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

[Muffled]

Since G-D said no one can see G-D and live there is no such thing as "god in the flesh".

I believe that to be illogical. I believe the unstated premise (one needs two premises to make a conclusion) is that One can see God by looking at Jesus. I believe this premise to be false since all one sees is the body and the body is not God.

One could say that one hers God when Jesus speaks beccause speech comes from the mind and when a spirit indwells a body it can inform the mind so therefore The Spirit of God informs the mind of Jesus as to what to say. That identifies Jesus as God in the flesh.

 

[metis]

I believe current day Judaism contains a lot of misinformation.

I believe what God is and what He can do are two different things. God is incorporeal but He is also able to inhabit a body.

I believe Judaism is lacking in its relationship to God.

And this is based on what exactly? Please provide evidence that's beyond just someone's opinion, including yours.

Today's Judaism mostly deals with both a belief in God and the necessity of trying to follow the Law as best as possible, and this was true before Jesus' time, during Jesus' time, and today. So, exactly how is it that we supposedly contain a "lot of misinformation"? Please provide some examples of this "misinformation".

 

[BilliardsBall]

How detailed of an answer are you looking for?

I find that Jesus always showed love to others, even when speaking words of condemnation. Jesus spoke of the rulers and elders of His day but this was with an eye to their repentance and encouragement. Of interest, the scriptures record that numerous Pharisees trusted Y'shua for salvation but not one Saducee that we can find--the religious responded to the Messiah's warnings, prophecies and admonitions but not the liberals who said only the Penteteuch was God's inerrant Word.

 

[metis]

Of interest, the scriptures record that numerous Pharisees trusted Y'shua for salvation but not one Saducee that we can find--the religious responded to the Messiah's warnings, prophecies and admonitions but not the liberals who said only the Penteteuch was God's inerrant Word.

The "liberals"?

 

[Harmonious]

I believe current day Judaism contains a lot of misinformation.

I believe current day Christians have a lot of misinformation.

I believe what God is and what He can do are two different things. God is incorporeal but He is also able to inhabit a body.

I believe that God would never lower or limit Himself by becoming corporeal. As a matter of fact, it is a tenet of my faith, as part of my belief system.

I believe Judaism is lacking in its relationship to God.

I believe you are dead wrong, and I, through Judaism, have a rewarding and fulfilling relationship to God.

I would posit that you don't know enough about Judaism to make that judgment call.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The "liberals"?

In a general vein, Pharisees were more of a mindset to hold the whole Tanakh as pure and literal while the Saducees of that time were more like modern un-Orthodox Jews in thinking the books of Moses were okay and the rest "stories". In general, and this is exhibited in the gospels also.

Certainly, were this NOT the case, every 1st century Jew who loved the risen Jesus would know, and consider the NT garbage and lies.

 

[metis]

In a general vein, Pharisees were more of a mindset to hold the whole Tanakh as pure and literal while the Saducees of that time were more like modern un-Orthodox Jews in thinking the books of Moses were okay and the rest "stories". In general, and this is exhibited in the gospels also.
.

A literalist, word-for-word, approach is not "liberal". And since there were several Pharisee groups with varying takes on how to approach Torah, one simply cannot stereotype "the Pharisees". It was more of a movement, which differentiated enough to have various factions go in different directions, versus being a monolithic group.

Also, you have managed to misrepresent where the Sadducees were coming from as their main bone of contention was the mainline Pharisees' use of the Oral Law, which they did not agree with in part. The concept of "heaven", for example, is not found in the Tanakh but is found in the Oral Law, so the Pharisees tended to accept it but the Sadducees generally didn't. There were other issues of contention as well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A literalist, word-for-word, approach is not "liberal". And since there were several Pharisee groups with varying takes on how to approach Torah, one simply cannot stereotype "the Pharisees". It was more of a movement, which differentiated enough to have various factions go in different directions, versus being a monolithic group.

Also, you have managed to misrepresent where the Sadducees were coming from as their main bone of contention was the mainline Pharisees' use of the Oral Law, which they did not agree with in part. The concept of "heaven", for example, is not found in the Tanakh but is found in the Oral Law, so the Pharisees tended to accept it but the Sadducees generally didn't. There were other issues of contention as well.

I don't want to argue revisionist history with you. I say revisionist because the Pharisees' lament was opposite yours, since "heaven" IS in Tanakh. From memory, Daniel 12, Exodus 3, Isaiah 66, and Job, etc.

 

[metis]

I don't want to argue revisionist history with you. I say revisionist because the Pharisees' lament was opposite yours, since "heaven" IS in Tanakh. From memory, Daniel 12, Exodus 3, Isaiah 66, and Job, etc.

What I meant was "heaven" in regards to what might happen in terms of an afterlife, which is not stated in the Tanakh. There are hints that there might be such an afterlife, but it is not made at all explicit. About the closest is found near the end of Job whereas he says there must be more than just the miserable life he had lived in his latter years.

 

[rosends]

I don't want to argue revisionist history with you. I say revisionist because the Pharisees' lament was opposite yours, since "heaven" IS in Tanakh. From memory, Daniel 12, Exodus 3, Isaiah 66, and Job, etc.

Though I am not sure as to what was intended and I usually resist speaking on behalf of anyone, I think that the point was that the Hebrew word shamayim, sky, was used in all the cases you quote and that is the word which simply means "sky" - it is often used in contradistinction to aretz/land. So there was no textual idea of a heaven, only the Pharisaic interpretation that sometimes, the word shamayim referred not to the sky, but to a heavenly abode.

 

[catch22]

Okay, so a lot Jews are pretty adamant about the non-human God thing. That's fine. Can one of you explain Isaiah 9 to me, specifically, verse 6:

"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be on his shoulders. He is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

From this, I read...

- Human: Check.
- God: Check.

...Anyone?

 

[rosends]

Okay, so a lot Jews are pretty adamant about the non-human God thing. That's fine. Can one of you explain Isaiah 9 to me, specifically, verse 6:

"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be on his shoulders. He is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

From this, I read...

- Human: Check.
- God: Check.

...Anyone?

When you start with that translation, you end up with a particular understanding. Try this one: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." "
This text does refer to a human, but to a human who had already been born. This is not about a future messianic figure. The descriptions are of God, not the person.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe that God would never lower or limit Himself by becoming corporeal.

I'm just curious... what is there about the corporeal that is innately "lower" than the non-corporeal?

 

[metis]

Okay, so a lot Jews are pretty adamant about the non-human God thing. That's fine. Can one of you explain Isaiah 9 to me, specifically, verse 6:

"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will be on his shoulders. He is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

From this, I read...

- Human: Check.
- God: Check.

...Anyone?

Did you notice that the citation is mostly put in the present tense ("...is..."), so that it must relate to the people at that time?

 

[Harmonious]

I'm just curious... what is there about the corporeal that is innately "lower" than the non-corporeal?

The fact that it is limited in size, shape, and space. God is infinite, and omnipresent. Being physical negates that.

 

[Katzpur]

The fact that it is limited in size, shape, and space. God is infinite, and omnipresent. Being physical negates that.

Why would size, shape and space matter in the slightest if His power and knowledge were infinite and omnipresent? It seems to me that size, shape and space are completely irrelevant to His greatness. Taking the logic a step further, it would seem to me that saying physicality would negate his omnipresence is actually the more limiting statement.

 

[Harmonious]

Why would size, shape and space matter in the slightest if His power and knowledge were infinite and omnipresent? It seems to me that size, shape and space are completely irrelevant to His greatness. Taking the logic a step further, it would seem to me that saying physicality would negate his omnipresence is actually the more limiting statement.

If you have a body, you can't see behind you, where your eyes don't see. You can't hear beyond a certain distance. You need to eat, sleep, excrete. You need to breathe. You have physical needs.

Size... If you are too big, you can't fit in some spaces. If you are too small, you can't reach things that are beyond your height.

Simple physical existence is limited. And if you are above the need for organs that supply the five senses to your brain, or any other physical needs, you have no limits. I'm surprised that you don't understand this.

 

[catch22]

When you start with that translation, you end up with a particular understanding. Try this one: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." "
This text does refer to a human, but to a human who had already been born. This is not about a future messianic figure. The descriptions are of God, not the person.

I'm not sure comma placement is going to help your case, here?

Pele yôëtz ël GiBôr áviyad sar-shälôm

(miracle advise god powerful everlasting ruler peace)

Is a name declaration, is it not? Sorry for the hamfisted transliteration. So how can you add verbage mid-stride like that to completely alter the meaning of the original hebrew?

I have to admit, I've not seen it rendered in this way you've presented. Please let me know your source so I can look closer at it.

Did you notice that the citation is mostly put in the present tense ("...is..."), so that it must relate to the people at that time?

Okay. I'm fine with this because much of OT prophecy relates to the Jews at the time, but clearly point forward as well, to later time, such as end times (dual fulfillment -- for example Jeremiah 50). But let's be honest here: this passage has mixed tense, lending the reader to probably, I don't know, flip a coin about which direction to go in? It's not a mystery why Judaism would opt for the past/present approach and Christianity would reach toward the future. But let's see the transliteration?

waT'hiy haMis'räh al-shikh'mô

(therefore come to pass the empire/government hung from the neck/shoulder)

It's clearly forward facing. It cannot be understood any other way.

Thus, you'd have the task of identifying exactly who this is speaking of at the time, if it were present/past tense. It seems the Judaism/Rabbinic mindset would say Hezekiah? At least, that's my experience here. But, I don't know, though, it's probably a bad idea to name any man "everlasting." And, well... Mighty God? Don't you consider it heresy? (Hezekiah does not mean "Mighty God" afterall -- it means God is my strength, or maybe God strengthens?)

Exacerbating this slippery slope is the fact of age -- Hezekiah was middle aged when Isaiah would begin his work. I'm not sure a child born would refer to a middle aged man? The age overlap alone poses problems to that theory.

But sticking to tense, as I read the chapter wholly, this verse leads in pretty well to the point Isaiah was making working up to it, and closes well with the future tenses after it. Meaning, I'm not sure he's actually talking about someone who was just born or already born. It's tough the changeover in tense seems to happen right in the first words of verse 6 here, but I don't think you can read it strictly as past/present tense, considering the text around it.

 

[rosends]

I'm not sure comma placement is going to help your case, here?

Pele yôëtz ël GiBôr áviyad sar-shälôm

(miracle advise god powerful everlasting ruler peace)

This isn't about comma placement though. It is about the grammar of the sentence and the sensibility of the author. The text reads "and he called his name" but doesn't identify the He unless you see that the descriptors which have in otgher places been used for a particular "He" (God) refer to God here. Thus, " and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name"
Nothing is being changed midstride.

I have to admit, I've not seen it rendered in this way you've presented. Please let me know your source so I can look closer at it.

Sure: Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
But let's be honest here: this passage has mixed tense, lending the reader to probably, I don't know, flip a coin about which direction to go in? It's not a mystery why Judaism would opt for the past/present approach and Christianity would reach toward the future. But let's see the transliteration?[/quote]
The verbs tell us precisely what the tense is. The child WAS born, the government IS on his shoulder and he WAS called. There is no future tense in it at all. One should wonder why someone would inject a completely unsupported tense-application.

waT'hiy haMis'räh al-shikh'mô

(therefore come to pass the empire/government hung from the neck/shoulder)

It's clearly forward facing. It cannot be understood any other way.

Try, "va'tehi hamisra al shichmo" and it is the government is on his shoulder. It is present tense. No other way to see it.

Thus, you'd have the task of identifying exactly who this is speaking of at the time, if it were present/past tense. It seems the Judaism/Rabbinic mindset would say Hezekiah? At least, that's my experience here. But, I don't know, though, it's probably a bad idea to name any man "everlasting." And, well... Mighty God? Don't you consider it heresy? (Hezekiah does not mean "Mighty God" afterall -- it means God is my strength, or maybe God strengthens?)

The text is said to be ABOUT Hezekiah/Chizkiyahu, not that he is the speaker. Since everlasting and mighty God don't refer to Hezekiah, there is no question.

Exacerbating this slippery slope is the fact of age -- Hezekiah was middle aged when Isaiah would begin his work. I'm not sure a child born would refer to a middle aged man? The age overlap alone poses problems to that theory.

So Hezekiah wasn't born in the past? Your argument that he was middle aged only corroborates the tense of the text and invalidates any claim that this is a future prophecy.

 

[LuisDantas]

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 don't think very many Christians have a lot of academical interest in the accuracy of the claims of their own religion.

Their main, most frequent motivation when that subject is raised seems to be to attain a degree of certainty that there is a single beacon of hope and guidance for all of humanity and that it will somehow be clear enough to heal any serious disagreements.

The very reason why the two major proselitist monotheisms (Christianity and Islam) are so wildly popular (entirely out of proportion to the merits of their religious doctrines, IMO) is, from all appearances, their promise of allowing believers relief from the stress of having to carefully measure the worth of religious claims and conflicting directives. Instead, they allow and even encourage those so inclined to just get attached to a specific group and trust that it is correctly guided.

Unfortunately, that is a naive, dangerous hope. For those lacking in religious courage, those more inclined to attempt to redefine meanings and perceptions than to learn from their experiences, it often leads to all-out lying, even to themselves. Acknowledging the subtleties and oversimplifications of their faiths may be just too painful, even unthinkable for them.

The Bahai Faith suffers a lot from it as well, which is a shame, for the basic idea of a religion that attempts to be respectful to its predecessors and learn from them is a worthy one. Yet it, too, has fallen prey to the temptation of lying about and misrepresenting that which it claims to want to honor.

TLDR: There is a conflict between the quests for truth and confort. Many people end up choosing confort at various degrees of expense of truth, and it turns out that the monotheistic proselitist faiths pretty much embrace that as a means of expansion.


Edited to add: as for their respective deities, I just don't see how one can seriously believe that conceptions of deity unite even Judaism or Christianity, let alone both.

The same is just as true of Islam and the Bahai Faith, although I suspect and hope that it may be a bit less so for Sikhism.

Deity conceptions are simply way too personal to ever be capable of uniting believers. It takes actual practice and some sort of effort at reaching out and understanding and acknowledging others for such union to happen in any sort of meaningful way.