NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

Probably the mix of Isis and Mithras worship that got mixed up while Christianity was based in Rome.

I'm a Christian myself before anyone flames too much.

You can't be a Jew and believe that Jesus is your savior. It contradicts itself, since the Jews didn't believe in a savior, beliving in one and taking his religion would violate principles of that religion.

Who cares, anyway, since he's just a fictional character.

Paul tried to steer the nascent Christianity away from Judaism, to try to give it a distinct personality. Along with circumcision, he suggested a great many of the Jewish mitzvot need not be practiced by Christians.

Well, the thing is that not all Christians dishonour Jews. I revere the Jewish faith as the predecessor and basis for my own Christian faith. I respect Rabbis as good, religious people, however, the core of Christianity is to follow the teachings of Christ and the belief that Christ is the son of God and died on the cross in order that we might achieve forgiveness for our sins. Therefore we follow the teachings of Christ, as the son of God, which were delivered on the foundation of Judaism. Christianity isn't so much a completely different faith from Judaism as an evolved form of that faith. And also, ture Christians should never disprespect Jews or anyone else because Christ taught us to treat all as our friends and brothers. Perhaps Judaism is wrong, but that's not for us to decide. We as Christians should work to help others, follow Christ's teachings, and peacefully and inoffensively spread our faith to those willing to accept it, however, we should leave judgment to God, the only one who can truly know a man's heart.

Hope I answered that well, and doubtless countless others will have differing opinions, as is so common in religion, but that's my bit. :)

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

I'm not christian ... but I've had Catholic education. So I can probably give an ok answer.

While Jesus was Jewish, he preached things that were radical and contrary to the Jewish traditions at the time. He railed against things such as the banking profession, strict adherence to the sabbath, and following the laws themselves and not the intent behind them. He also said other, stranger things, like claiming to have a familial relationship with the Jewish god. Many Jews at the time considered his message blasphemous, so the followers of Jesus couldn't hold true to Jesus and his Jewish detractors.

When you examine the new testament, you can see that christianity is very different from judaism, particularly regarding things such as evangelism, heaven and hell, etc. This is because of what Jesus is recorded as saying. His beliefs didn't represent the whole of the Jewish community, and that split remains today, resulting in some violence brought on by some christians regarding all jews as Jesus' murderers.

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?



It will become clear when you read the other 70% of the New Testament.

You can't be a Jew and believe that Jesus is your savior. It contradicts itself, since the Jews didn't believe in a savior, beliving in one and taking his religion would violate principles of that religion.

Who cares, anyway, since he's just a fictional character.



No, he's historically documented. Whether he was the son of God is up for debate, but we do know he existed.

Not a Christian, but my understanding is that Paul denied the necessity for Christians to observe Jewish ritual law because Jesus had replaced the original Covenant.

Actually, a central tenet of Judaism, for over two millenia (say 23 or so centuries), is the belief in a messiah (the English form of the Hebrew word, for which the Greek word is taken into English as "christ"), who would restore the line of David and initiate God's kingdom on earth, ruling in Jerusalem over a reunited Israel (more or less).

It's correct, though, that Judaism doesn't profess belief in a savior - that was added by the Greeks (Paul, specifically - the Jews had no concept of "savior" or "original sin").

Conveniently enough, Jesus is said (in both canonical and apocryphal gospels, acts and epistles) to have upheld the law, and insisted that it was the basis for everything else (summing it up into two basic commandments).

Paul, in the canonical acts and epistles, is seen steering gentile Christians - in contradistinction to Jewish Christians, that is, Jews who still maintained that Jesus was God's promised messiah - away from Jewish (that is, Mosaic and Talmudic) law. He argues in his epistles that Jesus abrogates the Torah, replacing the Bible (that is, the Bible of the Hebrews, the Christian Old Testament) with, more or less, himself (that is, Jesus).

Not a Christian, but my understanding is that Paul denied the necessity for Christians to observe Jewish ritual law because Jesus had replaced the original Covenant.



That's it in a nutshell.

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

Some Christians persecute Jews because they are unwilling to forgive.

Also before Jesus died there weren't really Christians. People who followed Jesus considered themselves Jewish.

As for us Christians emulating a fully practicing Jew, he died so we don't have to do all the religious ceremonies anymore. We emulate his godliness, not his ability to follow Jewish treditions.

Forgive my bad spelling

The Jews did believe in a Savior. History tells us that many false messiahs were springing up at that time.

To answer the original question, Jesus did follow Jewish customs, but he was also there to take Judeaism out of their legalism and into a true relationship with God. There are many instances of him breaking the sabbath and having to defend himself in front of the Jewish leaders. The leaders also confronted him repeatedly with questions about Jewish law.

The point isn't that there are too many rules, it's that Christianity is no longer about rules. Rules and sin are different. Sin brings us apart from God, however, rules can do the same thing. Some denominations have communion every week. This has practically become a rule, and thus communion (the act of communing with God) has lost it's meaning to many church goers.

Some Christians have persecuted Jews, but the blanket statement is unwarrented. If someone was truly in the act of following Jesus, they would be forced to love and respect all. Religous boundaries (even within Christianity) would fall and there would only be followers and the lost.

One of the bigger difference is that Judaism was started in the Old Testament times, and that is where their teachings are mostly based. When Christ founded the Catholic Church, he had previously decreed that the rules of the Old Testament were not to be followed. That's why all Christian denominations follow the teachings of the New Testament.

I am also a Christian. I'm actually leaving for a Roman Catholic seminary on Friday.

I'm going to leave the who "He's (Jesus) a fictional person" thing alone for now because I really don't feel like starting an argument.

Not a Christian, but my understanding is that Paul denied the necessity for Christians to observe Jewish ritual law because Jesus had replaced the original Covenant.
lol, that's exactly what I meant by that whole paragraph I wrote, haha

Who cares, anyway, since he's just a fictional character.

Not so. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)

Jesus was a historical character. Beyond that is a matter of faith.

This is a heck of a thread. I'd like to follow it to see where all this goes. I don't know how qualified I am to answer this question as I'm not very well informed in matters of religion. You know how public schools are and I haven't actually gotten around to any real research yet. Anyway, my best answer is that not all Christians truly follow the religion that they profess. In fact, Christians should be very accepting of Jews. I'll look up the book tomorrow, but I've been reading this book written by a Catholic priest that basically says that a devout Jew is just as much saved by God as a devout Catholic. It was really an interesting perspective and I'll have to post again on this. My answer though, is that there is absolutely no good reason for a Christian (or group of them) to persecute anyone.
To The Brave Old World, you should try reading up on the Messianic Jews. I don't know a heck of a lot about them, but they basically follow Jewish tradition and believe in Christ. Remember that Christ emerged from among them and at least according to Catholicism, a devout Jew does see the light of God. Hope that helped some.

sorry 'bout the edit, i accidentally had the original post in there so i knew what to respond to.

Some Christians persecuted Jews because they were idiots. Note that different sects of Christianity persecuted each other, so it really just does sum up to "idiots" and "Us vs. Them mentality."

Christians don't follow certain Jewish teachings because Jesus said, "that is wrong, do this instead," or the two teachings contradict. Otherwise, they (we, since I am Christian) could, but it isn't necessary due to other beliefs in Christianity. We still have to follow certain parts, though, like the Ten Commandments, etc.

I hope that clears it up.

One of the bigger difference is that Judaism was started in the Old Testament times, and that is where their teachings are mostly based. When Christ founded the Catholic Church, he had previously decreed that the rules of the Old Testament were not to be followed. That's why all Christian denominations follow the teachings of the New Testament.

Well... for historical accuracy, let's remember that Christ founded the Christian church, not just the Catholic church, because at the time he founded it it was one unified church and was later led by many patriarchs until, due to the rise of Islam in the East and debate over basic religious policy, the Patriarch of Rome was powerful enough to independently declare himself the supreme pontiff over all the other Patriarchs. Meanwhile the other original branch of the Christian faith still exists in the form of Eastern Orthodox churches officially led by the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

It is my belief that Jesus had no intention of splitting religions into "Christian" and "Jewish". There was no "Christianity" until after his death; that was his apostles doing.

Jesus was Jewish. He was also the Messiah and hoped to unite all. But many did not accept him. As such we have the Jews who do not recognise him as the Messiah, and the Jews who do; the Christians.

It is because of the schism that Christians persecute the Jews for not accepting their leader, even though they worship the same God.

And I maintain that there is no reason to blame the Jews for Christ's death, as it was the will of the Romans in control of the province. Pontius Pilate's statement, "I wash my hands of this deed", is bullshit.

I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

I think you are using improper grammer, or have spelling errors or something. Could you please restate this part? I'm a chirstian and I can't answer unless I understand the question.

In marketing it's called branding. You have to distinguish yourself from other products. Christianity may be similar to Judaism - But Christianity is "New and Improved!"

And I maintain that there is no reason to blame the Jews for Christ's death, as it was the will of the Romans in control of the province. Pontius Pilate's statement, "I wash my hands of this deed", is bull****.

No. If it wasn't for the Jews, they would not have had the issue in the first place.

Yeah I guess that explains it. And i should read the rest of the new testament :) Thanks a lot everyone. Its all pretty simple now that I think about it.

There was God. God was eternal and allknowing and perceiving. God made laws. God made/is Jesus. Jesus made new laws, saying the old laws he created are no longer necessary (because he replaces the covenant and forgave everyone's sins)

Not so. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)

Jesus was a historical character. Beyond that is a matter of faith.

This is a good comment, but I can't understand why so many people haven't yet figured out that everything is a matter of faith! You can refuse to believe something, even if it's "proved". "Knowledge" has completely lost it's meaning in society. If you don't have faith in anything, you can't know anything, because you won't believe it!

No. If it wasn't for the Jews, they would not have had the issue in the first place.

If it wasn't for the greed and jealousy of the Sanhedrin elites, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place.

Furthermore, the Jews didn't kill God. That is an impossibility and in total violation of the Bible. They killed the body, but the God himself remained.

Yeah I guess that explains it. And i should read the rest of the new testament :) Thanks a lot everyone. Its all pretty simple now that I think about it.

There was God. God was eternal and allknowing and perceiving. God made laws. God made/is Jesus. Jesus made new laws, saying the old laws he created are no longer necessary (because he replaces the covenant and forgave everyone's sins)

In a nutshell, yes. But read the rest of the new testament. You'll be suprised at what you find. ;)

Sorry Arathen, I was venturing so as to ask if the Jewish laws were not kept simply because of how complex the religion would be to follow thereafter.

In marketing it's called branding. You have to distinguish yourself from other products. Christianity may be similar to Judaism - But Christianity is "New and Improved!"



Not necessarily, Christianity is quite different from Judaism in more than name alone. It replaces the Abrahamic Covenant with a New Covenant, and the former is imperative to Judaism. Also, the laws were completely revised, as was the method of salvation. Judaism was the unfulfilled plan, whereas Christianity was the eventuation of God's plan.

Yeah I guess that explains it. And i should read the rest of the new testament :) Thanks a lot everyone. Its all pretty simple now that I think about it.

There was God. God was eternal and allknowing and perceiving. God made laws. God made/is Jesus. Jesus made new laws, saying the old laws he created are no longer necessary (because he replaces the covenant and forgave everyone's sins)

How can God make and be Jesus? The Bible clearly states the two in a way that means they are seperate beings. Like when it says that Jesus sits on the right hand of the father. How can Jesus sit on His right hand if they are one person? It's kinda silly. (not meaning to bash, lots of people believe this, and I respect that.)

Sorry Arathen, I was venturing so as to ask if the Jewish laws were not kept simply because of how complex the religion would be to follow thereafter.

At what time period? After or before or during Jesus's life? "how complex the religion would be to follow thereafter", does this refer to Christianity? Do you mean the Jewish laws were not kept because of how complex Jewish laws would become, or how complex Christian laws were to follow? I'm sorry I still do not quite understand. Thankyou for trying to clarify though.

How can God make and be Jesus? The Bible clearly states the two in a way that means they are seperate beings. Like when it says that Jesus sits on the right hand of the father. How can Jesus sit on His right hand if they are one person? It's kinda silly. (not meaning to bash, lots of people believe this, and I respect that.)



I would have to differ on the part where the person said God "made" Jesus, as both are eternal Beings. Anyway, it's not that complex if you understand that the Trinity is a metaphysical Agent, and thus physical laws do not apply to them. It's beyond our knowledge to comprehend them, as we base our impressions of..well....everything, on experience. Kind of like how we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity, as it is beyond anything our finite minds can grasp.

Wait a second. Why would an all-knowing God replace his own laws only a few thousand years after he made them? Did God err in judgement of humanity or had it been a preconceived notion? That's where I get confused because if we were to assume it was preconceived then Jesus would indeed have been the messiah, which fulfilling the Jews' definition thereof would end all human suffering, evil, etc. But as we know such is not true then I cannot help but feel that the God of Judaism and the Trinity are separate entities.

Oh, also.. does Christianity have its own separate secret doctrine? Its a naive question I know, but Qabbalah is pretty out in the open as it is "soul of the soul of the law" of Judaism, and Hindu gymnosophy is somewhat known as well, I was wondering if Christianity's "secret teachings" lie somewhere... perhaps in as previously mentioned, Mithraism?


By the way, Wurzelmania, are you a Manly P. Hall reader?

Wait a second. Why would an all-knowing God replace his own laws only a few thousand years after he made them? Did God err in judgement of humanity or had it been a preconceived notion? That's where I get confused because if we were to assume it was preconceived then Jesus would indeed have been the messiah, which fulfilling the Jews' definition thereof would end all human suffering, evil, etc. But as we know such is not true then I cannot help but feel that the God of Judaism and the Trinity are separate entities.

Oh, also.. does Christianity have its own separate secret doctrine? Its a naive question I know, but Qabbalah is pretty out in the open as it is "soul of the soul of the law" of Judaism, and Hindu gymnosophy is somewhat known as well, I was wondering if Christianity's "secret teachings" lie somewhere... perhaps in as previously mentioned, Mithraism?


By the way, Wurzelmania, are you a Manly P. Hall reader?


He adapted the fulfillment of the law to our own societal and mental evolution. That's the shortest explanation I can give right now.

I would have to differ on the part where the person said God "made" Jesus, as both are eternal Beings. Anyway, it's not that complex if you understand that the Trinity is a metaphysical Agent, and thus physical laws do not apply to them. It's beyond our knowledge to comprehend them, as we base our impressions of..well....everything, on experience. Kind of like how we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity, as it is beyond anything our finite minds can grasp.

But then how are we in His image? We would have to be like 3 people in one wouldn't we? And another thing, I believe that when it says they are one in the Bible, it doesn't necessarily mean they are one being. I believe it means they are one in purpose. But God did make Jesus, because Jesus is the only begotten Son of The Father.

But then how are we in His image? We would have to be like 3 people in one wouldn't we?



1. Who's to say we aren't? *Twilight Zone music*

2. I think He meant in the image of the Father.

I would have to differ on the part where the person said God "made" Jesus, as both are eternal Beings. Anyway, it's not that complex if you understand that the Trinity is a metaphysical Agent, and thus physical laws do not apply to them. It's beyond our knowledge to comprehend them, as we base our impressions of..well....everything, on experience. Kind of like how we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity, as it is beyond anything our finite minds can grasp.

By callings God "beings" and "Them" you confuse people. God is one being eternaly Father, son, Holy spirit. The father begot the son from all eternity and the Holy spirit proceeded from the Father and son from all eternity. I agree though, it is a holy mystery we will only understand in heaven.

1. Who's to say we aren't? *Twilight Zone music*

2. I think He meant in the image of the Father.

Look, I'm just saying it's kind of silly. Let's not have a debate on it, but it never actually mentions the word trinity in the Bible, does it?

But then how are we in His image? We would have to be like 3 people in one wouldn't we? And another thing, I believe that when it says they are one in the Bible, it doesn't necessarily mean they are one being. I believe it means they are one in purpose. But God did make Jesus, because Jesus is the only begotten Son of The Father.

Body, soul, spirit.

Originally posted by Neo Rogolia
2. I think He meant in the image of the Father.

Don't you mean the son (Jesus) because he is essentially the last of God we had direct orders and laws from?

Don't you mean the son (Jesus) because he is essentially the last of God we had direct orders and laws from?

he is God. not one of many or last in a line.

Body, soul, spirit.

Which one in "the trinity" is body and which one is soul then? We are made in their likeness, and another thing, why don't people believe God has a body if we are made in His image?

Originally posted by Axsom:
Body, soul, spirit.

Beautiful. The most ancient divisions within the lesser face are the microcosm of the divisions of the greater face. Its very beautiful.

Oh, also.. does Christianity have its own separate secret doctrine? Its a naive question I know, but Qabbalah is pretty out in the open as it is "soul of the soul of the law" of Judaism, and Hindu gymnosophy is somewhat known as well, I was wondering if Christianity's "secret teachings" lie somewhere... perhaps in as previously mentioned, Mithraism?

Mysticism - Christianity has its mysticism, as does every other major religion/philosophy. With firmly delineated monastic and clerical orders, however, anyone not in an order is a lay person, and so there are no inherent "official" mystical elements or groups, while, as examples, Qabbalah and Sufism are well established as fairly independent entities within Judaism and Sunni Islam.

Edit: Mithraism was a fierce competitor with Christianity during much of Rome's Imperial era, and had many elements in common (both claim, for example, a divine savior born of a virgin on the 25th of December...), but nothing Christian would lie hidden within Mithraism. (Same goes for Gnosticism, which, in various flavors, was or was not Christianity in some variation)

Which one in "the trinity" is body and which one is spirit then? We are made in their likeness, and another thing, why don't people believe God has a body if we are made in His image?

The image of God is the eternal soul we each have. The body, soul, spirit is a reflection of the truth of the Trinity and should not be equated with any of the persons of the Trinity

The way I see it is Jesus wasn't really a Jew. Had jewish blood, and was followed by jews, and belived in some jeweish teachings. However, telling from what his teachings were, I couldn't call him a jew. He quoted scriptors but I think that was just to show the jewish people that their sciptors where contradicting eachother, inorder to discredit their belifes, and then installed his own teachings. However, Jesus taught acceptance, so if some a christain persacutes any one else, then they simply are not acting like a christain, and shouldn't be regarded as one at that point in time.

Summery:
1.According to me Jesus was not a Jew.
2.However, one is not a christian if they peracute any one.

The image of God is the eternal soul we each have. The body, soul, spirit is a reflection of the truth of the Trinity and should not be equated with any of the persons of the Trinity

huh?

Mysticism - Christianity has its mysticism, as does every other major religion/philosophy. With firmly delineated monastic and clerical orders, however, anyone not in an order is a lay person, and so there are no inherent "official" mystical elements or groups, while, as examples, Qabbalah and Sufism are well established as fairly independent entities within Judaism and Sunni Islam.

Yes but their teachings are not secret.

Well, interpret how u like, but what I have said stands.

Originally posted by Arathen:
At what time period? After or before or during Jesus's life? "how complex the religion would be to follow thereafter", does this refer to Christianity? Do you mean the Jewish laws were not kept because of how complex Jewish laws would become, or how complex Christian laws were to follow? I'm sorry I still do not quite understand. Thankyou for trying to clarify though.

I guess I'm trying to ask why the founders of the Church, the ones who actually created an organized system, whether that was in the 4th century AD or with Paul, did it in such a way as to preserve the greatest ideals or strive to make it attractive for converts? Lots of laws are a bummer even if it promises eternal salvation.

huh?

I know its hard to understand. The fact that we have three elements to our being reflects the trinity. Just like Father, mother, child reflects the trinity. God has intentionaly given us things in our lives that reflect his truths.

Yes but their teachings are not secret.

That's the point.

Which one in "the trinity" is body and which one is soul then? We are made in their likeness, and another thing, why don't people believe God has a body if we are made in His image?

When the bible uses the words in His image, what it's talking about is His mental "image", things such as love,kindness,etc., seeing as He is a spirit with no physical body(exculding jesus).

That's the point.

Agreed. I thought you were saying Christian monks kept secret teachings from lay people. sorry

Originally posted by Ilkarzana:
The way I see it is Jesus wasn't really a Jew. Had jewish blood, and was followed by jews, and belived in some jeweish teachings. However, telling from what his teachings were, I couldn't call him a jew. He quoted scriptors but I think that was just to show the jewish people that their sciptors where contradicting eachother, inorder to discredit their belifes, and then installed his own teachings. However, Jesus taught acceptance, so if some a christain persacutes any one else, then they simply are not acting like a christain, and shouldn't be regarded as one at that point in time.

Summery:
1.According to me Jesus was not a Jew.
2.However, one is not a christian if they peracute any one.

How could the scriptures contradict each other if they were established by an infallible God that was one and the same, or the father of Jesus? Why would God make patchy scriptures that contradicted each other and would have to be replaced by his son later on?

So Christianity has no mysticism? That's a damn shame. The imagery in the religion is so powerful... but I suppose it is a bit too divided.

How could the scriptures contradict each other if they were established by an infallible God that was one and the same, or the father of Jesus? Why would God make patchy scriptures that contradicted each other and would have to be replaced by his son later on?

There is no contradiction. Judiasm paved the way for the church. The church is the fullfillment of judaism

Which one in "the trinity" is body and which one is soul then? We are made in their likeness, and another thing, why don't people believe God has a body if we are made in His image?



1. Christ was the physical incarnation of God on earth, therefore we can infer that he is the Body.

2. The Holy Spirit would most likely be the spirit, as He's a Holy Spirit >.>

3. Thus, that would leave God for the soul.

Agreed. I thought you were saying Christian monks kept secret teachings from lay people. sorry

Sorry for the confusion. :)

So Christianity has no mysticism? That's a damn shame. The imagery in the religion is so powerful... but I suppose it is a bit too divided.


No it has a alot of mysticism at least Catholics and eastern Orthodox. St john of the cross, St theresa of avilla and many more mystics who used contemplative prayer to attain near perfection and almost perfect communion with God. The eastern churches have a rich history of mystic, most notably the desert fathers.

Wait a second. Why would an all-knowing God replace his own laws only a few thousand years after he made them? Did God err in judgement of humanity or had it been a preconceived notion? That's where I get confused because if we were to assume it was preconceived then Jesus would indeed have been the messiah, which fulfilling the Jews' definition thereof would end all human suffering, evil, etc. But as we know such is not true then I cannot help but feel that the God of Judaism and the Trinity are separate entities.

I'll try and explain this as best I can.

God did not err in his judgenment of humanity, he did give us free will though. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was a loss of innocense.

Now, it is my belief that before this, there was no sin in the world. Humanity had no concept of good or evil. Only by eating the fruit of the tree did they gain it. So, there was nothing to seperate them from God. God actually walked among them in the garden.

So, after they ate of the tree sin entered the world. God (the father) and sin can not exist together. As such, we needed to be free from sin again. God chose the jews as his people (through various impurities in decendants starting with Moses that would make an interesting study, but one I haven't done) and made rules so that their sins could be forgiven.

All the while, God had Jesus in his plan. The Roman empire was the ideal time for Jesus to come. There was a great means of communication, there were actual roads and minds ripe for ideas. So, the coming of Jesus was always part of God's plan, but he needed the right time to do it. Rome was the right civilization.

If you have any questions please telegram me. I'll answer them as best as I can.

1. Christ was the physical incarnation of God on earth, therefore we can infer that he is the Body.

2. The Holy Spirit would most likely be the spirit, as He's a Holy Spirit >.>

3. Thus, that would leave God for the soul.

Nice explanation.

So Christianity has no mysticism? That's a damn shame. The imagery in the religion is so powerful... but I suppose it is a bit too divided.

Oh, no, Christianity has its mysticism! It's just less integral to it than most mystical strains are to their respective parent religions.

The mysticism of Christianity is much more a personal matter - for various reasons, most particularly the strict ordination of the faith into various (arguably) sharply defined denominations, most of which have strongly ordinated hierarchy (the Catholic Church especially, while others have no ordained members), Christianity doesn't lend itself to systematic mysticism.

My best recommendation is to check out Meister Eckhart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart should give you a start), and work from there.

The way I see it is Jesus wasn't really a Jew. Had jewish blood, and was followed by jews, and belived in some jeweish teachings. However, telling from what his teachings were, I couldn't call him a jew. He quoted scriptors but I think that was just to show the jewish people that their sciptors where contradicting eachother, inorder to discredit their belifes, and then installed his own teachings. However, Jesus taught acceptance, so if some a christain persacutes any one else, then they simply are not acting like a christain, and shouldn't be regarded as one at that point in time.

Summery:
1.According to me Jesus was not a Jew.
2.However, one is not a christian if they peracute any one.



God's law cannot contradict itself, as it is perfect (Read Psalm 19 in my signature). The crux of forgiveness in Judaism, animal sacrifice, could only delay the inevitable: Eternal seperation of God for our sins. Christ provided a perfect sacrifice, an eternal sacrifice, a sacrifice that washed our sins away completely. When He condemned the scribes and Pharisees, it was because they were hypocrites who did not follow the law, but gave the impression that the were following it so that men would look upon them and think them pious, not because of errors within the law itself.

My strongest belief in life lies within itself. Belief. It is the most extraordinary thing in the universe. It shapes Gods, worlds, and truths. It shapes everything, and holds it so.

If anything, that is what every religion, going deep enough says. The divisions are superficial in approach and image.

What interests me the most in any religion, which apparently is insignificant, is OUR creation. There was God (or Gods), and there was no man, but man was created at a certain time. There could be no accident in that time, for humankind's creation was predetermined, which leads me to believe that God and humanity are one and the same, and that our current state is a kind of division between us (man and God). Thus humankind was never "created" but rather is an aspect of God and neither can exist without the other.

Originally posted by Neo Rogolia:
When He condemned the scribes and Pharisees, it was because they were hypocrites who did not follow the law, but gave the impression that the were following it so that men would look upon them and think them pious, not because of errors within the law itself.

That is... intensely ...interesting. That the true law never reached us. That it was corrupted and changed by the baser natures of those who first came into contact with it as a result of their own humanity, bestowed by betaking the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Wow...

As in Acts 15, there is a specification made between the Jews and the Gentiles. I am a born-again Christian, a Pentecostal/Evangelical if that makes a difference. I believe that the Jews are the chosen poeple of God through whom He will fulfill His promises, but that the Gentiles (such as myself) have been allowed to follow God as well. That's pretty much the only difference. Jesus was a Jew--that is true and what God intended. The disciples and apostles were also Jews--but as with Peter's vision concerning Cornelius (earlier in Acts--I believe chapter 10), God had removed the "clean and unclean" tags from the people He chose to follow Him. I don't know if I explained that well or not, but it's there.

That is... intensely ...interesting. That the true law never reached us. That it was corrupted and changed by the baser natures of those who first came into contact with it as a result of their own humanity, bestowed by betaking the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Wow...

What you might find just as interesting: reading the actual writings that the Pharisees left behind.

When a "Pharisee" is criticized in the canonical gospels, the concept being criticized is actually a concept of the Sadducees. In the canonical acts, the Pharisees are protectors of , and are even partial to, the apostles (Protectors from what? The Romans and the Sadduccees).

Actual Pharisaism, even before the destruction of the Second Temple, had begun to develop into modern rabbinism - after the destruction, it soon took on much of its modern guise.

You'll find that Jesus, in criticizing "Pharisees" in the gospels, actually agrees with many of the teachings of the Pharisees as properly understood - so much that, while Jesus was still a young boy, one may find Talmudic discussion that precedes what Jesus would later preach when he was twice the age.

The Pharisees stressed the spirit of the law in distinction to the letter of the law, much as their modern descendants (Rabbinical Judiasm, but especially Reform Judaism) do, precisely as Jesus would do. The Pharisees were archrivals of the Sadduccees. The Sadduccees stressed the letter of the law, and would eventually condemn Jesus to death, with Roman assistance, and would later attempt to put to death some of his disciples (who, again, as told in the canonical Acts Of The Apostles, were spared death by the Pharisees on the council).

Oh yeah, and this?:


Originally Posted by Ilkarzana
The way I see it is Jesus wasn't really a Jew. Had jewish blood, and was followed by jews, and belived in some jeweish teachings. However, telling from what his teachings were, I couldn't call him a jew. He quoted scriptors but I think that was just to show the jewish people that their sciptors where contradicting eachother, inorder to discredit their belifes, and then installed his own teachings. However, Jesus taught acceptance, so if some a christain persacutes any one else, then they simply are not acting like a christain, and shouldn't be regarded as one at that point in time.

Summery:
1.According to me Jesus was not a Jew.
2.However, one is not a christian if they peracute any one.

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Either you believe the Bible or you don't--pick one and get over it. You can't just say you don't think Jesus was a Jew because of stuff like that. Seriously--Jesus never said a single thing that went against what the Law and the Prophets said. Anyone who says so has never studied up on it themselves, or maybe you're reading a non-literal translation of the Bible, which isn't good for doing studies anyways. Jesus' life was one of the most historically documented in the history of the world, and it's one of the only documentaries that still has original pieces of anything newer than the third copy--which means there's less room for error, unless you think every scribe got the same thing wrong when copying it down (since that was their ENTIRE LIFE and if they screwed-up they had to start over and were usually flogged). Every documentary from that time period states one thing--Jesus was a Jew, born to Jews.

But then how are we in His image? We would have to be like 3 people in one wouldn't we?


Gen 1:27(NIV) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
He Created him:
male and female He created them

The word in hebrew used or God in the begginning of the verse was pleral to match "them" at the end of the verse. so God is plural "as in the Trinity" which equals them"also plural"
He created him, both singular. He created them. He matches man
God=them
he=him
He=man

We are created in the form of the Trinity

I'll try and explain this as best I can.

God did not err in his judgenment of humanity, he did give us free will though. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was a loss of innocense.

Now, it is my belief that before this, there was no sin in the world. Humanity had no concept of good or evil. Only by eating the fruit of the tree did they gain it. So, there was nothing to seperate them from God. God actually walked among them in the garden.

So, after they ate of the tree sin entered the world. God (the father) and sin can not exist together. As such, we needed to be free from sin again. God chose the jews as his people (through various impurities in decendants starting with Moses that would make an interesting study, but one I haven't done) and made rules so that their sins could be forgiven.

All the while, God had Jesus in his plan. The Roman empire was the ideal time for Jesus to come. There was a great means of communication, there were actual roads and minds ripe for ideas. So, the coming of Jesus was always part of God's plan, but he needed the right time to do it. Rome was the right civilization.

If you have any questions please telegram me. I'll answer them as best as I can.

here's a question about free will. god is, i imagine, claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. he is also claimed to have created the universe, per genesis. now, if he created man, he must have inevitably created man's thought processes, correct? now, assuming he wants what's best for his creation, why did he essentially create the flaw that could bring down his system? basically, why did he make it possible to be evil, to turn away from god, to possibly hold no beliefs at all? it's like a computer programmer creating a glitch within his code, except this programmer is all-knowing and all-powerful, and therefore he is aware of the glitch and it's ramifications.

it makes free will seem more like a test, which seems rather odd for a benevolent diety. i mean, the overwhelming majority of people throughout history have refused to acknowledge the judeo-christian god as their deity, and even today there are billions of people who do the same. what good is free will when most of the time it results in the person being damned to eternal hellfire? wouldn't this be the situation such a god would find most disturbing? i'm just curious as to how christians are able to reconcile this contradiction/quandary.

here's a question about free will. god is, i imagine, claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. he is also claimed to have created the universe, per genesis. now, if he created man, he must have inevitably created man's thought processes, correct? now, assuming he wants what's best for his creation, why did he essentially create the flaw that could bring down his system? basically, why did he make it possible to be evil, to turn away from god, to possibly hold no beliefs at all? it's like a computer programmer creating a glitch within his code, except this programmer is all-knowing and all-powerful, and therefore he is aware of the glitch and it's ramifications.

it makes free will seem more like a test, which seems rather odd for a benevolent diety. i mean, the overwhelming majority of people throughout history have refused to acknowledge the judeo-christian god as their deity, and even today there are billions of people who do the same. what good is free will when most of the time it results in the person being damned to eternal hellfire? wouldn't this be the situation such a god would find most disturbing? i'm just curious as to how christians are able to reconcile this contradiction/quandary.



Somehow, I knew omnibenevolence would find a way into this thread :D

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

Yeah, definitely too much trouble. Much easier to believe that someone else suffered and died a horrible death for all the sins I ever committed in my lifetime so I can get a free pass into heaven for all of eternity. And it's so logical too. :rolleyes:

No, he's historically documented. Whether he was the son of God is up for debate, but we do know he existed.


You show me a historical document that can be proven to actually be the Jesus we all know....and I'll eat my hat.
However, he probably did exist.


As for the question....

Jews are still waiting for thier messiah.

Christians believe Christ WAS the messiah.

Although I would like to know where Jesus admitted to being the Messiah.
I do know he said to Pilate, when asked, "YOU say that I am."
Thats not a yes or no answer.

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

This one's fairly easy looking at a historical aspect. There were twelve men who said this Jesus guy was god. (I'm trying not to bias it with my own religious views) They were all Jews and so was this Jesus guy. They all say, "Judaism is great and all (as they've been taught) but we just need to add a few things." They all still believed Jews were the only saved race. Then comes this guy named Saul. He liked to kill Christians. He was there holding the cloaks, as a young man, of the murderers (who were Jews) of St. Stephen (the first martyr). Later, Saul gets knocked off his ass onto his ass and is blinded by the power of god. He says, this Christian killing ain't the way, I should be a Christian. Now He changes his name to Paul and denounces the Jewish faith to preach Christianity to the pagens (non-Jews). !3 or so books of the Bible are attributed to him, and Christianity breaks all ties to Judaism except pre-Jesus era stuff. Thus you logic is broken that you assume, Jesus taught to emulate Judaism which is false. Jesus did not preach any religion except the love of God and how to be good people.

You show me a historical document that can be proven to actually be the Jesus we all know....and I'll eat my hat.
However, he probably did exist.


As for the question....

Jews are still waiting for thier messiah.

Christians believe Christ WAS the messiah.

Although I would like to know where Jesus admitted to being the Messiah.
I do know he said to Pilate, when asked, "YOU say that I am."
Thats not a yes or no answer.

He definately makes reference to his kingdom of heaven though. And the whole deal with him saying that everyone else says he is the messiah holds significance with the idea that it was his goal to bring understanding to humanity, not to come with the blazing glory of a host of angels. Which is something he also tells Pilate.

I'm an agnostic and have no religious affiliation other than that, if you would call it one, but one question has always puzzled me. I've asked it before but was never answered. Try to follow my chain of logic. Assume everything in Christianity is true (if you do not already believe so).

Jesus was a fully practicing Jew. Christians try to emulate Jesus. Christians are not Jews. Christians (among many other religions) persecute Jews.

If an actual Christian could answer that would be great. I just can't understand how if someone is you idol and is a perfect creation how you could not adopt their religion. He did tefillin, prayers, honored Rabbis... Is it because there would be too many rules to follow?

lol, if you think posts like that wont start arguments, you've got another thing coming.

You can't be a Jew and believe that Jesus is your savior. It contradicts itself, since the Jews didn't believe in a savior, beliving in one and taking his religion would violate principles of that religion.

Who cares, anyway, since he's just a fictional character.
Oh they believe in a savior alright

They just don’t believe Jesus was it

He definately makes reference to his kingdom of heaven though. And the whole deal with him saying that everyone else says he is the messiah holds significance with the idea that it was his goal to bring understanding to humanity, not to come with the blazing glory of a host of angels. Which is something he also tells Pilate.


So, he makes vague references to being the Messiah, but he never admits it, right?

Is there any passage, that has him clearly saying "I am the Messiah".

So, he makes vague references to being the Messiah, but he never admits it, right?

Is there any passage, that has him clearly saying "I am the Messiah".
Nope but plenty claiming a direct affinity to god and the way to salvation … both properties of the supposed messiah

Being the Messiah, according to the Jews, had nothing to do with being the Son of God. The Jews believed the Messiah to be a Davidic character who would restore the Jew's regional power, AKA overthrow Greek, Persian, Roman control. So partly, according to old Judaic faith, Truman was very messianic in 1948. ;)

Nope but plenty claiming a direct affinity to god and the way to salvation … both properties of the supposed messiah


That doesnt make him anymore the messiah, than it does myself.

If he didnt admit to it....he never meant to say it.

Why does no one think this fishy?

That doesnt make him anymore the messiah, than it does myself.

Maybe not, but this does:

And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

-Matthew 26:62



In this passage, the High Priest, Caiphas backs Jesus into a corner. By putting Jesus under oath, Caiphas forced Jesus' hand. This putting Jesus "under oath" was basically just Caiphas saying to Jesus: "In the name of God and by the authority in me, I command you to speak!" Since Jesus HAD to live a sinless life, he couldn't commit the sin of blasphemy by not respecting the name of God and he couldn't commit the sin of rebellion by disrespecting the high priest. Really smart move on Caiphas' part, IMO.

-NEXT!

You can't be a Jew and believe that Jesus is your savior. It contradicts itself, since the Jews didn't believe in a savior, beliving in one and taking his religion would violate principles of that religion.

Who cares, anyway, since he's just a fictional character.

Jews are not as monolithic as you think, and certainly were not nearly so at the time of Jesus. Jews believed all kinds of things, and lots of them believed in a messiah (in fact, there were a wide range of beliefs in the messiah.) Christianity was a sect of Judaism when it started, but it took on a life of its own in Rome and became something else entirely

Well... for historical accuracy, let's remember that Christ founded the Christian church, not just the Catholic church, because at the time he founded it it was one unified church and was later led by many patriarchs until, due to the rise of Islam in the East and debate over basic religious policy, the Patriarch of Rome was powerful enough to independently declare himself the supreme pontiff over all the other Patriarchs. Meanwhile the other original branch of the Christian faith still exists in the form of Eastern Orthodox churches officially led by the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

I'd have to disagree with that. Christ founded the Catholic Church when he said to Peter, "You are my rock, and on this rock I build my church.", thus making Peter the first Pope. After that, the Apostles went out and the Church took on it's various flavors (Roman, Byzantine, etc.) It didn't take on the name "Catholic" until the 15th century, if I remember right.

As far as the Orthodox churches go, there are really no fundamental differences in the beliefs of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The primary difference is that the Orthodox church dosn't recognize the validity of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, while the Catholics recognize the Orthodox Eucharist as being valid since they are part of the apostolic succession.

I'd have to disagree with that. Christ founded the Catholic Church when he said to Peter, "You are my rock, and on this rock I build my church.", thus making Peter the first Pope. After that, the Apostles went out and the Church took on it's various flavors (Roman, Byzantine, etc.) It didn't take on the name "Catholic" until the 15th century, if I remember right.

As far as the Orthodox churches go, there are really no fundamental differences in the beliefs of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The primary difference is that the Orthodox church dosn't recognize the validity of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, while the Catholics recognize the Orthodox Eucharist as being valid since they are part of the apostolic succession.

Catholic was first used late 1st early 2cnd century by st Ignatius of Antioch. It means universal. at that time until around 1054 it included the Roman church and all churches of the east now known as Orthodox. The orthodox churches broke away and we have been in schism ever since. I think only some branches of orthodoxy considers Romes Eucharist to be invalid. Churches like Rocor (russian orthodox church outside russia) are among those who consider it invalid.

The main difference among Catholics and Orthodox is the role of the Pope as supreme Bishop. while orthodoxy has a different theological outlook on some things as do the Eastern churches in commuinion with the Pope, the Catholic church accepts these differences as complementary unless they deny some Catholic Dogma. the Eastern Catholic churches accept all Catholic Dogmas. while Orthodoxy Tends to reject some such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception of Mary ( meaning she was born without original sin).

Hope this helps.