Matthew 28: 11-15:
"Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
Saying, 'Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.'
So they took the money, and did as they were taught, and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
That plot between the religious elders and the Roman soldiers is one reason that many people, especially the Jews of that day (and perhaps many Jews of today as well?) do not believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah, that He was resurrected from the dead.
Anyone care to discuss or add to the discussion?
I'll be back later.
My son just loves killing zombies in the new COD Black Ops.
Proves that the religious elders cheated...that's about par for the course!
But it also proves that Jesus's message was so powerful that Satan used a lot of people to try to dismiss and/or hide the Truth.
He was betrayed once again by a mixture of people, not just the Jews. And I think the plot is one reason that the Jews traditionally do not consider the New Testament as valid. False gossip/manipulation of the facts of the event kept them from hearing the Word and recognizing Jesus as the Christ, their promised Messiah.
I do know that there are "Messianic Jews" who apparently do believe He's the Messiah....and praise God for that!
@ Brenda. Friendly debate coming on...
Brenda, I'm Jewish. I also went to a church school and spent 10 years of my life asa 'born again' Christian, plus I know the Torah in Hebrew, and am a student of history. I’ve studied the early history of the Church extensively, have read Josephas, and researched as much documentation as was available to me during that decade.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written over a period of a few hundred years. Part of them were written while Christ was alive. They were written by the Essenes, a Jewish sect that lived outside of Jerusalem. They believed in the teachings of Leviticus - the the full power of the law was love. Jesus taught the teachings of the Essenes.
What is interesting is that the Essenes of this period documented that they had a counsel of 12 to lead them with a leader. The leader was killed by the Romans (hung on a cross). At no time did this leader ever profess to be the son of god or perform miracles. However, a Roman Jew (Paul) came to them for three years, and then left and betrayed them by very purposely starting up a new religion, i.e. Christianity.
These things were translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 50s. There was enormous interest and distress as it was realized that these were the historical events from which Christianity was evolved. The Vatican immediately demanded the Dead Sea Scrolls as it said that these scrolls were the possessions of Christianity. The scrolls were, therefore, handed over to the Vatican – and never heard from again.
In the late mid 80s, two American scholars started taking all the fragments that had been photographed and started translating them. They wrote a book about it which I read in the late 80s. The entire story was there. Then UCLA said that they had the entire bunch of Dead Sea Scrolls photographed, and anybody could have them for translation for $1.00.
The Vatican tried to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls predated Jesus. Actually, they didn’t. Carbon dating and the historical events that are mentioned confirm that there were some that were written at the time that Jesus was supposed to live. The tremendous similarity between the events described in the Dead Sea Scrolls more or less show that there never was anyone who lived at the time who performed miracles, claimed to be the son of God, or rose from the Dead.
However, bearing in mind that Paul was a Roman Jew, he would have known the Roman religion of Mithras well. You might like to look at what the followers of Mithras believed.
You will then have discovered the roots of Christianity. Like many other religions, it has built on the ignorance, myths, corruption, etc of people who had a vested interest in creating a religion.
This is really interesting. There are many pagan-like aspects to Christianity, including the multiple gods (Jesus, Satan, God) and the idea that mankind is only saved if it makes a human sacrifice. I had not known about the Mithras religion, but it certainly explains the rapid adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
The Vatican Conspiracy Theory that you talked about where the vatican suppressed the scrolls was discredited because the scrolls were completely published including translations and photographs about ten to 20 years ago.
As for the implication that the scrolls are about the beginnings of Christianity, most scholars now say that the documents are really more jewish and that the writing are probably from a jewish sect.
Then last year, an Israeli scholar claimed that that the Essenes didn't exist at all and that it was a fabrication. Time magazine wrote about it last year.
I'm interested to know how the scholars are going to figure this one out.
Um... 10 or 20 years ago - makes it 2000 or 1990. This happened in the 80s. There was pressure for the vatican to publish. The vatican probably published because people in the 80s wanted to know why the scrolls which had been handed to them in the 50s hadn't been published 30 years later.
"As for the implication that the scrolls are about the beginnings of Christianity, most scholars now say that the documents are really more jewish and that the writing are probably from a jewish sect."
Jesus happened to be a Jew, and the scrolls document someone 'like' Jesus who was the head of a counsel of 12 who the Romans killed. That doesn't sound like the story of Jesus to you?
I also assume you're referring to this article.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 21,00.html
Okay, someone wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aladdin did not magically conjure them up. Someone wrote them. And whoever wrote them tells the story of a Jewish guy who headed their counsel or 12 and was later killed by the Romans. The scrolls also tell the story of Paul, a Roman Jew who came to them for three years.
Those documents are the most accurate and closest things to the time that Jesus lived. Of course, they weren't written by the church so they didn't make mention of having risen from the dead, claiming to be the son of God, or raising the dead.
Incidentally, the exact scripture is, "I am the son of God as ye all are sons of God." In other words, I am the child of the Universe just as ye all are children of the Universe."
Well that's what I'm saying. You implicated that the Vatican church was trying to suppress the publication of the dead sea scrolls, and as I pointed out that the vatican couldn't have tried to suppress it if the UCLA had the whole thing photographed and could sell it for a buck. Does the vatican tend to drag its feet about about things, heck yeah, but whether they are suppressing stuff is really a claim that was made by the authors of the book you read. It is not a consensus.
Of course someone wrote the scrolls. As to whether this group was actually Jesus and his disciples as you implicate, that is not the consensus among the scholars. I think you should explore more about this issue than just those two scholars wrote the book you read. There were enough differences in stated outlook between that group and Jesus's group that the consensus among scholars new and old are that they are not the same.
Um... Actually, in the 50s and 60s, there was a very different environment to what there is now. It did not take 35 years to translate those scrolls. Absolutely, the vatican was sitting on them. They only released them after there was a public outcry!
The church was held in a much higher esteem in the 50s and 60s than it is today. If the vatican said something, it would have been adhered to. Out of respect, UCLA wouldn't have released it. it just wasn't the done thing in those days. Today, we live in a very different world.
Also, it wasn't 'my' implication. It was the implication by the scholars who did the studying in the late 50s, as well as the general public of the time.
I'm curious as to which scholars you are talking about. Christian scholars? In which case, as far as I'm concerned they do not have one ounce of credibility. They're going to interpret everything according to their belief. If, on the other hand, you're talking about academia, which I am, then please could you give me a link to their pulbications, etc. I would appreciate updating myself on what has evolved since I last studied this.
Even in the 50s and 60s, there were Catholic Scholars who were saying that the Vatican was taking too long. It couldn't have been much of a suppression if they were released. There is enough dissent among catholics even then. I wasn't alive then but I seem to recall that it was during the 50s and 60s that the vatican had a pope who was relaxing a lot of catholic tradition.
I apologize, it wasn't your implication, but you really weren't doubtful of the information on that one book you read. It's easy enough to find people who don't agree with that book. Just do a google. Type in dead sea scrolls vatican conspiracy.
As for the carbon dating, there is a long span of time between the earliest scrolls and the latest scroll, so the vatican assertion that most of it predates Jesus' time is true and that is also the consensus backed up by the carbon dating.
Regardless of the politics, it is exciting to get some flavor of how things are like during that time.
I agree Flightkeeper! From what I've read, the dead sea scrolls validated Christianity! The only opposition were a couple of books that sprung up from nonbelievers! Which is nothing out of the ordinary! But mostly there are several dozen articles that prove it's validity and strengthens the Christian faith! I think people who are Jewish or believe in the Jewish religion are going to read the books that claim it disproves Christianity and put faith in it, and those who are Christian will read the articles and books that give credit to Christianity through the Dead Sea Scrolls! Its subjective through the eye of the believer! One should read everything for himself to decide...not read the books and articles of others!
The reason Jews do not consider Jesus the messiah is not because Jews have anything against Jesus - he sounded like a nice fellow, as described quite a bit nicer than his followers - but because he simply did not fulfill the requirements of the messiah as told by the Jewish prophets.
Here are just a few requirements that have plain-as-day not been fulfilled:
- the Sanhedrin will be re-established. (Isaiah 1:26)
- there will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
- all of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
- weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
I'm not sure how you can look around, see people dying, starving, and being killed in wars, and think we're living in the messianic age, unless you're using a definition different from the Jewish prophets'.
According to Christian doctrine, there are two comings and the Jews misunderstood that. The Jews, according to Christians, misunderstood their own scriptures and didn't realize that the first coming wasn' t going to fulfil those things. However, the second coming would...
I agree. I was raised Catholic (I'm a convert to Judaism) so I'm familiar with Christian dogma, although not nearly as much as you are.
I was just explaining to Brenda, who's probably not familiar with the traditional Jewish take on the messiah, how most Jews see it. It is not born out of any sense of hatred towards Jesus. We don't hate Shabbatai Zvi, Rebbe Schneerson, or others that their followers believed were (or continue to believe are) the messiah, either.
It's also very difficult to explain the concept that there are Budhhist Jews, Atheist Jews, Jews for Jesus, and they still remain Jews. Or that at Temple, the focus is not on the after life but on doing mitsvah and being a light to the gentiles in the sense of being of service in being doctors, teachers, farmers, and creating good things for everybody.
Yes, the fact that belief/faith/dogma is not an essential part of Judaism is something Christians and some ex-Christians can not wrap their head around. They tend to not understand the "chosen people" thing, either, or that "the truth" is something that evolves.
Coming from a Christian background myself, it took some time for me to understand, too.
I actually battled with Christian dogma for a long time, and I don't think I ever really believed there was a devil. I made myself extremely unpopular by giving the Hebrew translation of the Isaaic Scriptures. They weren't quite the way the Church taught them.
There's a lot of misinformation in Christian circles about what being Jewish actually is. They assume we believe in the after life (which some may and others may not), but most don't realize that an after life is not part of the Jewish tradition.
Most Jews do believe in an afterlife (olam haba) but it's just not described in any detail and there are countless different beliefs about it. But it's true it's never been a major point of discussion. Maybe you're talking about something different.
There are many different kinds of Jews, just like all other religions.. Most Jewish people I know either tend to be agnostic or atheist or believe in reincarnation, etc. . I'm somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist. I'm agnostic in the sense that I don't know what the truth is and I'm an atheist in that whatever the truth is, I seriously doubt that there is a 'personal' god, ie. one who actually cares about the daily lives of people.
Yes, I understood that from your other posts in other forum threads.
I personally am completely agnostic about the afterlife, but what even religious Jews believe is fairly open. I've even read rabbis who say leaving a legacy, or a memory with loved ones, or their impact on future generations, is a form of afterlife. Ultimately, we understand that we don't know and we don't bother talking a whole lot about things we don't know.
It does mean something powerful to me that Jews don't invoke the carrot-stick afterlife obsession of Christianity, which I think is a disturbing way of forcing someone to believe something.
So, your understanding of Judaism is that people don't get "saved" and go to heaven?
That's right. Jews don't believe in original sin, the concept of salvation, or the need to appease God in the form of a human sacrifice. As others have pointed out before, these Christian concepts were adopted from pagan religions, not Judaism.
Really? So when God asked Abraham to kill Isaac, his son, to prove his faith, the jews didn't consider that a sacrifice?
Yes, it was. In the story, God also prevented Abraham from carrying out the sacrifice, but that was before the Torah was given to the Jews anyway.
Deuteronomy forbids human sacrifice (reiterated by the prophets), and by the time the 2nd temple was destroyed, animal sacrifice had been phased out, too.
One thing that Jews tend to believe is that the divine is revealed as people are able to absorb and understand it. Several thousand years ago, the only credible way to prove fealty was to perform human sacrifice. Then, that was abolished. Several other rules were abolished, including the death penalty, which Judaism has not practiced in almost 2,000 years.
The prophets had their time until Ezra said the prophetic era would end, replaced by study. That brought the Talmud and Responsa. Nowadays, most of how the universe is organized is revealed through scientific inquiry.
Well, I don't think Christianity approves of human sacrifices either. And if you think the crucifixion and death of Jesus was considered a human sacrifice, I gotta wonder what christianity you practiced.
Of course Jesus was a human sacrifice. He had to die for humanity's sins, right?
Oh I see where you're coming from.
Among christians, it's considered martyrdom -- the christian kind. Where you give willingly of your life to save many.
It's interesting though that you had initially denied real human sacrifice as a form of a test to Abraham which is a towering figure in Judaism and yet you apply it to Jesus, a towering figure in Christianity inappropriately.
I understand you are a convert to Judaism, but your zeal in your converted religion shouldn't make it necessary to disparage and misapply concepts on your earlier religion.
The nay-sayers conveniently forget that Jesus was God in the flesh. Though He suffered in human form, it was God Himself who gave OF Himself on that Cross, something no human was capable of doing, nor had the power to use it to offer salvation.
Judaism does not believe that God can take form of a human being. You are presupposing that non-Christians operate under the same set of assumptions that Christians do. And I am arguing that these Christian set of assumptions were taken from pagan religions at the time.
And how does a martyr become a martyr? By sacrificing his life to a God that demands it. Why do Christians believe God demanded Jesus's death to wash away humanity's sins?
I did not deny God's call to Abraham to kill his son. As I explained in my post, Judaism quickly moved past understanding that God would ask them to perform human sacrifices.
We are having a theological discussion. If concepts you don't agree with hurt your feelings, then feel free to avoid the discussion.
It doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but I do question your motivations. If you cannot distinguish between human sacrifice and martyrdom, it's not my problem, but I will speak up if I think that your terminology is wrong. And if this was just a theological discussion for you, you would welcome a different view and not tell me to keep out of it.
Of course I understand you see them differently. I see them as being the same concept.
And you were the one trying to shut off discussion saying that I'm trying to disparage Christianity.
That you see my comment regarding your attempt to call martyrdom as human sacrifice as disparagement as trying to shut off discussion tells me that you are not open to criticism which is part of any theological discussion. I didn't know you were so sensitive. I will therefore not discuss this issue with your further to spare you.
I understand you're replying to Flightkeeper here, but I just want to pop in with two little facts---
God did not demand Jesus's sacrifice. Jesus willingly gave His life, even for you Jason.
He could have called upon legions of angels to rescue Him from the Cross. But He didn't.
And it didn't automatically "wash away" the sins of humanity, although it offered the way for men to be absolved of their sins. Men still have to repent before they get forgiveness of their sins.
Then why did God accept Jesus's suicide as a way for humanity to absolve it of its sins?
Because it was the only acceptable sacrifice. Jesus was pure of heart, pure of mind, kept Himself pure of body, even, the only sinless person that ever existed.
And it's a testament to the fact that our physical bodies aren't the most important thing. The soul lives forever. Jesus was aware of that. It's what gave Him, as a human, the strength to go through with the sacrifice, knowing that the souls of the people He Loved would be given the chance to be saved. His death was not in vain; He knew He would rise again. He literally, though, unlike any other human could do, rose again literally on the third day.
Brenda, I have doubts as to whether livelonger is familiar with christian concepts. It is clear from what he has been posting that his family has lived a very secular life or it is a sect of christianity that I am not familiar with at all. C'est la vie.
Seems so, yes.
You were adding good stuff to the discussion, Flightkeeper.
Hope you're planning on a great Christmas!
I thought so. Are there sects of christianity that consider Jesus' crucifixion as human sacrifice or suicide? The definition of suicide is taking one's own life and that was definitely not what happened, unless you consider the romans aiding and abetting him.
Still in the middle of getting everything ready. I always seem far behind and then I somehow catch up. Hoping your Christmas preps are doing well!
All I know is that every Christian sect that I know of simply looks at Jesus's sacrifice in light of the awesome value it had! And that is that God Loved us all so much that He sent a piece of Himself (His Son Jesus) to die for us. It's the Love we see and experience, a sacrifice so awesome it's actually almost unexplainable. We don't pick it apart in human terms.
There's a place in the Bible that says even the angels have trouble understanding how/why God Loved us so much!
I have my tree up. Had to re-do it after one of my cats tried to climb it and knocked off some of the ornaments, breaking them. But I went to the store and found some really pretty shiny shatterproof ones to replace those, so all is well. I'm praying for a Christmas miracle for something in my life. But if it doesn't happen, the Christmas miracle of Christ's birth will be not only sufficient, but as awesome as it was when it happened!
Yes, it was Jesus who willingly sacrificed. I always find it very moving.
I got a new tree that's smaller because the other one I had for the apt is too big. Now my problem is that my ornaments are too big. I'll figure it out somehow.
I pray that you do get your Christmas miracle. I think God will grant you what you want if it's right for you in its own time. Merry Christmas!
There you go trying to halt a discussion that you don't like.
In other news, I hear Sarah Palin's looking for a campaign manager.
livelonger that is the belief that I'm familiar with - that we live on through our children. I heard that often as a child growing up. There was never any mention of an after life.
This is an addition made later.
Do the Jews believe it "until this day". Please ask the Jews.
hold on.. I'm on the phone with them now... they got me on hold
I'm just curious; maybe in the meantime you can tell me why the words that are in CAPS in the title lines get switched to small letters? Just wondering, thought it would give you something to keep you from being bored while you're on hold!
Or maybe I should ask livelonger or Maddie.
Wow, sounds precisely like the global churches of all religions (sensational and intellectual).
The US & Global Allies are doing just that with the religious groups in Northwest Asia. One of the right wing groups "achievements" they boast.
Well said Brenda.
Brenda, I don't think it had anything to do with that. Jesus pretty much upset the apple cart and caused a disturbance in the jewish community. A messiah to the jews, from my understanding, is not a divine savior but someone mortal who will be a great leader from a military and judicial standpoint.
I didn't know that. Is that true? Guess I need to research the views of the Jewish from that standpoint...
Brenda, the way Jews see the Torah and the ways Christians see the Torah are vastly different. One of the things you might not know is that the Torah is mistranslated into the Old Testament. There are things that are not good translations that are in the Old Testament.
Pope John Paul II made a long overdue apology to the Jewish community a while back. Christians blame Jews for killing Christ even though it was Pilate who had the authority to execute anyone. Even if Jesus existed, the whole trial and execution story is so screwewd up to begine with. Roman records show that Pilate was more anti-semetic than Hitler and wouldn't allow any group of Jews make a decision for him. His idea of crowd control was to slaughter everyone which he has a record of doing. He was always being called to Rome to face accusations of cruelty to the Jews before and after the time of Jesus's death. So the idea of Pilate becoming frends with the Jewish leaders or washing his hands as depicted in the New Testament is totally nonsense. Pilate was a Roman Governor and the only person he had to please was the Emperor, no a Jewish crowd. The first actual Holy Bible was commissioned and written in about 300 BC by Emperor Constantine. To the ancient Romans, a Jew ranked below a slave's dog and this continued well into the coming centuries. So it was natural for the Bible stories to blame the Jews for Jesus' death, not the Romans because they are the ones who funded it.
I don't think Pilate intended to let the Jews "make a decision for him". I think he intended to trick them into making a decision that could be turned around on them, blaming them. More manipulation.
Brenda, Pilate couldn't have cared less what the Jews thought. He would no more need to do that than the Queen of England would need to con the local cleaner to tricker her into washing the palace floors. These people had autocratic power. There was no need to consult. 70 years later Jerusalem was completely destroyed. The Romans didn't need to manipulate the Jews or the Jewish leaders...
These are all urban legends that have sprung up in a time when there wasn't any television to double check these things. Humans are naturally superstitious and tell stories to heighten their credibility and status with each other...
Think about the Thor and Hercules and Zeus and all the other Gods. Exactly the same thing.
I blame the Romans, and more importantly, modern day Italians, for everything.
That's why I refuse to eat pizza
haha Greek One.
Your humor never seems to fail.
Greek - I got two brothers and an uncle that'll break your kneecaps for you if you don't watch out. Now go order a pizza. Sicilian style.
Funny, I forgave the modern Italians once they created linguine carbonara.
great that you put this up.Late night here and will post on this tomorrow.
Just this one post as to who were the ones to kill Jesus and even claimed to want Him dead.
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Then later on they wanted to change their minds about it but it was already written.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
This reminds me of spoiled children. They want something one minute then after they get it they decide they don't want it.
One wise man out of the whole group of men there said "Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
good discussion/great contributions from well informed hubbers
you had marvellous breaking news for me yesterday/all will be revealed type stuff/and then i read your post
.... and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.......
that would get any tabloid in the western world sued for innuendo and implication
what were the things that were done
enjoyed the discussion regarding the scrolls
my position on pizza remains unaltered /glorified bread if you ask me
answer my question St Brenda of the Irish name
what were the things that were done?
They would've told the chief priests about seeing the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchur and declared Jesus's resurrection, and...possibly, they may have even seen Jesus Himself as He appeared to the disciples right after that.
Is that what you were asking?
Hey, yeah, pizza is leavened bread. Good to the stomach but no use spiritually! haha
Ohh, "St. Brenda"? haha many including myself will argue about that St. part. Is Brenda an Irish name? Cool. I really have no knowledge of my specific physical heritage.
tell me i'm not reading this correctly
the breaking news is an angel
that's the best ever i heard/you're a gas woman /an angel like wings feathers the whole thing/good one
luabu /enjoyed this
Well, I'm not really a gas, though I do HAVE gas sometimes! LOL
The breaking news is that Jesus Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD after He died for the sins of mankind, including yours and mine! Just as He promised He would.
Ever since then, all mankind has the opportunity to repent and get forgiveness of their sins, and ultimately reside in Heaven with Him.
That "breaking news" is STILL the most important headline in history!
And the most attacked, of course.
Glad you enjoyed it. Wish you would actually see the awesomeness of it.
They would've told the chief priests about seeing the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchur
hi Brenda /we will not fall out over this but an angel rolling a stone isn't going to sell anywhere
maybe the stone moved
maybe jesus pushed it
maybe his helpers opened it
maybe the soldiers messed with the tomb
maybe we just don't know
but it wasn't an angel/thats for sure
an angel has never been seen anywhere /any place /any time/
maybe a timetraveller
maybe an alien
but never an angel i think
i respect your belief in this as i see no harm in santy or anything else like fantasy or harry potter or whatever /just don't go trying to sell these apples as facts to any sane person or you will be regarded as odd
an angel has never been seen anywhere /any place /any time/
and roman solldiers are not your ideal candidates to be hallucinating
it just doesn't stack up Brenda
you stick to your guns here and more power to you for it
in my family i am called thomas the unbeliever/that about sums me up
You either agree with Brenda that everyone else's beliefs are wrong and hers are right, or the discussion stops.
The only valid proof is the Christian Bible; all other accounts at the time are invalid and forgeries created by Satan. Why? Because she said so.
The only proper answer variants differ only in extent: "I agree with you", "I completely agree with you" and "I absolutely, positively agree with you" are 3 examples of acceptable answers.
good point livelonger
my attempt at politeness to Brenda has me seemingly sitting on the fence
---in my opinion an angel of the lord rolling back a rock is complete bull.
Well, that wasn't very polite. Neither was your mockery the first time!
But hey whatever. You can choose to believe or not, as you wish. You were the one who expressed interest in what the Bible says, and I then answered that suggestion.
If you refuse to see the awesomeness of what Jesus did for you, then it's you who's missing the boat.
If your intent is to be instructional, then maybe you should write Hubs on this sort of thing instead.
If you're interested in participatory discussion, then you have to be willing to deal with people who disagree with your premise. As strange as it sounds, most Jews will not agree with you that they were bribed and lied to about Jesus.
Martyr and self-sacrifice. What is the difference? Because as livelonger pointed out - they're one and the same.
Jesus chose to die. He sacrificed himself. A martyr is an individual that is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a cause. And so the difference is?
What's to distinguish? It's like trying to make a case for the difference between the word car and automobile. Both mean the same.
Uh...I wasn't figuring they'd all agree. I was pointing out the Biblical truth to them! Something that will have eternal consequences. And, yes, hoping for some participatory discussion, as I said in my first post. It would be interesting to see feedback from a traditional Jew on this very important issue. It's possible many have never even read those passages in the New Testament.
And I deal with it fine! Just because I like discussion on something doesn't mean I'm looking for someone to change my mind.
What do you consider a traditional Jew?
I'm not trying to change your mind. You're entitled to believe whatever you want. But I can tell you why I have absolutely no reason to believe anything that Christian dogma claims is true.
Those who believe in the Old Testament and probably not the New; who are "old-fashioned" Jews, not the modern-day ones who've supposedly converted to Judaism on a whim.
Thanks for the (attempted) insult.
Jews consider me a Jew. Jews consider Sophia a Jew. What an evangelical Christian considers a Jew is pretty much irrelevant.
Jews don't believe in the Torah/Tanakh, they follow it, and the Old Testament is not the same as the Tanakh. The fact that you think belief has anything to do with it suggests you know far less about Judaism than you would claim.
I wasn't referring to Sophia at all.
Nor even you as far as I know.
Why? Did you convert to Judaism without studying the Torah?
I don't claim to know much about Judaism except what the Bible describes, and that's the origin of Judaism's writings. Ergo my questions and hope for discussion, plus as I said the New Testament's direct reference to the relation between Judaism and belief or non-belief in Christ.
Judaism does not address Jesus. The Tanakh was authored well before Jesus was born. Subsequent writings, like the Talmud, also do not mention Jesus/Yashua.
The 2nd section of the Tanakh (Prophets) clearly describe the conditions to be the case for the messiah to appear. Almost none of these have been fulfilled today, much less during the time of Jesus. This is why Jesus could not have been the messiah by Jewish definition.
If you don't consider me a reliable Jewish source, then you can Google it and find many authoritative sources that address this. The only Jews that consider Jesus the messiah are "Messianic Jews" who are Christians (pretty much by definition).
It seems to make sense that any Jewish person who believed Jesus was the Messiah would eventually be called a 'Christian' or some other similar term as a distinguishing point between him/herself and other Jewish people. St Peter was Jewish... and I am sure he would define himself as such even tough he was a follower of Jesus and as such a 'Christian' in our parlance.
Yes, that's true. There are other Jews who consider themselves Jewish who thought other people were the messiah throughout history, too. But those who thought Jesus was were, by definition, Christians.
Lulz on your earlier posts, BTW.
Why is it that I have 'the Jews' on the phone as requested by my good friend Paarsurrey, but I have been kept waiting for 4 hours!?!?
Is it because I an a Gentile?
Not sure... did you call the central Jews Hotline, or one of the regional branches?
well, to tell you the truth, I called the first number in the Yellow Pages that looked promising... AAA Bagels...
I told them that I had an theological inquiry, and they put me on hold. Not to be offensive, but why is it that your people's 'on hold' messages sound so much like the clicking sound of someone hanging up the phone?
That's the halakhically-required on-hold music...
You might try AAAA Bagels next. You might inquire about the veggie schmear theological discount, too.
Please note that we are currently experiencing higher-than-normal call volumes.
I'll never understand your people...
....except of course Philip Roth
Nah. I suspect it's because you're the whorethodox type *nods* The 48 virgins thing is a big give away.
Ho hum. The Tribe of Judah rejected the Messiah because that was what had been foretold. This is also how the Messiah knew that his time would end upon the cross. His act ensures that the house of Judah would, in the final times, recognize him. At that time and only then, will the prophecies be fulfilled which leads to their salvation. His work was not completed at Golgotha. It is a W.I.P. and always has been.
by Elisah19576 years ago
The Gentiles are no longer enemies of G-d. Under the New Covenant they are Messianists (being one in the Messiah Yeshua). G-d word says from:(Galatians 3:8-9) Whats more, the scriptures looked forward to this time...
by Julie Grimes7 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Truly Different5 years ago
"Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?"Every time I come from Israel to visit my friend here in USA, I am asked this question by certain people. I always answer that Jews do not deny existence of Jesus, they just...
by Captain Redbeard21 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Charles James6 years ago
I am writing a series of Hubs under the linked theme of "Socialism 101".It seems to me that Jesus was not a socialist, because His aim was to straighten out backsliding within the Jewish community.He carefully...
by Rhonda D Johnson4 years ago
I've written a hub describing the effect Constantine and the pagans in the ecumenical counsels had on Christianity. I also read the writings of Justin Martyr where he tried to explain away the embarrassing extent...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.