Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.

Granted it's not grammatically correct, but the rest is tone policing. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm not a native speaker and my language doesn't capitalize nouns. That's how I've always written jews, arabs, indians and other ethnic groups. I'm writing informally here and I consider this pedantry.

The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.

I said "they" refers to the pharisees and their tradition which brought about what we now call Judaism. Again you're being pedantic and I have to qualify everything I say - yes, not all pharisees went after Jesus. I'm obviously talking about those who did and formed their sect in opposition to Christ. Again, I'm not writing an academic paper here and even if my exposition is not without fault, I believe it manages to get what I mean across when understood within context.

"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion.

Yes, I meant that passage. It still means the same so whatever. You're arguing over semantics.

But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews.

Is this why Israel requires proof of jewish ancestry and DNA testing to get a citizenship? Go try to self-identify and see how it goes. The whole point of being jewish is "othering" non-jews aka gentiles. This is a constant theme in the OT.

Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.

Sure, they decide the legal notion because it's their state. But it doesn't change the fact that many of them are probably not descendent from the tribes of Jacob and are not jews/Isrealites in the sense used in the Bible.

All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.

Yeah right. They never expressed anti-Christian sentiments - it was the evil Christians historically that prosecuted them for no reason at all. Or maybe the reason you don't find explicit evidence that they hate Christ and blaspheme Him is because they are wary of being caught in the act? They are careful about doing it in public but many jews who converted admit blaspheming Christ is a usual occurrence in their gatherings (they admit much more too). They're known to spit at the sound of our Lord's name. The reason they don't want to draw a cross or an X is because the sign of the cross repulses them and they know it has power. Satan and the demons squeal before the cross. Antichristian attitudes among the jews are well documented by the Church and by laypeople throughout history. The entertainment industry which is ran by jews mostly is full of antichristian sentiments and propaganda. Have you seen the Paris Olympics ceremony? Let's be real here.

So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).

You sound like an ADL lawyer dude. Come on. Don't conflate the Abrahamic hebrew tradition (which is Christianity) with the sect of Judaism. No Christian has a duty to respect judaizers who misinterpret Scripture and twist the truth. The Church Fathers didn't mince words too and would be considered "anti-semitic" by today's standards. Jews are not like the pagan nations because they know the one true God and His Son incarnated as a jew. They apostatized and rejected their own Messiah (I'm talking about the ones that did aka rabbinical Judaism) - this is what makes them distinct and why their judgment is different.

Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about liberty. The transformation that occurs is the result of the fulfillment of the OT rituals and symbols in the real body of Christ. All the symbols - circumcision, baptism, Temple worship, sacrifice, mana, Israel of God, etc were actualized in the God-Man. Worship is obedience and God requires to be worshipped as He has instructed us. Temple worship was appropriate until the Church was established.

Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.

If He didn't transform Mosaic law, then why don't we observe it as the jews do but worship in a different manner? It was impossible to observe the original Torah after the Temple was destroyed. The faithful became the Church and worshipped according to the NT, not the Torah.

As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.)

I'm from Eastern Europe and slaughtering and eating lamb is an well known Pascha tradition. I don't see what the problem would be - it's a feast and we celebrate that way. It's not a sacrificial lamb of course and it has nothing to do with worship.

This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.

It's not good vs bad - all of God's law is good and just. It is about what is appropriate for the time and the place. What was appropriate for Adam wasn't appropriate for Noah. What was appropriate for Noah wasn't appropriate for Moses, etc. Once God became flesh and was resurrected, the world was made anew so everything changed. Christ was the second Adam and He restored the pre-fallen human nature, defeating death and opening our path to eternal life in God. The jews of Acts 15 were part of the Church and they were allowed to continue OT worship but that was provisional and circumstantial and only applied to the very early days of the Church. Paul says there are no jews or gentiles but everyone is one in Christ. We all share the same faith, rituals and sacraments.

Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.

Never said that. I said the physical was fulfilled and transcended in Christ and the spiritual was left.

Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.

Granted it's not grammatically correct, but the rest is tone policing. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm not a native speaker and my language doesn't capitalize nouns. That's how I've always written jews, arabs, indians and other ethnic groups. I'm writing informally here and I consider this pedantry.

The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.

I said "they" refers to the pharisees and their tradition which brought about what we now call Judaism. Again you're being pedantic and I have to qualify everything I say - yes, not all pharisees went after Jesus. I'm obviously talking about those who did and formed their sect in opposition to Christ. Again, I'm not writing an academic paper here and even if my exposition is not without fault, I believe it manages to get what I mean across when understood within context.

"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion.

Yes, I meant that passage. It still means the same so whatever. You're arguing over semantics.

But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews.

Is this why Israel requires proof of jewish ancestry and DNA testing to get a citizenship? Go try to self-identify and see how it goes. The whole point of being jewish is "othering" non-jews aka gentiles. This is a constant theme in the OT.

Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.

Sure, they decide the legal notion because it's their state. But it doesn't change the fact that many of them are probably not descendent from the tribes of Jacob and are not jews/Isrealites in the sense used in the Bible.

All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.

Yeah right. They never expressed anti-Christian sentiments - it was the evil Christians historically that prosecuted them for no reason at all. Or maybe the reason you don't find explicit evidence that they hate Christ and blaspheme Him is because they are wary of being caught in the act? They are careful about doing it in public but many jews who converted admit blaspheming Christ is a usual occurrence in their gatherings (they admit much more too). They're known to spit at the sound of our Lord's name. The reason they don't want to draw a cross or an X is because the sign of the cross repulses them and they know it has power. Satan and the demons squeal before the cross. Antichristian attitudes among the jews are well documented by the Church and by laypeople throughout history. The entertainment industry which is ran by jews mostly is full of antichristian sentiments and propaganda. Have you seen the Paris Olympics ceremony? Let's be real here.

So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).

You sound like an ADL lawyer dude. Come on. Don't conflate the Abrahamic hebrew tradition (which is Christianity) with the sect of Judaism. No Christian has a duty to respect judaizers who misinterpret Scripture and twist the truth. Jews are not like the pagan nations because they know the one true God and His Son incarnated as a jew. They apostatized and rejected their own Messiah (I'm talking about the ones that did aka rabbinical Judaism) - this is what makes them distinct and why their judgment is different.

Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about liberty. The transformation that occurs is the result of the fulfillment of the OT rituals and symbols in the real body of Christ. All the symbols - circumcision, baptism, Temple worship, sacrifice, mana, Israel of God, etc were actualized in the God-Man. Worship is obedience and God requires to be worshipped as He has instructed us. Temple worship was appropriate until the Church was established.

Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.

If He didn't transform Mosaic law, then why don't we observe it as the jews do but worship in a different manner? It was impossible to observe the original Torah after the Temple was destroyed. The faithful became the Church and worshipped according to the NT, not the Torah.

As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.)

I'm from Eastern Europe and slaughtering and eating lamb is an well known Pascha tradition. I don't see what the problem would be - it's a feast and we celebrate that way. It's not a sacrificial lamb of course and it has nothing to do with worship.

This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.

It's not good vs bad - all of God's law is good and just. It is about what is appropriate for the time and the place. What was appropriate for Adam wasn't appropriate for Noah. What was appropriate for Noah wasn't appropriate for Moses, etc. Once God became flesh and was resurrected, the world was made anew so everything changed. Christ was the second Adam and He restored the pre-fallen human nature, defeating death and opening our path to eternal life in God. The jews of Acts 15 were part of the Church and they were allowed to continue OT worship but that was provisional and circumstantial and only applied to the very early days of the Church. Paul says there are no jews or gentiles but everyone is one in Christ. We all share the same faith, rituals and sacraments.

Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.

Never said that. I said the physical was fulfilled and transcended in Christ and the spiritual was left.

Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.

Granted it's not grammatically correct, but the rest is tone policing. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm not a native speaker and my language doesn't capitalize nouns. That's how I've always written jews, arabs, indians and other ethnic groups. I'm writing informally here and I consider this pedantry.

The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.

I said "they" refers to the pharisees and their tradition which brought about what we now call Judaism. Again you're being pedantic and I have to qualify everything I say - yes, not all pharisees went after Jesus. I'm obviously talking about those who did and formed their sect in opposition to Christ. Again, I'm not writing an academic paper here and even if my exposition is not without fault, I believe it manages to get what I mean across when understood within context.

"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion.

Yes, I meant that passage. It still means the same so whatever. You're arguing over semantics.

But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews.

Is this why Israel requires proof of jewish ancestry and DNA testing to get a citizenship? Go try to self-identify and see how it goes. The whole point of being jewish is "othering" non-jews aka gentiles. This is a constant theme in the OT.

Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.

Sure, they decide the legal notion because it's their state. But it doesn't change the fact that many of them are probably not descendent from the tribes of Jacob and are not jews/Isrealites in the sense used in the Bible.

All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.

Yeah right. They never expressed anti-Christian sentiments - it was the evil Christians historically that prosecuted them for no reason at all. Or maybe the reason you don't find explicit evidence that they hate Christ and blaspheme Him is because they are wary of being caught in the act? They are careful about doing it in public but many jews who converted admit blaspheming Christ is a usual occurrence in their gatherings (they admit much more too). They're known to spit at the sound of our Lord's name. The reason they don't want to draw a cross or an X is because the sign of the cross repulses them and they know it has power. Satan and the demons squeal before the cross. Antichristian attitudes among the jews are well documented by the Church and by laypeople throughout history. Let's be real here.

So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).

You sound like an ADL lawyer dude. Come on. Don't conflate the Abrahamic hebrew tradition (which is Christianity) with the sect of Judaism. No Christian has a duty to respect judaizers who misinterpret Scripture and twist the truth. Jews are not like the pagan nations because they know the one true God and His Son incarnated as a jew. They apostatized and rejected their own Messiah (I'm talking about the ones that did aka rabbinical Judaism) - this is what makes them distinct and why their judgment is different.

Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about liberty. The transformation that occurs is the result of the fulfillment of the OT rituals and symbols in the real body of Christ. All the symbols - circumcision, baptism, Temple worship, sacrifice, mana, Israel of God, etc were actualized in the God-Man. Worship is obedience and God requires to be worshipped as He has instructed us. Temple worship was appropriate until the Church was established.

Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.

If He didn't transform Mosaic law, then why don't we observe it as the jews do but worship in a different manner? It was impossible to observe the original Torah after the Temple was destroyed. The faithful became the Church and worshipped according to the NT, not the Torah.

As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.)

I'm from Eastern Europe and slaughtering and eating lamb is an well known Pascha tradition. I don't see what the problem would be - it's a feast and we celebrate that way. It's not a sacrificial lamb of course and it has nothing to do with worship.

This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.

It's not good vs bad - all of God's law is good and just. It is about what is appropriate for the time and the place. What was appropriate for Adam wasn't appropriate for Noah. What was appropriate for Noah wasn't appropriate for Moses, etc. Once God became flesh and was resurrected, the world was made anew so everything changed. Christ was the second Adam and He restored the pre-fallen human nature, defeating death and opening our path to eternal life in God. The jews of Acts 15 were part of the Church and they were allowed to continue OT worship but that was provisional and circumstantial and only applied to the very early days of the Church. Paul says there are no jews or gentiles but everyone is one in Christ. We all share the same faith, rituals and sacraments.

Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.

Never said that. I said the physical was fulfilled and transcended in Christ and the spiritual was left.