Are Judaism and Christianity one Religion

[BobRyan]

LeBuick,

I will try and read all the stuff you posted sometime today and answer you. But I just wanted to say that I really like you, you always seem to make posts that are really nice and courteous, etc... I just notice that about you... and appreciate it alot...
Claudia :wavey:

I second that.

 

[BobRyan]

Keep in mind, there was sin before the law. Sin is transgression against God and is not solely based on the law.

Paul argues in Romans 4 and 5 "Where there is no law there is no sin".

In 1John 3 we see that "Sin is transgression of the Law" vs 2-4.

The Law against Murder was not codified but still existed so God said to cain that SIN desired to have mastery over him but he must overcome.

I do acknowledge the law as being God's word and his moral desire for man. I'm merely saying we don't obey it to be saved, we obey it because we are saved.

Agreed.

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

What about the rest of the world? What about the people who were descendants of those under the priesthood of Melchisedec

Lev 11 says that dead rotting carcasses (even of CLEAN animals) is unclean TO YOU -- "what about other people" ??

It is too much of a stretch to say that Christ died so humans could now eat rats.

That has never been a focus of salvation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

Thanks, you two have treated me well also. We are in a fight but it is not against flesh and blood. I love the Lord, His people and the study of his word. I applaud the two of you coming to another denominations forum and actively participating.

Paul argues in Romans 4 and 5 "Where there is no law there is no sin".

In 1John 3 we see that "Sin is transgression of the Law" vs 2-4.

The Law against Murder was not codified but still existed so God said to cain that SIN desired to have mastery over him but he must overcome.

I stand corrected in words... There was a law that existed during the priest hood of Melchasidec but it was not the levitical law. When writing the Jews (or anyone for that matter) it is natural to call Sin transgression against the law because the law is what the Jews understood of God. If you think of the Ark, the Law was God in their eyes. Because the "law" is sealed in our hearts, we can freely and boldly approach God not via the law, but inspite of the law. By that I mean a sinner like me can freely come to the throne of grace and he will show mercy.

You are wrong with my use of the Gospel. I am saying the Gospel that saves but you keep twisting it to claim I say it doesn't save. The Gospel is the only means of Salvation. The New Covenant is the Good News which is the covenanat Christ made on behalf of man.

The old covenant could not be good news 1. because it was conditional. Before each time God says "I will" there is always a "If you". The If you's made them conditions of work and not free grace.

The Gospel is free grace with only faith needed to activate it. If the law were the Gospel, why would Paul say this about it?

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Certianly the Gospel is capable of perfecting...

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks, you two have treated me well also. We are in a fight but it is not against flesh and blood. I love the Lord, His people and the study of his word. I applaud the two of you coming to another denominations forum and actively participating.

Thanks - I really enjoy it personnally.

I stand corrected in words... There was a law that existed during the priest hood of Melchasidec but it was not the levitical law.

Many of the civil and ceremonial laws of Leviticus were not in place prior to Sinai -

however God says of Abraham "He keeps my laws, statutes and commandments".

And then later God says that Israel should do the same "observe My Laws, Statutes and Commandments".

Recall that it is the same person writing Genesis as is writing Leviticus and HIS READERS will have access to BOTH.

Therefore in Gen 6 and 7 he can mention Clean/unclean animals leaving the "definition" of those terms for the reader to find in Lev 11.

God speaks of the sin of murder and hate to Cain in Gen 4 but the reader of Moses had to go to Lev 19:18 to find "Love your Neighbor" idea codefied.

One author - many books - one primary audience since Moses wrote it all.

When writing the Jews (or anyone for that matter) it is natural to call Sin transgression against the law because the law is what the Jews understood of God. If you think of the Ark, the Law was God in their eyes. Because the "law" is sealed in our hearts, we can freely and boldly approach God not via the law, but inspite of the law. By that I mean a sinner like me can freely come to the throne of grace and he will show mercy.

You are wrong with my use of the Gospel. I am saying the Gospel that saves but you keep twisting it to claim I say it doesn't save. The Gospel is the only means of Salvation.

My argument is that the "Good News" is about our salvation. IF it does not save (because I am Abraham living in the OT) then it is not the SAME "good news" that DOES save (if I am Paul living in the NT for example).

If your claim is that it did not actually save the saints in the OT - then by definition it can not be the same "good news".

Example --

Version 1 - Good News you won a million dollars share it with you family!

Version 2 - Good News someone else will one day win a Million dollars. You get zip.

The New Covenant is the Good News which is the covenanat Christ made on behalf of man.

True -

Specifically it is the covenant that offers
1. Forgiveness
2. Adoption
3. The New Birth
4. Restored Fellowship with God
5. Acceptance with God


Noah "walked with God"
Abraham "walked with God"
Enoch "Walked with God"

Some were even translated to heaven without seeing death.

Not recorded as having happened even once in the NT.

The old covenant could not be good news 1. because it was conditional. Before each time God says "I will" there is always a "If you". The If you's made them conditions of work and not free grace.

That is 100% correct.

The Old Covenant is "obey and live" -- the covenant of death that still today condemns all mankind.

Cursed is everyone that does not abide perfectly by the Law.

The Gospel is free grace with only faith needed to activate it. If the law were the Gospel, why

The law itself is not the Gospel - but it is the SAME LAW in BOTH covenants. In the New Covenant that SAME Law is written on the tablets of the human heart - in the OT that SAME Law is merely external - tablets of stone - condemning mankind as law breakers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Judaism is the same religion as Christianity - then we expect to find the following in the NT

1. Christians being called a SECT of Judaism
2. Christians calling Gentiles to gather Sabbath after Sabbath to hear the Gospel instead of saying "Hey you guys the Jews just are not going for this - meet with us on Sunday and we will continue the Bible study".

3. Christians would be "hearing Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath".

4. Paul would claim that he has said nothing against the OT commands for Jews - such that Jews should ignore them when they become Christian.

5. When Paul is brought on trial and he disrespects the High Priest - he should submit himself to the scriptures saying "oops - sorry about that for the scripture says you shall honor the leader of your people".

6. Scripture (as in the OT) should be repeatedly referenced as authorotative in the NT (it is written) and "God's Word" etc.

7. Paul would be asked to speak in Synagogues as a well recognized professor - Rabbi - teacher.

8. Jews would target this sect even before the Romans as something that falls under THEIR domain - vs other pagan religions that clearly are not within Judaism.

They use the same bible, worship the same God and according to Christ they teach the SAME Messiah.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

If Judaism is the same religion as Christianity - then we expect to find the following in the NT

Bob

<scratches head> Did you change positions? I thought I had the position they are not the same religion.

9. Then all chrstian should be physically circumcised...

 

[Claudia_T]

<scratches head> Did you change positions? I thought I had the position they are not the same religion.

9. Then all chrstian should be physically circumcised...

No because circumcision is different. We are supposed to become new creatures:


Gal:6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

and the new creature we are supposed to become is one who keeps Gods commandments:

1Cor:7:19: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

we are supposed to have genuine living faith does does good works from the motivation of love:

Gal:5:6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


The law is to be written on the heart, no more circumcision.

 

[BobRyan]

<scratches head> Did you change positions? I thought I had the position they are not the same religion.

9. Then all chrstian should be physically circumcised...

Gentiles who chose to worship the one true God in the OT were not required to be circumcised by the Law of Moses -- it is something later Jews "invented". By attributing to the OT text - the errors of the Jews -- the resulting dichotomy results.

However Christ said in John 3 "precross" that ALL (both Jew and Gentile) had to be born again to be saved. He stated this as bible doctrine known to all honest Bible students pre-cross.

My point is that when you look at what you "expect to find" if the two are really one - that IS what you find. By definition if you then look for what you expect to find if they are "different religions" -- it is totally absent from the text.

The "ALL Scripture is inspired AND to be used for doctrine" statement of Paul in 2Tim 3 is spoken of the OT text!

One Bible, One God - same religion - different sects because one had errors and the other did not.

But those saints held up in Heb 11 as models for the NT saints - were of the ONE TRUE relgion they ARE among "the dead in Christ" referenced in 1Thess 4.

Question for you - in Acts 21 when Paul takes the OT vow and preforms that ceremonial act in the Temple in Jerusalem - is he no longer a Christian?

What about when Paul has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16 -- which religion is Timothy then? Why does Paul do it? What religion will the Jews think that Timothy is??

In Christ,

Bob