What About The Star of David?

[Solo Christo]

Vic Wrote:I am not antisemitic (which is where I am sure you are heading)

I thought I controlled my surprise & was respectful, so please don't assume I'm going to insult you.

Assuming then that you are correct, what do you make of this, "The Star of David in the oldest surviving complete copy of the Masoretic text [isn't this what us Protestants base our OT on??], the Leningrad Codex, dated 1008." (Wikipedia)? i.e. shouldn't I be concerned about using text with an occult symbol on it? Wasn't it also "written by those who reject[ed] Jesus Christ"?

[YYZ Skinhead]

Unfortunate that both symbols most commonly associated with the biblical faiths, originated in Paganismand are still used by occultists.

[Vic]

(07-17-2012 09:16 PM)Solo Christo Wrote:  

Vic Wrote:I am not antisemitic (which is where I am sure you are heading)

I thought I controlled my surprise & was respectful, so please don't assume I'm going to insult you.

Assuming then that you are correct, what do you make of this, "The Star of David in the oldest surviving complete copy of the Masoretic text [isn't this what us Protestants base our OT on??], the Leningrad Codex, dated 1008." (Wikipedia)? i.e. shouldn't I be concerned about using text with an occult symbol on it? Wasn't it also "written by those who reject[ed] Jesus Christ"?

It's not about me Alex. It's about historical and documented information/facts and Scriptural truth. Rabbinical Judaism has been around a looong time. The Aleppo Codex does not appear to have the symbolism and it was prior to the Leningrad. A cover symbol, which may or may not be original, does not mean the contents were changed because of the esteem held for the Word of God. That said, the Alleppo is viewed as superior to the Lengingrad and it was used to correct the leningrad...

The point remains that it was not a symbol given by God for Israel, but came from other ideas and uses. [color]

[Solo Christo]

I'm relieved to hear there's an older one without the symbol on it. What do you think would be a better symbol for them to use? The menorah?

[Lois]

I'm sorry but I am cracking up on that post.


Alex says "please don't assume" and then in the very next sentence says,
"assuming"



Shame on you Vic,didn't you know that he is the only one allowed to assume anything.

[Vic]

(07-18-2012 05:03 AM)Solo Christo Wrote:  I'm relieved to hear there's an older one without the symbol on it. What do you think would be a better symbol for them to use? The menorah?

As was stated in the researched and documented information, including from Jewish sources, the symbol that had been used was the 7 branched menorrah. It's found within the Scriptures and very clearly the menorrah itself had God given use. The hexagram itself has been very much used in magical/mystical and other ways both within Judaism and other beliefs and practices.

The issue is that believers need not be involved in those things. And certainly we do not need to be part of them to show we care about someone or to share Jesus Christ and the Gospel, Truth of the Scriptures, Messianic prophecies and so on.

My answer to you expanding on your surprise and doubt about the information, was from a vast experience of how people react to anything with regards to Israel, that is not all positive. It is immediately believed to evaluate these types of things, is to be anti semitic, even if it isn't said directly. HR people have done that since 1998, when I wrote my first series 'To Embrace Hebrew Roots', [which I recommend you take time to read] which is why a lawyer from the ADL read my articles and even took them to Israel, after he had written me and declared he found no antisemitism in them or my website--which was a surprise there was question of it in the first place. The HR leadership had wanted their exposure of false teaching off the net, and tried that avenue, and those who have made the accusation are not even Jewish for the most part but, Jewish wannabes. He was told by rabbis in Israel who read my series of articles, to not discuss things with a fundamentalist Christian. He ignored that and we had many conversations, including ones where the questions I asked concerning particular scriptures made him quite angry with me. But we maintained a friendship and understanding.

The point is, when we seek truth of something, the facts aren't always what we might want them to be, but they stand. It's when we try to ignore the facts or Scriptural truth that people become snared or deceived into believing a lie, and all people need the truth, and all people need Jesus Christ. And that is what this site and my research are about.

[Vic]

(07-18-2012 10:08 AM)Lois Wrote:  I'm sorry but I am cracking up on that post.

Alex says "please don't assume" and then in the very next sentence says,
"assuming"



Shame on you Vic,didn't you know that he is the only one allowed to assume anything.

sorry. I assume you know this post was really unnecessary. And won't be answered further by anyone.

[Solo Christo]

Thanks for expanding Vic. I appreciate the work you've done examining HR, from what I read, I disagree with HR on quite a number of things & think it quickly becomes legalism :-( I also agree that in an effort not to be antisemitic, sometimes Christians can embrace anything "Jewish" too quickly. I'm glad you've been able to maintain friendships even when there's been strong disagreements.

(07-18-2012 10:43 AM)Vic Wrote:  The point is, when we seek truth of something, the facts aren't always what we might want them to be, but they stand. It's when we try to ignore the facts or Scriptural truth that people become snared or deceived into believing a lie, and all people need the truth, and all people need Jesus Christ.

Amen!

(07-18-2012 10:43 AM)Vic Wrote:  And that is what this site and my research are about.

That's a good motivation.

[YYZ Skinhead]

(07-17-2012 06:31 PM)Solo Christo Wrote:  Seriously?? Isn't it offence to claim the Jewish flag is based on the occult? Surely they would've considered that? If it really is the case, what do you make of this, "The Star of David in the oldest surviving complete copy of the Masoretic text [isn't this what us Protestants base our OT on??], the Leningrad Codex, dated 1008." (Wikipedia)?

The so-called "Christian" cross (Latin cross) is a Pagan symbol, and there is nothing offensive about labelling it thus. The Roman empire was a Pagan government that liked torturing people to death so they crucified them. The fish and triskele are two other common "Christian" symbols that are Pagan. The crucifix is plain old blasphemous if the crucified figure is meant to represent Jesus, because people are forbidden to depict God in any kind of art. Similarly, the hexagram is a Pagan and occultic symbol. Both crosses and hexagrams are used in modern occultism. It is not offensive to label something what it is.