Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anyone know if this sect even exists anymore or why it is no longer a legal sect of Judaism?
What was it 'called' when it was a legal sect of Judaism?
Faithful Jews that had begun to believe that Jesus might have been the Messiah holy king sent by God weren't expecting to lose wars like there was no Messiah King of Israel protecting it. They weren't expecting to Blaspheme God by calling the Messiah appointed by God as a human-body God like the Greek pagans had. Such Jesus-sided Jews (after Rome's successful reconquest over their rebellion) began to fall away when they saw that the wider Jesus-resurrection-peace movement was only but a dishonor to Judaism (Christians saying that Jews were unfaithful for not worshiping Jesus as equal to God and God's avatar and separate personality etc.) something that the Messiah was never supposed to bring.
Christianity: only Christians can get into heaven, everyone else burns in hell, God only lets Christians in
That's hugely dependent upon the flavor of Christianity we're talking about. I certainly am Christian, but I don't buy into the notion that every non-Christian burns in hell. As for the Muslims, they've apparently already said their peace on the matter.
Quote:
Islam: only Muslims can get into heaven, everyone else burns in hell, Allah only lets Muslims in
Judaism: everyone can get into heaven, all religions welcome, God welcomes all humans as beloved children of God
Saying that all Jews believe that is just as problematic as saying that all Christians believe in X, Y and Z. It simply isn't always the case. Judaism has a long tradition of thinking and believing that they were a very exclusive and very important club, not so different from your "exclusive club" minded Christians and Muslims. For centuries, a Jew who converted to Christianity or Islam was for all intents and purposes dead to the rest of the Jewish community. It could be readily observed that the one common unifying thread that makes a person a Jew throughout the ages is their faithful rejection of both Islam and Christianity -- a sentiment that continues down to this very day. For example, Messianic Jews are widely viewed as "fake Jews" by the larger Jewish community because they crossed the line and accepted Jesus.
What I think we can all agree on is that the ancient religion of Israel was successful in accomplishing the goal that God gave them: Blessing all the nations of the world with salvation by spreading the knowledge of the One True God. The two largest religions on the planet are successor religions to ancient Judaism. The faithful of all three religions recognize the same Supreme Being. Oh sure, we might disagree somewhat about God is like, but we all worship the God who spoke to Adam, Noah, Moses, Gideon, Elijah, Isaiah, etc. Christians and Muslims owe a lot of gratitude to the Jews for their current belief-sets. My ancestors believed in Odin and Thor and Zeus and Jupiter and the like, but because of the diligence of the Jews I do not. I for one am very grateful to them.
Does anyone know if this sect even exists anymore or why it is no longer a legal sect of Judaism?
What was it 'called' when it was a legal sect of Judaism?
I don't even speak in this forum and here you are quoting me. No religion could operate without being authorized by Rome, Christianity flew under the umbrella of Judaism for over 100 years and Paul and all the disciples along with Jesus acknowledged their authority when Jesus told us that they sit in the seat of Moses and we should listen to them. Paul kept being accused of teaching against the laws of Moses and he proved his innocence from these lies time and time again when he came up under their authority and made sacrifices himself through their authority to prove the lies told against him were false, he goes out of his way to prove that he himself continued keeping the law. Gentiles attending synagogue became a very bad thing for Rome, and you find this in Roman and Jewish records from the Jews wanting to get the gentiles out. Rome knew that if more and more people became Christian, that it wouldn't be long before the law reverted back to Jerusalem and Jerusalem would rule the world.
Or does someone think that Jesus, Paul, and all the disciples converted people to Paganism?
Christianity is pagan these days but it certainly didn't begin converting people to pagan ways, they were converted to Judaism where they accepted the Passover and rejected their former pagan Gods.
Revelation details the struggle of Christians moving back to their pagan ways and this is the reason why people are marked in their forehead. There is only one way to receive the seal of protection in your forehead and right hand that God offers, and this can only be obtained by keeping the Passover and Sabbaths that are peculiar to God and his followers, you are marked in your forehead by whatever Sabbaths and feasts you keep.
But gentile did not begin to convert back to their paganism till after the Jewish war, and Hadrian came along and made a deal with the Greek Orthodox to convert them back to keeping the solstice.
It was Constantine who finally put anti-god, and anti-Semitism into Christianity when he changed the Sabbaths and feasts by law and this began century after century of Antisemitism and ant Christ mentality against anyone who would keep the commandments or keep the Holy feasts of Jesus in his Peach, his Shavuot, unleavened bread, Feast of firstfruits, Rosh Hashanah, Yom KIppur, Sukkot and Shemini Atzereth.
Now people claim to know and love Jesus when they reject his entire worship system, and people don't even have a clue about what is coming for Shemini Atzereth.
I guess the whole world just assumes that Jesus was a Pagan and all his followers were Pagan seeing that Christianity follows Pagan Holy days, traditions, and rituals about other Gods, even of the Babylonian Messiah, Tammuz.
Now people can say they believe in Jesus but when I see them keeping all the Holy days of the Babylonian Messiah, I wonder to myself,'' Why do they think they follow Jesus?''
Is that it?
Jesus and his disciples converted gentiles to the worship of Pagan Gods?
It's quite interesting to read about the Nazoreans, Jerome writing to Augustine about them (he makes it clear that they still followed Jewish Mosaic law (1) the gospel of the Hebrews, the Ebionites and Mandaeans - the various related groups and branches of the Jesus -followers amongst the Jews (to call them Christians is a bit misleading and that implies a Pauline -gentile church, which they were not).
The present day Nazoreans are purely Christian churches that have just appropriated the name and do not represent a continuing line from Judaic Christianity. You may find them still represented in the Sabaeans.
(1) one can wonder whether this was a backsliding into Judaism because of the 'circumcision party' as in Acts or because departure from the Mosaic law was entirely Paul's idea and was not what was taught by Jesus. That of course means that all the Law -bashing in the gospels in untrue and so on and a lot of Christians will refuse to accept what is there for all to see if they only read. I have no doubts whatsoever. Jesus was a practicing Jew, so were his disciples. The abandonment of the Torah -Law was entirely Paul's idea.
WE can only conclude what from Acts 21 when Paul went out of his way to prove that he was still keeping the law and proving the lies were lies when they said Paul was teaching against the laws of Moses?
I don't get the same thing most people get from Galatians and other books when Paul may be put in a bad light against the law, I don't see it, I don't see him teaching Jews not to follow the laws. I don't see a departure from the law with Paul.
But either way, I could do without Paul, it wouldn't change what the first Christianity was under Jesus and his disciples, they were members of Judaism.
The first question to be answered: What the heck is a "Legal sect of Judaism?" What does that even mean?? Within Judaism,
Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar Augustus in 6 A.D. and what is the first thing a conqueror would do?
The wise thing would be converting all the people, taking over the temples and if you allowed them to operate it would be still under your control. There was no such thing as an unauthorized religion under Roman rule and for very good reason. If you can control what the people worshipped in their Sabbaths and feasts, you can control the people. But if you have a belief or religion that threatened Rome itself, something must be done.
Christianity was legally authorized under Judaism, they were a legal sect of Judaism in the eyes of Rome.
If suddenly all the Roman citizens began making pilgrimages to Jerusalem because they believed in a Messiah of the Jews, then Jerusalem would no doubt rule the world, it is only a matter of time.
The burning of the great synagogue was blamed on Christians and it was the main vehicle used to separate gentile believers from the synagogues of the Jews.
Greeks took over the synagogues and this began such a horrendous fight, Christian against Christian. You could believe in Christ, but you better not be caught keeping Jewish feasts about the Jewish Messiah.
Frankly, Christians didn't want to continue dying alongside Jews, Jews were hated, and gentile believers who kept Jewish feasts were looked down upon worse than they looked at Jews.
Paul defended himself time and time again, time and time again he proved that his authority were the priests of Judaism.
This one thing in acts says a great deal, if Paul would have been teaching Jews against the laws of Moses, they wouldn't have freed him, they wouldn't have spoke up for him, and they wouldn't even hear him, but he keeps proving his innocence against the lies.
Acts 23
And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
Acts 21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
When I see Paul, I just see a Jew backing up the law, a Jew going around converting gentiles to Judaism, a Jew, and even a Pharisee by his own admission who continued keeping the law all his life, and who had to continually fight the lies and rumors told about him, but he proves his innocence of those lies time and time again.
Jesus and his disciples converted gentiles to the worship of Pagan Gods?
Which ones were those then? What is the difference between you idea of G()D and these so-called 'Pagan' ones?
Why is your worship to your idea of G()D not 'Pagan'?
Is the idea that G()D loves all equally, a 'Pagan' idea?
When some use the word 'Pagan' it sounds awfully similar in tone to how the word 'Jude' was used by those who thought very little of those calling themselves such, or how the word 'Goy' in those protocols on how to capture and enslave a world is used.
Some very beautiful souls identify themselves as 'Pagans'.
I don't even speak in this forum and here you are quoting me.
I have to agree with Hannibal that it is not right to bring someone's post with their name on it into an entirely different forum without their permission, particularly when it is brought into a forum where the person may CHOOSE NOT TO POST.
It is bad manners, bad etiquette, and I see it as a personal attack.
The proper way to do this is to say, as most people do, "I heard this in another thread, and wanted to discuss it." And to discuss the idea without having the other person's name on the post.
Which explores the idea without putting someone's name and identity under discussion, and having their views questioned or attacked or ridiculed in what may be a hostile environment. It's even worse to use such a quote as a thread starter without someone's permission.
I see the approach as inflammatory, and unnecessary, and it speaks to a hostile personal agenda to call someone's views into question, or incite criticism of views or a group. It is OK to reference a post by name within the same thread, but to drag it over to an entirely different forum, and then attack the views in it, is not right. Next time, leave off the name.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-05-2015 at 05:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
