Some Christians not celebrating Christmas or Easter shows that trying to live out the message of Christ has nothing to do with Christmas or Easter.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
Some Christians not celebrating Christmas or Easter shows that trying to live out the message of Christ has nothing to do with Christmas or Easter.
I will take this as a failure to respond and document. See post #2273.
Tzephanyahu
Member
As a thought experiment, if we imagine that the Scriptures did actually deviate from the original writings with the creation of the Masoretic Text, what evidence would convince you? What would be the proof you would require?
The best thing would be a time machine to go back and see the development of the text, including the decisions of our sages, both in terms of deciding what to include in Tanach and in the build of the text. The next possibility would be the discovery of the original manuscripts with clear evidence that these are indeed the originals.
Sort a true, but not the point of my line of reason.. It remains that Christianity today and for the last 1800+ years is a Roman/Anglo-Saxon religion.
That doesn't mean that Jesus isn't the Messiah.
Tzephanyahu
Member
Ha! Okay, I know I said thought-experiment but that didn't mean fantasy-experiment.
The closest thing we have to this now is the Dead Sea Scrolls and, at a stretch, the texts with the Ethiopian Jews.
However, let's imagine that we did find these texts - it would be very unlikely you would ever be informed, invited or involved directly. It's more likely that any deviations from the MT that may be discovered in them would be published by a secular, Christian or catholic source. Based on previous experiences (with the DSS & LXX), any such discovery that casts the MT into doubt would immediately be met with cynicism from the Jewish Community, if any response was given at all, as it would imply that your sages were wrong. I'm sure the very facts themselves would be called in dispute rather than the option of seriously reexamining the MT.
And so, we find a base assumption being made - that your sages had true and honest motives when developing the MT and when leaving out the commonly-accepted books from the Tanakh. It's an assumption that the Masoretic Scribes had the purity and righteousness like that of a prophet of Elohim, with each decision be incontestable.
Therefore, how can I reply to you? Surely it will always come down to what your sages say, as if their words and deeds were infallible and could never be discoloured by any motivation (well meaning as they may of thought it was). So whatever I say, you'll surely always fall on the side that doubts any supportive evidence for their foul play, right? So how can I reply to you my friend? Wouldn't I be saving both of our time in not debating further?
Nevertheless, I was impressed and grateful that you considered that video (as he does ramble on a bit!) That was very cool of you, and so for that thank you again, as you could have easily ignored it.
Peace.
There are Orthodox Jewish academics, you know. I myself plan on studying archeology next year, so who knows? Once access is given to enough such scholars, views might be inclined to change. But this is all incredibly hypothetical, of course.
While I did mention the MT a number of times in my analysis post of the video, my arguments aren't based necessarily on the MT (unless you can point out me that verses I referred to are inherently different in the Septuagint). Mostly, that guy's arguments pointed out seemingly missing verses in the MT. My counter-arguments were intended to point out that a great many of these verses are either located in other places or don't make any sense. As such, I still recommend looking over what I said (and if I wrote harshly, that's because I sometimes get infuriated over certain types of anti-Judaic arguments). This is less about how old the MT is and more on whether it was deviously tampered with upon formation. I feel there's no evidence for this.
It's Pesach vacation by us and the subject of the biblical canon fascinates me, so time + interest = analysis post.
Tzephanyahu
Member
Haha, I'm not having that! Cite your sources!
I will look deeper at through your response.
Ah don't worry about that. I understand. I get the same as well from time to time. Defending the Jews against Christians and defending Christians against the Jews!
It's Pesach vacation by us and the subject of the biblical canon fascinates me, so time + interest = analysis post.
Amen. What is more interesting than discussing the Word of Elohim right?
So on the Biblical Canon, what are your views on the books that were removed that seem to support Yahushua HaMashiach? Such as 2 Esdras, Enoch 1 and the Testament of the 12 Patriachs? Also do you have an opinion on the the Book of Jubilees and why the sages thought it best to leave it out? It seems that in first century Israel these books were accepted and used - though the evidence for this isn't overwhelming.
Peace
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nope. Christmas was inspired by the Church to commemorate God's gift of Jesus as it is the "Mass of Christ" that was put on the Liturgical Calendar, as are many of the saints that are also recognized throughout the Church year. The reason why December 25th was chosen was because it was a non-work day within the confines of the Roman Empire because of Saturnalia, therefore Christians had that day off as well.
IOW, you've conflated cause & effect, and the proof of that is that we do not at all recognize that Roman holiday.
The celebration of the birth of Christ happened to have been chosen the same date as Saturnalia doesn't mean that Christmas is a pagan holiday.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Huh? That's what I was saying.
Huh? That's what I was saying.
I was commenting on the belief that Christmas and Easter are modeled around Roman and European pagan holidays. I meant in an earlier post that Christmas being based off Saturnalia doesn't mean that the New Testament is pagan, because the first Christians didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter and they were like Messianic Jews.
What, give names of Orthodox Jewish academics?Haha, I'm not having that! Cite your sources!
'ppreciated.
I recently wrote an essay (in Hebrew) on the sages' view of some of the apocryphal works, but I didn't look into these particular works. I was looking for works that are referred to - explicitly or inexplicitly - by the sages of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, like ben-Sira, Judith, Tobias, Maccabees and so forth. Most apocryphal works are easily dismissed in Judaism because we have one basic rule of canonicity: What was written after the deaths of the last three prophets - Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi - is out. Period. The Tanach spans the era of prophecy. There were debates about including some of the other books of Tanach - like Song of Songs and Daniel - for other reasons, but it was agreed that they were ancient enough. I found evidence - particularly within the Patristic writings - that for this same rule of canonicity, other books were dismissed, such as Judith, Susanna and Tobias. We may therefore assume that it was obvious to the sages that works such as the Testament and Enoch were post-prophetic works.
I remember seeing an explanation for this, but can't quite remember. Possibly because it contradicts way too many Jewish traditions. Another possibility is that it was concluded, as mentioned above, to not have been from the era of prophecy.
Jesus Christ rejected this in every gospel:
John 5:30: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
Jesus was in submission to God the Father. Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad
No good, documented that Jesus Christ denied your claim in every gospel.
The concept of the Trinity is not One God, but three in Tritheism
The concept of the Trinity is in the Old Testament. Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad
I listened and did not ignore it. It is an unfortunate ramble, ramble, ramble (far more than a bit!) without a clear specific reference that would document the claim that the text was selectively altered to change prophesy.
Still waiting . . .
Simply not. Unity in terms of Adonai, Elohim or any other reference is One and only One God.
Terrible unethical corruption of the use of the Hebrew Yachid vs. Echad. In number there is only One.