Embroiled over Israel, Presbyterians invite a rabbi to the pulpit (Anti-Israel Resolutions Debate)

I must assume you have never read the new covenant

You poor, deluded n00b. I am not Jewish at all. I am a rural Southern redneck who grew up as a Fundamentalist Protestant. I have also been a member of the John Birch Society (like you?) and even Catholic for a few years. Eventually I left chrstianity and became an identifying Noachide, which is what I am now. You are apparently the only member of this Forum who doesn't know that.

I left for two reasons: 1)the "fulfillments" of the "new testament" don't meet the test set by the previously existing and acknowledged Scripture, and 2)historical chrstianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc.) is so radically different from Fundamentalist Protestantism that it provides absolutely no reason to be a part of the religion.

I grew up believing in the "new testament" and have read it many, many times. Its contradictions of the Hebrew Bible were always a problem for me.

or you would better understand how the puzzles of the old covenant prophecies are solved by it, from the prophecies of Moses forward. Even without any sort of divine revelation pointing to the inspiration of the new covenant; the sheer complexity: the intricacies of a master puzzle, where the pieces fit and complement not only each other, but also the pieces of old covenant, point to underlying divine inspiration. No man has ever possessed more than a tiny fraction of the intelligence required to write such a mystery.

How do you know the "new testament" is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible? Because it says so? Because it is "self-evidently" so (as in "We Hold These Truths")? Everyone's religion makes perfect sense to him. You're not so naive that you don't know that, are you?

Whatever the case, there is no contradiction whatsoever in God's Word, from the book of Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Mormons think the "Book of mormon" is part of the puzzle.

All the pieces of the puzzle fit nicely.

And your "proof" for the authenticity and inspiration of the chrstian or Protestant bible is that "all the pieces fit nicely" in your opinion? Wow.

However, there is, and has been, widespread misinterpretation of His Word by mere mortals, such as your "proper Torah authorities",

Thank goodness you have been gifted with the gift of infallibility, so that your opinion, unlike that of anyone else (much less people who have studied its every letter for over three thousand years) could not possibly be mistaken.

which, unfortunately for the children of Israel, led to many severe punishments over the centuries, until the fulfilment of Deuteronomy 28 in AD70 when God divorced Israel, stripped them of their divine sanction to possess the land of Canaan, and married the Church.

You seem to not have read Deuteronomy 28 very carefully. All the warnings in Deuteronomy (and in Leviticus before them) are strictly against deviating from the Torah . . . nothing else. All Israel's exiles from the first to the last, are punishments for abandoning the Torah. Yet you present them as punishments for not abandoning the Torah to follow a new religion with new doctrines. You know . . . that sounds kinda . . . well . . . liberal.

There is not even a commandment in the Torah to "accept the messiah," because when he comes it will not be a matter of doubt. All the prophecies will be fulfilled by a literal messianic kingdom in Jerusalem, not a figurative "spiritual" kingdom ruled from Heaven.

Your notion of "proper Torah authorities" is puzzling, in light of the disastrous history of the children of Israel. Maybe they were not so proper: only authoritative.

Chrstianity must not be so hot either, considering the shape it's in . . . maybe you're being punished by G-d for trying to destroy Torah observance? Also see the reason the Torah itself gives for exile . . . deviating from the path given to Israel through Moses at Mt. Sinai, not for failing to abandon it to observe some new religion.

[Note: the right of ownership of the land of Canaan was never promised to Israel; only the divine sanction of their right to possess it, as long as they were good. When they were no longer good, they lost the divine sanction.]

So, when G-d told them they'd be exiled from the land if they ever deviated from the Torah of Moses either to the right or to the left what he actually meant was if they didn't stop observing it after two thousand years and do something else instead? I've heard of "speaking in riddles," but who wouldn't have been thrown by that, with not so much as a hint in the Torah that it was temporary and G-d would get mad at them if they kept it after its "use by" date!

The Prophets and Hagiographa were canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly, which included Prophets and other Biblical figures. They then closed the canon, meaning no other books can be added. Ever.<<<

That was pretty arrogant of them!

Well, y'know, you weren't available, so Ezra, Mordekhai, and the gang had to do the best they could.

Did they ask God for his permission to close the Canon?

I don't know. Did they ask you? (Haw haw!)

I seriously doubt it. They didn't believe the prophets, anyway;

Because the "new testament" says so, and the "new testament" is self-evidently true because it makes sense to "Philip Freneau."

LOL!

LOLWIKASALMFTO!

In all fairness, I do believe that they got it right.

So it's okay to publish it now?

To me

And that's what proves it, isn't it?

it is as inspired as the new covenant: it is all God's Word!

Because it makes sense to you and the interpretation of it you have constructed for yourself.

Those Prophets and Hagiographa, furthermore, are only there until the prophecies are fulfilled at which point they will no longer be read publicly during liturgical worship.<<<

They have been fulfilled by the new covenant

And you know this how? Because it's what you already believe? Because "all the pieces fit together" in your mind? Dispensationalism fits together in the minds of dispensationalists. But I suppose the difference is that you disagree with them.

so you can quit reading them.

No thanks.

Although you might consider keeping them around

Thank you so much for your permission to read the Word of G-d! I wouldn't want to get Him mad at me because I disagreed with you about something.

to occasionally remind yourself what not to do.

But I thought that G-d didn't want anybody observing all those old, outdated laws any more and if they do He gets mad and exiles them?

No, the fact that they are still there is because the rabbis do not believe or understand what is written.

You mean because they don't assume that the "new testament's" claims to divine inspiration and the legitimate authority to interpret the Hebrew Bible is self-evident?

Silly rabbit. Israel was given the Torah at Sinai, not the "new testament." It doesn't matter what it says, any more than it matters what the quran says or the book of mormon.

Why not? Because your rabbi told you so?

Actually, I figured it out on my own. You could say . . . all the pieces fit together! (Rimshot!)

I don’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church; but it seems the old-timers got the new covenant canon correct. The books they chose seem to be a perfect fit. I have no alternative but to believe they were divinely inspired, at least for that mission.

I'll let them know you said they got it right. They've been really, really worried! It's such a blessing that we have someone here whose every opinion infallibly aligns with Truth and who cannot be wrong.

>>>I have suspected for some time that your problem was not just with dispensationalism but with Judaism itself, of which you seem to consider pro-Jewish Fundamentalism a front group.<<<

You nailed it.

So your duty in life is to combat the evil Jews, whose "chosenness," even when not directly responsible for contemporary liberalism, is somehow indirectly responsible. As a conservative forum FR should be fighting the ee-vil Jews and their chosenness above and beyond all other issues. Thanks for letting us know.

By the way, as a Noachide, I'm an even bigger front for the Jews! You're going to have to get awfully mad at me, I'm afraid.

>>>This very post shows that some of your hostility towards Judaism and dispensationalism comes from the unfortunately very radical proclivities of very many Jews historically.<<<

That's about right.

So even though you admit that Orthodox Jews are not responsible for the liberalism of secular/"modern" Jews, not only they but even chrstians like Hal Lindsay are somehow implicated in the work of the American Civil Liberties Union? Then you must believe that Jewish Orthodoxy is inherently evil and directly responsible.

They are all antichristian.

Most religions are opposed to other religions that contradict them. Protestants are anti-Catholic, Catholics are anti-Protestant, and Jews are anti-chrstian. Who wouldn't oppose a religion that came along a thousand years later, claimed the Torah didn't actually mean what it said, and actually punished Jews for observing the law G-d charged them with at Sinai?

I oppose antichrist. It is really as simple as that. If you try to add to that you are wasting your bandwidth.

Dispensationalists think they oppose "antichrist." Don't amillenialists like you believe that any "earthly" messiah will be "the antichrist" because the "true messiah" has only a "spiritual kingdom?" It's really too bad your version of the "messiah" has no intention of ever coming and ruling the world.

>>>Do you really believe that all those Hollywood sleezebags, dirty nightclub comics, what-have-you, are following the orders of some little old bearded ninety-year old man in Me'ah She`arim or Benei Beraq? Really??? <<<

No, but I believe they have been historically influenced by a "chosen people" attitude (or complex) promoted by the orthodoxy.

Now I wonder where they got the idea that they are a chosen people? I'm sure it's not in the Bible anywhere[sarcasm].

You yourself are a testimony to that by recent posts.

A pretty neat trick when you consider that I'm not even Jewish.

I will agree that in the minds of many Jews, their relationship with each other is more along the lines of a limited-access, or separatist cult or clan; and not as the fulfilment of a religious mission.

That's true for all religions, unfortunately. All religions have an ethnic component, and sometimes the ethnicity becomes more important than the religion (Irish Catholics, eg).

>>>I have spent literally a lifetime trying to figure out why the Chosen People have become associated in the popular mind (and in so many of their own minds) with irreverence, blasphemy, and apostasy.<<<

Apparently, so did Moses. But Moses was not so blinded that he could not see that the days of the children of Israel as God's chosen people were numbered. To the contrary, he was most aware since he had to intervene, early on, when the Lord planned to destroy Israel and give the promises to Moses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" (Exo 32:9-11 KJV)

Um . . . where exactly does this indicate that "the days of the children of Israel as G-d's chosen people were numbered?" I don't see it anywhere. Now, if you get it from the "new testament," all right. But it's not in the text you quoted. And btw, you've never given me a single logical answer for why you believe the "new testament" in the first place ("it makes sense to me" really isn't much of a reason, whatever you think of yourself).

I believe every word that Moses wrote down. It is, after all, God's Word. But I refuse to pick and choose from his words. I believe that is what sets us apart, more than anything else. It is most certainly what sets me apart from many of the Christian persuasion.

No, you add to the Torah by assuming the inspiration of the "new testament" on no reason whatsoever than its own claims and some sort of feeling you have. And believe it or not, that makes you just like every chrstian on earth, pro- or anti-Jewish.

Let's be clear. I am not anti-Jewish. I happen to love Jews very much. Christianity was not founded by a bunch of Mongols, or Barbarians, or even by the Romans or Greeks.

You sure? Your description of them as directly responsible for all the evil in the world seems to indicate that G-d made a "mistake." And I notice the only nationalism you and others like you are opposed to is Jewish nationalism. All other nationalisms are legitimate, but the Biblical nation alone must never ever be reconstituted. Color me skeptical of your claims.

But even they were puzzled by the "missing Elijah" of Malachi, as interpreted by the scribes; until Jesus explained that "Elijah" was, in fact, John the Baptist:

What makes you think J*sus knew what he was talking about? What makes you think he was who he claimed to be? Do you believe it simply because he said it? Then I suppose you believe Joseph Smith too.

You're never giving me a reason to believe in J*sus or the "new testament." All I'm getting is "it's obvious because this is what I believe." Is this the message you mean to send?

There was no conspiracy against Judaism

There was a revolution against the Biblical world order which locked the Bible up tight as a proto-chrstian "allegory" and replaced it with the post-Biblical chrstian order we've had for two hundred years.

but rather the fulfilment of all the prophecies

How do you know this?

pointing to the new covenant.

How do you know this?

The new covenant contains and explains the law of the Lord:

How do you know this? Because this is what it claims? Do you believe the claims of every so-called holy scripture on its own authority, or only the one you believed in from the get-go?

the law that is written in hearts of those who read or hear its words, and subsequently call upon the name of the Lord. Note "the law" is singular, as David received:

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Ps 1:1-2 KJV)

The law of the Lord, which is written in our hearts, is simply this:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Mt 7:12 KJV)

What you seem to be unaware of is that Israel was not charged at Mt. Sinai to observe Mt 7:12 KJV. They were charged to observe the Torah. Any religion, therefore, including any based on Mt 7:12 KJV, which claims to replace the Torah must be rejected ipso facto.

Most Jews follow that law in associations with other Jews, but not with the Gentiles. How can all nations possibly be blessed by Jews, when they maintain an attitude toward the Goyim like that?

You don't believe G-d but any boundaries whatsoever between Israel and the nations of the earth? Really?

Therefore, the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to others.

How do you know this?

Anyway, that single "law" from the new covenant replaced the myriad of laws that Moses received.

Ah, the original "hope and change." So . . . just how does G-d contradicting Himself and starting a new religion after telling Israel to observe the Torah forever and never deviate from it constitute a "conservative" philosophy? I never understood that. And again, how do you know "that single 'law' from the new covenant replaced the myriad of laws that Moses received?" You keep asserting this, but you have no proof whatsoever (other than your groundless assumption from the outset that the "new testament" is canonical scripture and therefore has the right to "overrule" the Torah).

Included in the new covenant is the provision for the Goyim (heathen) to enter into the fold that was once reserved only for Israel:

But I thought there was never any distinction between Israel and the Goyim; that any such distinction was an evil plot of "apostate Israel" and led inevitably to Bolshevism, International Banking, and the Scofield Reference Bible!!! (you left out water fluoridation, btw).

"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek

How do you know this refers to J*sus and not to a literal Jewish mashiach some time in the future? How do you know it's not referring to the day when non-Jews will reject all their religions and embrace the Noachide Laws?

Don't tell me; let me guess . . . because this is what the "new testament" teaches and the "new testament" is self-evidently true. Right?

: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isa 11:10-12 KJV)

So . . . when G-d says He will regather the "outcasts of Israel" from the four corners of the earth and will restore them to their Holy Land . . . He doesn't actually mean it. What He "really means" is that He's going to replace the Jews with all the other nations of the world and bless their post-Biblical nations in a purely metaphorical, allegorical "return to Zion?"

Dude . . . you realize the words say the exact opposite of what you are arguing . . . right?

Moses wrote of that, as well:

What makes you think he's writing of the replacement of the Torah with chrstianity, especially when he told them in Deuteronomy they were never to deviate from it?

"They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation

." (Deu 32:21 KJV)

What makes you think this refers to J*sus? I'm sorry, but I'm simply not getting this idea that it is "obvious" that the "new testament" is what it claims to be or has the right to interpret the Hebrew Bible. And besides, according to you the non-Biblical, non-Jewish nations are pure as the driven snow. It's only the Biblical nation that is evil and the cause of Bolshevism and international banking.

As aforementioned, the intricacies of the new covenant forbid a forgery.

These "intricacies" are not necessarily true. It could be that their truth is self evident to you simply because that is what you choose to believe. Without this a priori assumption, there are no "intricacies" that prove or disprove anything.

For example, Jesus stated he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24,)

So? What if he was wrong? And unless you assume your conclusion from the outset (remember "affirmation of the consequent?"), his claiming to fulfill a prophecy doesn't mean he did.

and he sent his disciples only to the lost sheep (Mt 10:6;) until much later when he instructed them to include the Gentiles. That was a fulfillment of not only Isaiah 11:12 (highlighted above,) but other prophesies that point to the regathering of the lost or scattered sheep into a single fold under a single shepherd (Jn 10:14-16 KJV.)

How do you know? If the very fact that the "new testament" claims that this fulfills Biblical prophecy is what you're going by, then you're simply reasoning in a circle.

Now, think of the difficulties of anyone weaving even that simple fulfillment into a theme that included all the anticipations, passions and traditions of those in first century Judaea, not to mention all the prophecies pointing to that era. There is no way the new covenant was written in any manner, other than by the "pen" of God.

How do you know any of this was a fulfillment of anything? The fact that the "new testament" claims such-and-such was a fulfillment of prophecy does not prove that the "new testament" is right or is what it claims to be. There is no way that anyone could rationally make the statement you have just done without assuming his "conclusion" from the outset, which violates all the rules of logic.

Phil, the point at issue is whether the "new testament" and chrstianity really are what they claim to be. You're not dealing with that. You are simply invoking the point at issue. Invoking the point at issue doesn't not prove an argument. You can't quote a claim by the "new testament" that such-and-such fulfills Biblical prophecy. You have to justify your beliefs by prior revelation. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this.

The reason, I have come to believe, is that the separateness of Israel is indeed what keeps the rest of the human race united. Were Israel to intermingle and disappear from the world (G-d forbid!), the various nations would separate from each other and drift off into a situation where each lived in its own subjective world, with its own "truth" and its own "gxd." So long as Israel remains separate from the rest of humanity as G-d intended, the human race will remain united under the single Objective G-d.

I cannot imagine a more ridiculous statement.

I can. "The "new testament" fulfills the "old testament" because the "new testament" says it fulfills the "old testament." Now that there is a doozy!

That statement is self-contradictory, by definition.

You mean like "the 'new testament' is the word of G-d because they "new testament" says it is the word of G-d?

Israel is a separatist nation;

Heaven forbid that Israel be "a separatist nation." I'll bet you hate all those Mexicans pouring over our borders.

and until it "melts away," that is, until it joins the rest of the human race,

You mean until it it intermarries and is totally absorbed so that it doesn't exist any more. I notice you're not wanting any other nations to "melt away." You only want the Biblical nation to melt away. Why? Because its continued existence gives the lie to the claims of your liberal innovationist religion? Why don't you ask the Irish or the Armenians or the Ethiopians to "melt away?" Oh, but they're not the Biblical nation, so they're all right. Only the Biblical nation has to disappear so you can feel good about yourself and your radical revolutionary beliefs.

we cannot become the "single species" you point to; nor can we consider ourselves to be of "one blood" as the Lord hath declared we indeed are:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (Acts 17:26 KJV)

That's mighty funny considering the fact that one of the reasons people like you oppose the Jews is their alleged "race mixing" tendencies. I thought people who didn't like Jews thought non-whites were "muds?"

There is no problem with people of common heritage gathering together into a single nation; rather it should be encouraged; but not as instruments of tyranny and greed, but as instruments of freedom and prosperity.

Except for the Biblical nation, which must never be reconstituted. Anyone else can practice "kinism" or any other such thing and that's fine and dandy, but the Biblical nation must never be allowed any national identity, because it makes you feel inferior and you resent it. I've got news for you: it's not the Jews' fault that HaShem chose them and not whatever you happen to be. Stop being a crybaby about it.

After Satan

HaShem?

and his children

The Biblical nation, the nation of "Satan" the Biblical G-d.

are destroyed,

You really are sick, aren't you?

there will still be nations which will require some time to heal from his disastrous deceptions that we are currently experiencing:

But not the "evil" nation of the "evil" Biblical G-d, which you just said is going to be destroyed, because the literal (as opposed to allegorical) fulfillment of messianic prophecies is a constant offense to you.

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

(Rev 22:2 KJV)

And obviously the Biblical nation is left out of this little utopia of yours.

But the so-called "melting pot," falsely promoted by the Satan and his angels as "eliminating discrimination," is nation-destroying.

Just a moment ago you argued that Israel had to "join the human race" and "melt" so that we could be "one blood" and "one species." NOW suddenly you don't want nations to melt away or be "one blood" after all! What is wrong with you??? The only consistency in your otherwise contradiction-riddled philsosophy is that you don't like the Jews, and only the Jews! Do you even notice this? "Jews must melt and join the human race" simultaneously with "the Jews are destroying (post-Biblical) nations through the "melting pot???" Why don't you come out and admit that the Jews have to go so all the other nations can be separate and live in their own realities?

You know, that "most ridiculous statement" you mentioned earlier doesn't look so ridiculous now. You've just proven it.

Maybe because discrimination is written into your theology,

Says the guy who's against the melting pot and wants a pure ethnic homeland for every nation on earth except for one! And again, I'm not Jewish.

or your hearts. If, on the other hand, you lent to the Goyim without usury, and to the Jew with usury;

The Torah forbids usury to fellow Jews but permits it for non-Jews. In fact, one of the blessings of staying faithful is that Jews will "lend and not borrow," whereas one of the penalties for abandoning the Torah is that they will "borrow and not lend." I thought you knew your Bible?

or even, as the new covenant

Who says it's what it claims to be?

declares, assume there is no difference between the Jew and the Goyim

But I thought there was a difference--the Jews must "melt away" so that non-Jews can be free of the "melting pot" and have true racial integrity???

You know, you're really doing me a favor by posting all this contradictory lunacy here for everyone to read.

and lend equally to all;

So one of G-d's laws was "mean" and "unfair?"

I might consider your arguments to be something other than self-serving.

Unlike your arguments "proving" the "new testament" by quoting the "new testament." That's not self-serving at all, is it?

Must I assume you are a liberal Jew simply because you have demonstrated discriminatory tendencies? Or should I consider your argument a half-hearted attempt at redirection?

You must assume I'm a poor rural Bible-thumping cracker who dreams of a restored Biblical world through worldwide Jewish Theocracy, with the Biblical nation fully restored, a Davidic king on the (literal) throne in Jerusalem, and the Temple rebuilt with the Temple sacrificial rite fully restored; ie, everything must go back to exactly how it was before the chrstian revolution. But you probably won't. You'll probably accuse me of being a big bad Jew just pretending.

Whatever the case, it solves nothing. Both "liberal" and orthodox Jews are "equal:" they are both antichrist.

And why are they supposed to believe in a new, alien religion that contradicts the Torah G-d gave them at Sinai and warned them never to depart from? Why do they have any more obligation to not oppose Chr*st than you do to not oppose Joseph Smith or Mohammed?

Before closing: you left two of my questions unanswered. One, are you a follower of Charles Carlson of "We Hold These Truths," and two, do you believe HaShem is "satan?" But even though you did not respond directly, your beliefs come through loud and clear. You believe the Biblical G-d is "satan."

Some "conservative" you are. Now why don't you go back to Stormfront?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.