Posted on 07/13/2016 3:51:52 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
I have to admit that I never heard of this cult until now. From the outside looking in, it appears they have some issues in common with the Muzzies, but they appear to me, as just modern day Pharisees. Jesus called them a brood of vipers, Matt 23:33.
If keeping the law is supposed to "attain" eternal life (gee, where have we heard that before?) how closely do they need to keep the law? Are they required to be perfect, or can they make a mistake here and there? Do they require us to keep the law perfectly, or can we make mistakes, and still "attain" eternal life? According to James 2:10, my opinion is, that if a person keeps the ENTIRE law perfectly, but makes one, tiny little mistake, they are in deep kimchi.
Do you suppose a Matt 23:4 applies here?😇🎯🙊🙈🙉🇵🇭
Good question. I wonder if they, like just about EVERY other religion in the world, thinks if you are a "good person", you "try your best", live according to the dictates of your conscience, "be nice", etc., you'll make it? That does seem to totally miss the point that Almighty God says that it is our SIN which separates us from Him and that His justice requires atonement for that sin. That without the shedding of blood, there is no atonement for sin (Leviticus 17:11). If all that was required is we say, "sorry", and that's all that is needed, then Adam and Eve could have done that and we would still be living in the Garden of Eden eating strawberries. ;o)
Yeah...that was pretty disgusting. Perhaps that is the reason no one has dared post an OPEN thread on the RF discussing this sect?
Well, in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, at least in the eyes of man, made just a small, rather innocuous little mistake, a small little bit of disobedience. It didn't matter much. It was no big thing. They only fell slightly off the cliff, but they were kind of still hanging on. They would recover.
In God's eyes, however, that one little, tiny, meaningless sin, was totally hideous to Him, and mankind fell completely off the cliff, all the way, infinitely past the bottom floor, with no hope of any kind of recovery whatsoever, for all eternity.
Whatever people may believe, or not believe about it, is irrelevant to God. He knows the truth, and has communicated that truth to us in the pages of both the Old and New Testaments. If people do not wish to accept that, then that's on them. They only thing they have to look forward to, is a certain fiery indignation, (lake of fire) the "wrath of God." Imagine that, the wrath of God, a concept so completely unfathomable, that no man can ever even begin to understand it. I have NO desire to experience that wrath, even though I deserve it. Make sense?
Would that be a *Yes* or a *No*?
All that wasted bandwidth didn’t answer the question.
“...Is this an accurate account of Noahide belief?””
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Yeah...
Sure...
So is Islam.
Well; that's come and gone.
Their own HISTORY shows they were quite capable of doing this all by themselves.
Over and over again!
Well; they didn't INTEND to get into trouble; besides; at this point in time; what difference does it make?
What I asked was specifically about the representation of who Jesus was. I did NOT ask if it represented Noahide beliefs in general.
What I asked in post 60 was this, in its entirety.
What’s even more interesting is who they claim Jesus to be.
About a quarter of the way down the page under the heading of “Jesus Led Israel to Apostasy”, is a description of who they claim Jesus to be.
People can check the link because I am not going to post what was said. It’s too disgusting.
Therefore, I have to ask, is this who the Noahides on this forum think Jesus is? Is this an accurate account of Noahide belief?
Can you answer the question with a simple *Yes* or *No* this time. To start with.
If it's inaccurate, please give us the correct view of who Noahides think Jesus is.
And spare us the happy, happy, Mormon-like propaganda pieces.
Els meister, I just had a Eureka moment. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first ones to use the Hillary defense. Hillary just perfected it.
Spiritual people today, do not accept the Adam and Eve defense, anymore than we accept the Hillary defense. And, I don't accept this modern day Pharisaic cult either. It's a cult with a capital C.
According to the "new testament." You say the "new testament" is Divinely inspired and part of the Bible? I have a great and simple idea: prove it.
and even if you reject that, the fact is that the Christ of the Scripture which Christians are to look to was Jewish, and prioritized the welfare of the Hebrew people
Not according to chrstianity as it existed for 1600 to 1800 years.
as did His apostles, and those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the strongest supporters of Israel, and conservative morality. All of which evidence is contrary to your charge.
First of all, no it isn't. If the "new testament" is an imposture, then it is an imposture, regardless of how pro-Israel some chrstians might be.
Second of all, what is there about the article that isn't "pro-G-d?" Judaism was around a thousand years before chrstianity and it was pretty darn pro-G-d.
Are you saying that Jewish apologetics should be disqualified from a conservative web forum? That's pretty ironic considering that chrstianity is the new idea and has the burden of defending itself.
What's the difference between Catholic apologetics and Jewish apologetics? Why is the former all right and the latter not? Catholics, after all, are the ones who go around promoting evolution and higher criticism.
If you're implying that Americans are supposed to subscribe to "the American religion," you are denying both monotheism and objective religious truth.
2)Your "one sin damns eternally, forcing G-d to create a loophole by incarnating and vicariously damning Himself" is a classic Protestant (especially Calvinist) argument against Catholicism. Unfortunately, Protestantism is not an authentic, historical version of chrstianity (being a converted Catholic I know you don't want to hear that, though I'm not really sticking up for Catholicism). For fifteen hundred years chrstians lived their lives doing extreme penances, praying, fasting, etc., in order to avoid hell. Why didn't they understand what the "new testament" actually said? Why did it take fifteen hundred years for someone to get it right?
I am not arguing for Catholicism but for Judaism. You need to stop imposing the Protestantism vs. Catholicism argument here because it has nothing to do with it. Unlike Catholicism, Judaism doesn't claim to be a "salvational" religion. It is a statutory religion. Catholicism is hypocritical because it made an antinomian argument against the Law of Moses and then turned around and dropped it when it developed its own "laws." Judaism has never made an antinomian argument against anything and is free of the hypocrisy of Catholicism.
Sincere Protestants see the Pharisees as the Catholic clergy of their day and J*sus as Martin Luther. I understand that. But that argument only holds water against Catholicism. I understand that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, but please . . . .
Would you be interested in hearing from the "book of mormon?"
Metmom, you know that I respect you. I hope you know that. But do you have the slightest idea of how fallacious your reasoning is?
In an argument such as this, there are two points: the antecedent and the consequent. Our argument is yes or no, given A, therefore B. A is the Hebrew Bible/"old testament" (specifically the Torah). B is the "new testament." A was already around. A was already known to be the Word of G-d. You and I both agree on A. B is new. B is an innovation. The burden is on the innovation to justify itself. Your claim that I am obligated to prove that the "new testament" isn't the fulfillment of the old is no different from the claim that the burden is on chrstians "prove" that the koran or the "book of mormon" aren't true. There is absolutely no difference. I'm sorry, but if all you can say is "prove that it isn't what it says it is," then you have shown the utter bankruptcy of your position. You are implying that every new claim of any kind must be accepted at face value unless proven otherwise!
There are many places, as you probably well know, where the writers of the NT and Jesus Himself, stated that certain events are/were fulfillment of OT prophecies.
As you know, there are many places in the koran where it claims to be the fulfillment of all the "old" and "new testament" prophecies. Wow. It says that about itself? I guess we all have to believe it then, unless we can prove otherwise! Because that's your argument for the "new testament."
I have yet to see a single argument for chrstianity that doesn't simply assume its truth from the outset . . . kinda like so many arguments for evolution.
ZC response: Yes I am. Although I hope you realize that they can be enforced from the local unit upward and do not necessarily require any kind of central imposition (though eventually they will be imposed by Mashiach HaMelekh). (Post #54).
That means, I take it, that if your preferred form of government prevailed, you would subscribe to the beheading of the avowed followers of Jesus of Nazareth for their testimony and for their effort in recruiting followers. That is so, is it not?
(Your answer will be "Yes" or "No"; a response of silence or fence-riding must, of course, to be taken as "Yes.")
IRP
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.