How and why did you reject christ?

[BilliardsBall]

Oh really? Got any examples?

Claiming Rambam thought God was wrong is smearing his name.

Of great Messianic sages? I like David Stern, Marv Rosenthal, Steven Sherman . . .

Yes, I claim Rambam thought God made an error in using echad in Tanakh and "corrected" it using yachid. But that's hardly smearing R! After all, we teach that God did not send quite the Torah needed and that we help God when we argue and debate Torah. That is part of our redemptive process for the world!

My question for you might be, "Which is greater? Tanakh or RAMBAM?" After all, Tanakh NEVER uses yachid for God and uses echad. Another question would be, "Can you stay focused on the issue--God revealed as plural in the Shema (!) rather than using a debate tactic like painting me a villian when I dare to point to some logical inconsistencies in the 13 principles?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sir, I don't think Daniels prophecy is specific to any particular number of years. Sorry. Try something else.

I shall try something else then. What do you think this means?

"69 sevens will elapse between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the cutting off of Mashiach the Prince"?

What do the 69 shabuas or sevens refer to if not years of time, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Look, we can go back and forth saying "No, he didn't," "Yes he did" until the cows come home. I have a better idea.

Why don't you pick ONE prophecy that you think Jesus fulfilled. Make sure you think that out of all the prophecies, this is the best, most indisputable case. Find the prophecy in the Tanakh and quote that. Then find and quote where in your gospels he fulfilled it. Make sure it's your very best example.

We can take the conversation from there.

There are hundreds of prophecies, including specific dates, names and actions, and type and shadow of Jesus and the cross throughout Tanakh, but this one comes to mind as a strong pull for us both:

Messiah from David's house and followed by Gentiles, and resurrected to Heaven: "...There shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious." -Isaiah 11:10

We have many notable brothers and sisters like Rabbi Shaul (Paul), Yeshua, Einstein, Freud, Disraeli, Meir, RAMBAM, Bar Kochba, etc., etc. in entertainment, sports, politics, science, business, law, learning, etc.

Which Jew from the house of David is followed by countless Gentiles? Wise men still seek Him!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just give me a yes or no-- pretend I'm an idiot. I need to keep things simple. Do you give up having free will when you become "born again?"

By the way, the phrase "God's gifts are irrevocable is a referrence Paul makes to the eternal covenant between God and Israel. It has nothing to do with whether a Jew can disobey our covenant.

No. You retain free will, and God retains His sovereignty and free will also.

How did you come to be an expert at interpreting the Brit Hadashah scriptures? I've read the NT multiple times in multiple versions. You? Were you awarded a certificate in NT studies in shul?

Romans 6 - salvation is a gift > Romans 11 gift(s) of God are irrervocable. What leads you to understand the irrevocable giftS (plural) of God are only for Israel and only in Chapter 11? When you read "God is patient" in a chapter of Tanakh, do you say, "God isn't really patient, but only to the people mentioned in this chapter, and not even this entire book."

Are you lecturing me on Christian theology as you are some kind of lapsed Noahide Christian yourself...? Be cautious, it is nothing for me to say I've studied the NT or have a Religion Bachelor's, more important, I know the author personally!

 

[syo]

Still confused. Why listen to someone you rejected?

Pagan Gods are real. Jesus is fake. So I rejected him. (Jesus is a liar.)

 

[Harel13]

Yes, I claim Rambam thought God made an error in using echad in Tanakh and "corrected" it using yachid. But that's hardly smearing R!

It certainly is, naively as it may seem to you that it's not.

After all, we teach that God did not send quite the Torah needed and that we help God when we argue and debate Torah. That is part of our redemptive process for the world!

Oh, really?

After all, Tanakh NEVER uses yachid for God and uses echad.

Neither does Rambam. I actually gave you the entire quote. I copied it by hand. He says: ייחוד ה' not ה' הוא יחיד.

"Can you stay focused on the issue--God revealed as plural in the Shema (!) rather than using a debate tactic like painting me a villian when I dare to point to some logical inconsistencies in the 13 principles?"

Look, the debate turned into a whole 'nother ball game when you stated that you were born Jewish. I can't ignore that fact. As I'm sure you know, in Judaism you'd be regarded a heretic. Considering that most rabbis today say that there aren't any real heretics anymore, you're probably more along the lines of a תינוק שנשבה. It may seem like an insult, but it's a simple fact. Jews who have converted to some other religion are different from non-Jewish adherents of those religions. I'll assume therefore that you're a תינוק שנשבה. So no, I don't consider you villain. I guess I feel sorry for you.

I and all of the Jewish Judaism-adherents disagree now and have always disagreed with the suggestion that God is plural in any sort of way. That Christians continue claiming otherwise shows ignorance in the Hebrew language and in the Torah. That you have the gall to suggest that Rambam, one of the greatest sages ever, thought: a. that God was wrong. b. that he helped invent the oneness of God though he apparently knew that god is plural - well, that frankly amazes me. I probably wouldn't have said anything to you had you not brought the Rambam into the mix, yourself.

You feel I have lost focus in the debate? You're free to back out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Pagan Gods are real. Jesus is fake. So I rejected him. (Jesus is a liar.)

You rejected christ after having a personal relationship with him because he said pagan gods were fake?

Why listen to someone you rejected?

You rejected him by saying gods are true even though he said they were false? Intentionally "getting him back"? Can't think of the right word or phrase.

If jesus was fake, what was your personal relationship based on to where you can reject it?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are hundreds of prophecies, including specific dates, names and actions, and type and shadow of Jesus and the cross throughout Tanakh, but this one comes to mind as a strong pull for us both:

Messiah from David's house and followed by Gentiles, and resurrected to Heaven: "...There shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious." -Isaiah 11:10

We have many notable brothers and sisters like Rabbi Shaul (Paul), Yeshua, Einstein, Freud, Disraeli, Meir, RAMBAM, Bar Kochba, etc., etc. in entertainment, sports, politics, science, business, law, learning, etc.

Which Jew from the house of David is followed by countless Gentiles? Wise men still seek Him!

When the Messiah comes, he will be recognized by the entire world. He simply hasn't come yet.

Jesus, btw, is NOT recognized by the whole world.

Isaiah 11:10 is interesting in that it prophecies that the Messiah will be of the Davidic line (Jesse's tree). Christians don't even realize they have a problem with this. The Davidic line passes through the biological father, not the mother, not some foster father or adopted father. Now, according to Christians, Joseph was not Jesus' bio dad (supposedly Jesus had no bio dad). Do you see where I am headed with this? Josephs genealogy is worthless. Mary's genealogy is worthless. You have nothing to document Jesus being of Davidic heritage.

So this was your very best example? Of all the "hundreds" of so-called messianic prophesies that Christians claim ( and you did actually at least offer a genuine messianic prophesy at least -- thank you) this was the one you thought was the best, most obvious, unassailable one? Because I tore it down pretty easily.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No. You retain free will, and God retains His sovereignty and free will also.

I'm glad to hear that a "born again" Christian still has free will, which means he is free to walk away from God. God's ultimate will is to have children who mature and grow and freely love and obey him. For that sake of his ultimate will, he sets aside his ability to control what he do, though he has that power.

How did you come to be an expert at interpreting the Brit Hadashah scriptures? I've read the NT multiple times in multiple versions. You? Were you awarded a certificate in NT studies in shul?

Why do you feel the need to mock? Does it meet some kind of emotional need? Because it does nothing for the discussion. A personal attack doesn't help you win your case.

I have read all sorts of religious texts, the Quran, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects, many sutras, and others, and have collected the legends of indigenous peoples. For me, a forum of interfaith discussion is a true home. My one regret is that I spent so much time studying the religions of the world, that I lack the depth of teaching in Judaism that I wish now I had. But I'm only half way through my life, so I'm setting about correcting this.

I've read the totality of your Christian scriptures more than once, including for a university course, which was my first time through the whole thing. In addition, I have studied this religion which is the dominant religion of my Western culture and country. I have been particularly interested in the first and second century period, when the cauldron of second temple Judaism produced both Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity. I have also read Christian history with the lens of how development of doctrines such as Trinitarianism effected the well being of Jews. I especially enjoy reading books by learned Rabbis and Jewish scholars regarding Christian issues, such as Harvey Falk's "Jesus the Pharisee" and Richard Rubenstein's "When Jesus became God." I'm also still friends with Christians I knew back in the BBS days of the pre-internet era. I learned an enormous amount from the religion forums back then.

Since you asked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I shall try something else then. What do you think this means?

"69 sevens will elapse between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the cutting off of Mashiach the Prince"?

What do the 69 shabuas or sevens refer to if not years of time, do you think?

The larger meaning? I don't really know. Like I said, I'm not attracted to prophecy, so if you want a real in depth discussion, you'll have to find someone else.

But as for the 69 sevens? It refers to a period of time. Since more than one decree was given to rebuild the temple, we don't really have a starting date, so it becomes worthless as a reed of measurement. And as for the 69 sevens, who knows. I don't believe it refers to an exact amount of years. But that's just me. Like I said, I'm not a prophecy buff. If you want the Jewish understanding of it, you are better off asking one of the others.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

*sigh* Let me guess, Judas?

I wasn't aware that Isaiah 53 mentioned ANY of the apostles names. He really asked you an odd question. I agree with you that the whole deviation of the conversation into gematria is a bit much.

 

[Vouthon]

I have also read Christian history with the lens of how development of doctrines such as Trinitarianism effected the well being of Jews.

That's an interesting topic for consideration. If I may ask - based upon your reading in this area - how would you say the development of Trinitarian doctrine affected the wellbeing of Jews?

I am well aware of the very tragic and damaging effects of supersessionism and attributions of deicide on the Jewish community down the centuries (as discussed on that other thread) but have not thus far subjected Trinitarianism, specifically, to the same analysis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's an interesting topic, if I may ask - based upon your reading in this area - how would you say the development of Trinitarian doctrine affected the wellbeing we Jews?

I am well aware of the very tragic and damaging effects of supersessionism and attributions of deicide on the Jewish community down the centuries (as discussed on that other thread) but have not thus far subjected Trinitarianism to the same analysis.

Basically, although Chrisitans will not acknowledge this, the idea that Jesus was God is something the developed over time, with different groups having different ideas. Second century Chrisitans, were more drawn to Modalism. But with the Council of Nicea and nailing down of Trinitarian doctrine, it became a formal heresy to believe anything less than the outright divinity of Jesus -- not just a prophet, not a unique Logos the firstborn of creation, not a minor god compared to the father, but THE God.

At that point, Jews, who were blamed for Jesus' death, became guilty of DEICIDE (the murder of God), a crime far greater than either murder or mere disobedience of God. Now when a Christian calls a Jew a Christ Killer, it has these overtones. Let Christian rage roll.

 

[Vouthon]

At that point, Jews, who were blamed for Jesus' death, became guilty of DEICIDE (the murder of God), a crime far greater than either murder or mere disobedience of God. Now when a Christian calls a Jew a Christ Killer, it has these overtones. Let Christian rage roll.

One of the most important outcomes of the Second Vatican Council, in my opinion, was the rejection of the deicide charge alongside replacement theology, for that very reason:


Jewish deicide - Wikipedia

In the catechism which was produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed the belief that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews.[3] In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[4] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".
​

I'm not sure that Modalism, though, would have been any better than Trinitarianism in preventing the emergence of this heinous "god-killing" charge.

The Modalist position held that God was a unitary "person" who assumed three aspects rather than Persons, a bit like a person wearing three different costumes and assuming a different role in a play.

Thus, it didn't introduce a plurality into the unity of the Godhead but Modalists still regarded Jesus to be an incarnation of that Godhead, one of the "roles" assumed.

Arianism, perhaps, would have avoided it - given that Jesus is a pre-existent semi-divine agent of creation (in this theology) but not "the" Supreme God, because he is deemed a separate and subordinate entity to the Father.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think I will go back to church when they open up again. I miss it. I was sad they were closed on Easter.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

One of the most important outcomes of the Second Vatican Council, in my opinion, was the rejection of the deicide charge alongside replacement theology, for that very reason:


Jewish deicide - Wikipedia

In the catechism which was produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed the belief that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews.[3] In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[4] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".
​

I'm not sure that Modalism, though, would have been any better than Trinitarianism in preventing the emergence of this heinous "god-killing" charge.

The Modalist position held that God was a unitary "person" with three aspects rather than Persons, a bit like a person wearing three different costumes and assuming a different role in a play.

Thus, it didn't introduce a plurality into the unity of the Godhead but Modalists still regarded Jesus to be an incarnation of that Godhead, one of the "roles" assumed.

Arianism, perhaps, would have avoided it - given that Jesus is a pre-existent semi-divine agent of creation (in this theology) but not "the" Supreme God, because he is a separate and subordinate entity to the Father.

Look, no kidding. I think of Nostra Aetate and breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think I will go back to church when they open up again. I miss it. I was sad they were closed on Easter.

May you find all that you are looking for.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

May you find all that you are looking for.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did I say that? You may be confusing me with @IndigoChild5559

*sigh* Let me guess, Judas?

I consider this unfocused gematria usage by Christians who have no clue what they're doing and just adding up random numbers.

It's illogical for you to consider that "unfocused gematria usage"--since you did not review the gematria in question! That's the kind of bias I see too often among both Gentiles and Jews.

PS. Of course you guessed right re: Judas. You therefore must know the Christian gospel and God's will to embed the saving gospel of trusting God, in Tanakh. What would you tell God today if He asked why you didn't trust Yeshua for salvation?

 

[Harel13]

What would you tell God today if He asked why you didn't trust Yeshua for salvation?

In that imaginary sci-fi setting (somehow, I only ever see Christians ask guys like me this question. Have religious Jews ever asked you this?), I'd tell him we received zero warning about an infinite entity changing his mind about something he said is eternal. Frankly, I'm not sure I would even want to live in an all-Jesus/all-Christianity reality.

So, what would you tell God today if He asked you why you threw away your Judaism for an empty shell of fiction?