Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

Wrong on several counts. First of all, Jews historically have had this personal relationship with God, and I would suggest that it is a more mature relationship than what you will find in a great many churches, probably including yours.

No Jews have not. IT is not even a doctrine of Judaism that adherent are spiritually united permanently with God. The Holy Spirit in the OT does not come to live permanently with a believer. He comes to accomplish a task and then leaves. The phrase born again nor the concept exists in the OT testament. This is why the OT Jewish people had to relate to God through temporary priests. In the new covenant the OT temporary priesthood is replaced by Christ who is a permanent priest. This can be seen specifically with the veil being ripped when Christ died. That veil represented the barrier between God and man. Only when Christ came was the barrier removed and removed by God supernaturally. I am sure there are a few Jews that would disagree but what I stated is classic Judaism.

In Judaism, besides intently studying Torah in immense detail, we believe that we can disagree with God, get angry with God, and even second-guess God-- respectfully, however. And there's precedence for this in scripture, such as Abraham's arguing with God when it came to Sodom and Gomorrah and Job's frustration with God.

I believe you can do or feel you are doing all those things. I however am certain no general permanent spiritual union between OT men and God was offered or occurred.

You might be thinking I am saying OT people will not be saved and that is not at all what I am saying. The blood of animals, and the ministrations of the priests, and faith in a future messiah did save OT people. However the union between God and man could not have actually taken place until Christ came. They were not born again but their names were written in the book of life.

As you may be aware of, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, and I was never taught that we could do that-- just that we should unquestionably obey. My father's side of the family was mostly Baptist, and I've been to a great many of their services, and I never heard that freedom being taught to that extent which I now experience in Judaism. Just blindly follow-- no reasoning necessary. Just listen to the "powerful sermons" from Pastor Whatever.

I can not quote it but if you access the book "Evangelical protestant creeds, with translations" you will find born again creedal statement that go way way back in protestant history. This however does not mean all churches agreed. What I was discussing was what Protestantism and even most od Catholicism in general is founded upon. However this is not the way to settle what is true. The Bible is the ultimate arbiter of theological truth and in emphatically states over and over again we must be born again. What that means, how it comes to pass, why, and what are its characteristics and exhaustively covered by the apostles and even Christ himself. Are you claiming the bible does not contain these emphatic statements? If you wish to observe another method to demonstrate my claims. Post any specific merit based salvation model and I will show it is both impossible and that it contradicts the character of God.

I had a dog a bit over a decade ago, and that dog would once in a while sneak out of the house and wander around for maybe a half hour or so, and getting him to come to back was all but impossible. But he eventually returned each time. When I told the vet about that, she said that I must have a smart dog. I asked how she could know that, and she responded that a smart dog has a curiosity, and they typically don't take directions that go contrary to that too well, but they know how to get back.

Interesting story but I am unsure of the application.

To me, a mature faith involves a lot of questioning minus blind obedience, and that I have found in Judaism to be extensively emphasized. However, I didn't find it in fundamentalist Protestantism. There we've seen people drummed out of the churches and seminaries if they dared question some teachings.

I was not discussing intellectual faith or doctrinal acceptance. I allow people to worship and study as they see fit as long as it harms no one. My point was concerning the evidence that any particular faith produced actual responses from God. A person may be moral, he may be a scholar of comparative religions, or even a monk but if that expertise did not unite that person with God and he winds up being eternally separated from God of what value was it? My specific point here concerned the evidence that a faith was true not a judgment about the level of commitment or practice of a faith.

If God is to "personal" as you said God should be, then I would suggest we treat God like a good father, but not one so high up in the clouds that the relationship is impersonal. I much prefer the give and take of a real father and son relationship that involves a real personal relationship. After all, what would you expect to find a non-theistic guy like me being fully at home in a place of worship, plus being given the teaching responsibilities I have?

You may view God as you choose. It is not my call to make. I was not commenting on how faith should be practiced but the evidence for what faith produced. In my view faith comes from God and is not gained about God with human effort. Effort is what prompts God to instill true faith not what produces it but again that was not the focus of my claims.

I mention the above not to convince you or anyone else that they should convert to Judaism, but simply that there are other faiths besides Christianity that do teach a "personal" relationship with God(s) even if you don't want to recognize that basic fact. But the idea of being "personal" tends to vary on one's perspective, much like our own earthly fathers and how we approach them are often different.

Of course there are other faiths and they all contain some truth. My point was that Christianity produces more experiential evidence than all other major faiths combined. I have no desire to convert anyone. My desire is to provide whatever information I posses to allow another to make informed decisions. I think both Judaism and Christianity concern the one true God. I think Christianity is the only faith that can unite a person with that God and have presented very substantial reasons why I have concluded that. It is not my task to determine or influence what a person does with the information. I am charged with presenting truth not forcing it's adoption. Selah,

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe that is possbile but that doesn't mean that the person is aware of it. I have learned to listen carefully to everyone for just that reason.

Yeah. Me, too. And I have found more of God's voice in the poets than in the prophets and other scripture writers.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No Jews have not. IT is not even a doctrine of Judaism that adherent are spiritually united permanently with God. The Holy Spirit in the OT does not come to live permanently with a believer. He comes to accomplish a task and then leaves.

The Holy Spirit dwells in me permanently. It's why mine is the the most sophisticated, complex and mysterious theological doctrine in human history.

Unlike any other faith, my faith confirms right understanding in every single believer who achieves it.

 

[metis]

No Jews have not. IT is not even a doctrine of Judaism that adherent are spiritually united permanently with God. The Holy Spirit in the OT does not come to live permanently with a believer. He comes to accomplish a task and then leaves. The phrase born again nor the concept exists in the OT testament. This is why the OT Jewish people had to relate to God through temporary priests. In the new covenant the OT temporary priesthood is replaced by Christ who is a permanent priest. This can be seen specifically with the veil being ripped when Christ died. That veil represented the barrier between God and man. Only when Christ came was the barrier removed and removed by God supernaturally. I am sure there are a few Jews that would disagree but what I stated is classic Judaism.

I believe you can do or feel you are doing all those things. I however am certain no general permanent spiritual union between OT men and God was offered or occurred.

You might be thinking I am saying OT people will not be saved and that is not at all what I am saying. The blood of animals, and the ministrations of the priests, and faith in a future messiah did save OT people. However the union between God and man could not have actually taken place until Christ came. They were not born again but their names were written in the book of life.




I can not quote it but if you access the book "Evangelical protestant creeds, with translations" you will find born again creedal statement that go way way back in protestant history. This however does not mean all churches agreed. What I was discussing was what Protestantism and even most od Catholicism in general is founded upon. However this is not the way to settle what is true. The Bible is the ultimate arbiter of theological truth and in emphatically states over and over again we must be born again. What that means, how it comes to pass, why, and what are its characteristics and exhaustively covered by the apostles and even Christ himself. Are you claiming the bible does not contain these emphatic statements? If you wish to observe another method to demonstrate my claims. Post any specific merit based salvation model and I will show it is both impossible and that it contradicts the character of God.

Interesting story but I am unsure of the application.

I was not discussing intellectual faith or doctrinal acceptance. I allow people to worship and study as they see fit as long as it harms no one. My point was concerning the evidence that any particular faith produced actual responses from God. A person may be moral, he may be a scholar of comparative religions, or even a monk but if that expertise did not unite that person with God and he winds up being eternally separated from God of what value was it? My specific point here concerned the evidence that a faith was true not a judgment about the level of commitment or practice of a faith.

You may view God as you choose. It is not my call to make. I was not commenting on how faith should be practiced but the evidence for what faith produced. In my view faith comes from God and is not gained about God with human effort. Effort is what prompts God to instill true faith not what produces it but again that was not the focus of my claims.

Of course there are other faiths and they all contain some truth. My point was that Christianity produces more experiential evidence than all other major faiths combined. I have no desire to convert anyone. My desire is to provide whatever information I posses to allow another to make informed decisions. I think both Judaism and Christianity concern the one true God. I think Christianity is the only faith that can unite a person with that God and have presented very substantial reasons why I have concluded that. It is not my task to determine or influence what a person does with the information. I am charged with presenting truth not forcing it's adoption. Selah,

Sorry, but your depiction of Judaism obviously has been blinded by your bias, and this also includes how you often mischaracterize other religions as well. I have experienced it on both sides, you have not, and yet you continue with the above as if you actually know. You don't, and opinions simply are not intrinsically facts. Until you take off the bias blinders you wear, you will never understand.

And this is what I feel is so terribly wrong with fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Muslem fundamentalism, etc. It's the "my way or the highway" approach that has led to so much misunderstanding and suffering throughout the world. As long as this narrow approach is believed and taken, there isn't a chance for world peace-- only a world left in pieces.

If there's a God, I can't see whereas God would want us to take that approach. I cannot picture a God that wants us to build walls rather than bridges. I cannot picture a God that says supposedly speaks only through one religion, and then only a fraction of that religion at that. I cannot picture a God, even as described in the Tanakh, who would turn His back on those he promised He would never abandon.

I was in both Christianity and Judaism for many years, I've studied religious beliefs of various other religions for nearly 50 years now, and I've stated I much prefer the Jewish and Buddhist approaches of questioning and testing, versus the blind obedience expected with the fundamentalists. Like the dog analogy I posted last, I prefer to try and think objectively rather than to just parrot one's "company line".

You can have your "god", but I don't want to have any belief in such an evil deity who hides and then expects the entire world to believe in just one single narrow approach while ignoring or even condemning the rest of humankind. Sorry, but we're simply on totally different wavelengths, so I'll just have to accept that and move on.

Shalom, and take care.

 

[1robin]

The Holy Spirit dwells in me permanently. It's why mine is the the most sophisticated, complex and mysterious theological doctrine in human history.

Unlike any other faith, my faith confirms right understanding in every single believer who achieves it.

This kind of stuff belongs with people shouting at cars on the interstate. It sounds arrogant, disingenuous, hyperbolic, and insincere. If you can supply me with any reason to believe a word of it you let me know. Declarations made independently from easily discovered facts, common knowledge, devoid of even an attempt at evidence, and concerning exactly what you have refused to supply are not very persuasive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This kind of stuff belongs with people shouting at cars on the interstate. It sounds arrogant, disingenuous, hyperbolic, and insincere.

I'm glad you noticed. I quoted most of it directly from your own messages, just substituting 'my religion' for 'Christianity'.

Now are you starting to get an idea of how others see you?

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but your depiction of Judaism obviously has been blinded by your bias, and this also includes how you often mischaracterize other religions as well. I have experienced it on both sides, you have not, and yet you continue with the above as if you actually know. You don't, and opinions simply are not intrinsically facts. Until you take off the bias blinders you wear, you will never understand.

You do recognize that Judaism is the background for Christianity do you not? It is not some mysterious oriental philosophy I read a chapter about some where. It is the context which my faith appears in and the dichotomy between the two is a constant topic in theological studies and Christian education. I even have a Torah within arms reach of this computer. I have nothing what so ever against Judaism, it must necessarily be true for my faith to be valid. You mistake 25 years of intense study including Judaism and 40 of familiarity with it for bias. I am not insulting Judaism by claiming it contains no permanent promise of the Holy Spirits indwelling made in general to it's adherents. That is simply doctrinal fact. I can be wrong or right but what I certainly am not is biased in any way towards Judaism. So try and concentrate on the evidence I am wrong instead of an unjustifiable assumption of bias against what is my faith says is actually true.

As for being on both sides. If you mean intellectually then you have no advantage over anyone else. Everyone with a computer and a desire can know just about anything they desire concerning Judaism. If you mean spiritually I seriously doubt it. Are you claiming you were a born again Christian and have reverted to Judaism? If so the apostles affirmed that as a terrible mistake and it is certainly an illogical act. If not then I have the advantage over you. However I made no appeal to this advantage.

And this is what I feel is so terribly wrong with fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Muslem fundamentalism, etc. It's the "my way or the highway" approach that has led to so much misunderstanding and suffering throughout the world. As long as this narrow approach is believed and taken, there isn't a chance for world peace-- only a world left in pieces.

We were not discussing fundamentalism either. Which is a term so vague as to mean anything. My faith is not some hard core extreme view. It is mainstream Protestantism and is exactly what Christ and all the apostles taught. It also not an indictment to believe truth is exclusive. Your own prophets certainly suggested it was extremely exclusive and by nature truth almost always excludes more that it include.

If there's a God, I can't see whereas God would want us to take that approach. I cannot picture a God that wants us to build walls rather than bridges. I cannot picture a God that says supposedly speaks only through one religion, and then only a fraction of that religion at that. I cannot picture a God, even as described in the Tanakh, who would turn His back on those he promised He would never abandon.

If you had been born again (and actually been on both sides) you would KNOW there is a God and so we can rule out that claim at the start. Christ said his message was a sword that would separate even a mother from a daughter, etc.... Truth is never ever tolerated easily and a wayward world that does not have the truth would of course consider all truth claims as equally of value. I do not know what kind of a God you wish to believe exists but the one posited by Judaism and Christianity was an extreme exclusivist. What you wish also has nothing to do with truth. Judaism is not only constantly complained of being too exclusive but also for not even having a large evangelical effort in it's doctrine. I love Jews and Judaism but in general they are seen as exclusivists not interested in spreading truth beyond their own kind. They do not say let Jew and all alike become one under some other banner, they say that all must become Jews to participate in faith. The OT has them referring to other races as dogs and not wiling to include them in revelation. I am not complaining about Judaism, I believe it true and of God. I am saying your own faith is extremely exclusive, Christ was extremely exclusive and truth is usually very exclusive. Politically correct concepts of all truth being equally valid is about the worst position possible to take but one almost universally chosen by those without truth.

I was in both Christianity and Judaism for many years, I've studied religious beliefs of various other religions for nearly 50 years now, and I've stated I much prefer the Jewish and Buddhist approaches of questioning and testing, versus the blind obedience expected with the fundamentalists. Like the dog analogy I posted last, I prefer to try and think objectively rather than to just parrot one's "company line".

Only using your own claims I do not think you were actually ever a Christian and I have spent many years testing my ability to determine this. I am sure however you learned much about Christian doctrine. What you prefer has nothing to do with anything. What we prefer is the worst criteria for detecting truth possible. If we denied cancer existed because we did not like it how many more would have died because of it. Evidence is the arbiter of truth and my major point here is that in every category it is on Christianity's side, whether I or you prefer it that way. If it was up to me things would be different but it isn't. They are what the evidence suggests they are.

You can have your "god", but I don't want to have any belief in such an evil deity who hides and then expects the entire world to believe in just one single narrow approach while ignoring or even condemning the rest of humankind. Sorry, but we're simply on totally different wavelengths, so I'll just have to accept that and move on.

Truth has nothing (or should not have) to do with preference. This sitting around picking out whatever God you wished existed is doomed to fail. Every faith I am familiar with suggests God is not like men, his ways are beyond our ways, and he is not bound to our wants. This is a modern version of idol worship. You set up a God you wish existed and deny the God that actually exists based on the evidence. I do not mean any offense but that is exactly what that is. I do not like reality as I find it but I accept it as it is. I find the Christian God to posses more evidence in every category that any other concept of God. I chose too believe in him and like hundreds of million was provided spiritual proof I had made the correct conclusion. Wishful think does not have any advantage over that, it has no advantages at all.

I tried my best to avoid any personal commentaries and stick only to the evidence I mentioned but you kept coming back to personal judgments and accusations I had to meet you on that ground. No claim I have made has anything to do with bias. My faith validates your religion or at least validated it concerning the first covenant. It is however my faith that says for now there is no longer Jew or Greek but children of God. Yours is far more fundamental than mine and there is nothing wrong and everything right with holding that truth is exclusive. I do not know you and have no wish to insult you. My comments were simple theological deduction from clear and accepted mainstream doctrine.

Anyway I do not like these personally charged discussions and will not continue it. I have no problem getting back to facts and evidence or even doctrine but this personal commentary is not productive. For example you can provide scriptural doctrine that proves Judaism offers a permanent co-existence with the Holy Spirit for every believer in this life or provide as asked any merit based salvation model that is practically possible. Your choice, peace.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only using your own claims I do not think you were actually ever a Christian and I have spent many years testing my ability to determine this.

Using your claims, I'm afraid I do not think that you were ever actually a Christian.

I'm sorry.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is a fact that union with God is the very aim of eastern religious practice, and all religions so far as the mystics are concerned...and when that aim is realized...it is a 'God and I are one' moment' for the soul of the devotee.

So when Jesus realized this mystical and divine union to become an immortal Christ, he was not the first, nor the last.

That's not meant to detract from the Christianity....the teaching of Christ has and will continue to lead souls to union with God.

My advice to all Christians is to refrain from being critical of other religions and just practice Jesus' example. Other religion practitioners should also not be looking over their shoulder with a critical eye, rather just follow your religion's path to the very end...until you too realize the absolute truth of God....union!

God's blessings to all...:namaste

 

[metis]

You do recognize that Judaism is the background for Christianity do you not?

After this post, I will copy and paste two posts that will explain this from a private forum here that I contributed to, and I hope the moderators allow this in this case.

I am not insulting Judaism by claiming it contains no permanent promise of the Holy Spirits indwelling made in general to it's adherents. That is simply doctrinal fact.

Look up "God's spirit", which is mentioned many times in the Tanakh.

Are you claiming you were a born again Christian and have reverted to Judaism? If so the apostles affirmed that as a terrible mistake and it is certainly an illogical act. If not then I have the advantage over you. However I made no appeal to this advantage.

In the parable of the sowing of the seed, faith is not presented as an either you have or not thingy, instead portrayed as growth, but also as growth that could be stopped and reversed. Also, Paul tells his followers to take care of those who had backslid.

Your own prophets certainly suggested it was extremely exclusive and by nature truth almost always excludes more that it include.

Since the rest of the world was essentially polytheistic, and since we believed in one god, yes we viewed ourselves as "exclusive" back then. But there simply is no blanket condemnation on that basis alone. Instead, the prophetic books teach that nations and people who act justly are held in high esteem by God. For example, God says that nations will be judged on how they treat the poor and disenfranchised, and let me remind you that we were the only Jewish nation and monotheistic then. Judaism puts much more emphasis on behavior that on politically-correct belief.

If you had been born again (and actually been on both sides) you would KNOW there is a God and so we can rule out that claim at the start.

"Judge ye not...".

Again, let me point out to the fact that backsliding is possible, as I previously pointed out.

I do not know what kind of a God you wish to believe exists but the one posited by Judaism and Christianity was an extreme exclusivist. What you wish also has nothing to do with truth. Judaism is not only constantly complained of being too exclusive but also for not even having a large evangelical effort in it's doctrine. I love Jews and Judaism but in general they are seen as exclusivists not interested in spreading truth beyond their own kind...

How we're been seen was and is not always realistic. We don't go around judging people. We don't go around condemning other religions. We don't go around claiming that only our way is the only correct one. We don't evangelize believers in other faiths because there's a great danger of tearing a person from their own faith and leaving them with nothing.

Only using your own claims I do not think you were actually ever a Christian and I have spent many years testing my ability to determine this.

Believe what you want.

I tried my best to avoid any personal commentaries and stick only to the evidence I mentioned but you kept coming back to personal judgments and accusations I had to meet you on that ground.

When you attack the faith of others, as you have repeatedly done, such as with the above, you don't think that this becomes "personal"? When you judge others, as you have done above, you don't think that's "personal"?

Anyway I do not like these personally charged discussions and will not continue it. I have no problem getting back to facts and evidence or even doctrine but this personal commentary is not productive.

Besides the "personal" comments you've made here, let me state that you actually have been mainly citing opinions-- not necessarily facts. And why are you taking offense to what I wrote? It's somehow right and proper for you to attack the faith of others, and yet you cannot stand it when someone questions, not your own faith, but the lack of accuracy in what you've posted? I have never posted anything that said or implied that you don't have religious faith or that you are doing evil. I have not in any way condemned Christianity, and may comments on Christian fundamentalism dealt with their approach-- not their religiosity.

Anyhow, I'm gonna post the two items from that private forum next.

 

[metis]

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church but left that church when I was 22 because of their teaching against evolution, the blatant racism that permeated even the church leadership, plus the effect of studying various religious cultures when doing my undergraduate studies. And at this point in time, to me "God" was more of a question than an answer and I just couldn't figure out on how to deal with this.

At age 30, after getting my graduate degree in anthropology, I converted to my wife's Catholicism, both for reasons of family solidarity and that I began to feel that maybe there was maybe something to this issue of "God". I had studied Christian theology in my undergrad work by taking two classes on the subject, but I realized I needed much more information, so I began to digest theology books like pieces of candy.

In my late 30's, I was selected by the pastor to co-teach those adults who were interested in converting, which I did for the next 14 years. I also taught a comparative religions course for two years during that period. Meanwhile, my theological studies continued.

Around when I was 50, I had been studying traditional Judaism for a while, largely relating it to Jesus and the development of the early church, when I ran across a statement in one of my books on Judaism that raised my eyebrows. It said that in Judaism that the issue of "the messiah" was a relatively minor issue and that Jesus could not have fit the bill. Well, I just knew that had to be wrong, so I considered this as quite a challenge. But how do I prove it wrong? Only one way: read the "O.T." from beginning to end no matter how long it takes.

So, over a period of 9 months, sitting down an average of 2-3 hours per day, with 3 Bibles, 1 concordance, 2 Christian Bible commentaries, and taking detailed notes, I set out to prove how foolish the book was. I cannot forget what happened when I finished-- I just sat in my chair, stared out into space-- my world just got turned upside down.

But, ah, I must have missed something (trust me, I tend to be very conservative in regards to changes in my life-- matched by some stubbornness ). So, next battle plan was to read the entire "N.T.", making certain that took any reference to the "O.T." and checked it for context. This process took me 3 months, and when I finished, I was stunned.

Now what? My wife knew what I was doing, but I pretty much had kept her out of the discussion since I didn't want to upset her. I had visited several synagogues here in Michigan, in Poland, and in Israel, so I picked a synagogue after doing some shopping around and began to occasionally attend while still attending Catholic services with my wife as well as continuing teaching in the church.

After a year of doing this, I decided that converting was out of the question since I need not convert according to Jewish teachings, plus I knew this was starting to "get" to my wife. At first, we both were happy when I said I wasn't going to convert, but over the next several months she knew that I was feeling a bit too much like a fish out of water, so she told me I should probably convert. I said no. Another few months went by, and there was a three-day church retreat coming up, and my wife told me I should go on it, and I reluctantly agreed.

Since it was a silent retreat, I brought along a book on "Aquinas and the Jews", but I also had a chance to talk with a Jesuit priest who I thought was quite intelligent, and I told him my situation. He asked if I was still taking the sacraments of the church, and I said yes. He looked at me and said one word that hit me like a brick: "Why?". I told him that I wasn't a hundred percent sure I was on the right path, and he responded that no one can be certain they're 100% sure or they're deluding themselves. I asked if he could show me where I was wrong, and I was again stunned when he said no.

When I went home and my wife greeted me at the door, she said I had a look on my face that told her that something really had happened that made me look bewildered. After I explained what had happened, she asked if I was ready to convert now, and I said no. About another month went by, and she told me that I was "living a lie" because I was refusing to admit to myself what I really was.

So, after about another two months, I went to the rabbi where I had had been periodically attending, asking him for his advice as to when I should convert if I decided to do so? He said there was only one reason and that's if I look in the mirror and the only thing I see is a "Jew". Three months later I went through the bet din and into the mikvah, and my involvement within the Jewish community and within my shul has been most satisfying...

... but nothing stays the same.

[continued]

 

[metis]

My wife is from Sicily, and in 2001 we went and toured Italy for 3 weeks and spent an additional 2 weeks with my wife's relatives there. I brought with me several books, and one of them was "E=MC2" by Bodanis, which is an excellent book dealing with not only the Theories of Relativity but also about issues like the Big Bang and quantum physics. The book literally scared me even before opening the cover, and I had the book for several months but had not gotten into reading it because of that. I just had a feeling that this was going to upset my apple-cart again.

Sure enough.

I don't want to get into the details of what happened, but let me just say that I began to delve quite heavily into cosmology and quantum mechanics. Could this universe and all that's in it have hypothetically evolved without a deity to cause it? Physically, yes, but what about the issue of life itself beginning from non-life? That I was far less convinced could have happened without a theistic cause.

But two things began gradually to change my mind a bit: replicating molecules and the concept of an "uncaused cause". The former provides the hypothetical basis for simple reproduction, and the latter I had a problem with that actually even went back into my early 20's, namely a lack of convincing evidence that there is a god.

As I found my long shaky belief in a creator-god on the skids, by coincidence I had been studying Buddhist dharma. I had read "The Jew and the Lotus" after getting back from Israel in 1999, and the book fascinated me. I had studied Buddhism before, but mostly on a surface level. So, as my theism was waning, my leaning of dharma was waxing, and this was very important to me because, if my belief in a creator-god is pretty much gone, although I'm not an atheist as I mentioned before, does this mean that "anything goes" from a moral perspective? The Buddhist answer: no.

So, where does this leave me in regards to my "Judaism"? I decided that, as the priest had said, there's really no way that we can be 100% sure one way or another, so I decided that I can live with this not knowing but that doesn't have to stop me. I never have believed any one religion or philosophy has all of "the answers", so I can still function even within synagogue. With a recommendation from our educational director, the rabbi chose me about 8 years ago to run the Lunch & Learn program with him, and he's well aware of what I believe-- or maybe it's best said what I don't believe. I don't broadcast where I'm at, but I don't deny it either. When I teach Lunch & Learn and various seminars, I don't teach my beliefs anyway. In March, I'm making a presentation on Islam, and I will be doing so very objectively because that's what I've been trained to do through my anthropology.

As far as dharma is concerned, I only use that which is of functional importance (Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is closest to where I'm actually coming from on that, although my favorite Buddhist scholar is Matthieu Ricard, who's a former French scientist that gave it up to be a Buddhist monk who is of assistance to the Dalai Lama).

I still attend services at my wife's church, but only as a non-participating observer. My wife loves the synagogue, and if I told her that I was quitting and no longer attending, another Jew would be crucified. Our older daughter and her kids converted about 5 years ago, and her oldest daughter teaches Hebrew to those getting ready for their bnai mitvah, and she'll be in Israel for a month this upcoming summer. Our other "kids" and grandkids fully accept where we're at, and they will periodically attend services when something special is going on, and we do likewise for them. We've never had a single family argument over the fact that we are of different faiths.

 

[Muffled]

Why would you consider them "Christian" if they're not Christian? Do you think that only those in the Christian faith search for God? I can tell you first hand that this is not true.

I believe that "Christian" was a designation assigned to those who believed that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). It does not mean that the person necessarily adheres to the doctrine that makes Christianity a unique religion.

I believe that some may search for a God that they have false information about so that the searching is not for the real God. It would be like looking for the Empire State Building in Paris and thinking that it was a domed building.

I would like to hear your testimony on this.

 

[metis]

I believe that "Christian" was a designation assigned to those who believed that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). It does not mean that the person necessarily adheres to the doctrine that makes Christianity a unique religion.

I believe that some may search for a God that they have false information about so that the searching is not for the real God. It would be like looking for the Empire State Building in Paris and thinking that it was a domed building.

But when it comes to a belief in God, who can really say which is the "false information"? I can mischaracterize the teachings of a particular religion or denomination, but trying to provide any explanation of "God" is pretty hard sledding, even here in Michigan. And there are so many denominations with so many different teachings, there's very little to much of nothing that we could likely come up with that would be agreed on by all.

I would like to hear your testimony on this.

You'll have to explain more on exactly what you're looking for here.

 

[psychoslice]

To the ignorant or unenlightened, it does sound like Jesus was saying he was God, but to the Awakened one it is seen as Jesus was talking about his divine Self, or the Christ, he himself as Jesus could do nothing without the Source or God, this also applies to us.

 

[1robin]

It is a fact that union with God is the very aim of eastern religious practice, and all religions so far as the mystics are concerned...and when that aim is realized...it is a 'God and I are one' moment' for the soul of the devotee.

So when Jesus realized this mystical and divine union to become an immortal Christ, he was not the first, nor the last.

That's not meant to detract from the Christianity....the teaching of Christ has and will continue to lead souls to union with God.

My advice to all Christians is to refrain from being critical of other religions and just practice Jesus' example. Other religion practitioners should also not be looking over their shoulder with a critical eye, rather just follow your religion's path to the very end...until you too realize the absolute truth of God....union!

God's blessings to all...:namaste

Was this directed at me? It seems to concern my claims but was not labeled as being for me to reply to. If was in response to me, I will be happy to provide my response to it.

 

[1robin]

After this post, I will copy and paste two posts that will explain this from a private forum here that I contributed to, and I hope the moderators allow this in this case.

Look up "God's spirit", which is mentioned many times in the Tanakh.

I am very familiar with the term, and while it has been a very controversial issue I will grant that I probably agree with you that it is the Holy Spirit and sent from God. However from the OT testament I know of no story where this spirit was given to live in the heart of a believer for ever during this life. It came to do things, it came to help people, it came to punish immorality, it came to grant wisdom, it came as a response to being requested, it came to lead battles, etc.. what I have no recollection of it doing is being offered to every single believer as a permanent possession acquires through being born again. AS I have said God did act in union with men in the OT, and his angels, and spirit were quite active, but the full dispensation of his spirit was not made available to every believer until Christ came. Christ said unless he left the spirit would not come. He did not mean he would not show up (Jesus knew very well the spirit had been active on earth in the OT period) he meant it would not available to every believer as a possession.

In the parable of the sowing of the seed, faith is not presented as an either you have or not thingy, instead portrayed as growth, but also as growth that could be stopped and reversed. Also, Paul tells his followers to take care of those who had backslid.

I was not claiming the bible says it is an al on or all off faith thing. I am saying that a certain level of faith leads to being born again and salvation since Christ came. As he said even the demons believe in God yet are not saved. That is why faith is usually divided in Christianity between an intellectual agreement with a claim and saving faith resulting from experience with God. There might be some areas of =over lap but they are two distinct type of faith.

Since the rest of the world was essentially polytheistic, and since we believed in one god, yes we viewed ourselves as "exclusive" back then. But there simply is no blanket condemnation on that basis alone. Instead, the prophetic books teach that nations and people who act justly are held in high esteem by God. For example, God says that nations will be judged on how they treat the poor and disenfranchised, and let me remind you that we were the only Jewish nation and monotheistic then. Judaism puts much more emphasis on behavior that on politically-correct belief.

First it was not me who condemn exclusivity. It was you. Your faith is very exclusive yet you do not agree with exclusivity. Rather odd but I imagine possible. Now then God may indeed judge nations by the way they treat the poor but he will not save them on that basis. This is about temporal judgments as there are no nations in heaven or hell and nations are not saved or lost all together. You are mixing temporal judgments with eternal ones.

"Judge ye not...".

Again, let me point out to the fact that backsliding is possible, as I previously pointed out.

I certainly agree that a born again Christian may be at times less moral or more, and have stronger faith at times. I do not think he is any more or less saved by this. It is Christ's merits on which salvation depends and my agreement with that. It is not maintained by works or even relative dips and gains in faith. This being said, I know what being born again is even if I knew nothing else. I have studied no subject more and have written papers on it. It is an act designed to reveal God's reality to man as well as Christ's. It was intended to produce certainty of God's existence. If you lack that certainty then it is reasonable to doubt the experience. This is not a moral issue. I do not think you are morally worse because of it. I am not condemning you. It is Christ's words alone that determine that and I am simply saying what is consistent with them. It is like having a disease for which you only tried one drug and were instantly cured and then concluding you do not know if doctors, medicine, and drugs exist. I find these incompatible but you may certainly be my moral superior.

How we're been seen was and is not always realistic. We don't go around judging people. We don't go around condemning other religions. We don't go around claiming that only our way is the only correct one. We don't evangelize believers in other faiths because there's a great danger of tearing a person from their own faith and leaving them with nothing

. Jesus did those exact things. I am to called to be a little Christ. That is what Christian means. If anyone holds to moral truth yet does not share that truth they are unworthy of their calling. I am called to always defend my faith and even carry to all the world. That is not acclaim about who is right. It was a claim that Judaism is among the most exclusivist religions in history.

Believe what you want.

What I believe has no connection to what I wish was true.

When you attack the faith of others, as you have repeatedly done, such as with the above, you don't think that this becomes "personal"? When you judge others, as you have done above, you don't think that's "personal"?

No I do not. This is a theological debate forum not a PC make everyone feel accepted forum. The apostles were commissioned to do exactly what I have done. They were not appreciated for it and I do not look for your approval. My judge is a little higher than political correctness.

Besides the "personal" comments you've made here, let me state that you actually have been mainly citing opinions-- not necessarily facts. And why are you taking offense to what I wrote? It's somehow right and proper for you to attack the faith of others, and yet you cannot stand it when someone questions, not your own faith, but the lack of accuracy in what you've posted? I have never posted anything that said or implied that you don't have religious faith or that you are doing evil. I have not in any way condemned Christianity, and may comments on Christian fundamentalism dealt with their approach-- not their religiosity.

I am citing doctrine. It was Christ who said no other name given to men may save anyone and that no proceeds to the father except through him. Not me.

Anyhow, I'm gonna post the two items from that private forum next.

Very well. I will continue to critique the views of others but I cannot approve or condemn you. If you find that intolerable then you may honorably refuse the discussion but I would not think a theological forum where you wish to be. Truth is exclusive. It and I will rule out more than we accept.

 

[1robin]

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church but left that church when I was 22 because of their teaching against evolution, the blatant racism that permeated even the church leadership, plus the effect of studying various religious cultures when doing my undergraduate studies. And at this point in time, to me "God" was more of a question than an answer and I just couldn't figure out on how to deal with this.

The bible clearly teaches things change after their kind. I would think that church to not be representing biblical teaching at least on that issue.

At age 30, after getting my graduate degree in anthropology, I converted to my wife's Catholicism, both for reasons of family solidarity and that I began to feel that maybe there was maybe something to this issue of "God". I had studied Christian theology in my undergrad work by taking two classes on the subject, but I realized I needed much more information, so I began to digest theology books like pieces of candy.

Very well.

In my late 30's, I was selected by the pastor to co-teach those adults who were interested in converting, which I did for the next 14 years. I also taught a comparative religions course for two years during that period. Meanwhile, my theological studies continued.

Unfortunately the Catholic church has many times been far more interested in gained parishioners than saving souls but I am with you so far.

Around when I was 50, I had been studying traditional Judaism for a while, largely relating it to Jesus and the development of the early church, when I ran across a statement in one of my books on Judaism that raised my eyebrows. It said that in Judaism that the issue of "the messiah" was a relatively minor issue and that Jesus could not have fit the bill. Well, I just knew that had to be wrong, so I considered this as quite a challenge. But how do I prove it wrong? Only one way: read the "O.T." from beginning to end no matter how long it takes.

So you consider the OT to represent Judaism's teachings? I hope so, it will simplify things.

So, over a period of 9 months, sitting down an average of 2-3 hours per day, with 3 Bibles, 1 concordance, 2 Christian Bible commentaries, and taking detailed notes, I set out to prove how foolish the book was. I cannot forget what happened when I finished-- I just sat in my chair, stared out into space-- my world just got turned upside down.

But, ah, I must have missed something (trust me, I tend to be very conservative in regards to changes in my life-- matched by some stubbornness ). So, next battle plan was to read the entire "N.T.", making certain that took any reference to the "O.T." and checked it for context. This process took me 3 months, and when I finished, I was stunned.

This is similar to me early days as a Christian except I think you arrived at the opposite conclusions.

Now what? My wife knew what I was doing, but I pretty much had kept her out of the discussion since I didn't want to upset her. I had visited several synagogues here in Michigan, in Poland, and in Israel, so I picked a synagogue after doing some shopping around and began to occasionally attend while still attending Catholic services with my wife as well as continuing teaching in the church.

This is why Christ said his message would split families.

After a year of doing this, I decided that converting was out of the question since I need not convert according to Jewish teachings, plus I knew this was starting to "get" to my wife. At first, we both were happy when I said I wasn't going to convert, but over the next several months she knew that I was feeling a bit too much like a fish out of water, so she told me I should probably convert. I said no. Another few months went by, and there was a three-day church retreat coming up, and my wife told me I should go on it, and I reluctantly agreed.

I assume you mean covert to Judaism, correct?

Since it was a silent retreat, I brought along a book on "Aquinas and the Jews", but I also had a chance to talk with a Jesuit priest who I thought was quite intelligent, and I told him my situation. He asked if I was still taking the sacraments of the church, and I said yes. He looked at me and said one word that hit me like a brick: "Why?". I told him that I wasn't a hundred percent sure I was on the right path, and he responded that no one can be certain they're 100% sure or they're deluding themselves. I asked if he could show me where I was wrong, and I was again stunned when he said no.

That is bizarre. The first theological authority I came across was Balthazar and he was a Jesuit and very fundamental.

When I went home and my wife greeted me at the door, she said I had a look on my face that told her that something really had happened that made me look bewildered. After I explained what had happened, she asked if I was ready to convert now, and I said no. About another month went by, and she told me that I was "living a lie" because I was refusing to admit to myself what I really was.

So, after about another two months, I went to the rabbi where I had had been periodically attending, asking him for his advice as to when I should convert if I decided to do so? He said there was only one reason and that's if I look in the mirror and the only thing I see is a "Jew". Three months later I went through the bet din and into the mikvah, and my involvement within the Jewish community and within my shul has been most satisfying...

... but nothing stays the same.

Let me throw in my two cents. I could not care any less about what church anyone belongs to, what ceremonies they went through, or what creeds they agree to. I care about whether God has accepted him. I find the criteria to be the born again experience in the case of 90% of us. Being any organizations roll will not help in the end. I don't think that was your point but wanted to make that clear.

 

[1robin]

My wife is from Sicily, and in 2001 we went and toured Italy for 3 weeks and spent an additional 2 weeks with my wife's relatives there. I brought with me several books, and one of them was "E=MC2" by Bodanis, which is an excellent book dealing with not only the Theories of Relativity but also about issues like the Big Bang and quantum physics. The book literally scared me even before opening the cover, and I had the book for several months but had not gotten into reading it because of that. I just had a feeling that this was going to upset my apple-cart again.

A Sicilian Catholic? Your in trouble. Why would a physics text scare you? They scared me on testing day but no other time.

Sure enough.

I don't want to get into the details of what happened, but let me just say that I began to delve quite heavily into cosmology and quantum mechanics. Could this universe and all that's in it have hypothetically evolved without a deity to cause it? Physically, yes, but what about the issue of life itself beginning from non-life? That I was far less convinced could have happened without a theistic cause.

I won't get detailed at this point but this is simply not true. The universe does not contain an explanation of it's existence. It can't be eternal and all the evidence is consistent with it being finite. It needs a cause or creator outside of nature to explain it's existence. Since you are on a different track here I will leave it there.

But two things began gradually to change my mind a bit: replicating molecules and the concept of an "uncaused cause". The former provides the hypothetical basis for simple reproduction, and the latter I had a problem with that actually even went back into my early 20's, namely a lack of convincing evidence that there is a god.

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. God did not, all of nature did.

As I found my long shaky belief in a creator-god on the skids, by coincidence I had been studying Buddhist dharma. I had read "The Jew and the Lotus" after getting back from Israel in 1999, and the book fascinated me. I had studied Buddhism before, but mostly on a surface level. So, as my theism was waning, my leaning of dharma was waxing, and this was very important to me because, if my belief in a creator-god is pretty much gone, although I'm not an atheist as I mentioned before, does this mean that "anything goes" from a moral perspective? The Buddhist answer: no.

This is quite the odyssey.

So, where does this leave me in regards to my "Judaism"? I decided that, as the priest had said, there's really no way that we can be 100% sure one way or another, so I decided that I can live with this not knowing but that doesn't have to stop me. I never have believed any one religion or philosophy has all of "the answers", so I can still function even within synagogue. With a recommendation from our educational director, the rabbi chose me about 8 years ago to run the Lunch & Learn program with him, and he's well aware of what I believe-- or maybe it's best said what I don't believe. I don't broadcast where I'm at, but I don't deny it either. When I teach Lunch & Learn and various seminars, I don't teach my beliefs anyway. In March, I'm making a presentation on Islam, and I will be doing so very objectively because that's what I've been trained to do through my anthropology.

It is not your uncertainty about the right faith that alarmed me. It was your uncertainty that God exists. The born again experience is intended to answer that very dilemma.

As far as dharma is concerned, I only use that which is of functional importance (Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is closest to where I'm actually coming from on that, although my favorite Buddhist scholar is Matthieu Ricard, who's a former French scientist that gave it up to be a Buddhist monk who is of assistance to the Dalai Lama).

I still attend services at my wife's church, but only as a non-participating observer. My wife loves the synagogue, and if I told her that I was quitting and no longer attending, another Jew would be crucified. Our older daughter and her kids converted about 5 years ago, and her oldest daughter teaches Hebrew to those getting ready for their bnai mitvah, and she'll be in Israel for a month this upcoming summer. Our other "kids" and grandkids fully accept where we're at, and they will periodically attend services when something special is going on, and we do likewise for them. We've never had a single family argument over the fact that we are of different faiths.

I notice something very important missing here. There is no moment when God entered your heart and settled at least the most fundamental questions here. Your speaking of an intellectual epiphany not a divine response confirming the epiphany. I can only go by what you say or leave out. I can and will give you my odyssey if you want but the important difference I want to stress is my journey led me to one night giving up and accepting Christ. That is still not what I am talking about but at that moment I literally thought I was dying and going to heaven. I have never felt such contentment and joy. I was instantly relived of tons of guilt and depression I had no idea I had because it builds up gradually. I instantly lost desires for habits I had tried and failed to break for years. I knew certain fundamental doctrines were true more than I knew anything I had ever studied in school was. I literally spent several minutes in God's presence. I have had a few pale reflections of this event since then but never it's equal. We can argue about the merits of the treasure map or our opinions on it but if the possessor of one map actually has the treasure and the other is still looking, it would be academic would it not. At that time I was not very educated in Christianity. I walked around in shock for three days with people asking if I had gotten a hair cut or made some other change. I had no answer at that time, the only thing I could quantify was that I felt like I was brand new, like a new born. I only later found out about being born again used as an analogy for salvation. I have since then, as you have, devoured theological texts and find the description of salvation the bible presents to match in every detail what I experienced, and that no other faith even has a similar doctrine nor even a fraction of the people who claim the experience.

Whether you agree with me or not. Do you not see the point of reference that justifies my making the claims I have? I am not your moral better nor more intelligent. I just happen to have arrived at the correct road map and stumbled across the treasure because I had the right map. That is why I am no longer the guy who loved for evangelists to knock on the door so I could refute their every claim and am now a person who knows the God I denied and hated for so long exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Was this directed at me? It seems to concern my claims but was not labeled as being for me to reply to. If was in response to me, I will be happy to provide my response to it.

Not specifically at you 1robin, t'was just for those to whom the message may appear meaningful...