• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LDS Guy 1986

Jews and rejecting Christ

21 posts in this topic

I have seen this topic pop up several times in the forums and I think it needs to be given it's own thread.

What part did the rejection of Christ and the demand of him to be crucified play (if any) in there scattering and afflictions over the next approximate 1916 years?

Personally I don't think there rejection played any direct role, all they did by rejecting Christ was reject God as they had done many times before. In the past when they rejected God he stopped protecting the Jews and there enemies afflict and abuse them. These events are not justified, those who committed them are still going to have to stand before Christ and answer for those terrible sins. As the Jews were afflicted they humbled themselves before God and in his mercy he delivered them from there enemies and restored them again to the promised land.

You see this pattern throughout the Old Testament, so I don't see it as unreasonable.

Any Thoughts?

P.S. I am interested in this very much, and hope that all discussion will be civil and scholarly. I would hate to see this get shut down because of such things.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The defeat, destruction of the temple, and the scattering were caused because the residents were making trouble for the Romans.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Would the terrible things that have happened to the Jews since have happened if they had accepted Christ? Well, it seems only some of it was motivated by Christians who despised those who had rejected the savior. Much of it was based on their clannishness and ability to turn a profit where others failed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The defeat, destruction of the temple, and the scattering were caused because the residents were making trouble for the Romans.

I agree, but had they been following God like they were suppose to, Rome would of never defeated Isreal because God would of fought for Israel.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The random thoughts of a somewhat heretical Protestant:

I don't think that the Jews, or anyone else, has been, or will be, punished by God for not believing that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

I believe that God's punishment is for those who reject Jesus knowing that he is the Christ, the son of God.

.

1

Share this post


Link to post

God is no respecter of persons. He would not punish the children of the children of the children of a people who rejected the credentials of a man who did not fit their criteria to be the Messiah -- and of that generation living when Christ was living, how many do you actually think were specifically involved with his crucifixion?

0

Share this post


Link to post

The random thoughts of a somewhat heretical Protestant:

I don't think that the Jews, or anyone else, has been, or will be, punished by God for not believing that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

I believe that God's punishment is for those who reject Jesus knowing that he is the Christ, the son of God.

.

There are two related comments I would make to that. One is that those who never accept Christ will never receive the blessings that attend the acceptance (and living according to His Words). The second is that by not accepting Christ and availing themselves of the Atonement, they will be punished for the sins they commit. Those are the natural consequences of not acccepting Christ.

Glenn

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen this topic pop up several times in the forums and I think it needs to be given it's own thread.

What part did the rejection of Christ and the demand of him to be crucified play (if any) in there scattering and afflictions over the next approximate 1916 years?

Personally I don't think there rejection played any direct role, all they did by rejecting Christ was reject God as they had done many times before. In the past when they rejected God he stopped protecting the Jews and there enemies afflict and abuse them. These events are not justified, those who committed them are still going to have to stand before Christ and answer for those terrible sins. As the Jews were afflicted they humbled themselves before God and in his mercy he delivered them from there enemies and restored them again to the promised land.

You see this pattern throughout the Old Testament, so I don't see it as unreasonable.

Any Thoughts?

P.S. I am interested in this very much, and hope that all discussion will be civil and scholarly. I would hate to see this get shut down because of such things.

What if, instead of crying out "Crucify Him" and "We have no king but Caesar" and "His blood be upon us and on our children", there had been pity when Pilate presented Jesus cruelly scourged from head to toe? What if the people had pleaded for Jesus' release instead of Barabbas, as Pilate had hoped? Would anything have transpired differently? Might it not have been a little better for the physical children of Abraham had they been more generous upon the appearance of the King of Israel?

Ultimately, Jesus took upon Him all of our sins, and I am in that respect, as responsible for His death as any of the soldiers who mocked Him or Pharisees who hated Him. I am not suggesting as has happened historically that contemporary Jews be harrassed, alluded to, or even thought of, as Christ killers. We all, in the most important sense, killed Christ. However, it seems to me like we see negative generational consequences connected to the rather frightening words and actions of those who plotted the death of the Messiah as recorded in the Gospels. As one who believes the Gospels, I can't get away from that conclusion. I also conclude that God still loves this people in a special way and there are strong indications that at some point Israel (in the flesh, ethnic Judaism) will accept and turn to the Son of God.

3DOP

0

Share this post


Link to post

God is no respecter of persons. He would not punish the children of the children of the children of a people who rejected the credentials of a man who did not fit their criteria to be the Messiah -- and of that generation living when Christ was living, how many do you actually think were specifically involved with his crucifixion?

Hey Magyar.

The Old Testament gives us the principle that you are rejecting. I know Mormons have less confidence in the Old Testament. But you can clearly see where God remembers such and such crime unto the next generation and the next. You've seen that before, right? I can get references if needed. In my opinion, the New Testament writers are right on board with the Old Testament. My high view of the Old is predicated on the apparent beliefs of Jesus and His Apostles. But I won't argue from that authority, but rather from what we can't help but observe in regards to the effects of the actions of parents generationally.

I think it is important that Christian parents should see that our sins can and will have negative consequences unto subsequent generations. Likewise our praiseworthy actions. Everyone is born into unequal circumstances that are mostly due to the merits and demerits of parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. It is just the way it is. This does not mean it is "punishment" if we are born to a drug addict. God will not judge children more harshly for what bad the parents have done. In fact, it seems probable that those who, because of the sins of their fathers are born into more difficult circumstances, will be judged more leniently!

God loves everyone and only those who commit the act, are eligible for punishment or reward for the act. But to deny that there are consequences to the offspring seems unrealistic and doesn't square with what is revealed, especially in the Old Testament. We can escape the charge of making God One who punishes the children for the sins of the parents, without denying the fact that we are all to some degree "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" generationally. But, being no respecter of persons as you said, God is the only One who can weigh everything in the balance and measure degrees of accountability according to our individual life circumstances. Surely He will do this with perfect justice, as much for the children of faithful Christians, as for the children of those we would have to consider unfortunate.

This all must be considered in making a judgment on the question raised. That is why I deny that today's Jews carry any special guilt for the acts of their forefathers while at the same time imagining that the consequences were farther reaching than one generation.

Regards,

3DOP

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Jews were scattered and smitten because of what they did to Christ and will continue to be afflicted until Christ comes and saves them at the last day. Then they will see and feel the wounds in his hands and feet and will be saved.

0

Share this post


Link to post

brightpath: It is one thing to foretell what will happen . . . it is quite another to make remote descendants morally/ethically responsible for the acts of remote ancestors. The former is a prophesy. The latter is an abominable lie.

Moishe Dayan was no more responsible for the Master's death than are you.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the Lord punished future generations because of the parents. I do think evil men out of envy or to have a scapegoat used the Crucifixion to rally people to go against the Jews. That is what the Lord foresaw.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, but had they been following God like they were suppose to, Rome would of never defeated Isreal because God would of fought for Israel.

That would have been a hard sale to those who defended Masada.

0

Share this post


Link to post

brightpath: It is one thing to foretell what will happen . . . it is quite another to make remote descendants morally/ethically responsible for the acts of remote ancestors. The former is a prophesy. The latter is an abominable lie.

Moishe Dayan was no more responsible for the Master's death than are you.

Do you understand the scriptures? The Lamanites were/are scattered and smitten by the Gentiles because of their curse. The Jews were/are being scattered and smitten too. The armies of the Gentile nations will gather together and fight against Israel in the last days and Christ will save them. Jesus was hated by the world just as the Lamanites and Jews are hated by the world. When the times of the Gentiles closes. Israel will take over!

0

Share this post


Link to post

That would have been a hard sale to those who defended Masada.

How did that end? Wasn't it a mass suicide?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Do you understand the scriptures? The Lamanites were/are scattered and smitten by the Gentiles because of their curse. The Jews were/are being scattered and smitten too. The armies of the Gentile nations will gather together and fight against Israel in the last days and Christ will save them. Jesus was hated by the world just as the Lamanites and Jews are hated by the world. When the times of the Gentiles closes. Israel will take over!

We believe a man will be punished for his own sins and not somebody else's.

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children
0

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason people love to hate.If they need an excuse,any excuse will do. Look at the Irish problem and 400+ years of anger.The christians and moslems got along reasonably well for many decades until Serbia and Croatia etc.

That fact that the jews rejected Christ has been a convenient excuse for abuses for centuries and that is how the generations are affected,not because of any continuing sinning on the part of the children.

0

Share this post


Link to post
The Old Testament gives us the principle that you are rejecting. I know Mormons have less confidence in the Old Testament. But you can clearly see where God remembers such and such crime unto the next generation and the next. You've seen that before, right?

Odd. This seems very humorous in light of the fact that so many people claim we our "an Old Testament people", and that we even think we are Jews, subject to the Law of Moses.

No, we have great confidence in the Old Testament. We even believe that those who are in certain lineages do have "curses"k inherited form their fathers and fathers' fathers. (That's one of the bases for the so-called "Priesthood ban".)

However, this argument gets much more coverage from one side of the veil than from the other. It is my opinion (backed up with many scriptures) that god sends a person to the place and time of his birth because that place and time are the best thing for him, i.e., that the circumstance of that birth (including any curses or blessings given to ancestors) will provide the best opportunity for the person to develop his spiritual strengths in comparison to others places and other times.

In my opinion, the New Testament writers are right on board with the Old Testament.

This is LDS doctrine. All of the inspiration for any true prophet comes from the same source and is focused on the same goal" to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

I think it is important that Christian parents should see that our sins can and will have negative consequences unto subsequent generations. Likewise our praiseworthy actions. Everyone is born into unequal circumstances that are mostly due to the merits and demerits of parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. It is just the way it is.

Very true, and your view fits into my own theory well. But, as I said, that situation is chosen for us because God, our heavenly Father, loves each of us individually, and wants what is best for us.

Lehi

0

Share this post


Link to post

We believe a man will be punished for his own sins and not somebody else's.

Ain't no such thing as inherited guilt. Jeremiah, a prophet of no little talent and insight into the mind of G-d, taught this back in Lehi's day. I, thus, reject the notion that the post-Columbian Lamanites were punished for Laman's and Lemuel's sins just as I reject the notion that the pogroms and misled crusades in Europe were punishing the remote descendants of the Herodian Temple Aristocracy for their playing pattycake with the Romans and arranging the Master's assassination.

USU "And that's the fact, Jack" 78

Reread the BOM then. The angel talking to Nehi in Chapters 11-15 tells him his seed will be scattered and smitten by the Gentiles. Christ himself says the same thing when he visits the seed of Joseph in America. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Israel was first but rejected the gospel then God gave it to the Gentiles. When the times of the Gentiles closes the gospel will be given back to Israel, thus fulfilling the prophecy

0

Share this post


Link to post

The views of Jesus on this matter:

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet

0

Share this post


Link to post

Reread the BOM then. The angel talking to Nehi in Chapters 11-15 tells him his seed will be scattered and smitten by the Gentiles. Christ himself says the same thing when he visits the seed of Joseph in America. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Israel was first but rejected the gospel then God gave it to the Gentiles. When the times of the Gentiles closes the gospel will be given back to Israel, thus fulfilling the prophecy

The BoM is clear on many things, most especially that the world is a moral muddle. "By the wicked the wicked are punished." Nebuchadnezzar was not a bastion of moral virtue and, thus, his having been, as Attila, die Zucht Gottes in his person, just as the Lamanites (whoever they were deemed to be at any particular point in time) were the wicked punishers of the wicked in Zarahemla, and just as the wicked goyim were the wicked punishers of the wicked Amerinds, teaches no particular moral lesson, except as below. These things happen, and G-d foretells them through His prophets, but G-d doesn't make them happen in any particular or moral sense: people through their own choices set events in motion by which they reap what they have sown. Trouble is, others, including their remote descendants, may get caught up in the eventual tsunami that should be nothing more than backwash if we were talking morality.

Morally, we cannot say the remote descendant is being punished for another's sin. Practically, however, we can say he is being punished, but only in the general sense that wickedness punishes wickedness . . . and, as Clint said, "We all got it comin'."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.