Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew

Welcome to the Front Page, Buzz. Are you wearing your suit of armor?

Off topic [ph]

Not

Though I myself am a non-believer, I believe that the intent was to follow Jesus's goodness and not any particular religious franchise and there is certainly nothing wrong in that.

Didn't the Jewish religeous of the day (the Rabbis) dispute Jesus and turn their backs on him?  In fact, collude with the Romans?  If I was a follower of his 2,000 years ago, I'm not sure I'd return to the Jewish faith after having the 'leaders' conspire against the incredibly charismatic leader I was following.....the Christian Church didn't start until after Jesus' death, might be because the Jewish Leaders could no longer be trusted?

Sounds familiar. Kind of like Trump is today. 

Reported off topic.

Noted, and you're right. Off topic.

wouldn't be the first time ive been flagged this week.

calm down

Buzz or Perrie can remove what they feel necessary

Why

Don't you pay attention to this.

.

Sorry Buzz and Spike. I should not have injected politics into to this Religious discussion, cause God knows, it never happens in the real world.

But I digress.  I apologize to you both, so flag it if you wish. I will try harder to stay on subject, but you may find that worse.

I'm done here on this seed       out             See how that works Old School

Buzz,

I hope you don't mind, but I am leaving this thread up as to what not to do. 

igknorantzrulz made an off topic comment and it was noted and he apologized. It should have stopped there. But instead not one but two more off topic comments were made by OSM, the last one being taunting in nature. This is how a good article goes to pieces because of personal gripes that can't be left at the door. Please knock if off everyone. 

skirting the CoC [ph]

OSM,

I made it perfectly clear that what my intentions were. One comment from you would have been fine. But two and you crossed the line. 

And you are not above being called out and don't give me the old tired liberal thing. Had you said nothing about it, I would have handled it on my own. Had you said one thing about it, I would have still said nothing. But after the man apologized you still took a taunting swipe. That is what got me to make my comment. You don't want to be called out, don't do things like that. And own what you do, and don't put it on me.

Notwithstanding that the Rabbis at that time may have turned their backs on him, did he ever disown his own religion?

I would venture to say that if they did, it was because they feared him or were jealous of him, probably because he was a lot more righteous than they were.

did he ever disown his own religion?

I would say yes or maybe no, he as the self professed Son of God he may never have considered himself to be of the Jewish Faith so he couldn't leave a faith he never truly followed. He preached on his own outside the church hierarchy, he went rouge. His teachings didn't follow the traditional teachings. Jesus started a spinoff Religion, he was born a Jew but he definitely wasn't a practicing Jew although who could argue that Christianity isn't based in Judaism. We always have to remember that there are two types of Jewish people, those born into that Race and those who follow the Faith. I'm sure Jesus was raised in the Jewish Faith but by the time he was preaching and teaching his message (which are the Christian teachings) he had certainly already broken away from Judaism and was persona non grata within the Church. We can argue about what we believe to be true of Jesus's Faith but I think it only matters what Jesus himself likely believed so I put forth that since YHWH (God) isn't Jewish He is the God of the Jews so then Jesus who believed he was the Son of God is likely to have though of himself as the same.

An interesting theory, but I don't buy it. He may have actually been the "light among the nations" that Judaism can be and has been, and when I saw the Tissot painting I realized that I am not the only person in the world who ever thought Jesus remained as a good and merciful Jew throughout his life. I stand with my theory that others at the time may have hated him because he was doing what they should have been doing but did not do, and he was what they should have been and were not.

Buzz, yes, Jesus was born a Jewish man and died a Jewish man. The label, "Christian" was first applied to a group of Greek-speaking Jews (Hellenists) and to Greeks converted by Jesus' disciples:

^{Acts 11: 25} Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, ²⁶ and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

So yes, my Savior, lived his life in its entirety as a Jew. However, the story does not end outside Jerusalem.

1. Are you familiar with the concept of Jesus as the 'Cornerstone'?

2. Do you agree the Gospels speak of Jesus in a way an Orthodox Jew would not? ("Son of God." "The Holy Spirit.")

Also... Jesus lived two thousand years ago. A lot has happened since then. At any and every tipping point, the history of Christianity (as an organized religion) could have been different.

That's why I, for my own faith, always return to Christ Himself. The Gospels. His life and His teachings. The Council of Whatever has nothing to tell me.

Say you were living in the time of Jesus and you had two men claiming they're the messiah, Barrabas who's claim was he would deliver the Jews from the Romans and Jesus who's claim was that he would deliver the god of the Jews to the Gentiles.  Barrabas was promising freedom and power delivered back to the Jewish hierarchy and Jesus was talking blasphemy.  So who would you follow?

bccrane, what are you talking about? The ruling on Jesus' death was never brought to the people. It was a matter of the two ruling bodies. Comments like that have brought centuries of misery to the Jewish people. 

Thus providing "christians" centuries of justification for killing or terrorizing Jews.  

It was...in the Middle Ages. Thousands of Jews were tortured and burned alive because they were considered "Christ-killers"

The Spanish Inquisition in particular had a hard-on for Jews

Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people

All the people? What people? Clearly is says rulers, but it doesn't say the people who followed those rulers. And even if it did, do you think that some of the were Jews do you actually think that the approx 100,000 Jews that lived in Jerusalem at the time were there, or just the ones that agreed with the Priests?

You must be kidding OSM. Jews were called Christ Killers till the early 20th Century. That is why Vatican II made a point of saying that the Romans alone were responsible for Jesus' death.

I read an interesting theory a long time ago on another forum by a very smart mathemetician. Anyway....when the people were shouting "Barabbas!" They were actually shouting for Jesus to be saved because it has to do with the name. "Bar" meaning "of" in Hebrew and "abbas" meaning teacher or rabbi. I can't remember everything Moleslayer said because this was over 10 years ago, but it was profound.

I disagree with you on that, OSM. The accusation of "Christ killers" has existed through history and has been the impetus for the vicious hateful canard falsehoods, the blood libels, the reasons why Jews were never allowed to follow certain professions, the pogroms, why they were not given full citizenship privileges, the reason for restrictions in memberships and real estate ownership, etc.  Mel Gibson is doing his best to perpetuate it.

I see also that I am not the only one who disagrees with you.

Ah, I thought that sounded a little fishy.

Christains were thrown to the lions.

Christians were NOT thrown to the lions.

cracked

There are  zero authentic accounts  of Christian martyrdom in the Colosseum until over a century after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. In fact, not a single legitimate record exists of the Romans executing any Christians in the Colosseum.  Zip . Zilch.  Nada .

But how do we know not one lion picked his teeth with the bones of a faithful believer in the Colosseum? Because back when Emperor Nero was busily persecuting early Christians as  arsonists , the Colosseum  hadn't even been built yet . And by the time construction was completed decades later, Imperial Rome had reverted back to its standard policy of "Jesus, Yahweh, Zeus -- whatever, just pay your taxes, K?"

But there's an entire tradition of martyrs, saints, and apostles who were eaten by lions, burned at the stake, or murdered to appease the crowds of the Colosseum! So where did all those pleasant bedtime stories come from? Brace yourself for a touch of deja vu, because the short answer is: early Christian writers.

In the second century A.D., a whole new genre of fiction cropped up. The " Martyr Acts " were stories about the church's beginnings, when heroic men and women professed their faith in spite of terrible torture and suffering. This "sacred pornography of cruelty" was hugely popular -- if you were a literate Christian living in Imperial Rome, the Martyr Acts were your   Harry Potter . With symbolism even less subtle than Dan Brown's novels, the Martyr Acts told stories of good and pure Christians being trampled to death or decapitated by violent Roman officials. The Martyr Acts satisfied the desire of early Christians to: 1) read faith-affirming literature filled with heroes exemplifying pacifism, love, and forgiveness and 2) read faith-affirming literature overflowing with the violence, death, and destruction that made a story readable to Romans.

Instead of blaming the Christian writers for creating a millennium's worth of misconceptions, though, we should really be thanking those guys for helping to preserve a historic landmark. That's because, starting in the 18th century, various popes used this spurious history to declare the Colosseum a site sanctified with the blood of martyrs in order to   stave off its destruction .

Did you check that site you posted? I think you should take it down.

You can google for more info.  The information is accurate whether you approve of the site and/or the info.

en.wikipedia

There is a widespread view among contemporary specialists ^[30]  that the prominence of Christians among those condemned to death in the Roman arena was greatly exaggerated in earlier times. There is no evidence for Christians being executed at the  Colosseum  in Rome. ^[31]

I thought they were, so it was never true at all? Can anyone prove that?

From the University of Queensland Australia.  I will cite a small part of info.

hapi.uq.au

The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy.

Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson.

However, the initiative to punish Christians did not come from the emperors at all, but from below. In the case of Polycarp, who was burned alive, the people of Smyrna are even said to have joined in enthusiastically to find wood for the fire. This was mob violence at its finest.

The pattern of localised persecution changed in A.D. 250. In that year, the emperor Decius issued an edict that ordered all Romans to sacrifice to the gods and present a certificate to prove that they had done so. This edict was prompted by serious barbarian invasions.

Decius believed that Romans needed to unite to show support for the gods in order to protect the empire. His sacrifice edict was not specifically directed at Christians, though it did pose a particular problem for the followers of this monotheistic religion.

The only real proof would be if we were actually there.

With that type of logic, why believe any history?

I am referring to religion only.

Are you saying that any historian who does not agree with your personal perspective of religious history is wrong?  If so, why?  

Maybe this explains why we have a 'Judeo-Christian' heritage and not just a 'Christian' heritage,  and why evangelical Christians are so protective of Israel. 

I think most people realize Christianity stemmed from Judaism. 

I have no desire to live like Jesus. He got himself killed at the age of thirty three. I learn from his mistakes. I prefer to live like Buddha he lived a long happy life to the age of eighty. 

Surely nobody can deny that he was a good Jew

Due in part to his practising magic the leadership of the day did not consider him a good jew

We are not talking about the leadership. We are talking about how Jesus conducted himself. He conducted himself as a Jew.

In fact, I would dare make the statement there are a lot more Jews who convert to Christianity than the other way around where following Christ is concerned.

That statement shows that you do not know your facts about Judaism. Judaism doesn't try to convert people. In fact, the faith is instructed not to convert and that converts should come to them willingly and without prothletising. If you wanted to point to the first rift between Christianity and Judaism , that would be it. 

I am saying that the comment doesn't make sense. 

In fact, I would dare make the statement there are a lot more Jews who convert to Christianity than the other way around

What would be the other way around? 

And please don't curse at me. 

I would dare make the statement there are a lot more Jews who convert to Christianity than the other way around

Historically speaking quite often at the end of a knife or after some torture

Given my read of the quoted statement I disagree, but no probs as it's not that big a deal to me.

The threat of death by being burned alive.

So true. You have said it much more clearly than my attempt to explain that.

"I WOULD DARE SAY MORE JEWS CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY AND ACCEPT CHRIST THAN CHRISTIANS CONVERT TO JUDAISM AND REJECT CHRIST."

Absolutely. Don't you know why? The Christians have salesmen making fantastic promises to weak or impressionable Jews, they go door to door doing so, whereas Jews DO NOT PROSELYTIZE (and please do not call Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus to be Jews becsause if they were at one time they gave that up by being influenced by all the promises they have been told, and IMO are weak in mind or disenchanted with their own religion anyway) BUT CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS DO PROSELYTIZE, and in fact converting to Judaism is not only discouraged by Rabbis, but it is hard as hell to do what has to be done to be converted.  That is why your "CAPITALIZED" statement quoted above is probably quite correct.

Spinoza has written that many Jews of his time who were forced to convert only pretended to be Christians/Catholics to save their lives and secretly carried on being practising Jews.

I believe Perrie pointed out that there was a reason for it.

to save their lives and secretly carried on being practising Jews

Lol very secretly I would imagine.

Jesus lived under the Law and Prophets. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Jesus was a Jew in every way and more besides. The problem exist that Jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Thus, as the original Apostles expressed to Paul,"the 13th Apostle," you are "sent" to the Gentiles. The Gentiles are not under the Law and Prophets.

Question: Does any (sect) within Judaism accept the doctrine of the Trinity today? Curious.

Kind of. Only Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews. But they are not Jews. The whole very difference between the two faiths is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. You can't be Jewish and believe that. 

Let me explain why. If god is all knowing, he would have said in the OT, stay tuned for the NT. He didn't. He left the OT specific.. the Messiah will come and judge... not the Messiah will come and then come again and then Judge. 

Did you read my comment to you above ? This is why it is hard to have a discussion with you OSM. You have your own thing going on in your head, and can't even read the words I wrote to you. 

Actually he did, there are more than enough prophecies about Christ in the Old testament beginning in Genesis and continuing forward to refute the fact that God did not let everyone know what was coming.

Please show me the exact passage you are referring to. 

Only Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews. But they are not Jews. The whole very difference between the two faiths is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. You can't be Jewish and believe that.

1. "' Jews '; for Jesus" are not Jews? Why?

2. Based on your statements above, do you see why a new "wineskin" became necessary?

19 Jesus answered,  “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.   20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.   22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins . Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

Jesus instituted a new covenant.

The whole very difference between the two faiths is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah

And so since Jesus himself believed he was the Son of God and the Messiah (if there's a difference?) he must have broken with the church. Like I wrote in comment 4.2.1 Since YHWH (God) isn't Jewish He is the God of the Jews so then Jesus who believed he was the Son of God is likely to have though of himself as the same. The fact that he retained many of the same customs and practices with his followers shouldn't be surprising since wouldn't Gods Son want his followers to do many of the same things his father wanted his followers to do.

Your first "prophecy" cited in Genesis is God telling the snake that He was going to make him the lowest of the low for having the audacity to tempt Eve.

Man, I was 8 years old when I got that one clear

All of which is written after the fact and fully knowing the texts of the OT. Yet the OT is very specific about when the coming of the Messiah and what it will bring:

Although some scholars believed that God has set aside a specific date for the coming of the mashiach, most authorities suggest that the conduct of mankind will determine the time of the mashiach's coming.  In general, it is believed that the mashiach will come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so evil), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good).  For example, each of the following has been suggested as the time when the mashiach will come:

• when all Israel repent a single day
• when all Israel observe a single   sabbath   properly
• when all Israel observe two sabbaths in a row properly
• in a generation that is totally innocent, or totally guilty
• in a generation that loses hope
• in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders (commonly thought to be "our generation", in every generation!)

What Will the Mashiach Do?

Before the time of the mashiach, there will be war and great suffering ( Ezekiel 38,16 ).  Then the mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing all Jews outside Israel back to Israel, and restoring Jerusalem ( Isaiah 11,11-12 ;   Jeremiah 23,8 ;   30,3 ;   Hosea 3,4-5 ).  He will establish a Torah government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and Gentiles ( Isaiah 2,2-4 ;   11,10 ;   42,1 ).  He will rebuild the   Temple   and reestablish its worship ( Jeremiah 33,18 ).  He will restore the religious court system of Israel, if it had not already been reestablished before him, and establish the Torah as the law of the land ( Jeremiah 33,15 ).

The Messianic Age

The messianic age will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people ( Isaiah 2,4 ).  Hatred, intolerance, and war will cease to exist.  Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance ( Isaiah 11,6-9 ); others like Maimonides, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.  What is agreed on by all is a very optimistic picture of what real people can be like in this real world, the like of which has never been seen before.

All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel ( Isaiah 11,11-12 ;   Jeremiah 23,8 ;   30,3 ;   Hosea 3,4-5 ), and the law of the Jubilee as well as the rest of the special agricultural laws in the Torah will be reinstated.

In the messianic age, the whole world will recognize YHWH, the LORD God of Israel, as the only true God, and the Torah will be seen as the only true religion ( Isaiah 2,3 ;   11,10 ;   Micah 4,2-3 ;   Zechariah 14,9 ).  There will be no more murder, robbery, competition, or jealousy.

God is god, to a believer. He has no faith and has no favorites, which btw, is another dividing point for Jews and Christians. Jews believe that all righteous people will are in god's "Book of Life" and will have peace at the coming of the Messiah. Christians think that only they have god's grace. 

Cal,

Sorry I missed this one.

1. "' Jews '; for Jesus" are not Jews? Why?

Because he didn't fulfill the prophecy of the OT/Torah. Please refer here:

thenewstalkers

2. Based on your statements above, do you see why a new "wineskin" became necessary?

It's also part of Kosher law. So he might have been making a point, but it was based on an established law.

You don't have to be insulting

Jews believe that all righteous people will are in god's "Book of Life" and will have peace at the coming of the Messiah. Christians think that only they have god's grace.

That's true of some self-styled "Christians".

Christ said that all who follow His path will be saved. His path is straight and narrow: "Love one another".

From what we know, Jesus was no fool, to be preaching "God is love" and at the same time eternal damnation for anyone unlucky enough to never have heard His story.

The idea of salvation by God's Grace came long after the Crucifixion, and is IMNAAHO in total contradiction with Christ's essential message.

So, you are referring to the physical kingdom (to come) and not the spiritual kingdom (here now) espoused in the New Testament?

¹⁹ “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.²⁰ Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain,  but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

²¹ “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming  when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.^{R  22} You Samaritans worship what you do not know;  we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.  ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come  when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit  and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit,  and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

²⁵ The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ)“is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

²⁶ Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

2. Based on your statements above, do you see why a new "wineskin" became necessary?

It's also part of Kosher law. So he might have been making a point, but it was based on an established law.

Perrie, I do not follow your meaning. Please, elaborate.

Genesis 3:15

A perfect example of biblical extrapolation.   Easy to do.  Taken any reference, 'force' select words vague, substitute any specifics one wishes into the introduced ambiguity.  With that approach anyone can pretty much read anything into any written words.

Genesis 3 hands out punishments:

• Serpent will travel the ground
• Women will suffer the pain of childbirth
• Man will have to work to survive

All three of the punishments are natural, observable occurrences.  Nothing remarkable about ancient men claiming these are the result of God handing out punishments.   

But this passage is then heavily reinterpreted and propped up as an ( obscure ) prophecy for Jesus.      

¹⁵  And I will put enmity  between you and the woman,  and between your offspring ^{[ a ]}   and hers;  h e will crush ^{[ b ]}   your head,  and you will strike his heel.”

The woman in context of Genesis 3 is obviously Eve.  God is clearly speaking to the servant explaining how human beings will crush the head of its serpent offspring.   Yet somehow the woman becomes Mary and the human offspring becomes Jesus and the serpent becomes evil incarnate.  

The Bible is interpreted so many different ways; this example illustrates why there are so many conflicting interpretations.   Poetic license (sometimes extreme) that is then taken as fact.    

OSM,

Here is what happens when texts are translated from texts over and over. 

Your text:

Genesis 3:15: 

When Adam and Eve sinned against God, God cursed the ground, cursed the animals, and sentenced man to die. The world went from a perfect state to an imperfect state (which is why we need a new heavens and a new earth, by the way). But in the middle of all this, there is a beautiful promise— Genesis 3:15  

The Torah:

To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you."

Where did all that other stuff come from? No talk of perfect or imperfect state or new heavens

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. ( Isaiah 7:14 .

First of all, Isaiah isn't till much later, and has no context to Genesis 3:15

And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

It does not say a virgin. It says a young woman. 

This is why there is/was resistance in Jesus's time from most other Jews. If you knew the Torah, the text that you have is totally different from this text. 

OSM, my intent here is not to dis your beliefs, but instead gain respect and understanding of other beliefs. 

Genesis 3 hands out punishments:

• Serpent will travel the ground

• Women will suffer the pain of childbirth

• Man will have to work to survive

And Tig goes to the top of the class. 

2. Based on your statements above, do you see why a new "wineskin" became necessary?

It's also part of Kosher law. So he might have been making a point, but it was based on an established law.

Perrie, I do not follow your meaning. Please, elaborate.

Kosher laws are the Jewish law governing food and which Jesus would have followed. So the wineskin rule is a kosher law, that should be followed if you are observant Jew. No one should be sowing old wineskins to new, for more than they would tear. Jesus could have been not only reminding everyone of the rule, but also drawing an allegory. 

And again, this would be something that Jesus would have known, son of god or not. If he was trying to build a new faith, he would know how to apply his old one to the new one.

So laugh away and call me wrong and tell me I don't know anything about what I'm talking about all you choose, I know the truth.

Stating what you believe is one thing.  Presenting beliefs as fact is very different indeed.   

To wit ...

I know the truth.

No human being can possibly know the truth.   The best we can do is draw a conclusion at some level of confidence based on facts and reason.   Hope, desire, etc. does not count as reason.

I understand your kosher reference. Thank you.

Allegory is the point I am sharing in my comment above. The New covenant (contract) comes come out of the Old Covenant (contract).

Isaiah 42: Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out,  who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: ⁶ “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, ⁷ to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,  from the prison those who sit in darkness. ⁸ I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. ⁹ Behold, the former things have come to pass,  and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Kosher and halal are "social laws". They have their origins in observation of the negative consequences of eating certain foods. Pork was often infested with trichinosis back then, so it was very dangerous unless cooked near to carbon. It was simplest to outlaw it,

"Social laws" are contextual. They are born of circumstances. They are beneficial in those circumstances. And they are pointless when those circumstances change. Pork is also forbidden in Islam, but most Muslims don't know why. So they blindly obey a rule that no longer makes any sense.

"Religious laws" like "Pray five times each day" are quite different. These are meant to implicate the believer in the religion. These rules are not contextual: there is no reason for them to be less pertinent today than in Muhammad's day.

The trick, of course, is to determine which laws are contextual, and which are for all time... 

I sure wish Jeb Bartlet could be POTUS. 

video.tudou

1. "'Jews'; for Jesus" are not Jews? Why?

Seems to me that Perrie answered that - how many answers are necessary for the same question?

Judaism is a faith, not a race. If a Jew accepts Jesus as being the Messiah and the Son of God, he/she has given up their faith, and they are no longer Jews.

Buzz, what is the meaning of your pointing this 'at' me? Curious.

It is an innocent question. I have heard of the Jews for Jesus "movement," if that is what it is called. Judaism, extended to the world, started in a select people, no? Help me to understand and I assure you I can understand. I certainly mean no offense or disrespect.

Furthermore, unless you send me on a 'quest' to study the Jews for Jesus, maybe you can assist me with your understanding of them. "Help a brother out!" (Smile.)

1. Jews for Jesus are not members in the Jewish faith, even nominally or liberally? 

(NOTE: I know nothing of these things. I can not see my message in the "Update" window, but I can not remember who first brought them into this discussion.)

Sorry, I must be mistaken. I thought you were the one who asked that question, and if you were, then I apologize for having the temerity to answer it when it was directed at Perrie and not at me. A lot of nerve on my part, even though I posted this article.

9   calbab     9 hours ago

There was a valid reason back then forbidding the eating of pork, and since due to modern methods, that reason no longer exists.  Therefore, why is it still forbidden to eat pork?  As well, there is no longer any reason for ANY Kosher requirements to be followed, so it is no more than a scheme to make money by charging more money for the same products, and to provide jobs to a lot of Orthodox Rabbis who have no other skills but to "inspect".

There is more of a chance to become ill from eating shashimi than from eating pork.

There is more of a chance to become ill from eating shashimi than from eating pork.

Sashimi is not kosher after all. 

That depends. It the rice is covered by tuna or salmon or any fish that has scales, even bottom feeders like carp, it can be Kosher.  If the rice is covered with octopus, shrimp, lobster, crab (or any crustaceans) or catfish (no scales), then it''s not Kosher. 

Well there you go.  

I would have to agree with that Bob.. but I would have to add something to it. 

As with many of these social laws, although the law started, as you say, from observation, they evolved into cultural aspects of these faiths.  

I know Jews are very divided over these social laws and that is why there are many denominations over these social laws vs. religious laws. 

OSM,

This is a discussion. If it offends you, you don't have to participate. But I have my beliefs and you have yours. The only difference is that you are calling them truths. But none of this is a truth, since it can't be proved. It is faith, by it's very definition. 

I will address this: 

You accuse me of not knowing the Torah when you have no clue what I have and have not read or have and have not studied.  Every time I post something of a Christian nature you come after me, then you come after me because I post threads and comments exposing false teachings of the Catholic Church because others cry about it.

The torah has one translation that is thousands of years old. When I see words that are not accurate to the words in the actual Torah, I am allowed to correct. I know the NT, too, but there are many variations, and I am not nearly as knowledgeable about them. And may I remind you, you came to this article, which is Buzz's and I didn't go after you. I thought we were having a discussion. As for the Catholic Church, I am stunned at how you don't see how insulting you are being by calling their version of Christianity as false teachings. They may be false to you, but to them, they are every bit as real as your faith is to you.

I am sorry you feel picked upon. This isn't even my discussion. I just enjoy discussing the topic. 

"...it's coming from years and years and years of intense eye opening prayer and study,..."

I find that to be a fascinating statement.  I can certainly understand how you gain knowledge from study, but please explain to me how you gain knowledge from your personal prayers.  Does God talk to you?  If so, then perhaps you should visit a psychiatrist because hearing voices when no other person is around, and you don't hear it from a radio or TV that happens to be turned on, is a sign of mental illness. Surely, you cannot learn anything from prayer other than what you already know, what you have learned at some time and is stored in the neurons in your brain - i.e. perhaps recollection. 

Really, I'm interested. How do you learn something NEW from "intense eye opening prayer"?

Drugs, sleep derpivation, physical illness, fasting and other things such as intense meditation or what some might call "Intense Prayer" can cause delusions, hallucinations and other psychological "events" that are often confused with some kind of religious or spiritual experiences. The thing is that when people have these, for lack of a better phrase, religious experiences they are almost universally used to justify and intensify already held "beliefs"...

While my experience is a lot of folks are, well, trippin it unethical to ascribe this phenomenon on mental illness. In fact, one of my pet peeves is when some make medical diagnoses based upon comments on social media. In any case, like you, when someone starts talking about how some religious experience proved their beliefs I cannot help but internally cringe and feel embarrassed for them. In a nation where freedumb of religion, see belief, is paramount among our "God Given Rights" pretty much anything goes under the banner of belief. The end result is we have a whole lot of folks believing all sorts of krazy bullshit based on psychotic hallucinations of one kind or another caused by one thing or another. How often do you hear someone say, "I believe", followed by some of the kraziest bullshit imaginable. I don't know about everyone else but at my advanced age I do not have to respect anyone's beliefs anymore. Just because someone believes something does not mean their beliefs are worth consideration by rational adults...

Because I was told to as a child I believed in all sorts of magical things. I believed in The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, The Boogy Man, Fairies, Trolls, Elves, The Monster Under the Bed, God, Jesus and The Holy Ghost. I believed that my little town was he best most wonderful place in the world and that black and brown folks being barred from entering the bank or the department store or my church was normal because, "That is the way things have always been". I grew up. I don't believe that shit anymore...

You know what JBB, I'm having trouble trying to understand you when you seem to be contradicting yourself. You are critical of the fact that I attributed hearing voices when nobody is there to mental illness, yet you then go on to indicate that you think that putting religious significance to such hallucinations is ridiculous. So its okay for YOU to make such a judgement call, but not okay for me?

And Tig goes to the top of the class.

show off....

This is my understanding of Messianic Jews.

They observe the Jewish Holy Days and keep the Kosher laws, but accept Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know if they are baptized, but if they are, then I wouldn't consider them Jewish, I would consider them to be Christians.

I'm probably all wrong since I didn't google anything. If I am, I'm sure some one will come along and correct me.

Why do you say that?   Since when is applying reason at odds with compassion?

How often do you hear someone say, "I believe", followed by some of the kraziest bullshit imaginable.

On a regular basis most of my life in the Bible Belt.

My sister believes that Barrack Obama is the Anti-Christ, an acquaintance believes that homosexuality is cause by demon possession or Satan, Satan is to blame if a man commits a "sin", a woman is a shameless hussy if she commits a "sin". 

A woman must obey her husband in all things.  My reply is that I am not a waitress and I don't take orders.

A woman told me how lucky her daughter was that "God" had awoken the family in time to escape their burning home.  I thought that I would be asking why the all powerful "God" allowed my home to be burned. 

At funerals, preachers drone on and on about how the dearly departed is now at peace and experiencing joy and bliss in Heaven.  Many times, the dearly departed chose medical torture to put off experiencing joy and bliss in Heaven for as long as humanly possible.

I have heard the "end of days" sermon from the time I was a child in the late 50s.  I still hear it today in casual conversation with Christians.  One woman gave me the "end of days" spiel and then proceeded to gripe about how Obama was ruining the education system.  I asked "Why do children need an education since we are living in the "end of days"?  I did not receive an answer.

We are living in the "end of days".  Global warming is God's way of destroying the Earth since He promised not to flood it again.  We know He will keep that promise every time we see a rainbow.  These people are joyful that the Earth will soon be destroyed because they plan on being raptured and won't have to ever experience death.

These days, I avoid talking to most people because it doesn't matter if the topic is bowling, eventually "God" and homosexuality will be brought into the conversation.  I just don't have the patience to deal with this type of religious fanaticism and brutality.

Then why don't you just get the heck out of there,

Is that what you would have told the early Christians who were being persecuted for their beliefs?

I am far from the only atheist in the Bible Belt and in my area.  We just have to be "secretive" like the early Christians if we don't want to be persecuted for our non-belief in Yahweh.

None is the fastest growing religion in the US.

I don't think they had the advantage we have today.

Early Christians and their contemporaries were definitely handicapped by lack of education back then and suffering the same malady today.

I am an introvert who loves researching and learning about history.

I have a computer and access to a world of knowledge that is only limited by my ability to comprehend the information at my fingertips.

I am very happy most days.

Thank you, TG for your efforts at explaining it. Here is 'something' I found on the web just now :

When Messianic Jews try to do outreach within the mainstream Jewish community they are often met with resistance and outrage. Among other things, the Jewish community objects to the title Messianic Judaism, because the messianism practiced by Messianic Jews is Jesus-focused, and thus by definition not Jewish. The use of the term Messianic Judaism strikes many as a subversive way of attracting Jews who do not know enough about their faith to realize that what they are learning about is Christianity.

Messianic Jewish Communities Today

There is a growing community of Messianic Jews in Israel, particularly in the village of Yad-Hashmona. Many of the Messianic Jews in Israel are native Israelis who came to Messianic Judaism as teens or adults.

In a ruling handed down by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1989, Messianic Jews are not allowed citizenship in Israel via the Law of Return because there is a condition on the Law of Return that it cannot be employed by those who were Jews and voluntarily took on another faith. However, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a strange legal twist that because the Law of Return is granted to anyone with one Jewish grandparent, Messianic Jews who are not considered halakhically Jewish (i.e. their mother is not Jewish) are granted citizenship via the Law of Return.

Messianic Jewish prayer services include much of the traditional Jewish liturgy, often edited and amended to include references to Yeshua. Hebrew is common in Messianic Jewish congregations, and there is a growing trend towards including dance in their services. The dances are in the spirit of Israeli folk dancing.

Today, there are an estimated 400 Messianic Jewish congregations worldwide, with 10,000-15,000 Messianic Jews in Israel, and about 200,000 in the United States. Congregations (called synagogues) can be found across the country, mainly in communities with a large existing Jewish community. [Bolding mine.]

myjewishlearning

It seems an 'outsider' looking in on this folks could easily get an impression these people are practicing some form of Judaism. At least until the fine details are explained to them.

Thanks for posting that. It was very informative

I am far from the only atheist in the Bible Belt and in my area.

and in the country and internationally.

atheismunited

Easy peasy! Love helping a fellow 'learner' out!!

"Obviously you must have not been paying attention."

Was it REALLY necessary for you to say that? 

Seems like you live where the Scopes Monkey Trial took place, as dramatized in the classic movie "Inherit the Wind".

Seems like you live where the Scopes Monkey Trial took place, as dramatized in the classic movie "Inherit the Wind".

That was in Tennessee.

I was raised in NW Arkansas and currently live in SW Missouri.

However, if you follow US politics, you are aware that 33 state governors are currently Republican.  This could be attributed to any number of reasons, but one of them could be that older people tend to vote more than younger ones and older people tend to be more religious than younger people. 

The result is that religion based legislation is being pushed to close and defund Planned Parenthood as if forcing women to have children that they don't want is a good thing.  Religion based legislation is being pushed to teach creationism in public schools and to allow it taught in taxpayer funded charter schools.  Also, a push to give taxpayer money to private religious schools via school vouchers.

It is very concerning to see the US government turn its back on the future and regress into a third world country via ending legislation that protected workers, protected citizens and protected our environment in order to enrich Wall Street investors under the guise of making the US a "Christian" nation. 

The US government has been on a privatization crusade since Reagan was in office.  Bill Clinton really got the campaign started and it has been built on steadily ever since.   We, the citizens of the US, have been sold down the river by our government for decades while we have wasted our time reliving The Crusades.

Ignore the propaganda and it is easy to see the "issue" is always about who has the money and power.  Religion is only a diversion and a worthless promise that a person must sacrifice this life to have a "better" one after death.  Religion is most popular among economically and education challenged people.

talkingpointsmemo

Today,  after 50 years of attack on government , privatization is a standard conservative response to tight public budgets, a key pillar of attacks on government, and a lucrative market opportunity for domestic and global corporations. Large corporations operate virtually every type of public service including prisons, welfare systems, infrastructure, water and sewer, trash, and schools. For example:  

Today, after 50 years of attack on government, privatization is a standard conservative response to tight public budgets,

Please note that the tax cuts is most likely to bring about "tight public budgets" and there will be another big push to "privatize" government services because the corporations have outsourced almost every job that it is possible to outsource.  They have few options other than to take over the government jobs that cannot be outsourced in order to have an unending, guaranteed income for themselves and their heirs into perpetuity.

I think, mocowgirl, that my reference to Inherit the Wind was based on the topic of religion, not politics, and I think that although religion is on topic for this article, present American politics is NOT. I would thank you for not veering so far off topic.

that my reference to Inherit the Wind was based on the topic of religion, not politics,

I forget that you are a movie buff. 

I considered the trial to be political in nature because a "three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution".  The violation of the separation of church and state is not something that I take lightly.  

However, have my comments deleted if wish.  I will not be offended at all.  Politics and religion are bedfellows throughout history.  It is next to impossible to separate them.

en.wikipedia

Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 ($1395 in 2017), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side.  William Jennings Bryan , three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while  Clarence Darrow , the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the  Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy , which set  Modernists , who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion, ^[4]  against  Fundamentalists , who said the word of God as revealed in the  Bible  took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether "modern science" should be taught in schools.

The fact that the lawyer representing the fundamentalist side of the Scopes trial had been a presidential candidate simply portrayed him with gaining the townfolks admiration. In my opinion, the movie was strictly about religious fundamentalism vs modernism.  I see no reason, however, for deleting your opinion. The opening credits of the movie are accompanied by a song that makes the case:

video.tudou

What the heaven is happening on this thread? And for goodness sake, why are people who for all intents and purposes God throwing gasoline on the pile?

What the heaven is happening on this thread? And for goodness sake, why are people who for all intents and purposes God throwing gasoline on the pile?

Cal, what are you talking about? This is a discussion about the differences and the roots of faith. I for one am not putting god down. 

No, I put this here because it was the end of the thread, and not because your comment is above it. Oh no. The thread 'ignited' right in front of my eyes! I've lost track of where I left off reading. My trackers are not helping either right now. (Smile.)

Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus are no longer Jews in my opinion. They have given up their Jewish faith to embrace Jesus as the son of God. Jews believe that Jesus might have been a righteous prophet, but not that he was the son of God. He was a man, a homo sapiens, a mortal.

Anyone can call themselves a Jew, but that doesn't make them a Jew. Considering the rising anti-Semitism throughout the world, I don't know why anyone would WANT to call themselves a Jew.  In fact in Europe and England many are no longer wearing kippahs or Stars of David on neckchains out in the street so that they won't be attacked.

Noted. And, it make me sad. Anytime I see such naked hatred, I am scandalized. Admittedly, I do hear it from time to time and I do open my mouth and push back against the speakers. Telling them to love one another.

Considering the rising anti-Semitism throughout the world, I don't know why anyone would WANT to call themselves a Jew.  In fact in Europe and England many are no longer wearing kippahs or Stars of David on neckchains out in the street so that they won't be attacked.

gee wonder if that has anything to do with the amount of muslims influxing into europe--?

BINGO!!!!!

Well done Buzz.

This (article and comments) reminds me of late night discussions over tobacco and beer (both substances highly banned...;~)...) at Seminary a lifetime ago.  Funny how life changes viewpoints as at one time this would have been much too intriguing not to jump into with gusto and verbosity! Nowwadays, though Christian by upbringing and culture, my ontological outlook more closely resembles Animalism bent towards Panpsychism; so, my comments must be weighed with that in mind.

Jesus was a Jew, considered himself a Jew, was seen by his adherents as a Jew, seen as highly skilled at understanding the Torah by the Rabbis in the Temple, and even labelled as the king of the Jews by the Jew's Roman rulers of the time. While it would be fantastically simple to see Jesus' teaching and behavior as merely rebellious towards his religion, the truth is more intricate than that. More correctly he was a rogue whom took on the hypocrisy within the religious leadership of his day for sure; but, did so in an overall theme of tackling social injustice within culture, society and humanity in general. Christianity today would be well reminded that canonized scripture written after Jesus life, repeatedly warns followers from falling away from his teachings, and predicts that many would do so anyways.

For those who take the topic seriously, it's easy to see how it can be ground shaking to their belief system to consider that the mark set by Jesus may be entirely missed by it's present day system and practitioners. My personal belief is that Jesus saw past religion to something truer, and was attempting to present an alternative viewpoint; one that centered on relationship. 

Now it's time for a glass of Cabernet and a cigar.

:~)

My personal belief is that Jesus saw past religion to something truer, and was attempting to present an alternative viewpoint; one that centered on relationship.

Yes. There's a huge difference between faith and religion. Following Christ requires faith. Following Christ does not require religion.

Well, any belief in a supreme existence requires faith. It seems to me that all religion does is add certain rules to the game.

... all religion does is add certain rules to the game.

It does much, much more than that. It is social, so it creates social rules. It has temporal power, so it acts in the temporal sphere. It must be "staffed", so there are "priests"... who inevitably will have their own agenda, distinct from that of their faith. At times, throughout history, these "extraneous" aspects have largely overbalanced the priests' "service to the faith".

IMNAAHO, faith and organized religion are, ultimately, incompatible.

I hope you don't mind me sharing here. I can agree with all of this. However, man needs structure in order to have uniformity (unity). It is not perfect, it just is. (Smile.)

That is the issue with Paul, . . . he was conscripted into service to the Gentile world.  Somebody had to do it. Like Moses in the Old Testament, did not choose to lead, it was given him!

That is the issue with Paul, . . . he was conscripted into service to the Gentile world.  Somebody had to do it. Like Moses in the Old Testament, did not choose to lead, it was given him!

That is if we believe Paul. Anyone of Jesus' disciples could have had a "vision", too. Same thing with Moses. The only difference between the two men, was that one was flawed and knew it (Moses) and the other thought he knew better than James. 

God should have employed women to do the writing of the Bible.  The men seemed to want to add their own twists and, in my opinion, messed up the divine storyline.   

Perrie, maybe I missed it. . . was there notable tensions between James and Paul? 

Does the Book of James mainly  address Jews and Paul addresses Gentiles?

James was zealous for the Law and Paul for Faith?

James as head of the Jerusalem Council recognized Paul's ministry authority to the Gentiles:

⁶  The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

¹²  The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³  When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴  Simon ^{[ a ]} has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵  The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁹  “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹  For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Here is a really good article pertaining to this subject.......

desiringgod

I wonder what the Dead Sea Scrolls have to say about all this.

Okay, to hit the 200 comment mark, a little musical interlude relevant to the theme of the article:

video.tudou

BLAH!! The video cuts out @ 5:46!!!!

Sorry about that - I'm stuck using Chinese web sites. I really miss YouTube.

No worries. I got you! We're going to listen to the 10:39 minutes version of Stairway To Heaven on your behalf:

Wait a sec. I just went back to the link and it started where I left off the last time. I think you encountered a short glitch and if you go back to the link and wait a second, it will probably carry forward to the end - it did for me.  You only got half way to heaven (LOL), so try again and don't turn it off if it stops, it will start up again. Near the end is a fantastic guitar solo so don't miss it.

My version was 10:51 minutes.

As there is a hiatus in the commenting on this article, and as it is it seems to have run its course, I am now locking it so it will no longer be open for comments, and due to the number of comments already posted it is difficult for me to monitor it, so I will be spending my time on other efforts. I thank everyone who contributed comments, and for the civility exhibited by you.