Templar crosses. An expression of papal loyalty.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (161)
sorted by:
QUOTE: "Self-evidently. You refuse to reply to what others actually write, you can’t defend your claims, and you post heresies that only jews have ever said. We’re completely done. You’ve exposed what you are."
QUOTE OF MY REPLY: "TALLESTSKIL You’re contradicting yourself and Paul at the same time. lol
You say a Jew who accepts the Messiah stops being a Jew and becomes something else. But the apostle Paul the Apostle literally identifies himself as both after believing in Yeshua. How do you square that?
Look in Romans 11:1 (Amplified Bible) “I say then, has God rejected and disowned His people? Certainly not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”
Look at The Greek word he uses is Ἰσραηλίτης (Israēlitēs). That means a member of Israel. Paul did not say “I used to be an Israelite.” He says I am. Big difference dude.
And your claim that “the ancient Hebrews all became Christians centuries ago and now only Jews are left” is something the Scriptures never say. LOL.
Paul says the opposite in the same chapter.
Look AGAIN in Romans 11:28–29 (Amplified Bible) “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are still beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
The Greek word for irrevocable is ἀμεταμέλητα (ametamelēta), meaning not withdrawn, not taken back. Look it up!!
So no, Israel did not disappear and get replaced. Paul explicitly says God has not rejected His people. I see a duh coming on.
And you brushed off the warning about boasting against the natural branches, but that warning was written to Gentiles exactly for this kind of arrogance. Go back and read it.
Romans 11:17–18 (Amplified Bible) “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive [shoot], were grafted in among them… do not boast against the branches… it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you.”
The Greek word for root is ῥίζα (rhiza), the source or foundation.
So the picture Paul gives is clear. Gentiles are grafted in. Israel is the root. God has not rejected His people. And Gentiles are warned not to boast against the natural branches.
You told me to read the Bible. I did. That is why your claim does not line up with what Paul actually wrote. Do better homework." <----- SO WHATS THIS SIR?
As for who I am I am a born again Child of the Living God sir. Yeshua is the King of Kings and God come in the flesh. Tread carefully.
Just use the arrows.
By actually using the actual definition of the actual words, rather than your postmodernist bullshit.
The main problem stems from the fact that the word jew/judaism has multiple meanings, but most people don’t realize this. This confusion was brought about intentionally. The word ‘jew’ was invented only a few centuries ago in English translations of the Bible as a shortened form of the word ‘Judean.’ This refers to the province of Judea, which at the time of the New Testament was a multi-racial, multicultural area whose capital city was Jerusalem and which was controlled by the Pharisees. Jesus and most of His disciples did not come from Judea–they came from Galilee–and therefore were not jews by the Biblical definition. Judea was originally inhabited by the Israeli tribe of Judah, but by this point was quite mixed. Galilee was inhabited only by the Israeli tribe of Benjamin. The only ‘jewish’ disciple in the modern sense was Judas, who betrayed Jesus.
The Pharisees were the evil Talmudists whom Jesus opposed and who ultimately killed Jesus for daring to disagree with them. Later, Jerusalem was destroyed and some Pharisees survived to become rootless nomads. Along the way, they mixed with more people who converted to Talmudism. Then, after the invention of the English word ‘jew,’ Talmudists started calling themselves “jews” and renamed their religion “judaism.” They started claiming they’re all the people who lived in ancient Israel and therefore they’re the “chosen people” spoken of in the Bible.
In reality, their religion completely contradicts the Old Testament–even the Torah–and they know it. They brought about such a deliberate conflation and confusion of the word ‘jew’ that today people now use a definition expanded to include “everyone in ancient Israel” when that’s not at all what ‘jew’ meant originally. They also like to conflate Judaism with Hebrewism, but the religion of the Pharisees (Talmudism) only began after they returned from captivity in Babylon. The Old Testament religion of the Hebrew people before that was quite different. Today, only a tiny minority of people who call themselves “jews” don’t follow the Talmud.
Finally, there are ’jews’ in the Christian sense. That is to say, the original Christian sense of considering the followers of Christ the inheritors of the promise of Abraham, and therefore jews (in the context of the word used from the Middle Ages translations of the Bible. This is why you see verses equivalent to, “We’re the actual jews, not the Pharisees” in several of the books of the New Testament. The modern confusion comes from the fact that most people–even most people who think they are “christians”–don’t realize this linguistic and historical deception. This is especially true of the English-speaking world due to modern, bastardized, heretical translations of the Bible and the divorce from the true traditions of the original Christian church. They’ve totally forgotten how jews have persecuted Christians endlessly for the last two millennia. A nation becomes ruined when it forgets its own history. The same is true of a religion. In fact, the same arguments used to claim, “Christianity is inherently weak because it has now been subverted” can be used to claim “Western nations are inherently weak because they have been subverted,” or “white people are inherently weak because we allow genocide to be committed upon us thanks to our altruism.” It’s just not a good argument at all.
Which is why this statement isn’t what was questioned.
They are not all of Israel who are of Israel.
Nope, you’re just arguing something no one questioned.
They don’t need to. It’s not relevant to them.
You’re making a mockery of yourself, dispensationalist.
Again, not questioned.
They withdrew it, though. Jews are not saved, by virtue of being jews. Your Scofield bullshit won’t fly here.
No one said otherwise.
No one said otherwise.
Because it’s not being discussed. You can’t reply to what is being discussed.
Nah, it was written about jews, who do nothing but boast about their heritage to this day.
The pharisees denying Christ.
One pharisee repents and returns to Christ.
“I was originally part of the promise and here I am again!”
Christ Jesus, without whom no one is saved.
After jews denied Christ and damned themselves to hell for all eternity, yes. Bible says that.
They are not all of Israel who are of Israel.
No one said otherwise. Everyone is His people.
Jews.
Self-evident falsehood.
The claim you’re refusing to actually address, you mean? In favor of some other claim no one is questioning?
You were saying?
Go worship your demon somewhere else. Christ is king.
TALLESTSKIL You wrote a novel but the whole argument collapses the moment the actual words in the New Testament are read.
First. The word “Jew” was not invented a few centuries ago like you claimed. The New Testament itself uses the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios). That word existed in the first century and refers to the Jewish people or Judeans. So the idea that translators invented the word recently to create confusion is simply false.
Second. Your claim that believing in the Messiah erases Jewish identity is destroyed by the apostle Paul the himself.
Romans 11:1 (Amplified Bible) “I say then, has God rejected and disowned His people? Certainly not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”
Notice the tense. Paul does not say “I used to be an Israelite.” He says I am. The Greek word is Ἰσραηλίτης (Israēlitēs), meaning a member of Israel. Paul believed Yeshua is the Messiah and still identified as an Israelite. That alone destroys the definition you are trying to force.
Third. Your claim that Galilee was only the tribe of Benjamin is simply made up. By the first century Galilee had multiple Israelite populations and the New Testament repeatedly refers to its inhabitants as Jews.
And since you seem bothered by the name I use, let’s address that directly. The name given to the Messiah was יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshua).
Look in Matthew 1:21 (Amplified Bible) “She will give birth to a Son, and you shall name Him YESHUA [The LORD is salvation], for He will save His people from their sins.”
The Greek New Testament records the name as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) because the text was written in Greek. The English form “Jesus” came later through Greek and Latin. Using Yeshua is simply using the Hebrew name He was actually given. GOD gave Him that name sir.
And where did Yeshua grow up? John 1:45–46 (Amplified Bible) “Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote, Yeshua from Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’”
Nazareth is in Galilee. So the Messiah Himself grew up in the very region you are trying to separate from Jews.
You also quoted several passages condemning unbelief among some Jews in the first century. No one denies that happened. Scripture says plainly that some rejected the Messiah.
But the same apostle also says this.
Romans 11:28–29 (Amplified Bible) “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are still beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
The Greek word for irrevocable is ἀμεταμέλητα (ametamelēta). It means not taken back. So the picture Paul gives is simple. Some branches were broken off because of unbelief. Gentiles were grafted in. The root is still Israel. God has not rejected His people. Period.
You told me to read the Bible.
That is exactly why your “Hebrews vs Jews” theory falls apart the moment the text is actually read.
Cry about it.
Thanks; I directly quoted the New Testament. You have nothing.
It was, yeah.
So… not jew. Judean. A different word. Got it.
No, these are separate people.
Nope, Christ himself says otherwise.
Repeating the same line that was already disproven is not going to help you, dipshit.
No, he didn’t. He knew Jesus Christ was the messiah.
Nope.
Oh, neat, so you were wrong. Got it.
The name in which the New Testament wasn’t written, you mean? You don’t change your name for different languages. That’s not how names work.
I don’t care. But Jesus grew up in the Levant, which was owned by the Roman Empire at the time and had been previously Hellenized, so He spoke Greek, Latin, ancient Hebrew (which isn’t modern day Hebrew), Aramaic…
Try again, but this time don’t do exactly what I said you are doing.
Strange that you’ve been.
Oh, enemies of the gospel, huh? Interesting. We should definitely worship them and do whatever they say, then, right?
Just like everyone else. What’s your point.
If they want to accept Christ, He will accept them. But they don’t. They deny Him. Thus they’re damned. Get it through your jewish head.
The Pharisees, yeah.
Who are not all of Israel.
Repeating things no one questioned is a sign of mental illness.
You still haven’t, apparently.
Nah, the “theory” comes directly from the text and I directly quoted the parts of the Bible that uphold it.
Jews are not Judeans are not Christians. Your conflation is powerless.
Also you throwing the word “dispensationalist” around like it is some kind of insult is pretty funny.
The apostle Paul literally describes different stewardships in God’s plan.
Ephesians 3:2 (Amplified Bible) “Assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was entrusted to me for your benefit.”
The Greek word there is οἰκονομία (oikonomia) meaning administration or stewardship. That is exactly where the concept of dispensations comes from.
So if recognizing that God works through different administrations in history makes someone a dispensationalist, then congratulations. You just accused Paul of being one too.
Correct! I don't believe in seven Biblical dispensations, because I point out to dispensationalists that Paul only mentions two, that of God's grace, and that of fulness of times. I think these are the same as what Jesus calls the present and coming ages. However, in the last century dispensationalists have done hard yeoman's work in rehabilitating their theories to make them a competitive eschatology and many don't recognize that.
Okay, you’re done.
Isn't Yeshua the Hebrew name of Jesus? Explain how that means a demon?
Side bar: Yeshua is Arabic, Yehoshua is Hebrew. Good convo, I'm trying to keep up but it's a baking day for my brother's cookie contest so time is a factor for me today..
Why did Jesus, Paul, and many others who didn't come from the Judea region call themselves Ioudaios?
Do you recognize that there were seven subparties among the Pharisees, such as the parties of "love of God" and "fear of God" Pharisees? Do you recognize that Hillel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, and Gamaliel, among others, were all Pharisees who approved of Jesus? Do you recognize the Talmudists admit they came only from the Yochanan ben Zakkai wing of the Pharisees and not from any other wings?
Why do you say the Jews started calling their religion Judaism medievally when it was called Ioudaismos in the Bible?
When did the Jews claim they were all the tribes of Israel and abandon the idea that ten lost tribes still had continuity somewhere in the world?
Aside from intramural quibbles, how did the First Temple Hebrewism of e.g. Daniel differ from the post-Cyrus Zugoth balance between Nasi and Abbethdin factions along with smaller parties, that in the late Second Temple had become Pharisees and Sadducees, alongside parties of Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Freedmen, Swordsmen (Sicarii), and Messianics?
Don't a majority of self-identified Jews today describe themselves as secular, i.e. Talmud-agnostic?
What was Jesus's name in the common Aramaic he spoke (as opposed to Hebrew or Galilean dialect)?
Because he is not a jew who is one outwardly; he is a jew who is one inwardly.
Get fucked. We’re not doing this again. You didn’t succeed last time. You won’t ever succeed.
“Oy vey we totally don’t support the thing we support in all of our actions that you discovered was evil! Trust us! We would never lie to you! We’re totally just agnostic oy veyyyyyyyyyyyy”