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

[gsa]

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.

This is highly unlikely. Or, more to the point, Pontius Pilate would not have been concerned with blasphemy, unless it would have an impact on Roman authority. Claiming that you are the messiah, perhaps a king appointed by God, and disrupting the temple system in the process, would have caught the attention of the Romans if only because of the earlier cases of rebellion associated with such claims (such as Simon of Peraea and Anthronges).

The historical Jesus was almost certainly not executed because he committed blasphemy per se, but because he was a subversive who threatened Roman rule and the governing elite that cooperated with the Romans.

 

[CG Didymus]

...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...

Serveral times, in serveral threads, it is mentioned that all the "prophesies" mentioned in the NT are misquoted or taken out of context. The prophesies describing what will happen during the Messianic era haven't been fulfilled. Making the Messiah into a three part God is a huge departure from Judaism. Adding in a greater role of The Adversary is another tremendous change. The way Christians use the Hebrew Scriptures to prove these things adds even more use of misquotes and taking things out of context. So what seems so obvious to Christians, when looked at and studied even at a basic level, isn't all that obvious. A person needs to "believe" the Christian interpretation and to somewhat close their minds to other views to make it work.

 

[Akivah]

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.

Exo 30:19 Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

The problem is statements like "You are the one who hasn't read what the Prushim taught." Would I tell you on this forum if I am Menachem Schneerson's grandson and a secret disciple of Y'shua?! Would I tell you if I'm 40 years in Talmud and writing you from my computer laptop 100 yards from the Wailing Wall while trying to maintain my visa?!

Nor can I take you at face value that "gematria is meaningless in the gospels" because there is Greek and because you personally don't agree with the sect of Jews who wrote them... that's not a falsifying criteria for anything... Jews have never been afraid to explore knowledge or dismiss sources because of who the sources are. How can Jewish people study Talmud, gematria, kabbalah and much more but say the New Testament is wrong utterly because of the authors?

Again, the earliest Talmud in written form is in the New Testament scriptures. I always find the irony not only in Talmudic experts having only a passing knowledge of them, but also saying they understand the Hebrew scriptures--there are thousands of verses of Mishnah in the NT! Read 'em, please!

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is highly unlikely. Or, more to the point, Pontius Pilate would not have been concerned with blasphemy, unless it would have an impact on Roman authority. Claiming that you are the messiah, perhaps a king appointed by God, and disrupting the temple system in the process, would have caught the attention of the Romans if only because of the earlier cases of rebellion associated with such claims (such as Simon of Peraea and Anthronges).

The historical Jesus was almost certainly not executed because he committed blasphemy per se, but because he was a subversive who threatened Roman rule and the governing elite that cooperated with the Romans.

You are skipping the parts of the gospels where 1) the Jewish authorities convicted Jesus of blasphemy but 2) the Romans, not the Jews, executed Jesus.

You are also missing the narrative where it shows that Pilate felt personally unsettled and threatened, then convinced Y'shua was going to be an innocent sacrifice, caved (as he often did back then). Jesus claimed more than Kingship and Messiahship, He told Pilate of his armies and power.

 

[rosends]

The problem is statements like "You are the one who hasn't read what the Prushim taught." Would I tell you on this forum if I am Menachem Schneerson's grandson and a secret disciple of Y'shua?! Would I tell you if I'm 40 years in Talmud and writing you from my computer laptop 100 yards from the Wailing Wall while trying to maintain my visa?!

Nor can I take you at face value that "gematria is meaningless in the gospels" because there is Greek and because you personally don't agree with the sect of Jews who wrote them... that's not a falsifying criteria for anything... Jews have never been afraid to explore knowledge or dismiss sources because of who the sources are. How can Jewish people study Talmud, gematria, kabbalah and much more but say the New Testament is wrong utterly because of the authors?

Again, the earliest Talmud in written form is in the New Testament scriptures. I always find the irony not only in Talmudic experts having only a passing knowledge of them, but also saying they understand the Hebrew scriptures--there are thousands of verses of Mishnah in the NT! Read 'em, please!

I don't know if you are anyone's grandson in particular, but from your writing patterns I can come to certain conclusions and from your content I can come to more. So I stand by what I said.

You don't have to take anything at face value. But gematria assigns value to Hebrew letters. Texts written NOT in Hebrew (or a smattering of Aramaic) are not subject to computation through gematria. There are also a variety of forms and modes of gemartrias, all through Judaism and Jewish textual explication so claiming any relationship to non-Jewish texts fails on its face. I could relate an interesting story about exactly who wrote the gospels and you would probably reject it. I could then simply claim that you reject that which you don't like. Just let me know if you want sources proving that the entirety of Christian biblical texts are intentional Jewish forgeries.

How can non-Jews NOT study Jewish texts but claim any knowledge or insight into Jewish thought and the development of Judaism. Oh yeah...wikipedia.

The earliest talmud predates the common era. The "written" form that you are trying to tout as being authoritative lacks a certain provenance which the written talmud has. So while the Third hand accounts in the gospels relate that the personages claimed in the gospels related lines which are also found in the talmud, all that does is validate the talmud for me instead of replacing it with "earlier" and better versions. As a matter of fact, all this does it prove to me the aforementioned version of events which had a Jew write the Christian texts! Thank you for proving my historical point.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know if you are anyone's grandson in particular, but from your writing patterns I can come to certain conclusions and from your content I can come to more. So I stand by what I said.

You don't have to take anything at face value. But gematria assigns value to Hebrew letters. Texts written NOT in Hebrew (or a smattering of Aramaic) are not subject to computation through gematria. There are also a variety of forms and modes of gemartrias, all through Judaism and Jewish textual explication so claiming any relationship to non-Jewish texts fails on its face. I could relate an interesting story about exactly who wrote the gospels and you would probably reject it. I could then simply claim that you reject that which you don't like. Just let me know if you want sources proving that the entirety of Christian biblical texts are intentional Jewish forgeries.

How can non-Jews NOT study Jewish texts but claim any knowledge or insight into Jewish thought and the development of Judaism. Oh yeah...wikipedia.

The earliest talmud predates the common era. The "written" form that you are trying to tout as being authoritative lacks a certain provenance which the written talmud has. So while the Third hand accounts in the gospels relate that the personages claimed in the gospels related lines which are also found in the talmud, all that does is validate the talmud for me instead of replacing it with "earlier" and better versions. As a matter of fact, all this does it prove to me the aforementioned version of events which had a Jew write the Christian texts! Thank you for proving my historical point.

I guess the problem I'm currently having is that you wrote assumptions about me in a post where you said the gospels are off because of which Jewish men wrote them and when I attempted to gently correct you, you responded with this post, which says something rather similar, just making assumptions.

Gematria doesn't always assign values to Hebrew letters. Hebrew letters have numeric values. Quick--name two other such languages, the ONLY two. Chaldean/Aramaic and Greek. Voila! Both "halves" of the Holy Bible.

As for earliest written Talmud, you are saying the NT lacks the provenance of a good document. It doesn't. And it does remarkably, astonishingly, constantly echo the later Talmud. Shaul/Paul was clearly angering his colleagues by being the first to have Talmud written down. It really is fascinating.

Yes, I'd love some sources proving the Christian texts are forgeries. I would be fascinated to read them--seriously. I'm open-minded.

But realize, please, and I say to you kindly, when you write something like, "How can non-Jews NOT study Jewish texts but claim any knowledge or insight into Jewish thought and the development of Judaism. Oh yeah...Wikipedia." and then tell Christians their texts are forgeries and the Christian rabbis and sages didn't understand Talmud or Judaism but were non-existant forgers... do you see an issue there?

 

[columbus]

You are skipping the parts of the gospels where 1) the Jewish authorities convicted Jesus of blasphemy but 2) the Romans, not the Jews, executed Jesus.

Jesus (pbuh)was a Muslim prophet. He did not die on any cross. His Message from Allah was later corrupted.

It's true. Ask any of the many Muslims here on RF to show you the unequivocal scriptural proof.

Tom

 

[rosends]

I guess the problem I'm currently having is that you wrote assumptions about me in a post where you said the gospels are off because of which Jewish men wrote them and when I attempted to gently correct you, you responded with this post, which says something rather similar, just making assumptions.

Gematria doesn't always assign values to Hebrew letters. Hebrew letters have numeric values. Quick--name two other such languages, the ONLY two. Chaldean/Aramaic and Greek. Voila! Both "halves" of the Holy Bible.

As for earliest written Talmud, you are saying the NT lacks the provenance of a good document. It doesn't. And it does remarkably, astonishingly, constantly echo the later Talmud. Shaul/Paul was clearly angering his colleagues by being the first to have Talmud written down. It really is fascinating.

Yes, I'd love some sources proving the Christian texts are forgeries. I would be fascinated to read them--seriously. I'm open-minded.

But realize, please, and I say to you kindly, when you write something like, "How can non-Jews NOT study Jewish texts but claim any knowledge or insight into Jewish thought and the development of Judaism. Oh yeah...Wikipedia." and then tell Christians their texts are forgeries and the Christian rabbis and sages didn't understand Talmud or Judaism but were non-existant forgers... do you see an issue there?

I wrote statements about The Jewish texts and your position vis-a-vis those texts. Your notion of correcting me is to say that my understanding of texts as given to Jews is incorrect and you are upset that I don't capitulate to your vision of the texts.

Gematria is a system of computation and derivation of meaning through numeric values of Hebrew. Creating a system commensurate with it by assigning values to another language is just fine. It just isn't gematria.

The NT lacks provenance as it relates to being a recording of the oral law which predates it. I won't speak to its validity as any other sort of text. Feel free to put it on whatever pedestal you want in that regard.

Frum Heretic: The Fast of the 9th of Tevet

The point of my saying what it did is simply to point out the irony of those who claim access to Judaism via shortcuts and the internet. To point out the same deficiency in my position is to see only the second half...

 

[Muffled]

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 believe this is an a priori argument that is illogical. However I believe the idea is to say that the God as reported in the OT is not the same God in the NT because of Contradictions. However I believe there aren't any, so for one to aargue this one has to present possible contradictions.

I don't know the exact count but I think He fulfilled about 59 prophecies. I believe those who argue otherwise have a reason to misinterpret scripture in order to justify ignoring Jesus as Messiah.

I believe Judaism contradicts Jahweh and Christianity upholds Him.

I believe this is wishful thinking.

I believe Christianity fulfills God's will.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus (pbuh)was a Muslim prophet. He did not die on any cross. His Message from Allah was later corrupted.

It's true. Ask any of the many Muslims here on RF to show you the unequivocal scriptural proof.

Tom

I believe this is blatant misinformation with absolutely no basis. I don't believe Muslims have any proof that I have ever seen here or anywhere else. I believe it just goes to show that falsehoods taught and preached long enough begin to be thought of as fact and the person stops trying to understand the real facts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus believed in the same God the Jews believed in the Old Testament. Whether or not He is God Himself rather than His Son is up for grabs. If He is not God; then Jesus Himself "could have" misinterpreted the teachings of His Father---that does not mean He served a different God than the Jews. He is a descendant from the Jews. He is a Jew. So some Christian denominations do serve the same God as the Jews. They also believe that the Son of God is God Himself (not the Father, in some point of view) because He is perfect in nature. That doesn't negate, though, that whether or not Jesus is God, Christians serve a different God when Jesus did not.

In my opinion, Christians should worship Christ's Father as Christ told them to do. Jesus taught to look to His Father--the Father of Abraham, the Father of Moses, the Father of all.

So they are the same God. Just the interpretations of Jesus within Christian denomination mix up what Jesus' original message was.

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?

 

[Muffled]

Exo 30:19 Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it.

This is only referential to Aaron and his offspring in relation to going into the Holy of Holies. It is not something that can be generalized to the general public.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus believed in the same God the Jews believed in the Old Testament. Whether or not He is God Himself rather than His Son is up for grabs. If He is not God; then Jesus Himself "could have" misinterpreted the teachings of His Father---that does not mean He served a different God than the Jews. He is a descendant from the Jews. He is a Jew. So some Christian denominations do serve the same God as the Jews. They also believe that the Son of God is God Himself (not the Father, in some point of view) because He is perfect in nature. That doesn't negate, though, that whether or not Jesus is God, Christians serve a different God when Jesus did not.

In my opinion, Christians should worship Christ's Father as Christ told them to do. Jesus taught to look to His Father--the Father of Abraham, the Father of Moses, the Father of all.

So they are the same God. Just the interpretations of Jesus within Christian denomination mix up what Jesus' original message was.

I don't see any evidence of this and I don't believe any was provided in your post.

 

[rosends]

I don't know the exact count but I think He fulfilled about 59 prophecies. I believe those who argue otherwise have a reason to misinterpret scripture in order to justify ignoring Jesus as Messiah.

I believe that those who argue that 59 or so were fulfilled are misinterpreting scripture to justify Jesus as messiah.

I believe Judaism contradicts Jahweh and Christianity upholds Him.

You can believe what you want but that is an unsubstantiated claim. An a priori illogical argument, if you will.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't see any evidence of this and I don't believe any was provided in your post.

Jesus believed in the same God. (In the beginning of Mathew, Mark, and I think John, the descendants of Jesus are written there. We (edit: I should say many Christians, since I am not one by belief) are all from the same God--Jesus included. That is both in the OT and NT. That's not a opinion, that's a fact...the proof is the Bible itself.)

Christian denominations have many interpretations as to who Jesus is and His divinity. Hence: Jehovah Witness, Catholicism, Lutheran, and denomi like Baptist verses Pentocastal. (There is no scripture evidence--just talk to the people or visit one of their sermons or Mass, you will see the conflict.

Don't look at the Christians. A lot of people have different beliefs regarding who Christ served.

In scripture, Jesus always served the God of the Old Testament...even quoted laws from the testament. (The Law of Moses).

Regardless if some Christian's call Christ God or not, it still stands that Christ served the God of Moses. In my opinion, that is who they should serve. Jehovah Witness, Catholics (if you talk with the priest, which I have), and similar denominations worship the Father as well as the son. Denominations such as Southern Baptist and fundamental churches worship Christ as the Father.

The proof: Read scripture, and go to any sermon and Mass, you will see the difference in opinion of what Christ taught about His Father (the Father of Abraham) and what many not all Christians feel He taught (that He called Himself the Father) which I believe Jesus would call blasphemy... my humble opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't see any evidence of this and I don't believe any was provided in your post.

Closes her eyes and flips to a gospel Chapter...the gospels show that Christ served His Father--and that Father is the same Father that Jews served in the Old Testament the Torah.

Mathew 4:7 (Jesus quoting Moses) "Again, it is written. 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'" He is speaking to the Devil.... and is repeating the words of Moses who got these words from the same God Jews believed in.

Mathew 6:14 "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father (not Jesus) will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions."

Mathew 12:50 "Whoever does the will of my heavenly father (Not Jesus) is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Jesus is serving the God of the Jews... which is the God of Abraham of the Old testament.

Mathew chapter 1:1-17 (Geneology of Jesus Christ) going back from the Torah to now.

I am just repeating what the Bible says about Jesus and who He worshiped. Not all Christians believe Jesus is God; they believe He is God's Son. As such, they worship Both God of the Old Testament (God of the Jews) AND not instead of Christ who is the spokesman of God (the Father) Himself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wrote statements about The Jewish texts and your position vis-a-vis those texts. Your notion of correcting me is to say that my understanding of texts as given to Jews is incorrect and you are upset that I don't capitulate to your vision of the texts.

Gematria is a system of computation and derivation of meaning through numeric values of Hebrew. Creating a system commensurate with it by assigning values to another language is just fine. It just isn't gematria.

The NT lacks provenance as it relates to being a recording of the oral law which predates it. I won't speak to its validity as any other sort of text. Feel free to put it on whatever pedestal you want in that regard.

Frum Heretic: The Fast of the 9th of Tevet

The point of my saying what it did is simply to point out the irony of those who claim access to Judaism via shortcuts and the internet. To point out the same deficiency in my position is to see only the second half...

Obviously I wasn't clear before, for which I apologize. It has nothing to do with my "vision of the texts". Rather you are saying the NT scriptures are untrustworthy because of the people who wrote them--since we know currently nothing about the authors than what is in the texts themselves before later Talmudic commentary on "Jesus" and "Simon" etc. were added, your argument is circular.

I read the 9th of Tevet piece--you promised source texts that proved the NT authors were forgers? All I could find was Rashi's statement that "others wrote their books for them [the Romans]". Romans didn't write the NT scriptures, only Jewish authors from Israel and Syria did. Rashi may have been commenting on some horrid Roman Catholic books but...

I realize that Gematria is as you wrote computations from Hebrew. However, ancient Greek and Aramaic weren't "assigned" values in those languages. They already had letters in use for numerals, exactly as did Hebrew, before anyone applied Gematria-styled computations to the NT scriptures and Daniel in those languages.

Also, and it seems you don't want to discuss the commentary itself, just the commentators--it's likewise unfair to say you won't examine the halachic and Talmudic discussions of the NT texts because you've already stated it "lacks provenance as it relates to being a recording of the oral law which predates it", which is equivalent to your saying, "Even though the NT contains the first written examples of Talmud, because it's provenance is in doubt, it couldn't possibly have ANYTHING of import to say about ORAL traditions which pre-date its authorship." That is an astounding claim. In courts both religious and secular, oral agreements are always superseded by any written documents in existence.

 

[rosends]

Obviously I wasn't clear before, for which I apologize. It has nothing to do with my "vision of the texts". Rather you are saying the NT scriptures are untrustworthy because of the people who wrote them--since we know currently nothing about the authors than what is in the texts themselves before later Talmudic commentary on "Jesus" and "Simon" etc. were added, your argument is circular.

I'm not sure to hat you are referring. There was no later Talmudic commentary on Jesus or Simon. The gospel texts are untrustworhy accounts because they depict accounts and facts which run contrary to established norms as established in the Talmudic texts. Unless your claim is that everyone changed Judaism AFTE the fact to make the events in the gospels appear incorrect (and that would be a great conspiracy theory) the reliability of the gospels as accountings of Talmudic thought is quite suspect. As the presentation of Tanach text is likewise questionably applied in the gospels, and the entire of the gospels are agendized to substantiate the creation of a new corpus and theology, the consideration of these texts as lenses through which one can assimilate any knowledge of the Talmud is untenable.

I read the 9th of Tevet piece--you promised source texts that proved the NT authors were forgers? All I could find was Rashi's statement that "others wrote their books for them [the Romans]". Romans didn't write the NT scriptures, only Jewish authors from Israel and Syria did. Rashi may have been commenting on some horrid Roman Catholic books but...

Rashi discusses the tradition of authorship which he has received and since, as you said, we know nothing about the authors [other] than what is in the texts themselves, his version of events is as persuasive as any other. He says that Jewish authors wrote the text. His tradition just delves into the question of how and why.

I realize that Gematria is as you wrote computations from Hebrew. However, ancient Greek and Aramaic weren't "assigned" values in those languages. They already had letters in use for numerals, exactly as did Hebrew, before anyone applied Gematria-styled computations to the NT scriptures and Daniel in those languages.

Gematria is not just about assigning numbers, but about doing something with those numbers. So the use of whatever style of Gematria (there are many different methods) which derives from Judaic sources and was designed to be applied to Hebrew) for non-Hebrew texts makes no sense.

Also, and it seems you don't want to discuss the commentary itself, just the commentators--it's likewise unfair to say you won't examine the halachic and Talmudic discussions of the NT texts because you've already stated it "lacks provenance as it relates to being a recording of the oral law which predates it", which is equivalent to your saying, "Even though the NT contains the first written examples of Talmud, because it's provenance is in doubt, it couldn't possibly have ANYTHING of import to say about ORAL traditions which pre-date its authorship." That is an astounding claim. In courts both religious and secular, oral agreements are always superseded by any written documents in existence.

Since the "first written examples" (though that is actually arguable...the mishna was written in private notebooks before the common era and much of what we have in our written form is from those earlier written sources...unless the talmud is lying when it says that) also tell of things that fly in the face of what Jewish tradition teaches, and taught, I don't see how a later written form necessarily replaces the established Oral text which was driving people's lives. Were they not already living by a code of laws which the gospels contravened? Did they not have a system of laws which drove them to reject what was being taught? I can cite plenty of times when Jesus supposedly taught things which echo talmudic statements as championed by the pharisaic teachers but to then decide to use the gospel texts as a reputable way of learning all about what the pharisees taught is erroneous.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, just a few questions if I may:

Are you saying the written Talmud does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth?

Which are the "established norms" in Talmud that the gospels run contrary to?

Did you understand my reference was to Rashi's reference about "Roman" texts, regardless of whether those texts were written by Jewish authors?

You made a curious statement that Gematria was "designed" to be applied to Hebrew. Are you saying God designed Gematria or people?

One comment, you wrote "Did they not have a system of laws which drove them to reject what was being taught?" A cursory reading of the NT reveals that many of the people accepted what was taught and that Jesus lived and acted in accordance with both the Law and Talmud. It was actually jealousy and fear that motivated turning Jesus over to the Romans.