The Meaning of "Chosen" as Applied to Jews

[Anonymous1977]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

They kicked the hell out of the Mooslims in '48 & '67...looks like "God" chose them there...




-

 

[BluePhantom]

The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.

Actually, they were the first to adopt Monotheism. ......

Well you could argue that Akhnaten did it first but it certainly wasn't embraced by the people

 

[Penelope]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

They kicked the hell out of the Mooslims in '48 & '67...looks like "God" chose them there...




-

US weapons and money. Not God.

 

[BluePhantom]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

I actually disbelieve in Christianity. I'm an Agnostic. But the New Testament actually says Viktor that the old covenant is "obsolete"... Heb. 8:13, NIV (feel free to click on the link :-D) says:

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.






-

Well that kind of depends on which book you read. Remember Jesus said he did not come to abolish The Law but to fulfill it. Read Matthew 5 and Luke 16 I think. But Paul famously argues in Romans and Galatians that the Covenant has indeed been made obsolete by the resurrection and a New Covenant has been created. That is the driving view (and frankly one of the main points) of Christianity....which is why I get a little puzzled when Christians constantly refer to Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) in regard to certain political issues in society today. Torah no longer applies if you are a Christian.

 

[Anonymous1977]

The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.

Actually, they were the first to adopt Monotheism. ......

Well you could argue that Akhnaten did it first but it certainly wasn't embraced by the people

Noah and his son Shem both "adopted" monothothiesm ... Sunni has maybe been using some Afghani opium or something LOLOL.




-

 

[Anonymous1977]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

They kicked the hell out of the Mooslims in '48 & '67...looks like "God" chose them there...




-

US weapons and money. Not God.

So you are saying that God is "NOT" the power responsible for them winning those wars?

If you are saying that, how could America have power that is above God's?...




-

 

[Anonymous1977]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

I actually disbelieve in Christianity. I'm an Agnostic. But the New Testament actually says Viktor that the old covenant is "obsolete"... Heb. 8:13, NIV (feel free to click on the link :-D) says:

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.






-

Well that kind of depends on which book you read. Remember Jesus said he did not come to abolish The Law but to fulfill it. Read Matthew 5 and Luke 16 I think. But Paul famously argues in Romans and Galatians that the Covenant has indeed been made obsolete by the resurrection and a New Covenant has been created. That is the driving view (and frankly one of the main points) of Christianity....which is why I get a little puzzled when Christians constantly refer to Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) in regard to certain political issues in society today. Torah no longer applies if you are a Christian.

No nothing that I said "depends" on anything .

Jesus said, "It is finished" and Paul said, "It (the old covenant) is obsolete," Clete haha.




-

 

[Jroc]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

They kicked the hell out of the Mooslims in '48 & '67...looks like "God" chose them there...




-

US weapons and money. Not God.

The U.S. did not supply any weapons to Israel until '73 war you moron

 

[BluePhantom]

No nothing that I said "depends" on anything .

Jesus said, "It is finished" and Paul said, "It (the old covenant) is obsolete," Clete haha.

The last words of Jesus are different across the gospels.

You are referring to the Gospel of John where His last words are "It is finished"

In Luke, His last words are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

In Mark and Matthew, His last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is Aramaic for “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

So here's the similarity between all of them. Most people think that when Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" that He is experiencing a feeling of abandonment and lamenting...perhaps even showing a moment of doubt that His Father has left Him. But that's not what He is doing. He is quoting scripture....Psalm 22 to be exact which is about having faith that God is exalted even though you suffer. It is a powerful statement about the exaltation of God and not abandonment. Jesus is, in effect, screaming that His faith remains even though He suffers.

Now the Gospel of John mirrors this, but instead of Jesus quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, in John he quotes the final line; "It is finished." (or "It is accomplished" or "He has done it" depending on how you want to translate the Greek).

Now, for some reason, in Luke, Jesus quotes Psalm 31 instead of Psalm 22. Both Psalms have similar themes, but Luke is the only place where He quotes 31 instead of 22. But what all of them have in common is that Jesus is quoting scripture with His last words, and the scripture He quotes has to do with maintaining faith in God through suffering.

It has nothing to do with Jesus declaring that the Covenant is fulfilled..That came later, mostly from Paul. I have addressed Paul's view in other posts and other threads so I won't rehash it here

BTW...I am getting the feeling that you are just being a Devil's advocate at this point.

 

[Anonymous1977]

No nothing that I said "depends" on anything .

Jesus said, "It is finished" and Paul said, "It (the old covenant) is obsolete," Clete haha.

The last words of Jesus are different across the gospels.

You are referring to the Gospel of John where His last words are "It is finished"

In Luke, His last words are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

In Mark and Matthew, His last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is Aramaic for “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

So here's the similarity between all of them. Most people think that when Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" that He is experiencing a feeling of abandonment and lamenting...perhaps even showing a moment of doubt that His Father has left Him. But that's not what He is doing. He is quoting scripture....Psalm 22 to be exact which is about having faith that God is exalted even though you suffer. It is a powerful statement about the exaltation of God and not abandonment. Jesus is, in effect, screaming that His faith remains even though He suffers.

Now the Gospel of John mirrors this, but instead of Jesus quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, in John he quotes the final line; "It is finished." (or "It is accomplished" or "He has done it" depending on how you want to translate the Greek).

Now, for some reason, in Luke, Jesus quotes Psalm 31 instead of Psalm 22. Both Psalms have similar themes, but Luke is the only place where He quotes 31 instead of 22. But what all of them have in common is that Jesus is quoting scripture with His last words, and the scripture He quotes has to do with maintaining faith in God through suffering.

It has nothing to do with Jesus declaring that the Covenant is fulfilled..That came later, mostly from Paul. I have addressed Paul's view in other posts and other threads so I won't rehash it here

BTW...I am getting the feeling that you are just being a Devil's advocate at this point.

No time right now B-M...H E B 8 1 3 says it all, do you see? (haha)




-

 

[BluePhantom]

No nothing that I said "depends" on anything .

Jesus said, "It is finished" and Paul said, "It (the old covenant) is obsolete," Clete haha.

The last words of Jesus are different across the gospels.

You are referring to the Gospel of John where His last words are "It is finished"

In Luke, His last words are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

In Mark and Matthew, His last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is Aramaic for “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

So here's the similarity between all of them. Most people think that when Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" that He is experiencing a feeling of abandonment and lamenting...perhaps even showing a moment of doubt that His Father has left Him. But that's not what He is doing. He is quoting scripture....Psalm 22 to be exact which is about having faith that God is exalted even though you suffer. It is a powerful statement about the exaltation of God and not abandonment. Jesus is, in effect, screaming that His faith remains even though He suffers.

Now the Gospel of John mirrors this, but instead of Jesus quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, in John he quotes the final line; "It is finished." (or "It is accomplished" or "He has done it" depending on how you want to translate the Greek).

Now, for some reason, in Luke, Jesus quotes Psalm 31 instead of Psalm 22. Both Psalms have similar themes, but Luke is the only place where He quotes 31 instead of 22. But what all of them have in common is that Jesus is quoting scripture with His last words, and the scripture He quotes has to do with maintaining faith in God through suffering.

It has nothing to do with Jesus declaring that the Covenant is fulfilled..That came later, mostly from Paul. I have addressed Paul's view in other posts and other threads so I won't rehash it here

BTW...I am getting the feeling that you are just being a Devil's advocate at this point.

No time right now B-M...H E B 8 1 3 says it all, do you see? (haha)




-

Yes I am very familiar with Hebrews 8:13. I know what it says. Do you understand what Hebrews is? Do you understand why it was written? Do you understand what was happening historically at the time that it was written that influenced what it says?

Hebrews is not an epistle (or letter) like Romans, Galatians, or 1st Corinthians. Hebrews is a sermon, perhaps the earliest Christian sermon currently known to history. It is what some church leader spoke to his congregation during a service. Hebrews is the written form of that speech. The title led it to be erroneously associated with the Pauline Epistles for centuries. Romans is a letter from Paul to the church in Rome. 1st Corinthians is a letter from Paul to the church at Corinth (and that was one fucked up church, believe me). For centuries it was assumed by the similar titles that Hebrews was a letter from Paul to the Jews. But that's not what it is, even though it is still sometimes referred to as the "Epistle to the Hebrews".

It's not to the Hebrews....it's about the Hebrews..

Because of the things referred to and the style of writing we know that Hebrews was written in the early 60s CE during the reign of Nero. Under Nero, Christians were experiencing brutal oppression. Some sources even say that Nero used Christians as torches to illuminate his courtyard when he held parties at night. Understandably, during this time, Christians were flocking from the Christian church to Judaism. The theory was that Nero was killing Christians but not Jews, so if one converted from Christianity to Judaism they could still worship the same God but be spared from Nero's blood thirst.

Hebrews is a sermon arguing that Christians should not do that because converting to Judaism will align yourself with a Covenant that is no longer in effect. It is an effort to tell Christians to stay strong in their Christian faith even if it means martyrdom.

Centuries later, Hebrews was used by the church as a weapon to advance anti-Semitism which was not what the author was saying.

You have to keep the historical context in mind dude.Don't just read words like so many people of any faith does. Ask yourself why they were written. Who is the author speaking to? What is the historical context? What was going on at the time? How did it fit within the culture of the author, not the culture of us 2,000 years later? .

 

[Gracie]

It's very confusing. Jews promised to follow God's Law but deny that Jesus is savior. So who broke the covenant?

 

[Gracie]

Then gain, I'm just a dumb goyim, so what do I know?

 

[BluePhantom]

It's very confusing. Jews promised to follow God's Law but deny that Jesus is savior. So who broke the covenant?

Well you have to look at it historically. All this happened over several thousand years. I will give you the short version.

- The covenant was made. God promised to give the Jews the Holy Land, peace, prosperity, and the ability to worship in communion with God. The Jews promised to follow The Law. The Covenant was at its height under David and Soloman

- The Jews did not follow The Law and they began to experience challenges that eventually resolved into the Babylonian conquest and the Diaspora.

- The Jews began to follow The Law but things didn't get better. Satan was created to explain this.

- Jesus engaged in His ministry and the Old Covenant was invalidated in favor of the New Covenant through his sacrifice and resurrection according to Paul.

-Rome fell validating the prophecy of The Revelation

So who fucked up? All of us did. It's been a cluster fuck since Abraham.

.

 

[BluePhantom]

It's very confusing. Jews promised to follow God's Law but deny that Jesus is savior. So who broke the covenant?

The reason why the Jews reject Jesus as the Cristos (Messiah) is because they do not believe He fulfilled the Messianic prophecies and truthfully, according to how they view those prophecies He didn't. The Messiah was supposed to do a certain set of things and to Christians Jesus did them but according to Jews He didn't

Let me give you a simple example. One of the things the Messiah was supposed to do was to restore the line of David to the throne of Israel. This is why the gospels of Luke and Matthew take pains to lay out the genealogy of Jesus linking Him as a direct descendant of David. In order for Jesus to restore the royal line, He had to be the heir of David. But Jesus did not take the throne from Rome. He was killed by Rome.

So the Jews argue that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies because he did not restore the line of David to the throne on Earth. Christians argue that Jesus DID restore the line of David to the throne, but the throne is in heaven and not on Earth. Revelation is very VERY clear on this as is the undisputed epistles of Paul

 

[Gracie]

Well, if Jews are going to be so nit picky, perhaps they should remember nobody is perfect including themselves. They were freed, then partied and worshipped a golden calf.

 

[Viktor]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

Well...not exactly. The Covenant is a legal contract between God and the Jews. In Torah, the language used is legal language. God's part of the contract (according to the Jews at least) was to give the Holy Land to the Jews, give them protection and prosperity, and allow them to worship God in close communion with Him. The Jews, for their part, had to agree to follow The Law. That was their part of the contract. Now how it actually turned out is very complex and very confusing and it led to a lot of problems in antiquity that are still with us today.

Jews do not actively seek converts by spreading the word of God and they didn't in antiquity either. Proselytizing was never part of the contract. That's a Christian and Islamic thing.

The ban on Jews proselytizing was not issued until AD100.

 

[Viktor]

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

It does not mean the Jews are superior to others.
The Hebrews were the first to adopt Judaism.After they did, God made a covenant or agreement with them:

If they would spread the Torah,God's word, He would give them the land of Israel,
They agreed.

They were "chosen" for a special mission.

What a load of bull, they chose themselves to kill everyone and take their land, same as what they are doing now.

Subject: Did Israel Evict the Palestinians?
Date: 09/30/2000
Author: Dobrai55 <[email protected]>

<< previous · next >>


Here are some quotes from Arab sources on the issue:


Re: More trollery from RLA
Help
Group: alt.revisionism Date: Sun, Sep 24, 2000, 2:11pm (PDT+7) From:
[email protected] (dltjxx)



<[email protected]> writes:


Are the Arabs afforded the same kind of accomodation ie housing, jobs,
education etc, as those who are Israeli nationals in Israel?
If they can afford it.
Did the allied forces, forcably turf the Arab families out of their
homes when land was err... "divided" in readiness for the formation of
Israel?
The land was "err... divided" per UNR 181 for the formation of a Jewish

state AND an Arab state. The Arab state was not formed for the reasons
that: 1) No Arab political body could be found to proclaim an Arab
state, other than the pro-Nazi Arab Higher Committee headed by the Nazi

war criminal Amin al-Husseini; and Britain's ally, Jordan, according to

King Abdullah, believed that: 2) "Were an Arab state to be created in
Palestine, we would find ourselves surrounded by enemies." Some
comments from Arabs on the so-called "forcible turfing" of Arabs from
their homes:

"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long,
and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had
promised them that the Arab armies would crash the 'Zionist gangs' very

quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
George Hakim, bishop of the Galilee, Sada al Janub (Beirut) 16 Aug 48.


"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the action of the Arab states in opposing the Jewish entity. The Arab
states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the
solution of the problem they created." Emil Ghouri, Secretary of the
Arab Higher Committee, Daily Telegraph 6 Sept 48.


"Various factors influenced [the Arabs'] decision to seek flight. There

is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the
announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging
the Arabs to quit." London Economist 2 Oct 48.


"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs,
encouraged by the boasting of an un-realistic Arab press and the
irresponsible utterances of some arab leaders that it could only be a
matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab

states and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake
possession of their country." Edward Atiyah, secretary of the Arab
League (London), The Arabs p 183.


"The Arab states encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes
temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

Falastin (Jordan), editorial 19 Feb 49.
"[Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha] pointed out that they were

already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent
on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a

simple matter to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean. Brotherly
advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes
and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states,
lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down." Habib Issa,
Al-Hada (New York) 8 Jun 51.


"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their
homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only

a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the
United Nations to resolve on their return." Khalid al-Azzam, Syrian
prime minister 1948-9, Memoirs, pp 386-87.


"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians, but
instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and leave their
homeland." Abu Mazen, PLO Executive Committee, Falastin al-Thawra, Mar
76.


Joe Bruno

 

[Penelope]

Back to the OP, the Hebrews announce themselves as chosen, those Zionist who encroached upon Palestine in the early 1900's were secular Russians and Ukrainians. Nothing Godly about them. Read my sig.

 

[hobelim]

I actually disbelieve in Christianity. I'm an Agnostic. But the New Testament actually says Viktor that the old covenant is "obsolete"... Heb. 8:13, NIV (feel free to click on the link :-D) says:

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Paul was a dingbat.

Jesus said in no uncertain terms that the law will remain in effect and will be in full force for as long as heaven and earth endure. Matthew 5:17-19

Moses said that after his death the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow (the law) and will take to degrading practices. Deuteronomy 31:29, This shows that there was a particular way to follow the law that the people would abandon.

Observant Jews openly claim to follow the law the way it has been followed ever since the death of Moses. They have historically observed a literal interpretation of the law as in Kashrut, what are assumed to be dietary restrictions, a practice that is based on the Oral Law known as the talmud, the mishna and gemara, which Jesus referred to as the traditions of men. If their own scriptures are true, then they are not following the law in the way that Moses taught to follow (the Law) re, deuteronomy 31:29.

When Jesus came and openly defied a literal application of the law and started talking about , eat my flesh, etc, he was teaching and restoring the knowledge of the original way that Moses taught to follow the law, knowledge that had been buried and hidden in figurative language used in the Torah and lost to time.

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field." Matthew 13:44


Jesus did not make any new covenant and the only thing that became obsolete was the wrong way to follow the law.