I have already stated why I repeated someone else's phraseology, and repeating a term in such a way does not require having a definition of it yourself. I am not going to be drawn into this debate @JudahYAHites.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
800 Years in Exile
- Thread starter OttoM
- Start date
I literally asked for a definition, simple.
I cannot draw you into a conversation that you were already a part of.
If you do not have a definition fine. If you would rather not give a definition fine that is your choice. No argument whatsoever.
However, do not take the question beyond what it was, a question looking for a definition/clarification from the only persons who have used the term in this conversation who have not as far as I am aware been accused of or been labeled as such.
Anyway thanks for your response.
It’s simply upholding the law through faith (Romans 3:31), and “If you love keep my commandments.” Salvation isn’t by the works of the law. Salvation is through faith - and that faith brings forth allegiance and obedience.
For example, if someone has faith in the Catholic doctrine - they are going to attend mass. Pray and worship mary. Do repetition prayer. Have idols made with human hands, and bow down to them. Why do they do it? It definitely doesn’t coincide with scripture. It’s because of their faith that they are the one true church and salvation only comes from the Roman Catholic Church
Defining “Judaizer” would tie the moderators hands and instantly lead to a slew of posts testing the limits of said definition, from both sides.
I think @FollowingHim os wisely not going down that road.
People who try that same argument about arguably explicitly racist terminology, such as as the 'n-word,' don't USE it and then try to claim either ignorance, or "impartiality." No one is fooled.
It's a damnably offensive word, and it has gotten people killed. How's THAT for answering Nick's quest for 'stones'?
PS> Just so there's no doubt: Samuel, you and Zec drew that response with your own weaseling.
@Mark C, the word "Judaizer" is directly taken from Galatians 2:14 and Esther 8:17 (LXX), where it appears as the Greek "ἰουδαΐζω" (pronounced nearly the same as in English), and refers to teaching Gentiles to live as Jews. If you are going to get so upset about somebody simply repeating a word that appears in scripture, then your objection is with the Bible and not with me. I appreciate you may interpret the word differently to others, and that's fine. Feel free to share the definition you use. But don't object to the very use of a scriptural word.
Time to get a decent Bible, Samuel.
That mis-translation is NOT in the Hebrew of Esther I checked, nor is it in ANY SINGLE English rendering (of over a dozen!) I checked on BLB.
As to what I have already noted IS the 'most twisted Book' in the Bible, directly above, even THERE the word does not appear in any of those same dozen-plus English renderings. But I'd be willing to be bet that it appeared in Latin twistings after Nicea, and certainly was a major focus of the Inquisition.
BTW, just for the curious (or ignorant) - "Easter" may appear in "Scripture", aka KJV, too - but it is NOT a 'Scriptural word," it is pagan. And you can check the greek.
Don't take a crappy, dogma-laced translation and then tell me "it's raining."
And I'm happy to talk specifics, and make the case!!!!! (for the Nicks who like to do Stone Checks.) I have a strong suspicion Zec is already planning on censorship. But I challenge the moderators to do better.
But it makes my point. (And I will note that Mark Twain famously, and repeatedly, used the 'n-word', too - but HE was making a point. Lost now on the knee-jerk virtue signalers.)
That mis-translation is NOT in the Hebrew of Esther I checked, nor is it in ANY SINGLE English rendering (of over a dozen!) I checked on BLB.
As to what I have already noted IS the 'most twisted Book' in the Bible, directly above, even THERE the word does not appear in any of those same dozen-plus English renderings. But I'd be willing to be bet that it appeared in Latin twistings after Nicea, and certainly was a major focus of the Inquisition.
BTW, just for the curious (or ignorant) - "Easter" may appear in "Scripture", aka KJV, too - but it is NOT a 'Scriptural word," it is pagan. And you can check the greek.
Don't take a crappy, dogma-laced translation and then tell me "it's raining."
And I'm happy to talk specifics, and make the case!!!!! (for the Nicks who like to do Stone Checks.) I have a strong suspicion Zec is already planning on censorship. But I challenge the moderators to do better.
I was quoting the original Greek @Mark C, not a translation at all, as I said. Which I don't think you've looked at, you're only quoting English. It's there.
Now, I have no problem with you arguing "I'm not judaising, that's this bad thing that Paul is talking about, and he isn't referring to me". Or saying "actually, judaising is completely ok". But to try and censor the WORD is extremely Orwellian. Modern society has learnt the power of censoring words - ban the words that would be needed to express the views of your opponents, and the overton window of acceptable speech moves to only include the view that you hold. That's why we have words like "woman" being suppressed in the world around us. It is an extremely dirty debating tactic and I have zero time for it.
Note that I myself did not call anybody a judaiser, nor say what behaviour classes as judaising. But the concept is real because it's in scripture in black and white, so I'm not going to stop someone mentioning it. Or else I'd be censoring the Bible itself.
Now, I have no problem with you arguing "I'm not judaising, that's this bad thing that Paul is talking about, and he isn't referring to me". Or saying "actually, judaising is completely ok". But to try and censor the WORD is extremely Orwellian. Modern society has learnt the power of censoring words - ban the words that would be needed to express the views of your opponents, and the overton window of acceptable speech moves to only include the view that you hold. That's why we have words like "woman" being suppressed in the world around us. It is an extremely dirty debating tactic and I have zero time for it.
Note that I myself did not call anybody a judaiser, nor say what behaviour classes as judaising. But the concept is real because it's in scripture in black and white, so I'm not going to stop someone mentioning it. Or else I'd be censoring the Bible itself.
The 'concept' is ENTIRELY Greek. It is NOT in the Hebrew original.
(And - just so's we're VERY clear: Thus the dramatic CONTRAST to the "Whore Church" and "Whore Synagogue." And you and Zec had a literal HISSY FIT because those who didn't "have the stones" to read it in "black and white" were offended by a VERY Scriptural - and explicitly so! - reference. And that one IS in the original text!)
And the problem with pejoratives, and their Orwellian twisting, is application. Such as "double-think." And "Ministry of Truth", which has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth, only with who claim to define it.
Thus the issue.
So it's entirely fair to ask those who want to demonize someone with a label (all too often, in ignorance, as you at least correctly implied) to DEFINE their terms.
because the word is not a term I'd use, any more than a dozen other epithets I could name. Ask someone of (for example) Hispanic origin to argue why they're not a '$p!c%' and see how they react.
SAYS #$%!@! WHO???? Because I honestly don't think, not for a second, that those who argue in that asinine level of ignorance have a CLUE what Paul was REALLY talking about!!!!
And you 'moderators' (and self-righteous gonad inspectors that virtue signal for you) won't dare let people explain why, or even object to being pigeon-holed with a bogus label.
It's the hypocrisy on that score that REALLY blows the lid off the posturing.
Thank you for a succinct and straight to the point response. I may not agree but I definitely understand.
The decision may well have been wise but the response I personally received was not wise. It was unnecessarily loaded.
The ensuing conversation has only proved how unnecessary the response I received was.
Nevertheless I will be more thoughtful as to who I ask simple questions to on here in the future.
Thank you for your response.
Is there benefit/profit in circumcision?
Romans 3:1
Is there any value in the ceremony of circumcision? 2 Yes, there are great benefits!
Galatians 5:11
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?
We enter through the door of faith. We don't enter through the works of the law. The cleansing of the heart comes through faith - not through law obedience
Acts 15:9
...... he cleansed their hearts through faith.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Is there benefit in the law? 8 We know that the law is good when used correctly. 9 For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 11 that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed Most High.
So the law is instructions for righteous living. It's evidence of someone's faith. Paul quoted the Torah over and over in his letters. Did Paul tell Timothy - "Timothy you must not get circumcised - otherwise - you will lose your salvation!" No - in fact - he did the circumcision himself. So there's some dis-connect we're not comprehending - because as Peter says - his letters can be difficult to understand.
In another place Paul says:
Romans 7:12
12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The MAJOR problem with Christianity is that they dis-agree with the above statement. Which is repeated. Over and over again throughout the scriptures, and especially in Psalms 119. Not only do they dis-agree with it - but they provoke him to anger, by doing exactly opposite of what the law says. The law says the Sabbath is on the 7th day. No - let's do it the 1st day instead. The law says to distinguish between unclean animals and clean animals. They provoke him by having church service with unclean animals on the menu. Is that fulfilling the love commandment?
If someone wants to practice polygyny - done according to his law - then it's Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone believes that through the precious blood of the Messiah - they're Abraham's offspring and share in the promise -- therefore, they want to physically circumcise because of that faith -- then it's Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone wants to preach that we should be guarding our temples from defilement - by watching what we eat - then that teaching is Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone wants to preach that the Most High created the Heaven and the Earth in six days; and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, Sabbath is on the 7th day (Saturday), and we're breaking it by claiming Sabbath is on the 1st day of the week (sunday) -- then that teaching is Holy, Righteous, and Good.
Another reason why the Northern Kingdom went to exile (and why most will continue to be in exile):
Isaiah 5:24
For they have rejected the law of YAHUAH; they have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Romans 3:1
Is there any value in the ceremony of circumcision? 2 Yes, there are great benefits!
Galatians 5:11
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?
We enter through the door of faith. We don't enter through the works of the law. The cleansing of the heart comes through faith - not through law obedience
Acts 15:9
...... he cleansed their hearts through faith.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Is there benefit in the law? 8 We know that the law is good when used correctly. 9 For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 11 that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed Most High.
So the law is instructions for righteous living. It's evidence of someone's faith. Paul quoted the Torah over and over in his letters. Did Paul tell Timothy - "Timothy you must not get circumcised - otherwise - you will lose your salvation!" No - in fact - he did the circumcision himself. So there's some dis-connect we're not comprehending - because as Peter says - his letters can be difficult to understand.
In another place Paul says:
Romans 7:12
12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The MAJOR problem with Christianity is that they dis-agree with the above statement. Which is repeated. Over and over again throughout the scriptures, and especially in Psalms 119. Not only do they dis-agree with it - but they provoke him to anger, by doing exactly opposite of what the law says. The law says the Sabbath is on the 7th day. No - let's do it the 1st day instead. The law says to distinguish between unclean animals and clean animals. They provoke him by having church service with unclean animals on the menu. Is that fulfilling the love commandment?
If someone wants to practice polygyny - done according to his law - then it's Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone believes that through the precious blood of the Messiah - they're Abraham's offspring and share in the promise -- therefore, they want to physically circumcise because of that faith -- then it's Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone wants to preach that we should be guarding our temples from defilement - by watching what we eat - then that teaching is Holy, Righteous, and Good.
If someone wants to preach that the Most High created the Heaven and the Earth in six days; and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, Sabbath is on the 7th day (Saturday), and we're breaking it by claiming Sabbath is on the 1st day of the week (sunday) -- then that teaching is Holy, Righteous, and Good.
Another reason why the Northern Kingdom went to exile (and why most will continue to be in exile):
Isaiah 5:24
For they have rejected the law of YAHUAH; they have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Last edited:
What is this Hebrew original of Galatians that you are talking about?
Incidentally, I completely understand your comparison between this and the "Whore Church" phrase, they really are very similar in principle, and I can see why you're upset. I agree both phrases are scriptural, and either phrase would be completely fine to use occasionally. The issue we had regarding that phrase was repeated use over a very long period, to the point where a number of people found it offensive to be continually confronted with it, and approached the moderators asking us to do something about it to avoid turning people away. We did not have "a literal hissy fit", we discussed it with you politely. If anyone was repeatedly referring to "judaizers" over a long period, and multiple people complained about it, we'd end up having to have the same conversation with them. You are completely correct though that the phrases are similar and should be treated the same. I think we are treating them consistently as explained above.
Thank you.
This would be my only point of distinction with your post, and the reasons why they are the KIND of things that get censored. ("Whore church" et al isn't just a single word, it's the point of whole chapters by two different prophetic witnesses.) But the difference, I contend, goes to the heart of the issue, and the reason why Yahushua (Matthew 23, and Mark 7 - all of both of 'em) called those who "added to" His Word, and should have known better, "hypocrites," and worse.
It answers this question (and not for the first time, certainly) as well:
See Esther, for which the pre-Greek texts ARE available. But the distinction was made by Yahushua, and would not of been contradicted by the man who called Him, "Master." If there is, or was, such as thing as "judaizing' prior to the declaration of keeping His Appointed Times (etc) "anathema", and then later the Inquisition, it would have been more appropriate to call it "pharisee-izing," since they DID, at length, what He forbade:
"adding burdens" -- calling them "law," or 'nomos' -- or "traditions," or 'halacha,' and thus, "by [your traditions-law-nomos] making the commandments of YHVH of no effect." (Mark 7:13, but read it ALL, in context.)
If you want to label us, try "Yahushua-izer". He criticized the same 'twisting' and re-writing of His commandments. And said this, too, in Mark 7:[6-]7,
"...and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
PS> See if this helps...
It occurs to me as I wrote a response that, as a Bible-believer with a better understanding of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence than ANY denizen of the current Swamp, that I have been called a "fascist" by REAL fascists (who don't have a clue) and a 'right-wing extremist terrorist' by Real Terrorists who are making war upon a once-free people.
Labels usually apply most to those who mis-use them.
Esther 8:17 states that many of the people "became Jews", being the Hebrew word "yahad", H3054 - which incidentally in some concordances is given the meaning of "to judaize, to become jewish". This is translated in the LXX as ιουδάιζον, which has essentially the same meaning: "to live as do the Jews". The meaning is identical in both the Hebrew and Greek. You just seem to have an objection to the Greek word, and its English derivative, but have no objection to the Hebrew which means the same. This, to me, is illogical.
Likewise, Galatians 2:14, the main verse that anyone using this word is referring to, is talking explicitly about people turning from gentile ways and choosing to live as do the Jews, hence the use of that word - it is simply the word that conveys that meaning. Had Galatians been written in Hebrew, it would have used the word "yahad", but it did not simply because it was written in Greek.
I understand you have an emotive dislike to this word, but I think you should reconsider whether that emotive dislike is based in fact.
Which 'jews', Samuel? The ones who were following the ways of the One True Elohim, or the 'pharisees' (et al) which were "hypocrites?"
Context matters.
The story of Esther and Mordecai, BTW, seems to indicate they knew the difference. (So did Daniel, even though he was already in bondage/exile.)
Please. Ever seen a concordance get it WRONG? (I talk about one glaring example regarding "porneia" in this week's midrash recording, where it has to do with a divorced man committing 'adultery.' Hmm. Maybe it's the very same kind of problem.)
And finally, again the POINT: NOBODY here, not nobody, not no how, not no way, it trying to get anybody here to "become jewish."
I rest my case.
But, conversely -- I know of a great many 'jews' who were forced, literally at sword-point, to "become Romanized Catholics."
Or be burned at the stake, of course.
And arguably for the sake of "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached."
In other words, teaching someone what Scripture, and the very Messiah they claim to worship, REALLY SAID about His Sabbath, is not even remotely about forcing them to 'become jewish.' But forcing them to eat pork on sun-god day to celebrate a pagan fertility goddess is something else entirely.
Hence the "emotive dislike" based firmly on fact. History, AND Scripture.
Or be burned at the stake, of course.
And arguably for the sake of "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached."
In other words, teaching someone what Scripture, and the very Messiah they claim to worship, REALLY SAID about His Sabbath, is not even remotely about forcing them to 'become jewish.' But forcing them to eat pork on sun-god day to celebrate a pagan fertility goddess is something else entirely.
Hence the "emotive dislike" based firmly on fact. History, AND Scripture.
Last edited:
Ah, now that is getting into the definition - what does ιουδάιζον or מִתְיַהֲדִים specifically refer to, i.e. what practices are being promoted / adopted by somebody who is referred to by this word, and is that a good thing or a bad thing. THAT is what I am not commenting on. I make no judgement whatsoever about whether anybody here is doing any of that, or even what it would be to do it. I am maintaining strict neutrality on this matter. All I am defending is somebody's freedom to use the word.
@JudahYAHites Who has called you a judaizer and where?