Buhddism & Juhddism & Hinduism, Really?

Wow, Last time I checked, Jesus Christ the Only wise and True Messiah DIED For Everyones Sins and rose again on the 3ed Day. What I got to say, You all Might HATE ME for it.... But here it goes anywayz.... 1.Mohommad,Ghandi,Budda,Confusious,Dalilama,Alluah, And Ect, DIDN'T do True Unexplained miracles, and they DIDN'T DIE for anyone or everyone on this earth. ONLY Jesus Christ DID those True Unexplained Maracles and DIED for Everyone on this Earth.(Unexplained Marcales,Meaning:Making a blind man see, Healing a criple man,(If you say that was a hoaks), Then explain the fishes and the loafs, Ah-ha you can't explain it, can you?. want more PROOF about Jesus Christ?.. ok, here it comes... The Original, Original Hebrew and Greek Scrolls, Was and Still is The True Word of God In Heaven (Jehovah God) And The Original, Original Hebrew and Greek Scrolls was being Translated into English in the year 1604 also Finished Authorized and Published in the year 1611. And no matter what anyone says or thinks or even tries to do,(Jehovah Gods True Word,Original, Original Hebrew and Greek Scrolls and the King James Version Holy Bible are the ONLY TWO that are coming to pass,Meaning:Coming True.) And If anyone denies that, Then you are Denying Jehovah God as The Creator. Q: Who did Noah believe in? A: (Jehovah God). So Why should today be any different?, I don't wanna hear that(times have changed) Because that to my opinion is a cop out. To many people want to believe in a false religion, or False god,a false beliefe,a false spiritial way, and when they die, they then will see who there god really is when they are burning in the lake of fire with there father satan. (The Only Begotten Son Of Jehovah God) Clearly said in (KJV- John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and ye lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the begining, and abod not the the truth , because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.) also (KJV- Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.) --- Please keep all of this in deep thought, thanks. P.S., You might think of the to be crazy, BUT, Mohommad,Ghandi,Budda,Confusious,Dalilama,Alluah, And Ect,... DOESN'T speak to me... Only The True Messiah Speaks to me. I will keep each of the Unbelievers of Christ in Prayer.

I agree with you that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. And His word is the only true word of God.



However I hope you will understand a couple of things. First of all Mahatma Ghandi was Prime Minister of India, not a religious leader of any kind.



Second when you talk of Judaism are you saying that it is bad? That is the Jewish religion, and the Jews are the chosen people of God. In fact Jesus himself practiced Judaism. True they are still living under the Old Testament Law, but they are still God's cosen people.



Food for thought!



Bless you!

G M wrote: Everything written above.

The main problem with what you've written is that it argues against other religious traditions using assumptions and beliefs particular to your own religion. It's the same as saying that People Who Don't Like Pepperoni are wrong, using the argument that "pepperoni is so tasty" as evidence. If the arguments you're using are beyond the practical consideration of the people you're arguing with, then they're ineffectual.



Besides, Christ wasn't the only one to perform unexplainable miracles. Recall the part of the Gospels wherein the disciples encountered a man performing miracles, but not in association with Christ. Christ told them, "He who is not against you is for you."



Whoever genuinely heals is of God.



-- James

lemon120 wrote: First of all Mahatma Ghandi was Prime Minister of India, not a religious leader of any kind. That is the Jewish religion, and the Jews are the chosen people of God.

At the risk of jumping into the middle of something, I thought that first I had to correct an historical error. Mahatma Ghandi might be called a 'politician', as he founded the Indian Nationalist Party to try to rid his country of British rule; however, he was NOT the Prime Minister of India. India achieved independence in 1947, resulting in the partition of India and Pakistan, and the largest displacement of peoples on religious grounds in history. By January, 1948, widespread riots and murders between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims threatened India with civil war. Ghandi swore to fast to the death until peace reigned in Delhi. It stopped, I believe, around Jan 18th, and he stopped his fast. 12 days later, he was assassinated by Hindu nationalists who were angry at his role in stopping the fighting.



I suspect you were thinking of Indhira Ghandi, who was a woman Prime Minister of India, I believe somewhere in the 1960's or so.



2. Chosen for what?? The Jews were 'chosen' as the race to maintain the bloodline from Abraham (the Abrahamic covenant) unto the birth of the Christ, Jesus. Paul seems to hold the view that the church, comprising the 'believing remmnant' of Israel, along with the Gentile believers, who were all MADE ONE now in Christ, constituted the 'true, spiritual, Israel.

Blessings,

James:

For clarity's sake, a little correction:

"Luk 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us."



1. This person was not performing the kinds of miracles Jesus was--he was performing exorcisms, 'casting out' evil spirits.

2. He was doing this 'in Jesus' Name', which at that time and place carried a different connotation than it does for us. 'In someone's name' carried with it all of the attributes of that person including authority. So, he was doing this in and with 'the authority' of Jesus. The disciples took issue with him because he was not attached to their group, however, as Jesus verified, he was in concert with them in spirit and truth.



"The main problem with what you've written is that it argues against other religious traditions using assumptions and beliefs particular to your own religion.."



I'm not sure you can get away from this. ALL religions, including your own do the same. When you, or, say, the Dalai Llama makes assertions of belief representing your view of reality, it is likely based on either the Buddha's writings, or esoteric writings by various masters. These assertions contradict our 'faith view'. Therefore, these assertions, using your 'faith writings' are being used to challenge or contradict the belief system of any group, including Christian, that disagrees.



I think it is unavoidable and understandable. It is important, I believe, that one realize the process when one is doing this. (self-awareness)

Comments??

Blessings,

[RESPONSETO]

For clarity's sake, a little correction:

"Luk 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us."



1. This person was not performing the kinds of miracles Jesus was--he was performing exorcisms, 'casting out' evil spirits.

2. He was doing this 'in Jesus' Name', which at that time and place carried a different connotation than it does for us. 'In someone's name' carried with it all of the attributes of that person including authority. So, he was doing this in and with 'the authority' of Jesus. The disciples took issue with him because he was not attached to their group, however, as Jesus verified, he was in concert with them in spirit and truth.

[/RESPONSETO]



I'm not intentionally manipulating any interpretations for the sake of my own justification in what I'm about to write. This is genuinely what I get out of this Scriptural passage.



(a) "Casting out demons" qualifies, for me at least, as a miracle.



(b) Call it fallacious, but the syllogism I think works here goes thus: (a) doing good in Christ's name is doing good in the name of that which is holy; (b) if one excuses the literality of being able to perform miraculous tasks from the sole dominion of those who do it specifically "in Christ's name," then whatever is done in the name of holiness is done in accordance with what Christ would approve; therefore, (c) doing good in the name of God, cultural contexts regardless, would not be look upon askance by Christ.



I mean, if you take the notion of culturally varied revelation and apply it to its most extreme circumstances, then you'd look at the revelations provided to extraterrestrial life-forms. C.S. Lewis has a nice essay in which he asserts that humankind's largest error, when encountering extra-terrestrials, would be to assume that we should witness to them on the grounds (pun intended) that we're spiritually enlightened beyond them. This ties into the present discussion, because I think a humility regarding the perfect authenticity of one's religious revelations helps cultivate a sound mind.

"The main problem with what you've written is that it argues against other religious traditions using assumptions and beliefs particular to your own religion.." I'm not sure you can get away from this. ALL religions, including your own do the same. When you, or, say, the Dalai Llama makes assertions of belief representing your view of reality, it is likely based on either the Buddha's writings, or esoteric writings by various masters. These assertions contradict our 'faith view'. Therefore, these assertions, using your 'faith writings' are being used to challenge or contradict the belief system of any group, including Christian, that disagrees. I think it is unavoidable and understandable. It is important, I believe, that one realize the process when one is doing this. (self-awareness) Comments??

I agree. The difference, I think, is that I'm not trying to persuade a Christian to become Buddhist; rather, I'm responding to questions regarding Buddhism from that perspective, as well as I presently grasp it.



I think that one of the reasons anyone intelligently engages in cross-religious conversations is to find the aspects of that other religion's perspective with which s/he can empathise with -- and, if not empathise, then at least understand.



And, to be perfectly honest, more of my view of reality lies in my experience of life. I assent to spiritual scriptures as peak moments of divine insight and clarity, but ultimately I fall back on how the application of those insights has succeeded, failed, or needed true work to get me through my days.



Take care friend.



-- Jas.

Hi James:

Easton's Bible Dictionary says this of Miracles"

"An event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (Joh_2:18; Mat_12:38). It is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power. “The suspension or violation of the laws of nature involved in miracles is nothing more than is constantly taking place around us. One force counteracts another: vital force keeps the chemical laws of matter in abeyance; and muscular force can control the action of physical force. When a man raises a weight from the ground, the law of gravity is neither suspended nor violated, but counteracted by a stronger force. The same is true as to the walking of Christ on the water and the swimming of iron at the command of the prophet. The simple and grand truth that the universe is not under the exclusive control of physical forces, but that everywhere and always there is above, separate from and superior to all else, an infinite personal will, not superseding, but directing and controlling all physical causes, acting with or without them.” God ordinarily effects his purpose through the agency of second causes; but he has the power also of effecting his purpose immediately and without the intervention of second causes, i.e., of invading the fixed order, and thus of working miracles. Thus we affirm the possibility of miracles, the possibility of a higher hand intervening to control or reverse nature's ordinary movements."

to be con't

me again"

Now, I'm not sure that clarified anything or not.

To address your remarks, I'll try to do it point form:

1. Exorcism=Miracle? I don't think you can really make that argument either in light of 1st Century Christianity, or today, for that matter. It is simply a matter of a superior Spiritual force (the indwelling Spirit of God) exercising authority over a lesser spiritual force. (demon) Now, water into wine, that's a miracle. Lazarus raised from the dead, same thing. Both involved a 'higher law' being exercised, or an apparent 'suspending' of natural law, briefly, to allow the intended result to take place. Do you see the difference in kind between these acts?



2." doing good in Christ's name is doing good in the name of that which is holy.."



I'm not trying to be picky, but I feel that you're diminishing what it says. In that culture, a name was not just something one answers to, as in ours. A name carried with it the attributes, value, personality, and power and influence and character of the person. So, 'in Christ's Name' does not become 'in the name of that which is holy', it literally means in the full power and authority that Jesus the Christ has. In other words, as if it were Jesus Himself doing it. The 'miracle' or spiritual act was intrinsically dependent on the relationship of the person performing it, to Jesus, the source of power. I give you an example which should not have happened if your construct was correct.

con't in next post.

James:

"Act 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

Act 19:14 And there were seven sons of [one] Sceva, a Jew, [and] chief of the priests, which did so.

Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."



Now, here's an example of people who tried to perform the act of exorcism in Jesus' Name. In your theory, they should have succeeded, since they were performing it in the name of that which was holy. In reality, they didn't have a spiritual connection with Jesus at all, and wound up badly beaten for their presumption.



Compare that to the situation in Luke. As I said, this person obviously 'believed' on the Messiah, but just wasn't an integral part of his immediate following; hence, there was a relationship.



I'm no expert on C.S. Lewis, but I have read some of his 'science fiction', and, I believe that the intent of that statement would be that IF there were other populated planets, created by God, that God would have arranged whatever was needed there for them, so the 'plan of Salvation' for earth would not be relevant for them. I could be wrong, but that's what I took away from books like Perelandra, etc.



"The difference, I think, is that I'm not trying to persuade a Christian to become Buddhist.."



I realize your intention isn't to proselytize, but the bottom line is that if you make statements based on either your experience, the experience of others, or the writings of your faith, that contradict, say, my worldview, or faith beliefs; the result is the same. In effect, your statements based on YOUR belief system are in effect 'invalidating' mine. Now, I don't have to accept your statements; and you don't have to accept mine, or any other Christian's. I realize that, in their zeal, some Christians apparently aren't aware that it isn't their job to sway you by the sheer force of their arguments; the 'conviction' or the attestation of veracity is God's responsibility, which He is perfectly able to accomplish through His Spirit.



Well, that's enough for tonight. I had to wind-down; wrote my last final tonight and arrived home still 'wound up', but if I'm going to feel like anything tomorrow, I should call it a night.

God Bless you, my friend,

Walt --



I'm deeply involved with a host of schoolwork now, and it looks like Maymester will consume a great deal of time as well. So I'm unsure when I'll have time, if ever, to fully reply. However, I will thank you for providing the careful distinctions between "miracle" and "exorcism." Miracles are the work of the transcendant in the immediate world, and exorcisms are the work of the transcendant in the transcendant world. That's really clear-cut.



Here's a Buddhist take on the distinction. (By offering this perspective, I'm not being contrarian. I'm just playing with the ideas, because I think they're interesting.) One of the desired results of Buddhist living is the fusion between the abstract and concrete -- or, the transcendant and the imminent. An example within Christian doctrine -- and I'm only providing this as an example of the idea in motion -- is Christ's identity as both God and man. While the Buddhist isn't interested in being God, s/he is interested in becoming more human, which necessarily means a merging of both the carnal self and the spiritual self.



Since the sharp distinction between abstract and concrete -- transcendant and imminent -- is muddied here, there would be a hazier line between "miracles" and "exorcisms." Since the material is also, by the fusion of extremes, the ethereal, both miracles and exorcisms would become something more homogenously alike.

I realize your intention isn't to proselytize, but the bottom line is that if you make statements based on either your experience, the experience of others, or the writings of your faith, that contradict, say, my worldview, or faith beliefs; the result is the same. In effect, your statements based on YOUR belief system are in effect 'invalidating' mine. Now, I don't have to accept your statements; and you don't have to accept mine, or any other Christian's. I realize that, in their zeal, some Christians apparently aren't aware that it isn't their job to sway you by the sheer force of their arguments; the 'conviction' or the attestation of veracity is God's responsibility, which He is perfectly able to accomplish through His Spirit.

This is sound. I agree, in fact, with almost all of what you've written. The only point of divergence I can name is the use of the word "invalidate." Now, I'm not nit-picking semantics here. I sincerely think that the presentation of two views from two parties in a conversation don't necessary conflict with each other. They just aren't described by each other; I think they can exist in a mutual acceptance of each other -- and by "mutual acceptance," I don't mean "relativistic nihilism." I simply mean that each idea can look at the other and say, "Let's not agree to disagree; let's agree that, at the bottom, we don't understand what the devil the other party is saying."



Hey! I just responded. La!



-- Jas.

James:

Thanks for your response; I appreciate it. I understand studies becoming intrusive; how dare they interfere with 'mere' intellectualizing??? Now that I've done with my finals, I just have a 3 week practicum to get through, then a few more Saturday Workshops. (you know, show up, don't snore, say present when your name is called, ask a few pertinent questions, and get a 'complete' on your credit roster.)



I too agree with the gist of what you've written. If it helps, I will withdraw my 'invalidates', and exchange it with 'contradicts'. How's that?



" "Let's not agree to disagree; let's agree that, at the bottom, we don't understand what the devil the other party is saying."



Sometimes that's right, but, other times, we understand what the other is saying, we just disagree!!!!



You said:

"s/he is interested in becoming more human, which necessarily means a merging of both the carnal self and the spiritual self."



Could you enlarge on this, at your leisure? Do you mean, like some sects of Buddhism (Tantric) the indulging and exploring of the 'carnal self', or is there a more esoteric meaning?



As I'm sure you're aware, in Christianity the 'carnal' self is essentially the 'lower self, or 'the flesh, which is all that is base, crass, and 'unspiritual' in us. It is through the action of the 'indwelling' Spirit of God that our spirits are transformed, our 'minds' renewed and conformed to God's will and purpose for us (arguably mind = intellect, will and emotions), and our 'flesh' or lower self is brought into submission to our spirit and renewed 'mind', and (unfortunately) gradually transformed.

Bless you, Write when you can.

I just want to jump in here and say that this is the way the forums should work. You guys are awesome! Thanks for making the forums a pleasant place for everyone.

Thanks for your response; I appreciate it. I understand studies becoming intrusive; how dare they interfere with 'mere' intellectualizing??? Now that I've done with my finals, I just have a 3 week practicum to get through, then a few more Saturday Workshops. (you know, show up, don't snore, say present when your name is called, ask a few pertinent questions, and get a 'complete' on your credit roster.)

Sometimes I long for one of those show-up, get-counted courses. Right now I have three 400-level English courses to deal with, one of which is an independent study, all of which have papers due in them -- I think that if the workload were combined, you'd have the paperwork equivalent of Leviathan, Behemoth, and Goliath combined.



One thing I really, really do like about the Bible: it's got some really cool beasts in it.

I too agree with the gist of what you've written. If it helps, I will withdraw my 'invalidates', and exchange it with 'contradicts'. How's that?

Sounds great! I'll be doing a bit of my own withdrawal of word-choice in a moment . . . .

" "Let's not agree to disagree; let's agree that, at the bottom, we don't understand what the devil the other party is saying." Sometimes that's right, but, other times, we understand what the other is saying, we just disagree!!!!

LOL! True, yes, very true.

You said: "s/he is interested in becoming more human, which necessarily means a merging of both the carnal self and the spiritual self." Could you enlarge on this, at your leisure? Do you mean, like some sects of Buddhism (Tantric) the indulging and exploring of the 'carnal self', or is there a more esoteric meaning? As I'm sure you're aware, in Christianity the 'carnal' self is essentially the 'lower self, or 'the flesh, which is all that is base, crass, and 'unspiritual' in us. It is through the action of the 'indwelling' Spirit of God that our spirits are transformed, our 'minds' renewed and conformed to God's will and purpose for us (arguably mind = intellect, will and emotions), and our 'flesh' or lower self is brought into submission to our spirit and renewed 'mind', and (unfortunately) gradually transformed.

Argh, yes, I'm aware of this connotation of "carnal." Unfortunately, it's one of my favorite words, and I use it sometimes where I shouldn't.



And yet, I don't entirely disagree with the use of "carnal." However, for clarity's sake I'll withdraw "carnal" and replace it with "visceral."



By "visceral" I mean all that is naturally human, in physical terms. This includes sexuality, food consumption, the pleasure of non-sexual touch with other living beings, and -- though it sounds childish -- playing. I think "playing" fits well within the bounds of natural human behavior, because -- if I'm recalling this right -- human beings are among the very few animals on Earth that laugh. By "playing" I mean the sheer exuberance of physicality, the sense that the body is alive and that something profound may be experienced in the motion of one's limbs while enjoying the natural world. Think of children climbing trees, for example; I, at 24, still climb trees, because there's a timeless potency to the experience of moving one's body upward in space, using nothing but one's own muscles and the supporting structure of the tree's limbs to do so.



By "visceral," I mean the pleasant awareness of one's physical presence which is devoid of self-consciousness or self-flattery. This awareness is something I rarely achieve without having practiced focused breathing meditation beforehand.



Yet, the impulses which fall under the connotations of "carnal" fit here too. Essentially, if the processes of rectifying one's spiritual condition within Buddhist and Christian traditions are looked at without the details, the ideas behind the relationship of visceral impulses and divine living are remarkably similar.



Buddhism has six "Hells," all of which may be experienced as a person's spiritual condition while alive. One of these Hells is described as "Animal Hell;" it entails serving one's sensual desires foremost above all. Primarily, these sensual desires are (1) sex, (2) food consumption, and (3) intoxication. If a person is left alone with their desires -- and if that person makes no attempt to subdue those desires by self-discipline -- then the resulting frame of mind is very much an experience of Hell, being consumed by the never-smouldering flames of desire.



I think that Sigmund Freud recognised this much, so he called these desires the "Id," then called the person's recognition that other things are to be lived for besides desire the "Superego," and then created a mediating agent called the "Ego." In Buddhist terms -- and perhaps I speak arrogantly here -- Freud was not enlightened. He focused more on segmenting the human being than he did upon achieving unity within the individual.



However, he drew his idea of the "Superego" from the prevailing Victorian religious sensibilities he saw around him. I'm not claiming that Victorian religious sensibilities are the same as contemporary sensibilities. After all, contemporary Christian men don't proclaim their wives pure angels and then seek out prostitutes in order to fulfill their sexuality because their wives were to remain undefiled -- which the Victorians did, insanely. And the Victorian religious sensibility that Freud saw basically claimed that those natural processes of the body -- sexual, scatalogical, and ingestive -- were the source of worldly corruption.



Comparing the Buddhist perspective with THAT stringent view, there is a difference. Buddhists don't see the sensual, visceral part of the human being as the source of corruption. Rather, the individual's self-surrender to those impulses is the source of corruption. The sensual nature isn't at fault; the approach of the person is. Hence, while seeking enlightenment, a Buddhist neither over-indulges the senses -- which leads to Animal Hell and an increase of desire -- nor does s/he deny the senses ascetically -- which is like flogging the horse because the fellow driving the carriage doesn't know how to steer.



The visceral side of a human being is disciplined by the spiritual which seeks enlightenment; likewise, the spiritual side which seeks enlightenment is grounded by its obligation to the visceral.



I hope that provides a fair breaking point for the topic. I'm pretty tired from all these essays -- I've gotten A's on all of them so far, huzzah -- so I ought to crash.



-- James

Lemon120 wrote:

I agree with you that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. And His word is the only true word of God.



However I hope you will understand a couple of things. First of all Mahatma Ghandi was Prime Minister of India, not a religious leader of any kind.



Second when you talk of Judaism are you saying that it is bad? That is the Jewish religion, and the Jews are the chosen people of God. In fact Jesus himself practiced Judaism. True they are still living under the Old Testament Law, but they are still God's cosen people.



Food for thought!



Bless you!

Jesus didnt practice rabbinical judaism.



Biblical Judaism, is Christianity. its about justified Faith in the Messiah/Christ.



rabbinical judaism is a break off sect, from the pharisees who werent following Gods Law righteously. they thought more of traditions and oral commentary(TALMUD) then they did of Gods word/Law---Torah.



Jesus only practiced the 2 great commands, which is the entire Mosaic Law.

SOJOURNER WRITES:

2. Chosen for what?? The Jews were 'chosen' as the race to maintain the bloodline from Abraham (the Abrahamic covenant) unto the birth of the Christ, Jesus. Paul seems to hold the view that the church, comprising the 'believing remmnant' of Israel, along with the Gentile believers, who were all MADE ONE now in Christ, constituted the 'true, spiritual, Israel.

Blessings,

you better go back, and read your bible. romans 11 clearly shows unbelieving jews/israel are still elect/sanctified.



they are enemies because they currently deny the gospel, but because of the promises made to abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they are still a sanctified group.



you also better go back and read genesis.



Abraham was promised descendents of "stars", and descendents of "sands".



the stars, are all of us that have Faith in God.



the sands, are the blood descendents of the patriarchs.



they are promised a land covenant.



your "church", doesnt take over Israels promises God gave them.



ephesians 2 shows how Jesus broke down the dividing wall, that the jewish temple had separating believing Jews, and beleiving gentiles. with that wall down, we are one body of new men.



the "church" doesnt replace that body. the "church" is an unbiblical body.

redsox141978 (Mark L Malone)



Why do you say the Jews are Gods chosen people?

Uhhh-weeel,errr ?WHAT?



In Romans 11 there is still only one vine. A shoot was broken off. A shoot was grafted on. The shoot that was broken off has the potential to be grafted back on.



The broken off shoot seems to be motivated by jealousy of the other to acknowledge that they are the people of God.



Nothing is ever said about an individual being sanctified as a result of lineage in any case.



A lot of the promises to physical, national Isreal depend upon them repenting and ultimatly following Jesus. If they reject Jesus, the rock of their salvation as described in Duet 32(song of Moses), then all sorts of negative things are promised. History bears out that they have been delivered.



There is only one body.



!?Did you really mean to say the church is an un-Biblical body?!



Can you provide an interpretation of sand and stars from the evidence of scripture that bears out your assertion?



If Paul is talking to gentile Christians and saying things like "you who were formaly not of the house of Isreal" and "if you are of Christ you are Abraham's seed" how is the church not Isreal?



Are we even sure those people in Jerusalem now are even descended from Abraham any more than some dude born in West Virginia, California, or even Canada?



If Jews want to be Israelites then they need to get saved and become part of the church.



David

Who are the so-called "Jews" of today?

A reasonable question answered from logic and historic fact





The word Jew comes from a Greek word meaning descendent of the tribe of Judah, or someone living in the land of Judea. Today's Jews call themselves Jews to falsely imply that they are somehow descendent from the Biblical tribe of Judah.



When asked the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?", the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered thus [emphasis added]:





The term Israelite is purely Biblical.







An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion.







A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion.



-- Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem; Feb, 1998.





"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew." Or to call a contemporary Jew [an] "Israelite," or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people."



--The Jewish Almanac, Oct., 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc. Under a headline entitled... 'Identity Crisis'.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God told Abraham,Isaac and Jacob, their offspring(SANDS)are a chosen people---SANCTIFIED, not justified.



I didnt proclaim any such thing. Its not in my power to do so.



think and read, SANDS and STARS of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.



there are 2 Israels.



the EDAH---or nation as a whole(all Israelites/jews)



the QAHAL--or those of Faith in God.



its goin to take some bible reading and study, plus an source to hebrew and greek OT.

In Romans 11 there is still only one vine. A shoot was broken off. A shoot was grafted on. The shoot that was broken off has the potential to be grafted back on.



The broken off shoot seems to be motivated by jealousy of the other to acknowledge that they are the people of God.



Nothing is ever said about an individual being sanctified as a result of lineage in any case.



A lot of the promises to physical, national Isreal depend upon them repenting and ultimatly following Jesus. If they reject Jesus, the rock of their salvation as described in Duet 32(song of Moses), then all sorts of negative things are promised. History bears out that they have been delivered.



There is only one body.



!?Did you really mean to say the church is an un-Biblical body?!



Can you provide an interpretation of sand and stars from the evidence of scripture that bears out your assertion?



If Paul is talking to gentile Christians and saying things like "you who were formaly not of the house of Isreal" and "if you are of Christ you are Abraham's seed" how is the church not Isreal?



Are we even sure those people in Jerusalem now are even descended from Abraham any more than some dude born in West Virginia, California, or even Canada?



If Jews want to be Israelites then they need to get saved and become part of the church.

1) you have confused the olive tree, with the vine. they are different.



2) yes individual jews that dont beleive are still elect/sanctified. read romans 11.



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



Ro 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.



Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.



all jews are sanctified, because of Gods promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.



Gods promises to physical Israel have no CONDITIONS.



Gods promises to faithful Israel, also, have NO CONDITIONS.



the only "conditions" that are ETERNALLY SET, are found in matthew 25:46.



otherwise, Gods promises remain intact.



if a jew or gentile die without being saved, they burn.



if a jew or gentile die being saved, they have eternal life.



no gentile, has ever been promised genesis 15. only Israel has.



whether you or anyone can prove "jewishness" one way or another, doesnt matter.



God said he will regather Israel/Judah again, and I lean toward beleiving Him, and not the replacement theologist ECF, that you have listened to.

Who are the so-called "Jews" of today?

A reasonable question answered from logic and historic fact





The word Jew comes from a Greek word meaning descendent of the tribe of Judah, or someone living in the land of Judea. Today's Jews call themselves Jews to falsely imply that they are somehow descendent from the Biblical tribe of Judah.



When asked the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?", the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered thus [emphasis added]:





The term Israelite is purely Biblical.







An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion.







A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion.



-- Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem; Feb, 1998.





"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew." Or to call a contemporary Jew [an] "Israelite," or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people."



--The Jewish Almanac, Oct., 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc. Under a headline entitled... 'Identity Crisis'.



*****************************************************************

*****************************************************************



where were you, when adolph needed help anyway?



who, are the so called "irishman" today, who drink alcohol like pigs?



are they "really" irishman, or someone wanting to slant irishman by BEING ALCOHOLICS?



todays irishman falsely imply they are irish, just because they live in ireland.



however, one would be really twisted, to imply they are irish beause God said they were by their drinking binges.



Does the term Israelite being purely biblical, mean its not real?



it appears you think so.



again, where were you while the british were turning back the boats from Europe, holding your finger to a Ground to Boat missile?

Hey Mark:

Quote:"where were you, when adolph needed help anyway?....again, where were you while the british were turning back the boats from Europe, holding your finger to a Ground to Boat missile?"

How about limiting your comments to what a person actually SAYS, rather than engaging in 'ad hominem' attacks on the person, okay?

To attack a person with slurs only reflects on you....and indicates that you've run out of intelligent 'argument'...in my view.

Blessings,

Mark:

Quote:"1) you have confused the olive tree, with the vine. they are different."

Yeah, and there are many fanciful tales that have been built around simple parables, metaphors, word pictures, in scripture,...that have nothing to do with the context, or the meaning that 1st Century listeners would have derived.

Quote:" 2) yes individual jews that dont beleive are still elect/sanctified. read romans 11."

Problem is, Romans 11 needs to be read in total, in context, and in harmony with the other scriptures that deal with the same subject as well.



Romans 11 makes it clear that God hadn't TOTALLY rejected His people...but also makes clear that it was the 'remmnant' who were the 'elect', and it by Grace....and NOT all of national Israel....no matter how well they could trace their lineage back to one or other of the tribes. So, without delving into the election/predestination quagmire, this chapter does NOT prove (in my view) what you attempt to use it to prove. Yes, some unbelieving Jews were/are part of the elect....as was Paul himself, back when he was persecuting followers of 'the way'. Others, it is made clear in various passages, are categorized as children of satan, and not true 'jews' at all, regardless of the impeccability of their family tree, their religious practices, or anything else that they thought 'qualified' them.

Quote:"all jews are sanctified, because of Gods promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

That's funny! Even in your Romans 11 passage, Paul makes it clear that even in Elijah's day, there was only a remmnant of 7000 that God had reserved, sanctified, blameless and pure. Elsewhere, Paul makes it clear that the 'seed' referred to in God's promise to Abraham was Christ....singular, and not 'seeds' as in all his human descendants.

Quote:"Gods promises to physical Israel have no CONDITIONS.



Gods promises to faithful Israel, also, have NO CONDITIONS."

Really??? Perhaps you need to go back over the OT passages dealing with the 'promises', and study the entire chapter(s) to get the context. Invariably, it was "If you do this....then I will do that".

Quote:"if a jew or gentile die without being saved, they burn."

How do you reconcile that with them being individually 'elect and sanctified', and with your placement on them of the statement in Romans 11 that says

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

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Doesn't 'ALL' Israel mean just that? Doesn't verse 27 say that God's taken away their sins? Yet you condemn them to hell???? Oh for a little consistency!

Quote:"whether you or anyone can prove "jewishness" one way or another, doesnt matter."

Hey...on THAT we can agree!!!!! Wonderful!!!!

Quote:" God said he will regather Israel/Judah again, and I lean toward beleiving Him, and not the replacement theologist ECF, that you have listened to."

The most that's said in Romans 11 is that at some point God will remove the blindness from them and bring in the rest of His Elect....where? Into His Church!



I lean toward 'believing Him' too....the difficulty comes in separating my assumptions and misconceptions from whatever God is ACTUALLY saying!

Blessings,

Actually, I was told that God made whiskey in order that Irishmen wouldn't rule the world.



I doubt that is true, however, what I know is true is that out of all the weirdness and vileness that I have read on this website your response to RTW's simple, well-researched, and consise post is the best example of the worst character.



Do us all a favor, don't witness to people as a Christian.



David

what I know is true is that out of all the weirdness and vileness that I have read on this website your response to RTW's simple, well-researched, and consise post is the best example of the worst character.



Do us all a favor, don't witness to people as a Christian.

Dave, I don't know what your usual responses look like, however I think from what I've usually read they are usually good.



Do you think that say that someone is the best example of the worst character is going to help anyone you say it to? Maybe you could point out why something they said in the post was offensive and not useful to the discussion.



I think you were trying to say what you said to help him, but I don't think the way it came out was the best way it could have.



May God give us strength to help each other through love,

Greg