Religions of Abraham Backwards?

[Bleed S & G]

Ahhh, I want to respond but I gotta run to the office and then appointments - hopefully I'll be able to jump back on later today

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

While it is your faith to believe that as a true statement, if I understand S&G correctly, what happens if Jesus is essentially the same as David Koresh? (A guy who had his followers believing he was much more than he was)

In other words, you're sorta not debating anything - you're just saying "Well, I believe him" Maybe S&G's question is "Why do you believe him?" Doesn't the "evidence" (if you will, ie perversion of the church) point to the conclusion that whatever Jesus was, he couldn't have been G-d? (I don't mean to step on S&G here, I just wonder if maybe I'm missing something)

Well, you're certainly not missing much. I actually think you quite understand me. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." So if Jesus did turn out to be David Koresh then my faith is futile, thought this is an impossibility to me. Like I said my belief starts with what Jesus did and said and goes from there because of the Cross. Basically you would have to convince me that Jesus was wrong in what He said, that He didn't die on the cross and didn't raise again, to convince me that Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament. I think because of that there is irreconcilable difference in our point of views and in how we percieve the differences/simmilarities of the OT God and Jesus.

 

[jwinslow]

Not to derail this, but there is one big problem with that view far as I can tell. The OT predicts a messiah for the Jews and Jews would not be looking for a god-man because they believe in ONE G-d above all others.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, Elohim created

The Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 refers to "Elohim" -- a word representing multiple Gods. The single form in Hebrew is: "Eloah." Some would suggest that an accurate literal translation would be: "beginning filled the Gods the heavens and the earth."

The apparent reference to plural deities is reinforced by the use of "us" and "we" in Genesis 1:26 and in other verses of Genesis.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."[/I]

Psalm 82:6 I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (gods was written using the hebrew word Elohim, multiple gods)
John 10:34-35 "Is it not written in your Law, 'l said you are Gods?' "


They were most confused because he did not fulfill their perspective on what and how he would conquer. If a god-man had been born into a figure like Napolean or Alexander the Great, they would have been on board much quicker.

 

[jwinslow]

I don't know.. I was simply trying to keep what I assume to be the thread's premise in place. The question being, how can you know you're not being deceived?

Well that gets back to the earlier point of something that is impossible to argue against or know for sure.

Or, if you will, if G-d was all powerful... or if Jesus' word so compelling,

Human nature is riddled with behavior in spite of what we know we should do, sometimes even what we want to do. Whether we lose sight of what is right, lack the courage to do it or selfishly put ourselves ahead of what we should do instead... the pattern is too long to ignore. Our disregard for doing the right thing is a powerful force that pollutes every world view.

how in the world did these divine creatures allow a perversion in the first instance.

That's the unfortunate downside of good, without free will and perversion there is no true good, or more specifically true love and worship of G-d.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well, you're certainly not missing much. I actually think you quite understand me. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." So if Jesus did turn out to be David Koresh then my faith is futile, thought this is an impossibility to me. Like I said my belief starts with what Jesus did and said and goes from there because of the Cross. Basically you would have to convince me that Jesus was wrong in what He said, that He didn't die on the cross and didn't raise again, to convince me that Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament. I think because of that there is irreconcilable difference in our point of views and in how we percieve the differences/simmilarities of the OT God and Jesus.

So, then, like me - it's just a risk you're willing to take. If Jesus turns out to be the devil (in fact) that's something you're prepared to deal with. Yes?

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, Elohim created
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."[/i]

Psalm 82:6 I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (gods was written using the hebrew word Elohim, multiple gods)
John 10:34-35 "Is it not written in your Law, 'l said you are Gods?' "

For sure, but the chief commandment as far as Jews are concerned is that there shall be no worship of any god before G-d. Indeed, if we take the OT as true, the fact that their may be minor gods seems to be a given... but, they are also not G-d. G-d is unity, indivisible. Rambam

They were most confused because he did not fulfill their perspective on what and how he would conquer. If a god-man had been born into a figure like Napolean or Alexander the Great, they would have been on board much quicker.

Well, that's kind of the point, Josh... If they were promised a certain type of Messiah, and Jesus failed that type... he wasn't who they were looking for... or G-d was playing a trick on them (which seems silly to believe).

Well that gets back to the earlier point of something that is impossible to argue against or know for sure.

True.

Human nature is riddled with behavior in spite of what we know we should do, sometimes even what we want to do. Whether we lose sight of what is right, lack the courage to do it or selfishly put ourselves ahead of what we should do instead... the pattern is too long to ignore. Our disregard for doing the right thing is a powerful force that pollutes every world view.
That's the unfortunate downside of good, without free will and perversion there is no true good, or more specifically true love and worship of G-d.

I do see the usefulness in these sorts of polarities (though the consequences of which (to my way of thinking) are beyond the scope of this thread, I think). But, it begs the time old question - why would an all powerful G-d be so powerless to create a perfect world? Especially, as S&G alludes - he did create such a world in the first place, only to be snookered by apples and snakes...

 

[buckeyegrad]

Not to derail this, but there is one big problem with that view far as I can tell. The OT predicts a messiah for the Jews and Jews would not be looking for a god-man because they believe in ONE G-d above all others.

Link

Thus, in my view, whatever those OT scriptures might be talking about, it cannot be about any god-man. Jews simply would not be looking for such an entity, as doing so would be something other than the ONE

BKB, I've discussed this enough times on here that I'm not going to get into it again, but the questions that have been coming to mind recently when I hear the statement that the Jews would not have been looking for "X" are 1) how do we know what the first-century Jews were anticipating, 2) which Jews are we talking about, and 3) how do we know if their understanding of the messianic prophesies were on target?

The info in the link you provide is essentially rabbinic Jewish theology (descended from the Pharisees) that developed in part as a counterpoint to the Jewish sect of Yeshua's followers that came to challenge the Pharisees in the post-temple period--especially after the bar Kochba revolt in the 130s.

Our understanding of first century Judaism has been revolutionized over the past 60 years as the dead sea scrolls and other works from non-Pharisaic/rabbinic and non-Jewish Christian sources have emerged. The old image that Judaism as understood today, during the middle ages, or even in 200 AD when the Mishna was redacted, was the Judaism of Yeshua's time has been essentially discredited despite what rabbinic Jews or Christians want to claim today. The beliefs of the first century Jews were greatly varied and all over the map. To say that the "Jews" did not expect a "god-man", whatever that means as that is not the understanding of Yeshua that I have as "the Word made flesh", requires more scholarship than simply what modern Judaism provides.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

So, then, like me - it's just a risk you're willing to take. If Jesus turns out to be the devil (in fact) that's something you're prepared to deal with. Yes?

I ask: what is there to deal with?

If I'm wrong and you're right where does that leave me? I have known noone who looked back at there life after following Jesus and asked "Why did I waste my life?" And if I'm to remember correctly the God you describe doesn't actually care about what I believe? Then what does it matter? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If Buhdda was right then I just get to try again, right? And if I'm living like Christ then I should have a favorable reincarnation, right?

Let me be honest even though Islam at least has Monotheism I have a huge problem believing their claims given other evidence at hand.

I could go on. I guess. But I don't think I need to.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, I've discussed this enough times on here that I'm not going to get into it again, but the questions that have been coming to mind recently when I hear the statement that the Jews would not have been looking for "X" are 1) how do we know what the first-century Jews were anticipating, 2) which Jews are we talking about, and 3) how do we know if their understanding of the messianic prophesies were on target?

Yeah, I don't want to get in to a back and forth of things we have already debated to finality either.

as to 1) I suppose that's a fair point. It's quite impossible for me, or anyone, to know what people were anticipating so long ago. We each have to view "the record" with our own eyes and make decisions. Again, we're both pretty dug in to our view of that "evidence" so there's no point in going thru the particulars here.

as to 2) I don't claim to be well versed in Judiasm or its forms. But, I do know that every Jew I have ever talked to about this, and from all the Jewish Philosophy I have read, all support what I've argued (regarding the idea of G-d ever becoming a man, for example). Now, I suppose it's possible that these people are all victim of the same sort of misunderstanding of the ancients that I conceded in point 1, but here again - it's a matter of me exploring an issue which interests me, getting a consistent answer from multiple sources and then choosing to accept it as some level of "fact." You might say I'm cherry picking my sources, and if I have, it wasn't intentional... none-the-less, it is what I have discovered in my own quest for G-d, and as a consequence I am married to believe that which I am compelled to believe.

3) We don't. But, when I want to know what Jews think, I start by asking Jews.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I ask: what is there to deal with?

If I'm wrong and you're right where does that leave me? I have known noone who looked back at there life after following Jesus and asked "Why did I waste my life?" And if I'm to remember correctly the God you describe doesn't actually care about what I believe? Then what does it matter? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If Buhdda was right then I just get to try again, right? And if I'm living like Christ then I should have a favorable reincarnation, right?

Let me be honest even though Islam at least has Monotheism I have a huge problem believing their claims given other evidence at hand.

I could go on. I guess. But I don't think I need to.

Fair enough... I didn't mean to polarize our personal beliefs as the only two possibilities (and setting aside your appeals to other religions for the moment). I suppose when I said that, my assumption was "Suppose your concept of G-d as a judge is true, but you've been following the bad guy by mistake" when I asked if you were prepared to deal with the consequences.

But, the larger point maybe comes apparent when we consider your Christianity and Islam (as untasteful as that may be to you) as against my Philosophy and Buddhism (which both would provide a "second chance" for lack of a better term) a tendency is revealed... and it may be germane to the threads idea...

Both Christianity and Islam (and for our purposes, I'll just stop at those two which you identified in your post rather than try to compile some exhaustive list) we are given the following option: Believe or burn.

In both my philosophy and Buddhism (and again, limiting to just these two for our purposes here) the option is essentially: Live the best you can.

I find the former objectionable, and the latter comforting.

 

[jwinslow]

Is it possible RR is not "still an ass"?

 

[buckeyegrad]

as to 2) I don't claim to be well versed in Judiasm or its forms. But, I do know that every Jew I have ever talked to about this, and from all the Jewish Philosophy I have read, all support what I've argued (regarding the idea of G-d ever becoming a man, for example).

This is what I'm getting at. What we know as Judaism today is what has evolved over the last 20 centuries from one of those sects, the Pharisees. The only other sect to survive the destruction of the Temple and the war with Rome was the followers of Yeshua.

The Sadducees did not survive and we don't have any of their writings, we only have what the Pharisees and the Christians wrote about them. The Essenes did not survive, and there again, we only have what other wrote about them. The Dead Sea Sect did not survive and the writings found at Qumran have opened our eyes to the variety of Jewish perspectives that existed at the time . Then you have the Sicarii and the Zealots, which were primarily political identifications, but as we don't have their writings, we don't know what their theological views were. Historians now believe there were probably many more sects at that time that we simply do not know about because Josephus, our primary source on first-century Judaism, did not write about them--after all, he did not include the community at Qumran as a separate sect, and so historians at first grouped them in with the Essenes, but as the Dead Seal scrolls have been further studied, it has become obvious that these Jews had very different view compared to what Josephus wrote about the Essenes.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Is it possible RR is not "still an ass"?

I can't imagine that could ever be true.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This is what I'm getting at. What we know as Judaism today is what has evolved over the last 20 centuries from one of those sects, the Pharisees. The only other sect to survive the destruction of the Temple and the war with Rome was the followers of Yeshua.

The Sadducees did not survive and we don't have any of their writings, we only have what the Pharisees and the Christians wrote about them. The Essenes did not survive, and there again, we only have what other wrote about them. The Dead Sea Sect did not survive and the writings found at Qumran have opened our eyes to the variety of Jewish perspectives that existed at the time . Then you have the Sicarii and the Zealots, which were primarily political identifications, but as we don't have their writings, we don't know what their theological views were. Historians now believe there were probably many more sects at that time that we simply do not know about because Josephus, our primary source on first-century Judaism, did not write about them--after all, he did not include the community at Qumran as a separate sect, and so historians at first grouped them in with the Essenes, but as the Dead Seal scrolls have been further studied, it has become obvious that these Jews had very different view compared to what Josephus wrote about the Essenes.

I suppose that sheds some more light on why Christians seem to use the word "Pharisee" as particularly adversarial.

None-the-less, and regardless of all that - I reached my conclusions about Jesus and his possible divinity on my own rationale (that is to say, as a matter of "pure philosophy" (in the sense that I thought it through without reference, as much as possible, to other people's ideas) and only later came to learn it was in accord with modern Judaism (to the extent that it even is)

 

[jwinslow]

I suppose that sheds some more light on why Christians seem to use the word "Pharisee" as particularly adversarial.

Being Jesus' adversary was the driving force behind that.

None-the-less, and regardless of all that - I reached my conclusions about Jesus and his possible divinity on my own rationale (that is to say, as a matter of "pure philosophy" (in the sense that I thought it through without reference, as much as possible, to other people's ideas) and only later came to learn it was in accord with modern Judaism (to the extent that it even is)

Are you good at handling finances?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Being Jesus' adversary was the driving force behind that.

Well... it gets back to the point of this thread, doesn't it? If G-d is good.. if Jesus is good... why all the hate?

Are you good at handling finances?

Good enough, why?