Attack of the Judaizers

[chubbena]

So Kepha (Peter) has a vision, and he is uncertain what it means, and later his conclusion is clearly written "but Yahweh has shown me" Shown what? "that I must not call any man common or unclean"

Why don't you post all of it in greek or hebrew if it is that important?
I imply nothing. I am saying: if you want to serve God, why are you acting like changing names and words from the bible is somehow elevating your status? You think God is going to think more of you, or do you think it somehow elevates you in man's eyes?
If you are such a stickler for accuracy why do you use vowels in God's name? Hebrew didn't. Picking and choosing what you want to change not only makes you look silly, I am pretty sure there is a couple of scriptures that address that.Just saying.................
Here is what Kepha said :Τι God hath καθαριστεί, που δεν απαιτούν κοινή πράττε

You know why we call him Peter? Because we don't speak greek. I am pretty sure God knows that and is okay with His word being translated to english. Don't you believe He wanted the whole world to hear about His offer of salvation?

The reasoning is questionable. If one can't get every name pronounced correctly he should get every name pronounced incorrectly?
Those who use the "closer to" Hebrew names, including myself, have never FORCE others to use the same so why do you do that?
Let's say your name is Philip and you are a famous man and books were written about you. The books got translated into different languages. One of the translations is Filipino and the people that started calling you Filipino because it sounded familiar to them. You might not mind but it's not your name. If they got to know you better and called you Filip, a "closer" pronunciation of your real name would you not like it? Would you tell them oh because you can't pronounce my name properly and you can't pronounce my servants name properly you should call me Filipino and nothing else?

 

[chubbena]

Abraham did what? He cheated on his wife and produced a bastard son. He lied and called Sarah his sister. He did what?

Gun control is accurately hitting the target. Mouth control is not to say what is not.

 

[just-me]

Okay...but the book of Hebrews was written in Greek.
And nowhere in the Greek is the word "obedience" used in Heb. 4:2.

You can check it out at biblehub. Greek texts and analysis.

No one knows who the original writer of Hebrews was. The way it appears is that it was a sermon to the Hebrews, and later recorded first by a Jew. One should keep in mind that the Septuagint (old testament) was re-written around 300 AD and if Hebrews were originally written in Hebrew, it would surely have been translated into the Greek language at that time. What I'm saying is that no one knows what the original language was. The language is really not an issue if there is no concrete proof.

 

[JaumeJ]

Read about Cain..............

Can you please show a biblical quote where man ate meat before the flood of Noah. The 7 clean animals were for sacrafrice can you show any different?

 

[Historicist]

No one knows who the original writer of Hebrews was. The way it appears is that it was a sermon to the Hebrews, and later recorded first by a Jew. One should keep in mind that the Septuagint (old testament) was re-written around 300 AD and if Hebrews were originally written in Hebrew, it would surely have been translated into the Greek language at that time. What I'm saying is that no one knows what the original language was. The language is really not an issue if there is no concrete proof.

I respectfuly disagree. I too, once thought the writer of Hebrews was unknown (because it was the only thing I heard), but did a little homework and discovered what we suspected, that Hebrews was written by Paul. In addition to being in Paul's style of writing early documents literally state this, that Hebrews was written by Paul.
That the religious establishment does not want to admit this might be related to the fact that they do not like to acknowledge that Hebrews, written to Hebrew-Israelites describes them in a Christian New Covenant context. Chapters 8-10, especially, confirm this. They totally refute the idea that the New Covenant was put on hold (in some future 70th week) because, as most teachers say, "Israel rejected Jesus."
If, as taught by the religious establishment, "Israel rejected Jesus," why do we not find this in Hebrews and the other general epistles? Similar to Hebrews is James. Written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1) it describes them also, in a Christian New Covenant context. And James was written before his death, before Titus marched on Judea and Jerusalem in AD 70.
The bottom line is that today's religious establishment does not want us to know that Israelites, Jew and non-Jew, were the nucleus of the the New Covenant congregatations (i.e., the church). It is therefore incorrect to identify latter day Israel by stating "Israel rejected Jesus." Hebrews, James and the epistles refute this teaching, one designed to identify Israel falsely. For more info on Christian Israel truth send me a private message.

 

[Elin]

OK. I'll be the first one to admit that
this sounds like any animal and every animal is acceptable for food - bats, rats, pigs, cats, dogs, etc. However, it is an interesting fact that God told Noah to put a pair (male and female) of every type of unclean animal on the ark and 7 pairs (male and female) of every type of clean animal on the ark.

Scripture does not indicate the reason for the difference.

Nor does it matter, since after the flood, God defined food as "everything that lives and moves."

If Noah ate the unclean animals, just because God said he could eat anything that moves, then we would not be having this discussion, would we?[/QUOTE]
Your objection is irrelevant because you don't know what Noah ate after the flood.

However, we do know what God told him was food.

You either believe God's definition of "food" in Ge 9:3 is true, or you don't.

I'm goin' with Ge 9:3.

 

[WomanLovesTX]

Scripture does not indicate the reason for the difference.

Nor does it matter, since after the flood, God defined food as "everything that lives and moves."

If Noah ate the unclean animals, just because God said he could eat anything that moves, then we would not be having this discussion, would we?

Your objection is irrelevant because you don't know what Noah ate after the flood.

However, we do know what God told him was food.

You either believe God's definition of "food" in Ge 9:3 is true, or you don't.

I'm goin' with Ge 9:3.[/QUOTE]

What I believe is that God did not change from eat anything to do not eat these things and then back to eat anything.

If we take the most clear scriptures and apply them to the less clear scriptures, then IMO, we can understand truth.

 

[just-me]

The bottom line is that today's religious establishment does not want us to know that Israelites, Jew and non-Jew, were the nucleus of the the New Covenant congregatations (i.e., the church). It is therefore incorrect to identify latter day Israel by stating "Israel rejected Jesus." Hebrews, James and the epistles refute this teaching, one designed to identify Israel falsely. For more info on Christian Israel truth send me a private message.

I don't refute. I would prefer that Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew. It correlates perfectly with the Levitical Law that was, for sure, written in Hebrew. I just couldn't find any substantial proof and I don't see that either in what you wrote. All of this aside, there should be no argument on who wrote it or what language it was written in. The truth is truth, and as I say it correlates perfectly with the Levitical Law.

 

[Historicist]

Joh 4:22


Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Above is a popular teaching from Yeshua, Jesus. It states other than the Jews the people of Christ's time worshipped what they did not know, while Jews worshipped what they know.

Here is the part that is ambiguated by paganizers and translators. It says Salvation is from the Jews. If you look at the Hebrew text for this, the word for Salvation is Yeshua, although it has the article attached to it. Thus it says because Yeshua is from the Jews. Now Yeshua and Jesus both may be translated to English as Salvation, however paganizers' main effort is to destroy the links back to the faith of Abraham.

Continue calling those who worship in a fashion most akin to the faith of Abraham judaizers, but it does not take away from truth. Lies will never accomplish this with those who believe Salvation.

Yes Jaume, but I would clarify your John 4:22 quote by stating that these were "Jews"---in a first century context (i.e., as in the Bible narrative). Biblical Jews are not one and the same with today's "Jews," those whom their own historians admit are of non-Israelitish Khazar ancestry. Read The Invention of the Jewish People by Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, the Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler and the 2012 Johns Hopkins Jewish DNA study. They confirm this.

 

[Elin]

The spiritual message of eating and being clean is deep and profound. I don't think we are to get stuck in the physical way that God explains the spiritual to us, or disregard the physical explanations, either. If we follow the spiritual teaching of both these directions to consider everything clean and eat only clean food as a physical part of a spiritual teaching and eat everything as created by God and OK, we would see how each animal is useful to us, we could even eat the unclean ones for what goes in the stomach is not the issue. We would respect all for the purpose God created them for. We could still
choose to not eat unclean animals to remind us of the spiritual meaning of that.

We don't still do animal sacrifice to remind us of the spiritual meaning of Christ's atonement,

nor do we still sprinkle with blood, nor do we still mix cleansing water in which to wash away defilement,
to remind us of the spiritual meaning of the cleansing power of faith in Christ's blood (Ro 3:25),

nor observe Passover to remind us of the spiritual meaning of the lamb slain from
the foundation of the world,

nor. . .etc., etc., etc.

Why this one specific practice, counter to the revelation spoken by the Son in these last days
(Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers in Heb 9:10; Ro 14:14; etc., to remind you
of the spiritual meaning of the copies, shadows and patterns (Heb 8:5)?

Are you sure it's about "reminders," rather than about preferring one's own way
above the way God has ordained for the NT order (Heb 9:10)
in Ro 14:14; 1Tim 3:4-5; 1Co 8:8; Col 2:16-17; Mk 7:19?

Are you sure it's not about will worship (Col 2:22-23)
and turning back to dead, miserable, worldly forms of religion
which do not come from the new creation (Gal 4:8-11; Col 2:8, 17, 20; Heb 10:1),
and, therefore, are worldly (Gal 4:3) because they are authorized by man only,
and not by God's new order (Heb 9:10)?

 

[JaumeJ]

My reference to Jews here is from the time of Yeshua, however when I say Jew any time I am thinking in terms of one who praises God, Yahudah is praiser or praises Yah............to the best of my knowledge fromt he Book.

Yes Jaume, but I would clarify your John 4:22 quote by stating that these were "Jews"---in a first century context (i.e., as in the Bible narrative). Biblical Jews are not one and the same with today's "Jews," those whom their own historians admit are of non-Israelitish Khazar ancestry. Read The Invention of the Jewish People by Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, the Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler and the 2012 Johns Hopkins Jewish DNA study. They confirm this.

 

[chubbena]

Scripture does not indicate the reason for the difference.

Nor does it matter, since after the flood, God defined food as "everything that lives and moves."

If Noah ate the unclean animals, just because God said he could eat anything that moves, then we would not be having this discussion, would we?

Your objection is irrelevant because you don't know what Noah ate after the flood.

However, we do know what God told him was food.

You either believe God's definition of "food" in Ge 9:3 is true, or you don't.

I'm goin' with Ge 9:3.[/QUOTE]Cannibalism was allowed too if one builds doctrine out of one single bible verse.

 

[BradC]

The JUST shall live BY FAITH!

Rom 14:17-23
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Amplified
17 [After all] the kingdom of God is not a matter of [getting the] food and drink [one likes], but instead it is righteousness (that state which makes a person acceptable to God) and [heart] peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 He who serves Christ in this way is acceptable and pleasing to God and is approved by men.
19 So let us then definitely aim for and eagerly pursue what makes for harmony and for mutual upbuilding (edification and development) of one another.
20 You must not, for the sake of food, undo and break down and destroy the work of God! Everything is indeed [ceremonially] clean and pure, but it is wrong for anyone to hurt the conscience of others or to make them fall by what he eats.
21 The right thing is to eat no meat or drink no wine [at all], or [do anything else] if it makes your brother stumble or hurts his conscience or offends or weakens him.
22 Your personal convictions [on such matters]—exercise [them] as in God’s presence, keeping them to yourself [striving only to know the truth and obey His will]. Blessed (happy, to be envied) is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves [who does not convict himself by what he chooses to do].
23 But the man who has doubts (misgivings, an uneasy conscience) about eating, and then eats [perhaps because of you], stands condemned [before God], because he is not true to his convictions and he does not act from faith. For whatever does not originate and proceed from faith is sin [whatever is done without a conviction of its approval by God is sinful].

 

[LT]

I respectfuly disagree. I too, once thought the writer of Hebrews was unknown (because it was the only thing I heard), but did a little homework and discovered what we suspected, that Hebrews was written by Paul. In addition to being in Paul's style of writing early documents literally state this, that Hebrews was written by Paul.
That the religious establishment does not want to admit this might be related to the fact that they do not like to acknowledge that Hebrews, written to Hebrew-Israelites describes them in a Christian New Covenant context. Chapters 8-10, especially, confirm this. They totally refute the idea that the New Covenant was put on hold (in some future 70th week) because, as most teachers say, "Israel rejected Jesus."
If, as taught by the religious establishment, "Israel rejected Jesus," why do we not find this in Hebrews and the other general epistles? Similar to Hebrews is James. Written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1) it describes them also, in a Christian New Covenant context. And James was written before his death, before Titus marched on Judea and Jerusalem in AD 70.
The bottom line is that today's religious establishment does not want us to know that Israelites, Jew and non-Jew, were the nucleus of the the New Covenant congregatations (i.e., the church). It is therefore incorrect to identify latter day Israel by stating "Israel rejected Jesus." Hebrews, James and the epistles refute this teaching, one designed to identify Israel falsely. For more info on Christian Israel truth send me a private message.

I have seen very few church denominations taking the view you are portraying of the current "religious establishment".
Most modern American churches are very involved with Friends of Israel INC, Jews for Jesus, and the many other Jewish evangelism/support groups.

If you desire to see anti-semitism, I'm sure you can find some, but the current situation in Australia, America, UK, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazilian churches are very, very supportive of Israel, and I have never heard anyone say that Jews couldn't be saved.

 

[LT]

Here is a post from a member back in 2009.

"I've often wondered about Messianic Jews and those who mix Judaism with their Christian faith.

I can understand having some cultural heritage as a Jew and appreciating it, but it seems like messianic Jews take it a step further and end up going back to the old ways of doing things and mixing the law and grace.

I just got done reading part of Galatians and Paul was just ripping them apart for going back to Judaism, yet I see many modern day Christians mixing Judaism with their faith.

Am I blurring the lines here between what Paul was dealing with and what people are doing today?

Here is the portion of scripture that made me wonder. Right here he is rebuking them for observing days, and months and seasons and years. Yet don't many messianic Jews incorporate these very things in to their Christianity?

Galatians 4

8Formerly, when you(J) did not know God, you(K) were enslaved to those that by nature(L) are not gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather(M) to be known by God,(N) how can you turn back again to(O) the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10(P) You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11I am afraid(Q) I may have labored over you in vain."

It is not a problem for Jews to follow the traditions of the Law, because they have made that commitment.
The problem comes when Jews try to impose the Law on Gentile believers.
That is "trying to make Jews out of the Gentiles in the name of Christ. It is false religion, and a false gospel!"

The Gentiles do not need to follow the sacrificial laws, the societal laws, the governmental laws, etc; but are still called to follow the spirit of those laws.

For Jews, if their conscience requires them to continue in the traditions, then they must obey. It would be a sin for them to reject their God-given conscience!

 

[Elin]

Revelation 2

18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

One knows that eating certain things offered to "idols" is not pleasing to the Messiah.

Yes, they were part of the temporary regulations still in force to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria
and Cilicia (Acts 15) to accommodate the weak consciences (1Co 8:7, 10:28-29; Ro 14:14b, 21, 23)
of new Jewish converts who thought it was wrong to eat food sacrificed to idols, and who were
offended by some Gentile NT (excepting sexual immorality) practices which were causing disharmony
in the Christian fellowships (Ro 14:19).

Paul makes a distinction between these temporary accommodations and
what is allowed Gentiles in the NT whose consciences were not weak on the matter
(Ro 14:14, 17, 20; 1Co 8:4-6, 10:25-27, 30; Ti 1:15; Lk 11:41).

Check out these Scriptures.

The temporary regulations of Acts 15 no longer apply to the Church.

 

[phil112]

The temporary regulations of Acts 15 no longer apply to the Church.

Want to point out where in the bible it was "temporary"?

 

[LT]

Want to point out where in the bible it was "temporary"?

The question isn't where. The question is how can you read those verses mentioned, and not see that Paul did reverse the ban on food sacrificed to idols...

But moderation calls for us not to shove this freedom in the face of those who have other conscience.

We all had to come to the place where we either reject Paul as an Apostle, or recognize and believe that his writing are of the Spirit.

 

[JaumeJ]

I saw in your reference, LT, someone has gone so far as to declare Jews cannot be saved. That declaration is grave and a pity.



Rom 11:17
Now if some of the branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive branch, have been grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree,

Rom 11:18
do not boast about being better than the other branches. If you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

Rom 11:19
Then you will say, "Branches were cut off so that I could be grafted in."

 

[LT]

"Moderation" is why I call for those on this thread who understand "freedom from the Law" to not question the salvation of those who strive to follow all of the Law.

If they claim faith in Christ, then do not try to push them away, but embrace them as brothers and sisters.