Post Reply
Page 50 of 50  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50
Switch to Forum Live View Christian interpretation versus Jewish interpretation
4 years ago  ::  Aug 18, 2010 - 6:10PM #491
Bezant
Posts: 1,338

"I will give you the benefit of the doubt on your own version of Christianity."


Don't.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2010 - 6:06AM #492
river8101
Posts: 5,547

Here's the thing.  The story of Iesous was supposedly written within Judaea, and the whole story of the gospels in the NT refer to it that way!   Yet it certainly couldn't have occured in Judaea! because all the dating of the scrolls in the NT  were written years later in a non Jewish language.


www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html&...

Many scholars and historians claim the NT was not written in Judaea, and agree that the NT was not a Jewish story  but a story likely written by a Hellenistic culture,  most likely Greek, or by Egyptians,  and those that believe in that story are Christians.  For to them, Iesous is "the Christ" , the Messiah, but he was never the messiah to the Jews.  Therefore how is the concept of Messianic Jews possible?  One is either a Christian or a Jew. 


I do not argue the fact that some Jews in other Indo European countries read and spoke Greek or that it was the lingua franca throughout that part of the world during the time the NT was written..  But it was NOT the lingua franca in Judaea! It was in Judaea, that the story of Iesous was supposed to have taken place according to the writing in the gospels.  The apostles go to great length to describe the birth, death and story of their god/messiah in Judaea.   It was also the apostles who wrote they were there with Iesous when they wrote the  stories about him. Why did they not write in Aramaic, the language of Judaea? 

For one thing the whole story is undeniably in the present tense, not the past tense.  One cannot read the gospels, and come away thinking that the Iesous story supposedly occurred in any other place but Judaea, and that the apostles who wrote the story wrote that they were with him when the stories were taking place and written down by them.  The Jews abandoned most everything Greek after the Maccobean Wars with the Greeks, 200 + years before.   Yet everything we know of the gospels was written in Greek or other Indo European languages, and they were written many years after the death of Iesous.  No documents about Iesous were ever found to this day in Judaea, or in the language of the Jewish people.   The story of Iesous was never a Jewish story.  And is not to this day.


“Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject.”
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2010 - 5:26PM #493
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,911

Aug 20, 2010 -- 5:23PM, Bunsinspace wrote:


BS"D


Although it is not acceptable within the framework of either mainstream Judaism or mainstream Christianity, MJ does have every right to exist as a modern reconstruction of what certain evangelically trained and practicing Christians (whether or not they are of Jewish descent) believe the first century churches were or at the very least should have been.  In that regard MJ is no less valid IMHO than any fringe sect of Christianity or Judaism attempting to establish its own sectarian version of faith without any attachment to either historical fact or the established traditions of the mainstream versions of either faith.  But as to whether the MJ's are Christians or Jews, that is more problematic.


To me an halakhic Jew is a Jew and one who is not is not.  To me one who lives the Christian profession of faith is a Christian and one who does not is not.  So by my personal definition I believe all MJ's to be Christians and only MJ's who are halakhically Jewish are Jews practicing Christianity (albeit their own sectarian version) because they, too, live a Christian profession of faith.  Whether they have Jewish elements in their worship and beliefs is irrelevant.  One cannot claim to be a bagel simply because one is sitting in a bakery.


And this identity is VERY important to MJ's AFAIK because unlike J4J, MJ goes out of its way to maintain its culturally Jewish elements while J4J actively eschews them.


So whether Jesus is historically authentic or not is not the issue to me, but how each person acts according to the tenets of their own faith and community.


I'm gonna make a lot of enemies by this statement, but I believe there is no more solid historical evidence for Moses or Abraham either.  And that lack of scientific historicity makes absolutely no difference to my comprehension and practice of Judaism.   Historicity is NOT the main point in Judaism.  And where there IS historical evidence, it just adds to the raw material of the religion (such as the various tombs, wells and altars of our ancestors - especially the Temple Mount in Jerusalem above all.)


I assume, perhaps wrongly, that an accusation of the non-historicity of Jesus as portrayed in their holy texts cannot undermine the faith of a Christian either.  And as thousands, perhaps even millions were crucified under Roman rule, their stories and life lessons from that remain true even if the Christian Cross itself is to be found to be a fabrication (as all most religious stories which are the MESSENGER and NOT the MESSAGE.)


But as in Judaism it is important that those whose faith is anchored solely on an assumed historicity - even if that historicity is only a belief - that we do not force such delicate souls to own up to the harsh reality that these stories upon which they base their lives and hopefully learn to live as free thinking human beings may not be accurate representations of history at all.  But if that is the only way for a child to learn a lesson - that being to construct a mnemonic consisting of a fantastically constructed and easily remembered story - then for me there is no merit in disabusing that child of his/her error.


But if it ever becomes a point of contention that the historicity of the story becomes more important than the divine message the story was crafted to impart, then we must make such foolish persons face the reality: 


"Know that likeness is a certain relation between two things and that in cases where no relation can be supposed to exist between two things, no likeness between them can be represented to oneself. Similarly in all cases in which there is no likeness between two things, there is no relation between them. An example of this is that one does not say that this heat is like color, or that this voice is like this sweetness. This is a matter that is clear in itself. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the relation between us and Him, may He be exalted, is considered as non-existent - I mean the relation between Him and that which is other than He - it follows necessarily that likeness between Him and us should also be considered nonexistent." (Translation of Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, 1:36, by Shlomo Pines)


IOW, rendering a Torah story literally (historically or scientifically) is idolatry because it places the text in a position of an intermediary between the human and the divine.  It PREVENTS the person from receiving the divine message as it focusses NOT on the message but the vehicle in which the message is conveyed.  All ancient cultures know this with regard to their own stories.  We have become dumbed-down with our technological arrogance to regard our ancestors as being so stupid as to believe in the literalness of their stories to us.  They are fixed for all time letter-for-letter not as divinity itself but as cultural purveyors of the divine spark to enlighten each of us according to his/her ancestral and communal traditions and corporate and personal actions.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 1:44PM #494
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Christian interpretation verus Jewish interpretation?


Christians interpret the Scriptures literally based on Christian pre-conceived notions.


Jews interpret the Scriptures metaphorically. At least, the learned ones.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 8:52PM #495
Kingdom357
Posts: 343

Christian interpretation verus Jewish interpretation? Christians interpret the Scriptures literally based on Christian pre-conceived notions. Jews interpret the Scriptures metaphorically. At least, the learned one.


If you were to go back to the first century in Israel, there were no Christians.  Understand what I'm saying, Yeshua at that time was not called the Christ, there was no Christianity, Yeshua was a Jew, His followers were Jews.  Christians interpret the Scriptures as the pagan oriented church tells them too, and Jews from what I've seen and read here, interpet the Scriptues as they see fit.


I don't have the slightest idea Ben, how you interpret the scriptures, I hope it's according to what God taught, but I don't know you.  The New Testament was written by men who lived within 100 years of what happened.  Christianity was formed in the forth century by Pagens and is not in keeping with the teachings of Yeshua.  I've said this many times before but it's worth saying again.  I do not believe God meant for His teachings to be changed, nor do I believe Yeshua meant to change them.  God gave us His commandments and they were meant to be kept, not altered to make things more convenient for people living today.  Christianity on the other hand comes from Pagan people, their teaching and rituals, their understanding  of one God.  How could these people possibly understand a belief in one God, when they believed in many, many gods and godesses.  So what I'm saying here is there is only one belief that could possibly be true,  belief in one true God,  it doesn't matter what you call it, do we even know what it was originally called?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 9:10PM #496
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

Feb 14, 2011 -- 8:52PM, Kingdom357 wrote:


Christian interpretation verus Jewish interpretation? Christians interpret the Scriptures literally based on Christian pre-conceived notions. Jews interpret the Scriptures metaphorically. At least, the learned one.


If you were to go back to the first century in Israel, there were no Christians.  Understand what I'm saying, Yeshua at that time was not called the Christ, there was no Christianity, Yeshua was a Jew, His followers were Jews.  Christians interpret the Scriptures as the pagan oriented church tells them too, and Jews from what I've seen and read here, interpet the Scriptues as they see fit.


I don't have the slightest idea Ben, how you interpret the scriptures, I hope it's according to what God taught, but I don't know you.  The New Testament was written by men who lived within 100 years of what happened.  Christianity was formed in the forth century by Pagens and is not in keeping with the teachings of Yeshua.  I've said this many times before but it's worth saying again.  I do not believe God meant for His teachings to be changed, nor do I believe Yeshua meant to change them.  God gave us His commandments and they were meant to be kept, not altered to make things more convenient for people living today.  Christianity on the other hand comes from Pagan people, their teaching and rituals, their understanding  of one God.  How could these people possibly understand a belief in one God, when they believed in many, many gods and godesses.  So what I'm saying here is there is only one belief that could possibly be true,  belief in one true God,  it doesn't matter what you call it, do we even know what it was originally called?


 





I can't agree with you more.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2011 - 11:11PM #497
LeahOne
Posts: 16,357

Feb 14, 2011 -- 8:52PM, Kingdom357 wrote:


Christian interpretation verus Jewish interpretation? Christians interpret the Scriptures literally based on Christian pre-conceived notions. Jews interpret the Scriptures metaphorically. At least, the learned one.


If you were to go back to the first century in Israel, there were no Christians.  Understand what I'm saying, Yeshua at that time was not called the Christ, there was no Christianity, Yeshua was a Jew, His followers were Jews. 


>>>>> Yes and no.  There was something which later became known as 'Christianity', but evidently not until most of the Jewish people within that group (ie, the Jerusalem church) had been murdered by the Romans ca 70 CE or so. 


WAS Jesus still within Judaism?  That is debatable, depending on very precise wording in the NT - which we can hardly hope to verify.  This much we know:  NO Jewish rabbi would have claimed to be GOD Himself, divine as Christians believe Jesus was. 


Whether Jesus'  first followers were still practicing Judaism is also open to question/interpretation.  If they were doing Communion, I cannot see how we could describe them as 'Jewish'.  If they saw Jesus as a divine being, that is absolutely a violation of GOD's oneness which places such believers outside of Judaism.


 


Christians interpret the Scriptures as the pagan oriented church tells them too, and Jews from what I've seen and read here, interpet the Scriptues as they see fit.


"As we see fit *according to the principles of Jewish exegesis and our ability to understand *"  would be a much more accurate way to put it. 


UNlike Christianity of any form, Judaism is NOT a religion dependant on doctrine.  There are rules of Christian exegesis, but of course it's not the same as that of Judaism....


I don't have the slightest idea Ben, how you interpret the scriptures,


 I hope it's according to what God taught,


What GOD taught the Jews was what, Kingdom?  That the Torah wasn't impossible to follow or obey:  that it wasn't in Heaven or 'over the sea':  that nobody needed to come along after Moses and explain it to us Jews.  Each of those is clearly expressed in Jewish Scripture.


 but I don't know you. 


One only needs to know Ben is a Jew, to expect his understandings of Torah to fall within the range of 'noarmative Judaism'.  It's really rather simple, on one level.


The New Testament was written by men who lived within 100 years of what happened.


A century would have been about 5 generations back then.  In a world with low literacy and virtually no libraries, absolutely no newspapers - and no professional historians - that time delay doesn't augur well for accurate representation of events.  Especially with the huge upheval in Israel of the war and the Roman sacking of Jerusalem and massacre of half the Judean population taking place *about the same time*  as the earliest Gospel accounts are getting written down - OUTside of Judea.


 


  Christianity was formed in the forth century by Pagens and is not in keeping with the teachings of Yeshua.  I've said this many times before but it's worth saying again. 


I do not believe God meant for His teachings to be changed, nor do I believe Yeshua meant to change them.  God gave us His commandments and they were meant to be kept, not altered to make things more convenient for people living today. 


Your words don't mean very much at all without explanation. What is an example , in your eyes, of 'changing GOD's teachings'?  


Do you disagree with Judaism that GOD gave the Torah to the Jews to watch over and preserve ?   Do you have some issue with how the proper heirs of Moshe have done so?  What don't you agree with - and WHY?


I'd like to understand more about the reasons you object to historical Judaism.  What do you think Jesus meant by 'The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath'?  Do you see the Pharisees agreeing or disagreeing with that comment, and why?


 


Christianity on the other hand comes from Pagan people, their teaching and rituals, their understanding  of one God.  How could these people possibly understand a belief in one God, when they believed in many, many gods and godesses.


I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with this view of the Gentile influence on early Christian beliefs.


  So what I'm saying here is there is only one belief that could possibly be true,  belief in one true God,  it doesn't matter what you call it, do we even know what it was originally called?


Why do you think there is only one belief which could possibly be true?  Obviously, many people have believed in multiple forms of Deity - can you prove they are wrong?


Can you prove that your perceived 'one true GOD' is IT?


Belief and proof are two very separate and different items.  I *believe* there is only YHVH:  but I don't pretend to be able to prove it. 


What you are actually posting about, it seems to me, is belief that the Torah is literally true in an way that no Jew I've ever encountered had claimed.  So it seems your basis is outside of 'normative Judaism' to begin with - but you are presuming constantly to criticize normative Judaism for not sharing your (non-Jewish) views. 


 And yes it DOES matter what 'it' was called - because 'it' was a historical reality, although quite possibly a dead end AND certainly unconnected to the current 'MJ' phenomenon.  Depending on the precise beliefs of the adherents, it either was or was not a part of Judaism.


 



Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2011 - 3:53PM #498
Ben Masada
Posts: 2,808

The only way to escape Hell.

That's from one of Jesus' parables. The one about the Riichman and Lazarus. There was a certain rich man, who, somehow, due to his opulence and pride, as well as his uncharitable life, he ended up with his being thrown in Hell as his afterlife punishment. Lazarus, on the other hand, due to his patience in spite of his ordeal, got to go to Heaven, which in Jesus' words, meant the bosom of Abraham.

And in Hell, the Richman lifted up his eyes, being in torments, look at Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and asked for mercy, if not for him, for his family. If he could send Lazarus to his family to testify to them, so that they could escape the torments of Hell. Then, Jesus, through Abraham's mouth said: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them."

The Richman insisted that if one went to them from the dead, they would repent. Then, Jesus, through Abraham, said that "If they don't listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31)

This prophectic parable has been fulfilled every day for about 2000 years. Christians believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead, but it seems to me, there is no way to persuade them to listen to Moses and the Prophets.

The expression "Moses and the Prophets" means the Law in one word. Christians prefer to listen to Paul and not to Moses. They either do not believe Jesus' words or that Hell does not exist. It was just a parable anyway, what the heck? At least, believe the Prophets for a change. The only way to set things right with God, so that our sins become as white as snow is to repent from our transgressions to the
Law and return to obey it. (Isa. 1:18,19) Jesus couldn't have been more clear, that to listen to Moses is the only way to escape Hell.
Ben



Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 50 of 50  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook