Jesus Lived as a Jew

[sushannah]

If Jesus was a Jew, Lived as a Jew, observed the torah and the festivals, then why do Christians do the opposite. Christians are supposed to strive to become Christ-like. That would involve living as Christ did. Christianity as it exist today would not be something that Jesus would even recognize. I do not believe that Jesus abolished the law. If Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah, I do not believe that he would approve of Christians abolishing the law either. G-ds personality (YHVH) is encompassed in the torah. If the law is abolished then (YHVH) would also be abolished, obviously, this cannot be. The Jews of Jesus day were looking for the Messiah-a human king that would sit on Davids throne. If this were not the case then there would be no reason for the Jewish people to ask John the Baptist if he was the one. John the Baptist was obviously a human.


Getting back to the subject, why would Jesus abolish the law he lived by? Why would (YHVH) even give the law to the Jewish people and tell them to live by it forever? Why would the scriptures say in zechariah that eventually all the family of the earth would observe the feast of tabernacles if the biblical feast are no longer required? The scriptures also say that the torah (law) would go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. This is recognized as a scripture regarding the second coming of the Messiah, as it goes on to say, swords would be beaten into plowshares and nations would not learn war again, these things have not yet occurred.

 

[Bishka]

Jesus didn't abolish the law He lived by, He fuffilled it.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Jesus didn't abolish the law He lived by, He fuffilled it.

He may have full-filled what Christians believe to be the Messianic prophecies, but I can tell you this, he didn't full-fill the Jewish ones.

 

[Valjean]

So we should still be sacrificing goats for infractions and eschewing shellfish, beckysoup?

 

[Deut 13:1]

So we should still be sacrificing goats for infractions and eschewing shellfish, beckysoup?

As a non-Jew you can do whatever sacrifice you want. As a Jew, you're forbidden to do a sacrifice outside of the holy temple of Jerusalem, as their is no temple, and hasn't been for almost 2,000 years, sacrifices have not happened.

Please tell me, that was not a serious question. Also, it wouldn't have been a goat being sacrificed for eating shellfish.

 

[jimbob]

He may have full-filled what Christians believe to be the Messianic prophecies, but I can tell you this, he didn't full-fill the Jewish ones.

What? you mean all those prophecies in the Old Testament. The holy scripture of the Jews. The prophecies that he would come as a king, a savior, and establish a new Kingdom for god's people. Be born of a woman who did not know man. conquer death. you mean those prophecies? those Jewish prophecies?

 

[jimbob]

As a non-Jew you can do whatever sacrifice you want. As a Jew, you're forbidden to do a sacrifice outside of the holy temple of Jerusalem, as their is no temple, and hasn't been for almost 2,000 years, sacrifices have not happened.

That's partly the reason of the New Testament. To show how Christ established the new Sacrifice. No longer was it necessary for men to sacrifice animals. Because of Jesus, we now offer the sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. Sacrifices have happened, just not in the old temple, but in Mass.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
I was referring to beckysoup's comment that Jesus didn't abolish but fulfilled the law, Binyamin, which I assume was a reference to Jesus' statement in Matthew 5. "Fulfilled" is an ambiguous term when applied to law; a term in need of interpretation. But it's clear from the passage that "abolished" may not be part of the interpretation, ergo, Christians are still bound by Mosaic law.

This is Sushannah's point, but I was unclear what point beckysoup was making.

 

[James the Persian]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
I was referring to beckysoup's comment that Jesus didn't abolish but fulfilled the law, Binyamin, which I assume was a reference to Jesus' statement in Matthew 5. "Fulfilled" is an ambiguous term when applied to law; a term in need of interpretation. But it's clear from the passage that "abolished" may not be part of the interpretation, ergo, Christians are still bound by Mosaic law.

This is Sushannah's point, but I was unclear what point beckysoup was making.

As the vast majority of Christians were never Jews, how can they be bound by Mosaic law? That only ever applied to the Jews and even by Jewish standards all the Gentile Christians would only be bound by the Noahide laws. The Scriptures are also quite clear on exactly what we are and are not bound to. The two laws fulfill the Decalog, the food laws are dealt with quite specifically and the fact that Christians need not first become Jews when they convert is also covered. For someone to argue that Christians are 'still bound by Mosaic law' shows that they have a poor understanding of exactly who the said law applied to in the first place.

James

 

[Smoke]

G-ds personality (YHVH) is encompassed in the torah. If the law is abolished then (YHVH) would also be abolished, obviously, this cannot be.

Any God worth worshiping can and does exist independently of any writings whatever.

Why would (YHVH) even give the law to the Jewish people and tell them to live by it forever?

Why would you expect non-Jews to live by it at all?

 

[Nehustan]

He may have full-filled what Christians believe to be the Messianic prophecies, but I can tell you this, he didn't full-fill the Jewish ones.

As the vast majority of Christians were never Jews, how can they be bound by Mosaic law? That only ever applied to the Jews and even by Jewish standards all the Gentile Christians would only be bound by the Noahide laws. The Scriptures are also quite clear on exactly what we are and are not bound to. The two laws fulfill the Decalog, the food laws are dealt with quite specifically and the fact that Christians need not first become Jews when they convert is also covered. For someone to argue that Christians are 'still bound by Mosaic law' shows that they have a poor understanding of exactly who the said law applied to in the first place.

James

I think that Jeheshuah IHShVH was the messiach to the hebrews, and a light to the Goyem. Remember the reason history shows that Jesheshuah possibly didn't fulfil certain criteria is that we have the 'Christians' who can't read their books properly (sorry about this, not meant to be an argumentative point!!), thinking the things that Paul said are scripture, and we have a rabbinical tradition that could be argued to be descended from the Pharisees, tho maybe with some of the Sadducees' ideology having survived (I'm thinking secularism here). The thing is neither of these two groups were big on Jeheshuah nor his message, as it struck at the very base of their power. Personally I think it is impossible to read the bible without a good grounding in Hebrew philosophy and thought. If your ancestors were Goyem then why should you observe the Mosaic laws??? But as to understanding the bible there is no chance unless you understand it theologically, philisophically, ontologically, politically and thus contextually.

 

[Deut 13:1]

What? you mean all those prophecies in the Old Testament. The holy scripture of the Jews. The prophecies that he would come as a king, a savior, and establish a new Kingdom for god's people. Be born of a woman who did not know man. conquer death. you mean those prophecies? those Jewish prophecies?

Your arrogance is going to come back to haunt you if you debate me. Where do you see a prophecy of a woman who did not know man?

 

[Deut 13:1]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
I was referring to beckysoup's comment that Jesus didn't abolish but fulfilled the law, Binyamin, which I assume was a reference to Jesus' statement in Matthew 5. "Fulfilled" is an ambiguous term when applied to law; a term in need of interpretation. But it's clear from the passage that "abolished" may not be part of the interpretation, ergo, Christians are still bound by Mosaic law.

This is Sushannah's point, but I was unclear what point beckysoup was making.

So how's that seafood? Why do you drive on Shabbat? Why do you turn a light on during Shabbat? Why do you eat pork? Why do you not wear tzitits, why do you not put tefillin on? ect.... You're not bound by the mosaic law because you don't even know what it is.

 

[Deut 13:1]

And before you guys start spouting verses off, this thread about messianic prophecies is awfully quiet....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23224

Addressed there are Zachariah 12:10, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22:16, Zacharaiah 13:6.

If there is another one yer itching for, let me know. But claiming absurd things like, "must be born of a virgin" without any scripture backing you is pretty idiotic, in my opinion.

 

[Nehustan]

I personally think that Jeheshuah's birth was special, an act of God (but then isn't any birth), that JHShVH was IHVH with the descending RVCh ELHM, and thus the word of ELH, and that this was announced by Gabriel to Myriam, a woman chaste amongst her peers, but Benjamin am I right in thinking that the word in Hebrew means 'young girl'? A young girl is in the context of the world at the time would usually by default be a virgin. Also I have heard it said that the first birth of a woman was referred to as her 'virgin' birth. I think in regards to what occured with Mary none of us know, and maybe it is best we say God knows best.

 

[jewscout]

how do you reconcile the words of Galatians 3 where the Laws are referred to as a curse and the words of Duet. 13:1 where it says "All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."?

it is an everlasting covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, even in the days of the Moshiach, they shall not change.

 

[Deut 13:1]

I personally think that Jeheshuah's birth was special, an act of God (but then isn't any birth), that JHShVH was IHVH with the descending RVCh ELHM, and thus the word of ELH, and that this was announced by Gabriel to Myriam, a woman chaste amongst her peers, but Benjamin am I right in thinking that the word in Hebrew means 'young girl'? A young girl is in the context of the world at the time would usually by default be a virgin. Also I have heard it said that the first birth of a woman was referred to as her 'virgin' birth. I think in regards to what occured with Mary none of us know, and maybe it is best we say God knows best.

It's a young woman, not a virgin.

1. A virgin isn't always a young woman.
2. A young woman isn't always a virgin.

See the problem?

Furthermore, it has NOTHING to do with Moshaich. It's a sign to King Ahaz. In your opinion, was isaiah telling King Ahaz in 700+ years a guy named Jesus is going to come, and THEN you wont need to fear Arma and the other country? To say that it even has to do with Moshiach is stretching the bible for your own interpretation and ignoring what it says.

 

[jimbob]

Your arrogance is going to come back to haunt you if you debate me. Where do you see a prophecy of a woman who did not know man?

I don't mean to be arrogant and if i came across that way, i'm sorry. Nor am i in this for a fight.

Read Isaias (Isaiah) 7:14. In the exact translation, it reads :Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called emmanuel.


most bibles say that it is :behold a woman shall concieve" But the original version uses the word Parthenos, which means Virgin.

 

[Deut 13:1]

I don't mean to be arrogant and if i came across that way, i'm sorry. Nor am i in this for a fight.

Read Isaias (Isaiah) 7:14. In the exact translation, it reads :Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called emmanuel.


most bibles say that it is :behold a woman shall concieve" But the original version uses the word Parthenos, which means Virgin.

The word is Almah, something interesting to look at is the other locations it appears in your translations, see if they at least translate it consistently. Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 are the ones that come to mind. The same word, almah is used. Almah has always meant young woman, I actually got into a debate with Duet 10:19 on it, there was a thread somewhere. I believe that he thinks it to have meant virgin birth based on a document that was worded similar. Although he, like most people who have studied the bible, know that Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Mr. J

edit: I'm not familiar with greek at all, but to my knowledge, the septuagint was only partly done by the Jews, just the Torah, I don't believe the Jews are the ones who coined nevi'im kt'tuvim or prophets/writing.

 

[Green Gaia]

Reminder: This is NOT a debate section.