Paul practiced Judaism blamelessly. That is the form that Judaism took in the first century. Hence the context of the letters to the seven churches.

Irrelevant.

I would not accuse God of authoring a religion that attacks the very believers He died to save.

False dichotomy. It was not "a religon" that attacked the earliest Christians; it was a group of fanatical believers (of whom Paul was one.) This has nothing to do with the religion itself, and everything to do with its adherents.

Remember, even after he became a Christian, Paul insisted that he believed "none other than that which is found in the Law and the prophets." He also said that he "worshipped the God of my fathers."

Selah.

God cannot contradict Himself. The OT sciptures explicitly say that God set in motion the Mosaic Covenant and required it's observance. Nowhere do we see God orchestrating nor asking obedience to the Rabbinical system of worship and legalism. In fact, He (Jesus) repeatedly pointed out the gross inconsistencies in the Rabbinical teachings of His day. Jesus often asked questions from the OT which they did not understand and/or could not answer.

I agree with all of this, and would be fascinated to know why you are saying it. It certainly has no impact on my argument.

Bottom line - "Israel" and "Judaism" are NOT synonymous terms.

Straw man. I never claimed that they were.

And neither are the "god of Judaism" and the "God of Israel".

False.

Much confusion comes from using them interchangeably.

Well, I don't.

Huh? Trinitarians totally believe the great Hebrew Shema - "The Lord our God is One".

No, they don't. They believe in something else entirely. They believe in a perverted version of the Shema, which looks like this:

• 
  The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
  (And suddenly - quite arbitrarily -1 + 1 + 1 becomes 1!)
  
  As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
  (And suddenly - quite arbitrarily -1 + 1 + 1 becomes 1!)
  
  So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
  (And suddenly - quite arbitrarily -1 + 1 + 1 becomes 1!)
  
  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
  (And suddenly - quite arbitrarily -1 + 1 + 1 becomes 1!)
  
  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  (1 + 1 + 1 =3. That's how we arrive at a "Trinity.")
  
  And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
  (Even though this is exactly what we've been saying all along. But now we've changed our minds, and suddenly - quite arbitrarily -1 + 1 + 1 becomes 1!)
  
  For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
  (Our bishops told us what to believe, and because we're obedient Trinitarians, we'll do as they say instead of thinking for ourselves.)
  
  So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
  (We don't want to admit polytheism, so let's redefine "monotheism" to suit ourselves, and hope that nobody picks it up.)

By contrast, the Shema actually looks like this:

• 
  Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God is One Yahweh.

The difference is rather striking, wouldn't you say?

I don't want to digress here, though.

Good. You can help to keep the discussion on track by addressing my previous post on Romans 9 & 11.

 

[Data Guy]

Evangelion -

You abviously do not recognize the vast difference between the OT and it's system of worship as initiated by God and the Talmudic, Rabbinical, form of modern, "orthodox" Judaism.

The Talmud actually places itself above the OT scriptures in importance and the obedience it requires. In Matthew 15:2, the scribes and Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of not obeying the Talmud. Jesus answers that their system of worship (traditions of Talmudic, rabbinical law) actually causes them to transgress the commandments of God!

There is NO WAY that God can be said to have initiated, authored, or required obediance to the Talmud.

Perhaps if David Chilton had said "The god of the Talmudic, Rabbinical religious system is the Devil", then you would not think his statement so sick nor gloat in his death? Please note that his statement was never directed at individuals but rather a system that 'owns' the OT but stands in front of the door (claiming superiority over the OT) keeping many out.

 

[Evangelion]

Data Guy -

You abviously do not recognize the vast difference between the OT and it's system of worship as initiated by God and the Talmudic, Rabbinical, form of modern, "orthodox" Judaism.

*snip*

Yes I do, and I have made this abundantly clear in my posts. Please read them.

There is NO WAY that God can be said to have initiated, authored, or required obediance to the Talmud.

*snip*

Straw man. I never claimed that He had!

Meanwhile, nobody has succeeded in defending Chilton's "The God of Judaism is the devil" comment.

 

[Data Guy]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Meanwhile, nobody has succeeded in defending Chilton's "The God of Judaism is the devil" comment.

The only defence Chilton needs here is from the charges made due to misunderstanding of terms. I will try once more to scale the boundaries of language.

You originally called this quote (and Chilton) sick. Apparently, your reasoning went as follows:

#A1: The God of the OT system of worship is JHWH.
#A2: The God of modern orthodox Judaism is JHWH.
#A3: Therefore, God is the author of both - both terms are equivelant.

Result: If Chilton says the Devil is the god of Judaism, he has commited blasphemy by calling JHWH the Devil (For the record - He did NOT).

However, during these posts you have agreed:
#B1: God is NOT the author of modern Judaism.
#B2: The OT system of worship is NOT equivelant with modern Judaism.
#B3: Therefore, the God of the OT is NOT the god of modern Judaism. Both terms are NOT equivelant.

Result: When Chilton named the god of "Judaism" as the Devil, he was NOT referring to the OT system of worship, and therefore was NOT callling JHWH the Devil, and the charge of blasphemy fails.

Words are containers and only as good as the meaning poured into them. That's why I spend time laying a proper foundation for discussion by clarifying terms for myself and others.

Again my question to you is, if God is not the author of modern, "orthodox" Judaism, then who is?

In Him,
DG

 

[Outspoken]

"The difference is rather striking, wouldn't you say?"

Yup, thats true, and another reason Christ came, to clarify who God was That is why he also said, if you knew me you would know my father but you don't know him, or something to that effect

 

[Evangelion]

Data Guy -

The only defence Chilton needs here is from the charges made due to misunderstanding of terms.

No, there is no "misunderstanding of terms" here. Chilton was a Reconstructivist. We all know what that means. We all know the context in which he made his abhorrant remarks.

I will try once more to scale the boundaries of language.

No, you will try to put some more spin on Chilton's words.

You originally called this quote (and Chilton) sick. Apparently, your reasoning went as follows:

#A1: The God of the OT system of worship is JHWH.
#A2: The God of modern orthodox Judaism is JHWH.

Correct.

#A3: Therefore, God is the author of both - both terms are equivelant.

Straw man! I have never made this claim.

Result: If Chilton says the Devil is the god of Judaism, he has commited blasphemy by calling JHWH the Devil (For the record - He did NOT).

But he did! The God of modern Judaism is the same God that we find in OT Judaism!

However, during these posts you have agreed:

#B1: God is NOT the author of modern Judaism.

Yep. But He is still the God of modern Judaism. He is the God that modern Jews worship.

#B2: The OT system of worship is NOT equivelant with modern Judaism.

Yep.

#B3: Therefore, the God of the OT is NOT the god of modern Judaism.

False! This does not logically follow. You are equivocating wildly.

Both terms are NOT equivelant.

Which terms? Do you even understand what you're saying?

Result: When Chilton named the god of "Judaism" as the Devil, he was NOT referring to the OT system of worship, and therefore was NOT callling JHWH the Devil, and the charge of blasphemy fails.

*snip*

How in the world are you going to prove that the God of modern Judaism is not the God of OT Judaism, pray tell?

Again my question to you is, if God is not the author of modern, "orthodox" Judaism, then who is?

Are you even reading what I write? I have never claimed that God is the author of modern Judaism. I say that He is the God of modern Judaism; IOW, He is the God Whom the modern Jews worship; He is the God upon whom modern Judaism is focused.

Modern Jews worship the same God as OT Jews. They have a different interpretation of Judaism, but the same interpretation of God. Ergo, God is the God of modern Judaism.

I find it just incredible that you can't understand this simple fact.