Why does God oppose Judaizing?

[Moses_Young]

I think judaizing is simply using fleshly acts instead of spiritual ones and thinking it is complete worship of the Lord. I don't see the connection to that and proclaiming Christ.

I agree that Judaising is a subset of false religions focused on physical acts rather than Christ. I wouldn't describe proselytising Muslims as Judaisers, although they would certainly share a similar false religion to the Judaisers.

In the case of circumcision, it would be cutting of flesh and thinking that is circumcision. It's purpose has nothing to do with proclaiming Christ or not performing Jewish customs because they are Jewish.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Circumcision is cutting off the flesh (the unneeded foreskin). It would be silly (for a male) to follow Jewish customs if he didn't follow the most basic one for males - get circumcised. Likewise, even for a female, hard to understand her following Jewish customs if she didn't require the males in her household to get circumcised. Paul understood this when he circumcised Timothy. Hard to explain Timothy following Jewish customs (to reach Jews for Christ) if he rejected the most basic one.

 

[Blik]

Please answer the question with a yes or no.

Why? I answered it very thoroughly, it is not enough for you?

You are out of line getting into me personally on a public site, it is a site for biblical discussions and you are discussing what you imagine could be a personal belief of mine, it is pure gossip you have created. I have absolutely nothing at all to do with ordering God around, what I or you think has nothing to do with anything but us personally. We are discussing what scripture says, my statements are not about what I believe but scripture. Are yours?

Perhaps you wanted to ask if I believe scripture tells us if we aren't still saved if we don't honor the feasts, and I think that what we do has nothing to do with salvation if we repent of our sins. I believe that God asks us to honor the feasts and didn't take it back when he took back other things because I find scripture telling us this and I don't see scripture telling us God retracts that request of us. You happily honor Christmas and Easter with no questions and that is purely man's ideas yet you question God about His asking us.

 

[Blik]

I agree that Judaising is a subset of false religions focused on physical acts rather than Christ. I wouldn't describe proselytising Muslims as Judaisers, although they would certainly share a similar false religion to the Judaisers.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Circumcision is cutting off the flesh (the unneeded foreskin). It would be silly (for a male) to follow Jewish customs if he didn't follow the most basic one for males - get circumcised. Likewise, even for a female, hard to understand her following Jewish customs if she didn't require the males in her household to get circumcised. Paul understood this when he circumcised Timothy. Hard to explain Timothy following Jewish customs (to reach Jews for Christ) if he rejected the most basic one.

You and I disagree about whether honoring feasts is a purely physical act, not a spiritual one. You honor the instructions to use the Lord's prayer at least in form, do you think that is a physical act? You honor Christmas and Easter, then that is a physical act and instructions for it truly can't be found in scripture, even the names Christmas or Easter. These feast instructions are in God's word.

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Why? I answered it very thoroughly, it is not enough for you?

You are out of line getting into me personally on a public site, it is a site for biblical discussions and you are discussing what you imagine could be a personal belief of mine, it is pure gossip you have created. I have absolutely nothing at all to do with ordering God around, what I or you think has nothing to do with anything but us personally. We are discussing what scripture says, my statements are not about what I believe but scripture. Are yours?

Perhaps you wanted to ask if I believe scripture tells us if we aren't still saved if we don't honor the feasts, and I think that what we do has nothing to do with salvation if we repent of our sins. I believe that God asks us to honor the feasts and didn't take it back when he took back other things because I find scripture telling us this and I don't see scripture telling us God retracts that request of us. You happily honor Christmas and Easter with no questions and that is purely man's ideas yet you question God about His asking us.

All I ask you, do you believe that Faith placed exclusively in Christ and the Finished Work at Calvary Cross, i.e., the Blood of Jesus is not God prescribed order of victory over sin, the world, the flesh, and the Devil? Yes or no?

 

[Blik]

All I ask you, do you believe that Faith pin Christ and the Finished Work at Calvary Cross, i.e., the Blood of Jesus is not God prescribed order of victory over sin, the world, the flesh, and the Devil?

No. What you believe is none of my business and besides I don't know you. What I asked was Why God opposes Judaizing. I expected you you to know that God is the authority about that subject not you and me.
Christ is the finished work of God the Father arranging for our salvation, it was the first thing God did for man. It has always required the blood of Christ for salvation, according to scripture. Again you and I do not have authority over these things, we can only report scripture.

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

No.

Amen. Most Christians are practicing Salvation by "Faith," and Sanctification by "self (lukewarm)?" Gal. 5:2

The Righteousness of God is imputed to a person only on the basis of Faith in Christ, and what Christ has done at the Cross. Romans 4:5

 

[Blik]

Amen. Most Christians are practicing Salvation by "Faith," and Sanctification by "self (lukewarm)?" Gal. 5:2

The Righteousness of God is imputed to a person only on the basis of Faith in Christ, and what Christ has done at the Cross. Romans 4:5

Has any of my posts opposes this fact?

What has that to do with the topic of the post? The Lord guides us to goodness, worship, and joy in many ways but that does not even touch on the subject of judaizm.

 

[Lanolin]

not sure why you worried about it Blik as its quite clear it was the Judaizers who were inadvertently persecuting the first gentile believers. Paul opposed this practise since he himself was converted.

it might be a good idea to read the book of Acts all over again if you not sure about the history of it. its all recorded there.

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Has any of my posts opposes this fact?

What has that to do with the topic of the post? The Lord guides us to goodness, worship, and joy in many ways but that does not even touch on the subject of judaizm.

If it is sanctification by "self" and not sanctification by Grace through Faith and Him Crucified ONLY, it is law; which equals Judaism.

 

[Whispered]

You think the Lord is all about gentiles and Jews, so of course you could not consider anything else. I wonder what scriptures you use to get this conception of God?

I don't think God was considering differences in race when God said he asked man not to bring him meaningless offerings. It was about meaningless offerings, not about Hebrews only.

Just as anti-Catholicism is bigotry and a sin, so too is antisemitism.

Such as that must rely on anachronism to sustain their beliefs. The scripture in Saul's epistle, because another matter of error in many Denominational teachings is that Saul's name was changed to Paul. Meaning he was no longer referred to as Saul. However, this is not true. Saul was always Saul, and he was also known as Paul. The Book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 13:9.

God is the creator of all humankind therefore while Salvation is of the Jews, it is not exclusively their domain. God sent Jesus to save the world. The Book of John 3:16.
Saul the Apostle also kept the law. We learn this in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles chapter 21. Saul also praised Ananias because he kept the law. That is found in chapter 22.
Saul was a Pharisee which is a sect within Judaism. And much of his writings tell us he kept the law. Paul knew the law did not lead to death. He tells us that in his epistle to the Romans chapter 7. And some in first century there were Pharisee who came out of that sect and became Christian. We lear of this in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles chapter 15.

If the law of God was done away we would have a hard time explaining how God reiterated the law in the new testament. Knowing He was to be the last sacrifice for the sacrificial system.

Some think Saul taught that the law was abolished and we are under grace. However, they'd have to explain then why Saul said in his epistle to the Romans chapter 7 that the law is spiritual and he delights in and serves the law. That the law is not Sin, but the knowledge of Sin, that the law of God and His commands, Ten words, are holy, righteous, and good.

Judaizing? Maybe we might reconsider that term when God and Saul His Apostle, though the Apostles who walked with Christ referred to Saul as brother, spoke so highly of the Law. And kept it. After we ask ourselves why God would be "guilty of Judaizing" , when He said He has written His law in our hearts so that we would never be far from it. That means, so that we will keep it.
The law is in three parts. We know this. Discernment is as key as is context when reading scriptures. First though, in order to divide the words of God rightly, we must have no animus for others in our heart or mind. Bigotry clouds understanding.
Come out of antisemitism and anti-Catholic bigotry and God will open our eyes.

 

[Dino246]

Just as anti-Catholicism is bigotry and a sin, so too is antisemitism.

Rejecting a system replete with idolatry and false religion is "sin"? That's a wacky idea and is clearly contrary to scriptural teaching.

Such as that must rely on anachronism to sustain their beliefs.

The name of the person who stood by at Stephen's stoning and who wrote most of the epistles is not critical to sustain my beliefs. Scripture tells us that he went by "Saul", and later, by "Paul".

Judaizing? Maybe we might reconsider that term when God and Saul His Apostle, though the Apostles who walked with Christ referred to Saul as brother, spoke so highly of the Law. And kept it. After we ask ourselves why God would be "guilty of Judaizing" , when He said He has written His law in our hearts so that we would never be far from it. That means, so that we will keep it.

This is a wacky misinterpretation of "Judaizing" that obfuscates the issues.

The law is in three parts. We know this.

From which Scriptures? I am not familiar with anything in Scripture declaring or implying that the Law is in three parts.

 

[Whispered]

Rejecting a system replete with idolatry and false religion is "sin"? That's a wacky idea and is clearly contrary to scriptural teaching.


The name of the person who stood by at Stephen's stoning and who wrote most of the epistles is not critical to sustain my beliefs. Scripture tells us that he went by "Saul", and later, by "Paul".


This is a wacky misinterpretation of "Judaizing" that obfuscates the issues.

As I said, not for a week, not even for minutes are you able.

From which Scriptures? I am not familiar with anything in Scripture declaring or implying that the Law is in three parts.

https://www.torahresource.com/pdf-a...the-ceremonial-and-civil-parts-of-the-law.pdf

 

[Dino246]

As I said, not for a week, not even for minutes are you able.


https://www.torahresource.com/pdf-a...the-ceremonial-and-civil-parts-of-the-law.pdf

I haven't come anywhere near insulting you personally; I only said your ideas are wacky, which those are. If you can't handle criticism of your ideas without getting your knickers twisted, you're in the wrong forum. Grow a thicker skin.

I'm not going to search through the linked article to find the answer to my question; I asked you which Scriptures. If you can't answer the question, then just admit it.

 

[Whispered]

 

[Blik]

not sure why you worried about it Blik as its quite clear it was the Judaizers who were inadvertently persecuting the first gentile believers. Paul opposed this practise since he himself was converted.

it might be a good idea to read the book of Acts all over again if you not sure about the history of it. its all recorded there.

I have not only studied d Acts but also secular histories of that time, being careful of the sources of the secular histories.

I found that judaizers used fleshly practices thinking they fulfilled the spiritual. How was that persecuting gentile believers?

 

[Whispered]

I haven't come anywhere near insulting you personally; I only said your ideas are wacky, which those are. If you can't handle criticism of your ideas without getting your knickers twisted, you're in the wrong forum. Grow a thicker skin.

I'm not going to search through the linked article to find the answer to my question; I asked you which Scriptures. If you can't answer the question, then just admit it.

You haven't come anywhere near insulting me personally...then you give it a shot.
I grew up with a grandsire that was like you.You aren't able to insult me. What you do when behaving like that toward me and others, is insult yourself. And show how afraid you are of people who know more than you pretend to.
. When you are not able to comport yourself as an adult without slamming people personally, you are a shame. Not a teacher of the word, nor even one that practices it.
People don't need to grow thicker skin here, you need to grow up.

I know you're not going to search through the linked article. It wasn't for you. It was for those who wish to learn beyond what you think you're teaching here, besides bad manners and lack of grace and lack of understanding of the word of God. And for the precise reason God says that is so.
Every Christian knows that Judaism is the foundation of the new testament/Covenant of God. And most know the law of God is in three parts. That you do not is suspect.

May God find you if it be his will.
Till then, may God protect us.

The worst sort who behave in the worst way defend their verbal abuse as imitating Christ. I love this scene in the movie, Jesus of Nazareth because the dialog is from scripture and pertains to that sort as well as to the false teachers, which is also the topic of another thread here.
Though even if this were played before them in their own church, or elsewhere, they would never realize Jesus was actually speaking to them. Then and now.

 

[Dino246]

When you are not able to comport yourself as an adult without slamming people personally, you are a shame.

You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of "personal". I have said nothing (that I recall) about your person. I have criticized your ideas. They are distinct. Ideas are fair game for criticism.

People don't need to grow thicker skin here, you need to grow up.

Yawn.

Every Christian knows that Judaism is the foundation of the new testament/Covenant of God.

That's not at issue here.

And most know the law of God is in three parts. That you do not is suspect.

That you think it is in three parts is suspect. There isn't even one passage of Scripture to support the idea, while I can think of two without even trying that speak of the Law as a single, indivisible unit.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You think the Lord is all about gentiles and Jews, so of course you could not consider anything else. I wonder what scriptures you use to get this conception of God?

I don't think God was considering differences in race when God said he asked man not to bring him meaningless offerings. It was about meaningless offerings, not about Hebrews only.

yeah actually He is totally about that

in fact, He made Paul an Apostle to the Gentiles and Paul put off telling people to obey the law

doesn't matter what you think and the odd ideas that you have are evidence of the that

every Sunday, churches are stuffed with meaningless offerings...of course not every church and not every person in churches that have the meaningless offerings

seems Gentiles have the same disease

you cannot get it through your head that there are NO MORE physical offerings needed. God has no use of the blood of animals since He gave His only Son

further, that was always His plan. from Genesis on we read that is so

whether Jew or Gentile, God states we are ONE in Christ. Jesus is the unifying factor

 

[7seasrekeyed]

But isn't
Christianity about eternal truths, meaning forever and without time limitations? And isn't the Lord's instructions to us also eternal, so yesterday's instructions not to be a judaizer are as valid today as they ever were?

Scripture tells us that from the beginning of time there was no forgiveness without blood, the symbolic blood of Christ before
Christ came as a man and was crucified. God is eternal.

Christianity is NOT Old Testament law(s)

Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ or the Messiah.

the only blood through which a person receives forgiveness is through HIS blood

10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very [a]form of things, [b]can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He [d]said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By [e]this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for [f]sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are [g]sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”

He then says,

17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

A New and Living Way
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a [h]sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

scripture REFUTES what you say regarding sacrifice, obeying the law and judaizing

judaizing is what people do when they want to add to salvation through works...like you have done in other threads

there is only one way to God and only one sacrifice that is needed

the rest is not of God which only leaves one option and is of the opposite spirit

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Yes symbolic, not literal blood. Literal blood must be poured out at the foot of the altar. It is shown in various parables. Symbolically spiritual life was given in jeopardy of ones own spirit life using literal blood as a symbol .. the literal blood returns to the dust from where it was formed of.

Corrupted blood is used a metaphor to represent unseen life of the Spirit. .

The life of the flesh is in the blood but that life is unseen, spiritual. . not of the literal blood..

Blood is not the life. Spirit is.

Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

just one thing, because it is useless to try and make sense out of most of the above post

you state that life is not in the blood

the Bible does not agree with you..the rest of the post is information from Got Questions

Blood is viewed as a symbol of life throughout the Bible (see Leviticus 17:11). The Bible’s first mention of the word blood is found in Genesis 4:10 where God asks the murderer Cain, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” The shedding of blood represents the loss of life. In the New Testament, the “blood of Christ” is a common figure of speech for the “death of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:19).

Another reason for God’s command not to eat bloody meat undoubtedly concerned the sacrifices. Blood was the only atonement for sin (2 Chronicles 29:24; Hebrews 9:22); therefore, blood was seen as a sacred thing. God wanted to ensure that the blood of the sacrifices was always considered precious. To preserve the people’s appreciation of the sacrifices, God could not allow blood to become a common food.

The phrase “blood of Christ” is used several times in the New Testament and is the expression of the sacrificial death and full atoning work of Jesus on our behalf. References to the Savior’s blood include the reality that He literally bled on the cross, but more significantly that He bled and died for sinners. The blood of Christ has the power to atone for an infinite number of sins committed by an infinite number of people throughout the ages, and all whose faith rests in that blood will be saved.

The reality of the blood of Christ as the means of atonement for sin has its origin in the Mosaic Law. Once a year, the priest was to make an offering of the blood of animals on the altar of the temple for the sins of the people. “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). But this was a blood offering that was limited in its effectiveness, which is why it had to be offered again and again. This was a foreshadowing of the “once for all” sacrifice which Jesus offered on the cross (Hebrews 7:27). Once that sacrifice was made, there was no longer a need for the blood of bulls and goats.

The blood of Christ is the basis of the New Covenant. On the night before He went to the cross, Jesus offered the cup of wine to His disciples and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). The pouring of the wine in the cup symbolized the blood of Christ which would be poured out for all who would ever believe in Him. When He shed His blood on the cross, He did away with the Old Covenant requirement for the continual sacrifices of animals. Their blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the people, except on a temporary basis, because sin against a holy and infinite God requires a holy and infinite sacrifice. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3). While the blood of bulls and goats were a “reminder” of sin, “the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19) paid in full the debt of sin we owe to God, and we need no further sacrifices for sin. Jesus said, “It is finished” as He was dying, and He meant just that—the entire work of redemption was completed forever, “having obtained eternal redemption” for us (Hebrews 9:12).

Not only does the blood of Christ redeem believers from sin and eternal punishment, but “His blood will make our consciences pure from useless acts so we may serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14 NCV). This means that not only are we now free from having to offer sacrifices which are “useless” to obtain salvation, but we are free from having to rely on worthless and unproductive works of the flesh to please God. Because the blood of Christ has redeemed us, we are now new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and by His blood we are freed from sin to serve the living God, to glorify Him, and to enjoy Him forever.