(07-11-2023, 07:34 PM)miso Wrote: [ -> ]I hardly ever post anything against the Jews as a religious group because (like pagans, which I also almost never mention) they are completely irrelevant, hypocritical r-tards who never practice what they preach because it's impossible to. So Judaism is "maligned" by "our side" but in conjunction with Christianity it's also the sowing ground for communism and leftism of all stripes? Give me a break. Your thoughts about religion are in such disarray that you're better off making tier lists like the Wholesome Anime Trads.
If you're going to start pointing fingers by tracing ideas back hundreds of years it is atheists who have been the instigators of l-btardation. Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere and I know you haven't read the books of the prophets because it is so glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of (religious) (and at the time, also ethnic) Jews. You can even go back to Genesis!
Quote:"And I will put enmity
Between you [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve],
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
Noah was a Christian. Shem was a Christian. Japeth (my spelling) was a Christian. Note that there's no point in blessing Japeth by implying he'll worship the same God as Shem (tents being tabernacles / churches) if OT Judaism is continuous.
Quote:"Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant."
The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament regarding sacrifice and placing the heart of the supposed continuous Jewish religion in the physical confines of a temple were rebuffed by God through His tool (the Roman Emperor Titus) in 70 AD. Guess who predicted that?
Quote:Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
That's all I'll say on the topic because I only mention it when Christianity is accused of being subordinate to Judaism. Forget about whether that religion is even correct — it doesn't exist any more.
Now let's talk about something interesting and productive instead.
This is little more than a series of conclusory statements on your part, I hardly know where to begin. It is as though you typed this without thinking twice about what you`re saying.
Let`s go in order and start here: "I hardly ever post anything against the Jews as a religious group because (like pagans, which I also almost never mention) they are completely irrelevant, hypocritical r-tards who never practice what they preach because it's impossible to." The irony in this comment is palpable on the account of the fact that I could just as easily level the same critique re: not practicing what they preach at Christians, who also believe in a lofty set of ideals that are exceptionally hard to live up to. You`ve basically taken the classic New Atheist critique of Christianity and re-directed it at the Jews, but sans any examples of the party you`re leveling this accusation at failing to practice what they preach, which makes it an infinitely weaker claim. Moreover, you`re engaging in the same homosexual, catty behavior as MALDer - why take a shot at paganism here? Are you trying to derail the conversation and move the goalposts, or are you just lashing out because you are upset that Christianity has been rendered more or less impotent in the West and will be the religion of Africans and Latrinos within a century? If you want what was at one point a semi-productive and interesting conversation to devolve into religious shit-flinging, I`ll happily oblige.
Next: "[Judaism] in conjunction with Christianity it's also the sowing ground for communism and leftism of all stripes? " This comment leads me to believe that you have the reading comprehension skills of a mentally retarded Cameroonian kindergartner. I never made this claim, and if you took anything I wrote to mean this, then that`s on you; it would behoove you to brush up on your RC skills, maybe getting a tutor would help you with this.
Now: "Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere and I know you haven't read the books of the prophets because it is so glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of (religious) (and at the time, also ethnic) Jews. You can even go back to Genesis!"
A) Didn`t claim that Christianity "popped out of nowhere", this subsection of the "debate" was discussing who has a better claim to being the successor of OT Judaism, not about where Judaism and Christianity came from; after all, how could we have a discussion about which of two religions has a more valid claim to being the legitimate successor of an older religion if both do not have some ties to/originate from said religion? Again, it would really behoove you to get better at understanding the English language, just as it would behoove you to keep track of the "threads" of an argument so that you don`t end up railing against claims that nobody (or at least not your opponent) made.;
and B) No, it is not "glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of the Jews" by reading the Bible, as evidenced by the fact that most Jews didn`t just accept Christ as the messiah because his followers claimed that he was or even view the coming of the messiah as the end-all-be-all of their faith lmfao. There is more to Jewish eschatology in the OT than just the arrival of the messiah. It is silly to claim that the Old Testament is clearly intended to lead to Christ`s coming, and it is even sillier to cite the verses in Genesis that you did in support of this. In what universe does a verse in which God is outlining the consequences of his and Eve`s actions as they relate to man imply that there will be a Messiah who comes along and sets things right? Your reading of those verses is a stretch, as there is nothing related to eschatology in Gen. 2-3:24 and talk of a Messiah in Scripture comes in later, with the earliest possible reference to the coming of a Messiah showing up in Deuteronomy. At best, you can argue that the verses in Genesis that you`ve cited in support for your position imply that there is a
need for a messiah, but the text neither explicitly says as much nor implies that one will come (hilariously, when you Google "first messiah prophecy in the bible", you`ll get a bunch of results from random Christian sites saying that it`s Gen. 3:15, which almost leads me to believe that you`re relying on arguments from Google at this point).
Further: "Noah, Shem, etc. were Christian." This is a laughably stupid argument, it sounds like something you`d get from Pastor Jimbob with the 41st Lutheran Synod of Jesus Christ (Tennessee Branch, not to be confused with the Alabama Branch or North Carolina Branch) or some other retarded hick "pastor" if you were to ask him his take on this. You don`t seriously believe this, you`re just repeating things you`ve heard elsewhere because you`re hoping that if you say them with enough confidence, I`ll back down. It`s really this simple - Christianity and adherence thereto is predicated on adherence to Christ`s teachings and being bound by covenant that he ushered in. If Christ had not yet delivered his teachings and figures like Noah and his descendants were reliant on old laws pursuant to the old covenant - the very covenant that you are contending was replaced and rendered obsolete by his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection a long time after they died - then these men could not have been Christian, as they were not bound by the new covenant ushered in by Christ, nor were they acting in accordance with his teachings. To contend otherwise is foolish, and anybody capable of critical thought will recognize this.
Additionally: "If Judaism have continuity with OT religion, then why we use BC/AD in our calendar??? Gotcha there!" Wow, truly ingenious line of reasoning you used here. I never realized that you could settle a major dispute between two world religions by simply pointing out that we use BC and AD when discussing time. Why didn`t anyone think of this before? It was right there in our faces all along!
Lastly: "Practicing Jews don`t exist, all of them are LARPers" again, bravo, this is an unbelievably well thought out and sound line of reasoning. It is certainly not a conclusory statement that is not backed by any evidence, nor does it betray your total ignorance re: Judaism and refusal to acknowledge the nuance of Judaism, including the sectarian religious conflicts between Jews. You`ve singlehandedly put an end to Judaism by pointing out that *some* of them don`t sacrifice chickens, and personally, I don`t believe that any would-be apologist for Judaism could possibly come up with a counterargument to what you`ve said that would be worth making. All anti-Jewish Christian polemicists from Tertullian to Ambrose are smiling down upon you from Heaven, lauding you for doing what they could not do - ending Judaism through reasoned debate.
In all seriousness, you`ve done a terrible job here. You`ve neither refuted what I claimed re: the extremely clear line that can be drawn from OT Judaism practiced by Jews from the days of Abraham to the days of the Maccabees to the beliefs of Rabbis like Hillel the Elder to the religion of the Tannaim to the Rabbinic Judaism of the Talmud, nor have you managed to make a half-decent case for Christianity as the true successor to OT Judaism/Christianity as the religion of the OT. It is fairly obvious that your knowledge of Judaism and Jewish religious history is lacking at best and that you`re a mediocre apologist for Christianity.
(07-11-2023, 05:01 PM)Mladorossi88 Wrote: [ -> ]Have you read these? Feels pertinent to the theological discussion, hopefully mentioning Church Fathers doesn't summon the Orthobro coalers.
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrys...omily1.htm
Seems like a fairly standard anti-Jewish polemic that you might expect from other Church Fathers: "Jews are bad because they rejected and killed Christ and thus are damned." That said, it seems that Chrysostom takes a bit of a different, less nuanced view on Jews than does Augustine, who in "Contra Faustam" actually references the story of Cain and Abel but for a very different reason.
What is particularly interesting to me about this text is his attacks on Judaizers. One could liken his hostility toward the Judaizers of his day to Paul`s hostility toward Judaizers, even arguing that Chrysostom is a sort of spiritual successor to Paul who has taken it upon himself to oust Judaizers from Christianity. More interesting still is the fact that such people still existed in the 4th century and were actively partaking in Jewish religious rituals ("Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts") often enough that it drew Chrysostom`s ire; one might expect that these people would exist in the first century AD, when the lines between Christianity and Judaism were blurrier and many Christians were ethnic Jews, but this was written in a post-Council of Nicea Rome. Wonder why that was.