Are Christians actually worshiping the Father of Jesus?

[kjw47]

Yep. When you look at what Jesus said - in the Greek - he never said he was God, - or even a "natural" son of God.


Gal 3:26 For you are all sons/children of God through faith in Messiah Jesus.


Romans 8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.




*

The co heirs with Christ are only the 144,000( rev 14:3)= the little flock--the bride of Christ--heirs to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus helping judge during judgement.--these are the anointed--the heirs.

 

[Ingledsva]

The co heirs with Christ are only the 144,000( rev 14:3)= the little flock--the bride of Christ--heirs to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus helping judge during judgement.--these are the anointed--the heirs.

According to you...


However - It obviously is to ALL.


Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.


Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the sons/children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


*


Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the sons/children of God:


Rom 8:17 And if sons/children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.





*

 

[mystic64]

RabbiO is a really good and very intelligent guy, so cut him some slack. It's very frustrating when we are constantly being told that we don't understand the scriptures we wrote, commented on, translated into other languages, and passed on to others. And this goes on day after day after...

And then we're told over and over again that our own little country, Israel, the size of Delaware, shouldn't exist. Other countries can be and have been partitioned such as India, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, etc., and no one questions those, but take a look at how many insist that the former British territory of "Palestine" should have been partitioned whereas the Arabs got 5/6 of the land. There have been many threads dealing with the creation of Israel, but I have yet to see even one thread dealing with the partitioning of the other countries.

Can you see why we sometimes get frustrated?

Metis, I am a 100% on the side of Israel and I am not anti Jewish. I do understand what you are saying and why Rabbi may or may not be loosing patience with me and I also understand why LoverofTruth is calling me to task . And I applogise to everybody for being an ackward child and I will approach things differently from now on.

I did a quick review of the quoted words of Jesus in the first four books of the New Testament and arguing my case is going to be a bit tricky, but I think it might be done. And it all starts here: Matthew 5:17,18, 20; (17) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."; (18) "For truly I say to you, untill Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, untill all is accomplished."; (20) "For I say onto you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdome of heaven." New American Standard, "The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible", Edited by Spiros Zodhiates Th. D. (which is the bible I am using).

According to this scripture, Jesus seems to be upset at the scribes and Pharisees . And somewhere, and I seemed to have lost it for now, Jesus said that He came to save the "lost" of Israel which He seems to be blaiming the scribes and Pharisees for the "lost" getting lost. So apparently He didn't have a problem with the Law and His purpose seems to have been to free the Jewish people, at least to begin with, from the yoke of their religious leaders. So I appologise for what I said about the Old Testament and for what I said about the Old Testament God. But the question still is, "Are Christians actually worshiping the Father of Jesus?"

Now I have to go back and study LoverofTruth's questions and study what it is that I said in the OP. I still don't think that a lot of Christians are actually worshipping the Father of Jesus and that Jesus may have to come back to save them from their religious leaders.

 

[mystic64]

The co heirs with Christ are only the 144,000( rev 14:3)= the little flock--the bride of Christ--heirs to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus helping judge during judgement.--these are the anointed--the heirs

According to you... *

kjw, Lord Jesus did not actually say that and Inglesva's statement has validity.

 

[metis]

Metis, I am a 100% on the side of Israel and I am not anti Jewish.

My statement was a generic one, so you didn't even have to explain this.

I do understand what you are saying and why Rabbi may or may not be loosing patience with me and I also understand why LoverofTruth is calling me to task . And I applogise to everybody for being an ackward child and I will approach things differently from now on.

You do quite well for yourself, plus no apology is needed-- but thanks anyway as it shows that you have inner-strength.

I did a quick review of the quoted words of Jesus in the first four books of the New Testament and arguing my case is going to be a bit tricky, but I think it might be done. And it all starts here: Matthew 5:17,18, 20; (17) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."; (18) "For truly I say to you, untill Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, untill all is accomplished."; (20) "For I say onto you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdome of heaven." New American Standard, "The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible", Edited by Spiros Zodhiates Th. D. (which is the bible I am using).

According to this scripture, Jesus seems to be upset at the scribes and Pharisees . And somewhere, and I seemed to have lost it for now, Jesus said that He came to save the "lost" of Israel which He seems to be blaiming the scribes and Pharisees for the "lost" getting lost. So apparently He didn't have a problem with the Law and His purpose seems to have been to free the Jewish people, at least to begin with, from the yoke of their religious leaders. So I appologise for what I said about the Old Testament and for what I said about the Old Testament God. But the question still is, "Are Christians actually worshiping the Father of Jesus?"

Jesus was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, as was Paul, and it appears that the main concern over the Law dealt with the issue of whether the entire Law was important or, as Jesus said, all of the Law relates to the love of God and the love of man? Even though one can argue that all of the Law can be summed up with those two Commandments, it's really sort of a "stretch" since many of the Commandments do not at least directly relate to either, such as the various kosher Laws.

But what we see happening in the early church was a gradual walking away from the Law, and there had to be a foundation for that, and to me the only foundation that could have had that degree of influence had to come from Jesus either directly or indirectly.

Anyhow, no matter how we may look at this, one thing is for certain, and that is that the apostolic church walked away from the Law, with the kosher Laws probably being the first to go with Peter's vision.

Matthew 21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”


John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”


Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”

14:20: “All foods are clean.”


I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”


Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”


Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”


Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”

8:7: “If that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second one.”

8:13: “When he says ‘a new covenant’, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”

10:9: “In other words, he takes away the first Covenant to establish the second.”

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jews and Christians Believe in the same God.
If only, because there is only one God.
However we do not ascribe the same nature to him.

I have no problem with this, as I am very much of a Unitarian persuasion. In that I do not yet understand the relationship between God his Son and the Holy spirit. (though I am in my 80th year.)

However I do not understand how it is possible to have a covenant with God or expect any favours from him in return for anything.

From what I have gathered from Rabbis on this forum, Some Jews do talk of an after life, or life to come, but not the elaborate expectation that Christians have. I find this a more realistic concept, and its open endedness matches my own uncertainty in the matter.

 

[metis]

However I do not understand how it is possible to have a covenant with God or expect any favours from him in return for anything.

The Covenant, which later led to the Law, is actually a burden. We have the 613 Laws to concern ourselves with, and Torah says we'd better be observant of them or we pay the price. Since gentiles are not under the Law, it is generally viewed as being far easier for them to please God.

However, since both Jews and Christians strongly believe in compassion and justice for all, we have much in common with each other where it really counts.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

RabbiO is a really good and very intelligent guy, so cut him some slack. It's very frustrating when we are constantly being told that we don't understand the scriptures we wrote, commented on, translated into other languages, and passed on to others. And this goes on day after day after...

And then we're told over and over again that our own little country, Israel, the size of Delaware, shouldn't exist. Other countries can be and have been partitioned such as India, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, etc., and no one questions those, but take a look at how many insist that the former British territory of "Palestine" should have been partitioned whereas the Arabs got 5/6 of the land. There have been many threads dealing with the creation of Israel, but I have yet to see even one thread dealing with the partitioning of the other countries.

Can you see why we sometimes get frustrated?

Neither Israel, Jordan nor Palestine ever was a British territory.
Britain was mandated to administer it by the league of nations. Jordan and Israel are the inheritors of most of it, Palestinians occupy lands that never were authorised by anybody...
The question as to whether it could have been better distributed is answered in relation to who you ask.
There never has been a partition based solely on the Identity, race or tribes of those living there. All partitions in the world have been flawed.

The partition between India and Pakistan and later Bangladesh resulted in one of the largest movement of people ever, with vast numbers of deaths on both sides. The north west border is in armed dispute to this day. It was a major British bodge job.

 

[Ingledsva]

The co heirs with Christ are only the 144,000( rev 14:3)= the little flock--the bride of Christ--heirs to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus helping judge during judgement.--these are the anointed--the heirs.

According to you...


However - It obviously is to ALL.


Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.


Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the sons/children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


*


Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the sons/children of God:


Rom 8:17 And if sons/children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


*


ADD - The verses above are about Gentiles, adopted, etc.


The 144,000 according to Revelation are of the tribes of Israel.


Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


It goes on to count the number from each tribe.



*

So again it appears you are wrong Mr. Kjw47.

 

[metis]

Neither Israel, Jordan nor Palestine ever was a British territory. Britain was mandated to administer it by the league of nations.

Thanks for the correction as I definitely used the wrong word.

Jordan and Israel are the inheritors of most of it, Palestinians occupy lands that never were authorised by anybody...
The question as to whether it could have been better distributed is answered in relation to who you ask.

Agreed.

There never has been a partition based solely on the Identity, race or tribes of those living there. All partitions in the world have been flawed.

Well, "flawed" is maybe too strong because that too is a matter of opinion. However, the first sentence is not correct as partitions often had to do with identity, whether it be by nationality, religion, culture, etc.

The partition between India and Pakistan and later Bangladesh resulted in one of the largest movement of people ever, with vast numbers of deaths on both sides. The north west border is in armed dispute to this day. It was a major British bodge job.

It might have been inevitable even without the raj because of the religious aspect, and it was both Nehru and Jinnah that agreed that it should be done, much to the chagrin of Gandhi.

Which brings me to a point which I posted yesterday on another thread, although this is not really addressed directly to your comments, and that is that partitioning has been done one way or another many times in just the last century (Israel, India, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc.), and yet all we tend to see on these message boards is the debate about the partitioning of Palestine to form Israel, and I see no one questioning whether Jordan should be recognized as a country as well? It's just a constant bashing of Israel from some people (not you), while all of the other partitions are basically ignored, and it begs the question why?



Edit: Oops, I just realized that I posted the above on a religious, not a political, thread, so I will refrain from going on this tact any further. However, if you wish to respond, please feel free to go ahead and do so.

 

[loverOfTruth]

RabbiO is a really good and very intelligent guy, so cut him some slack. It's very frustrating when we are constantly being told that we don't understand the scriptures we wrote, commented on, translated into other languages, and passed on to others. And this goes on day after day after...

And then we're told over and over again that our own little country, Israel, the size of Delaware, shouldn't exist. Other countries can be and have been partitioned such as India, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, etc., and no one questions those, but take a look at how many insist that the former British territory of "Palestine" should have been partitioned whereas the Arabs got 5/6 of the land. There have been many threads dealing with the creation of Israel, but I have yet to see even one thread dealing with the partitioning of the other countries.

Can you see why we sometimes get frustrated?

I don't want to go off topic and make it a thread about Israeli Occupation. However, how you compare the partition of, for example, India to partition of Palestine is beyond me ? India was not partitioned so outsiders could replace the majority in residence. It was simply divided based on the density of existing population based on their religious affiliation. Not to mention India is not expanding at present but Israeli land keeps expanding until today. No comparison at all.

Peace.

 

[metis]

I don't want to go off topic and make it a thread about Israeli Occupation. However, how you compare the partition of, for example, India to partition of Palestine is beyond me ? India was not partitioned so outsiders could replace the majority in residence. It was simply divided based on the density of existing population based on their religious affiliation. Not to mention India is not expanding at present but Israeli land keeps expanding until today. No comparison at all.

Peace.

There were millions involved in the transferring of one to another when India was partitioned, which is actually significantly greater even proportionally to what happened with the partitioning of Palestine. Plus the partitioning was done mainly along religious lines.

Today, Israel has a 20+% Arab population living within its borders, and we certainly don't see lines of them leaving to go to any of the other Middle Eastern countries, which they are free to do.

Also, Jews were not "outsiders" and were actually a majority in certain areas of eretz Israel, and the 1948 boundaries reflect that as the boundaries of Israel then was like an octopus on LSD. Also, a reminder that the Arabs got 5/6 of the land, and those who had to leave Israel would be compensated so as to be able to by land and/or housing in another country.

 

[mystic64]

Thanks for the correction as I definitely used the wrong word.



Agreed.



Well, "flawed" is maybe too strong because that too is a matter of opinion. However, the first sentence is not correct as partitions often had to do with identity, whether it be by nationality, religion, culture, etc.



It might have been inevitable even without the raj because of the religious aspect, and it was both Nehru and Jinnah that agreed that it should be done, much to the chagrin of Gandhi.

Which brings me to a point which I posted yesterday on another thread, although this is not really addressed directly to your comments, and that is that partitioning has been done one way or another many times in just the last century (Israel, India, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc.), and yet all we tend to see on these message boards is the debate about the partitioning of Palestine to form Israel, and I see no one questioning whether Jordan should be recognized as a country as well? It's just a constant bashing of Israel from some people (not you), while all of the other partitions are basically ignored, and it begs the question why?



Edit: Oops, I just realized that I posted the above on a religious, not a political, thread, so I will refrain from going on this tact any further. However, if you wish to respond, please feel free to go ahead and do so.

and yet all we tend to see on these message boards is the debate about the partitioning of Palestine to form Israel, and I see no one questioning whether Jordan should be recognized as a country as well?

The British fellow that was incharge of Palistine after it was taken away from the Turks wanted to divide Palistine so the the Arabs had half and the Jews had half. Everything east of the Jordan went to the Arabs and was called East Jordan which was later shortened to Jordan. Everything west of the Jordan was suppose to go the the Jews. But because of the international community being involved in things this didn't happen. And the Jews were just given pieces of west Palistine and forced into an impossible situation relative to maintaining a country of their own. The Arabs on the other hand were given east Palistine with no questions asked. Anyway the whole thing is sad, very very sad and an example of two loving religions that worship the same God in violent conflict with each other.

 

[loverOfTruth]

There were millions involved in the transferring of one to another when India was partitioned, which is actually significantly greater even proportionally to what happened with the partitioning of Palestine. Plus the partitioning was done mainly along religious lines.

But again, it was people of India divided into different sections of India - no outsiders were brought in to kick out the residents.

Today, Israel has a 20+% Arab population living within its borders, and we certainly don't see lines of them leaving to go to any of the other Middle Eastern countries, which they are free to do.

So ? Even India has a huge Muslim population. Anyone is free to leave and immigrate anywhere (legally if allowed , not by force). What does this have to do with anything ?

Also, Jews were not "outsiders" and were actually a majority in certain areas of eretz Israel, and the 1948 boundaries reflect that as the boundaries of Israel then was like an octopus on LSD. Also, a reminder that the Arabs got 5/6 of the land, and those who had to leave Israel would be compensated so as to be able to by land and/or housing in another country.

Wrong again. I have already shown in a different thread how Muslims were majority in all of Palestine and not only in Transjordan. Only with the advent of Zionism and immigration from outside that the scenario changed. Not interested to discuss the same thing again here. Feel free to read it here :

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3165604-post275.html

Peace.

 

[mystic64]

So again it appears you are wrong Mr. Kjw47.

Originally Posted by Ingledsva
According to you...


However - It obviously is to ALL.


Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.


Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the sons/children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


*


Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the sons/children of God:


Rom 8:17 And if sons/children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


*


ADD - The verses above are about Gentiles, adopted, etc.


The 144,000 according to Revelation are of the tribes of Israel.


Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


It goes on to count the number from each tribe.

The 144,000 according to Revelation are of the tribes of Israel.

Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


It goes on to count the number from each tribe.

And again Ingledsva in my opinion that was very well done! Most of what you post normally is just the very tip of the iceburg relative to what you actually can post. You are an amazing person. And also most Christians are not aware of the fact or are ignoring it, that 144,000 sealed has nothing to do with Christians that do not carry Jewish blood. Only those carrying Jewish blood get to be sealed. The rest of us are at their beck and call .

 

[metis]

But again, it was people of India divided into different sections of India - no outsiders were brought in to kick out the residents.

They weren't "bought in to kick out the residents" as they migrated on their own free will and settled in areas that already had sizable Jewish populations.

So ? Even India has a huge Muslim population. Anyone is free to leave and immigrate anywhere (legally if allowed , not by force). What does this have to do with anything ?

Oh, I see-- anyone but Jews apparently are free to immigrate.

Wrong again. I have already shown in a different thread how Muslims were majority in all of Palestine and not only in Transjordan. Only with the advent of Zionism and immigration from outside that the scenario changed.

That's simply not true as there were many pockets whereas Jews were in the majority by 1948, and this was the main factor in determining what the "octopus on LSD" should look like.

But, the important point here is that Israel exists, so the real question is what are we to do with that, and I would suggest that if all sides opt for peace, there will be peace. And I know for certain that Israel really wants peace, but there are elements in the Arab world that simply say there will not be peace as long as Israel exists.

How many Arab countries never have undeclared their war against Israel? What have been the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah especially in regards tot he state of Israel even existing? No need to answer as it's rather obvious.

 

[metis]

BTW, moderators, the above is the last item from me on this side-bar, so I will only post what directly relates to the OP from this point on.

 

[mystic64]

My statement was a generic one, so you didn't even have to explain this.



You do quite well for yourself, plus no apology is needed-- but thanks anyway as it shows that you have inner-strength.




Jesus was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, as was Paul, and it appears that the main concern over the Law dealt with the issue of whether the entire Law was important or, as Jesus said, all of the Law relates to the love of God and the love of man? Even though one can argue that all of the Law can be summed up with those two Commandments, it's really sort of a "stretch" since many of the Commandments do not at least directly relate to either, such as the various kosher Laws.

But what we see happening in the early church was a gradual walking away from the Law, and there had to be a foundation for that, and to me the only foundation that could have had that degree of influence had to come from Jesus either directly or indirectly.

Anyhow, no matter how we may look at this, one thing is for certain, and that is that the apostolic church walked away from the Law, with the kosher Laws probably being the first to go with Peter's vision.

Matthew 21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”


John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”


Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”

14:20: “All foods are clean.”


I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”


Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”


Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”


Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”

8:7: “If that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second one.”

8:13: “When he says ‘a new covenant’, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”

10:9: “In other words, he takes away the first Covenant to establish the second.”

Metis, what you have posted here, scripture and verse !, proves my claim that or is a proof that the Jewish community had a valid complaint against Jesus because Jesus was radically changing the whole concept of the traditional Jewish religion and replacing the old Law with a new Law thus making the old Law nolonger in effect. This creates the reality that only the prophecy part of the Old Testament is valid and that the rest of the Old Tesament is just history if one follows the words of Jesus as the Christ.

The main problem with a lot of Christians in the past and in today's world is that they are the scribes and Pharisees of Christianity and have been and are the same kind of folks that Jesus had a problem with in His day, and He also claimed that folks like that were not going to get into Heaven. And an arguement could be presented that the Christian folks that follow these Christian scribes and Pharisees are the "lost" of Christianity and are not actually worshipping the Father of Jesus.

 

[metis]

Metis, what you have posted here, scripture and verse !, proves my claim that or is a proof that the Jewish community had a valid complaint against Jesus because Jesus was radically changing the whole concept of the traditional Jewish religion and replacing the old Law with a new Law thus making the old Law nolonger in effect.

But who would supposedly authorize that switch since Torah says that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual"?

This creates the reality that only the prophecy part of the Old Testament is valid and that the rest of the Old Tesament is just history if one follows the words of Jesus as the Christ.

There's a lot more to Torah than just history and prophecy, and if there's anything that it centers more around it's the Law.

The main problem with a lot of Christians in the past and in today's world is that they are the scribes and Pharisees of Christianity and have been and are the same kind of folks that Jesus had a problem with in His day, and He also claimed that folks like that were not going to get into Heaven. And an arguement could be presented that the Christian folks that follow these Christian scribes and Pharisees are the "lost" of Christianity and are not actually worshipping the Father of Jesus.

I really don't get into this.

 

[loverOfTruth]

They weren't "bought in to kick out the residents" as they migrated on their own free will and settled in areas that already had sizable Jewish populations.

That is not true as I have shown in the other thread. And you don't even have to look deeper in the history or data - just look at the current occupation and the settlements.

Oh, I see-- anyone but Jews apparently are free to immigrate.

Please don't twist my words. No one should be allowed to immigrate to a land by taking someone else's land by force.

That's simply not true as there were many pockets whereas Jews were in the majority by 1948, and this was the main factor in determining what the "octopus on LSD" should look like.

Those pockets don't equate to modern day Israel - neither the occupied territories.

But, the important point here is that Israel exists, so the real question is what are we to do with that, and I would suggest that if all sides opt for peace, there will be peace. And I know for certain that Israel really wants peace, but there are elements in the Arab world that simply say there will not be peace as long as Israel exists.

How many Arab countries never have undeclared their war against Israel? What have been the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah especially in regards tot he state of Israel even existing? No need to answer as it's rather obvious.

Following video is clear proof against that statement, where the founder of the settler movement clearly admits that they came here to take the land and that's how it is going to be - no Palestinian state : [youtube]uz8_qzdDdM4[/youtube]
Stone Cold Justice Four Corners - YouTube

This is also my last post regarding this issue in this thread.
Peace.