Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Brian2]

Maybe and if are big assumptions.

It is not really a big assumption to start the time line prophecy at the time the prophecy tells us to start.

 

[Harel13]

It is not really a big assumption to start the time line prophecy at the time the prophecy tells us to start.

Except that the start date can clearly be interpreted in different ways. Once again, I'll bring these links:
The L-rd's Anointed - Source Book

The 70 weeks in Daniel 9

I recommend you peruse them.

 

[Brian2]

No, I am talking about Noahidism.

You have not converted to Judaism.

No I have not converted to Judaism but I have become one of God's chosen by taking on the New Covenant that Jesus offers.

There was a problem in the early Church of whether the Gentile converts to Christianity needed to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul strongly disagreed and it came to a head at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
The decision reached seemed to be to obey the Noahidic requirements, but the reason for this (when I read other things in the New Testament) seems to be to make the Gentile converts acceptable to the Jews of the day and their scruples,,,,,,,,,,,the Christian Church being a sect of Judaism at the time.
In the New Covenant there is no requirement to obey those laws to be saved however.

 

[Brian2]

So, not Judaism, then.

No, the early Church was a sect of Judaism but since then the divisions have broadened and Judaism, which only tolerated the Church at the start anyway, has kicked us out. However we do not have any strange god from the Gentiles, we have the same Hebrew God.

 

[Harel13]

No, the early Church was a sect of Judaism but since then the divisions have broadened and Judaism, which only tolerated the Church at the start anyway, has kicked us out.

So please don't go around calling yourself Jewish, or a convert to Judaism. You're not.

However we do not have any strange god from the Gentiles, we have the same Hebrew God.

That depends both on your Christian denomination and which Jewish Halachic view on the status of Christianity you subscribe to.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

So please don't go around calling yourself Jewish, or a convert to Judaism. You're not.

Yes that's correct but it's also very explicitly true that the early Church(s) wasn't "Christianity" either. "Christianity" being a 3rd and 4th century trend culminating in the Catholic church.

 

[Harel13]

but

The vast majority of adherents to what was originally known as "the way" and today is known as Christianity are not Jewish in no way whatsoever.

 

[Harel13]

The Jews have been bumped aside to let the Baha'is, Christians and others to feud.

As usual. Same as it's been for thousands of years.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The vast majority of adherents to what was originally known as "the way" and today is known as Christianity are not Jewish in no way whatsoever.

Also known as Nazarenes.

There were multiple movements that popped up pretty quickly, all spreading oral tradition all with competing ideologies, all distinctly different from Christianity.
The stream going through Paul and Peter is what later evolved into what you term "Christianity", which later developed doctrines like original sin, deity of Jesus and the Trinity.

It's important not to conflate them all. What ended up as Christianity is 100% an irreconcilable religion to Judaism with basically an inverted view of Judaism (and often polemically too).
Earlier forms were more ambiguous though and closer to forms of Judaism like the Essenes.
Jesus himself taught a messianic form of Judaism which would be categorically a heretical split, at least in retrospect. The Jesus as recorded by authors of Matthew and John (Johannine) though had a more hostile view towards forms of Judaism like Pharasies and Saducees.
Jesus and his movement were itself 100% Jewish, and in strong adherence to the Shema and the Torah, irregardless of their messianic claims.
Within Johaninne and Paulian stream though we see an antinomian view towards the Torah popping up, which later systematizes quite strongly over the following centuries; of which comes to very much embody the very ideological heart of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Jewish Nazarenes were very different from the Paulian pre-Christians, for instance. Paulians for instance being aimed towards Gentiles and drawing heavily upon Hellenistic sources.

As I'd said though in my previous reply, yes, as you say, what is known as "Christianity" today is antithetical to Judaism in every single way and I take great anger towards it myself.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Here's what I found at a Baha'i site...

According to the text of Genesis, Isaac was the one to be sacrificed. This statement has caused much confusion because it was impossible for Isaac to be Abraham’s only son. There was just one child who could have been the only, and that would have been Ishmael in the years before Isaac was born.
The mystery continued even after the coming of Jesus because he never mentioned the sacrificial victim by name. The only identification was done by one of the apostles—James—who simply echoed the Genesis text in identifying the son as Isaac.

The first hint of a solution to the quandary occurred when Muhammad, as quoted in the Qur’an, strongly hinted that Ishmael was the sacrificial son, and implied that the incident took place before the birth of Isaac, during the period of time when Ishmael truly was “the only son.” Baha’u’llah later confirmed Muhammad’s hint by directly identifying Ishmael as the one who was to be offered up:

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men." – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 75-76.

The corrections given by Muhammad and Baha’u’llah to the account in Genesis make it clear that, for whatever reason, the version of the sacrifice given in Genesis is not perfect. We don’t know why Jesus didn’t mention and correct the error, but he might have realized that his followers were not yet ready to appreciate Ishmael’s rightful place in the Abrahamic drama.​

Right off the bat I have a problem... Why would Baha'u'llah, and the Baha'is, take the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son literally? They don't take the Creation Story literally. They don't take the Resurrection Story literally. They don't take the ages of the people in Genesis literally. So why this story? Then, also, why would the scribes hundreds of years ago change the story from Ishmael to Isaac?

You make a very good point. I think the reason why they take it literally might be because of their roots in Islam. But certainly making such a decision is not being consistent on their part. I don't even understand why they think that Muhammed and Bab'u'llah would know better than the people who wrote the books.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thanks again for starting this thread. I really enjoyed and learned a lot before things got opened up to everybody. I'm still enjoying it and learning things, but it's not the same anymore. The Jews have been bumped aside to let the Baha'is, Christians and others to feud.

Yeah, this is why I didn't want the thread to be opened up to non Jews. One hardly ever gets to have a decent discussion with jews because all the other people who disagree with them want to feud with their viewpoints. And most who non Jews who interfere merely state opinions that are based on a flimsy basis, which is that they believe their prophet or leader automatically, which isn't productive. I am thinking of starting an invite only thread which I should have done with this topic.

 

[Harel13]

It's important not to conflate them all

Does it matter in any sort of important way? Probably not. Neither Wayists or Nazarenres or however you wish to call them are around today. The various Christians that claim to only follow the original teachings of Jesus are still very much Christians, as far as Judaism is concerned.

Jesus and his movement were itself 100% Jewish, and in strong adherence to the Shema and the Torah.

That really depends who you ask. As we're discussing the Jewish view on the matter, we'll go with that view. There's a disagreement if the Talmudic Jesus is the same Jesus described in the NT. Those who say yes, say that this Jesus sinned by sorcery, idolatry and causing others to sin as well, three major sins. Those who say no, still won't openly embrace Jesus*. Having some basic Jewish legal knowledge shows that the NT's Jesus did a number of very problematic things during his life. He was not a man that should be revered, at least not in Jewish terms.

*In more recent years there's been a small movement of people attempting to "reclaim the Jewish Jesus". These people, though some are rabbis, aren't mainstream in Jewish beliefs and views on the matter.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Does it matter in any sort of important way? Probably not. Neither Wayists or Nazarenres or however you wish to call them are around today. The various Christians that claim to only follow the original teachings of Jesus are still very much Christians, as far as Judaism is concerned.

That really depends who you ask. As we're discussing the Jewish view on the matter, we'll go with that view. There's a disagreement if the Talmudic Jesus is the same Jesus described in the NT. Those who say yes, say that this Jesus sinned by sorcery, idolatry and causing others to sin as well, three major sins. Those who say no, still won't openly embrace Jesus*. Having some basic Jewish legal knowledge shows that the NT's Jesus did a number of very problematic things during his life. He was not a man that should be revered, at least not in Jewish terms.

*In more recent years there's been a small movement of people attempting to "reclaim the Jewish Jesus". These people, though some are rabbis, aren't mainstream in Jewish beliefs and views on the matter.

Yeah I largely agree with you and myself hold problems with the way Jesus is depicted in the NT (which I don't consider authoritative).

As for the so-called "Messianic Judaism" aka evangelical Christians trying to hijack Judaism, yes that makes me pretty angry. It's highly anachronistic (it's just evangelical trinitarian protestant Christianity LARPing, there's nothing "Jewish" about it) and very condescending. It's quite terrible but also comes across as incredibly silly and childish at the same time.

 

[Harel13]

it's just evangelical trinitarian protestant Christianity LARPing, there's nothing "Jewish" about it

 

[Samael_Khan]

The vast majority of adherents to what was originally known as "the way" and today is known as Christianity are not Jewish in no way whatsoever.

I don't think they would say they are Jewish either. But certainly Christianity has its roots in Judaism and a strong link at that since its founders were Jewish. In fact Christianity cannot exist without ancient Judaism and the NT texts would be non existent without their references to the OT.

Christianity would be more like a heretical Jewish sect at its worst.

 

[Harel13]

I don't think they would say they are Jewish either. But certainly Christianity has its roots in Judaism and a strong link at that since its founders were Jewish. In fact Christianity cannot exist without ancient Judaism and the NT texts would be non existent without their references to the OT.

Christianity would be more like a heretical Jewish sect at its worst.

I don't deny that. However, Christianity is very much not Jewish in almost every central aspect of it, and picking and choosing what you like and what you don't is not Jewish. Even if one says "X is deeply rooted in Judaism", we'll counter with "Y is most certainly not Judaism and those two don't go together", and that's the decisive kicker.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't deny that. However, Christianity is very much not Jewish in almost every central aspect of it, and picking and choosing what you like and what you don't is not Jewish. Even if one says "X is deeply rooted in Judaism", we'll counter with "Y is most certainly not Judaism and those two don't go together", and that's the decisive kicker.

Isn't their multiple Jewish sects though? Like Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and a few others. Don't they pick and choose they like or don't like and are still considered Jewish?

By the way, I consider Christianity as Jewish as JW's are Christian. They still hold the previous title but....

 

[Brian2]

That's only because we read the text which says that the terms of the covenant will be the same but the nature of it and its transmission will be new, so one can't be under a "New" delivery system if one is not under the original content.

When Jeremiah says that the Law will be in their mind does that not mean the whole of God's word.
I have heard a Jew say that Jews will not be able to break the New Covenant (I think it was that). I'm not sure exactly where he got that but that surely is different. Forgiveness is offered under the new covenant from what I remember. That would get rid of the need for the sacrificial laws.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Isaiah wanted certain people not to understand him. He speaks of the fact that historically, many Jews ignored God's word, but Isaiah also states in 48:14, "assemble, ALL OF YOU", and he speaks to all the people trying to get them to return to God.

I get it from Isa 6, but it is really God who wanted it. In Isa 48 it is God who keeps calling Israel to believe and trust Him alone and follow what He wants them to do. In the end it did not work because all of Israel (north and south) were eventually exiled.
But no doubt there are other things that Isaiah was to prophecy that the Jews cannot see until it becomes obvious and then it will be a case of looking back and seeing that yes God had actually told us those things but for some reason we did not see them.
And maybe you did not see them because God did not want you to, or maybe it is because you are a stiff necked people as God says in Isa 48.

 

[rosends]

When Jeremiah says that the Law will be in their mind does that not mean the whole of God's word.

Yes it does. Why say otherwise?

I have heard a Jew say that Jews will not be able to break the New Covenant (I think it was that). I'm not sure exactly where he got that but that surely is different. Forgiveness is offered under the new covenant from what I remember. That would get rid of the need for the sacrificial laws.

Really? Says who? The text refers to the Torah. Not parts of it. Not it "in spirit." This confirms all the earlier statements that the Torah is perfect and complete and we are bound to follow it for all generations. Jer and Ezek both indicate that after the nature of people change, they will follow the Torah, its laws and ordinances.

I get it from Isa 6, but it is really God who wanted it. In Isa 48 it is God who keeps calling Israel to believe and trust Him alone and follow what He wants them to do. In the end it did not work because all of Israel (north and south) were eventually exiled.
But no doubt there are other things that Isaiah was to prophecy that the Jews cannot see until it becomes obvious and then it will be a case of looking back and seeing that yes God had actually told us those things but for some reason we did not see them.
And maybe you did not see them because God did not want you to, or maybe it is because you are a stiff necked people as God says in Isa 48.

All Isaiah 6 says is that some people are deserving of punishment so either they are so far gone that they cannot or will not hear the exhortation to repent, or that God makes them too stubborn to repent because once their punishment is decreed, they must be punished and can't escape it by repenting (like Pharaoh in Egypt).

 

[RabbiO]

Isn't their multiple Jewish sects though? Like Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and a few others. Don't they pick and choose they like or don't like and are still considered Jewish?

Yes, there are multiple movements within Judaism. However, your description of the differences within Judaism is simplistic and a mischaracterization.