Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.

---

And yet, your answer proves Jericho and Ai did nothing to provoke an Israeli attack, and the whole conquest was simply war in the name of God.

what? maybe you didnt read my answer carefully.
also, its not israeli- its Israelite.

Quote:

---

when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks.

---

Following.

Quote:

---

jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures.

---

Still following.

Quote:

---

Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim.

---

God forbid! Time to kill some women and children! Intermarriage is somehow this great offensive of which you speak? By God! I say we kill all Gentiles that wish to destroy Judaism through intermarriage!

Quote:

---

according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.

---

I see, guilt by association.

Pretty weak casus belli if you ask me.

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

Quote:

---

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

---

Death to the unbelievers:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

---

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

G-d only does things himself that he absolutely has to do. like the death of the firstborn. why did he send the Angle of Death (or, as some will argue, G-d himself)? because the Israelites couldnt do it themselves. but with the 7 nations, they could fulfill his will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

---

God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

---

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

---

According to Christ, the covenenat was with with all men, thus his talks with publicans and sinners, men whom were considered outcasts of Israel, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

because we no longer had the Temple in Jerusalem. the concept of altars besides th eones in the Mishkan and the Beit Hamikdash was, and still is, looked down upon. if there is no holy temple for G-ds spirit to reside in, we clearly are not worthy of offering sacrifices. but our substitue is daily prayer, which we do 3 times a day, to replace the 3 daily sacrifices: at morning, afternoon, evening.

---

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

A purer form of christianity yes, but not a purer past form of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would they not establish their own Papacy?

---

To ask that question is to fundamentally misunderstand the Medieval Papacy. The Pope is the Senior Bishop in the West, and his Primacy dates back to before Nicaea, where it was confirmed. It is therefore as old as the Creeds, the declaration of the Holy Trinity, the formalisation of the Church hierarchy and virtually every major tenet of Christian belief.

It is therefore older than Biblical Canon, which was not fixed until around 400 AD.

While I'm on the topic:

Hax, although Nicaea was important it didn't have much to do with Scripture, that was a generation later under Jerome and Augustine in N. Africa. Having said that, the Greek texts of the NT are all dated to the 1st Century; the Old Latin Bible, which started the process of canonisation, to the 2nd Century AD.

Overall though, the idea of the Bible as a "book", rather than a collection of writings, is a post-printing concept (possibly borrowed from Isalm), prior to this individual books and collections were more often copied by scribes, as were pseudo-Gospels and other Apothrycal texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes he wanted to sort out some of the corruptions which had emerged such as indulgences and some funny doctrines, but he was quite disillusioned with the whole Papal-style church system by the end of his life, not just its incarnation during his time. And Luther only represents the first phase of the Reformation, Calvin could harldy be said to be looking backward to a mythic past church, his doctrines were all new, even if he was influenced somewhat by Augustine.

There's nothing wrong with looking back to Islam's golden age. If Christians and Muslims could get on in Andalusia a millenia ago, you would think they could do it nowadays. There's nothing wrong with Christians or Muslims looking back to such times, at least not from a secular point of view.

---

I hate to tell you this but Episcopal Lutheranism is Catholicism circa 1000 AD, so is Anglicanism. In fact the differances between national Protestant Churches ape the pre-Gregorian National Churches. This is even true of the Scots Episcopalians, who have no Archbishop but are not ruled by York.

The "Reformation" makes the news because unlike previous Reform Movements it resulted in schism and excomunication. This seems to have cause Luthor, Huss and Wyclif nervous breakdowns.

The most interesting thing about Calvin is that he seems to have sought Apostacy from the putset, not reform from within.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

---

The question is whether everything done in his name, is really his will.

"Oh sure, we had to kill the women and Children because "I am" said so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

---

"Those who live by the Sword Die by the Sword". Context being a bit fuzzy for interpretation the two swords might not both be temporal. Godly War is right out I would say.

That doesn't mean that War is out all over though, you just have to accept the consequences of your actions. Jesus was quite big on responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

---

Not a reasoned arguement, really, is it?

See what I said to Hooah above.

ignore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

---

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?

---

its the temple. the ark was just followed the temple around and went to war with the Israelites.
before Solomon, when the Mishkan (the portable version of the temple) was around, it was in multiple places. but because of this people thought it was ok to build altars in their backyards, but it wasnt ok to do that, and they were eventually punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.

---

well firs tof all, the israelites would have met the 7 nations, b/c they were int he areas the israelites were promised to get. plus the 7 nations were evil immoral people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.

---

Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.
also, g-d is unpredictable. he does what he sees fit.

now that we are getting into more complex things, i may have to leave this argument, because i am afraid i will say something wrong and cause a Chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d), hence why i am opposed to this thread discussing the talmud. something as complex as the Talmud should not be discussed by people who have no idea what its really about, including me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.

---

Well, actually I say my God is your God. So from your perspective I'm a heretic, just like the self-styled prophet and messiah I follow.

I feel it's unhelpful to point these things out, it will only get in the way of the discussion, and it might result in someone making the classic claim against Jews for the classic reasons.

As an aside, I think that particular arguement is simultaniously one of the most clever and non-sensical in theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

---

First off, Jesus is not "it".

Second off, Judaism is not my religion, is your argument now invalid automatically?

alright, ill erase my thought, and ill be appreciative if yall erase it from your posts as well. no need to obstruct the conversation.
and i meant "he" not it. sorry bout that.

I think it should be left as a monument to us not loosing our heads.

I have another question:

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

---

I never realized you weren't allowed to :dizzy2:. I always refer to God as God, Him, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

---

"you shall not take G-d's name in vain."
G-d has many, many names, so i just prefer to be safe and not use it when referring to him. but when referring to gods in general, i have no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To ask that question is to fundamentally misunderstand the Medieval Papacy. The Pope is the Senior Bishop in the West, and his Primacy dates back to before Nicaea, where it was confirmed. It is therefore as old as the Creeds, the declaration of the Holy Trinity, the formalisation of the Church hierarchy and virtually every major tenet of Christian belief.

It is therefore older than Biblical Canon, which was not fixed until around 400 AD.

---

So...

Doesn't matter if it goes back to 90AD, or 500AD. What would matter is if Jesus himself had said anything on the matter, and what he does say is very much open to interpretation. Some people even say that the 'rock' Jesus tells Peter to build his church upon simply means a 'small rock' and so the Pope shouldn't have primacy over any other Bishop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I hate to tell you this but Episcopal Lutheranism is Catholicism circa 1000 AD, so is Anglicanism. In fact the differances between national Protestant Churches ape the pre-Gregorian National Churches. This is even true of the Scots Episcopalians, who have no Archbishop but are not ruled by York.

The "Reformation" makes the news because unlike previous Reform Movements it resulted in schism and excomunication. This seems to have cause Luthor, Huss and Wyclif nervous breakdowns.

The most interesting thing about Calvin is that he seems to have sought Apostacy from the putset, not reform from within.

---

Hey I'm glad Catholicism wasn't always so bad, it also got a lot better after the Protestant Reformation. Luther's schism came at a real low point for the Catholic Church, it was in a state back then. Also I don't disagree that there were reformers before the 'Reformation', as with all these historical 'watersheds', you can see the seeds being sown well in advance.

Calvin did not seek to cause trouble or be an apostate for the fun of it. Martin Bucer put a lot of work into reconciling Calvin with Luther, but Luther was quite disrespectful at times (he literally carved verses supporting his views on the eucharist into the discussions table). If Calvin couldn't unite with Luther, he was never going to get anywhere with the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not a reasoned arguement, really, is it?

See what I said to Hooah above.

---

Don't know what you mean, I'm just saying what the Bible says. Man says to God, "sorry I don't need you", so God foresees a world where man gets what he asks for and lives in separation from God. Does this make God the author of sin? Certainly, the Bible says evil can be traced back to God:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isiah 45:7)

But this isn't doesn't mean God commited the sin Himself. His foreknowledge made it inevitable, but the actual sin was commited by a person. This is the reality Adam asked for. Thankfully, by providence, by interevening directly in our fallen world, God transforms people to His will and gives us salvation. Praise the Lord!

I wish Bill Hicks could read this thread.

Quote:

---

well firs tof all, the israelites would have met the 7 nations, b/c they were int he areas the israelites were promised to get. plus the 7 nations were evil immoral people.

---

How do you know that god promised the land to the people?
How do you know that the other people were evil and immoral?
Is the answer , someone wrote it a long time ago so its true ?
Could it just be the rewritting of history by the victors of a conflict ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

"you shall not take G-d's name in vain."
G-d has many, many names, so i just prefer to be safe and not use it when referring to him. but when referring to gods in general, i have no problem.

---

I thought he had no name, when Moses asks his response is merely "I am".

God, The LORD, the Almighty etc. are all merely titles, surely?

Still I suppose there's nothing wrong with playing it safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How do you know that god promised the land to the people?
How do you know that the other people were evil and immoral?
Is the answer , someone wrote it a long time ago so its true ?
Could it just be the rewritting of history by the victors of a conflict ?

---

careful there, tribsey, dont do decide. the torah tells us all that, so its true. its also why its called faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I thought he had no name, when Moses asks his response is merely "I am".

God, The LORD, the Almighty etc. are all merely titles, surely?

Still I suppose there's nothing wrong with playing it safe.

---

he does have a name- i suppose "i am" is one of them. :tongue3:

Quote:

---

the torah tells us all that, so its true.

---

prove that it is true:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.
its called FAITH for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.

---

Umm... what respectable historian does not accept that Jesus and Mohammed existed?

and what respectable historian does not accept that the bible existed?
im not saying they didnt exist. im saying that its hard to "prove" such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.
its called FAITH for a reason.

---

Fairly certain that both are real historical figures. God, on the other hand, is not. Faith says he exists, and faith alone. Jesus and Mohammed, while they existed, may or may not have had special powers/insight/etc., faith also determines this, and faith alone. What Tribesman is asking is valid. What justifications did the ancient Israelites have for their actions?

what justifications? G-d told them to. that should be enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

what justifications? G-d told them to. that should be enough.

---

Do you realize what a can of worms that statement opens?

God is not provable, he exists in faith. If I believe God tells me to kill my neighbors, I get a free pass?

in G-ds eyes, yes. there is always a reason for a commandment. G-d does nothing needlessly. the 7 nations were evil, just like the nations destroyed in the flood. why did he kill everyone but Noah and his family? everyone but him was evil.
same case here.

So what you are saying is that every religious war or atrocity out there is justified?

for my G-d, yes. in my eyes, they are not atrocities. but in your eyes, they may be.

personally, i think this argument is pointless. its like running into a brick wall over and over.

So you don't have any problems with 9/11, the Alhambra Decree, the Crusades, and the Inter Caetera then. Interesting view point.

MY god. not yours or anyone elses. he did not order those things.
shame on you for saying that i have no problem with 9/11 and the like. thats libel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

MY god. not yours or anyone elses. he did not order those things.
shame on you for saying that i have no problem with 9/11 and the like. thats libel.

---

Your god is also the god of the Christians and Muslims.

Quote:

---

MY god. not yours or anyone elses.

---

So when people do nasty stuff and say its your gods will its OK , but if other people do nasty stuff and say its their gods will they are just doing nasty stuff .

Quote:

---

what justifications? G-d told them to.

---

prove it .

Quote:

---

the 7 nations were evil

---

prove it

Quote:

---

he did not order those things.

---

prove it

Quote:

---

You shoulda let it rest Hooah:yes:

---

Quote:

---

thats libel.

---

Actually no it isn't , going on what you have written the statement cannot be called unjustifiable so it isn't libel .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Your god is also the god of the Christians and Muslims.

---

Who says? He's the Christian God yes, but quite different from Allah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Who says? He's the Christian God yes, but quite different from Allah.

---

In interpretation, yes. But all three faiths trace back to Abraham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

In interpretation, yes. But all three faiths trace back to Abraham.

---

So if you come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, you could say it is acceptable for yourself to act in God's name, but not someone doing it in the name of Allah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So if you come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, you could say it is acceptable for yourself to act in God's name, but not someone doing it in the name of Allah.

---

And vice versa. And here we hit the crux of the whole argument. God did not personally appear before all the Israelites and tell them that the 7 nations were evil and must be destroyed. These things go through a unreliable, unverifiable, and biased, human filter. Be they priest, pharisee, pope, OBL, divine-right king, prophet, OT8, etc. Just because some ancient book says "God told them to do it", doesn't make it so, this is a very common and convenient way of justifying evil deeds for personal gain.

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

And vice versa. And here we hit the crux of the whole argument. God did not personally appear before all the Israelites and tell them that the 7 nations were evil and must be destroyed. These things go through a unreliable, unverifiable, and biased, human filter. Be they priest, pharisee, pope, OBL, divine-right king, prophet, OT8, etc. Just because some ancient book says "God told them to do it", doesn't make it so, this is a very common and convenient way of justifying evil deeds for personal gain.

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)

---

Hooah isn't justifying Muslim extremists, since he doesn't even believe Allah exists. Obviously it will appear like a double-standard from a secular point of view, but remember he believes there's only one God who can justify people's actions.

Also, Hooah isn't basing everything on some human, since I'm sure he will feel he has some relationship with God. Not that I'm suggesting a voice should tell him to smite the Canaanites, but he trusts in the God of the Old Testament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Hooah isn't justifying Muslim extremists, since he doesn't even believe Allah exists. Obviously it will appear like a double-standard from a secular point of view, but remember he believes there's only one God who can justify people's actions.

---

Allah and the J/C God are one in the same. All 3 religions worship the same God, they just do it in different ways due to, surprise surprise, different human interpretations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Also, Hooah isn't basing everything on some human, since I'm sure he will feel he has some relationship with God. Not that I'm suggesting a voice should tell him to smite the Canaanites, but he trusts in the God of the Old Testament.

---

I'm not questioning his faith in God, I'm questioning his blind acceptance of the words (spoken or written) of humans that various bad things are cleared through the Almighty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Allah and the J/C God are one in the same. All 3 religions worship the same God, they just do it in different ways due to, surprise surprise, different human interpretations.

---

There are a lot of big, big differences. Allah is not a triune God, Islam is not so much about forgiveness as about weighing up your good deeds against the bad come the end of your life. With Christianity, part of the Godhead came to earth in human form (something Muslims believe Allah can't do) because everyone is a sinner and can only get to heaven with if Christ pays for their sins, not by being good enough on their own merits. Not only are the doctrines different, the whole concept of God is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I'm not questioning his faith in God, I'm questioning his blind acceptance of the words (spoken or written) of humans that various bad things are cleared through the Almighty.

---

But what if part of his faith in God is related to the fact that God did genuinely give visions etc to the prophets? So he doesn't worship God because a prophet says so, but instead he knows that God really said that stuff to the prophets because of his relationship with God? It's part of his trust in Him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

There are a lot of big, big differences. Allah is not a triune God, Islam is not so much about forgiveness as about weighing up your good deeds against the bad come the end of your life. With Christianity, part of the Godhead came to earth in human form (something Muslims believe Allah can't do) because everyone is a sinner and can only get to heaven with if Christ pays for their sins, not by being good enough on their own merits. Not only are the doctrines different, the whole concept of God is different.

---

Like I said, interpretations. All three are monotheistic religions, there is only one god. Islam recognizes Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, Moses and many other Hebrew figures as chosen by God. The roots are the same, the methodology is different. This is what happens when people enter the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But what if part of his faith in God is related to the fact that God did genuinely give visions etc to the prophets? So he doesn't worship God because a prophet says so, but instead he knows that God really said that stuff to the prophets because of his relationship with God? It's part of his trust in Him.

---

If that's what he thinks, fine. But that line of thinking, the absolute trust that human texts are infallible, leads to suicide bombers and crusades. You sow, you reap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Like I said, interpretations. All three are monotheistic religions, there is only one god. Islam recognizes Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, Moses and many other Hebrew figures as chosen by God. The roots are the same, the methodology is different. This is what happens when people enter the equation.

---

To say they are the same is just your own interpretation isn't it? :tongue2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If that's what he thinks, fine. But that line of thinking, the absolute trust that human texts are infallible, leads to suicide bombers and crusades. You sow, you reap.

---

No, because Allah isn't real. :wink:

Of course, I say that because we are discussing people's lines of thought, I'm not saying they are actually correct.

Also, who says the trust in the human texts doesn't come from the relationship with God? Atheists always presume we worship God because of the texts, but for most religious folk the texts and God Himself at least complement each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

To say they are the same is just your own interpretation isn't it? :tongue2:

---

The Jews living in medieval Muslim lands kept their religion due to this interpretation, so I wouldn't say it's just mine. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Also, who says the trust in the human texts doesn't come from the relationship with God? Atheists always presume we worship God because of the texts, but for most religious folk the texts and God Himself at least complement each other.

---

The reasons for peoples' spirituality are their own. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The Jews living in medieval Muslim lands kept their religion due to this interpretation, so I wouldn't say it's just mine. ~;)

The reasons for peoples' spirituality are their own. :bow:

---

Well I didn't mean it was limited to you individually, but it is one of several interpretations.

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

---

Thread needs moar Navaros. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Move to Oklahoma, the cost of living is cheap, we are not in a recession and the center of the state is a nice mix of liberal conservatives and conservative liberals. I will help pay your way and you can come over as a "guest worker," and my wife could set you up with one of her hawt bioengineer korean cousins.

---

i speak as an oklahoman. if you ever consider moving to that state, frag, just hang yourself an be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well I didn't mean it was limited to you individually, but it is one of several interpretations.

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

---

Can be worth notincing that in the early fourteenth century, Islam was still considered heretical and not an own religion, at least in some places. Dante is certainly doing it. The Sixth Circle of hell is with minarets and Muhammed is punished for causing a schism (in Christianity).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Can be worth notincing that in the early fourteenth century, Islam was still considered heretical and not an own religion, at least in some places. Dante is certainly doing it. The Sixth Circle of hell is with minarets and Muhammed is punished for causing a schism (in Christianity).

---

Bluntly, in Christian theology Mohammed is a heretic, in Jewish theology Jesus is the same. In Christian theology Jews are unrepentant.

None of the three are therefore unreconcilable to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Bluntly, in Christian theology Mohammed is a heretic, in Jewish theology Jesus is the same. In Christian theology Jews are unrepentant.

None of the three are therefore unreconcilable to each other.

---

Many Christians believe that the Jews are still saved, since they are God's chosen people and are covered by Christ's blood. They rejected Christ as the prophecies said, but he will still be their messiah.

Also, I can't speak for them, but do most Jews not consider Christians beliefs to be somewhat genuine, in that they are still worshipping Yahweh, but obviously without the customs of ethnic Israel?

Can't say the same for Islam though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Many Christians believe that the Jews are still saved, since they are God's chosen people and are covered by Christ's blood. They rejected Christ as the prophecies said, but he will still be their messiah.

Also, I can't speak for them, but do most Jews not consider Christians beliefs to be somewhat genuine, in that they are still worshipping Yahweh, but obviously without the customs of ethnic Israel?

Can't say the same for Islam though.

---

I've only heard this from you, it doesn't seem to ake any sense, that the Jews should be marked out as special and judged seperately by God after the coming of Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I've only heard this from you, it doesn't seem to ake any sense, that the Jews should be marked out as special and judged seperately by God after the coming of Christ.

---

The scripture does indicate that the people of Israel will be saved in the end:

"And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me." (Jeremiah 33:8)

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" (Romans 11:26)

Since these verses speak of the end times, it is likely that the resumation of sacrifices at the temple could be symbollic of the salvation of Israel, since their sins are once again being covered (possibly in fact by the blood of Christ), just as they were thousands of years ago.

The Jews are God's chosen people after all. I think that it is not surprising that they rejected Christ, God does say they are a stiffnecked people, and the Jewish customs were important in maintaining the identity of the Jewish people when they were dispersed and persecuted like the prophets said. Thanks to that, they are now back in the promised land, just like the prophets said, and God can put His plan for their salvation into action.

I do not think Jews will be judged differently from Gentiles, but due to the earthly inheritance of the Jews, God's organised things so that they worship Him a little differently, that is all.

I fail t see how any of this makes the Jews in any way a special case.

1. Some Jews converted, therefore "Israel" will be saved.

2. Acts makes it quite clear, from Peter's dream, Cornelius' conversion and the subsequent council in Jerusalem that God does not play favourites. Whatever special inheritence the Son's of Israel were promised, they seem to have had it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I fail t see how any of this makes the Jews in any way a special case.

---

The whole OT is about how they are special to God, and there is nothing to suggest that this is no longer the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. Some Jews converted, therefore "Israel" will be saved.

---

How would Israel be saved if only some Jews are saved? Notice how Paul says "all Israel will be saved".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. Acts makes it quite clear, from Peter's dream, Cornelius' conversion and the subsequent council in Jerusalem that God does not play favourites. Whatever special inheritence the Son's of Israel were promised, they seem to have had it.

---

How? What about the prophecies in Revelation about how Israel will be gathered together from the four corners of the world and returned to their inheritance shortly prior to the Second Coming? It's happening isn't it? Also, the Council of Jerusalem still orders that some of the Jewish customs be kept, but that doesn't mean we keep them nowadays. Paul may have been influenced by Hellenic Judaism in his travels prior to the council, which emphasised the "circumcision of the heart" over the literal kind. Also, early Christians were often divided along Jew/Gentile lines, Jews kept their ethnic customs while Gentiles did not adopt them. Paul simply argues against the judaizing sects such as those seen in Galatians, which demanded that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. He condemned them for trying to justify themselves by the law, but he never did the same to Christians who were ethnic Jews.

I see no reason to prefer Paul over Peter when the two disagree, as they do here:

I refer to Acts 10-11, but specifically to 10.34-5, "Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiallity, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all."

This follows Peter's dream, where God revokes Mosac Law and sends Peter to the Gentiles, 10.9-16; then it is followed by the Holy Spirit coming upon those to whom Peter is speaking, to the great astonishment of the Jew with Peter. Peter then baptises them, 10.44-8.

It is this event that precipitates the debate in Jerusalem, because Peter flouts Mosaic Law by not only accociating with, but eating with, non-Jews.

So, I say again:

How is it that the Jews are set apart to be saved in a different way, by a different standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I see no reason to prefer Paul over Peter when the two disagree, as they do here:

I refer to Acts 10-11, but specifically to 10.34-5, "Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiallity, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all."

---

But Jews do fear Yahweh. The verse says God will not show partiality to those who fear Him, but that doesn't mean we can't fear/worship Him in different ways. In Heaven God will make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but the Pentateuch is very clear that the Jews have a special set of customs based on an everlasting covenant.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this argument, since everyone from the Puritans to Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Mosaic Covenant was not made redundant by Paul's stating that it should not be seen as necessary for salvation. The customs still have a wordly value, like the land of Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This follows Peter's dream, where God revokes Mosac Law and sends Peter to the Gentiles, 10.9-16; then it is followed by the Holy Spirit coming upon those to whom Peter is speaking, to the great astonishment of the Jew with Peter. Peter then baptises them, 10.44-8.

It is this event that precipitates the debate in Jerusalem, because Peter flouts Mosaic Law by not only accociating with, but eating with, non-Jews.

So, I say again:

How is it that the Jews are set apart to be saved in a different way, by a different standard.

---

I think it is so that the Jews could keep their identity and be be taken back to Israel (while we can argue over their salvation, God never takes away their inheritance on earth). God is pretty clear that their inheritance in the Holy Land lasts forever:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

And He is also clear that they will be dispersed before they return to their inheritance:

"And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."

No other people on earth has been dispersed, persecuted, and still returned to their homeland like Israel. All those fanciful commandments and laws God gave to them, to be "a statute unto your people", they have been kept so that the Jews could be gathered together before the end. Otherwise, they would have been assimilated like any other people.

Jews aren't saved in a different way, they are covered by the blood of Christ just like the rest of us. But for the sake of His plan for this world, they have their own traditions etc.

Hooahguy, I've heard/read conflicting things about jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife. Do (most) jews believe in heaven and/or hell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Hooahguy, I've heard/read conflicting things about jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife. Do (most) jews believe in heaven and/or hell?

---

yes, most do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)

---

actually only kill. to rape them would be impure. just sayin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But Jews do fear Yahweh. The verse says God will not show partiality to those who fear Him, but that doesn't mean we can't fear/worship Him in different ways. In Heaven God will make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but the Pentateuch is very clear that the Jews have a special set of customs based on an everlasting covenant.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this argument, since everyone from the Puritans to Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Mosaic Covenant was not made redundant by Paul's stating that it should not be seen as necessary for salvation. The customs still have a wordly value, like the land of Israel.

---

From Acts, from Mathew, the Sermon on the Mount, from Mark and John. Time and again Jesus rejects the Law as a law for a hard-hearted people, not pleaseing to God.

As to the Jews fearing God, well that's debatable in a Christian context, when God sent prophets they were rejected.

Quote:

---

I think it is so that the Jews could keep their identity and be be taken back to Israel (while we can argue over their salvation, God never takes away their inheritance on earth). God is pretty clear that their inheritance in the Holy Land lasts forever:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

And He is also clear that they will be dispersed before they return to their inheritance:

"And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."

No other people on earth has been dispersed, persecuted, and still returned to their homeland like Israel. All those fanciful commandments and laws God gave to them, to be "a statute unto your people", they have been kept so that the Jews could be gathered together before the end. Otherwise, they would have been assimilated like any other people.

Jews aren't saved in a different way, they are covered by the blood of Christ just like the rest of us. But for the sake of His plan for this world, they have their own traditions etc.

---

I'm pretty sure everything you quote here is from before Babylon, or at least refers to that. In which case it has arguably already happened in 500 BC.

I'm not saying Mosaic Law should be abandoned wholesale, but consider this:

If a Jew converts to Christianity are his marriage vows regulated by Mosaic Law or Christ's Law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

From Acts, from Mathew, the Sermon on the Mount, from Mark and John. Time and again Jesus rejects the Law as a law for a hard-hearted people, not pleaseing to God.

As to the Jews fearing God, well that's debatable in a Christian context, when God sent prophets they were rejected.

---

Of course, Jews are no more capable of keeping the laws than the rest of us. Also, Jesus does not reject the law as such, he simply says that it is now written on our hearts. The reason for the New Covenant is not that the laws are invalid, but simply that no man would save himself by adherence to the laws as the Old Covenants were designed for. God's covenant with the Israelities is everlasting, it cannot be overruled by the New Covenant. They could even be complementary, in that Christ's blood has covered the sins of the Jews since the sacrifices began (here I go with my dramatic "lamb slain before time stuff again"!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm pretty sure everything you quote here is from before Babylon, or at least refers to that. In which case it has arguably already happened in 500 BC.

---

But sir, that is preterism! Preterists ignore significant parts of the prophecies, although I could sympathise with the historicist position, that some of the events have already happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm not saying Mosaic Law should be abandoned wholesale, but consider this:

If a Jew converts to Christianity are his marriage vows regulated by Mosaic Law or Christ's Law?

---

In Matthew, Jewish Christians stick to the Mosaic law, while the Greek Christians do not. The command for Jewish Christians hearkens back to Mosaic Law:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

Whereas when asked for his own opinion on divorce by the pharisees, Jesus simply says that what God makes should not be broken, and that the Jews were given their commandments on divorce because of the "heardness of their hearts".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Of course, Jews are no more capable of keeping the laws than the rest of us. Also, Jesus does not reject the law as such, he simply says that it is now written on our hearts. The reason for the New Covenant is not that the laws are invalid, but simply that no man would save himself by adherence to the laws as the Old Covenants were designed for. God's covenant with the Israelities is everlasting, it cannot be overruled by the New Covenant. They could even be complementary, in that Christ's blood has covered the sins of the Jews since the sacrifices began (here I go with my dramatic "lamb slain before time stuff again"!).

---

You're still sliding around the issue.

Are the conditions for salvation different for Jews under Christ's law, yes or no?

Right now you seem to be saying yes, a position inconsistant with your normal evangelical religion, and with your rejection of Muslims.

Quote:

---

But sir, that is preterism! Preterists ignore significant parts of the prophecies, although I could sympathise with the historicist position, that some of the events have already happened.

---

Prophecies are never listened to and never understood. Isaiah was believed to prophecy a temporal salvation after Babylon, but Jesus explicitely rejected that interpretation.

Quote:

---

In Matthew, Jewish Christians stick to the Mosaic law, while the Greek Christians do not. The command for Jewish Christians hearkens back to Mosaic Law:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

Whereas when asked for his own opinion on divorce by the pharisees, Jesus simply says that what God makes should not be broken, and that the Jews were given their commandments on divorce because of the "heardness of their hearts".

---

Which is his own opinion?

Do they represent a developement of the Message?

You have not answered my question.

Which law binds a Jewish Christian?

Quote:

---

Just stay at home Fragony. Your country may have problems, but at least they are your problems.

---

I concur. You live in the netherlands. Scared of Terrorism? Go smoke a joint. Worried about Islamisation? Smoke a Joint.

You are safer from terrorism in a Dutch Coffee Shop than anywhere else in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're still sliding around the issue.

Are the conditions for salvation different for Jews under Christ's law, yes or no?

Right now you seem to be saying yes, a position inconsistant with your normal evangelical religion, and with your rejection of Muslims.

---

The conditions for salvation are not different. The way they worship in this world is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Prophecies are never listened to and never understood. Isaiah was believed to prophecy a temporal salvation after Babylon, but Jesus explicitely rejected that interpretation.

---

Well the best we can do is try to understand them as best as we can. Right now, preterism has some major gaps which is why it is not taken very seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which is his own opinion?

Do they represent a developement of the Message?

You have not answered my question.

Which law binds a Jewish Christian?

---

If they have become a Christian (as we use the word), then Christ's law. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the previous ones, an expansion of the law into something less tradition orientated and more complete.

However, the prophecies are clear that the Jews will not worship Christ as we do (generally speaking), but they still have their everlasting Covenant with God, and are promised their place up there with Abraham. If Jews are not saved under the Old Covenant, does this mean no character in the Old Testament is saved!? Surely not!

Of course, this does not mean that they could be saved by adherence to the laws thousands of years ago, any more than they could be today. Which is why I think that Christ's sacrifice must cover them, otherwise how do we explain the fact that so many Jews are/were saved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The conditions for salvation are not different. The way they worship in this world is.

---

For everyone else, acceptence of Christ is required for salvation, according to you. If Jews are exempt then the rules are different for them.

Quote:

---

Well the best we can do is try to understand them as best as we can. Right now, preterism has some major gaps which is why it is not taken very seriously.

---

That which God has decreed will come to pass. Prophecy is largely a sign of God's power, it has little or no practical application, until it is fulfilled.

Quote:

---

If they have become a Christian (as we use the word), then Christ's law. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the previous ones, an expansion of the law into something less tradition orientated and more complete.

However, the prophecies are clear that the Jews will not worship Christ as we do (generally speaking), but they still have their everlasting Covenant with God, and are promised their place up there with Abraham. If Jews are not saved under the Old Covenant, does this mean no character in the Old Testament is saved!? Surely not!

Of course, this does not mean that they could be saved by adherence to the laws thousands of years ago, any more than they could be today. Which is why I think that Christ's sacrifice must cover them, otherwise how do we explain the fact that so many Jews are/were saved?

---

Well, in John, Christ says that the only one who has entered Heaven is he who has come from Heaven.

A while back you argued strenuously that Christ was the only Way and the Gate, now you sacrifice that principle to try to fit all the scripture together?

Scripture is never going to fit together, it's a part of our world, and therefore imperfect and incomplete.

Sorry early rise tomorrow so I can't have an epic duel tonight but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, in John, Christ says that the only one who has entered Heaven is he who has come from Heaven.

A while back you argued strenuously that Christ was the only Way and the Gate, now you sacrifice that principle to try to fit all the scripture together?

Scripture is never going to fit together, it's a part of our world, and therefore imperfect and incomplete.

---

I think when I said this someone else commented that they could still be honouring Christ, but in a different way. Though they don't say it, we do know that they are in fact worshipping the trinitarian God, surely that is significant?