Keeping Mitzvot Is Causing Others To Stumble? Since When?

Truth may absolutely hurt, but.... For example, a friend asked why some consider him or her to be part of the Hebrew Roots and/or Sacred Movement cults. I replied, "To be fair, I think that they're just being honest. To want to keep all 613 mitzvot (some of which are in contradistinction to the New Covenant) is one thing, but to tell others to keep Torah lest they be pagan or not living for Yehovah is another." Now, do I--for example--keep at least some of the 613 mitzvot? Yes. For example, I do try to wear my tallit every day, and I looked up (for a lack of better wordage) tallit etiquette and answers to questions that I had about wearing a tallit (Remember that my family were and are Anusim.). But am I going to tell others to wear a tallit? No.

In fact, someone bluntly told me the followi

ng after I answered his question about whether I'm Messianic, and asked if he wanted a Messianic to further support his business: "It sounds like you are asking me in good faith, with pure intentions and not just trying to pick a fight, so I will be straight with you. I have struggled with that question for a while, and have not achieved crystal clarity. To be honest, I would prefer not to sell a tallit with tzitzit. I don't see why a Christian, regardless of their enthusiasm for biblical practices, needs kosher tzitzit. However, if a Christian is really serious, really wants to keep the mitzvah of tzitzit, is willing to take the trouble to learn to tie the tzitzit and spend an hour doing it, then I don't really have any grounds to object."

So, trying to keep all 613 mitzvot, including the mitzvah l'tzitziyot, may actually even cause Non-Messianic Jews to stumble. In other words, if you're going to keep the mitzvot that are still valid under the New Covenant, don't be legalistic lest cause anyone to stumble with them.

Why Hanukkah?

"Hanukkah" literally means "dedication". In the Books of Maccabees (which refers to the Kohenic dynasty of the Maccabees), the story of how the Maccabee Family took the Temple back from the Syrians and Greeks who had desecrated it is told. Originally meant to belatedly celebrate Sukkot, Hanukkah became the remembrance and celebration of the retaking of the Temple.

The Pharisees set up the traditions for how Hanukkah is to be celebrated. They relate that one of the Maccabees could not find enough oil for the menorah to be lit continually, but only for a night. The oil instead let the menorah be lit for eight days, according to those same Pharisees.

Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. So, Hanukkah as a historic event really did happen, but the Books of Maccabees are not part of Tanakh.

I've Covered This Before, But...

After updating my Facebook statuses and tweeting (and after a nasty, Anti-Semitic comment that was made by a Facebook friend's friend), I have to re-cover why Jews killed but did not murder Jesus. The distinction involves mens rea--that is, I have to show how Jews killed Jesus (no mens rea) & how gentiles murdered Jesus (mens rea).

The distinction is important because we Jews honestly thought that we were righteously administering the death penalty. Gentiles, on the other hand, knew that Jesus was innocent, riled up misguided Jews, murdered Him, and then blamed the Jews for murder.In other words, we had to kill our Passover sacrifice whereas gentiles knowingly participated in the murder of a Just Man.The problem for Jews is when we knowingly & blatantly flout our Passover sacrifice. Most--e.g., Paul--did and do not intentionally do this. In fact, Paul writes down that he did what he did in ignorance (cf. 1 Timothy 1:12-17), whereas Pilate even washed his hands of the Blood.

To begin, I quote the Anti-Semitic comment:

Nicolaas Prinsloo · Friends with [a friend]

I believe the jews our actually jews but I'm also reminded that it is the jews who crucified our Lord and for years these jews have been making up propaganda (beliar)... 
I believe in the tribes of Israel... History repeats itself!

What Nicholas meant by "crucified" is "murdered"--and Nicholas is absolutely wrong. "Kill" is different from "murder". I don't mind saying that Yeshua had to die for my sin because: 1) Not that He actually had to, but He chose to. 2) Who else could die for me sin but me or G-d? 3) The Lamb had to be killed--you just don't have a Passover sacrifice to partake of without a Lamb being killed. What the Romans meant by "kill", though, as you pointed out, was murder--which, as you also pointed out, we didn't do. The Romans murdered Jesus and deliberately perverted "murder" into "kill". 

The Romans were just as sneaky as Pilate--they knew that Jesus was innocent. "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”" (Matthew 27:24) Pilate deliberately riled up a misguided crowd then blamed them for murder.


Even the Talmud, meanwhile, admits that we killed Jesus, that we saw to Jesus' death--it does not say that we murdered him. Why? Because we thought that we were fulfilling the mitzvot to kill a bad guy--e.g., Deuteronomy 13. Actually, the Talmud states, "Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'" (Sanhedrin 43a) We were blinded by the Veil of Moses (which was supposed to take effect like that) and the Talmud. So, we had no mens rea.

But we do have His blood on our hands, but in a way to cover us--not to hold us guilty for murder. "And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”" (Matthew 27:25) We were misguidedly saying, "Look; we don't mind that we killed a guy for apostasy"--we honestly thought that we were doing righteousness and earning merit with G-d. So, that's why the Scriptures say: " eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:7-11). So, we're in trouble if we flout our Passover sacrifice if and once we know better; the gentiles are in trouble for murder--and how'd you like to have answer for murder if you didn't admit that you're guilty of it? By the same token, what benefit do you get out of flouting your Passover sacrifice?

Paul even writes down that, like many fellow Jews, he didn't know better and honestly thought that he was doing right (cf., as aforementioned, 1 Timothy 1:12-17) It's a paradox--we aren't guilty of murder, but we're guilty of being ignorant if we've heard that Yeshua was our Passover sacrifice and we flout that, anyway (cf., e.g., Romans 10:2:3-4, 14-21).

In conclusion, when gentiles (and even fellow Jews) state that "The Jews killed [viz. "murdered"] Jesus!", we need to say that, "Of course, we killed our Passover sacrifice--how absurd is that the Romans blame us for murder when sacrificing a lamb is not murdering it?" After all, Yeshua stated, "“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”" (Luke 23:24)

By the way, this puts Pilate in a different light, doesn't it? Think about why Pilate really wanted to release Yeshua to the Jews:

¹³ Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, ¹⁴ said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; ¹⁵ no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him;^[c] and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. ¹⁶ I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” ¹⁷ (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).^[d]

¹⁸ And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— ¹⁹ who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

²⁰ Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. ²¹ But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”

²² Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”

²³ But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed.^[e] 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. ²⁵ And he released to them^[f] the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

He wanted them to eventually murder Yeshua and be blamed for murder--he wanted to look innocent and not release Yeshua right away. He had even been warned. Also by the way, the envy of the Jews was an inadvertent sin--and what does one do for inadvertent sin? He or she offers a sacrifice and/or flees to a city of refuge.

Flee to the Passover Sacrifice and High Priest who is Yeshua, and into the fold of the New Jerusalem. 

Messianic Jews, Antimissionaries, and the Rest of Everybody

First of all, Messianic Jews don't proselytize. Many people (including on PolishForums.com) are  confusing proselytizing with being open about faith. My and other Messianic Jews' intent is not to convert or force conversion on anybody. 


Certain posters on PolishForums.com like genecps (who is an Antimissionary, and Antimissionaries frequently) say that even being open about your faith is proselytizing or trying to force conversions; which is about them, not me. I understand, meanwhile, where some people are coming from, but I'm not proselytizing--if my intent were to convert anybody instead of just share my faith-based arguments and support them with Scripture, I could see their contention. As I stated, the Antmissionaries (in general, not just on PF) have been skilled in convoluting the meaning of "proselytize". Posting Scripture to support my arguments, by the way, is not proselytizing. Proselytizing is forcing conversion.


To proselytize is to:

Webster: 

: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

We don't do that. We share our faith and let you and G-d make the decision:

1 Corinthians 3:5-8 (NKJV): 

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

The Inquisitors, the pogromists, etc.--they proselytized.

Secondly, Jeszua (Jesus) was a Jew. So you don't believe that Jeszua was the Messiah. Nu, what can I do about it? But don't tell me that I'm not Jewish because I believe that a Jewish man who you don't believe is the Messiah, is the Messiah. Thirdly, we Jews are a people first, regardless of what we believe--belief is secondary:

Deuteronomy 7:6-8
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. 7 The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; 8 but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Why I'm Learning To Be More Charitable In My Blog Posts...

Among other reasons:

1. Admittedly, to not get sued
2. Good practice for journalism work--"fair and balanced"
3. To be charitable is the Christian thing to do.
4. "'Vengeance is Mine; I will repay', saith Yehovah."

However, that doesn't mean that I won't report or keep reporting on evidence-backed allegations, facts about public figures and others (e.g., my family and others who need to be called out), and whatever else needs to be exposed and brought to light. For example, this thing with Toby Keith--as I said, Toby Keith had better come clean really fast if he is cheating on Tricia. 

Is Practicing Supposed Transubstantiation Falling Away?

CARM.org, while I don't agree with every point that they make--although I agree on the essentials--, makes a point about transubstantiation:

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical.  For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord's supper.  It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works.  Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

That CARM.org didn't reference the following is a little surprising:

Hebrews 6:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

⁴ For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ if they fall away,^[a] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 6:6 Or and have fallen away

Hebrews 10:26-31

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Just Live by Faith

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know Him who said,“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”^[a] says the Lord.^[b] And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”^[c]31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:35
2. Hebrews 10:30 NU-Text omits says the Lord.
3. Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:36

Evangelical and truth-seeking Catholics: please take note and run while you can, or--if you're called to stay and be used to reform the Roman Catholic Church--pray on your calling to help reform the Roman Catholic Church. By the way, I have previously referenced the Yeshuat Yisrael study on Hebrews 6:4-6; and in other words, you will not lose your salvation if you participate and have participated in transubstantiation. But be warned:

⁹ For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. ¹⁰ According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. ¹¹ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, ¹³ each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.¹⁴ If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Remember, "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins"; and in supposed transubstantiation, "they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." If you fall away, you "will suffer loss; but...will be saved, yet so as through fire." But you do not want to fall away.

Repost With Quotes From Rick Santorum Added...

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012

In Case You Didn't Get My Last Post...

Let me unequivocally tell you: if you do not believe that Israel is the most-attacked nation and that Israel-supporting Protestants are Christians, you are an Anti Semite. Good riddance about Rick Santorum: he needed to drop out, anyway. Besides being a Vatican One Catholic (thus, Anti Semitic already; since Vatican One Catholics are the likes of Former Senator Santorum and-- who I'm sure that Rick Santorum supports-- Mel Gibson), Rick Santorum-- as I've explained-- deliberately ignores that Israel was, is, and will (until the End of the Present Age) be the most-attacked nation.

1. Added quote: “Once the colleges fell, and those who were being educated in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘Well, wait, the Catholic Church?’ No.”
   “We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism.
   “And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious — to use both vanity and pride to go after the Church.”
   
   
   Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/18/catholic-santorum-in-2008-protestantism-in-shambles-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/#ixzz1rkYx2WZq
2. Added quote: "This is not a political war at all, this is not a culture war at all, this is a spiritual war. And the father of lies has his sights on what you think the father of lies, Satan, would have his sights on.  A good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack? There's no one else to go after other than the United States, and that's been the case, for now, almost 200 years."

The United States is not the chosen people-- Israel is. e.g.:

⁸ “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend.
⁹ You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its farthest regions,
And said to you,
‘You are My servant,
I have chosen you and have not cast you away:
¹⁰ Fear not, for I am with you;
Be not dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you,
Yes, I will help you,
I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’

The United States has not been gone after by HaSatan the most-- Israel has. e.g.:

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

I could go on, but you get the point.

In Case You Didn't Get My Last Post...

Let me unequivocally tell you: if you do not believe that Israel is the most-attacked nation and that Israel-supporting Protestants are Christians, you are an Anti Semite. Good riddance about Rick Santorum: he needed to drop out, anyway. Besides being a Vatican One Catholic (thus, Anti Semitic already; since Vatican One Catholics are the likes of Former Senator Santorum and-- who I'm sure that Rick Santorum supports-- Mel Gibson), Rick Santorum-- as I've explained-- deliberately ignores that Israel was, is, and will (until the End of the Present Age) be the most-attacked nation.

The United States is not the chosen people-- Israel is. e.g.:

⁸ “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend.
⁹ You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its farthest regions,
And said to you,
‘You are My servant,
I have chosen you and have not cast you away:
¹⁰ Fear not, for I am with you;
Be not dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you,
Yes, I will help you,
I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’

The United States has not been gone after by HaSatan the most-- Israel has. e.g.:

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

I could go on, but you get the point.

Repost: Rick Santorum Is Clearly An Anti Semite And Non-Evangelical Catholic

There's evidence that Priscilla and Aquila had no children. Want more evidence? They were busy tent-making and running a house church. They had no time to have children. Yet Rick Santorum would criticize Priscilla and Aquila, twoYehudim Tzadikim who clearly practiced some form of birth control. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum-- in a speech at Florida's Ave Maria University-- said that mainline Protestants (and by mainline Protestants, he means Evangelicals-- remember "excuse me-- 'Reformation'"? Rick Santorum said that Protestants) are not Christians and that Satan is going after the United States like no other nation. Rick Santorum deliberately forgets that not only do Protestants support Israel, but that Israel are the chosen people-- we Jews are attacked both generally by our own (Antimissionaries, including Self-Hating Jews-- who obviously have no interest in'Am Yisra'el or Yeshua) and by gentiles (not all gentiles, but obviously the Anti-Israel gentiles).

Repost: Moshe Looked To Torah Shel Brit Chadashah, and Legalistic "Messianic Judaism" Is Not Jewish

"Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a person sins unintentionally against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them, if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering..."

Those who insist on keeping all 613 mitzvot make the blood worthless ("For it is impossible for those who...fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.", as Hebrews 6 partly reads.). They like to play pick-and-choose mitzvotwhile under grace, since they cannot possibly go to the Temple and offer akorban l'kippur.

Besides, "the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.", as Hebrews 10 partly reads.

To advocate that keeping all 613 mitzvot while under grace is a mitzvah, is a sin. Legalism is sin, and "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"

Another Golden Calf Of Many Fellow Jews: Antimissionarism

Dennis Prager should've addressed another golden calf of many fellow Jews: Antimissionarism. As I've said before, that a fellow Jew does not believe in the historical and Biblical Jesus of Nazareth (Yeshua HaNotzri) as the Messiah (Mashiach) is his or her schtick. I've also said that I personally don't believe in proselytizing though I believe in being open about my faith. However, as I've also stated, Antimissionarism is a problem.

Anti- or Counter-missionarism is any form of hostile attempt to dissuade one from believing in Yeshua HaNotzri as Mashiach. Antimissionarism includes, but is not limited to, lying about Messianic Jews-- for example:

1. Saying that Jews for Jesus and Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. By the way, Jews for Jesus is an independent Messianic Jewish 501(c)(3) organization; and Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael is an independent Messianic kehilat v'shul in Franklin, Tennessee.
2. Saying that Jews for Jesus, Chosen People Ministries, and similar organizations proselytize. "Proselytize" means "induce to join" or "recruit", which such Messianic Jewish organizations do not do-- they merely put themselves out there in what they believe is the fulfillment of the Great Commission. They share their emunah, but do not threaten, bribe, or otherwise coerce or cajole anyone to become a Christian, whether he or she is Jewish or gentile.
3. Saying that Messianic Jews are kapos, apostates, and other such kinds of Self-Hating Jews, or Jews turned into gentiles. Since Yeshua HaNotzri was Jewish and nobody can change his or her own ethnicity (since ethnicity is a biological factor), a Jew cannot become a gentile in any way, shape, or form, let alone by believing that a fellow Jew is Mashiach.

Antimissionarism also includes being involved with such organizations as Jews for Judaism, Yad L'Achim, and the so-called "Messiah Truth". These organizations are the Non-Messianic-Jewish religious equivalent of the political Media Matters on the Left and the former Senator Rick Santorum on the Right: they will do anything to lie about and hurt others who disagree with or don't think like them.

Antimissionarism is inherently UnJewish but too prevalent within the Jewish community, and Antimissionarism needs to stop. This does not mean that all Jews have to start believing in Yeshua HaNotzri as Mashiach, though. Nonetheless, fellow Jews can respectfully agree to disagree on whether Yeshua HaNotzri as Mashiach and let Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) have their beliefs as we who are Jewish Christians let Non-Messianic Jews have theirs, even though we share our emunah. 

So the "Free Wood Post" May Be Satire, But...

They still took a real happening, Rick Santorum's admission of being addicted to pornography-- which my very own mom says that she once heard Senator Santorum make on "The Janet Parshall Show"-- and satirized it. The "Free Wood Post" claims:

Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.

Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.

In Santorum's Confessiongate (or Pornogate or whatever you want to call it), they clearly didn't need to make up what happened-- that just came right to them. "Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction." And this wasn't a case of even a little "entirely in fiction". This was a " purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities" case.

And My Sister Ought To Read This Before She Ever Considers Catholicism Again

The emphasis is mine.


-----Original Message-----
From: Actionline
To: Nicole Czarnecki
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox

Nicole,

First, please accept our apologies for a very tardy reply.

I am not sure that I understand your question, but I will do my best to respond. To begin, there is a difference between factual accuracy and truth. If I were to refer to a close friend as a brother, that is not factually accurate (he's not really my biological brother), but it does testify to a greater truth, which is that I love him and care for him as deeply as I would if he were my own brother. Likewise is many elements of our life in God, including the Bible. 
There are parts of the Bible that we can fully trust to be factually accurate, and some which are not (e.g. we don't maintain the creation was completed in an actual seven days). But, every part of the Bible, every word of it, testifies to the Truth of God. We are not so concerned with facts, but with Truth. 
The facts are that parts of Scripture are in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete as a simple text. And if you regard it just as a simple text, you will be disappointed. But the truth is that the Holy Spirit lives and breaths through Scripture, and gives life to the Church and its people. The fact that it may be "errant", strictly speaking, makes no difference and takes nothing away. It indeed remains the Word of God.

In Christ,

SM


-----Original Message-----
From: "Nicole Czarnecki" <nickidewbear@aol.com>
Sent 9/16/2011 10:45:40 PM
To: actionline@mail.goarch.org
Subject: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox

Why doesn't the Orthodox Church believe in the inerrancy of the Word of G-d (the Bible)?

The Catholic (in this case, Byzantine Catholic) Church believes that fact is not necessarily truth, and vice versa. The Catholic Church also believes that facts are not important, thus that truth is actually not that important. They also believe that Jesus (Who is the Word), is "in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete"; and that Jesus can't actually remain the Word of G-d.

On This, I Agree With Michael Reagan In A Way...

Rick Santorum strikes again! What a hypocrite! That's right, Senator Santorum; you don't want to at least give contraception to people who want to practice safe sex, even within marriage; but you held back that you were addicted to porn, and many porn stars need contraception so that more porn stars aren't born into this crazy-enough world! Oh man! 


Michael Reagan is right: "Somethings need to be left unsaid!!There was no need for this statement!" For, "[e]ven a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive." (Proverbs 17:28) There's also a second alternative: admit your sins from the beginning before you start crusading against others' doings of what you did; but Senator Santorum obviously was too late on that count.


I'm not into porn myself, but "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still;" (Revelation 22:11a-b); and ""Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." (Matthew 7:1-2). We live in a country where "Congress shall respect no establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Not everyone is a Christian or a Vatican One Catholic (although, to be fair, that Vatican was notorious for sexual sin and hypocrisy).


No wonder "An awkward silence fell over the crowd as Santorum went on to say, “The devil pulled me into lust. I would stare at screens, magazines, my hand…but now I’m free. I’m free of the devil’s grip.”" People don't like to be hoodwinked and unnecessarily shocked and surprised.


The problem is less the sin, and more the self-righteous hypocrisy. 

My Sister Is Actually Thinking About Converting To Catholicism....

In the words of Link from Hyrule to the casual gamers, "Really, [Michelle]?" In all seriousness, though (besides "Really, Michelle?"), Michelle may want to search up on Roman Catholicism on Google, my blog, etc.. Besides, the only reason that my dad and his family is or was Catholic is because they were or are Anusim Katolim-- they weren't really Catholic--; and now my sister wants to become a Katolit-- an Evangelical Catholic, but a Catholic! Oy vey!

Part of the reason she wants to convert-- to observe Lent without feeling pressured as a Protestant to not observe Lent. She may as well convert back to English-American Catholicism-- Episcopalianism-- if she's going to convert. But to remain just a plain old Jewish Protestant would be better for her-- and Protestants, Jewish and gentile, observe Lent all the time; whether or not they've never been Catholics or they are Ex Catholics.

Mitt Romney the Evangelical Mormon

According to the liberal "The Daily Beast", which is partnered with "Newsweek" and is in no way friendly to Evangelical (Born-Again, real) Christians:

 "When asked by Newsweek if he has done baptisms for the dead—in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS representative says, to “open the door” to the highest heaven—he looked slightly startled and answered, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.” The awareness of how odd this will sound to many Americans is what makes Romney hesitant to elaborate on the Mormon question."

Also,

"Nothing is more politically vexing or personally crucial for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney than the story of his faith. Raised in a devout Mormon family by parents who were both principled and powerful, Romney has downplayed both his religion and his own family history. Instead, he has talked up his résumé as a private-sector "turnaround artist" who reversed the fortunes of troubled companies and the faltering Salt Lake City Olympics and now can come to his party's—and country's—rescue. Mindful of the sway of evangelical Christians over the GOP base, he has positioned himself as the candidate with conservative principles and strong faith, even adopting evangelical language in calling Jesus Christ his "personal savior" (vernacular not generally used by members of the Mormon Church). But when he's pressed on the particulars of his own religious practice, his answers grow terse and he is quick to repeat that his values are rooted in "the Judeo-Christian tradition.""


Clearly, Mitt Romney has rejected the twisting of the following verses and is (so to speak) between a Rock (Jesus) and a hard place (the Mormon Church, which he is slowly moving away from or staying in to reform):


"²⁹ Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? ³⁰ And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? ³¹ I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. ³² If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”"

Rick Santorum Is Clearly An Anti Semite And Non-Evangelical Catholic

There's evidence that Priscilla and Aquila had no children. Want more evidence? They were busy tent-making and running a house church. They had no time to have children. Yet Rick Santorum would criticize Priscilla and Aquila, two Yehudim Tzadikim who clearly practiced some form of birth control. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum-- in a speech at Florida's Ave Maria University-- said that mainline Protestants (and by mainline Protestants, he means Evangelicals-- remember "excuse me-- 'Reformation'"? Rick Santorum said that Protestants) are not Christians and that Satan is going after the United States like no other nation. Rick Santorum deliberately forgets that not only do Protestants support Israel, but that Israel are the chosen people-- we Jews are attacked both generally by our own (Antimissionaries, including Self-Hating Jews-- who obviously have no interest in 'Am Yisra'el or Yeshua) and by gentiles (not all gentiles, but obviously the Anti-Israel gentiles).

Repost: Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.

The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).

As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.

For example and for comparison:

1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.

In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 

In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).