Who is Jewish, the trivia game!

A majority of Christians, I've noticed, have a lot of misconceptions about Judaism and the Old Testament. One common characteristic is to label everything in the Old Testament as Jewish, and everyone spoken of in the Old Testament as "Jewish". A few days ago in this very blog, Jason from the CodeProject told me how those "Jewish" festivals in the Old Testament aren't required of Christians to observe.

This misunderstanding stems, I believe, largely from 2 things: the fact that all of Israel no longer exists, and the false teachings of replacement theology that has been taught for the last 1000 years or so. There is even more confusion due to our views of Scripture as 2 seperate, unequal halves: the Jewish Old Testament (which, we're told, is no longer useful, at least not as much as the New Testament), and the Christian New Testament, whose usefulness supercedes the Old's.

All this leads to the idea that God's "old" people, the Jews, are all done with. <sarcasm> Now that our wonderful, non-Jewish Jesus is here, us non-Jews (gentiles) are the people of God, hurray for us! Let's throw a big ham-eating party and rejoice in our newfound righteousness. </sarcasm>

Getting back on topic, a trivia game for you all. This is something borrowed from a Bible study I go to, I wanted to post it here and you guys who want to, post your answers in the comments. I'd really like to see your answers, even if you're not Jewish or Christian, or have zero knowledge of the Bible, I think it would be really amusing to try.


The Who Is Jewish Trivia

[ ] Adam
[ ] Noah
[ ] Abraham
[ ] Isaac
[ ] Jacob
[ ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
[ ] Benjamin
[ ] Moses
[ ] David
[ ] Solomon
[ ] Matthew
[ ] Mark
[ ] Luke
[ ] John
[ ] All the kings of Israel
[ ] All the kings of Judah
[ ] All 12 disciples of Jesus
[ ] Jesus
[ ] Paul

And the $100 question: who was the first Jew?

Gary, Michelle, Jason, Tim, cave, anyone who reads this give it a shot, it'll be fun! I'm looking forward to seeing your answers!

60 comments:

  1. Um, all of the above?

    Actually I have no clue. Should we debate the existence of Adam? If he does exist, then I guess he would be my answer for the first Jew.

    I got it! It's a trick question....NONE OF THE ABOVE!

    --Michelle

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good guesses, but both are wrong. And you got the $100 question wrong too!

    Regardless of whether Adam or any of the mentioned figures existed according to one's beliefs, they all have written geneologies, allowing one to determine if they are Jewish according to their geneologies.

    I can tell you some of the men listed are, in fact, Jewish, while some others are not; all- and none-of-the-above answers are wrong, no trick questions here.

    And here I thought you would do good at this quiz since you dated that Jewish guy in college, right? :-)

    I'll post the answers in a day or two. :-) Later!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mmmm ... Moses through Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good guess! But a few of the men listed from Moses to Paul are not Jewish, sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some of these have varying answers depending on your theology. However, it sounds like you and I probably have the same answers.

    A "Jew" is a descendant of Judah and/or citizen of the southern kingdom of Judah (which would include Benjaminites, possibly Simeonites, and refugees from the northern kingdom). The word did not even arise until late in the history of that kingdom, apparently.

    However, Orthodox Judaism brands the entire religion "Judaism" and would say that theologically everyone who practiced it (or was supposed to practice it) was a Jew, from Abraham on.

    [ ] Adam: Definitely not a Jew. I'm betting the Orthodox would brand him a "righteous Gentile" or "B'nai Noach," although he's definitely not a son of Noah either. :) I guess if you wanted to you could call him the father of the Jewish race. ;)
    [ ] Noah: not a Jew. Again, a "righteous Gentile" to the Orthodox.
    [ ] Abraham: not a Jew. A Hebrew, but not a Jew. A follower of God, but not a Jew. However, the Orthodox would say he was the first Jew.
    [ ] Isaac: Same answer as Abraham.
    [ ] Jacob: ditto
    [ ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus): ditto
    [ ] Benjamin: ditto, however, he's got more claim to be a Jew than anyone you've listed so far, since his descendants were the second tribe in the nation of Judah.
    [ ] Moses: ditto. Note that all of these guys were practitioners of the religion revealed by God, though obviously more was revealed to Moses than to those who came before. But not Jews, as they were not descendants of Judah.
    [ ] David: a Jew! Though the term had apparently not arisen, yet.
    [ ] Solomon: yes, a Jew!
    [ ] Matthew: Jewish
    [ ] Mark: Jewish
    [ ] Luke: most likely Gentile, although noone knows for sure. Some people think he might have been a proselyte
    [ ] John: Jewish
    [ ] All the kings of Israel: None of the kings of the northern kingdom were Jewish, because "Jew" referred to residents of the southern kingdom. However, if you include the kings of the united kingdom, David and Solomon could be considered Jews, though again the term had most likely not yet arisen.
    [ ] All the kings of Judah: Jewish
    [ ] All 12 disciples of Jesus: Jewish
    [ ] Jesus: Jewish
    [ ] Paul: Jewish, though some people want to make him out to have been a pagan and/or a proselyte

    How'd I do? Are my answers what you were looking for?

    There's a silly little ditty we sometimes hear sung to children in church, "Once there were three wandering Jews," which lists Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Aside from the fact that these men did not exactly wander with each other at the same time, they weren't Jewish. My grandfather, my father, and I have all pointed this out on the rare occasions we've heard it sung. I hope it's no longer in use. Then again, the Orthodox Jews tell me that Abraham was indeed Jewish. A minority of folks will even contend that the word "Jew" derives etymologically from "Hebrew," and not "Judah," and would thus include Abraham and the patriarchs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if this blog accepts HTML [ok it doesn't -_-]. OK this is my serious answer. I don't seriously know the answer, but I'll take a more practical stab at it.

    [ ] Adam
    [ ] Noah
    [ ] Abraham
    [ ] Isaac
    [ ] Jacob
    [ ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
    [ ] Benjamin
    [X] Moses
    [X] David
    [X] Solomon
    [ ] Matthew
    [ ] Mark
    [ ] Luke
    [ ] John
    [X] All the kings of Israel
    [X] All the kings of Judah
    [X] All 12 disciples of Jesus
    [X] Jesus
    [X] Paul

    And the $100 question: who was the first Jew? Is he listed up there? Judah?

    Did I do any better?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't notice the $100 question. I'd say it's a little hard to answer. Since the term Jew appears to have arisen in the late days of the southern kingdom (Judah), one could reasonably assert that the term does not apply to earlier citizens of that kingdom or earlier members of the tribe of Judah and that there was no "first Jew."

    Or one could say it was Judah.

    But since the term Jew originally more or less meant "descendant of Judah (plus members of those other tribes who followed the king of Judah)," one could be really, really technical and say that the first Jew was Judah's first descendant, who appears to be Er. :) (The first surviving Jew would be Shelah...)

    ReplyDelete
  8. jdavid is on fire! He knows his stuff! Good analytical answers, some (such as Er's descendence) I didn't think of myself. I'll let you know how you did soon as I post the answers here in a day or so. :-)

    I've never heard that children's song, but it wouldn't surprise me, as other sunday school songs I remember also talked about things that didn't necessarily happen. :-p

    You're right that some of these answers vary since the term wasn't invented during their time. Moreover, is Jew a descendant of Judah? Or a memeber of the southern nation of Judah? For this quiz, I'll stick to the former.

    By the way, I followed your link to a Church of Christ discussions board. Is this the same Church of Christ that recently announced this?

    Michelle, I was hoping you'd take a better stab at it, glad you did. And you did pretty good! Stay tuned, I'll post the answers and tell you how good you did tomorrow or the day after.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, the Church of Christ is not at all the "United Church of Christ," and we've been a little mortified lately at the confusion of our identity with them in the media.

    I actually did not intend to link back to my site (my first post linked to slashdot, which was where I saw you), but Firefox helpfully filled it in for me, as it is used to doing on other blogs. I generally don't advertise except among other members of the Church of Christ. I see you in my referrer logs, though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let's do something more clear for a Jewish litmus test: if the person was alive today, would he be considered a Jew by blood, regardless of religious affiliation?

    If we use this definition of Jew, no one has yet to answer all the questions correctly. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for the clarification. I knew it couldn't be the Church of Christ, which my in-laws are members of; as I understand it, you guys are pretty close to the metal, Scripturally.

    I'll modify my recent post on Christian Homosexuality which wrongly referenced your denomination as the announcers of righteous homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. n - neither
    j - jew
    c - christian
    j-c - was a jew, became a christian

    [n ] Adam
    [n ] Noah
    [j ] Abraham
    [j ] Isaac
    [j ] Jacob
    [j ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
    [j ] Benjamin
    [j ] Moses
    [j ] David
    [j ] Solomon
    [j-c ] Matthew
    [j-c ] Mark
    [c ] Luke
    [j-c ] John
    [j ] All the kings of Israel
    [j ] All the kings of Judah
    [j-c (except Judas) ] All 12 disciples of Jesus
    [j ] Jesus
    [j-c ] Paul

    The first Jew was Abraham by covenant, Ishmael by harlotry, and Isaac by promise.

    I'm also defining 'Jewish' to be synonymous with 'of the covenant nation of God'

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, uh, i'm not even gonna try this, esecially even with all these super-detailed answers and suchlike. They scare me.
    Why can't the monetary question be something easy, like Mr. Jew?
    I..what? I'm ruining the mood? Alright, alright..
    ....yes, I know where the exit is..

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hehe. Come on Ash, give it a try. Michelle did and she ended up doing pretty good. :-)

    Hey volcimaster, good to see you back. If you define "anyone of the covenant nation", then you're right. But the word Jew implies only a subset of the covenant nation, so some of your answers aren't right! :-)

    Thanks for playing guys, interesting to see all the different answers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. [ ] Adam
    [ ] Noah
    [x] Abraham
    [x] Isaac
    [x] Jacob
    [x] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
    [x] Benjamin
    [x] Moses
    [x] David
    [x] Solomon
    [x] Matthew
    [x] Mark
    [ ] Luke
    [x] John
    [ ] All the kings of Israel
    [x] All the kings of Judah
    [x] All 12 disciples of Jesus
    [x] Jesus
    [x] Paul

    x = jew

    ReplyDelete
  16. Was that a trick question? I consider jews and hebrews the same, but if you want to get technical the jews may be descendants of Judah. I really don't know the origins of the word Jew.

    Should I have called them Hebrew festivals in the last topic? Either way I think I made my point.

    BTW, I also go to a Church of CHrist. NOT the UNITED Church of Christ which has nothing to do with Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Judah wrote:
    A few days ago in this very blog, Jason from the CodeProject told me how those "Jewish" festivals in the Old Testament aren't required of Christians to observe.

    My response:
    Do you think I have a misunderstanding of something? What was the purpose of the festivals, and why do you think we still need to observe them?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Judah,

    Nice to enter your blog from the code project and finding this question in front of me.

    Im not a Christian but i have a Christian background and want to react on your text in my way, as i feel i should react.

    Hope you appriciate my reaction.

    With friendly greetings,

    Yepper65

    Your text:

    Who is Jewish, the trivia game!
    A majority of Christians, I've noticed, have a lot of misconceptions about Judaism and the Old Testament. One common characteristic is to label everything in the Old Testament as Jewish, and everyone spoken of in the Old Testament as "Jewish". A few days ago in this very blog, Jason from the CodeProject told me how those "Jewish" festivals in the Old Testament aren't required of Christians to observe.

    My reaction:

    Most Christians have a Bible with the Old and the New Testament and that is not because there is no reason for it. (My personal thought),The Old testament describes the History of the World, from the creation process, with the creation of everything ,until the creation of Man and Woman (Adam and Eve) ,and so on with story's like the fight between brothers (Cain and Able), the Building of the tower of Bable and the devission op lanquages , the people of Israel going into captivity, brothers selling their brother who became high in rank in Egypt,and the salvation out of slavery by Moses and so on, it's all in the Bible of Christian, and i can't remember that i have been told as Christian that i dont have to take notice of Jewish Festivals,or that they are not required to observe, because it has never been told to me in that way!

    This misunderstanding stems, I believe, largely from 2 things: the fact that all of Israel no longer exists, and the false teachings of replacement theology that has been taught for the last 1000 years or so. There is even more confusion due to our views of Scripture as 2 seperate, unequal halves: the Jewish Old Testament (which, we're told, is no longer useful, at least not as much as the New Testament), and the Christian New Testament, whose usefulness supercedes the Old's.

    My reaction:
    I never have heard of a replacement thology in my life, or that the Jewish people were " done with" , as well as with their religion because Jesus came , i only know that Jesus simply pointed out that there is no point in following the scripture by the letter, ignoring the needs of the people, and calling that " Serving God" , Jesus was verry practical about reality!

    All this leads to the idea that God's "old" people, the Jews, are all done with. sarcasm Now that our wonderful, non-Jewish Jesus is here, us non-Jews (gentiles) are the people of God, hurray for us! Let's throw a big ham-eating party and rejoice in our newfound righteousness. sarcasm

    My reaction:
    I dont think that Jesus ever made a destinction between the Jews and his followers, regarding to the Jews as " done with", and i don't recall that message is in the Bible!

    Getting back on topic, a trivia game for you all. This is something borrowed from a Bible study I go to, I wanted to post it here and you guys who want to, post your answers in the comments. I'd really like to see your answers, even if you're not Jewish or Christian, or have zero knowledge of the Bible, I think it would be really amusing to try.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jason, I was just pointing out that a lot of Christians fail to distinguish between Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews, tending to call it all "Jewish". I didn't mean to pick on you or anything, just giving an example. :-) I guess the correct way to say it would be they are God's festivals, as they are called His in Leviticus 23:1, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim...), and again in verse 4, "These are the LORD's appointed feasts, the holy holidays you are to proclaim...".

    Anyways, thanks for taking the little test. You did pretty well, but didn't get all of them right! :-)

    Yepper, thanks for your input. I totally agree they such ideas aren't found in Scripture! Jesus did distinguish between Jews and non-Jews ("Go into all the world, and preach the gospel, to the Jew first, then the Gentile..."), but he certainly did not say Israel or the Law is abolished, in favor of a new gentile church. On the contrary, Israel will always be God's people, unless God is a liar ("If the sun that lights the day ceases to be, and the moon and stars that light the evening sky fail to shine, only then will I forget you, Israel"), nor is the Law abolished (Jesus said, "Truely, not a single jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all is accomplished, until heaven and earth pass away.").

    My point in saying that there is confusion is because there is teaching in the church, formally called replacement theology, which teaches that the gentile church has replaced Israel as God's people, and that Israel, the Law, e.g. all the "old stuff" has passed away. I see you, as well as JasonH did, confuse the festivals in the O.T. as "Jewish", when in fact they are not limited to Jews (given to Israel, not Jews), nor does it belong to the Jews or to Israel, they belong to God, they are the Lord's feasts. (Lev. 23).

    Thanks for your input, good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  20. These festivals and feasts were God's, but he gave them to a specific people. Are Gentile Christians bound to these things given to someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  21. God commanded Israel to remember these festivals. Do you agree with Paul when he says, that despite gentiles not being born into the promise of Abraham (which, was passed to Isaac, then to Israel), are grafted into Israel? Pauls talks about this pretty thoroughly in Romans 11: God caused some of Israel to be blind, causing some natural branches to fall off in order that gentiles, the unnatural branches to be grafted into the promise and blessing given to God's people, Israel.

    If we are grafted into Israel, given a share of the promise of God, we are the recipients of not only the blessings and the promises given to Abraham, but also the commandments and the curses. It would be convenient -- but untrue -- to say Christians get the promises and the blessings of Israel, while the Jews get the curse of the Law. On the contrary, we are all judged by a single, unified definition of sin, that is the Law.

    That said, I don't want to force my views on you and certainly don't want to come across as judging; we all have totally blown it when it comes to sin, I'm not better or more righteous than anyone else here, so it's not my place to judge, I'll leave that to the Judge. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. We are grafted into the tree and become God's children. I don't think the yoke of the Law comes with it. Otherwise all gentile christians would have to be circumcized and we would have to perform ever ritual and tradition of the nation of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, that's a good question which I don't have the answer to. If the Law is still applicable, how much of the Law? Certainly animal sacrifice isn't required for sin...yet we see in Revelation that animal sacrifices are offered in the New Jerusalem. Or what about the commandments that were meant as a way to keep the Israelites away from the Canaanite ways (boiling calves in its mother's milk, tatooing of body in rememberance of the dead, shaving head for the dead, shaving beards for the dead, drinking blood, etc.)

    Many of those things were given to Israel so as to keep them from integrating with the pagan cultures around them. Do they still apply today? Well, I can't imagine God would change his mind about his people integrating with ungodly cultures. On the other hand, those rules seem silly to us who aren't exposed to cultures that do the said things.

    As far as circumcision, it's my understanding that most Christians already do this. It seems to me that it is an outward sign that one has been dedicated to God rather, apart from the world. It's certainly not necessary for salvation through Messiah, but I also would have a hard time saying it is no longer of any importance, especially with Jesus's words in Matthew 5, his own circumcision and the circumcision of all the apostles, in addition to Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and so on.

    You raise good questions though. I personally try to eat only the things prescribed as edible in Scripture. For all I know, the author of the universe has special knowledge of what's good for people to eat. I also think God was right on when he said we should refrain from work once a week. Makes for a healthy lifestyle.

    The Law, at least parts of it, are certainly still applicable, and if you think about it, I'm sure you will agree with me. For instance, without the Law, we don't know whether, for instance, murder is a sin. The New Testament isn't about replacing the Old with a new set of rules. On the contrary, it's about completing the Old, not with new laws, but the existing laws aimed at the heart: O.T. says don't commit adultery. N.T. says don't even look at women in lust, for you're committing adultery in your heart.

    Good discussion, thanks for posting your thoughts. I hope you didn't feel singled out by my posting your name in the blog posting. No harm meant.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello Judah,

    Just passing through and I thought I would weigh in...for what its worth. I think that the traditional definition of Jew is someone who is a descendant of Judah, along the fathers line. I think that at some point (A.D.) the definition became someone born of a Jewish mother...not sure why it changed. You probably know why.

    I think that, even in the Bible, there is seems to be a widening of the term Jewish to include Hebrews. It may just be a translational artifact. For example, look at Jeremiah 34:9. In Esther 2:5, Mordecai who was of the tribe of Benjamin, was called a Jew. In Acts 21:39, Paul calls himself a Jew, but in Romans 11:1 and Philippians 3:4-5, he says that he is from the tribe of Benjamin. For me, it's hard to be dogmatic.

    I will take a stab at it anyway.

    [ ] Adam
    [ ] Noah
    [ ] Abraham
    [ ] Isaac
    [ ] Jacob
    [ ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
    [ ] Benjamin
    [ ] Moses
    [X] David
    [X] Solomon
    [X] Matthew
    [X] Mark
    [X] Luke
    [X] John
    [ ] All the kings of Israel
    [X] All the kings of Judah
    [X] All 12 disciples of Jesus
    [X] Jesus
    [X] Paul

    Take care,
    Gary

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gary, glad you made it in time, here I was going to post the answers tomorrow. :-) Thanks for stopping by and trying your hand at it. With your knowledge of Scripture, it's no surprise to me that you did pretty good, only 2 or 3 wrong.

    It's actually a rather sad story why the heritage line changed from father to mother. There was so much raping of Jewish women done by so-called 'Christian' crusaders & anti-semitic Roman Catholics in the middle ages, that rabbis started to define a Jew as one who was born to a Jewish mother.

    That is what I've read on the subject at least. Very sad if it is true. Just goes to show why Jesus was so focused on love, without it we are totally blind to God.

    There is a reason Paul was considered a Jew, despite him not descending from Judah. I'll post the answers tomorrow with some explanation.

    Thanks for stopping by! God bless you Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey, I wanted to weigh-in on the topic of the OT vs the NT. You're correct in asserting that the New Testament is the completion of the Old, but many of the activities in the Old have been replaced with their completed versions in the New. For example, animal sacrifices, a type of the coming perfect sacrifice, no longer are observed because Christ died once for all as the perfect sacrifice.

    Temple worship has been done away with the tearing of the curtain with Christ's death because His death and resurrection have given us direct access to God through the Holy Spirit.

    Jewish eating laws were done away with in Acts as a requirement in the vision given to Peter (with animals of all types on the great sheet descending from the heavens where God told him to arise and kill something to eat... the exchange goes on and Peter's eyes are opened to the non-exclusivity of salvation in Christ, and that the ceremonial limitations of the Mosaic covenant have been fulfilled in Christ).

    The sections of 'The Law' that are still applicable is the Moral Law, also known as the 10 Commandments. The Moral Law has been written into the hearts, minds, and consciences of all humanity since the fall of Adam. However, the Mosaic law no longer applies since it has been fulfilled though Jesus' death and resurrection. Galatians 5:1-6 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." Paul is exhorting the believers in Galatia to not recommit themselves to the Law. Being saved through Christ, they have been released from the obligations of the Moral Law because Jesus paid their rightful debt.

    It is also true that many Christians are circumcised at birth, but this stems from cultural practice and health concerns rather than from religious beliefs, as a general rule. Jesus was circumcised because he was born into the covenant nation of Israel, and, as a male, was under the covenant law to be circumcised on the eighth day. The same is true of Paul. He was not converted from paganism or from being a Gentile, but was an Israelite (a pharisee even), and was under the same covenant mandate. However, he did not teach that those who were converted to Jesus' teaching and efficacious work on the cross needed to go and fulfill the aspects of the ceremonial, Mosaic law.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great input, glad to hear from you again volcimaster (hey what's your real name so I don't sound idiotic when talking to you?)

    I've heard similar arguments before. I think it's clear that Peter's vision was one of "Hey, Peter, this is God talking, and I'm not limited to the Jews", rather than one of "Hey, Peter, you know all those commandments in Scripture? I was just kidding about half of those."

    God used food as an example, yes, saying what God makes clean is clean. But did not say he's nullfied everything he talked about in the past. Now, if Peter's vision was, "God showed me food and said, 'Peter, everything is kosher, brother, now and for all time.'", then I would be whistling a different tune. :-) Christians agree that Peter's vision was one of unlimited access to God, however, some seem to think there was a duality of meaning that makes it fit well with the current Christian theology.

    What we seem to forget in bringing up of the 10 commandments is the little secret that we as Christians don't actually follow all 10 commandments. We routinely break the sabbath, for instance (and no, Jesus did not change the sabbath to Sunday, sorry! That was done by the Catholic Church around 300 C.E.) Graven images is another that we break, but is also one of those laws that were really meant to seperate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations that worshipped icons and idols. Now that such worshipping of idols and icons is nonsense, it seems silly and unreasonable to not have any graven images (which may include, for instance, crosses, paintings, photographs, and so on). In any case, we break at least 2 of the 10 routinely, though 1 of them may not be applicable in modern times.

    What's more, is that if all this Law following is pointless, then we need to reconcile the following to fit our modern Christian theology:

    *Why did Jesus follow the Law, observe the sabbath and God's festivals?

    *Why did Jesus tell other's to follow the law? For example, when Jesus cleansed the leper in Jerusalem, he told him to go do all that is prescribed in the Law? (which is no easy task! See Lev. 14:1-32

    *Why did Paul do likewise? Why did Paul take a Nazarite vow as prescribed in the Law? (which is also no easy task!)

    *Why did Paul and all the apostles observe the Lord's festivals, described in Acts, even after the death & resurrection of Christ?

    *Why were non-Jewish believers, such as Timothy, circumcized? (I think jasonh posted a good answer to this recently)

    *What the heck is Jesus talking about in Matthew 5:17-20?

    I think largely Paul came down hard against those pushing for Law observance as a way to salvation, which it clearly is not. He also came down hard on those pushing for Oral Law observance (Talmud observance, which is not Scriptural). Unfortunately, some of this gets lost in translation, and our anglicized Bibles do not distinguish from Oral Law and Scriptural Law.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, you had to ask me to do it, didn't you? Well, you asked for it..
    Adam - Well, I don't see how he could be. I mean, did he really do anything that would suggest he even had a religion? I think Eve might have been a secret snake charmer, but that's not a religion.
    Noah - I'm not sure on this one. I think he was saved for generally being a nice bloke more than anything, but maybe he turned to religion while on the ark. He had already spoken to god by then, and he needed some kinda help for looking after 2 of every animal, clearing up after 2 cats is hard enough. So, uh, later on, yes.
    Abraham - Um, I get the feeling I should know who this guy is, but I forget. So, i'm gonna say yes, because, well, I am.
    Isaac - Has a name with more vowels than consanants, and that has to mean something. Depends if you see vowels as religious. Interestingly, the word religious has more vowels than consanants, so that says yes to me.
    Jacob - Joseph's dad? I don't remember much about him really, but dealing with all those kids has to cut down on time for religion. I'm gonna say no.
    Joseph - Best known for getting a multi-coloured coat. That doesn't say Jew to me.
    Benjamin - I have absolutely no idea who this guy is, so i'm gonna have to say no.
    Moses - There's no way this guy can't be a Jew. You can't just give the 10 commandments to any old bloke, can you?
    David - The guy who killed Goliath? Or some king? Or maybe they made him king after he killed Goliath.. something was going on with that sling, he had godly help. Jew.
    Solomon - Had a ring that could summon Doomtrain. Or at least he would if he had been able to find Malboro tentacles. That doesn't really sound Jew.
    Matthew - Um, i don't know anything about the guy, except that he wrote stuff about Jesus. Probably a Jew..
    Mark - Erm, i don't know anything about the guy, except that he wrote stuff about Jesus, and made sure not to agree with Matthew all the time. Probably a Jew.
    Luke - Hmm, i don't know anything about the guy, except that he wrote stuff about Jesus, and made sure to make the version different from both Matthew and Mark. Probably a Jew.
    John - Uh, i don't know anything about the guy, except that he wrote stuff about Jesus and I think he made his version waaay different from the other ones to make people who had read the other's version think they were reading a similar, but not the same, incident. A rebel. Probably not a Jew.
    All the kings of Israel - All of them? Naw. A lot of the time kings like to think they ARE god.
    All the kings of Judah - I think these guys were better than the Israel ones, and tried to be Jews, but the, uh, sixth one didn't do a very good job and let the side down. Default no.
    All 12 disciples of Jesus - Wouldn't they have been the first Christians? Am i missing something?
    Jesus - Now here's an interesting one. I see you thinking that i'm gonna say no, but i'm not too sure. I mean, did Jesus really preach christianity, or is christianity about him? If so, unless he talked about himself all the time, he'd have to be Jewish. Of course, he'd have to believe in himself, or christianity wouldn't have done to well, so in the end I guess it's a "kind of". But i'm leaning towards yes.
    Paul - He seems like an alright bloke. So, yes.
    As for the $100 question, (although i'll take it in £ Sterling, thanks) i'm sticking with my answers, which say that it was Noah. Cleaning up after the elephants did it.
    So there you have it. Probabilty says that i've got at least one without realizing it. I just hope I didn't offend anyone with all that. It's meant to be light-hearted, but i'm not sure if i'm bringing the place down by writing it. Anyway, yeah. That's my contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ash, heheh thanks for trying. At least we can all get a laugh out of it. The Noah cleaning up after the elephants is priceless. :-)

    I will comment on one thing. You seem to think being a Jew makes you religious. Are you aware that there are secular Jews? In fact, many modern Israelis are secular. Being Jewish does not necessary mean accepting the religion of Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh, almost forgot, you brought up another interesting point there Ash. Was Jesus a 'Christian'? This is a side effect of having 'religions'; I've said many, many times, Jesus didn't come to start a new religion. But people always screw things up eventually, thus the mess we have today called Christian religion.

    Also, Jesus didn't come to renew Judaism; Judaism also had evolved into a bunch of junk that wasn't in God's original plan. Again, people screw things up, its almost inevitable. So in Jesus' time even to this day, Judaism is polluted with man-made rituals and religious rites.

    I will say that Jesus came to restore faith in God, and give people a personal relationship with God. It's really simple that way; the Old Testament prophesies in more than 400 places -- 400! -- that God would send someone who'd give us a way to be closer to God. That person is Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  31. jdavidb got it correct, my answer is the same as his.

    I think everyone needs to pay a visit to my blog about Israel: israelevents23.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey bro, good guess, but also wrong! Jdavidb got one wrong, I believe. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Judah,

    The answer is: it does not matter one iota who was Jewish and who wasn't. We humans should be finding ways to make our lives better and meaningful as individuals. We should not be in the business of defining our "essence" as opposed to other humans. To do so is elitist, therefore false, therefore immoral.

    I think the reason why you mention Jewish things on your blog is to lend credibility to your religion as the fulfillment of or extension of an ancient, tribal religion. It borders on an ad novitatem argument ("it's old, therefore, it's true") and ignores the fact that Christianity's beliefs (such as messiah, second coming, resurrection, cannibalism, etc.) are certainly NOT unique among the world's religions.

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would be interested to see how your view of "don't define your essense apart from other humans" fits in with other homosexuals, especially the politically active ones that often appear on television, telling me how I should celebrate my differences. Heh.

    It's certainly not immoral or unethical to talk about geneologies or where one's heritage comes from. I'm not saying Jews are better than gentiles in the least, I hope that's not what you were implying in your post. I personally believe our bloodline isn't a priority to God, I think our personal faith in God is what's more important.

    This little quiz was posed as a fun little exercise; I think both religious and secular people have misunderstandings about Judaism and what it means to be a Jew. Especially in Christianity I find a lot of fuzziness amoung believers in Christ about the differences between Israelites, Hebrews, and Jewish people. It would be interesting, given your knowledge of Scripture, to see your answers of this little quiz.

    It's nothing more, my friend, than a fun little exercise of knowledge. I think you're looking for a fight though, at least that's what it appears to me. If that's what you're here for, you won't find it. I'd love debating things and discussing, civily, religion in general with you, but I won't be foolish enough to get into an internet fight with you. I hope you will agree.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Judah,

    Thanks for your reply!

    I imagine my view of ignoring essence over actions would probably sit really poorly with many homosexual activists. After all, they've cultivated a thought that they are somehow superior because they are "gay" and I think that stinks. For that matter, I think most homosexual activists stink. They don't represent me, they've done more harm than good to me and my family, and I wish they'd shut up.

    I notice you're trying to change the subject and impugn me with others' actions. Par for the course, really.

    I read your claim that Jews are no better than gentiles. If that is true, then why care about bloodlines or geneologies? If they are all meaningless and useless, then why remember them at all? Your actions speak louder than your words, and the Jews weren't called "god's chosen people" for nothing. Did your unchanging god reneg on that elite status for particular indivudals?

    My knowldege about who was Israelite/Hebrew/Jewish is very thin, indeed, as it is completely irrelevant. I much prefer to focus on scriptural issues such as, "How must I be saved?" and "Are children punished for their fathers' sins?" and "Does the Biblical god promote the wholesale slaughter of children, infants, and pregnant women?" I think those questions are much more relevant to the veracity and usefulness of your religious beliefs than wondering about who was a "true Jew" and who wasn't, don't you think? And, believe my, my scriptural knowledge on those issues is top-knotch.

    I'm not looking for a fight as much as I'm looking to show that there is a great deal of criticism which your religion very much deserves but goes largely unheard. Since you claim to have ultimate truth for all humanity (quite an arrogant and audacious claim for you to make!), AND you feel it is your mandate to impose it upon every person you can (by the great commission), it deserves to be examined, criticized, and scrutinized to the utmost degree.

    Furthermore, since your religion is a guilt-based, misanthropic religion, individuals deserve to hear that there are ways to be moral which do not require self-hating (remember how you described yourself as a horrible sinner?) and guilt. Your religion is not ultimate truth, but is rather merely competing with other value systems in our society. Let's have our philosophies compete in the open market of ideas and see which one comes out on top. I believe that people will reject the guilt-based philosophies in favor of positive philosophies when they are able to measure all the facts. In other words, I'd like to steal lukewarm Christians from your camp.

    And, no, they won't go to hell.

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ah, but you twist my words, Jimmy! :-) Or maybe you just didn't understand me, as it's always difficult to understand people over the internet.

    I said geneology isn't a priority with God. Your personal relationshiop with God, I think, is far more important. At least that's how I see it in Scripture.

    Paul mentions in Romans how the Jews have advantages in some cases: it was to Israel God revealed himself, see Romans 3. But by no means is one better than another simply by geneology.

    I wasn't trying to put you in the shoes of others like you, I was only curious to know how your views fit in with theirs, given what appears to be a conflict in views.

    I would agree that the issues you metioned are of more importance than the question of who is a Jew. The only problem is, that has nothing to do with this post, my friend! My post was one of a fun little bit of knowledge, not of "you must know this to be a good little Christian!" Hahah...

    I don't have a great truth for all humanity. God does. I don't know all the truths, just as I was saying in reply to your other comment in the homosexuality in Christianity thread. I am convinced that God exists, and that Jesus is, in fact, the messiah spoken of in the Tenakh.

    Some, perhaps yourself, think there are ways to morality outside of God. The problem for that view is, the world's view of morality is always changing. Most of the time, it's "hey, do whatever feels good!" Certainly, if you agree that God exists, you would also agree that not everything under the sun is moral to God?

    There's your problem, it's just presented itself: if God exists, then certainly not all things are moral to him. Even you implicitly confirm this when you bring up slaughter of women, children, etc. by bringing up these things, you imply they are evil/immoral. That's what I call sin. What you call evil or immoral, I call sin.

    So in fact there is sin; if you don't like to call it sin, then call it immoral activity.

    I have committed immoral activities as much as anyone else here, don't let the all the talk about God fool you. I don't hate myself for it, and there is no need to hate one's self for immoral activities. From what I extract from Scripture, is that God forgives immoral activity. Before Christ, God wanted people to show their sins by giving up something important: a spotless animal or a grain offering. With Christ, the sacrifice Lamb has been slain, brother. That's why Christ came, to give a way that doesn't lead to death, to make forgiveness of immoral activities accessible to all, Jew and gentile alike.

    I'm sure you can steal lukewarm Christians; it's easy to take the big, wide road and follow the world, lukeware Christians probably don't even need your help! It's hard to follow God and not do immoral activity. That a personal choice you've gotta make on your own, and I hope anyone reading this has made thier choice for God, not the world.

    ReplyDelete
  37. All Judah did was pont out that YHVH, God, hates homosexuality, NOT the people who do it. God loves everyone. If someone doesn't agree with that, or thinks that it is okay to be gay, simply read the Bible, especially Leviticus 18:22 ("a man shall not sleep with a man as he would sleep with a woman")

    If you disagree with God's never changing opinion, you cannot be a Christian, because Christ was God and God Christ. Yeshua (Jesus) came to FULFILL his Father's Law, not to destroy it, and Yeshua himslef is the Living Torah. The entire Bible is one story, one covenant, and it is ALL truth. It is as simple as that, nothing to be confused with.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Aaron, you tell it like it is, brother, no extra butter on your arguments. :-) It's refreshing.

    Jimmy, I guess our crux difference lies in our view on Scripture. I believe it to be God-inspired and a definition of a good way to live. While you haven't come out and said it plainly, it seems you disagree. With that bit, we can argue until we're blue in the face and it wouldn't benefit anyone, because we have an underlying difference that is the root of all other differences we may have.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Judah,

    Thanks for your reply!

    I did, in fact, twist your words. Going back and re-reading, I see that you stated that it "wasn't a priority" and did NOT claim, as I *wanted* to read, that it was "unimportant". Forgive me, I do take this seriously and I also take few prisoners. :) That said, regarding some people as "Jews" and therefore "special" is elitist and therefore immoral.

    Naturally you're going to assume lots of things about me and my beliefs. You probably have not debated with many Eudaimonist gay Ex-Christians. It's likely that I will have beliefs that counter your preconceived notions. I, on the other hand, have debated with many, many, many Christians. I have a very good working knowledge about what it's like to be a protestant Christian from having been one. You've never been in my shoes, so it's going to be hard for you to sympathize with what it feels like being on the receiving end of Christian hate.

    Of course there are ways to morality outside of your notion about god. Morality is acting in line with one's values, and every person chooses what their values are. To a 17th-century Samurai, chopping a peasant child in half is not immoral *according to his values*. It is grossly immoral *according to my values*. All of what both of us say about morality and immorality comes down to a value judgement.

    In answer to your question, if god exists, then I don't see that not all things would be immoral to him, particularly if he created everything and is omniscient and omnipresent. Why would such a god create something repellant to him? And, no, I do not value anything supernatural, be it gods, angels, devils, demons, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, etc.

    You claim that you have committed immoral actions just as bad as anyone, but I sincerely doubt that you've raped, killed, and eaten people. It may be different from how you regard me, but I think you're probably a pretty good person, unlike the Josef Stalins and Pol Pots of the world! Christians like to pretend that "sin is sin" but will admit under pressure that murder is much, much worse than telling a fib. Tell me, if you found out that your god was imaginary, would you start killing everyone you saw? Is your belief in god the one and only thing that prevents you from raping children?

    I, on the other hand, do not find it hard to be moral. I do not deprive others of life, liberty, and property. I do not initiate force. I live according to my values. I don't find it hard to not run over children for fun when I'm driving.

    Yes, I accept immoral actions. No, I do not accept "sin". "Sin" means "disobeying your god". The Israelites obeyed your god when they slaugtered babies and children, so they weren't "sinning", but they committed a grossly immoral act.

    I notice you didn't deny that your religion was a guilt-based religion.

    The choice is not between "god and the world", as you like to claim. The choice is which values you want to keep. I value life, happiness, liberty, property rights, children, kindness, self-defense, and reason. I believe that you value (among other things) the supernatural, the Bible as "Truth", guilt, fear, and the suspension of reason where it's expedient to do so.

    I also notice that you've made no effort to deny that your god is a murderous baby-killer, and you've chosen this god as your standard for morality. I think if you line up the Biblical god with all other human-created gods in history, your god would fall in the "evil god" category. Wouldn't you agree that other gods are at least less prone to baby-murder than your god is?

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear Aaron,

    Your defense of your viewpoint of homosexuality is an example of how duplicitous Christians talk out of both sides of their mouths. What if I represented the majority in society, and I claimed to you, "We don't hate Christians. We just hate Christianity." And then I went along with all sorts of measures to make Christians' lives more difficult, such as harrassing their children. You would probably regard my assurance of "I don't hate you" as two-faced as I regard yours toward me.

    And since you were foolish enough to bring up Leviticus, I should remind you that if you eat shrimp or ham then you're just as vile and evil as a coke-sniffing, circuit-party homosexeual.

    Oh, do those verses forbidding shellfish and pork not matter? If so, then why don't the gay-bashing verses not matter too? Surely you don't hate gay people, do you?

    You must be young and inexperienced, as you think that making blunt statements about your love of scripture leads you to say things that are truly nonsensical. You claim that God's opinion never changed. What about his opinion on animal sacrifice? What about his opinion on which day is the Sabbath? What about his opinion about circumcision?

    Furthermore, you ridiculously claim that the Bible is "ALL truth". The Bible says that the bat is a bird (Lev 11:13-19). Is that true? The Bible says that the rabbit chews the cud (Lev 11:6). Is that true?

    No, I'm afraid that I cannot be a Christian, and that's totally okay. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  41. You say God changed his opinion about animal sacrifice, the sabbath, and circumcision, huh?

    There is no animal sacrifice since Yeshua (Jesus) came. THAT WAS WHY HE CAME. That doesn't mean God changed his mind about it.

    The reason the Christian Sabbath is Sunday is because Constantine changed it in honor of the Sun god. That doesn't mean God changed his opinion about the Sabbath - the TRUE Sabbath is on Saturday, the LAST day of the week, any biblical scholar will confirm that.

    God din't change his opinion about circumcision. Circumcision is a way to become clean and holy unto YAH. (When you're not holy, you are unclean and in sin, not that you aren't saved). We have faith by folowing the Law of God, thus putting ourselves under his Covenant and in His hand.

    For you to say that God changes his opinions is a lie. I thought everyone knows that God is infallible and he is never wrong, so if he changed his opinion he must have been wrong previously.

    It is all simple logic, I don't know how you think I'm 'nonsensical'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jimmmy, Jews aren't an elite physical class of humans. End of sentence. :-)

    I didn't deny Christianity is a guilt-based one simply because I'm at work and don't have time to respond to all your arguments! :-) Sure, I'll confess, I think some people have turned Christianity into a guilt-based religion. Jesus wasn't all doom and gloom, far as I can tell, though. I mean, look at the the woman who committed adultery: did he say, "ooh, you sick little witch, you're gonna die!!!"? Hahah, you'll agree that's not what he said. Instead he told the woman to go on her way, and sin no more.

    You posed an interesting view on personal morality. For one person (such as a Samurai) killing is honorable. For others, that same act is not honorable.

    That's what I don't like too much about secular morality. There's no standard, no absolutes. Everything's relative. You, as a former believer, can hopefully understand my predicament: if God exists, and not everything under the sun is OK according to God, then there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. That line, for me, is Scripture.

    You mentioned some things to my younger brother Aaron about some apparent falsehoods in Leviticus. Those are both common arguments that've been thrown around from time to time (I'm surprised you didn't mention the camel hoof dividing!).

    Birds, according to our modern scientific classification, do not include bats, you're right! Unfortunately for the nay-sayers, this same scientific classification did not exist in Israel, especially at the time it was written. We, in our modern scientific thought, classify them as flying mammals, no such classification existed at the time Leviticus was written. What would you have the author of Leviticus call them, mammals? Imagine the confusion of the readers when no such classification (or word in the Hebrew language) existed! That would be utterly funny. To call them birds was a perfectly fine classification; for all we know, 2000 BCE men called anything that flew, "birds". You'll probably agree that's quite a reasonable assumption.

    Rabbits chewing cud is another thing, I don't know why I waste time at work answering this stuff! To quote one source, the Hebrew phrase for "chew the cud" simply means "raising up what has been swallowed". Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification, at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed "raise up what has been swallowed". The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  43. jimmy said: "Yes, I accept immoral actions. No, I do not accept "sin". "Sin" means "disobeying your god". The Israelites obeyed your god when they slaugtered babies and children, so they weren't "sinning", but they committed a grossly immoral act."

    That's very interesting. I'm not sure to what event you are referring to, I assume it was when Israel was sent into the land of Caanan and ordered to kill all the inhabitants.

    I does seem very brutal for them to kill babies, but I suppose if God told them to kill ALL the inhabitants of the land, then that's what they should have done.
    It seems much the same as when God told Abraham to kill Isaac. We should all act like Abraham and obey God.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There are plenty of places in Scripture where people are killed for a cause. It isn't politically correct to say, but sometimes killing is necessary: it would've been nice and all if Nazi Germany just magically transformed into an Amish pacifist farming community, but it didn't, and people had to be killed for a greater cause.

    Or how about Sodom & Gomorrah, God killed people because of the extreme sin going on there. Or driving people out of Canaan (which also was utterly sinful, BTW), and so on. Picking out instances of where people are killed, while ignoring the purpose is nothing more than trying to paint God as a mean, angry God.

    So, as much as Jimmy would like us to go off onto a wild tangent on how evil God & his followers are, let's try to keep it on topic.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Aaron,

    Thanks for your reply. It's too bad you're not very experienced in this type of discussion.

    Old: god requires animal sacrifice (revolting!) to atone for sin. New: god does NOT require animal sacrifice to atone for sin. Your "unchanging" god changed something, probably his mind.

    I'm glad that you admit that SATURDAY is the Sabbath. Would you also agree that all Christians who treat Sunday as the Sabbath are willfully and disobediently breaking one of the ten commandments and are living in sin?

    Old: circumcision matters to god. New: circumcision does NOT matter to god. Your "unchanging" god changed something, probably his mind.

    You made NO attempt to counter my claim that your claim that you "don't hate gay people" is two-faced. Should I assume that you agree with me?

    You made NO attempt to counter my claim that if you eat ham or shrimp then you might as well be gay. Should I assume that you agree with me?

    You made NO attempt to answer my questions about the bat being a bird or rabbits chewing the cud after you insisted that scripture was "ALL truth". Is it true that the bat is a bird? Is it true that rabbits chew the cud? Or should I assume that you are backing off your claim that scripture is "ALL truth"?

    You also made NO effort to counter my claim that there is nothing wrong at all with my NOT being a Christian. Should I assume that you agree?

    Regarding your god's choice to wholesale slaughter children and infants, I'm not surprised that you aren't aware. Christians are very frequently ignorant of what their scripture states.

    "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword;
    their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16

    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." 1 Sam 15:3

    If your god asked you to kill a baby in cold blood, would you do it? You can't say, "god would never ask such a thing!" because he most certainly did. There is NO justification for killing a baby, EVER. And I think abortion is disgusting, too. Your god is practically an abortionist in Hosea 13:16 -- I say "practically" because the mothers *also* did not survive the procedure.

    If I say anything that is untrue, then I ask that your god stop me from saying or writing it, and I ask it in Jesus Christ's name.

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear Judah,

    If Jews aren't better or worse in any way, shape, or form than non-Jews, then why do we care who is a Jew and who isn't?

    Thank you for admitting that Christianity is a guilt-based religion. I think that's an inferior way to live life. The movie "The Passion of the Christ" was all guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt.

    I fully understand your predicament. You can't cope with a world in which everyone chooses their own values. You want YOUR values to be EVERYONE'S values. You think that your values somehow lose meaning or significance if not everyone shares them. I've got news for you: Even among Christians there are different values. Everyone chooses their own values. I'm not saying that they're all equal. In fact, I think some values suck! For example, you value the supernatural and that's unrealistic and false. You also value holding gay people as inferior and that's elitist and immoral. Drawing a line in the sand with scripture is only valid if scripture itself is valid, and that is precisely the point in dispute.

    My space is limited here, Judah. Of course I could have mentioned the the camel's hoof dividing, or the four-legged insects, for that matter. Just because you're aware of the Bible's problems doesn't mean you have a way to solve them. And, clearly, you don't.

    The bat is not a bird and cannot be called a bird under any kind of definition. If you define birds as "animals that lay eggs", then you would have to include reptiles as "birds". If you define birds as "animals that fly", then you would have to include millions of insects.

    As for the rabbit chewing the cud, they don't! They are laprothorpes, which means that they eat their "pre-poo" to extract more nutrition (an evolutionary advantage). This is NOT the same as "chewing the cud", which all ruminants do. Having wiggly mouth movements is NOT "chewing the cud". Eating their pre-poo is NOT "chewing the cud". You are trying to turn attention away from the falsehood by describing the eating system of rabbits, of which I was already well-aware.

    Most importantly, you allege that the Bible was written by god, NOT by humans. If that is true, then how can god's word be superceded by human knowledge? How can god, who is allegedly perfect and all-knowing, allow something false by any limited, inferior, human standard to be written? If the Bible was written by humans, then anyone could have written it. And if the Bible has at least one error, then it might have another. What else in the Bible is false, inaccurate, or unscientific?

    And, by the way, the reason why you "waste time" with this is because you can't cope with someone pointing out a falsehood in scripture. Will you agree that it is false to say that the bat is a bird? Will you also agree that it is false that rabbits chew the cud? My guess is that you will agree, but with heavy rationalization in order to paint scripture in a positive light.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I already addressed O.T. sacrifice. Do you know God still requires sacrifice for sin? He does! The spotless Lamb has been slain for the world. That was one of the major reasons why Christ came.

    The terms of the old covenant: God gave the Law to Israel, and Israel accepted the covenant of the Law, saying to Moses, "all that the Lord has said, we will do".

    The covenant has changed because the people have broken the old covenant. This isn't anything new and out of the blue; in fact, this was prophesied to happen by several of the prophets, "The days are coming, says the Lord, when I'll make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah: anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

    I also addressed God-commanded killings.

    I also addressed rabbits chewing the cud, the bats, and so on.

    You're over there, ignoring my answers while demanding me or Aaron to answer your questions! Perhaps you just missed the posts? I hope so, otherwise it'd be hypocritical of you to whine about people ignoring you! :-)

    Also, let's keep the mocking down, I won't tolerate that on this blog. Your mocking prayer at the end of your last post really disappointed me, as you've kept the conversation civil thus far. Refrain from mocking and any other childish behaviors, we're all adults here (except for Aaron! :-))

    ReplyDelete
  48. False accusations galore! This should really be in the homosexuality thread.

    Let's see here, you twisted my words once again! Some people have made or at least tried to make Christianity a guilt-based one. It isn't one by nature, as you imply, do you disagree?

    Did I say the Bible was written by God? I suspect you twisted my words or misinterpreted me once more, but if I did say that, I apologize; I believe Scripture is inspired by God, not written by the hand of God himself. Perhaps this is what you meant?

    I've already addressed the bats and the rabbits, which you failed to refute my arguments. Instead, you only say, "oh look, they're not birds!" and "they don't chew cud!", both are closer to a 4 year old covering his ears and screaming loudly, than they are to valid rebuttles. Read my post again and answer me! (hey, I like this 'demanding an answer' thing that you've seemed to master!)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh, forgot to answer your other question. Why care who is a Jew and who isn't? Helps you understand Scripture better; there are places in Scripture where God is speaking to Israel, then the next minute, He'll be speaking to Judah. What's the difference, aren't they both Jewish?

    Also, from a secular standpoint, it's interesting knowledge. What does it mean to be a Jew in the modern day? Where does the name come from, and so on.

    Glad we're finally getting back on topic, but I suspect it won't last long with all these I'm-right-and-you're-wrong emotions running so high! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jimmy, I have gotten in several arguments over the vlue of believing in God, or any god. If morality is based on my personal value judgements, then why are you bothering to argue your system over mine? My personal values are based in my belief in Jesus' atoning work on the cross for my sins, and, therefore, I follow God' prescription for life to best of my ability. When I sin, I run back to the cross and ask forgiveness.

    You know you're doing something wrong by being a homosexual, and you're trying to find a defense for your activities by saying that morality all comes down to personal value judgements.

    I hate homosexuality, the act, but I witness to people who are lesbian, gay, bi, and straight about my God, and what He can and will do for them. Apparently, from your comments about being a former protestant, you never truly accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. I'll be praying He does a work in your heart and makes you a trophy of His grace.

    Warren (my website).

    ReplyDelete
  51. This will be my last post, unless I am personally attacked again.

    1. The fact that I hate homosexuality but don't hate homosexuals is not two-faced. Have you ever hated something your brother did, but still loved him?

    2. Circumcision does matter. Yeshua only expanded on it taught his disciples to apply it to their hearts first.

    3. YHVH never changes his opinions, BECAUSE THERE IS NO "TIME" IN HEAVEN. The idea of time does not exist in YHVH's realm, He is eternal, unchanging, always there. It is the people and times on earth that change, not YHVH, and to disrespect YHVH's nature is blashemy and a sin I would never tolerate in person.
    Just like the Levites, I would kill for the zeal of YHVH.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Warren,

    Thank you for your reply!

    You asked, "If morality is based on my personal value judgements, then why are you bothering to argue your system over mine?" The answer is that it deserves to be heard, and you deserve to hear it. Your morality is inferior to mine, and people have been told for too long that one has to believe in guilt, fear, and unnatural things in order to be moral. This falsehood deserves to be corrected, and readers of this blog deserve to hear it. Is your position so weak that it can't stand up to criticism? Certainly your all-powerful, all-knowing god has nothing to fear from a pathetic gay guy like me, correct?

    I already know what your values are, and I think they suck. Your values treat you like an inherently evil person who has to beg for forgiveness from an imaginary god whenever you do something "wrong" (where "wrong" is based in your culture, not in scripture). Your values deserve to be thrown in the trash.

    There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, nothing at all. I dare and defy your weak god to kill me if I'm wrong about that. Furthermore, you have no moral authority to criticize me because you worship a baby-killer. It's like a person who worships Pol Pot telling me that I'm immoral, only that your god is worse than Pol Pot.

    Homosexuality is much more than a mere act. If I were to "leave" homosexuality, as you probably desire, then I would split up my family and my son's parents would be divided against each other. (You would probably like for such a thing to happen to my son!) I know you want to denigrate it to an act because you don't want to give it any legitimacy. The tide is turning, Christian! Gays have much more acceptance now than they ever have, and if they can ge good parents (which they can be), then you're pretty much screwed on the issue. There are millions of children being raised by gay parents now. The genie is out of the bottle, and your side is losing. Perhaps it is god's will that homosexuality is being accepted more and more by society.

    Since you can't tell me what it takes to be or remain a Christian, you have no authority to tell me that I wasn't a "true" Christian. Furthermore, how do I know that *you* are a "true" Christian? You very well could be a disciple of Satan posing as a Christian. Many will try, but few will get in, correct?

    And I suggest you stop praying. It's the biggest waste of time on the planet because your god is imaginary. Get off your knees and *do* something! Stop being so lazy!

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  53. Aaron,

    Thanks for your reply!

    Your comparison to "hating something your brother did verses hating him" is invalid. Homosexuality is not something I *do* any more than heterosexuality is something that you *do*. You're trying to cheapen it to mere sex acts which is false. And you are two-faced. You claim you don't hate homosexuals but you feel no guilt in making their lives worse (for what they "do"). Perhaps if you walked a mile in my shoes you'd feel differently. The lack of empathy is all so familiar from snotty Christians.

    Your defense of circumcision is false and, in fact, stupid. Since you're playing word games with "circumcision", I'll make it more plain so that you can't wiggle out.

    Old: Whether or not the foreskin of your penis is cut off is important. New: Whether or not the foreskin of your penis is cut off is NOT important. Your unchanging god changed the rules (as well as supported genital mutiliation).

    What do you mean you would "never tolerate blasphemy in person"? If I told you that I was Jesus Christ in person, what would you do? Kill me? Jesus already told you, "do not resist and evil person", and, "let he without sin cast the first stone". Perhaps you don't care what Jesus says.

    You already claimed that you would kill for your imaginary god (much like wicked Muslims do). But my question was, would you kill a baby if your god asked you to? Would you perform an abortion if your god asked you to? (Hosea 13:16)

    You are showing your true colors. Some Christians are violent, hateful people.

    Not so warm regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi Judah,

    No, I do not agree that Christianity is NOT a "guilt-by-design" religion. It *is* a guilt-by-design religion, but Christian culture exacerbates it because guilt is a powerful motivator to win converts. The notion of "original sin", in Romans, is a guilt message. You were *born* evil, broken and flawed. Don't you feel guilty?

    You are trying to have your cake and eat it to by claiming that the Bible was not written by god. Tell me, what does it mean that the Bible is "inspired" by god? I hereby claim that everything I write in your blog is inspired by god. Why is that any less meaningful than your claims that scripture is "inspired" by god?

    The reason you choose "inspired" is because the Bible is clearly the work of humans, given its many imperfections. But if it's the work of humans, then any human could have written it! So you elevate it with "inspired". You can't have it both ways! It's either the work of a divine being, or it's the work of humans.

    You addressed the bats and the rabbits, and what you wrote was irrelevant. The bible says the bat was a bird, which is false. The Bible says that rabbits chew the cud, which is false. Your statements did nothing to change these statements. Is there something you wrote which you specifically want me to answer?

    Regards,
    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  55. People are born with a tendancy towards evil. This supports the fact that most people in the world, are, in fact, evil people: haters of God, blasphemers, cursers, mockers, just as you have cursed, mocked, and displayed a general attitude of hatred for God and followers of God in your posts. The mocking, which I warned you not to do, has gotta stop Jimmy. 2 strikes, my friend. Let's keep it civil and mature, please.

    Inspired by God: God inspired humans to record events, prophecies, histories of godly men. God didn't write it himself, but I believe the Scripture we have today was written by people inspired by God to write it. God meant for the Law to be written, for example.

    Please re-read my post on rabbits and bats until you understand it. The answer is quite simple, and I posed it in an easily understandable way. My guess is you just don't want to hear your points refuted, so I'll leave it at that until you can come back with a valid rebuttle to my answers.

    ReplyDelete
  56. So you're saying that I should feel guilty for making homosexuals lives worse? How do I do that? By opposing them? You are opposing, how is that different? I don't hate gays. Once again I hate what they do (that is gay sex, it is an abomination to my God). That is what I hate ABOUT them. I'm surprised you can't grasp a simple concept like this. And if I walked a mile in your shoes I would try to change, not pity my dispicable sin.

    You see, physical circumcision DOES matter (not to Christians, however). And what Christians don't understand is that Yeshua expanded upon the subject of circumcision and made it apply to the heart first, meaning Yeshua DID NOT REJECT CIRCUMCISION because being circumcision is a way to be holy and 'kosher' unto God. ['Old': physical circumcision does matter. RENEWED: physical cirumcision DOES MATTER, and is expanded on metaphorically to apply to ones heart.]

    I should have made it more clear what I meant by saying I wouldn't tolerate blashemy in person. I did not mean I would kill you with my bare hands, I meant I would speak up against it. However, if you called yourself Jesus to my face, i would probably dismiss you as crazy and take it as a joke.
    I meant that if it were God's will for me to kill someone for any reason (or none at all) I would do it. That DOES NOT mean that I'm going to strap a damned bomb on my body and blow up Muslims, because they are my enemies.

    "would you kill a baby if your god asked you to? Would you perform an abortion if your god asked you to? (Hosea 13:16)"

    Yes, because it would be an order from God. However, that DOES NOT mean that abortion would be okay from that point on like you are implying. in the Torah, accidental death was not punised by death, however accidental death of a baby in it's mother's womb WAS punished by death clearly showing us of what God thinks about the lives of babies and children.

    Where is my reaoning flawed? this all makes pefect sense I don't know what the arguement is.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Abraham was not a jew,Ok understandable but you mentioned he was hebrew?

    could you elaborate it

    Thanks
    -adnan

    ReplyDelete
  58. Abraham was not a Jew: a Jew is someone we define as descending from either Judah, Simeon, Levi, or Benjamin.

    Abraham was a Hebrew, in fact, the first Hebrew. He was the first person mentioned in Scripture as being a Hebrew (Genesis 14:13), and his descendants were called Hebrews. Hebrew means "one who crosses over"; Abraham crossed over from Ur, crossed over from the pagan & secular world over to God, and God blessed him for it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. [ ] Adam
    [ ] Noah
    [ ] Abraham
    [ ] Isaac
    [ ] Jacob
    [ ] Joseph (the coat-of-many-colors guy, not the bio dad of Jesus)
    [ ] Benjamin
    [x] Moses
    [x] David
    [x] Solomon
    [x] Matthew
    [x] Mark
    [x] Luke
    [x] John
    [x] All the kings of Israel
    [x] All the kings of Judah
    [x] All 12 disciples of Jesus
    [x] Jesus
    [x] Paul
    All I marked with [x]

    ReplyDelete

Husband, dad, disciple of the Jewish Messiah Yeshua, technologist. Author of Chavah Messianic Radio, MessianicChords, and EtzMitzvot. @judahgabriel


You're reading Kineti, the longest-running Messianic blog on the web, now on its 14th year. Here you'll find extraordinarily rare pragmatism & insight into Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots Christianity.