juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
This concept was further explored in this thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html
I hope it will be of service to you. Perhaps you may have something of relevence to add.
Torah-observant Christian?
- Thread starter Prober
- Start date
This concept was further explored in this thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html
I hope it will be of service to you. Perhaps you may have something of relevence to add.
B
Bandit
Guest
That is a very good catch and truthful. More today than ever. Worldwide it could be close to 150,000 now, perhaps more? If there was any type of hatred, mockery or bitterness with animosity that I would recall first which was probably bred from birth, or from the tippy toppy ice cream cherry bias, it was toward jews who come to that reality of Jesus is the messiah, in which it was jews who did that in the first place. Lots of ugly fangs and bloody daggers. Kind of hard to accept a real one when the catch22 says to reject what is real first.
This is another good point. Yet what happens in a catch22, when a global peace era is required before the peacemaker and when everything is guided by a temporal interpretation.
98a or 98b? And what specifically did you read there?
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, nor are they Jewish sources.
If Jesus was a rabbi with unique teachings of assent or dissent that were of value to Judaism then his teachings would have been mentioned in the Talmud.
His teachings weren't mentioned in the Talmud.
You assume his teachings were unique and of value to Judaism.
Either your assumption is correct or his teachings weren't of value to Judaism or his teachings weren't unique.
Therefore either he wasn't a rabbi or his teachings weren't of value to Judaism or his teachings weren't unique.
Either way, if we accept the first premise (and I do) then you're wrong on at least one account. The second premise is true as is the third. The rest follows. If he wasn't a rabbi then the rest doesn't follow, but if he wasn't a rabbi then your sources are fallible.
Hillel died before Jesus was even a bar mitzvah if we accept the traditional attributions for Jesus' DOB and historical estimations of Hillel's lifetime.
I don't accept the gospels as a recording of history. They're your sacred texts, not mine. They don't count much for history on the Judaism board. Nor does teaching on Shabbat make Jesus a rabbi. Not all teachers are rabbis. Rabbis in Jesus' day were people who were given smicha granting them the authority to rule on matters of halachah.
That is a modern phenomenon as you admit yourself and its population is primarily Christian as is its theology.
It's primarily Christians who are exploring the Jewish roots of their religion, not the other way around. Why don't more Christians get in touch with the other origins of their religion?
Parallels between the Christian gospels and Pagan mythology
There are some aspects of the gospels which are very Jewish and those can be found in Jewish sources (indeed, much of that is fairly universal.) There are other parts that are not. If they read the gospels and found it sounded fairly Jewish then it's unlikely they were very educated in Judaism.
Then they didn't study them well enough. Jesus didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies of the tanach.
Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups
No, that's not what Isaiah says. The servant is repeatedly referred to throughout Isaiah as Israel.
VirtualYeshiva.com: Torah Learning on the Net
edit: If you want a warmer reception for your views, you might want to try the Christian board. The folks there will tend to share a more similar canon and theology to you. btw Welcome to the forums.
-- Dauer
I may be wrong...If I am i am quite sure you will point it out.
Isaiah 53 is not referring to Israel. It is referring to the Messiah. Nowhere else in scripture is Israel called He. It is consistent to call Messiah He.
The roots of Christianity are Jewish silly boy. The Roman Empire and all that came along with it twisted it into what you call christianity today.
Why do you think so many are intrigued by the knowledge of discovering that originally it was not what it is today? That Jesus was Jewish?
I understand that you so not believe that Jesus was a Rabbi. Okay
I understand that you do not believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and historical. Okay
Was Paul the apostle (Sha'ul) a Rabbi? We know he was a Pharisee. We know he was asked repeatedly to speak in the synogogue also.
Do you think the teachings of Jesus would have been included in the Tamud?
Probably not based on the fact that the Talmud was composed of ideas from Rabbis who thought Jesus not the Messiah.
The question i have is did he, or did he not have a large impact in first century Judaism? He must have. We are still discussing it today. Remember what Galiel Said. "If its not from God it will go away"
You are obviously a very studied and educated person. I commend that.
Keep looking, learning, and moving. Someday our views may meet a bit closer than they are now.
Isaiah 53 is not referring to Israel. It is referring to the Messiah. Nowhere else in scripture is Israel called He. It is consistent to call Messiah He.
The roots of Christianity are Jewish silly boy. The Roman Empire and all that came along with it twisted it into what you call christianity today.
Why do you think so many are intrigued by the knowledge of discovering that originally it was not what it is today? That Jesus was Jewish?
I understand that you so not believe that Jesus was a Rabbi. Okay
I understand that you do not believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and historical. Okay
Was Paul the apostle (Sha'ul) a Rabbi? We know he was a Pharisee. We know he was asked repeatedly to speak in the synogogue also.
Do you think the teachings of Jesus would have been included in the Tamud?
Probably not based on the fact that the Talmud was composed of ideas from Rabbis who thought Jesus not the Messiah.
The question i have is did he, or did he not have a large impact in first century Judaism? He must have. We are still discussing it today. Remember what Galiel Said. "If its not from God it will go away"
You are obviously a very studied and educated person. I commend that.
Keep looking, learning, and moving. Someday our views may meet a bit closer than they are now.
B
Bandit
Guest
That is more or less done as an insult today anyway. Have you ever read anything from Elizabeth Dilling? If you want to get to the pagan roots of judaism and the many gods, tree worship, star worship, golden calf, the orgin of the 6 pointed star etc., She was a radical in her day and did a nice job extracting the other gods and pagan influences in judaism. Christians aren't alone on that matter. If you have not yet, Check out The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Dilling. Very political and talented lady.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Jews have their point of view. Christians have their point of view. Literature can serve a multitude of different purposes and agendas depending on the reader.
If I was to try and please everybody as best I could, I would say this.
The Jewish people, individually and collectively, no matter how great and small, humble or proud, rich or poor, influential or invisible, are the embodiment of ancient Israel and Judaism, not just to themselves, but also to the rest of the world. Jewish Rabbis, the teachers and spiritual leaders of Judaism, are also the embodiment of ancient Israel and Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. He was also a Rabbi. As an individual, as well as a Rabbi, he was an individual embodiment of Judaism and ancient Israel to his own people as well as to the rest of the world.
Christians regard Jesus as "King of the Jews." That is the title they give him. Titles are just that: they are labels that only have meaning when people understand their context and significance. A king is not a king unless people treat him like one. It is more of a historical tradition whose significance has faded with time due to the widening gap between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was a hero to the first-century Christians, a hero to the Christians among the Jews. To the Christians, therefore, Jesus was the ideal representative (and therefore "king") of the Jews.
Christians believe Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus because people condemned him and had him crucified, because he was persecuted and ended up being a hero. Jews believe Isaiah 53 refers to Israel. Considering the centuries of oppression and persecution that the Jewish people have endured, they too, have undergone tremendous persecution and oppression. Jesus' persecution ended with the crucifixion; for the Jews it was the Holocaust.
The question of whether you would regard Jesus as "King of the Jews" is a matter of perspective. It's a question of which Jew, throughout history has had the most influence amongst non-Jews. If you assess his influence according to the number of adherents of non-Jewish Abrahamic faiths (ie. Christianity and Islam), you would get a number that is a significant fraction of the world's population.
A king often has to serve as ambassador and diplomat. According to the numerical populations of Christians, I would say Jesus pulled off his "diplomacy" quite well. According to the above criteria, therefore, Jesus has a strong case of being an individual embodiment of Judaism (other than the collective embodiment), especially someone who has been influential posthumously among non-Jews.
So what does this have to do with Isaiah 53? Well, if Isaiah 53 refers to the embodiment of Judaism, to ancient Israel, to the Jewish collective, and Jesus is an embodiment/representative of Judaism, it could include him as well, especially as a representative of Judaism.
What I mean is, Isaiah 53 could refer to both.
I think people are just interested in the role Judaism plays in the world. It doesn't necessarily result or lead to conversion, it may be just a way of giving credit to other religions.
Having said that, Jesus may indeed have been a Jew and a Rabbi, but whatever he said and did, he was not necessarily doing it for Judaism, but the world as a whole. If Jesus' life and sayings were of little value to Judaism, it's probably because contributing to Judaism wasn't his number one concern when he was doing what he was doing.
Jesus doesn't and didn't really need recognition in Judaism because he is and was already receiving recognition in Christianity and Islam. Because Judaism could not, did not or was reluctant (whichever one you like) to contribute a concept of Jesus that was different to that already offered in Christianity and Islam, it was natural that Jesus disappeared from Judaism.
Modern Jews who take an interest in Jesus aren't necessarily doing it because they aren't satisfied with their Jewish experience, but because they are interested in belief systems outside of Judaism. It's their way of making a contribution to Judaism: by seeing what role Judaism might play in the world at large, and the kinds of relationships Judaism might have with other religions.
Modern Jews who give credit to Jesus and Christianity are really giving credit to Judaism itself because Christianity came into existence through Judaism, through a Jew, so they are really taking an interest in a Jew who made a contribution to the world outside of Judaism, whether that specifically interests them or not.
True, a lot of credit has been given to Christianity for Western civilisation, but I think whatever credit it gets belongs more to Judaism. It could be thought of as how one Jew changed the world.
The same with Paul. He had an interest in making a contribution to the world outside of Judaism.
Sambo,
Israel is regularly referred to in the masculine singular. Hosea 11:1 for example.
Pagan myth is woven into the Greek Testament. I am neither being silly nor am I a boy. If you have a counter-response to the information from the link I presented, please share it. If not, please don't debase yourself with such vacuous comments. Thus far you have no case, no answer to my challenges, only the assertion that your perspective is correct without a real argument to back it up. You gloss over my own arguments and present nothing of substance yourself.
No we don't know that because all of the sources we have are biased works of propaganda and polemic. While Paul may have been a Jew, claims that he was a rabbi are dubious. Certainly the same issues arise with Paul as with Jesus. If Paul was a rabbi with unique teachings of assent or dissent that were of value to Judaism then his teachings would have been mentioned in the Talmud.
If they were unique and of value to Judaism, and he was a rabbi, then yes. Again, I bring up the example of Elisha ben Abuyah. Elisha ben Abuyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't logically follow from
We can reconstruct your argument more clearly as:
If it's not from G!d it will go away.
Jesus did not go away.
Therefore Jesus had a large impact on first century Judaism.
While I'd challenge your premise that "If it's not from G!d it will go away" I'll accept it for the sake of argument. The conclusion that naturally follows from your premises is that Jesus is from G!d. But instead you make the tangential conclusion that Jesus had a large impact on first c. Judaism. It doesn't follow from your premises. Now as to the conclusion that would naturally follow from your premises, by the same premises we can conclude that Islam, Bahai, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and so on are equally from G!d. But they have conflicting doctrines. So either the areas of disagreement are not from G!d or G!d provides conflicting doctrines to humanity or your premise that "If it's not from G!d it will go away" is incorrect.
Unless you can grow beyond a triumphalist, mythical worldview I find that doubtful.
Israel is regularly referred to in the masculine singular. Hosea 11:1 for example.
Pagan myth is woven into the Greek Testament. I am neither being silly nor am I a boy. If you have a counter-response to the information from the link I presented, please share it. If not, please don't debase yourself with such vacuous comments. Thus far you have no case, no answer to my challenges, only the assertion that your perspective is correct without a real argument to back it up. You gloss over my own arguments and present nothing of substance yourself.
No we don't know that because all of the sources we have are biased works of propaganda and polemic. While Paul may have been a Jew, claims that he was a rabbi are dubious. Certainly the same issues arise with Paul as with Jesus. If Paul was a rabbi with unique teachings of assent or dissent that were of value to Judaism then his teachings would have been mentioned in the Talmud.
If they were unique and of value to Judaism, and he was a rabbi, then yes. Again, I bring up the example of Elisha ben Abuyah. Elisha ben Abuyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't logically follow from
We can reconstruct your argument more clearly as:
If it's not from G!d it will go away.
Jesus did not go away.
Therefore Jesus had a large impact on first century Judaism.
While I'd challenge your premise that "If it's not from G!d it will go away" I'll accept it for the sake of argument. The conclusion that naturally follows from your premises is that Jesus is from G!d. But instead you make the tangential conclusion that Jesus had a large impact on first c. Judaism. It doesn't follow from your premises. Now as to the conclusion that would naturally follow from your premises, by the same premises we can conclude that Islam, Bahai, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and so on are equally from G!d. But they have conflicting doctrines. So either the areas of disagreement are not from G!d or G!d provides conflicting doctrines to humanity or your premise that "If it's not from G!d it will go away" is incorrect.
Unless you can grow beyond a triumphalist, mythical worldview I find that doubtful.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Joedjr,Joedjr said:
Yeah its long. First or 2nd time you tell a story is not as good as the last time. Also, if I wanted to make a ship-shape super tight argument, then I would keep it short & amorphous. Sometimes its better to write big, so I can be more specific, and also to invite commentary. In your case, you should probably qualify what you mean by far fetched or what exactly it is you are talking about by writing a little bit more.
yours,
Dream
Hi Dream,
In actuality I'd suppose my comment was not really directed at the messenger but the idea contained in the commentary. Given Jesus' heritage, Lev 11:3 'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. and Lev 7:26 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings. I see the comments in the gospels of eating my body and drinking my blood as a command for contemplation of teachings and direction of life. Christian thought need not always be a grand cathedral but sometimes a humble country church will do fine.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Dauer said:
This is spoken from a rabbinic perspective, however it embodies the central irony of a fundamentalist Protestant messianism evangelist. (FPME)
In what way do Jews not already embrace the teachings of Jesus? Ok, I'm not Jewish but I have read enough to get a pinch of perspective on what they are supposed to live by. Since they already embrace Jesus' teachings, it is redundant to argue that they need to do lip service to Jesus. (I am not speaking from the R. Catholic perspective, so Catholics please don't shoot.) The only way you can be Christian messianic, is to become Catholic. (Using Christian NT and OT as the only basis for truth) Jesus expressly says that to obey his commands is to receive his message, is to receive the Father. He teaches that many say 'Lord, Lord' but it means nothing, that others do not know him but serve him. Jews who live by their consciences already fall into this 'Serving him' category, so preaching Jesus to them is actually ridiculous. In fact, it should actually be considered counter-productive. My point is this: If you really want to live Torah, wear Tefillim etc, then just do it.
@Sambo
I am concerned. You do not wish to discuss the meaning of the body, yet you claim to have a rabbi. I think you would be better off without one.
Dream
Well-Known Member
I will try to 'shoot from the hip' more often, but I already get into lots of trouble as it is. Check out my previous post.
dream said:
And I want to make clear that I personally have no issue with Christians wanting to get in touch with the Jewish roots of their religion. If it helps a person on their spiritual journey, great. Whatever works for you. But I don't think it's in good Spirit, as it were, for a person to claim that his own spiritual journey independent of a particular religious community changes the definition of that religious community or grants him theological authority on that community. I also, of course, object to any form of stealth missionizing which I understand is the agenda for only a minority of messianics.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Here I'm not referring to sambo and his comments, nor do I intend to assert the case of Jesus or Paul here.
I would agree if you mean that a person must become a Jew or Christian to change Judaism or Christianity. But if a person is already a Jew or Christian and they disagree with the established authority on that religion, I think they should be entitled, as individuals, to claim their own Jewish or Christian identity.
The established authority has its own identity to maintain, but it is never (at least in my view) superior, by definition to that of the common individual. My theory would be that for the established authority to be absolutely justified in what it defines as "orthodoxy" or "right belief," I believe it must prove, against the arguments of the most intelligent amongst those that are not part of the established authority itself, that its beliefs and views are justified.
I suppose this also means that a common individual must also be in a position to challenge the established authority.
But people should not have to become part of the "established authority" to challenge the established authority, because the "established authority," only has authority according to already established rules. Sometimes these rules are either unfair, or deliberately set up to make it hard to people who have an agenda unfavourable to the "established authority" to get into a position to challenge them.
Before the "established authority" existed, there was no "established authority." Some way or another, the established authority convinced the common adherents of a religion that they have the "divine lineage" (so to speak) in terms of doctrine and dogma and that their interpretation or tradition is the one pure, authentic representation of the original religion.
If it's not an established authority, then it's a group mentality, which is very similar. The group mentality follows the "established dogma/doctrine." Here it's not a moderating group, but a creed. The majority follows the "group mentality." Everybody else is a part of the minority, and if they don't agree with the established doctrines, they are going against tradition, or are following a corrupted form of the original religion.
The problem again is that before the "established doctrine" (which is often an interpretation of a written tradition) existed, nothing was established. There was simply a written tradition.
Because I'm not a Jew it's not my interest (because it isn't my duty) to interfere with how this works in Judaism. It's my duty to express my views on how it works in Christianity. However, since Judaism and Christianity both operate from a written tradition (and there may also be a tradition separate from it), I would have an interest in what you said and how this works in Judaism because I don't think it should be much different in Christianity.
Established doctrines and established authorities to me are often just bad habits (or bad exegetical positions) that continue for centuries where eventually, people just forget why they really happened. But they keep doing it. They keep these traditions because they are afraid that if they don't, they're committing a great heresy. Sometimes, however, it's cultural habits that people accidentally start regarding as "orthodox positions."
Beliefs different to the ones you are taught, but still inside the same religion are demonised and vilified. An individual who complains is similarly demonised and vilified for being stupid enough to think and believe otherwise. The result is not factions, but divisions. I suppose it comes down to a matter of managing and moderating beliefs, which is a real problem in Christianity, one which, so far as I have seen, doesn't plague Judaism quite as much as Christianity.
The root of the problem I believe, which is what you were discussing there, is individuals not being able to challenge established ideas. Anyone who does is demonised and vilified as a troublemaker. That would be my concern.
I don't think the written tradition of Christianity is the cause of Christianity's own (rather extensive) fragmentation. It's not the sacred text that is at fault. It's how people discuss and think about it. If there was more open-mindedness and more credit given to non-standard views, it wouldn't be so horribly shambolic. More importantly, we might even discover what Jesus really meant to people in the first century.
What I was wondering is if you were meaning to say that individuals shouldn't challenge established ideas? (to which I expect you to answer no . . .)
That is precisely what I mean. If a person wishes to join a community, there are methods by which to do so. If a person is already a member of a community and acts or believes differently than what is considered by the community to be acceptable, that imo is more of a community issue that different religions will have developed different mechanisms to deal with.
Theology tends to be more fluid whereas religious action has historically been more proscriptive (with some variation on both individual and, to a greater degree, communal levels.) Today, the major change in terms of religious behavior is that within the liberal denominations it's often more of an opt-out or opt-in type of thing. There are some variations in Jewish practice (maybe there's more English in a service, the wording of some prayers is changed subtly to remove references to older theologies that don't resonate with the community, the application of a particular mitzvah is more lenient or more strict, egalitarian vs separate sections for men and women etc) but there are far more universal practices that a person either does or does not do in one way or another. At the same time, both historically and at the present, there are sometimes practices that a person may take upon himself that are not a part of general practice, that are in addition to it.
If a person has a new idea and expresses it within the context of Judaism, time will tell whether it becomes a 'Jewish' idea or does not. Sometimes that happens fairly quickly. Sometimes it can take generations. That it becomes a Jewish idea rarely means that it becomes what most Jews believe, just that it's become accepted in the mainstream for Jews to hold that perspective.
I'm not certain if that addressed what you were asking specifically.
Well I think some of that goes back to the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism at a time when there was quite a bit of sectarianism. That and, rabbinic writings amount in part to generations of debate.
Not at all.
B
Bandit
Guest
That is the root. It is called private interpretation. No one else can say otherwise and still get along or you get the lizzy borden love hatchet.
Re: messianic jews
A large percentage of those who do claim to be Jewish are not
(no Jewish mother) and are not accepted in the Jewish community
as Jews.
They are Jews only if their mother was or if they are a convert.
No such thing. See 1) above as to who is a Jew.
These are called "Christians".
Doesn't matter. The have transgressed into avodah zara.
The vast majority of Messianics are not Jewish.
A large percentage of those who do claim to be Jewish are not
(no Jewish mother) and are not accepted in the Jewish community
as Jews.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
Re: messianic jews
chavak,
christianity is not, according to the authorities i am aware of, 'abodah zara, or you wouldn't be able to rent your property to them or do business on a sunday. we don't go by rambam on this, not even us sephardim. you want to look at tosefot and the meiri on this.
however, it does not of course mean that belief that jesus was the messiah is a kosher belief. it is not. believing that an individual is/was moshiah who does not fulfil the criteria of hilkhoth melakhim for messiahship makes you a heretic, a point which not only so-called "messianic jews", or christians if we are going to be frank, but also a significant proportion of lubavitchers and hardalim would do well to note.
if "sambo" (nice handle!) is here to do messianic propaganda, then that will be dealt with.
b'shalom
bananabrain
chavak,
christianity is not, according to the authorities i am aware of, 'abodah zara, or you wouldn't be able to rent your property to them or do business on a sunday. we don't go by rambam on this, not even us sephardim. you want to look at tosefot and the meiri on this.
however, it does not of course mean that belief that jesus was the messiah is a kosher belief. it is not. believing that an individual is/was moshiah who does not fulfil the criteria of hilkhoth melakhim for messiahship makes you a heretic, a point which not only so-called "messianic jews", or christians if we are going to be frank, but also a significant proportion of lubavitchers and hardalim would do well to note.
if "sambo" (nice handle!) is here to do messianic propaganda, then that will be dealt with.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Re: messianic jews
for Jews it is. Sorry I did not make myself more clear...
instead of being ignored.
Oh, I fully agree that Christianity for gentiles is not avodah zara; however
for Jews it is. Sorry I did not make myself more clear...
I also agree with you there, and is an issue that should be dealt with,
instead of being ignored.
Jean freeman
Established Member
Can someone please explain the 36 just men ?