storytime

Ah, but identity is at play in the story. And the house of Jacob is called Israel and only those of Jacob were called the children of God[Israel]. God never claimed any other people as his own inheritance. And He theirs. Protocol is set in OT and of which Jesus the Jew, son of Jacob-Israel did not change.

storytime

As to why non Jews need not observe the Jewish laws --- those laws were never intended for non Jewish people. Laws of Moses were intended as inheritance for Israelites only, and defined Israel as an independent nation from all other nations. Also, according to the script, laws of Moses did not invalidate the covenant of circumcision required for belonging to the House of Abraham. Both these elements of required protocol may be seen as the two witnesses that identify Israel-sons of Jacob from the world.

razlyubleno

I'll let you have your point about circumcision. As I was typing this out, I couldn't find a way to justify my disagreement, and it was conflicting with the other half of my thesis. It really sucks when you're self-contradictory.

But the other part of protocol (codified behavioral stuff) was priestly in preexilic years, since Judaism existed as a sacrificial temple cult. Jews existed in tribal formation, and the focus was on the collective. For this reason, it wasn't of utmost importance for Jews to maintain strict adherence to rules of conduct. It wasn't until the destruction of the 1st temple that scripture study and adherence became important among the laity. Torah was elaborated to allow Jews to demonstrate their piety in the absence of the temple cult.

Uhm. I think I'm not tying this tightly enough to the question. The point here, is that adherence to laws on the part of the individual did not make or break a Jew. It was birthright, for the most part; of belonging to a tribe. The original disagreement was over whether it is necessary to follow the 613 laws in order to be a child of God. You mentioned that only the Israelites were adopted as God's children, and that's a very fair point to make. But provided I could demonstrate the correct lineage, that would be the only necessary thing in order for me to be a child of God in the way that preexilic Jews were. It's a stretch, I realize; but I mention it as a point of interest.

And I'm sorry for mixing terminology so egregiously, but I'm not sure how else to put it.

razly

kcdad

We are the "offspring" of the creator... therefor sons (and daughters). Simple.

What does obedience have to do with with being a son or daughter?
As much as I love my daughter, she is not always obedient.

storytime

Thank you for the insight. However, not so simple. We cannot all be the offspring of the "creator" as His offspring were predistined. Thus the example of "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated". Even before the brothers were born, one was predistined as "the seed" and the other cast away as illegitimate. And in the NT, it is not we who do the choosing, but God who is the potter who created his namesake. Therein, there is no argument of "who's who" in the kingdom of God.

However, conversion to Judaism counts as "a new name" (from gentile to Jew) and an acceptable adoption. But as with Esau so with Christianity; refusal to commit to that protocol of Judaism maintains the illegitimacy.

What does obedience have to do with being a son or daughter? "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.." demands loyalty to his required protocol of which is His Word of Commandmants in both circumcision and laws established and the priority in love for God[his word], first and foremost.

No Robots

"Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.--"Son of God", Jewish Encyclopedia.

aa5874

But, Jesus is referred as a son of the God of the Jews with the ability to forgive the sins of the Jews.

In gMark Jesus claimed he had the power to forgive sins.

razlyubleno

He said to the paralytic, "your sins are forgiven." He never said that he was the one doing the forgiving.

Big difference.

razly

aa5874

I think you are wrong.

If you examine Mark 2.10, the author did write that Jesus had the power to forgive sins.

Mark 2:10 - The author of Mark portrayed Jesus as a God, the son of the God of the Jews with the power to forgive sins.

No Robots

What can one who believes that he himself administers court and justice believe of the Lord and of reward and punishment in the other worldly eternity? If it is not up to the Lord anymore, then what is the Lord but the ruler of mythology, sitting powerless and meaningless on his throne, with dignities and titles a Lucretian god who lets everything take its course? No one can go farther than such an act against God. It is the most powerful concrete abolition of the whole of religion and of God. In fact Christ virtually abolishes god by forgiving sins and by promising to raise himself from the dead, send his angels at the end of the world, separate the just from the wicked and sit in judgement on the throne of his glory and – how else can it be, what more can he say? Oh – Christ can always say more: and, indeed, it is the case that he does say more: All sins shall be forgiven, even blasphemy! This phrase, too (Mk 3:28), must first be eradicated from the words of Christ, before he is made into the founder of a religion - this statement of forgiveness for blasphemy from the mouth of this blasphemer. What do the religious say to this neat little matter? They say nothing and pass silently by, not seeing it at all. This is a matter over which to lose sleep.—Constantin Brunner / Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 215.