/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Cuz Abraham. lol

Maybe he tried to work with every culture, but almost all of them were too focused on their pagan idols? I don't really know, but it seems the Israelites were the only ones who ditched the polytheistic pantheon and recognized that God is only one. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason is something along those lines, but I'm not gonna pretend to know what God had in mind.

God has an admiration for cunning people, and the Israelites were probably a very cunning Nation.

>>803733

In any of a number of hypothetical alternate histories, you'd be asking the same question about anyone else He might have chosen.

>>803773

I considered this, too. But why pick one among many instead of picking and choosing? I think the answer might be that actually, others had their chance but blew it. Not in the sense that there were multiple revelations through the world, but that with each generation, a number turned away from God, but God would preserve the righteous and add to the letter of the law on the account of the previous transgressions. And so humanity as a whole had their chance with Adam and blew it, and so God turned to Noah and established a covenant with him. The nations of the world had their chance and blew it, and so God turned to Abraham and established a covenant with, and so on, down to the times where the Jews were in constant transgression of the law but God would always preserve a remnant among them, despite the wickedness of the people, on account of the promise made to David.

>>803774

>But why pick one among many instead of picking and choosing?

The whole purpose of choosing Abraham was to have a line of descent that would produce the Messiah.

>>803775

You clearly haven't read the OT. Reported

Because it was a humble people, some miserable desert dwellers.

Just like He chooses to be born in the most humble of places to humble parents.

He chooses the lowest, the most devoid of material status.

>>803777

Or the NT apparently, it's sounds like a weird gnostic, anti-trinitarian theology

>>803776

What need would there be for a Messiah if people hadn't turned away from God? And do you think that Christ did besides fulfill the promise that the memory of the righteous would be preserved, by giving us eternal life?

>>803761

>>803778

I don't know if humble is a truthful judgement considering all that happened, nor that it has been true of any nation collectively or perpetually, but maybe it was strategically planned for a less powerful nation near the cradle of civilization to rise to prominence through the power of God and at the expense of some of the other kingdoms.

>>803757

>>803761

>>803774

>GOD chose the jews cause they are better

>Jesus came to cure the sick and help the lowly

>Jesus is God

>God doesnt change

As such God chose the jews because they were the lowest of the low, which is true today as it was true back then. There is no human group more cruel selfish and egocentric. The jewd need Jesus even more than the gentile.

>>803757

>Maybe he tried to work with every culture, but almost all of them were too focused on their pagan idols

Scripture tells us of Salem, a Canaanite kingdom ruled by a priest-king named Melchizedek, who worshiped the One True God even before Abraham did. It is certain that God communicated with at least one gentile nation in the ancient past, and it's likely that at one point in time He was communicating with all of them before they fell away one by one.

There's also a tradition of a Japhetic proto-Christian king by the name of Ashkenaz who lived in what is now modern day Germany, also before Abraham. This tradition makes Germanic mythology a fascinating topic; it makes you notice similarities between the stories of the Germanic myths and the wisdom of Christ, and it makes you wonder if those similarities are there because pre-historic Germanics were eagerly awaiting Christ's coming before they fell into paganism at some point.

>>803733

geography it's where 3 continents meet

>>803733

Because they're the most wicked and vile, and if they can be saved anyone can.

>>803892

Even I hate Zionists, but this is silly.

There was none of these qualities in Abraham. These are whom the promises and covenants were given. He was called the "friend of God". God didn't pick him because he was wicked and vile. He liked him because of his faith. I mean, not just the story of Isaac. He completely abandoned everything in his world (Sumer), everything he knew, and trekked East simply on faith.. because he thought their gods were false and that he heard the voice of the true God. Everything and everyone could have told him he was crazy, but he took the dive anyhow. And kept taking huge dives.

>>803921

Yeah pretty much.

The most ridiculous thing is how these people are so utterly subverted they literally think modern day yids have anything to do with the original Israelite kingdom. It's just so bizarre seeing folks run around believing their claims of descent, even while claiming to dislike and to not believe them. Yet they still, somehow, continute to believe the one central claim that these babylonian pagans are related to Abraham/Moses/David and Jesus, as does most of the other boards…

How totally debased and subverted do you possibly get to fail to question this? I ask myself this so often. But I guess to some people its all about popular opinion deciding fact. That's the result of this madness.

>>803836

False. Jesus was born toa carpenter and those guys made pretty good money even back then. Jesus wasnt poor.

>>803921

The sum of revelation tells us exactly that, though. Christ was born a Jew to a virgin mother in a cave in some backwater Roman province to a family of common stock and so on and so on. It shows us that God by deigning to dwell in the flesh chose to redeem man from the bottom up. Also, that the Jews were chosen by God not because they were the greatest but because they were the least is a common sentiment in the early Church.

>>804179

It's in that sense that we can speak of salvation as a kind of neoplatonic exit and return. God penetrates to the lowest depths of fallen creation and raises it back to him. Interestingly, this is the mystical structure of the Orthodox Jesus prayer, it starts from the top, goes to the bottom and then raises it back to the top.

>>803733

>why do you think God chose specifically to work his plan of salvation through the Israelite people?

The Israelites were never more than a third rate local power. Israel existed for a short period of 500 years and it was completely wiped out. There were many powerful empires that have come and gone that held much more power than the Israeli's and yet the religion of the Israeli's has spread through the entire world while the religions of powerful empires like Alexander the Great, Rome, etc. have vanished. Maybe that's why God chose to reveal himself to them.

I could answer this or just point you to Rom ch 2-9

He needed to give the Deposit of Faith to people who were ready for the Trinity because they knew about philosophical monotheism

>>804179

>Jesus was born in a cave

Try harder

>>803785

Hey, I wrote “cunning”, not better! :D

Being cunning is both a virtue and a vice: it’s how you use it that makes the difference. God revealed Himself to them because, for all His plan to come into fruition through acceptance or refusal of it through our free will, a Nation like the Hebrews was perfect; when He later came into the flesh in the second person of the Trinity He always outsmarted them and those who understood and humbled themselves came to form the “core” of the New Covenant and went to spread the Good News (Gospel) to all Nations and used their minds and spirits giving all to teach His faith and message.

>>804385

>moving the goal post this hard

Hold on so were Adam and Eve jews or not?

>>804377

>Try harder

The traditional birthplace is a grotto outside Bethlehem that also sheltered animals. Maybe you should try harder to not be another Protestant brainlet and actually become a Christian and learn about the Church's traditions. This goes back to at least the 2nd century:

"when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him." - St. Justin 100-165 AD

>>805119

> laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

You're doing the same thing by reading that very King James Bible (which I love too). The original manuscripts don't always give names of who wrote each book, for example. Appending "According to Matthew", "According to John", etc in their titles are also from so called "tradition". And you accept them without question. Ironically, some of these titles are partly because of that same man's witness (Justin Martyr). Yet you hypocritically accept him in one sense and condemn him in another.

Besides that, I'm not teaching you any commandments, which that scripture you quoted is about and you are taking out of context. I didn't say anything about washing pots or what you should or shouldn't do on the Sabbath. I'm telling you that are part of something bigger and the Church doesn't revolve around you. Get involved already. You could be fighting faggots, but you chose to fight Christians instead and only see them as the ones with bad faith. That's why you're a brainlet.

>>803843 Yeah, like Job was also pre abraham but was still a worshiper of God, and if I remember right, Esther wasn't jewish either

>>804030

Being 'not poor' doesn't mean rich. Nor does it mean politically influencial. Your point is moot.

>>805123

>You're doing the same thing by reading that very King James Bible (which I love too).

So you mean it isn't the commandment of God? Or am I misunderstanding?

>The original manuscripts don't always give names of who wrote each book, for example.

Not a valid example, because what doctrinal point is anyone drawing from this. Also, although I don't need to, I could just turn to John 21:24.

>And you accept them without question.

And I also speak and accept English without question, but that's also besides the point.

>Besides that, I'm not teaching you any commandments

You tied being a Christian to learning man's traditions, plus magnifying the importance of said tradition. I've singled this out as being in the same pattern as the pharisees with their own self-proclaimed oral tradition. Similar to how, in Mark 7:13, it is said that it is "their" tradition, one which they have delivered, and not found and standing against what is said in the word of God. In fact, one can't serve two masters. So to point to one master as the one supreme basis for the truth is to trash the other. Even if you admit it's fallible, even if you excuse all its faults, all you've done then is degrade both the thing you are following and the Record that you are despising in favor of it.

>I didn't say anything about washing pots or what you should or shouldn't do on the Sabbath.

Right, you are delivering your personal traditions which is no better category as the talmudic oral traditions. And it's always a personal interpretation of selected commentaries, isn't it. 2 Peter 1:20 gives that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. But this isn't true of extra things, which very things has been substituted as a basis for doctrine, in confrontation and protest against the word of God.

>I didn't say anything about washing pots or what you should or shouldn't do on the Sabbath.

It isn't the fact you dispute some detail that wasn't sought in specific detail in Scripture. I'm not arguing about details here. But it's actually that you think your choice and interpretation of a tradition is of greater importance, the principle of this, which should be singled out and questioned. I'm pretty sure you get this. Because you tried to claim I was doing the same thing.

>You could be fighting faggots, but you chose to fight Christians instead and only see them as the ones with bad faith.

I've quoted Romans 1 plenty of times. No need to dodge the subject at hand. The self should be held to a stricter standard than the other. So I don't being up unrelated matters to excuse something if that thing seems off, I deal with it. Also, I'm doing this so that others here aren't fooled into your line of thinking, not so that I can "win" an argument nor as anything else.

Also, I should add that if you don't do things the right way that you are told, your intent or what you think is you intent doesn't even matter. Just ask Cain.

All these people saying it's because they are the most evil are wrong. The Jews were not evil at the time the Old Testament was written. They became evil after they rejected and murdered their messiah.

Remember "Judaism" as we now know it is based on the Talmud and is a newer religion than Christianity.

>>804117

Unfortunately the tradition is largely ignored in Christian circles, and for the most part the only Christians who looked deeper into the subject were Germans who wrote in German. The Bible lists Ashkenaz as a grandson of Japheth. Jews have a tradition of Abraham's father having an adventure in the court of Ashkenaz, and the reason we call German Jews "Ashkenazi" is derived from the belief that Germany was the land of Ashkenaz.

There were some German scholars who delved into the topic as well throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, but since I don't speak German and their studies went mostly untranslated, I can't really tell you which works in this field are credible or what they say.

Of course, Armenians also claim descent from Ashkenaz, so it's hard to say which of these traditions is actually true, assuming either one of them is.