Why are Jews God chosen people?
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
On the surface, the underlined portion is phrased like an apagogical argument. However your argument is invalid as you cannot prove by contradiction that there is no salvation if Jesus hadn't been cruxified. All things are possible thru the wisdom and power of God. You are merely leading the audience as the second phrased shows very clearly.
Here's another difficult question for Christians - if Jews did not crucify Jesus, where is your salvation?
Remember .. no calvary -> price for your sins not paid -> no salvation. -
No .. what I tried to prove by contradiction is that the Jews were unrepentant not by choice but by the will of God. Because you said:Originally posted by Skibi:On the surface, the underlined portion is phrased like an apagogical argument. However your argument is invalid as you cannot prove by contradiction that there is no salvation if Jesus hadn't been cruxified. All things are possible thru the wisdom and power of God. You are merely leading the audience as the second phrased shows very clearly.The Jews in general have long since passed the point of no return with regards to their covenant the moment they cruxified the very savior they had been waiting for.
If Jesus did not go through the passion leading to the crucification, there will be no salvation. According to Christians, there are verses in the OT that hints about the passion and calvary.
Here is another contradicton .. all thanks to you. You maintain that all things are possible with God, but God CANNOT LIE. Which means He cannot contradict what the bible said because the bible is from God. -
Skibi, your argument is way off liao.
'cos somewhere in the NT .. it is written that the Jews were blinded so that the gentiles can receive salvation.
so they didn't have a choice at all. -
i think God has created the situation as such.
they have declared that the crucificion is on the blood of their children.
the only way is to get by this is by repentance, as such that is mentioned previously.
the issue is not who to blame on that day of crucificion, but rather will the Jews continually reject Jesus just like that day of Calvary or will they accept that Jesus is the only way. -
From a very skewed lens, this is how i see it.Originally posted by Icemoon:Are you done?
Now my turn.
Here's another difficult question for Christians - if Jews did not crucify Jesus, where is your salvation?
Remember .. no calvary -> price for your sins not paid -> no salvation.
The Jews were definitely played a part in Salvation as like you pointed out; if they didn't crucify Christ, there would be no salvation.
So there's no argument there.
Can they be blamed? This is subjective (they were mde not to see). However, they did crucify an innocent man (given that they didn't see Jesus as the saviour).
But, and this is where my arguments kicks in, they didn't repent after that. If they did, there would be no issue. Instead they chose to see what they wanted to see. That Jesus was not the Messiah, but a heretic? So in this sense, God did offer them an avenue for repentence. It's just that they did not take it up.
And, if we were to put things in a historical context, in the Acts, we saw the Resurrection and Jesus walking among his disciples. Moreover, the Apostles were filled with the spirit after the Ascension and they performed maasive amount of works and miracles. But still, they chose not to see.
We know that the Jews were blinded. But we do not know where that blindness ends? (this is guess work) It might have ended after the resurrection took place. That's why we saw the many conversions in Acts. -
where har?Originally posted by Icemoon:'cos somewhere in the NT .. it is written that the Jews were blinded so that the gentiles can receive salvation. -
Romans 11Originally posted by laoda99:where har?
The Remnant of Israel
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"[a]? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."[b] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c]
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."[e]
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! -
You forgot to include this(from the same chapter/paragraph):
Romans 11:12 NIV
God never meant for Jews to be blinded. They blinded themselves thru their greed, hate, envy and thirst for revenge. It is by the wisdom and power of God that good will triumph over evil turning misfortune into blessings for others. Paul laments with regret that if the Jews had been loyal to God the blessings produced would have been so much more.
But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Thus instead of sharing the blessings along with the Gentiles, the Jews have to pay for their crimes...in blood. This is the lament and regret of Paul the Apostle. -
1. They did not crucify an innocent man. Jesus was indeed guilty of blasphemy according to the law of Moses.Originally posted by ben1xy:Can they be blamed? This is subjective (they were mde not to see). However, they did crucify an innocent man (given that they didn't see Jesus as the saviour).
But, and this is where my arguments kicks in, they didn't repent after that. If they did, there would be no issue. Instead they chose to see what they wanted to see. That Jesus was not the Messiah, but a heretic? So in this sense, God did offer them an avenue for repentence. It's just that they did not take it up.
And, if we were to put things in a historical context, in the Acts, we saw the Resurrection and Jesus walking among his disciples. Moreover, the Apostles were filled with the spirit after the Ascension and they performed maasive amount of works and miracles. But still, they chose not to see.
We know that the Jews were blinded. But we do not know where that blindness ends? (this is guess work) It might have ended after the resurrection took place. That's why we saw the many conversions in Acts.
2. To be fair, some Jews did convert in Acts, as did the pagans, i.e. god-fearing Greeks.
And here comes my favourite part - is the NT historical context corroborated by secular history? If you want to play fair, all Jews in the diaspora had to see the miracles. The NT did not claim that, neither did secular history. There is scant mention of the apostles [and their miracles] outside the NT.
And my usual comparison - when God gave the Torah, the whole Israel was at Sinai. This, the OT affirms. When Jesus and the apostles performed miracles, did the whole Jewish nation see it? -
I'd add that if God did boom his voice to the Pharisees to acknowledge Jesus Christ, this spectacular event would not go unnoticed by the Sanhedrin, the religious governing body at that time.
I have not read my Old Testament thoroughly, but I don't remember God booming His voice to the people. This is a very very rare event. God usually communicates via the prophets. -
So god never meant? He instigated? Facilitated? Abetted? Willed?Originally posted by Skibi:God never meant for Jews to be blinded. They blinded themselves thru their greed, hate, envy and thirst for revenge.
Read the verses carefully:
Skibi, there is no need to absolve god of any responsibility.
Romans 11
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."[e] -
the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans. The Jews forced it on Pilate. Power and politics were at play there. I'm sure you can see that right? Pilate was afraid of angering them, though he could find nothing wrong.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. They did not crucify an innocent man. Jesus was indeed guilty of blasphemy according to the law of Moses.
yup this i agree. This falls in tandem with what i was saying... repentenceOriginally posted by Icemoon:2. To be fair, some Jews did convert in Acts, as did the pagans, i.e. god-fearing Greeks.
hmm. ok then, i will take back the part on history bit. I will change it to contextual factors. Does this better suit the argument?Originally posted by Icemoon:And here comes my favourite part - is the NT historical context corroborated by secular history?
Well, my argument would be this then. I've never seen the resurrection. But yet, i believe. We do know that the early Christians were chastised and persecuted and there even the Roman empire got a tad worried. Based on this, is it fair for me to say that.. if they didn't see; they would have heard about it? Esp. with the apostles going around preaching?Originally posted by Icemoon:If you want to play fair, all Jews in the diaspora had to see the miracles. The NT did not claim that, neither did secular history. There is scant mention of the apostles [and their miracles] outside the NT.
I can't see the linkage. God doesn't owe salvation to anyone. So what if the whole Isreal was at sinai? And when Jesus and the Apostles performed miracles, the whole nation wasn't there. The were prophcies in the OT telling of the coming and the things that he would do.Originally posted by Icemoon:And my usual comparison - when God gave the Torah, the whole Israel was at Sinai. This, the OT affirms. When Jesus and the apostles performed miracles, did the whole Jewish nation see it?
Finally, there was the resurrection and that to me would be the clearest indication. -
was this for me? i dun quite catch this partOriginally posted by Icemoon:I'd add that if God did boom his voice to the Pharisees to acknowledge Jesus Christ, this spectacular event would not go unnoticed by the Sanhedrin, the religious governing body at that time.
I have not read my Old Testament thoroughly, but I don't remember God booming His voice to the people. This is a very very rare event. God usually communicates via the prophets.
-
If you study patristics, you will not find the Apostolic Fathers any friendly to the Jews.Originally posted by ben1xy:From a very skewed lens, this is how i see it.
If you arrange the gospels chronologically, you will find anti semite contents more rampant and the allegations more vile from Mark to John.
I am saying this behind an objective pair of lens. -
quote:
perhaps if Jesus is a 'crazy' man, he would be justified by the law. IMO, pilate saw Jesus as a crazy man, thus, he could not find any wrong in him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Icemoon:
1. They did not crucify an innocent man. Jesus was indeed guilty of blasphemy according to the law of Moses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans. The Jews forced it on Pilate. Power and politics were at play there. I'm sure you can see that right? Pilate was afraid of angering them, though he could find nothing wrong.
But if the perspective is that Jesus was not crazy, then Jesus is indeed guilty of blasphemy.
Can understand?? -
I wasn't talking about power and politics. We are not trying to determine who is at fault. Ben, are you trying to throw red herrings again?Originally posted by ben1xy:the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans. The Jews forced it on Pilate. Power and politics were at play there. I'm sure you can see that right? Pilate was afraid of angering them, though he could find nothing wrong.
Jesus was clearly not innocent according to the law of Moses. So the Jews had every reason to punish him according to the law of Moses.
I am not saying the whole legal process was fair, it wasn't. The High Priest and his cronies (certainly the gospels wanted us to see them this way) did not act according to the Jewish legal system at that time. So did the gospels present a skewed version of the event? Or were the gospel authors trying to find a scapegoat for the death of Jesus? -
just wait till Yeshua comes again and we will see...Originally posted by laoda99:There are many theories to this.
Some believe the Jews are no longer "chosen".
-
i am not absolving any guilt of Christians here. That wasn't my agenda from the start.Originally posted by Icemoon:If you study patristics, you will not find the Apostolic Fathers any friendly to the Jews.
If you arrange the gospels chronologically, you will find anti semite contents more rampant and the allegations more vile from Mark to John.
I am saying this behind an objective pair of lens.
I have never said that there wasn't any anti seminism -
I was responding to your previous reply:Originally posted by ben1xy:Well, my argument would be this then. I've never seen the resurrection. But yet, i believe. We do know that the early Christians were chastised and persecuted and there even the Roman empire got a tad worried. Based on this, is it fair for me to say that.. if they didn't see; they would have heard about it? Esp. with the apostles going around preaching?And, if we were to put things in a historical context, in the Acts, we saw the Resurrection and Jesus walking among his disciples. Moreover, the Apostles were filled with the spirit after the Ascension and they performed maasive amount of works and miracles. But still, they chose not to see.
It looks to me you have softened your stance. From "they chose not to see", it becomes "they chose not to hear"?
We can probably confirm they heard about the persecutions. Even so, it is only .. persecutions. Secular history did not record for us the miracles and works, which arguably should make bigger headlines, if you remember the Romans were pagans and would readily accept supernatural events.
Furthermore, the NT did not present the Apostles as the only miracle performing group. Acts records the story of Simon Magnus who clearly had followers too. The story of Simon Magnus is found in your Catholic non-canonical gospels and acts. Absolutely hiliarious! You should read if you have the time. -
I know lah .. don't worry.Originally posted by ben1xy:i am not absolving any guilt of Christians here. That wasn't my agenda from the start.
I have never said that there wasn't any anti seminism
You said you are seeing it from skewed lens. But why bother? If you can already see it via objective lens?
I believe if we read the NT for what it is .. many problems will ying2 ren4 er2 jie3. Sorry, I think my idiom better than my english vocab. -
Nope. dun worry, not trying to throw red herrings. Rather, you actually point out what i wanted to say; that the legal process wasn't fair.
But icey, you should know by now from our exchanges that i always look at things from the viewpoint of power and politics; i admit that i lean towards a marxist view. Anyway, my argument is simple, Pilate found nothing wrong with him. And Jesus should never be persucuted. But the prevailing powers pushed for it in order to stay in power. In my eyes, it wasn't about the Law of Moses, but a contention for the retention of power.
But Yes, he did break the law of Moses as you said.Originally posted by Icemoon:I wasn't talking about power and politics. We are not trying to determine who is at fault. Ben, are you trying to throw red herrings again?
Jesus was clearly not innocent according to the law of Moses. So the Jews had every reason to punish him according to the law of Moses.
I am not saying the whole legal process was fair, it wasn't. The High Priest and his cronies (certainly the gospels wanted us to see them this way) did not act according to the Jewish legal system at that time. So did the gospels present a skewed version of the event? Or were the gospel authors trying to find a scapegoat for the death of Jesus? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:It looks to me you have softened your stance. From "they chose not to see", it becomes "they chose not to hear"?
This works better mah?
Did you watch the documentary on national geog i think? About the other 'messiahs' present during the time of Jesus? They taled about it too. I can't remember the title of the documentary thougOriginally posted by Icemoon:We can probably confirm they heard about the persecutions. Even so, it is only .. persecutions. Secular history did not record for us the miracles and works, which arguably should make bigger headlines, if you remember the Romans were pagans and would readily accept supernatural events.
Furthermore, the NT did not present the Apostles as the only miracle performing group. Acts records the story of Simon Magnus who clearly had followers too. The story of Simon Magnus is found in your Catholic non-canonical gospels and acts. Absolutely hiliarious! You should read if you have the time. -
Cannot!Originally posted by davidche:perhaps if Jesus is a 'crazy' man, he would be justified by the law. IMO, pilate saw Jesus as a crazy man, thus, he could not find any wrong in him.
But if the perspective is that Jesus was not crazy, then Jesus is indeed guilty of blasphemy.
Can understand??
You heard before the lord, lunatic or liar argument? -
Never watch.Originally posted by ben1xy:Did you watch the documentary on national geog i think? About the other 'messiahs' present during the time of Jesus? They taled about it too. I can't remember the title of the documentary thoug
But I know there were a few. There is another one with the name of Jesus too I think. -
erm, i can't be objective lah. I know my blindspots well. This comes up in my own writings tooOriginally posted by Icemoon:I know lah .. don't worry.
You said you are seeing it from skewed lens. But why bother? If you can already see it via objective lens?
I believe if we read the NT for what it is .. many problems will ying2 ren4 er2 jie3. Sorry, I think my idiom better than my english vocab.
Therefore, must always state from the start