The heresy that shook - Marcion of Sinope

[firedragon]

We only know about Marcion's heresy from the Church fathers who wrote against him. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology 26 that Marcion was preaching of a second God who is "supposedly" greater than the creator God. The manner in which Justin Martyr writes about Marcion shows that he may have had a huge following enough to mock the other Christians or the Church that Justin refers to as "us". Which obviously means many had actually taken Marcion's ideas seriously enough to defy the so called "us". Three including Justin, tertullian, Iraneus had severe admonishments against Marcion which shows he was a more significant heretic than most, of course later a much simpler heresy created a whirlwind. Well, one must admit that Justin Martyr was a bit lenient than others. Iranaeus was the man behind the scene really. It was him who began the journey in calling out on any one against his view into a heretic, and Marion was one.

One could either trust Justin Martyr completely and believe Marcion was indeed a heretic who preached two God's, or take what he says with a pinch of salt. Did Marcion actually preach two God's? Is it just irony or is there something in Iranaeus being trigger happy to call people "heretics" more than calling out "heresies"?

Marcion seemingly had his own canon, or rather the oldest canon mentioned by the church fathers. He had only one gospel, not four. Thus, his idea of the God of the Gospel that Jesus preached was different to the God of the Tanakh who was a vengeful God. Was an idiot or was he just thinking? Isn't it true in a way that the God depicted in the Pauline letters and the so called "Gospel" of Marcion would have been quite different to the God of the Mosaic teaching? On the face of it, the Old Testament God according to scripture was cruel in his wrath. He would command severe punishment and death to women and babies while the God of Marcion's canon as believed by him to be the God preached by Jesus Christ was a merciful God, although we dont really know if he had a different Gospel or one of the four canonised. Thus, thinking in these lines was not just a thinker who was making a deduction?

Thinking of the possible reasoning behind it, if it was one single God, he changed his nature. But does God change his nature? No. God doesn't change his nature. Thus in his mind, it was a stupendous but obvious answer. There are two God's. One good, one severe. One superior, one inferior.

One of the most important things that a lot of us seem to miss is that it was Marcion who supposedly had the idea of a New Testament canon. You cannot rule out that anyone ever had the idea of a canon but this is the one recorded as earliest. So credit must go to him for conceptualising the canon and seeing it through with the Pauline letters and the Gospel.

Does anyone think that Marcion's heresy was a complete myth created through legend? There were others who preached expanding on this heresy with several God's as well, all this while believing Jesus Christ had his ministry on earth too. Was Marcion just one of these people? If so, how could he have had such a big following? What about his idea of two God's? Though it seems like such an extreme stance to take, is not his thinking somewhat reasonable? Also, did he simply argue that the concepts of God is so wildly different that it is almost as if there were two Gods which is an argument, but later Justin Martyr and others just started to believe that Marcion actually preached there were two God's?

What do you think?

 

[Kenny]

We only know about Marcion's heresy from the Church fathers who wrote against him. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology 26 that Marcion was preaching of a second God who is "supposedly" greater than the creator God. The manner in which Justin Martyr writes about Marcion shows that he may have had a huge following enough to mock the other Christians or the Church that Justin refers to as "us". Which obviously means many had actually taken Marcion's ideas seriously enough to defy the so called "us". Three of the major church fathers including Justin, tertullian, Iraneus had severe admonishments against Marcion which shows he was a more significant heretic than most, of course later a much simpler heresy created a whirlwind. Well, one must admit that Justin Martyr was a bit lenient than others. Iranaeus was the man behind the scene really. It was him who began the journey in calling out on any one against his view into a heretic, and Marion was one.

One could either trust Justin Martyr completely and believe Marcion was indeed a heretic who preached two God's, or take what he says with a pinch of salt. Did Marcion actually preach two God's? Is it just irony or is there something in Iranaeus being trigger happy to call people "heretics" more than calling out "heresies"?

Marcion seemingly had his own canon, or rather the oldest canon mentioned by the church fathers. He had only one gospel, not four. Thus, his idea of the God of the Gospel that Jesus preached was different to the God of the Tanakh who was a vengeful God. Was an idiot or was he just thinking? Isn't it true in a way that the God depicted in the Pauline letters and the so called "Gospel" of Marcion would have been quite different to the God of the Mosaic teaching? On the face of it, the Old Testament God according to scripture was cruel in his wrath. He would command severe punishment and death to women and babies while the God of Marcion's canon as believed by him to be the God preached by Jesus Christ was a merciful God, although we dont really know if he had a different Gospel or one of the four canonised. Thus, thinking in these lines was not just a thinker who was making a deduction?

Thinking of the possible reasoning behind it, if it was one single God, he changed his nature. But does God change his nature? No. God doesn't change his nature. Thus in his mind, it was a stupendous but obvious answer. There are two God's. One good, one severe. One superior, one inferior.

One of the most important things that a lot of us seem to miss is that it was Marcion who supposedly had the idea of a New Testament canon. You cannot rule out that anyone ever had the idea of a canon but this is the one recorded as earliest. So credit must go to him for conceptualising the canon and seeing it through with the Pauline letters and the Gospel.

Does anyone think that Marcion's heresy was a complete myth created through legend? There were others who preached expanding on this heresy with several God's as well, all this while believing Jesus Christ had his ministry on earth too. Was Marcion just one of these people? If so, how could he have had such a big following? What about his idea of two God's? Though it seems like such an extreme stance to take, is not his thinking somewhat reasonable? Also, did he simply argue that the concepts of God is so wildly different that it is almost as if there were two Gods which is an argument, but later Justin Martyr and others just started to believe that Marcion actually preached there were two God's?

What do you think?

Never heard of the guy... but there are a lot of questions that are raised by your post.

When you use "supposedly had the idea... canon" - leaves a great gap of veracity. He could have been one of many, one who discussed with others about the possibility and a host of other "possibilities".

When you say "We only know about Marcion's heresy from the Church fathers who wrote against him. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology 26 that Marcion was preaching of a second God who is "supposedly" greater than the creator God." - it leaves much to be desired. Apparently not "just" or "only" the Church fathers but Justin Marty also. So if you add a multiple of witnesses and then reduce it to: "One could either trust Justin Martyr completely and believe Marcion was indeed a heretic who preached two God's, or take what he says with a pinch of salt." would be an erroneous statement since the church Fathers also deemed his position to be wrong..

I could go on... but my point is you haven't really supported Marcion's position.

Do you have more or better information that just "supposedlies" et al?

 

[Harel13]

Apparently not "just" or "only" the Church fathers but Justin Marty also.

Justin Martyr isn't considered a Church father?

 

[Kenny]

Justin Martyr isn't considered a Church father?

OOOPS! My brain thought of Josephus when I read Justin Martyr.

So, yes, you are correct and I am corrected!

Or, as some people say it, "I was just checking up on the reader to make sure they were paying attention"

 

[firedragon]

Never heard of the guy... but there are a lot of questions that are raised by your post.

When you use "supposedly had the idea... canon" - leaves a great gap of veracity. He could have been one of many, one who discussed with others about the possibility and a host of other "possibilities".

When you say "We only know about Marcion's heresy from the Church fathers who wrote against him. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology 26 that Marcion was preaching of a second God who is "supposedly" greater than the creator God." - it leaves much to be desired. Apparently not "just" or "only" the Church fathers but Justin Marty also. So if you add a multiple of witnesses and then reduce it to: "One could either trust Justin Martyr completely and believe Marcion was indeed a heretic who preached two God's, or take what he says with a pinch of salt." would be an erroneous statement since the church Fathers also deemed his position to be wrong..

I could go on... but my point is you haven't really supported Marcion's position.

Do you have more or better information that just "supposedlies" et al?

1. You want me to "support" marcion's position? Why?
2. Its already said in the post that there are only "supposedly" accounts from the church fathers who are also mentioned.

 

[firedragon]

Justin Martyr isn't considered a Church father?

Answers all the questions. Great.

 

[Kenny]

1. You want me to "support" marcion's position? Why?
2. Its already said in the post that there are only "supposedly" accounts from the church fathers who are also mentioned.

1) Sorry for lack of clarity... not you support his position but a link to support what you have posted.
2) OK

So, basically what are you wanting to address.

 

[firedragon]

1) Sorry for lack of clarity... not you support his position but a link to support what you have posted.

A link? You mean a webpage? Sorry brother I dont have webpages. But I can name a book or two on the subject. Actually I have given primary sources to be read. "Justin Martyr apology". You could read "the birth of the New Testament by CFD Moule. Or Sebastian Moll, the arch heretic marcion.

I think brother, after a bit of research about Marcion heresy, you will probably understand the question of the post clearly.

 

[Kenny]

A link? You mean a webpage? Sorry brother I dont have webpages. But I can name a book or two on the subject. Actually I have given primary sources to be read. "Justin Martyr apology". You could read "the birth of the New Testament by CFD Moule. Or Sebastian Moll, the arch heretic marcion.

I think brother, after a bit of research about Marcion heresy, you will probably understand the question of the post clearly.

Thank you.

But still don't understand what exactly your point is. i.e.. We should include his viewpoints in the NT? We should have a different canon?

Or were you just sharing info.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you.

But still don't understand what exactly your point is. i.e.. We should include his viewpoints in the NT? We should have a different canon?

Or were you just sharing info.

Of course not. There is nothing in the post about anything that we "should" have brother. It is all about pondering. Thinking.

1. Did marcion commit a heresy or was he just "thinking and pondering"?
2. Or was a heretic that deserves the shunning?
3. Does he deserve some kind of credit to have had the earliest bible canon?

These are some of the questions to ponder over and discuss. I am sorry if I am not clear in my OP, but honestly I assumed that anyone who responds to the thread would have a good knowledge of the most famous man, called a heretic and written about by church fathers, elders and scholars throughout the whole of Christendom since we knew about the early events. It is impossible to create a post and write a whole thesis brother. Thus, what could I do but apologise to have a lack of information?

 

[Kenny]

Of course not. There is nothing in the post about anything that we "should" have brother. It is all about pondering. Thinking.

1. Did marcion commit a heresy or was he just "thinking and pondering"?
2. Or was a heretic that deserves the shunning?
3. Does he deserve some kind of credit to have had the earliest bible canon?

These are some of the questions to ponder over and discuss. I am sorry if I am not clear in my OP, but honestly I assumed that anyone who responds to the thread would have a good knowledge of the most famous man, called a heretic and written about by church fathers, elders and scholars throughout the whole of Christendom since we knew about the early events. It is impossible to create a post and write a whole thesis brother. Thus, what could I do but apologise to have a lack of information?

No need to apologize.

It takes a little time to figure out heart intent, where people are coming from etc. - I may be wrong but I believe this is the first time I interact with you so it is a discovery process.

With this information, your points are clear.

Thanks for sharing.

Ken

 

[firedragon]

No need to apologize.

It takes a little time to figure out heart intent, where people are coming from etc. - I may be wrong but I believe this is the first time I interact with you so it is a discovery process.

With this information, your points are clear.

Thanks for sharing.

Ken

I would respect direct engagement of a post or someones explanation with the merit of the explanation itself than by whom it comes from which is the genetic fallacy.

Peace.

 

[Kenny]

I would respect direct engagement of a post or someones explanation with the merit of the explanation itself than by whom it comes from which is the genetic fallacy.

Peace.

True, true.... But not applicable in this case.

 

[Deeje]

Does anyone think that Marcion's heresy was a complete myth created through legend? There were others who preached expanding on this heresy with several God's as well, all this while believing Jesus Christ had his ministry on earth too. Was Marcion just one of these people? If so, how could he have had such a big following? What about his idea of two God's? Though it seems like such an extreme stance to take, is not his thinking somewhat reasonable? Also, did he simply argue that the concepts of God is so wildly different that it is almost as if there were two Gods which is an argument, but later Justin Martyr and others just started to believe that Marcion actually preached there were two God's?

What do you think?

I think the one thing we should keep in mind is that God's word is God's, not attributable to any man. If scripture itself is "God breathed" or inspired, then the same spirit that inspired it, surely has the power to preserve it?

What do we know of Marcion?
Here is what my own research revealed....

"Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century.” Some of these ideas persist. As a result, over 1,600 years later, writes Philip Yancey, “knowledge of the Old Testament is fading fast among Christians and has virtually vanished in popular culture.”

"Marcion (second century) differentiated between an imperfect “Old Testament” God inferior to Jesus and Jesus’ Father, the unknown “New Testament” God of love. The idea of an “unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,” explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as “the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.” The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge."

"It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical."
(Excerpts from WT sources)

If Marcion was trying to introduce a new approach to understanding what he saw as anomalies in the scriptures based only on his own interpretation of them, then where was God? If his approach had God's powerful backing, then it would be the dominant "canon" available to all. It isn't.

IMO, the fact that Marcion's teachings depart so much from what the rest of the scriptures teach, does not take into consideration the different eras and circumstances of God's worshippers in those two eras under two distinctly different covenants and circumstances, but honoring and worshipping the same God.

I rather see the scriptures speaking about two "Israels" rather than two gods. Each of these had a role to play in the outworking of God's purpose. The "Israel of God" mentioned in Galatians 6:16 is not the "Israel" of the OT.....this Israel needed no fleshly relationship to Abraham, but they did find themselves "adopted" by the Father to become Christ's "brothers". (Hebrews 8:10-13; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 3:26-29)

 

[firedragon]

I think the one thing we should keep in mind is that God's word is God's, not attributable to any man. If scripture itself is "God breathed" or inspired, then the same spirit that inspired it, surely has the power to preserve it?

What do we know of Marcion?
Here is what my own research revealed....

"Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century.” Some of these ideas persist. As a result, over 1,600 years later, writes Philip Yancey, “knowledge of the Old Testament is fading fast among Christians and has virtually vanished in popular culture.”

"Marcion (second century) differentiated between an imperfect “Old Testament” God inferior to Jesus and Jesus’ Father, the unknown “New Testament” God of love. The idea of an “unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,” explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as “the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.” The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge."

"It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical."
(Excerpts from WT sources)

If Marcion was trying to introduce a new approach to understanding what he saw as anomalies in the scriptures based only on his own interpretation of them, then where was God? If his approach had God's powerful backing, then it would be the dominant "canon" available to all. It isn't.

IMO, the fact that Marcion's teachings depart so much from what the rest of the scriptures teach, does not take into consideration the different eras and circumstances of God's worshippers in those two eras under two distinctly different covenants and circumstances, but honoring and worshipping the same God.

I rather see the scriptures speaking about two "Israels" rather than two gods. Each of these had a role to play in the outworking of God's purpose. The "Israel of God" mentioned in Galatians 6:16 is not the "Israel" of the OT.....this Israel needed no fleshly relationship to Abraham, but they did find themselves "adopted" by the Father to become Christ's "brothers". (Hebrews 8:10-13; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 3:26-29)

So you believe marcion was a heretic. Bottomline. He definitely preached "two Gods". Thats your point ultimately right?

 

[Deeje]

So you believe marcion was a heretic. Bottomline. He definitely preached "two Gods". Thats your point ultimately right?

Pretty much....he preached two gods when there is only one supreme God revealed through two different covenants, in two different "Israels".

 

[firedragon]

Pretty much....he preached two gods when there is only one supreme God revealed through two different covenants, in two different "Israels".

1. Do you really believe that he preached "two Gods"? What if he was only contemplating the difference? After all, the information we have are from third party sources those who refuted his so called "claim".

2. out of curiosity, when you say two different Israels are you meaning two different time periods and settings?

 

[Deeje]

1. Do you really believe that he preached "two Gods"? What if he was only contemplating the difference? After all, the information we have are from third party sources those who refuted his so called "claim".

It seems as if he was implying two Gods. Speculation is a little pointless as we cannot go back and ask the guy what he meant.
We can only accept what we read.

2. out of curiosity, when you say two different Israels are you meaning two different time periods and settings?

It’s an important story and we believe that the Bible tells us the reasons why there are two ‘Israels’.

It is our understanding (in taking the wider view) that since God was going to bring his Messiah into the world as a human, he chose to do it in a manner that gave him certain credentials. In order to fulfill those credentials, the Messiah had to qualify on many points, which to a large extent, he could not orchestrate himself so as to claim to be the promised one, (as many did)......such as the tribe into which he was born and the exact place of his birth. One like Elijah was to prepare the way for the Messiah, which was seen in the role of John the Baptist, who baptised Jesus as a symbol of his commencing his mission.

Jehovah made a promise to Abraham that through his family line, specifically through Isaac and Jacob, and in the specific tribe of Judah, that Messiah would come.

Using Daniel’s prophesy to pinpoint when, the Messiah arrived right on time....the Jews were expecting him.....but their expectations were not met in their understanding of his role. Over time the role of the Messiah came to be grossly misunderstood and therefore, misrepresented. Their version of the Messiah was going to be a strong political leader who would reestablish Israel as a powerful nation, elevate its leaders and reinstate Israel’s reputation as a mighty nation spreading the rule of God’s kingdom on earth to all nations.

It is little wonder that Israel’s expectations were distorted because their history was anything but a demonstration of their faithful obedience to their God. Their national pride was in tatters because of Roman domination. They saw Messiah’s role as a solution to their humiliation. Jesus just didn’t meet their expectations despite the fact that a good many of the people saw him as “the son of David”. (Matthew 12:23; Matthew 21:9) His miracles were witnessed by thousands of people. But rather than elevate the religious leaders, he condemned them as the worst of hypocrites. No wonder they hated him.

Jesus’ words at Matthew 23:37-39 tells what would happen when the Jewish leaders of the day did to the Messiah what they had always done to God’s prophets in the past. Rather than listen and humbly follow instructions, they invariably did what they could to discredit his message, his miracles and eventually to silence him.

True to his covenant with Abraham, God gave fleshly Israel first opportunity to become rulers and priests in his Kingdom, (Exodus 19:5-6) but because the Jewish leaders saw Jesus as a blaspheming imposter, they orchestrated his murder and influenced the people to reject him.

Because God was going to “abandon” Israel as a nation, he chose to perpetuate his covenant with Abraham by changing what it meant to be “Jewish”. Rather than breaking his word, he chose to identify a new nation with his name.....raising up “sons of Abraham” from the nations. (Acts 15:14; Matthew 3:7-10) He would see them as “sons” by adoption, rather than by birth. (Romans 8:14-17)

The apostle Paul told us how and why....at Galatians 6:16 he identified the Christian congregation, made up of both Jewish and Gentile disciples of Christ as “the Israel of God”. This is not literal Israel, but ‘spiritual’ Israel.

Paul wrote at Romans 2:28-29....
“28 For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.”

So a spiritual “Jew” is one whose circumcision is of the heart. The new covenant inaugurated by Jesus on the night before his death, was established with a new “Israel”, a spiritual nation made up of both Jewish and Gentile followers of Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The Jews, of course argue strenuously about this, right up to this day, but it is not difficult to see that the fleshly nation of Israel is just another nation of the world, heavily involved in bloodshed, relying on the help of other nations whose worship they see as false.....Their God has never come to their aid, and they wait in vain for their Messiah to arrive, with no Temple ever rebuilt, and their worship a shadow of their original practice. I feel for them, I really do....but their choices are theirs to make.

Sorry to be so long winded but I think that the details are important....

 

[firedragon]

It seems as if he was implying two Gods. Speculation is a little pointless as we cannot go back and ask the guy what he meant.
We can only accept what we read.

What I meant is, even saying he preached two Gods is third party information. So could they be in error of judgment!

It’s an important story and we believe that the Bible tells us the reasons why there are two ‘Israels’.

It is our understanding (in taking the wider view) that since God was going to bring his Messiah into the world as a human, he chose to do it in a manner that gave him certain credentials. In order to fulfill those credentials, the Messiah had to qualify on many points, which to a large extent, he could not orchestrate himself so as to claim to be the promised one, (as many did)......such as the tribe into which he was born and the exact place of his birth. One like Elijah was to prepare the way for the Messiah, which was seen in the role of John the Baptist, who baptised Jesus as a symbol of his commencing his mission.

Jehovah made a promise to Abraham that through his family line, specifically through Isaac and Jacob, and in the specific tribe of Judah, that Messiah would come.

Using Daniel’s prophesy to pinpoint when, the Messiah arrived right on time....the Jews were expecting him.....but their expectations were not met in their understanding of his role. Over time the role of the Messiah came to be grossly misunderstood and therefore, misrepresented. Their version of the Messiah was going to be a strong political leader who would reestablish Israel as a powerful nation, elevate its leaders and reinstate Israel’s reputation as a mighty nation spreading the rule of God’s kingdom on earth to all nations.

It is little wonder that Israel’s expectations were distorted because their history was anything but a demonstration of their faithful obedience to their God. Their national pride was in tatters because of Roman domination. They saw Messiah’s role as a solution to their humiliation. Jesus just didn’t meet their expectations despite the fact that a good many of the people saw him as “the son of David”. (Matthew 12:23; Matthew 21:9) His miracles were witnessed by thousands of people. But rather than elevate the religious leaders, he condemned them as the worst of hypocrites. No wonder they hated him.

Jesus’ words at Matthew 23:37-39 tells what would happen when the Jewish leaders of the day did to the Messiah what they had always done to God’s prophets in the past. Rather than listen and humbly follow instructions, they invariably did what they could to discredit his message, his miracles and eventually to silence him.

True to his covenant with Abraham, God gave fleshly Israel first opportunity to become rulers and priests in his Kingdom, (Exodus 19:5-6) but because the Jewish leaders saw Jesus as a blaspheming imposter, they orchestrated his murder and influenced the people to reject him.

Because God was going to “abandon” Israel as a nation, he chose to perpetuate his covenant with Abraham by changing what it meant to be “Jewish”. Rather than breaking his word, he chose to identify a new nation with his name.....raising up “sons of Abraham” from the nations. (Acts 15:14; Matthew 3:7-10) He would see them as “sons” by adoption, rather than by birth. (Romans 8:14-17)

The apostle Paul told us how and why....at Galatians 6:16 he identified the Christian congregation, made up of both Jewish and Gentile disciples of Christ as “the Israel of God”. This is not literal Israel, but ‘spiritual’ Israel.

Paul wrote at Romans 2:28-29....
“28 For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.”

So a spiritual “Jew” is one whose circumcision is of the heart. The new covenant inaugurated by Jesus on the night before his death, was established with a new “Israel”, a spiritual nation made up of both Jewish and Gentile followers of Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The Jews, of course argue strenuously about this, right up to this day, but it is not difficult to see that the fleshly nation of Israel is just another nation of the world, heavily involved in bloodshed, relying on the help of other nations whose worship they see as false.....Their God has never come to their aid, and they wait in vain for their Messiah to arrive, with no Temple ever rebuilt, and their worship a shadow of their original practice. I feel for them, I really do....but their choices are theirs to make.

Sorry to be so long winded but I think that the details are important....

OK. Thanks a lot for the information.