WHY

[seeking633]

All the angels are called sons of God. If the "trinity" includes every entity called "son of God", then the Trinity certainly includes more than three.

Good point. It may be that Yeshuah was presented as G-d's only begotten son in the context of His relationship to mankind.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Good point. It may be that Yeshuah was presented as G-d's only begotten son in the context of His relationship to mankind.

Ok but that doesn't have anything to do with the trinity. Jews already had the belief in Metatron, or Sar Panim, a very similar entity...

Metatron, in Jewish Tradition, was said to be the only entity besides the Creator who had a seat in heaven. Only he and the Creator were allowed to sit. The other angels were offended, so Metatron allowed himself to be whipped, to prove he was not the Creator.

 

[Dave-W]

1. The perceived rejection of Judaism by the early Christian church. This never happened.

Actually, it did. You need to read Eusubius who wrote approx 300 ad.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[seeking633]

Actually, it did. You need to read Eusubius who wrote approx 300 ad.

I don't believe it did. You see, I'm referring to the body of believers that make up what the scriptures refer to as the Church of God, the body of Christ.

We reject the Talmud or course because it's been replaced by Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the New Testament. The Tanakh still stands since this is the Law and the Prophets.

The Law of God is still in effect yet Christians are spared its judgment through the sacrifice of Christ. Not all of God's declarations that He had made through the prophets have come to pass so they are still relevant.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't believe it did. You see, I'm referring to the body of believers that make up what the scriptures refer to as the Church of God, the body of Christ.

So am I. Eusubius was a church historian and he wrote very scathingly of the Jewish New Covenant believers of his day. (even though he grudgingly admitted they were doctrinally orthodox)

It is possible that his writings kept the Messianic Jews of the day (called Sect of the Nazoreans) from being invited to the first Nicene council of 325 ad. they ended up being cut off from the rest of the church world for being too "Jewish," and cut off from mainstream Judaism for being too Christian.

They died out about a century later.

We reject the Talmud or course because it's been replaced by Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the New Testament. The Tanakh still stands since this is the Law and the Prophets.

Who was talking about the Talmud? Besides the first version of that is the Mishnah and was published around 200 ad. The full talmuds came 2-3 centuries later. Jerusalem Talmud circa 400 ad, Babylonian Talmud circa 500 ad.

How can something be "replaced" by something else that came centuries earlier?

 

[CherubRam]

Because without interaction atrophy and closed minded thinking take root.

Bingo. And happy Birthday. I try to point out that there has come changes with the New Covenant, but it seems Messianic's do not want to hear it.

 

[seeking633]

So am I. Eusubius was a church historian and he wrote very scathingly of the Jewish New Covenant believers of his day. (even though he grudgingly admitted they were doctrinally orthodox)

And this in itself proves the point that there were those who were already teaching another Christ who is the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham.

It is possible that his writings kept the Messianic Jews of the day (called Sect of the Nazoreans) from being invited to the first Nicene council of 325 ad. they ended up being cut off from the rest of the church world for being too "Jewish," and cut off from mainstream Judaism for being too Christian.

They died out about a century later

Yes, indeed. All driven by the fear that Christianity would be too "Judasized" and caught up in the hatred of the Romans against the old covenant Jews. Very cowardly.

Who was talking about the Talmud? Besides the first version of that is the Mishnah and was published around 200 ad. The full talmuds came 2-3 centuries later. Jerusalem Talmud circa 400 ad, Babylonian Talmud circa 500 ad.

How can something be "replaced" by something else that came centuries earlier?

My apologies. This may be a reflection of my ignorance of Judaism. I come from a Roman Catholic background and educated in Judaic law through a very legalistic form of Christianity which I've also rejected.

When I refer to the Talmud, I am referring to the Rabbinic traditions, writings, teachings that existed at the time of Christ and rejected by Jesus as the "commandments of man". Am I still showing my ignorance?

 

[Dave-W]

When I refer to the Talmud, I am referring to the Rabbinic traditions, writings, teachings that existed at the time of Christ and rejected by Jesus as the "commandments of man". Am I still showing my ignorance?

Only in calling that "Talmud." It was referred to as the "customs of the fathers" at that point. See Acts 28.17.

 

[seeking633]

Only in calling that "Talmud." It was referred to as the "customs of the fathers" at that point. See Acts 28.17.

Okay, thank you for correcting me on that.

 

[daq]

<snip>...(called Sect of the Nazoreans)...<snip>
...They died out about a century later.<snip>

Not if you know the scripture.

 

[seeking633]

Not if you know the scripture.

I would agree with this. They predate the Nicene councils and still persist in their rejection of reinterpreting pagan tradition as "holy days", instead adhering to Passover and the Festivals of Weeks.

 

[daq]

I would agree with this. They predate the Nicene councils and still persist in their rejection of reinterpreting pagan tradition as "holy days", instead adhering to Passover and the Festivals of Weeks.

"Yonadab the son of Rekab shall not want a man to stand before Me for ever." (but it's too long of a story for here).

 

[visionary]

Talmud is like commentary for the Jews. It is a valid, scholar work of the Jewish learned religious leaders. It may not make sense to those who are mostly NT, but it has many insights that bring interesting perspectives for those who studies nothing but OT.

 

[seeking633]

Talmud is like commentary for the Jews. It is a valid, scholar work of the Jewish learned religious leaders. It may not make sense to those who are mostly NT, but it has many insights that bring interesting perspectives for those who studies nothing but OT.

I do not doubt this. But Yeshuah Ha-mashiach (excuse my Latin transliteration) is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Without him, they have been given to a lost people.

 

[visionary]

I do not doubt this. But Yeshuah Ha-mashiach (excuse my Latin transliteration) is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Without him, they have been given to a lost people.

Yeshua never said that the Jewish people were lost.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

 

[seeking633]

Yeshua never said that the Jewish people were lost.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

“My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold." Jeremiah 50:6

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:10

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

And again, when there is a reference to the people of Israel, it is NOT just about the Jews. The tribe of Judah were only one of 12 tribes. There were actually 10 other tribes who were not even in the area of Judea at the time of Christ.

 

[Open Heart]

It's because "faith alone" is the battle cry of the reformation.

 

[seeking633]

You answered your own question and with one word, "insecurity." Protestants have a hard time accepting anything that doesn't look, think, or act like they do. Throw in a little religious pride ("My way is correct, conform to me.") and we see why there is so much polarization.

This is good insight. God as Father, not just Judge. If a believer keeps looking to their culture as the source of their strength and an answer to the the really difficult world problems then they will forget what God can do.

 

[seeking633]

It's because "faith alone" is the battle cry of the reformation.

Please to meet you, INFJ. I'm INTJ.

Would it not be that "faith alone" would have a people not be a people but as a body or Church of believers with no inclination to interpret or even look to scripture?

As I mentioned in my last reply, I believe culture plays a large part in this this and how we use it's advantage to make scripture say whatever we want even using it to justify our actions as a people of culture and not of Christ.