Jesus said the Jews aren’t “children of Abraham” anymore.
You keep saying this, but it's you that are adding to the text and twisting the words. When he says they are children of the devil, you're using Grecian logic to assume they can't be children of anyone else, but that is not the intent. He didn't say you're not children, in fact he said you are seed and Abraham is your father.
Of course Christians will inhabit Canaan for all eternity, but that's because most Jews will become Christians as Romans 11 says. That's part of how the land promise comes about and is explicitly indicated in Ezek. 36:24-26. This promise is not for Christians, who already have the new heart and later receive the spiritual kingdom: it's for Jews who receive the land first (1948) and then receive the new heart.
But if you don't see these things and continue the illogic of denying the quotes that Jesus said and inserting quotes he didn't say, that's on you. I can only show you.
Did Jesus say "Ye are Abraham's seed"? Yes.
Did Jesus say "Your father Abraham rejoiced"? Yes.
Did Jesus say "Ye are not children of Abraham"? No. He left it to the mixed crowd to determine if they would live out the destiny of children of Abraham.
I can't say I've had that exact experience.
Start with what quickly became the locus classicus, Imagine Heaven by John Burke, which I'm currently rereading. This covers all kinds of near death experiences. Most are reported upon return, which gives context for visions that do not generally qualify as "near death"; however, it can be categorized as NDE if it's an out-of-body experience (OBE) or an open vision (some of which are reported in process even though the person dies and does not return).
The sentient characters met are of two kinds, those identifiable as humans who lived on earth, and those identifiable as intelligences who appear in service to humans ("angels"). (We should probably include visions of symbols that represent collectives of humans because they act sentient, but these are generally recognized as symbolic and not individual.) Note that there is capacity for deception in this realm, but the fact is that when something tries another tack it can be removed as an outlier. This includes appearances of humans that don't act like they did on earth (deepfakes), appearances of intelligences that don't act like they are there to serve (adversaries), and appearances of sentient cryptids whether or not the cryptid species exists on earth (beasts).
The general rule is that the observer has an intuitive feeling what entity is being dealt with, what is true and what is deceptive, based on the whole experience. That indicates direction but can be trumped by recognition of contradiction later. There are specific exceptions, but reporters generally know by human intuition what they're really dealing with; if they are following a deception they have a consciousness of the contradiction but then face the choice to admit or deny it.
So the "ghost" subset includes both the humans that continue to act as they did and counterfeits that seek to "slide" the human's identity. As pointed out there, the "spirit" subset includes those not clearly identified as earthly humans, and it's common for some light or dark spirits to be seen as a death approaches (here called "reapers" though that is a bit less accurate for their roles of accompaniment and influence). There is evidence that dark spirits can be thwarted in their goals, though I haven't seen evidence that light spirits have been successfully thwarted as they follow natural flow ("letting things happen"). But the spirits as here defined can be distinguished from the ghosts.
The Bible says that the witch of Endor saw the ghost of Samuel and implies that she was shocked because she intended to see a counterfeit instead (a "familiar"). It also says that Stephen saw Jesus as he was dying (though this is a special exception to being a ghost, because Jesus had the body as he said so himself). Christians and skeptics alike experience that the name of Jesus is an unparalleled guide for managing and directing the behavior and communications of all such entities. Therefore the ghost story proper, which categorizes as open vision, can be safely navigated with trust in God to be greater than any ghost; and the allied phenomena give much evidentiary reflection upon the ghost story.
Why don't you cast them out in Jesus's name?
Pepe, do you want me to review this one? I've stated that you're doing much better with keeping things in line but the OP goes over the line and I'm concerned that if I started dialoging with you again we'd be in the same circle as before.
The promised land covenant doesn’t apply to the biological jews anymore, but to the “children of Abraham”. The people who accept Christ regardless of their genealogy.
See, there you fall into a natural consequence of your refusal to allow any other definitions but your own. If this were true, why don't the Christians run the Levant? The standard answer is, oh, we must also spiritualize away the meaning of "promised land". When Abraham's family was told over and over that the land was promised to them without condition, you'd believe that there was really a time condition and the real and only permanent meaning is that believers are promised a spiritual kingdom. The fact that the spiritual kingdom is true doesn't negate that the land promises referring to particular geography are unconditional. Reading literally, they will be fulfilled again, and, since belief is a necessary part of remaining in the land (even though Ezekiel prophesies, as happened in the 20th century, that Israel will return to the land in unbelief), evangelists to Jews have great hope. But cutting Jews out of their own beliefs when they need not be cut out (because they don't contradict the gospel) is not seriously giving good news to them and thereby belies the great commission to the Jew first.
Preston, was there such a historical person as Abisha the Hyksos, a Semite who negotiated business with the house of Sesostris during the same period that Abraham was testified as negotiating the same business?
Was there such a historical person as the leader of the Hyksos departure from Avaris (Ramses) in ca. 1539 BC (called Moses by Manetho) where hundreds of thousands of Semites left Egypt for Canaan and, after a pharaoh power vacuum, Ahmose testified that a great tempest and a great blackout occurred?
Hello newcomer who is asking the same questions as accounts banned as probable sockpuppets. The answer is that it's not contradictory for a post to stay active beyond when it says it will stay active for. Plus the OP has now changed and states the reason straightforwardly so that even a newcomer can understand it.
You seem to imply there is some injustice going on. As I've said, the fact that a vote is sparsely attended should be taken as indicating it's not a strong consensus, rather than that legalistic rules should be imposed by newcomers upon moderators entrusted by the community whom the community has found no consensus fault in.
When you include both the forum link and the post link, spell out the forum link with https as follows:
[c/Christianity](https://communities.win/c/Christianity)
which resolves as "c/Christianity". Then the post link c/Christianity/p/19AduSDIij/ doesn't go haywire.
Don't you understand that being chosen to inherit a land based on lineage is unrelated to salvation always being on an individual basis?
Do we Americans have a manifest destiny to our land or do aliens have the right to overpower us in our own land by force?
If we have a right to our land, so does every other nation by default unless it breaks the law of nations. Equal rights are explicitly upheld by the text:
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess (Judges 11:24).
Well, the Bible doesn't say "Egypt" it says "Mizraim"; modern Egypt calls itself "Misr". For "Assyria" it says "Asshur", which nowadays is called "Syria". It's talking about peoples who continue to this day (Egyptians and Assyrians) and who still have nations of the same name. What happens is that churchianity sidelines all this stuff into realms like eschatology when it makes more sense on its face value. All the peoples told they would continue to exist still exist, all the peoples told they would cease to exist have ceased to exist. I'm pretty confident that applies to all nations in the Bible.
You could allegorize away the whole passage and say Egypt, Israel, and Assyria only mean classes of covenant people who will have some kind of transference relationship among them; that would be silly but it's not like it's false. But the problem is that it makes people think the straightforward literal meaning isn't true. Egypt will have a special blessing in the future and will be called "my people" as a special unique nation. That's not putting words in God's mouth, it's quoting them.
You seem to misunderstand the two meanings (which TINAE spots immediately) even as you use them yourself. When he says they are seed you agree they are descended. Then you say that doesn't count as being children because you're acting like "children" and "father" can only have one meaning. But as with words for children, Jesus also uses "father" the same way, 8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day." So he admits Abraham is their father in one sense, but he says the devil is their father in another sense. And this is perfectly consistent with their attack on his fatherhood (adoptive via Joseph; 8:41 challenges his legitimacy) while he points out his greater Father is God. Everyone knew "father" had multiple meanings. But you don't.
So I'm not adding words at all when I say
The LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people.
Then said Jesus to those Jews .... I know that ye are Abraham's seed .... Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.
But you are adding words when you say "It can’t specifically be talking about the borders of nations because Assyria isn’t even a nation anymore", "Jesus clearly says they aren’t the 'children of Abraham'", "He specifically says Abraham is not their father", "Lineage doesn’t matter at all anymore".
You say I'm justifying Zionism, which is an argument here that I've realized for 5 years relies upon duckspeak. Nobody knows what they mean by accusing another of Zionism. I justify all peoples having equal rights of self-determination. If Zionism means such an equal right, fine, if it means some greater right than some other people, I don't follow it. I also uphold that all Biblical peoples have different rights spelled out by their national blessings and cursings, equally interpreted. If the Bible promises a blessing or a cursing, fine, but if someone interprets different promises differently, I don't follow that interpretation. Everyone here who acts like they know what Zionism is has never been able to define it in such way as to avoid the fact that these very simple rules are applied objectively the same across the board and with no respect to any meaning of Zionism. If you want to call out Zionism, criticize any person's or organization's statement or action and I'll be happy to agree or disagree with you. IMHO the Arabs got a questionable deal from Henry McMahon in 1915 but nobody goes there because Arabs haven't taken the high moral ground on it for 110 years since. The high ground would be to renegotiate from equal self-determination rights. When you hint that you don't like some national promises existing in the Bible you're acting like the Arabs, whose existence comes from a national promise to Ishmael in the Bible.
Actually, according to Is. 19:25 and context, God calls Egypt "my people" and promises they will be blessed in the end. If they were conquered and displaced they could indeed cite that promise and others to come back. If that promise were to fail God would be a liar. Arab peoples generally have tremendous promises in Ishmael, and these have been fulfilled, in fact their oil discoveries can be said to be a fulfillment of their becoming a giant family of nations.
The fact is that many nations in the Bible are given blessings and cursings and their destinies always align with the text. Nations prophesied for destruction always fall, nations prophesied for retention always return (despite displacements). The Jews may have no spiritual inheritance at large, but they retain the same rights of national self-determination as any nation, and they determine the same Biblical blessings as any other nation that explicitly has them. And the Jews IMHO get the best of the blessings and the worst of the cursings both at different times. People's inability to separate spiritual blessing for spiritual people from various national blessings for various national peoples is the whole problem.
You can't tell someone descended from Abraham that they're not descended from Abraham. You can tell them they're not doing what Abraham did (as Jesus said). But if Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews (as some do) then Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans (as some do).
You are literally arguing with Jesus here. There is no “children of Abraham” by descent anymore
No, as you quote, the text is "I know that ye are Abraham's seed" (John 8:37). The context indicates that this is one meaning of two.
Now, we could apply Greek logic to the passage when it's based on Near East nuance instead, but if we did we'd only arrive at the conclusion they are "seed" but are not "children". You don't even apply that conclusion from the plain words you quoted. But the actual text is more intended as, let's leave it ambiguous for now what you are out of respect for you, and let's challenge you that if you aspire to be children of Abraham you do what he did and you're not doing that yet. In any scenario we don't get to contradict verse 37.
I know it's a paradigm shift to get over, as it was when I got over it. But peoples have equal self-determination rights. Over 110 years Arabs and Jews have been working out their rights in the land more directly, and, funny thing, no system denying another people's rights has ever succeeded, only those that start from equal rights.
the privileges the biological Jews had with inheriting Canaan and being the “chosen” people no longer belong to them
The privileges Egypt has with retaining Egypt still belong to them, as per Isaiah 19, Zechariah 14, etc. It's true of any biological nation in Scripture.
The privileges the covenant people had were wholly different and always continued with the covenant people, which were largely undifferentiated, then largely Jewish, then largely Gentile (Romans 9-11).
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.
Not at all. "Children of Abraham" always had the dual meaning. If it hadn't, then Ishmaelites and Midianites would be children of Abraham in every sense, but they were not accounted as his children because they didn't have the faith of Abraham. If you don't do what your father does, everyone knew your father dismisses you as a child.
You have this wrong division to the word "anymore" like something changed. The spiritual covenant was always the same: believe on the Seed of the Woman to be revealed. Tribal and national covenants arose at many points in history and are easily separable. Because we're so far from the origin we made up other paradigms where we blur the two types of covenant, and that requires us to invent presto-changeo work on Jesus's behalf, but Jesus did not change one serif of the covenant.
You need to figure out what it is that's driving you so illogically. It appears to be some unstated objection that, if this is true, you'd have to do something crazy that may sound Jewish. I'm not proposing anything crazy or Jewish; I am proposing equal self-determination for all. Maybe you should come straight out and say what you think my position logically entails that you cannot accept, and then I can explain why the position doesn't logically entail it as you might mistakenly believe. (Or perhaps we can get to the real binary proposition separating us.)