Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Mother's Day Gifts Shop Popular Services siliconvalley siliconvalley siliconvalley  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis National Bike Month on Amazon disgotg_gno_17
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

why Christianity is and Islam is not a legitimate successor to Judaism


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 78 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 2, 2012, 7:59:29 AM PST
This post is for Sarah or any other thoughtful Jews looking for answers:

http://www.biblestudying.net/rabbinic1.html

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 9:15:07 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
Judaism doesn't need a "successor". Jews are doing just fine on their own.

Posted on Dec 2, 2012, 10:14:40 AM PST
MLC says:
Since the only way to God is through Jesus, then anybody attempting to get to him any other way isout of luck. We cannot earn our way into heaven because we cannot make ourselves sin-free. Just as the blood of the Passover Lamb saved the Jews back in the day of Moses, so does the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his life in sacrifice at another Passover centuries later, save everyone, Jew or Gentile, who accepts the gift of salvation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 11:34:25 AM PST
MLC, Not just accepts, but anyone who cooperates with grace and loves all people, since faith alone does not justify one before God. (James 2:24, Matthew 19:17, 1 Corinthians 13;2, Revelation 2:23, Matthew 16;27, John 5:29). Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Jesus our Great God and Saviour

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 11:48:06 AM PST
"Just as the blood of the Passover Lamb saved the Jews back in the day of Moses,..."

Actually it never did, your Christian ancestors got confused because of the time of Jesus death and the Passover. The Passover lamb wasn't a sin offering, it's blood was put on the doorposts to commemorate the Exile from Egypt, which is what Passover is all about. It had nothing to do with sin.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 11:58:46 AM PST
you are so wrong
and will find out the hard way that you are not doing fine on your own

Posted on Dec 2, 2012, 12:46:55 PM PST
Excerpts from the website listed in the opening post:

Rather than disagreeing with or rejecting the New Testament Christian interpretation of the Old Testament evidence as we would commonly expect, we find that something remarkable occurs instead. A review of important Jewish sources including the Talmud, ancient Jewish translations (the Targums and Septuagint), as well as ancient, medieval, and modern rabbinic writing, all arrive at the same or very similar interpretations of the Old Testament as those offered by the New Testament Christian teaching. The result is the typical perception of the traditional Jewish position loses meaningful distinction from the New Testament Christian position. Rather than being denied or refuted by the rabbinic interpretation, the New Testament Christian interpretation is instead validated and affirmed by traditional Jewish sources.

4. On a Suffering and Dying Messiah -
Typical Perception of Traditional Judaism:

New Testament Christianity erroneously interprets Isaiah 53 as a reference to the Messiah. Isaiah 53 is a reference to the nation of Israel as a whole. The Messiah will not suffer and die, but will be a conquering King. Likewise, Isaiah indicates that the Messiah will have children. Jesus did not have children, so Isaiah cannot be speaking of him. New Testament Christianity erroneously interprets Zechariah 12 as a prophecy of the Messiah. It is not. Likewise, Psalm 16 does not speak of the Messiah or resurrection from the dead.

Actual Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:

Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 53 prophesy that the Messiah, even the King Messiah, will suffer and die to atone for our sins as Priest, but he will be resurrected from the dead. The interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel as a whole and not to a specific individual is a relatively recent view that does not appear in rabbinic literature until the eleventh century A.D. For nearly a thousand years rabbinic tradition understood Isaiah 53 to refer to a specific Messianic individual. The reference in Isaiah 53 to the Messiah seeing his seed does not indicate actual physical descendents. For instance, this passage has been interpreted by some to refer to Jeremiah who was commanded by God not to marry or have children and to the late Lubavitcher Grand Rabbi who also had no children. Most likely, the passage is speaking of persons of the same spiritual qualities. Zechariah 3 does refer to the Messiah and identifies him with Joshua the High Priest through the use of the Messianic term "the Branch." Zechariah 12 does prophecy that the Messiah will be pierced and die for the sins of Israel who will mourn for him as for a firstborn son. Psalm 16 does refer to the Messiah indicating that his body will not decompose. (Some of the ultra-orthodox Lubavitcher Hasidic movement taught that their deceased high rabbi, who they claimed was the Messiah, would be resurrected and return.)

4. This becomes even more interesting when we realize that the Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were looking for two Messianic figures, called the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. 30 In addition to this, the important first-century document called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in particular the Testaments of Levi and Judah, also had much to say about this priestly Messiah, speaking of him in highly exalted terms. 31 - Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections, p. 85

87. There are many rich, beautiful, and theologically moving traditions in Jewish literature about the sufferings of the Messiah. In fact, the learned Jewish scholar Raphael Patai devoted an entire chapter to the subject in his unparalleled collection titled The Messiah Texts. 378 More than fifty years earlier, Gustaf Dalman, a Christian scholar of Judaica whose reference works are used by Jewish scholars to this day, devoted an entire volume to the subject of the suffering Messiah in Jewish tradition. 379 - Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 221

89. Summarizing the key Rabbinic teachings on the sufferings and afflictions of the Messiah, Patai writes:

Despised and afflicted with unhealing wounds, he sits in the gates of Great Rome and winds and unwinds the bandages of his festering sores; as a Midrash expresses it, "pains have adopted him." According to one of the most moving and psychologically most meaningful, of all Messiah legends, God, when He created the Messiah, gave him the choice of whether or not to accept the sufferings for the sins of Israel. And the Messiah answered: "I accept it with joy so that not a single soul of Israel should perish."...In the later Zoharic [i.e., mystical] formulation of this legend, the Messiah himself summons all the diseases, pains, and sufferings of Israel to come upon him, in order to thus ease the anguish of Israel, which otherwise would be unbearable. 381 - Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 221-222

Posted on Dec 2, 2012, 12:56:20 PM PST
Rabbinic Judaism and New Testament Christianity agree on how to understand the Old Testament teachings that describe and identify the Messiah. And the New Testament records that Jesus fulfills these Old Testament Messianic teachings that are expected and agreed upon by Rabbinic Judaism. (Below is a list of some of the most prominent examples.)

1. The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
2. The Messiah was to be a descendent of King David. Jesus is a descendent of King David.
3. The Messiah's birth would be unusual, unique, and remarkable in that he would be born to a young woman for whom it would not normally be possible to conceive or bear a child. Jesus' birth was unusual, unique, and remarkable in that he was born to a young woman, Mary, who did not conceive a child in the normal way, but was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb.
4. The Messiah was to come before the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred in 70 A.D. Jesus came before the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred in 70 A.D.
5. The Messiah was to come humbly riding on a donkey. Jesus came humbly riding on a donkey.
6. The Messiah would be a worker of miracles. Jesus was a worker of miracles.
7. The Messiah would suffer and die as an offering to atone for sin. Jesus suffered and died as an offering to atone for sin.
8. After the Messiah comes the sacrifices of the Law of Moses will not been required for atonement. Since the time of Jesus the sacrifices of the Law of Moses have not been required for atonement.
9. The Messiah would not be left in the place of the dead, but would be resurrected from the dead. Jesus was not left in the place of the dead, but was resurrected from the dead.

Given these two facts, (1) the similarity to Rabbinic teaching demonstrating the authentic Jewishness of Christianity and (2) the many Jewish persons who have believed Jesus is Messiah (including some of orthodox background), it is difficult to maintain a view that those who believe Jesus is Messiah are not in any sense Jewish or of the Jewish faith. Instead, belief in Jesus as Messiah is wholly consistent with the teachings of Old Testament Judaism as agreed by ancient, medieval, and modern Rabbinic (Traditional) and Messianic Judaism. Far from making one un-Jewish, believing in Jesus as Messiah makes one a follower of Judaism (and, a reasonable and informed one at that).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 1:06:24 PM PST
Astrocat says:
MLC, the only people who think "the only way to God is through Jesus" are fundamentalist Christians. That leaves several billion people in the world who are finding their way to whatever god they seek through the myriad other means and methods available.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 1:07:23 PM PST
MLC advised:
"Since the only way to God is through Jesus, then anybody attempting to get to him any other way isout of luck."

Golly gumdrops! Lotsa people going to hell, then, huh? Heaven's going to be a lot of fun (NOT!) with only bible-thumping xtian fundamentaists there.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 1:08:16 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Janice, all those seeming correlations between the Christian story and the Hebrew Scriptures were, interestingly enough, applied by the gospel writers using incredible hindsight. So no cigar, though one would have to give you a good grade for trying.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 1:24:04 PM PST
Janice, if what you said was true why did Jews, under the threat of death in many cases, refuse to convert to Christianity? If there was nothing to lose, and everything to gain (supposedly), what would stop them?

If you ask any observant Jew they will tell you. Because to worship a man as God himself is idolatry, and that is forbidden by the Laws of God. See the Ten Commandments.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 2:26:37 PM PST
To Nancy:
Then why do they agree with Rabbinical writings from long ago?? On the off chance that Jesus really was the Messiah, isn't it worth checking it out yourself?

To Rolling Stones: As for why one wouldn't recant one's belief to save one's life, the same could be asked of you: After spending 3 years with Jesus, why did the apostles die excruciating deaths for their Christian faith, even being crucified upside down? A few people will die for false beliefs, but ALL the apostles did, except for John who endured exile. They had seen and felt the risen Lord for themselves, and been indwelt with the Holy Spirit, that is why!

You are right that we must not worship men (or angels). But Jesus was not only a man; He was also God in the flesh. Hebrews 1:6 commands: ...let all the angels of God worship Him (Jesus). And Jesus, unlike angels, did not rebuke people for worshiping Him:

Matt. 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying,"You
are certainly God's Son!" (not followed by a rebuke) John 9:38 And he (the blind man Jesus healed) said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. (not followed by a rebuke)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 3:29:55 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012, 3:41:58 PM PST
"You are right that we must not worship men (or angels). But Jesus was not only a man; He was also God in the flesh."

I think you should read the Law again. It forbids the worshiping of ANY physical manifestation or representation of God.

Also it makes no sense anyway for anyone to worship a man if they just believed he was a man and never believed that he was God. Why would anyone do that? Obviously they wouldn't so the Law does not references that practice. The only reason a person would worship a man is IF they believed he was God in the flesh.

Historical records written by Christians prove that the original Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was just a man, not God in the flesh.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 3:39:14 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Janice, the term "rabbi" really didn't come into any kind of full force until long after the destruction of the temple. Rabbinical Judaism can be traced back to about the 6th century CE. So the writings you're citing (from hindsight, again) couldn't have been "rabbinical writings."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:26:36 PM PST
Rolling Stones, yes, it was a sin offering, for the very reason Israel was in slavery of another was due to sin. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:32:55 PM PST
It wasn't a sin offering. Show me where it says in the bible, that it was a sin offering. You can't invent Scripture Matthew, it's an insult to God because it implies that he forgot to mention what you just did.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:35:05 PM PST
Rolling, It was a sin offering, for the very reason Israel was handed over to slavery of another in the first place was due to their sins. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:41:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012, 6:50:30 PM PST
It wasn't a sin offering Matthew, all your lying cannot change that. It was to commemorate the release from bondage out of Egypt and that the Israelites were passed over for destruction by putting the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. God never said it was a sin offering, you are lying in God's name by saying it was a sin offering.

"you shall say, It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, and He saved our houses. And the people kneeled and prostrated themselves."

Exodus 12 explains it clearly, it was NOT a sin offering.

============================

Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Draw forth or buy for yourselves sheep for your families and slaughter the Passover sacrifice.

And you shall take a bunch of hyssop and immerse [it] in the blood that is in the basin, and you shall extend to the lintel and to the two doorposts the blood that is in the basin, and you shall not go out, any man from the entrance of his house until morning.

The Lord will pass to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and the Lord will pass over the entrance, and He will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to smite [you].

And you shall keep this matter as a statute for you and for your children forever.

And it shall come to pass when you enter the land that the Lord will give you, as He spoke, that you shall observe this service.

And it will come to pass if your children say to you, What is this service to you?

you shall say, It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, and He saved our houses. And the people kneeled and prostrated themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:51:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012, 7:01:19 PM PST
Rolling, Indeed it was a SACRIFICE, as the blood of the lambs sacrificed was offered in exchange for the lives of the Israelites, for the VERY REASON that Israel was given over to slavery of another was due to their sins. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 6:55:04 PM PST
It was a sacrifice. Nobody disputes that. But it was NOT a sin-offering. Nor was the lamb sacrificed in exchange for the lives of the Israelites. You keep lying in God's name. Why do you do that when God gave the reasons?

It's to commemorate that God spared the lives of the Israelites when he killed the Egyptians.

"you shall say, It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, and He saved our houses. And the people kneeled and prostrated themselves."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 7:01:28 PM PST
Rolling, Indeed it was a SACRIFICE, as the blood of the lambs sacrificed was offered in exchange for the lives of the Israelites, for the VERY REASON that Israel was given over to slavery of another was due to their sins. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 7:11:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012, 7:11:57 PM PST
Matthew, are you blind? It was to commemorate something that had happened IN THE PAST. If you believe that the lamb was offered in exchange for the lives of the Israelites then it means that Jesus was not needed, because that "exchange" had already happened in Egypt long before.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 7:14:22 PM PST
Rolling, No, I see very well thankfully, for the VERY REASON Isarel was enslaved of another in the first place was due to their SINS, and thus the sin offering of the sacrificed lambs, then helped free those Israelites from their slavery that was the result of sin in the first place. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012, 7:34:49 PM PST
"No, I see very well thankfully, for the VERY REASON Isarel was enslaved of another in the first place was due to their SINS,"

Why do you keep lying in God's name Matthew?

This happened LONG BEFORE the Law was even given to Moses. So how could the Israelites be sinning when they were not under the Law yet? What sins could they be guilty of, because they had not made a Covenant with God yet when they were in Egypt?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1254 1 day ago
Jesus said... "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me." John 14:6 Part Two 7403 11 seconds ago
Catholic-Protestant Discussion XXXVI 6465 2 minutes ago
Facts about the Bible and Christianity 437 11 minutes ago
Hi there. I'm an atheist. Let me tell you how smart I am 50 16 minutes ago
How does hell make the universe a better place? 149 56 minutes ago
Is Donald Trump the Anti-Christ and we have really entered the end times? 8 2 hours ago
Last Day Biblical Prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled, the stage is being set, are you ready? Part Three 2832 8 hours ago
Moment of Brokenness Part 3 560 11 hours ago
Mary wasn't sinless 158 11 hours ago
Jesus' true Church today would have CURRENT REVELATION FROM GOD! 5040 11 hours ago
Real Proof and Physical Evidence 476 13 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  78
Initial post:  Dec 2, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer