Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?
By that logic, no one can deny the claims of the black Hebrew Israelites to be jewish. Or the claim that Christians held for millennia that the Church is the true continuation of Israel. But then a bunch of ashkenazi claimed the name in the late 40s and suddenly supersessionism is a naughty word?
or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of
Post the video of Netanyahu acknowledging the Son of God, then.
Jews as a whole get to decide who they are and they have methods, and the Ashkenazi have been Jews for many centuries just like the rest. Americans as a whole get to decide who we are and we reject outside claimants too (after a fashion anyway). The fact that the Church is the true spiritual continuation of Israel, which is the true spiritual continuation of the faith of Adam, Noah, and Abraham, is irrelevant to identifying races. I've asked, and received no credible theory that the Ashkenazi today are not among the descendants of the Jewish people.
First video that came up was to Jordan Peterson: "well you you know you're
7:23
familiar with the story of Jesus right
7:25
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living 2,000
7:29
years ago he was a rabbi from the
7:31
Galilee okay he came to Jerusalem he
7:33
turned the money tables of the uh the
7:35
the the tables of the money changers on
7:37
the Temple Mount where did that happen
7:39
did it happen in Tibet it happened here
7:41
Jerusalem was our capital"
I didn't say he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, I said he speaks highly of him. Also briefly about Jesus's language mastery to the Pope.
You literally said "What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?"
Anyone who says Jesus was only a good man or only a wise teacher or only a prophet is denying the Messiah.
Sometimes based on his hints I wonder whether (conspiracy theory) Netanyahu has some bridge idea about Jesus that says more than "only a good man" but that can't be expressed publicly for obvious reasons. But whether or not, my point is that he didn't say "only". It's possible he's an apostate, it's also possible that he thinks he believes in Jesus and is so afraid to speak that his silence is as grave a sin as idolatry.
Because I believe the church should be giving Jews our good news about the crosswork and resurrection of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, I like to give credit to people who are diplomatic enough to say "a good man" and to remain tactically ambiguous about saying "only". There are scoffers who say "only a good man" because they believe it solves the dilemma, and as you and Lewis and McDowell know it only makes it worse. Then there are those who know how to embrace the historical facts without speaking offensively against Christianity either.
Now there are plenty of pages here about how he's only doing it to get Christian billions; the motive is present. But that same motive is what protects Jewish evangelism and that is being used by God for good reasons. Perhaps we should say that via one interpretation of the Kol Nidre nothing he says can be trusted and it's all as bad as Muslim taqiyya, but then the question becomes how the whole of his life indicates his view of the real Creator God who has come in Christ. Since there are plenty of opinions about his actions here already I need not add my own views or judge his silence.
Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?
By that logic, no one can deny the claims of the black Hebrew Israelites to be jewish. Or the claim that Christians held for millennia that the Church is the true continuation of Israel. But then a bunch of ashkenazi claimed the name in the late 40s and suddenly supersessionism is a naughty word?
Post the video of Netanyahu acknowledging the Son of God, then.
Jews as a whole get to decide who they are and they have methods, and the Ashkenazi have been Jews for many centuries just like the rest. Americans as a whole get to decide who we are and we reject outside claimants too (after a fashion anyway). The fact that the Church is the true spiritual continuation of Israel, which is the true spiritual continuation of the faith of Adam, Noah, and Abraham, is irrelevant to identifying races. I've asked, and received no credible theory that the Ashkenazi today are not among the descendants of the Jewish people.
First video that came up was to Jordan Peterson: "well you you know you're 7:23 familiar with the story of Jesus right 7:25 Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living 2,000 7:29 years ago he was a rabbi from the 7:31 Galilee okay he came to Jerusalem he 7:33 turned the money tables of the uh the 7:35 the the tables of the money changers on 7:37 the Temple Mount where did that happen 7:39 did it happen in Tibet it happened here 7:41 Jerusalem was our capital"
I didn't say he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, I said he speaks highly of him. Also briefly about Jesus's language mastery to the Pope.
You literally said "What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?"
Anyone who says Jesus was only a good man or only a wise teacher or only a prophet is denying the Messiah.
Sometimes based on his hints I wonder whether (conspiracy theory) Netanyahu has some bridge idea about Jesus that says more than "only a good man" but that can't be expressed publicly for obvious reasons. But whether or not, my point is that he didn't say "only". It's possible he's an apostate, it's also possible that he thinks he believes in Jesus and is so afraid to speak that his silence is as grave a sin as idolatry.
Because I believe the church should be giving Jews our good news about the crosswork and resurrection of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, I like to give credit to people who are diplomatic enough to say "a good man" and to remain tactically ambiguous about saying "only". There are scoffers who say "only a good man" because they believe it solves the dilemma, and as you and Lewis and McDowell know it only makes it worse. Then there are those who know how to embrace the historical facts without speaking offensively against Christianity either.
Now there are plenty of pages here about how he's only doing it to get Christian billions; the motive is present. But that same motive is what protects Jewish evangelism and that is being used by God for good reasons. Perhaps we should say that via one interpretation of the Kol Nidre nothing he says can be trusted and it's all as bad as Muslim taqiyya, but then the question becomes how the whole of his life indicates his view of the real Creator God who has come in Christ. Since there are plenty of opinions about his actions here already I need not add my own views or judge his silence.