Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Matthew traces the genealogy of men, not of Rahab or Ruth.
Occasionally, people married into the club, but then they were no longer foreigners, were they.
It's very simple: the holy people considered themselves the chosen people. Others did not rate.
So? I already acknowledged that.Rahab and Ruth are both in Matthew's genealogy
You know I just said that, too, right? Occasionally, people married into the club.I have proven that the Jews absolutely allowed foreigners in
So? I already acknowledged that.
You know I just said that, too, right? Occasionally, people married into the club.
When they join the club, they're not foreigners. Do you not remember me saying that, either?Marrying into the club rather shoots down your whole premise on how they perceived foreigners.
SO, I will leave it at that.
When they join the club, they're not foreigners. Do you not remember me saying that, either?
Do you read posts before you respond to them?
They broke their own edicts all the time. They worshipped idols.That argument is inane. If they had a horrible attitude toward foreigners they would NOT LET THEIR PEOPLE MARRY THEM in the first place.
They broke their own edicts all the time. They worshipped idols.
The fact is, a few married foreigners, and foreigners were unclean. If you can't reconcile that, that's not my problem.
No doubt, you will sadden yourself further with yet another response.I don't know why you would want to argue with me about that. Yes, they messed up consistently; that's pretty much the entire OT. But yes they were still God's chosen people, through which The Messiah came.
If this is just run of the mill anti-Semitism it's boring and I'm sad I wasted my time
Perhaps I am not a fair reader, but it seems to me both of you have made good points. Hospitality has always been a hallmark of Judaism--but along with this is the conviction that they were chosen by God to be a people set apart from others. Part of the beauty of Ruth's story is her statement of, Your people will be my people and your God my God, is that she, too, left behind being part of a larger society to become part of the group that was set aside. She followed their ways.Now, we are done here, because any fair reader knows your point has been defeated.
Yeah.......that must be why Paul never Confronted Peter concerning Peter's hypocrisy with the NT law v. the Old Law. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him face to face, because he was to be blamed....................................I said to Peter before them all, if thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews, WHY COMPELLEST THOU GENTIELS TO LIVE AS DO THE JEWS?" -- Gal. 2:11,14The Jews never demanded that anyone else adhere to their law.
Perhaps I am not a fair reader, but it seems to me both of you have made good points. Hospitality has always been a hallmark of Judaism--but along with this is the conviction that they were chosen by God to be a people set apart from others. Part of the beauty of Ruth's story is her statement of, Your people will be my people and your God my God, is that she, too, left behind being part of a larger society to become part of the group that was set aside. She followed their ways.
On the other hand, there were many who had no use for Jewish Laws and customs. They maintained a lifestyle that was not as clean/ideal as their Jewish neighbors. They may have even prided themselves on being less strict/harsh and more tolerant than Jews.
In any case, Jews maintained a clean lifestyle while others were not quite as uncompromising. But even Jews recognized that in tribes outside themselves there were good people who believed as they did. Jews called these people God fearers, meaning they, too, were in awe of God and His laws.
You both have good points.
Read, Romans 11:28, "As concerning the Gospel (NT Covenant), they (Jews) are enemies for your (Gentiles) sake, but as touching the election (the elect of God) they are beloved for the fathers sake."I agree with this--I think norwegen was making the case that Jews were hostile to foreigners and I don't see this being the case. Set apart from yes. Hostile, no, unless they were enemies of God/the nation of Israel.
Now I'm talking about Nativity scenes here not what actually happened or didn't happen in the Bible. Why is it you see cows, horses, and sheep in Nativity scenes but not pigs, chickens, roosters, or goats? I'm guessing pigs because over where Jesus was born they don't eat them, but what about the other animals?
Joseph and Mary were Jews. Bethlehem was a Jewish Town. There would be no pigs at that stable, therefore no pigs in the nativity because they are considered unclean. It does answer your question.
Actually, that was a dream not about animals but about foreigners. Before Christ, Jews believed foreigners were common and unclean (Acts 10:28).
When the prodigal son lived among pigs, he lived among foreigners.
But as for the animals, yes, Jews considered them unclean. Even converted Jews for many years stayed away from pork. So naturally, the primitive Christians would not have included pigs in a menagerie.
Peter wasn't the only Jewish convert who thought the way to Christ was first through temple law.I said to Peter before them all, if thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews, WHY COMPELLEST THOU GENTIELS TO LIVE AS DO THE JEWS?" -- Gal. 2:11,14
Peter was errantly teaching that "some parts of the OLD LAW" still must be followed even by the Gentiles.
This was for the Jewish converts, not for Gentiles. Colossians and the first eleven chapters of Romans (to 11:12) were addressed to Jewish converts. Citizenship in the kingdom came to the Gentiles with little effort, which fueled jealousy within Israel (Rom 11:11-14). Because Gentiles were not subject to Jewish law.In essence being married to the covenant (NT) because your first wife was dead (OT was nailed to the cross of the Christ -- Col. 2:14)...yet still pretending to be bound by the first marriage contract, when you do you are committing spiritual adultery. If you fail to follow even one article of the OLD LAW you would be found guilty of breaking the entire LAW. (Romans 7)
I said nothing about any hostilities.I think norwegen was making the case that Jews were hostile to foreigners
Yes, but you didn't tell me whether or not you think that pigs are unclean now.
FYI: The first Gentile convert was recorded in ACTS 10. I think you are simply arguing to hear your head rattle. There is no logic, reason or common sense applied when you attempt to take away the context and subject matter away from the actual content of the passage in question. There is a subject to the passage that is Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews in teaching them (he was living as do the gentiles in the passage).Peter wasn't the only Jewish convert who thought the way to Christ was first through temple law.
Of course subjecting foreigners to temple law was wrong. It was illogical. Because it was their law. No one else was subject to temple jurisdiction. That's just ridiculous; it's like saying Americans are subject to Sudanese law.
The Jews never demanded that anyone else adhere to their law. What Peter and a couple other Christians might have done in the first century was just nonsensical and not applicable to the idea of Jewish separatism.
This was for the Jewish converts, not for Gentiles. Colossians and the first eleven chapters of Romans were addressed to Jewish converts.
Um, for the Jewish converts, as long as the temple was standing, the old law was still in effect. That wasn't the false message that Peter was spreading.But PETER was LIVING WITH THE GENTILES as a Christian and still He was propagating a false message that some parts of the OLD LAW was still in effect.
