L
Luke65
Guest
So, you didn’t want to believe the Good News, and you found reasons not to believe - I’m shocked! When you want to believe, you will.
- Status
S
simplynoone
Guest
How does Jesus specifically mention the OT is better than the NT when the NT wasn’t written until long after His Ascension?
I have not said anything contradictive to what you say above other than I do not at all think the Tanakh is an “Old Testament” and rather where we find the Truth of the matters. And truly, this is the Word Jesus was speaking to and as you admit, not the NT (certainly not Paul’s gospel).
I understood the reason why Jesus asked the man not to tell anyone was so the temple priests would declare him clean, and not “fudge” their decision if they knew it was Jesus who was responsible for the cure. That seems like the logical reason for the command to silence.
First of all, “fudge” is not so much of a cover for the word on your mind. Too bad we can’t just say what we want to say, huh?
Second, oooh!! Do share your insight here please!
So, you are saying that Catholics (christians in general) are like the concubines who are given Jesus, but want the “inheritence” of the “chosen people?” First, it was not the jews who “gave” us Jesus. Jesus came for all of us through the Jews; the Jews were chosen people, they did not choose God - God chose them for His purposes.
How can the Catholics (or christians) in general be the ones giving Jesus and at the same time it be the Jewish … according to the above, it seems you are confused thinking I would claim both. Rather … Jesus WAS A JEW and was given to the same teachings and the same scenarios of rabbis and those truly Jewish … so, rather than thinking that the Christians stole him or the Jewish betrayed him, I think that it is what it is … he was a Jew calling out to the lost house of Israel who were swallowed by the strangers. Hosea 7:8-10 God blessed him for it too, of this I am sure.
By the way, the Jewish are hardly disposable regardless of how many of them have shed their light to the world … that is not something that the Tanakh considers (that they would ever be disposable, that is) … and who am I to argue this. God blesses them too … as they are. They are not only part of the creation like you and me, but they are, in fact, the signature on our own contract… so careful how it is you are judging them.
Because that’s the case then I think you misunderstand the Catholic position. The Catholic Church is a New Covenant church… we see our relationship with God as arising from the covenant that was made with the blood of Jesus.
The New Covenant is defined in Jeremiah 31 … and it does not say “with the house of the Catholics” … rather it says with the house OF JUDAH and the house OF ISRAEL (also known as Ephraim). You obviously are only being fed by those who suit your fancy rather than the Tanakh, which is the Word of God.
We acknowledge that the covenant established by Abraham is still in effect, and we honor the Jews for that tradition of faithfulness.
Yes, of course. that would, surely, be the one according to Genesis 17 that says Abraham’s seed AND HIS HOUSE was to be circumcised IN THE FLESH, right?
That being said, we also believe that the same God who made that covenant with the Jews made the New Covenant for all people… including the Jews.
The new covenant is with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. NO one else is involved and Ezekiel is sure to confirm that those circumcised in the heart who are to enter this sanctuary must ALSO be circumcised in the flesh as well.
I do not see this as an insult. Converted Jews like Rosalind Moss have said the same about themselves. It is not a claim of any sort of personality or intellectual defect, but a recognition (from the Catholic perspective) that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Kingdom of God has been established.
Have you bothered to read the testimonies of the prophets on your own??? You should, if you are honest in your mind, come away with a different view point.
HOw about Deut 4:14, 15 … Isaiah 45? this should be enough to confirm that the Christian view point of Jesus, a man, being God or Saviour is nothing but mythology.
I don’t think you should view sincere attempts to convert (even if done clumsily) as a personal attack upon you or the Jewish people. I also do not think that your perception is a fair assessment of the Church’s position with respect to what Pope John Paul II referred to as our elder brothers in the faith.
I take MUCH offense to those who would try to convert the Jewish to their mytholigical views … you might as well wipe us off the earth now and get it over with. Ripping the band-aid of slowly is not at all commendable. You will find no pats on the back from me for such treachery given the Gorgeous Word that came via the Jewish and certainly not the Catholics. I hate the idea of “black and white” and much prefer the color the Jewish give to us by their faithfulness to God.
S
simplynoone
Guest
I also do not think that your perception is a fair assessment of the Church’s position with respect to what Pope John Paul II referred to as our elder brothers in the faith.
Cry me a River. While I consider Pope John Paul 2 the best you will ever have and even mourned my ownself when he left the earth, I do not kid myself… you will follow what you are told to follow and that is dangerous for us all.
[4] For God commanded,Honor your father and your mother,' and,He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’
[5] But you say,If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' [6] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. [7] You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: [8]This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[9] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"
I’m not sure I understand how you are interpreting this passage. Are you saying that Catholics should consider Jews as their parents, and honor them as such simply because Jesus was a Jew?
Was the Tanakh written by Jesus? I think you even should know better than this. You are comparing color to “black and white”… and to the Creator, black and white just will not do but only for a short time to serve its purpose… but black and white doesn’t go too far, right?.
If that’s your point I think you’d better re-read Matthew. Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees and scribes of the temple when he said the above.
I don’t have any problems with the Pharisees and Scribes and even see them in a good light in Matthew … why are you so condemning given the history of Catholicism… shall I point out all your faults
While it is true that salvation is from the Jews, it does not follow that modern Jews should be sacrosant when it comes to evangelization.
“OF”… Salvation is OF the Jews … that is what Jesus said. Not from, but OF.
As long as it is done in charity and good will, I see nothing wrong with presenting the Gospel from the Christian point of view and letting people make up their own minds about its veracity. Apparently you have rejected the Christian position, but I do not think you speak for all Jews on the matter. And I do not think all Jews are hypersensitive to attempts at evangelization.
Yes … true what you say … I reject the Christian position based on it being mythology. I do not believe in such. And I find it to be a “sick” death wish to rid the world of them.
We do honor the chosen people in our way, and pray that one day we will be united in faith with them - not in a way that destroys or waters down the Jewish culture, but in a way that exhalts it and glorifies it.
You know why? Because you have NO CHOICE!! Just check out the story in Numbers about Balaam … I see the proof of this on the Christian Channels here … they all bless Israel though it is obvious they don’t want to and even instead try to take part of that blessing because they are so astounded, which shows in their faces, for blessing them in the first place.
Read Hebrews, Chapter 7.
It is not the sacrifice of a Jew, but the sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity itself that is the gift.
There is no such thing as the Trinity except for in mythology … you won’t even find it in the NT. Read Isaiah 45 and Deut 4 … if you can walk away from that still believing in the Trinity than you can also walk away from the painting of the crossing of the Delaware believing that Washington had such luck in reality to be so poised and neatly pressed.
S
simplynoone
Guest
Geesh … and I can only and adamently thank God for choosing the Jewish to be His signature on the contract with mankind; else we’d have been wiped away long ago … not a doubt in my mind about that.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
What do you mean by Christians are too afraid to acknowledge they are in?
I absolutely agree!
What does this mean?
**Then I took my staff “Favor” and snapped it asunder, breaking off the covenant which I had made with all peoples (Zech 11:10)
Then I snapped asunder my other staff, “Bonds,” breaking off the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. (Zech 11:14)**
Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying Micah5:1 only refers to the past and is not a prophesy of a new messianic king from the Davidic Dynasty? Maybe that is not what you are saying.Did you know David, the lesson learned through experience and turning to the Law for comfort, was born in Bethlehem … too small to be among the thousands of Judah … Solomon his son… the seed.
Please explain what you are driving at. (I’m interested). Maybe that will clear up what you are saying about David.
Which oddities of the genealogy of Mt 1 are you speaking of?There is a reason why I will defend the book of Matthew being written by one who was indeed knowledgable… this is because of the strategically set stumbling blocks that are placed and then this wise separating strategy is testified to in Isaiah 28… I can say Matthew was my saving grace in that I was forced to seek the Tanakh and the more I was to seek the Tanakh for the proof that he was wrong, the more I found that he was rather instead subtle ahem "be wise as serpents … " and to buy it as it is much like most people do with the painting of the crossing of the Delaware where the truth is painted in the picture, but it is not what you think you see… the truth is painted in the book of Matthew as well, but if you don’t question what is wrong on the surface, you will miss out.
Let me start you out, if you don’t mind. Can you explain all the oddities of the genealogy of Matthew 1? It doesn’t fit in with the genealogies of the Tanakh for there are four names missing … but much is written in greater depth there that the Tanakh does indeed play witness to; of course the surface reader will miss it. There is a reason why Matthew 5:17-20 is given… let us not forget that the pharisees and scribes knew what Jesus was speaking of … the righteousness that exceeds does not condemn them neither does it negate their important roles, rather it is just different and has to do with the Eunuchs as well … well, this too is testified of in Isaiah.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I realize God is King. I don’t know why you are talking about writing.
Yet, when you saw Nahash, king of the Ammonites, advancing against you, you said to me, ‘Not so, but a king must rule us,’ even though the LORD your God is your king. (1 Sam 12:12)
But God gave the people an individual King who was his representative.
"Now you have the king you want, a king the LORD has given you. If you fear the LORD and worship him, if you are obedient to him and do not rebel against the LORD’S command, if both you and the king who rules you follow the LORD your God–well and good. But if you do not obey the LORD and if you rebel against his command, the LORD will deal severely with you and your king, and destroy you. (1 Sam 12:13-15)
Are you saying that Ezekiel completely forgot to mention the building of the last Temple and skipped 1,000’s of years into the future to a describe a Temple that hasn’t been built yet?
Isn’t Ezekiel’s a utopian vision that the prophet did not expect a literal fulfillment of?
If I’m not mistaken, I was talking about the eventual death of this universe and mankind, and how there can be an eternal covenant with an extinct species. I don’t understand how the above relates to that.Jeremiah 31:
**22 **How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
**23 **Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The LORD bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.
Possibly not what you were expecting. Who can cry (mourn) better than a woman? Justice … that is the new creation. Where we quit judging based on the opinions of those who don’t know and start waking up to the FACT that we are in the creation of Life and it was meant for the living and not the dead. The Law that was given via Moses, if followed for one who does not understand but asks for understanding according to Proverbs 2, they (the Law) will teach you of this new creation and in fact, you will become a new creation because Wisdom, that is of God, will have her way with you … only you need submit to what you fear most … that is Life.
Yes I have read it. The Eucharist is an offering of Bread and Wine by a priest in the order of Melchizedek.Have you read the rest of it? Remember, the priest that is spoken of by the psalmist is also mentioned via prototype in Genesis 14:18-20 … and also remember that Hosea 7:8-10 says what is the fate of the house of Israel (also known as Ephraim… not to be confused with Israel… the new creation… what the sons of Jacob (of Judah that is) are now called by). So many condemn and never consider.
And how does that speak to bearing someone elses guilt?
God never sacrificed? You seem to have a very narrow definition of sacrifice. What do you think love is? It is sacrifice. How many times have God’s people done the very thing you are describing (insert whatever idol you prefer)? What does God’s justice call for? If the love of God is not sacrifice on his part, mankind would have been wiped out countless times since the Garden of Eden. But God allows man to repent and turn back to him. That is God sacrificing for us.His what? His sacrifice? He never sacrificed … only ever we did. He created those that lit the fire, but those in it, the fire, still seem to have no clue that they DID sacrifice Him, God, in order to rather accept a man whom they felt could cover their sins.
As far as your reference to Jesus, you seperate him from God. That is your perogative. But in truth there is no separation. They are ONE.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
So, you concede that Jesus did not say the OT was better than the NT, because the NT had not yet been written?
So you don’t really know what Jesus would have to say about it because, as far as I know, Jesus has not appeared to his disciples to compare the two testaments. You’re certainly free to speculate about what He might have said. But you don’t have scriptural proof for such an assertion.simply:
“Fudge” was the word on my mind, so that was the word I used. If you inferred some other intention, then error lies with you. As for the latter, I thought I was sharing my point.First of all, “fudge” is not so much of a cover for the word on your mind
simply said:
I did not contend that Catholics gave Jesus. I’m saying that the Jews did not give the Christians Jesus. Rather, God gave Himself to us, and chose to use the Jews to do so. We are not compelled to thank the Jews for “giving us” Jesus. Rather, we recognize that God chose the Jews through which He gave Himself to the whole world. I think it is your thinking that is confused to the extent you are saying that the Jews gave us Jesus. Rather, it is correct to say that Jesus came to us as a Jew.
simply:
Yes, I agree that Jesus chose the Jews to reveal His nature to the whole world. He first presented the Gospel to the Jews. All of his Apostles were Jews. Many Jews accepted his message, but many did not. We as Christians owe our faith to those first Jews who spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth, as Jesus commanded, so that from East to West a perfect offering could be made.
simply:
I’m not judging anyone. I did not imply or argue that Jews were disposable. Where are you getting this from?
simply:
The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ. There are two testaments - Hebrew Scripture (the OT) and Christian Scripture (the NT). I read and pray from both. Jeremiah has to be read and considered in connection with the NT. I’m sure you’ve considered Hebrews, Chapter 8 in which this is discussed. The New Covenant was extended to not just the Jews, but Jesus wanted the Gospel spread to all the Earth. (Mt. 28:19) In no way does this negate or reject the fact that God Chose the Jews to reveal Himself to the World. This gives honor to the Jews who remain His chosen people. But that does not disqualify them from recognizing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That being said, we also believe that the same God who made that covenant with the Jews made the New Covenant for all people… including the Jews.
simply:
That’s not the whole story. You have to read these passages in light of the NT, where Jesus makes it plain to His disciples that the New Covenant is not limited to only the Jewish people, but to all the nations. (Mt. 28:19 - again)
simply:
I have read the prophets. I see Jesus - the Son of Man and the Son of God - foreshadowed in all their prophecies.
simply:
Please don’t be ridiculous.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
simply:
simply:
simply:
simpy:
You are correct. God chose the Jewish People to fulfill His plan to reveal Himself to all the nations. In that sense, salvation is “of” the Jews. But not “limited to” the Jews.
simply:
simply:
simply:
Peace,
Robert
I’m rubber and you’re glue…
simply:
I never said that it was.
simply:
I have no idea what you’re driving at here.You are comparing color to “black and white”… and to the Creator, black and white just will not do but only for a short time to serve its purpose… but black and white doesn’t go too far, right?.
simpy:
The pharisees and the scribes are not understood as co-extensive with all Jews. I know that Jesus and all of His Apostles were Jews as well, as were most of the disciples. And among the poorer traits of the Pharisees and the scribes I see the bad acts of all people who look at God and fail to see. Their conduct is not limited to one nation or tribe. Their flaws are indeed universal. I do not deny the great blemishes on Church history.I don’t have any problems with the Pharisees and Scribes and even see them in a good light in Matthew … why are you so condemning given the history of Catholicism… shall I point out all your faults
simply said:
You are correct. God chose the Jewish People to fulfill His plan to reveal Himself to all the nations. In that sense, salvation is “of” the Jews. But not “limited to” the Jews.
simply:
I think you’re doing a poor job of convincing us that Christianity is a myth. As for “ridding” the world of the Jewish people… I have no idea where you come up with such nonsense.
simply:
I can’t speak to what other churches do or teach. As for the Catholic Church… it honors the Jewish people out of a deep sense of respect, and not disengenuously or grudgingly. Your perception of Catholicism is - IMO - quite warped.
simply:
You’ve said nothing new. The Trinity is a doctrine that flows directly from the NT. God is Father, God is Son. God is Holy Spirit. And God is One. Hence, One God in three Persons. That is why Jesus’ command is to baptize all nations in the name (not names) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is plenty in the NT to support the Trinity. You, on the other hand have shown no support for your denial of the doctrine, simply concluding that it is “myth.”
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I’m curious to know your point of view on something. Do you equate the conversion of the Jews with their destruction as a people? And if so, then why? The Romans were converted and continued. The various European tribes were converted and continued. Why would it be any different for the Jews? In other words, why do you equate religious conversion of a people and destruction of a people?
Peace,
Robert
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Isn’t it true in Hebrew thought that words are not merely sounds or letters on a page, but they are things that have an independent existence and which actually do things?
So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11)
Here is an example of the Trinity (The LORD, His Word, and His Breath).
**By the LORD’S word the heavens were made; by the breath of his mouth all their host. (Psalm 33:6) **
Jesus is identified as God’s Word (John 1:1-4). Then there is also the personification of Wisdom.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. . . (Proverbs 8:22-30)
So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11)
Here is an example of the Trinity (The LORD, His Word, and His Breath).
**By the LORD’S word the heavens were made; by the breath of his mouth all their host. (Psalm 33:6) **
Jesus is identified as God’s Word (John 1:1-4). Then there is also the personification of Wisdom.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. . . (Proverbs 8:22-30)
S
simplynoone
Guest
S
simplynoone
Guest
I realize God is King. I don’t know why you are talking about writing.
Yet, when you saw Nahash, king of the Ammonites, advancing against you, you said to me, ‘Not so, but a king must rule us,’ even though the LORD your God is your king. (1 Sam 12:12)
But God gave the people an individual King who was his representative.
"Now you have the king you want, a king the LORD has given you. If you fear the LORD and worship him, if you are obedient to him and do not rebel against the LORD’S command, if both you and the king who rules you follow the LORD your God–well and good. But if you do not obey the LORD and if you rebel against his command, the LORD will deal severely with you and your king, and destroy you. (1 Sam 12:13-15)
I am curious since the translations we are using seem to be different. Is there the distinction between LORD and Lord in your version? I ask this before answering with my own thoughts here for purpose.
Are you saying that Ezekiel completely forgot to mention the building of the last Temple and skipped 1,000’s of years into the future to a describe a Temple that hasn’t been built yet?
Isn’t Ezekiel’s a utopian vision that the prophet did not expect a literal fulfillment of?
I will be honest with here. I am sure that Ezekiel’s idea of the temple has a lot to do with the Exodus 39, which may be more than what we are seeing … only God knows for sure … all we can do is seek Him for our own guidance in all of this … and then, verses 42-43 I personally find comforting.
If I’m not mistaken, I was talking about the eventual death of this universe and mankind, and how there can be an eternal covenant with an extinct species. I don’t understand how the above relates to that.
You spoke of the new creation and its aspects as related to what the prophets were saying. That is what came to me. shrugs Wisdom … that is what entails your own personal understanding of the New Creation. The New Creation is not physical … for us personally, being finite, it is Wisdom … so as to evolve in our understanding and then, plant the seeds for those who come after us.
Yes I have read it. The Eucharist is an offering of Bread and Wine by a priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Awesome! I don’t have much knowledge of the pope now, but I did find a lot of things about the last Pope that seemed to be genuine intent toward God and His People.
Micah 4:4-7 had great meaning to me in that time … and maybe still … that you can worship your gods whilst I worship my God, the God of Israel, blessed be He, now.
God never sacrificed? You seem to have a very narrow definition of sacrifice. What do you think love is?
Good question … why don’t YOU tell me what love is. Maybe you know what it is I don’t know. You say a sacrifice … of what?
S
simplynoone
Guest
So, you concede that Jesus did not say the OT was better than the NT, because the NT had not yet been written?
There is PLENTY in the Tanakh to prove the NT is not based in it. There is even plenty in the NT to prove that the NT is not even consistent with its ownself. Dare me and I just might.
I did not contend that Catholics gave Jesus. I’m saying that the Jews did not give the Christians Jesus. Rather, God gave Himself to us, and chose to use the Jews to do so. We are not compelled to thank the Jews for “giving us” Jesus. Rather, we recognize that God chose the Jews through which He gave Himself to the whole world. I think it is your thinking that is confused to the extent you are saying that the Jews gave us Jesus. Rather, it is correct to say that Jesus came to us as a Jew.
And do you seek to him as God? If so, then God only sent him to you for one purpose which can be found in Zechariah 1:21 and EVEN in Matthew 10:5,18… or had you not noticed??
Yes, I agree that Jesus chose the Jews to reveal His nature to the whole world. He first presented the Gospel to the Jews.
God sent Joseph into Egypt to prepare the way for the children of Israel too … and what did that do for the Egyptians? Not as much as it did for the Jewish, huh?
All of his Apostles were Jews. Many Jews accepted his message, but many did not. We as Christians owe our faith to those first Jews who spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth, as Jesus commanded, so that from East to West a perfect offering could be made.
You ignore Matthew 10:5-6, no?
I’m not judging anyone. I did not imply or argue that Jews were disposable. Where are you getting this from?
From your own speech… however I will back off if I am wrong. You say Jesus came for all people … and yet, well, see the above passage I posted.
The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ. There are two testaments - Hebrew Scripture (the OT) and Christian Scripture (the NT).
**MYTHOLOGY!!! **
I read and pray from both. Jeremiah has to be read and considered in connection with the NT.
Would Jeremiah 4:7 be included?? or 14:22? 46:1? Other than that Jeremiah says that the Gentiles who turn to God will come running to God admitting they have inherited lies from their fathers … nothing more than vanities. That is what worshipping an image of a man is. Deut 4:14,15
The New Covenant was extended to not just the Jews, but Jesus wanted the Gospel spread to all the Earth. (Mt. 28:19)
Doesn’t matter what the NT claims. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is between the house of Israel and the house of Judah … not seeing Gentiles written there. And CERTAINLY, I do not see that the covenant includes the abolishing of ONE commandment in the Law nor does it imply the sacrifice of one man on a cross.
In no way does this negate or reject the fact that God Chose the Jews to reveal Himself to the World. This gives honor to the Jews who remain His chosen people. But that does not disqualify them from recognizing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Oh no … not only are they the ones who are the Word of God is revealed to the world through, but in fact, ALL the seed of Israel is justified. Last verse in Isaiah 45… should check out the whole chapter though.
That being said, we also believe that the same God who made that covenant with the Jews made the New Covenant for all people… including the Jews.
Then you don’t understand the Tanakh, specifically Jeremiah 31 … which says it is between the house of Judah and the house of Israel and God … NOT THE WHOLE WORLD… also it must comply with the token of the covenant as stated in Genesis 17.
That’s not the whole story. You have to read these passages in light of the NT, where Jesus makes it plain to His disciples that the New Covenant is not limited to only the Jewish people, but to all the nations. (Mt. 28:19 - again)
I prefer not to kid myself and rather see the light of that which it claims its foundation to be on … the Tanakh. THE HOUSE OF JUDAH AND THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL WITH GOD … ACCORDING TO JEREMIAH 31 … and Jeremiah is not too kind in speech to us, the Gentiles … there is a reason. The New Covenant is not negating the Laws as the blood of your sacrifice is doing.
I have read the prophets. I see Jesus - the Son of Man and the Son of God - foreshadowed in all their prophecies.
Amos 3:7 … SHOW ME then!!!
Please don’t be ridiculous.
Really??? I have just shown you more verses for my position in the Tanakh on which you claim your gospel to be founded on. I rather think your gospel is made up and I can even show you proof for that … 2 Timothy 2:8 … there I think you will find the culprit responsible for YOUR gospel.
S
simplynoone
Guest
I’m rubber and you’re glue…
Really now … come on.
The pharisees and the scribes are not understood as co-extensive with all Jews. I know that Jesus and all of His Apostles were Jews as well, as were most of the disciples. And among the poorer traits of the Pharisees and the scribes I see the bad acts of all people who look at God and fail to see. Their conduct is not limited to one nation or tribe. Their flaws are indeed universal. I do not deny the great blemishes on Church history.
Do you think that you, as a Catholic, should be held responsible for the errors of your “fathers”?
You are correct. God chose the Jewish People to fulfill His plan to reveal Himself to all the nations. In that sense, salvation is “of” the Jews. But not “limited to” the Jews.
And here will come the difference of what we are ascribing to “salvation.”
I think you’re doing a poor job of convincing us that Christianity is a myth.
Not doing a poor job … you are only failing to see that I have been rather kind in what I am pointing out.
As for “ridding” the world of the Jewish people… I have no idea where you come up with such nonsense.
Oh!! This comes from the Catholics on this board … their own admission that a Jew is not complete until they believe in Jesus as God … and in fact, that they, the Catholics are the new “Jews”… more complete than those who have followed the Law of God handed down to them.
I can’t speak to what other churches do or teach. As for the Catholic Church… it honors the Jewish people out of a deep sense of respect, and not disengenuously or grudgingly. Your perception of Catholicism is - IMO - quite warped.
As I told someone else… everything I am learning about Catholicism is coming straight from your own words.
You’ve said nothing new. The Trinity is a doctrine that flows directly from the NT.
But not from the Tanakh… see, admission and from your own words. It is based on its ownself. The Son of God according to the Tanakh is found declared in Exodus 4:22,23 and Hosea 11:1.
See what I mean?? Just admit that the NT is based on Paul’s word and not the Tanakh and you’d rid yourself of those of us who are oppressed in our personal beliefs because of Christianity’s beliefs.
S
simplynoone
Guest
It is not about conversion. Have you ever even bothered to read Deuteronomy so as to understand the purpose of the Jewish that is and always will be still in effect so long as flesh resides here on this planet?
S
simplynoone
Guest
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Please tell me if I’m hearing you correctly. You are saying Christians are guilty of making Jesus an idol. If so, I can only say the Israelites were forbidden to make images of God because he didn’t yet reveal himself visibly “in the form of any figure.” We Christians believe that just as God appeared in fire he later appeared in Jesus who is the “image” of the invisible God.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Absolutely not! The hireling’s are the shepherds of Israel who were denounced by the prophets as worthless and evil.
**Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the LORD. Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, against the shepherds who shepherd my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. You have not cared for them, but I will take care to punish your evil deeds. (Jer 23:1-2)
Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, in these words prophesy to them (to the shepherds): Thus says the Lord GOD: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves! Should not shepherds, rather, pasture sheep? (Ezek 34:2)
Woe to my foolish shepherd who forsakes the flock! May the sword fall upon his arm and upon his right eye; Let his arm wither away entirely, and his right eye be blind forever! (Zech 11:17)**
Jesus said “I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (Jn 10:11) He is the Davidic Messiah the LORD exercised his rule through.
Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David; As king he shall reign and govern wisely, he shall do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, Israel shall dwell in security. This is the name they give him: “The LORD our justice.” (Jer 23:5-6)
I will appoint one shepherd over them to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture them and be their shepherd. I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I, the LORD, have spoken. (Ezek 34:23-24)
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I’m thinking about Jacob talking to Joseph about his sons and the death of his mother Rachel (buried in Bethlehem), and Ruth who follows Naomi back to Bethlehem.
What relevance do you see?
R
ryanoneil
Guest
There is a precedent for abridged genealogies is found in (Ezra 7:1–5). Matthew does it to stress 3 units of the number 14, showing Jesus as the new Davidic king (D=4+V=6+D=4=14). Allegorically, Jesus’ 42 total generations signify the 42 encampments of the Israelites between the Exodus and their entry into the Promised Land.
- Status