Acts 10:34-35; if "God does NOT show favoritism," why do some Christians?

[Kondor3]

...why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Because Christians generally like Jews much better than they do Muslims?

Contradicts Acts 10:34-35 and Heb. 8:13... -

Doesn't matter... that's the way of it...

 

[Anonymous1977]

...why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Because Christians generally like Jews much better than they do Muslims?

Contradicts Acts 10:34-35 and Heb. 8:13... -

Doesn't matter... that's the way of it...

Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical. The old thing is O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E. "That's it. Period. End of Story," to quote an old song that I really don't like .




-

 

[BluePhantom]

My other thread about this issue in the Palestine - Israel conflict was closed because the OP didn't plainly state what I meant in citing this Scripture, but if the New Testament in the Bible says that "God does not show favoritism" — and it does say that — why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Acts 10:34-35, NIV
(34)Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism (35)but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.-

Well lets me make two points;

First, we have to keep in mind the perspectives of the authors. Acts is the second part of Luke, hence the reason why scholars often refer to the two in tandem as "Luke/Acts". Scholarship is pretty universal that they were written by the same author and Acts is the continuation of Luke.

Now the gospels portray Jesus very differently between them. In Mark, Jesus is a great teacher. In Matthew, Jesus is "a new Moses" with the authority to give the correct interpretation of Torah and lead Judaism into the next phase. In Matthew Jesus came on behalf of the Jews. In John, Jesus IS God incarnate. But in Luke/Acts, Jesus is more of a philosopher who came on behalf of all mankind. Note the difference in genealogy between Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew, the author traces the ancestry of Jesus back to Abraham in cycles of fourteen generations. According to Matthew, every fourteen generations, something happens that takes Judaism into a new phase. First was the kingship of David, then the Babylonian exile, and now the coming of Jesus, the Messiah (although the author kind of screws up and gives 15 generations in the last sequence). But the point is that, in Matthew, Jesus has come on behalf of the Jews to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and usher in a new age for Judaism. You will note that, unlike the other gospels, the author of Matthew goes to great lengths to establish Jesus as the Messiah. He will write about something Jesus did and then say 'this was done in order to fulfill the prophecy that says blah, blah, blah'. The other gospels do that too, but not nearly to the extent that Matthew does.

Now the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is traced all the way back to Adam, from who came all the nations of the world. So in the scene you reference, Peter is talking to Cornelius, who is a Roman soldier, and Peter is making the point that Gentiles are welcome in the kingdom of God. This plays right down the line with the perspective of the author of Luke/Acts.So it's a story intended to convey that, through Jesus, God is available to everyone and not just the Jews.

As to modern Christians, we tend to show favoritism toward the Jews for two reasons. 1) Christianity is based on Judaism so there is a bond between the two faiths. 2) Many of the New Testament prophecies, that are the focus of Christianity, deal strongly with the survival of Israel and that means we have a common enemy in Islam extremism that seeks to destroy Israel.

 

[Anonymous1977]

My other thread about this issue in the Palestine - Israel conflict was closed because the OP didn't plainly state what I meant in citing this Scripture, but if the New Testament in the Bible says that "God does not show favoritism" — and it does say that — why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Acts 10:34-35, NIV
(34)Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism (35)but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.-

Well lets me make two points;

First, we have to keep in mind the perspectives of the authors. Acts is the second part of Luke, hence the reason why scholars often refer to the two in tandem as "Luke/Acts". Scholarship is pretty universal that they were written by the same author and Acts is the continuation of Luke.

Now the gospels portray Jesus very differently between them. In Mark, Jesus is a great teacher. In Matthew, Jesus is "a new Moses" with the authority to give the correct interpretation of Torah and lead Judaism into the next phase. In Matthew Jesus came on behalf of the Jews. In John, Jesus IS God incarnate. But in Luke/Acts, Jesus is more of a philosopher who came on behalf of all mankind. Note the difference in genealogy between Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew, the author traces the ancestry of Jesus back to Abraham in cycles of fourteen generations. According to Matthew, every fourteen generations, something happens that takes Judaism into a new phase. First was the kingship of David, then the Babylonian exile, and now the coming of Jesus, the Messiah (although the author kind of screws up and gives 15 generations in the last sequence). But the point is that, in Matthew, Jesus has come on behalf of the Jews to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and usher in a new age for Judaism. You will note that, unlike the other gospels, the author of Matthew goes to great lengths to establish Jesus as the Messiah. He will write about something Jesus did and then say 'this was done in order to fulfill the prophecy that says blah, blah, blah'. The other gospels do that too, but not nearly to the extent that Matthew does.

Now the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is traced all the way back to Adam, from who came all the nations of the world. So in the scene you reference, Peter is talking to Cornelius, who is a Roman soldier, and Peter is making the point that Gentiles are welcome in the kingdom of God. This plays right down the line with the perspective of the author of Luke/Acts.So it's a story intended to convey that, through Jesus, God is available to everyone and not just the Jews.

As to modern Christians, we tend to show favoritism toward the Jews for two reasons. 1) Christianity is based on Judaism so there is a bond between the two faiths. 2) Many of the New Testament prophecies, that are the focus of Christianity, deal strongly with the survival of Israel and that means we have a common enemy in Islam extremism that seeks to destroy Israel.

Short for time BP but Heb. 8:13 says it all...the old covenant is "obsolete:"

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.




-

 

[BluePhantom]

My other thread about this issue in the Palestine - Israel conflict was closed because the OP didn't plainly state what I meant in citing this Scripture, but if the New Testament in the Bible says that "God does not show favoritism" — and it does say that — why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Acts 10:34-35, NIV
(34)Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism (35)but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.-

Well lets me make two points;

First, we have to keep in mind the perspectives of the authors. Acts is the second part of Luke, hence the reason why scholars often refer to the two in tandem as "Luke/Acts". Scholarship is pretty universal that they were written by the same author and Acts is the continuation of Luke.

Now the gospels portray Jesus very differently between them. In Mark, Jesus is a great teacher. In Matthew, Jesus is "a new Moses" with the authority to give the correct interpretation of Torah and lead Judaism into the next phase. In Matthew Jesus came on behalf of the Jews. In John, Jesus IS God incarnate. But in Luke/Acts, Jesus is more of a philosopher who came on behalf of all mankind. Note the difference in genealogy between Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew, the author traces the ancestry of Jesus back to Abraham in cycles of fourteen generations. According to Matthew, every fourteen generations, something happens that takes Judaism into a new phase. First was the kingship of David, then the Babylonian exile, and now the coming of Jesus, the Messiah (although the author kind of screws up and gives 15 generations in the last sequence). But the point is that, in Matthew, Jesus has come on behalf of the Jews to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and usher in a new age for Judaism. You will note that, unlike the other gospels, the author of Matthew goes to great lengths to establish Jesus as the Messiah. He will write about something Jesus did and then say 'this was done in order to fulfill the prophecy that says blah, blah, blah'. The other gospels do that too, but not nearly to the extent that Matthew does.

Now the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is traced all the way back to Adam, from who came all the nations of the world. So in the scene you reference, Peter is talking to Cornelius, who is a Roman soldier, and Peter is making the point that Gentiles are welcome in the kingdom of God. This plays right down the line with the perspective of the author of Luke/Acts.So it's a story intended to convey that, through Jesus, God is available to everyone and not just the Jews.

As to modern Christians, we tend to show favoritism toward the Jews for two reasons. 1) Christianity is based on Judaism so there is a bond between the two faiths. 2) Many of the New Testament prophecies, that are the focus of Christianity, deal strongly with the survival of Israel and that means we have a common enemy in Islam extremism that seeks to destroy Israel.

Short for time BP but Heb. 8:13 says it all...the old covenant is "obsolete:"

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.




-

But you have to remember that Hebrews doesn't speak for the entire Bible. It speaks for the author of Hebrews. The author of James disagrees. The author of Mark disagrees. Paul happens to agree and at the same time argues that even though the Law is no longer binding it should not be forgotten and in certain circumstances (such as circumcision) it IS binding.. I happen to agree that it is rendered obsolete by the resurrection. But it's not quite that cut and dried. You can't just take one line out of one book and call it good.

In Galatians, Paul writes a furious letter to the church at Galatia because Gentiles were converting and circumcising themselves. Paul is pissed off. He writes telling them to knock it off because circumcision is an act that signals your acceptance of the contract with God. It, therefore, binds you to Old Covenant and through it, The Law. So Paul argues that if you are circumcised you are bound by Torah and if you are uncircumcised you are not. For Paul, being bound to The Law rendered the sacrifice of Jesus worthless, hence he told them to cut it out (no pun intended). Paul is so furious that he writes that he hopes the knife will slip and they emasculate themselves.

So it depends. The author of Hebrews has one opinion. Paul had another opinion. The author of Mark had a different opinion. Blah, blah, blah

 

[Kondor3]

...Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical...

Hypocritical? Oohhhhhhhh nnoooeeessssssssss !!! Oh, dearie-me, goodness-gracious, and golly-gosh-gee-whiz, Emmy Lou...

Two words for that... Puhhhh - Leeeezzze !!!

Newsflash, Princess... nobody cares... that's just the way of it... Westerners like Jews much better than they like Muslims... always have... always will.

 

[Anonymous1977]

...Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical...

Hypocritical? Oohhhhhhhh nnoooeeessssssssss !!! Oh, dearie-me, goodness-gracious, and golly-gosh-gee-whiz, Emmy Lou...

Two words for that... Puhhhh - Leeeezzze !!!

Newsflash, Princess... nobody cares... that's just the way of it... Westerners like Jews much better than they like Muslims... always have... always will.

That would be prince, Betsy-lou or Billy-Rae and the Moooze have nothing to do with this.

"God does not show favoritism." That should be the way of it for the Christian.




-

 

[Kondor3]

...Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical...

Hypocritical? Oohhhhhhhh nnoooeeessssssssss !!! Oh, dearie-me, goodness-gracious, and golly-gosh-gee-whiz, Emmy Lou...

Two words for that... Puhhhh - Leeeezzze !!!

Newsflash, Princess... nobody cares... that's just the way of it... Westerners like Jews much better than they like Muslims... always have... always will.

That would be prince, Betsy-lou or Billy-Rae and the Moooze have nothing to do with this.

"God does not show favoritism." That should be the way of it for the Christian.

-

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... it also does nothing to change Reality.

 

[Anonymous1977]

...Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical...

Hypocritical? Oohhhhhhhh nnoooeeessssssssss !!! Oh, dearie-me, goodness-gracious, and golly-gosh-gee-whiz, Emmy Lou...

Two words for that... Puhhhh - Leeeezzze !!!

Newsflash, Princess... nobody cares... that's just the way of it... Westerners like Jews much better than they like Muslims... always have... always will.

That would be prince, Betsy-lou or Billy-Rae and the Moooze have nothing to do with this.

"God does not show favoritism." That should be the way of it for the Christian.

-

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... it also does nothing to change Reality.

"The Word" was God in the beginning according to the New Testament, but who said that it's my job as opposed to God's job to "change Reality?"




-

 

[BluePhantom]

...Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical...

Hypocritical? Oohhhhhhhh nnoooeeessssssssss !!! Oh, dearie-me, goodness-gracious, and golly-gosh-gee-whiz, Emmy Lou...

Two words for that... Puhhhh - Leeeezzze !!!

Newsflash, Princess... nobody cares... that's just the way of it... Westerners like Jews much better than they like Muslims... always have... always will.

That would be prince, Betsy-lou or Billy-Rae and the Moooze have nothing to do with this.

"God does not show favoritism." That should be the way of it for the Christian.

-

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... it also does nothing to change Reality.

"The Word" was God in the beginning according to the New Testament, but who said that it's my job as opposed to God's job to "change Reality?"




-

I believe what you are referring to is:

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-14, NIV)

And then it goes on to explain that Jesus was the light, blah, blah, blah. Basically what this is saying is that Jesus IS God. Jesus always was and always will be. BUT...this is simply according to the author of the Gospel of John and we have to keep the timeline in mind when we consider this.The idea of Jesus as God incarnate....that is God in human form....was not a theme in the Synoptic Gospels, nor the undisputed epistles of Paul. It came later. Jesus was portrayed as the Son of God or the Son of Man (and there is a significant difference between the two) but God in the flesh? No.

Now Paul's letters were the earliest written with arguably (and controversially) the Epistle of James. Then came the Gospel of Mark in about 60 CE, followed by Hebrews. Roughly ten years later came Matthew, Luke/Acts, and some various pseudepigraphic epistles (Colossians, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, etc), and 15 years after THAT came the Gospel of John.

So John was written somewhere around 85 CE....a good 55 years or so after Jesus was crucified (you know...give or take a bit). Think perhaps the story of Jesus may have evolved during that time? There is a reason why John is the favorite of most Christians and Mark is the favorite of most scholars. Mark, being written a good 25 years earlier, is likely not as influenced by legend as John. John is certainly more inspirational, hence the reason why Christians love it so much, but is it accurate? We know it is not.

Take for example the famous story of the woman taken in adultery and the 'let he among you without sin cast the first stone' story. Well we know that's not a true story. It was added to John much later and John is the only place the story appears. It's a great story...one of my favorites in fact....but unfortunately it probably didn't happen.

So reality does get changed and not only with the Bible but with all things historically.

 

[CMike]

Do you not know what "obsolete" means?

How how how can a Christian say that the old covenant "is not" obsolete, when their Scriptures tell them right to their faces that it is? (Heb. 8:13, NKJV) ...











-

You do know, don't you, that God made multiple covenants with Israel? I'm talking about the covenant He made with Abraham that was unconditional, and was reiterated with Isaac and Jacob. God made covenants with the nation of Israel that were conditional, and Israel violated them.

That is inaccurate.

G-D stated that he will always take Israel back.

Did you miss the part where I noted that God promised He would make a new covenant with Israel?

Genesis 17:[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Genesis 17:[13] both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Deuteronomy 7:[9] Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

Deuteronomy 29:[12] that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God makes with you this day;
[13] that he may establish you this day as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Psalms 89:[34] I will not violate my covenant,
or alter the word that went forth from my lips.

Psalms 105:[8] He is mindful of his covenant for ever,
of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Isaiah 44:[21] Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you, you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

Isaiah 45:[17] But Israel is saved by the LORD
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.

CMike, You are misquoting and leaving out Scriptures here.




-

How exactly am I misquoting in your eyes?

You have the sources.

 

[CMike]

...why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Because Christians generally like Jews much better than they do Muslims?

Contradicts Acts 10:34-35 and Heb. 8:13... -

Doesn't matter... that's the way of it...

Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical. The old thing is O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E. "That's it. Period. End of Story," to quote an old song that I really don't like .




-

G-D disagrees with you.

Deuteronomy 4: (2): "your G-d…shall not add to what I have commanded you or subtract."

Dt. 13(1): "You shall be careful to observe,neither adding to it or subtracting."

Dt. 13(5): "His commandment you shall observe, holding fast to Him alone."

Dt. 29(28): "Concerns us and our descendent sforever, that we may carry out all the words of this Law."

Joshua 1(5): "I will not leave or forsake you…(7) observe the entire Law … do not swerve from it."

Psalms 19(8): "The Law of the Lord is perfect… (10) the ordinances of the Lord are true; all of them are just."

Ps. 119(160): "permanence is Your words chief trait, each of Your just ordinances iseverlasting."

Isaiah 42(21): "pleased the Lord in His justice to make His Law great and glorious."

Baruch 4(1): "the Law endures forever."

G-D doesn't make laws that are "obsolete".

 

[Indeependent]

There are 5 Covenants in TJS.
A Covenant does NOT override the Torah's Rules of Living, it is a special recognition that God gives to someone who has done something outstanding during their lifetime.
For instance, God establishing a Covenant with Pinchas, durinf Moshe's lifetime, did NOT obviate TJS.
To say TNT is a New Covenant overriding ANYTHING is nothing more than a REDEFINITION of how God uses the word Covenant.

 

[Anonymous1977]

You do know, don't you, that God made multiple covenants with Israel? I'm talking about the covenant He made with Abraham that was unconditional, and was reiterated with Isaac and Jacob. God made covenants with the nation of Israel that were conditional, and Israel violated them.

That is inaccurate.

G-D stated that he will always take Israel back.

Did you miss the part where I noted that God promised He would make a new covenant with Israel?

Genesis 17:[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Genesis 17:[13] both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Deuteronomy 7:[9] Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

Deuteronomy 29:[12] that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God makes with you this day;
[13] that he may establish you this day as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Psalms 89:[34] I will not violate my covenant,
or alter the word that went forth from my lips.

Psalms 105:[8] He is mindful of his covenant for ever,
of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Isaiah 44:[21] Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you, you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

Isaiah 45:[17] But Israel is saved by the LORD
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.

CMike, You are misquoting and leaving out Scriptures here.




-

How exactly am I misquoting in your eyes?

You have the sources.

Not "in my eyes" brother...Isa. 45:17 is a misquote.




-

 

[Anonymous1977]

...why do some Christians continue to show racial favoritism toward the Jews?...

Because Christians generally like Jews much better than they do Muslims?

Contradicts Acts 10:34-35 and Heb. 8:13... -

Doesn't matter... that's the way of it...

Yeah it does matter...they're being hypocritical. The old thing is O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E. "That's it. Period. End of Story," to quote an old song that I really don't like .




-

G-D disagrees with you.

Deuteronomy 4: (2): "your G-d…shall not add to what I have commanded you or subtract."

Dt. 13(1): "You shall be careful to observe,neither adding to it or subtracting."

Dt. 13(5): "His commandment you shall observe, holding fast to Him alone."

Dt. 29(28): "Concerns us and our descendent sforever, that we may carry out all the words of this Law."

Joshua 1(5): "I will not leave or forsake you…(7) observe the entire Law … do not swerve from it."

Psalms 19(8): "The Law of the Lord is perfect… (10) the ordinances of the Lord are true; all of them are just."

Ps. 119(160): "permanence is Your words chief trait, each of Your just ordinances iseverlasting."

Isaiah 42(21): "pleased the Lord in His justice to make His Law great and glorious."

Baruch 4(1): "the Law endures forever."

G-D doesn't make laws that are "obsolete".

No time right now CMike...




-