storytime

[QUOTE=ohmi;5455848]
You certainly have given a different spin on the story.

"As I pointed out before, Jesus did not accept Judaism.."

The story doesn't show him accepting anything else. Also, He supported law and sacrifice of animals. Why do you think Jesus did not do away with animal sacrifice while in his ministry?

Would you like to start another thread to continue this discussion as we're sorta detouring from the main OP topic of origin ofChristianity?

ohmi

[quote=storytime;5456212]Jesus accepted the scriptures [OT ,in effect], not Judaism ... and criticised Judaism extensively ,as recorded in the NT.

There is nothing wrong with the old covenant except that very few indeed could keep it ... and since God requires a remnant 144,000 as saints from this world to minister as the kings and priests in the next , He has a NEW covenant with Israel [Jer 31:31-34] ...an UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness of the few who follow the narrow way of sainthood in this life [Matt 7:14]

As Jesus and the saints pointed out, it is NOT a question of accepting any religious teaching of men, but of God's selection from the beginning of a few [144,000 only] descendants of Jacob to be the priesthood of His new covenant ... so there is no priesthood for the masses at this time, it is not set up yet ...!

Also note the Judaism STILL does not accept the new covenant even though it was reported by Jeremiah... the Levites simply will NOT relinquish their power over the Jews and accept God's words by the prophets of Israel.

But God WILL break their power through the re-emergence of the remnant of the completely non-Jewish House of Israel remnant from amidst the gentiles with knowledge of the messiah [given by Jesus and spread by his commisssion to the disciples to FIND the House of Israel amongst the gentiles]

We are not though... the only real Christianity is that set up by Jesus , not the paganised state religion of Rome [which had to kill most of the saints and scatter the rest in order to steal the name]

Peter was crucified by the Romans, he certainly never gave them the power that they claim he did [nor did Jesus ever give him any such power over others]

storytime

[QUOTE=ohmi;5464624]
But...but... the Jews DO accept the "new" covenant that was established for all Israel; that being the law of Moses. For the first covenant is seen in the family name of Abraham[Abraham's house] via circumcision (the old covenant). The "new" covenant was that which made the old a "better covenant" because statutes of law created a more civil order for Israel to live by. And the Jews in Israel were obligated to keep their laws in their minds and hearts. At no time were Gentiles ever required to observe these Jewish/Israel precepts of law. Gentiles in Rome, for example, already had their own laws as citizens of Rome. Why would they have needed Jewish/Israel laws?

Peter was crucified by the Romans? Sorry, that part of the story isn't in my KJV. I was raised Protestant, Independent Baptist, before giving Jesus back to the Jews.

The only "real" doctrine set up by Jesus was within his Judaism. As an anointed priest[rabbi] Jesus taught his Jewish disciples in Jewish law and prophet sayings.

"Authority" was in laws for Israel. As men, Jesus nor Peter held any power apart from Law as established for Jews[Israel]. And why Jesus said he did not come to save the righteous, but the transgressors who were "sinners" in their Jewish/Israel laws.

Why would you think that Rome was pagan? Because Romans worshipped various gods? The gods of Rome were just as valid as those gods of the Jews/Israel. And, I think the Jews in those days, from the story portrayed, leaves them in quite a primitive theme. Everyone else seemed to be advancing forward except the Jews who wanted to live "the biblical way". Would you think the Jews were maybe trying to put their bible into every classroom of Roman students?

I read the story as saying that the Jews power will always remain within their own religion and their adherance to it. Should they depart from their Judaism, they will lose identity and possibly the name "Israel". And I can see this happening should they listen to evangelicals such as Hagee, for they'd indeed be doomed to lose their place as "a people" of God in Hagee's theological perspective. But that is the purpose of evangelicals, to change[convert] "Jews" into a new name, "Christians" and Gentile. Can you imagine no more Israel, no more Jews?

Iasion

So,
it's OK to forge NT writings if they agree with previous ones?

You think it's OK that the NT has forged documents in it?

Isn't forging (lieing) a sin?
Hmmm?


Iasion

ohmi

The world is up to its neck in sin , so much so that some find it hard to see what is true any more amidst the lies... but that is the way scripture says it will be, and here it is , right on cue ...

Amaleq13

The world has always been "up to its neck in sin" so that isn't much of a prediction.

ohmi

But...but... ... You seem to misunderstand... God has told the 'Jews' , the House of Judah, that their Judaism is inadequate to please Him , and that He will thus redeem the House of Israel [NON-Jewish Israel] from their idol-worshiping to emerge from amidst the gentiles [where God scattered them long before He scattered the Jews] to make the Jews jealous by their knowlege of the Messiah [the one king sent to re-unite the House of Israel with the Jews]:-

Deuteronomy 32:21 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.

Now the Jews have NEVER ceased to be a people [because of Judaism], but the House of Israel are indeed a nation [led by Ephraim] who ceased to be a people, yet are prophesied to re-emerge and join into one nation with the Jews under the Messiah :-

Isaiah 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

1 Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

The Jews kept Judaism and remained a nation even when scattered, the House of Israel worshiped idols and simply ceased to be a nation by name because they merged with the genttiles of all nations whilst the Jews kept themselves separate in Judaism:-

Deuteronomy 28:64 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.

But remember what Jesus said that he came to do, not to the Jews, but to the House of Israel :-

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

ohmi

Yeah but now there are 6'5 billion sinners and only one in a million knows how good life is to be a saint ... the world won the propaganda war of convincing folks to be sinners, now we shall see it fall apart because sin just doesn't make a sustainable world ...

spamandham

Are you seriously suggesting the modern world is filled with more 'sin' than the ancient world that produced those predictions? Roman pagan society was hardly a bastion of sainthood.

The writers made those 'predictions' because they observed rampant oppression in their own societies and assumed the end must be near. The 'predictions' were really just commentaries on their own times, phrased in apocalyptic terms.

ohmi

[quote=spamandham;5466920]6.5 billion sinners today is a LOT more sin than the ancient world could muster, even with all its barbarism ... we just sit by and watch 50,000 die miserably of starvation every day as we stuff our faces with food-a-plenty , Romans never managed that rate of continual slaughter even with their colloseum and all their wars.

That rather contorted private interpretation is untrue because the scripture describes signs which have still not been met , let alone in ancient times as you strangely assert.