We have a real problem in this country with undisclosed conflicts of interest. These kickbacks are so common that many people consider them just a normal business practice rather than what they actually are, petty corruption.
Add to that the disingenuousness of modern marketing, e.g. calling you pretending it's out of concern for your hea…
We have a real problem in this country with undisclosed conflicts of interest. These kickbacks are so common that many people consider them just a normal business practice rather than what they actually are, petty corruption.
Add to that the disingenuousness of modern marketing, e.g. calling you pretending it's out of concern for your health rather than the real motivator, them making money. Dishonesty is everywhere in our system, it was normalized after World War 2 as media-pushed "judeo-christianity" replaced historic Christianity in business ethics. The golden rule went out the window. Concern for the well-being of others morphed into "if you are so stupid you fall for my scam then that's on you".
I use to see the eye doctor once a year after getting constant hounding "reminders" about the importance of eye health. They'd run all kinds of tests, never find anything wrong, then make a slight tweak in my eyeglass prescription (that made no difference in vision). They'd then bill the insurance company for some absurd amount and hit me for a hundred or two in deductibles. What a racket. After several years of this I got fed up.
Now I just buy -1 diopter eyeglasses on Amazon for $15 and they work great, I only need them for driving. Those reminders from the eye doctor go right in the trash. They are just a level above an Indian call center scam, as is much of the medical industry.
Do not understand the meaning of your statement “judeo-Christianity” replaced historic Christianity in business ethics. Is this a slur on Jewish business persons? If so, that statement is malicious unadvised. My experiences, as a Gentile dealing with genuinely devout G-d fearing Jewish business persons, have only been equitable. Our combined application of moral obedience to scripture (standing on a wall made with a plumbline with a plumbline in your hand) inserts G-D’s wisdom into the equation and guarantees fairness.
I agree. It seems that hatred of anything ‘Jewish’ has once again taken hold of so-called ‘Christians’ and the so-called ‘church’. The ‘church’ (not in Scripture, anywhere (it is the ‘ecclesia’) seems to have decided to hate the very people group who gave us Yeshua. And we know where that hatred comes from. And it isn’t God.
It's not a hatred of "anything Jewish" (well maybe it is for some people but there's all sorts of nuts out there) but a recognition that we are Christians first and foremost. We follow Christ alone, and those who don't accept Him as Lord and Savior will not be saved. I know people find this controversial but it's basic Christian teaching for two millennia as Jesus Himself said it.
There is no such thing as "judeo-christianity", it's just Christianity. People who practice Judaism and do not accept Christ are not redeemed. They are lost. We should pray for them, treat them kindly, and share the gospel with them, not pretend we are some sort of nebulous common religion and they get a free pass to salvation. And we should absolutely not be following their advice on *anything* theology or morality related. Just as we wouldn't from a Muslim or Hindu. We are Christians, but often seem to forget that.
(Side note in that this is why I get so annoyed at Christians lapping up Ben Shapiro's lecturing on morality, and his arrogance in thinking he has any say in telling Christians how to behave. Would you accept that from an imam or a shaman?)
I put a long post below describing where this stuff originated and at it's core is a rejection of the centrality of Christ. But there is no other way. This other stuff is meant to mislead people, call it judeo-christianity, christlamism, new age nonsense, or whatever, but it's all the same. It's message is that there are many paths to salvation, and Christ is one of many ways.
I call it judeo-christianity as that's how it's most commonly known and it has pervaded many churches, it's not to single out Judaism. It's moral relativism rather than New Testament biblical truth. But to be clear, Talmudic Judaism without Christ is a false religion. If you disagree with that you have a problem with the New Testament, not me.
Judeo-christianity is a phony media-created term that honors neither Judaism or Christianity. It's a mish-mash of feel good platitudes, not a true ethical system determined by God's Word.
There is no such thing as judeo-christianity, you know that and I know that. I wouldn't be welcome to preach Christ's gospel in your synagogue, nor should I be. Nor should Talmudic Judaism be welcome in a Christian church. The two belief systems are incompatible.
So let's not pretend we are all just one big religious blob that believe the same thing, we don't. Judeo-christianity was invented to water down the beliefs of the dominant religion in the US, which is Christianity (70% of the population vs. 2% Jewish). It was invented to undermine the primary tenant of the Christian faith, i.e. Christ's words. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one shall come to the Father except through me".
The idea of judeo-christianity advanced moral relativism in a dominant Christian nation. It advanced the notion that all roads lead to heaven provided one considers themselves a "good person". Morality was inverted from pleasing to God to pleasing oneself. The idea that one must live a life following Christ and of holiness (that is, set apart) morphed into if it feels good do it. So your religion is no different than mine after all since we are all "judeo-christians".
If you want to take it as a slur that's your prerogative. But think about this, you would never in your life call yourself a "judeo-christian", that I'm certain of. You would consider it demeaning and insulting (righty so by the way). You probably also think Christians are damned as non-believers. So let's not get to far up on our high horse about bigotry and making slurs.
Last off, I know there are many (primarily Orthodox) Jews who attempt to live humble lives pleasing to God in obedience to Mosaic Law. I have nothing but respect for these people. But that's not every non-Christian, or even every Jew, it's a tiny minority. But you are you one who tried to conflate my use of the "Christianity" (i.e. one who sincerely follows Christ) with being a gentile and paint with broad strokes. You compared the behavior of devout Jews to "gentiles". I never used that word, you did. You were the one who tried to make this about ethnicity, not me.
I attend a Messianic Synagogue that attempts to serve G-d like the 1st century Believers, who were at the beginning, all Jews.
You would be welcome. Also, I would not think anybody was damned—-in the Bible book of Jude it is written that Gabriel, when disputing with satan over the body of Moses would not bring an accusation but said the Lord rebuke you. My intention is to not slander anyone. The chief angel would not even slander satan. That’s G-D’s territory.
ps. I come from the Jesus Movement of the 60-70’s and have witnessed Jew and Gentle becoming the biblical “one new man”. It is a process that will be completed rapidly at the end times when “all Israel will be saved”.
Enough from me for now but please forgive me if I have inadvertently offended you. (No forgiveness is necessary for the Word).
My brother, I made a really bad assumption that you practiced Judaism (i.e. were a non-Christian) based on the language you used. Huge mistake on my part and apologies.
If anyone has earned the right to be called a Judeo-Christian it is you. My writing above was not at all about Messianic Jews, but a contrived religion that lumps Talmudic Judaism and Christianity together as some sort of religious blob (hence the reason I didn't capitalize judeo-christianity). That's what I was going on about, as it really was the start of the "all roads lead to heaven" and moral relativism that took off after World War 2 (intentionally I believe). Timeline searches of the term in media show it was unheard of prior to WW2 and took off in the 1950's. It was promoted.
I think you are the first Messianic Jew I've ever traded comments with so please forgive my erroneous assumption. I learned something today and thank you for it.
In order to honor the Name, it is not completely spelled out in the event the carrying document is destroyed. That is my understanding. Honestly I was annoyed by this practice for a while, thinking it was extra Biblical. I needed to get over it to be in unity with the congregation leadership and not offend. It is not prohibited by scripture and it
is respectful to others that may get offended. Thanks for asking.
Very interesting thread here. I have evolved on this hyphenated construct of Judeo-Christian, which seemed to emerge in the early 90s, but I could be wrong. I remember Pat Buchanan offering it up. It seemed harmless and innocent enough, but now I think it is a way to dilute Christianity, and also to isolate Muslims, so I no longer use it.
Many of my Christian evangelical friends are deep into this hyphenated construct. But they also follow the Schofield Bible, and have some very questionable notions about the end times IMO.
Christianity should be teaching us that the old Testament is strictly historic. From my reading, God eventually got tired of the Jews turning away from him and sinning, and thus, through JC, discarded the blood line covenant and sent his only begotten son, to create a new covenant for ALL to be a part of. No longer was it a matter of lineage or DNA. Rather, the only requirement is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
So in that sense, there is no present day connection between Judaism and Christianity day. Thus, it is wrong to hyphenate and conflate the two. They are two entirely distinct faiths
But I am sure people out there may disagree with this view. I am open to hear thoughts, but the idea that there’s a blurry line between Judaism and Christianity doesn’t make any sense to me.
It's something I unquestioningly accepted for a long time. I think I first heard it used in the expression "judeo-christian morality" which I took as a harmless way of describing the idea we follow morality taught in the Bible.
But I began to notice it was being more widely used as describing a religious movement "judeo-christianity" particularly in the media but also in the Scofield Dispensationalist sects (of which I once was one but no longer am). It made me wonder why we were using the same language as the overtly non-Christian secular media. It's obvious the media has an agenda to subvert Church authority and influence, and aren't our friends. So why are we using their language?
I realized that many Christians (particularly Dispensationalists) view those who follow Judaism as something like "almost-Christians". They only believe the first 2/3rds of the Bible while we believe the whole thing. But that completely ignores the Talmud which was written after the Resurrection. Most Jews view the Talmud equal to the Torah (the OT), many even hold it as even more influential. And the Talmud is a hyper-legalistic book that is completely at odds with Christianity. Among other things, it's the rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law. When you hear a Jewish person having all sorts of little tricks used to evade Mosaic Law prohibitions, that's the Talmud talking.
But as Christians, we believe Christ's death and Resurrection ended the old covenant once and for all. The Law (i.e. the Torah) showed us that no man can meet God's perfect standard thus the only answer is the vicarious atonement of Christ. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God" as Paul wrote. So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.
But most Jews didn't accept Christ and continued to try and earn salvation through the Law. However, the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 (as Christ prophesied) ended the Jewish sacrificial system that was used for atonement. So Judaism went further off the rails with hyper-legalism and loopholes codified in the Talmud. It was a desperate attempt to keep a now obsolete (rendered such by the New Covenant) and impossible (with the Temple destroyed) system functioning, and hence became more and more disconnected from the OT.
So now we have two incompatible beliefs, biblical Christianity and Talmudic Judaism, which had functioned separately for 1900 years suddenly lumped together as "judeo-christianity" and done so mostly by the non-Christian media. Timeline searches show the phrase doesn't seem to have been used before the 1950's. Certainty the great Fathers of the Church never used it, and probably would be appalled at the phrase. But it's a really good way to water down and deemphasize fundamental Christian teaching, particularly the absolute necessity to accept Christ for one's salvation.
As to Scofield, it's very likely he was played or was a willing participant in this whole mess. The man had a very checkered past (abandoned his wife and kids, fraud, even jail) that he never publicly repented from. He routinely misstated his education claiming he had a Divinity Doctorate which was false. He had mysterious financial backers for his study bible that have never been explained. Someone paid him to write it, publish it, and distribute it world-wide. Add to that Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby and was *never* taught by the historic Church in the previous 1800 years of Christendom. Another modern creation just like "judeo-christianity".
If you'd like to know more about Scofield's past read "the Incredible Scofield and His Book" published by Joseph Canfield. It's out of print but copies can be found online. It's meticulously researched and footnoted and leaves no doubt about Scofield's character. It has has some pretty convincing speculation (backed by evidence) on who was paying for the Scofield Bible and why. It ties into this whole topic.
This book, and the Book of Hebrews, are what broke me out of Dispensationalism after thirty years.
Thanks for this thorough and very clear summary and explanation.
Yes to “So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.”.
Which raises huge questions on why the obsession with Israel among so many US Evangelical churches. And look into their funding, and how much they get their members in turn to fundraise for Israel.
The chief backer for the Scofield Bible from my reading was Samuel Untermeyer, who had ties to establishment of the Federal Reserve and other initiatives. Combined these institutions served to move us away from bedrock Christianity, and away from our independence as a nation.
Probably because of the actions of the state of Israel, which also happens to be the most heavily C19 vaxxed place on the planet, via governmental mandate. There's also their refusal to register their influence lobby operation as a foreign agent. Funny how JFK was killed during his massive fight to force them to follow US law, only to have LBJ immediately cave & let them have this weird unjustified exemption from complying with the FARA act, which somehow continues to this day. It's not hatred, it's just noticing.
Money for this must be coming from the government and it needs to be shut down. Paying doctors and pharmacies to give shots is bribery. No different from payola.
Eyeglass prescription are written in diopters, it’s a measurement of how much correction is needed. Reading glasses at the drugstore are typically +1.0, 1.5, and so on (measurements are professionally down to the .25 level of change). Farsightedness (you can’t see near) usually means + diopters and nearsightedness (you can’t see far) are in - diopters. Before I had cataract surgery, my eyeglass prep was -8.0/+2.0 … blind in both directions! I couldn’t see my face in the mirror. Now I have artificial lenses in my eyes and can see 20/20 without glasses for the first time in 45 years.
Yes you absolutely can. If you are near-sighted (far things are blurry) just order glasses with a negative number for the diopter value. Use the value on your prescription if you have one. If not, they are so cheap you can order a few different diopter values and pick the one that works best.
There are a few limitations, they don't go in 1/4 increments (that I've seen) but only 1/2 increments. Plus you'll have the same values for both lenses and most people's eyes are a little different. But both my wife and I did this with the closest match and it's probably 95+% as clear as an actual "prescription" pair. And the price is unbelievable compared to what people are used to paying.
Yup, but is that a large part of the population? I don't know the answer. In our house we are 3 for 3 so far with my wife, son, and me all using the cheap glasses
Probably not the way to go though if you have a complicated eye issue. But we are all just near-sighted ranging from -1 to -2 diopters.
I still think you'd do better, as would your brain with an actual refraction to determine what your correct prescription is... Just saying.. Yes, prescription glasses are hugely expensive! (It is a racket/ripoff)! IMHO. They can set you back hundreds of dollars! So, I don't blame you for going that route... but... you'd probably see better with a proper prescription...
Jeff C: I got my first pair of presc glasses last year. I had had RK, then Lasik for my nearsightedness but aging was affecting that correction. So I spent $600 for glasses I cannot wear. I finally stuck them in my car to wear if night driving is ever an issue and use +3 for reading. Lesson learned!
You can buy readers on Amazon. After my cataract surgery I needed readers for small print in low light so I purchased a pair of bifocal readers. Reading power at bottom and clear on top so that I can wear them shopping without looking like Chuckie Schumer peeking over the top of glasses. The alternative was to put them on and take them off constantly which was annoying.
Walmart.com carries distance glasses and Lensmart. I just try to find options other than Amazon with all their stock from China. Heck, maybe most everything is from China😩
I’ve never looked, to be honest. I know you can order reading glasses (+1.0 etc) on Amazon. You can certainly get them at Costco. I always had to order mine special from the optometrist because my prescription was so high - I had to pay extra for custom thinner lenses and edge polishing, things like that. -8.0 glasses are normally like Coke bottle bottoms unless you’re willing to pay more for higher end lenses. My last pair cost over $900. I also had astigmatism corrections, which are part of a custom lens.
We have a real problem in this country with undisclosed conflicts of interest. These kickbacks are so common that many people consider them just a normal business practice rather than what they actually are, petty corruption.
Add to that the disingenuousness of modern marketing, e.g. calling you pretending it's out of concern for your health rather than the real motivator, them making money. Dishonesty is everywhere in our system, it was normalized after World War 2 as media-pushed "judeo-christianity" replaced historic Christianity in business ethics. The golden rule went out the window. Concern for the well-being of others morphed into "if you are so stupid you fall for my scam then that's on you".
I use to see the eye doctor once a year after getting constant hounding "reminders" about the importance of eye health. They'd run all kinds of tests, never find anything wrong, then make a slight tweak in my eyeglass prescription (that made no difference in vision). They'd then bill the insurance company for some absurd amount and hit me for a hundred or two in deductibles. What a racket. After several years of this I got fed up.
Now I just buy -1 diopter eyeglasses on Amazon for $15 and they work great, I only need them for driving. Those reminders from the eye doctor go right in the trash. They are just a level above an Indian call center scam, as is much of the medical industry.
Do not understand the meaning of your statement “judeo-Christianity” replaced historic Christianity in business ethics. Is this a slur on Jewish business persons? If so, that statement is malicious unadvised. My experiences, as a Gentile dealing with genuinely devout G-d fearing Jewish business persons, have only been equitable. Our combined application of moral obedience to scripture (standing on a wall made with a plumbline with a plumbline in your hand) inserts G-D’s wisdom into the equation and guarantees fairness.
I agree. It seems that hatred of anything ‘Jewish’ has once again taken hold of so-called ‘Christians’ and the so-called ‘church’. The ‘church’ (not in Scripture, anywhere (it is the ‘ecclesia’) seems to have decided to hate the very people group who gave us Yeshua. And we know where that hatred comes from. And it isn’t God.
It's not a hatred of "anything Jewish" (well maybe it is for some people but there's all sorts of nuts out there) but a recognition that we are Christians first and foremost. We follow Christ alone, and those who don't accept Him as Lord and Savior will not be saved. I know people find this controversial but it's basic Christian teaching for two millennia as Jesus Himself said it.
There is no such thing as "judeo-christianity", it's just Christianity. People who practice Judaism and do not accept Christ are not redeemed. They are lost. We should pray for them, treat them kindly, and share the gospel with them, not pretend we are some sort of nebulous common religion and they get a free pass to salvation. And we should absolutely not be following their advice on *anything* theology or morality related. Just as we wouldn't from a Muslim or Hindu. We are Christians, but often seem to forget that.
(Side note in that this is why I get so annoyed at Christians lapping up Ben Shapiro's lecturing on morality, and his arrogance in thinking he has any say in telling Christians how to behave. Would you accept that from an imam or a shaman?)
I put a long post below describing where this stuff originated and at it's core is a rejection of the centrality of Christ. But there is no other way. This other stuff is meant to mislead people, call it judeo-christianity, christlamism, new age nonsense, or whatever, but it's all the same. It's message is that there are many paths to salvation, and Christ is one of many ways.
I call it judeo-christianity as that's how it's most commonly known and it has pervaded many churches, it's not to single out Judaism. It's moral relativism rather than New Testament biblical truth. But to be clear, Talmudic Judaism without Christ is a false religion. If you disagree with that you have a problem with the New Testament, not me.
You are “right on”.
Judeo-christianity is a phony media-created term that honors neither Judaism or Christianity. It's a mish-mash of feel good platitudes, not a true ethical system determined by God's Word.
There is no such thing as judeo-christianity, you know that and I know that. I wouldn't be welcome to preach Christ's gospel in your synagogue, nor should I be. Nor should Talmudic Judaism be welcome in a Christian church. The two belief systems are incompatible.
So let's not pretend we are all just one big religious blob that believe the same thing, we don't. Judeo-christianity was invented to water down the beliefs of the dominant religion in the US, which is Christianity (70% of the population vs. 2% Jewish). It was invented to undermine the primary tenant of the Christian faith, i.e. Christ's words. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one shall come to the Father except through me".
The idea of judeo-christianity advanced moral relativism in a dominant Christian nation. It advanced the notion that all roads lead to heaven provided one considers themselves a "good person". Morality was inverted from pleasing to God to pleasing oneself. The idea that one must live a life following Christ and of holiness (that is, set apart) morphed into if it feels good do it. So your religion is no different than mine after all since we are all "judeo-christians".
If you want to take it as a slur that's your prerogative. But think about this, you would never in your life call yourself a "judeo-christian", that I'm certain of. You would consider it demeaning and insulting (righty so by the way). You probably also think Christians are damned as non-believers. So let's not get to far up on our high horse about bigotry and making slurs.
Last off, I know there are many (primarily Orthodox) Jews who attempt to live humble lives pleasing to God in obedience to Mosaic Law. I have nothing but respect for these people. But that's not every non-Christian, or even every Jew, it's a tiny minority. But you are you one who tried to conflate my use of the "Christianity" (i.e. one who sincerely follows Christ) with being a gentile and paint with broad strokes. You compared the behavior of devout Jews to "gentiles". I never used that word, you did. You were the one who tried to make this about ethnicity, not me.
I attend a Messianic Synagogue that attempts to serve G-d like the 1st century Believers, who were at the beginning, all Jews.
You would be welcome. Also, I would not think anybody was damned—-in the Bible book of Jude it is written that Gabriel, when disputing with satan over the body of Moses would not bring an accusation but said the Lord rebuke you. My intention is to not slander anyone. The chief angel would not even slander satan. That’s G-D’s territory.
ps. I come from the Jesus Movement of the 60-70’s and have witnessed Jew and Gentle becoming the biblical “one new man”. It is a process that will be completed rapidly at the end times when “all Israel will be saved”.
Enough from me for now but please forgive me if I have inadvertently offended you. (No forgiveness is necessary for the Word).
My brother, I made a really bad assumption that you practiced Judaism (i.e. were a non-Christian) based on the language you used. Huge mistake on my part and apologies.
If anyone has earned the right to be called a Judeo-Christian it is you. My writing above was not at all about Messianic Jews, but a contrived religion that lumps Talmudic Judaism and Christianity together as some sort of religious blob (hence the reason I didn't capitalize judeo-christianity). That's what I was going on about, as it really was the start of the "all roads lead to heaven" and moral relativism that took off after World War 2 (intentionally I believe). Timeline searches of the term in media show it was unheard of prior to WW2 and took off in the 1950's. It was promoted.
I think you are the first Messianic Jew I've ever traded comments with so please forgive my erroneous assumption. I learned something today and thank you for it.
Honest question: can you explain why God is spelled as G-d or g-d? I have only ever seen that among Jews.
In order to honor the Name, it is not completely spelled out in the event the carrying document is destroyed. That is my understanding. Honestly I was annoyed by this practice for a while, thinking it was extra Biblical. I needed to get over it to be in unity with the congregation leadership and not offend. It is not prohibited by scripture and it
is respectful to others that may get offended. Thanks for asking.
A.M.E.N. Thank for your bravery and well-written comment. I couldn't agree more.
Very interesting thread here. I have evolved on this hyphenated construct of Judeo-Christian, which seemed to emerge in the early 90s, but I could be wrong. I remember Pat Buchanan offering it up. It seemed harmless and innocent enough, but now I think it is a way to dilute Christianity, and also to isolate Muslims, so I no longer use it.
Many of my Christian evangelical friends are deep into this hyphenated construct. But they also follow the Schofield Bible, and have some very questionable notions about the end times IMO.
Christianity should be teaching us that the old Testament is strictly historic. From my reading, God eventually got tired of the Jews turning away from him and sinning, and thus, through JC, discarded the blood line covenant and sent his only begotten son, to create a new covenant for ALL to be a part of. No longer was it a matter of lineage or DNA. Rather, the only requirement is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
So in that sense, there is no present day connection between Judaism and Christianity day. Thus, it is wrong to hyphenate and conflate the two. They are two entirely distinct faiths
But I am sure people out there may disagree with this view. I am open to hear thoughts, but the idea that there’s a blurry line between Judaism and Christianity doesn’t make any sense to me.
It's something I unquestioningly accepted for a long time. I think I first heard it used in the expression "judeo-christian morality" which I took as a harmless way of describing the idea we follow morality taught in the Bible.
But I began to notice it was being more widely used as describing a religious movement "judeo-christianity" particularly in the media but also in the Scofield Dispensationalist sects (of which I once was one but no longer am). It made me wonder why we were using the same language as the overtly non-Christian secular media. It's obvious the media has an agenda to subvert Church authority and influence, and aren't our friends. So why are we using their language?
I realized that many Christians (particularly Dispensationalists) view those who follow Judaism as something like "almost-Christians". They only believe the first 2/3rds of the Bible while we believe the whole thing. But that completely ignores the Talmud which was written after the Resurrection. Most Jews view the Talmud equal to the Torah (the OT), many even hold it as even more influential. And the Talmud is a hyper-legalistic book that is completely at odds with Christianity. Among other things, it's the rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law. When you hear a Jewish person having all sorts of little tricks used to evade Mosaic Law prohibitions, that's the Talmud talking.
But as Christians, we believe Christ's death and Resurrection ended the old covenant once and for all. The Law (i.e. the Torah) showed us that no man can meet God's perfect standard thus the only answer is the vicarious atonement of Christ. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God" as Paul wrote. So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.
But most Jews didn't accept Christ and continued to try and earn salvation through the Law. However, the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 (as Christ prophesied) ended the Jewish sacrificial system that was used for atonement. So Judaism went further off the rails with hyper-legalism and loopholes codified in the Talmud. It was a desperate attempt to keep a now obsolete (rendered such by the New Covenant) and impossible (with the Temple destroyed) system functioning, and hence became more and more disconnected from the OT.
So now we have two incompatible beliefs, biblical Christianity and Talmudic Judaism, which had functioned separately for 1900 years suddenly lumped together as "judeo-christianity" and done so mostly by the non-Christian media. Timeline searches show the phrase doesn't seem to have been used before the 1950's. Certainty the great Fathers of the Church never used it, and probably would be appalled at the phrase. But it's a really good way to water down and deemphasize fundamental Christian teaching, particularly the absolute necessity to accept Christ for one's salvation.
As to Scofield, it's very likely he was played or was a willing participant in this whole mess. The man had a very checkered past (abandoned his wife and kids, fraud, even jail) that he never publicly repented from. He routinely misstated his education claiming he had a Divinity Doctorate which was false. He had mysterious financial backers for his study bible that have never been explained. Someone paid him to write it, publish it, and distribute it world-wide. Add to that Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby and was *never* taught by the historic Church in the previous 1800 years of Christendom. Another modern creation just like "judeo-christianity".
If you'd like to know more about Scofield's past read "the Incredible Scofield and His Book" published by Joseph Canfield. It's out of print but copies can be found online. It's meticulously researched and footnoted and leaves no doubt about Scofield's character. It has has some pretty convincing speculation (backed by evidence) on who was paying for the Scofield Bible and why. It ties into this whole topic.
This book, and the Book of Hebrews, are what broke me out of Dispensationalism after thirty years.
Edit: typos
Thanks for this thorough and very clear summary and explanation.
Yes to “So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.”.
Which raises huge questions on why the obsession with Israel among so many US Evangelical churches. And look into their funding, and how much they get their members in turn to fundraise for Israel.
The chief backer for the Scofield Bible from my reading was Samuel Untermeyer, who had ties to establishment of the Federal Reserve and other initiatives. Combined these institutions served to move us away from bedrock Christianity, and away from our independence as a nation.
Probably because of the actions of the state of Israel, which also happens to be the most heavily C19 vaxxed place on the planet, via governmental mandate. There's also their refusal to register their influence lobby operation as a foreign agent. Funny how JFK was killed during his massive fight to force them to follow US law, only to have LBJ immediately cave & let them have this weird unjustified exemption from complying with the FARA act, which somehow continues to this day. It's not hatred, it's just noticing.
Money for this must be coming from the government and it needs to be shut down. Paying doctors and pharmacies to give shots is bribery. No different from payola.
Physicians get reimbursed from insurance companies based on the percentage of vaccinations among their patient cohort.
What are diopter eyeglasses? Thank you.
Eyeglass prescription are written in diopters, it’s a measurement of how much correction is needed. Reading glasses at the drugstore are typically +1.0, 1.5, and so on (measurements are professionally down to the .25 level of change). Farsightedness (you can’t see near) usually means + diopters and nearsightedness (you can’t see far) are in - diopters. Before I had cataract surgery, my eyeglass prep was -8.0/+2.0 … blind in both directions! I couldn’t see my face in the mirror. Now I have artificial lenses in my eyes and can see 20/20 without glasses for the first time in 45 years.
Yes you absolutely can. If you are near-sighted (far things are blurry) just order glasses with a negative number for the diopter value. Use the value on your prescription if you have one. If not, they are so cheap you can order a few different diopter values and pick the one that works best.
There are a few limitations, they don't go in 1/4 increments (that I've seen) but only 1/2 increments. Plus you'll have the same values for both lenses and most people's eyes are a little different. But both my wife and I did this with the closest match and it's probably 95+% as clear as an actual "prescription" pair. And the price is unbelievable compared to what people are used to paying.
Simple diopter lenses are fairly useless for astigmatism correction.
Yup, but is that a large part of the population? I don't know the answer. In our house we are 3 for 3 so far with my wife, son, and me all using the cheap glasses
Probably not the way to go though if you have a complicated eye issue. But we are all just near-sighted ranging from -1 to -2 diopters.
I still think you'd do better, as would your brain with an actual refraction to determine what your correct prescription is... Just saying.. Yes, prescription glasses are hugely expensive! (It is a racket/ripoff)! IMHO. They can set you back hundreds of dollars! So, I don't blame you for going that route... but... you'd probably see better with a proper prescription...
Jeff C: I got my first pair of presc glasses last year. I had had RK, then Lasik for my nearsightedness but aging was affecting that correction. So I spent $600 for glasses I cannot wear. I finally stuck them in my car to wear if night driving is ever an issue and use +3 for reading. Lesson learned!
Thank you so much. So can you order your script strength on Amazon?
You can buy readers on Amazon. After my cataract surgery I needed readers for small print in low light so I purchased a pair of bifocal readers. Reading power at bottom and clear on top so that I can wear them shopping without looking like Chuckie Schumer peeking over the top of glasses. The alternative was to put them on and take them off constantly which was annoying.
You can buy readers almost anywhere locally without relying on Amazon.
Do they have them for distance in stores? Maybe they do but I've only seen the readers.
We needed distance glasses which is why I suggested Amazon.
Walmart.com carries distance glasses and Lensmart. I just try to find options other than Amazon with all their stock from China. Heck, maybe most everything is from China😩
I’ve never looked, to be honest. I know you can order reading glasses (+1.0 etc) on Amazon. You can certainly get them at Costco. I always had to order mine special from the optometrist because my prescription was so high - I had to pay extra for custom thinner lenses and edge polishing, things like that. -8.0 glasses are normally like Coke bottle bottoms unless you’re willing to pay more for higher end lenses. My last pair cost over $900. I also had astigmatism corrections, which are part of a custom lens.
I buy sunglasses with 1.0 too on amazon. Great for driving and walking.
You can have an optometrist check for glaucoma.