- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
We all suffer persecution, OldWise Guy, it's part of being apart of the family of Christ
Perhaps, but not continually.
Upvote
0
We all suffer persecution, OldWise Guy, it's part of being apart of the family of Christ
Well, I seemed to have struck a chord, unknowingly. The weight of education in what is real persecution and what is self-pity is hard to ignore once the eyes have been opened.Wow! Well you have a right to your Opinion!
Self-pity is more likely the continuous "affliction."Perhaps, but not continually.
Man I didn't know I was in a contest. Just forget it manWell, I seemed to have struck a chord, unknowingly. The weight of education in what is real persecution and what is self-pity is hard to ignore once the eyes have been opened.
A chord is not a context. You might want to do as you promised.Man I didn't know I was in a contest. Just forget it man
None of that answers my question. I asked where in the Bible you have quotes in the New Testament where only those of that tribe were called Jews and the others were all called "dogs.*
So it is guess work. No one who actually lived there at the time called other tribes "dogs" in words nor by how they treated inhabitants who were not of Benjamin, Judah or Levi. There isn't a single reference to writings of the time that refer to other descendants of Israel as "dogs" by other descendants of Israel I gather. No distain for offspring because they were of the tribe of Rueben, et al. can be found. OK, then I can easily dismiss that idea same as many others who insist what people thought millenia ago without any references from people living millenia ago.It's a matter of history, supported by scripture. There is no direct quote.
So it is guess work. No one who actually lived there at the time called other tribes "dogs" in words nor by how they treated inhabitants who were not of Benjamin, Judah or Levi. There isn't a single reference to writings of the time that refer to other descendants of Israel as "dogs" by other descendants of Israel I gather. No distain for offspring because they were of the tribe of Rueben, et al. can be found. OK, then I can easily dismiss that idea same as many others who insist what people thought millenia ago without any references from people living millenia ago.
It is very common to hear others tell us what people long ago thought without any read reason to do so and when one finally reads what they actually thought, the difference is remarkable.
This question was prompted by reading the first part (up to Constantine) of The Cambridge History of Christianity. In a chapter on Jewish Christianity, the author defines this as Christians who observed Jewish rites such as circumcision or food laws. He gives the following possible reasons for the demise of Jewish Christianity:
1. The two abortive Jewish rebellions against the Romans
2. The consequential rise in power of the rabbis
3. The message that Gentile converts to Christianity didn't have to observe Jewish laws
The author notes that the refuter of heresy, Irenaeus, spends far more time refuting Gnosticism than "Judaizers" that figure so much in the New Testament polemics. This is evidence for the early demise of Jewish Christianity.
The author then argues this became a tragedy for the Jews (and Christians?) leading to the well known "bloody history of ecclesiastical anti-Semitism".
There are Jewish Christians today but sadly they are few in number, especially in Israel.
It appears that this is oversimplified. As I understand it, there was a spectrum. Just as we have non-Jewish Christians now who believe it's appropriate to honor the Sabbath, the same was probably true in the first few centuries.Rather we have Apostolic Christianity, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. It's not that "Gentile Christianity" became dominant, it's that Apostolic Christianity continued to grow in spite of both external pressures (persecution) and internal pressures (heresy). There were always going to be more Gentile Christians than Jewish Christians simply on the basis of pure numbers.
Where do you get the idea that Canaanites were a tribe of Israel?Perhaps you should do a study on the topic. Lots of information from biblical and secular sources. Check out Matthew 15:22-28.
Where do you get the idea that Canaanites were a tribe of Israel?
First I know both accounts very well. Second I did some outside search of who the canaanites were and they were not of Israelite origin. They were Gentiles and the Gentiles were sometimes called “dogs” by the Israelies.If you read the story carefully (as well as the story of the "Samaritan woman" at the well) you will understand.
First I know both accounts very well. Second I did some outside search of who the canaanites were and they were not of Israelite origin. They were Gentiles and the Gentiles were sometimes called “dogs” by the Israelies.
No evidence for this. You wish it to be so, but it is not according to non-biased sources.That 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, as was the Samaritan woman at the well.
No evidence for this. You wish it to be so, but it is not according to non-biased sources.
Guy, you apparently want very much to believe this and there doesn’t seem to bench point in continuing. Wishing you well!!That 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, as was the Samaritan woman at the well. They were called Canaanite and Samaritan because that's where they lived. Many nationalities and tribal groups lived in those regions. The poorest of the people weren't taken away by the Assyrians, which was common practice. In fact the number of the final deportees was less than 30,000 Israelites, likely only high ranking people and leaders. The poor held no value for the Assyrians.
The fact the Talmudic Jews reject Jesus makes their writings suspect.Oh I have Josephus and I do look things up. But I do like to see what Judaism says about things as well. Let me give you an example of Telushkin which I wouldn't get from josephus.
Telushkin actually said that in the time of the destruction of the temple that Josephus was probably loved by the people, and Rabbi zakkai was probably hated to the point that many wanted him dead for what he did. Zakkai today is credited with saving Judaism and requesting Yavneh and it's sages from the Emperor. Not to spare Jerusalem and the temple. The kicker here is (even though he does not say it outright) it is Zakkai that supposedly escaped the city by stealth (or deceit) gained favor with the Emperor for prophesying he would be the next Emperor. He and the sages are the compilers of the Talmud and Talmudic Judaism, we see today. So basically Telushkin was admitting that he thought Josephus having done this act was the true version, and the Talmudic version a crock. I like having confirmation like that from the other side.
To me its kind of a check on any of my own biases to hear from the other side like that.
I was reading it for their view of history. I had my own views and still do. Things that Maybe I would get a clearer picture on. An example is What did the Pharisees teach to do, that they themselves did not do. Just things like that alsoThe fact the Talmudic Jews reject Jesus makes their writings suspect.
I read the Talmud for their views of what is clean and unclean. I was in a library as I did not find the Talmud Yerushalmi online in those days. There was Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai and others expounding on superstition that has been surpassed by medical science. I would rather read a medical researcher than an Orthodox rabbi’s opinion about what is clean.