Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Appearances and reality are not the same thing - that is the lesson from the Psalms. While the words Christ and Messiah are related by etymology, the associations that Pauline Christianity and Judaism make for those words are incompatible.
While that is true, it is not part of the salvic doctrine that is central to Christology.
That's understandable, but it should be apparent that the prophetic Psalms are not all about the same people.
Whether appearances and and reality are not the same thing could be an arguement on Jesus centered theology, it is not for me to intepret between what English words like messiah and christ mean to those who believe in Jesus to be something to them. I can accept that what words mean to Jesus beleivers is whatever they say they are for them.
Whether it is a part of a doctrine or not, there are obviously different types of Christianity use whatever doctrines meet their theological perspectives. That is why I stated that asking about Isaiah 53 and Psalms 35 in relation to the link I posted raised a particular flag that sound similar to the site I posted that found a reference to Jesus in Psalm 35.
It's not really accurate to call the association between Psalm 35 and the Messiah part of Christianity, since Christianity itself takes the side of the false witnesses of Psalm 35:11 in John 2:19.
I don't think the word itself means even in Christianity anything else than anointed. At least in Biblical point of view it should not. But, there are many things attributed to the person that is called the Messiah.
I think all people are important, even if their number is small. And on my behalf truth matters and I hope also Jews would know the truth. But, for me Jews are especially important, because of their ancestors who did great things.
I thought the main belief was in one God.
'God' is ambiguous. Official Christian doctrine is that 'God' is a trinity of persons, but in Exodus 19-20 Moses is a member of Elohim, and Elohim is one of the words that are translated as 'God'.
You don't have to worry about Jews in the truth matters department. We are doing okay there. Concerning the matters of Christianity, we have literally heard every version of it for about 1,700 years, and overwhelmingly we have deemed it as something that is not for us to enter into.
I didn't say it was a part of Christinaity. What I wrote was, "there are obviously different types of Christianity use whatever doctrines meet their theological perspectives."
Even if that were true, the word in Hebrew doesn't denote a "messiah" or "savior." Theologically, when Christians speak of a "Messiah" they are talking about something different than what the word (משיח) means in the Hebrew language.
The same can be said for Judaism. The point of commonality is Paul of Tarsus because the Pharisees were the theological ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism and Paul was a Pharisee. Christology is mostly developed from Pauline doctrine, so understanding Paul is the key to understanding why Judaism rejects Christianity.
That is not really true. The claim of Paul being a Pharisee comes from the new testament. One good indication of this is that the new testament never defines what the title even means or even how Paul, claimed to have been from Tarsus, could have been one. Very little is even known about who Paul was in the first place, but it is highly unlikely that the claims about Paul being a Pharisee is historically accurate.
So you think that it's highly unlikely based on how little you know, or because the target audience could not have been expected to know what a Pharisee was?
I think it is unlikely for a historical and geophgraphical reasons. Also, the narrative given in the new testament about Paul is suspect. I would definately say that the authors of the NT also didn't seem very aware of what it means Jewishly to say "Perushim." Also, those who read the earliest versions of the NT would not have known either.So you think that it's highly unlikely based on how little you know, or because the target audience could not have been expected to know what a Pharisee was?
The Hellenization of [Tarsus] began in the days of Alexander the Great; this influence was fully felt by the Jews, who had been colonized at Tarsus bythe Seleucids about 170 B.C.
TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.www.jewishencyclopedia.com
That is an interesting claim. I don't think Jews should turn into Christianity. I think it would be good, if they would remain Jews and become disciples of Jesus. There is a great differences between what Jesus said and what many Christians say. And unfortunately many have been misled from Jesus by Christian teachings that are not Biblical.
Bible tells that Jews expected Messiah before Jesus came on earth. Do you think that is true, and if so, why do you think they expected Messiah?
What specific reasons would lead to the Pauline accounts being inaccurate?
What specific reasons would lead to the Pauline accounts being inaccurate?
That is actually a bad iea for a number of reasons. One is because we Jews are commanded not to become disciples of such a thing. Also, whenever Jews have done what you are suggesting it has been a disaster for them. Here are a few threads where what you are describing was discussed already.