posted on October 24, 2001 01:25:38 AM new
Now, if I can only recover my original train of thought..
A theology question, more specifically about Judiasm. It requires some explanation on
my part to explain what I am looking for here but is not intended to single out any group or individual nor intended as a provocation, it is a QUESTION about THEOLOGY and nothing more. (Disclaimer, sheesh.)
As I understand it, Jewish teaching views the Trinity or the view that Christ was God
incarnate, as idolatry.
Christian prophecy, as I understand it, teaches that the Jews will accept the antichrist as the longawaited Messiah because he will bring peace to Israel.
So the question is, according to Jewish teaching, what is the God-Messiah relationship?
Would it be:
A. God incarnate?
B. Father-Son
C. Political (earthly, mortal) redeemer?
D. Other, please explain.
Any other insights are welcome. I don't seem to understand what Israel expects of the
Messiah.
You need not be Jewish to reply, as long as you have some insight through study, etc.
Of course an educated Jewish reply would be very helpful.
Other prophecy discussion also welcome but not required.
posted on October 24, 2001 01:54:04 AM new
jt, (first I can't believe I'm still up)
but, let me say something, that I really hope will not offend you
I believe the Bible says, not to try and figure when or where 'end times' ( I say end times, because your asking about the anti christ) will happen. If your faith has you *saved*, you should not worry about this, but know where you will go when this life on earth ends. (I don't happen to believe in the rapture, or 'blessed hope')
I do believe there will be an end times. The prophecies throughout the Bible have had people for centuries believing that the end was in their lifetime.
I know these days, war in the middle east is very tempting to relate these to the end time prophecies. They could be. Then they may not. I just do not think we should dwell on whether this is or not, just let your faith get you through this.
Now I really hope that did not offend you.
Now, the only thing in the Jewish history I do know, is that they do recognize Jesus Christ as a teacher, and some say 'Rabbi'.
The Jewish people are still waiting for the Messiah.
Sorry I know that is not what you wanted as a reply.
posted on October 24, 2001 02:04:42 AM newnot to try and figure when or where 'end times'
I agree nearthesea that no man knows the time. It isn't because of events. It is just a subject that fascinates me in general and has for some time. Bible study in an area that I long neglected because it was too difficult.
I do believe what Christ said about the fig tree and the "time being near"...but what is "near" in comparison to eternity, a day? A thousand years? As I said in another thread a while back, I think discussion is fine if no one is "predicting" or "date setting". Prophecy is there for our exploration so I don't think it's meant to be completely avoided. It must have a purpose.
This, however, is just a real theology question that I would like to know more about regardless, prophecy or not.
Not offended, perhaps misunderstood.
(That happens to me, don't know why? Maybe I can't type.)
[ edited by jt on Oct 24, 2001 02:08 AM ]
posted on October 24, 2001 02:13:36 AM new
I'm glad your not offended
Now, someone was trying to explain their 'interpetation' of how God see's things, like your question about what is 'near' according to God.
She told me that its like God sees everything, like looking down on one huge map, the past, present and future. Everything is right there in front of him, and his timeline is something we couldn't comprehend.
When I hear that God has always been. Not created, but always been, when I try to think about it.... it makes me dizzy
Now I really REALLY have to go to bed.
And yes, prophecies are very interesting, I agree.
posted on October 24, 2001 02:19:54 AM new
I know this is old news because I have posted it a million times, but do try to hear The Creator Beyond Time and Space by Chuch Missler. You can get it here, free on audio tape. (It's on-line too but the quality is crappy for me.)
If you think you are dizzy NOW...LOL, wait till you get done with Missler. (It's great driving-in-the-car material because it sort of takes your undivided attention to follow it...me anyway.)
posted on October 24, 2001 02:21:59 AM new
Thanks for that tip bunnicula. Will check that out. I love the Jewish wall site. Read the devotional there sometimes. Look at the picture often.
posted on October 24, 2001 05:47:51 AM new
See if this helps.
The Jews of the first century where indeed looking for a Messiah.As they where familiar with the prophecys concerning his arrival.
Particularly in Daniel that helped them to identify the time period in which he would arrive.
When Jesus did arrive as we know some not all did accept and follow him.Many where asking was this the promised Messiah.
Why though did they not accept him as a majority.Because they where looking for a political Messiah that would have removed the Roman yoke and established a new kingdom.
This though was not Jesus purpose and told them that his kingdom was not of this source.
He also attacked the religious leaders of their day which did not go over to well.
The Messiah they would have wanted would have been a God-Son relationship.As the Jews of that time and earlier where not familiar with the concept of the trinity.
In fact it is widely recognised that the trinity is not a Bible based doctrine.But was introduced during the reign of Constantine to religiously unite his empire.
With the rejection of Jesus by the Jews the jews no longer carried Gods favor.This was evident when the curtain between the holy and most holy was rent in two when Jesus died.
Plus the destruction of Jerusalem its temple and geneaological records by the Romans in 70C.E.As they where no longer able to identify their lineage or that of the priest hood.
Jesus and the NT mention of Israel takes on a spiritual form and not a national one.
posted on October 24, 2001 06:31:12 AM new
What Adrian said PLUS
I don't think you will find any agreement among a majority of Jews on this question or any other now anymore than they agreed in the first century.
Back then you had the Saducees and the Pharisees and other divisions of opinion among the Jews who all had very different basic teachings. The Saducees for example had embraced much of the teachings of the Greeks just as modern Christian religions have and repudiated the concept of the resurrection.
Today you have again a full spectrum of thought among the various sects of Jews who don't for exxample even recognize the validity of each others marraiges. Someone in the United States that considers himself a Jew religeously but is Reform will go to Israel and find his marraige is unrecognized and he is viewed as much a goyem as a Baptist.
Part of the reason for the diverse teachings is that you have a siuation in Judiaism now where the Law as given to Moses is about 5% of the Law as interpretted by Rabbis.
They have expounded on every detail of how to apply the basic law until you have the rediculous as normal. It has become as silly as a 6,000 page manual of Federal regulations on growing turnips - overkill. For example the ultra strict Jews hire non-Jews to turn their electric lights on and off on the Sabbeth because when the lights were invented some Rabbi decided it was the equal under law of starting a cooking fire. So they "fool" God by having someone else do it under their orders and keep their hands clean as if God is an idiot who can't tell what chain of events causes something to happen. They think you can exploit "loopholes" with God like a human lawgiver. They view all these man made rules from Rabbis as having the full power of the original Law. It is absurd to the point of being comedy.
If they ever settle the Palestinian question they can cheerfully start fighting each other. It amazes me that Jews here in America send millions of dollars to the Jews in Israel who look down on them and don't view them as brothers religeously at all.
posted on October 24, 2001 07:06:04 AM newChristian prophecy, as I understand it, teaches that the Jews will accept the antichrist as the longawaited Messiah because he will bring peace to Israel.
Hmmm... I must have missed that one in Sunday School.
Regardless, there is disagreement as to what, exactly, is meant by "The Messiah". As with Christians, there is a lot of variety in what individual Jews believe, and different "sects" of Judaism interpret the scriptures in different ways. Trying to pin down "Jewish teaching" or "what Jews believe" is, in my opinion, a wholly fruitless exercise.
Speaking as a Jewish-born, Christian raised individual, however, I can tell you what I was raised to believe. To wit, the Jewish scriptures portray the Messiah as both a great spiritual leader and a great military figure sent to free the them from the yolk of foreign oppression and restore the Holy Land to them. Christianity has interpreted those scriptures to refer to two separate "comings" of the Messiah, first as a spiritual leader and then, thousands of years later, as a great military figure. Most Jewish people at the time of Christ, however, believed that the Messiah would only come once and that he would both teach and liberate when he came. Thus, when Jesus appeared on the scene and preached love to one's neighbor and made it clear that he was NOT here to overthrow the established order through force, most Jews didn't see him as the fulfillment of prophecy.
I know a number of Jewish people today who feel that the concept of a "Messiah" is a purely metaphorical one, and that the messianic prohecies were fulfilled when the Jewish people regained their homeland back in the 1940's. Again, this doesn't not reflect the beliefs of all Jews, many of whom are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive in all his glory.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
I'm not sure how to answer your question but I'll try. I think someone already stated that the Jews rejected Jesus because they believed "their messiah" would save and deliver them from the Romans. In fact, once many of Jesus' followers found out that his intentions were not to mount an insurrection or political take over, they left him. Still, many continued to follow Jesus because He opened their eyes that His kingdom is a different one from this world. Jesus' interest was to restore men's soul to God not to start a new political regime. Jesus is unique in that he was virgin born. He was fully human and fully God all at once. It would have to be as this in order to live a sinless life and be an adequate sacrifice for sin (OT references are numerous). That was Jesus' one and only mission. There has never been anybody like him in history before him, or will there be after him. I don't think I helped, but I tried.
I'm not fully certain why Judaism continues to reject his messiahship today other than for reasons of tradition. On a positive note, many Jews in fact are beginning to turn to this Jewish Carpenter from Nazareth and claim him as their Savior and Lord.
I disagree with Adrian on 2 points:
At the time of the end of the crucifixion of Christ, the ripping of the veil from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38) was not because the Jews lost favor with God. It was a symbol that there was no longer the need for an earthly high priest (the only one who could enter the Holy of the Holies). Through his sacrifice and resurrection, Jesus became the Great High Priest and the only one man can go to for their redemption and remission of sins. Reading further on from Matthew 27:51 you will discover there was an earthquake and following Jesus' resurrection, the tombs were opened and many were raised from the dead and appeared many others in the holy city.
Quite on the contrary, the plethora of ancient Greek manuscripts we have prove the "doctrine of the trinity" is very biblical regardless of what Constantine's motives were. Although the word itself is not "biblical" the message is. This is not the thread to pile on scripture references for this topic and I'll leave that to someone else, but basically, the NT teaches that God expresses Himself in 3 persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. They are not 3 separate Gods but one, all made of the same essence, in total harmony and in submission to each other.
posted on October 24, 2001 08:19:00 AM new
It is an amazing coincidence that pagan religions knew the same triune form of god ship before the early church embraced the teaching.
I have a real hard time with a God so slipshod and forgetful that he never explicitly expressed the very central doctrine of Christian religion and left it up to the theologians to discover what he really meant but never said by deductive logic.
Or perhaps Alexander Hislop of "The Two Babylons" had it right when he wrote his volumes back in the 1850's showing the customs and doctrines of papal worship were simply an extension of all the pagan rites of
earlier religions it was expedient to keep stretching all the way back to the worship of Nimrod and his Mother. Especially the adoration of Mary and the Christ Child.
People are so much more comfortable with Christ as a helpless child than a mighty King.
posted on October 24, 2001 09:11:03 AM new
Gravid.
The Two Babylons an interesting book and he does give interesting insight into the origin of a trinity.
We do not believe in a trinity and see no scriptures that back this up.We believe that Jesus is a separate entity the son of God and that Holy spirit is Gods active force not a person.
There are many instances that show that Jesus considered God as separate from his father.But this is not what this thread is about.
Greek theology at an earlier date believed in the trinity and there maybe other Greeks works that back this up.However its the Bible and not other texts that should be considered as the authority on the matter.
posted on October 24, 2001 11:00:43 AM new
Most of what was said was what I have always heard but it just seems like something is missing in this picture. Still searching. I haven't explored the linked sites yet so will get to that soon.
I was hoping this thread would not be too intimidating for anyone with the "inside story"...but maybe it is...or maybe it's something else...
Enjoyed reading the variety of topics touched in your replies. I need to find a "virtual Sunday school". I don't do the real one, just alone. Would be a lot more productive in this format as opposed to the regular metal chairs in a circle one. Hate that.
posted on October 24, 2001 11:03:34 AM new
If you really want to ge confused--start researching the Gnostic Gospels. There was 2 schools of thought in the early Christian church on how it should develop.
posted on October 24, 2001 11:11:37 AM newjt: One question you asked was according to Jewish teaching, what is the God-Messiah relationship, and I don't think that has been answered. As far as I'm aware, there are no such teachings. The Messiah was to be sent by God, but I am not aware of any Jewish teachings that explore the relationship between God and his Messiah. Yet another reason why many Jews balked when Christ declared himself to be the literal Son of God.
As for what Israel expects of the Messiah, it varies from person to person and from sect to sect, as mentioned.
I should point out, BTW, that many of the Old Testament scriptures that Christians point to as prophecying the coming Messiah ["Behold, a virgin shall conceive...", etc.] are not necessarily seen that way by Jewish people. The Old Testament itself certainly doesn't clearly identify each such scripture with the Messiah.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 24, 2001 12:01:53 PM new
So don't you think the bible tips off the anti christ by revealing on his 666 plan? I mean as soon as this guy says put 666 on your forehead everyone will know hes the devil or will he say thats just a strange coincidence...besides I know tatoos are in but how many jewish princesses are going to walk around with a number on their head (or hand) I went to wal-mart to buy a rump roast and could not do it because the price on the one I wanted was 6.66!
posted on October 24, 2001 12:21:16 PM new
The Sunday School version of the Trinity is like that of an egg. The Trinity is the whole egg, it is made up of shell, yolk and white i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Not my name on ebay.
posted on October 24, 2001 12:43:03 PM new
Speaking of the Trinity, remember the part of the New Testament where Christ is getting baptized and the voice of God is heard saying "This is my beloved son"?
Who knew that God was a ventriloquist....
Whether or not somebody chooses to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity is fine by me, but it's a doctrine that is neither mentioned nor supported in the Bible itself and was added to Christianity many years later. There were many early versions of the doctrine which were believed by various groups, and it wasn't until centuries had passed that an "official" doctrine was declared. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, of course, but you do have to be willing to accept that the Bible isn't the last word when it comes to Christian doctrine.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 24, 2001 02:37:19 PM new
Barry, You are correct that the trinity thing is vague but if you read all the scriptures, it seems at times the only possibility. Look at the beginning of John. If God created the earth, then how could Christ do it too if there were no trinity?
Also Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit, and also as "my spirit".
It's those vague concepts in lump sum that have led to that belief. There are other examples besides those I mentioned.
********
Now, may I single you out Barry, and ask a new question?
According to Mormon teaching, are there scriptures in the OT that point specifically to the Book of Mormon? If so do you know what they are?
********
One thing that frustrates me is that I know pretty well all that is taught in my own "circles" so to speak. I think the divisions among those groups that adhere to the same scriptures robs us of spiritual food. What I mean is, when we worship in RL, we meet with others who have what we have and just repeat it again and again. It gets dull and people tend to lose interest. On the other hand, the Jewish faith embraces the OT, the Mormons embrace the OT and NT (correct?), and other Christian groups embace the old and NT too. (Try to hang in with me for a moment.)
So, though the Jews don't believe Christ is the Messiah, they study the character of God, the Law, etc. Though Christians do not accept the Book of Mormon, they both share Christ and God. etc.
If one is secure and more or less informed in their OWN faith and teaching, it makes no sense to always maintain these divisive lines in study and thought. Why can't people at times "agree to disagree" and process all that is available according to their own understanding?
Now before someone tries to extend my statement to cover ALL world religions...I didn't say that exactly. Knowledge is good, but HERE I am only speaking of those closely related belief systems that embrace many common teachings based on the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the Bible scriptures that we share.
Is that the basis for non-denominational church? Probably but it doesn't seem to work very often. They seem to come full circle and "unify" again pretty quickly.
Oddly, based on my very shallow knowledge of various teachings, I feel as much (more?) "akin" to Judiasm, & Mormonism, than perhaps Catholicism...and yet Catholicism and "Christianity" (Prodestant) are seen as "the same" by those outside those denominations. Then there is the Pentacostal belief that I want to know more about...and my curiosity extends to Jehovah's Witness'.
Now that I have cerianly confused everyone...
What I REALLY wonder, perhaps, is how much do we have in COMMON as opposed to where we differ. Get it? Shift your focus if you can?
*bows* Thank you-Thank you. I will now go down in history as the founder of the New One World Religious Order. *creepies*
posted on October 24, 2001 02:44:00 PM new
BTW, keep talking about ALL the subjects mentioned. Differences, commonalties, specifics, etc. It is very very interesting.
posted on October 24, 2001 02:54:15 PM new
The Bible also tells us that Jesus was the first born of all creation.That he was the first thing created by God so could not be one and the same.
JT
Look at the beginning of John. If God created the earth, then how could Christ do it too if there were no trinity?
This is an easy one to answer God created Jesus first then used him in the rest of creation.
Also Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour not even the son only the father.Cocerning the last days of this system.
If God and Jesus are one and the same then he would have known that.
posted on October 24, 2001 03:08:09 PM newjt: Well, there are scriptures in the New Testament that Mormons believe refer to the events described in the Book of Mormon. [The Book of mormon, for those who don't know, purports to be "Another Testament of Christ" and contains, among other things, a record of Christ's visit to the American contenant after his death and resurrection.]
For example, John 10:16 states:
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"
This scripture is admittedly vague, but no more so than the scriptural passages that many Christian faiths use to justify the concept of the Trinity as described above, or even the core Christian belief that Jesus was the "Messiah" promised to the Jews.
I can't think of any Old Testament scriptures off the top of my head that point specifically to the Book of Mormon, to be honest. But then, it's been a long time since I've done any serious OT study...
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 24, 2001 03:13:38 PM new
Now that's interesting. So the Mormon's believe that those Christians who do not have the book of Mormon are equally saved by virtue of the NT?
posted on October 24, 2001 03:27:39 PM new
I don't want to get into this discussion, except to try again what Bunnicula tried to point out in a past thread.
Terri: The word is Protestant, not Prodestant.
We don't make notice of this mistake merely because it's a spelling mistake. We make notice of it because, when it's misspelled, it loses its essential meaning. Protestants protested (against the teachings of the Catholic church). When you change the root of the word "Protestant," take away the historical connection.
posted on October 24, 2001 03:31:07 PM newjt: Nobody is "saved" by virtue of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon simply provides another testament to Christ, affirming his divinity and his teachings. According to Mormon beliefs, it is only by accepting and following Christ that one can be "saved".
Found an Old Testament Scripture, BTW.
Ezekiel 37:15-17
"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: And you, son of man, take one stick, and write upon it: For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it: For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions; and join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand."
To make sense of this, you have to know that the Book of Mormon explains that the people that settled the American contenent were literal descendants of Joseph, and that "sticks" refers to rolled up parchments or scriptures. Or, in the words of prominent Mormon scholar James E. Talmage:
When we call to mind the ancient custom in the making of books--that of writing on long strips of parchment and rolling the same on rods or sticks, the use of the word "stick" as equivalent to "book" in the passage becomes apparent. At the time of this utterance, the Israelites had divided into two nations known as the kingdom of Judah and that of Israel, or Ephraim. Plainly the separate records of Judah and Joseph are here referred to. Now, as we have seen, the Nephite nation comprised the descendants of Lehi who belonged to the tribe of Manasseh, of Ishmael who was an Ephraimite, and of Zoram, whose tribal relation is not definitely stated. The Nephites were then of the tribes of Joseph; and their record or "stick" is as truly represented by the Book of Mormon as is the "stick" of Judah by the Bible.
You are free to interpet that scripture any way you like, of course, but Mormon teachings interpret it to refer to the Book of Mormon.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 24, 2001 03:32 PM ]
posted on October 24, 2001 03:41:34 PM new
"What I REALLY wonder, perhaps, is how much do we have in COMMON as opposed to where we differ."
This is what I have always noticed about organized religions. All people are working their way twords God. Each religion ~ or faction of them ~ is just on a different path to heaven.They are all headed for the same place. They are all worshiping the same being. [the major religions that is]Why can't they see that any way to go there is ok. It isn't the path you're on but the destination that counts. Why do they all feel that unless you are walking the same path they are on you can't get there and must change? That is the thing that has always disturbed me about organized religion.
posted on October 24, 2001 05:21:40 PM newAs I understand it, Jewish teaching views the Trinity or the view that Christ was God incarnate, as idolatry.
I don't think Judaism has anything to say about the Trinity. The Bible does have something to say about making graven images and bowing down to them.
...Jews will accept the antichrist as the longawaited Messiah because he will bring peace to Israel.
Huh?
So the question is, according to Jewish teaching, what is the God-Messiah relationship?
As far as I know, the "Redeemer" is God Himself.
They think you can exploit "loopholes" with God like a human lawgiver.
I personally find Jews hiring others to do work on the Sabbath offensive and unbiblical.
I agree with Godzillatemple above, the idea of a Redeemer is not a central teaching of Judaism, though some who enjoy prophesy may focus on it.
Remember that the early characters of the Bible all had a direct, palsy-walsy relationship with God himself. I can not speak for others of the Jewish faith, but I believe in general Jews expect the "end of times" is nothing more than a sorting out of earthly woes. Mountains won't necessarily tumble into the sea, with four-headed lions flying about.
Speaking for myself, I would expect a direct communication from God. Not a stand-in or watered-down version of the Original. Having said that, I believe God will and does employ look-alikes and other deceptions to test and teach Mankind. Take a look at the number of "true gospels" all pointing fingers at each other and you will understand what I mean.
If I can accept the idea that God is all-good, all-powerful and all-pervasive, then I see no need to further question God's plan. This is the downfall of Christianity: Christians try to explain evil as separate from God. Even Jesus did not do that. His last words, "lamah sabachtani?" mean, "why did you mess me up?" and not "why did you forsake me?"
posted on October 24, 2001 06:05:27 PM new
twinsoft
I agree with your last statement evil is separate from god this isn't true.
even in the NT over and over it states sin has made man separated from god, The bible descirbes evil as beging the spirit that deceives one into sin..
everyone has free will to choose Good or evil .
I know for certin Christianity Don't teach this but some christians do tend to seem to try and lump them togeather But sin is definately the action and evil is very clearly The deseptive spirit that leads to the actions.
