Converting Jews to Christianity

[1gr8buildit]

No links but was just wondering, does Judaism teach that the anointed King from the line of David would be God?

I would have to say that I am not confident in the facts regarding this, but my assumption is that it was that simple back then, that he would come from the line of David. But now, the anti Jesus rejection has grown and they have searched out verses that they could use to justify it. But, I don't believe "real" Judism has evolved like these anti Jesus Jewish sites.

 

[oldfella1962]

Jesus was not the messiah – What Jews Believe

whatjewsbelieve.org

Who is the Messiah? | My Jewish Learning

Traditional Jewish Texts describe the Jewish messiah explicitly.

www.myjewishlearning.com

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/108400/jewish/The-End-of-Days.htm

HA! The title of the first link made me laugh - I imagined Michael McDonald with the Doobies singing "what a Jew belieeeeves....he seeees....no wise man has the power...to reason awaaaay....."
Yeah, my brain is toast! But why fight it? I'll just lean into my mental decline.

 

[oldfella1962]

Even though it appears at times we scuffling, I’m with you on a lot of stuff….but being debunked by atheist and skeptics…..

If that were true……we wouldn’t be having any discussion such as this

What’s been proven is actually what the Bible says - no man will come to the Father unless he’s drawn…

It’s pointless for any Christian to beat a dead horse trying to provide evidence of God. Our only job is to give you our testimony as a witness of God. Everything else is between you and God.

And I don’t blame you, unless you feel it’s legit, every supernatural claim should be treated with skepticism. I do the same….

Yep - and so far, I haven't found even one supernatural claim that I consider legit.

 

[oldfella1962]

Most are selling non FDA approved supplements that are large on claims and short on gains.
I never saw so many people look way older and less athletic for their age like when those Fruits and Veggies in a pill are advertised. Similarly, the ones offering sweeter desserts instead of fish at the religious buffets aren't exactly reaping any more or any less benefits than the others who they say need benefitting.

Okay, a little off topic but I hear what you're saying about Balance of Nature! You might get the vitamins of fruit & veggies but what about the fiber? What about the bulk? That's what old people need the most!

 

[1gr8buildit]

Just thinking out loud here.... The thought in regards to Jews converting to Christianty... I the NT days, their acceptance or rejection seemed to be in the context, not exactly spelled out. It seems their issues were not about Jesus as to whether he checked off all the boxes, but rather over the teaching of Christianity. Basically In regards to the adherence of the traditions and the law. And, of course, the things Jesus said. He was inflammatory when it came to the religious leaders, which caused them to hate him. They would be looking very hard to find a way to diminish him. It would seem to the best of my memory that the NT book does not have any context that shows the leaders trying to convince anyone that Jesus does not check all the boxes of the messiah. There was the thought that he would come from Bethlehem, of which the NT tries to account for. I admit, it sounds reversed engineered. Yet, I point it out because that is all I recall regarding a scrutiny of his messiah requirements.


However, everything has changed, evolving into something entirely different... That has caused the Jewish community to never consider Jesus as the Messiah. This came only after the NT writings, likely many years later. [Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew, etc.] It would only evolve after the sum of the NT, the interpretation of the books together, where more ambiguous verses could be used to overstep context, pulling a verse from here, and another from there. Such is on display in the Trinity thread above. And interesting enough, the bible predicts it will happen. "the Lord your God is one" and many like this.

Yet missing is all context regarding the Jews acceptance or rejection that their long held beliefs of extreme monotheism, is now interpreted different. We have zero context of anyone having to explain this. Instead, we see explanation regarding women, marriage, food sacrificed to idols, etc. Are we to think that they accepted this contradictory belief hook line and sinker with zero need for explanation, followup, or context of acceptance or rejection?

Context and what it looks like; We do see one context battle that goes on in the NT. It's the battle of the laws, the adherence to it, the arguments surrounding it, the turmoil between both sides..... and the micro context, such as Paul's agitation against Peter, because he thought Peter was straddling the fence on the issue, appeasing his flock, letting them keep their traditions which was causing Paul's crowd to question the freedom he preached.

.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Think about "context" and what it looks like. Paul, was he stoned, beat up. persecuted, locked up for teaching Jesus was God, or was it something else. Our first debut of Paul as Saul was that he preached effectively, proving that "Jesus is the Christ". And "how God annointed Jesus of Nazereth with the Holy Spirit and power and how he went around doing good and healing those under the power of the devil, because God was with him". "paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews, that jesus is the Christ". "He vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, that Jesus was the Christ". "Instead they had some points of dispute about a dead man named Jesus that Paul claimed was alive". Do we see anything here that would suggest that Paul, for example taught that Jesus was God, or that God was triune? Would we seriously ignore clear context and pull out ambigious verses and say see, here it is. Since when does ambiguous trump context?

 

[1gr8buildit]

So, to my point.... Jesus as the Christ, the messiah, had it's objections, yet, it was plausible. Jesus as God, God as triune, will never be accepted by the Jews.

 

[Logan77]

So, to my point.... Jesus as the Christ, the messiah, had it's objections, yet, it was plausible. Jesus as God, God as triune, will never be accepted by the Jews.

From history learnt, ?, from babylong or persia or other religions, "triune" was unknown to the Messiah, the messengers of the Gospel, and the disciples of Jesus, until after about 150 to 190 years had passed. Some guy started calling the breath of God 'Wisdom' around 168 a.d., but it was not original in Scripture nor Jesus' disciples. Later , to patronize the heathen of the other gods/ other religions, trinity was incorporated into the false churches teachers, teachings and practices, now so long ago that unless someone seeks the truth, they may never find out, other than Abba's Gracious Providence to anyone seeking Him.

 

[gordon 2]

From history learnt, ?, from babylong or persia or other religions, "triune" was unknown to the Messiah, the messengers of the Gospel, and the disciples of Jesus, until after about 150 to 190 years had passed. Some guy started calling the breath of God 'Wisdom' around 168 a.d., but it was not original in Scripture nor Jesus' disciples. Later , to patronize the heathen of the other gods/ other religions, trinity was incorporated into the false churches teachers, teachings and practices, now so long ago that unless someone seeks the truth, they may never find out, other than Abba's Gracious Providence to anyone seeking Him.

According to John three testify independently of each other as being able to point to their equal divine entity and so nature. The idea is that if you know the real God ( Spirit) you know Jesus ( water and blood) and the Holy Spirit ( water as anointing entity). They testify of each other to having the ability to recognize one and the another into each other to such an extent that they are not separate beings. An argument follows that knowing one entity in truth a man can know the others for they are equals. Each person is able to testify by equal truths that the other is himself and himself as the others to such an extent that they each ( person) is not spiritually separated and therefore is one entity. They are Spirit, water and blood. They also have a unity in being equally in opposition to the spirit of the world. Their perspective and therefore essence of being in nature is equal regardless of their forms. Three separate entities testify of each other as being of the other recognizable as one and yet separate to human consciousness. By sameness and therefore of a nature equal yet separate ( from which three testify) against the perspective of the spirit of the world ( say Spiritus Mondi) which is governed by idol worship in conflict with themselves, and which still occupies our consciousness, God reveals his self, his who I am in oppositional and non conflicted unity. This is stated ( so my interpretation) and dates back before150 had passed from the first disciples of Jesus as it is in the writings of one of the very first. You might recall it from 1 John Chapter five where John point out why some of the Jews are not getting with Jesus. Basically he says that these Jews don't know God because if they did they would know and cleave to Jesus and so they would get with Jesus, like a duck takes to water. But they dont' know God so they can't get with Jesus.( What is this tread doing in this sub forum?!!!)

 

[WaltL1]

According to John three testify independently of each other as being able to point to their equal divine entity and so nature. The idea is that if you know the real God ( Spirit) you know Jesus ( water and blood) and the Holy Spirit ( water as anointing entity). They testify of each other to having the ability to recognize one and the another into each other to such an extent that they are not separate beings. An argument follows that knowing one entity in truth a man can know the others for they are equals. Each person is able to testify by equal truths that the other is himself and himself as the others to such an extent that they each ( person) is not spiritually separated and therefore is one entity. They are Spirit, water and blood. They also have a unity in being equally in opposition to the spirit of the world. Their perspective and therefore essence of being in nature is equal regardless of their forms. Three separate entities testify of each other as being of the other recognizable as one and yet separate to human consciousness. By sameness and therefore of a nature equal yet separate ( from which three testify) against the perspective of the spirit of the world ( say Spiritus Mondi) which is governed by idol worship in conflict with themselves, and which still occupies our consciousness, God reveals his self, his who I am in oppositional and non conflicted unity. This is stated ( so my interpretation) and dates back before150 had passed from the first disciples of Jesus as it is in the writings of one of the very first. You might recall it from 1 John Chapter five where John point out why some of the Jews are not getting with Jesus. Basically he says that these Jews don't know God because if they did they would know and cleave to Jesus and so they would get with Jesus, like a duck takes to water. But they dont' know God so they can't get with Jesus.( What is this tread doing in this sub forum?!!!)

In response to your question -
Being read, thought about and discussed?
Its interesting seeing the various perspectives and the justification for them..

 

[bullethead]

It would seem to the best of my memory that the NT book does not have any context that shows the leaders trying to convince anyone that Jesus does not check all the boxes of the messiah.

I don't find that odd or surprising since the stories told are pushing for Jesus to be the Messiah. If reasons why he wouldn't be Messiah were included it would have undermined the narrative.

 

[oldfella1962]

According to John three testify independently of each other as being able to point to their equal divine entity and so nature. The idea is that if you know the real God ( Spirit) you know Jesus ( water and blood) and the Holy Spirit ( water as anointing entity). They testify of each other to having the ability to recognize one and the another into each other to such an extent that they are not separate beings. An argument follows that knowing one entity in truth a man can know the others for they are equals. Each person is able to testify by equal truths that the other is himself and himself as the others to such an extent that they each ( person) is not spiritually separated and therefore is one entity. They are Spirit, water and blood. They also have a unity in being equally in opposition to the spirit of the world. Their perspective and therefore essence of being in nature is equal regardless of their forms. Three separate entities testify of each other as being of the other recognizable as one and yet separate to human consciousness. By sameness and therefore of a nature equal yet separate ( from which three testify) against the perspective of the spirit of the world ( say Spiritus Mondi) which is governed by idol worship in conflict with themselves, and which still occupies our consciousness, God reveals his self, his who I am in oppositional and non conflicted unity. This is stated ( so my interpretation) and dates back before150 had passed from the first disciples of Jesus as it is in the writings of one of the very first. You might recall it from 1 John Chapter five where John point out why some of the Jews are not getting with Jesus. Basically he says that these Jews don't know God because if they did they would know and cleave to Jesus and so they would get with Jesus, like a duck takes to water. But they dont' know God so they can't get with Jesus.( What is this tread doing in this sub forum?!!!)

Because I started the thread and I'm an atheist. I'm sure not going "upstairs" and stepping on any toes! That said I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. Sidenote I didn't understand anything you just said, so I doubt if I would understand anyone else's comments either even if I could have posted it "upstairs". I would be "lost in the sauce" and it would surely be a "pearls before swine" situation.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Because I started the thread and I'm an atheist. I'm sure not going "upstairs" and stepping on any toes! That said I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. Sidenote I didn't understand anything you just said, so I doubt if I would understand anyone else's comments either even if I could have posted it "upstairs". I would be "lost in the sauce" and it would surely be a "pearls before swine" situation.

You might find this interting. And being able to look at it objectively, I'm certain you will agree, whether you believe it or not. 1 John 5:6 where that context you responded to comes from. You can clearly see one group inserting their theology into the scriptures. They claim it's a clear picture of the three, suposedly, the water, blood and spirit. They can't see for they are blinded that even if it's three, it's ambiguous at best. But lets look further. What is the context here.? John is saying that the SPIRIT testifies that Jesus is confirmed as messiah. By what means? Water and blood. If the KJ interpreters had of had any biblical knowledge they would have known what John was saying here, but they did not. And there ignorance naturally, not manipulative, lead them to make a stretch in interpretation due to their preconceived notions. The battle over which was right later by changing the greek words from water and blood to the triune reading was where the fight begin and corruption seemed like a better word.
So what's the real context? John was saying that the spirit confirms Jesus as the messiah pointing to a well know to the audience at the time verse of confirmation of Moses. He turned the water into blood as proof he was sent. Jesus is said of twice in the NT as a prophet likened to Moses. And then, the scriptures also alude to this when Jesus was suposedly stabed with the spear hanging on the cross. Water and blood flowed. So as you can clearly see. The trinitarian view of 1 John 5;6 is an insertion of their doctrine into antiquity that originally came from ignorance of the scriptures that later gained hold because those who actually knew the scriptures died out of the fight so it now remains and is their go to verse of their small handful of see here verses.

 

[oldfella1962]

You might find this interting. And being able to look at it objectively, I'm certain you will agree, whether you believe it or not. 1 John 5:6 where that context you responded to comes from. You can clearly see one group inserting their theology into the scriptures. They claim it's a clear picture of the three, suposedly, the water, blood and spirit. They can't see for they are blinded that even if it's three, it's ambiguous at best. But lets look further. What is the context here.? John is saying that the SPIRIT testifies that Jesus is confirmed as messiah. By what means? Water and blood. If the KJ interpreters had of had any biblical knowledge they would have known what John was saying here, but they did not. And there ignorance naturally, not manipulative, lead them to make a stretch in interpretation due to their preconceived notions. The battle over which was right later by changing the greek words from water and blood to the triune reading was where the fight begin and corruption seemed like a better word.
So what's the real context? John was saying that the spirit confirms Jesus as the messiah pointing to a well know to the audience at the time verse of confirmation of Moses. He turned the water into blood as proof he was sent. Jesus is said of twice in the NT as a prophet likened to Moses. And then, the scriptures also alude to this when Jesus was suposedly stabed with the spear hanging on the cross. Water and blood flowed. So as you can clearly see. The trinitarian view of 1 John 5;6 is an insertion of their doctrine into antiquity that originally came from ignorance of the scriptures that later gained hold because those who actually knew the scriptures died out of the fight so it now remains and is their go to verse of their small handful of see here verses.

Interesting, but I had to read through it a couple of times to even get the gist of what you are saying. But you do have a Bart Ehrman (the guy is awesome) level of Biblical knowledge, that's for sure.

 

[brutally honest]

… you do have a Bart Ehrman (the guy is awesome) level of Biblical knowledge, that's for sure.

That’s a terrible thing to say. Next you’ll be telling him he has a Dan Brown level of biblical knowledge.

 

[oldfella1962]

That’s a terrible thing to say. Next you’ll be telling him he has a Dan Brown level of biblical knowledge.

Bart Ehrman knows his stuff. A lot of apologists don't like him and try to debunk his ideas, so he must be doing something right!

 

[bullethead]

That’s a terrible thing to say. Next you’ll be telling him he has a Dan Brown level of biblical knowledge.

1gr8 has the ability to express his religiousness in a true apologetic fashion. He obviously is well studied and well versed. He is honest in his assessments and belief. Far above what most even attempt and so far none have refuted.

 

[brutally honest]

1gr8 has the ability to express his religiousness in a true apologetic fashion. He obviously is well studied and well versed. He is honest in his assessments and belief. Far above what most even attempt and so far none have refuted.

Arius was refuted 1700 years ago.

 

[brutally honest]

Bart Ehrman knows his stuff.

Ehrman is like the “Republicans” who comment on MSNBC. They get a platform because they gleefully denounce other Republicans.

Likewise, Ehrman attacks the Bible and historic Christianity and is promoted because of that.

 

[bullethead]

I don't remember Arius commenting in these threads, and I do understand that you don't like to hear what Ehrman and others have to say but that doesn't make what they say untrue.