I don't know what "Old Testament Judaism" is.

But Judaism is a religion.

Let's go through the list of "differences" between "Old Testament Judaism" and current Judaism:

Current Judaism is also the holy religion that G-d gave through Moses. "Rejecting Christ" was merely a continuation of that religion in face of several Messiah claimants.

Your first "difference" is just a repition of your claim.

 Yes.

But how is current Judaism different from that?

 Yes.

There are Jewish priests today. It's a fact. And they do have that authority when the Temple stands.

In Judaism nobody ever spoke with Torah authority except the Torah and the prophets.

What do you mean "another difference"? You haven't listed any differences yet.

Judaism has had rabbis and priests for over 3000 years. Those roles were always distinct.

And yes, sacrifices (but not the priesthood) ended with the Temple. But when the Temple is rebuilt, they will start again.

Incidentally, sacrifices also ended during the Babylonian Exile and in the time before the rededication of the Temple in the event we celebrate with Hanukkah every year.

So?

Yes. Since the Temple isn't standing there are no sacrifices so we continue with the other method which was also in use during Temple times.

So please, just tell me those alleged differences.

Do NOT just repeat your claim.

Do NOT just go into detail with your faulty knowledge of Judaism.

Tell me at least ONE difference between what you see as "Old Testament Judaism" and current Judaism which is NOT based on your ignorance of the role of rabbis and priests and which is NOT a coincidence relying on the fact that the Temple is currently destroyed again.

Says Pope Pius XII.

Yes, and I looked into it and found it interesting. Thanks for the hint!

That reminds me, Lula, any word yet on how Catholic Priests are priests in the order of Melchizedek when you also told us that Judaism (and not Melchizedek's pre-Mosaic religion) was the first divine and priestly religion?

Was Melchizedek a legitimate and real priest of G-d or not?

You might want to read Psalm 2 among many other scriptures that show otherwise.  This is the Messiah the Jews are still waiting for.  This is a Messianic Psalm and HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.  As always I go to scripture. 

"Yet have I set my king (Jesus) upon My holy hill of Zion (Mt Moriah-Jerusalem).  I will declare the decree the Lord has said unto me, Thou are my Son; this day have I begotten thee (day of coronation-hasn't happened yet).  Ask of me and I shall give you the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.  You shall break them with a rod of iron you shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."  v6-9

Now you go to Revelation 2 and you see the future of this still yet to happen so it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the church because John is writing this in 90 A.D. 

"And HE shall rule them with a rod of iron as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers...."   2:27

"And out of HIS mouth (Christ) goes a sharp sword (His WORD) and with it he should smite the nations and HE shall rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."   19:15

note to Leauki.  THis is what the Jews wanted to happen in the 1st century but they didn't understand that it will happen not on their time schedule but God's.  It will happen.  Jesus is the Messiah and when he comes back He's coming as King and will rule on earth with Jerusalem as his seat on earth.  He promised He would be back.  The reason for all this goes all the way back to Abraham.  All nations will be blessed as a result.  If he came back as King the first time (as the Jews thought) the promise to Abraham would not have been kept.   God always keeps his promises. 

See here you go again.  What scripture are you referring?  Jesus said himself:

"My KINGDOM is NO PART OF THIS WORLD!"  John 18:36

So who do I believe?   You or Jesus Christ himself?  I notice you give no scripture to back your words.  Again why would I go to man when I can read God's revealed Word to mankind?  This world was NEVER meant to be our home.   

no kidding!  The Pope speaks and they all listen.  Reminds me again of what Jesus said:

"I am come in my Father's name and you receive me not; if another shall come in his own name him you will receive."  John 5:43

Basically he's saying you won't follow me or my word even tho I come in the name of my Father, but you will follow someone who comes in their own name; other messiahs you will listen to and believe me the Popes are "other Messiahs" in the RCC. 

Yes he was.  When I think Melchisedech... I think sacrifice, a "clean oblation" as per the OT prophet Malachais 1:11.   The "clean oblation" he offered in thanksgiving to God was bread and wine.

The OT is full of references to sacrifices as prescribed by God Himself. It's an offering to God of some sanctified object made by a legitimate priest.

In Psalm 109 King Davod prophesied of Christ, "thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech." St.Paul applied the same words to Christ in Hebrews 5:6. Again Melchisedech offered a sacrfice of bread and wine. So according "to the order of Melchisedech" means the priesthood of Christ would be like that of Melchisedech. His sacrfice must be of bread and wine.

In verses 10-11, Malachais speaks of the sacrfice of the New Covenant (Law). "I have no pleasure in you (priests of Jewry), saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to My name a clean oblation."

So, at the time of Christ's death on the Cross and the Temple Veil was rent into from top to bottom, clearly and definitely the sacrifice of the Old Law is rejected by God, and its place is to be taken by a clean (unbloody) sacrifice offered universally (from the rising of the sun to its going down) by the Gentiles. The Sacrifice of the New Covenant is to consist of an unbloody offering to God under the rite of bread and wine by the Gentiles all over the world.

In Scriputre, sacrifice has a special meaning and it must be offered by a priest and presented by him to God alone for and in the name of the people.

So sacrfice was an essential element in Old Covenant Judaism and is in the holy religion of Jesus Christ...New Covenant Christianity and specificlally Catholicism.  The New Covenant in the Precious Blood of Christ fulfilled and completed the Old Covenant.

The Apostles as well as the early Fathers of the Chruch used expressions as "sacrifice, oblation, host, offering, victim, altar,and priest in reference to Christ's institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper on HOly Thursday the day before He died on the Cross.

At the Last Supper holding the bread, Christ said, This is My Body which is given for you....and then holding the cup ...This is the chalice of the New Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you." The meaning is clear, that His Body and Blood were "here and now" being offered for sacrfice eucharistically as on the next day It would be offered physically.

The Holy Eucharist is not only a Sacrament but the One Sacrifice of the New Covenant Law and as a sacrifice we call it the Holy Mass.  

The short of it is Jesus Christ is the eternal High Priest of the New Law, in virtue of His Sacrficial death on the Cross. The eucharistic sacrifice according to the rite of Melchisedech fulfilled the prophecy of Malchais was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. On Calvary, Christ made once and for all the necessary sacrifice of reparation. Christ is a Priest forever and Cathoic priests (by the imposition of hands ---Holy Orders)  are merely His agents offering Sacrifice in His Name.   

I told you before that I will be fine with all that if he comes back and fullfills all prophecies.

I am not arguing with Jesus, I am arguing with his followers.

Blablabla, what does that mean "When I think Melchisedech... I think sacrifice"?

When I think Melchizedek I think "king of the Canaanite city that happened to worship the same god as Abraham".

Nevertheless you haven't answered my question.

How can you count Melchizedek as a legitimate priest if at the same time you claim that Judaism, a religion created 400 years after his death was the first priestly and divine religion?

You cannot have priests without a religion.

As for your going on and on, Lula, about "Old Testamant Judaism", it is very clear that you don't know much about Judaism, almost nothing about bronze age societies, and even less (if that is even possible) about comparative religion.

The Jews might have been wrong when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

But to claim that it was "revolutionary" for the Jews to reject Jesus is nonsense.

(Was the CC "revolutionary" for rejecting the reforms proposed by Luther or was Luther the revolutionary?)

Anyway, if you want to understand the god of Israel, you will have to start in Jerusalem. Because according to the Torah, before Abraham even learned of Him and understood that He was the only god, one Canaanite city already worshipped Him.

lula posts:

The Jews may still be waiting for the Messias to come but they wait in vain. Anyone after Christ who claims to be the Messias is a false Messias is antichrist. So please stop KFC encouraging this blasphemy. 

Christ is not coming back as Messias...been there; done that....The Messias came and established the New Covenant of Grace. Christ is coming back one more time at the end of the world, time and history to JUDGE the living and the dead and to take His kingdom now glorified into the eternal New Jerusalem in the new heavens and new earth.

Any Jewish person who wants to be saved and enter into the Kingdom of God  must do as St.Peter told the multitude of men of Israel  that gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost.  Read Acts. 2:21-36. It cuts to the heart.  Verse 37, after hearing the truth, they ask St.Peter, what shall we do? He tells them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and they shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Verses 39-42, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him." He said "save yourselves from this crooked generation." 3,000 were added that day and "they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers (the primitive form of the Holy Mass.) 

Knock, knock, KFC, the Messias Christ of Psalm 2 has already come....the majority of the Jews missed His visitation. But St.Paul teaches it's not too late for them to be grafted into Christ's Body...through baptism. While the Jewish people remain most dear to God for the sake of Abraham and Moses, nevertheless, becasue of unbelief they were broken off from the olive tree which is Christ. But "if they abide not sitll in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again." Romans 11:20-23, 28.

 How shall the Jews be grafted in? By conversion and baptism the Jews can be reincorporated into the sole and exclusive covenant people of God which is the Cathoalic Chuuch, the kingdom of Heaven, just as St.Paul himself was. Of the Jewish race, "there is a remnant saved accroding to the election of grace.  11:5 and that remnant consists of those Jews who repent, are batpitzed and become members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.  

good point Leauki although I'm not sure how we can know "before Abrham even learned of Him".  Melchizedek came from Salem which was an old name for Jerusalem.   Everything starts and ends with Jerusalem.  Not Rome.  In fact even Peter called Rome Babylon.  They can't deny that.  Babylon in scripture is NEVER a good thing to be called.  Salem means peace and someday the King of Peace will come to the City of Peace and all will be good.  Melchizedek typified Christ.  Ps 110:4 because Christ will hold the office of both Priest and King which is a very unusual office. 

He will.  But keep in mind what was said about Abraham:

"and He believed in the Lord and he counted "it" to him for righteousness."  Gen 15:6

Abraham believed this would happen way before you or I or Jesus  were even born.  That's true faith.  Believing in what hasn't happened yet but yet knowing it will because God said it would.   Just like Abraham believed in the promise so too are we to believe in the future promise that He will come back and set things right.  Right now what's happening is God's allowing his cup of wrath to fill.  When it starts to spill over...watch out.  Then it will be too late.  Just like in Noah's day it will be again. 

KFC posts:

Ever since Christ's First Advent, it has happened; is happening now and will continue to happen until the end of the world.

The highlighted is unBiblical as well as enditme fantasy.

Yes, absolutely true...Christ will come back only one more time...Christ came the first time in Perfect Mercy; the second time will be in Perfect Justice.

The reason for all this is becasue the Lord God is gracious and patient and plenteous in mercy so as to save man's soul and make him eternally happy.

What's this will be blessed nonsense? All nations HAVE been blessed by Christ's First Advent. After all, He died and redeemed all mankind and opened the gates of Heaven that were shut as a consequence of Adam's sin. Daniel's six blessings have already been bestowed by Christ's First Advent.  

"If He came back as King the first time..."  What does that mean?  Don't you mean, if he came as King the first time?

Agree.

knock knock...no it hasn't.  That's what I tried to tell you...you do NOT have ears to hear Lula.  The Jews are still awaiting their Messiah.  It will be Christ and it will be exactly as Zechariah wrote about in Chap 12:

"and I will pour upon the house of David (this means Jews) and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (not Rome) the spirit of grace and of supplications and they shall look upon me (CHrist) whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, (Israel has NOT done this yet) and shall be in bitterness for him as one this is in bitterness for his firstborn.  In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.  And the land shall mourn every family apart the family of the house of David apart and their wives apart the family of the house of Nathan apart (all very Jewish) The family of the house of Levi apart and their wives apart; the family of Shimel apart and their wives apart....etc

if you continue into Chap 13 you have to admit (if you weren't so blind) this HAS NOT HAPPENED YET!  He will come back and be the Messiah they have been waiting for.  God is a God of second chances even though you don't want to believe this because you don't want the Jews to be the center of God's will again.  You remind me much of Jonah who pouted after God saved Nineveh.   He hated the people of Nineveh and wanted God's wrath to pour over them and destroy them because of his intense hatred for the people.  Instead God saved them exactly what Jonah was afraid would happen. 

Read Psalm 2.  When did these things happen?  When did the nations break with a rod of iron?  Into pieces?  When did what John wrote of in Revelation 2 and 19 (which I quoted) happen? 

When did Christ on the white horse come out of heaven to make war on the earth?  When did all the nations get smitten with the sword? 

We have NOT seen the wrath of God poured out on this earth yet.  It will be worse than in Noah's day.  Worse.  When did this happen?  I believe we are starting to see birth pangs today.  The end is near.  The wars, the quakes, the diseases, the anger of mankind on each other, the signs in the animal kingdom are all signs that are telling us that we are close.  God's cup of wrath must be close to full. 

You are allowing yourself to be deceived if you believe it's already happened.  Christ himself said it will be unlike any other day in past history.  We have yet to see the wrath of Almighty God unleashed. 

Agree. God's Salvation plan starts in earthly Jerusalem (with the Old Covenant fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ's death, resurrection and Ascension)  and ends with heavenly New Jeruslem in eternity.

No.  He did not come the first time as King.  He came as Savior.  The second time he comes will be as King.  He will sit on the seat of David as promised to David (2 Sam 7:12-16.)  That's what the Davidic covenant is all about.  The Jews wanted a King to rule over them and free them from Rome.  They wanted the Messiah promised thru all the prophets.  Jesus was that King but they did not accept this kingship.  He didn't come the way they expected so they rejected him. They were looking for another King DAvid. 

"When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king he departed again into a mountain himself alone."  John 6:15

If Jesus did do what they expected, the Gentiles would never have been reached.  Salvation was of the Jews.  It was ONLY because of their blindness (God allowed) that we are even having this discussion today.  All part of God's plan that goes all the way back to Abraham.  "all nations would be blessed" not just Israel. 

Remember the story of the Gentile woman who said "even the dogs get the crumbs from the master's table."  She wanted what the Jews were getting.  She wanted salvation and recognized He was the Messiah the Jews were waiting for. 

"And behold you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus.  He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."  Luke 1:31-33. 

As the Davidic Messiah Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob which will happen in the millennial kingdom.  This promise is not now being fulfilled simply because the church is NOT the house of Jacob and Christ is presently at the right hand of the father which is NEVER equated with the throne of David. 

Jehoiachin, king of Judah was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnessar in 597 B.C.  A curse was pronounced on him that none of his descendants would prosper sitting on the throne of David.  Had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph He could not have been successful on the throne of DAvid because of this curse.  But since Jesus came through Mary's Lineage, He was not affected by this curse.  JEsus came thru the line of Nathan (Mary's line) not his brother Solomon (Joseph's line).  It's amazing when you look at the geneologies and what transpired.  Satan corrupted the line thinking the Messiah would never be and God paved the way turning something evil into something good as per usual. 

You need to read 2 Samuel 7:12-16 for the background on the Davidic Covenant for one thing. 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

Apoc. 2:26-28, "He who conquers and keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over nations, 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father, 28 and I will give him the morning star."

Apoc. 2 is the letter to the Church of Thyatira which is the smallest of the 7 cities.  It's here that Jesus introduces Himself as "the Son of God", the one and only time this phrase appears in the Apocalypse. The reason for this special title at this particular place is due to its connection to Ps. 2:7-9. "The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. 8 Aks of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Him power over the nations. 9 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

With Christ's First Advent, Ps. 2:7-9 has already been fulfilled and is being fulfilled. Well we know that Jesus has been given authority to rule over all the nations of the earth and heaven too. St. Matt. 28:18. "And Jesus said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." So, 40 days after His Resurrection, Jesus ascended into Heaven and rules over His kingdom from the right hand of the Father. Apoc. 12:5, He's ruling now in Heaven with a "rod of iron". St.matt. 28:19 Christ gives His authority to the Apostles and their successors to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. So, Christians (the kingdom of Christ) rule with Him over the nations (Eph. 2:6) and at the end of the world, time and history, will continue to rule with Him in Heaven Apoc. 20:4-6.

Their present obedience on earth will allow the ruling powers in heaven to deal with the deteriorated spiritual condition in Thyratia becasue they have gone on too long and have spread to the nations, that is, to the rest of Asia Minor. Now, what's the message of Apoc. 2: 26-28 for us today? If one can show that he is faithful in small matters of a local church, he will be accounted worthy to rule with Christ over all the nations, from the first century until the end of the world. St.Luke 16:10 sums it up..."He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater. And we see in Apoc. 20:4, faithful Christians will reign with Christ for a "thousand years". They WILL be judging their persecuters both now and in the future Apoc. 6:9-10; 1Co. 6:2-3; St.Matt. 19:28, and Ps. 2:1-5.  

No, the Last Supper has nothing to do with this pagan concept of eucharist.  The last Supper was a Passover Sedar.  The eucharist you speak of comes from Mithras worship. "The Original Roman Empire Flag had on it Mithras, the sun god.  Hold that thought.  Missa, is latin for departed and was spoken at the end of Catholic mass so it seems that the liturgical procedure stems from that.  Mass existed before RCC for it was what the pagan priests of Mithraism called their mass of the dead.  This was a 'sacra-mental' ritual of animal and human sacrifices on an indoor altar with the pagan worshippers assembled in 2 rows of benches with a center aisle (wow looks familiar).  Head pagan priest would lead this on the other end.  The word abracadabra was used during the Mithraic Mass wehn they changed a sun-shaped disc of bread into the sun and ate it (wow sounds familiar).  The Catholic priest does the same thing except he says 'hoc est corpus meum' which came about the phrase hocus-pocus which was used for any sleight of hand. The Mandaeans (Augustine was one before he converted.  These are sun worshippers.) also had something similar to the 7 sacraments.  They had baptism because they felt that baptism was necessary to fend off impurity.  They had communion sacrements with a disc representing the sun which was offered in the rememberance of the dead (this sounds familiar).  Man and Woman would take an unbreakable vow.  Priest had a holy order."

You can go to ANY encyclopedia and look up Mithras and see the similarities between their 7 sacrements and rcc's.  eucharist = pagan.

Also, you said that revelation 2:26 has something to do with the 'church'.  You keep forgetting the golden rule of intrepretation (this is not just used for Scripture it is used when you interpret anything). 

" When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.     The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its plain face value, unless there are indications that a figurative or metaphorical meaning was intended by the original writer. In other words, one is to take the Scriptures as they are written and is not to attempt to read into the Sacred Writings his own ideas or the thoughts of men."