Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Feb 2010, 1:56 pm

I think the real question is "Did Jesus's followers form a new religion, or did the Jews that didn't follow him form a new religion?"

I don't believe Jesus formed a new religion: He changed the name of an old one, or rather, the romans saw his movement as a sect and gave that sect a name with which his followers would later begin identifying themselves. Now someone Jewish might very well see things the other way around. I, as a Christian, believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. I mean, that's who he said he was, and it doesn't make much sense to doubt that and believe everything else.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

06 Feb 2010, 2:21 pm

Tensu wrote:
I think the real question is "Did Jesus's followers form a new religion, or did the Jews that didn't follow him form a new religion?"

I don't believe Jesus formed a new religion: He changed the name of an old one, or rather, the romans saw his movement as a sect and gave that sect a name with which his followers would later begin identifying themselves. Now someone Jewish might very well see things the other way around. I, as a Christian, believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. I mean, that's who he said he was, and it doesn't make much sense to doubt that and believe everything else.

As someone posted before you, I associate that with Paul rather than with Jesus himself.

I'm also not sure he said he was the Messiah... Perhaps he thought he was, that is possible if everyone around him said he was, and he felt connected with God more than others, without an intention of deceiving others. From what I see, he wasn't exactly the typical false messiah, as his meaning was good for sure.

Maimonides described him as someone who was sent in order to make a path for the real Messiah, and believed himself to be the saviour - and its God's way of spreading the word - because of him, the world perhaps doesn't accept Judaism, but accepts the idea of a Saviour and Monotheism. I see him as a respected and devout leader, perhaps a prophet as well. I don't think he was the Messiah - because we weren't saved. Once a leader who is thought to be the Messiah dies, that practically means he isn't the Messiah. According to some traditions, everyone can be the Messiah. So it's possible that Jesus became very close to being the Messiah.
(I can't because I belong to a family of priests, which means a direct offspring of Aaron)

My question is: if you believe he is the Jewish Messiah after all, wouldn't it make more sense to just become Noahide? That has more to do with Jewish tradition and religion. The Messiah is supposed to bring peace upon all nations, upon Israel itself, and let everyone see the truth of God. Jesus became close to that more than other people, but you can associate it with him being loyal to his faith, which claims Noahide laws are universal, and everyone should accept the laws of God.

Thinking about it a bit more - I'm not against the idea of a religion other than Judaism, which is made of gentiles who accept the Noahide laws, convinced by Jesus, or by any other person. But what do you think about Jews "converting" to Christianity? What do you think about the two convenants theories? How do you feel about the idolisation of Jesus himself?

DISCLAIMER: I respect your belief, regardless of your answers. I'm asking out of curiousity, and perhaps make you understand it better because you don't know Judaism well enough, or make me understand it better because I don't know Christianity well enough. My questions are not intented of any accusations against anyone. I do feel that some people don't understand Jesus well enough because they don't understand his Jewish background (that doesn't necessarily mean you).



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Feb 2010, 3:55 pm

First off, you on't need to worry about offending me. after all the "If God existed, he'd give me everything I wanted" arguements I've had to put up with, it's nice to talk to someone who understands the basic concepts of religion.

I was not familiar with the Noahide laws, I'll admit. that was an interesting read.

Now, as you pointed out, by being Christian one will ultimately follow the Noahide laws. I suppose you could argue that one could just identify oneself as a Noahide, one could also argue that if it was Jesus's teachings that brought you to the Noahide laws, one might as well just call oneself a Christian as well. I guess I feel Christianity has plenty to do with the Jewish tradition as well. I guess I can't really be sure of that (after all, I didn't know what the Noahide laws where untill just now :oops: ) But as someone who has read both the Jewish books of the old testiment and the new testiment I feel that the synch up quite nicely, but I know there are books that where left out when the Christian Bible was cannonized, and I'm curious as to what they say. I was recently given a bunch of apocraphal books as a gift, so I should probably get reading, but I'll admit I'm ignorant as to what books are cannon in the Jewish tradition that are absent from the Christian old testiment.

There is also that Jesus incorperated other things into his teaching that (to my knowledge) had not been previously covered by the prophets, or at least not in as great of detail. He also urged his followers be more peacful than more traditional Jewish teaching suggested was nessicary. (but implied was ideal).

As for his "death" and salvation, Christians, as I'm sure you know, don't believe he's really dead. Also, if you don't mind my asking, what do you feel is ment by "saved?" Christians interpret it as a sort of spiritual salvation, as opposed to anthing worldly. Some believe this is why Judus betrayed Jesus: he did not believe Jesus was going to save anyone because he did not understand what he ment by save. Christians also believe that the "second half" of the saving, that is, the destruction of evil, will come later. Since Jesus isn't dead, he could come back at any time sort of thing.

I'm fine with Jews converting to Christianity. And if they want to continue to observe Jewish traditions generally not included in Christian practice that is their perogotive: I am not their judge. Paul does talk about how the law doesn't need to be followed anymore, but Jesus said he did not come to replace, but to fulfill, and Paul said "If one person says eating meat is wrong, it is wrong for that person" so I say everybody do what they believe God wants them to do, and so long as it doesn't include genocide or something along those lines I won't complain.

by two covenants do you mean believing that the old law still applies to the Jewish people but everyone else is now under Jesus's covenant? I'd say it's possible. on the one hand some people might feel that the Jews "broke" the old covenant, but on the other, God said it was an everlasting covenant, and when God says everlasting, it's safe to assume he means it. and even though Paul said that the old law did not need to be followed, he also made it clear it was still powerful, binding, and good: he just did not believe it could save without Jesus, So I would not discount it as a strong possibility.

as for the idolization of Jesus, I'm against it. Jesus was not God, he never claimed to be God, he made it perfectly clear that God was more important than he was. I allow for the possibility that Jesus was somehow conneted to God in some metaphysical way, but I find man's attempts to rationalize that connection (i.e. the trinity) to be hamfisted and dubious. whatever that connection may be, I doubt we humans are capable of understanding it in our present form. God is the only one that we should pray to.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm

Omerik wrote:
I don't think that there is one "Jewishness". I'm against these notions. I do feel that modern christianity, which as you say, didn't start today, is contrary to Jewishness - and even though I wanted to get closer to Christianity at first, that paradox kept me away. I mean, if it's based on "Jewishness", and so was Jesus, than why does it contradict it so much nowadays?

The answer is simple: it was a cult that was later taken over by Gentiles. Cults can deviate from their background, even significantly. Gentiles have no concern with Jewishness.

Quote:
I am aware of the fact that this Christology is old - but still, I think it's important to remember and understand who were Jesus earlier followers, until the non-christians were exiled due to their revolt, and Paul came, and started his own weird thing. From what I see, many of the things I don't like about Jesus didn't necessarily had anything to do with himself, or with the first "Christians".

But the earliest follower that we can reference is Paul. He's the only one that appears to have writings. We can try to remove Christianity from this, but I don't have faith in the validity of such a reconstruction to any real extent.

Quote:
I read the introduction to the paper you linked me to - it states it talks about the persona of Jesus as described, and not necessarily what he really said. Either way, I didn't bother to read it whole because it's long and I'm familiar with claims of him contradicting the bible (and I'm tired, might read it later) - I think mainstream Judaism contradicts it much more. I'm not the only one who got away from religion because of this - therefor it's important for me to mention Jewish people I do like, such as Maimonides, for example, who was even against many modern conceptions. Of course, just as people admire Jesus and do the opposite, people think they admire Maimonides, but do the exact opposite of some of his teaching... I just think people should see the brighter side of religions as well.

Ok, possibly. I am not a mainstream Jew.

Quote:
Again, he didn't speak about Kosher as much as I know.
But yes, many people claim that the reason for the dietary rules are mainly out of health reasons. That's the reason why secular Jews are against the bible sometimes - Jesus reflected a rational side that was still spiritual and religious. He explained that Sabbath was made for the people, a social rule, as I stated myself - that has much more logic than observing it anyways.

Well, yes and no. The Sabbath had more importance than Jesus was giving to it.

Exo 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

I mean.... Christ is clearly standing against the actual scriptures.

Quote:
There are many secular people I know who argue that the bible is not needed anymore, because they have important rules to defend the people, but there is no need for them today. So they get out of the religion at all, because they recognise it as old-fashioned. Jesus agreed with this, yet he kept his belief - he just understood why the laws were made in the first place. I'm sure he didn't encourage people to not have a day of rest, as he said, it was made for the people, which he honoured. It's a privelage to observe it, and a must to let others observe it. That's how I see it, how most secular people see it, and how some of my religious friends today see it.

Umm... I don't think so. I think Jesus actually proclaimed the importance of the rules while denying them.

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This paradox was actually hard for me to get, but, I don't think that there is internal consistency in the teachings, but rather Jesus is a re-interpretation.

Quote:
Some Rabbis also say the Reformist Jews aren't Jewish, because they pay more attention to the meaning. I guess (and am almost sure) that the Catholic church said so about Luther.

Probably not. Luther rejected some of the influence of the Church fathers to uphold Sola Scriptura. This isn't a matter of meaning, but rather valid foundations. The Protestant movement both loosened and tightened rules at the same time. Some Protestants have actually done things such as label alcohol and dancing profane on questionable scriptural grounds. I don't think that there is a real comparison. That being said, I actually don't think liberal Christians are very Christian.(not in some more moralistic sense, but rather in the sense of adhering to the teachings)

Quote:
Than you don't understand what I claim. I am saying that the basis for the religion is Judaism, and that it's absurd to admire someone using Judaist claims (as him being my people's messiah), and then being against the principles of Judaism, while continuing to worship him. If you accept the Jewish Messiah as such, doesn't that necessarily make you accept the truth of Judaism, however you interpret it?

No, actually it doesn't. The Jewish Messiah has the ability to overturn most elements of the Jewish religion as he pleases, right? He is the Messiah, and past writings and beliefs could have been wrong.

Quote:
By the way, gentiles aren't supposed to convert. "Chosen people" isn't a superiority over others, it's a mission to deliver the truthfulness of God. It's enough for a gentile person to accept Judaism, its only God, and to follow the 7 Noahide rules. Maimonides and other people explained that those gentiles will have their place in the next world - so, the "pact" the Israelites made with was that on the one hand we have a place and protection if we're loyal, and on the other hand we commit to much more commands (613), and are supposed to be "light of the nations" = to show the gentiles the right way, by respecting the Bible and God, and delivering the message.

Christianity is a universal religion.

Quote:
So basically, just as I do - you accept some of the writings, and not others. As I understand it...

Well, everyone does. The issue is that I don't believe your grounds to be valid. Once again, you have to recognize that you aren't talking to a Christian or anyone who actually

Quote:
According to the scriptures, he is. That's even the meaning of the word "Christ".

Ok, have you never heard of plot holes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

Retconning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

The fact of the matter is that inconsistency happens in literature all of the time.

Quote:
As you said yourself - they're all biased. You select yourself which of them to go with.
But Mark as well supports the claim that the Sanhedrin and the Romans were afraid of his growing popularity:
Quote:
1After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

2But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

Historical evidences outside the scriptures depict a different picture as well.
Not only interpertations of the Roman and Jewish law, practices and personality of Pilate - who say the whole event of the trial, method of killing (reserved for the worst criminals, how would Jews decide for the Romans on that?), and mercy by Pilate is very unlikely - but you also have evidences as this:
Quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Plus, all four apostles tell of the INRI writing on the cross, am I wrong?

Look, I don't know what you are looking for.

You are like a person who is reading a fiction about the Civil War and then looking for historical data from that. The two can't be combined in any realistic manner. The fiction will disagree with the history, the history will disagree with the fiction, and there is no good way to determine from the fiction alone what actually happened. Even if you have a book called "The Real Story of the Civil War", there is no real reason for the Lincoln in that story to match up with the historical facts about the real Lincoln, or for flying saucers to have decided the Battle of Gettysburg.

Quote:
Patul was definitely more influential. He is the one blamed for ruining the movement and making it popular at the same time...

He's the only one we have writings from. We don't have writings from the actual Mark, the actual Matthew, the actual Luke, or the actual John, or even the actual James, or the actual Peter. So, "more influential"? No. Only historical reference is the word you are looking for.

Quote:
Exactly - they didn't write, so they didn't necessarily believe in what became later to be a different religion. I'm not saying their existence isn't questionable - everything is questionable. I'm saying it's much more rational to me.

Ok, but it doesn't have to be rational to you to be the proper construction of claims. I mean, a person might talk about how a person forced him to kill somebody, and you could try to reasonably reconstruct that to be threats but it also could be the person making claims about psychic powers.

[/quote]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... tures.html [/quote]
It doesn't really say anything that contradicts my claim. If anything it supports the idea that inconsistencies can exist.

Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rabbi.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... erson.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Quote:
Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,[1][2][3][4] agreeing that he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_ ... ical_Jesus


Ok??? You have to recognize exactly how little they are affirming. They aren't affirming facts about the Jesus movement, only basic facts they are affirming.

The Jefferson Bible is actually partially my criticism of your attempted reconstruction. "In short, Mr. Jefferson's Jesus, modeled on the ideals of the Enlightenment thinkers of his day, bore a striking resemblance to Jefferson himself."

I reject the use of Tacitus. Tacitus is only going to be parasitic on other sources, and HE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING! The most he says is that Pontius Pilate rightfully killed these people. Then again, he doesn't have the facts right about Pilate, "Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea."-from your source, and there is no reason to believe that his statements on Christians are a result of unbiased scholarship, I mean, if he is blaming the Christians then he may very well want to show how Pilate did the right thing to kill this "malicious superstition".

Quote:
You can't say there is no evidence and no research. Many modern scholars support the claim the he was considered a Jewish leader. Also, as I said, because of better understanding of Judaism - you're not familiar with it, so you don't see it, but many of the things you say are "non-Jewish" are familiar to Jewish people, and as mentioned, the use "father" is something that probably was taken too literally. As someone familiar with Judaism - I see his teachings as the correct interpretations to the books that I learned in school, then given the interpretations I hated. When people in Israel talk today about "peaceful liberal religious Jews", who symbolize "the beautiful Judaism", they about people like Jesus. They just don't know enough about him.

Umm..... ok??? He was considered a Jewish leader. That doesn't say anything about the kinds of issues you are bringing up though. At all. Additionally, I don't think you are doing anything but projecting onto Jesus some Jewishness. Why? I don't accept any of your claims of Jewishness on these matters, you've mostly used them to attack trinitarian doctrine, and your attacks were never that substantial, instead you assume Jesus would not be trinitarian and then you pick some scripture that you think shows something when it is perfectly consistent with trinitarianism, and when I have other scriptures you haven't rebutted. Could I be missing something Jewish? Maybe, but the more Jewish ideas are going to be more likely in Paul, as Gentiles also really didn't care about Jewish ideas. You might be able to use Matthew, but Matthew is a rewrite of other writings.

Quote:

Ok? That does not rebut my previous comment. I didn't deny the existence of the idea of a Messiah in Judaism. I denied the prophecy claims made in the New Testament by looking at what they referred to in the Old Testament.

That being said, a lot of the other things are things that later writers could throw into the history. For example, you contested the virgin birth, but the issue is that the virgin birth was partially an attempt to fulfill a prophecy that was a translation error in the Septuagint. So, I don't take any of the prophecy fulfillment claims seriously, given the efforts in the actual New Testament. (additionally, some of the prophecies, such as Psalms 22 only exist due to interpretive liberty in the Old Testament, as the words in the writing are uncertain, and the Jewish Publication Society Bible and the Christian bibles have completely different interpretations by interpreting that one word very different.)

Quote:
You don't seem to have a grasp on what Judaism means, on the other way, and say he wasn't Jewish... I know Judaism, and I studied Christianity in order to understand both. Did you study both? I know what the trinity means, I'm saying it's not possible if you claim he's the Jewish Messiah, which Christians do. I "attack" Trinitarian scriptures because they contradict Judaism, while the scriptures take their righteousness from the Judaism. You are the one who doesn't get it - when I explain that there is no evidence that he claimed to be a direct son of God, and that it contradicts Jewish beliefs - you give me quotes supporting it, from a scripture which I'm against.

Grasp on Judaism is irrelevant. As for studying both? Psh, you have hardly shown much impressive in terms of your studies. You are looking for something, and trying to make the patterns show it.

Ok? Honestly, the Jews didn't have a concept of a trinity, so I don't see the criticism. Especially given that trinitarian theology is not even internally consistent, as all of it is consistent with Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Y'see, the idea is that Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. So, there is only one God. But... Jesus is not the Father, despite the logical transitivity of it.

So, no, you don't get it. At all. As for this being "a scripture which I'm against"? WTF. Seriously? WTF. I don't know what the you are looking for. I've given you every clear answer that seems to be there, but you want to accept and disregard things at your whim, a previous criticism I've made. You either pretty much HAVE TO accept the scriptures, or you have NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. No other documents really talk about Christian teachings other than the canonical scriptures or the ones that weren't canonized. One can reference the other historians but they are even more deeply questionable than the scriptures.

Quote:
I mention historical evidences and criticism. If you don't care about it, good for you. I do care.

No, you care about making stuff up to Judaize things.

Quote:
So what's your point in taking part of this topic?
I try to settle this inconsistency, I ask people who are Christians (there many here) what they think. If they are even aware to the topic. If you have no answer, then what's your point, really?

Why are you trying to settle the inconsistency? Inconsistencies are part of the territory. There is no answer. If someone is giving you an answer, they are likely making stuff up.

Quote:
The trinity is a fallacy - I explained why. The scriptures lean on Judaism, then go against it. That's a clear fallacy.

That's not a fallacy. That's a plot hole. Fallacies are matters of logic. Plot holes are matters of narratives. Scriptures tend to be narratives more than philosophical doctrines.

Quote:
For crying out loud, my arguements aren't against you.
The claim that the doctrine contradicts the basis is an example of a fallacy - here you go.
You mistakenly think that I'm trying to argue with a person in our discussion. I'm arguing with the doctrines of Christianity. The fact that you don't believe in it doesn't make it less of a fallacy. It is actually pretty irrelevant itself...

A doctrine contradicting the basis isn't a fallacy though! Fallacies are logic problems. Doctrines and things like that aren't arguments, so they can't be fallacies.

If you don't recognize this issue, then why don't you re-examine your exploration. You're looking for something, but there is no reason to think it exists.

Quote:
But I HAVE other evidences rather than the scriptures. So it's not true.

No you don't. Anyway, I should probably get away from the delusional.

EDIT: Look, maybe I am still missing something or being confused somewhere.

Here, I'll quote Daniel Dennett making an analogy to religious anthropology with a fake god called "Feenoman":
"While not believing in Feenoman, the anthropologists nevertheless decide to study and systemize as best they can the religion of these people. ... Since those beliefs may contradict each other, Feenoman, as a logical construct , may have contradictory properties attributed to him -- but that's alright in the Feenomanologists' eyes because he is only a construct to them. The Feenomanologists try to present the best logical construct they can, but they have no overriding obligation to resolve all contradictions."

I don't care about any perceived contradictions in Christian historical documents simply because the only effort is to reconstruct what is there. Resolving contradictions is to go beyond this goal. Additionally, from the outset, I am disregarding the historicity of our accounts, so the "real historical Jesus" is actually something that I view with complete indifference given questions about the supposed teachings of Jesus. Maybe a few things can be uncovered, but only the most basic of attitudes that seem to be across scriptures, not any artifact of any specific scripture.