Challenge to Ralph

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

That's not how the church or christians in medieval europe interpreted that, and I think it's silly to pretend that it is.  If you want to call the VAST MAJORITY of medieval "christians" in Christian Europe as "fake Christians"

The vast majority of medieval "Christians" were illiterate peasants with no understanding of Scripture at all, and their leaders were political potentates who used and abused religion for their own purposes (easy to do when your population is that uneducated.

but most people would disagree and say that this concept is not historically accurate.

I am going by what the NT teaches, not the experience of history and the deeds of people whose witnesses (Christianese for lifestyle) did not bear out the existence of fruits of conversion.

You are artificially implanting a modern interpretation on a society of the past.

I go by what the Bible teaches, not what various civilizations that made the profession of being Christian did. I can guarantee you that upwards of 99% of these populations never picked up a Bible in their lives.

, what you say is a "real Christian" today, was not considered a "real Christian" back then.   It's a modern interpretation.

There are lots of times when professions of a religion do not match up with reality. During the eras of some of the great prophets (i.e. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) most of Judaism was given over to Baal-worship. Does that mean that that practice of Judaism then was the correct one? Obviously not.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

C.F. it's not for us Jews to say who is and who is not a real Christian.  Kahane Was Right BT was most likely just going by what the people of that time called themselves. 

Yes, but as a Christian I think I am entitled to speak for my own faith. I know for a fact that biblical literacy in those days was absolutely horrid. Church services were often conducted in Latin, which nobody outside the clergy understood. People blindly went by what their bishops, popes, kings, etc. said. Nobody knew what being a Christian really meant--it was a nominal (i.e. a you are "born one") process. I am entitled to say if and who did not meet the Scriptural criteria for membership in Christendom.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I now see what you mean.   It seems to be a "radical" view that most Christians would take issue with.  But I think it's interesting.  You are basically agreeing with me though that the modern interpretation of your religion is being applied to the people of the past - but you openly state that your brand's modern interpretation is the correct one and the others were wrong or dishonest.   This logic I understand.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

You are basically agreeing with me though that the modern interpretation of your religion is being applied to the people of the past - but you openly state that your brand's modern interpretation is the correct one and the others were wrong or dishonest.   This logic I understand.

No, I said that the biblical interpretation is the correct one and that others are wrong and dishonest.

Jesus gave in his Parable of the Seeds four scenarios of people who apparently convert, but only one really does. The others do not have a genuine faith. So this is not a new concept.

[muman613]

Im one who would die before I would convert. Kiddush Hashem!

muman613

PS: Just before Moshiach comes it will seem like all is lost for the Jewish people. The  moslems will seem to be right and the Jews wrong. It is then we will be rewarded for our faith in Hashems promise to send Moshiach.

[Lisa]

Yes, but as a Christian I think I am entitled to speak for my own faith.

{snip}

 I am entitled to say if and who did not meet the Scriptural criteria for membership in Christendom.

Of course you are!  I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You are basically agreeing with me though that the modern interpretation of your religion is being applied to the people of the past - but you openly state that your brand's modern interpretation is the correct one and the others were wrong or dishonest.   This logic I understand.

No, I said that the biblical interpretation is the correct one and that others are wrong and dishonest.

You are saying that yours is the "biblical" one.   In other words, the correct one.   It's just a different way of saying the same thing I said.    Those in the past or those who mimick them today would insist their Christianity was/is right.  Or in your word choice, they would insist that their Christianity is/was "biblical."  You simply say that theirs isn't and that your interpretation is the correct/biblical one.   I can understand your logic in this case.   

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Of course you are!  I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  

I know, I know. q_q though thought that it was wrong for me to speak for Christianity though. I needed to say this for the sake of clearing the historical record and, more importantly, to rebut Ralph.

Everybody--Christianity is really not quite as diverse as the figures would make it out to be--the vast majority of the 34,000 sects of it differ over doctrinal variants that are really quite minor and would never, ever say that they alone are the true Christians. Catholics believe that they are the one true church, but do not believe that non-Catholic Christians are phony or going to hell (at least not most of them). All of the other mainstream denominations* (Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Friends, etc.) never once profess to be the only true church.

The sects that exclusively claim that they only are the real believers and all other Christians are going to hell (i.e. Mormons, JWs, etc.) are considered to be cults of Christianity and not real Christians.

Believe it or not, one cannot just believe whatever one wants and call themselves a Christian. The Biblical criteria that is laid out in the N.T. is quite clear:

1: Believe that Jesus Christ is G-d (not an offshoot of G-d, or a separate deity)
2: Understand that the true G-d is the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
3: Undergo a complete and radical change of heart, personal conviction of sin, and repent fully and permanently
4: Abide by the Scriptures of both Testaments

This is how I can say who is a Christian and who isn't. The vast majority of medieval Christians did not live by both Testaments (being illiterate, they couldn't even read a Bible), did not have an abiding faith in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and certainly did not undergo a radical, personal conversion process. Without "fruits of the Spirit" (an important Christian phrase meaning evidence of a changed life, and obedience to the Scriptures), I can very confidently say that the beasts who committed pogroms were pagans with a new name.

*Note--I acknowledge that today many members of these denominations are leftist frauds.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

You are saying that yours is the "biblical" one.   In other words, the correct one.   It's just a different way of saying the same thing I said.

No, I am saying that the orthodox Christian view is the right, biblical one. You can't compare people who understand the Scriptures with ones who don't. It would be like you having a debate with a completely secular Jew who knows no Torah whatsoever. It would be no contest.

Those in the past or those who mimick them today would insist their Christianity was/is right. Or in your word choice, they would insist that their Christianity is/was "biblical."

It's hard to be "biblical" if you have never read a word of the N.T. in your life, but even pretending that they did, it would not make them right. All sorts of wackjobs, such as the Rev. Fred Phelps, claim that they alone are "biblical" or the only "true Christians". It doesn't mean that they were correct.

You simply say that theirs isn't and that your interpretation is the correct/biblical one.   I can understand your logic in this case. 

But it is not my interpretation, it is the orthodox (not Orthodox as in the denomination) Christian one.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You are saying that yours is the "biblical" one.   In other words, the correct one.   It's just a different way of saying the same thing I said.

No, I am saying that the orthodox Christian view is the right, biblical one. You can't compare people who understand the Scriptures with ones who don't. It would be like you having a debate with a completely secular Jew who knows no Torah whatsoever. It would be no contest.

Those in the past or those who mimick them today would insist their Christianity was/is right. Or in your word choice, they would insist that their Christianity is/was "biblical."

It's hard to be "biblical" if you have never read a word of the N.T. in your life, but even pretending that they did, it would not make them right. All sorts of wackjobs, such as the Rev. Fred Phelps, claim that they alone are "biblical" or the only "true Christians". It doesn't mean that they were correct.

You simply say that theirs isn't and that your interpretation is the correct/biblical one.   I can understand your logic in this case. 

But it is not my interpretation, it is the orthodox (not Orthodox as in the denomination) Christian one.

What you follow today was not always considered "orthodox"
It is silly to pretend otherwise.   When you just openly state that your way is the true interpretation and the ones in the past were wrong or lying/distorting, that can be honest and logical.   Don't try to tell me that all of medieval Christian Europe would have stated or admitted that their own way was "not biblical" or not authentic.  They would have said their way was right.  Their priest said so and so did those who had whatever limited exposure to their scripture that they had.  (and the printing press increased exposure to the masses, but it didn't cause adoption of the modern interpretation you follow!)  I think it's a stretch and quite silly to pretend otherwise.  Or to pretend that all the priests of those days had never seen their own nt...


A comparison to a conflict between religious Jew and a secular Jew who doesn't know Torah is not a valid comparison.   Christian Europe was religious Christian, and they thought their way was right, whether it was or it wasn't.  I don't know how you can assume if CF went in a time machine and showed a different interpretation, they would all just say, 'of course CF but I'm evil and a pretender what do you expect'....   They were led to believe a different interpretation for century upon century, one which enabled the antisemitism that led to the shoah.   You CF simply believe that was a wrong interpretation and yours is the biblically accurate one while theirs isn't/wasn't.  For what it's worth, I think if you start claiming more than that you cease making sense...

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

What you follow today was not always considered "orthodox"
It is silly to pretend otherwise.   When you just openly state that your way is the true interpretation and the ones in the past were wrong or lying/distorting, that can be honest and logical.   Don't try to tell me that all of medieval Christian Europe would have stated or admitted that their own way was "not biblical" or not authentic.  They would have said their way was right.  Their priest said so and so did those who had whatever limited exposure to their scripture that they had.  (and the printing press increased exposure to the masses, but it didn't cause adoption of the modern interpretation you follow!)  I think it's a stretch and quite silly to pretend otherwise.  Or to pretend that all the priests of those days had never seen their own nt...

A comparison to a conflict between religious Jew and a secular Jew who doesn't know Torah is not a valid comparison.   Christian Europe was religious Christian, and they thought their way was right, whether it was or it wasn't.  I don't know how you can assume if CF went in a time machine and showed a different interpretation, they would all just say, 'of course CF but I'm evil and a pretender what do you expect'....   They were led to believe a different interpretation for century upon century, one which enabled the antisemitism that led to the shoah.   You CF simply believe that was a wrong interpretation and yours is the biblically accurate one while theirs isn't/wasn't.  For what it's worth, I think if you start claiming more than that you cease making sense...

First off--it looks like you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You don't like it when I speak about Judaism, you don't like it when I speak about my own faith, and you don't like it when I criticize any figure Chaim himself does. Maybe that is not the case, but I am certain that considering our history of debating, it might appear that way to an outsider. Please note that Lisa, who has been carefully monitoring this thread for religiously inappropriate speech and who has called me out in the past when I overreached, had no problem with what I said.

Now--as to the overall thrust of your argument, it appears that you are saying that the N.T. preaches anti-Semitism. I am pretty sure that that is what you believe--that is exactly what you are arguing, in everything but the literal words, and if that is indeed the case, you should just say it. I will disagree strongly, considering I actually study it, but if you just state this belief, then at least we will each know exactly what the other thinks and it will be done with.

As for everything else, it's pretty much a circular debate that goes back and forth. You don't understand Christianity better than Christians. Do I still believe that the vast majority of these individuals were ignorant and illiterate false Christians? Absolutely. Well upwards of 90% of these populations couldn't even read or write and couldn't understand the Bible if their lives depended on it. I didn't say that the priests were illiterate, but it is true that they intentionally kept Scripture from the masses and used their positions of authority to manipulate and control the peasants. The clergy, owing to their education and status, were considered an elite class--they had land, wealth, and property--and as such had a huge perceived economic interest in dominating the peasantry, starting/averting wars, and oppressing Jews. Masses were all held in Latin so the people didn't even know what was going on in them. And yes--I stand by the statement that they disregarded Scripture, because at that time and era of Christianity the Bible was not even viewed as the source of religious authority--Church tradition was. The Bible was considered, at best, a record of the history of Christianity, a secondary source of authority--but ultimate authority, decisionmaking, and truth was held with the Pontiff. This is really quite easily demonstrable with any historical review.

Were these people "religious"? I guess so--according to what their own version of "Christianity" taught. They were religious like Muslims are. Did they consider themselves "the true Christians"? Yeah. There weren't any dissidents at this time. There was not a dissenting POV. What did this prove? Did they believe what the N.T. and the apostles taught and established? No. They created a perverse and false concept of Christendom, much like many leftist Jews today have created a warped and false version of Judaism (i.e. "social outreach is the truest Torah value", being a light unto the nations means supporting blacks, Arabs, etc.). In their own minds, these nutcases genuinely believe they are "religious Jews", and would have no part of being shown otherwise. Does that make their version more correct than what the Torah actually says?

And lest you bring up that even much later, during the Reformation (i.e. Martin Luther) the attitude towards Jews did not change much, I will state the same thing--that Scripture was disregarded. Luther himself never even sought to start a new religion. Factors like nationalism, tradition, and public opinion, in Europe, continued to be grafted onto religious practice and interpretation--not the other way around. The reason why America has been such a bastion of non-anti-Semitic Christians is quite simple--various colonies of true Christians in Europe saw through this hypocrisy and falsehood and desired to divorce themselves from it and implement true societies abroad.

What you are saying is about as fair as claiming that black African "Christian" nations like Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc. are practicing true N.T. Christianity.

[muman613]

Shalom,

I would like to respectfully ask that this discussion end peacefully. I would prefer a peaceful solution rather than letting this devolve into namecalling and hard feelings.

Please heed these words...

muman613

[Shlomo]

JTF is pro-Christian and pro White even though Whites have a history of murdering them.

What is all this "White" crap? Last time I checked, this wasn't the KKK forum. JTF is a civil rights organization that couldn't give a flip about whether someone is "white" or "non-white". We are Pro White? You can't be serious. Since when did we simplify all this down to a color? Jews are not all "white". In fact, there are many black Jews that we love just as much as the "white" ones.

We aren't pro Christian either. You heard me right. We aren't pro Buddism or pro Hinduism either. We are pro righteous gentile. We are pro Torah. We go by the Torah and believe in the Torah and hold it dear because it's truth. The Torah is very clear on what to do and we believe this is the right thing to do and it's the only answer that makes any sense at all. If a righteous gentile has a different religious belief, they are welcome here but they also understand that this is a Jewish forum. They join along because they believe our cause is just and G-d will bless them deeply for it. What a bunch of wonderful human beings... people who overlook differences because we are more powerful if we join together and because they love Israel and the Jewish people.

Lastly, how can you claim to be Jewish if you don't believe in the Torah? Last time I checked, the only real definition (whether the mother or father isn't Jewish or if someone converted) of what a Jew is was defined by a thing called Judaism. That's kind of where the whole concept of a Jew comes from. If you don't believe in the Torah, then why would you care about Israel? Wouldn't it be just another spot on the map? I think you either do believe to some extent because the alternative is that you only want to cause trouble.

And drop the racial garbage now. We don't care what color people are. We care about what people do.

[q_q_]

<snip>

So, if, CF was trying to say that some group of christians here are so-called christians , that would seem to be a bit inappropriate.

So I don't know what my own faith teaches? I'm not qualified to say that antisemitic mobs could not possibly be Christians according to the biblical definitions?

I said "GROUP" of christians "HERE"
Infact, I said "group of christians here", but I will emphasise GROUP and HERE

Not a single one individual member is of an anti-semitic mob.  That was more a problem in medieval times.

I DO think you can make theological statements about your faith - christianity, saying "christians" or so-called christians, in reference to the anti-semitic "christians"(we know what/who we mean) in medieval times.  You can make theological statements about your own faith, and on JTF, it's no problem here because there are no medieval christians who would differ and get offended. And if they got offended then good. (I understand that a christian might actually get offended by calling those medieval "christians" , christians.. So since I don't take a position about christian theology, i'm willing to use whatever convention the other person uses, to have the discussion, if I was having the discussion)

-From another post,

I know, I know. q_q though thought that it was wrong for me to speak for Christianity though.

Never make ANY statement about anything I have said, because -too often- you never understand any of it anyway. Stick to quoting me if trying to show what I said.

This is actually the first time I have addressed you directly in this thread, in the sense of quoting you. But it's still not necessarily with you in mind as a "responder". It's just me stating my position.

[q_q_]

<snip>
A comparison to a conflict between religious Jew and a secular Jew who doesn't know Torah is not a valid comparison.   <snip>

The comparison is flawed because secular jews don't believe they have the true judaism, they don't believe there is one. They follow the modern nonsensical trend of not believing in truth in religion. They don't believe they are going back to the original.

A correct comparison would be between an orthodox jew and a karaite. Or, if going back hundreds of years, a pharisee and a saduccee.  At one time it was Maimonidean and Anti-Maimonidean.   And of course we -do- make theological statements about who is correct and who is incorrect.

And BTW, when you say that christianity of today was "not always orthodox", that is not relevant to whether it is true. Or to whether it is true to its text and original meaning.   (a jewish comparison would be, I did read that at one time, in one very large jewish area at least , a majourity of jews were - or went - karaite, - the refutation of it by the saadya gaon brought them back, so now karaites number only around 200.  Karaites were certainly in large numbers, at one time. They would have considered themselves "orthodox", orthodox meaning right.   Of course the term orthodox was adopted recently by Torah jews, to distinguish ourselves from the reform).

And to say that it isn't true to its original text and meaning(which you probably meant to say), is a theological statement about christianity taking a position within it, and it's not a jew's business to do so.  Christians , those that believe christianity, can take theological positions on it, and  Torah believing jews can take positions on judaism.   And just as it's a nuisance when christians like CF take theological positions / make theological statements about/against judaism(within torah true judaism),  about satmar for example, so too, it must be a nuisance to christians if jews make theological statements about christianity, saying this form isn't biblical or whatever.

[Ulli]

I have to admit, that I believe in this line (12.3) from the book of Genesis.

I will not claim, that I would like every Jew. This would be a lie.

But I like some of those, I have met here. I am shure, that I would like them the same, if there wouldn't be a book of Genesis.

And I like Jewish culture, specially the kitchen & the wine. 


The point, why evil people with European background are more dangerous to the Jews is obvious. Scribarin has said it before. Muslims are not able to controll themselves, neither their thoughts nor their actions. They are like a predators. They are attacking instantly without reflection about the consequences.

You can read in the Israeli and European press daily about their stupid, cruel and violent crimes. Or remember in which way they have attacked in Hebron.

The Nazi is much more vulpine. He is planning, preparing and he is acting openly only if there is a great change to success. Otherwise he is acting in secrecy I.e. sneaking with a firebomb at night to the Synagoge or Jewish cemetary.

The Muslim is not like this and this makes him less dangerous. In addition to it Islam is only able to prosper in a non-muslim society, where the natural economic and social order is diseased and mutated through Socialism in any form.

Of course a twisted economic order advances Nazism too, but not in the same degree, like Islam.

My proof for it is that hard working and by it successfull people can be Nazis (i.e Ford, Krupp, Flick etc.)

In the Muslim ranks you will find perhaps Oil-Sheiks and Cleptocates, but rarly people who made a fortune by work.

[P J C]

Everybody relax! If he thinks that JTF should not be United with us Christians (The religion that basically came from judaism) than let him complain all that he want's. The fact that he even want's Chaim to terminate all of the Christians on the forum, is insane.

[P J C]

Ralph2, don't become a problem. I have seen similar things arise, and it usually results in banning.

Let me make my point here. There are always going to be some Christians who don't see eye to eye with Jews, and there will always be some Jews who don't see eye to eye with Christians. But, this forum symbolizes that all of us Jews and Christians are allies and we DO see eye to eye. We have a common enemy, it needs to be defeated, all objections aside, at the end of the day, that is the bottom line.

Cheers, ProJewChristian

[MarZutra]

WHO CHANGED MY POST WITHOUT MY PERMISSION?  IT SEEMS TO BE FINE WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A DIRECT POSITION BUT IF ONE SUPPLIES AN ANSWER, EVEN JUST THE REF WITHOUT THE ACTUAL COMMENTARY IT IS DELETED?

THIS IS WRONG PERIOD!!

[mord]

These same posts over and over again every other week they are becoming boring at least for me

[q_q_]

there have been many instances where people have written things that run against the JTF cause, and so it is right that the admins have the right to remove things from a post without asking permission, They do say <deleted>.. so it's not a surreptitious/clandestine act.

[MarZutra]

there have been many instances where people have written things that run against the JTF cause, and so it is right that the admins have the right to remove things from a post without asking permission, They do say <deleted>.. so it's not a surreptitious/clandestine act.

It absolutely is, especially if it something that doesn't lay within the guidelines as to what you've written...  There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I wrote.  If someone makes a statement publically and one supplies a response, especially when on a Jewish forum, by a Jew, from the Tenach....  something is wrong...

PS: I happen to agree with Mord...

[Shamgar]

I just finished reading through the five pages fo posts since I dropped off last night.

Thank you Ralph, I learned a lot, got a lot to think about, and I think some great discussion occurred. Before/after this post there is still a common binding truth.

Jews and Rightous Gentiles make great, complimentary allies. Together they can win in the fight against Nazisism and Islam.  You think God might just have a reason and a plan in place. 

[Zelhar]

@Ralph you said your mom is a Jew, that makes you Jew like it or not and regardless of not believing or rejecting the Torah.

Also JTF is not pro-white as Shlomo had said, race and color do not matter, only the behavior. I think that you have racist views, and that your rational is flawed. We had many enemies through history, in every generation there are Amalekite gentiles who try to destroy us. All are completely evil but some are just more successful than others, I mean, Haman and Hitler wanted exactly the same thing only that Hitler was more able than Haman.

Since the rebirth of the Jewish state it has been Islam who become our greatest enemy. Islam has never accepted out independence and they will stop at nothing in trying to wipe us of the map. Thank God they were not as able as the Nazis but we have to make sure they stay that way...

[Zionistforever]

@Ralph you said your mom is a Jew, that makes you Jew like it or not and regardless of not believing or rejecting the Torah.

Also JTF is not pro-white as Shlomo had said, race and color do not matter, only the behavior. I think that you have racist views, and that your rational is flawed. We had many enemies through history, in every generation there are Amalekite gentiles who try to destroy us. All are completely evil but some are just more successful than others, I mean, Haman and Hitler wanted exactly the same thing only that Hitler was more able than Haman.

Since the rebirth of the Jewish state it has been Islam who become our greatest enemy. Islam has never accepted out independence and they will stop at nothing in trying to wipe us of the map. Thank G-d they were not as able as the Nazis but we have to make sure they stay that way...

islam cant destroy because hashem will not allow it theres nothing else to it.