One Saviour?

[CMike]

Ingledsva, This is what Wikipedia says;
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[3][4] Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace[5] and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth,[6] and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

Well, none of this is actually denied by the Tanakh!

As far as idolatry is concerned, Jesus Christ is not worshipped as a human person, but as Holy Spirit.

The failure in understanding comes mainly from the fact that no distinction has been made between the prophecies that relate to the first and second comings of Christ. The whole focus seems to have been turned to the Messiah's final judgement.

With God's complete scripture in front of us it is possible to see clearly what God intended. And it's no surprise that the prophecy of the Tanakh was hard for Jews to disentangle - in the NT we are told that some things were intentionally kept a mystery. Had God not done so, the powers of darkness would not have crucified Jesus, and this was a necessary part of God's plan.

That second coming is purely a christian invention as I mentioned.

Also Deuteremony 13:1 states it is forbidden to add or subtract from the commandments in the Torah.

The christian bible has nothing to do with the jewish bible. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[CMike]

Ingledsva, This is what Wikipedia says;
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[3][4] Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace[5] and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth,[6] and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

Well, none of this is actually denied by the Tanakh!

As far as idolatry is concerned, Jesus Christ is not worshipped as a human person, but as Holy Spirit.

The failure in understanding comes mainly from the fact that no distinction has been made between the prophecies that relate to the first and second comings of Christ. The whole focus seems to have been turned to the Messiah's final judgement.

With God's complete scripture in front of us it is possible to see clearly what God intended. And it's no surprise that the prophecy of the Tanakh was hard for Jews to disentangle - in the NT we are told that some things were intentionally kept a mystery. Had God not done so, the powers of darkness would not have crucified Jesus, and this was a necessary part of God's plan.

G-D doesn't have human manifestations. Therefore, if you are worshipping someone who has human manifestations, you are worshpping a false god.

Also G-D said you can't see his face and life, and since no one died due to seeing his face, he wasn't G-D.

 

[Redemptionsong]

CMike,
The second coming is not a Christian invention.
Daniel 7:9-14, tells us that the son of Man is brought before the Ancient of days. How? Following his time on earth he ASCENDS 'with the clouds of heaven'.
Verse 14: And he is then given a kingdom.
This is exactly what Christians believe.
Joel 2: 1-12. The day of the LORD, 'a day of clouds'. Is this not the coming of the Lord to bring judgement? Is this a Christian invention too?

Of course the Torah remains intact - its the Law. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not change it.

The New Testament cannot be separated from the Tanakh. The scripture cannot be broken.

 

[CMike]

What do those passages have to do with the christian "invention" of the "second coming"?

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva, This is what Wikipedia says;
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[3][4] Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace[5] and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth,[6] and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

Well, none of this is actually denied by the Tanakh!



ING - As I said - go to an actual Jewish site and read their whole argument against Jesus.


Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, why Jews reject Jesus

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...j0i8i30l2.0.0.1.73217...........0.JTLy4CHjc-M



As far as idolatry is concerned, Jesus Christ is not worshipped as a human person, but as Holy Spirit.



ING - YHVH is ONE God - that is where the idolatry comes in. No trinity.



The failure in understanding comes mainly from the fact that no distinction has been made between the prophecies that relate to the first and second comings of Christ. The whole focus seems to have been turned to the Messiah's final judgement.



ING - There is NO second coming in Judaism. Read a Jewish site on this.



With God's complete scripture in front of us it is possible to see clearly what God intended. And it's no surprise that the prophecy of the Tanakh was hard for Jews to disentangle - in the NT we are told that some things were intentionally kept a mystery. Had God not done so, the powers of darkness would not have crucified Jesus, and this was a necessary part of God's plan.

LOL! That is so funny! Christians don't follow the Tanakh - misread verses - come up with new crap - and then say the people that wrote Tanakh - and to whom the Moshesh was supposed to come - are wrong! LOL!



*

 

[Thief]

LOL! That is so funny! Christians don't follow the Tanakh - misread verses - come up with new crap - and then say the people that wrote Tanakh - and to whom the Moshesh was supposed to come - are wrong! LOL!



*

Let's say that's fair enough.

Who then has it right?
Do you have a Saviour?.....do you have a mentor?

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! That is so funny! Christians don't follow the Tanakh - misread verses - come up with new crap - and then say the people that wrote Tanakh - and to whom the Moshesh was supposed to come - are wrong! LOL!

Let's say that's fair enough.

Who then has it right?
Do you have a Saviour?.....do you have a mentor?

Depends -


If you are asking me, - neither, - I don't believe in the Abrahamic God. To me these are just interesting stories.


If you mean according to what the Bible says, - the Jews, - as no one has come along to fulfill the prophecies.


I don't know why you keep asking me if I have a savior. Again - I don't believe in the Abrahamic religion and YHVH.


We all have mentors.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

How can you have an opinion on what you consider fiction? You know I can't take it seriously right?

That is pure bull, - as we are talking about reading a document.


Obviously I don't have to believe in it.


Also, not being tied to it, - allows me to step back and read it without "sect" clogged eyes. I have no stake in what it actually says. It just says what it says.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

That is pure bull, - as we are talking about reading a document.


Obviously I don't have to believe in it.


Also, not being tied to it, - allows me to step back and read it without "sect" clogged eyes. I have no stake in what it actually says. It just says what it says.


*

If you don't believe a text to be true, you think it still makes sense to claim it as true in arguments?

Also, bizarre comment there. What 'sect'? Makes no sense.

Besides didn't you say you were generally coming from a Christian perspective?

 

[Ingledsva]

If you don't believe a text to be true, you think it still makes sense to claim it as true in arguments?


ING - Obviously, I am not claiming the ideas in the text are true. We have been debating what the texts actually say.


Also, bizarre comment there. What 'sect'? Makes no sense.


ING - Your differing groups of Christians, plus the occasional Christian with some very bizarre ideas, Jewish believers, Scholars, Moslems, etc.


Besides didn't you say you were generally coming from a Christian perspective?

No I didn't. I have said all along that I am NOT a believer in the religions of Abraham.

I took Comparative Religions in College; and religions, ideas, movements of people, language mixing, etc., tie into my Archaeology.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

No I didn't. I have said all along that I am NOT a believer in the religions of Abraham.

I took Comparative Religions in College; and religions, ideas, movements of people, language mixing, etc., tie into my Archaeology.


*

The problem I am bringing up is that, when reading the texts, for a real discussion/debate, we have to accept that it is in the context of the religion, so, for example, we can say...'Jesus isn't in the line of David', however we can't say, 'Jesus wasn't divine'. One is arguable, the other is pointless because to Christians, Jesus is divine(usually). The same goes for OT discussions, it has to be in context otherwise the debate begins to be pick-&-choosem arguing for arguing sake.
If something in the NT proves a point to validity of Christianity, we have to deal with that in context.

If, however , you ascribed to a religion, you could put your arguments into an opinion form, thus validating 'differing' views (outside of the stated text itself.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then again. "whatever", as they say.

 

[Ingledsva]

The problem I am bringing up is that, when reading the texts, for a real discussion/debate, we have to accept that it is in the context of the religion, so, for example, we can say...'Jesus isn't in the line of David', however we can't say, 'Jesus wasn't divine'. One is arguable, the other is pointless because to Christians, Jesus is divine(usually). The same goes for OT discussions, it has to be in context otherwise the debate begins to be pick-&-choosem arguing for arguing sake.
If something in the NT proves a point to validity of Christianity, we have to deal with that in context.

If, however , you ascribed to a religion, you could put your arguments into an opinion form, thus validating 'differing' views (outside of the stated text itself.

That is ridiculous. The debates are in context to what the document in the original language says, and understanding the ancient cultures in question, their colloquialisms, etc., by studying them.

And the, "usually," makes the point. Not even all Christians believe Jesus is YHVH. This makes perfect sense, as the Bible does NOT say he is YHVH. Jesus doesn't say he is part of a trinity.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

And the, "usually," makes the point. Not even all Christians believe Jesus is YHVH. This makes perfect sense, as the Bible does NOT say he is YHVH. Jesus doesn't say he is part of a trinity.


*

Most do believe in Jesus divinity. I'm a secular Christian to an extent, and I don't even have Christianity listed for religion to avoid confusion.

Fact, Trinity or Oneness etc., all are similar in that regard. You're saying I'm being ridiculous, but those are the facts.

Also, there are MANY instances in the NT inferring divinity of Jesus, it's really a stretch to get around that.

 

[Ingledsva]

Most do believe in Jesus divinity. I'm a secular Christian to an extent, and I don't even have Christianity listed for religion to avoid confusion.

Fact, Trinity or Oneness etc., all are similar in that regard. You're saying I'm being ridiculous, but those are the facts.

Also, there are MANY instances in the NT inferring divinity of Jesus, it's really a stretch to get around that.

The "facts" are that not even all Christians believe the same thing.

Also, we have been debating those "references" and showing that they do not mean Jesus is YHVH - or part of a trinity.

Just as the Hebrew Magistrates, called Elohiym, - are obviously not Gods.


Jesus is claiming to be the Jewish Moshesh, - whom is NOT a God.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

The "facts" are that not even all Christians believe the same thing.

Again, most share that commonality.

Also, we have been debating those "references" and showing that they do not mean Jesus is YHVH - or part of a trinity.

What parts of the NT are you leaving out of the debate? That is the question. There is a difference between arguing a religion and choosing certain portions of said religions religious text to argue from.

Just as the Hebrew Magistrates, called Elohiym, - are obviously not Gods.

I already disproved that argument, it clearly is not referring to humans, that is an example of lyrical henotheism within the context of a monotheistic religion.
Adding to that, those Christian scholar references you gave would have to back your argument from a position where they don't want to say the Scripture is polytheistic in nature, it's common for those obvious religious biases to be in the field of scholarship. Christian scholars have made other mistakes /false assumptions regarding Scripture, as well.
That is why I don't even own a Christian Bible right now, I won't buy one with those mistakes in the actual text, or in the liner notes. I also don't want the 'changed names of Deity, another problem with many newer Bibles.

Anyways, what is the argument here? There are differences in descriptive speech, in the Bible, what's your point.

Jesus is claiming to be the Jewish Moshesh, - whom is NOT a God.

I've read the verses that speak otherwise, I can't get around them, they seem pretty clear to me. Also, you are again mistaking Jesus the man for Jesus the Deity, Jesus the man was with Spirit, that is why He was the reflection of God.

 

[Ingledsva]

Again, most share that commonality.



What parts of the NT are you leaving out of the debate? That is the question. There is a difference between arguing a religion and choosing certain portions of said religions religious text to argue from.


I already disproved that argument, it clearly is not referring to humans, that is an example of lyrical henotheism within the context of a monotheistic religion.
Adding to that, those Christian scholar references you gave would have to back your argument from a position where they don't want to say the Scripture is polytheistic in nature, it's common for those obvious religious biases to be in the field of scholarship. Christian scholars have made other mistakes /false assumptions regarding Scripture, as well.
That is why I don't even own a Christian Bible right now, I won't buy one with those mistakes in the actual text, or in the liner notes. I also don't want the 'changed names of Deity, another problem with many newer Bibles.

Anyways, what is the argument here? There are differences in descriptive speech, in the Bible, what's your point.




I've read the verses that speak otherwise, I can't get around them, they seem pretty clear to me. Also, you are again mistaking Jesus the man for Jesus the Deity, Jesus the man was with Spirit, that is why He was the reflection of God.

Dude, you have proved nothing.


Hence we have an ongoing debate.


That bit about not owning a Bible - what the Hay? You can get online programs, or computer programs, and download the original texts in their original languages. That is what I have done. I have the Greek and Hebrew texts on my computer, - from previous classes.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Dude, you have proved nothing.

Btw, you know what that argument really is right... It's called creating a 'problem' where there wasn't one. Instead of just accepting a level of ambiguity as to the existence of other lesser or false gods, they decided that all such references were either referring to people, or metaphor. Metaphor is great, but then where do we know the difference if it isn't explained. There wouldn't be an issue with the Genesis title either if people just accepted that it's plural i.e. 'God and the Host(angels).
So, when certain scholars or religious figures decided on the non-ambiguity of other 'gods', they therefore had to go throughout the Bible and justify any usage of the title Elohim that didn't fit their theological ideas. Hence the hodge-podge of theories, and textual meaning twisting. None of that is necessary if we accept what the Bible states at face value, and it doesn't contradict monotheism either, not in the worship sense of one supreme deity.

 

[Ingledsva]

Btw, you know what that argument really is right... It's called creating a 'problem' where there wasn't one. Instead of just accepting a level of ambiguity as to the existence of other lesser or false gods, they decided that all such references were either referring to people, or metaphor. Metaphor is great, but then where do we know the difference if it isn't explained. There wouldn't be an issue with the Genesis title either if people just accepted that it's plural i.e. 'God and the Host(angels).
So, when certain scholars or religious figures decided on the non-ambiguity of other 'gods', they therefore had to go throughout the Bible and justify any usage of the title Elohim that didn't fit their theological ideas. Hence the hodge-podge of theories, and textual meaning twisting. None of that is necessary if we accept what the Bible states at face value, and it doesn't contradict monotheism either, not in the worship sense of one supreme deity.

There is no reason to conclude "let us" or "Elohiym" means God and angels.


For instance we know for a fact that they originally had a Goddess.


The Bible tells us they kept turning back to her, even though the new order killed them, over and over. And they even say at one point that they were better off when they worshipped Her.


...in the image of the Elohiym created they them, male and female created them.


Also - we know for a FACT that Elohiym was used for Magistrates, Kings, Princes, etc.

Any Jewish member here can tell you this.


And you can look it up in your Strong's - or an on line Strong's, etc.


It is H 430.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no reason to conclude "let us" or "Elohiym" means God and angels.


For instance we know for a fact that they originally had a Goddess.


The Bible tells us they kept turning back to her, even though the new order killed them, over and over. And they even say at one point that they were better off when they worshipped Her.


...in the image of the Elohiym created they them, male and female created them.


Also - we know for a FACT that Elohiym was used for Magistrates, Kings, Princes, etc.

Any Jewish member here can tell you this.


And you can look it up in your Strong's - or an on line Strong's, etc.


It is H 430.


*

That isn't the point however. We know when it is being used for Deity, so that is basically irrelevant. We also know when it is being used for 'other' gods, or similar Titles, because of context. You are saying a possible goddess here, show the reference(s).