Vatican: Jews can be saved without Christ

[Ezra]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is no way anyone can say with a straight face that  a religion denies Jesus isn't a false religion.  If Judaism were of God, then it would not be opposed to Jesus and would accept Jesus as the Savior and Messiah.

Exactly.  Judaism, just like Islam REJECTS Christ as Messiah, Lord, God, and Savior. It's roots are in Pharisaism, which also rejected Jesus of Nazareth.  There are some very blasphemous comments regarding Christ in the Talmud.

[Qnts2]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No I am not saying that the Mosaic law became false.  But Modern Judaism doesn't follow the Mosaic law.   Modern Judaism employs traditions like the Shabbes goy.  Where in the Torah are Jews instructed to employ Gentiles to turn lights on and off and pre tear toilet paper and change baby diapers and wash dishes on the Sabbath?

Modern Judaism doesn't follow over 1/3 of the Torah.  Modern Judaism is completely separated from any redemptive theology of the sacrifices because they have no way of keeping the commandments relative to the sacrificial system.

Modern Judaism doesn't keep the Festival of Fruits.

Modern Judaism, contradicts the OT, Mosaic law that points them to the Messiah.   Their rejection of the Messiah is in complete disobedience the very law they claim to follow.    Modern Judaism follows the Rabbis, and the Bible means what the Rabbis SAY it means.  There are even rabbinical parables that teach that even God is bound by rabbinic rulings and edicts.

Torah Talmud Judaism views the Talmud as Torah and studies the Talmud as Torah.

Modern Judaism began in 72 AD under Yochanan Ben Zakkai at the council of Yavneh.  You should know that.   There may be residue of ancient Jewish culture present in Modern Judaism, but most of modern Judaism has evolved over two millennia and much has been added to over that time period.

Again, I repeat, the dispersion of the Jewish people from the land of Israel, due to Israels disobedience, is a judgement spoken of in the Mosaic law. The current state of diaspora is not the first time. The Babylonian exhile left the children of Israel without a Temple, sacrifices, etc. which rendered 1/3 of the law unable to be kept as commanded. Did the Jewish people and should the Jewish people totally abandon the Mosaic law while being punished for failure to keep the Mosaic law? Of course not. Scripture show Daniel practicing some of the Mosaic law even though there was no Temple to make sacrifices.

What occurred at Yavneh was multifaceted. First, it was an attempt to figure out how to carry on as Jewish people, who were dispersed. What I have already called diaspora Judaism. They studied the scripture. They also finalized the canonization of the Writings. And, there was a power play involved, including the setting up of courts, which allowed the appointed judges to solidify the power under the Pharasaical view.

There is a large amount of the ancient Jewish beliefs present in Modern Judaism. Of course Judaism has had to make judgements of law concerning some modern things. That's the way things work.  

 

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Again, I repeat, the dispersion of the Jewish people from the land of Israel, due to Israels disobedience, is a judgement spoken of in the Mosaic law. The current state of diaspora is not the first time. The Babylonian exhile left the children of Israel without a Temple, sacrifices, etc. which rendered 1/3 of the law unable to be kept as commanded. Did the Jewish people and should the Jewish people totally abandon the Mosaic law while being punished for failure to keep the Mosaic law? Of course not. Scripture show Daniel practicing some of the Mosaic law even though there was no Temple to make sacrifices.

What occurred at Yavneh was multifaceted. First, it was an attempt to figure out how to carry on as Jewish people, who were dispersed. What I have already called diaspora Judaism. They studied the scripture. They also finalized the canonization of the Writings. And, there was a power play involved, including the setting up of courts, which allowed the appointed judges to solidify the power under the Pharasaical view.

There is a large amount of the ancient Jewish beliefs present in Modern Judaism. Of course Judaism has had to make judgements of law concerning some modern things. That's the way things work.  

 

It doesn't really matter if the reason is that they cannot or will not keep the Mosaic law.  The fact is they don't.  They disobeyed the Mosaic law and rejected the Messiah and were judged for it and the temple was laid waste as Jesus said it would.  

Modern Judaism was never predicated on keeping the Torah, but on how to define Judaism without a temple and a sacrificial system.   It was decided that good deeds would replace the sacrifices. 

Ancient Jewish beliefs don't equate to Torah observance.   Modern Judaism isn't Torah observant, it isn't the religion of the OT that God established.   Judaism proves it is not a biblical religion in that it denies the fundamental purpose of the OT religion, to reveal the Savior Jesus.   Judaism has completely rejected Jesus and to act like that is just a "flaw" in the religion, simply doesn't cut it. 

[Qnts2]

49 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

49 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

What Does The Talmud Teach About The Importance Of Its Writings Compared To The Torah?

Raba made the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural text: And, furthermore my son, be admonished: Of making many books etc.? My son, be more careful in [the observance of] the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah, for in the laws of the Torah there are positive and negative precepts; but, as to the laws of the Scribes, whoever transgresses any of the enactments of the Scribes incurs the penalty of death. In case you should object: If they are of real value why were they not recorded [in the Torah]? Scripture stated: ‘Of making many books there is no end’.(2)  Eiruvin 21b (The Judaic Classics Library - The Soncino Talmud). http://jewishroots.net/library/anti_missionary_objections/does_the_talmud_take_precedence.html

Modern Judaism began in 72 AD under Yochanan Ben Zakkai at the council of Yavneh.  You should know that.   There may be residue of ancient Jewish culture present in Modern Judaism, but most of modern Judaism has evolved over two millennia and much has been added to over that time period.

 

Ok, lets take an real look at what is being said in the Talmud. It actually agrees with you.

I'll put the statement in a more understandable English over the legal language of the Talmud.

Son, be more careful or cautious of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah. In otherwords, Raba is saying watch out, be more careful about what the scribes teach, then in the words of the Torah (OT). The laws in the Torah are either positive or negative. (They are simply saying, do 'positive' or don't do 'negative') but the laws of the scribes say don't trangress the laws of the scribes or you will incur the death penalty. If the laws of the scribes were not recorded in the OT, are they of any real value? The scribes have written many books of which there is no end.

The actual last line of the quote from Raba states 'and much study is weariness of the flesh'. If one studies the many many books written by the scribes which there is not end,  will simply wear a person out if he tries to study them all. He is saying, concentrate on the OT/Torah.  

The whole thing is saying, observe the OT laws, and beware of the many many books written by the scribes of numerous laws which are not in the OT. That opinion in the Talmud says, Torah (OT) comes first. 

It is interesting that the quote is from a section of the Talmud which discusses the building of Eruvim, or fences. It is a Rabbinic set of law based on the old walled cities in Israel. On the Sabbath, a person was not to carry a load, or objects from outside a walled city, into a walled city, but within the walled city, one could carry a burden. If the city was not walled, one could not carry outside of their house. Some Rabbis claimed that the building of a fence around the Jewish community allowed walking more then a Sabbath days journey or carrying something outside of the house.

 

[Ezra]

19 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I think  Qnts2 knows a bit more about this than you do shiloh.  Thank you for your opinion but I think it is wiser to listen to him.

I believe it is "her".  Anyway the new Gospel from the Vatican is "Climate Change".

But not all observers found the love-in quite as appropriate, including the conservative Catholic website Rorate Caeli: "Not sure if that was a speech by the head of the Catholic Church or Al Gore ..."

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok, lets take an real look at what is being said in the Talmud. It actually agrees with you.

I'll put the statement in a more understandable English over the legal language of the Talmud.

Son, be more careful or cautious of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah. In otherwords, Raba is saying watch out, be more careful about what the scribes teach, then in the words of the Torah (OT). The laws in the Torah are either positive or negative. (They are simply saying, do 'positive' or don't do 'negative') but the laws of the scribes say don't trangress the laws of the scribes or you will incur the death penalty. If the laws of the scribes were not recorded in the OT, are they of any real value? The scribes have written many books of which there is no end.

The actual last line of the quote from Raba states 'and much study is weariness of the flesh'. If one studies the many many books written by the scribes which there is not end,  will simply wear a person out if he tries to study them all. He is saying, concentrate on the OT/Torah.  

The whole thing is saying, observe the OT laws, and beware of the many many books written by the scribes of numerous laws which are not in the OT. That opinion in the Talmud says, Torah (OT) comes first. 

It is interesting that the quote is from a section of the Talmud which discusses the building of Eruvim, or fences. It is a Rabbinic set of law based on the old walled cities in Israel. On the Sabbath, a person was not to carry a load, or objects from outside a walled city, into a walled city, but within the walled city, one could carry a burden. If the city was not walled, one could not carry outside of their house. Some Rabbis claimed that the building of a fence around the Jewish community allowed walking more then a Sabbath days journey or carrying something outside of the house.

 

There is no need to try and whitewash what is being  said.   I know of other places where the Rabbis indicate that rabbinic rulings are even binding on God Himself.   That was just one example of how the Rabbis view the superiority of the Talmud over the five books of Moses.    Jesus did not validate the Oral Law.   Jesus said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. 

Furthermore, there was no Oral law given at Mt. Sinai.  The Oral law is a myth.   The Bible says in Exodus that Moses wrote down everything that God said.   The Jewish claim that the there has been an unbroken chain of transmission of the Oral law is a myth.  

Judaism is based on Talmud, not on Torah.   Judaism is based on a rejection of Jesus, not an acceptance of Jesus.   That  fact, all on its own invalidates Judaism as a biblical religion.

You can try and spin it all you want to try and validate Judaism but the truth is that it cannot be validated. 

[gdemoss]

Saul was brought up at the very feet of Gamaliel and taught the strictest forn of their religion as a Pharisee for somewhere around 40 years and was dead wrong.

Please don't think you are credible based upon your personal testimony of your religious education.  

Judaism without Christ is a blind religion that cannot see its own messiah.  Paul spoke about it this way:

Rom 2:17¶Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Rom 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

Rom 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

Rom 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Rom 2:25¶For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is thatcircumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Be careful to understand this last verse.  Judah means praised which word we get our word Jew from and true Jews are praise is of God.  If a man speak evil against true Jews then God shall be witness against that man but if he call false Jews out God shall in no wise come against him.

Let those that fear God speak of that which they know for we are judged for every idle word we speak.

[OldSchool2]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not disagreeing with your English dictionary.  This is not about a lexical definition.   I am making a theological point about how the Bible presents Jesus as a political deliverer/Messiah at his second coming, but as a personal Savior from sin at his first coming.    Jesus was the Messiah, but was operating in the office of Savior.   Had Jesus operated as Messiah at that time, the church age would never have occurred.   The world would have skipped the church age and simply walked into the millennial kingdom.

Messiah is a corporate Savior.  But Jesus came the first time as a personal Savior.   You need to understand the difference.

And it should be pointed out that modern Judaism rejects Jesus as both Messiah and Savior, so again, plays no part in our salvation.

As long as Israel exists, modern Judaism will continue to play a part in our salvation, otherwise Paul's words in Romans 11 are no longer relevant.

And dividing Jesus into a corporate and a personal savior suggests a dispensational dualism, neither of which I find to be biblical.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

As long as Israel exists, modern Judaism will continue to play a part in our salvation, otherwise Paul's words in Romans 11 are no longer relevant.

And dividing Jesus into a corporate and a personal savior suggests a dispensational dualism, neither of which I find to be biblical.

 

Wrong on both counts.   Judaism cannot play a role in our salvation because Judaism didn't exist when Paul penned Romans 11.   Judaism never played a role in our salvation because Judaism is a post biblical religion that Paul never knew.   Furthermore, Romans 11 doesn't claim that the Jewish nation played a role in our salvation.  Romans 11 is calling on Gentile believers to bring salvation to Israel.

Secondly I am not dividing Jesus into a personal and corporate Savior.    Jesus is both Messiah and Savior.   One is corporate the other is Personal.   I didn't invent that.   The Bible demonstrates the role of Messiah to be corporate and calls on Jesus as the Messiah to bring corporate "salvation" (deliverance) to Israel.   But the Bible, in both the OT and NT also teaches us that Jesus is a personal Savior from sin. 

I realize that these eternal truths don't square with the Vatican's' blasphemous statements but they are true, nonetheless.   And so far you have railed against them, but you have not provided anything even close to approaching a refutation of them.

[Qnts2]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is no need to try and whitewash what is being  said.   I know of other places where the Rabbis indicate that rabbinic rulings are even binding on God Himself.   That was just one example of how the Rabbis view the superiority of the Talmud over the five books of Moses.    Jesus did not validate the Oral Law.   Jesus said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. 

Furthermore, there was no Oral law given at Mt. Sinai.  The Oral law is a myth.   The Bible says in Exodus that Moses wrote down everything that God said.   The Jewish claim that the there has been an unbroken chain of transmission of the Oral law is a myth.  

Judaism is based on Talmud, not on Torah.   Judaism is based on a rejection of Jesus, not an acceptance of Jesus.   That  fact, all on its own invalidates Judaism as a biblical religion.

You can try and spin it all you want to try and validate Judaism but the truth is that it cannot be validated. 

I gave the proper interpretation of the quote from the Talmud. The last section you left off, makes it very clear what is being said.

I do not believe the oral law was given at Mt. Sinai. I believe much of the Mishna is actually the decisions of the courts of law/judges, which were appointed to render decisions according to the practice of the law. It was the Torah which mandated the appointment of judges.

There is no spin or attempt to validate Judaism. I just gave the correct interpretation of that Rabbis opinion, and also gave the order of authority of the various writings as Judaism views them.