• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Tumah

Veteran Member
The Quran is not consistent with the Tanakh because it contradicts what the Tanakh teaches about Ishmael. It teaches that the Messiah was a prophet who came and pretended to die on the cross. Isa never mentioned a New Covenant. The teachings of Jesus are similar to the teachings in the Tanakh-God being a personal Father. Jesus talked about the Trinity-which matched the term Elohim in the Old Testament. Allah is distant. In Islam Allah is omnipotent but is distant and not personally involved with people. Allah of Islam, Is He Yahweh God of the Bible?
The NT is not consistent with the Tanach either. Except you as a Christian - just like Muslims about the Qur'an - either ignore or find way around that problem. You're exactly the same as them in this regard.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 52:13 refers to the Messiah as "my servant". The verse doesn't say my servant Jacob or my servant Israel. Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 describe the servant. References to the servant as a people actually ends with Isaiah 48:20.
But 52 never mentions any messiah so introducing a new unnamed referent for "servant" is illogical when there has been precedent to have "servant" refer to Israel. Other than your own pressing need, why assume that the references as a people ends at a particular spot? Your claims about why the section cannot apply to Israel are wrong (if you had read the section I cited, you would understand the textual claims better) because you still refuse to see what the narrative structure is of the chapters. It is totally understandable that you feel the need to stick with your understanding even if it does not comport with what the text says and the context in which these sections of Isaiah are set.

The resurrection of the Messiah isn't mentioned in the Old Testament, but it's plainly implied. How does someone die and yet prolong his days?
By having children, maybe. But since 53:10 doesn't say that he dies, then he can live and have long days -- because it is talking about the nation, some of whom died, and yet some who didn't, there is no contradiction.
Clearly, it can't be talking about an individual doing anything after he dies.
Jesus used a whip to drive money-changers out of the temple.
Which was a problem since money changers were required.
Isaiah 53 saying the servant will not lift his voice or cry out doesn't imply that Jesus isn't the Messiah.
Except that he cried out on the cross, so, there's that.
The context of that verse isn't literal. The context is the servant did not open his mouth but was led away like a lamb. Jesus wasn't crying when he said Father, forgive them.
No, just when he cried out asking why he had been forsaken.
Isaiah 53 says the servant of the Lord will have descendants-or 'see seed' in the Hebrew. Jesus never married or had children. Seed can be used metaphorically, in terms of spiritual offspring.
Or literally, and since Jesus, as you say, never married or had children, it can't apply to him. I notice you move to metaphor when it suits you.
Isaiah calls Israel a seed of evildoers. Seed of evildoers means 'community of evildoers' or 'evildoers to the core.' The Hebrew word for 'seed' can mean 'a future generation' without reference to specific descendants of one individual in particular.
You mean like in 61:9 which refers to the descendants of Israel as "blessed seed"?
 
Last edited:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Christian text an "Old Testament" may or may not say a lot of things. The Hebrew Tanakh is not the same as the Christian translation you are quoting and the Hebrew Tanakh text does not mention the Christian concept of a "messiah." In terms of Davidic kings being married and having children that is stated in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. Would you like me to post the Hebrew text that states it for you?

Christians, by the own admission from the past to the present do not follow Torath Mosheh or Torah based Judaism. That is why they are very clear in the NT to say that they don't.

In terms of proofs that the NT is based on Greek and Hellonist beleifs. That is easy. The NT was originally written in Greek, a language that Torath Mosheh Jews detested. Paul, according ot the NT, grew up in Tarsus and he wrote most of the NT. Paul also quoted in his writings a number of Greek pagan philosphers and his ideas are found heavily in Greek culture. Would like me to quote some of his Hellonist ideas?

You don't have to follow the Old Covenant to follow God. That's up to the person. I know Christian people who became Messianic Jews after marrying Messianic Jewish people, and following both the Old and New Covenant was appropriate for them. Christianity spread after it became a gentile expression of the New Covenant because following Jewish laws wasn't something that most people could do.

Torah Jews detested Greek because it went against their conscience. It doesn't mean that the New Testament wasn't inspired by God. Paul may have quoted Greek philosophers, but not everything in the Bible is God's words-God allowed people to add their own feelings, to a subtle extent. Paul only ideas of Greek philosophers to the extent that they didn't go against the teachings of the Old and New Covenant.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
But 52 never mentions any messiah so introducing a new unnamed referent for "servant" is illogical when there has been precedent to have "servant" refer to Israel. Other than your own pressing need, why assume that the references as a people ends at a particular spot? Your claims about why the section cannot apply to Israel are wrong (if you had read the section I cited, you would understand the textual claims better) because you still refuse to see what the narrative structure is of the chapters. It is totally understandable that you feel the need to stick with your understanding even if it does not comport with what the text says and the context in which these sections of Isaiah are set.


By having children, maybe. But since 53:10 doesn't say that he dies, then he can live and have long days -- because it is talking about the nation, some of whom died, and yet some who didn't, there is no contradiction.
Clearly, it can't be talking about an individual doing anything after he dies.

Which was a problem since money changers were required.

Except that he cried out on the cross, so, there's that.

No, just when he cried out asking why he had been forsaken.

Or literally, and since Jesus, as you say, never married or had children, it can't apply to him. I notice you move to metaphor when it suits you.

You mean like in 61:9 which refers to the descendants of Israel as "blessed seed"?
[/QUOTE]

Jesus had the right to be more stern with people than others, because Jesus was God. The verse the servant doesn't cry out but goes like a lamb means that he accepts being punished, he doesn't resist it. Isaiah didn't literally mean that he doesn't cry out. Isaiah 53:9 and Isaiah 53:12 talks about the Messiah dying, so him living and having long days refers to the resurrection. Verse 9: "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." Verse 12: "Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Christians being the spiritual seed of Jesus is congruent with the New Testament talking about spiritual and physical Israel. Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9 - New King James Version

What is spiritual Israel? | GotQuestions.org

What is spiritual Israel?

Question: "What is spiritual Israel?"

Answer:
The phrase spiritual Israel is used in two primary contexts. The first is as a reference to the entire body of Christian believers, in distinction to the political or racial people of Israel. Spiritual Israel is also sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology, in which the promises directed toward Israel are now given to the Church, instead.

Galatians 6:16 refers to the “Israel of God.” Given how frequently Paul dismisses ethic or national divisions in this same letter (Galatians 3:26; 4:5–7; 6:15), it is unlikely that he encourages such divisions here. Instead, he refers to the readers as being similar to Isaac: they are the “children of promise” (Galatians 4:28). Paul has a spiritual group in mind in Galatians 6:16, not an ethnic one. This reference to spiritual Israel is clear enough, but not every reference by Paul to Israel is spiritual in nature. Some, such as Romans 9:4, are national and literal. The context is key.

There are other places in the New Testament that suggest a “spiritual Israel” in that they echo terms used in the Old Testament to refer to the Israelites. First Peter 2:9 uses the same terminology as Exodus 19:5–6 in reference to Christians. Galatians 3:29 uses the term heirs, as does Isaiah 65:9. All Christians are “fellow citizens” and members of the house of God, according to Ephesians 2:12–13. Romans 10:12 also says the same—there is no national preference with respect to salvation. Just as we become spiritual “sons of Abraham” by faith (Galatians 3:7), so we can be considered “spiritual Israel” when we receive Christ. In the sense that ethnicity and politics have no relationship to salvation, the term spiritual Israel presents no noteworthy problems.

Replacement theology, on the other hand, uses the concept of a “spiritual Israel” differently. Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. Replacement theology presents major theological problems, because Scripture says that God has not forgotten or changed His promises to Israel (see Romans 11:1–2, 11, 23, 26, 29). Teaching that promotes a “spiritual Israel,” in the sense that the Church is the focus of God’s prophetic promises for Israel, is not biblically valid.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Jesus had the right to be more stern with people than others, because Jesus was God. The verse the servant doesn't cry out but goes like a lamb means that he accepts being punished, he doesn't resist it. Isaiah didn't literally mean that he doesn't cry out. Isaiah 53:9 and Isaiah 53:12 talks about the Messiah dying, so him living and having long days refers to the resurrection. Verse 9: "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." Verse 12: "Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Christians being the spiritual seed of Jesus is congruent with the New Testament talking about spiritual and physical Israel. Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9 - New King James Version

What is spiritual Israel? | GotQuestions.org
Here's what I'm getting from this -- Jesus, a human who was born to a woman, was actually God even thugh that is not at all part of the belief system into which he was born. Then there is this text which doesn't mention the messiah but it is about the messiah anyway, and not about the people it mentions, and the verses which say that the messiah did something don't mean that, but mean something else. But the ones that say something which coordinates, do mean what they say. I'll take a hard pass on this. Good luck.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
According to one understanding, initially, what became Christianity was just a sect of Judaism populated by a small group of people who followed a charismatic leader. They were excluded by the mainstream and branched out to people of other religions to build numbers because the mainstream wasn't buying in. There is even a belief that the particular texts and practices/beliefs were established by Jews in the mainstream to create a more visible difference between these believers and the majority who rejected Jesus.

Christianity and Judaism in the start was one religion. Judaism is the Old Covenant and Christianity is the New Covenant. They exist separately but one doesn't exclude the other. Just because they have been practiced separately by many people doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Christianity and Judaism in the start was one religion. Judaism is the Old Covenant and Christianity is the New Covenant. They exist separately but one doesn't exclude the other. Just because they have been practiced separately by many people doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.
But theologically, they are mutually exclusive. Embracing central aspects of Christianity necessarily demands rejecting tenets of Judaism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
But theologically, they are mutually exclusive. Embracing central aspects of Christianity necessarily demands rejecting tenets of Judaism.

What aspects of Christianity disagree with the tenets of Judaism? The Old Testament doesn't disagree with the Trinity and some Christians don't believe in it. There are Christians who don't believe in original sin.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
What aspects of Christianity disagree with the tenets of Judaism? The Old Testament doesn't disagree with the Trinity and some Christians don't believe in it. There are Christians who don't believe in original sin.
The idea of God having parts (like the trinity and the binity before it) separates Christianity from Judaism and is inconsistent with Jewish textual teaching. The idea that a foretold messiah has come, the idea in a second coming, the idea of a rebellious Satan also run counter to central beliefs of Judaism.

You can, if you want, boil it down to "accepting Jesus as anything and the gospels as anything defies being called Jewish."
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The idea of God having parts (like the trinity and the binity before it) separates Christianity from Judaism and is inconsistent with Jewish textual teaching. The idea that a foretold messiah has come, the idea in a second coming, the idea of a rebellious Satan also run counter to central beliefs of Judaism.

You can, if you want, boil it down to "accepting Jesus as anything and the gospels as anything defies being called Jewish."

The Old Testament doesn't say as much about Satan as the New Testament because the Bible is progressive revelation. Satan appeared with the angels in the book of Job-he wasn't one of them. The Old Testament never says that Satan is part of God's divine council-that is the interpretation of rabbis. Genesis 1:26 mentions God saying "let us make man in our image". Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26-28 - King James Version

God wasn't talking to a council of angels, because angels are not creators. God mentioned the Messiah to Eve in Genesis 3:15. Protevangelium - Wikipedia

Because of the grave nature of the context, the fall of man, this passage describes more than just a man stepping on a snake's head. The reference to the seed of the woman as Christ is believed to relate to the Virgin birth of the Messiah, as well as the Hypostatic union of the Divine nature with the Human nature of Christ.[4]

Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner describes the Protoevangelium as "the first glimmer of the gospel."[5] Several of the early Church fathers, such as Justin Martyr (160 AD) and Irenaeus (180 AD), regarded this verse "as the Protoevangelium, the first messianic prophecy in the Old Testament."[6]

The Old Testament on the Second Coming of Jesus

Daniel 9:20-27:

20 Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, 21 while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 And he gave me instruction and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. 23 “At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision. 24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. 25 “So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” (Daniel 9:20-27)

As you can see, this passage has much to do with the first coming of Jesus, and it is actually only verse 27 that has to do with the Second Coming of Christ. That verse is of extreme importance with regard to the events during the Tribulation period that will usher in Jesus’ return. However, the “seventy weeks” spoken of in verse 24 are controversial from the point of view of its historical context, versus a prophetic oversight that would transcend the historical perspective of Daniel’s time period.

From the prophetical perspective, there is a debate as to whether Daniel is really a prophecy, or rather a historical “retelling” of what occurred. The reason for that question is the specificity with which the book of Daniel lays out the prophetic future in such detail from Daniel’s time frame in the early 6th century BC up to and through the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BC, which is covered in chapter 11. Thus, the question arises as to whether or not this is prophecy or history because of the disbelief of some who say that NO PROPHECY could ever be that specifically correct, and the reason for their saying that is that they have a very limited view of God and His supernatural power and ability to give such a prophecy to a man, if they even believe in prophecy at all. Therefore, what is at issue for many scholars, teachers, and pastors is whether or not such specific prophecy could possibly be ascribed to God, and if they do not believe it can, then they see this as simply a “historical retelling” of events that occurred, and consequently, they view Daniel as having been written sometime in the late 2nd to perhaps the early 1st century BC.

However, setting aside the critical analysis for the sake of brevity, we are going to look at the Book of Daniel as an authentic, accurate, and divinely inspired account of the historic events that occurred in the life of Daniel from 605 BC to 538 BC, and of future, prophetic and authenticated historical events that would occur up through the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BC, and then to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ in the first half of the 1st century BC, and finally, to the final seven year “tribulation” period, wherein we will see the Antichrist come and fulfill II Thessalonians 2:1-10 and Revelation 11 & 13. Therefore, with regard to verse 27, what we see being described is the peace treaty that the Antichrist will make with the Jews at the beginning of the Tribulation, but then in the middle of the Tribulation, he will break it off and seek to kill all of the Jews (see Revelation 11:1-14 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
The Old Testament doesn't say as much about Satan as the New Testament because the Bible is progressive revelation.
That is certainly necessary for your belief system.
Satan appeared with the angels in the book of Job-he wasn't one of them. The Old Testament never says that Satan is part of God's divine council-that is the interpretation of rabbis. Genesis 1:26 mentions God saying "let us make man in our image". Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26-28 - King James Version

God wasn't talking to a council of angels, because angels are not creators. God mentioned the Messiah to Eve in Genesis 3:15. Protevangelium - Wikipedia
Yes, these are your beliefs. But they are alien to Judaism and how Judaism views its own texts. I could show you completely different understandings based in the texts and you would reject it because, as you say, stuff was revealed later on to different people.

So you have the claim that stuff that you understand to be relevant defines what you believe. OK. None of it is remotely persuasive to me because my belief system doesn't drive those necessary explanations.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The idea of God having parts (like the trinity and the binity before it) separates Christianity from Judaism and is inconsistent with Jewish textual teaching. The idea that a foretold messiah has come, the idea in a second coming, the idea of a rebellious Satan also run counter to central beliefs of Judaism.

You can, if you want, boil it down to "accepting Jesus as anything and the gospels as anything defies being called Jewish."

The Bible uses the term pure and undefiled religion about Christianity in James 1:27 but religion is not a good term. Judaism is the only religion that is inspired by God. That doesn't mean that being Jewish and Christian is mutually exclusive. A lot of people believe that because of the teachings of the rabbis, but rabbinic beliefs aren't mentioned in the Tanakh.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
You don't have to follow the Old Covenant to follow God. That's up to the person. I know Christian people who became Messianic Jews after marrying Messianic Jewish people, and following both the Old and New Covenant was appropriate for them. Christianity spread after it became a gentile expression of the New Covenant because following Jewish laws wasn't something that most people could do.

Torah Jews detested Greek because it went against their conscience. It doesn't mean that the New Testament wasn't inspired by God. Paul may have quoted Greek philosophers, but not everything in the Bible is God's words-God allowed people to add their own feelings, to a subtle extent. Paul only ideas of Greek philosophers to the extent that they didn't go against the teachings of the Old and New Covenant.

Everything you posted above is, according to the Hebrew Tanakh, is Avodah Zara and was forbidden, by Hashem, for Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews. What you stated about Paul and the other authors of the NT further proves my point of why Jews who hold by Torath Mosheh were warned by Hashem not accept NT concepts.

P.S. It isn't that "maybe" Paul quoted pagan Hellonist authors - he actually did quote them and appreciate their non-Torah based ideas. Also, the gospel authors were fond of Hellonist ideas like their concepts.

 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Everything you posted above is, according to the Hebrew Tanakh, is Avodah Zara and was forbidden, by Hashem, for Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews. What you stated about Paul and the other authors of the NT further proves my point of why Jews who hold by Torath Mosheh were warned by Hashem not accept NT concepts.

P.S. It isn't that "maybe" Paul quoted pagan Hellonist authors - he actually did quote them and appreciate their non-Torah based ideas. Also, the gospel authors were fond of Hellonist ideas like their concepts.


Paul added some of his own thoughts to the New Testament. I agree that the Hellonist philosophers had beliefs that are contrary to the Tanakh, but that doesn't mean that everything they said was wrong. Paul talked about a lot of topics that aren't mentioned in the Torah, like the beneficial-ness of people staying single. The Bible talks about not following other gods. It doesn't talk about other covenants being in the category of polytheism or idolatry.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Paul added some of his own thoughts to the New Testament. I agree that the Hellonist philosophers had beliefs that are contrary to the Tanakh, but that doesn't mean that everything they said was wrong.

Thank you for admitting what Paul's writings really contain. Christians may be okay with Paul wrote that but Hashem commanded Torah Mosheh Israelis/Jews to stay away from and reject such ideas - as the ones found in the Gospels and Paul's writings. Hashem also predicted that the original Jewish Christians would disappear off the historical map, like they did.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Thank you for admitting what Paul's writings really contain. Christians may be okay with Paul wrote that but Hashem commanded Torah Mosheh Israelis/Jews to stay away from and reject such ideas - as the ones found in the Gospels and Paul's writings. Hashem also predicted that the original Jewish Christians would disappear off the historical map, like they did.

I don't think the idea of the Gospel itself goes against the Torah or Jeremiah's writings. Those Tanakh verses you mentioned about Jewish Christians talk about the New Covenant. The Old and New Covenant are not mutually exclusive, but they can be depending on the personal convictions of the person and what is relevant to their relationship with Hashem.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I don't think the idea of the Gospel itself goes against the Torah or Jeremiah's writings.

That's because you have never read the Tanakh in Hebrew, as you admitted in another thread. The NT is 100% Avodah Zara, as Hashem explained it at Mount Sinai. That is why during the inquisition so many Jews resisted forced converstions to Christianity. That is also why the original Jewish Christians couldn't keep themselves around more than 2 generations.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
That's because you have never read the Tanakh in Hebrew, as you admitted in another thread. The NT is 100% Avodah Zara, as Hashem explained it at Mount Sinai. That is why during the inquisition so many Jews resisted forced converstions to Christianity. That is also why the original Jewish Christians couldn't keep themselves around more than 2 generations.

The Tanakh never said that only one Covenant can come from God. The gospel itself doesn't literally mean that there are two religions of God, because even though the Bible uses the term in James 1:27, outside that verse, it's really not an accurate term. Judaism is the only religion that came from God. The New Covenant and Old Covenant are distinct but close cousins. The idea of the New Covenant is directly related to the Old Covenant and there being a Messiah. I believe the Messiah is God, not a belief like Zeus or Thor. Foreign worship and strange service means believing in gods that are not holy and just, that are polytheistic, that have nothing to do with the Tanakh or having a relationship with God. Job believed that the Messiah was his mediator, and not even mediators like the Old Testament priests truly had the office of a mediator like Jesus is talked about having, in the New Testament. Job Longed for a Mediator?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The Tanakh never said that only one Covenant can come from God. The gospel itself doesn't literally mean that there are two religions of God

Again, by your own admission you haven't read the Hebrew Tanakh. Given that the Christian bible is based on Christian translation techniques that Hashem warned Jews to stay away from it says a lot for why so many Jews did everything they could to escape the Christian Inquisition.

The reality is that the minute that the gospel authors wrote what they wrote they were commiting to paper Avodah Zara, as Hashem explained when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. That is why the original Jewish Christians were not good at surviving past 2 generations. That is why even the Ebionites had a problem with Paul. Although Paul did a better job of promoting his style of Christian which outsurvived even the Christianity of James, Peter, Mark, etc.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Again, by your own admission you haven't read the Hebrew Tanakh. Given that the Christian bible is based on Christian translation techniques that Hashem warned Jews to stay away from it says a lot for why so many Jews did everything they could to escape the Christian Inquisition.

The reality is that the minute that the gospel authors wrote what they wrote they were commiting to paper Avodah Zara, as Hashem explained when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. That is why the original Jewish Christians were not good at surviving past 2 generations. That is why even the Ebionites had a problem with Paul. Although Paul did a better job of promoting his style of Christian which outsurvived even the Christianity of James, Peter, Mark, etc.

Job wasn't promoting avodah zarah when he talked about the Messiah being his redeemer and mediator. Honest Talk with God: The Messiah in the Old Testament –the book of Job

The idea of the Messiah having a New Covenant is not foreign worship or idolatry. The Jewish Christians changed because Christianity eventually spread to gentiles. Paul didn't agree with the beliefs of the Judaizers but Messianic Judaism is different.
 
Top