Midrash.
-
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!
How in the world did Christians get Jesus from the Old Testament?
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
In my opinion:
In my opinion.
As far was aware most Christians expect a recreation of earth (Isaiah 65:17, Isaiah 66:22, Revelation 21:1, + 2 Peter 3:13, etc).
In Judaism the concept of reincarnation is called Gilgul, which Yeshua and his disciples accepted... Christianity did until 533AD, and science has proven it exists.
There isn't a 'jesus'; there is Yeshua in multiple places (Zechariah 3 Yehoshua, Isaiah 52:10 & Psalms 98:3 Yeshuat Eloheinu), and YHVH becoming Yeshua (Isaiah 12:2).
The Tanakh promotes the ego of YHVH, who came in the person of Yeshua... Which since you already understand the concept of Avatars, then maybe that can make sense to you.
In my opinion.
we're discussing Jesus and not heaven or earth.. palingenesis is used only twice and both times in reference to people.
i can agree with this.
joshua, yeshua, is a common name. with abraham he wasn't called joshua. as the first man, he wasn't called joshua. in his incarnation with elijah, he wasn't called joshua.
YHVH is the form representing the action, the verb from exodus 3:14 vs YHVH from exodus 3:15. this is why the form counts for nothing and the Spirit enlivens. like adam became a living soul once the Spirit entered his body of clay. prior to the involution of the Spirit and the evolution of the Spirit, adam was simply a lump of clay. some lumps of clay can be golems.The Tanakh promotes the ego of YHVH, who came in the person of Yeshua... Which since you already understand the concept of Avatars, then maybe that can make sense to you.
In my opinion.
melchizedek was called Lord, not joshua, or yeshua, because he was the priest of god most high at that time..
IMO
Last edited:
In my opinion:
So there is a Lord claiming one day he shall visit his people, to be their king, and their only salvation.
In my opinion.
If people believe in the Resurrection of the Dead at Judgement Day, then why not also reincarnation was the point was making.
Each name means something, and has symbolic spiritual implications... Yeshua is a common name, and was his birth name; not this jesus character, that has no roots in his own religion.
Yah = Lord (H3050) & Havah = 'Shall be' (H1933 H1934)... Yeh-oshua = Lord that saves (H3091)...
So there is a Lord claiming one day he shall visit his people, to be their king, and their only salvation.
Yeshua is and was Priest, King and Son of the Most High; thus for once agree with Hebrews, when it says Yeshua is of the Order of Melchizedek... Which means King of Righteousness.
In my opinion.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
In addition, perfume and money could also be sacrificed.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure but I do believe I detect a little bit of anti-Christian bias in this thread.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The thing with that is according to the narratives, Jesus has been said to have known very little about Judaism. There was a level of ignorance on Jesus's part as it's described in the Gospels that makes one wonder if its authors who wrote about Jesus even knew about Judaism in a way that reflects Jesus as being a Jewish teacher in the synagogues. It seems Jesus does not meet the qualifications by which he would teach in any synagogue.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I can see Jesus in the OT and I'm not even a Christian. Nearly 33% of the world's population see it and follow Jesus. Muslims who make nearly 25% of the world's population see him as being an important prophet.
You can't see Jesus in the OT? Maybe you are not looking hard enough.
I think part of the confusion comes from @Nowhere Man using a term for the bible that isn't Judaism. The Old Testament is a Christian work, it has nothing to do with Judaism. The Old Testament supports jesus because the Christians changed and edited it that way. The Hebrew bible/Original Testament/Tanakh doesn't have jesus in it anywhere.
I think a more accurate question from @Nowhere Man should have been to ask how Christians got jesus from the Hebrew bible or Tanakh. And that answer is by changing the text to suit their beliefs.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's just that there's no Christian inclinations in the Old Testament that would provide any validity to the New Testament.
There was certainly disputes between Jesus and the Jewish teachers about the correct understanding of the scriptures. Jesus and the "Jews" who refuse to see it his way have irreconcilable differences.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Fair enough assessment. So there are books in the Old Testament that are exclusively Christian in origin. That's interesting as I wasn't aware of that personally.
I took the Old Testament as being Jewish and the New Testament as Christian works.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, if you read Matthew closely you'll see otherwise.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, its a common error. Many Christians are completely unaware that our respective bibles are different.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I never knew that Matthew was in the Christian Old Testament.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Stupid on purpose or just plain stupid?
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I was quoting your post #52 in which you responded to "there's no Christian inclinations in the Old Testament...", so you tell me.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
You know perfectly well what I meant. So you tell me.
The argument about translation is a reasonable one for anyone familiar with the nuances of the discussion between the Christians and Jews. It would then be hoped that English translations of the Tanakh that are acceptable to the Jews are readily available, so those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew can read it. From that starting point there will be accusations and counter accusations of mistranslations. That is expected, but it is a much better position IMHO than the Jews either insisting that Christians don't quote from the Tanakh at all because they have no right to, or even worse insisting that only scholars with expertise in Hebrew should be engaged in the discussion in the first place.
My original point was about the OP though. If one is going to weigh in on a debate that is well worn and controversial by taking the side of the Jews or the Christians, at least demonstrate some familiarity with the relevant issues.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Judaic understanding is based on more than just any simple translation -- and that's keeping in mind that there is no such thing as a simple translation (all translations are interpretations influenced by the context of understanding provided by the translator). So citing a particular translation which is acceptable to Jews might be a start but would have to be considered in the light of a much larger theological environment.