Magus55

What an obnoxious and ignorant statement sharon. I am still a Jew, and will always be one. I can't not be Jewish by Jewish law, since I was born of a Jewish mother - got it? And who are you to tell me I can't have become Christian? I saw Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah, which is why I accepted Him.

Kilgore Trout

You are still showing why you don't understand Judaism. Their belief is that when the real Jewish Messiah comes you won't need to "believe" in him because it will be obvious. The whole point of the messiah is that everyone in the world will know he came because he will be a king of Israel. The messiah is not someone they will worship, like you christians twisted it into. He will just be a man who will uphold Judaism and the whole world will know Judaism is the only true religion and the Jewish god is the only true god. He is not supposed to be some guy that claims he's washing away everyone's sins. Judaism knows no man can forgive sins, only god can forgive sins and the messiah will be 100% man only. Not part god or whatever you think jesus is.

Jesus shows himself as a false prophet because he always refuses to show the authorities any "signs" that he is truly from god. He always goes into some kind of rant that they are supposed to have faith. According to Deut 18 every true prophet must show "signs" that he is a prophet from god by performing miracles. So all "true" prophets would be more that happy to prove they are a true prophet and not try to bamboozle everyone by saying they need faith. Also according to the Torah, if 2 or more people say someone is a false prophet the people are supposed to kill him, a lot more that 2 people knew jesus was a false prophet so it's not surprising he was killed.

I've got a question for you Magus55, if you knew a Jew who adopted the Hindu or Muslim belief would you still call that person a Jew?

the_cave

Christianity suggests that the traditional understanding of who the Messiah should be is wrong. Not everyone has to agree, but what's so infuriating about the claim?


Uh, what? The gospels are chock full of miracle stories.

Mike(ATL)

I don't understand how what a group of Jews today believe can be taken as any kind of litmus test of Jesus as the Messiah. From their own documented history Israel is constantly misunderstanding the intent of God, worshipping false idols, etc. For a majority of them to not accept the Messiah seems to me, sadly, as just another page in the history of God's chosen people.

** Let me clarify this is not anti-Semitic as I believe that God's chosen people represent the whole world in many cases. We are documented again and again (Biblically and otherwise) as being a stupid stupid race as a whole that desperately needs God.

Toto

The question of who is a Jew has bedeviled the state of Israel and theologians galore. It is, IMHO, about as productive as a debate over the number of angels who dance on the head of a pin, and has about the same relationship to Biblical Criticism and History.

Since it started in GRD, it would not be fair to send it back. It will now go ~Elsewhere~.

Soul Invictus

I think it would make for an interesting topic why anyone would want to subscribe to a faith in which

1) God is nepotistic
2) You aren't the one he naturally favors (or chooses)

MikeATL,

Do you believe in that you are a member of an elite and exclusive personage that God looks upon higher than the rest of humanity?

the_cave

*Ouch.*

[for the record, that wasn't what *I* was discussing...]

Toto

Hi cave - if you want to discuss a real topic, you can start a new thread. But this whole thread was too convoluted and contentious for me to take the time to split it or just remove the extraneous comments.

But it's out of my hands now.

mark9950

It does not say he will or wont and it also may sound like it is comparing God to a man.

It does not matter what it meant in a sense, the ancient jews BELIEVED that God is not a man or the son of man,that is why people attempted to stone him in john 10:31.

It is WHAT THEY BELIEVED,and they believed that GOD is not a man period.What you and I make of it is irrelevant to that point.

long winded fool

Well, according to Judaism, what Jews believe is irrelevant to what God does or is. Mike(ATL) had it right. In their own scriptures, the Jews are notorious for failing to understand the will of God, even after Moses supplied them with the law. (And so are the Christians in theirs, even after Jesus supplied them with the good news.) How the ancient Jews interpreted the laws would not be a factor in what the laws mean. If the scriptures are inspired by God, we can reject common interpretations in favor of radical new ones so long as the text is not altered. The closer to what we see as truth an interpretation comes, the more likely it is to represent the actual meaning of the inspired word. (All from a Christian or Jewish perspective, of course.)

Remember, the Jews didn't write the scriptures, (God did) so what they believe or believed is ultimately irrelevant. If a certain Jewish or Christian doctrine seems to be in conflict and a better interpretation comes to light that solves the conflict and doesn't create new ones, there is nothing preventing anyone from abandoning the old beliefs and adopting the new ones. (Except Catholics, who feel that Catholic tradition has as much authority as scripture, and atheists who proceed from the premise that the Bible is errant and therefore can assume any faulty interpretation they choose and easily prove it.) That was a huge part of Jesus' ministry: "Forget the old stuff. You didn't get it then and you don't now. Just follow me and you'll be fine." While Jews might accept that they are not in possession of God's will, and therefore must admit that their beliefs about their own interpretations could be wrong, making tradition irrelevant to scripture, they simply don't think that Jesus is in possession of God's will either.

The OT doesn't prove that Jesus was not God. The OT proves that a tiny portion of a long and complex document rife with allegory and symbolism can be interpreted in a context which creates a conflict later on. This no more disproves Jesus' divinity than the use of personification proves a poet's lunacy. Yes, the poet who thinks that trees can sigh and weep might be crazy. Or, with a different interpretation, he might be a genius. "Why assume an interpretation that makes him seem like he's rational when the obvious literal interpretation clearly makes him out to be a loon?" I think this question would be better phrased: "Why assume the obvious literal interpretation that makes him seem like a loon, when the not-so-obvious allegorical interpretation strikes a beautiful chord in our hearts and makes him seem like a genius?" I suspect the answer to the latter can only be a chip on the shoulder due to some unrelated incident regarding the poet himself. Ad hominem arguments are easy to use, and even easier to use when you can deny the existence of your opponent. How can you be guilty of ad hominem if you are not arguing against a man?