Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

I am glad to help in anyway possible. I had a storehouse of research on my other computer on various subjects related to the one you are studying. Unfortunately it crashed and I lost it all.

I live in FT Collins by the way Dolphin. So I am only about thirty minutes away from you. Small world huh.

[Guest]

I could use some help here. I wanted to know what Judaism taught so I started looking at some of their websites and now I find myself "in over my head."

Hey Dolphin as a former reform jew let me just add a little to several terrific answers you got. Very few jews know much about their own bible and many don't believe in God at all. The Orthodox jews study the Torah (first 5 books) and the Talmud which is Rabbinical commentary on the Torah. For the most part they ignore the Psalms and the Prophets which is where you find the prophecies of Christ.
The Talmud was written around 150AD-250AD and in it they do mention Jesus as a "deceiver" and "false prophet" and that he will burn in boiling oil. Keep in mind as they wrote this Christianity was rapidly spreading and the Rabbi's were afraid of losing jews to Christianity.
The Rabbi's as well as the disciples of Christ were looking for a military hero to overthrow Rome and usher in world peace. However if you study the OT you'll find the constant and persistent problem of sin and disobedience between God and his chosen people. They rejected God's prophets, they rejected God's commandments and they rejected God's Son and in 70AD God dispersed them for 2000 years.
The Covenant that God gave them on Mt Sinai was only regarding their earthly existence it had nothing to do with eternal life.
That's why the New Covenant is soooo much better so i would focus on Christ. There's enough there for a lifetime.

[Guest]

chriscarani,
I suppose the rule is that computers crash when important things are not backed up and never crash when the important things are backed up.
That is cool though that you are about 30 min. away from me though, I usually don't come across too many people who live in Colorado, let alone anywhere near me.

STEVE7150,

Very few jews know much about their own bible and many don't believe in God at all.

Unfourtunatly, it seems the same can be said about many christians too. I don't think this fact alone would invalidate either faith. I can't remember who it was, but I was watching a Messianic television show years ago, and the guy who was teaching had said that, "Judaism really dosen't have anything to do with God. It's mostly about being Jewish." Based on that and noticing that there wasn't much "fruit" being produced by Judaism, I just disregarded it altogether. When I looked into the arguments though, I was a little taken back, as schoel pointed out in an earlier post, the arguements are not invalid because of the organization they come from.

At this point I have read a lot, and understand very little. (Mostly with that typeology article, hard to understand.) Things are slowly comming together and I feel that I am headed in the right direction. Just nothing super concrete for me quite yet.

Thanks again for all your help everyone. I greatly appriciate it.

[Guest]

Glad I was able to help a little bit even thought the organization is in question. Take care.

[Guest]

Hello,

Please pardon me for coming in late here. I'm a bit of a late arrival . As a person of Jewish faith, I'm motivated to take issue with a few of the statements made so far on this thread. Naturally, it can be difficult for people of one faith tradition to fairly appreciate the stance of another. (And let me acknowledge that this is true for Jewish perspectives on Christianity as well.)

So here goes:

"If the old testament mandates were not types and shadows then God seems overly concerned with trivial things like the way garments are sewn together or what animals can plow with a shared yoke. Given a spiritual meaning, like the apostles taught, these seemingly insignificant rules can now be applied. Left on their own, these rules seem rather silly."

This comment is inherently biased. Judgments of "triviality," "insignificance," and "silliness" are highly subjective, and easily rooted in whims of contemporary culture. Many Americans today would say that Christian standards of sexual behavior are insignificant and silly, but such judgments are neither here nor there. If we were not contemporary Westerners, and actually sewed garments or plowed with animals (as many humans still do in the third world today), the "silly" rules would have practical meaning. Fabrics that have different properties often do not work well together, due to different rates of shrinkage or what have you; likewise, plowing with animals of different strengths can be unpleasant for both of the critters, and frustrating for the plowman as well.

These are just practical dimensions, which is not to mention the matter of ritual behavior, which many Protestants have little understanding of or appreciation for. This is part of Protestant bias, and I hope you will pardon my saying that it is an unhealthy and unfair bias. Ritual activity is a natural part of human behavior, both sacred and secular, and Protestants routinely participate in it, whether or not they recognize it. Ritual is kinetic poetry, and it is effective for celebrating and affirming spiritual values.

Typology, on the other hand, is methodologically problematic. Typology often involves looking into a document to find something that is not apparent in its original context or application. This lends itself to interpretive abuse, and the conclusions it is meant to support are often quite unverifiable. There is no way to demonstrate whether a passage was actually meant to foreshadow a later event, or whether there has been conscious later reference to the earlier pattern -- or even simple coincidence.

Typology can be codependent with the kind of bias that I have objected to above, and it can allow people to rest comfortably within their own frame of reference, overlooking the significance of unfamiliar things in their immediate historical context. This is unfair and disrespectful to both the people God was working with, and to the One who was working with them, sensitively and contextually. It is important to preserve and celebrate the dignity of their relationship in their own place and time.

"to me, if Jesus was not the Messiah then Judaism makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."

This is understandable if one is Christian, and one's faith experience has revolved around Christian ideas. However, Judaism makes sense and is meaningful to many people who have entered into its worldview and have lived it. It was meaningful to people for centuries before Jesus was born, and it has continued to be meaningful for centuries afterward, regardless of his being born. This is not to say that Jesus' life was/is meaningless, but to point out that Judaism has, historically, not been dependent upon Jesus in order to be meaningful. Its orbit is based upon God's special, covenantal relationship with his chosen people.

"the gospels were circulated in a time and place where geneological records could be accessed by just about anyone. So if the gospel writers were fabricating that aspect of Jesus' life, they would've probably left that out."

I am skeptical that comprehensive public genealogical records were maintained for every Jewish child -- even male children -- in the first century. The logistical requirements of this process seem impractical. But I could be wrong. Even if they did exist, many readers would have lacked practical access to such documents.

"One thing you have to realize is, Jewish people have a vested interest in trying to discredit Christianity and they will try to use any wiggle room in their theology and translations to do so."

The same cricticism could be levied at Christian apologists, and it would be appropriate for both some Christians and some Jews. It is important to recognize, though, that some Jewish people may honestly understand the evidence differently. Because their tradition is not Christian, their theological and translational activities may appear strange -- but this is a dynamic that cuts both ways.

"Christianity was formed by Jewish people and my bet is they probably knew the scriptures much better than modern day Jews who use it to discredit Christ."

It is sad but true that many Jews today are secular and/or unfamiliar with the Hebrew bible. It is also true that some of the people who formed Christianity knew the Hebrew bible very well. It is debatable, however, whether the people who formed Christianity interpreted the Hebrew bible well. Many people who frequent this forum would agree that some of the most knowledgeable people in biblical studies today interpret the bible in questionable ways.

"The Orthodox jews study the Torah (first 5 books) and the Talmud which is Rabbinical commentary on the Torah. For the most part they ignore the Psalms and the Prophets which is where you find the prophecies of Christ."

The Psalms and Prophets may be regarded by some as lesser scriptures; some Christians treat part of their canon as lesser. To speak generally: for Christians, the pivot of faith is the Messiah; for Jews, the pivot of faith is the covenant. As such, Torah naturally consumes a lion's share of attention.

But the tangential question is whether or not the Psalms and Prophets actually contain prophecies about Jesus, and/or to what extent. On this topic, Jewish apologists do engage passages that Christians appeal to in the Psalms and Prophets.

"The Talmud was written around 150AD-250AD and in it they do mention Jesus as a "deceiver" and "false prophet" and that he will burn in boiling oil. Keep in mind as they wrote this Christianity was rapidly spreading and the Rabbi's were afraid of losing jews to Christianity."

Actually, the two Talmuds range a bit later than stated. The Yerushalmi is redacted perhaps around the year 350 CE. The Bavli, which is the preeminent Talmud, is redacted perhaps 550-800 CE. But it may be admitted that both draw upon earlier traditions.

Depending on the time period, I am not sure how intimidated rabbis were by Christian evangelism per se. Christianity diverged quickly from Jewish sensibilities, and its early viability amongst the Jewish community probably declined the more Gentile and heterodox it became.

"The Covenant that God gave them on Mt Sinai was only regarding their earthly existence it had nothing to do with eternal life."

This is a highly questionable statement, and it seems to depend upon the supposition that one's earthly existence makes no impact upon one's eternal life.

""Judaism really dosen't have anything to do with God. It's mostly about being Jewish." Based on that and noticing that there wasn't much "fruit" being produced by Judaism, I just disregarded it altogether."

From a certain perspective, if one is a Jew, and has been called by God to be part of a chosen people, then being Jewish is fundamentally about God. But the real danger here is to take one person's statement as a valid base for understanding a religious tradition that is wide and diverse, much like Christianity.

As for the "fruit" issue, one's personal experience will impact their awareness of the fruit of Judaism. Many Christians do not live in places where there are many Jews, and many are not in a position to be aware of what Jewish people do for communities. The last two years, I worked with a synagogue as part of an interfaith homeless ministry. Jews of different backgrounds and ages volunteered their time to help operate the ministry's shelter, especially over Christmas week, when the Christian congregations had other commitments. When the ministry's refrigerator was breaking down, Jews paid to have it replaced, even though it was being run out of a Lutheran church. But many people in our area would have no idea that the ministry had a Jewish component.


Thank you to anybody who has been patient with my voluminous response! I wish I had participated in this thread when it was unfolding.

[Guest]

The Psalms and Prophets may be regarded by some as lesser scriptures; some Christians treat part of their canon as lesser. To speak generally: for Christians, the pivot of faith is the Messiah; for Jews, the pivot of faith is the covenant. As such, Torah naturally consumes a lion's share of attention.

But the tangential question is whether or not the Psalms and Prophets actually contain prophecies about Jesus, and/or to what extent. On this topic, Jewish apologists do engage passages that Christians appeal to in the Psalms and Prophets.


Thanks for your response Kaufmann, I have to disagree that Christians take any part of their canon as lessor and i think everyone on this forum would agree, after all either one believes it's inspired by God or it's not and if it is then it's sacred. However the jews do reverence the Torah more although they accept the Psalms and Prophets as inspired.
As to the jews being "the chosen people" they were chosen to be offered the Sinaitic Covenant and biblically speaking that's what defines a jew,the acceptance of the covenant. However i stand by what i said that this covenant in of itself did not lead to eternal life nor did it offer to. What did lead to eternal life in the OT was faith.
I know that the jewish apologists can engage on disputing these prophecies and i've encountered their answers and we agreed to disagree.

[Guest]

Hello!

Thank you for responding.

I have to disagree that Christians take any part of their canon as lessor and i think everyone on this forum would agree, after all either one believes it's inspired by God or it's not and if it is then it's sacred.

I did post that "some Christians treat part of their canon as lesser." On the one hand I was thinking of churches with deuterocanons, but I may have been off in that respect. On the other hand, even some Christians in bible-oriented churches will terrace their bible, treating the Old Testament as lesser scripture. Other Christians may treat comparatively minor texts like 2 John or Song of Solomon as lesser scripture in comparison with favored texts like Isaiah or the Gospels. To cite a hackneyed case, Martin Luther apparently considered James to be lesser scripture because it didn't fit his best standard. Many of these Christians might not define their less-favored books as being less inspired, but practically speaking they would treat and somewhat regard them as lesser.

On your second topic: is it necessary for the Sinaitic covenant to lead people to eternal life in and of itself? Is it not a sufficient entity if its agency brings a person to faith?

Thanks,
Emmet (sorry - kaufmann's jut the login)

[Guest]

Kaufmannphillips,

I am very pleased to have you join the forum. I also very much appreciate your perspective, and the kind way you phrase your objections to the posts you sited. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Mike

[Guest]

Many of these Christians might not define their less-favored books as being less inspired, but practically speaking they would treat and somewhat regard them as lesser.

On your second topic: is it necessary for the Sinaitic covenant to lead people to eternal life in and of itself? Is it not a sufficient entity if its agency brings a person to faith?


Emmet, OK since by "lesser" you mean less important to themselves of course most people have their own fav books.
Re the Sinatic covenant and faith the fact is there were people of faith before it's existence such as Abraham and Abel and Noah. It was a covenant of blessings and curses in this earthly life and the keeping of it was a manifestation of one's already existing faith IMHO.

[Guest]

Hi, Mike,

Thank you for your kind welcome and your encouraging words .

If you are interested in the Didache study, I have had a fair amount of interest so far, and I'm hoping to coordinate things for a first meeting. It would be great to know what times/locations might be best for you.

In the meantime, I have set up a website for the group and posted some introductory materials there. I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement!

http://didache.us

Thank you again, Mike,
Emmet