How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[BilliardsBall]

I'm literally just straight curious. Not only is this a belief, it's a common one despite the two deities being inherently contradictory in nature and Jesus fulfilling little to NONE of the messianic prophesy. Not to mention the whole idea of Christ contradicts Judaism, and Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts. If the deities are suppose to be the same, as Christianity seems to believe, as in they worship the Hebrew god, isn't the religion absolute pure blasphemy?

I'm very late to the party, Outsider, but it helps if you would give specific data from the scriptures, Judaism or Christianity rather than make general statements. For example, you wrote "Not to mention the whole idea of Christ contradicts Judaism" when nothing could be more untrue. Christ = Christos = Messiah or Mashiach. Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures teach and anticipate a Messiah. The question is whether Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or a false Messiah. It is ONLY Judaism which taught and preached a Jewish Messiah--the Messiah is unique to that faith and to the Jewish writers of the New Testament. There is no Messiah-ship taught by any world religion other than Judaism/Christianity.

Also, you wrote something curious that "Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts". Perhaps I misunderstand your post but there is zero evidence that the Hebrew scriptures, even one verse, have changed since any given point in time like the Septuagint translations of 250 BC and the time of Jesus/the New Testament. No Christian writer or commentator has ever attempted to change, edit or alter even one verse of the Hebrew scriptures, although there are some differences between Jewish and Christian translations of the Hebrew scriptures to English and other languages, sure. But no Christians have even attempted to pervert the Hebrew texts or change one word of the Hebrew texts as received.

Thanks.

 

[1137]

I'm very late to the party, Outsider, but it helps if you would give specific data from the scriptures, Judaism or Christianity rather than make general statements. For example, you wrote "Not to mention the whole idea of Christ contradicts Judaism" when nothing could be more untrue. Christ = Christos = Messiah or Mashiach. Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures teach and anticipate a Messiah. The question is whether Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or a false Messiah. It is ONLY Judaism which taught and preached a Jewish Messiah--the Messiah is unique to that faith and to the Jewish writers of the New Testament. There is no Messiah-ship taught by any world religion other than Judaism/Christianity.

Also, you wrote something curious that "Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts". Perhaps I misunderstand your post but there is zero evidence that the Hebrew scriptures, even one verse, have changed since any given point in time like the Septuagint translations of 250 BC and the time of Jesus/the New Testament. No Christian writer or commentator has ever attempted to change, edit or alter even one verse of the Hebrew scriptures, although there are some differences between Jewish and Christian translations of the Hebrew scriptures to English and other languages, sure. But no Christians have even attempted to pervert the Hebrew texts or change one word of the Hebrew texts as received.

Thanks.

This has all been FULLY covered in the thread.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This has all been FULLY covered in the thread.

I'm not seeking to fight with everyone but there's much on this thread in error on all sides. For a start, you make an assertion that Judaism contains in its God the qualities Christians ascribe to a duality of God and Satan. Yet Satan or Lucifer clearly exists in the Hebrew scriptures.

If the thrust of your argument is that Judaism is different than Christianity in doctrine or practice, that is inarguable. Of course they are as different as they are different belief systems. But it would very difficult for to argue that (evangelical/conservative/born again) Christians aren't sincere in following the Hebrew scriptures or are trying to pervert them--or Judaism itself.

 

[Harikrish]

I'm literally just straight curious. Not only is this a belief, it's a common one despite the two deities being inherently contradictory in nature and Jesus fulfilling little to NONE of the messianic prophesy. Not to mention the whole idea of Christ contradicts Judaism, and Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts. If the deities are suppose to be the same, as Christianity seems to believe, as in they worship the Hebrew god, isn't the religion absolute pure blasphemy?

It is blasphemy, and that is why Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy. But Christians contest....if Jesus was God then it was not blasphemy. But there is already a God...so there had to be a trinity of Gods.

"Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness."

 

[Akivah]

Also, you wrote something curious that "Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts". Perhaps I misunderstand your post but there is zero evidence that the Hebrew scriptures, even one verse, have changed since any given point in time

That was his point. Obviously, the Hebrew scriptures are unchanged since they were canonized around 200 BCE. The point he was making is that the Christian bible which claims to be the same as the Hebrew bible, isn't. The Christian bible has different words, different chapters, and the order of the books are switched around. The Christian bible was written to prove that their man is a god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That was his point. Obviously, the Hebrew scriptures are unchanged since they were canonized around 200 BCE. The point he was making is that the Christian bible which claims to be the same as the Hebrew bible, isn't. The Christian bible has different words, different chapters, and the order of the books are switched around. The Christian bible was written to prove that their man is a god.

The chapters and verses came far later. 400 AD or so and 800 AD or so (my religion degree is feeling a bit rusty today, sorry). The Christian Bibles may have different words than Jewish Bibles in the Old Testament in English due to translation choices but often members of both faiths use the same source texts in Hebrew for their work.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is blasphemy, and that is why Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy. But Christians contest....if Jesus was God then it was not blasphemy. But there is already a God...so there had to be a trinity of Gods.

"Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness."

Jesus died for the "crime" of blasphemy, not saying bad things about God but claiming to be God, the biblical blasphemy. If He was a faker, He was put to death by Romans for a crime against the Hebrew scriptures, if He was God, He was put to death for claiming to be Himself, no blasphemy at all.

 

[Hawkins]

Jesus died for the "crime" of blasphemy, not saying bad things about God but claiming to be God, the biblical blasphemy. If He was a faker, He was put to death by Romans for a crime against the Hebrew scriptures, if He was God, He was put to death for claiming to be Himself, no blasphemy at all.

 

[Hawkins]

2 perspectives as my 2 cents.

1. In terms of salvation
======
I think that more importantly we may need to look into how God defines the Jews.

A covenant is a combination of Law and Grace applying to a scope of humans. The OT is more about how Mosaic Law was made obvious to a cope of humans called the Jews.

Genesis 17:14 (NIV)
Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

The scope of humans (the Jews) only applies to those who abide by the Mosaic Law. So if a Jew by bloodline broke the covenant, he may no longer be a Jew.

On the Judgment Day, the Jews (Mosaic Law observers so to speak) will be judged by Mosaic Law. However, those who have 'broken the covenant' may not be counted as Jews and may not be judged by the Mosaic Law. When being cut off from his people, one makes no difference than a gentile in terms of the covenant and judgment.

Judaism doesn't provide salvation for the gentiles (i.e., 99% today's humans). So in terms of salvation, only Christianity saves human souls. On the other hand, if salvation is out of concern, you don't need Judaism either. Just pick any religion or no religion, live your life span then it's all done. If salvation matters then Christianity becomes the only choice (for gentiles thus 99% humans).

That being said, if the Jews try to be against the New Covenant which intends to save today's humans (humans in the past 2000 years), they are not Jews in God's eyes.

Revelation 2:9 (NIV)
I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 (NIV)
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
======


2. AD 70 Siege
======
Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE.

So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews).

At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem.

And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end.
======


A true blasphemy is the making use of Judaism in attacking Christianity.

 

[Akivah]

The Christian Bibles may have different words than Jewish Bibles in the Old Testament in English due to translation choices but often members of both faiths use the same source texts in Hebrew for their work.

Those "translation" choices are suspicious when they translate just fine in multiple verses, but for their so-called proof texts, suddenly a different word is used.

If Christian use the words from the Hebrew bible, then I don't see it. All I see are preachers waiving mangled verses in front of my face as I walk down the street.

 

[rosends]

Judaism doesn't provide salvation for the gentiles (i.e., 99% today's humans). So in terms of salvation, only Christianity saves human souls...
That being said, if the Jews try to be against the New Covenant which intends to save today's humans (humans in the past 2000 years), they are not Jews in God's eyes.

Judaism does not purport to provide "salvation" for anyone, Jew or not. Judaism also recognizes that a non-Jew can simply follow the 7 Noachide laws and have no problem in terms of God's law. Christianity is immaterial to Jewish thinking about human souls. Please do not characterize what Judaism believes until you know.

Jews who go against the fiction of a "new covenant" are Jews in God's eyes because he told us so. Claiming otherwise has no value or merit.

Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE.

Actually, it is based on the combination of written and oral law, both of which date back to the revelation at Sinai. The messianic concept dates back as well and was written down well before Maimonides was born.

Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). ... The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end.

The Pharisees survived -- the Sadduccees and Essenes died out. I know because we are still here and modern Judaism is Pharisaic.

 

[Hawkins]

Judaism does not purport to provide "salvation" for anyone, Jew or not. Judaism also recognizes that a non-Jew can simply follow the 7 Noachide laws and have no problem in terms of God's law. Christianity is immaterial to Jewish thinking about human souls. Please do not characterize what Judaism believes until you know.

Jews who go against the fiction of a "new covenant" are Jews in God's eyes because he told us so. Claiming otherwise has no value or merit.


Actually, it is based on the combination of written and oral law, both of which date back to the revelation at Sinai. The messianic concept dates back as well and was written down well before Maimonides was born.


The Pharisees survived -- the Sadduccees and Essenes died out. I know because we are still here and modern Judaism is Pharisaic.

Like I said, if it doesn't concern salvation, you can well choose any religion or no religion. There's no significant difference there.

From Christian source, Pharisees disappeared along with other sects. The Jews were scattered after being driven out of Palestine.

From wikipedia:
The Pharisees, among other Jewish sects, were active from the middle of the second century B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

Even when wikipedia mentioned that only Pharisees may remain, it is also remarked that it is not necessarily so. The nature of history is that truth goes along with faith. It always relies on faith for one to determine which saying lies the truth.

 

[rosends]

Like I said, if it doesn't concern salvation, you can well choose any religion or no religion. There's no significant difference there.

From Christian source, Pharisees disappeared along with other sects. The Jews were scattered after being driven out of Palestine.

From wikipedia:
The Pharisees, among other Jewish sects, were active from the middle of the second century B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

Even when wikipedia mentioned that only Pharisees may remain, it is also remarked that it is not necessarily so. The nature of history is that truth goes along with faith. It always relies on faith for one to determine which saying lies the truth.

I am using Jewish history and the existence of the talmud and post talmudic works as evidence for the continued teaching and and acceptance as normative of the Pharisaic thread.

 

[Hawkins]

I am using Jewish history and the existence of the talmud and post talmudic works as evidence for the continued teaching and and acceptance as normative of the Pharisaic thread.

Some Pharisee concepts are not written down, especially under that circumstance that their concepts are in conflict of that of the Sadducees. In fact, the Oral Law as a whole is not something "written down", not to speak the concepts of the Pharisees at Jesus time.

I already told you that concepts of modern Jews were developed at a much later stage, including talmud in the written form.

Talmud is more for teaching and is basically from rabbis instead of pharisees.

 

[rosends]

Some Pharisee concepts are not written down, especially under that circumstance that their concepts are in conflict of that of the Sadducees. I already told you that concepts of modern Jews were developed at a much later stage, including talmud in the written form.

Talmud is more for teaching and is basically from rabbis instead of pharisees.

The Pharisaic concepts that we have were all written down (as were the ideas of the Sadducces with which the Pharisees argued). The concepts of Modern Judaism were developed beginning at Sinai with the oral law and developed over time before, during and after the era of the writing of the talmud. The talmud is from the Pharisees who were also the rabbis.

 

[Hawkins]

The Pharisaic concepts that we have were all written down (as were the ideas of the Sadducces with which the Pharisees argued). The concepts of Modern Judaism were developed beginning at Sinai with the oral law and developed over time before, during and after the era of the writing of the talmud. The talmud is from the Pharisees who were also the rabbis.

These arguments include the belief of afterlife, the belief of sheol as reflected by the book of Enoch. They are Pharisee concepts but not in today's Jews.

The difference between Oral Law and written Law is that Oral law is not something legitimately written down. It is passed orally. The Talmud may help to see some of its contents. Yet the Talmud in the written form is developed at a much later stage. Anyway, the talmud is an attempt to record the oral law contents in written form for the purpose of teaching. It is not for recording the Pharisee concepts.

To put it another way, what makes you think that a teaching book will contain all the concepts of a small sect of 6000 thousands? How do you address that it is the concept of the Pharisees at Jesus time. What makes you think that there is no difference in concept between early Pharisees and Pharisees at Jesus time and the discrete Pharisees remained after 70AD?

You makes you think that even using today's teaching books as an example that a teaching book contains all concepts of a school of people?

 

[rosends]

These arguments include the belief of afterlife, the belief of sheol as reflected by the book of Enoch. They are Pharisee concepts but not in today's Jews.

The difference between Oral Law and written Law is that Oral law is not something legitimately written down. It is passed orally. The Talmud may help to see some of its contents. Yet the Talmud in the written form is developed at a much later stage.

To put it another way, what makes you think that a teaching book will contain all the concepts of a small sect of 6000 thousands? How do you address that it is the concept of the Pharisees at Jesus time. What makes you think that there is no difference in concept between early Pharisees and Pharisees at Jesus time and the discrete Pharisees remained after 70AD?

You makes you think that even using today's teaching books as an example that a teaching book contains all concepts of a school of people?

I'll try to explain this -- you are operating from an external set of beliefs about Pharisees. I am a Pharisee so I think I know what I believe a bit better. For example, I hold particular beliefs about the afterlife. I am a modern Jew. Therefore, to say that modern Jews don't hold these beliefs is wrong.

The oral law was committed to writing a long time ago in the mishna and then in the gemara which explains the mishna (the two together form the essence of the talmud). You are suggesting that there is other "oral law" not present in the mishna/gemara (and some other texts which are written down but which don't concern you). You are mistaken. We, as Jews, know what the oral law is and where it comes from, plus who codified it and when. What we have in the talmud is a pretty exhaustive set of laws, discussions and explanations (though not all of it as certain tractates are missing). What makes you think that your idea of what the talmud is and what Pharisaic thought is trumps those of us who study and live it?

 

[RabbiO]

I'll try to explain this -- you are operating from an external set of beliefs about Pharisees....

What makes you think that your idea of what the talmud is and what Pharisaic thought is trumps those of us who study and live it?

I admire your even temper. At times like this I usually just go for the face palm emoticon and move on.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is some Talmudic study for Christians by default, since it is all but impossible to correctly interpret the NT scriptures without an understanding of the underlying issues. For one of many such examples, Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples do not wash their hands before they eat--there is no law in the 613 proscribing this kind of hand washing in the Hebrew scriptures.

I appreciate that you are living your life per the righteous requirements of the Law as well as studying it fervently. But since the NT contains some of the earlier Talmud in written, not oral form, it is worth studying. Since Hillel is quoted in the NT, since there are hundreds of pages of Messianic prophecies and hundreds of Hebrew prophecies in the NT, since their are untold billions of gematria possibilities in the NT, we might as well ask if you study the Christian Bible and how you can say you are an authority on anything Parush if you don't read it...?!

You can only go so far saying "only we Jews understand what Pharisees are" without really closely looking at all the Pharisee/Jesus discussions in the NT, in my opinion.

 

[rosends]

There is some Talmudic study for Christians by default, since it is all but impossible to correctly interpret the NT scriptures without an understanding of the underlying issues. For one of many such examples, Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples do not wash their hands before they eat--there is no law in the 613 proscribing this kind of hand washing in the Hebrew scriptures.

I appreciate that you are living your life per the righteous requirements of the Law as well as studying it fervently. But since the NT contains some of the earlier Talmud in written, not oral form, it is worth studying. Since Hillel is quoted in the NT, since there are hundreds of pages of Messianic prophecies and hundreds of Hebrew prophecies in the NT, since their are untold billions of gematria possibilities in the NT, we might as well ask if you study the Christian Bible and how you can say you are an authority on anything Parush if you don't read it...?!

You can only go so far saying "only we Jews understand what Pharisees are" without really closely looking at all the Pharisee/Jesus discussions in the NT, in my opinion.

There is precious little Talmudic study by Christians. Simply hearing that there are laws in the Talmud to which Pharisees were referring (because one of their defining features was adherence to Oral law/Talmud as well as written) is not a study of Talmud. Someone who hears the phrase "freedom of speech" has not studied the constitution even though he needs to know that that phrase exists in order to understand why America allows certain behaviors. When I was in graduate school and, in a book we read, there was mention that the husband and wife slept in separate beds so students came to me to explain the biblical prohibitions during a woman's menstrual period. They weren't studying the bible, even by default.

I have read parts of the gospels and have seen lists of the sections of the Oral law which they co-opt. I have also seen the claims that there are "Hebrew prophecies" (though I don't know what that means as the gospels were not originally in Hebrew) and I have learned about what the messianic prophecies really are so I am unimpressed with other claims. Also, gematria is meaningless in the gospels for a couple of reasons (the language and the origin/source of the content). I don't know what you mean about my not being an "authority on anything Parush" -- the Prushim are the Pharisees. That is precisely what I am a relative authority on. You are the one who hasn't read what the Prushim taught.

I can go plenty far without looking at the Pharisee/Jesus discussions in depth because I live my life by everything the Pharisees actually taught regardless of Jesus' position on the matter. You can only go so far in assuming knowledge of the Pharisee system by limiting yourself to the Pharisee/Jesus discussions, in my opinion.