Jews Rejected God's Offer

why can't she discuss her thoughts about holding tongues in bible study when you can parent people on how they shouldn't say anything that might rock someone's boat?...his followers would be allowed in the synagogues but rather, someone who "confessed Christ".sorry, what's the difference? you're really caught up in your modern dogma of being 'saved'. so if i don't go to a school and get shot at cause i stand up and say 'i believe in god the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in....' then i'm not a "confessor" and i have no claim to salvation? get off it.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-04-2004 12:03 PMThis message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-04-2004 12:10 PM

Well, that is what John says.However, JOHN says he was bapitised by the holy ghost, (I.E. not flesh).Why would the Jews accept paganisitc concepts from someone?? That doesn't seem to be an offer from God for the jews at all.And, looking at what you posted from acts SUPPORTS my view. John never met Jesus in the flesh. He saw visions.

quote:

---

Ramoss writes:

​

And it is relevant that the apostles that supposedly KNEW Jesus in the flesh stayed faithful Jews . . .

---

quote:

---

Posted in reply by dpardo

​

Even a cursory reading of Acts refutes what you say. Acts 11 says: . . .

---

Hello dpardo,IMO, the main point that Ramoss was making is that the apostles (who learned directly from Jesus) apparently did not abandon Judaism either before or after the crucifixion.In Acts, chapter 21, James admonishes Paul about allegedly teaching Jews to abandon the Law and the customs of Moses (i.e., Judaism).

quote:

---

Acts 21:20-21

​

(James, etal, says to Paul): Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Law.

​

And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses (which was exactly what Paul was doing); saying that they ought not to circumcise children, neither to walk after the customs.

---

It is often said of this that the apostles simply didn't (at this point in time) fully understand God's plan of salvation. And that this further understanding was subsequently given to PaulHowever, this contention seems untenable in light of Jesus' visitation to the apostles immediately following the crucifixion as portrayed in the gospel of Luke:

quote:

---

Luke 24:45 & 47

​

Then opened he (the risen Christ) their (the apostles) understanding that they might understand the scriptures (i.e., at this time, the Hebrew scriptures or "the OT").

​

(47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

---

Thus, even having learned from Jesus personally and having had their understanding "opened" by the risen Christ, the apostles and their followers in Jerusalem remained "zealous for the Law" and admonished Paul about teaching any Jews to do otherwise. (In fact, even requiring Paul to undergo a purification ritual involving an animal sacrifice as an example of his adherence to this Law as a Jew himself.)Therefore, it would appear that the concept of "repentance and remission of sin in (Jesus) name" had a different basic meaning for the apostles than that later expounded by Paul.And if they (the apostles) learned directly from Jesus, and were given understanding of the scriptures from the risen Christ, and were still of the opinion that they were to practice the precepts of Mosaic Law and temple Judaism (including animal sacrifices for the remission of sin), by what authority could Paul or anyone else question this understanding?AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-04-2004 04:17 PM

except that i am NOT struggling with that section, nor do i not understand it, so neither of those would be accurate decisions of my position.instead, i understand and it is my educated opinion that the book of john carries no weight, and is an unreliable source. i have a similar opinion of the epistles: they are the advice of men, not the law of god.if this simple observation that the bible is a fallible set of documents causes you to question your faith.... good. you should question. there is nothing wrong with asking questions.but more importantly, your faith should not be based on a book. christianity is a personal relationship with god, not a reading assignment. i question and i learn about the bible because it's interesting, not because it's the cornerstone of my faith. i've found the bible to be outright faked in some sections (like deuteronomy), but i'm still a believer, and still a christian.i'm not hurting anyone's faith here; i'm just a student of the bible. if reading the bible and understanding the bible hurts your faith, maybe it's misplaced. and if asking questions hurts your faith, maybe you never really had it.

quote:

---

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

---

yes, it does. because we have to know about it somehow. otherwise, we're just making stuff up.why jewish literature? well, you still haven't answered my quotes from the koran. i believe they did, but in truth i do not actually know for sure. we have no record of jesus outside of the new testament. and there is a reason that that is not regarded as history.and as i've pointed out, i believe some of the apostles to be WRONG. some of them, at least.when god presented his children with the (first) covenant, the ten commandments, it was a contract that all of israel was held to. how were the ten commandments presented? did everyone hear them, or just moses who had to write them down and present god's word to the people?

Well it appears you missed the whole point of my Message 176.It had nothing to do with what you answered or didn't answer. The point was that this thread, because of the forum it was in and statements made before you entered the discussion, should have impressed upon you that we were going to work with facts and not just faith and belief.The fact that I don't feel that the Book of John is a reliable source, tells you that to use that book to prove your point, you would first have to have a discussion to convince me why it does hold authority.Obviously that would be another thread, therefore, to continue in this discussion with me you would either need to change your tactics and provide verses from the OT as I asked, or start a new thread and try and convince me that the Book of John is a reliable source.

quote:

---

It is possible to discuss any questions and doubts without making statements like this:

---

It is also possible to discuss any questions and doubts without making statements that try to lay a guilt trip on the questioner, assume that the questioner is not spiritual, or warn the questioner about the path they seem to be following. If you wish to continue discussing what should and should not be said, then please start another thread.I'd appreciate it if we could get back to the OP before we hit 300 posts.As I stated before, I still have not been shown a clear offer made to the Jews before the death of Jesus.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I just finished the book. Clears up a lot of my questions. My thoughts now are how this impacts the NT. Maybe we can start a discussion in the Book Forum after you reread.Arach
I think you would like this book also, considering your thread on Deuteronomy. It is less than 300 pages long, a very quick read.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Luke 24:44-47 What Jesus revealed to them was all of the things concerning him in the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dpardo

​

What Jesus revealed to them was all of the things concerning him in the Old Testament.

---

Are you now implying that it was concealed from them that they should no longer practice ritual temple Judaism?

quote:

---

Previously posted by dpardo

​

Fact (IMO)- The Jews that lived during the first century A.D. heard his message and some believed and some did not.

---

"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law." (Acts 21:20)

quote:

---

Previously posted by dpardo

​

The question is, did Jesus and the Apostles actually live, preach, and teach . . . if they did, and the evidence indicates that they did, then they presented God's offer to the Jews (and Gentiles).

---

But if they were of the opinion that they (as Jews) should still be following Mosaic Law and practicing temple Judaism, what "offer" are we talking about?Amlodhi

I think it's the offer the Church dreamed up to allow them to steal the lands and possessions of Jews, persecute them, drive them out, etc. Kind of like the WMD in Iraq, it was an official excuse to do what seemed profitable at the time. The pious believers support this especially by not asking questions because that would not be believing so endangering their souls and thus the leadership, sacred or profane, do what they want and get maximum cooperation from the faithful.lfen

Amlodhi,The offer in question is in the OP (Message 1)

quote:

---

Phatboy stated that the Gentiles were given the same option that the Jews rejected.

---

Also Phatboy restates the assertion of an offer in Message 6. dpardo is keeping with Phatboy's NT theme in trying to show me the specific offer made to the Jews.Unfortunately, they have been unable to show me a clear presentation of "the offer" to the Jewish community or a clear rejection of "the offer" by the Jewish community.I have found nothing in the NT before the death of Jesus to support such an offer.As you have shown, James and the Jerusalem Church were still Jews with all the beliefs and rituals that implies.James was the head of the Jerusalem Church: I don't think the Jews would have been open minded enough to let someone into the holy place who wasn't following the prescribed Jewish laws. Do you?So I'm still waiting for someone to show me that God told the Jews they had to believe in the messiah or He would disown them.I don't think they can.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

As Christianity began to differentiate itself from Judaism, there came a split between the various factions. The group around James and that around Mary lost out in the struggle and were submerged by the Pauline factions of newer apostles. Much from that period has been lost and it is only now beginning to come to light.Does the initial question in this thread actually revolve around the creation of Christianity and do we need to be looking at what became of Thomas, James, Mary and the other early leaders in the church as well as the advent of the Pauline, John influence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Does the initial question in this thread actually revolve around the creation of Christianity

---

In the long run it probably does, in the sense that the premise that an offer was given to the Jews and they rejected it, probably developed with or after Paul, as opposed to the original disciples.This thread is to determine whether any offer was truly and clearly made to the Jewish Community before the death of Jesus.Someone else may wish to start a thread concerning how and when this "offer" tradition started after his death, but this thread doesn't need to go that direction.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hi purpledawn,

quote:

---

Originally posted by purpledawn

​

The offer in question is in the OP

---

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the apostles learned directly from Jesus and then had their "understanding opened" by the risen Christ.If, after all this, they still did not understand some of the messianic concepts (as those later expounded by Paul), it had to have been deliberately concealed from them.In such a case the apostles, who taught the "thousands of Jews who believed" in Jerusalem, were actually preaching a false doctrine (the "true" doctrine having been withheld from them).The (sometimes called) "veil over the eyes of the Jews" (a common theme in Christian religious doctrine) usually refers to the Jew's rejection of Jesus as messiah. However, if the apostles were being excluded from the understanding which was later given to Paul, then their "eyes were veiled" as well.This is why I asked dpardo if he was implying that the messianic concepts expounded by Paul were being deliberately withheld from the apostles (and the Jews in general).The point being that, if the Jews were being deliberately blinded to these concepts, what would have been the nature of the "offer" they were supposedly given?And, conversely, if the apostles were not having any understanding withheld from them, then their continued practice of temple Judaism must have been the correct course since this understanding would have come from Christ himself.IOW:If the apostles didn't understand then the Jews (in general) could not have been given the same offer as Paul was relaying to the Gentiles.If the apostles did understand, then their continued practice of temple Judaism was the correct course and Paul was mistaken.Amlodhi

quote:

---

IOW:

​

If the apostles didn't understand then the Jews (in general) could not have been given the same offer as Paul was relaying to the Gentiles.

​

If the apostles did understand, then their continued practice of temple Judaism was the correct course and Paul was mistaken.

---

Sorry I misunderstood, but I like the way you explained it. You gave me a clearer thought on the concept.So the question we need answered right now is:
Were the apostles being excluded from understanding the messianic concepts that were supposedly given to Paul later?Even if it doesn't get answered on this forum, you gave me a clearer idea of what I need to research.Thanks

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.