Jewish, Jewish, Everywhere, & not a drop to drink
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
WHEN JESUS BECAME
Wow , she is a very brave woman! To leave Christianity is extremely difficult. I do not know that I am so brave and certainly I know my past. There is no Jewish blood in my veins, only perhaps in my heart. She describes it well, the conflict is like a confusion of one's identity. It is very difficult.
it's just an interesting story
She answers one question quite well for me though. I always wondered if Christianity didn't feel like idolatry to Jewish people.
Yes, it is an interesting story. It hits home though.
that "idolatry" comment should not be understood as some sort of legal decision according to Jewish law. It's more complicate than that.
The basic point hinges on how much emphasis is given to the Trinity.
The more God is viewed in complete "unitarian" ways emphasizing the monotheism aspect of Christianity that there is only a One and Single God, with the trinity being SECONDARY or preferably rejected completely, then Christianity is a pure monotheistic faith.
After all, in the times of Jesus, they knew that Jesus claimed to be a Messiah , which means he claimed to be the reigning King of the Jews. The Jews rejected that claim.
How Jesus subsequently became "deified" is a subject that unfolds after his death. He did write the Gospels which appeared many years after his death, and they all are geared to emphasizing Christianity's break with Judaism, which is not what Jesus wanted in his day as he saw himself as a Jewish leader, and a leader of the Jews, and NOT a "son" of God.
he did NOt write the Gospels, sorry typo
yes, those I know who say they have studied the words of Jesus say they can find no claim by Jesus that he is God.
I think that this is a broad, and inferred decision on the part of the Christians. The closest I can come to it from what I know of Judaism is the thing with meat and milk products. You shall not cook a kid in it's mother's milk. That applies to all meats in any kind of milk if I understand correctly. The all milk and in any kind of milk, is inferred as far as I can tell
oops, all meat
No I don't think so.
I think that verses referring to the Children of Israel being God's "Firstborn son" were used for the claim that is Jesus who is God's "first" born, and not the children of Israel who are the original ancestors of the Jews.
do you have your concordance handy, look up references in the Old Testament to "Firstborn" or "eldest"
This monotheism point is one place where I have become extremely hung up. My prayers go to God, power to heal and other answers to prayer come from God. Somehow I have not integrated Jesus into my understanding of God.
I have my concordance in front of me.
Yikes, the columns for First born are 1/2 page of fine print. What shall I look for?
ok, I dug up my Hebrew concordance.
Yes the concept of "firstborn" is very important in Judaism.
I found the verse...
See Exodus Chapter 4, verses 22-23, where God is instructing Moses and giving him his mandate:
"You must say to Pharaoh,'This is what God says:Israel is MY SON, my FIRSTBORN. I have told you to let My SON go and serve ME. If you refuse to let him leave,I will kill your own first-born son."
So what does that have to do with Jesus ?
It the JEWS who are God's "SON", and it is definitely NOT Jesus.
Insofar that Jesus was a Jew he , like all the rest before and after him,are part of the Israelite People that God says constitute HIS SON.
God is making Himself very, it conveys to Pharaoh that God considers Himself to have a close bond with the oppressed Israelites, it is the Father-Son bond.
very clear, sorry typo
Oh, I think I understand. Sometimes I wonder about interpretation because the people who interpreted the Christian Bible don't necessarily understand all of the cultural factors
The CRUCIAL FINAL break between Christianity and it's "mother" religion Judaism, was long after Jesus death.
It came at the First Council of Nicaea , where Jesus was made into a "son" of God.
Dear Reader PLEASE NOTE : Before you read the material below be advised that it is best for you to get acquainted with the JEWISH / TORAH view of the entire subject of Jesus and Christianity.
or the Chabad-Lubavitch site for good introductions and explanation of Torah True Judaism.
A highly recommended web site on the Internet for you to consult with at http://www.messiahtruth.com/ with an exciting variety of experts and material that warns against the dangers of Jews being literally trapped by Christian missionaries, unfortunately sometimes even ones that were born Jewish but have become APOSTATES (traitors)to Judaism by taking on the Christian religion
See: Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups
The ONLY PURPOSE of going into the DETAILS below are to show how Christians themselves have NEVER been in agreement amongst each other about the exact role of Jesus in the Christian religion, and therefore it should become obvious that an itelligent person would think at least twice before buying into any Christian beliefs and dogmas.
The material below has been taken from the Wikipedia web site, an Internet based free encyclopedia, which is the culmination of many peoples scholarship. The mention of Christian names, events, personalities, and so-called officail schools of thought is only briefly mentione here, many btimes with it's source in Wikipedia, so that you, the intelligent reader will be abel to judge for yourself based on the way they are generally presented.
I DO NOT ENDORSE ANY OF THE CHRISTIAN, CHRISTOLOGICAL, OR UN-JEWISH OPINIONS, VIEWS, SOURCES, PERSONS OR INTERNET LINKS MENTIONED ABOVE AND BELOW !!! YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH YOUR OWN LOCAL ORTHODOX RABBI BEFORE CONSIDERING THESE SERIOUS MATTERS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AND ORTHODOX RABBI YET , THEN GET ONE NOW ON THE INTERNET FROM MANY OF THE SITES SPONSORED BY ORTHODOX INSTITUTIONS AND THAT HAVE AN "ASK THE RABBI" SECTION ! Such as www.torah.org ; www.aish.com ; www.chabad.org ; www.ou.org ; www.shemayisrael.co.il
As taken from:
Historical origins of Christian debates/arguments/confusions:
First Council of Nicaea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Council of Nicaea, called by the emperor Constantine
in 325 , was the first ecumenical (from Greek "worldwide") conference of bishops.
It dealt with the problems raised by the Arian http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism opinion of the nature of Jesus Christ http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ- God, man, or some mixture.
The bishops were offered the facilities of the imperial post system - free travel and lodging to and from their episcopal sees to the meeting - to encourage as full an attendance as possible. Constantine formally opened the session.
The Nicene Creed http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed was adopted at this council, and the churches agreed to all celebrate Easter http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter on the same day. The issue of how to establish the date of Easter was not settled until long afterwards however.
Ecumenical council http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism for a more extensive discussion of the council.
Text from Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion:
1. The First Council, 325 A.D.
2. Character, Membership, and Problems
1.The first Council of Nicea
is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against heretical doctrines; but the Council of Nicea is characterized by the further step from a defensive position to positive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith.
In the Arian controversy http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism lay a great obstacle to the realization of Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship. Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical council at Nice in Bithynia, a place easily accessible to the majority of the bishops, especially those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.
The number of members can not be accurately stated; Athanasius http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Athanasius&action=edit counted 318,
Eusebius http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea only 250.
As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the preponderating number; the first rank being held by the three archbishops
Alexander of Alexandria http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alexander_of_Alexandria&action=edit ,
Eustathius of Antioch http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Eustathius_of_Antioch&action=edit , and
Macarius of Jerusalem http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Macarius_of_Jerusalem&action=edit> , and by
Eusebius of Nicomedia http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Nicomedia
and Eusebius of Caesarea http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea .
A special prominence attached to this council also because the persecutions had just ended, and it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith.
The occident sent not more than five representatives in equal distribution from the provinces,
Marcus of Calabria from Italy,
Cecilian of Carthage from Africa,
Hosius of Cordova from Spain,
Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,
and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.
These ecclesiastical dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes.
Among the assistants it was Athanasius http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria , a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished himself as the "most vigorous fighter against the Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople, a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop.
The points to be discussed at the synod were:
(1) The Arian question,
(2) the celebration of Easter http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter ,
(3) the Meletian schism,
(4) the baptism of heretics, and
(5) the status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, busying itself chiefly with preparatory discussions on the Arian question, in which Arius http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Arius&action=edit , with some adherents, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Nicomedia , Theognis of Nice, and Maris of Chalcedon, seems to have been the leading spirit; regular sessions, however, began only on the arrival of the emperor.
After prescribing the course of the negotiations he entrusted the mode of procedure to a committee appointed by himself, consisting in all probability of the most prominent participants of that body. It is undoubtedly chiefly owing to this step on the part of Constantine http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine that the council, after being in session for an entire month, promulgated on June 19 the Nicene Creed http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed .
At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an uncompromising front toward each other. The Arians entrusted the representation of their interests to Eusebius of Caesarea http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea , whose scholarship and flowery speech made a great impression upon the emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians called forth a storm of resentment among the opponents; two minorities vividly interested in contrary opinions opposed each other, but between them yawned indifference.
In their behalf, as well as for his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to represent the Arians, appeared as a mediator; and in asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be the establishment of the peace of the Church, he at the same time agreed with his exalted protector.
He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol of his own congregation at Caesarea, by means of which the differing opinions might be reconciled. The emperor, who pursued the purely political intentions of a successful pacification, could desire no more welcome ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Arianism is a heresy http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy of early Christianity involving the nature of Jesus Christ http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ .
Arianists denied that Jesus Christ and God the Father were one, seeing them as different Divine entities.
The conflict between Arianism and traditional trinitarianism http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism was the first important doctrinal difficulty in the Church after the legalization of Christianity took place under Emperor Constantine I http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine , and ended with Arianism being declared a heresy.
Arius http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Arius&action=edit was a Christian priest in Alexandria http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria , Egypt.
In A.D. 321 he was condemned by a synod at Alexandria http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the Father.
Arius himself died without repudiating his doctrine.
Arius and his followers agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (Greek: homo-ousios).
Instead, they viewed God and the Son as having distinct but similar substances (Greek: homoi-ousios).
The difference in Greek was literally one iota or "letter i" of difference.
Jesus is, for Arianism, inferior or subordinate to God the Father.
The specific summary statement that was rejected by the councils, is that "there was a time when Jesus Christ was not"; the rejected statement meant that Jesus was a created being, rather than being coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. At issue was the doctrine of the Trinity http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity .
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Christology is that part of Christian http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity theology http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology that studies and defines who Jesus Christ is.
It is generally less concerned with the minor details of his life; rather it deals with who he was, and the major events of his life (his birth, death, and resurrection http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ ).
Important issues in Christology include:
was Jesus human, divine, or both
whether he actually performed miracles
whether he rose from the dead,
and if so,
whether his resurrection was of the body or strictly of the soul
Christology may also cover questions concerning the Trinity http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity , and what if anything Christ accomplished for the rest of humanity.
There are almost as many christological views as there are variants of Christianity.
Some important controversies have included the controversy with Arians over his divinity and relationship with the Father, which led to the adoption of the Nicene creed ;
and the controversies over Nestorianism http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism ,
Monophysitism http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism (and its derivates Monothelitism http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism
and Monoenergism http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Monoenergism&action=edit , which lead to the adoption of the traditional (in both the East and West) Chalcedonian http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon view of Christology.
Other controversies included that with Docetists http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
and the Adoptionists http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism .
We can describe most of these views in terms of whether they believed Christ had a divine nature, human nature or both; and if both, in terms of how the two natures coexisted or interacted. All of these views will be presented in simplified form; see the related articles for more complete treatment.
The Chalcedonian http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Creed view is that Christ possesses two natures, divine and human, which were united in the one person of Jesus Christ without either nature losing any of its properties. This view is the dogma of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, having been defined by the Council of Chalcedon http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon .
The Arian http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism view is that Christ is not fully divine, but was created by God for the purpose of accomplishing our salvation.
The Docetist http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism view is that Christ was never fully human, but only appeared to be human.
The Adoptionist http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism view is that Christ was born a man only, but became God's son by adoption when he was baptized in the Jordan. ""
Thus from all the above descriptions about all the argumentative and even nebulous origins of the "son of god theories" , and the INTERNAL Christian schisms, arguments, debates, groupings, "conclusions" (many times at odds with each other) , the nature of the origins of Jesus' "Divinity" and status as a "son" of God is HISTORICALY AND THEOLOGICALY something that Christians themselves have never really clearly DEFINED for themselves and remains literally "up in the air" to the present time...so why should JUDAISM have to accept any of it at all ?!
See MESSIAH TRUTH on the Internet and at PALTALK http://www.paltalk.com/ in the Judaism section for more on this issue from a JEWISH point of view and at
Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups
Comments: Post a Comment