• 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!

Is Christianity consistant w/ judaism?

jewscout

Religious Zionist
rivenrock said:
Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders of the day on many points...
such as?
rivenrock said:
He also told them straight out that he was the Messiah and the Son of God, which is how he was accused of blasphemy. And blasphemy it was...unless of course it was true.
which,from a jewish perspective, it's not.

rivenrock said:
I think there are lots of points of consistency.
Theologically? such as?

rivenrock said:
If you would like to expand on why you consider the deification of the messiah to be such an anathema to Judaism as to render Christianity and Judaism inconsistent, I'd be interested to hear what you think
:banghead3
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
rivenrock said:
... If you just see the topic as a chance to slag off at Christianity (refer to Christians as lunatics and Christianity as parasitic fiction, for example), don't bother. I'd rather discuss the topic.
No, you'd rather engage in ignorant ad hominem. Where have I referred to Christians as lunatics?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
lets back up here a sec. AE
Moses saw no image of anything at the event of the burning bush that took place Horeb...as i have already pointed out it states...

So already HaShem has said that the example you are giving is not an example of HaShem making himself manifest
Again, I am referring specifically to the Angel of the Lord speaking as God, not seeing God in the bush. It is quite possible that Moses did not see the Angel, which is not an issue.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
rivenrock said:
Deut
If you would like to expand on why you consider the deification of the messiah to be such an anathema to Judaism as to render Christianity and Judaism inconsistent, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
To begin with ...

The Christian idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism - that G-d is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified G-d twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai - almost two thousand years before Christianity.

The trinity suggests a three part deity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.

- see Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus
Throughout its history Judaism opposed the deification of human beings, that which philosophers called "apotheosis". It is not directed against Jesus. There is no Jewish Biblical figure who is not sinful "fallible", "mortal". But Jesus is Christos. It is the case, and an important one that the Jewish conception of Messiah is not at all the Christian conception of Christ, though the term "Christ" derives from the word "messiah" which means one who is anointed. Christ is the incarnate son of God, the second person of the Trinity. But in Judaism the Jewish Messiah even if he is regarded as a person is fallible, is mortal, is sinful. All of this is predicated upon a verse in the Bible that the rabbis used quite often. It comes from the book of Ecclesiastes chapter 27 verse 20. "For there is no human being, no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." No apotheosis. Moses is a revered teacher but his sin is spelled out in the Bible and because he struck the rock he could not even enter the promised land. David the king is regarded as the progenitor of the Messiah but David is an adulterer and a murderer and the prophet Nathan accuses him as such with two words that shake the king to the very core "atah ha-ish". Coincidentally, the celebration of Chanukkah includes importantly the repudiation of apotheosis - the deification of Antiochus IV who insisted on being worshipped as Epiphanies, the manifestation of God.

- see Rabbi Harold Schulweis Archives
What is the Messiah (Mashiach) supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

2) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

3) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

4) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The messiah will be a regular human being, born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts our concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe that G-d ALONE is to be worshipped, and not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the messiah himself.

To learn more, read "The Real Messiah" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, published by the National Conference of Synagogue Youth.

With blessings from Jerusalem,
Rabbi Shraga Simmons

- see Jewish View of the Messiah
According to Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Kings 11:4), the Messiah will be a king from the house of David who studies the Torah, observes the commandments, and inspires the Jews to follow him. His status as the Messiah will be confirmed if he conquers the surrounding nations, rebuilds the Temple, and brings back the exiles. Thus he will be religious and learned, but he will primarily be a military leader, not a scholar or teacher. Many of the Tannaim, including Rabbi Akiva, believed that Bar Kochva was the Messiah until his rebellion failed. Bar Kochva was a military leader; he was an observant Jew, but not a Rabbi and so not a religious leader in the usual sense, and the Tannaim had no special roles as spiritual leaders in Bar Kochva's government. Since the Messiah will be a descendant of David in the male line, he will not be a Kohen. As to the question of which is greater, a military leader (such as a king), a Kohen, or a religious leader, see Mishnah Avos 4:13, which refers to the crowns of Torah, priesthood, and kingship, without giving any of them priority over the others.

- see torah.org
Who will the messiah be?
The Messiah will be a human restorer of the throne of David. The messiah will be a descendent of King David and will be born of human parents.

What will the messiah do?
The messiah will:
# Bring about the spiritual and political redemption of the Jewish people
# Resurrect the dead and restore all Jews to the Land of Israel
# Restore the city of Jerusalem to its former glory
# Bring permanent peace to the world.

Does the Torah mention a messiah?
No. The Torah does mention moshiach, which the Greek word messiah comes from, but not in context of our current understanding of the messiah. In the Torah, moshiach means "anointed one" and refers to kings or high priests. Post-biblical Judaism came to understand the messiah as a king who would bring about the end of times.

- see beliefnet
4. The idea of the Second Coming seems to have grown out of genuine disappointment. We are told in the Gospels, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." When Jesus died, true believers had to theologically compensate for the disaster. It remains significant, I believe, that the vast majority of people who knew him did not see Jesus as divine. Unless the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem at the time was either wicked or foolish, they--who knew Jesus far better than we--did not respond to his presumed divinity because he was clearly human.

- see Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
Again, I am referring specifically to the Angel of the Lord speaking as God, not seeing God in the bush. It is quite possible that Moses did not see the Angel, which is not an issue.
no Moses did see an angel of HaShem, but he did not see an image of HaShem

Exodus 3:2 said:
2. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.
You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire"
(Deuteronomy 4:15)
So G-d is telling you that Moses saw no image of G-d at this event, he saw an angel but that is a far cry from seeing HaShem Himself
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
jewscout said:
i'd have to say i somehow doubt that...within the jewish community i'm finding a stronger trend to the return of traditional Judaism rather than completely converting to christianity...on a side note i think it's the other way around...christians coming closer to Judaism...pastors such as John Hagee are a perfect example
I think that's certainly true. The more I study, the closer I draw towards Judaism but it's because I see Judaism as the roots of Christianity and feel drawn to understand it in order to understand my own beliefs. Now I'm talking in circles. :p
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
no Moses did see an angel of HaShem, but he did not see an image of HaShem



So G-d is telling you that Moses saw no image of G-d at this event, he saw an angel but that is a far cry from seeing HaShem Himself
In the same way that Moses saw the Angel of the Lord and not G-d, the disciples of Jesus saw Jesus being G-d and yet did not die. God is invisible, yet visible in the same way. We have precedence in the Scriptures.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
In the same way that Moses saw the Angel of the Lord and not G-d, the disciples of Jesus saw Jesus being G-d and yet did not die.
And, 'in the same way as' spinach is a green, I like peppers on my Italian sausage ...

angellous_evangellous, do you have any clue what 'in the same way as' means? If so, your analogy shows no evidence of it.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
In the same way that Moses saw the Angel of the Lord and not G-d, the disciples of Jesus saw Jesus being G-d and yet did not die. God is invisible, yet visible in the same way. We have precedence in the Scriptures.
this makes no sense
you are trying to make a connection where none exists
Moses saw one of the ministering Angels, not G-d...this is in no way like the idea of jesus being G-d

it's like comparing apples to a Yugo
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
this makes no sense
you are trying to make a connection where none exists
Moses saw one of the ministering Angels, not G-d...this is in no way like the idea of jesus being G-d

it's like comparing apples to a Yugo
Hoever, the Angel spoke the words of God as God in the text.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
Hoever, the Angel spoke the words of God as God in the text.
there's a difference between reciting the "I Have a Dream Speech" and actually being Martin Luther King Jr.

i can recite that speech...does that make me Dr. King??????????

quote me a verse where it even says the angel spoke?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
there's a difference between reciting the "I Have a Dream Speech" and actually being Martin Luther King Jr.

i can recite that speech...does that make me Dr. King??????????
Haha. Good point. :biglaugh:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
A reading of the text below makes it appear as if Dr. King is giving the speech at that precise moment in time, and not a much later recitation. If we continue with your analogy, it looks like Dr. King himself is talking...

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight-why the bush does not burn up."


4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

And Moses said, "Here I am." 5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
ahhh i see part of our problem is the translation...here's one provided by Chabad.org

2. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.
as though to mean this is one of many angels who serve G-d
where as yours says...
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up
you see i see 3 figures here, an Angel, Moses, and Hashem whereas you seem to intrepret the Angel and HaShem being one and the same

to continue w/ my apparently popular analogy...
i say that you AE, myself and Dr. King are there where as you think that Dr. King and I are the same person...

again another inconsistancy between the 2 faiths...

even your verses say nothing of the Angel talking...just G-d and only after Moses had seen the burning bush and an angel...before Moses decides to investigate HaShem doesn't seem to be in the scene...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Fortunately I am not limited by faulty translations.

If you can read Hebrew, I have it below. You will see also that YHWH does not have an article. To be consistent in the translation that you provided, we would also have to do the same thing with YHWH, like the Jehova's witnesses try to do with theos in John 1.

To be consistent, your translation should read:
An angel of a lord

ב וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה אֵלָיו, בְּלַבַּת-אֵשׁ--מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה; וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה הַסְּנֶה בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ, וְהַסְּנֶה, אֵינֶנּוּ אֻכָּל. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I do appreciate your view that there are three persons present: the angel, Moses, and the LORD. However, how many people who were actually there may be unanswerable in the text because of the lack of articles (the).

EDIT: I do have suggestions as to why the article is supplied for both:

1) I seriously doubt that YHWH ever appears in the Hebrew Scriptures with the article. There is only one covanet name for G-d, but many other descriptive names for El. There is no need to designate which YHWH we are talking about, there is only one. There are several descrptives for El that carry the article. Elohim does, but elohim is also used as "lord" in reference to men, YHWH is reserved for G-d alone as His covanent name.

2) The angel of the Lord construction when it appears in the singular always designates a special messenger who speaks as G-d in a special way. This would give exegetical precedence for translating "the" instead of "an."
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
Fortunately I am not limited by faulty translations.

If you can read Hebrew, I have it below. You will see also that YHWH does not have an article. To be consistent in the translation that you provided, we would also have to do the same thing with YHWH, like the Jehova's witnesses try to do with theos in John 1.

To be consistent, your translation should read:
An angel of a lord

ב וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה אֵלָיו, בְּלַבַּת-אֵשׁ--מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה; וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה הַסְּנֶה בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ, וְהַסְּנֶה, אֵינֶנּוּ אֻכָּל. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
well if you want to get technical about it your text DOES say "an angel of a lord"
"the" is usually prefixed by a "ha" ( i can't type in hebrew on my computer sorry) w/ the letter "Heh", such as HaShem - "The Name" or HaGofen - "The vine";something your hebrew doesn't have...technically there is no way of say "A" something in hebrew (at least i'm pretty sure on that Deut or Standing can correct me on that)
but literally it should probably be translated: "and angel of YHVH..." but we put an "an" in there because it makes more sense when you translate it
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Hey, you brought it up. For the presence or absence of the article to have any weight, you must be consistent. In many foreign languages, the noun can have the force of the article without the article actually being present. Fortunately, I did not have to look far to prove this point: it is present right there in the text in question.

So we see two readings are possible, and the answers to some questions have to be sought elsewhere.

"An" is not the only translation that makes sense here. "The" works for both nouns using the same syntactical reasoning.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
I do appreciate your view that there are three persons present: the angel, Moses, and the LORD. However, how many people who were actually there may be unanswerable in the text because of the lack of articles (the).

EDIT: I do have suggestions as to why the article is supplied for both:

1) I seriously doubt that YHWH ever appears in the Hebrew Scriptures with the article. There is only one covanet name for G-d, but many other descriptive names for El. There is no need to designate which YHWH we are talking about, there is only one. There are several descrptives for El that carry the article. Elohim does, but elohim is also used as "lord" in reference to men, YHWH is reserved for G-d alone as His covanent name.

2) The angel of the Lord construction when it appears in the singular always designates a special messenger who speaks as G-d in a special way. This would give exegetical precedence for translating "the" instead of "an."
1)actually it appears in scripture and in siddurim (prayer books) w/ prefixes alot...one that comes to mind is Sheh-YHVH, it's in the mincha prayer in the afternoon...can't remember where off the top of my head tho...

2) again it misses the prefix (though my hebrew grammer isn't the best admittidly i could be wrong)...either way there are a number of ministering angels who work in service of HaShem such as Michael, Gabriael, Uriel, and even Samael...
 
Top