roger1440
I do stuff
I think the Gospels would have come much closer to being accepted by Jews if non-Jews didn’t meddle with the original meaning. The Gospels wouldn’t have been accepted as scripture but as some sort of contemporary Midrash.
-
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!
Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?
- Thread starter Lorgar-Aurelian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christianity jesus jews judaism
During His lifetime he was one itinerant preacher among many, who also performed 'wonders' and miracles, with a small following. And after the crucifixion the followers went their separate ways, game over.
roger1440
I do stuff
How do you know this, were you there?
Have you never read the account of Pentecost, or the events on the road to Emmaus? All that was preached and written about Jesus was in light of post resurrection, Easter faith.
roger1440
I do stuff
You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. The Pentecost story is a retelling of the Tower of Babel story.
The greater part of the Gospels are a 'retelling' of an OT account in light of Jesus. It remains that what is written was through resurrection faith with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
I don't read it that way.
The word with YHVH was his law.
The word/law became incased in a human. So he could teach it.
Jesus was a JEW. He taught Jewish teachings in the Temple, - nothing else, - or they would have kicked him out.
Jesus NEVER says he is God, or part of any trinity.
The God-trinity stuff was made up later.
*
I wouldn't expect a non-believer to.
According to the verse, the Word was God.
Jesus mentions the law very little. He mainly taught spiritual truths through parables and other figurative language,
The Bib le tells what He taught and none of it was about Jewish theology, except to correct it occasionally----Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32 , 33-34. 37-38 & 43-44.
It is not necessary for Him to say it as long as sit is tgaught by others in the Bi ble.
Actually it came to be understood later. Many spiritual truths were not known originally. It took years of study gto find them and we can still find some today.
Tumah
Veteran Member
It looks like the NT author was referring to Philo's take on the Logos:
Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[7] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[34] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[34] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[35]
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[34] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.[34]
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[34] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.[34]
Philo was not using the word correctly
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm pretty sure he was inventing a meaning for the word.
There seems little clarity about what John intended when he wrote the his gospel.
The word logos use by Philo makes sense and enables internal consistency when considering the NT, whereas an exegesis that Jesus is literal incarnation of God (God made flesh) contradicts other scripture and makes no sense.
That would mean he was using the word incorrectly.
...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.
Not for those who understand it and believe it.
You can't get truth from an incorrect definition. The incarnation does not contradict anything if you understand it.
...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.
A better word would be agreement as I understand and believe in John 1:1. The only way to properly understand what John meant is to consider it the gospel as a whole.
These verse from John contradict Jesus being a physical incarnation of God.
1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I
That is true. If you start from the position of deciding logos refers to physical incarnation then you need to make the rest of the scripture fit. It doesn't. Maybe you understand it, but you need to demonstrate that understanding through proofs and arguments.
No disrespect but telling me you have been a Christian for 40 years is not a proof of your argument, and telling me I'm not a Christian proves just as little.
As Jesus, his likeness and image was human, not the likeness and image of God.
During His incarnation, he depended on God 100%. He had to live exactly(Heb 2:17) like man so he put all of His godly attributes aside(Phil 2:7). I can do nothing on my own initiative(Jn 5:30). do not speak on My own initiative (Jn 14:10).
Jn 5:30
Jesus was not omniscient during His. Phil 2:7
Jn 12:49
Only during His incarnation. You can't compare God as Jesus and God as the Father.
It is impossible lto prove spiritual truths. All I can do is point to verses that I think support what I say. I can't even prove I am a Christian. I might just have the gift of gab.
I have not said you are not a Christian. I have said that one who doesn't have a Biblical understanding of Jesus, who His is and what He has done, can't be a Christian. No disrespect, but if the shoe fits wear it.
Tumah
Veteran Member
You may want to do a little research into how "invention" works. Especially for a case like this, where your holy book's authors borrowed heavily from the inventor.
Where is your evidence?
...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Philo came before the NT authors and the major points are the same.
SuzyQ
New Member
Yes , he failed to fulfill in his mission.....he was suppose to bring about world peace, all weapons turned into plough shares ....and now a giant bomb just was sent to Afghanistan. Would you say there is no more war? Moshiah is a Title to a job for a man on Earth....not some "man-god" like Chistian say it is.
If he was Moshiah then why did most of the Jewish nation reject him as such? They were the witnesses and not people of today.