Calvinism and Corinthians 12:3

[nebula]

really? and when did Abraham become a jew?

When he was conceived.

Abraham is the father of the people who centuries later would be called Jews.

Abraham was not the first Jew, but Jews' ancestor.

[nebula]

really? and when did Abraham become a jew?

When he was conceived.

Abraham is the father of the people who centuries later would be called Jews.

Abraham was not the first Jew, but Jews' ancestor.

Abraham was a Hebrew (Ge 14:13).

OK.

But Hebrew does not mean Jew, and Jew does not mean Hebrew.

[~candice~]

Not all Hebrews are Jews. The Jews (original meaning) are descendants of Judah, which was Abraham's great-grandson. These days, Jew has come to mean all descendants of Jacob, not all necessarily all descendants of Abraham.

Gen 14

13 Then [h]a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now he was living by the [j]oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were [k]allies with Abram.

[Fez]

really? and when did Abraham become a jew?

When he was conceived.

Abraham is the father of the people who centuries later would be called Jews.

Abraham was not the first Jew, but Jews' ancestor.

Abraham was a Hebrew (Ge 14:13).

OK.

But Hebrew does not mean Jew, and Jew does not mean Hebrew.

Amen!

[Guest yod]

And David, the man after God's own heart, had Uriah killed.

Once, and then repented.

Calvin isn't worthy to be compared to David in any way

God's people sin. . .that's what we're dealing with here.

no, we're dealing with an unrepentant murderer, who advocated violence against anyone who disagreed with him.

You support that?

Ac 7:51-52 - "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

(Your fathers) even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One.

This was Stephen speaking to the Pharisees who were hypocrites putting him to death. It is NOT an indictment against all jewish people, then or through eternity.

And now you have betrayed and murdered him." (See Ac 5:28)

He is speaking to Caiphus and the ruling religious leaders (like Calvin actually) and this is NOT an indictment against all jewish people then, or through eternity

This is beyond the pale, Eli. I didn't realize you were so bigoted.

[~candice~]

Eleanor, are you suggesting the bible says the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ? Do you realise that Christ was a sacrifice, not a murder?

[mizzdy]

Eleanor wrote:

Is it wrong to conclude that your comment, "the RCC was the first to put forth the notion that it was the Jews who were Christ-killers,"

shows an unawareness of Ac 7:51-52, above? Because the notion comes from the Scriptures, not from the RCC.

So all Jews were stiffnecked people at that time? Where in Acts 7 that it was all those Jews who put Him to death? Where in scriptures do you not see that no one murdered Him but that He gave up His life willingly for us? It was the ruling bodies, the Sanhedrine, the ones put into power by Rome that put Him forth for blasphemy, for saying He was God. And it was Rome, the early church fathers that promoted the idea that the Jews killed 'our' Messiah.

The notion originated with Jesus when he declared the Jews not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil,

because they sought to kill him (Jn 8:38-47).

Yeshua speaking to those who had no real understanding of who He was and what He was here to, do those who He was talking to engulfs the whole of Judea? and therefore the Jews? Just as there are christians who say they are but fail to do the things He sets forth will not be in the kingdom either. But should we judge all of His body by those who claim to be His but go about shaming His name?

In Mt 23:29-36, he likewise pronounced judgment on the teachers of the law and Pharisees when he condemened them to hell (v.33)

Do you honestly think that Yeshua is throwing all those priests, all those teachers under the bus? or do you perhaps think that He was speaking to those who teach the Torah but fail to do what the Torah says? Could it actually be that He is speaking to those that teach the Torah but have created fences and fences around it? or in other words take His Torah and wrap it up in their own tradtitions and teach others to do so also. Which is the case here in Matt. Yeshua is not condemning all the Jews, nor telling anyone not to obey Torah but not to do those extra things taught by them.

Theres so much understandings missed when reading only through the eyes of rome, of the western mindset, of the reformation. Theres so much missed when one does not study the context, the content, have knowledge of who the people were at that time. So many just see 'Jew' and think OT, which is not the case at all!

shalom,

Mizz

[Zemke]

Having gone back and read Eleanor's first post I don't understand why this digressed into a who killed Jesus rant. What I took from Her post was an explanation of who we are in Christ, the Church. She is right, we are not a separate institution, a gentile thing. The church is part of the continuing revelation from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21

If we know who we are we would never be anti semetic. It is a theology of separation, a purely gentile church perspective, a cuting off of the roots that eventually evolves into a Jew hating Christ killer mess.

Just because a person reading the Bible clearly sees that the bible says that they, speaking of the Jews, killed Jesus is not reason to come down on them. Reason with her with the other side of the story. It would seem to me your attempting to label her anti semetic by default.

[nebula]

Let's be objective rather than subjective.

Is it wrong to conclude that your comment, "the RCC was the first to put forth the notion that it was the Jews who were Christ-killers,"

shows an unawareness of Ac 7:51-52, above? Because that notion comes from the Scriptures, not from the RCC.

Context, Eleanor!

Stephen was speaking to the Sanhedrin - and yes they were the ones who demanded Pilate sentence Jesus to death.

This is a far cry from laying the blame of Christ's death on every single Jew alive in on earth or in Judea at that time and throughout the centuries.

Recall that Stephen himself was a Jew! Was he to blame for Christ's death as well?

The notion originated with Jesus when he declared the Jews not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil,

because they sought to kill him (Jn 8:38-47).

Only those who reject Him - same as with the Gentiles. The Gentiles are in no better boat then the Jews in this regard.

To be more frank, we are all guilty of Christ's death because we all have sinned and are thus in need of Christ's blood to cover us.

In Mt 23:29-36, he likewise pronounced judgment on the teachers of the law and Pharisees when he condemened them to hell (v.33)

and declared that the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharaias was on their heads, because in seeking to murder him,

the "prophet who was come" (Dt 18:17-19, Jn 1:21, 6:14), and subsequently to murder his apostles (vv. 33-34), they were endorsing

in their hearts all those murders of the prophets committed by their forefathers (vv. 30-32), and would suffer the divine judgment for all those murders, which they did not actually commit, but committed in their hearts.

Correct, "the teachers of the law and the Pharisees," not "the Jews".

And my point is: in hating Christians of the past for murder, you are doing the same thing you object to in past Christians who hated Jews for murder. That's a double standard, and most Jews are involved in it.

When the unbelieving Jews persecuted Christians (and note that anyone they killed with their own hands was illegal by the rules of the government they were under), they did so because they believed they were following Torah - Saul of Tarsus explained this of himself. A century later, there is no evidence of Jews persecuting Christians anymore.

When Christians persecuted Jews, what was their basis? Were they following the teaching of Jesus?

When Calvin burned people who spoke against him, was he following any teaching of Jesus?

2) indictment of the whole Jewish race for the murder of Christ. I have said no such thing.

Let me say loud and clear: I do not involve all Jews in the murder of Christ. I involve only those whom the Word of God involves in Mt 23:29-36; Jn 8:38-47 and Ac 2:23, 7:51-52, 5:27-28.

And they are all dead, gone, buried. Their teachings and their influence are forgotten.

If you forget that in truth the entire human race, Jew or Gentile, is guilty for the reason Jesus needed to die, you have forgotten the Gospel. Before God, we were all at one time enemies of God, thus we share in the guilt. Accomplices to a crime are just as guilty in the eyes of the law as the ones who actually performed the crime.

So why blame at all?

You don't see that blaming the body of Christians for killing Jews is no different than blaming the body of Jews for killing the Christ,

which blame you detest?

In order for the Passover Lamb to be sacrificed, the Lamb had to be put to death at the hands of the High Priest. If anyone but the High Priest was responsible for Jesus' death, how could He have been the proper sacrifice? So why blame them?

Also consider that Jesus rose from the dead. So why has there even been a desire among Christians to blame the Jews for Jesus' death? Is Jesus still dead? No! So what is there to be vengeful at them for?

As for Christians killing Jews, why did they do this? Was this the message Jesus preached? Is this the way He would have us preach the Gospel? Have Jews been made to believe that Jesus is their Messiah on account of Christians killing them in the name of Christ, or are they turned away from Him on account of this?

[Guest yod]

And btw, there is a huge difference between:

1. a small group of specific jewish people at a specific week in world history who had Yeshua tried in secret for fear of all the people (majority of Jews in Israel)

2. the recognized leaders of the "Christian Church" who advocated murder en masse over 19 centuries with few (Christians) opposing them or standing in their way.

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore that huge gap in the logic being employed