"Binding and Loosing" according to rabinic teaching

[Santantonio]

Like He tells the Samaritan woman, not, properly translated,
that "salvation is OF the JEWS", but rather, "salvation cometh OUT OF JUDEA".

Incorrect; the Greek gives ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ???????, which definitely refers to the people, not the region, as the name of the region is feminine, whereas this is masculine plural. It is also unambiguous in Syriac, which being a dialect of Aramaic, is probably similar to the Galilean dialect; in any event, the Syriac translators clearly understood it as the people.

you see the "EK" there in the Greek right before the words you have bolded... Consider this... (excerpt)
--------
We will discuss John 4:22 first.

Is Salvation of the Jews?

Is "Salvation of the Jews" as the King James Bible translates John 4:22? The prepositions in the Greek are far more specific. The Greek word used here is "Ek" (#1537) which means "origin."  The correct translation of this word is "OUT OF" not "of."

Look at the following texts.  Every other place the word "Ek" is used, it is always translated "OUT OF" not "of."

    "And thus Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."  Matthew 2:6

    "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah; yet OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall One come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity." (From the Greek O.T.)  Micah 5:2

    "For it is manifest that OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) Judah has sprung our Lord..."  Hebrews 7:14

It is clear that the word "Ek" in the Greek should be translated as "OUT OF."

https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/new_religion1.htm

[aquinas138]

Like He tells the Samaritan woman, not, properly translated,
that "salvation is OF the JEWS", but rather, "salvation cometh OUT OF JUDEA".

Incorrect; the Greek gives ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ???????, which definitely refers to the people, not the region, as the name of the region is feminine, whereas this is masculine plural. It is also unambiguous in Syriac, which being a dialect of Aramaic, is probably similar to the Galilean dialect; in any event, the Syriac translators clearly understood it as the people.

you see the "EK" there in the Greek right before the words you have bolded... Consider this... (excerpt)
--------
We will discuss John 4:22 first.

Is Salvation of the Jews?

Is "Salvation of the Jews" as the King James Bible translates John 4:22? The prepositions in the Greek are far more specific. The Greek word used here is "Ek" (#1537) which means "origin."  The correct translation of this word is "OUT OF" not "of."

Look at the following texts.  Every other place the word "Ek" is used, it is always translated "OUT OF" not "of."

    "And thus Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."  Matthew 2:6

    "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah; yet OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) thee shall One come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity." (From the Greek O.T.)  Micah 5:2

    "For it is manifest that OUT OF ("Ek" #1537) Judah has sprung our Lord..."  Hebrews 7:14

It is clear that the word "Ek" in the Greek should be translated as "OUT OF."

https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/new_religion1.htm

That's not what I'm objecting to. I am saying you are mistaken in saying that ???? ?????????? means "Judea," which is not true. "Out of Judah," as you quote from Hebrews 7:14, is ??? ???????, which is the name of the region/province. ???? ?????????? means "of the Jews." Or, if you prefer, "[out] of the Jews, having its origin from Jews." But the English word "from" can indicate origin, as well, not only a spatial relation.

[Ragnarok]

Imagine believing that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was from the Tribe of Judah (which is the reason why the genealogies are in both Matthew and Luke, making it clear he's descended from Judah), he was circumcised according to the Jewish requirements of the Law, His mother obeyed the Jewish purification ritual as required by the Law for newborns, met with a Jewish man named Simeon in the Temple to do what the Law required, taught in the Jewish Temple, taught in the Synagogue of Capernaum, attended a Jewish wedding at Cana, His disciples called Him Rabbi, He called Himself Rabbi, He called the non-Jewish Canaanites dogs (Matthew 15:21-28), told His followers to treat unrepentant followers like Pagans, ate in accordance with Passover during the Last Supper, and the Jewish Tribunal charged Him for claiming to be Yahweh and crucified Him as such,

but somehow, in someway, Jesus wasn't Jewish.

This whole theory that Jesus was not Jewish, but rather a Gentile Galilean, comes from Hitler and is circulated among various Alt-Right and Neo-Nazi communities, and in case you really believe that Hitler was just doing Christ's work, here's something you should know:

It's evident that Hitler's own philosophy and ideology is incompatible with Christianity, and his own "table talks" make that especially clear (for example, he stated Europe's conversion from Paganism to Christianity was a tragedy, and that Bolshevism is just Christianity 2.0 with the Jews trying to re-purify European culture once again, citing the irony that the Churches are whining about their temples being destroyed by Marxists when the Christians did the same thing to the pagan temples)

Yet for some reason, his retarded disciples to this day will cite that one claim he made (Jesus not being Jewish) without even considering the remote possibility that he pulled that theory out of his ass to not alienate the Evangelical and Catholic demographics of Germany.


Hitler claimed to be possessed by the Pre-Christian Aryan European spirit, and some of his insane followers (like Savitri Devi) claimed he was God incarnate, destined to purge the malevolent Jewish spirit from Europe's soul, yet you guys have the cognitive dissonance required to believe that Hitler was just doing Christ's work.

Insane to me.

[Santantonio]

It's evident that Hitler's own philosophy and ideology is incompatible with Christianity, and his own "table talks" make that especially clear (for example, he stated Europe's conversion from Paganism to Christianity was a tragedy, and that Bolshevism is just Christianity 2.0 with the Jews trying to re-purify European culture once again, citing the irony that the Churches are whining about their temples being destroyed by Marxists when the Christians did the same thing to the pagan temples)

Your opinion on what you've ascertained to be the "origins" of this line of thinking are incorrect. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Moreover, the gossipy "Table Talks" book has zero credibility. It claims to be conversations overheard from "an adjacent table", but is most likely post-war propaganda in the vein of Sefton Delmer. The same groups who seek to render veracity to "Table Talks" are the ones who simulataneously demand that the facts of history say Hitler committed suicide and died at about the very same time Bormann did, they say, but the evidence to the contrary is greater in both cases. They say Bormann "signed" the Table Talks books. Sure. Just like he was "tried" by thousands of Jewish lawyers in Nuremberg "in absentia", and then in 1972 they "found" his nigh 30 year old corpse and as soon as DNA testing became available, some Jewish doctor says he did a DNA test to confirm it was Bormann, despite that relative not being identified, the tests never analysed, and the Paraguayan authorities publicly saying and newspapers there reporting that Bormann died in Paraguay in 1959.

Lies upon Lies.

[Santantonio]

That's not what I'm objecting to. I am saying you are mistaken in saying that ???? ?????????? means "Judea," which is not true. "Out of Judah," as you quote from Hebrews 7:14, is ??? ???????, which is the name of the region/province. ???? ?????????? means "of the Jews." Or, if you prefer, "[out] of the Jews, having its origin from Jews." But the English word "from" can indicate origin, as well, not only a spatial relation.

Regardless, as a Christian, one can see how John 4:22 has been abused by the Judaizers and Zionists, especially since the Scofield days and the nascent Christian Zionism that espouses Judaic hierarchies to this day, the conceptions of heresy in the minds of sects designed to subjugate Christianity to Rabbinical Judaism, a religion that didn't exist until the second century, much in the same way they twist meanings in other verses of Scripture, and ignore verses contrary to their agenda.

The plain cause and meaning of John 4:22 as it was recorded is 1) Christ saves Gentiles who believe in Him 2) Samaritans included, 3) that the Israelites and Hebrews were correct (this is going back many centuries before Christ), not the Samaritans, who had another place of worship and beliefs that were not according to the Word and Prophets, revelation.. So, the Samaritans must look to Judea and not disregard it is irrelevant.. because Judea is where it would all be fulfilled.

To what extent Mary is a Judahite or a Levite (as Elizabeth was), or both, or to highlight Joseph's bringing Mary back to Bethlehem for the census (tradition and history maintain this occurred because Joseph's family owned a house there), or whether the Davidic prophecies can be held via Joseph's guardianship, or only by the ancestry of Mary (again, this is contrary to Jewish descent law at the time, as it was patriarchal still, and did not switch to matriarchal until the new Judaic religion began 100 years later), is irrelevant not only on a theological level and contrary to Apostolic dogma (it does not matter to Christ whose genetic offspring you are), but is historically blind also, because the Northern 10 Tribes split from the Southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin 1000 years before Christ, as Christ said, He was sent FIRST (as an incarnate human being with physical limitations) - to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

The House of Israel had already been scattered across Asia Minor and Europe and Africa for centuries when He said this. Galilee was the Land of The Gentiles by definition, it was separated from Judea by Samaria. Without even getting into the nature of the Hasmonean Dynasty of the Second Temple not being "Judean" by blood, as the Herods were not "Jews", but also the Saducee families being Idumeans and not Judahites also, composing much of the Sanhedrin that condemned Christ to death being the FAKE Judahites according to Christ's own words, you can decide as a Catholic what John 4:22 means.

I would rather not spend expansive times on this topic but focus on my primary reply to this thread regarding the distinction that only binding but not loosing was extant in the Old Testament, and in rabbinic tradition. This fact says much to contrast Christ as Saviour with the Messiah of Judaism. They are not the same person. That is why "the Jews" announced bar Kochba and others such as Jacob Frank in the 18th century as Messiah, it is why they will do so again - perhaps in our lifetimes. Christ told us they would accept these others but not Him. Consider the contrast between the Psalms and Prophets with the "Laws", that Jesus denounced and did not follow, altered and superimposed upon, Paul denounced, and Stephen martyred for; the law unto death that designated Jews as the enemies of all mankind according to St. Paul, contrary to all men, contrary to Jesus Christ. How many times does YHWH forgive David? But the rabbis did not loosen because they were contrary to God. Sacrificing beasts and making bourses and markets out of the Holy Place, this is all coming back -- do you want to cheer it on like a good little Christian Zionist ? Christ did not celebrate Passover. He destroyed it. Forever. He was not only the destroyer of Jewish fables and religion, but also the destroyer of all Gentile fables and religions, and that enmity between Samaritans and Judeans, not only in the Woman at the Well but also in the Good Samaritan. The point is that fleshly descent is irrelevant to God the Father and is no train to truth.

[Mono no aware]

It's evident that Hitler's own philosophy and ideology is incompatible with Christianity, and his own "table talks" make that especially clear (for example, he stated Europe's conversion from Paganism to Christianity was a tragedy, and that Bolshevism is just Christianity 2.0 with the Jews trying to re-purify European culture once again, citing the irony that the Churches are whining about their temples being destroyed by Marxists when the Christians did the same thing to the pagan temples)

Hitler claimed to be possessed by the Pre-Christian Aryan European spirit, and some of his insane followers (like Savitri Devi) claimed he was God incarnate

I don't think it's that simple.  Hitler went back and forth on Christianity.  Possibly this was done out of political expedience: he couldn't afford to despise Christianity overmuch in a majority Christian nation.  This was evident in his proposal for a Positive Christianity.  Germany could not be de-Christianized outright, but Christianity might be modified.  Hitler was also a keen reader of both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, those two great German philosophers who are frequently in tension, and sometimes he seemed to take Schopenhauer's generous quasi-Marcionite view of Christianity (that it marked a repudiation of Judaism), and other times he seemed to take Nietzsche's negative view (that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism).  As politicians are often said to be "wafflers," the Führer was a waffler on the subject of Christianity.  This is why his movement can be appropriated by both Christians and anti-Christians alike.  Selective quoting.

As for Savitri Devi, well ...

[Santantonio]

...and other times he seemed to take Nietzsche's negative view (that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism).  As politicians are often said to be "wafflers," the Führer was a waffler on the subject of Christianity.  This is why his movement can be appropriated by both Christians and anti-Christians alike.  Selective quoting.

See my comments above concerning the veracity of "Table Talks", we have literally zero reason to believe Hitler ever said those things, and many reasons to believe he did not. Especially concerning the anti-Christianity lines, due to the fact that the propaganda departments of the Allied governments had campaigns established to affect the dispositions of their populations in a manner favourable to their designs. To what extent Hitler disliked certain applications of Christianity in practice through society that he deemed ill-suited to counter international Freemasonry and Judaism in geo-politics and banking, and cultural formation, his views are plainly in the realm of German and Aryan patriotism. We must keep him in his times as a product of his times, who lived through the utter bankruptcy and ruin of not only Germany but the HRE. Blessed Karl was victimized by the same exact people, as was Edward XIII. It's not hard to see why Hitler saw the need for and implemented most audaciously such cultural and ethnic resiliency.

[Santantonio]

Imagine believing that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was from the Tribe of Judah (which is the reason why the genealogies are in both Matthew and Luke, making it clear he's descended from Judah), he was circumcised according to the Jewish requirements of the Law, His mother obeyed the Jewish purification ritual as required by the Law for newborns, met with a Jewish man named Simeon in the Temple to do what the Law required, taught in the Jewish Temple, taught in the Synagogue of Capernaum, attended a Jewish wedding at Cana, His disciples called Him Rabbi, He called Himself Rabbi, He called the non-Jewish Canaanites dogs (Matthew 15:21-28), told His followers to treat unrepentant followers like Pagans, ate in accordance with Passover during the Last Supper, and the Jewish Tribunal charged Him for claiming to be Yahweh and crucified Him as such,

but somehow, in someway, Jesus wasn't Jewish.

This whole theory that Jesus was not Jewish, but rather a Gentile Galilean, comes from Hitler

from Hitler, or from the Gospel?

Judas Iscariot was the only Jew out of all 12 Apostles. He was a member of the zealot party for Jewish independence. Which is why he betrayed Jesus, because Judas wanted Jesus to use His power like the Antichrist will use power - carnally.
 
Here is Christ's own words, notice how He juxtaposes the apostles to Jews. Ergo, they were not Jews.
 
John 13:33
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me; and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go you cannot come; so I say to you now.
 
There Jesus said, as I said to the Judeans (Jews), so I say to you now (ergo, you are not Jews)... but of course none of the apostles sans Judas Iscariot was a Judean (Jew), and Judas had already left just a few verses before. He was no longer present.

[clau clau]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.