No true Christian?

[Kenny]

I don't know about you, but I accept the Tanach's explanation of their background - non-Jews who were exiled to Israel by the Assyrians and settled in the Shomron (Samaria).
But even if we say that they are what you say they are, descendants of male Israelites - well, it's not me who says that they aren't Jewish but it's Judaism which says that. Only in more recent times did some sects of Judaism - Reform, in particular - decide that people can be Jews also if only their fathers are Jewish. As this is a recent development, that means that prior to this, they weren't considered Jewish at all. Why? Because the Jewishness comes from the maternal side.

Again... just wanting you to notice that the very thing you said about Christianity does happen among the Jews. So modern times have changed things.

Both.

Notice how you say "both" yet above you say Jewishness comes from the maternal side. So Ruth, technically, wasn't Jewish by birth of a Jewish mother and her decedents weren't Jewish either by birth but by faith. Thus one is justified by faith and not by birth meaning that your lips can say you are Jewish but your heart may be far from YHWH. YHWH may just decide that the Jewishness of a person is by faith and not by birth - the faith of Abraham who was counted as righteous though not born of a Jewish mother.

My point is simple, as far as Jewishness (or Christianishness (new word)) - there are always differences some more poignant than others. You reject Samaritans though they considered themselves as Jews who drank from the well of Jacob. Christians may do the same thing... people are people.

Samaritans, whose origins were Jews, were rejected because they weren't Jewish enough but now they may be considered Jews (by some). A divide.

No. [Knew I should've changed the sentence to 'See if you can find any Jews who still adhere to so some Jewish-centered form of Judaism who'll accept you as a Jew']. See, you suggest that any individual of a group can freely decide anything he wants about the group as a whole, and that'll make it legit/correct. Presumably you believe this because this appears to be what is done in Christianity.

Again... divisiveness. Messianic Jews are Jewish-centered. You can be atheist with Jewishness but not a believer in Christ the Messiah and maintain your Jewishness. Odd, IMO.

As one answered the question "And all (not 'so many.' All Jews) branches of Judaism agree: Messianic "Jews" are non-Jewish, missionary, opportunists who espouse beliefs that are not only not Judaism, but entirely contrary to Jewish doctrine."

Why do so many Jews reject the Messianic Jews as a part of Judaism? | Yahoo Answers

So in reality, the very thing you say about Christians does happen in Judaism. With 2 billion adherents to those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of scriptures, the nuances would be more.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Okay, and? This isn't the same as a bank opening a second branch.

LOL!

 

[Harel13]

Again... just wanting you to notice that the very thing you said about Christianity does happen among the Jews. So modern times have changed things.



Notice how you say "both" yet above you say Jewishness comes from the maternal side. So Ruth, technically, wasn't Jewish by birth of a Jewish mother and her decedents weren't Jewish either by birth but by faith. Thus one is justified by faith and not by birth meaning that your lips can say you are Jewish but your heart may be far from YHWH. YHWH may just decide that the Jewishness of a person is by faith and not by birth - the faith of Abraham who was counted as righteous though not born of a Jewish mother.

My point is simple, as far as Jewishness (or Christianishness (new word)) - there are always differences some more poignant than others. You reject Samaritans though they considered themselves as Jews who drank from the well of Jacob. Christians may do the same thing... people are people.

Samaritans, whose origins were Jews, were rejected because they weren't Jewish enough but now they may be considered Jews (by some). A divide.



Again... divisiveness. Messianic Jews are Jewish-centered. You can be atheist with Jewishness but not a believer in Christ the Messiah and maintain your Jewishness. Odd, IMO.

As one answered the question "And all (not 'so many.' All Jews) branches of Judaism agree: Messianic "Jews" are non-Jewish, missionary, opportunists who espouse beliefs that are not only not Judaism, but entirely contrary to Jewish doctrine."

Why do so many Jews reject the Messianic Jews as a part of Judaism? | Yahoo Answers

So in reality, the very thing you say about Christians does happen in Judaism. With 2 billion adherents to those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of scriptures, the nuances would be more.

I can play this too. Do you accept Islam? How about Baha'i?
Edit: Are all of mankind Christians in the here and now?

 

[Kenny]

I can play this too. Do you accept Islam? How about Baha'i?
Edit: Are all of mankind Christians in the here and now?

I think you are missing the point. My point is simple. Judaism does the same thing that you say Christians are doing. Nothing more... nothing less.

Thus my question to your OP... what is your point?

 

[Vouthon]

For that matter, as a Christian, I also consider myself Jewish.

Hmm, with all due respect Ken (and I do have great respect for you as a person and brother in Christ), is that not a bit of a "risqué" theological statement in terms of Paul's theology?

I, for one, am definetely not Jewish (and would never so identify) but rather a 'Gentile/goy' Catholic Christian. My ethnicity is Scotch-Irish, in nationality I am British and my religion is Catholicism. Jews are people genetically descended from the Patriarchs (the 'people' of Israel) through their maternal line or those from other nations who have made a conscientious decision to subject themselves to the Torah and been accepted, by the Jewish community, as a halakhic proselyte. Christians are neither.

There is, of course, that verse in Romans about a true Jew being one who is a Jew "inwardly" (which I can only assume you must be relying upon here for this - in my personal estimation - otherwise bewildering self-declaration of Jewishness), in terms of spiritual circumcision of the heart, in addition to the covenantal nominalism of being physically circumcised, but that was a figurative analogy - stressing that ethnic Jewishness, alone, is not sufficient for salvation. In saying this, Paul was not giving carte blanche for Gentile converts to Christianity (which, in Greek, means literally "Messianism") to regard themselves as Jews.

Yes, our belief system was founded by Torah-observant Jews who did identify with the Jewish religion and people but those foundational figures - Jesus's Apostles, particularly Peter, James and Paul - were not trying to convert us all to a form/branch of Judaism.

Indeed, Paul was insistent throughout his letters that there is a binary distinction (physically and in cultic observance) between the 'circumcised' under the Sinai covenant and 'uncircumcised' who are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (not the Mosaic covenant) as Goyim and on the other hand the children of Israel, the Jews, who are subject to both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Gentile converts thus - according to the New Testament - should not adhere to the ceremonial, dietary or puritannical mitzvot of the Torah: because the Sinai covenant was revealed for "Jews" alone.

Originally, a form of Noahidism was promulgated for Gentiles at the council of Jerusalem (circa. A.D. 50) but Paul then extended this application further for his Gentile congregations, such that they would have absolutely no dietary or cultic restrictions derived from the Torah at all but be bound solely by the moral law of the Torah, in addition to the extended deposit of faith and morals in the New Testament (for Catholics both written word and oral tradition).

And this has remained the case until today, with the exception of "Judaizing" denominations of Christianity (i.e. Seventh Day Adventists) that - on premises unknown to me, although I respect their conscientious decision on this - seemingly justify going against the clear word of the Apostolic Decree at the Council of Jerusalem and the Pauline Epistles that Gentiles are not to be "Judaized" but instead brought to belief and worship of the God of Israel through Jesus Christ as Gentiles (culturally, ethnically and religiously).

 

[Kenny]

Hmm, with all due respect Ken (and I do have great respect for you as a person and brother in Christ), is that not a bit of a "risqué" theological statement in terms of Paul's theology?

I, for one, am definetely not Jewish (and would never so identify) but rather a 'Gentile/goy' Catholic Christian. My ethnicity is Scotch-Irish and my religion is Catholicism. Jews are people genetically descended from the Patriarchs (the 'people' of Israel) through their maternal line or those from other nations who have made a conscientious decision to subject themselves to the Torah and been accepted, by the Jewish community, as a halakhic proselyte. Christians are neither.

There is, of course, that verse in Romans about a true Jew being one who is a Jew "inwardly" (which I can only assume you must be relying upon here for this - in my eyes - peculiar self-declaration of alleged Jewishness), in terms of spiritual circumcision of the heart, in addition to the covenantal nominalism of being physically circumcised, but that was a figurative analogy - stressing that ethnic Jewishness, alone, is not sufficient for salvation. In saying this, Paul was not giving carte blanche for Gentile converts to Christianity (which, in Greek, means literally "Messianism")

Yes, our belief system was founded by Torah-observant Jews who did identify with the Jewish religion and people but those foundational figures - Jesus's Apostles, particularly Peter, James and Paul - were not trying to convert us all to a form/branch of Judaism.

Indeed, Paul was insistent throughout his letters that there is a binary distinction (physically and in cultic observance) between the 'circumcised' under the Sinai covenant and 'uncircumcised' who are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant (not the Mosaic covenant) as Goyim and on the other hand the children of Israel, the Jews, who are subject to both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Gentile converts thus - according to the New Testament - should not adhere to the ceremoniakl, dietary or puritannical mitzvot of the Torah: because the Sinai covenant was for "Jews" alone.

Originally, a form of Noahidism was promulgated for Gentiles at the council of Jerusalem (circa. A.D. 50) but Paul then extended this application further for his Gentile congregations, such that they would have absolutely no dietary or cultic restrictions derived from the Torah at all but be bound solely by the moral law of the Torah.

And this has remained the case until today, with the exception of "Judaizing" denominations of Christianity (i.e. Seventh Day Adventists) that - on premises unknown to me - seemingly justify going against the clear word of the Apostolic Decree at the Council of Jerusalem and the Pauline Epistles that Gentiles are not to be "Judaized" but to belief and worship of the God of Israel through Jesus Christ as Gentiles (culturally, ethnically and religiously).

Perhaps risqué... but, then again, there is a support...

Romans 11 - grafted into the Olive Tree. :17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root

"Judaizers" is more about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law IMV. Concentrating on the shadow vs the one casting the shadow. So I am talking more about the spirit of Life here. Since Jesus is my brother and he is from the tribe of Judah, I have been engrafted (through faith as did Abraham and Ruth) into the Olive Tree of God.

Agree so much with what you posted - with some that I did not.

EDITTED

 

[Harel13]

Perhaps risqué... but, then again, there is a support...

Romans 11 - grafted into the Olive Tree. :17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root

"Judaizers" is more about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law IMV. Concentrating on the shadow vs the one casting the shadow. So I am talking more about the spirit of Life here. Since Jesus is my brother and he is from the tribe of Judah, I have been engrafted (through faith as did Abraham and Ruth) into the Olive Tree of God.

Agree so much with what you posted - with some that I did not.

EDITTED

In the poll thread you professed that you consider Mormons to be Christians. Does that mean you view their grafting of new scriptures onto the NT okay?

 

[Kenny]

In the poll thread you professed that you consider Mormons to be Christians. Does that mean you view their grafting of new scriptures onto the NT okay?

God judges the heart - not the outward appearance. Did Jeroboam cease being Jewish because he added two calves, one at Dan and one at Bethel?

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps... but, then again, there is a support...

Romans 11 - grafted into the Olive Tree. :17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root

"Judaizers" is more about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law IMV. Concentrating on the shadow vs the one casting the shadow. So I am talking more about the spirit of Life here. Since Jesus is my brother and he is from the tribe of Judah, I have been engrafted (through faith as did Abraham and Ruth) into the Olive Tree of God.

In Christian theological terms, I would concur that we have both been grafted spiritually, through circumcision of the heart (as described first by Moses: "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live" [Deuteronomy 30:6]) into the Olive Tree of faith, the roots of which are the Patriarchs, Torah and prophets.

St. Paul describes the Jews as being the "natural branches" thereof (both physically circumcised / descended from the Patriarchs and subject to the Torah, as well as spiritually circumcised, insofar as they are faithful to that calling in their observance of the mitzvot), whereas believing Gentiles are the "wild olive shoots" of the Abrahamic covenant, henceforth extended by Christ to the entire human race.

That does not, however, annul the physical and cultic differentiation between the 'covenanted' people of Israel (Jews) bound by the Torah and the rest of the world's nations, which are not so covenanted. The original conception of the 'church' was meant to be embracive of both 'Jews and Gentiles' as brethren in a new shared Abrahamic covenant in Christ.

So, on the one hand, the distinction was thought to have been entirely transcended in spirit (through shared belief, good works, praise and worship of God in tandem, with Gentile acceptance of the truth of the Torah and Nevi'im), such that:

"Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised...remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But Christ has made peace between Jews and Gentiles, for He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14)

However, the distinction between 'Jews and Gentiles' in ethne and cult remained permanently in Paul's mind, as the Jewish New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen explains:


Paul and Judaism

When Paul speaks against circumcision, he speaks against circumcision for Gentiles (Letter to the Galatians). When Paul speaks against sacrifice, he speaks against sacrifices to Gentile gods (1Cor 10). When Paul speaks of “justification” apart from the Law, he speaks to and for Gentiles (Letter to the Galatians). When Paul speaks about “the law of sin” and death, he contrasts it specifically with the Law of God, by which he means the Torah (Rom 7:22-24). Only the Jewish Scriptures are God’s “oracles” (Rom 3:2); only Israel’s is a “living and true God” (1Thess 1:9). His “kindred according to the flesh” are God’s “children”; the temple, the covenants, the Law, and the sacrifices (weakly translated as “worship” in the New Revised Standard Version) are all marks of the Jewish people’s God-given special status (Rom 9:3-5). All of these elements constitute Torah.

Paul does insist that Gentiles-in-Christ do not need to “become” Jews (that is, for men, to circumcise, as he says in his letter to the Galatians). But he also insists that baptized Gentiles must assume a singularly Jewish public behavior: they must not worship pagan gods any longer. Depending on the point he pursues, in brief, Paul says both that Gentiles are “free” from the Law and that they must live according to its requirements (see especially Rom 13:8-10)....

The Gentiles’ inclusion in the Jesus movement was one more proof, for Paul, that God was about to accomplish the “mystery” of Israel’s salvation (Rom 11:25-32). It was only long after his lifetime that Christianity developed into a culture that was in principle non-Jewish, even anti-Jewish. But in his own generation—which Paul was convinced was history’s last generation—the Jesus movement was yet one more variety of late Second Temple Judaism.​

Perhaps we should take glance at Paul's long exegetical argument in Romans chapter 2-3. Note in particular the lines I emphasise in bold:

"6For [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11For God shows no partiality.

12 All who have sinned apart from the Torah will also perish apart from the Torah, and all who have sinned under the Torah will be judged by the Torah. 13For it is not the hearers of the Torah who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the Torah who will be justified. 14When Gentiles, who do not possess the Torah, do instinctively what the Torah requires, these, though not having the Torah, are a law to themselves. 15They show that what the Torah requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Torah; but if you break the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision....

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means!...

29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we then overthrow the Torah by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah"

(Romans 2:6-3:31)​

His argument here is quite simple when you boil it down: God will judge each person whether Jew or Gentile by their 'deeds', which will determine their ultimate salvation insofar as accompanied by an explicit or implicit faith in God animated by love, however anyone who sins 'apart' from the Torah (Gentiles) will perish apart from it whereas all those who sin under the Torah (Jews) will be judged by God on the basis of their faithfulness to the Torah, because it is the "doers" of the Torah (whether practised morally by Gentiles, through nature, or through the revealed Torah for Jews) who are justified before God. Gentiles who do not know the Torah are evidence that the moral laws of the Torah are eternal principles of 'natural law' and God will accuse or excuse them based upon that metric.

Finally, Paul makes the point that those 'Christian' (to engage in historical anachronism, more technical term would be 'Messianist') Jews and Gentiles who now share a common "faith" in God and belief in the Torah through the New Testament, will both be justified by that faith (animated by love and judged by our deeds). But that common 'faith' does not "overthrow the Torah", which remains binding on Jews as a people but not Gentiles.

Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, two Israeli Jewish scholars at Tel Aviv University, recently produced a very compelling study of Paul's views on the Jewish / Gentile (or more accurately, in his context, Israel / other nations) distinction:

Paul, the Gentiles, and the Other(s) in Jewish Discourse — ANCIENT JEW REVIEW

 

[Harel13]

God judges the heart - not the outward appearance. Did Jeroboam cease being Jewish because he added two calves, one at Dan and one at Bethel?

Deflection.

But I think your answer is that you, too, draw the line at some point. You don't deny Mormons' Christianity but you do deny their scriptures. Good, we're on the same page. I don't deny proper Jews' Judaism but I do deny some of their views - messianics, for example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What, Christianity? Jews drawing lines against Christianity is nothing new. That started in 'ancient Judaism'.

That's right.

I've never suggested there aren't any boundaries in Judaism. At one point, people who cross enough lines are pushed off - they may keep their Jewish identity - if they are born as Jews or properly converted - but that doesn't legitimize everything they do.

Right: and I'm saying that the boundaries within Christianity are similar to the boundaries within Judaism.

Hey, here's an example: do you consider "Messianic Jews" to be actual Jews?

In Christianity, though, every denomination has a different set of boundaries - group x may think you're okay, but group y will be ready to burn you at the stake.

AFAIK, no major Christian group has burned another at the stake for centuries. Seems to me that your impression is a bit out of date.

Also, I think you may have a false idea of what all the Christian denominations are about.

Yes, there are supposedly 30,000 denominations, but not all of these denominations have doctrinal differences with the others; most of that division is administrative, effectively.

Generally, most Christians see the Trinity as the dividing line: Trinitarians are Christians and non-Trinitarians are not.

There's no doctrinal difference between the "Orthodox" churches; the main difference between them is the language they use for services.

There's no doctrinal difference between any of the 24 denominations in communion with Rome.

There's some doctrinal difference between some Protestant denominations, but not enough for them to consider each other heretics. It's very common for Protestants to switch congregations: for instance, someone raised in a Baptist church might decide to attend a Methodist church if they happen to like it better.

It's even been common for denominations to merge: the United Church of Canada - the largest Protestant denomination in the country - was formed from the merger of a bunch of Methodist, Presbyterian & Congregationalist churches.

... so it's definitely not the case that, say, Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists consider each other heretics just because they're separate denominations.

Typically, most Christians - if they're going to draw the line somewhere at all - draw it at the Trinity... and without looking up numbers, I'd guess that non-Trinitarian Christians are about the same proportion of Christians as "Jews for Jesus" are of Jews (or at least around the same order of magnitude).

 

[Vouthon]

Deflection.

But I think your answer is that you, too, draw the line at some point. You don't deny Mormons' Christianity but you do deny their scriptures. Good, we're on the same page. I don't deny proper Jews' Judaism but I do deny some of their views - messianics, for example.

I, at the least, am on the same page with you concerning the above.

Mormons are fellow Christians, in my estimation - just not 'orthodox' ones on the level of Catholics, Protestants, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox (Nicene Christianity). Thus, I do not as a Catholic accept the additional LDS scriptural books, over and above the Tanakh and New Testament (which for me includes both written word / sacred oral tradition) e.g. the Book of Mormon, The Doctrines and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price.

Nor do I agree with some of the theological beliefs peculiar to Mormon Christianity that were formulated on the basis of these supplemental books (which Mormons regard as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", whereas mainstream Nicene Christians regard divine revelation to have ceased after the end of the Apostolic Age, roughly 100 C.E. or thereabouts, with only progressive development of doctrine transpiring within the completed revelation from thereon but with no new public dispensation 'over and above' the New Covenant being possible).

I take it that a 'Messianic' Jew (one who professes belief in Jesus as Messiah and the divine inspiration of the New Testament) can still be accepted as Jewish ethnically and culturally (even, in some limited sense if he/she is Torah observant both in terms of the the Written and Oral Torah) maybe culticly Jewish too, but religious Judaism would reject his/her (as they would deem it) heretical/erroneous doctrines based upon the additional New Testament books which are rejected.

 

[Harel13]

Hey, here's an example: do you consider "Messianic Jews" to be actual Jews?

Yes. But their views are not Jewish. In my understanding, many Christians don't make this distinction - if a person's views aren't Christian according to the other person, that makes the first person not Christian.

AFAIK, no major Christian group has burned another at the stake for centuries.

It's an expression.

Also, I think you may have a false idea of what all the Christian denominations are about.

Could very well may be. Which is why I asked to be corrected in my OP.

 

[Vouthon]

Also, I think you may have a false idea of what all the Christian denominations are about.

Yes, there are supposedly 30,000 denominations, but not all of these denominations have doctrinal differences with the others; most of that division is administrative, effectively.

Generally, most Christians see the Trinity as the dividing line: Trinitarians are Christians and non-Trinitarians are not.

There's no doctrinal difference between the "Orthodox" churches; the main difference between them is the language they use for services.

There's no doctrinal difference between any of the 24 denominations in communion with Rome.

I am so glad you explained this, as I had assumed going into the debate that this would already have been understood by all those involved. Evidently, I now recognize some people may not appreciate that Catholics, Protestants, EO and OO share "Nicene Trinitarianism" in common and generally rely upon the creed as the benchmark of (small-c) orthodoxy today, such that outside of particularly extreme segments within these churches, other Nicene Christians in different denominations are not considered "heretics / believers in heresy".

Beyond Nicene Christianity, there are other Christians (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons) who are still regarded by many Nicene Christians, myself included, as fellow Christians but whose theologies are regarded as heretical in certain respects for going against Nicene Orthodoxy (equivalent to minim, I guess, in Judaism).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. But their views are not Jewish. In my understanding, many Christians don't make this distinction - if a person's views aren't Christian according to the other person, that makes the first person not Christian.

That isn't the position of any of the denominations that practice infant baptism (e.g. the Catholic Church, which includes the majority of Christians). To them, every person who has been baptized is a Christian. To them, nothing a person believes or does can make that person "not Christian." Heretical views would merely make the person a bad Christian.

Not even excommunication is considered to make someone "not Christian anymore."

(... which is why I also condemned infant baptism in that recent thread on circumcision)

And even with the Protestants who define Christianity in terms of belief, things get weird, because belief as a marker of Christianity is only important to them as evidence that someone has been "saved" by God. They hold to the idea of "once saved, always saved," which has the corollary that someone whose behaviour "shows" that they aren't saved was never saved and therefore never a Christian, regardless of how devoutly they believed or how often they went to church when they did believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am so glad you explained this, as I had assumed going into the debate that this would already have been understood by all those involved. Evidently, I now recognize some people may not appreciate that Catholics, Protestants, EO and OO share "Nicene Trinitarianism" in common and generally rely upon the creed as the benchmark of (small-c) orthodoxy, such that outside of particularly extreme segments within these churches, other Nicene Christians in different denominations are not considered "heretics / believers in heresy".

Beyond Nicene Christianity, there are other Christians (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons) who are still regarded by many Nicene Christians, myself included, as fellow Christians but whose theologies are regarded as heretical in certain respects for going against Nicene Orthodoxy (equivalent to minim, I guess, in Judaism).

I've seen the misunderstanding before, especially from atheists.

I think some people read too much into the number of Christian denominations, since a huge number of them are individual churches who might agree on every point with a bunch of other churches, but those churches don't organize themselves into a single denomination because they don't want to be subject to a central authority that's an intermediary between their church and God.

 

[Kenny]

Deflection.

But I think your answer is that you, too, draw the line at some point. You don't deny Mormons' Christianity but you do deny their scriptures. Good, we're on the same page. I don't deny proper Jews' Judaism but I do deny some of their views - messianics, for example.

But we aren't talking about "scriptures" thus my answer isn't a "deflection". I pointed out that Jewishness and division exists within Jewish thought and you wanted to establish that it was only a "Christian" problem.

Your answer was to point out that there is some differences that are irreconcilable within the Christian faith, which there are, but we are still Christian. I would venture than Jeroboam was also a difference that was irreconcilable yet still Jewish.

So, we should be able to agree that we both have differences but love seems to override the differences.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I think it is in your view. They were Israelites who intermarried with Assyrians. Eventually the Jews decided they weren't Jewish enough. This, in essence, is a great example of what you say Christian are doing.



Just saying that I think YHWH may not have the perspective you have.



So, then, it is a matter of faith and not by birth?



The Messianic Jews do.

Does a Messianic Jew cease from his Jewishness?

What do you think about this? It has me a little concerned due to a surgery that turned me into a real Sutekh.


"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD"

Deuteronomy 23:1

 

[Vouthon]

Just to reiterate the point:


Nicene Christianity - Wikipedia

Nicene Christianity is a set of Christian doctrinal traditions which reflect the Nicene Creed, which was formulated[1] at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and amended at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381.[2]

Today's mainstream Christian Churches (including all of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Ancient Churches, Lutheran and Anglican churches, as well as most Protestant denominations) adhere to the Nicene Creed and thus exemplify Nicene Christianity.

Today, examples of non-Nicene Christian denominations encompass both Protestant and non-Protestant non-trinitarian groups. Examples of these groups include the majority of the Latter Day Saint movement (with the exception of the Nicene Mormon group known as the Community of Christ [formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]), the Unitarian Church of Transylvania, Oneness Pentecostals, and others.

​

As the article notes, even a relatively small sect of the LDS/Mormonism - named the 'Community of Christ' - are actually Nicene in theology and thus accepted by mainstream Christians as being an "orthodox" branch of the religion, although they also believe in the validity and divine inspiration of the additional Mormon scriptures (which non-LDS Nicene reject):


Community of Christ - Wikipedia

The Community of Christ, known from 1872 to 2001 as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is an American-based international church,[2] and is the second-largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement.

The Community of Christ was founded as a Restorationist church, although today attitudes are largely congruent with mainline Protestant Christianity. While it generally rejects the term Mormon to describe its members, the church abides by a number of theological distinctions unique to Mormonism, including but not limited to: prophetic revelation, a priesthood polity, the use of the Book of Mormon in some contexts, and belief in an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom.[5][6][7][8][9] In many respects, the church differs from the larger Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and most other Latter Day Saint denominations in its religious liberalism, belief in the traditional conception of the trinity (as opposed to a godhead of three separate and distinct beings), and rejection of exaltation and the plan of salvation.

​

The Community of Christ are an example of how difficult and porous it can be to draw, precisely, the religious 'borderlines', as they are effectively Nicene Mormons (which might sound like a contradiction in terms but isn't in their case).

 

[Kenny]

I will omit some of the quotations for "word limit" purposes.

In Christian theological terms, I would concur that we have both been grafted spiritually, through circumcision of the heart (as described first by Moses: ...

St. Paul describes the Jews as being the "natural branches" thereof (both physically circumcised / descended from the Patriarchs and subject to the Torah, as well as spiritually circumcised, insofar as they are faithful to that calling in their observance of the mitzvot), whereas believing Gentiles are the "wild olive shoots" of the Abrahamic covenant, henceforth extended by Christ to the entire human race.

agreed.

However, the distinction between 'Jews and Gentiles' in ethne and cult remained permanently in Paul's mind, as the Jewish New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen explains:

Paul and Judaism

...
Paul does insist that Gentiles-in-Christ do not need to “become” Jews (that is, for men, to circumcise, as he says in his letter to the Galatians). But he also insists that baptized Gentiles must assume a singularly Jewish public behavior: they must not worship pagan gods any longer. Depending on the point he pursues, in brief, Paul says both that Gentiles are “free” from the Law and that they must live according to its requirements (see especially Rom 13:8-10)....

The Gentiles’ inclusion in the Jesus movement was one more proof, for Paul, that God was about to accomplish the “mystery” of Israel’s salvation (Rom 11:25-32). It was only long after his lifetime that Christianity developed into a culture that was in principle non-Jewish, even anti-Jewish. But in his own generation—which Paul was convinced was history’s last generation—the Jesus movement was yet one more variety of late Second Temple Judaism.

I'm not quite sure I can agree in the totality though in practicality I would agree. There is a cultural difference that will forever be different. God, I believe, has no problem with a difference in culture. But cultural difference doesn't make a heart difference. The culture I was immersed in Venezuela isn't the culture here in the US. Both are wonderfully different but the faith in Jesus is the same.

Circumcision of the heart was what God was looking for. The outward was suppose to have been a sign of the heart decision. It ended up being a cultural decision IMV as if but by the act of circumcision you automatically were circumcised in the heart.

The effort of circumcision of Gentiles was making the statement that to be part of God, a holy nation, a peculiar people you had to have the outward sign that Jews were commanded to do. But going back to the Law was no longer necessary when faith was exercised, as the quote pointed out, both believing Jews and Gentiles were free from the Law.

So the point of Galatians was that it was not by the "working of the law" that one was justified but by the exercising of the faith of Abraham (who had no Jewish Law) as also established in Ephesians and, therefore, the custom (though permitted) wasn't a requirement.

Perhaps we should take glance at Paul's long exegetical argument in Romans chapter 2-3. Note in particular the lines I emphasise in bold:

"6For [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11For God shows no partiality.

...
25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Torah; but if you break the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision....

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means!...

29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we then overthrow the Torah by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah"

(Romans 2:6-3:31)

His argument here is quite simple when you boil it down: God will judge each person whether Jew or Gentile by their 'deeds', which will determine their ultimate salvation insofar as accompanied by an explicit or implicit faith in God animated by love, however anyone who sins 'apart' from the Torah (Gentiles) will perish apart from it whereas all those who sin under the Torah (Jews) will be judged by God on the basis of their faithfulness to the Torah, because it is the "doers" of the Torah (whether practised morally by Gentiles, through nature, or through the revealed Torah for Jews) who are justified before God. Gentiles who do not know the Torah are evidence that the moral laws of the Torah are eternal principles of 'natural law' and God will accuse or excuse them based upon that metric.

I think, because of just looking at a few chapters, we have missed the totality of the compendium of Romans. (Unless I misunderstand your point)

Is there a recompense to deeds? Absolutely as stated. Is it saying that works is the prerequisite for salvation? not at all.

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. , since the law (even the Gentile laws of Chapter 2) just places us under the banner of "For all have sinned". If you live by the law, you are judged by the law (for the Jews) annulling faith.

Finally, Paul makes the point that those 'Christian' (to engage in historical anachronism, more technical term would be 'Messianist') Jews and Gentiles who now share a common "faith" in God and belief in the Torah through the New Testament, will both be justified by that faith (animated by love and judged by our deeds). But that common 'faith' does not "overthrow the Torah", which remains binding on Jews as a people but not Gentiles.

Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, two Israeli Jewish scholars at Tel Aviv University, recently produced a very compelling study of Paul's views on the Jewish / Gentile (or more accurately, in his context, Israel / other nations) distinction:

Paul, the Gentiles, and the Other(s) in Jewish Discourse — ANCIENT JEW REVIEW

I will have to review this review with detail so I'm not commenting on it at this time. But surely the Torah is still needed (for it remains the schoolmaster) and certainly love automatically fulfills the commandments

But obviously the Torah, in many areas, does not remain binding on the Jews that have trusted in Jesus as he mentioned in Galatians..."10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”"

and again in 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

So faith that works by and is energized by love overrides and supersedes the law and places into effect mercy that rejoiceth over judgment.

edited