• 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?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
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...
1) Prefixes are not as shocking as an article would be, but I am surprised that prefixes are added.

2) Yes, there are a number of ministering angels, but they do not speak as "the Angel of the Lord." When they speak, they bear a message instead of speaking as the LORD. The "Angel of the Lord" construct here denotes a unique individual.

EDIT: I feel your pain on Hebrew grammars. Even if it were an excellent one, most foks aren't real exited about just reading through one of those monsters.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
2) Yes, there are a number of ministering angels, but they do not speak as "the Angel of the Lord." When they speak, they bear a message instead of speaking as the LORD. The "Angel of the Lord" construct here denotes a unique individual.
The discrepancy between Ex. iii. 2, where it is said that an angel appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and verse 4, where it is stated that G-d spoke to Moses out of the bush, is answered in various ways by the Midrash. According to one opinion, an angel appeared first and after him the Shekinah; while according to others the appearance of the angel merely indicated to Moses that the Shekinah was near, and this angel was Michael (or, as some say, Gabriel), the constant attendant of the Shekinah. When Moses beheld this heavenly apparition other persons were with him, who did not, however, perceive anything...
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1610&letter=B&search=burning%20bush

it appears that the angel in question is either (most likely) Michael or Gabriel...at least from Midrashic sources
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
AE i think the fact that we are going around and around about this shows the inconsitancy in the theology...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
AE i think the fact that we are going around and around about this shows the inconsitancy in the theology...
The fact that we are going around in circles shows only that the development into Midrash and into Christianity followed two seperate interprative paths. The ends are mutually exclusive, but it does not mean that they do not have common roots. Who exactly the angel is is unknown, but the mere fact that a reading of the text suggests that the Angel spoke as God gives weight to the Christian intepretation of Jesus.
 

rivenrock

Member
jewscout said:
Matthew 15 1-9
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? [not ommandments...traditions] for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift [in Mark this is described as Corban, or in other words something set aside to be given as an offering], by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 23:2-5
...Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men

Also: misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12); and he often answered their questions by quoting scriptures they should already have known (Matthew 19, 20+) etc.

jewscout said:
which,from a jewish perspective, it's not.
Obviously. That's exactly my point. It's obvious that two religions, one that sees itself as having been built upon the other, are going to have different perspectives on how consistent they are with each other, so everything we say on this thread has to be tempered by remembering our perspective, and acknowledging the perspective others are coming from when arguing against what they've said.
jewscout said:
Theologically? such as?
Example given in original post. Sorry, should I have said doctrinally?
 

rivenrock

Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
No, you'd rather engage in ignorant ad hominem. Where have I referred to Christians as lunatics?
If I misunderstood, just say so. Obviously, given the rest of my post, I was referring to your earlier post:
Every religion has its lunatic fringe, but clearly the deification of the Messiah is anathema to Judaism. Christianity is best understood as gentile parasitic fiction.
Immediately following the first sentence with what looked like a clarification, gave me the impression you had referred to Christianity as the 'lunatic fringe'.

Me misunderstanding that does not alter the fact that your second sentence insults Christianity rather than addressing the topic at hand.
 

rivenrock

Member
Deut

That was interesting, thanks. Of course I understand all the points about the messiah being mortal, etc. This makes me curious to ask what your take is on the idea you quoted that he will resurrect the dead. I'm also curious who Jews think that Isaiah was referring to in Isaiah 7:14 when he said: &nbsp14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
spacer.gif
Obviously Christians think that refers to the Messiah. What alternative interpretation does Judaism give for that verse?

I suppose then that Judaism is consistant with as much of Christian belief on the OT as it interprets similarly. As far as understanding of Christ goes, it could only be consistant with those Christians who follow Jesus as a teacher and do not believe he was the begotten Son of God. For the record, many Christians do not believe in the trinity as outlined by Catholicism (a god of three parts, with three personalities or aspects). Personally I find that the NT account of Jesus' baptism negates the idea that Jesus, God the Father and The Holy Spirit are one being so completely that I can't grasp why anyone ever believed it.

Also (last tangent, but you did quote lots of interesting stuff) you mentioned that the idea that God would take on human form is "repulsive to Jews". Yet Moses spoke to God face to face, like a man speaking to his friend. God created us in his image. Even if you set aside the idea that Jesus was God born as a human (which I'm not proposing) is it really so far-fetched to think that God has a body, a human form? He at least has a face. He wrote on the tables of stone with his finger.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
rivenrock said:
If I misunderstood, just say so.
I noted: "Every religion has its lunatic fringe, but clearly the deification of the Messiah is anathema to Judaism." Implicit in the phrase "every religion" is the recognition that what follows is not unique to Christianity. Implicit in the idea of a 'lunatic fringe' is the idea rational, normative center. Your comments did not reflect a misunderstanding, but a thoughtless and ignorant distortion. I suggest you learn from it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
rivenrock said:
I'm also curious who Jews think that Isaiah was referring to in Isaiah 7:14 ... What alternative interpretation does Judaism give for that verse?
Oy veh! Do a search on Isaiah 7:14 or, perhaps, 'almah': this topic has been discussed to death.
rivenrock said:
Obviously Christians think that refers to the Messiah.
Let's see ...
24tn The Hebrew term twa, “sign,” can refer to a miraculous event (see v. 11), but it does not carry this sense inherently. Elsewhere in Isaiah the word usually refers to a natural occurrence or an object/person vested with special significance (see 8:18; 19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 55:13; 66:19). Only in 38:7-8, 22 does it refer to a miraculous deed that involves suspending or overriding natural laws. The sign outlined in vv. 14-17 involves God’s providential control over events and their timing, but not necessarily miraculous intervention.

25tn Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.

26tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here, hm*l=u^ (u^lm*h), can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun <l#u# (u#l#<, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word parqevno" (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term parqevno" (parqenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

27tn Elsewhere the adjective hrh, when used predicatively, refers to a past pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5, 7, however. See the notes to those verses.) In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal family. Another option, the one chosen in the translation above, takes the adjective in an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.” In this case the woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).

- see bible.org
The contention that Isaiah 7:14 refers to some 1st century ce sect leader is so blatently ridiculous that Christian proponents of his foolishness have been forced to fabricate the concept of 'duel prophecy'. It's a joke. Feel free to pursue it in its own thread if you must, but do the search first.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
The fact that we are going around in circles shows only that the development into Midrash and into Christianity followed two seperate interprative paths. The ends are mutually exclusive, but it does not mean that they do not have common roots. Who exactly the angel is is unknown, but the mere fact that a reading of the text suggests that the Angel spoke as God gives weight to the Christian intepretation of Jesus.
no, you read it from christian perspective which means you look for things to confirm and connect w/ christian theology (ex. this idea of an image of G-d to show examples in the Tanach which will backup christian theology) and i read it to confirm and connect w/ Jewish theology (Ex. the concept that HaShem has no form and is incorpreal).
Even when christianity was first getting off the ground, the idea that an executed jew was the messiah goes against concepts of what the Moshiach is in Judaism, not to mention the deification of Jesus.
I say A=B
and you say A=C
That is not consistancy
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
The fact that we are going around in circles shows only that the development into Midrash and into Christianity followed two seperate interprative paths.
Yes: exegesis an eisegesis respectively.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
rivenrock said:
Matthew 15 1-9
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? [not ommandments...traditions] for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift [in Mark this is described as Corban, or in other words something set aside to be given as an offering], by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 23:2-5
...Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men

Also: misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12); and he often answered their questions by quoting scriptures they should already have known (Matthew 19, 20+) etc.
And yet never are they his commandments, or his traditions, or his Laws...recall that these books were assembled centuries after the time of Jesus by a Gentile church which was extremely antisemetic and chose text that would condem the Jews...

Obviously. That's exactly my point. It's obvious that two religions, one that sees itself as having been built upon the other, are going to have different perspectives on how consistent they are with each other...
*groan*
perhaps i need to define the word "consistent" for the purposes of this thread...
merriam-webster said:
Main Entry: con·sis·tent
Pronunciation: k&n-'sis-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin consistent-, consistens, present participle of consistere
1 archaic : possessing firmness or coherence
2 a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction <a consistent style in painting> b : [size=-1]COMPATIBLE[/size] -- usually used with with c : showing steady conformity to character, profession, belief, or custom <a consistent patriot>
3 : tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated as the sample becomes large <a consistent statistical estimator>
how can there be a consistancy between party A and B when neither agree?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
no, you read it from christian perspective which means you look for things to confirm and connect w/ christian theology (ex. this idea of an image of G-d to show examples in the Tanach which will backup christian theology) and i read it to confirm and connect w/ Jewish theology (Ex. the concept that HaShem has no form and is incorpreal).
Even when christianity was first getting off the ground, the idea that an executed jew was the messiah goes against concepts of what the Moshiach is in Judaism, not to mention the deification of Jesus.
I say A=B
and you say A=C
That is not consistancy
Yes, we both approach the text from our tradition, which is not eisegesis. Not all exegetical questions can be ansswered by syntax; snytatical rules can only set up barriers. That is, from the language we can know what the text doesn't mean, but not precisely what it does mean.

I also agree that the idea that the Messiah would be executed was not in the Jewish commentary, but it is present in the Tanach, as Jesus and his followers point out. Jesus's disciples had trouble accepting that the Messiah would be killed. Paul taught that the Cross is foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block for the Jews. The NT points to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Jesus quoted Psalm 22 with respect to Himself.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
I also agree that the idea that the Messiah would be executed was not in the Jewish commentary, but it is present in the Tanach, as Jesus and his followers point out. Jesus's disciples had trouble accepting that the Messiah would be killed. Paul taught that the Cross is foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block for the Jews. The NT points to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 has been quoted to me by many christians but if you view the scripture in the context of what was going on you get this...
jewsforjudaism.com said:
Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of G-d's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you "tackle" Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, G-d had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as G-d's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet G-d promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for G-d's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd."
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Jesus quoted Psalm 22 with respect to Himself.
No, the original author of that pericope (Mark 15:36 & Matthew 27:46), writing decades after the event, and basing those writings on 2nd hand heresay at best, wrote a story in which Jesus is purported to refer to the 22 Psalm.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Deut. 32.8 said:
No, the original author of that pericope (Mark 15:36 & Matthew 27:46), writing decades after the event, and basing those writings on 2nd hand heresay at best, wrote a story in which Jesus is purported to refer to the 22 Psalm.
If you have textual evidence for this assumption, I would love to discuss it with you. There is no reason to believe that the Gospels are not valid historical accounts of Jesus' words and actions. By the way, the date of the writings of the Gospels can be shown to be much closer to witnessing that actual event than the description of Moses and the burning bush, or anything else in the Tanach.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jewscout said:
Isaiah 53 has been quoted to me by many christians but if you view the scripture in the context of what was going on you get this...
For Christians, God's revelation as a whole includes God's revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we interpret the Tanach through the teachings of Jesus.
 

jewscout

Religious Zionist
angellous_evangellous said:
For Christians, God's revelation as a whole includes God's revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we interpret the Tanach through the teachings of Jesus.
exaclty! And that is why judaism and christianity are theologically inconsistant.
Jesus and his Messiahship/deification are central to the christian faith and is a major componenet in how many christians interpret scripture...for Jews this is not so thus our interpretations and our theology is different from christianity
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yes, perhaps we are comparing apples to oranges at this point. We can certainly agree that Judaism and Christianity today have "inconsistent theologies," but this does not mean that Christianity does not share Jewish roots. I have said that Judaism existed before Christianity, it rejected Jesus as Messiah, and merrily went on its way into more theological development into its present manifestations. Jesus, his disciples, and Paul were all Jews and were raised in first century Jewish synogouages and worshipped in the Temple. They accepted the Tanach as the inspired Word of God. They celebrated the feasts and holy days of Judaism. The disciples believed in a kingly preist for a Messiah, who would bring about political peace for Isreal and perhaps some of them had looked forward for this event to issue in the next age.

However, Jesus taught that the Messiah would have to suffer and die, which was new to the disciples and to Judaism. The material that Jesus quoted with respect to himself was prophetic, and Christians at least confess that the meaning of prophetic material in both the NT and the Tanach can be hidden by God, and that Jesus revealed the meaning.
 

EnhancedSpirit

High Priestess
jewscout said:
I say A=B
and you say A=C
That is not consistancy
It is consistant if B=C. The one constant between Jew and Christians is the 10 Commandments. Can we all agree on that?

Jewscout. I have a question. I have always assumed that Jesus was not accepted by his people because he did not follow their traditions. He stepped 'out of the box' so to speak. Earlier you mentioned that Jesus was not accepted because he did not fulfill the prophecy. Can you elaborate on this for me? What prophecies were not fulfilled.
 
Top