Christianity is NOT Derived From Judaism

[Wick Stick]

Was Jesus also being too binary in his thinking when he stated 'He who is not with Me is against Me' (Matthew 12:30)?

Hmmm... context. That quote is in refutation of an accusation a few verses earlier where the Pharisees accused Him of casting out devils... by the power of a greater devil... Beelzebub. The 'he' in the verse is not human - it's talking about demons, principalities, powers. You're applying it outside of its context as a general statement. That's a mistake.

By claiming most people just 'stop existing' and that the Old Covenant was a 'program of punishment' rather than a holy blueprint pointing to Christ, you resurrected the ancient heresies of Annihilationism and Marcionism. Paul contradicts your claim that the law was punitive, stating in Romans 7:12 that 'the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.'

You had to rewrite the entire New Testament, invent a third cosmic destination, and insinuate God's holy covenant is a system of self-flagellation to avoid admitting that your timeline was wrong.

I do believe in Annihilation - as did Jews of the 1st century. It's never been condemned as a heresy, btw.

Marcionism doesn't accept the OT or gospels. This I have not done. I have little (nothing?) in common with Marcion.

As for inventing things, I haven't. Annihilationism and that 'third destination' have been around a very long time. The idea that the covenant mediated by Moses is punishment isn't a new idea - it's stated clearly in Exodus when the covenant is given. It's stated repeatedly in Deuteronomy, multiple times throughout the prophets - who call for a New Covenant - and in the testimony of the martyr Stephen (Acts 7).

That the covenant is holy is another issue entirely. It is, of course. But perhaps you should double-check the meaning of holy - among its definitions are 'terrible,' and 'devoted-by-destruction.'

 

[Wick Stick]

A testator is a person who makes a will and then dies to execute it. Abraham was the testator of his own covenant, his descendants are the beneficiaries

Calling heirs 'testators' would be inventing definitions on the fly, and your timeline still collapses: if Christ is the Tree, then the exact second they rejected the Resurrection they were severed from Christ, meaning the imaginary 'neutral, Christ-rejecting Judaism' remains a theological impossibility

You are correct. I have used the wrong word. Mea culpa. Beneficiary is correct. The Biblical word is HEIR.

Back to 1 John 2:19, I understood your argument: you claimed Christianity was a 'derived sect' of an 'Israelite religion' that existed neutrally alongside the Church after the Cross, but that theory completely collapsed the second you quoted 1 John 2:19 and admitted the Christ-rejectors are the ones who fractured away from us (the Church).

Not derived. It IS a sect (the sect?) of Israelite religion - it is simply the same thing the prophets taught. We kind of agreed on this point earlier.

It was Wrangler who was contesting that idea, not I.

 

[Anchorite]

Hmmm... context. That quote is in refutation of an accusation a few verses earlier where the Pharisees accused Him of casting out devils... by the power of a greater devil... Beelzebub. The 'he' in the verse is not human - it's talking about demons, principalities, powers. You're applying it outside of its context as a general statement. That's a mistake.

I do believe in Annihilation - as did Jews of the 1st century. It's never been condemned as a heresy, btw.

Marcionism doesn't accept the OT or gospels. This I have not done. I have little (nothing?) in common with Marcion.

As for inventing things, I haven't. Annihilationism and that 'third destination' have been around a very long time. The idea that the covenant mediated by Moses is punishment isn't a new idea - it's stated clearly in Exodus when the covenant is given. It's stated repeatedly in Deuteronomy, multiple times throughout the prophets - who call for a New Covenant - and in the testimony of the martyr Stephen (Acts 7).

That the covenant is holy is another issue entirely. It is, of course. But perhaps you should double-check the meaning of holy - among its definitions are 'terrible,' and 'devoted-by-destruction.'

Annihilationism actually has been condemned as heresy.

Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553): Many historical and traditional sources state that universalism and related views concerning the final state of the wicked were condemned during this council, which affirmed the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment.

The Protestant Reformation & Confessions: Mainline Reformation and post-Reformation confessions explicitly rejected annihilationism in favor of eternal conscious torment. Notable examples include the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapters XXXII.1 and XXXIII.2), which affirms eternal punishment for the wicked.

Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th Century): The influential church father Augustine of Hippo argued strongly against conditionalism/annihilationism in The City of God, defending the perpetual conscious punishment of the lost.

Historically, groups that adopted annihilationism — such as Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christadelphians — were viewed by mainstream Christian denominations as heterodox or cultic for various distinct teachings.



The “he” in Matthew 12:30 is not referring to demons, but to the Pharisees and those like them.

Matthew 12

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

[Rhetro]

Not derived. It IS a sect (the sect?) of Israelite religion - it is simply the same thing the prophets taught. We kind of agreed on this point earlier.

Hold on, just because we agree Christianity is the religion of the prophets, doesn't mean it's a sect.

A "sect" implies a horizontal split, like Pharisees vs. Sadducees. But the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant was a vertical transformation.

If Moses and the Prophets can be a neutral path to God on their own, then why did the Logos have to become incarnate, suffer, and rise from the dead? Why did the Veil of the Temple tear?

 

[Wick Stick]

The “he” in Matthew 12:30 is not referring to demons, but to the Pharisees and those like them.

Matthew 12

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Also read the verses that come before:

24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

'For' and 'against' here are spiritual. 'Against' in particular is identified with 'Beelzebub the prince of the devils.'

The 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' here is attributing the work of the spirit (casting out devils) to Beelzebub. That is the slander.

 

[Rhetro]

Hmmm... context. That quote is in refutation of an accusation a few verses earlier where the Pharisees accused Him of casting out devils... by the power of a greater devil... Beelzebub. The 'he' in the verse is not human - it's talking about demons, principalities, powers. You're applying it outside of its context as a general statement. That's a mistake.

This is grammatical make-believe. The Greek text uses a masculine singular personal pronoun. Jesus is talking to human Pharisees about human choices, human words, and human blasphemy. He literally applies this binary rule to human actions two verses later: "For every idle word men may speak, they will give account" (Matthew 12:36).

I do believe in Annihilation - as did Jews of the 1st century. It's never been condemned as a heresy, btw.

It absolutely was explicitly condemned as a heresy by the Church at the 5th ecumenical council. And Jesus contradicts you in Matthew 25:46, calling it "eternal punishment"

Marcionism doesn't accept the OT or gospels. This I have not done. I have little (nothing?) in common with Marcion.

Marcion’s core error wasn't just throwing away books; it was teaching that the God/Covenant of the Old Testament was an inferior, harsh, punitive creator..you said it was punitive punishment earlier

The idea that the covenant mediated by Moses is punishment isn't a new idea - it's stated clearly in Exodus when the covenant is given. It's stated repeatedly in Deuteronomy, multiple times throughout the prophets - who call for a New Covenant - and in the testimony of the martyr Stephen (Acts 7).

You are confusing the consequences of breaking a contract with its actual nature

That the covenant is holy is another issue entirely. It is, of course. But perhaps you should double-check the meaning of holy - among its definitions are 'terrible,' and 'devoted-by-destruction.'

The Burning Bush wasn't holy because it was "terrible or slated for destruction", it was holy because the uncreated fire of the Logos was inside it.

 

[Rhetro]

Also read the verses that come before:

24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

'For' and 'against' here are spiritual. 'Against' in particular is identified with 'Beelzebub the prince of the devils.'

The 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' here is attributing the work of the spirit (casting out devils) to Beelzebub. That is the slander.

Look at your own text. The Pharisees (humans) made the accusation, and Jesus warns that blasphemy won't be forgiven unto men (humans). The 'He' in verse 30 isn't a demon, it's the human Pharisees who are actively working against Him by slandering the Holy Spirit. You can't use spiritual warfare to dodge a direct warning to human unbelievers

And if the human Pharisees are 'against' Jesus by aligning with Beelzebub, and you already admitted that disbelief instantly saws someone off Abraham's tree, how can you possibly still claim a 'neutral Judaism' exists after the Cross? Aren't those who reject Christ and slander His Spirit 'against' Him, according to your own context?

 

[Wick Stick]

Hold on, just because we agree Christianity is the religion of the prophets, doesn't mean it's a sect.

A "sect" implies a horizontal split, like Pharisees vs. Sadducees. But the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant was a vertical transformation.

I'm not sure I'd call the Sadducees a legitimate sect of Judaism. They were Hellenizers with patents. There isn't much of OT Judaism about them. The Pharisees were formed to be 'separate' from the Hellenizers. The Essenes called them 'wicked priests' while withdrawing from polite society. The zealots plotted their downfall.

If Moses and the Prophets can be a neutral path to God on their own, then why did the Logos have to become incarnate, suffer, and rise from the dead? Why did the Veil of the Temple tear?

'Moses' and 'the Prophets' should be separate.

The prophets declare the same things the New Testament does. They're proto-Christian. The 'Word of the LORD' appeared to them, declared a 'New Covenant' and enacted it.

The covenant that Moses mediated is not the same. After the Golden Calf incident at the base of Mt. Sinai, God intended to destroy them and start over with just Moses. Instead, a priesthood was inserted BETWEEN God and Israel to mediate, sparing the Israelites from destruction at God's hands.

Moses' covenant was NOT all blessings. Deuteronomy records conditional blessings AND CURSES. Before Deuteronomy is done, Moses already knows that the Israelites will inherit the curses. Personally, he oversees walking an accursed generation of Israel through the Wilderness until they've all died.

Like I said before, there is no salvation in Moses' covenant. Only recognition of one's unrighteousness... which underlines the need for a Saviour.

 

[Rhetro]

I'm not sure I'd call the Sadducees a legitimate sect of Judaism. They were Hellenizers with patents. There isn't much of OT Judaism about them. The Pharisees were formed to be 'separate' from the Hellenizers. The Essenes called them 'wicked priests' while withdrawing from polite society. The zealots plotted their downfall.

'Moses' and 'the Prophets' should be separate.

The prophets declare the same things the New Testament does. They're proto-Christian. The 'Word of the LORD' appeared to them, declared a 'New Covenant' and enacted it.

The covenant that Moses mediated is not the same. After the Golden Calf incident at the base of Mt. Sinai, God intended to destroy them and start over with just Moses. Instead, a priesthood was inserted BETWEEN God and Israel to mediate, sparing the Israelites from destruction at God's hands.

Moses' covenant was NOT all blessings. Deuteronomy records conditional blessings AND CURSES. Before Deuteronomy is done, Moses already knows that the Israelites will inherit the curses. Personally, he oversees walking an accursed generation of Israel through the Wilderness until they've all died.

Like I said before, there is no salvation in Moses' covenant. Only recognition of one's unrighteousness... which underlines the need for a Saviour.

Yeah well by separating Moses from the Prophets and calling the Prophets 'proto-Christian' while labeling Moses's covenant an un-salvific 'program of punishment,' you are trying to split the Old Testament into two separate religions just to avoid your own timeline failure.

Moses and the Prophets are a singular, theological reality. Jesus didn't decouple them, He constantly bound them together, stating in Luke 24:27 that 'beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.'

You have proved my point yet again: Christianity is the single, vertical fulfillment of the entire biblical trajectory, leaving zero legal, historical, or theological room for a 'neutral' track to exist outside of the Cross

 

[Wick Stick]

Look at your own text.

Back atcha. The for and against here are NOT Jesus and the Pharisees. It's the Holy Spirit vs Beelzebub.

how can you possibly still claim a 'neutral Judaism' exists after the Cross? Aren't those who reject Christ and slander His Spirit 'against' Him, according to your own context?

Because 'neutral' is the default position for every person until they come of age, hear the gospel, and either accept it or reject it.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yeah well by separating Moses from the Prophets and calling the Prophets 'proto-Christian' while labeling Moses's covenant an un-salvific 'program of punishment,' you are trying to split the Old Testament into two separate religions just to avoid your own timeline failure.

You give me WAY too much credit. I didn't make that split.

God did.

Moses and the Prophets are a singular, theological reality. Jesus didn't decouple them, He constantly bound them together, stating in Luke 24:27 that 'beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.'

The reason they're mentioned in tandem is because they're considered to be separate things. The Jews classify it that way. Christianity does too. You have suddenly forsaken 4000 years of Biblical scholarship... to contradict me? I'm not important enough for you to do that...

You have proved my point yet again: Christianity is the single, vertical fulfillment of the entire biblical trajectory, leaving zero legal, historical, or theological room for a 'neutral' track to exist outside of the Cross

I think that's just an annihilation argument... which is NOT what this started off to be. I don't mind it if you don't? It's your topic, I think?

 

[Rhetro]

Back atcha. The for and against here are NOT Jesus and the Pharisees. It's the Holy Spirit vs Beelzebub.

Because 'neutral' is the default position for every person until they come of age, hear the gospel, and either accept it or reject it.

You just resurrected a 3rd heresy for tonight: Pelagianism…the heresy that human beings are born spiritually neutral rather than fallen.

And by defining the battle as the Holy Spirit vs. Beelzebub, you admitted there are only two kingdoms

 

[Wick Stick]

labeling Moses's covenant an un-salvific 'program of punishment,'

Unsalvific:
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Program of punishment:
John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.

Numbers 14:26 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 27 How long [shall I bear with] this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me. 28 Say unto them, [As truly as] I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: 29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, 30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, [concerning] which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

That convicts us of our unrighteousness:
Galatians 3:23-25 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

[Anchorite]

Romans 7:12-14

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

 

[Wick Stick]

You just resurrected a 3rd heresy for tonight: Pelagianism…the heresy that human beings are born spiritually neutral rather than fallen.

Kind of a stretch... I didn't bring that up at all. That's sort of a 'the logical end of this argument is...' sort of argument.

Actually... I accept. Pelagianism is CORRECT. Augustine was an idiot.

I still don't accept Marcionism, though. Nothing I've said relates to that.

And by defining the battle as the Holy Spirit vs. Beelzebub, you admitted there are only two kingdoms

Yes, there are only two kingdoms. Where did I say otherwise? That some people land outside either doesn't mean there's a third kingdom.

 

[Rhetro]

You give me WAY too much credit. I didn't make that split.

God did.

The reason they're mentioned in tandem is because they're considered to be separate things. The Jews classify it that way. Christianity does too. You have suddenly forsaken 4000 years of Biblical scholarship... to contradict me? I'm not important enough for you to do that...

I think that's just an annihilation argument... which is NOT what this started off to be. I don't mind it if you don't? It's your topic, I think?

God did not split the Old Testament, publishers did when they printed a table of contents. You’re also confusing a Jewish book-binding layout with an actual split in God's covenant. Like I said, Jesus unified them in Luke 24:27, showing they are a single, continuous witness to Him.

Trying to gaslight me about 'annihilation' is hilarious considering you are the one who wrote that people 'just stop existing' in your last post. You had to fracture Scripture, resurrect 3 ancient heresies, and invent a cosmic recycle bin for human souls just to protect the broken timeline

 

[Anchorite]

Kind of a stretch... I didn't bring that up at all. That's sort of a 'the logical end of this argument is...' sort of argument.

Actually... I accept. Pelagianism is CORRECT. Augustine was an idiot.

I still don't accept Marcionism, though. Nothing I've said relates to that.

Yes, there are only two kingdoms. Where did I say otherwise? That some people land outside either doesn't mean there's a third kingdom.

You are in some heretical cult. Christadelphian, I suspect.

 

[Wick Stick]

Annihilationism actually has been condemned as heresy.

Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553): Many historical and traditional sources state that universalism and related views concerning the final state of the wicked were condemned during this council, which affirmed the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment.

You need to actually read it rather than just Google. The Council condemns the doctrine of Universal Salvation. It affirms the doctrine of Eternal Punishment. It does not condemn the idea of Annihilation.

This agrees with my doctrinal understanding.

The Protestant Reformation & Confessions: Mainline Reformation and post-Reformation confessions explicitly rejected annihilationism in favor of eternal conscious torment. Notable examples include the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapters XXXII.1 and XXXIII.2), which affirms eternal punishment for the wicked.

The Westminster Confession is pretty screwed up in major ways. I'm happy to be on the wrong side of it.

Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th Century): The influential church father Augustine of Hippo argued strongly against conditionalism/annihilationism in The City of God, defending the perpetual conscious punishment of the lost.

I said it once, I'll say it again - Augustine is an idiot. He's wrong about A LOT. I'm fine with being on the wrong side of Augustine. That's a badge of honor.

Historically, groups that adopted annihilationism — such as Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christadelphians — were viewed by mainstream Christian denominations as heterodox or cultic for various distinct teachings.

I'm not part of any of those groups. Arguments of 'guilt by association' are not logically valid.

The “he” in Matthew 12:30 is not referring to demons, but to the Pharisees and those like them.

Matthew 12

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This is the same argument you already gave. Did you read the verse that come before? I posted them. I think if you read actually read them you might change your mind.

 

[Wick Stick]

You are in some heretical cult. Christadelphian, I suspect.

Nope

 

[Rhetro]

I still don't accept Marcionism, though. Nothing I've said relates to that.

Moses' covenant isn't salvic. It doesn't save. At best, it deferred judgment, but we're well past the deferment date. At worst, it was punitive, which I truly believe. Moses was a true prophet, but the task he was given was to administer a covenant of punishment on Israel for their unfaithfulness at Sinai.

Yeah you’re right, apart from the Pelagianism and Annihilationism, you’re only flirting heavily with Marcionism. The theological restraint

Actually... I accept. Pelagianism is CORRECT. Augustine was an idiot.