God's chosen people. Is God racist?

Author

Message

Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertsing.

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Post subject:

All_Brains
Master Administrator

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 630

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject:

I am still not convinced that this how would God communicate with people, using language, time relevant customs and laws that no longer make sense. _________________ A little boy prayed for a bike. Then he realized God doesn't work that way so he stole a bike and asked for forgiveness. www.all-brains.blogspot.com

brainout
Senior Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275

Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject:

Well I don't know how ygalg will respond to that, but the general idea is that God LOVES, so is willing to talk to us in our own way and on our own terms. Theological term is "language of accommodation". The conventional story goes like this: God created Adam. Then related to Adam pre-Fall in a manner which didn't overwhelm Adam. Then, Isha. Of course, Satan spoke through the snake so his beauty wouldn't overwhelm them either. Then you know what happens. So the entire querying process in Genesis 3 is an example of God talking to now-Fallen Adam, on his own level. Again, not to overwhelm. OT laws were upgraded in Christ. Jews don't buy that claim. New Testament is all about it, flagship books are Ephesians and Hebrews. Moreover, the principles behind the secular laws in the OT really do remain relevant today, such as the laws of jurisprudence (i.e., you don't convict without independent testimony from at least two witnesses, vs. the law back then and even now in Islamic countries that hearsay evidence is admissable). The 10 commandments in principle still make sense, though Jesus took away the adultery law from civil administration (in the woman-caught-in-adultery passage). In sum, you can go through the OT and look beneath the time constraints, yet see relevant principles to use in governance today. Frankly, the Mosaic law separated what today is called "church and state". There were three branches of laws: ordinances, judgements, and the spiritual code. The Hebrew for these terms vary, but the LXX Greek (written by Jews, translating the Hebrew) is more stable: entole, krimata, dikaiomata. So you can search in your Greek OT for these terms and see they are differentiated. That being said, it doesn't follow that Christians or Jews should seek to impose these laws on a polity, and really we don't. Among us are a few weirdoes who like the Islamic fundamentalists insist on the law being political. But Israel is a secular state, and so is the US and Europe, etc. Not saying this answer should convince you that this is the right answer, just trying to explain why it was done, per Bible as I understand it. _________________ God needs no defending, and always begs the premise. For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.

ygalg
Regular Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:36 am Post subject:

All_Brains wrote:

I am still not convinced that this how would God communicate with people, using language, time relevant customs and laws that no longer make sense.

I'm not here to persuade you All_Brains. I merely share what I can bring from what I recall from judaism. you once comment, that in judaism there is inherited sin, which is untrue.
instead criticizing by third party, who have no clue about Judaism. I am delivering you from first hand source. however, History is what you need here. someone giving the jewish perspective. or you prefer the Islamic/christian source about judaism?

History he is versed in Judaical laws, tradition...etc handsomely. also he is a physician

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:24 am Post subject:

brainout wrote:

But Avram wasn't Jewish until age 99, when he was circumcized. So his being chosen, was not due to race, but due to faith, Genesis 15:6. Messiah was promised to come from his genes, contracts in Genesis 12, 15, 17. So wouldn't that make "Jewish" both a religion and a race? In which case, as in Old Testament times, if you believed like 2/3rds of the Exodus population did, you were a "Jew"?

So how racist is that, when anyone can become a Jew?

Even when Avram turned 100+, he was still not a Jew and neither were Issac, Ishmael, Jacob and Joseph.

BMZ

ygalg
Regular Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:38 am Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

brainout wrote:

Even when Avram turned 100+, he was still not a Jew and neither were Issac, Ishmael, Jacob and Joseph.

BMZ

how convenient where islamists claim that these personages were Muslims previously to Muhammad, it is 'metaphorically' for accepting Allah while a 'Jew' attribute to Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Jacob and Joseph metaphorically void? a 'Jew' have vary definitions and all of are valid. one of which is, is to recognize the true G-d and sign the covenant (circumcision). by that definition, they were. even Ishmael.

ygalg
Regular Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:45 am Post subject:

biblically they were Hebrews. so is Ishmael.

brainout
Senior Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275

Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:13 am Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

brainout wrote:

Even when Avram turned 100+, he was still not a Jew and neither were Issac, Ishmael, Jacob and Joseph.

BMZ

Well, that's what made him Jewish, BMZ, circumcision. Jewish/Hebrew is a bloodline from Abraham upon his circumcision. It is also a faith. See Romans 4, where Paul explains all this. Good to see you!
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise. For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.

Last edited by brainout on Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject:

ygalg wrote:

biblically they were Hebrews. so is Ishmael.

Ishmael was definitely what Abraham was. Abraham was the father of the Hebrews. He was from the lineage of Eber from whom had come Hebrew.

A correct example of Hebrews would be the slaves of Pharoah in Egypt. They used to refer to God of Abraham.

When the Jews call Abraham a Jew, it is exactly similar to Muslims calling Abraham a Muslim.

brainout
Senior Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275

Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:37 am Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

ygalg wrote:

biblically they were Hebrews. so is Ishmael.

God says in Bible that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Sons of the promise. These are the patriarchs of the 12 tribes, and the 12 tribes are the Hebrews. Ishmael was not among them, though from Abraham, because he did not believe in El-Elyon. Same for Esau, Jacob's brother. It's easy to find the OT verses on this, and I'm sure you both know how to find them by searching on those names. So it was the sons of Jacob who went into slavery, not the sons of Ishmael, because the promise of a son ante-dated Hagar, in Genesis 12, repeated in Genesis 15. Ishamel comes along in Genesis 16, but God stipulated it's not him, in Genesis 17, and of course beginning Genesis 18 you have the story of Isaac.

God promised a son from Sarai, not from some other mother; Isaac is the "only son" from that mother, fulfilling the promise God made, back in Genesis 12. That God delayed in granting this son was a test of Abram's faith. That Abram went into Hagar was him giving into Sarai's unwillingness to wait. But both he and she matured spiritually to the point that God justifably could grant their desire and fulfill the promise He made.

This is the point everyone misses: GOD MADE A PROMISE. HEBREWS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THAT PROMISE. It's not a primogeniture thing, but a God-promised-a-specific-son. Salvation is a Promised Son, and that's why Bible stresses the story of Abraham so much.

Jews believe this Promised Son, aka Mosiach, has not yet come. Christians and Messianic Jews believe He has come. But both understand it's about a Promised Son, dating back to Genesis 12.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise. For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.

ygalg
Regular Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

ygalg wrote:

biblically they were Hebrews. so is Ishmael.

When the Jews call Abraham a Jew, it is exactly similar to Muslims calling Abraham a Muslim.

Islamic approach over a 'jew' is spiritual related. otherwise that would be of a problem to consider a 'jew' to become a 'muslim' where a 'jew' biologically related. such notion does not exist in Islam.
present day it does not exist in judaism as well.
so yes you are correct. a jew is no longer used as a tribal name, but identification of religious affiliation. to say Abraham was not a jew would be incorrect in that line of thought.

FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT