Jesus believers, answer this question please.

[Philomath]

Evidence is based on predictable outcomes. Prophecy is based on a theological perception of God's will. Prophecy is, by definition, not verifiable evidence.

Regardless, it's still theologically verifiable that Jesus did not fulfill the necessary requirements.

 

[sojourner]

Regardless, it's still theologically verifiable that Jesus did not fulfill the necessary requirements.

Only from a certain POV and from a certain interpretation.

 

[dantech]

Only from a certain POV and from a certain interpretation.

Are you saying you can show me how he did infact accomplish these prophecies through a different POV?

Go head!

 

[Philomath]

Only from a certain POV and from a certain interpretation.

The Jewish interpretation you mean?

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying you can show me how he did infact accomplish these prophecies through a different POV?

Go head!

I'm saying that the prophecies, themselves, are the product of a certain theological POV. But we can agree that the basis of the messianic prophecies is salvation. The traditional Judaic perception of that takes a different form from the Christian perception.

 

[dantech]

I'm saying that the prophecies, themselves, are the product of a certain theological POV. But we can agree that the basis of the messianic prophecies is salvation. The traditional Judaic perception of that takes a different form from the Christian perception.

I'm sorry, there aren't a million ways to understand that a temple will stand forever in Jerusalem.
There also aren't a couple ways to understand that the anointed one will rule from Jerusalem, as everyone on earth will recognize God as the one true God and have universal knowledge of him...
These are the prophecies, and they are easy to understand.

You can however argue that the way they are being fullfilled can or can't been seen/understood according to the POV.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, there aren't a million ways to understand that a temple will stand forever in Jerusalem.

A physical temple? A spiritual temple? I know that, usually, when the temple is mentioned, it's "code" meaning "the nation of Israel." So there are a number of ways this can be interpreted -- even from a Jewish POV.

There also aren't a couple ways to understand that the anointed one will rule from Jerusalem, as everyone on earth will recognize God as the one true God and have universal knowledge of him...

Likewise here. Physical Jerusalem? Or "Jerusalem" in a metaphysical meaning? What does it really mean to "recognize God?" There are a number of ways this can be interpreted.

These are the prophecies, and they are easy to understand.

I don't think prophecies are quite so simplistic.

 

[Sleeppy]

Who ever said anything about borders?Say I agree with you about world peace occuring after the resurrection, do you have any evidence that would suggest that the resurrection would occur two thousand+ years after the death?
Now say you do, and have a sound argument, how do you explain the prophecie about ONE knowledge of God, and attribute it to Jesus. Since Jesus, two major religions developped: Christianity and Islam. You have billions of people in both groups now, do you think Jesus helped build one universal and agreed upon knowledge of God? Or is he still working on it? The fact that you and I, two complete strangers who never met and are probably thousands of miles away from eachother, are both arguing about this right now shows you how far we are from one knowledge of God. I believe before Jesus was born, we were way closer.

There was a time when by Abraham's eyes, God gave the covenant. He walked and named his territory and his sons, of whom became kings in his likeness, by God's will. And there will also be a time when Abraham will continue walking and seeing the land. And he will not be alone, because his seed will accompany him, along with his father Adam and his seed. And Adam's Father, the Eternal, will show them all His land, and a covenant of prosperity that doesn't end. This is the foundation of the fathers, and the law, and the prophets who testified of it.

If you'll read Daniel, chapters 9-12, you'll see at the very least, that the Messiah is cut off. And another Leader comes after, to destroy and bring in the abominations of desolation on Israel and in the entire Earth. And until the very end, there is war and desolation.

This is my interpretation of Daniel 10; The head of Christianity, which is the Messiah, speaks to Daniel. And Daniel, who is made silent, weak, and afraid, is the condition of Israel to behold its King. But those with Daniel, who ran off, did not behold Him. And Michael, who is the head of Daniel, and the Jews, will join the Messiah, if they are allowed to see Him and not be ashamed. I also believe, as I read, that the head of Persia is Islam, along with their alliances. They will be known as terrorists, and the same ones desolating your land.

Daniel 12 begins with Michael, your head, standing to heal the distress. And it concludes with the teaching and learning of the universal knowledge of God, after the resurrection. And those who are resurrected are shown to already have their judgement. They will live according to that judgement, learning of it and repenting of it until peace is completed by the universal knowledge of the Father.

 

[Shermana]

I don't think they were so confused as how to interpret the prophecies. Rabbi Akiva thought it was Bar Kochba because he came very close to fulfilling all the prophecies, which they were clear on, in his lifetime.

He did? Fighting against the Romans counts as "very close to fulfilling them all"? Fascinating, tell me more.

When he failed to do so, there was nomore debate whatsoever as to whether or not he was the Messiah. Even if he had accomplished all the prophecies but one, they would have no doubt.

If only there was a clear cut way to know exactly what every single one of them is. And that's not even getting into the issues of whether all of them were contained only in the Tanakh, or if we should discard those of the Qumran sects, of whom it is arguable that Jesus drew many of his followers.

As for Jesus, the same argument is shown over and over again. People claim that he is fulfilling the prophecies over a span of 2000+ years, after his death, when really we are just witnissing the natural revelation of things as they happen over milleniums.

What caused this "natural revelation" exactly? What series of events led to this?

I have no problem with people telling me Jesus was a great man, he accomplished so much, etc etc... I just cannot understand him being the Messiah when he has accomplished none of the major prophecies.

What I believe is that it relates to the Heavenly Logos being the Director of events.

I'm going to be extremely leniant and just accept most of what you said. But how can you attribute these things to Jesus?

The prophecies do not necessarily even say that he himself will cause these things to happen, just that they will happen in his time. So I don't even have to demonstrate that he's directly causing them, just that they will be played out in his age.

Now you asked me if I believed what I believed knowledge of God was. Well, who is God to us?
He is the creator of us all. He is the one who gave us laws to live by (Leviticus 18:5). If the three major religions who do believe in this same God can't even agree on what these laws are, how can you say we have knowledge of him.......

This is a subject that has no concrete answer, but I will say again, knowledge of the Jewish god is not limited to believing in the same exact characteristics of him, nor is it necessarily a constantly ascending deal. Nonetheless, the number of people who claim to believe in the same god of the Jews, regardless if the Jews agree it's the same god, for whatever subjective philosophical reason, is staggeringly higher than it was in 30 A.D. I acknowledge that it's difficult to convince someone that the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim god are all the same. I find it irritating when Christians think Allah is a "moon god" for example. The misrepresentations are immense. But the way I personally interpret it, which is what you're asking, is that the knowledge of the "god of the gods", regardless of the particulars, is being fulfilled. Atheism is on the rise mainly as a reaction against these trash forms of Christianity that have been around for so long, now that humanity has had room to breathe, unfortunately, they often are not the best philosophers. I believe eventually Atheism will shrink to practically nothing as more honest science develops and it becomes clearer and clearer that those espousing the possibility of total naturalism are frauds.

Returning to Israel has been going up, I agree. However, this movement was started by a man who was an atheist. He didn't even believe in God, yet you pin this Jesus? What did Jesus have to do with the progressive return to Israel we are seeing?

I don't see why Herzl's religious beliefs (or any of the Zionists) have anything to do with it. Again, the point is that it takes place in his age, not by him necessarily, though I do believe it's been under his direction as a spiritual being as the Logos.

So to you it's not clear that the Temple will stand on Jerusalem forever, yet In Jesus' era, the temple got destroyed?

I firmly believe the 3rd temple will be completed and will never again be destroyed at the culmination of the final stage of the age.

As for the resurrection. We haven't witnessed one...

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant about how to read those verses and whether they are actually Messianic prophecies since it's not quite on track to what I said.

Yes I have realized. At least we agree on one thing.

It's an important thing to agree on.

As you probably know, I believe in Tikkun Olam, which as you say, is pretty much fixing the world as much as we can until the Messiah gets here. For our temple to be destroyed and for us to be in exile, I agree, we certainly deserved it. Otherwise, God wouldn't have exiled us since, as we know, He is the fairest judge out there.

On a side note, how coincidental that this was not too much longer after Yeshua and his apocalyptic message....

But why would God send you the Messiah, kill him, and then send him back thousands of years later?

Fulfilling of the Messianic age takes stages.

Couldn't he just send a Prophet like he has before to send us the message he wanted to send us? Why the Messiah, who would eventually die in torture, publicly, and with shame?

I believe he sent the Messiah to be tortured, shamed, and wrongly executed partially as a means to demonstrate how corrupt the Israelite establishment had become, it is similar to the concept of why the Canaanites were not destroyed until "Their iniquity was complete". In the texts, Jesus and his followers call himself a prophet. The whole point of his message, regardless of Messianic implications of salvation, was to serve in a similar way that other prophets taught, to rectify false understandings and go against the corrupt status quo.

Yes, I am aware that the biblical Israel is not eqeual to today's Israel.

That's not what I meant by that. I meant that Revelation may be showing the future borders of Israel as the "New Jerusalem" in the culmination of the Messianic age, achieving the borders promised to Isaac.

To sum up what I wrote earlier... Of those of us who do believe in the same God, the major three Abrahamic religions have completely different ways....

Again, it's a matter of subjective interpretation what "knowledge of God" is, as I believe Christians and Muslims and Bahai and such certainly have "knowledge of God" even if their particular understandings and interpretations are.....flawed. And it's not necessarily directly Yeshua's doing (though it may be under his direction as the supreme Guardian spirit of the world as the Logos), but a consequence of the Age he ushered in. Before his time, we were pretty much the ONLY people to acknowledge our god, especially with his Divine name and specification. Regardless of the specifics of his Will and nature.

As I have shown, most are actually in a downard slope, or have been since Jesus' time.

Not necessarily.

Christianity
Shinto
Islam
Sikhism
Bahai

Shinto is not a new religion, the formalized ritual Shinto of 500 A.D. is more of a systematic refinement of the same exact ideas from over 1000 years before that, similar to how Shinto developed into a national religion by the 1900s.

The others are all examples of "Universal knowledge of god" as far as I'm concerned for my personal interpretation. They may not be correct, but they do acknowledge the Jewish god as god.

And I'm sure there are many more minor religions I've never even heard of.
I think I've explained thoroughly enough why I don't believe we have universal knowledge of God. We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't see any reason why no new religions or lack of belief growing has to count that it won't culminate in a later final stage where the supremacy and reality of our god is made clear. Again, it's a drama playing out, and we definitely see an upward motion even if it has seeming negative developments.

This I guess already makes more sense than what I have seen before. But then according to you, all the positive movements towards the Messianic deliverance as prophecied has been and is beeing done thanks to Jesus. Care to show me how?

I don't need to, I only need to demonstrate that it's a development of the Messianic age itself, it's about interpretation of the verses and I don't see anything that says he himself will do it with his own hands.

I love when all I have to write is just : "Great!"

Indeed.

I'd take that bet, but wouldn't want to see you crushed in the most painful way possible. Hey, when we both leave this earth, we'll toast to who ever was right, how about that?

Achi, I would rush to knock you over before letting you make such a bet if God were to enforce it if we were in person. Leave such a risk to me.

It's more than just toasting about who is right my brother, it's about playing a role in the Truest form of "Tikkun Olam" and earning a place among the Spiritual Elite, especially so for when the Messianic Age is in its culmination. I absolutely would love for you to be a part of that great privelege. It's a reality to me that I cannot stand to see my fellow Hebrews be deprived of, as I interpret it.

 

[Sleeppy]

I suppose that the Messiah will return within the next few hundred years, at the most. And Michael; Israel, will join Christianity at that time.

 

[dantech]

He did? Fighting against the Romans counts as "very close to fulfilling them all"? Fascinating, tell me more.

Regardless of whether he fulfilled one prophecy or 99%. The fact that he didn't fulfill all of them by the end of his lifetime was confirmation to the biggest of believers that he was not, in fact, the Messiah. The same cannot be said for Jesus...

If only there was a clear cut way to know exactly what every single one of them is. And that's not even getting into the issues of whether all of them were contained only in the Tanakh, or if we should discard those of the Qumran sects, of whom it is arguable that Jesus drew many of his followers.

We have to work with the ones we have today, and of those, he did not fulfill most.

What caused this "natural revelation" exactly? What series of events led to this?

You can pin it on so many different events, which is why it is so easy to just attribute stuff to Jesus, who had absolutely nothing to do with it. I can even, in a way, thank Hitler for the progressive return to Israel. It's easy to attribute events in the world to anyone, really...

If you want to go all the way back to Jesus for what you are seeing today, why not go back to Moses? If Jesus can be the Messiah after his death, why can't Moses? I am aware he cannot be a descendant of David physically, but perhaps his soul is somehow linked to that of Solomon, somehow making him a direct descendant of Jesus? You see what I mean? That's mostly what I'm hearing... Jesus was born to Mary who was a descendant of David. Mary gave birth, essentially, through the Holy Spirit while she was a Virgin. So Jesus' father is God. But somehow, he is still the descendant of David, even though in the vast majority (probably 99%) of cases, bloodlines and inheritances are though the father. The only case where we see a mother's bloodline to be relevant, is to show that even with a non-Israelite father, the child can still belong to a tribe. So yes, I attribute, from now on, all the good that is happening in the world to Moses' actions, 3000+ years ago!

What I believe is that it relates to the Heavenly Logos being the Director of events.

I don't know what the Heavenly Logos are... (English is my third language, and I don't study in English either, so in many cases I know what you speak of, but don't know the English translation of the terms.)

The prophecies do not necessarily even say that he himself will cause these things to happen, just that they will happen in his time. So I don't even have to demonstrate that he's directly causing them, just that they will be played out in his age.

Fine. However, I can pin this to Moses too. I guess if a person's age can be defined as 2000+ years, then why not 3000+?

This is a subject that has no concrete answer, but I will say again, knowledge of the Jewish god is not limited to believing in the same exact characteristics of him, nor is it necessarily a constantly ascending deal. Nonetheless, the number of people who claim to believe in the same god of the Jews, regardless if the Jews agree it's the same god, for whatever subjective philosophical reason, is staggeringly higher than it was in 30 A.D. I acknowledge that it's difficult to convince someone that the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim god are all the same. I find it irritating when Christians think Allah is a "moon god" for example. The misrepresentations are immense. But the way I personally interpret it, which is what you're asking, is that the knowledge of the "god of the gods", regardless of the particulars, is being fulfilled. Atheism is on the rise mainly as a reaction against these trash forms of Christianity that have been around for so long, now that humanity has had room to breathe, unfortunately, they often are not the best philosophers. I believe eventually Atheism will shrink to practically nothing as more honest science develops and it becomes clearer and clearer that those espousing the possibility of total naturalism are frauds.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that the three major Abrahamic Religions serve the same God. But you yourself are saying that a form of Christianity is responsible for the rise in Atheism. Whether you agree with that strand of believers or you don't doesn't matter. Be objective, and realize that Jesus is responsible for that strand of Christianity who is making people turn away from God.
I don't understand how you can acknowledge that a man came baring a message. Was rejected. Was shamed. Got tortured. Even though he's the cause of some good around the world, he's also the cause of some wrong, even thousands of years after his death. Meanwhile, all the prophecies which otherwise have always been pretty literal, are shaped in a way that from now on, we will start understanding in a completely different, metaphorical way if you will - just so that they correspond with this man's "story". And you believe he is the sent savior from God...

I don't see why Herzl's religious beliefs (or any of the Zionists) have anything to do with it. Again, the point is that it takes place in his age, not by him necessarily, though I do believe it's been under his direction as a spiritual being as the Logos.

You believe that the Messiah does his work, even through people who have no faith in him?

I firmly believe the 3rd temple will be completed and will never again be destroyed at the culmination of the final stage of the age.

As do I.

On a side note, how coincidental that this was not too much longer after Yeshua and his apocalyptic message....

Again, things can be seen in millions of ways. Some could blame Jesus for these "coincidences", couldn't they? This guy shows up, spreads the word around that he is the Messiah. God gets mad and destroys the Temple. I'm not saying this is the case. Just pointing out how key the point of view is, and why it's so important to be objective and impartial, even though it's hard. I myself often fail to be impartial.

I believe he sent the Messiah to be tortured, shamed, and wrongly executed partially as a means to demonstrate how corrupt the Israelite establishment had become, it is similar to the concept of why the Canaanites were not destroyed until "Their iniquity was complete". In the texts, Jesus and his followers call himself a prophet. The whole point of his message, regardless of Messianic implications of salvation, was to serve in a similar way that other prophets taught, to rectify false understandings and go against the corrupt status quo.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, and Shlomo were all able to complete their tasks with a few tests, sure, but not with their message being rejected, and resulting in them being tortured, shamed and wrongly executed.

That's not what I meant by that. I meant that Revelation may be showing the future borders of Israel as the "New Jerusalem" in the culmination of the Messianic age, achieving the borders promised to Isaac.

The borders will be revealed, yes. But Jerusalem's temple will always be where it is now. The temple will always be on Har HaMoriah, although if you disagree, this could be a whole thread on it's own.

Again, it's a matter of subjective interpretation what "knowledge of God" is, as I believe Christians and Muslims and Bahai and such certainly have "knowledge of God" even if their particular understandings and interpretations are.....flawed. And it's not necessarily directly Yeshua's doing (though it may be under his direction as the supreme Guardian spirit of the world as the Logos), but a consequence of the Age he ushered in. Before his time, we were pretty much the ONLY people to acknowledge our god, especially with his Divine name and specification. Regardless of the specifics of his Will and nature.

You can't really look at it that way. Since both Christians and Muslims believe in the what is referred to as the OT, they would still believe in it regardless of whether or not they god a new covenant handed to them later on. But this debate is getting to too many "would've"s and "could've"s.

The others are all examples of "Universal knowledge of god" as far as I'm concerned for my personal interpretation. They may not be correct, but they do acknowledge the Jewish god as god.

So we have different interpretations of what knowledge is.

Achi, I would rush to knock you over before letting you make such a bet if God were to enforce it if we were in person. Leave such a risk to me.

It's more than just toasting about who is right my brother, it's about playing a role in the Truest form of "Tikkun Olam" and earning a place among the Spiritual Elite, especially so for when the Messianic Age is in its culmination. I absolutely would love for you to be a part of that great privelege. It's a reality to me that I cannot stand to see my fellow Hebrews be deprived of, as I interpret it.

Baroukh Hashem at least we'll always agree on Leviticus 19:34.

 

[Shermana]

The same cannot be said for Jesus...

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. Who says it has to play out all at once?

We have to work with the ones we have today, and of those, he did not fulfill most.

How do we know what was intended? If we disclude the possibility of other prophecies and interpretations, we are changing what was originally given by God to what we want it to be. The way I see it, God intended the prophecies to be interpreted as such, that it's a matter of fulfillment, including those given through prophets of the Qumran groups, such as the prophet among the Essenes Josephus mentions.

You can pin it on so many different events, which is why it is so easy to just attribute stuff to Jesus, who had absolutely nothing to do with it. I can even, in a way, thank Hitler for the progressive return to Israel. It's easy to attribute events in the world to anyone, really...

Which is why I focus on the aspect that we are living in the age of fulfillment of the Messianic period. The aftermath so to speak.

If you want to go all the way back to Jesus for what you are seeing today, why not go back to Moses? If Jesus can be the Messiah after his death, why can't Moses? I am aware he cannot be a descendant of David physically, but perhaps his soul is somehow linked to that of Solomon, somehow making him a direct descendant of Jesus? You see what I mean? That's mostly what I'm hearing... Jesus was born to Mary who was a descendant of David. Mary gave birth, essentially, through the Holy Spirit while she was a Virgin. So Jesus' father is God. But somehow, he is still the descendant of David, even though in the vast majority (probably 99%) of cases, bloodlines and inheritances are though the father. The only case where we see a mother's bloodline to be relevant, is to show that even with a non-Israelite father, the child can still belong to a tribe. So yes, I attribute, from now on, all the good that is happening in the world to Moses' actions, 3000+ years ago!

1. This is a difficult issue to address....but the concept of the Virgin Birth may very well be a later Christian development. That the accounts were interpolated, though early on, was a major scholarly issue in the early 20th century, and the arguments were more or less swept under the rugs or taken on with shoddy circular reasoning. That's for another debate, but it is of relevance nonetheless. Early Christian Jews like Cerinthus certainly did not believe in Virgin Birth, and apparently it wasn't important enough for John and Mark to list, and many scholars believe the account in Luke was in fact a later interpolation, and the logic that Joseph required a long geneology listing just to be the stepfather is, IMO, ludicrous.

2. I believe, that as you say, the original concept of lineage was Patriarchal and only later changed to Matrilineal, but that's for another debate. A perfect example of Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees for altering the Law for the sake of their own traditions.

I don't know what the Heavenly Logos are... (English is my third language, and I don't study in English either, so in many cases I know what you speak of, but don't know the English translation of the terms.)

Le Logos etait, avant l'époque de Philo, considéré comme une manifestation indépendante de l'incarnation de la Sagesse de Dieu, un être réel et non pas seulement une métaphore, et il peut y avoir des preuves que Targums le reflètent ce concept.

Fine. However, I can pin this to Moses too. I guess if a person's age can be defined as 2000+ years, then why not 3000+?

Again, it's the age brought on since the person in question.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that the three major Abrahamic Religions serve the same God. But you yourself are saying that a form of Christianity is responsible for the rise in Atheism. Whether you agree with that strand of believers or you don't doesn't matter. Be objective, and realize that Jesus is responsible for that strand of Christianity who is making people turn away from God.

God Himself is responsible for allowing beliefs that turn people away. I believe it's part of the phase. It's a great thing in my opinion that the Orthodox church is breaking apart, I'd rather have people be Atheists than Lawless ones who falsely assert that it's God's will to disregard Torah, but at the same time, they understand the concept of Deity as the Jewish version of "God". O was Atheist for a brief period, many Atheists end up having a Spiritual rebound for the better.

I don't understand how you can acknowledge that a man came baring a message. Was rejected. Was shamed. Got tortured. Even though he's the cause of some good around the world, he's also the cause of some wrong, even thousands of years after his death.

That's kind of what Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 say will happen.

Meanwhile, all the prophecies which otherwise have always been pretty literal, are shaped in a way that from now on, we will start understanding in a completely different, metaphorical way if you will - just so that they correspond with this man's "story". And you believe he is the sent savior from God...

Did I say any were metaphorical? I implied they were direct and literal, just taking an age to work out. However, if you want to talk about Metaphorical interpretations of Prophecy, ask the average Rabbi how he interprets Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12, and let me know if you get a literal, plain-reading interpretation.

You believe that the Messiah does his work, even through people who have no faith in him?

Yep. Uses whoever that God appoints. Do you not believe that Zionism is the fulfillment of prophecy as well?

As do I.

And what if no Savior in the flesh arrives before that happens?

Again, things can be seen in millions of ways. Some could blame Jesus for these "coincidences", couldn't they? This guy shows up, spreads the word around that he is the Messiah. God gets mad and destroys the Temple. I'm not saying this is the case. Just pointing out how key the point of view is, and why it's so important to be objective and impartial, even though it's hard. I myself often fail to be impartial.

Exactly, point of view is key. I find it extremely, shall we say "Coincidental" that the Kingdom fell so hard after this event. I am by no means impartial as well now that I've come to my conclusion. But I found myself coming to this conclusion and interpretation of events after I became more impartial. I was once rabidly anti-Jesus.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, and Shlomo were all able to complete their tasks with a few tests, sure, but not with their message being rejected, and resulting in them being tortured, shamed and wrongly executed.

Moses' message was rejected constantly, you could easily say he was psychologically tortured and threatened with such torture. But the piercing and murder you could say is a very plain reading of Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12.

The borders will be revealed, yes. But Jerusalem's temple will always be where it is now. The temple will always be on Har HaMoriah, although if you disagree, this could be a whole thread on it's own

.

Did I say anything about the location?

You can't really look at it that way. Since both Christians and Muslims believe in the what is referred to as the OT, they would still believe in it regardless of whether or not they god a new covenant handed to them later on. But this debate is getting to too many "would've"s and "could've"s.

I don't see why I can't. I'm not sure I understand your objection.

So we have different interpretations of what knowledge is.

Not even that, but on what the meaning of Jeremiah 31 is saying there by such "knowledge". I believe it has to do with knowledge of existence and supremacy, not knowledge of character necessarily, and even if that's the case, it's definitely a process. Does your interpretation of Messiah mean everyone worldwide will magically know all about God?

Baroukh Hashem at least we'll always agree on Leviticus 19:34.

Certainly so. As well as the rest of Torah, though interpretations may vary.

 

[roger1440]

Christians proclaim to know more about Judaism by the fact that they've recognized the Messiah while the Jews, whose religion and concept it is, have not. This is very arrogant to me.

The Jews do not know how to interpret the Torah because it is a Christian book. If you don’t believe me just read :
The Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth…
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

 

[Philomath]

The Jews do not know how to interpret the Torah because it is a Christian book. If you don’t believe me just read :
The Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth…
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

This is the very arrogance I was speaking about. The Torah is a Christian book?
Barnabas words supersede all of Jewish theology and tradition?

 

[roger1440]

This is the very arrogance I was speaking about. The Torah is a Christian book?
Barnabas words supersede all of Jewish theology and tradition?

Gee man, I’m being sarcastic. I didn’t think I would have to explain that part. I’m with you, not against you.

 

[Philomath]

Gee man, I’m being sarcastic. I didn’t think I would have to explain that part. I’m with you, not against you.

Oh....my bad....I totally missed the sarcasm on your part lol.

 

[nash8]

Jesus was the Messiah, just face the facts!!!!!

 

[Tarheeler]

Gee man, I’m being sarcastic. I didn’t think I would have to explain that part. I’m with you, not against you.

On this board, that statement (that the Torah is a Christian book and Jews don't understand it) is often made quite seriously.

 

[roger1440]

On this board, that statement (that the Torah is a Christian book and Jews don't understand it) is often made quite seriously.

That wouldn't surprise me. Many stupid Christians don't even know Jesus was a Jew.

 

[Shermana]

The Jews do not know how to interpret the Torah because it is a Christian book. If you don’t believe me just read :
The Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth…
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas infuriates me, it's a definite example of the extreme arrogance of the Antinomian Pauline Christians who went on to establish the "Orthodox" version of Christianity. The people who wrote the EoB may have influenced Marcion to take it to a greater extreme, which ended up influencing them even more.

They were the ones who so heavily tried to silence the Law-abiding Nazarenes and Ebionites.

It must be said though, that even to this day there are disputes and controversies about what the Law actually says and whether the Rabbis are interpreting it correctly. For instance, some say you can shave your beard and sidelocks to the point where they are barely visible to a few hairs, and others (like me) believe it says "Don't shave them at all", in which case certain interpretations like the latter have more Textual support from the Tanakh than others (i.e. David's messengers were gravely insulted by having half their beards shaven).