[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
This an article on the Orthodox Christian...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 184
Thread images: 4
File: d5yjxl8.jpg (254 KB, 771x1036) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
d5yjxl8.jpg
254 KB, 771x1036
This an article on the Orthodox Christian understanding of God's people, if you're interested: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9285

The following are some points I wrote up in response to the idea that Judaism is a continuation of the Hebrew Covenant.

1. The Law is not a matter of moral goodness in itself (if it were, then Jews would advocate gentiles following it, as opposed to just the Noahide Law), it is a religious pledge like monastic vows, except made by a people instead of a person.

2. The Jews themselves have a specific mission from God, to be a beacon for the gentiles until God's kingdom is established (Isaiah 60:3).

3. The Law is not a discipline or calling unto itself (if it were, then Orthodox Jews would embrace gentiles converting, which they seldom do unless matrimony is involved). I contend therefore it has a specific teleos in accord with 2; after 2 is accomplished, the Law no longer has a function.

4. The Law is expressly juridical. Trying to abstract it completely from its juridical context makes it untenable.

cont
>>
>>679226
5. If the Law *were* still in effect, and Judaism today were truly the heir of the Lord's covenant, then it would still entail the punishments of the Law. It will be argued that the punishments and trials for transgression of the Law cannot be effected until the Temple is rebuilt, but this is an innovated position: the Law was still enforced. The Temple never tried transgressors of the Law, and in fact you didn't need to be a priest to sit on the Sanhedrin, and none of the Sanhedrin were priests after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Destruction of the Second Temple did not terminate juridical enforcement of the Law, the Law only ceased to be enforced with the abolition of the Sanhedrin. The end of the Sanhedrin is the de facto end of the Law.

6. Orthodox Jewish treatment of the Law has an abundance of lawyers, but no Sanhedrin, no judges to make rulings. If there were definitive interpretations given by God that the lawyers were mere guardians of, this would be workable, but the lawyers do not (for the most part) present interpretations of the Law passed down by God, they innovate their own. Therefore their interpretations cannot be said to hold any authority whatsoever, which especially incriminates their splitting hairs.

7. The Lord does not say that the Law will be forever in Deuteronomy 4:40, he says the land (or the earth) will be given unto his people forever (the Jews were selected as his beacon for their meekness). Israel is the Church, and the meek shall inherit the earth (Psalm 37:11). Israel is the Body of Christ, Christ himself is the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6).

cont
>>
>>679229
8. The most influential rabbi of all time, Rabbi Akiva, referred to as the Sage of All Sages, shaped Judaism as we know it today. But how can this man be considered remotely wise when he declared Bar Kokhbar, a bloodthirsty maniac, the Messiah? Rabbi Akiva was (and is) enormously influential, and his backing of Bar Kokhbar might have ultimately brought about the end of the Law in the juridical sense. On what authority is this man considered almost supernaturally wise? And if he is not very wise, then doesn't that through into question his entire understanding of Judaism? Isn't it a bit strange that the man who instigated Judaism as we know today, was so connected with the termination of classical Judaism?

9. Akiva's conception of Judaism is totally at odds with the holiness of the Law. He made Judaism into something which evolved. Does God hand down a Law that needs to be improved upon by humans? The hair splitting is defended as a sign of reverence for God's Law, but an "evolving" understanding is not reverence, reverence would be maintaining the precise understanding Moses had.

10. Jeremiah 31:33 is not talking about writing the old covenant on hearts, it says, this is the covenant God *will* make. So it's not just a difference in where the Law is written, it is a brand new covenant. Jeremiah 3:16 says they will no longer remember the Ark of the Covenant. Not just that they won't need it, but that they will completely forget about it, and that is shall *not be done anymore*.

FINIS
>>
>>679229
>he Law *were* still in effect, and Judaism today were truly the heir of the Lord's covenant, then it would still entail the punishments of the Law. It will be argued that the punishments and trials for transgression of the Law cannot be effected until the Temple is rebuilt, but this is an innovated position: the Law was still enforced. The Temple never tried transgressors of the Law, and in fact you didn't need to be a priest to sit on the Sanhedrin, and none of the Sanhedrin were priests after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Destruction of the Second Temple did not term
why is the end of the sanhendrin the end of jewish law? according to jewish law you only need, i think, three rabbis present to try a case
>>
They're kikes. That's my argument.
>>
>>679229
>The Lord does not say that the Law will be forever in Deuteronomy 4:40
he says "if you follow my statutes which i command you today"
>>
>>679314
The Sanhedrin is to the Law as the Supreme Court is the U.S. Constitution. Three Rabbis might try a case, but three other rabbis could come to a completely different conclusion. Neither would have any more validity, technically.

>>679329
Which are fulfilled by the NT. If that isn't the case, then how come the Second Temple got rekt and the Jews got almost totally expelled from Israel? Either the Church is the true continuation of Israel, or God dropped the ball on upholding his end of the covenant.
>>
>>679353
regarding your first point, i'm not an expert in jewish law, though i know some. they definitely have procedure to deal with these kinds of situations. why don't you just ask a rabbi to explain the issue to you?

>>679353
if you want to say that the law was fulfilled, then that's all you should have said. imo, though most other jews would disagree, that is a valid argument. however, you misquoted Deuteronomy where it does some to imply that the gift of the land is conditional upon following the law

a better argument would be that they failed to properly uphold the law (killed prophets, worshiped idols, etc) and therefore failed to meet the required condition.
>>
>>679370
>regarding your first point, i'm not an expert in jewish law, though i know some. they definitely have procedure to deal with these kinds of situations. why don't you just ask a rabbi to explain the issue to you?
I've talked to Jews and I'm already familiar with the situation.

>you misquoted Deuteronomy where it does some to imply that the gift of the land is conditional upon following the law
Right, the Law at the time being the ordinances. The Law, once fulfilled (see 10)), is no longer those ordinances, just like the land (earth, same word) is no longer just Canaan, but the earth in total.
>>
>>679380
>I've talked to Jews and I'm already familiar with the situation
with Orthodox Rabbis? Yes, it makes a difference. I'm speaking from experience. The subject is extremely intricate and most Jews do not have a total grasp on the Law. Most Rabbis don't. There are experts (Av Beit Din, meaning the head of a local Jewish court).
>>
>>679396
If most Jews and even most Rabbis don't have a grasp of their own Law, how can they claim to be following it?
>>
>>679380
my bad, i just checked with someone very knowledgeable over the phone. i concede you the point on the sanhedrin
>>
>>679411
they go to experts for difficult matters (av beit din)
>>
>>679420
But these experts don't agree. Not just about difficult matters, but about minute dietary considerations.
>>
>>679429
right, like i said, i concede you the point on the sanhedrin. people go by local and regional decisions, not global consensuses
>>
>>679436
So the Law is relative?
>>
>>679453
i think the orthodox attitude is that what the actual true law is not as relevant as what consensus the rabbis reach. there's a famous talmudic story on this, i'm sure you're familiar with it; it's quite well known.
>>
>>679467
Doesn't that pretty much invalidate all arguments against Christianity based on Mosaic Law being perpetual?
>>
>>679226

Constantine, why did you drop your trip when it's painfully obvious who is writing anyway?
>>
>>679476
depends, don't forget orthodox rabbis also claim the oral law was given at mount sinai
>>
>>679488
Is it relative?
>>
>>679485
it's Constanza
>>
>>679504
like i said, the perfect law is considered less relevant than the rulings of the rabbis. purportedly this perspective, in itself, is a law. i.e. it is a law that one go by the ruling of the rabbis rather than what you may or may not know to be the actual law

don't expect me to justify this position, but i believe that's it, more or less
>>
>>679485
Because I don't want a fan club
>>
>>679514
How does this invalidate Christianity then? Christ was a rabbi.
>>
>>679519
in rabbinical judaism, you go by majority ruling
>>
>>679521
If there's a Sanhedrin. Which there no longer is.
>>
>>679529
yes, like i said, i concede you the sanhedrin point. it's a genuine problem for judaism
>>
>>679533
Is a Sanhedrin infallible?
>>
>>679540
no. the point i made above about true law vs rabbinical ruling would apply there. you're familiar with the story were one rabbi is arguing with a bunch of other rabbis, and god himself comes down and says the one rabbi is right, but then concedes that the law is according to the view of the majority rabbis?

it's a talmudic story, so it was obviously written with the sanhedrin in mind
>>
>>679519
One with no education in Torah.
>>
>>679561
lol doubtful, where did you even get an idea like that? this is the jew in this thread btw, not constantine
>>
>>679556
Was the rabbi who wrote that divinely inspired, though?

>>679561
Do you mean the oral torah, or the written one?
>>
>>679574
wrote what? the story? obviously not, it's a really bad attempt at defending one of the more absurd aspects of rabbinical judaism
>>
>>679581
Then it doesn't really answer the question as to whether Sanhedrins are infallible.
>>
>>679586
are you asking whether they are literally infallible or whether rabbinical judaism considers them infallible? i mean, it's no in either case, so that wouldn't be an adequate answer for you?
>>
>>679592
Then couldn't the Sanhedrin which ruled against Christ have been wrong?
>>
>>679597
obviously, yes
>>
>>679600
Then, all other things being equal,. doesn't the Christian conception of Israel hold more water, since God has always kept it intact, albeit through great tribulations, whereas the Second Temple was destroyed and the Israelites scattered from Canaan (which probably aided in the spread of Christianity)?
>>
>>679605
sure

could you make a better case for it though? are there any OT passages that make a strong case for "Israel" as a spiritual concept?
>>
>>679612
Israel is not some abstract concept in Christianity though. It is Christ. The Church is His Body. The reason Christians conceive of Israel this way, is because a lot of the prophecies about a personified Israel, happen to Christ. That is, it wasn't some prior conception of Israel that was fulfilled, it was something seen in retrospect.
>>
>>679619
i see. do you have any response to the fact the OT seems to place such an emphasis with genealogies in general? promises are made to the physical descendants of Abraham (i know the whole "seed of Abraham" thing), Hagar (regarding her son Ishmael), Esav, Jacob, Cain (or in his case i think it was descendants of anyone who should harm him?) etc
>>
>>679612
If you would like a sustained example from the OT which isn't racial, see Psalm 37. It presents a very Christian conception of God's people (and if you see the link in the OP, the People of God are very much the same as Israel).
>>
>>679636
Psalm 37 does not divide people according those of the right genealogy vs. the gentiles. It never brings up race or genealogy in describing who will inherit the earth.
>>
>>679639
>Psalm 37
i see your point with the psalm. it's a very nice one too, thanks for sharing. i haven't looked at the book of psalms in a long time.
>>
>>679636
Also see Isaiah 29:19, which presents a personified Israel all the meek rejoice in.
>>
>>679654
>29:19
wow, that's a good one. i've actually never read any of the books past kings from beginning to end (the prophets, i mean). just noah, ruth, and esther, i think. i was in yeshiva at one point, but guess what we study there? im sure i dont even need to tell you
>>
>>679668
No, you don't.

Also, it's not like the genealogy stuff is meaningless. See Romans 11, of the NT
>>
>>679668
>Isaiah 29:19
that whole chapter 29 is good stuff, thanks for sharing
>>
>>679709
No problem. Don't forget that when Christ says he came to fulfill the Law, he doesn't just mean the Torah, he means the whole Tanakh (that is evident by him quoting Psalms as the Law).

But Christ's coming is not the conclusion of everything. The Church is God's kingdom, but not the full kingdom come. John the Baptist was the foretaste of Elijah, but the *actual* Elijah will come and preach God's kingdom (and will be martyred) before the entire thing is done. When that happens, according to Romans 11, all the biological Israelite will be reconciled, despite the Church going through tribulations. They will suffer persecution as Christians along with the rest of the Christians.
>>
>>679515
You are so cute when you are being modest :3
>>
Judaism developed after Christianity as an attempt to avoid usury laws
>>
>>679226
>The following are some points I wrote up in response to the idea that Judaism is a continuation of the Hebrew Covenant.
Firstly, the Jews are not the people of the Old Testament. They are not the original people.

There is nothing called the "Hebrew Covenant."

Judaism today is not the same religion as the Old Testament religion. The Jews today follow the Talmud, and they claim to follow the so-called "Torah."

The Old Testament is not Judaism at all, rather it is just Christianity before Christ was born.

>1. The Law is not a matter of moral goodness in itself
What do you mean? It defines sin. If you had no sin, how could you not be perfect? It defines sin.

>(if it were, then Jews would advocate gentiles following it)
The Jews are not the people of the Old Testament at all. They are not the Israelites; they did not write the Old Testament.

>If it were a matter of moral goodness, the Jews would advocate "gentiles" following it
That is not why they do not advocate it. And that would not be the reason they do not advocate following it.

>it is a religious pledge
No, it defines sin. Sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4).
>made by a people
It's God's law.

>2. The Jews themselves have a specific mission from God
Again, the Jews are not the Israelites. They claim to be, but they are not. It is the Israelites who are God's people.

>to be a beacon for the gentiles until God's kingdom is established
"Gentile" is not a word in the Bible. The word does not exist in the Bible, even if something is translated as "Gentile." The word means "Nation" or "Nations." Gentile couldn't be a word, because "Jew" isn't even a real word in the Bible either, at least with the same meaning as it does now.

>3. The Law is not a discipline or calling unto itself
It is. You should not sin, and sin is transgression of the law.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31
>>
>>679229

>(if it were, then Orthodox Jews would embrace gentiles converting,
The Jews are not people who focus on not sinning. They are the synagogue of Satan. What they do does not define good.

>after 2 is accomplished, you may sin as much as you want
If you were to be able to sin as much as you wanted after God's Kingdom is established, that would mean as soon as that happens, you could murder anyone you wanted.

>>679229
>5. If the Law *were* still in effect,
It is. If it wasn't, that would mean you could murder anyone you wanted, and it would not be a sin.It would be impossible to sin. Again, we seek to establish the law.

>and Judaism today were truly the heir of the Lord's covenant,
The covenant was never given to "anyone who believes a specific religion," it was to Abraham's seed.

>then it would still entail the punishments of the Law. It will be argued that the punishments and trials for transgression of the Law cannot be effected until the Temple is rebuilt,
What makes you say that? The ordinances of the law are what is done away with. (Coll. 2:14, Eph. 2:15)

>The end of the Sanhedrin is the de facto end of the Law.
Where did you get that from?

>6. Orthodox Jewish treatment of the Law has an abundance of lawyers, but no Sanhedrin, no judges to make rulings. If there were definitive interpretations given by God that the lawyers were mere guardians of, this would be workable, but the lawyers do not (for the most part) present interpretations of the Law passed down by God, they innovate their own. Therefore their interpretations cannot be said to hold any authority whatsoever, which especially incriminates their splitting hairs.
The Jews are not the special people. There are definitive judgments, what do you mean?
>>
>>681046
The word for "nations" in the Bible is "goy". So, close enough.

The word "Jew" is used in the OT as synonymous with Hebrew

>It is. You should not sin, and sin is transgression of the law.
Do you eat Kosher? Do you circumcise? I think we know what is being talked about here, which is Mosaic ordinances, not the law in the broader sense.
>>
>>679229
>but the lawyers do not (for the most part) present interpretations of the Law passed down by God, they innovate their own.
Again, the Jews do not do what God wants.

>Israel is the Church, and the meek shall inherit the earth (Psalm 37:11). Israel is the Body of Christ, Christ himself is the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6).

What makes you think the definition of the word "Israel" "changed?" Israel still means Israel.

>Isaiah 42:6
Are you sure that's what that's saying? Jeremiah 31:31-34 says the New Covenant was to be made only with Israel.

>>679285
>8. The most influential rabbi of all time, Rabbi Akiva, referred to as the Sage of All Sages, shaped Judaism as we know it today.
The Old Testament is Christianity before Christ was born. It is not the same as "Judaism" today.

>And if he is not very wise, then doesn't that through into question his entire understanding of Judaism?
Nothing about Talmudic "Judaism" is "wise" in the first place.

>9. Akiva's conception of Judaism is totally at odds with the holiness of the Law. He made Judaism into something which evolved. Does God hand down a Law that needs to be improved upon by humans? The hair splitting is defended as a sign of reverence for God's Law, but an "evolving" understanding is not reverence, reverence would be maintaining the precise understanding Moses had
Exactly.
>>
>>681063
No, it is not. That is wrong, that's a misconception. The word "Jew" in the Old Testament means "Judahite," and after the Assyrian deportation it refers to all of the Israelites. It is not synonymous with "Hebrew" which refers to a descendant of Eber, who was an ancestor of Abraham.

>The word for "nations" in the Bible is "goy". So, close enough.
No, it's not close enough. When God told Rebecca she had to nations in her womb, He said "thou hast two goyim in thy womb."

>Do you eat Kosher? Do you circumcise?
The ordinances of the law are done away with (Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14).

>not the law in the broader sense.
That is what most people believe the New Testament says.
>>
>>681071
>What makes you think the definition of the word "Israel" "changed?" Israel still means Israel.
There no Body of Christ until there was an actual Body of Christ.
>>
>>681075
"Hebrews" is used synonymously with "Jews" and "Israelites" as well, it's not used to refer to peoples like Arabs, who are also descendants of Eber.

>No, it's not close enough.
It depends strongly on the context.
>>
>>681078
>There no Body of Christ until there was an actual Body of Christ.
But, what makes you think the definition of the word "Israel" suddenly changed?

>>681080
>"Hebrews" is used synonymously with "Jews" and "Israelites" as well,
No, it is not. A Hebrew is a descendant of Eber. Also known as an "Eberite." It is not synonymous with Israelite, and "Jew" as it is used to day is not a word in the Bible.

A Hebrew is a descendant of Eber, an Israelite is a (paternal) descendant of Israel, and the word "Jew" in the Old Testament really means "Judahite," which is a descendant of Judah, who was one of Jacob's sons. You can look it up in a Strong's concordance.

>It depends strongly on the context.
What makes you think that? The word "goy" means "nation." Do you know Hebrew? Look it up in a Strong's concordance.
>>
>>681094
>But, what makes you think the definition of the word "Israel" suddenly changed?
Are you suggesting Israel was defined as the Body of Christ before?

>No, it is not.
It's used to include Arabs then?

>What makes you think that?
Leviticus 20:23
>>
>>681099
Better verse
Jeremiah 10:2
>>
>>681046
Please read Romans 7
>>
>>681099
>Are you suggesting Israel was defined as the Body of Christ before?
No, I am saying the definition of the word "Israel" did not change.

>It's used to include Arabs then?
What do you mean?

>Leviticus 20:23
The KJV says "nation."

>>681103
Okay, I guess it can mean either one.

>>681080
>it's not used to refer to people like Arabs, who are also descendants of Eber.
I am not sure if "all" Arabs are really Ishmaelites. Perhaps it's because they aren't pure Hebrews?

>>681105
I've read it before. What about it? If the law was "done away with" that would entail you could murder anyone you wanted, and that it would be impossible to sin. Read Romans 3:31.
>>
>>681115
>No, I am saying the definition of the word "Israel" did not change.
Maybe you ought to read Romans 11.

>What do you mean?
Arabs are descendants of Ishmael.

>I've read it before. What about it?
The Law is not "done away with", it is fulfilled, that is, the new covenant is built upon its foundations. But we are no longer beholden to the Law. This is made expressly clear. The new covenant is not about a judicial system, it is about forgiveness. But it also comes with much higher standards, so high in fact that it would be impossible to codify them thoroughly.

> it would be impossible to sin
You must have a rather juridical conception of sin.
>>
>>681140
>Maybe you ought to read Romans 11.
I have. The definition of the word "Israel" does not change. What about Romans 11?

>Arabs are descendants of Ishmael.
Source?

>The Law is not "done away with", it is fulfilled,
Yes?

>But we are no longer beholden to the Law.
That does not mean you can just sin as much as you want. If that were true in the way you mean that, that would mean you could murder anyone you want.

>the new covenant is built upon its foundations.
What do you mean by that?

>But we are no longer beholden to the Law. This is made expressly clear.
When? You should still not sin.

>The new covenant is not about a judicial system, it is about forgiveness.
Where did you get the idea the judicial laws are "done away with?"

>But it also comes with much higher standards, so high in fact that it would be impossible to codify them thoroughly.
Where did you get that from?

>You must have a rather juridical conception of sin.
What do you mean? Sin is transgression of the law. If there was no law, it would be impossible to sin. What makes you think the law is "done away with?"
>>
>>681158
>What about Romans 11?
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief"

These are clearly not Israel in the sense of being a part of the Body of Christ.

>Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#Descendants

>That does not mean you can just sin as much as you want.
What is your point?

>What do you mean by that?
I mean the new covenant is a promise contained in the old covenant.

>Where did you get the idea the judicial laws are "done away with?"
There is no Sanhedrin in Christianity.

>Where did you get that from?
I couldn't even count all the ways you can sin. You can have broad categories, but, try, for example, to codify a law against idle words. How exactly would you codify that?

>Sin is transgression of the law.
Sin, fundamentally, for an Orthodox perspective, is that which impairs our perception of the truth. Christ did not die so that God could forgive our sins (or else that would not be forgiveness, it would just be transferring punishment); God forgives through Christ because that's part of the new covenant, but the reason God had to become man and die is so he could share our ontological condition. Sin is hamartia. It is a veil of truth, but even the veil is an illusion. We are all already in heaven (and hell, same place), but the veil caused by sin makes it so we cannot perceive it. Christ is the truth, Satan is the father of all lies. Sin is ultimately propagating lie.
>>
>>681140
Romans 11 is speaking of the Israelites that broke off from the rest of the Israelites.

>>681189
>"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief"
Yes, Israel means Israel. The New Covenant was to be made only with the children of Israel, just as the Old Covenant was made with Israel. (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

>What is your point?
If there was no law, that would mean it would be impossible to sin. Thus, you could commit murder as much as you want.

>There is no Sanhedrin in Christianity.
Sanhedrin? If you mean the judicial law, then yes, there is. That is because the law as a whole is not done away with.

>I couldn't even count all the ways you can sin. You can have broad categories, but, try, for example, to codify a law against idle words. How exactly would you codify that?
How do you know these ways that you can't count are "sins?" Sin is defined as transgression of the law.
>a law against idle words
What do you mean?

>Sin, fundamentally, for an Orthodox perspective, is that which impairs our perception of the truth.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4

>Christ did not die so that God could forgive our sins
What do you think he died for, then?

>but the reason God had to become man and die is so he could share our ontological condition.
So, you think he did it just for kicks?

>We are all already in heaven (and hell, same place),
Those are places you go after you die.
>>
>>681189
Again, "all Israel shall be saved" is what Paul wrote. Just as it was written, "For this is my covenant unto them (the children of Israel, which means exactly that.)"

He says "Israel" and then refers to the covenant with "them" (children of Israel) as being the same promise. Thus, the "Israel" in "all Israel shall be saved" is the same Israel was the New Covenant was made with, that is, the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (Jer. 31:31)
>>
>>681229
>Romans 11 is speaking of the Israelites that broke off from the rest of the Israelites.
It's speaking of the Jews who didn't get in on the new covenant, the unbelievers.

>The New Covenant was to be made only with the children of Israel, just as the Old Covenant was made with Israel.
The new covenant adopts a lot of people as the children of Israel. And since there were many actual descendants of Israel who weren't in it, there is a distinction here. The Church is the legitimate continuation of Israel, but Israel before the new covenant was not the Body of Christ, it was mainly just the biological descendants of Israel. Just like the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) is a "legitimate continuation" of the Ark of the Covenant, she's also not perfectly synonymous.

>Sanhedrin? If you mean the judicial law, then yes, there is.
No, there is not. There is Confession. There is repentance. But there is nothing like a Sanhedrin.

>Sin is defined as transgression of the law.
This is what sin is defined as
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sin

>What do you mean?
I mean idle words are a sin, but how could you workably codify that into a law? How could you rule what words were idle and which were not? Etc. It's a sin, but not one you can feasibly codify.

>"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4
"Sin is lawlessness" is the literal translation.

>What do you think he died for, then?
To commune with us. We become literally his Body in the Church. Theosis.

>Those are places you go after you die.
Noooo. And yes. They are not separate realms, they are another dimensions which fully intersects with the material. And heaven and hell are technically one and the same, they are being filled with the light/fire of God's love. That is either bliss or agony depending on how you feel about God or whether you are ashamed to be in his presence or if you hate him, and so on.
>>
>>681243
The "remnant" being those who are not part of Israel as Christ's Body, but are Israelites by biological descent.
>>
>>679226
>Not accepting the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
Fucking heretics.
>>
File: image.jpg (111 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
111 KB, 1280x720
>>681322
Rome is cuck
>>
>>681279
>It's speaking of the Jews who didn't get in on the new covenant, the unbelievers.
"Jew" is not a word in the Bible. It is just not a word.
>It's speaking of the Jews who didn't get in on the new covenant,
What are you talking about? The New Covenant was made with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. And the "Jews" are not either of those. All of Israel is under the New Covenant, I'm pretty sure. What you said is not what it says.

>The new covenant adopts a lot of people as the children of Israel.
Bullshit, no it doesn't. There is nobody that "becomes" part of Israel, it was made only with Israel. The definition of "Israel" did not magically change.

>And since there were many actual descendants of Israel who weren't in it,
What? When was this?

>The Church is the legitimate continuation of Israel
Bullshit, no it isn't. The definition of "Israel" did not magically change, Israel still means Israel.

>it was mainly just the biological descendants of Israel.
It was only biological descendants of Israel. And not all of them, either.

>Just like the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary)
What? Where did you get that from?

>No, there is not.
Yes, there is, because that was not "done away with."
>But there is nothing like a Sanhedrin.
The judgments, statutes, and commandments are still in effect.

>This is what sin is defined as
I just told you what sin is defined as. Sin is transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4.

>I mean idle words are a sin,
How do you know that, and what are "idle words?" What are you basing that statement off of?

>How could you rule what words were idle and which were not?
If you don't know how you can do that, where did you get the idea "idle words" are a sin?
>>
>literal translation
Why is your translation better than the KJV's? "Transgression" is in reference to "the law," no?

>To commune with us.
Where did you get that from?

>They are not separate realms,
They sure sound that way.

>depending on how you feel about God
Where did you get that from? Heaven is a reward, hell is a punishment.

>>681283
>The "remnant" being those who are not part of Israel as Christ's Body, but are Israelites by biological descent.
The wild olive branches are Israelites separated from the original group of Israelites.
>>
>>681322
Pretty sure Saint Peter himself would have completely disowned the bishop of Rome the moment he started demanding to be recognized as Caesar of all worldly power.
>>
>>681335
>"Jew" is not a word in the Bible. It is just not a word.
Yes it is, at least the Greek and Hebrew equivalents. If you say those don't count, then you might as well be saying "Jesus" and "Christ" are not words in the Bible.

>Bullshit, no it doesn't. There is nobody that "becomes" part of Israel, it was made only with Israel. The definition of "Israel" did not magically change.
Romans 9:8

>What? When was this?
All the Jews who didn't convert, as per Romans 11.

You like like some, "the Jews were Aryans," weirdo, desu

>What? Where did you get that from?
Isn't Christ not the new covenant? Is Mary not the Ark of Christ?

>The judgments, statutes, and commandments are still in effect.
The judgements of the Sanhedrin?

>How do you know that, and what are "idle words?" What are you basing that statement off of?
2 Timothy 2:16

>I just told you what sin is defined as. Sin is transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4.
Sin transgresses on the law on our hearts, yes. But it would still be sin regardless of whether or not the law were written on our hearts.

>Why is your translation better than the KJV's?
OT wise, because the King James version panders to the Masoretic text. NT-wise, because it uses a consistent translation, rather than changing terms according to context (though it provides footnotes in the nuance of terms in Greek that don't carry to English).

>Where did you get that from? Heaven is a reward, hell is a punishment.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-hellish-scourge-of-divine-love/

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
>>
>>681400
>Yes it is,
It is not. The word translated as "Jew" in the Old Testament means "Judahite." The word translated as "Jew" in the New Testament means "Judean," which like "Judahite," is not synonymous with "Jew."
>equivalents
Neither of those are equivalents to "Jew."

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"
Not every descendant of Jacob is part of "the children of Israel."

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
John 8. Not all of the descendants of Abraham are Abraham's children.

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
"Children of the flesh" as in any biological descendants. Then, there are biological children who are not exempt from being legitimate heirs of the covenant.

>All the Jews who didn't convert, as per Romans 11.
As I have said multiple times, "Jew" is not a word in the Bible. There are no "Jews" involved. You are inserting that word when it is not originally present. I already told you what Romans 11 refers to.

>Isn't Christ not the new covenant? Is Mary not the Ark of Christ?
What? How can Jesus be a covenant? How is "Mary" the "Ark of Christ?" What does that mean?

>The judgements of the Sanhedrin?
If by "judgments of the 'Sanhedrin'" you mean the civil laws of the Old Testament, then yes.

"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." Well, is that saying those are sins, or that they are simply not appropriate conduct?

>Sin transgresses on the law on our hearts, yes
Sin is transgression of the law.

>But it would still be sin regardless of whether or not the law were written on our hearts.
I know. That is because sin is just the transgression of the law.
>>
>>681400
>You like like some, "the Jews were Aryans," weirdo, desu
The Old Testament people were not Jews. Like I said. The Jews are not Israel.
>>
>>681448
>It is not. The word translated as "Jew" in the Old Testament means "Judahite." The word translated as "Jew" in the New Testament means "Judean," which like "Judahite," is not synonymous with "Jew."
The English word Jew continues Middle English Gyw, Iewe. These terms derive from Old French giu, earlier juieu, which had elided (dropped) the letter "d" from the Medieval Latin Iudaeus, which, like the New Testament Greek term Ioudaios, meant both Jews and Judeans / "of Judea".[42]

> Then, there are biological children who are not exempt from being legitimate heirs of the covenant.
But you don't need to be a biological child to be a part of it. Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:11-12

>What? How can Jesus be a covenant?
The Body of Christ is Israel, which is the new covenant. Isaiah 42:6

>you mean the civil laws of the Old Testament, then yes.
I mean the rulings made by the Sanhedrin, which accumulated and were passed on, like court rulings on the Constitution.

>Well, is that saying those are sins, or that they are simply not appropriate conduct?
The Orthodox understanding is that idle talk is a sin. Christ himself says we will have to account for every idle word, in Matthew 12:36.

>>681451
They were Aryans? right?
>>
>>681516
>The English word Jew continues Middle English Gyw, Iewe. These terms derive from Old French giu, earlier juieu, which had elided (dropped) the letter "d" from the Medieval Latin Iudaeus, which, like the New Testament Greek term Ioudaios, meant both Jews and Judeans / "of Judea".
Jew is not interchangeable with Judean.

>But you don't need to be a biological child to be a part of it.
Yes, you do. The New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
>Galatians 3:28
This is referring only to Israelites, hence "heirs of the promise."

>Isaiah 42:6
That is not what that says.

>I mean the rulings made by the Sanhedrin, which accumulated and were passed on, like court rulings on the Constitution.
What is the "Sanhedrin?"

>Eph. 2
What makes you think that applies to everyone? Again, the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

>They were Aryans? right?
Sure.
>>
>>681516
Strong's Cordance says G2453 refers to a "Judean."
>>
>>681625
You are a stubbornly carnal person my friend, and I can't really do anything but shake the dust from my sandals to that.
>>
>>681637
>You are a stubbornly carnal person my friend, and I can't really do anything but shake the dust from my sandals to that.
What do you mean? Jeremiah 31 says the New Covenant was to be made with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. The definition of "Israel" did not change.

Galatians 3:28 says "ye" can become children of the promise. Thus, it is referring only to Israelites.
>>
>>681666
I mean that you are an heretic, a spreader of lies, and an enemy of Christ, attempting to deceive the righteous into believing that salvation is a carnal promise.
>>
>>681682
>I am you meant that you are an heretic, a spreader of lies, and an enemy of Christ,
?????
>attempt to deceive the righteous into believing that salvation is a carnal promise.
How did I say salvation is a carnal promise? Jeremiah 31 says the New Covenant was to be made with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. How does that make "me" an enemy of Christ?
>>
>>681696
Why are you angry? I thought that the Israelites weren't Jews either. I couldn't believe it when you showed me the truth
>>
>>681768
>Why are you angry? I thought that the Israelites weren't Jews either. I couldn't believe it when you showed me the truth
They weren't. Which poster are you?
>>
>>681811
I just dropped by this thread and saw your replies. You really shocked me there. I always thought those evil Jews are not the Israelites mentioned in Scripture. But why did you become angry though?
>>
>>681832
>I always thought those evil Jews are not the Israelites mentioned in Scripture.
Uh, they aren't? I said they aren't. The Jews are not Israel.
>But why did you become angry though?
I am not >>681696. I said the Jews are not the Israelites, because they are not.
>I couldn't believe it when you showed me the truth.
What is that supposed to mean?
>>
>>681869
Wait you are >>681696?
>>
>>681869
Nvm ignore >>681874
I see that you are the one arguing with >>681696 I dunno who to believe now
>>
File: 6.png (12 KB, 212x238) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
6.png
12 KB, 212x238
>>
To the guy saying "sin = a transgression of the Law", the first mention of so in the Bible, if I am not mistaken, is when God warns Cain about "sin resting at the door". This is long before the Law was given. You could argue that the Law falls under the umbrella of sin, but sin is a more far reaching concept than mere Law, and is not dependent on the Law.
>>
>>679226
>if it were, then Orthodox Jews would embrace gentiles converting, which they seldom do unless matrimony is involved

Book of Ruth. This is basic shit, holy fuck, get your facts straight. They are religiously required to treat them the same.
>>
>>682254
That's not what he is saying. Obviously Jews are allowed to accept converts (in fact they are supposed to highly honor and esteem them). He means that they don't proselytize or encourage conversion. The policy in Orthodox Judaism is to turn down a potential convert atleast three times.
>>
>>681884
Why don't you read the posts yourself?

>>682244
>long before the law was given
The law still existed, before it was given to Moses.
>>682254
>Book of Ruth
The Bible has nothing to do with kikes.
>>682284
>Jews are allowed to accept converts
According to who? According to God, Jews are not "allowed" to exist.
>>
>>682444
>law still existed, before it was given to Moses.
He was talking to Cain, Cain did not possess, nor was he obligated by the Mosaic law, yet he was subject to sin.
>According to who? According to God, Jews are not "allowed" to exist.
I have no idea what you mean by this
>>
>>682444
I did and I feel that Constantine is right. It's time for me to grow out of /pol/
>>
>>682244
Sin existed before the law. Adam sinned.

Romans 2
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

It doesn't matter what law you choose.

You still cannot follow it.
>>
>>682284
Jews also accepted anyone who wanted to live with them as righteous gentiles.

The Jews were supposed to spread the Word of God to the entire earth, not turn inwards upon themselves.
>>
>>681666

Yes, first to Jerusalem, and then to Judea, and then to Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth.

This is the New Covenant; this is Christianity.
>>
>>681869
>The Jews are not Israel.

You have never been able to show this, and never will be able to show this.

It's some sort of crazy white supremacist idea that's been knifed into your mind.

The Jews are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They receive the promise God made to Abraham, centuries before the Law was given.

And the Law does not negate the Promise.
>>
Found on a blog that you can easily find:

>Yet it is only in Orthodoxy that one is taught that salvation means to become by grace what Christ is by nature, that “God became man so that man might become divine” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation) that becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) is actually expounded upon. “I have said, ‘ye are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High'” (Ps. 82:6) is taken *very* seriously. You won’t find that anywhere else.

I'm sure this has been discussed at length but I'm new.

Is there a good source for this in Orthodox doctrine? I'd love to read it and see how this conclusion came about.
>>
>>682824
>He was talking to Cain, Cain did not possess, nor was he obligated by the Mosaic law, yet he was subject to sin.
He was obligated by the law of God. John said if you sin, you transgress the law. Do you think it was impossible to sin before Moses was born? The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinners, and they were sinners because they transgressed the law.

>>682931
What?
>This is the New Covenant; this is Christianity.
What do you mean? Jesus said to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The New Covenant was made with Israel. (Jeremiah 31)

>>682936
>You have never been able to show this,
Well, you didn't ask me to once.
>and never will be able to show this.
I doubt that.

>The Jews are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
No, they are not. They are imposters; they are liars. They are the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9, 3:9).

Firstly, there is no evidence to the contrary other than 1. the Jews following something similar to the Old Testament religion, and 2. the Jews simply claiming to be Israel, and calling themselves "Jews."

Israel is supposed to be a righteous nation. The Jews are the perhaps the least righteous nation.

The Israelites were a people with White features, not Jewish features. Esau had red hair (Gen 25:25). David was ruddy (1 Sam 16:12, 17:42). The king in Song of Solomon is called "white and ruddy" (Song. 5:10).
>>
>>683032
On Bookos, you can download Andrew Louth's "Introducing Eastern Orthodox theology" would help.

For a more specific discussion on Theosis/Deification, Paul M Collins' "Partaking in Divine Nature: Deification and Communion" goes into detail from Greek philosophy, the Old Testament, New Testament, the Church Fathers and exploring the concept of Theosis as expressed throughout the various Christian denominations. It is also free on bookos.

If you are new, the first will be for you.
>>
>>683082

Thank you.
>>
>>683082

I'm honestly not sure exactly what this means. Pretty sure it means that in order for me to come close to BookOS I'd better be on Tor.

The resource at "https://script.ioam.de/iam.js" was blocked because tracking protection is enabled.

https://

developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking_Protection

Just in case you care about such things.
>>
>>683202

Holy crow now you can't even browse 4chan from Tor. Oy vay is mir.
>>
>>683202
Damn...I'm scared now. I even used my uni's computers to get books from it
>>
>>682917
>Sin existed before the law. Adam sinned.
Right, but the reason I used Cain as an example, was that with Adam you could make the case that he disobeyed God's commandment not to eat from the Tree (though, admittedly, not a Mosaic Law. With Cain He made a general statement, that if one does not make an active effort to improve oneself, one is at risk of sin.
>>
>>683069
The New Covenant was started with Israel. It is not like the Old Covenant that God made with their fathers. It directly says this in Jeremiah. By entering into the New Covenant, you are becoming a child of faith, a child of the father of faith, Abraham, and a child of God.

You are in the synagogue of satan.

The synagogue of satan is everyone who is not a born again Christian. The synagogue of satan is everyone who is going to hell. It's not just the Jews of Jesus' time, or the Jews of all time. It's everyone following satan and not Jesus. It's you.

Israel is Jacob. His sons are the 12 tribes of Israel. They and their descendants are Jews.

Your Ashkenazi bullshit is the insane ramblings of a madman.

The red headed Edomites come from Esau, brother to Jacob. They're family to the Jews, not Jews. The Jews are not Edomites. Herod was an Edomite, and hated by the Jews.

The Jews have semetic features because they come from Shem, Noah's son.

White people come from Japeth, Noah's son.

Repent, or be forever damned dude. You're wrong on all of this.
>>
>>683258
That is not true, however, and the reference to sin crouching at the door could very well refer to a lamb that Cain could also sacrifice, and get God's favor. The lamb would become sin, and the sin would be covered, atoned for, by the shedding of its blood.

That is the Way of the Gospel.

The Way of Cain

Jesus speaks against the Way of Cain. What is it? Well, when Cain was born, his mother told him that he was the messiah. That he would get them back into the Garden of Eden. That they would obey God this time, and work at the fields, picking weeds and thorns, and growing food from the ground by the sweat of their brow.

Eve taught Cain that was the way he would save them. After all, the Lord told Eve that from her seed would spring the Messiah. Hence Cain's name, "Here he is!" When Cain was born, Eve said that she had had a son, and that son was the Lord.

So Cain toiled at the field, in obedience he thought to the orders from God, while Abel discerned a better way, and because he was a prophet, offered up a perfect lamb to God, and pleased God.

Abel's name is "All is in vain" because Cain did not get them back into the Garden of Eden, and Eve had to suffer yet another painful birthing process.

People to this day try to earn their way into heaven, into God's favor, to no avail. The Way of Cain leads to nothing but death.
>>
>>683279
>The New Covenant was started with Israel.
It was made with Israel, as Jeremiah 31 says. It said that it was to be made with the house of Israel.
>By entering into the New Covenant, you are becoming a child of faith, a child of the father of faith, Abraham, and a child of God.
You can't enter into a covenant made with the house of Israel if you are not of the house of Israel.

>You are in the synagogue of Satan.
What?

>The synagogue of satan is everyone who is not a born again Christian.
Wow, I don't remember that in the Bible. Are you going to address the Jews being the synagogue of Satan? It says that the Jews are the synagogue of Satan.

>The synagogue of satan is everyone who is going to hell.
I don't know where you got that from. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 say that the Jews are the synagogue of Satan.

>It's not just the Jews of Jesus' time,
What "Jews?" Do you mean the ancestors of the Jews today? It is all Jews.

>or the Jews of all time.
It says "those who say they are Jews and are not."

>It's everyone following satan and not Jesus. It's you.
What? What did I say contrary to the Word? What makes you think that?

>Israel is Jacob. His sons are the 12 tribes of Israel.
I know.

>They and their descendants are Jews.
Bullshit. Where did you get that from? Your assertion is based on word of mouth, the claims of the Jews themselves. That is all. I gave you evidence to the contrary, and you did not supply any evidence for your assertion other than "it's true."

>Your Ashkenazi bullshit is the insane ramblings of a madman.
What are you talking about? I said your only "proof" of the Jews being Israel is the claims of the Jews themselves. That is your evidence. I have evidence to the contrary, not simply based on taking the Jews' word for it.
>>
>>683279
>The red headed Edomites come from Esau,
The "Edomites" as in specifically only descendants of Esau are not characteristically red haired, because Esau married Hittite and perhaps Canaanite wives. It was Esau who was red haired, which is a distinctly European feature. His brother, Jacob, was the progenitor of the Israelites. And, Esau was a pure Hebrew child. A pure Hebrew child had a distinctly European feature, which only comes from European admixture, and yet he was pure.

What about David, also being a pure Hebrew, being called ruddy?

>They're family to the Jews, not Jews.
Nope.

>The Jews are not Edomites.
They are, actually. Again, the "evidence" to the contrary is the the claims of the Jews. The Jews are known liars.

>Herod was an Edomite, and hated by the Jews.
You are confusing the definition of the word "Jew." "Judean," which is what the word translated as "Jew" in the New Testament means, is not synonymous with "Jew."

There were also Edomite Judeans. Were they also "Jews," by your definition? You just said they weren't "Jews." What do you mean by "Jew" in the first place? What are you using it to by synonymous with?

>The Jews have semetic features
Not really. The Jews have long, narrow, hooked noses whereas the "Arabs" typically have short, straight, and snub noses. The Jews have brachycephalic skulls, and the "Arabs/Semites" have dolicocephalic skulls. And of course, the Jews most often do not have brown skin like the "Arab/Semites," either.

Also, the people commonly referred to as "Semites" today are not really the pure descendants of Shem.

Noah also did not magically have three different sons of three different races. Again, the Hebrews were noted as having European characteristics, in the verses I listed.

>Repent, or be forever damned dude. You're wrong on all of this.
You are not offering any citation for any of this. I am offering citation contrary to your word of mouth assertions.
>>
>>683328
>You can't enter into a covenant made with the house of Israel if you are not of the house of Israel.

Adoption.

Everyone is either For Jesus, or Against Jesus. The alternative to Jesus is satan. Everyone Against Jesus is in the synagogue of satan.

Revelation 2
...and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan

Revelation 3
the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie...

They are not Jews. That's why it says they are not Jews.

Anyone who hates Jews does not love Jesus, as Jesus is a Jew.

God's promise to Abraham was to all of his descendants, as numerous as the stars in heaven. Everyone descended from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is a Jew. They are promised the land of Israel forever.

Everyone who is a Christian is promised a place in the New Jerusalem, not the one on earth. The one that comes down from heaven.

Two people, two promises, two places.
>>
>>683405
Esau was not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and is therefore not Jewish.

You know Ishmael descended from Abraham, right?

Is Ishmael Jewish?
>>
>>683405
>What about David, also being a pure Hebrew, being called ruddy?

It means he blushed.
>>
>>683405

"Jew" is extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5).

Originally this people were called Hebrews (Gen. 39:14; 40:15; Ex. 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9, etc.) but after the Exile this name fell into disuse. But Paul was styled a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5)
>>
>>683438
>Adoption.
That is not what it says. It did not say with Israel and then "others," it just said a New Covenant with Israel.

>Everyone Against Jesus is in the synagogue of Satan.
Perhaps. That does not take away from the Jews being of the synagogue of Satan.

It says "the ones who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie."
The Jews are the only ones who call themselves Jews, let alone are possibly really not. Thus, they are the synagogue of Satan.

>Anyone who hates Jews does not love Jesus,
Bullshit. That is not in the Bible. The word "Jew" is not in the Bible.

>as Jesus is a Jew.
No, He was not. That is not what "Jew" means in the New Testament. It means "Judean," and that is not synonymous with "Jew." Jesus was not a Jew. He was a Judean, and the Israelites were not Jews.

You have yet to supply evidence to the contrary, other than word of mouth. Closer to the truth would perhaps be that anyone who does not hate "Jews" does not love Jesus.

>God's promise to Abraham was to all of his descendants,
Not "all" of his biological descendants. Some people are not legitimate heirs.

>Everyone descended from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is a Jew.
That is wrong. You keep saying that with no evidence, no citation, simply a claim from the Jews. There is no evidence to what you just said, other than that.

>>683443
He was a descendant of Abraham, and Isaac. Again, where did you get the idea everyone descended from Israel is a "Jew," when the word Jew doesn't even exist in the Bible in the first place? And, if you suppose "Israelite" means "Jew," you have no evidence of that other than the claim from the Jews, who are known liars.

My point was that Esau, the grandson of Abraham, and the twin brother of Jacob, the progenitor of all the Israelites had red hair. He was a pure, non mixed, Hebrew child, and he had a distinctly European feature. As did David, and he too was not mixed.
>>
>>683443
>Is Ishmael Jewish?
No, because none of them are Jewish. I could say Ishmael was Jewish, and I would have about the same amount of evidence as you do for saying the Israelites are "Jewish." Both are nothing more than a claim, taking someone's word for it. Word of mouth.

>>683452
It means he could show blood in the face. How many pure Arabs do you know that show blood in the face?

>>683467
>"Jew" is extended to all the Hebrews without distinction
That is false. Those verses do not say that. Hebrew does not mean the same thing as any definition of "Jew."

After the Assyrian deportation, the word translated as "Jew," that is, accurately translated, "Judahite," began to refer to all of the Israelites.

>Originally
The definition of "Hebrew" did not change. It is "Judahite" that began to refer to all of the Israelites.
>Paul was "styled" a Hebrew
No, he was a Hebrew. That is because he was a (pure) descendant of Eber. A Hebrew is defined as a descendant of Eber, i.e. an Eberite.
>>
>>683488

You are literally living your life before Acts 10 was written, thinking that gentiles could not be saved. Literally. Astonishingly ignorant.

If you're adopted into a Jewish family, you're a Jew. In fact, you cannot be disinherited if you're adopted, unlike a biological son.

Christians are grafted in to the tree; the same tree family that the tribes of Israel were broken off of.

Anyone who thinks you can be like God by being good and avoiding evil is in the synagogue of satan.

Read >>683467 for just some "Jews" in the bible. There's plenty more. I'll quote them all ad nauseam if you'd like.

Your antisemitism is sickening.

Even if you were correct, that only Judeans were Jews, Judeans were of the tribe of Judah.

Jesus is of the tribe of Judah.

Jesus is a Jew.
>>
>>683488

Ishmael was not a descendant of Isaac.

Ishmael is Isaac's older half-brother.

Maybe read the bible.

Esau and David are not related. How dumb do you have to be to believe all red headed people are related?
>>
>>683505
2 Kings 25:25 But it happened in the seventh month that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal family, came with ten men and struck and killed Gedaliah, the Jews, as well as the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah.

Ezra 4:12 Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem, and are building the rebellious and evil city, and are finishing its walls and repairing the foundations.

Ezra 4:23 Now when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem against the Jews, and by force of arms made them cease.

Ezra 5:1 [ Restoration of the Temple Resumed ] Then the prophet Haggai and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophets, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel, who was over them.

Ezra 5:5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, so that they could not make them cease till a report could go to Darius. Then a written answer was returned concerning this matter.

Ezra 6:7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God on its site.

Ezra 6:8 Moreover I issue a decree as to what you shall do for the elders of these Jews,

Ezra 6:14 So the elders of the Jews built,

Nehemiah 1:2 that Hanani one of my brethren came with men from Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped,

Nehemiah 2:16 And the officials did not know where I had gone or what I had done; I had not yet told the Jews,

Nehemiah 4:1 [ The Wall Defended Against Enemies ] But it so happened, when Sanballat heard that we were rebuilding the wall, that he was furious and very indignant, and mocked the Jews.

Nehemiah 4:2 And he spoke before his brethren and the army of Samaria, and said, “What are these feeble Jews doing?

Nehemiah 4:12 So it was, when the Jews who dwelt near them came,

More?
>>
>>683537
Sure, more Jew references in the Jew bible for our Jew hater.

Nehemiah 5:8 And I said to them, “According to our ability we have redeemed our Jewish brethren who were sold to the nations

Nehemiah 5:17 And at my table were one hundred and fifty Jews and rulers,

Nehemiah 6:6 In it was written: It is reported among the nations, and Geshem says, that you and the Jews plan to rebel;

Nehemiah 13:23 In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab.

Esther 2:5 In Shushan the citadel there was a certain Jew whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair,

Esther 3:4 Now it happened, when they spoke to him daily and he would not listen to them, that they told it to Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand; for Mordecai had told them that he was a Jew.

Esther 3:6 But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him of the people of Mordecai. Instead, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews

Esther 3:10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews.

Esther 3:13 And the letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all the Jews,

Esther 4:3 And in every province where the king’s command and decree arrived, there was great mourning among the Jews,

(dozens more in Esther)

Jeremiah 32:12 and I gave the purchase deed to Baruch the son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah, in the presence of Hanamel my uncle’s son, and in the presence of the witnesses who signed the purchase deed, before all the Jews who sat in the court of the prison.

Jeremiah 34:9 that every man should set free his male and female slave—a Hebrew man or woman—that no one should keep a Jewish brother in bondage.

Jeremiah 38:19 And Zedekiah the king said to Jeremiah, “I am afraid of the Jews who have defected to the Chaldeans,

Are we convinced yet that "Jew" appears in the Old Testament?
>>
>>683554

Maybe just one more.

Matthew 27:11
Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”
>>
>>683517
>You are literally living your life before Acts 10 was written,
What? What do you mean?
>thinking that gentiles could not be saved.
"Gentile" is not a word in the Bible.
>Literally. Astonishingly ignorant.
It wouldn't hurt if you could try and explain of what.
>If you're adopted into a Jewish family, you're a Jew.
Yeah, according to them. Sometimes.

>In fact, you cannot be disinherited if you're adopted, unlike a biological son.
Those are man made rules.

>Christians are grafted in to the tree;
Where did you get that from?

>Anyone who thinks you can be like God by being good and avoiding evil is in the synagogue of satan.
Perhaps. Are you going to address the fact that those who say they are Jews are really the synagogue of Satan?

>Read >>683467 for just some "Jews" in the bible.
I know of all of those verses. The word "Jew" in the Old Testament does not refer to the same thing as "Jew" does now. It couldn't. That is because "Jew" in the modern sense is not a word in the Bible, (other than Edomite), and "Judahite," which is what the word really means, is not synonymous with "Jew."

>Your antisemitism is sickening.
They've really got you good, huh? Your love of Christ haters is "sickening."

>Even if you were correct, that only Judeans were Jews,
Which is what the word means in the New Testament.

>Judeans were of the tribe of Judah.
Not all of them were. There were Edomite Judeans as well. Judean means Judean. There were non-Israelite Judeans, such as Edomite Judeans.

>Jesus is of the tribe of Judah.
The Jews are not Judah.

>Jesus is a Jew.
Wrong.

>>683524
I know. Ishmael was a son of Abraham. It doesn't matter. I said if I said "Ishmael was Jewish," I would have about the same amount of proof as you do for saying the Israelites were "Jewish."
>>
>>683524
>Esau and David are not related.
What? Esau was a pure, unmixed Hebrew. He had a characteristic European trait. He did not have impure blood, and yet he had a characteristic European trait. He was European.

David had a characteristic European trait, and he was not mixed. He was European.

All red headed people are related in the sense that red hair is a European trait. If you have red hair, you have European admixture.

>>683537
Yes, all of those verses say "Jew," but the word "Jew" in the Old Testament means "Judahite." The Jews are not Judah.

>>683554
>for our Jew hater
God is a Jew hater.

>>683558
As I have said multiple times, the word translated as "Jew" in the Old Testament means "Judahite," so it is not really saying "Jew" to mean the same thing as "Jew" now means. So, either it is not accurate in being translated "Jew," or the Jews today are not real Jews.

Are you going to address the ones who say they are Jews being of the synagogue of Satan? Again, your "proof" of the Jews being Israel is word of mouth from the Jews. The Jews are known liars.
>>
>>683571
You think in 2016 that the New Covenant is only for the Jews. Absurd.

150 Bible results for “gentile.” Showing results 1-25.

Romans 11
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

For the last time, the verses say "those who say they are Jews, AND ARE NOT...

My hatred for Christ haters is what you are feeling, you antisemetic piece of human garbage.

No, it would be the opposite, because the Israelites are Jewish.

I really hate posting at autistic nazis. I really do.
>>
>>683580
Abraham
|
Isaac
|
Jacob - Esau
|...............|
Judah - Nobody Jewish
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Issachar
Zebulan
Joseph
Benjamin

Israel = Jacob
12 sons = 12 tribes
(Joseph had a double blessing, and blessed his two sons into half-tribes.)

WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT JEWISH

JEWISH PEOPLE CAME FROM SHEM

WHITE PEOPLE CAME FROM JAPETH
>>
>>683580

You: Jew is not in the bible.

Me: A hundred verses with Jew in the bible. Including Jesus saying He is the King of the Jews.

You: That doesn't matter.
>>
>>683524
The Ionian Greeks were Shemites. They were descendants of Shem's son, Javan. They were White. The Shemites were White.

The original Persians were the descendants of Shem's son, Elam. The original Persians were White. See my picture. It is a scientific restoration of the original colors of a Greek statue(s).

>>683602
>You think in 2016
My mistake. I forgot that the year changes the effects of the Word of God.
>that the New Covenant is only for
I didn't say that. I said the New Covenant was made with Israel, which is what Jeremiah 31 says. That is what it says.

>150 Bible results for “gentile.” Showing results 1-25.
The Greek word translated as "Gentile" means "Nation," and the Greek for it is "Ethnos."

>And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Yes, this is speaking of Israelites who were separated from the original group of Israelites.

The only people who claim to be Jews are the "Jews" themselves. Thus, they are the only people who could even possibly be lying about it.

>My hatred for Christ haters is what you are feeling, you antisemetic piece of human garbage.
I wasn't calling you a Christ hater, I was saying the Jews are Christ haters. They killed him, and they have hated him for two thousand years.

>No, it would be the opposite, because the Israelites are Jewish.
You have said this so many times, and yet your "proof" is word of mouth. "The Israelites are Jewish." "How do you know? What is your evidence?" "The Israelites are Jewish."

That is why I said I could say Ishmael was Jewish and have about the same amount of evidence as you have for claiming the Israelites are Jewish, because both are simply a claim. Word of mouth.

>human garbage.
That's not very nice.
>>
>>683642

It's sad that you think you are going to be saved because you are white.

Well, it would be sad, if you were not so evil.

Since you are so evil, it is holy, just and righteous that you are condemned for your rebellion against the very Jewish Yeshua Moshiac.
>>
>>683642
Everything you post is a lie. It's disgusting.

Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites, Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

Japheth:
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

I've backed everything I said with the bible.

And every time, you swear that the words in the bible are wrong, and that you are right.

Every time.

Abraham came from Shem.

You, if you're the white power nazi you post as, came from Japeth.
>>
>>679353

>>679370
Sanhedrin overturning a previous sanhedrins ruling is extremely rare and requires many many prerequisites
>>
>>683694
Hittites should be from Japheth, they are more closely related to other IE groups than what these Jewish writers decided to lump them with.

Thank the lord for modern scholarship.
>>
>>679411
There is a hierarchy of Rabbis to whom questions will be posed, going from your local synagauge rabbi all the way to whats reffered to as a "Posek" who has final ruling on major legal questions. All modern Poseks live in Israel the last one to live in America was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who died in the early 90s i think
>>
>>679453
Basically yes. In the talmud there is a famous saying that "The Torah is not in Heaven" meaning it was given to humans and as long as they follow the law within its original framework it can be relative
>>
>>683297
Where are you getting all this from? Could you provide some sources?
>>
>>681025
Topkek
>>
>>683405
David is not a pure Hebrew. He is a descendant of Ruth.
>>
>>683740
Me. I am your source. I am Anonymous.

Look up what Cain and Abel's name means.
Read what God told Adam and Eve when He was exiling them.
Think about why Cain's offering was not accepted, but Abel's was.
Think about why Cain killed Abel.

We have the luxury of hindsight to all that happened to Adam and Eve; put yourself in their place, and see if the most important thing in the world is not getting back into the Garden of Eden.
>>
>>683624
>Judah - Nobody Jewish
I know.

>WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT JEWISH
I know.

>JEWISH PEOPLE CAME FROM SHEM
Assertions and assertions, over and over. I ask for a citation other than word of mouth, and you type the same thing again, just this type in all capital letters. I have provided proof to the contrary, and you simply say I'm wrong. You do not provide evidence for this assertion, other than a claim from the Jews.

>WHITE PEOPLE CAME FROM JAPETH
Look at my other post concerning Elam and Javan.

>>683631
The word "Jew" being used to say the same thing as "Jew" refers to today is not in the Bible. The letters that spell "Jew" are, but the word, with the same meaning as "Jew" means today is not present.

If I say "fly," I would be saying "fly," but if I said, "I killed a fly," I would not be saying "fly" in the sense of flying in the air. Even though I said the same letters, I did not really say the word "fly" in the sense that that was what I was trying to get across.

If the spelling of the translation of the word translated as "Jew" changed, it wouldn't mean anything, because it already wasn't trying to get across the same meaning as the word "Jew" means today.

>>683664
>It's sad that you think you are going to be saved because you are white.
I didn't say you are saved for "being white," the Bible says that God cleansed Israel of her sins. He removed them. That is what it says, and the definition of "Israel" did not change. It says the sins of the people of the house of Israel's sins are cleansed. That is what it says. I did not say that. That is what the Bible says.

>the very Jewish Yeshua Moshiac.
I have provided evidence to the contrary, and you refuse to supply evidence for your claim. I have told you everything in reply to what you have said, and more.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
>>
>>683694
>Everything you post is a lie.
But, that's wrong. I have supplied evidence for most things I have said, and if you ask me I will supply evidence for the rest.
>It's disgusting.
I have supplied evidence for most all that I have said. What did I say that I have not provided evidence for? Tell me. Why don't you reply to the rest of what I have said?

>Elam (Arabia)
The Persians were in fact descendants of Elam, a son of Shem.

I am not a history buff on this, but did the Arabs ever besiege Media with chariots and quivers? Or did the Persians?

I mistook Javan for being descended from Shem. But, still, how do you think it is that Noah had three sons of three different races? That just does not happen.

>I've backed everything I said with the bible.
The word "Jew" should not really read "Jew." The word "Judahite" is not synonymous with "Jew."

It says "Jew" when it should say "Judahite" because the translators believed that the Jews were Judah, when they are not. Just because the translators believed that Jews are Judah, does not mean they really are.

>And every time, you swear that the words in the bible are wrong, and that you are right.
It's not that the words are wrong, it's that they aren't the words.

Are there citations for your table of nations?

>>683721
What do you mean? The Hittites are the sons of Heth, who was a son of Canaan.
>what these Jewish writers
What?
>>
>>683735
Why do you care what the Talmud says?

>>683751
Ruth was not a Moabite. If David was not a pure Hebrew, he could not be a king of Israel.

The Israelites had apparently already exterminated all of the Moabites in Moab.

Numbers 21:25-29:

"“For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Woe unto thee Moab! Thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites.”"

"“Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And Yahweh, our God, delivered him before us: we smote him and his sons and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones of every city: we left none to remain.” Deut. 2:32-34

Thus, there were no Moabites left there. I guess Ruth was only geographically a "Moabite."

>>683694
Really, I'm going to need a citation on those claims.

Again, you have not addressed everything I have said to the last thing I said about them. Esau was a pure Hebrew, and he had a distinctly European trait. He was not mixed, and he had a trait that comes only from European blood. Thus, he must have had European blood, and yet he was not mixed.

The ones who say they are Jews are of the synagogue of Satan.

>>683773
Cain killed his brother because he was of the Devil.
>>
>>683837
>The Persians were in fact descendants of Elam, a son of Shem.
I was going to edit that part out, since I wasn't completely sure.
>>
>>683834

Nobody Jewish is under Esau.

Even as retarded as you are, this was an exceptionally retarded reading of that family tree.

I have given you the family of nations from the bible. Maybe read it. >>683694

The bible is wrong, and you are right.

That is what you want the world to believe.

That's what happens to the people in the New Covenant, not to the House of Israel. The sins in the House of Israel were only atoned for, covered up. They waited removal under the New Covenant.

Old Covenant.

New Covenant.

Different.
>>
>>683843
Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. Now they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.

>The bible is wrong, and I am right! Those words do not mean what they say!
>>
>>683843
>Esau was a pure Hebrew

Show me that in the bible.

Oh, hey, you can't, because Esau was Jacob's brother, and only the descendants of Jacob are Jews.

Which word means nothing to you, of course.

Here's a hint about what my Lord thinks about you.

Malachi 1:3
But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.”

Romans 9:13
As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Good luck, anti-semetic Team Esau!
>>
By the way, the ancient Israelites were not "pure Hebrews". When the Israelites left Egypt, a bunch of others joined up with them from many backgrounds, and they all left Egypt together. The ancient Israelites were mixed.
>>
>>683921
>Even as retarded as you are,
That doesn't sound like a very Christ-like statement.

>this was an exceptionally retarded reading of that family tree.
I don't think so.

>I have given you the family of nations from the bible. Maybe read it.
I did read it. That is a lie, because the Bible does not say those people were the ancestors of those nations. You didn't give a citation for it, and that is not in the Bible.

>The bible is wrong, and you are right.
I am arguing from the Bible, in part.

>That is what you want the world to believe.
How?

>That's what happens to the people in the New Covenant, not to the House of Israel.
What do you mean? Jeremiah 31 says the New Covenant was to be made with Israel. The New Covenant is what was to remove all of the sins of those under the covenant. Jeremiah 31 says the Covenant was to be made with Israel.

>Old Covenant.

>New Covenant.

?Different.
I know. It says the New Covenant was to be made with Israel, and the definition of Israel did not change.

>>683934
I know, I said I suppose she was geographically a "Moabite." The Moabites in that area were exterminated. If David was really a Moabite, he could not have been a legitimate king of Israel.

Jesus could not be a Canaanite, or anything like that, either.

>The bible is wrong, and I am right! Those words do not mean what they say!
I mean that is just not what it's really saying. The colonists moved to America, and became known as Americans. That does not make them the same people as the original "Americans."

The Moabites in Moab were exterminated, and I'm not sure the Israelites would have for some reason "let in" more Moabites.
>>
>>683967
>Show me that in the Bible.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all pure Hebrews. If Jacob was a pure Hebrew, so was Esau.
>the descendants of Jacob are "Jews"
If your quoting those verses that appear to say "Jew" are your proof of that, then that is proof that the descendants of Jacob were Israelites, and then they became all known as Judahites, which is what the word translated as "Jew" all those times means. That is what the Strong's Concordance says.

The word "Jew" when read those places, just means "Judahite."

The translators mistaking "Jew" as it is now used for being synonymous with "Judahite" does not mean it is really synonymous. It's a mistake. They didn't know.

>Malachi 1:3
But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.”

>Romans 9:13
As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What do you mean?

>>683978
>By the way, the ancient Israelites were not "pure Hebrews"
Where did you get that from? They were still not mixed blood.
>a bunch of others joined up with them from many backgrounds,
Where did you get that from?

>and they all left Egypt together. The ancient Israelites were mixed.
Where did you get that from? One of the laws Moses gave to the children of Israel was that "no bastard [mixed blood] shall enter the congregation of God." (paraphrased).

Thus, it would be impossible for any of them to be allowed into their own body. (?)
>>
>>683837
>What?
I'm talking about in reality.
>>
>>684070
>in reality
What do you mean? As opposed to fiction?

And the Hittites were still the descendants of Heth, who was a son of Canaan.
>>
>>684092
Yes, in reality the Hittites are a group related to other Indo-Europeans.
>>
>>684111
>in reality
In reality the Hittites were descendants of Canaan, through Heth.
>"indo-europeans"
What does that mean? They were Canaanites.
>>
>>684037
>where did you get that from
It says so in Exodus. Sorry, I don't remember the passage. It says that many people from the land joined up with the Israelites when they left.
>>
>>684138
Oh, did I enter a roleplaying thread by mistake?
Never mind, carry on.
>>
>>684148
>It says so in Exodus. Sorry, I don't remember the passage.
Moses said that no bastard (mixed blood) shall enter into the congregation.

>It says that many people from the land joined up with the Israelites when they left.
That does not mean the ones they allowed with them were a different race than them.

>>684153
Very funny.
>>
>>684188
Since when is a bastard mixed blood? A bastard means no father, or unmarried parents.
>>
>>684197
I don't know about English but in other languages it can have that meaning.
>>
>>684197
Here is a source for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamzer

A mamzer is a bastard as we usually understand it today. It has nothing to do with mixed race.

You're literally just making things up.
>>
>>684206
see
>>684213
>>
>>684197
>Since when is a bastard mixed blood?
That is what the Hebrew word refers to. A mongrel. It's Strong's H4464.

>>684206
That is what the word refers to. Bastard as in bastardized blood/heritage.

>>684213
>A mamzer is a child born without a father.
No, that is not what a mamzer is. A mamzer is a mongrel. Look at a Strong's concordance.

>It has nothing to do with mixed race.
It means "mongrel." Look at a Strong's concordance.
>>
>>684188
>no bastard (mixed blood) shall enter into the congregation.
uhh so what about Jethro
>>
>>684290
>uhh so what about Jethro
The Israelites were not "mongrels." Moses gave a law to the children of Israel that a mongrel shall not enter into the congregation of God.
>>
>>684294
what about Jethro
>>
>>684308
What is "Jethro?"
>>
>>684324
Have you even read the Bible? Are you getting all your opinions from some random blog or something?
>>
>>684331
I haven't read all of it. What about Jethro?
>>
>mfw people think race matters in the Kingdom of God

There will be no /pol/ after the Restoration of all Things

>>682866
Happy to help

>>683032
Try the Philokalia
>>
>>684338
Just read the Wikipedia for it. He was Moses's father in law. He was not a Hebrew (Kenite) and Moses married his daughter. He converted and joined them on their way out of Israel.
>>
>>684343
If only you knew how wrong you are.

>>684346
I know.
>Hebrew (Kenite)
What? A Hebrew is an Eberite, a Kenite is a descendant of Cain.
>Moses married his daughter.
Yes, but Jethro was not a mongrel.
>>
>>684343
Did you know that if a man is not born from above, he will never see the Kingdom of God? The Greek doesn't say "born again," it says "born from above."
>>
>>684351
I was saying that he was a Kenite, not a Hebrew. That was my point. Moses married his daughter. Moses's children would have been "mixed-race", homie.
>>
>>684369
He had at least one Kenite child, but that does not make him himself a Kenite.
>>
>>684369
Also, not being a descendant of Eber does not mean he or his grandchild by Moses would be a mongrel. Eber himself must not have married a Hebrew wife, and yet he has non-mongrel descendants.
>>
>>684375
Moses had a "mongrel" child according to you definition.
>>
>>684423
What the hell is a mongrel then? Jethro was not a Hebrew, and he joined the congregation.
>>
>>684424
He didn't.
>>
>>684428
Mongrel means mixed race; mongrelized; not pure. Not being a Hebrew does not mean he was mixed race.
>>
>>679411

I am utterly unequipped to fully engage with this conversation but this seems like a curious question to me. I don't can surely cannot fully comprehend the totality of American law and the larger American common law tradition, yet does that mean I cannot claim to follow it?
>>
>>684428
I mean, not being a Hebrew does not mean his grandchild by a Hebrew would be mixed race. Eber, and Eber's sons, did not marry Hebrew wives, and yet their children were not mixed race.
>>
>>684428
I am going to bed now. Because of the law of kind after kind, you do not get a different kind from one kind. Thus, even distant cousins, as long as their blood is not adulterated, do not have mongrel offspring. That is not to say there are no actual mongrels.
Thread replies: 184
Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 516450



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.