metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Excellent book, imo.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Messiah (pbuh) important to come(come back) to Jews and Chritians ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Excellent book, imo.
The only people I see saying that Jesus was a Pharisee are Jewish people and Zionists. For centuries we have viewed the Pharisees with disdain and this group was chiefly responsible for His death but now all of a sudden Jesus was one of them? Nah, I'm not buying it. Makes no sense.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Zionism" literally has nothing to do with whether Jesus was a Pharisee, and just because some within the churches viewed Pharisees with disdain for centuries I would suggest gives evidence of the lack of understanding of even basic Judaism of so many. The evidence is clearly there, but some prefer just to react without doing any studying.
Let me just add to the above as a reminder that the Pharisees were more of a movement than a monolithic group, as I previously mentioned. Archaeologists have thus far found evidence for at least four different Pharisee groups, but they believe there could be more. As one might expect, the differences of opinion at times led to some rather "lively" debate.
Let me just add to the above as a reminder that the Pharisees were more of a movement than a monolithic group, as I previously mentioned. Archaeologists have thus far found evidence for at least four different Pharisee groups, but they believe there could be more. As one might expect, the differences of opinion at times led to some rather "lively" debate.
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Its not going to happen. So you can wonder all you want.
Yes all beliefs of the Pharisee just popped into existance from nothing.
10/10
Out of curiosity, have you ever visited a chabad synagogue?
Last time i went there i wasnt told to hate all christians. But maybe i went there on the wrong day. Which day would be the correct day?
By selling us his kids to slaughter them.
People try to lump Him in with the Essenes, too. So I don't view your argument as having any more merit, especially since His teachings and actions went directly against many of the teachings and actions of the Pharisees.
I don't see Him as belonging to either of those groups. I see Him as something different. Of course, the biggest difference is that He is God.
Well, I hope not.
No. They developed after the Maccabean Revolt.
Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this site affiliated with the Chabad organization? JAHG-USA Official Web Site
I'm honestly asking.
Your mockery doesn't help anything.
is there a site Jews for Muhammad (pbuh) ?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There simply not only is no evidence to lump him with the Essenes, and some of what he did and taught, according to the gospels, would run entirely counter to what the Essenes believed in and lived out. Even checking out the Essene piece in Wikipedia would supply one with enough evidence to draw this conclusion.
And please note I have provided you with quite a bit of evidence why he appears to be of the Pharisee tradition whereas you have only presented an opinion. If one truly understands the Pharisee movement, one would have no choice but to conclude he was one from the liberal side of their spectrum. Now, whether he saw himself as a Pharisee is another matter, and I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to conclude one way or another.
Also, just a reminder that the gospels were written well after Jesus died, and also whereas the split with normative Judaism had become irreconcilable, so having the authors distancing Jesus from especially the Pharisees may be reflected in what we read there. This hostility especially shows up in John's gospel, which was the latest written of the four.
Did the church during apostolic times view Jesus as God or did they believe Jesus was of God?
But that's another discussion.
There simply not only is no evidence to lump him with the Essenes, and some of what he did and taught, according to the gospels, would run entirely counter to what the Essenes believed in and lived out. Even checking out the Essene piece in Wikipedia would supply one with enough evidence to draw this conclusion.
And please note I have provided you with quite a bit of evidence why he appears to be of the Pharisee tradition whereas you have only presented an opinion. If one truly understands the Pharisee movement, one would have no choice but to conclude he was one from the liberal side of their spectrum. Now, whether he saw himself as a Pharisee is another matter, and I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to conclude one way or another.
Also, just a reminder that the gospels were written well after Jesus died, and also whereas the split with normative Judaism had become irreconcilable, so having the authors distancing Jesus from especially the Pharisees may be reflected in what we read there. This hostility especially shows up in John's gospel, which was the latest written of the four.
Did the church during apostolic times view Jesus as God or did they believe Jesus was of God?
I'm just not seeing it, honestly. He condemned the Pharisees multiple times and it was them who led the plan to have Him killed. I don't know, maybe you should start a thread on it.
According to what is said in the Gospels, the Apostles recognized Him as God and the Jews tried to stone Him for saying as much.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually it appears he didn't. Matter of fact, at various intervals in the gospels he cites God as being different than he. For example, he said that he didn't know when the end of times would be and that only God knew. He frequently refers to God as "the Father". Even though my father is at least somewhat reflected in my very existence, he and I were not one and the same, nor would I expect you and your father to be one and the same.
To me, what he is saying is that he and God are on the same page-- iow, being of God -- not that he was God. Later in time, especially when the gentiles took over the church, the idea of Jesus being God became more acceptable, quite possibly reflecting the Hellenized influence in the area whereas they believed that gods walked the Earth and often acted much as people do.
Ya, different topic deserving it's own thread.
God exists in Three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son and vice versa and so on. That is why He referred to the Father apart from Himself, because they're not the same Person. However, they are all God and all share the same Divine Essence.
When it comes to Him not knowing when the end will come, He said that the Father only knows that. When He said that, He was answering from His human nature. Jesus has two natures - Divine and human, and He is fully Divine and fully human. When He answered that question, He answered from His human nature because humans are not meant to know when it will happen while further driving home the point that such things are to left in God's hands. As God, of course, He knows all things. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal in knowledge, power and stature. They just have different roles.
Oh, and the part when the Jews tried to stone Him was when He said "before Abraham was, I AM":
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. John 8:58-59
He was making an obvious allusion to the Tetragrammaton and His audience realized that.
Last edited:
jewscout
Religious Zionist
I have no idea what you are talking about, are you referencing the Israeli flag?
Exile
Well traditionally it's been viewed the Moshiach, then the Temple, but there is some debate about it, especially amongst religious Zionists who want to start now, but I don't think it represents the mainstream of rabbinic thought
it's seem that you discussed other subjects in this thread , but you ignored/don't feel ?
check out your previous post #77 :
so you discussed many subjects in this thread like : the Israeli state and Islam vs Judaism God view .
Where I have discussed other topics have all been within the context of explaining Judaism's view of the messiah. As to the murder of prophets, that libel has little baring on Moshiach.
To the Jews as the redeemed of our people, but to the world because his coming will change the world. How exactly is really a matter of speculation, but there are some general ideas, like an end to war.
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
And i hope that your people wont genocide us again and again.
Which has a far higher probability of happaning again than a minority of Jews rebuilding the Temple without the moshiach.
So the whole oral Torah was invented by them or could it be that it actually existed before then?
Cant find anything about Chabad in the about us section so i dont know.
Looks like a typical US loony site. It just happens to be run by loony Jews.
Its not really mockery. I could direct you to the 7 laws of Noah but you are probably going to find something bad about them.
No one who commits genocide, persecutes others and harms other is "my people" and I'm insulted that you would think that.
I don't believe that the Talmud is from God, so let's just leave that there.
Fair enough.
I know what the Noahide Laws are.
InChrist
Free4ever
You may want to consider researching the history of the Roman Catholic Church...
"The Roman Catholic Church began to believe it had replaced Israel as God's chosen people. That land, promised by God to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, now belonged, for new and holier reasons, to "Christian" Rome, the new Zion. The pagan empire had become the Holy Roman Empire, the "Kingdom of God" on earth. The hope of its revival was the dream of all Europe during the Middle Ages––a goal which will be accomplished at last by Antichrist. The revived Roman Empire over which he will rule, with enthusiastic Vatican support as in the past, will encompass the entire world.
Without rancor we must face the facts concerning the Holy Roman Empire to understand what its revival will mean. Pagans had blamed every disaster upon Christians. Now the Church blamed all on the Jews. Accused of causing the Black Death, Jews were rounded up and hanged, burned and drowned by the thousands in revenge. Although now and then a pope sought to ameliorate their condition, there was no place for "Christ crucifiers" in God's Holy Kingdom. More than 100 anti-Semitic documents were published by the Roman Catholic Church between the sixth and twentieth centuries. Anti-Semitism had become official Church doctrine. To this day, the Vatican has never conceded Israel's right to exist and wants Jerusalem to be, not in Jewish hands, but under international control.
To raise an army for the First Crusade, Pope Urban II promised instant entrance into heaven without purgatory for all who fell in that great cause. The knights and knaves who responded with enthusiasm to that deceitful promise left a trail of plunder, mayhem, and murder on their way to Jerusalem, where they slaughtered all Arabs and Jews. One of their first acts after their triumphal entry into Jerusalem was to herd the Jews into the synagogue and set it ablaze. On their way to the Holy Land, the Crusaders gave the Jews the choice of baptism or death. De Rosa recounts:
In the year 1096 half of the Jews of Worms were slaughtered as the Crusaders passed through the town. The rest fled to the bishop's residence for protection. He agreed to save them, on condition that they asked to be baptized. The Jews retired to consider their decision. When the doors of the audience chamber were opened, all 800 Jews inside were dead. Some were decapitated; fathers had killed their babes before turning their knives on their wives and themselves; a groom had slain his bride. The first century tragedy of Masada was repeated everywhere in Germany and, later, throughout France.
Sincere followers of Christ, too, were slain by the hundreds of thousands for attempting to follow the Bible instead of Rome. What these victims suffered from Holy Mother Church is a story sad beyond belief for both persecuted and persecutors. The Inquisitors were caught in a web from which there was no escape, for the papacy did indeed "reign over the kings of the earth." No doubt many of the zealots who carried out papal decrees were sincere. The civil authorities, moreover, feared excommunication should they fail to fulfill the Inquisitors' demands. The facts speak volumes.
Heretics (those who felt bound by conscience to follow God's Word) were committed to the flames because the popes believed that the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. Victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians (and Jews) who had been martyred under pagan Roman emperors. Catholic apologists try in vain to absolve their Church of responsibility, arguing that the sentence of death was carried out by civil authorities. Yet this transference to the "secular arm" was required by the Church's canon law, and at the tribunal where heretics were condemned the Inquisitor's throne was higher than that of the magistrate. The prisoner was allowed to know neither the charge against him nor the identity of his accusers. No one was ever acquitted. Torture often made the pitiful victims willing to confess to anything. Will Durant reminds us of Pope Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II's leniency:
We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override [the Church's] canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.
The medieval Inquisition had flourished for centuries when, in 1542, Pope Paul III gave it permanent status as the first of Rome's Sacred Congregations, the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition. Known more recently as the Holy Office, its name was changed in 1967 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith––quite appropriate, inasmuch as public burnings were known as autos-da-fé, or acts of faith. The Office operates today from the Palace of the Inquisition adjacent to St. Peter's. The Grand Inquisitor is Cardinal Ratzinger, who reports to Pope John Paul II.
Before he became Pope Paul IV in 1555, Inquisitor-General John Peter Carafa had converted a house at his own expense into a fully equipped torture chamber for eliciting confessions from the accused. He denounced any who tolerated heretics and declared, "If my own father were a heretic, I would personally gather the wood to burn him." During his brief pontificate the population of Rome was decimated almost by half, with Jews the main victims. Under Paul IV, marriage between a Christian and a Jew was punishable by death. Hitler claimed only to be carrying out what the popes and Church councils had already decreed.
Paul IV forced Jews to sell their properties, confined them to ghettos, treated them as slaves and reduced them to the status of ragpickers. Pope Gregory XIII declared that the guilt of Jews in rejecting and crucifying Christ "only grows deeper with successive generations, entailing perpetual slavery." Later popes, such as Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, et al., continued the persecution of Jews. Pope Pius XII knew very well that the Nazis were systematically exterminating Jews. Yet he never spoke a public word against the Holocaust, because to do so would have condemned his own Church. This silence, historians agree, encouraged Hitler and added to the unspeakable genocide."
Mystery, Babylon Part I
http://http://www.thebereancall.org/content/mystery-babylon-part-i
Last edited:
Anti-Catholic rubbish. I'm very disappointed in you. What's next, a Jack Chick tract? That's just as bad.
Last edited:
Tried to follow the link, but CenturyLink keeps refusing to send me there. Its got to be the worst DNS service on the face of the Earth!
Ok that was a little off topic.
Ok that was a little off topic.
Mystery, Babylon Part I | thebereancall.org
It's just an anti-Catholic polemical that accuses the Church of being the Whore of Babylon and all the horrors that follow from that. It's very offensive nonsense and I have no idea what InChrist was thinking, posting that to a Catholic. Am I supposed to go *gasp* "Thank you for opening my eyes!"? Yeah, no. It's a rare Catholic that hasn't had this bs thrown at them before, especially in countries where we're the minority. American Protestants have a long history of hating us. Thankfully, mainline Protestants have pretty much dumped their anti-Catholicism but Baptists, fundamentalists, Evangelicals, some Pentecostals/Charismatics, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. all continue to hate the Catholic Church and throw bile at us. You get used to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States
Last edited:
This is a great example of antichrist in action, today, visibly. There are several groups that call themselves 'Berean'. They tend to disagree with each other over minor points which they say are significant enough to keep them from fellow-shipping together and also from fellowship with most other people. For example this particular 'Berean' group believes that the antichrist will personally do such & such, temple, temple, blah blah blah. Then there are the people at bereans.org who believe something else entirely, but both groups insist that they really shouldn't fellowship each other. To each other they are both cults who believe in Jesus in the wrong way! Fellowship together would just be too weird for them and might damage their children! It is an example of typical anti christ in action, and nobody wins. If you follow my reasoning about antichrist you can visibly see the antichrist in this real life example, standing in the temple waiting for Jesus to come and smack it down. Its standing there keeping people apart even now while we converse about various things. These people could be having communion, but no they have to compare muscles and fight to own the berean title. For them its all about restoring lost doctrines and, you know, being awesome.
Ok, so there you go. That is typically how things go, albeit one of the more extreme examples. Christians are not at all vague about whether Jesus needs to be physically return. Instead they are completely and diametrically opposed to each other on various issues with no grey. Is Jesus physically returning? It depends upon who you allow to absolutely and unquestioningly teach you from the Bible better than anyone else does.
Ok, so there you go. That is typically how things go, albeit one of the more extreme examples. Christians are not at all vague about whether Jesus needs to be physically return. Instead they are completely and diametrically opposed to each other on various issues with no grey. Is Jesus physically returning? It depends upon who you allow to absolutely and unquestioningly teach you from the Bible better than anyone else does.
Last edited: