Jesus vs the New Testament

[Desert Snake]

Did you know that 5/6th’s of the bible is about Israel? That is over 83% of our bible. That is an awful lot of the bible to not have a good understanding.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[sooda]

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

The Bible is about the Jews from their ancestor Adam to Jesus to the Destruction of the Temple.

Revelation was so obviously written by an elderly Jewish man.

"The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church.

The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work.

It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John."

According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book, the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.) into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter.

The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther.

(Jewish Apocryphal literature was VERY popular for about 300 years.)

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version. Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship

 

[Desert Snake]

The Bible is about the Jews from their ancestor Adam to Jesus to the Destruction of the Temple.

Revelation was so obviously written by an elderly Jewish man.

"The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church.

The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work.

It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John."

According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book, the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.) into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter.

The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther.

(Jewish Apocryphal literature was VERY popular for about 300 years.)

Christians don't explain how they interpret Revelation 7 in accordance with the Epistles, and neither in accordance with Jewish belief, and neither in accordance with Christian theology, which would not correlate to some odd type of Judaism mysticism.

In other words, it isn't explained in any context, not just Christian.

The 'explanation' does not match anything, it's just non christian and weird.

☆
Like I said, unless it's all the tribes, and Levi combined to make a total of all the tribes, with Levi, then it's very problematic.

 

[sooda]

Christians don't explain how they interpret Revelation 7 in accordance with the Epistles, and neither in accordance with Jewish belief, and neither in accordance with Christian theology, which would not correlate to some odd type of Judaism mysticism.

In other words, it isn't explained in any context, not just Christian.

The 'explanation' does not match anything, it's just non christian and weird.

☆
Like I said, unless it's all the tribes, and Levi combined to make a total of all the tribes, with Levi, then it's very problematic.

Don't you think the people of the first century understood it perfectly?

144,000 probably just means a big number.

 

[Desert Snake]

Don't you think the people of the first century understood it perfectly?

144,000 probably just means a big number.

The christian explanations although they do vary a bit, tend to maintain the problematic nature. So that could be your explanation, however it doesn't seem to be the standard christian explanations.

 

[Desert Snake]

Aside from a 'general idea', concerning worship of other beings.
• essenes:angeology
• christianity: angels with freewill
• Xianity: not a strict association with other beings, to idol worship, necessarily
• Xianity: imagry and traditions syncretically mixed with other cultures.

 

[sooda]

The christian explanations although they do vary a bit, tend to maintain the problematic nature. So that could be your explanation, however it doesn't seem to be the standard christian explanations.

They vary a lot.. Someone thinks Revelation is writing about New York and the Kaiser ..

If it was written for people thousands of years in the future, why can no one know what it means exactly?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's still Judaism, according to your definition. So, you just believe it's a heresy, that's all.

No it's not Judaism. It's a heresy. Those who believe it are Jews. But they are not practicing Judaism. They are practicing a heresy. Again, that's my opinion. Other Jews in the forum may have differing opinions. You'll have to ask them. But in my book, Judaism has respect for Oral Law. You light shabbat candles. You say Kiddush. Etc.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Bible is about the Jews from their ancestor Adam to Jesus to the Destruction of the Temple.

You can say it's also about the Gentile mission.
Taking on board prophecies it's also about the second return of the
Jews to Israel and the fall of the Gentile churches. The end times if
you like.

I suggest you take "links" and "scholarship" on these things for what
they are - someone's opinion (including mine) I for instance see no
space between Jesus and Paul - and repudiate this whole business
of "Pauline Christianity."

 

[sooda]

You can say it's also about the Gentile mission.
Taking on board prophecies it's also about the second return of the
Jews to Israel and the fall of the Gentile churches. The end times if
you like.

I suggest you take "links" and "scholarship" on these things for what
they are - someone's opinion (including mine) I for instance see no
space between Jesus and Paul - and repudiate this whole business
of "Pauline Christianity."

Its pretty clear to me that Jesus' mission wasn't to the Gentiles.

If not for Paul, Christianity may have never gotten off the ground.. Remember he converted the 7 Jewish congregations around the Mediterranean ….

 

[PruePhillip]

Its pretty clear to me that Jesus' mission wasn't to the Gentiles.

If not for Paul, Christianity may have never gotten off the ground.. Remember he converted the 7 Jewish congregations around the Mediterranean ….

The Patriarch Jacob, ca 2000 BC, Bronze Age, Egypt.
"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his
descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one
whom all nations will honor"

You have to respect the text. It's all we have.

Who does the scepter and law really belong to? (Shiloh or the
Messiah in most translations.)
"the one whom all nations will honor", or the Gentiles in some
translations. By implication - the end of the monarchy and law
mean these are removed from the Jewish people.

Other authors are much more explicit - everything which belongs
to the Jews WILL be taken away and the Messiah will be believed
upon of the Gentiles. Even Jesus said this. His mission was first
to the Jews, but Jesus told his itinerant ministers they will go out
into all the world.

 

[sooda]

The Patriarch Jacob, ca 2000 BC, Bronze Age, Egypt.
"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his
descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one
whom all nations will honor"

You have to respect the text. It's all we have.

Who does the scepter and law really belong to? (Shiloh or the
Messiah in most translations.)
"the one whom all nations will honor", or the Gentiles in some
translations. By implication - the end of the monarchy and law
mean these are removed from the Jewish people.

Other authors are much more explicit - everything which belongs
to the Jews WILL be taken away and the Messiah will be believed
upon of the Gentiles. Even Jesus said this. His mission was first
to the Jews, but Jesus told his itinerant ministers they will go out
into all the world.

I know the verse, but I don't know what or who Shiloh is.. Devout Muslims will tell you Shiloh is Muhammed.

 

[PruePhillip]

I know the verse, but I don't know what or who Shiloh is.. Devout Muslims will tell you Shiloh is Muhammed.

Mohamed was a Sixth Century Arab warlord.
Shiloh is the Jewish (and Gentile!) Messiah. There is first the Messiah
as Redeemer and then Messiah as King. This kingly Messiah is the
one who was lowly and rode upon an ***, and who's hands the nation
of Israel "pierced" (Zachariah's prophecies.)
Not sure how Mohamed or his followers imagine they fit into this.
I put Islam on the same level as Mormonism.

 

[Katzpur]

Mohamed was a Sixth Century Arab warlord.
Shiloh is the Jewish (and Gentile!) Messiah. There is first the Messiah
as Redeemer and then Messiah as King. This kingly Messiah is the
one who was lowly and rode upon an ***, and who's hands the nation
of Israel "pierced" (Zachariah's prophecies.)
Not sure how Mohamed or his followers imagine they fit into this.
I put Islam on the same level as Mormonism.

Unlike Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sees Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and the sole means by which we might be redeemed of our sins and welcomed back into our Father's presence.

 

[PruePhillip]

Unlike Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sees Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and the sole means by which we might be redeemed of our sins and welcomed back into our Father's presence.

What I meant was that the Mormons hold that the Christian mission
failed and needs resetting to symbolic worship of the Old Testament.
This is what Islam believes also. Most churches just gloss over the
hard bits of Christian doctrine and example. The Quran and Book of
Mormon at least confront these issues.

 

[Desert Snake]

Unlike Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sees Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and the sole means by which we might be redeemed of our sins and welcomed back into our Father's presence.

^

What I meant was that the Mormons hold that the Christian mission
failed and needs resetting to symbolic worship of the Old Testament.
This is what Islam believes also. Most churches just gloss over the
hard bits of Christian doctrine and example. The Quran and Book of
Mormon at least confront these issues.

'g- d concept' is usually relevant to religious discussions.

 

[Desert Snake]

No it's not Judaism. It's a heresy. Those who believe it are Jews. But they are not practicing Judaism. They are practicing a heresy. Again, that's my opinion. Other Jews in the forum may have differing opinions. You'll have to ask them. But in my book, Judaism has respect for Oral Law. You light shabbat candles. You say Kiddush. Etc.

You said it's judaism, by your own definition, then say it isn't judaism, you can't even not contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

 

[sooda]

Mohamed was a Sixth Century Arab warlord.
Shiloh is the Jewish (and Gentile!) Messiah. There is first the Messiah
as Redeemer and then Messiah as King. This kingly Messiah is the
one who was lowly and rode upon an ***, and who's hands the nation
of Israel "pierced" (Zachariah's prophecies.)
Not sure how Mohamed or his followers imagine they fit into this.
I put Islam on the same level as Mormonism.

How do you know the meaning of Shiloh? Is the word used anywhere else in scripture?

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually he DID practice second Temple Judaism.

So you say, ...

It does not differ from Judaism. It's simply a form of Judaism that existed during the Second Temple era. Specifically, he was of the school of Hillel, and argued with those of the school of Shammai, which anyone familiar with the arguments in the Talmud would recognize.

...

It clearly does differ from judaism. Read the book of Matthew, ketuvim in judaism, is prophecy in Jesus religion.
Aside from other things, like the inferred solar calendar

^

At this point, I can only say I don't understand what you are saying. I've read the book of Matthew. So? What does that have to do with the Ketuvim(the writings)? There were many messianic cults in Jesus day, all part of Second Temple Judaism (much like how the Lubavitchers are the messianics of today's Judaism). Messianic cults are well known for having esoteric understanding of the texts. It's one of the things that puts them outside of the mainstream, but they are still part of Judaism. Jesus did not try to start a new religion. He tried to bring Jews back to the essence of Judaism (which he believed was the school of Hillel halakha).

Clearly, when you say Judaism, you don't mean the religion of Jesus, , and it's confusing concepts, to say that, Jesus practiced Judaism, when you also say heresies and not your form of Judaism , 'aren't Judaism'.
Your statements are a confused mess, and even if you are a recent convert to judaism, there's no excuse for this.
That's why you actually need to know that Jesus didn't practice anything close to your form of Judaism, by your own statements.

 

[sooda]

The christian explanations although they do vary a bit, tend to maintain the problematic nature. So that could be your explanation, however it doesn't seem to be the standard christian explanations.

Actually is pretty standard among mainline churches where clergy are college educated.