Skip to comments.Question to Christians From a Jewish Friend
Posted on 12/08/2004 11:08:38 PM PST by Mike10542
Hey fellow freepers, having been swept up in the battle of conservatives first liberals and believers in God vs. non-beleivers I clearly have chosen the right side here (hence me writing on Free Republic). The alignment of Jews like myself and many fellow Christians is one that I feel is very necesary to win the war against evil and have peace in our time. Although I choose to ignore all the leftists and others who try to break up this loving partnership by saying "They are only on your side becuase they want the Jews in control of Jerusalem so Christ returns," I am looking to explore what the Bible really teaches about the Jewish fate from the Christian perspective. It is hard to find what the majority opinion is because the internet is, well, the internet. What I have made out so far is that during rapture I beleive 2/3's of Jews are killed, but one third survive. So my questions are:
1) What do the 2/3's of Jews die from (war, just happens????)
2) What happens to the remaning 1/3 of Jews after they survive?
3) Do any of this remaining 1/3 of Jews make it past the final judgement of God (some interpertations say no, others say the remaining Jews are allowed to pass once accepting God and I think Christ)
I truly beleive in my Jewish fate as I have been raised Jewish, but my mom is Christian. So each religion I respect and believe are good. Ultimately, I hope us Jews and Christians both make it together to the promised land (and only the Muslims are sent to hell!)
Thanks for all your answers. Also, feel free to direct me to anywhere where I can learn more about this subject.
Do you believe that there is any human being on Earth that acts with primary agape love, and in any way not consistent with his conception of what is necessary for the survival of things important to him as a first consideration, and the good of another as a secondary consideration?
If you do, what would be the example(s)?
Look, most of your acquaintances might believe in that rapture crap, but there are over a billion Christians on the planet and it is the case that only a minority of American Christians believe it. The rest don't.
As for being intolerant, you bet your sweet bippie I am intolerant. I can't stand idiots, fools or liars. Anyone espousing the rapture ranks in one of those categories at least.
I'm not going to write a novel to rebut you since it's already been done. Read Paul Thigpen's The Rapture Trap, for instance. There are many other books rebutting your understanding of "rapture" Scriptures precisely because no one believed this crap prior to about two centuries ago.
If you care to refute THAT statement, all you have to do is find a Christian in the first millenium of Christianity who bought into it.
There aren't any. And there are precious few in the second millenium - none prior to the 1800's.
Do not embrace "The Rapture" as settled Christian doctrine. It originated with a handful of marginal 19th Century Protestant ministers but has been recently taken up and popularized by evangelicals and amplified by their vigorous publishing and entertainment media.
There is a great deal of exegesis and commentary behind "The Rapture," but thin support in the text of the Bible. Indeed, "The Rapture" is rejected by the Roman Catholic Church and its putative source, the Apocalypse, is not regarded as canonical and hence is seen as unreliable as a guide in matters of faith.
You're using fallacious reasoning and a straw man argument. Pretribulationalism is not apostolic; pretribulationalism is dispensationalism; therefore, dispensationalism is not apostolic. No dispansationalist claims that dispensationalism to be developed in the first century; nor is it necessary to be able to do so. Many other doctrines were not developed in the early centuries - including covenant theology which originated in the seventeenth century. Doctrinal development is perfectly normal process that has occured throughout church history.
In fact its the improper use of church history that creates the second fallacy. The fact that something was taught in the first century doesn't makes it right (unless its taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the 19th century doesn't make it wrong, unless of course it is unscriptural.
That the systematizing of dispensationalism is recent should not be suprising. It would not be unexpected that a subject whose primary distinctions have to with eschatology should not have been systematized until eschatology began to be refined seriously by the church. Most agree that history of dogma has followed a certain pattern of unfolding development and discussion. Orr, in his classic work The Progress of Dogma shows how the doctrines taken up for theological study by the church throughout history chronologically correspond with the general order followed in most systematic theologies. In chronological order the doctrinal discussions were on apologetics, theology proper, anthropology, Christology, soteriolgy, and after the Reformation, eschatology. Undoubtedly the recency of systematic eschatology partly accounts for the relative recency of systematic dispensationalism. This is not to say that eschatology or even a primitive dispensationalism was not considered prior to the Reformation, but it is to say that systematic developemnt of doctrine in these areas did not come on the scene until then.
The fact of the matter, Paul broached the subject concerning the rapture to the Thessalonians. The Thessalonian Christians were concerned for fear that the rapture had already happened and that they were living in the day of the Lord (the end times). Their view was reasonable based on the degree of persecution they were experiencing (as referred to in the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians). Paul pooh-poohs that idea, writing in chapter 2 that such a thing was impossible. In v.3 he shows that the day of the Lord could not occur without some kind of departure. Whether this departure is from faith, or of the saints from the earth (as mentioned in v.1) is beside the point. He reveals that there is to be a manifestation of a man of sin, or the lawless one (this is further described in Revelation 13). Paul makes the argument in v.7 that although the lawless system that was to culminate itself in the manifestation of the lawless one, was in existence in his day, the lawless one could not be manifested until the Restrainer was taken out of the way. Explanations of who the Restrainer was such as human government, law, the visible church, are insufficient, for they will all continue in a measure after the manifestation of the lawless one. While this is essentially an exegetical problem, it would seem then that the only plausible explanation for the One who could perform such restraining ministry would be the Holy Spirit. The indication here by Paul is, that as long as the Holy Spirit is resident within the church, which is His temple, the restraining work will continue and the man of sin cannot be revealed. In accordance to the prophecy of Daniel 9:27, the church must be raptured before the tribulation period, as the lawless one will be manifested at the beginning of the week.
The first sentance of your second paragraph is absolute madness, and casts doubt concerning your understanding of what exegesis is. Perhaps you believe it to wax eloquent and deriving doctrine out of thin air? And finally, not that the doctrine of the rapture is predicated on the book, but to intimate that The Book of Revelation is not cononical is the height of absurdity.
You just earned the ignore list. Bye.
The poster you mentioned was banned because he was too confrontational, consistantly forced his topic on threads having nothing to do with that topic, tended to be rude and first to anger in his debate, and picked fights whenever possible. Much the same reason that poster, Whiskey Papa, that haunted the southern/civil war threads was banned.
I debated on the side of the notion that the remnants of the 10 tribes of Israel make up a large part of the world today, and I'm not banned.
BTW, I agree with you about the Rapture. All I have read about it's Biblical support can also be interpreted to mean that God will cleanse the Earth of deadwood so He could bring the Millennium age.
I just finished reading an outstanding book entitled "Salvation is From the Jews". The purpose of the book is:
The purpose of the book is to give the Christian reader a deeper understanding of Judaism, both as a religion in itself and as a central component of Christian salvation, and to reveal to the Jewish reader the incomprehensible importance and glory which Jews and Judaism most truly have; a glory and importance which is only revealed in the light of the Catholic faith. It traces the role of Judaism and the Jewish people in Gods plan for the salvation of all mankind from Abraham through the Second Coming, as revealed by the Catholic faith and by a thoughtful examination of history, showing the infinite nobility and importance which Judaism has as Gods own religion, and the unique and central role it has in the destiny of all of creation. Repeatedly it demonstrates that rather than debasing Judaism or Jews, true Christianity ennobles them to a far greater degree than even Judaism itself does. It documents that throughout history attacks on Jews and Judaism have been rooted not in Christianity, but in the most anti-Christian of forces.
The structure of the book is chronological, tracing the interaction between God and man which takes place through Judaism and the Jewish people. The analysis is woven around the interplay of God, the Jewish people, the Messiah, the Gentiles, and the adversary of mans salvation. Central themes include the Messianic expectation in Jewish theology, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in the economy of salvation, and the roles played by the State of Israel, Islam, and Arab anti-Semitism in the Second Coming.
The author, Roy Schoeman, has set up an informative web site with links to online resources for his book.
To whit I am familiar with all the differing eschatological arguments and even differing dispensational systems, however, I'll go toe to toe categorically with any argument and anyone who wants to refute pre-trib pre-mill rapture, post-trib pre-mill second advent of Christ. I'll show why any other hermeneutic is wrong and how its inconsistent and essentially unsound doctrine.
As far as refuting what you asked me to, see my response to Rockingham above. Its a straw man argument and needs no further refuting.
That's a problem. "Literal" isn't something too many agree on.
The bible is full of metaphors and other literary devices. Jesus taught in parables many times.
You won't get easy answers, they don't exist.
Look into this and study for yourself and don't listen to people like Bandaneira. There is actual proof in scripture about the Rapture.
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Blah, blah, blah.
Find me one Christian between 100 AD and 1800 AD who believed in the rapture (I'm leaving the NT out of this because we are disputing over the meaning of those texts).
I think Christians should treat Jews with love and respect unconditionally and vice versa. I certainly don't like the idea of supporting Jews *just because* it fits a Christian interpretation which could be incorrect, at least in part, because that is self-serving and hypocritical.
I do not wish decent Muslims to go to hell. I don't really wish anyone burns forever. I do hope that there will be some kind of separation of the good and the bad though as part of what makes life so difficult is living in fear of anyone who would do anyone harm unless it is necessary in a just war.
Just some thoughts. If I didn't choose to be a Christian, I would choose to be a Jew. I wish that the practice of Christianity could be more "Jewish". I personally wish we could worship more closely to how Jesus worshipped only with his addition of the Eucharist and other early Christian modifications such as lessening of dietary restrictions. According to my belief, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary after Jesus' death, but being a Jew, he would have supported that.
As a Catholic who is practicing again, I can't resolve how we can obey the commandment of keeping the sabbath and at the same time meet on the "Lord's day" (Sunday) for Christian worship. It isn't practical to do both unless you become part of a sabbatarian group which doesn't exactly fit the bill either.
I do look forward to Jesus' return and hope that all things are restored eventually in a manner that is most pleasing to God, no matter whose ox gets gored in the process.
Jesus did keep a Saturday sabbath and was a practicing Jew until he was crucified. I doubt he ever ate pork, but I believe it is permissible for Christians because of Peter's vision.
I do understand that with the inclusion of the gentiles in Christianity, some rules had to be modified, but sometimes I think they changed too many things over the centuries. Some of my thinking would make some Catholics, Orthodox and even Jews upset.
There are aspects of the Catholic religion that I have mental reservations about. I wouldn't have liked to be Jewish and watched them killing all those animals for sacrifices. I feed sparrows on my front porch and if I killed one (which would be unthinkable), I would be considered a mental risk. Two birds were sacrificed after Jesus was born. I think it was sparrows but maybe it was doves. I can't remember.
But it all gets too complicated, so I just do the best I can and hope for the best for all of us. There are a lot of things I don't understand and don't make a whole lot of sense at this late date and I'm getting too old to make sense of some things. But I'm not getting to old to think and wonder about things, things that a lot of people don't think about.
That we have done nothing and can do nothing to redeem ourselves is fundamental to Christianity.
...and it seems to well-represent the beliefs of Christians. That's what I was defending in my post.
It puts things in perspective.
Your previous post would seem to imply otherwise, at least unless you can rationalize the two claims. And to call another poster a "newbie" serves no valid purpose in this argument, and only serves to distract from the weakness (or lack of) your answer to the challenge he raised.
Where does Protestantism fit in there?
I have been wanting to read it for awhile so I ordered it from Ignatius Press for 20.95 including shipping. It's by Roy Schoeman (grew up Jewish in France I think) and titled "Salvation is from the Jews."
Author biography is here in .pdf format
Just in case anyone finds it interesting.
Actually, I'm one of the "bad" ones. But at least I'm not a religious thread stalking TROLL like you, thank God!.
And that "LOL" thing is so original, too, trollpardons. (Oh, LOL!)
Guess we are in sync today. Sorry I didn't see your post before I wrote my comment further down. Didn't know the thread had gotten so long and convoluted.
I am so glad to hear your interest in your two faiths. God has a plan for the Jews in the endtimes. Even in the Christian faith Israel remains God's chosen people. We Christians have been adopted into God's family. I encourage you to go to the Jews for Jesus website. I have read their book regarding how they came about. They are a wonderful group and can help you in your search for the Truth. May your quest be blessed by our great I AM.
Protestantism is not Apostolic.
If you are a Christian, you cannot look at those outside your faith as being "saved"/ right with God/ making it to heaven. If you are a Jew the good of all nations are right with God. That aside, if you are trying to choose between the 2 faiths, you should study both the Jewish and Christian interpretation of scripture and decide for yourself which rings true to you.
These are just a few sources that opened my eyes:
May God bless you in your search.
It would seem post #154 went right over your head, eh?
Have you received the book yet? I ordered it from Amazon.com and had it within a few days. Rarely do I ever read a book from cover to cover. This one I 'imbibed' slowly, bookmarking multiple sections for reference. It is outstanding!
Mr. Schoeman addresses a question that has plagued me for years. He writes:
"Both Matthew and Mark explicitly mention Jesus' silence as well as the underlying motive of envy. From Matthew 27:12-18:
But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge; so that the governor wondered greatly ... For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up."
Mr. Schoeman points to the Lemann brothers (also Jewish converts) who made the touching point that Jesus' silence before the High Priest was motivated by His profound respect for the office of the Jewish Priesthood. Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself. It was because Jesus did not want to put the High Priest in the position of sinning against that law that He refused to answer the High Priest's questions even though beaten for it. (John 18:19-23) which he then quotes. Jesus acquiesced only when the High Priest ordered Him to answer in the name of God.
This is extraordinary! I am not familiar with Mosaic law and could never have figured this out. Can you imagine! Here is the sinless Son of God respecting Jewish laws so as not to cause his accuser to sin!
BTW - he will be a guest of Marcus Grodi on EWTN's The Journey Home , on Monday, January 10 @ 8pm EDT. Like St. Paul, he had an instantaneous conversion. It's a most fascinating story.
You, too. Bye.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if your mom isn't jewish then, according to Rabbinic Judaism, you arent either.
Just constantinian christianity dressed up in sheeps clothing. Been there, done that. Don't bother.
That depends of your definition of Apostolic. If you refer to a continuous chain of ordination back to the apostles, then you are correct. Most Protestants, however, hold the view that Apostolic refers to the true Chruch, and therefore can include any church that adheres to the teachings of the apostles.
It's important to point out in this discussion that the idea that 2/3rds of the Jewish people would be slain in the End Times is not a New Testament teaching, but comes directly from the Tanakh, specifically, Zechariah 13. These deaths would be by the wars and persecutions of a false messiah (the Antichrist, in Christian parlance). From that perspective, you might want to do some digging in your own Scriptures and rabbis' commentaries on the End Times, especially those dealing with the aforementioned chapter, the book of Daniel, and Ezekiel 38-39.
There is, of course, a great deal of controversy among Christians about which prophecies are yet future and how the Second Coming of Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) will come about. If you want to know the gist of these debates, I'll be happy to post a summary here when I get home from work; if not, don't worry about it.
For my part, I believe that Christians and Jews who refuse to worship the Antichrist will be persecuted together. After a time of testing, Yeshua will appear in the clouds of the sky to ressurrect the dead and gather the Church to Himself. The Day of the Lord that the prophets wrote of will then commence. I believe that at that time, those Jews who have not already come to Yeshua as their Messiah but who also did not worship the Antichrist in place of Adonai will be left behind, but sealed and protected through the Day of the Lord. Then the Messiah will return, gather the remnant of Israel, fight the Last Battle, and rule the world as a distinctly Jewish king and Messiah from David's throne in Jerusalem, as the prophets declare.
That's the short-short version, of course. If you'd like to engage in further conversation about this, I'd be glad to answer your questions here, or you can Freepmail me if you'd like to talk more privately.
On a more academic note, I have to ask you: Why do choose not to respond with any reason to the very reasonable challenge to your claim? I can think of several possibilities; please let me know which is closest to the truth.
A. You realize your initial position was wrong, do not want to admit it, but do not want to engage in an argument because you already know you would lose.
B. You believe your initial position to be correct, but don't feel you have the necessary intelligence to successfully defend it.
C. You don't accept the Bible and don't want to argue with a poster who will base his arguments on it.
If your reason is close to A or B, I can see why you might not want to admit it, but if you hold position C, I can understand and respect your desire not to engage in a argument, though you should be more open about your reasons.
So, you can't name any Christian between 100 AD and 1800 AD who believes the rapture crap, can you?
Of course most Protestants hold that view. If they held any other view, they could not consider themselves true churches, could they?
In point of fact, apostolic succession refers to the laying on of hands, as Acts and the Pauline letters demonstrate. Paul himself, though converted in Acts 9, is not an apostle until the laying on of hands in Acts 13:3. Note he is only called a teacher and prophet in Acts 13:1. None of his speeches are recorded and he is never called an apostle until after Acts 13:3. Why? Because it's Acts of the Apostles, not Acts of the Lay People, and Paul ain't an apostle until the Church lays hands on him.
There are four generations of apostles in the NT:
(1) Jesus who is an apostle from the Father,
(2) the Twelve made apostles by Jesus,
(3) Paul, Barnabas and the councils of elders who were made apostles by the Twelve, then
(4) Timothy and Titus, who were made apostles by Paul and the councils of elders.
NONE of the early Christians, that is, none of the Christians in the first millennium of the Church, recognized ANYONE as an apostle unless they had been recieved into this apostolic line through the laying on of hands by a person who was already consecrated an apostle.
The invention of the new definition of apostolic succession promulgated by Protestants is their wild attempt to make up for the fact that they don't have it. Period.
I assume you know that "apostle" means one who is sent. Read Romans 10. No church that's not in the charge of a man in a series of sent men that originated with Jesus can be apostolic.
To insist on interpreting the Bible only literally is to abuse it, because it's overflowing with prophetic significance.
The circumstances of Isaac's birth (to offer just one example) are not just a coincidence, you know. Everything about it points to Christ and his Church.
There can be no such thing as Christianity that's "more Jewish." The New Covenant is not called to conform to the Old; it's the fulfillment of the Old. Far better to wish that Judaism would be more Christian.
The fact that you're confused about why Christians don't worship on the Sabbath is not surprising, but you really owe it to yourself to have a look in the catechism. We celebrate the sacrifice of the eucharist, as Jesus commanded, and we do so on Sunday -- the first day of the week -- because as Christians we are a new creation, living in a new eschatological "day". Christ is the new man, who makes all things new in him. The world is re-made with his victory over death. In the creation story of Genesis, God's work is finished on a friday. In the NT, Jesus's work ends when he says "it is finished" -- on a friday. In the OT, God rests on the Sabbath. In the NT, Jesus's body rests in the tomb on the Sabbath. Christians celebrate the 8th day -- the day of the new creation.
The fate of the Jews is prophetically indicated in Genesis 33, when the older brother Esau is reconciled to the younger, and accepts his gifts.
Jews are our older brothers in the faith. Consider the recurring biblical dynamic of older and younger brothers: Abel is favored over Cain. Isaac is preferred over Ishmael. Jacob is preferred over Esau. David (destined for kingship!) slays Goliath -- while fighting naked! -- not his older brother. You can't dismiss this as coincidence. Similarly, in the NT parable of the prodigal son, favor comes to the younger son who was lost, to the dismay of his older (law-abiding!) brother.
There is no such thing as a purely objective interpretation of scripture.
A non-sequitur. As anyone with knowledge of the origin of the haftarah reading understands.
And Muslims believe that Islam supercedes Christianity.
Jesus was a Jew, so He could bring Judaism to perfection. Mohammed was a pagan - neither Christian nor Jew - so there's no continuity there.
In other words, Mohammed and Islam are simply wrong.