Jesus as messiah is hardly a core tenet of orthodox Judaism.
Last edited:
-
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!
Religious Borrowing and then Theft
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
We can talk in private if you wish.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
OK, it is what it is.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Isn the Messiah a core tenant, whether He was Christ, or another to come ?
You said 'If he recognises Christ as the Messiah', not that there will be a Messiah. That's in no way the same thing. Yes, orthodox Judaism teaches belief in a Messiah, but it's definitely not Jesus.
leov
Well-Known Member
This may or may not be true, but nonetheless it based on the New Testament.
Yes I'm aware. This doesn't, and cannot, take away from a literal reading, however. It's established that the third temple will stand as a physical building; the messiah will offer sacrifices therein.
In those days, Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely and this is the name that He shall call it, the Lord is our righteousness.
For so said the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel.
And of the Levitic priests, there shall not be cut off from before Me a man offering up a burnt offering, or burning a meal-offering or performing a sacrifice for all time.
Sacrifice can only be made in the Temple.
Last edited:
. . . just a sthe NT was for Christians. The evidence clearly indicates both are very temporal of an ancient world view.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct in that the Judaism of the Bible ended in 70 AD. Christianity maintains a critical element of pre Rabbinical Judaism, the Judaism given by God.
That it is the the need for a physical blood sacrifice atonement for sin, for forgiveness, for being in harmony with God.
Without the spilling of blood there is no remission of sin.
Only this illustrates the grave nature of sin, what it costs, the horror of it to God.
Original Judaism through the spilling of the blood of animals for atonement pointed forward to the ultimate atonement at the cross, we look back at the cross as the blood and death sacrifice for us.
Without the spilling of blood there is no remission of sin.
There is though,
And if a person brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil over it and place frankincense upon it.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Religion has an impulse to be idiosyncratic, but it also wishes to become an effective tool. To become a better tool, it may seek to explore the ideas we create/capture from the ether rather than exclude this one or that. In the end, it probably cannot resist becoming a more universal tool, if it is be an effective tool. Therefore, the next religion to come to mankind will have explored all religions fully, and the result is theological stromatolite. A new theological organism is then born, with all ancient wisdom being integrated in the bits of its dna. The eukaryote after all, had consumed the original prokaryote, and from that gained an advantage in the world of evolution
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Who cares?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Evidence has to be interpreted, your interpretation is wrong. The views of both integrate easily with todayś world for those who adopt them.
Before you say it, there is no need for any more prophets, their job had been completed, there is no need for a ¨modern¨ prophet, or apparently a modern reincarnation of Christ, which one B"hai told me your prophet was.
Gods revelation of Himself, His ways, His requirements, His love are eternal, they don´t change with the times.
Those have all been divulged by God, thousands of years ago. The map is totally complete, no additions are required.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Sure, but what about the people of the future? They surely want all of their information more and more integrated. History shows us that this is all that ever happens with information, it continually meshes together
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Ideas sometimes are esoteric because that it is how they develop best, but they ultimately bloom into the human overmind when they are ready. They cannot resist doing so
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I think the ease with which religious "intellectual property" is plagiarized, re-appropriated, "stolen", and then changed or hailed under a different name etc. says a whopping ton about the solidarity or sanctity of ANY of it. It's all so easy to just play fast and loose with the "rules." Makes you contemplate that there probably are none.
Take any item rooted in reality with a solid working base of applicable knowledge. An electrician's trade, for example. You'd better bet that each electrician knows the range of values for combined voltage and current within which a person can survive an electric shock, and that those sets of proportions/values doesn't change. Someone who takes on that knowledge from another has no choice but to keep the knowledge the same, even in dissemination. It is "sacred" in a way, beyond anything religion can purport to have "discovered."
And so (in order to bring this around to be back on topic), as far as answering "what's up with that?" I would submit that to a great many people, it doesn't matter one bit whether they are plagiarizing, stealing, re-appropriating or otherwise re-hashing anyone else's religious ideas. There simply is no real "sacredness" in the way I described that MUST be adhered to. In other words - no one has to care.
Take any item rooted in reality with a solid working base of applicable knowledge. An electrician's trade, for example. You'd better bet that each electrician knows the range of values for combined voltage and current within which a person can survive an electric shock, and that those sets of proportions/values doesn't change. Someone who takes on that knowledge from another has no choice but to keep the knowledge the same, even in dissemination. It is "sacred" in a way, beyond anything religion can purport to have "discovered."
And so (in order to bring this around to be back on topic), as far as answering "what's up with that?" I would submit that to a great many people, it doesn't matter one bit whether they are plagiarizing, stealing, re-appropriating or otherwise re-hashing anyone else's religious ideas. There simply is no real "sacredness" in the way I described that MUST be adhered to. In other words - no one has to care.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
This does not supersede the annual day of atonement where the sins of Israel are dealt with by blood sacrifice. The meal offering in this context is a temporary till blood is spilled to atone for all the sin of the year.
So you're saying G-d told people to bring sacrifices that were totally not required because they didn't do anything anyway? He filled pages upon pages with them, who can do them, how to do them, who can eat what, just to tell people that they're actually worthless? Yeah no.
PureX
Veteran Member
Loving your neighbor is difficult. Turning the other cheek is difficult. Sharing your wealth with others is difficult. A lot of people who identify as Christians really don't want to do these things. They want to focus more on the Old Testament, where they can use those ten commandments to judge and condemn others, and then feel better about themselves. They want to be the "chosen people": God's favorites, and to wield their presumed divine authority, appropriated unto themselves through their "God wrote 'em" scriptures.
They want religiosity, not spirituality. And the OT gives them that in spades.