I responded to whether being a child of God was determined by human lineage: it isn't. Land promises are sometimes determined by lineage, with Jews and Gentiles alike: that's not relevant. Now, Luke points out that we're all children of God because Adam was begotten by God, but that's a different sense of child of God.

Similarly, child of Abraham has two senses, natural and spiritual. Children of Abraham by descent remain so regardless. Children of Abraham spiritually are those adopted by the God of Abraham, and once adopted they remain so regardless. You can be either or neither or both. The whole OT is to show that being a child of God (righteous) isn't dependent on human lineage (from God, Abraham, or anyone), but upon spiritual birth. Isaiah and Hosea call out physical Jews for not being of their father (spiritually).

One of the biggest things I had to lose from churchianity was the idea that the Jews were saved by works or lineage. By Hebrews 11 they and their predecessors were only saved by faith, same as we; those without faith were unsaved.

He implies he has a quiet life working and exercising his body and perhaps even reproducing. Until death.

In my opinion Jews control the whole world

If that's true in the present then there's no need to argue eschatology.

Don't Christians and Jews both believe in a crazy-good afterlife?

Don't they both read Zechariah as indicating that every righteous person will accumulate an entourage of followers as a blessing?

Doesn't that logically mean that we are all followers of each other, just as Christians teach that we are love-slaves of each other?

We might pacify the Jews by telling them it just means you'll have 2,800 X followers. That would suit the text and interpretation just as much. There is no evidence that Jews teach two classes of righteous people in the afterlife: the alien shall be as the citizen.

Judaism does not promote conversion but does, on the other hand, believe that the Jewish people have the duty to help establish the Noahide Laws

Well, they do speak of conversion as turning or repentance (teshuvah) but I acknowledge it's not the English word they typically use. The Noahide Laws are basically the Ten Commandments with Acts 15 interpreting them. On this earth the idea is that all humans are by default under the laws of Noah but the laws of Moses are a unique illustrative cultural lifestyle that can only be put upon a person by birth or freewill acceptance. That is a cultural difference. But the (Christian) Jerusalem Council ruled as to Noahide Law, you don't need to burden Gentiles with Mosaic law because it's taught every week, meaning that they are free to take time to learn it and free not to. Then Romans 14 would apply, those who take the greater burden and those who don't have no right to judge each other, but understand and stand together with each other.

So, as I said, if a Gentile doesn't accept the rule of the Jewish God (via the Ten Words and via any special laws of his own culture), he goes to hell, and that is taught much the same in both cases. Now there is a theory floating, it never quite asserts itself directly, something like "Jews want to help write Laws of Noah to enslave us all". But (1) As sons of Noah, Jews have equal rights to contribute to administration of laws of Noah alongside every other nation ("Israel is a goy"); (2) Jewish work on laws of Noah has never (e.g. nascent Sanhedrin) acted like Jews have special rights to impose their interpretations on others outside of Noahide courts available equally to all; (3) The fact that Jews have thought much more about laws of Noah under that name gives them a package to presell, but it doesn't require anyone to accept that package uncritically; (4) I daresay American law has thoroughly explored consequences of Noahide law even though it doesn't come directly from that line but via some transitions. So we might just as well say the UN wants to help write Laws of Noah to enslave us all. Everyone has a right to contribute, all evildoers have power to make secret plays, but we believe God will deliver us from evil through the process to ensure the laws grow organically rather than suffer longterm violence. So when I follow the Noahide Law conspiracy there's no power to it, it never goes anywhere.

But, Preston, I appreciate your working with the theory, we might be able to get to understanding. Just don't assume all Jews believe the same or that outliers represent the whole any more than "Christian" outliers do.

Always has been. Before Jesus came it was not determined by lineage either, but by whomsoever wills. For 2,000 years it was decentralized, then for 2,000 years it was focused on one nation, then for 2,000 years it was focused on the other nations, but it's never been closed to anyone. Jesus's lineage has many Gentiles who believed in the Messiah (seed of the woman) to come.

Since Jesus's first ministry led to a church of 5,000 Jews immediately, which increased to many tens of thousands of Torah-observant Jews in Jerusalem alone within years (Acts 21), it wasn't all Jews who were children of the devil, but it was whoever rejected God, as it always was. You're the one saying his promises don't change, take that literally.

Don't lean on telephone-game misquotes, Preston! There is no such "folio 56-D" and the correctly spelled Simeon ha-Darshan is not a Talmud rabbi. His source is called "Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 499" and it builds on the actual Talmud, "Shabbat 32b", which reads, "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." Anyone, not just Jews; merits, not guarantees; servants, not Gentile slaves. I pointed out in this post that this is just an imaginative interpretation of Zechariah 8:23, a promise that Christians apply to themselves as well.

There is no command to exterminate Gentiles, and the key eschatological idea is actually that those who don't convert to the Jewish God will go to hellfire, which is exactly the Christian position too.

When the Talmud is read in context, though much can be criticized, people who play the telephone game with misquotes are found to be objecting to Jewish views that are very similar to Christian views.

We have a lot of folks still who haven't learned to step up. 5-7 days before a topic is decided IMHO. (I stepped up when the first request was made but this month I haven't felt the community wants to hear my suggestions; but now that it's not too curious about proposing its own I might join in.)

If people thought it would be worthwhile for someone to summarize the views of the roundtable when discussion quiets, I might volunteer.

I'm surprised to find your article is somewhat on point and I wasn't aware some Chabad Jews had found that many sources to patch together a tentative eschatology. Most Jews have stopped popularizing their former tradition of Mashiach ben Yosef because they didn't want anyone to get the impression that a particular ben Yosef (4 BC - 33 AD) had done all the work of Mashiach. If they won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if someone rises from the dead.

There's nothing about soul transfer in the text, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's been theorized.

However, ben Yosef is absolutely halakhically Jewish and will not be Trump.

Nor is any of this more than one eschatological theory among many in Judaism as the article concludes, citing Saadia Gaon (emphasis original): "It follows, then, that all the above is not an essential or unavoidable part of the Messianic redemption that we await. Indeed, it ... may occur (or may have occured already!) in modified fashion." Isn't it interesting that Christians can say all the above has occurred already in modified fashion in both Messianic roles being the same person, the one who died and the one who resurrected the one who died?

In the churches I've been in we have people of both positions accepting each other and sharing details. I've looked into those details but I find that they primarily come from difficulty understanding the Bible's wide use of inclusive counting, and difficulty understanding the Bible's use of the first day of the week as a Mosaic type. Then the whole interpretation is constructed around those difficulties as if it doesn't create more problems.

Some samples, just picking from your chart: (1) No blood moon in 31, but there was one in 33 via lunar eclipse (Acts 2:16-21); (2) No typological 10 Nisan entry represented by the inspection of the lamb because 10 Nisan would be on Sabbath, not a journeying day (Ex. 12:3); (3) No evidence that "preparation" was a term for a day before an annual rest day, because there was no food prep on such days but only before Sabbath (Ex. 16:5); (4) The holy convocation of 15 Nisan is not called "Sabbath" or "Sabbatical" anywhere, only "miqra" (assembly, Lev. 23:7); (5) Modern translations select the past rather than the perfect to translate the aorist in Mark 16:1, while KJV uses perfect tense to indicate the reading compatible with the 6th-day crucifixion and all other verses: "When the sabbath was past, [they] had bought sweet spices", i.e., at the end of Sabbath they had already bought them.

That brings us to the many lines of argument that "three days and three nights" is not to be taken as it reads in literal English. First, in literal English it is incompatible with the more-frequent phrase "on the third day"; the position ignores all these and their similarities. Second, David also uses "on the third day" interchangeably with "three days agone" and "three days and three nights", 1 Sam. 30:1, 12-13. Third, several narratives demonstrate that a three-day cycle was a common narrative framing and "third day" was synonymous with what we call "day after tomorrow". Fourth, this agrees with every other evidence of inclusive counting demonstrated in the Bible and Near East literature generically. I have several more points in the files.

So if one is willing to respect all the texts I believe one is gradually weaned of the Wednesday theory. I took time to consider it and on occasions favored it a bit, but I realized it introduces far more inconsistencies than it resolves. Thanks for listening!

I've pointed out I roam the southeast US and am publicly tied to the identity of SwampRangers.com. Our being anons is not the argument.

The argument is that there's no evidence you're getting persecuted, or will be for what you say here. Fren.

Say what the Epstein elites deserve, as I asked. To jog your memory, here are some specific names as sorted by public file occurrences:

• Jeffrey Epstein

• Lesley Groff

• Richard Kahn

• Deutsche Bank

• Karyna Shuliak

• Larry Visoski

• God

• Bella Klein

• Darren Indyke

• J.P. Morgan

• Ghislaine Maxwell

• Kathy Ruemmler

• Leon Black

• Jes Staley

• Woody Allen

• Larry Summers

• Peter Mandelson

Simon bar Kochba fl. 132-135 AD. Two different uprisings but both resulted in equally destructive dissipation.

You started great and this is mostly dead-on. Not "Sebastion Levi" but Shabbatai Zevi.

Menachem Schneersohn could not speak after 1992 due to stroke, so I doubt he ordered the 1995 Srebrenica genocide of Bosniaks.

The Rabbis have been teaching that Gentiles are just smart animals created by God to serve them. They claim when the Messiah arrives, they will give each Jew 3000 Gentile Slaves and elevate them to God status.

The actual teachings are not much different from teachings in Christianity. Some rabbis do detract from the humanity of outsiders in the same way some Christians do; but most such quotes are merely taken in the same way that Jesus called various people dogs, sheep, wolves, or vipers. The 2,800 "slaves" are an interpretation of a verse that Christians claim as well, Zech. 8:23; in context it's not different from having a company with 2,800 employees. Christians also believe in theosis (divinization), what Peter calls participating in divine nature, but the details differ. So when investigated for what they actually mean and compared to what some Christians teach, there is no theological problem.

Yes, we can encourage Jews not to fall for an anti-Messiah but to accept the only Jewish Messiah they need, Jesus of Nazareth, and to do so it's essential to have our information accurate. If we want unity of peoples we need to be open to having our facts correct so that the unity of truth shines out.

Glad I could witness the convo before it gets modded. Cute but unworthy of retention in this forum, fren.

Oh, you're probably u/Neo1, or else someone parodying him, the guy that asked for these weekly roundtables and documentaries in the first place. Gotcha. That would explain the behavior. When you have something positive to contribute, we're here.

Because six or seven names were proposed by community members and admin selected from among them. Several community votes were held but there was more nonparticipation than participation. Anyone can post relevant vote questions at any time, but since she was modded not a soul has proposed a new one. Would you like to try yet another community vote on a simple binary question to see if another option has more traction? You can do that right now. But for the sake of making it a round table discussion, I voted you up anyway, even though the answer appears in the first sentence. Perhaps you want to clarify more specifically exactly what you think there is to discuss.

Very sneaky of you

No, it's what Paul does, because tribe is as genetic as gender.

God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.

Nice narrative, it's almost covenantal. I guess I'll try to spell it out again. The spiritual covenant for whomever will did indeed pass through Noah, Abraham, many Jews often a majority, and the apostles and all professing, believing Christians. There are also national covenants for many nations (and in fact covenantal male-female roles too), and Israel's national covenant includes things like its restoration in this day and its hope (like many nations) that it will become a majority Christian nation thus completing its original Jewish covenant. Some nations are guaranteed to be destroyed by the end; some nations are guaranteed to be preserved through the end; nations are given various blessings and cursings often in combination. Since both types of covenant flow together they can be distinguished (even though for 1500 years they mostly related to the same people). As long as you don't see the national covenants like other national covenants but spiritualize them away, you act like the part of physical Israel is done. Should I say that all the nations being destroyed that were prophesied to be, and all the nations remaining today that were prophesied to be, are all just flukes and all such texts are to be read only spiritually? No, the Church routinely takes those prophecies literally, but denies them as to Israel. Ezekiel 36 (cf. 37) is particularly important here, because it promises that Israel will return to the land in unbelief before its heart is awakened to God. You don't spiritualize that away into some application to the Church, do you? The first half literally happened to Israel.

Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism.

And by Jesuitry and by Islam. They work together is my point.

I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ

Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.

Obviously Epstein uses "goy" differently, which is why I point him to the correct meaning from his own professed religion. We'd agree the religion shouldn't be countenancing definition change and can be criticized when it does.

Again you're tempting discussion to go into a number of other matters, and I respect you enough not to rehash those between us when we don't have good agreement on definitions as shown by the main issue I commented on, i.e. Masonry is a judgment upon Jew and Gentile alike, as the verse suggests. If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.

If you were referring to American diaspora it'd make sense but you said "Europe will receive millions". Pew has European Jews shrinking from 9.5 million to 1.4 million, 1939-2010. I wouldn't have a problem saying the trend might reverse but I don't see 2 million new immigrant Jews in Europe anytime soon, i.e. coming from Israel and America to Europe. So we can agree "Europe will receive millions" is a bit inaccurate and more accurately stated by your adjusted text e.g. "the West may receive another million"?

if I say what the Epstein elites deserve, I shall be persecuted

You're an anon, is anything that happens in this virtual reality a "persecution"? Speak, fren, and enter.

Europe will receive millions of also incompatible Jews

You mean at least 30% of the Jewish population of Israel of 7 million? Sounds exaggerated, unlike you.

If there are no Jews or Gentiles, then from the perspective in Christ it's not a "goy" because it's not "Israel" either. From the perspective outside of Christ it's still both.

You say you're familiar so I'll only allude to the fact that Israel has two applications, national Israel gets national blessings and responsibilities, and spiritual Israel gets spiritual blessings and responsibilities.

As to Sabbath I'll let my words and others' suffice for now.

No, I'm saying Israel is among the Nations rather than apart from the Nations, and Torah proves it (there are other such passages). I'm also not dispensational; the word translated "dispensation" in the Bible refers only to two eras, which Jesus calls the present age and the coming age, which is not a uniquely dispensational system. HTH.

I don't see new categories as you do, but new blessings. As a covenantalist I see one people throughout history. Jacob gave that people a national aspiration and Christ gave it an organic foundation and a new spiritual unity; at other times the same people has made other quantum leaps into new blessings. The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential. As an Orthodox you may see more in the organic foundation event "thou art Peter" than I do, but I trust you won't see something that isn't there.

Was going to say no, but it occurred to me that Zech. 14:12-14 indicates that you're right, even if Israel nukes other cities they will still "fight at Jerusalem" and not be out of the woods even with short-term victories. Zech. 14 and Rev. 6 are the clearest nuclear passages we have. This may precede retaliation by Iran supplied by Russia, ravaging the land of Israel Ezek. 38:19-20.

I fully ejected "Christmas" and "Easter" from my life. Of course I retained Mosaic Firstfruits and also celebrated it as Resurrection Day (which is an internal question among 7th-day resters). Funny thing, 25 years later, I discovered there's enough evidence that the Christian tradition of Julian December 25 might well point to a confused echo that Jesus's annunciation, conception, "epiphany", genesis, and "nativity" might have occurred on 25 Dec of 5 BC, corresponding to his birth on the first of Tabernacles (6 Oct) in 4 BC. One intriguing line is that Haggai 2 prophesies this date as 24 Kislev and Simeon makes about ten references to Haggai 2 suggesting he could've recognized and approved the date.

Therefore one thing we need to do in getting along with those rampant 1st-day resters is to be open to a couple hints in the text that there may be good symbologic significance to some things they day even as they are overcome by evil symbologic significance that has infiltrated their practice unconsciously. There is a way by which everything is pure to the pure. Celebrating Mosaic Firstfruits and a 25 Dec conception nativity can be done without sin. (Technical note: for Gregorian-Julian alignment of 2 days the celebration should begin the evening of 23 Dec, making 25 Dec more of a diaspora date; but getting off work the evening of 23 Dec is what people do nowadays anyway.)

Great points! Was going to say "100%", but you slipped in one overcompensation that 7th-day resters often fall prey to, namely the "Wednesday crucifixion". I looked seriously at it for some time, but there is actually "strong scriptural evidence" that Jesus did in fact die on the sixth day and rose on the eighth day, and that the other timetable is special pleading. What happened was that the 7th-day folks didn't think they had enough ammo as is (but they do), and so they cast about for more, and they came up with the idea that Jesus must have risen on the 7th day even though it's against the plain reading of the text, and then combined that with the idea that the ancients didn't count inclusively just because we generally don't. Then everything else was patched in to support the Wednesday story.

I won't lay out all the lines right now, but suffice that at the same time Moses gave us Sabbath he also set aside a special purpose for "the day after Sabbath". Namely, twice a year it is the beginning of a work season at Firstfruits and at Weeks (Pentecost). For 1500 years Israel celebrated the first day twice a year alongside Sabbath, and these are exactly the two occasions in 33 AD that testify of Jesus rising and the Spirit coming (now called Resurrection Day, or "Easter", and Pentecost). So it'd be a bit silly for Jesus to rise on Saturday when the whole point of Firstfruits in Lev. 23 is that it begins the week and also points to a greater beginning of a week 50 days later, which the Spirit also kept.

I have never seen a 7th-day rester deny that Christian Pentecost fell on the 1st day; they just tend to ignore that, and that's because in the 19th century they found it convenient to continue a church distinction between the Ten Words and all other laws. It's been their bit ever since, and a very good one, to call out the rest of the church for keeping all the Ten Words except the Sabbath. All they need is to take this to its logical extension, and some of the 7th-day people discovered this and rightly called them to greater holiness, like Andrew Dugger. So the witness of the 7th day is only improved by admitting 1st-day Pentecost, and that logically removes the necessity of leaning on a crutch of Wednesday crucifixion.

Chronology link.

Not exactly. Unless you remember that Israel is a goy too (Gen. 25:23).