Inconsistencies of Unbelieving Jews

[joeyruready]

Judaism is a satanic false religion and christians ought to inform themselves about it and battle it just as much Islam.

I do not see things this way at all. Isnt it God who spoke of the Jews, they are God's chosen people?

Deuteronomy 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

1 Kings 8:16 ‘Since the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city in any tribe of Israel to have a temple built so that my Name might be there, but I have chosen David to rule my people Israel.’

Psalm 105:43 He brought out his people with rejoicing, his chosen ones with shouts of joy;

These verses and others like them are throughout Scripture.

Matthew 2:2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Jesus claimed equality with God. Jesus was not only Jewish but King of the Jews. IF you claim Jesus to be your king(He is absolutely my king) then what we really are is adopted Jews. What does the word say?

Romans 11:[SUP]17 [/SUP]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, [SUP]18 [/SUP]do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. [SUP]19 [/SUP]You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” [SUP]20 [/SUP]Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. [SUP]21 [/SUP]For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.(don't these words speak directly against the words you spoke?)

My opinion, hopefully based on scripture, Jesus was a Jew. King in fact of the Jews. IF He is my King, I must be a Jew also. I am not of the natural vine, being Jewish by birth but I have been grafted in. All Christians are Jews by adoption. Many of those who are Jews by birth are under a curse.

Romans 11 [SUP]7 [/SUP]What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, [SUP]8 [/SUP]as it is written: God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day. [SUP]9 [/SUP]And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. [SUP]10 [/SUP]May eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”

and there are other verses that tell us the same things.

I believe the explanation for why so many Jews do not accept Jesus is obvious in the verses that explain to us that most of those who are naturally born(Jews by ancestry) are under a curse. God's peace be with all of you. Blessed is the Lord our God.

 

[TheAristocat]

I think tribesman was referring to those Jews that have been "broken off" so-to-speak. Certainly he wouldn't call Judaism such as Messianic Judaism (believers in Christ) Satanic.

 

[crossnote]

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

There is a difference between Jews who are still beloved due to election and the calling of God (Rom 11) on the one hand and that system of Judaism which has been constructed to deliberately bypass their Messiah and His priesthood thus leading their adherents into destruction. It's the latter system that is satanic.

 

[zone]

Josephus was a Jew. He is usually cited as the first
historian to mention Jesus. However his account has
been determined to be a forgery. He was also born
after the time of Jesus.

Anyway, why would Josephus remain a Jew if he
thought Jesus was the Messiah?

he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah.
he simply recorded that there were those who did.
his stuff is forged?

what stuff?
all of it?
lol

 

[PS]

If Christians were going to change all the scrolls they would have an enormous task, never mind gaining access to them.

 

[kenisyes]

If Christians were going to change all the scrolls they would have an enormous task, never mind gaining access to them.

The allegations are that they changed Josephus when there were only a couple copies that anyone knew of, and since then, those copies have generated most of the others. Both the storing and the copying was done in Christian monasteries, giving them easy access. That's also why it's allegations. If a new copy should ever turn up, that was buried somewhere since like 100AD, it would be proof one way or the other.

 

[PS]

The allegations are that they changed Josephus when there were only a couple copies that anyone knew of, and since then, those copies have generated most of the others. Both the storing and the copying was done in Christian monasteries, giving them easy access. That's also why it's allegations. If a new copy should ever turn up, that was buried somewhere since like 100AD, it would be proof one way or the other.

I wonder if they are alike? I know the Jewish scribes were very particular even counting the words and letters.

I find it difficult to believe the Jews don't have the original they can be compared against?

 

[kenisyes]

Josephus is not a Jewish book. It is a history of Israel written by a political Jew (not a rabbi) as a gift to a Roman emperor. It was never subjected to any such careful scrutiny. The main reason we know about it, is because Christians saved and made new copies to use it for a Bible commentary on the OT.

 

[TerminatorII]

he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah.
he simply recorded that there were those who did.
his stuff is forged?

what stuff?
all of it?
lol

In his Testimonium Flavianum he refers to Jesus as the "christ."
One, if he thought Jesus was the promised messiah, he would have become a christian, and he didn't.
Two, the statement interrupts the flow of the surrounding text, and doesn't fit in at all.
Three, several early christian writers knew of Josephus' works, and quoted him (about other things). Yet when those same writers were making arguments for an historical jesus (and yes, they made them then, because many non-christians at the time didn't believe jesus was a real person that had lived), they didn't quote this passage from Josephus, even though they knew his works and had copies of them. That's evidence that the passage was not in Josephus' works at the time.

All evidence points to it being a much later insertion, not something Josephus actually wrote.

Not that it really matters...not having been alive yet when Jesus supposedly lived, Josephus can offer no eyewitness verification of him anyway.

Peace

 

[tribesman]

I think tribesman was referring to those Jews that have been "broken off" so-to-speak. Certainly he wouldn't call Judaism such as Messianic Judaism (believers in Christ) Satanic.

Correct. However I do object to the term "judaism" in messianic judaism. Messianism is a better term then. Its not about semantics. Christianity in its most "jewish" aspect is still worlds apart from any form of judaism.

 

[zone]

In his Testimonium Flavianum he refers to Jesus as the "christ."
One, if he thought Jesus was the promised messiah, he would have become a christian, and he didn't.
Two, the statement interrupts the flow of the surrounding text, and doesn't fit in at all.
Three, several early christian writers knew of Josephus' works, and quoted him (about other things). Yet when those same writers were making arguments for an historical jesus (and yes, they made them then, because many non-christians at the time didn't believe jesus was a real person that had lived), they didn't quote this passage from Josephus, even though they knew his works and had copies of them. That's evidence that the passage was not in Josephus' works at the time.

All evidence points to it being a much later insertion, not something Josephus actually wrote.

Not that it really matters...not having been alive yet when Jesus supposedly lived, Josephus can offer no eyewitness verification of him anyway.

Peace

well, i recall looking through documentation (online), and seeing that the people displaying and describing the material covered this.

they said Josephus had a document (like a tract) likely penned by Christians which spoke about Jesus being the Christ, and that he copied it verbatim, saying that's where he got the info.

being an historian, he absolutely would have (and we know he very much did) tried to cover the whole thing objectively.

i don't know whether the family who are 'guardians/custodians' of the material i looked at has anything more solid on it; if they were trying to find a way out of it; or what.

if i remember right, this was actually supposed to be a new conclusion, resolving the controversy of that portion having been a forgery. in other words, it wasn't. just transcription of first-hand material. according to them.

it's been awhile and i don't even remember the family name.
too fuzzy on the details. i had forgotten all about it - too lazy to search it.
eh...might come across it again sometime.