You may also like...

178 Responses

  1. Dan from Georgia says:


  2. Dan from Georgia says:

    Read “Christian radio is frozen in time…” with great interest. I see this same frozen-in-time concept on so-called Christian news websites also. Whining about gays and minorities having rights, fear of Muslims, promote Republicans at all costs, etc.

  3. dswoager says:

    The wrong side of history link was interesting, and touched on an attitude that I was seeing constantly not that long ago. I would all the time see people saying “a hundred years from now we are going to look back on (this or that) and be embarassed”. I don’t think it stopped, I think my choice of websites to frequent got better.

    Stealing a quick thought from the sitcom Community, just look at good science fiction, can they be a good social commentary on our times? Sure, but are they accurate for much of anything? Did I miss the Space Odyssey in 2001?

    We would all probably be better off trying to keep our arguing to the present rather than crushing our dissenters into irrelevence under the weight of hypothetical history.

    Btw thanks for the link… one of those really resonated with me, then I cliscked on it and found out why. 🙂

  4. Michael says:


    Hopefully it encourages you to keep writing…

  5. Michael says:


    I’m already in trouble, but I concur…

  6. dswoager says:

    Dan, I’m fairly convinced that it is just the nature of media, we will keep getting something until we prove it doesn’t sell. To take the political part out of it I would point to the secular radio stations in my area. We always used to make fun of the station that my dad listened to because it seemed to stop playing new muic in the mid eighties, but 15 – 20 years later I am seeing that the “cutting edge station” that I listened to growing up has become much the same thing. They were the “New Rock Alternative” and they still play nothing but Sublime, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, etc. If they were to have stayed current they would have risked alienating the people who tuned in to hear the same old thing.

    We get that on Christian radio as well where at least in my area the morning drive, and lunch hour are dominated by the elderly and passed on.

  7. Charles says:

    I loved the walmart epiphany article and it gave me hope that morals and love still exist.

    To quote the article ” As we sang “Amazing Grace” I watched a devoted husband, with indescribable tenderness, put his arm around his beloved wife—who scarcely knows him. But not even Alzheimer’s could beguile them of this holy moment. She mouthed the words as they gazed into each other’s eyes…when we’ve been there ten thousand years…

    One doesn’t see acts like these every week. In fact, we are altogether accustomed to witnessing the dishonest and the unlovely to the point of desensitization. I see the same news you see. It’s mostly negative, isn’t it? ”

    Goes to show you love is still there even through all the thick fog that we call Alzheimers.

    Brought a tear to my eye.

  8. dswoager says:

    Charles, my wife used to work as a social worker in a nursing home, and one of the great joys in her week would be to hear residents, some of whom couldn’t identify a single family member, join together singing the hymns that they had enjoyed throughout their lives. Old age can take away many (if not most) things, but apparently not eveything.

  9. Dan from Georgia says:

    Michael (#5),

    Protesting on those sites comments section only invites abuse from the site’s “fans” (i.e., trolls).

  10. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Something I never do, but today I would like to add a link

    From the guys at The Jagged Word … to folks who think they can get by without a church.

    You Can’t Get Dodger Dogs at Home

  11. dswoager says:

    MLD, I appreciated the link. I think that part of the issue, is that so much of a Sunday worship service has been reduced to entertainment that you are not missing out on all that much by sitting at home and choosing who is going to entertain you.

    With the rise of different technologies, for sports you have high def television, you have to offer something that people can’t get at home, like the Dodger dog in the article, but if you have curches that aren’t facilitating real community then you really aren’t missing out on much by staying home.

    I haven’t attented Sunday services regularly for quite probably over a year now, but I would love to find a palce that I could plug into community. I have to settle for the weekly studies that I have (which are admittedly awesome) and trust that something will come along some day.

    I generally make sure to grab nachos at PNC Park, but I guess I’ll still be melting my own cheese for the time being.

  12. Kevin H says:

    dswoager, may you find the Primanti Brothers Sandwich of churches that is stuffed full with all the community that is needed and wanted.

  13. Em says:

    relevant dude to spiritual father is right on target…. being pre-boom, i and many others i knew lamented the relevant dudes and thought perhaps the end really was near… or the Church was near death, even if God wasn’t… i can’t know whether the relevant dude wasn’t exactly what God designed for the age, but he did much to make the Faith irrelevant … IMHO

  14. dswoager says:

    Thanks Kevin H. My wife and I were part of a church plant that fell apart about three years ago, and we really haven’t found traction anywhere since. It hasn’t been for a lack of trying, though lately it has been, it also doesn’t help that one of the more omnipresent denominations around here is one that I really can’t bring myself to invest myself in. So, as much as I live in a moderately sized city, options are more limited than they seem.

  15. Em says:

    the non violent God of the Exodus … the article uses too many of the big words of the discipline of theology for me to be sure what i was reading and i’m too lazy to look them up… i do know that i am tired of the word “violent” – it has become a cliche for the self-righteous: i’m against violence, but it is a fact

    Jesus came to show that God the Father is non violent? I don’t think that was His message. God sent His Son to be crucified – that was violent. What Jesus said/says is that His Kingdom is not of this (violent) world and so His followers are not promote (or defend?) it with violence … at least that is how it looks to me.

    what exactly is violence? on the road in front of her house my daughter hit a deer and damaged the deer and her car – another deer hit a motorcyclists out for a pleasure ride with his wife, the deer killed the motorcyclist and the deer ran off to die also… this was all violence – violence permeates this fallen world….

    i am remembering that God said to Cain that Cain’s brother’s blood cried out to Him from the earth – and so it began… now we’re explaining God? making excuses for Him?

  16. The Dude says:

    I stopped listening to Christian radio about 7 years ago. That article was pretty accurate.

  17. Ixtlan says:

    I liked the article about no gatekeepers. I can relate to the article because I am also at that age where I fall between the cracks of boomers and x-ers. We were too young for “hell no, we won’t go”, but we did usher in the era of punk. I think neither generation wants to claim our age group; we end up getting thrown on the boomer pile while in reality we really don’t think like they do.

    This ideal of no gatekeepers is interesting. I have to ask the author, what world do you live in and is there room for me, because it seems that I encounter many gates that are kept by people who have planted their flag on what they deem to be non-negotiables.

  18. Bob says:


    That was the article which caught my eye. I think the difficulty is much of the tradition of Jesus teaching is not based on their understanding of Messiah from a Hebrew point. In general I find man is always the initiator of violence and God the judge of His creation and that behavior.

    It is not recorded in the Gospels that Jesus says or does anything to change that position. In fact it is my observation His very violent death is at the hands of those whom will be judged upon His return. As He says in John chapter 3, He was not there to judge. Read the rest of that account.

    I think the problem in the article and with many is the separation of violence and justice. I do think the real question is does the destruction of violent people through what would be called a violent act measure as justice? Jesus came to be violently killed by His own creation and the account states He will return and judge all with some being thrown into the eternal fire. Doesn’t sound much different than the OT.

    Hey didn’t this guy say he went to seminary? Did they miss Mathew 25 somehow?

  19. papiaslogia says:

    MLD, I remember Vin Scully hawking Farmer John Dodger Dogs during the games – on sale at your grocery store.

    Don’t they do that anymore? 🙂

  20. Josh The Baptist says:

    If SCCL is the right way to handle abuse, I’d rather be wrong.

  21. Michael says:

    I’ll critique SCCL when those who would do it “right” actually do something.
    Until then, I probably won’t.

  22. Ixtlan says:

    Regarding the article on Christian radio, I have to wonder where this guy was when listening to such outrageous rhetoric on what is “Christian radio”. Granted I rarely listen to Christian radio, but my experience is different, and I have to question whether the author is just expressing a reverse form of bigotry. Some times our sensitivities can get the better of us.

    It was an interesting contrast from the gatekeeper article, and perhaps both veins of thought are alive and well.

    Oh Babylon’s Dread and mld!!! Joshua 16:10; 17:12,13; Judges 1:19,21,27-36.

  23. Michael says:


    He was in Medford from the sound of it…

  24. filbertz says:

    He could have driven right through the Rogue Valley from the tenor of the article…I listen to the local station only out of my perverse pleasure of occasionally feeding my outrage. 😉 We have previously spoken about the broken-record-bland-boring nature of so-called Christian music, so I’ll refrain from that…except I didn’t.

  25. Michael says:


    I’m having dinner with the owner in a couple of weeks…should be interesting. 🙂

  26. Em says:

    Bob, your point is well taken, “man is always the initiator of violence and God the judge of His creation and that behavior.” more to the point, perhaps, is that there is a war going on? A war of rebellion against God that has a violent end, but praise to God, it has an end.

  27. Josh The Baptist says:

    If harassment, going after innocent people who may be or may not be even knowledgeable of the situation at hand, trying to make sure that their careers are ruined even though they were never even accused of abuse…

    Nevermind that’s plain evil.

    Oh, and the victory laps and taking credit for things they had no part in? Yeah, that’s classy.

  28. Babylon's Dread says:


    I am well aware that the genocide was never completed. Apparently Joshua believed that God had fulfilled his promises. In Judges apparently the people had not completed all that God had “given” them. That discrepancy does not bother me or nullify what Joshua said. I will contend this however. Josh 21:43-5 is either talking about the land covenant or we have no hope of ever interpreting scripture correctly. That is one of the clearest most unambiguous declarative statements in Holy Writ.

    I am aware that you guys believe that God has not kept his promises. I believe the whole matter is summed up in Jesus and the present ever-increasing kingdom that Daniel spoke about.

    I never spend a moment worrying about being nice enough to Israel to keep God’s favor. His favor was given in Jesus the son of David the son of Abraham. I have no interest in soil.

  29. filbertz says:

    …oh to be a fly on the wall…


  30. neo says:

    The radio article calls it “siege mentality”. Perfect description.

  31. Ixtlan says:

    “I am aware that you guys believe that God has not kept his promises. ”

    Ok, that was different. I know enough about God to know He always keeps His promises, many that are held in tension between “here and not yet”.

    You guys? You don’t even know which “guys” I am apart of.

    You are no different that those whom you take such strong issue with.

  32. A Believer says:

    I don’t know of any christians who don’t believe God fulfills His promises.

    I think that was poorly stated. I do see disagreement over the manner and ways they are fulfilled.

    I struggle with accepting a hermeneutic approach that has many promises regarding the Messiah being fulfilled very literally and precisely in his first coming, yet millennial promises concerning the same Messiah and His kingdom being spiritualized.

  33. filbertz says:


  34. Babylon's Dread says:


    I was clear and said “has not” I did not say that you think he will not. Nothing to get in a twist over at all.

    A Believer

    I do not think you have trouble with promises being both here and now literal and spiritual … I mean spiritual does not mean unreal… a kingdom “in the Spirit” is not an unreal kingdom. You know me too well to go behind that literal and spiritual veil which is a false issue

    Let me illustrate the matter… God to Adam “In the day you eat you shall surely die”
    Did Adam die that day? He did not literally die that day but you do not find any fault with the idea that he died both spiritually immediately and progressively physically

    Further in Genesis … we are told about the battle between the “seed of the woman” and the “seed of the serpent” … We do not believe the devil had flesh and blood offspring by copulation … the woman’s seed is flesh and blood the devil’s seed is those who do his bidding. They are his spiritual seed… the cults get literal and make havoc with such thoughts. However it is interesting that Jesus takes those who claim to be heirs of the covenant and calls them the devils kids… fascinating stuff

    Further… there are NO millennial promises in the Old Covenant you are importing millennium from Revelation. There are kingdom promises … they are fulfilled literally in the Holy Spirit … I believe in God’s real literal present kingdom in the Holy Spirit. The old testament may use metaphor and symbolic language to express it but it is real.

  35. Babylon's Dread says:

    The bottom line A Believer

    Is that you can see that God can speak in language that is both very literal and very figurative and do no damage to the matter whatsoever. And he can do it simultaneously because human language works that way.

    We treat many things in that manner when there is foundation to do so.

  36. Linda Pappas says:

    For clarification:

    I am neither or, but then again I am neither Evangelical or Fundamental, but I am definitely not Liberal, but I do strive to walk in obedience to His Word, alone — not from within a box designed by various theologian or orthodox religions.

    Although some would ascribe me to be legalistic and of the holiness tribes, which is neither true in either case. LOL I am Christian, wholly and solely lock, stock, and barrel. Sold out—-heart, mind, body, and soul by His blood and that the HS that now lives within me. Oh my.

    Has anyone read through the part of the various Bible translations to see what it says regarding the who, what, where, and how they decide to translate one word over another? Oftentimes, it is not a direct translation. But rather, it is what they think is the better meaning which could reflect more of the theological box they represent. Many Hebrew and Aramaic words cannot be found in the Greek. So, they look at the passage, the verse, the plain meaning or the critical text meaning then, voila’ come up with what they believe is the best word to pop in there. Good to have several translations, as most of you already know.

    But which is the best translation and why do you think this–betcha it depends on the box that you live in. 🙂

    I do like that statement of biblical inerrancy though. There is a difference between inerrancy and translation (s). Interpretation without the Holy Spirit is a real killer though and as far as I know those who first came up with critical text were not exactly endowed or filled or led by Him. Yup, the Enlightenment had much to do with a whole lot of changes being made within the Christian and in the Jewish teachings and interpreting of Holy Scripture. Along with hundreds of New Bibles and their varied translating committee or even by one person.

  37. Linda Pappas says:

    Partial to the 1611 KJV translation and for kicks, I review the Message. Often default to the 1958 KJV—to check my understanding of the old English, however. Used to like the NIV, but found too many errors, so will look at the ESV—still not quite like the KJV in clarity and profound depth and beauty of all that He is.

  38. Ixtlan says:

    “I will contend this however. Josh 21:43-5 is either talking about the land covenant or we have no hope of ever interpreting scripture correctly. That is one of the clearest most unambiguous declarative statements in Holy Writ”

    I disagree. There is not good continuity of Joshua 21:43-45 with the Genesis 15:18-21, the narrative within Joshua itself, nor the subsequent passages (which serve as a bridge connecting Joshua to Judges) in Judges. It is a tension that is not easily resolved and best understood within a here and not yet context. Another explanation would be the work of redaction, that is, literary criticism, but I don’t think that is necessarily the case as it would be sloppy work indeed. But, to view this canonically does present some problems.

  39. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    To Linda’s question, I think that the RSV is the best translation work. Bruce Metzger worked on that one (and the NRSV) and they weren’t afraid to make the hard calls.

    I don’t use it in my teaching because no one else owns one.

  40. Babylon's Dread says:


    So your resolution is eschatological?

  41. Babylon's Dread says:

    Just reiterate I think it is clear and that annihilation of the Canaanite was not required for the land promise to be fulfilled.

  42. A Believer says:

    Thanks Dread. I would still like a clearer idea of how your hermeneutic works in determining when to see verses as spiritual or literal. I know that is it is gross mischaracterization to say that any theological camp interprets verses wholly one way or another.

  43. Erik says:

    The RSV’s translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” rather than the traditional Christian translation of “virgin”.

  44. Erik,
    That is one of several good calls they made.

  45. Joe says:

    That is liberal scholarship for you.

  46. Michael says:

    It’s not liberal scholarship, it’s the correct translation of the word.

  47. Michael says:

    I use the ESV…because God wrote it and Packer edited it…

  48. Bob says:

    “The RSV’s translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” rather than the traditional Christian translation of “virgin”.”

    And the point is?

    What this does prove to me is all translations have extreme difficulty in finding meaningful words and tend to introduce doctrine and interpretation while translating.

  49. Bob says:

    I’ll throw one more out there for consideration.

    Why when we read the NT the English translation for the Greek word “nomos” it is Law and the authors are pointing at the Torah of the OT. The problem is in Greek the meaning of Law is not the same as the Hebrew word Torah, which means “instruction” and is much more broad an idea than simple rules one must follow.

    When the understanding of the Hebrew meaning for Torah is grasped the words recorded of Paul become much richer.

    But nobody really cares, do they?

    Was it a young girl, who could have had sex, or was Mary a virgin? A Greek thinker say, “I need precision, either she was a young girl or a virgin, which is it?”

    Could in the ancient Hebrew idea be, all young girls are virgins?

    Of course the purity of our culture is so decrepit we don’t know.

  50. Joe says:

    If God wrote it, then why would it have to edited?

    The ESV is based on the works of Hort and Wescott. Hort is a cessasionist. I have a big problem right there. Furthermore,
    Hort & Wescott gathered these 3 – Vaticanus, Sinaiticus & Alexandrius* (called Minority Texts) with 6,000 + variations to make their Greek NT. MOST of the modern translations use H&W.

    *Alexandrius came from the ‘spiritual descendents’ of those that argued against the gospel in Acts 6:9. These had a Gnostic bent and opposed the Deity of Christ.

    I note with interest that both Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses accept the 1901 ASV translated exclusively from H&W – and their doctrines of the 3 in 1 and Deity of Christ suffer accordingly.

  51. Michael says:


    You’re cracking me up.
    My comment about the ESV was a joke, though I do use it.
    I have taught every major Christian doctrine from it, just as any pastor could with any of the modern translations.
    They all have their strengths and weaknesses just as does the KJV.
    The Bible translations argument is just another bunch of nonsense that people use to separate and make themselves feel special and holy.
    The Jehovahs Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible.

  52. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Bob & Joe – look in any English translation of the Hebrew Bible produced by the Jews themselves – it is always “young woman”

    The other reason I like the RSV is that it pisses off the evangelicals 😉

  53. Babylon's Dread says:

    As for the “young woman” in Isaiah, I am pretty sure the point of that passage is not to tell us that she was a virgin. In Isaiah 7 what is at stake is the survival of Judah with enemies threatening. The prophet tells the Davidic King Ahaz to ask for a sign… he would not so a sign was GIVEN to him… the sign was about the perpetuity of the Davidic line. It was a prophetic restating of the covenant God made with David.

    David already prophesied that the “anointed” one was the “begotten” one of God, “You are my Son” Ps. 2:7. The likelihood that Isaiah understood this as an incarnation of God through a woman is slim. The reality that he saw God faithfully overseeing the covenant is sure.

    The “young woman” of Isaiah’s prophesy is the bearer of the child that assures wicked king Ahaz that is line is protected despite Ahaz’ unfaithfulness to God. “God is with us” despite the wickedness of David’s offspring but for the sake of his covenant to David the line continues and the prophecy of the birth of Immanuel guarantees it.

    We diminish the grandeur of the narrative by trying to press the wording. Matthew saw it after the fact (1:23) Isaiah saw it clearly as covenantal but dimly as per the details.

  54. The Dude says:

    Do you have the Dave Hunt collection at home? Because that line of thinking is nothing more than conspiracy theory nonsense to justify the KJV as the only official bible. Now it’s time to see my mom for the day.

  55. Michael says:


    Well done.

    The Dude…love the Dave Hunt line… 🙂

  56. Em says:

    it may have been presumptuous license to translate the word for “young woman” as virgin (Mary declared her own virginity)… but i’d like to know if “young woman” didn’t imply unmarried and respectable, i.e., waiting to “know” a man until married to one… ? ….

  57. Josh The Baptist says:

    I don’t think it is presumptuous Em. As BD pointed out, Matthew translated it as virgin in his Gospel.

  58. Babylon's Dread says:


    I think the likelihood is great that “young woman” would have meant a virgin but I doubt that it would have been thought of as without the agency of a human male. In other words, the idea of a man marrying a maiden who conceived might be in view … that God was the father and the BIRTH would be virginal is another matter.

  59. Em says:

    BD’s #53 … amen – isn’t that the most important focus? missing the point of the passage, by hanging up on the translation of one word that, as i understand it, doesn’t affect the point has to be the devil’s diversion…. dunno

  60. Michael says:

    I read the passage in Isaiah as a prophecy with a “near/far” application.

    A young woman bore a child to the continue the lineage as BD addressed…and Matthew saw the far fulfillment in a virgin bearing Jesus.

  61. Babylon's Dread says:

    @60 Spot on Near/Far

  62. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    At issue is the insistence of many that it must be translated virgin or it is a liberal translation.

    How many times have I heard “I will not allow an RSV in my home because of the way they translate virgin.” Many times

  63. Josh The Baptist says:

    It may also be worth noting that the New Testament authors were usually quoting from the Septuagint instead of from the Hebrew Text.

  64. Michael says:


    You are right on @62…

  65. Babylon's Dread says:


    Most people who say that about the RSV simply do not understand the covenant and they have been poorly instructed.

    At the same time most have had some kind of experience with someone who actually denies the virgin conception of Jesus and espouses some liberal conceptions instead.

  66. Ixtlan says:

    There is also a view that the child prophesized in Isaiah 7 is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz who is spoke of in Isaiah 8.

    Isa 8:18 Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel From the LORD of hosts, Who dwells in Mount Zion.

    Of course the far fulfillment also applies to Jesus.

    Near/far also applies to many things, including the seed and the land.

  67. Babylon's Dread says:

    @66 yes the near land was the promise and the far was the world Romans 4

  68. Josh,
    “It may also be worth noting that the New Testament authors were usually quoting from the Septuagint instead of from the Hebrew Text.”

    another thing (or question) that may be worth noting (or asking) is…
    “why would the NT writers, who were mostly ALL Hebrew or Aramaic speaking Jews of the non-scholarly persuasion,… why would they be quoting from the Greek Septuagint rather than the more readily available and, more importantly, unnecessary to translate into a language they already understand and use… Hebrew Text?”

    They and Jesus were Hebrew/Aramaic speaking, writing, and reading Jews. Why on earth would they hobble themselves by going to an imperfect Greek Translation instead of the Direct Source of Hebrew scripture and tradition?

    “Things that make you go… Hmmm” – Arsenio Hall

  69. The reason for the Septuagint was that most Jews in this Hellenistic world no longer spoke or read Hebrew.

    So it was not so easy to walk down and get your Hebrew text and know what to do with it.

  70. Josh the Baptist says:

    Bingo to MLD. So, the Septuagint translates it as virgin. Shouldn’t that be significant?

  71. mike says:

    Sorry. Don’t believe you.
    Hebrew was most probably taught and spoken in Jewish homes and synagogues during jesus’ time in palistine. Just because ‘most’ Hellen is tic Jews ‘may’ have spoken and transacted business in Greek and Aramaic doesn’t mean jesus and the writers of the Nwe testament were ignorant or non conversant in hebrew or Aramaic in their personal especially religious lives.
    Can you really see Saul of Tarsus, pharisee. Of pharisee, not speaking or using hebrew and ‘prefering’ greek? How bout jesus? God of the universe and Judaism specifically…. greek and not speaking, writing or teaching his disciples the first language of the Holy bible?
    Has to be another reason out there than the silent evidence for their ignorance of Hebrew and preference of the septuagint over the traditional hebrew bible of the Jews.
    What say you all? Or is it circular reasoning.

  72. Xenia says:

    The reason for the Septuagint was that most Jews in this Hellenistic world no longer spoke or read Hebrew<<<

    This is the truth.

  73. Xenia says:

    This verse helps:

    But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law… Gal. 4:4

    The “fullness of time” happened to be a time in history when the greatest empire of the day, which included what we now call Israel, had safe roads (no brigands), save seas (no pirates) and an extensive communication system. This “fullness of time” included a language, Greek, which was flexible and so nuanced that it had the vocabulary to express subtle philosophical ideas such as “logos.”. Sorry, Hebrew wasn’t up to the task. Hebrew and all it represented was in many ways passing away from the scene. We should not find it incredulous that God in His wisdom sent His Son at this very time and place. Seriously, if Hebrew were the main language of the people of Jesus’ day Christianity would never been more than a quaint Jewish cult.

  74. Em says:

    “Seriously, if Hebrew were the main language of the people of Jesus’ day Christianity would never been more than a quaint Jewish cult”

    when Professor Xenia is talking history i listen… but the above …?…

    oh wait… because no one else in the world spoke Hebrew?

    God truly uses the flow of history – i’ll bet there are those who would explain away God as an accident of history….. sad delusion

  75. Xenia says:

    Em, right. I don’t know if Christianity would have broken out of Israel if St. Paul, for example, only spoke and wrote in Hebrew. Who read Hebrew? Hardly even many Jews in those days, otherwise, there would have been no need to translate the Jewish Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint.

    But I think Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic.

  76. Mike,
    I would guess that you don’t see Judaism as a new religion that came out of the captivity with only a whisper of connection to the children of Israel – who had a different use and intention for the Hebrew scriptures.
    A new religion that replaced the temple with synagogues, replaced the priesthood with rabbis and replaced the sacrifices with reading the law … who would later replace the Hebrew scriptures with a Greek translation.

    So we differ over language.

  77. Xenia says:

    Even the development of synagogue worship was part of “the fullness of time” because the Church is based on synagogue worship. It could not be patterned after Temple worship because that was centered of the physical, one-of-a-kind Temple and was too entirely OT. But synagogue worship was very easily adapted by Christians into the typical liturgical church service still practice today by many Christian groups.

    Just another example of Christ coming at just the right time.

  78. Bob says:


    If you do some research you will find Hebrew, the ancient kind, was / is considered the “language” of God. Why? Because it was this language in which the finger of God wrote on the first set of tablets. It is also the language Paul speaks about whethe says, “though I speak with the tongues of men and angels…”

    In the day, 2nd Temple period, many of the Jewish people spoke Hebrew. Aramaic, and Greek. The Greek is generally agreed to be the language of trade and commerce of the known world. It is correct the Hellenistic Jews probably spoke a lot of Greek because they were considered the more worldly ones by their more religious brothers. Additionally not all the Jews who had returned from the diaspora spoke Hebrew.

    In general the most religious, well educated in Torah, Pharisaical and Galiliean Jews largely spoken Hebrew, but not necessarily as a primary language. An example of this language’s reverence can be read in Acts when Paul stands and gives his testimony to those have come to condemn him.

    While I tend to disagree with Xenia that orthodox practice is based on ancient synagogue gatherings, she is right about the Greek language and the advantage it had in spreading the Gospel outside of the Jewish people. She is correct in that Temple sacrifice was limited to Jerusalem and is not a model for weekly meetings of the faithful.

  79. The ancient liturgy as still practiced by many of us comes right out of the synagogue service.

    My point earlier @76 was that Judaism was a newly created religion and was not a biblical one. They had no scriptural permission to begin synagogues, no biblical permission to commission rabbis and although they were kept away from the sacrifice system by God himself, they were not given scriptural permission to substitute something for sacrifices.

  80. Bob says:

    No scriptural permission?

    Wow, that’s an interesting take.

    The idea of knowing scripture, meeting on sabbath as a family and community, having a central place of community, elders teaching scripture, using the tithe to feed the poor and feast, ….

    No commission to commission rabbis and yet Paul declares a system to the Gentiles which is very similar if not directly modeled after the system used in the day.

    Dude you’re bending history and speaking from outside lookin in on this ” new religion.”

    Based on your statements you might agree with the critics of Paul that he is the author of Christianity and not Jesus.

    BTW. Most of what you just said is out right out of what one of our local Missouri Lutherans teach in his catechism class to new Lutherans.

  81. Bob, I don’t get your view – are you saying if someone came to Moses and said “we are by passing the temple worship and going to meet in our own tent / synagogue and we have no need for the priesthood but have commissioned our own teachers / rabbis – AND by the way, those sacrifices are too bloody so we will substitute our own prayers and scripture readings” – are you saying that the earth would not have opened and swallowed those people up?
    But that is what came back from captivity with this new religion called Judaism.

    Point 2 – have you never wondered why God never returned to the Temple after the return from captivity?

    Point 3 – I am glad to hear that there is at least one pastor in your neck of the woods who knows what the heck he is talking about – they are quite rare anymore 🙂

  82. Bob says:


    The Temple worship, sacrifice system, ended a multitude of times in Jewish history and the current synagogue “religion” you mention was a result of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This is a historic fact and not debated. What you are proposing is basically foolishness and ant-Semitic in its intent.

    You fail to either understand or properly separate the the establishment of community synagogues as a place prayer and worship, learning the Torah and the continuity as a people. If you would do might better understand their community and traditions. You also could even getter a better understanding of many of the NT teachings from Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John …

    You often claim (or at least imply) representative of Jews who convert to Christianity, but I find your understanding below many of the secular, non-religous Jews I personally know.

    Point 2 – Because Jesus’ sacrifice is the complete and perfect sacrifice! With that in mind can you point out to us which of the Temple sacrifices (covered through Jesus’ death) is attributed to the covering of “all” sin, not just the accidental/unknowing ones covered by the daily sacrifices? Of course it really doesn’t matter as one just receives Him, does it? (There’s at least one chapter dedicated entirely to it in the NT)

    Point 3 – I thought you’d like that!

  83. Bob says:


    I may have missed your point 2, did you mean after Babylonian captivity? If so why was the curtain torn when Jesus died and the people received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in the Temple area? Check out the holiday and what Jewish people considered about it in the day. Oh and they still feel the same about Pentecost today.

    If you meant after 70 AD, that is another thing.

    Or are you referring to that Roman guy who claims to have entered the Temple and said there was noting there?

    The Jewish history and traditions are very rich and for you to sum it up as a “new religion” is just disingenuous and misleading to those who hear such things.

    “Rushing wind flow through this vessel…”

  84. Bob says:

    “nothing there” not noting

  85. 1.) the synagogue system came back with Jews after the captivity – it was not some 1st century invention – alas Rabbis on the scene before the 1st century.
    1a.) I noticed you skipped over whether Moses would have given permission
    1b.) You pretty much show you have no defense when your defense is to call someone anti semitic.

    2.) God did not return to the temple after the captivity. The curtain was torn to show that God was not there. Jesus’ presentation at the temple in Luke 2 was the return of God to the temple

  86. xenia says:

    From what I have read, the synagogue system arose in captivity out of necessity and continued after the return as a parallel to temple worship. People couldn’t make it to the temple in Jerusalem regularly, maybe just a few times a year. So there were both: synagogue and temple worship until 70 AD with people attending the temple services as they were able. After 70 AD they were left with only their synagogues. I would hesitate to call this a new religion but it certainly wasn’t the same as temple worship in King Solomon’s day.

    The first Christians went to both as well, worshiping along with the regular Jews, until they were no longer welcome and formed their own services patterned after the familiar
    synagogue liturgies which lent themselves very well to Christianizing. The Eucharist was a separate meeting in the early days, apparently combined with the Agape meal. Eventually the synagogue-type service and the Eucharist service were combined.

  87. xenia says:

    The point of this little rabbit trail was to show that the good Roman roads, the elegant Greek language and the very adaptable synagogue system all contributed to the “fullness of time.”

  88. Em says:

    great reading this a.m. – thank you, Xenia, MLD and Bob

    #85 – the curtain inside the temple was torn in two to show that God wasn’t there? maybe, but i prefer to think that it signified that the crucifixion of Christ removed the barrier (sin) that separated us from approaching God (and, perhaps, His approaching us?)

  89. Bob says:


    Thanks good simple explanation.


    You are the only one who makes grand broad statements against Jewish traditions and such. What does that make you?

    Did Moses teach community worship, teaching, local judging, and more? Yep! You’re snarcky remarks hold zero weight and are dishonest in reality.

    BTW how about that Roman official who entered the Temple? What did he say he saw or didn’t see and when did he do it?

  90. xenia says:

    Until the crucifixion, I don’t know that Moses would have found temple worship as practiced in those days too different and I can’t imagine why he would object to weekly liturgical non – sacrificial synagogue services where the scriptures were studied.

  91. Linda Pappas says:


    I really appreciate what you have taken upon yourself to share regarding the Jews regarding worship, community life, and the Temple.

    Initially, it was a shock to me to hear what others to be true about these things. No wonder there is little awareness and understanding along with the respective position taken towards the Old and New Testament. I had no idea that these perspective existed in the church—-good to read that there is at least one person that has it right.

    The tearing of the veil had to do with no longer needing a mediator between God and His People by way men in the priesthood. See Hebrews on this. For there is only One Mediator between God and His People.

    The Temple was in Jerusalem, but synagogues of varying sizes were set up throughout Israel for people to come together on a regular, if not daily basis, along with learning from the teachers (Rabbits), as they were told to do per scripture. The Temple was rebuilt after some of the Bablylonian exiles were permitted go back to the land that God had given them, for the specific purpose of rebuilding the Temple and settling the land. Remember, Nehemiah——

  92. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    “BTW how about that Roman official who entered the Temple? What did he say he saw or didn’t see and when did he do it?”

    I have no idea who the Roman is you are talking about.

    “You are the only one who makes grand broad statements against Jewish traditions and such.” Hmmm, I would assume that you are one who rejects church traditions as the traditions of man – but somehow you protect the traditions of the Jews – I guess we now see the radical effects of Christian Zionism

  93. Linda Pappas says:

    Heb ch. 8

    1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

    2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

    3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

    4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

    5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

    6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

  94. Em says:

    #87 – i have this mental picture of Satan (i don’t dwell on it) absolutely going out of his mind as he tries to outwit and circumvent God… every piece (nations?) he moves on the chess board only works toward the fulfillment of the plan of God

  95. xenia says:

    It’s commonly believed that the Ark of the Covenant disappeared when Judea went into captivity and Solomon’s temple was destroyed and the treasures plundered. It is also commonly believed that since the newly- built temple didn’t have the Ark, the Shekinah Glory never returned. There are scriptures that hint at this, I think? Anybody remember?

    Where the Ark ended up is a fascinating subject. Heaven? In Jeremiah’s Cave under Golgotha? Ethiopia?

  96. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    xenia – watch Indiana Jones – it’s all laid out in that movie – 😉

  97. Linda Pappas says:

    Rabbits—-should be Rabbis

    or see Rabbi – Wikipedia for a more objective and less modern view of Judaism and Jews history and so forth.

  98. Linda Pappas says:

    Hebrew 9

  99. xenia says:

    Jesus participated in both temple and synagogue worship and didn’t object to being called rabbi.

    So my conclusion from all this is that God encouraged synagogue worship because He had plans for it when the Christians needed a format for church.

  100. Linda Pappas says:

    Hebrews 9

    Sorry 🙂

    We no longer need a priest to stand between us and God. We now have direct access into the Holy of Holies—–Through the final and perfect, unblemished sacrifice of the Lamb’s Blood, that tore that veil that stood between us and once only accessible to the High Priest—we, through Jesus can go directly to the Father.

  101. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    “We now have direct access into the Holy of Holies”

    We are the Holy of Holies

  102. xenia says:

    Well, everywhere the first Christians went, and this would include the Apostles, they set up churches that followed the bishop – presbyter (priest) – deacon pattern described in the earliest church writings. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John, writes of the necessity of a Christian priesthood in the first century.

  103. Em says:

    Ephesians 4:8-12 or thereabouts…

    it seems to me – dunno – that the argument for one form of church organization is a bit impractical (God is absolute, but practical in some things … IMO) the structure within which a body of believers functions may be dependent upon the societal customs of their location? – for instance, the house churches of China seem to work

  104. Em says:

    post script to #103 … He gave some of us cats … where is our little TGIF cat? the one that lets us make our own applications… 🙂

  105. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    My original point was that the religion that went into captivity is not the one that came out. The scriptures were clear for the people of Israel of how they were to live and how they were to worship and how every detail of the relationship was to be.

    What came back from captivity was something else and was doing it differently – in a way that was not scripted. This new religion – now called Judaism made up a whole new set of rules as to how they would live, how they would worship God and how they would handle their relationship with God.

    I find nowhere in the scriptures where they were given direction from God what to do – so I must assume they started a new work on their own

    The fact that Jesus was able to work within this new system is no surprise since he was ending all Jewish systems within 30 yrs of his arrival on the scene.

  106. xenia says:

    I think like most things from the Hebrew religion, the synagogue was a shadow of things to come.

  107. Bob says:


    Agreed the Jews came out of diaspora different than they went in, but a new religion, never.

    The rest of what you wrote is just pure fabrication by those who either don’t know, heard it from the grapevine, know and apply their much later synchronized traditions or just hated the Jews and are looking for more justification for such stuff.

    The reason why the Jews came back and became so passionate for following scripture is because they didn’t want another diaspora. In a very short sentence that is part of the history.

    Did you know modern Jews added a 614th commandment? Never again! Think about it.

  108. Em says:

    don’t want to take the time to search, but i think MLD is correct about the Jews that came out of the Babylonian captivity… possibly it all began back with the Syrian invasion?
    i find the whole remnant thing fascinating… a kind of spiritual DNA or something… it’s almost like a migrating flock that somewhere in the flow are some carriers of a trait that isn’t visible, but is not in the whole herd… just pondering… prone to wander, myself

  109. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    You tell a story that even the Jews don’t tell. The fact that 90% of the Jews did not wish to return after the captivity should tell you something.

    But you can hold your view – we live in a country where no one is going to jail.

  110. mike says:

    “He came to his own and his own received him not”
    Pretty much settles it for the supposition and assertion that the ‘religion’ that came out was a different one than went in.
    Just my sense though. Mileage may vary.

  111. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I never said they were a different people. So, he came for his people and they rejected him – why? because they were of a different religion.

    People who were the sons of Israel, the Hebrews would have recognized and accepted Messiah – Jews, not so much

  112. Bob says:


    “The fact that 90% of the Jews did not wish to return after the captivity should tell you something.”

    Where the h*** did that comment and idea come from?

    Do you spend time analyzing just to find some sort of snarky response?

    Do you understand how the Pharisaical movement began? Do you understand the history beyond the snarky comments you make?

    To put it another way, the Pharisaical (and the associated rabbinic) movement began out of the desire to follow the Torah and traditions so as not to be assimilated and lost as a people again.

    BTW tell me and every one else why and what the reason was these numbers didn’t return.

    Dream something else up please…

    Oh the 614th commandment is very recent history. Think about it.

  113. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Count the numbers who went into the captivity. figure out a death rate and a birth rate over 70 yrs … 2 generations and then count the number who went back to Jerusalem. If you come up with a more accurate number of the return, perhaps 12.6% then we will use your number. 🙂

    The reason? they were assimilated into the Persian culture – they were very comfortable and many just didn’t want the effort. They had their new found synagogues and rabbis and had no need for temple worship.

    When you speak of the “Pharisaical (and the associated rabbinic)” you are talking 400 – 500 years later than what I am talking about. I am pointing out what came out of Babylon and you are talking about what developed 400 years later.

    I never said that the new Judaism religion wouldn’t one day want to become a bunch of Pharisees – but just look how they abused the Law since it did not come naturally.

  114. Bob says:


    Boy you just keep moving the target. The Pharisaical movement is part of the progression of the people returning to the land, the various political movements and rebellions all led up to it. And I think you called that movement, somewhere back there, a different religion.

    Do you want a time line?

    You basically led the way by saying the Jews of Jesus’ day, the Second Temple period, were of a different religion, one they started when they returned. Since the Pharisees are the predominate teachers and schools of thought in His day, they are at the end of this “different religion” you made up.

    Oh and the people staying and becoming assimilated, both in the past and the Greek, Hellenistic period is exactly what the Jewish history says led to the Pharisaical movement. It wasn’t just one event it was a history of events. I have too many text books and commentaries pointing that out to doubt it.

    Another religion that differed from Moses? Only in the same way your Missouri Lutheran differs in the one Luther himself taught in his day. Culture changes practice, it’s called reform in some circles, but it doesn’t change God or faith in His finished work.

    I’ve had a enough for tonight.

  115. Bob,
    “You basically led the way by saying the Jews of Jesus’ day, the Second Temple period, were of a different religion,…”

    I will go even further and include Jews up to this very day.

    Since you keep taking shots at the LCMS I will return fire and claim that you have your head stuck in the dispensational, zionist bucket and can’t see the reality out there.

  116. MLD
    Gospels are clear. Jesus participated in the Judaism of the Synagogues of His people. Grew up in them. Learned His Judaism and was a Rabbi himself of it. Accepted them as legit. Even went to and spoke up in them “ was his habit..”

    You’re just wrong and won’t admit it.

    Have you created this “Jews aren’t REALLY the same religion as went into captivity” Meme to allow you to follow in your Moniker’s footsteps of anti-Semitism and still say you’re not anti-semitic?


  117. Bob says:


    Zionist bucket, I’m good with that, but not dispensationist.

    I state unequivocally; the “church” is not the blood line of Israel or some “spiritual” Israel. We “Gentiles” are “grafted into” the rich root of Abraham and the promise made to him.

    I have zero problem differing with you on that.

    Thanks for the spar and blessings to you on this last day of the week.

  118. mike,
    You are the one who errs. Jesus also came into a broken world that was not of his making – a broken world that was 100% different than what it was created for – yet he still was able to work within it to accomplish his purpose.

    Same with the Jews – although they had forced new precepts on God’s system, to do ‘what was right in their own eyes’, Jesus was still faithful to come and work through a people.

    In other words, Jesus is the master, when given lemons he makes lemonade.
    The fact that we see the huge change, with no scriptural command or permission from a system that was wholly reliant on God’s direction, says much about this new unfaithful religion, now called Judaism that came out of Babylon.

    But hey, it’s going to be over 90 degrees here today – too hot for this. 🙂

  119. Linda Pappas says:

    “You tell a story that even the Jews don’t tell. The fact that 90% of the Jews did not wish to return after the captivity should tell you something.”

    “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel—he is the [true] God—which was in Jerusalem.”—Ezra ch. 1:1-3, NWT (see also 2 Chronicles ch. 36:22-23).

    There were 3 Aliyah during the time of captivity of the Jewish People by the Bablylonians/then Persia. The first two times, only some were permitted to return to Israel to go back into the land given to them to resettle and to rebuild the temple. Ezra – Nehemiah. Then the third time, however, many did not return because of the tremendous economic hardship there along with the intermarriage that took place while in captivity.

    Again, so much appreciate Bob, Mike, and Mindy on getting it right.

    Shalom, in Jesus

    A Christian Jew who is not ashamed of either, and so much richer and blessed in knowing Him and all those in Him.

  120. Linda Pappas says:

    The only thing that changed during this time was that they no longer had a king. Instead they had a governor, appointed by Darius, I believe. Then when the Romans took over, they appointed Jewish puppets to be a king and the things of the Temple became political as well.

  121. Linda, I think you have the players mixed up.

    “Then the third time, however, many did not return because of the tremendous economic hardship there along with the intermarriage that took place while in captivity. ”

    I thought that was my point and the point that Bob and Mike argued against when I said in my #113;
    “The reason? they were assimilated into the Persian culture – they were very comfortable and many just didn’t want the effort. They had their new found synagogues and rabbis and had no need for temple worship.”

  122. Linda Pappas says:

    ” they were very comfortable and many just didn’t want the effort. They had their new found synagogues and rabbis and had no need for temple worship.””

    This is an another assumption on your part that fits within your perception about the Jews and Judaism (Old and New Testament). This is what we are trying to get across to you, but you persist.

  123. Linda Pappas says:

    Kool overview of Nehemiah

  124. Bob says:


    What MLD is preaching about today’s Jews is a really a vey old idea, but with MLD’s spin on it. The attempt is the justification and explain various traditional doctrines and positions on the Jewish faith and its relationship to Christianity. While it is subtle, a bit more thoughtful and seemingly logical it is the same root idea which lead to the persecution of so many.

    Yes we all know many Jews never returned to what is Israel, and it is also common knowledge Jewish customs changed with cultural changes and advancements in the technowledge surrounding them. It is also true as Jewish people moved away from Jersusalem the ability to follow strictly the commandant to come to the place chosen by God for the Temple, Jerusalem, changed the way some practiced. But, the problem with MLD’s simplistic description is that it isn’t there to explain the differences it is to explain away the Jewish people and justify certain beliefs and actions against them.

    As I implied, to simply state it’s a different religion is no different than to get into discussions about which denomination or doctrine of Christianity is correct. The resulting outcome of such ideas is to say the others are wrong and therefore those people are not in God’s will. Examples are if you don’t follow this or that practice or sacrament you are not in fellowship with us or Jesus. Another are people who point to the RCC and all their extensive followers as apostate.

    What MLD has revealed is a very slippery and steep slope in his doctrine which make any discussion of such subjects more than difficult, they are impossible.

    Blessing to you on this first day of the week.

  125. Linda Pappas says:


    Thank you for clarifying the issues and the underlying causation of what has been weaved in and throughout the various schools or Christendom since the beginnings of the those who had turned their backs on the Jews. What gets me is when some don’t mind claiming the promises of the Old Testament for themselves, but think for a second it was not or does not hold any longer for the Jews. Yes, I understand how they come up with this, however, it fails me how God promises are said to now being for the very people whom He also stated for a time, their eyes would be blinded and when that time comes, He will reveal Himself to them, thus keeping those very same promises that some Christians claimed to be exclusive them only. Even in the midst of waiting upon the Meschiach to return, God, even the face of being persecuted by these who have put forth such teachings and treated the Jewish people so poorly has kept and bless them, as He as promised that He would do and is doing, as 1948 have evidenced, as well as, bringing the two houses (N/S kingdoms of Israel back together, as one in Him, although, some may be in conflict with one another—-due to lack of studying scripture).

    I am in total agreement with all that you shared and the issues that you brought forth. So much is lost when these notions are then passed onto others. So much suffering and grief being placed upon a people and their history that would open wide the gates of a deeper understanding of God and His will for us all. Tragic that such a rich heritage and legacy should be annulled or negated in the face of what Paul and Jesus did not even do.

    So more could be understood and what the Holy Spirit could do if people would reconsider this type of positioning towards those called yet made blind until the fullness of the Gentiles is completed, which may be occurring at this time.

    I will take that blessing with all seriousness and gladness of heart 🙂 Thank you.

    Shalom, in Jesus

  126. Linda Pappas says:


    Yes, I understand how they come up with this, however, it fails me how God promises are said to NO LONGER, being for the very people whom He also stated for a time, their eyes would be blinded and when that time comes, He will reveal Himself to them, thus keeping those very same promises that some Christians claimed to be exclusive them only

    How can we fault the Jews when God has blinded them–what will be closed will be closed and what will be open will be open according this His timing and in His way and according to His will, not according to man’s preferences of theological teachings.

    What more, as Paul tells us that we should not be arrogant to think that God will do as He as said for we who claim Christ, Jesus can also be cut off from the root and that if it were not for this blindness placed upon the Jews, the Gentiles would not have been given an opportunity. Along with this, should we not be even more mindful in how and in what manner we treat this branch of the root or seed of David. Even in the Old Testament we can see what the Prophets told us that God had others to know what would come of them, even though the Jewish People were in total rebellion towards God. Therefore, in being Christian, is it not for us to also treat these as well as we treat one another, in Him.

  127. Em says:

    “How can we fault the Jews when God has blinded them…”
    perhaps, collectively their pursuit of God is blind … plodding on in an unquestioning group-think: “Tradition!” 🙂
    but individually they are able to seek God – and find Him

  128. I have never seen such Zionist bigotry stated in one place as that coming from Bob and the amen chorus led by Linda.

    Your 124 from this morning is nothing but a smear to my position to somehow save your Zion centrist position. One, I never said anything about modern day jews – I spoke to the fact that the religion that went into captivity is not the religion that came out of Babylon, and i did extend it to the religion of Judaism as practiced today is not the religion of the OT by extension). You make note that this is some how my doctrinal position – I don’t know what the doctrine would be but it is in fact historical and not doctrinal.

    Lt me challenge you the way that you like to turn the tables on me – read your old testament and tell me God’s reaction anytime someone tried to change the order of worship. How about when people in the Northern Kingdom would build their own altars for sacrifice instead of going to Jerusalem? Was God pleased? Was not God in fact punitive?

    So, show me where God authorized the change in the order of worship coming out of the captivity? This should not be hard for an OT scholar like yourself to document. The question must be asked – if God was so pleased with this new religion, now called Judaism why did he not only never return to the temple, never really returned to his people and remained silent for 400 yrs until Jesus came on the scene and at that time, God reentered the temple … but for a completely different purpose. Your position takes away much from the Jesus incarnation.

  129. Now, I also refuse to take you anti semitic charges. I know and interact on a personal and somewhat religious basis much more than you do. Ask a modern day American Jew if he is looking forward to the return of the temple sacrificial system (a Hebrew, a child of Israel should look forward to this – – but Judaism does not.) Almost to a person they will say no and at the very best, they may say “yes, but not in my lifetime.”)

    I spent Friday night with family and friends at a Jewish wedding with a guy I grew up with – our mothers have been best friends since they were pregnant with their first babies (my 69 yr old brother and her 69 yr old daughter). Now this was quite the proper Jewish wedding, the guys all wore kippahs, they were married under the chuppah, we ate, we drank, we hugged, we kissed, we danced and we told many dirty jokes. What is there not to love about Jewish people?

    I will bet you have never done any of that with such intimacy – so watch who you call out.

    To think that God thinks that today’s Judaism is anymore acceptable in his sight that Hinduism or Islam is living on some strange planet.

  130. I don’t think folks understand “the blindness” (although Em comes close)

    There is no forced blindness – it come by choice. Look at it this way, if there was a actual blindness on Jews, how did me, The Apostle Peter, The Apostle Paul and Marty Goetz escape? Are we out of God’s will because we broke out of the blindness and became Christians?

  131. Michael says:


    That was very well done and the lack of venom was very helpful.
    Your # 128 is pretty decisive.

  132. Bob says:


    “I have never seen such Zionist bigotry stated in one place as that coming from Bob ”

    You know MLD, your words are considered by many as extremely political and inflammatory. They are venomous, regardless of Michael says, and reflect your outer and inner being and position on the Jewish people today and in the past.Whether it be Jew, Muslim, racist, gender or even Evangelicals, you demonstrate a timeless attitude of arrogance and self confidence that Paul himself warns about in the the letter to the Romans.

    Then you make broad brushed personalized statements like this, “I know and interact on a personal and somewhat religious basis much more than you do” and this, “I will bet you have never done any of that with such intimacy.” All with little basis of knowledge to make such.

    Additionally, when offended you revert to political buzz words like “Zionist bigotry” and personal attacks and yet you really don’t know my real position on the subject. What might you yell next, only God knows that and your words continually reveal what is in your soul.

    Then you attack with bizarre and unsupported statements like this to defend yourself, “To think that God thinks that today’s Judaism is anymore acceptable in his sight that Hinduism or Islam is living on some strange planet.”

    Sadly it’s not just Bob, or Linda who you set your eyes on with such hatred, it is anyone who challenges your personal circle of ideas.

    Shame on you!

    May God give you a good eye for those whom you belittle and demonstrate your personal religious bigotry and arrogance to.

  133. “and personal attacks and yet you really don’t know my real position on the subject. ”

    Isn’t it funny – I leave no doubt about my position and yet it seems you have trouble expressing yours. I won’t go as far as to say you purposely change your position but heck, why do you think I don’t know your REAL position? The trouble is, I do know your REAL position – I have seen it worn by a thousand Zionist. (which you admit to being)

    Look, put all your personal stuff aside and answer the question / address the issue.
    1.) The religion that went into Babylon was not the same that which came out
    2.) Where is the scriptural mandate / permission / instruction to change the order of worship?
    3.) I base my idea that God was not pleased with this new religion now called Judaism by the fact that he did not return to the temple and remained silent for 400yrs.
    (re read my statement @ 128 – you have not addressed a one)

    Where is my political statement within those boundaries? Stick with the issue and answer – as I said, an OT scholar such as yourself should have no problem backing up with scripture the authorization to have synagogues, rabbis and replace sacrifices with prayer and reading to the Law.

    Come on, play nice – You have the nerve to address my attitude as political or inflammatory all at the same time as inferring I am anti semitic — laughable.

  134. One last thing – when you say;
    “Then you attack with bizarre and unsupported statements like this to defend yourself, “To think that God thinks that today’s Judaism is anymore acceptable in his sight that Hinduism or Islam is living on some strange planet.”

    Are you saying God is actually more pleased with Judaism than he is with Islam or Hinduism or are you just saying you didn’t like my statement being made?

    Also, one last other thing 🙂 – in all my posts i have never said anything bad or distructive about any particular or personal Jew – all fine people who have every right (and i mean this sincerely) to hold a non Christian religion – to me, no harm no foul, it’s their choice.

  135. And I must mention, we did the Chair Dance

    This is not the wedding i was at, but the dancing is the same

  136. ? says:


    Did you share the gospel with anyone at the wedding?

  137. Bob says:


    All your wedding rhetoric doesn’t cover the “Zionist bigotry” comment and heart behind it.

    Here is a video about it:

    You sound more like Khalid Yasin, with every word you write about the subject.

    I’m sorry the only justification you can have for such words is not good.

    Not even liking baseball makes up for such comments

  138. Bob says:

    The discussion on the OT and the history of the Jewish people is kind of out the door when the reasoning and color of the background intents behind your ideas is so clear. We will never be able to cross the gulf you have established and it is best to just let it die.

  139. ?
    No, and for good reason.
    Mark 6 “And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”

    I spent close to the first 20 yrs of being a Christian breaking relationships with my Jewish family and friends by continually working them for the gospel. One day i realized that this was doing more harm than good … so I stopped and figured that some other Christian would need to ‘witness’ to my family and if the opportunity opened I would witness to their family who wouldn’t listen to them.

    Also, I think there are places where you keep your religious views to yourself – and someone else’ wedding just may be that place.

  140. Bob,
    Look, I would run and hide too if I had no answers as to why they came out of captivity a different religion – but to keep using anti antisemitism as your excuse is really juvenile.

    Look, just answer why God never returned to these Jewish people? – that should be simple enough.

    There is no gulf – history and even the biblical accounts are on my side. You believe in a rewritten Jewish history – as I said the other day, one that even Jews do not promote.

  141. Em says:

    today, i am most interested in who Israel (the present geographic one) picks for their leader tomorrow … so much national intrigue going on … why did Clinton and now Obama have such animosity toward Netanyahu? so much intrigue – so much we don’t know goin on – i like the history of these people… so much intrigue, so much to ponder…

    we don’t know much and, yet, we hope for the drama to play out according to where we think we are in time… i don’t know exactly what “pray for the peace of Jerusalem means,” but i pray for the peace and salvation of a people who are in a really scary time and place… we can’t be dogmatic as to what God is doing now – how close we are to the end… i’ve found it hard to pray for Arabs, but i hear some are accepting that their salvation is in Christ in these ugly times… i’ll just watch the drama as best i can and ponder

  142. Bob says:


    Why is it you are the only one who writes stuff like this here:

    ” as your excuse is really juvenile.”

    Then you pre-load the discussion by stating this:

    “if I had no answers as to why they came out of captivity a different religion ”

    I said they didn’t come out a different religion and it was your view that says they did. I have nothing to defend you are the one who has to prove it is a different religion.

    BTW can you remind ? that you were never a “religious Jew.” I seem to remember your testimony here on PP saying something to that point. I could be wrong (I know you believe that anyway) but I remember you explaining that you were pretty much a secular Jew.

    Our “wrangling” is only accomplishing bad stuff so just drop it and think about how wrong I am.

  143. What is a “religious Jew.” – I grew up going to synagogue and Hebrew school – my family until my mid teens kept some of the holidays. We did Chanukah and not Christmas.

    Like most teens and young adults, even christians we walk away from the faith of our parents. Oh, and i am circumcised religiously and not just by the doc in the hospital but the mohel – make your own application.

  144. xenia says:

    Temple worship was restored after the captivity, though. Synagogue worship was added but I don’t see how that made it a completely different religion since they were offering animal sacrifices. After 70 AD of course, when the synagogue was all that remained to them, yes, it was a different religion.

  145. Michael says:

    The charges of anti -Semitism are over the top.
    Because good people disagree on the Israel doesn’t mean one side is necessarily anti-Semitic.

  146. xenia says:

    If I were a believing Jew today, that is, someone who believes in God and the Torah, I would lie awake at night wondering why I could no longer practice the most important part of my religion, that is, the animal sacrifices, without which none of the rest seems to make sense. I would be especially bothered that this was taken from me right after the appearance of the Person the Christians claim is the Messiah. Why did God allow my religion to be effectively destroyed with the arrival of this Jesus? And why has all history conspired to prevent us from rebuilding our temple even now, when we are in the land again?

  147. Neo says:

    Xenia….I used to think that would be the case. Now, I hypothesize that I would chalk it up to evolving religion….that which used to be barbaric and bloody is now metaphoric and sanitized…. different times and a different age. This is how I would also reconcile the Canaanite wars and Abraham’s near child sacrifice. The slaughter of babies in Canaan, the son tied to an altar, and the slitting of throats of sheep would no longer be difficult for me to pooh-pooh (lol, sorry for that term, just had to use it). Yes, this is concern to me in my Christian Faith as I fight more than ever to hold the above as literal and God ordained (sheep notwithstanding). Just my thoughts.

  148. Michael,
    “Because good people disagree on the Israel doesn’t mean one side is necessarily anti-Semitic.”

    This is still a back handed slap- Disagreeing about Israel does not mean anti antisemitism at all. Antisemitism is something different altogether.

  149. Bob says:


    The arguments and accusations used by MLD are not new and historically return us to a day of injustice done to humanity. Even his blurting comment about Zionist is in line with those who don’t just disagree with Israel being a political nation. That comment means far more in today’s world, they are often spoken by those who want to see the extinction of the Jewish people.

    It just isn’t about the legitimacy of Israel at all.


    Good comment.



  150. Neo – evolving religion is exactly how we ended up with women pastors and homosexuals in the pulpit and no sin. Take it from a Lutheran who sees it in the ELCA. That was their exact excuse – the 1st 10 chapters of Genesis were storytelling metaphors, the book of Jonah was allegorical, Joshua’s long day was not true and miracles were all in question.

    Their line – God used those stories with stupid people (my term, but accurate) who could not digest truth.
    If God were to speak today, his words would be what forms and informs the ELCA and all others who have given up the faith.

  151. Michael says:


    His arguments may be old, but you still haven’t answered them.

    To infer he is in league with people wanting the genocide of the Jews is slanderous and frankly…I’m not going to tolerate it.

    He is a cranky Lutheran and a real pain in the ass at times, but I see nowhere here where he has gone beyond the boundaries of civil discussion.

    You have.

  152. Bob,
    You have your head so far into the Zionist bucket it’s ridiculous. First you must remember I started by referring to you and yours as Christian Zionist. You are very much in line with that wacko preacher out of Texas John Hagee and his buddy David Barton. A Christian Zionist is a different breed from your run of the mill Zionist.

    Fact – most jews by far are NOT Zionists and actually hate Zionists. This is what Israel’s election is all about as Bibi is a Zionist.

  153. Michael says:

    Xenia @146…good stuff.

  154. I don’t know what is so odd about my views – I am not against Israel as a nation, in fact I wish we would just let them “fix” that area of the world the way they handled Iraq’s nuclear plant 30 yrs ago. The Jewish religion is rejected by 70% of Jews living in Israel as they are secular in their religious views.

    I have never advocated harm to the nation Israel and I have never created fear or harm to any individual or group of Jews. I freely associate with them, and I call several of them mom, dad, brother aunt, uncle etc.

    I think Bob’s accusations make light of antisemitism.

  155. Michael says:


    I’ll take it a step farther.
    I do believe that God isn’t finished with Israel.
    I think that’s pretty clear in Romans 9-11.
    However, I need to wrestle with the questions you pose and I think that clear theological questions are a gift to me.
    Bob’s mileage may vary.

  156. Bob says:


    I can’t have a civilized discussion with a man who confines to say the the things he does. Zionist bucket, whacko preacher, Hagee, Barton? Compared to his name calling I’m a very civilized person.

    These aren’t rants from a cranky old Lutheran.

    I respect you and it’s your site, but MLD. He answers his own points.

    But thank you for allowing the forum and moderating when required.

  157. Em says:

    interesting point… Netanyahu is a Zionist (among other things)… will Zionism change as his generation dies out? there is a determined idealism – “never again, never, never again” – that is inferred by the term and will that idealism give way to pragmatism, i wonder? we shall see

  158. Bob says:


    I pose no theological questions to ponder. I originally challenged MLD essentially with making up the new religion idea. There is nothing defensible to his idea and yet he poses the statement and question in a way similar to the attorney asking the question, “when did you stop beating your wife?”

    MLD makes the statement as if it is the burden for others to disprove it and therefore legitimizing it by doing so. There is no burden nor need to disprove what is clearly false and made up by his or someone else’s imagination.

    My burden, however, is the intent and meaning behind his statement. You have expressed great passion for the injustice done to the people of Mexico and yet MLD’s statements are along the same vein in which 6 million people along with the crippled, homosexual and other undesirables were mudered. The 614 th commandment is what EM said, never again…

    I will never stand to be a part of either a religion, denomination, cult or atheistic thought, which in any way, directly or indirectly, implied or said without remorse, such things that lead to the slippery slope of inhumanity.

    Additionally MLD’s trite comments about knowing and having Jewish friends is patronization at its best. His stating how many Jews reject Judaism today is no different than the statistics used when explaining the percent of Christians in the USA today. Neither of which have any bearing on those who have faith and love God

    In the end all theological issues come down to very simplistic things, how one Loves God and extends that love to others. For me I chose to never forget the injustice and muderers done to the millions with the backing of people who should have known better. Should the next generation forget and or chose to ignore those lesson, well may God have mercy on their souls.

    Thank you again Michael, but it is not a theological issue.

  159. Em says:

    it is the unbelieving Jews who have vowed “never again…,” as a Christian i can only pray for that nation – what i understand of prophesy, the nation has much terror and sorrow ahead – imminent, if we are approaching the Day
    like MLD, i think that, as a nation, today we are fools to not support the strong minded and tough Jews over there… but history is God’s show and His timing

    God keep all close

  160. Bob,
    So now it comes out. One cannot say that Jews are wrong theologically without also being blamed for killing 6 million of them. Obviously you cannot witness to them without first establishing that they are in error. or do you just passover when they deny tha Jesus is who he says he is?

    In your effort to be ‘non theological’, you have once again proved my thought that rapture theology people believe that Jews get a free pass to heaven by the fact they are Jews and not through Jesus Christ.- don’t feel bad, you are not alone.

    I need to correct you – I did not say Jews reject Judaism – I said, and I quote – “The Jewish religion is rejected by 70% of Jews living in Israel as they are secular in their religious views.” – I said the religion, not the customs and traditions. – FACT , 70% of the Jewish population in Israel is secular / atheistic / non religious – they too reject the Jewish “religion”.

    Now I can sleep.

  161. Linda Pappas says:

    Don’t know why my post is being kicked out so am attempting to post by sectioning what I have to say.

    MLD—other than your family and their friends, what Jewish people and Christian Jews have to sat down and talked with to learned from them. MLD, in all seriousness and not to be taken as an offense, but if you spoke of Judaism and Faith in terms of what you have spoken here to us, I would seriously wonder that any Jew would have any desire to discourse with you on this.

  162. Linda Pappas says:

    Bob said nothing of the sort—why do you act as though you are offended when in truth it is you that have been quite offensive but even more so in gross error with your attempts to weave a maze by hopping from one unrelated thought after another, then claim that Bob have not answered you. He did answered you and also told you basically he wasn’t going to entertained these rabbit trails that you have a propensity to use as attempt befuddle what you seem to perceive as being an opponent to Christianity.

  163. Linda Pappas says:


    As for Judaism changing after 70 AD—No, not really–there is more to Judaism than being able to sacrifice in the Temple. As for it changing once returning from their Bablylonian/Persian Captivity, nope–not then either. Now a huge change took place during the age of enlightenment, as it also did in Christianity. Each became more liberal in their theology, but not all in the faith of Judaism or Christianity did well, that is not any more than “all” follow state run “orthodox, reformed, or other offshoots of the same. Unfortunately, those that would destroy did so in one form or another of a “final solution.” Like or not, that’s history, and part of the that history regardless of how earnestly people would like to color the Jewish people, thus also denigrating and putting to naught that they are God’s Chosen people, the fact remains He also opened the doors for them to return to the land given to them as was prophesied and had nothing to do with the Aliyah of Babylon.

    As in Christianity, there were various sects of the Jews—that would pervert Judaism to make it more acceptable to the culture and political agendas. As for Rabbis, Jesus was referred to Rabbi (teacher). Even as a boy, he went to the Temple to teach, to shed a deeper insight upon the things of God, the Laws, and our relationship to Him as His people, and the things the prophets taught and spoke.

    As for the Northern Kingdom, they did not want to go to Jerusalem to sacrifice due to the conflict they had with the King of Judah at that time. Yet, they did not want to not sacrifice at all. Nevertheless, God said no, but they did it anyways. Didn’t change the Jewish faith, just meant they were doing more and more their own way. This still did not change Judaism or those in faith. God made a promise to the Jews that He would bring both kingdoms back together as One in Him

  164. Linda Pappas says:

    Here’s a link about Anti-Semitism:

    God was not quiet while they were in Babylon—-He never left His people, He only permitted them to be taken captive and to be disbursed throughout all the nations He was very much present with them no matter where they were, but during this time, we can read about Daniel, Ester, and so many others. I cannot help but think about how God having his people in captivity not only served as a witness to others of Him in light of the pagan gods which they worshipped. We see this in the stories of their captivity in the Old Testament.

    In all of this we, as Christians can learn so much from them—not in terms of what MLD would put forth, but in term of their history and Gods faithfulness towards them in spite of their disobedience, rebelliousness, and often due to the faith of just one standing in the gap on their behalf.

  165. ? says:


    I applaud you for staying with MLD on topic.
    I am a Jew by both parents.
    The issue to me is not whether or not Jews adhere to OT Judaism since salvation was always based on faith and no one could keep the law anyway.
    What about the letters to the Corinthians?
    Did God reject them because they were is obedient?
    Didn’t they know Christ?
    The issue is whether He made a covenant He will fulfill.
    I believe that thread is woven through both OT and new.

    Btw that first link was very educational.
    To think that is going on..had no idea.
    Those defending Gods plan getting arrested and those trashing Israel allowed to riot.

    If you haven’t already, visit the Museum of Jewish history in NYC.
    As hoards of people visit the statue of liberty nearby, it was empty when I was there.
    One of the best museums for understanding antisemitism from the beginning of time.

    The Jewish people rejecting Jesus is no different than anyone else rejecting Jesus.

  166. Yet God had been silent to the Jewish people for almost 500 yrs. The Holy of Holies remained vacant until an angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah.

    ? says – “The Jewish people rejecting Jesus is no different than anyone else rejecting Jesus.”

    This has always been my point – Jews are no closer or further away from God than anyone one else who rejects Christ – they are in the same boat worshiping false Gods. Yet I am the anti semite.

    My niece is a Holocaust scholar and one of the few who still travels the world looking for Holocaust survivors to chronicle their stories so they are not lost. She relocates for up to a year at a time to Germany, Poland, Israel and the eastern seaboard to search records and track down people.

  167. Linda asked if i talk with Jews beyond family and friends. Interesting question – can you REALLY talk to strangers?

    But the answer is yes – I used to dialogue with Tovia Singer and his organization on a regular basis , both formally and informally (I was on Tovia’s radio show a couple of times in the late 90s. Perhaps you have heard of them Jews for Judaism – they are the anti missionary group that in the days would offer an alternative to Jew against Jews for Jesus.

  168. Perhaps we should look at what Jews think of Christian Zionism. I may be reading between the lines, but I think they feel the CZs are the anti semites.

  169. xenia says:

    Linda, of course Judaism radically changed, by necessity, after 70 AD. You seem to be saying that the sacrificial system was of secondary importance and the Jewish religion is the same without it. Surely you can make your point without resorting to absurdities.

  170. Em says:

    #160 – “…you have once again proved my thought that rapture theology people believe that Jews get a free pass to heaven by the fact they are Jews and not through Jesus Christ….”


    don’t know bout “rapture theology people”… but the theory of the 7 years of intense tribulation upon the planet with the Church, at some point (I buy the before-the-bowls-o- God’s-wrath are emptied onto the planet theory) has a whole lot of people who do not see the Jews getting a “free pass”

  171. Linda Pappas says:


    You misunderstood. I never said it changed nor did I say the sacrificial system became less important to them at that time.

    Perhaps a better way of putting this. The Jews were scattered, driven out of their homeland having to leave and no longer having access to the Temple, but this did mean they left their faith in God (for those who believed) or that they ever gave up their hope and prayers in returning to Israel and to rebuild the Temple to resume this part of their faith. Please keep in mind also that much of their literature, including articles or instruments were destroyed thus having left a huge challenge to them in holding unto what faith they did have without being able to hear the words of the prophets, forefathers, and rabbis.

    As in Christianity, there are many shades and degree of the faith concerning Jews. We ought not judge all by the few who give ammunition to totally dismiss-anniliate that which is most valued and held in holy care and preservation by God.

  172. Xenia says:

    Linda, you said:

    “As for Judaism changing after 70 AD—No, not really–there is more to Judaism than being able to sacrifice in the Temple.”

    I assumed this meant that you do not think Judaism changed after 70 AD.

    I’ll be blunt here: It doesn’t matter what the practitioners of Judaism did or did not do after the advent of Christ. They were perpetuating what by that time had become a false, Christless religion.

    1. In the first family, Cain disqualified himself and his descendants.

    2. The godly Seth is born, but even most of his descendants are destroyed in the Flood.

    3. Among the children of the righteous Noah, only Shem and his family made the cut.

    4. Of Shem’s descendants, we are narrowed down to Abraham. The rest of the Shemites are out of the picture.

    5. From the many children of Abraham, the “people of God” are narrowed down to Isaac and his family.

    6. This is further narrowed down to Jacob. Esau and his fam on Mt. Seir are out of the picture.

    7. Of the 12 sons of Jacob, which form the nation of Israel, a division is formed: 10 idolatrous tribes of Israel in the north, 2 less idolatrous tribe of Judah in the south.

    8. All get carried away by Assyrians and Babylonians; a small percentage return. The narrowing continues.

    9. Christ is born and preaches the Good News of the Kingdom to this remnant. Most reject Him and like the descendants of Cain, Ham, Japheth, Ishmael, Esau, Gad, and Dan are shuffled off the pages of the history of the people of God.

    10. Those who do follow Christ are mostly Jews at first but their numbers are dwarfed by the huge influx of Gentile believers.

    So we can see that from the very beginning, God chose groups of people but because of unbelief, the group was continually narrowed down. The end product of this winnowing is the Christian Church, the people of God. The Church did not replace Israel, it is part of the thread of the people of God that was begun in Genesis and was never broken, just expanded to include all the tribes of the Earth.

  173. Neo says:

    WOOOOOW! Xenia that was an amazing encapsulation of Bible History! I will certainly “rip that off’ from you, if you don’t mind. I always have seen two ways leading from Eden; one to Babylon and the other to Jerusalem. Never though as concise as you just laid out. Bravo.

  174. Neo says:

    MLD. I’m not advocating an evolving religion. Just placing myself in the shoes of a Jew in the twenty first century. After all, not a whole lot of religions requiring animal sacrifices any longer. is there? And if there were, it would be regarded barbaric.

  175. Neo says:

    Bob, I highly value your insight and commentary on the things I have to say. Not.

  176. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Neo – I know you weren’t

    God purposely dressed the Jews funny, made them eat foods that didn’t even allow them to sit at the same table with others and gave them a bloody sacrificial system, just for the purpose to keep them separated from others.

    They came out of Babylon trying to be everybody’s buddy.

  177. Neo says:

    Keeping them separated. I like that way of looking at it. It’s true.

    Looking at the Old to the New Covenant, if one were zoomed in from another planet, it does appear to be “evolving’, does it not?

  178. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Not if one were to say that they were 2 completely different contracts 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading