How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

Me Myself said:

When I came to see the actual jewish prophecies I became REALLY surprised that christians actually blame jews for not recognising the messiah.

The Torah is said to be for ever in the bible, yet allegedly, Circumcision is no longer important according to Paul? Kosher no longer important? so when God said the Torah was for ever he didnt really mean for ever?

If they started by teaching the jewish understanding before teaching christianity almost no one would be a christian. It is really ironic for a religion that allegedly is founded by a jewish man who said he came as a fulfillment of jewish law to be so obviously non jewish and against some of the clearest points of the god of the Torah.

Click to expand...

I have found that many people misunderstood Paul. He was not saying that a person could not get circumcised or eat kosher if they wished. But there were Judizers among Jewish Christians that were insisting that the Gentile Christians adopt circumcision in the hopes that by complying with the regulations of the Law Covenant some of persecution by the Jews could be avoided. (Ga 6:12) The Law Covenant was never binding on Gentiles to begin with.

According to Jesus, after his death, the Law Covenant was fulfilled - that is ended with its purpose and promises satisfied. Now the Messiah had arrived, and now there could be a gathering of people that would serve in the double capacity of kings and priests. (Ex 19:6)

"Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled." - Luke 16:17
"He then said to them: 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.'" - Luke 24:44

But what indicates that the Law Covenant would be ended from the Hebrew Scriptures?
Well there is Daniel prophesy of the 70 weeks. At the end of the 70th week of years the covenant would no longer be in force. 3 1/2 years earlier acceptable temple sacrifice and gift offering would cease - incidentally this was the year when the Messiah was "cut off" or "put to death." (Da 9:26a,27)

Also Jeremiah 31:31-40 focuses on a "new covenant". Jeremiah 31:36 is in regards to the new covenant, not the hand-written document, when it says: "'If these regulations should ever fail,' declares Jehovah, 'Only then would the offspring of Israel cease as a nation before me always.'" So, when Jehovah says "my loyal love will not be removed from you, nor will my covenant of peace be shaken," he has in mind the effects of the new covenant, not the old. (Isa 54:10)

I am sure you may have other verses you have in mind regarding the permanence of the Torah. I can not remember them all to deal with them preemptively. So I welcome them in small doses if you want to share them.

Kolibri said:

I have found that many people misunderstood Paul. He was not saying that a person could not get circumcised or eat kosher if they wished. But there were Judizers among Jewish Christians that were insisting that the Gentile Christians adopt circumcision in the hopes that by complying with the regulations of the Law Covenant some of persecution by the Jews could be avoided. (Ga 6:12) The Law Covenant was never binding on Gentiles to begin with.

Click to expand...

Actually, circumcision goes against Xian belief. It isn't a neutral subject or act.
Dietary laws, on the other hand, are entirely optional.

disciple said:

Actually, circumcision goes against Xian belief. It isn't a neutral subject or act.
Dietary laws, on the other hand, are entirely optional.

Click to expand...

reference?

Not as a matter of faith, but as a way to avoid prejudicing the non-Christian Jews from listening, Paul circumcised Timothy. (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Cor 9:20)
This was after the issue was brought before the governing body in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Not required, but not unlawful.

It would have been improper to do it as a way to earn righteousness though. That much is clear.

Me Myself said:

If they [sic: Christians] started by teaching the jewish understanding before teaching christianity almost no one would be a christian. It is really ironic for a religion that allegedly is founded by a jewish man who said he came as a fulfillment of jewish law to be so obviously non jewish and against some of the clearest points of the god of the Torah.

Click to expand...

Obviously, that's why they don't teach the Jewish understanding.

Harmonious said:

Of course it says he should be. The fact is that Jewish law isn't going to change because you like a miracle.


Whether Jesus is a child of a virgin or not is a matter of belief. If it happened, it was a miracle. But it is a miracle that doesn't affect me any more than the talking fish from a few years ago would affect me.

All Mary's genealogy proves is that Jesus was Jewish. Nothing more.

The Messiah who the Jews are waiting for has specifications that you don't care about. And that's fine. But don't tell Jews what our philosophy says about the details, and correct us when it doesn't match your own philosophy.

And the thing to remember is that whatever you think about Jesus, it is irrelevant in all things but highlights why the God the Jews is the same as that of the Christians. And whatever importance he may have to Christians, Jesus means nothing to Jews.

Click to expand...

Then provide scriptural evidence since I believe there is none which means that you believe it because you want to believe it not becasue the Bible says so.

I beleive this is irrelevant.

I don't believe there is genealogical evidence.

I believe I can correct erroneous thinking and that sticking to erroneous thinking because it is an orthodox view seems pretty stupid to me but then I am an iconocalst.

I beleive since Jesus is God in the flesh it is quite relevant. Jesus means nothing to those Jews who have departd from God and followed their own way.

Akivah said:

Aw man, just one little word changed your whole post.

The only importance of jesus is that it proves that the god of the Christians is different from the G-d of the Jews.

Click to expand...

I believe what it proves is that Jews who believe there is a difference do not know God.

Me Myself said:

When I came to see the actual jewish prophecies I became REALLY surprised that christians actually blame jews for not recognising the messiah.

The Torah is said to be for ever in the bible, yet allegedly, Circumcision is no longer important according to Paul? Kosher no longer important? so when God said the Torah was for ever he didnt really mean for ever?

If they started by teaching the jewish understanding before teaching christianity almost no one would be a christian. It is really ironic for a religion that allegedly is founded by a jewish man who said he came as a fulfillment of jewish law to be so obviously non jewish and against some of the clearest points of the god of the Torah.

Click to expand...

Who said? I believe the passive doesn't serve as evidence.

I believe God sees it that way when a Jew becomes a Christian.

I believe just because something exists forever that it doesn't necesarily mean relevant forever. For instance if I can get a computer with 200 Gig why would I want to find relevance in one with 8 Gig.

I met a Russian Jew and asked him if he observed his religion. He said "no" because in Russia he was taught from childhood that atheism was the only truth.

Muffled said:

Then provide scriptural evidence since I believe there is none which means that you believe it because you want to believe it not becasue the Bible says so.

I beleive this is irrelevant.

I don't believe there is genealogical evidence.

I believe I can correct erroneous thinking and that sticking to erroneous thinking because it is an orthodox view seems pretty stupid to me but then I am an iconocalst.

I beleive since Jesus is God in the flesh it is quite relevant. Jesus means nothing to those Jews who have departd from God and followed their own way.

Click to expand...

You are free to have your beliefs.

You believe there is no evidence, so even if I provide it, you still won't believe it.
You believe that Jewish law is irrelevant. Got that.

You completely misunderstood my comment on "proof" - Mary was Jewish, so Jesus was Jewish. If you believe that Jesus actually existed. You do. Bully for you.

You believe that sticking to Orthodox Judaism is pretty stupid. Gotcha.

And you believe that it is possible for God to be flesh. Which is ridiculous, according to my belief system. Which you have made clear you think is stupid.

Remind me... Why should I attempt to respond to you, when you don't seem to have any respect for the concept of "agreeing to disagree" respectfully?

Harmonious said:

Remind me... Why should I attempt to respond to you, when you don't seem to have any respect for the concept of "agreeing to disagree" respectfully?

Click to expand...

Don't you feel sorry for us spiritually blind, ignorant Jews who have turned away from G-d, who don't know G-d?

No? I didn't think so. Neither do I.

Who I do feel sorry for are those folks who are totally, utterly and completely devoid of any real understanding of Judaism and yet in their ignorant condescending arrogance see Jews as spiritual reclamation projects.

Muffled said:

I believe what it proves is that Jews who believe there is a difference do not know God.

Click to expand...

Well...each to his own.

I believe that it demonstrates that Christians who believe there is not a difference worship an idol.

Kolibri said:

reference?

Not as a matter of faith, but as a way to avoid prejudicing the non-Christian Jews from listening, Paul circumcised Timothy. (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Cor 9:20)
This was after the issue was brought before the governing body in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Not required, but not unlawful.

It would have been improper to do it as a way to earn righteousness though. That much is clear.

Click to expand...

Romans 3:31
That Jews are going to circumcise, is taken for granted. You are making the mistake of equating Jewish /previous law, to the //Christian Covenant.
The Christian Covenant is not 'incidentally' different from the ''Jewish'' or rather specific set of rules for the Judaism being referenced, but is actually different in that, you aren't supposed to practice circumcision.

i guess that makes me Jewish!!

Lyndon said:

Sorry but it doesn't say Jesus is God; quote the text and verse, especially if you find one in the gospels....

Click to expand...

John 8:58

Jesus directly refers to Himself in Deific name/title

syncretic said:

John 8:58

Jesus directly refers to Himself in Deific name/title

Click to expand...

That text in no way implies that Jesus is God, there were angels before Abraham, that does not make them God

Lyndon said:

That text in no way implies that Jesus is God, there were angels before Abraham, that does not make them God

Click to expand...

No, it actually is a direct statement, when you understand the Deific titles, and how they are used.

It also doesn't make sense contextually, or, in a language manner, to mean angel, so forth, either.

In Hebrew, it clearly means God.
In Greek, it does as well; albeit in Greek, however, and in religious context.

it wasn't written or spoken in Hebrew, genius!!!

Lyndon said:

it wasn't written or spoken in Hebrew, genius!!!

Click to expand...

You don't have an argument.

The Gospels were most likely translated from Aramaic and Hebrew, scribal writings, into Greek. Whether they were, or weren't, Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, do you think that Jesus spoke in Greek, to Israelites, in some convenient verses? Did Jesus say this statement in Greek, even though the people who He was talking to, would be speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic? Which is more likely?

If you don't believe that Jesus actually stated this, /obviously in Hebrew or Aramaic, then are you implying that the entire Gospels are fiction?

hebrew wasn't a regularly spoken language in Jesus' Palestine, Aramaic was, so probably was Greek.

Lyndon said:

hebrew wasn't a regularly spoken language in Jesus' Palestine, Aramaic was, so probably was Greek.

Click to expand...

/Much more likely spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew
/Even in Greek or English, it has the same inference

Anyways, that verse plainly shows that Jesus called Himself in the Deific name.

Believe whatever you want to believe!!