Judaism as the "grain of wheat", Christianity as the "fruit"?

[inJESUS]

Maybe,

i’d say for sure…otherwise Jesus would have prohibited all animals that have blood, if its about blood…since He declared all food clean, then its about intentions, something Jesus always focused on

 

[FaithofAbraham]

i’d say for sure…otherwise Jesus would have prohibited all animals that have blood, if its about blood…since He declared all food clean, then its about intentions, something Jesus always focused on

Well he said you aren’t going to be clean by staying kosher if you have nasty thoughts. He never told Jews to quit being kosher, since that’s part of what makes them Jews. If you don’t even try to be kosher you aren’t really a Jew, you are a Gentile dabbling in Judaism.

But as a Gentile, well you have to decide for yourself. The following says don’t eat it, so I wouldn’t tell anyone that it’s ok to eat blood. Anymore than I would say it’s ok to fornicate as long as you had good intentions.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
…
If I am a Christian, I do indeed “offer myself” completely by the sacrament of reconciliation as “punishment” for my sins, and am forgiven of my sins (and awarded my temporal penance) such that I can act in society in “punishing” the “societally lawless”.

…

Well you aren’t supposed to punish anyone if you haven’t offered yourself up for punishment for your own wrongs, even if they are secret or only in your mind. You give up that right when you accept Jesus.

But I have offered myself up for punishment for my wrongs, via reconciliation, and have been forgiven them (at that point in time), and are thereby given the OK to do my civic duty to uphold my (Christian) society’s laws.

Of course, I needn’t have done that from the CIVIC (temporal government) point of view, but it’s only fitting that I be forgiven my own particular sins if I want to “in clear conscience” pass judgement on a civil-lawbreaker.

You are in error as to Christians acting as part of their society. We are to uphold our society’s laws, where “Christainly just”, and part of that is “jury duty”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

If you want to follow Jesus perfectly then you don’t kill anyone unless you can proclaim yourself free of sins worthy of death yourself.

Now maybe you have repented and don’t sin anymore, and maybe you are not guilty and thus have the right.

But if you are secretly cheating on your wife and haven’t repented, or even lusting after someone other than your spouse if you are married, then kill an intruder in the heat of the moment before repenting of all that, you are just being a hypocrite since you are still guilty of adultery which is death under the Law.

Repentance through Jesus possibly frees you of that, but you better stay repented if you want to be in the Law Enforcement business or something like that, I think.

You’re not Catholic, are you?

To save an innocent from possibly deadly harm, I may kill the “harmer” AS A LAST RESORT, and under other very strict conditions specified by the Church, without being utterly sinlesss at that time.

I suspect that your idea of “prerequisite purity for some actions” is just a BIT too “pharisaic”, though probably not actually heretical, but what the heck do I know!?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

You’re not Catholic, are you?

To save an innocent from possibly deadly harm, I may kill the “harmer” AS A LAST RESORT, and under other very strict conditions specified by the Church, without being utterly sinlesss at that time.

I suspect that your idea of “prerequisite purity for some actions” is just a BIT too “pharisaic”, though probably not actually heretical, but what the heck do I know!?

Pragmatically I would say to kill the intruder. But after you do it, if you are engaging in a sinful habit like cheating or looking at porn on the Internet or something, it would be best to repent of that quickly.

 

[Valke2]

Of course not, but a Jew had to at least try to observe Torah else he isn’t even a Jew but just a wishful-thinking Gentile.

And then, if Torah isn’t followed perfectly you still need the High Priest to make atonement for you. Now Jesus is doing that, taking your prayers of repentance to God since there are no more animal offerings, at least right now.

Even when the Temple was standing we didn’t need the high priest to make attonement for our sins. There were always the options of prayer and teshuva.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Even when the Temple was standing we didn’t need the high priest to make attonement for our sins. There were always the options of prayer and teshuva.

None of this is necessary for Yom Kippur? Why did God say to do it for atonement if you don’t need to?

Lev 16:32-34 And the priest, who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to be priest in his father’s stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments. And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make atonement** for the children of Israel because of all their sins once in the year**.’ And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

[Valke2]

He gave us other options. Fortunately our religion does not depend on slavishly obeying a literal interpetation of scripture under all circumstances.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

He gave us other options. Fortunately our religion does not depend on slavishly obeying a literal interpetation of scripture under all circumstances.

So then you are saying the Yom Kippur atonement by a high priest wasn’t even needed, right?

 

[ryanoneil]

But like I said it’s ok to be a Gentile in Jesus too, that is perfectly fine.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Does Jesus view modern Judaism and Christianity as equally valid?

What is the difference between a Jew who believes in Jesus and a Christian?

The New Covenant isn’t really a Law, it is a new relationship and marriage between God and man through Jesus who makes atonement for us. In the end there won’t be any Laws to follow since our hearts will be free of sin, Satan being defeated forever, and what is left in our hearts will only be things that God wants us to do, pure goodness. Then the New Covenant will be entirely in effect.

I agree the New Covenant is a new relationship and marriage between God and man through Jesus. I don’t agree that it isn’t a law. The New Law, Christ’s Law, is the perfection of the Torah. IT IS THE LAW OF LOVE. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel . . . I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Colossians 3:14-15 *Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. *

James 1:25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does.

I can guarentee that wasn’t a reference to the Torah of the Old Covenant.

Yes, the first part of the New Covenant is accepting Jesus as High Priest who makes atonement for you.

I agree. But, we are IN the New Covenant and without the New Law it is impossible to accept Jesus.

Mat 5:20 * I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. *

It is still an aspect of Torah of the Old Covenant, part of the Law Jews had neglected that Jesus was reminding them to follow. If you don’t want your eye taken by someone, don’t take his. Nothing new, just neglected.

You have it backward. The Torah is an aspect of the New Law. The Torah of the Old Covenant was imperfect until Christ perfected it IN the New Law of the New Covenant.

Mat 5:38-39 *“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.” *

CCC 580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son. In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but “upon the heart” of the Servant who becomes “a covenant to the people”, because he will “faithfully bring forth justice”. Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself “the curse of the Law” incurred by those who do not “abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them”, for his death took place to redeem them “from the transgressions under the first covenant”.

Follow it completely?

Yes. You seem to forget that Jesus forgives our sins if we repent. He said “whoever endures to the end will be saved.” Salvation is a life long process.

Then you would be perfect and sinless, are you saying that you are? Or that anyone on earth now is?

I am not sinless and perfect, and only God knows who is. We can only be made perfect through Christ.

God will make that happen for all who accept the New Covenant, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Of course, great and wonderful things will happen in the future, when Christ comes again. I just can’t figure out why you won’t accept that He is also doing it right now?

Mat 5:48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

JESUS WOULDN’T SAY IT IF IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE

1 Pet 5:10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

James 1:4 And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

This has been the present day work of God for two thousand years my friend.

Mark 10:27 *Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God.” *

Peace,

Ryan

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Does Jesus view modern Judaism and Christianity as equally valid?

No Judaism is antichrist, Jesus is forbidden in it. I’m saying someone who follows Torah is a Jew, he doesn’t need to belong to a religion called “Judaism.” But it’s ok not to observe all Torah and be a Gentile and just follow the few parts of Torah stated in Acts 15. That’s what I mean.

What is the difference between a Jew who believes in Jesus and a Christian?

Messianic Jews often reject Christmas and Gentile traditions as pagan, and they observe the Jewish feasts and Torah instead. But they also usually accept Trinity. Then there are Jews that simply convert to Christianity too.

I agree the New Covenant is a new relationship and marriage between God and man through Jesus. I don’t agree that it isn’t a law. The New Law, Christ’s Law, is the perfection of the Torah. IT IS THE LAW OF LOVE. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel . . . I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

…

I agree. But, we are IN the New Covenant and without the New Law it is impossible to accept Jesus.

Well I think part of it is here since we ask Jesus to make atonement with God for our sins. But I think it is not finally here for everyone until death and sin are gone, when heaven and earth pass.

You have it backward. The Torah is an aspect of the New Law. The Torah of the Old Covenant was imperfect until Christ perfected it IN the New Law of the New Covenant.

I suspect maybe all that was taught with Moses but neglected by Jews, that’s part of what Malachi condemned them for, corrupting Torah.

Yes. You seem to forget that Jesus forgives our sins if we repent. He said “whoever endures to the end will be saved.” Salvation is a life long process.

No, but in the end we won’t need to repent anymore if Satan is gone and there is no more sin. I think that’s when God’s Laws are written in our hearts for good and can’t be erased by Satan.

I am not sinless and perfect, and only God knows who is. We can only be made perfect through Christ.

Of course, great and wonderful things will happen in the future, when Christ comes again. I just can’t figure out why you won’t accept that He is also doing it right now?

Oh I do, I know people can overcome amazing obstacles when they pray for God’s help. But we still have to struggle against sin and slip up and hurt others. So I look forward to when people can just be good all the time and never have to suffer or sin or die anymore. That’s when the New Covenant is finally here for everyone.

 

[Valke2]

So then you are saying the Yom Kippur atonement by a high priest wasn’t even needed, right?

I am saying that we found ways to attone on Yom Kippur after the Temple was destroyed. Since its destruction, we are obligated on Yom Kippur to study the role of the High Priest in the service. This is a rabbinic commandment and one of the ways the service has evolved since the destruction of the Temple. The obligation is set forth in the Talmud.

When the Temple stood, it was needed. After, the recitation and study of the TEmple service was needed.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I am saying that we found ways to attone on Yom Kippur after the Temple was destroyed.

God told Jews new ways other than Jesus? Or they just decided there could be new ways on their own?

 

[Valke2]

God told Jews new ways other than Jesus? Or they just decided there could be new ways on their own?

There’s a TOrah and an ORal Torah. GOd gave us both. It is for us to interpet it and figure out how to best live by what it teaches.

Btw, what did you mean when you said Jews were the antichrist?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

There’s a TOrah and an ORal Torah. GOd gave us both. It is for us to interpet it and figure out how to best live by what it teaches.

Btw, what did you mean when you said Jews were the antichrist?

Does it say atonement by priest on Yom Kippur is optional?

I said Judaism was antichrist because it forbids Christ. Jews may or may not be antichrist.

 

[Valke2]

Does it say atonement by priest on Yom Kippur is optional?

I said Judaism was antichrist because it forbids Christ. Jews may or may not be antichrist.

The Talmud teaches us how to go through attonement on Yom Kippur when there is no Temple.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
You’re not Catholic, are you?

To save an innocent from possibly deadly harm, I may kill the “harmer” AS A LAST RESORT, and under other very strict conditions specified by the Church, without being utterly sinlesss at that time.

I suspect that your idea of “prerequisite purity for some actions” is just a BIT too “pharisaic”, though probably not actually heretical, but what the heck do I know!?

Pragmatically I would say to kill the intruder. But after you do it, if you are engaging in a sinful habit like cheating or looking at porn on the Internet or something, it would be best to repent of that quickly.

The reason for reconciliation with the Church, the Body of Christ, with God, which is the same act by the way, is to be free of every and any sins, not just because I’ve potentially commited another one.

The question is whether it’s a sin to do that particular killing, and it would certainly be one if there was a PROBABLE way in which to save the innocent without killing anyone, but since in the exigency it may not be possible to know that, it’s best to consider that the killing was at least possibly a sin, in which case it needs to be forgiven properly.

BUT, the fact I have OTHER sins means only that they need to be forgiven, and that if I hadn’t been forgiven them the killing would be any less likely to be a possible sin.

To FAIL to act justly to the best of our ability with the rationalization that “we are not without sin and therefore can’t do this just thing” is most likely a rather grave sin of omission.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The reason for reconciliation with the Church, the Body of Christ, with God, which is the same act by the way, is to be free of every and any sins, not just because I’ve potentially commited another one.

The question is whether it’s a sin to do that particular killing, and it would certainly be one if there was a PROBABLE way in which to save the innocent without killing anyone, but since in the exigency it may not be possible to know that, it’s best to consider that the killing was at least possibly a sin, in which case it needs to be forgiven properly.

BUT, the fact I have OTHER sins means only that they need to be forgiven, and that if I hadn’t been forgiven them the killing would be any less likely to be a possible sin.

To FAIL to act justly to the best of our ability with the rationalization that “we are not without sin and therefore can’t do this just thing” is most likely a rather grave sin of omission.

I agree, but I think it just emphasizes the need to stay in good spiritual health at all times, so that you can be better justified if you need to do things like that to help defend the innocent.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The Talmud teaches us how to go through attonement on Yom Kippur when there is no Temple.

Does it say that command for an alternate plan came from God or a prophet? Opinions sometimes conflict in the Talmud right. For example one opinion in the Talmud is that Messiah might be Daniel resurrected, yet Judaism generally rejects that Messiah can be resurrected.

 

[Valke2]

Does it say that command for an alternate plan came from God or a prophet? Opinions sometimes conflict in the Talmud right. For example one opinion in the Talmud is that Messiah might be Daniel resurrected, yet Judaism generally rejects that Messiah can be resurrected.

Opinions almost always conflict and are recorded before a common understanding is reached in Talmud. The rabbis will use verse from Tanakh, including prophets, to back up their interpetations.

We do not have a Church as a central authority. Our central authority are our books. But they are a starting point, not an end. A springboard from which attempt to live a life that glorifies God by bringing Him into the present moment. As far as our law/halacha goes, it is based on our books. Just as I have no illusion of understanding the overall message and structure of Islam or Cathoclicism, not being a muslim or christian, I don’t think a muslim or chrisitan can truly understand all that Judaism encompasses. To paraphrase a rabbi, the Torah read with a closed heart is just a book.