Question about the history Chirstianity

[Crono]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Not sure which version of the Bible you are reading, but please point me to the section of Genesis, or the entire Old Testament for that matter, which refers to the Holy Trinity...from what I understand, its simply never mentioned. Interpreting its presence is the source of many an argument, but at least regarding ink (or other medium) to paper (scroll whatever)...it's never mentioned. IN FACT, I will take this one step further...can you point me to any section of the New Testament which mentions the "Holy Trinity"?? I am quite sure it's not there either. (i.e. Man decided this was the case)

The following scripture references are taken from the New American Standard Bible. All emphasis is mine.


Genesis 1
vs 2: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

vs 26: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Mark 1:9-11
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."



If you are looking for the exact word "trinity", no, you are not going to find it in the Bible. However, it is clear from throughout scripture (these are just a few examples) that God is indeed triune. He is One, but there are also three aspects to His nature. Because we were made in His image, we also have three aspects to our nature: we have a body, a mind, and a spirit (or soul). Does that make me one being or three? I'm also made up of millions upon millions of cells. Am I one being or billions? Likewise, the three persons of the trinity are united as one, but also distinctive from each other and perfectly complement each other. This is hard to comprehend for us humans, but luckily there are metaphors (such as an equilateral triangle) that we can use to at least basically grasp the triune nature of God.

The Father As God - John 17:1-3
Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. "

The Son As God - Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM."

The Holy Spirit As God - 2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where (B)the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

An interesting study would be to look at the times the Angel of the Lord - preincarnate Christ - appeared in the Old Testament. He reffered to Himself as God because He is, was, and will always be God. A good example of this is the burning bush, or the fourth man in the fire, or the Angel that appeared to Gideon.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Stunt
Muslims believe that the Jewish God is the same as their God and that Jesus is a divinely inspired prophet, but not God. Thus, both the Torah and the Gospels are believed to be based upon divine revelation, but Muslims believe them to have been corrupted (both accidentally through errors in transmission and intentionally by Jews and Christians over the years). Muslims revere the Qur'an as the final uncorrupted word of God brought through the last prophet, Muhammad, and Islam is viewed as a final correction of Judaism and Christianity.

Evolution of religion: Jewish -> Christianity -> Islam

I think you mean Muhammad stole the idea of Christianity to start his own religion in a time where Zoroastrianism was gaining power and he realized he can start his own shiz and make bank off it. This was my thesis in 7th century History class in college. I think the professor (who was Arab) really wanted to behead me. I miraculously evaded the class with a B-.

Some Christians also believe Muhammad was visited by the devil, not Gabriel. It is believed that true prophets of God make contact directly with Him, and that it was prophecized that the devil will preach his word disguised as an angel.

Playing devil's advocate:

Could you not replace Muhammad with Jesus and Christianity with Judaism and effectively make the same criticisms?

Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

However, with Muhammad, it's pretty damn clear. He was approached by an "angel" of God, not directly by Him. This is the biggest red flag. Second, he was a merchant who wanted more money/power and saw that religion at the time was a great way of doing it. At the time in his area Zoroastrianism was getting the most attention and booty, and he made his own religion to try to copy the success of it. I mean the guy spread the word by the sword, which God never condones nor urges in any texts.

Disclaimer: this shvt is all my personal speculation. I might not even really believe it, it's just a possible theory i have. I am representing neither a church or religion; it is a purely scholarly/academic theory I have based on facts (and partially biased faith).

Mary was approached by Angel Gabriel as well as many other biblical characters. From the Muslim perspective - the only prophet to directly witness God was Moses.

Prophet Mohammed WAS a merchant, yet your logic is absolutely flawed that he "started a religion" for greedy purposes. If that was the case, he would have lived grandiosely and "enjoyed" himself - he COULD have obtained MUCH of that, but he did not at all. Even when it came to death, he wanted a simple burial like anyone else and nothing more. I mean really....if we are going to bring out the "start a religion to get rich" argument, you should at least be sure of who we are talking about. If you think Prophet Mohammed lived like Ron Hubbard, then you are seriously mistaken and probably have a few names mixed up.

The rest of your post is full of tripe and half truths...it shows what you truly know about Islam, which is nothing. Of course this is your opinion, but sounds like it is based entirely on fabrications rather than fact.
If you do truly read the facts about religions and learn about them, you can easily maintain your own faith while growing an appreciation for the texts of others...but when you are so sure of false assumptions and easily cast aside other religions as "founded by the devil", it makes one suspicious of what you claim to profess or believe.

By the way - before Islam - Arabs were largely Pagans and animists with pockets professing Christianity and Judaism. If you knew anything about Zoroastrianism - you would learn that you cannot "convert"...you must be born INTO it. In most situations, it is demanded that BOTH parents be of the faith --> if you are of one parent, you aren't guaranteed acceptance to the faith...especially if your father is not of the faith. Only today is the question of whether or not to accept converts a big question due to the (regretfully) dwindling size of the community - clearly 1400 years ago I don't see the Persians "accepting" converts to the religion of Zarathustra.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Crono
The following scripture references are taken from the New American Standard Bible. All emphasis is mine.


Genesis 1
vs 2: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The word "spirit" which you are using is a translation of the original Hebrew word "ruach" or "Ruakh". The word ruach can have several different meanings. Wind, breath, spirit are all translations of that word. Some early commentators translate this verse as an actual moving wind which was created on the first day. Other early commentators translate the verse as the throne of God which was hovering over the water by the "breath" of God. There are many different possibilities.

vs 26:[/b] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Reading it that way does not make sense, for the next verse states "God created man in his image" without the plural. Doesn't fit. Many see this plural form as a the royal "we", which actually works much better in the original Hebrew. There are many other examples throughout the bible of singular people using the term "we" when referring to themselves.
There are many other explanations as well.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Originally posted by: Crono
They complement each other and are fluidly and inseparably linked. To deny the Truth or infallibility of either is to deny God.

Care to address how the first iterations of the NT (say around 140AD when the first "official" canonical list was released containing Luke and 10 letters of Paul) were written in Greek, yet Jesus spoke Aramaic, and was believed to have never known Greek to begin with? The oldest recovered fragments of the NT date back to 2nd century AD, and are also in greek...does this not present a big problem? If you are to take the apostolic parts of the bible somewhat literally, the apostles were poor, uneducated fisherman...how suddenly has the "infallible word of God" been translated to an entirely new language?

The fact is that the actual words of Jesus have never been found (and likely will never be found)... they have been interpreted, subjectively mind you, from an ancient archaic language. Nevermind the fact that the first compositions of the text and the surviving, actual "copies" of some of the works said compositions are based on are seperated by a period of almost 300 years.

Jesus, as far as we know, did not physically write any portion of the New Testament. The NT was physically written by those who had understanding of Greek, and not "uneducated fisherman". The translation of the words of Christ into Greek, or English later on, is not a problem if you believe that God is able to preserve and keep His Word inerrant by His Spirit. If you compare newer manuscripts to older ones (say, the Dead Sea scrolls) the meaning of passages and phrases in the biblical text have not changed over the centuries, even if the words themselves are different. Translation is never a problem so long as the ideas, laws, commandments, and teachings remain the same after translation.

What it comes down to, though, is whether or no you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. You can sit and make up excuses not to believe it just as you could make up excuses for not believing in anything else. Or you could actually read the Bible and see what it says about itself and the Truth that it contains. There are many people who have set out to attack the Bible, and, after reading it themselves, came to see that what it said spoke not only Truth of this world, but personal Truth that brought salvation.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Stunt
Muslims believe that the Jewish God is the same as their God and that Jesus is a divinely inspired prophet, but not God. Thus, both the Torah and the Gospels are believed to be based upon divine revelation, but Muslims believe them to have been corrupted (both accidentally through errors in transmission and intentionally by Jews and Christians over the years). Muslims revere the Qur'an as the final uncorrupted word of God brought through the last prophet, Muhammad, and Islam is viewed as a final correction of Judaism and Christianity.

Evolution of religion: Jewish -> Christianity -> Islam

I think you mean Muhammad stole the idea of Christianity to start his own religion in a time where Zoroastrianism was gaining power and he realized he can start his own shiz and make bank off it. This was my thesis in 7th century History class in college. I think the professor (who was Arab) really wanted to behead me. I miraculously evaded the class with a B-.

Some Christians also believe Muhammad was visited by the devil, not Gabriel. It is believed that true prophets of God make contact directly with Him, and that it was prophecized that the devil will preach his word disguised as an angel.

Playing devil's advocate:

Could you not replace Muhammad with Jesus and Christianity with Judaism and effectively make the same criticisms?

Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

However, with Muhammad, it's pretty damn clear. He was approached by an "angel" of God, not directly by Him. This is the biggest red flag. Second, he was a merchant who wanted more money/power and saw that religion at the time was a great way of doing it. At the time in his area Zoroastrianism was getting the most attention and booty, and he made his own religion to try to copy the success of it. I mean the guy spread the word by the sword, which God never condones nor urges in any texts.

Disclaimer: this shvt is all my personal speculation. I might not even really believe it, it's just a possible theory i have. I am representing neither a church or religion; it is a purely scholarly/academic theory I have based on facts (and partially biased faith).

Mary was approached by Angel Gabriel as well as many other biblical characters. From the Muslim perspective - the only prophet to directly witness God was Moses.

Prophet Mohammed WAS a merchant, yet your logic is absolutely flawed that he "started a religion" for greedy purposes. If that was the case, he would have lived grandiosely and "enjoyed" himself - he COULD have obtained MUCH of that, but he did not at all. Even when it came to death, he wanted a simple burial like anyone else and nothing more. I mean really....if we are going to bring out the "start a religion to get rich" argument, you should at least be sure of who we are talking about. If you think Prophet Mohammed lived like Ron Hubbard, then you are seriously mistaken and probably have a few names mixed up.

The rest of your post is full of tripe and half truths...it shows what you truly know about Islam, which is nothing. Of course this is your opinion, but sounds like it is based entirely on fabrications rather than fact.
If you do truly read the facts about religions and learn about them, you can easily maintain your own faith while growing an appreciation for the texts of others...but when you are so sure of false assumptions and easily cast aside other religions as "founded by the devil", it makes one suspicious of what you claim to profess or believe.

By the way - before Islam - Arabs were largely Pagans and animists with pockets professing Christianity and Judaism. If you knew anything about Zoroastrianism - you would learn that you cannot "convert"...you must be born INTO it. In most situations, it is demanded that BOTH parents be of the faith --> if you are of one parent, you aren't guaranteed acceptance to the faith...especially if your father is not of the faith. Only today is the question of whether or not to accept converts a big question due to the (regretfully) dwindling size of the community - clearly 1400 years ago I don't see the Persians "accepting" converts to the religion of Zarathustra.

Mary was not a Prophet. Prophets communicate directly with God.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics

No, it's not.
JS80 was saying that one of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because it would destroy Judaism. That's completely false. Jews believe in a messiah, we just don't believe that Jesus is it. Judaism will be fine and well when a messiah comes and it would not destroy it at all, on the contrary. But even when he does come, Judaism believes he will be a person like you and I, a human being. Judaism cannot ascribe any sort of divinity to man.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics

No, it's not.
JS80 was saying that one of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because it would destroy Judaism. That's completely false. Jews believe in a messiah, we just don't believe that Jesus is it. Judaism will be fine and well when a messiah comes and it would not destroy it at all, on the contrary. But even when he does come, Judaism believes he will be a person like you and I, a human being. Judaism cannot ascribe any sort of divinity to man.

Ah, BUT, what IF, a group of Jews reject the Messiah while the rest accept Him? Ah oh.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics

No, it's not.
JS80 was saying that one of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because it would destroy Judaism. That's completely false. Jews believe in a messiah, we just don't believe that Jesus is it. Judaism will be fine and well when a messiah comes and it would not destroy it at all, on the contrary. But even when he does come, Judaism believes he will be a person like you and I, a human being. Judaism cannot ascribe any sort of divinity to man.

Ah, BUT, what IF, a group of Jews reject the Messiah while the rest accept Him? Ah oh.

That is, Maimonides (Rambam) says, a sure sign that he is not the messiah. Maimonides writes several signs of the messiah, and one of them is that he will be universally accepted.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: ctark

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Azndude51

Originally posted by: chrisms
The New Testement is the addition Christians made, and the entire thing ended up being called the bible. Christianity did of course come about because of Jesus, Jews believe a Messiah was to come but did not believe it was him. Those Jews that did believe turned into Christians.

Oh, so is the Old Testament like the Jewish bible?

The Torah is the "Jewish Bible," it is the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

The Torah is the first five books in the bible, not called the Jewish Bible.

I never said it was called the Jewish bible, I simply referenced it that way to explain it in terms he could understand. Hence the quotes.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

The word "spirit" which you are using is a translation of the original Hebrew word "ruach" or "Ruakh". The word ruach can have several different meanings. Wind, breath, spirit are all translations of that word. Some early commentators translate this verse as an actual moving wind which was created on the first day. Other early commentators translate the verse as the throne of God which was hovering over the water by the "breath" of God. There are many different possibilities.

You're right about that Hebrew word having many different meanings. However, from the context it is clear that it is not referring to wind. The word for God, "'elohiym", is used with "ruwach", indicating that it is not merely atmospheric wind, bur rather the Spirit of God. Jesus Himself says that the Holy Spirit is like the wind, but is NOT the wind itself. Seeing as the other elements of creation besides the heavens and the unformed earth are not yet in existance, there is no possible way that this could be anything but the Spirit of God. See Psalm 104:30 and Job 26:13 for further reinforcement of this truth.

vs 26:[/b] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Reading it that way does not make sense, for the next verse states "God created man in his image" without the plural. Doesn't fit. Many see this plural form as a the royal "we", which actually works much better in the original Hebrew. There are many other examples throughout the bible of singular people using the term "we" when referring to themselves.
There are many other explanations as well.

Actually, it makes perfect sense if God is both revealing his threefold nature and the unity of all three aspects in One being. As for the royal "we", it is used in human context because the king represented the people and was to act as ruler on behalf of the people. Granted, that didn't always work out in honesty (since there are many selfish and dictatorial kings), but that is the origin of the royal "we". But whose authority, except His own, does God need? He doesn't speak on the behalf of anyone else. And it is not as if God borrowed the concept of the royal "we" from humans; if anything, humanity has copied that from God.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics

No, it's not.
JS80 was saying that one of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because it would destroy Judaism. That's completely false. Jews believe in a messiah, we just don't believe that Jesus is it. Judaism will be fine and well when a messiah comes and it would not destroy it at all, on the contrary. But even when he does come, Judaism believes he will be a person like you and I, a human being. Judaism cannot ascribe any sort of divinity to man.

Ah, BUT, what IF, a group of Jews reject the Messiah while the rest accept Him? Ah oh.

That is, Maimonides (Rambam) says, a sure sign that he is not the messiah. Maimonides writes several signs of the messiah, and one of them is that he will be universally accepted.

No offense (I greatly identify with and respect the Jews because they are the firstborn nation of God), but the people of Israel have not exactly had a great track record when it comes to prophets. How many prophets have been killed since the writing of the Torah? How many times have the Jews strayed from God and His commandments? And was Maimonides the author of any of the books of the Jewish "bible"?

Look at the life of Jesus and compare it to the dozens of prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. He fulfilled every single one. The probability of fulfilling even a few of those prophecies is so astronomical, it boggles the mind. Don't block out the possibility that Jesus was and is the Messiah based on what others have told you or your own pride; compare for yourself scripture against scripture.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, it makes perfect sense if God is both revealing his threefold nature and the unity of all three aspects in One being. As for the royal "we", it is used in human context because the king represented the people and was to act as ruler on behalf of the people. Granted, that didn't always work out in honesty (since there are many selfish and dictatorial kings), but that is the origin of the royal "we". But whose authority, except His own, does God need? He doesn't speak on the behalf of anyone else. And it is not as if God borrowed the concept of the royal "we" from humans; if anything, humanity has copied that from God.

The scope of this discussion goes beyond an internet board, and has been argued about for thousands of years. I am not interested in getting into a theological debate here, or a "my religion is right" argument. My aim is just to show that your way of explaining the verse is not the only way. I'll take the original Hebrew over any translation. That's all.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics

No, it's not.
JS80 was saying that one of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because it would destroy Judaism. That's completely false. Jews believe in a messiah, we just don't believe that Jesus is it. Judaism will be fine and well when a messiah comes and it would not destroy it at all, on the contrary. But even when he does come, Judaism believes he will be a person like you and I, a human being. Judaism cannot ascribe any sort of divinity to man.

Ah, BUT, what IF, a group of Jews reject the Messiah while the rest accept Him? Ah oh.

That is, Maimonides (Rambam) says, a sure sign that he is not the messiah. Maimonides writes several signs of the messiah, and one of them is that he will be universally accepted.

No offense (I greatly identify with and respect the Jews because they are the firstborn nation of God), but the people of Israel have not exactly had a great track record when it comes to prophets. How many prophets have been killed since the writing of the Torah? How many times have the Jews strayed from God and His commandments? And was Maimonides the author of any of the books of the Jewish "bible"?

Look at the life of Jesus and compare it to the dozens of prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. He fulfilled every single one. The probability of fulfilling even a few of those prophecies is so astronomical, it boggles the mind. Don't block out the possibility that Jesus was and is the Messiah based on what others have told you or your own pride; compare for yourself scripture against scripture.

i would recommend we stop here.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Crono
No offense (I greatly identify with and respect the Jews because they are the firstborn nation of God), but the people of Israel have not exactly had a great track record when it comes to prophets. How many prophets have been killed since the writing of the Torah? How many times have the Jews strayed from God and His commandments? And was Maimonides the author of any of the books of the Jewish "bible"?

We know all about the Prophets and how many times the Jews have sinned because God chose to tell us about it, not because Jews have sinned more than other nations.

Maimonides is one of the greatest thinkers, writers and scholars in Jewish history. Obviously, he didn't write any books of the bible, but his writings are extremely helpful in understanding the word of God.

Look at the life of Jesus and compare it to the dozens of prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. He fulfilled every single one. The probability of fulfilling even a few of those prophecies is so astronomical, it boggles the mind. Don't block out the possibility that Jesus was and is the Messiah based on what others have told you or your own pride; compare for yourself scripture against scripture.

The life of Jesus is documented by man. I believe the Torah to be the word of God. The "New" Testament has no religious significance to me whatsoever. I realize that you are doing your duty as a Christian to try to get me to see Jesus in a new light, but I can tell you this much, it ain't worth your effort. This is not something I was told by others and certainly has nothing to do with my pride. This is a result of years of intense study.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, it makes perfect sense if God is both revealing his threefold nature and the unity of all three aspects in One being. As for the royal "we", it is used in human context because the king represented the people and was to act as ruler on behalf of the people. Granted, that didn't always work out in honesty (since there are many selfish and dictatorial kings), but that is the origin of the royal "we". But whose authority, except His own, does God need? He doesn't speak on the behalf of anyone else. And it is not as if God borrowed the concept of the royal "we" from humans; if anything, humanity has copied that from God.

The scope of this discussion goes beyond an internet board, and has been argued about for thousands of years. I am not interested in getting into a theological debate here, or a "my religion is right" argument. My aim is just to show that your way of explaining the verse is not the only way. I'll take the original Hebrew over any translation. That's all.

Well, ok; if you would rather not discuss it here, than that is certainly your prerogative. Nothing I can do about that. I just want to leave you with one parting thought: You say that it's against the Jewish faith to believe that any man could ever be divine. But just take a look at the messianic prophecies of the Tanakh. Study them in the original Hebrew if you'd like (I wish I knew Hebrew ). The only way they could all be fulfilled or even make sense if the Messiah is both God and man. I know it seems an offensive thought, but in actuality speaks more about God's love and power than anything else. Don't get lost in merely the laws and commandments of God, but see them as a revelation of the One behind those laws and commandments. I sincerely will pray for you, my friend Peace .
- Crono

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Azndude51
BTW, in case you're wondering, I consider myself agnostic.

We weren't.

 

[meltdown75]

What is this Chirstianity you speak of?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Crono
Actually, it makes perfect sense if God is both revealing his threefold nature and the unity of all three aspects in One being. As for the royal "we", it is used in human context because the king represented the people and was to act as ruler on behalf of the people. Granted, that didn't always work out in honesty (since there are many selfish and dictatorial kings), but that is the origin of the royal "we". But whose authority, except His own, does God need? He doesn't speak on the behalf of anyone else. And it is not as if God borrowed the concept of the royal "we" from humans; if anything, humanity has copied that from God.

The scope of this discussion goes beyond an internet board, and has been argued about for thousands of years. I am not interested in getting into a theological debate here, or a "my religion is right" argument. My aim is just to show that your way of explaining the verse is not the only way. I'll take the original Hebrew over any translation. That's all.

Well, ok; if you would rather not discuss it here, than that is certainly your prerogative. Nothing I can do about that. I just want to leave you with one parting thought: You say that it's against the Jewish faith to believe that any man could ever be divine. But just take a look at the messianic prophecies of the Tanakh. Study them in the original Hebrew if you'd like (I wish I knew Hebrew ). The only way they could all be fulfilled or even make sense if the Messiah is both God and man. I know it seems an offensive thought, but in actuality speaks more about God's love and power than anything else. Don't get lost in merely the laws and commandments of God, but see them as a revelation of the One behind those laws and commandments. I sincerely will pray for you, my friend Peace .
- Crono

It's not that I am unwilling to discuss it, it's that these subjects have been debated for thousands of years. We are not going to uncover any new ground. You will not convince me, and I am not trying to convince you. My aim here was merely to show that your explanations are not the bottom line, so to speak.

I know all about the prophecies of the Nevi'im. NEVER does it speak of man and god as one.

I appreciate the thought of praying for me, thanks.
But I am capable of praying for myself to whom I believe is the one and true God.

Peace

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Originally posted by: Crono
Stuff...

The problem I have with the sections you have presented is that the concept of the Holy Trinity as made popular by Christianity is merely implied, not explicitly stated. You would think such a pivotal issue would be much more fleshed out than it is. Admittedly it ultimately comes down to semantics and interpretation, it's what we choose to believe.

There are verses that contradict, explicitly in some cases...what you have referenced

Genesis 1:27 :

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

James 2:19 :

You believe that God is one, You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Matthew 27:46 :
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "(A)ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

Revelations 1:18 :
and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

The big problem prevelant in all of this is interpretation of the words (as noted above), also the difference in wording across different versions of the Bible itself. The semantics of words like "spirit" and "person" across multiple languages (regarding meaning, and sexual connotation ((male vs female)) more specifically) is especially paramount. What would happen to the message interpreted by Christians if the word spirit carried a female connotation instead (aramaic). It's also written in the Old Testament (Hebrew) that the Spirit of God (ruwach) is of a feminine nature.

The closest thing I can come up with where The Trinity is formally explained is the Athanasian Creed...which was beleived to have been composed originally in Latin. Interesting to note that the word "spirit" is masculine in nature in the Latin language

I am sure we could go round and round with verses to substantiate our views on the subject matter, but this isn't really the place to do so. I still stand by my view that the Trinity as Christianity teaches it is not explicitly noted in the Bible.

 

[NiteWulf]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Originally posted by: Crono
They complement each other and are fluidly and inseparably linked. To deny the Truth or infallibility of either is to deny God.

Care to address how the first iterations of the NT (say around 140AD when the first "official" canonical list was released containing Luke and 10 letters of Paul) were written in Greek, yet Jesus spoke Aramaic

Greek was one of the most common languages in Israel/Palestine at that time. After the Greeks took over the Mediterranian it became very popular and was expedient for long-distance traders.

If you are to take the apostolic parts of the bible somewhat literally, the apostles were poor, uneducated fisherman...

Paul was an edjucated man who spoke several languages. When the apostles met Jesus, their lives changed dramatically. After the resurrection their job was to spread the Word of God. If they felt they should know another language, they would have learned it or used a fluent interpreter.

The fact is that the actual words of Jesus have never been found (and likely will never be found)... they have been interpreted, subjectively mind you, from an ancient archaic language.

Aramaic wasn't archaic when Jesus was alive.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Originally posted by: Crono
Jesus, as far as we know....

I did not mean to insinuate Jesus' written words, merely words spoken by Jesus that were later written down by whomever at a later date. It is well noted that Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, not Greek (barring Paul and possibly a few others..apologies), so my point still stands...the oldest certifiable documents (regarding the New Testament at least) are all in Greek. It was once verbal, now written. I understand its a basic tenet to believe in divine inspiration, but labelling anything infallible or "The Truth" when human influence is ultimately involved can be very dangerous. What makes your "truth" right...and a Buddhists wrong. Councils of men have declared it so. Also note that the arbiter in the first Ecumenical council was a Roman Emperor, seperation of church and state indeed.

Take your stance on the Bible and apply it to Science for a moment. Many great "truth's" have been proven false even after they were widely and socially accepted as the "truth"...which oddly enough is one of the 4 general rules for canonization.

1) The earth is flat
2) The sun revolves around the earth

Etc etc. Unwillingness to adjust is never a good thing, especially when man has labelled what he has wrought as infallible.

Regarding making "excuses" not to believe...I don't quite understand the verbage there, these are reasons to me, certainly far from excuses.

I choose to live my life as a good person, morality to me is devoid of a divine influence

I will vote as ThePresence did earlier...these kinds of conversations always take a turn for the worst, the OP has more than enough info to, at the very least, begin to make up his mind. If you wish to have the last word, by all means...do so.

 

[aplefka]

I think this is probably one of the best religious threads I've ever read on ATOT. Kept me up 20 minutes longer than I wanted to be but whateva.

On a side note I gotta give kudos to BunLengthHotDog for mentioning Orthodoxy way up there. Most of the time we get left in the dust.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDogThe fact is that the actual words of Jesus have never been found (and likely will never be found)... they have been interpreted, subjectively mind you, from an ancient archaic language.

Aramaic wasn't archaic when Jesus was alive.

Just a side point, Aramaic is still around to some extent.
It's still spoken by small groups around the world (who btw found Mel Gibson's version hard to understand and badly pronounced).
I understand Aramaic because it's the language of the Talmud and various translations (targums) of the Torah. But I'm reading it transliterated, basically it's spelled out with Hebrew letters.