What Was Wrong With The Jews?

[paidion]

It’s feet are fine. It’s the cud chewing that needs improvement.

you’re right, my bad… … don’t know what I was thinking

 

[Reuben_J]

Claire from DE:

I think you could look at the parable of the prodigal son. He took his inheritance and wasted it but repented and came home. And his father welcomed him. Our inheritance is the grace we received at baptism. Catholics call it sanctifying grace, the presence of God’s on life in us. Leaving the father and wasting the inheritance is mortal sin, turning against God and freely choosing serious sin. By returning home, which indicates repentance, God welcomes us back and restores us to grace.

Some people believe that initial grace (God’s life in us, our inheritance as Christians) is permanent and can never be lost. However, in this parable it was necessary that the son repent and return to his father to be forgiven. If he had not, he would have died with the pigs. He would still have been his father’s son but he would not have been living in his father’s home.

I think those who believe in once saved, always saved, think that to believe otherwise is to doubt God’s power to keep those who have once turned to Him. Not true. With the initial saving grace, we have all that we need to live God’s life. However, our wills are weakened by the effects of original sin (called concupicence, I think I misspelled that). Paul calls this ‘the flesh’ or ‘the old man’. He tells us to put to death the flesh or make no provision for the flesh. So, without prayer and living as the bible and church teaches, it is easy to begin sinning again and to continue until our consciences are damaged and we fall into serious sin.

God continues to call us to repent and turn back to Him. Until the instant of death, we have that choice. But if we don’t turn back to Him before we die, we could end up in hell. He honors our free will that much. He can save all who call on Him. But if we are in sin and refuse to call on Him that is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

God permitted disasters to fall on the Jews to bring them to turn back to him. They did, and He continued to be faithful to His covenant with Him. From a Christian viewpoint, the coming of Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise of God’s covenant with Israel. Many of the Jews entered into the new covenant which was sealed with Christ’s blood. This covenant was open to all people, not just Jews. It is written, ‘salvation is from the Jews’. We all all blessed by their faithfulness to the old covenant.

Gee, I have read some of your postings and I enjoy post like this.

Thanks for giving another dimension to the Prodigal Son story. It is important to note however that the son could have stayed away from the father and never returned. After all he had asked for his inheritance, an insult to the father as he did not died yet for his property to be passed on to the sons. Many people would perhaps have stayed on despite the hardship rather than to go back on their knees. This son kept aside his pride and returned to the father. Had he not done so he would not be saved.

Glad that you agree with the principle that we can be unsaved even after accepting the Lord in Baptism. The Jews in their history did exactly go through the experience of being unsaved despite being chosen, though the way it happened to them was more in physical term.

What do you think about the other Jews who refused to accept Jesus?

 

[Reuben_J]

c659smith:

The Jewish Religion started at the time of Abraham in Genesis.

This was also foretold in scripture by Daniel and by Christ stating He would destroy the Temple in 3 days and build it up in 3 days. When Christ died on the Cross and was ressurrected it began Jesus’s new Church and fore saw the beginning of the end for Jerusulem being a Jewish state controlled by the Romans.

In other word, Jerusalem ceased to have its importance in salvation history? Does that mean the Jews now have no divine right to claim Jerusalem?

c659smith:

Why are you referring to why did God let it happen. Again lets go back to basic cathechism . God made man in the Image and likeness of Himself and gave Man free will. The only time He has interceded was to destroy as far as the Bible is concerned. The Great Flood, Sodom and Gommorea, the Pharos and Egyptians first born., etc…

I quoted verses like this and it was obvious God designed the destruction. I agree with you if you meant that was the consequence of them breaking the covenant by their own free will.

2kg 24
2 The LORD sent Babylonian, [a] Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, 4 including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.

c659smith:

Can you name a time in the Old Testament when he intercede between man to man . He interceeded when it was Man to God.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and God softened his heart and listened to his intercession. But what are you trying to say?

 

[Reuben_J]

c659smith:

Christ did not state the laws of the Jewish people were wrong only that they put those laws (man made ) before God was wrong.

The reason for those laws and most of them were heath reasons.

Pork tainted quickly no refrigeration.

Mixing dairy and meat caused cross food contaimination.

Salting meat before cooking kills many types of bacteria and is a preservative.

Sterilzing and washing , well that says enough as far as health

Circumcision was a health reason for even today because of increased chance of infections and desease.

Remember Jesus followed these Laws along with His Apostles --they were Jews.

Jesus did not place these laws though before people that were not Jewish and broke laws only that did not make sense.

It was years before Paul was able to convince the other 11 Apostles to accept the Gentiles that did not follow these laws.

I do not think the laws were given for health reasons though the effects look like they were for health reasons. At least not all the laws. In Leviticus there are whole sets of various laws, but I am not convinced their intentions were to safeguard health. If they were for health reasons then there are obvious shortcomings of those laws for they don’t apply today where we have all the technical facilities and modern science to protect ourselves. For example, there is no evidence to show that certain animal meat is hazardous to our health (but was forbidden by the laws).

I mean the laws should be for all times and ages.

I think the laws were as signs of God’s covenant with them that they might be set aside by the laws they practiced. The laws became obsolete by the dawn of the new covenant with Jesus, “for I will write the laws in your hearts”.

 

[Reuben_J]

Genesis 315:

That’s exactly the point–except their calamities foreshadowed the true result of sin revealed fully by Christ — damnation.

I agree. How then we can avoid sins? I think Claire’s post was very enriching on this.

Do you notice how we can be so overwhelmed by our pride, the major scourge of one’s sins?

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi

The action is of the men ( started by them), the result is from GodAllahYHWH. Since the Jews persisted in harming and attempting murder of the ProphetsMessengers so the result came from God that their hearts became hardened. Had they not persisted with this, their hearts would have not been hardened. The fault is with them not with God.

If one does not know swimming and one jumps into a river and is drowned and his death occurs, the fault is with the person who jumped into the river, but the result of death is from God, He is not to be blamed.

Thanks

Hi.

Well, you have a way of explaining that. I guess the intention is similar, only the wordings in the Surah 5:14 that needs getting used to.

God bless.

 

[Lapell]

Despite being God’s chosen people they suffered untold proportion of destruction as a nation in their History. The flood during Noah’s time, the destruction of the temple resulting in slavery in Babylon and the second destruction of the temple by the Romans. Each somehow was preceded by warnings and prophecies; and the exhortation for them to turn back to God.

Are not we all having the Jews in our hearts and that disobedience and disbelief could lead to our own destruction. I am exploring the idea that this is God’s own message that even as Christians it would not guarantee our salvation if we sin.

(Note: I’m just starting from post #1 by Reuben J)
Of course, if we carelessly pile up sins with the thought that God is so merciful and forgiving, kind of without a qualm in us, our salvation is quite in danger, I agree!
Just a note: we don’t have any Jews per se before Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham, so there were none in Noah’s time!

 

[Lapell]

My understanding is that God has NOT rejected Israel. He has NOT rejected the Jews. Even though many Jews thought so after the Holocaust (or the Shoah, or whatever), it’s not the case. However, it is true that when they were not faithful to God’s Covenant with them they as a people did suffer a lot as a result.
Most Jews didn’t and still don’t believe in Jesus because from their viewpoint he claimed to be God… this doesn’t make them rejected from God in itself. See Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11.

 

[Lapell]

I do not think the laws were given for health reasons though the effects look like they were for health reasons. At least not all the laws. In Leviticus there are whole sets of various laws, but I am not convinced their intentions were to safeguard health. If they were for health reasons then there are obvious shortcomings of those laws for they don’t apply today where we have all the technical facilities and modern science to protect ourselves. For example, there is no evidence to show that certain animal meat is hazardous to our health (but was forbidden by the laws).

I mean the laws should be for all times and ages.

I think the laws were as signs of God’s covenant with them that they might be set aside by the laws they practiced. The laws became obsolete by the dawn of the new covenant with Jesus, “for I will write the laws in your hearts”.

I read something to the effect that the reason Jews don’t eat pork has to do with their having no use other than for slaughtering them to eat them. The cows and goats, we can have milk and cheese from them; the sheep we get the wool. But the swine, other than meat, nothing!

 

[Lapell]

When Jews say Jesus is a false prophet and bastard that doesn’t exactly show love. Apparently you don’t get around much.

If you read that in the Talmud, it was compiled in the 3rd and 5th century A.D.!

 

[Lapell]

Actually, FaithOfAbraham, you sound like you have more than a tooth against the Jews, or don’t you?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Actually, FaithOfAbraham, you sound like you have more than a tooth against the Jews, or don’t you?

Jews say the bastard thing all the time, that Mary whored around and invented the virgin birth story to save her skin.

It is what it is, do you approve of that or not?

Seems like you do since you are trying to make my disapproval of it as being something wrong with me personally.

 

[Valke2]

My understanding is that God has NOT rejected Israel. He has NOT rejected the Jews. Even though many Jews thought so after the Holocaust (or the Shoah, or whatever), it’s not the case. However, it is true that when they were not faithful to God’s Covenant with them they as a people did suffer a lot as a result.
Most Jews didn’t and still don’t believe in Jesus because from their viewpoint he claimed to be God… this doesn’t make them rejected from God in itself. See Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11.

Collective punishment is something that appears often in the Bible. I’d agree with your post.

 

[Valke2]

Jews say the bastard thing all the time, that Mary whored around and invented the virgin birth story to save her skin.

It is what it is, do you approve of that or not?

Seems like you do since you are trying to make my disapproval of it as being something wrong with me personally.

I can happily go years without saying one thing or another about Jesus and Mary. I’ve talked to a lot of Jews. Why, only last week, I happened to wander into a shul with about 400 of them. And no one mentioned Jesus.

Now, I’ve also seen a lot of immature arugments between jews and christians that quickly degenerate into name calling.

On these threads alone I’ve seen:
Christians call Jews a cursed and despised people, and post fictional quotes from the Talmd.

Christians and Jews refer to Islam’s prophet as a pedaphile and godless murderer.

Jews refer to Jesus as a “dead jew on a stick” (ok, this one I’ve seen on other boards)

I don’t think any of the above can seriously be taken as theology.

 

[Valke2]

If you read that in the Talmud, it was compiled in the 3rd and 5th century A.D.!

Well, that’s the problem with being a Jew. You say something once and there’s always someone around to write it down!

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I can happily go years without saying one thing or another about Jesus and Mary. I’ve talked to a lot of Jews. Why, only last week, I happened to wander into a shul with about 400 of them. And no one mentioned Jesus.

Now, I’ve also seen a lot of immature arugments between jews and christians that quickly degenerate into name calling.

On these threads alone I’ve seen:
Christians call Jews a cursed and despised people, and post fictional quotes from the Talmd.

Christians and Jews refer to Islam’s prophet as a pedaphile and godless murderer.

Jews refer to Jesus as a “dead jew on a stick” (ok, this one I’ve seen on other boards)

I don’t think any of the above can seriously be taken as theology.

It’s an attitude among large groups of people. If they really believe it I would suppose it’s theology. Naturally few people actually say these things in person, the Internet provides a way to vent anonymously.

 

[c659smith]

I do not think the laws were given for health reasons though the effects look like they were for health reasons. At least not all the laws. In Leviticus there are whole sets of various laws, but I am not convinced their intentions were to safeguard health. If they were for health reasons then there are obvious shortcomings of those laws for they don’t apply today where we have all the technical facilities and modern science to protect ourselves. For example, there is no evidence to show that certain animal meat is hazardous to our health (but was forbidden by the laws).

I mean the laws should be for all times and ages.

I think the laws were as signs of God’s covenant with them that they might be set aside by the laws they practiced. The laws became obsolete by the dawn of the new covenant with Jesus, “for I will write the laws in your hearts”.

There was no burning bush, or commandments set in stone.

Was Abraham circumcised and was he not a Jew?

These were laws by man for God not the laws from God to man what
Jesus talked about
Why no meat with dairy except for health reasons.
Remember most of the Jews during the times were warriors and would dictate not well educated. Any education to the populace was done by the priests and these priests set this standard for these warriors to practice in harsh conditions

 

[Hastrman]

There was no burning bush, or commandments set in stone.

Was Abraham circumcised and was he not a Jew?

These were laws by man for God not the laws from God to man what
Jesus talked about
Why no meat with dairy except for health reasons.
Remember most of the Jews during the times were warriors and would dictate not well educated. Any education to the populace was done by the priests and these priests set this standard for these warriors to practice in harsh conditions

There is so much historical and cultural illiteracy here it’s laughable.

Not mixing milchen and fleischen is a rather late rabbinical interpretation based on the text “You will not boil the calf in his mother’s milk”–which was done as a part of the cow-god cult of one of the neighboring tribes.

Obviously, “Do not engage in an act designed to worship a Ba’al,” is from God. The later interpretation of it is debatable; I would argue that it stems from the desire to avoid, even by accident, violating one of God’s commands.

But certainly the majority of Jews were not, and never have been (not counting modern Israel with its compulsive military service), warriors. They were herdsmen and farmers in ancient times.

And it’s laughable to say that being a warrior meant not being well-educated. All the great Greek and Roman philosophers were warriors (Plato was a two-time Olympic wrestler), many of the Indian and Persian philosophers were (Buddha himself was a Kshatriya–warrior/kingly caste). Among the Jews, David was a warrior–do the Psalms seem illiterate to you?

In very ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, nobody was educated but the scribes–because there were 40,000 letters you had to learn! Later on, though, as people began to use more phonetic writing (syllabaries, then alphabets), learning became very widespread. Since Hebrew was probably never written in cuneiform or hieroglyphs–alphabetic scripts already having come into being by the time anything recognizably “Hebrew” existed–there was no uniquely powerful scribal caste; the Aaronic priesthood (the Cohanim) were based on ritual purity and offering sacrifices, not scribal functions. The “Scribes” of Jesus’ day were called that because they copied out the Torah in scrolls, and studied it meticulously. They only became the main priesthood in Judaism because the temple was destroyed, rendering the sacrificial function of the Cohanim moot. Still, though, only Cohanim can perform certain rituals.

 

[Reuben_J]

There was no burning bush, or commandments set in stone.

Was Abraham circumcised and was he not a Jew?

Hi.

There seems to be some confusion here. I don’t have a problem with these.

Abram changed his name to Abraham and circumcision was a pysical sign of the covenant between God and him. There were more to this of course.

So what are you trying to get at, bro?

These were laws by man for God not the laws from God to man what
Jesus talked about
Why no meat with dairy except for health reasons.
Remember most of the Jews during the times were warriors and would dictate not well educated. Any education to the populace was done by the priests and these priests set this standard for these warriors to practice in harsh conditions

I can go along happily with you there. I don’t believe in the laws anyway. They were obsolete now that we have the new covenant. The laws were for an era before the new covenant.

Can you elaborate on your idea that they were man made? These
were Levitican laws and are stated in scripture. What are your thought on this?

 

[Reuben_J]

My understanding is that God has NOT rejected Israel. He has NOT rejected the Jews. Even though many Jews thought so after the Holocaust (or the Shoah, or whatever), it’s not the case. However, it is true that when they were not faithful to God’s Covenant with them they as a people did suffer a lot as a result.

Muslims believe God reject them for their sins and rejection of the covenants.

From Christians viewpoint (or rather mine if you don’t agree with me) God had moved on with the sending of the Son. A new covenant is made for everybody. Jews as a people are subjected to this new covenant - perhaps it is their only hope for salvation.

Biblical destruction of the Jewish nation should be attributed to God forsaking them because of their sins. That’s the reason for this thread. If they were God’s chosen people and yet suffered untold punishment from God because of sin, would it be any different for us Christians?

We are chosen people too (1 Pet) by our acceptance of Jesus. Would we be spared of our own destruction if we sin even though we are special by virtue of our Baptism? If yes, what can we learn from the folly of the Jews? Are we going to repeat their stubborness and stiff-neckness and take our own Jesus for granted. How we can avoid the condemnation of history?

Most Jews didn’t and still don’t believe in Jesus because from their viewpoint he claimed to be God… this doesn’t make them rejected from God in itself. See Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11.

Can you elaborate on this? This seems to be a contradiction with Jn 3:16. How can they be not rejected and not saved of they don’t believe? How can they be completed?