Torah-observant Christian?

juantoo3 said:
I'm very torn on this as well. I know great miracles have been brought to pass calling on the name of Jesus. Yet, I also know that is not His name. I don't know the subtleties of the language, but I think Yahshua is His Hebrew name, translated properly into English would be Joshua, not Jesus. His Aramiac name, if I've got the story straight, is more like Y'shua, or Yeshua. The Greek is Iesus, (which corresponds with Zeus). There wasn't even a "J" in the English alphabet until 1555 AD. King James, of KJV Bible fame, was born the following year. So are we even calling on the correct person when we call on the name of Jesus? Don't get me wrong, I think G-d does consider intent, especially when there is legitimate ignorance. Hence, why there are miracles done in the name of Jesus. But if one knows that is not His name, (and is no longer legitimately ignorant) does that name still carry the same weight?
Click to expand...
it is the intent. the point is not the language, the mispelling, the mispronunciation; rather it is the intent. we worship and pray in spirit and the intent of that goes way beyond our shortcomings. it is also very personal, and that goes beyond social and cultural norms. what i mean is if you lived in a foreign country and everyone called their fathers, dad; but your son called you papa, not only is that correct because it is a personal name between the two of you, but its correct because he called you out of love and you love him back; therefore, you respond.
 
juantoo3 said:
China Cat said something recently that has me thinking...something about not seeing the value in either syncretic mixing of faiths, or in reducing them to their original essence (my butchered paraphrase, of which maybe I missed his point altogether?). In some sense, I think he has a point. I don't personally see any value to comingling faiths, or picking and choosing smorgasbord. I have long thought returning to the essence might hold value.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your post, Juan.

It's not that I want to mix faiths or pick smorgasbord. I see it like this...

The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.

I'm searching for Him behind the human varnish and pigment and, at the same time, not wanting to discount the value of the pointings in the paintings.

If it's a religion or not, I don't care. I just want to do what G-d wants me to do.

Thanks,
Mark
 
Kindest Regards, Prober!
Prober said:
I appreciate your post, Juan.

It's not that I want to mix faiths or pick smorgasbord. I see it like this...

The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.

I'm searching for Him behind the human varnish and pigment and, at the same time, not wanting to discount the value of the pointings in the paintings.

If it's a religion or not, I don't care. I just want to do what G-d wants me to do.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely! This is so close to my own thinking I am tempted to say I see it exactly the same way. I tell myself I approach from a Christian vantage because I was born into Christianity, and I am comfortable there. Yet, had I been born Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu, I sense I would still end up approaching the question in the same manner. I would maintain as well I understood within the bounds of my heritage faith while looking back to the source for clues to the purest essence.

I do see an issue, perhaps better addressed elsewhere so as not to tie up the Judaism board, where others have mentioned bringing religion into the modern age, or something like that, as though religion is like the new automobile model years. Or a computer. You need to upgrade every so often...I don't agree.

I think G-d is timeless. I think religion as an approach to the timeless is actually relatively static (or certainly meant to be.) I don't want to hog the board with "Jesus", but I have some flippant image of "a new, improved Messiah!" prepared just for the 21st century! Quick, get yours before they're sold out!

No.

True religion, like G-d, is timeless. There is no such thing as "old-fashioned" with timeless, it is either correct or it is incorrect. Timeless is timeless precisely because it has withstood the test of time. Model years are fads that come and go...don't like this year's model g-d?, just hang around a little while and we'll make a new one just for you!...or come on down to the used g-d lot and pick out your favorites...*stated tongue in cheek of course*, even though I see this attitude I am pointing to all over these boards. "Let us make G-d in our image, in our image let us make S/He." It really seems ridiculous to me on so very many levels, not least the spiritual. To the sense that logic can be applied, it defies even logic.

So yes, the painting of the mountain is not the mountain. Most of us, it seems, can't see to look beyond the canvas blocking our view.
 
Kindest Regards, Blazn!
BlaznFattyz said:
it is the intent. the point is not the language, the mispelling, the mispronunciation; rather it is the intent. we worship and pray in spirit and the intent of that goes way beyond our shortcomings. it is also very personal, and that goes beyond social and cultural norms. what i mean is if you lived in a foreign country and everyone called their fathers, dad; but your son called you papa, not only is that correct because it is a personal name between the two of you, but its correct because he called you out of love and you love him back; therefore, you respond.
Click to expand...
You have raised an interesting point of discussion, but I feel in defference to our hosts on this board that this is an inappropriate place for this discussion. Perhaps the Liberal board, because this enters a realm traditionalist Christians dare not even enter...
 
juantoo3 said:
Model years are fads that come and go...don't like this year's model g-d?, just hang around a little while and we'll make a new one just for you!...or come on down to the used g-d lot and pick out your favorites...*stated tongue in cheek of course*, even though I see this attitude I am pointing to all over these boards. "Let us make G-d in our image, in our image let us make S/He." It really seems ridiculous to me on so very many levels, not least the spiritual. To the sense that logic can be applied, it defies even logic.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Let us (instead) make ourselves in G-d's image (so to speak).
 
Interesting conversation Prober. Thank you for initiating it. :)

Prober said:
The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about the painting of the mountain and the thing signfied and the finger pointing at the moon.

My take on it is that God is not behind the sacred texts, but in, above, and through them. In other words, if you're looking you can't miss. :)

2 c,
luna
 
lunamoth said:
Interesting conversation Prober. Thank you for initiating it. :)



I feel the same way about the painting of the mountain and the thing signfied and the finger pointing at the moon.

My take on it is that God is not behind the sacred texts, but in, above, and through them. In other words, if you're looking you can't miss. :)

2 c,
luna
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely!
 
Kindest Regards, BananaBrain!
bananabrain said:
this is an interesting discussion and i am enjoying reading it. i don't think it's out of place here, although you might want to point to it from elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I will accept this as an invitation to continue the basis of the ongoing discussion. I did pull the issue of the sacred name of the Christian Messiah to the Liberal Christianity board because I felt the subject matter was so discreet from Judaism as to cause confusion.
 
Kindest Regards, Prober!
Prober said:
Indeed! Let us (instead) make ourselves in G-d's image (so to speak).
Click to expand...
Well, yes...but the trick is in not inadvertantly doing things the other way around. The trick is to try to see G-d, (*as much as G-d can be seen*) as He IS, rather than as we desire Him to be.

I have this mental image of my dad when I was a kid (you know, when your dad is the master of the universe and can do no wrong...). Now, he could wear a mechanic's overalls and be one persona, or he could wear a suit and tie and be another persona...but when he was butt naked he was who he is. Warts, freckles, birthmarks, bumps and bruises. Hair where he didn't want it, and no hair where he wanted it.

G-d, to me, is a lot like my naked dad. G-d is who He IS. Nothing I (or anybody) can say or do is going to change any of that. I can decry how I don't think this or that in the universe is right, but the simple fact is; *I didn't make the universe*, He did. I might not see or understand the reason some things are the way they are, but I am confident and comfortable that things are the way they are for a reason. I don't know why some animals slaughter other animals, but I trust there is a reason. I don't know why sacrifice is / was required, but I trust there is a reason. I don't know why bad things happen to good people, but I trust there is a reason.

I don't know why G-d created the different peoples, and the different religious schools to seek Him in different forms and varying manners, but I trust there is a reason. :)
 
Kindest Regards, Luna!

Good to see you back around! Or maybe I haven't been paying attention?
lunamoth said:
I feel the same way about the painting of the mountain and the thing signfied and the finger pointing at the moon.

My take on it is that God is not behind the sacred texts, but in, above, and through them. In other words, if you're looking you can't miss. :)
Click to expand...
In a sense, I agree. I do think it is quite easy to interject our own "ego" into the matter though...and then we are right back where we started with creating G-d in our own image. If there is something to be said for intent, and one side of me hopes dearly for it, then I agree that "if you're looking you can't miss." If you are looking with a pure and contrite heart, things do become manifest that otherwise are not. This light I have seen. :)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Prober!

Well, yes...but the trick is in not inadvertantly doing things the other way around. The trick is to try to see G-d, (*as much as G-d can be seen*) as He IS, rather than as we desire Him to be.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true...

I realize I could have more accurately said "Let us make ourselves available to reflect G-d's image" (or something like that...).
 
This is an interesting conversation. I'm not sure that I have anything to add. My own point of view is that Christianity and Judaism should get an amicable divorce. An entirely Greek influenced Christianity would be so much less schizophrenic.

Chris
 
juantoo3 said:
If you are looking with a pure and contrite heart, things do become manifest that otherwise are not. This light I have seen. :)
Click to expand...


As much as I'd like to believe it, I really don't think I can count on myself to have a pure and contrite heart. I strive for it, but I'm counting on grace, which is unmerited.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
This is an interesting conversation. I'm not sure that I have anything to add. My own point of view is that Christianity and Judaism should get an amicable divorce. An entirely Greek influenced Christianity would be so much less schizophrenic.

Chris
Click to expand...

Who gets the kids?:D

I don't know that I agree...

Christianity might be alot more interesting and philosophical and stuff, but would seem hollow to me without "the law and the prophets".

Would Judaism be better off without the distraction? Has Judaism benefitted from Christianity in any way?

Was Jesus even trying to create a new religion?
 
Well, a divine messiah isn't a Jewish concept. It's a Greek avatar in Jewish clothing. Christianity may or may not have started out as a Jewish sub-sect, but what it evolved into has almost nothing to do with Judaism. If you want to really appreciate the Torah you have to remove the Christian overlay, but when you do the logical basis for Jesus being a messiah disappears. That's the essential problem.

The OT is blue, the NT is yellow. All the Christians are going "hey, the Torah is green", and the Jews are just shaking their heads.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Well, a divine messiah isn't a Jewish concept. It's a Greek avatar in Jewish clothing. Christianity may or may not have started out as a Jewish sub-sect, but what it evolved into has almost nothing to do with Judaism. If you want to really appreciate the Torah you have to remove the Christian overlay, but when you do the logical basis for Jesus being a messiah disappears. That's the essential problem.

Chris
Click to expand...

Would the Torah support Jesus as a divine messanger of some sort, just not the messiah?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top