Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

To discuss Jewish topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
cnorman18

Post #41

Post by cnorman18 »

faroukfarouk wrote: Greetings to all
While the moderators make a decision on Are Jews a Race thread i have found this thread very interesting.I don't think all Jews accept Charles view point and hence the question of Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah could be a very interesting discussion.
Before i continue i noticed that Charles stated at the very beginning of this post that it is not an invitation for debate.
Charles my question is can i discuss the question of Jesus the Jewish Messiah on this thread or should i open a new thread.
Await your reply.

May peace and blessings be upon Prophet Jesus and his mother Mary.
That would depend on what you have in mind. If you want to examine the FACT that Jesus was not the Jewish messiah, this forum would be appropriate; the matter is not debatable here, since this forum assumes the truth and validity of the Jewish religion, and as far as Jews are concerned, that question is settled. There are few things that virtually all Jews agree upon, but that is one of them.

If you wish to dispute that FACT, or otherwise attempt tho show that Jewish teaching and tradition is wrong or mistaken on this matter, that is "debate" by definition and should be brought up on another thread.

If your intention is merely to ask another endless series of coy, faux-clever questions without ever answering any yourself, and without ever coming out and saying what you have to say -- well, that kind of fan-dance is not appropriate for ANY forum.

For myself, I am still curious about YOUR views on the Talmud. Of course, unless they are in agreement with Jewish views on the subject, those should be posted in a debate forum as well.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City

Post #42

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

faroukfarouk wrote: Greetings to all
While the moderators make a decision on Are Jews a Race thread i have found this thread very interesting.I don't think all Jews accept Charles view point and hence the question of Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah could be a very interesting discussion.
Before i continue i noticed that Charles stated at the very beginning of this post that it is not an invitation for debate.
Charles my question is can i discuss the question of Jesus the Jewish Messiah on this thread or should i open a new thread.
Await your reply.

May peace and blessings be upon Prophet Jesus and his mother Mary.
Moderator Clarification

This is a discussion forum and not a debating one. As cnorman18 noted above you can discuss the FACT here but not debate the question.

However, there is already a thread on that question in Christianity and Apologetics. You may wish to look there and possibly join in the debate.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21131

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

faroukfarouk
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:48 pm

Post #43

Post by faroukfarouk »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
faroukfarouk wrote: Greetings to all
While the moderators make a decision on Are Jews a Race thread i have found this thread very interesting.I don't think all Jews accept Charles view point and hence the question of Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah could be a very interesting discussion.
Before i continue i noticed that Charles stated at the very beginning of this post that it is not an invitation for debate.
Charles my question is can i discuss the question of Jesus the Jewish Messiah on this thread or should i open a new thread.
Await your reply.

May peace and blessings be upon Prophet Jesus and his mother Mary.
Moderator Clarification

This is a discussion forum and not a debating one. As cnorman18 noted above you can discuss the FACT here but not debate the question.

However, there is already a thread on that question in Christianity and Apologetics. You may wish to look there and possibly join in the debate.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21131

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.
ThatGirlAgain
Tks for the info.Will see you all on the other side.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 16718
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here

Post #44

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I'm just shamed I didn't see this OP sooner.

I'm far prouder to have.

Cnorman18, friend, you speak well and wise for your people, and I wish you much success in your attempts to educate us about y'all's system of understanding.

I remember when I first came to this site, I said that yours was a voice that needed to be heard. I can not in good conscience retract that notion.
Some say it came from Memphis down in Tennessee
Or it drifted in from Georgia about 1953
Just as long as it's greasy, as long as it's fast
As long as it's pumpin' honey, it's gonna last

It's the hillbilly rock, beat it with a drum
Playin' them guitars like shootin' from a gun
Keepin' up the rhythm, steady as a clock
Doin' a little thing called the hillbilly rock
- Marty Stuart

cnorman18

Post #45

Post by cnorman18 »

JoeyKnothead wrote: I'm just shamed I didn't see this OP sooner.

I'm far prouder to have.

Cnorman18, friend, you speak well and wise for your people, and I wish you much success in your attempts to educate us about y'all's system of understanding.

I remember when I first came to this site, I said that yours was a voice that needed to be heard. I can not in good conscience retract that notion.
Thanks. Joey.

It's a constant wonder to me -- there are so few of us, we don't proselytize, we don't try to cram our beliefs down even each other's throats, never mind anyone else's -- we just want to be left alone to worship and believe as we choose -- but STILL, people come out of the woodwork to tell us that we don't really believe what we believe, we don't understand our own Scriptures, and/or we're all just lying for some unknown purpose or agenda.

Beats me. I guess people just don't have enough to do.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #46

Post by Danmark »

cnorman, I just read this because of another post of yours. It is very helpful and gives me a new respect for Judaism.

I was raised an evangelical. My grandfather was an evangelist who spoke around the country. But my father loved the Bible stories (I accept your terminology of Bible, vs. Old Testament), and I was raised on them. Maybe it was just that I like stories as opposed to theology. To me, the parables of Jesus are more powerful than argumentative theology of Paul or anyone else.

One of the truly unique (in the original sense of that word) is the story of God speaking from the burning bush and telling Moses he is beyond names, that He is who He is. Tho' I am an atheist now, I was always impressed by this declaration, that God is beyond these mortal games of idols and their names.

One of the other differences that intrigues me is the idea of tolerance for different beliefs vs the Christian hopeless compulsion to unify its beliefs.

cnorman18

Post #47

Post by cnorman18 »

Danmark wrote: cnorman, I just read this because of another post of yours. It is very helpful and gives me a new respect for Judaism.
Thanks very much. I apologize for taking so long to respond to this, but I had other fires to put out and other bombs to defuse -- not all on this forum.
I was raised an evangelical. My grandfather was an evangelist who spoke around the country. But my father loved the Bible stories (I accept your terminology of Bible, vs. Old Testament), and I was raised on them. Maybe it was just that I like stories as opposed to theology. To me, the parables of Jesus are more powerful than argumentative theology of Paul or anyone else.
I quite agree. That's what people never seem to grasp (well, hardly ever); the Hebrew Bible, at least, is not theology. It is LITERATURE. Some of the New Testament, it seems to me, IS theology; but that is not my concern, and I have nothing to say on that subject.
One of the truly unique (in the original sense of that word) is the story of God speaking from the burning bush and telling Moses he is beyond names, that He is who He is. Tho' I am an atheist now, I was always impressed by this declaration, that God is beyond these mortal games of idols and their names.
As far as the popular, conventional, cartoon-caricature God, the Bearded-Old-Man-In-The-Sky, Santa Claus in a different outfit, is concerned -- why, on that God I am an atheist too. I think that was rather the point of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. "You can't make a MENTAL image of Me either."
One of the other differences that intrigues me is the idea of tolerance for different beliefs vs the Christian hopeless compulsion to unify its beliefs.
Agreed again. Since no "belief" can or will ever be confirmed as objective, inarguable FACT, and since all "beliefs" are mental constructs, tools with which we THINK about these matters -- what's the point of dumping on someone else's mental construct because it doesn't match one's own? ETHICS are blood and bone and muscle, REAL things that have REAL consequences. Theology is just -- thoughts. Ideas. Real when they influence what one DOES -- but without substance themselves. Deeds matter; "creeds" are just lists of right thoughts.

Incidentally, to clarify terminology (and this isn't MY terminology; it's the standard meaning of these words for all Bible scholars, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise):

The Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh as we call it, is identical to the Christian Old Testament except for the order of the books. Some Jews are offended by the term "Old Testament," since it seems to imply that the Old Covenant (Testament) is obsolete and has been replaced by the New; I am not. I don't think that is a matter of intent, but merely of conventional terminology. I won't hold Christians responsible for a label that was first applied more than a thousand years ago.

The Torah consists of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible; it is part of the Tanakh, and the most central and important part of the Bible to Jews. It is followed by the Prophets, or Nevi'im, books which were written by the Prophets themselves; and those by the Writings, or Khethuvim, which are books written by the prophets' followers, or are other documents (fragmentary court records, Temple hymns, books of wisdom, etc.). Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initials of the three sections: T-N-Kh.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the New Testament is not included in Jewish Bibles and holds no authority and little interest for us. I hope all that helps.

User avatar
Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Post #48

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

cnorman18 wrote: That's what people never seem to grasp (well, hardly ever); the Hebrew Bible, at least, is not theology. It is LITERATURE. Some of the New Testament, it seems to me, IS theology; but that is not my concern, and I have nothing to say on that subject.
To reduce the Tanakh to "LITERATURE" (or Literature or literature) is patently absurd - an act of thoughtless semanticide at best. Deny the theological thread of the Deuteronomists and you render much of the Tanakh senseless lore. Eviscerate Amos or Jeremiah or Isaiah of it's theology and you've simply gutted the work.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #49

Post by Danmark »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
cnorman18 wrote: That's what people never seem to grasp (well, hardly ever); the Hebrew Bible, at least, is not theology. It is LITERATURE. Some of the New Testament, it seems to me, IS theology; but that is not my concern, and I have nothing to say on that subject.
To reduce the Tanakh to "LITERATURE" (or Literature or literature) is patently absurd - an act of thoughtless semanticide at best. Deny the theological thread of the Deuteronomists and you render much of the Tanakh senseless lore. Eviscerate Amos or Jeremiah or Isaiah of it's theology and you've simply gutted the work.
Perhaps you've missed the point. Compare the great stories and beautiful poetry of the Tanakh with the preachy theology of Romans and Paul's other letters. Paul is trying to make a point, arguing like technocrat, boring, human, tiresome. Genesis, Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah have majesty. "Thoughtless semanticide?" "Literature" is a label superior to "theological thread."

User avatar
Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Post #50

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

Danmark wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
cnorman18 wrote: That's what people never seem to grasp (well, hardly ever); the Hebrew Bible, at least, is not theology. It is LITERATURE. Some of the New Testament, it seems to me, IS theology; but that is not my concern, and I have nothing to say on that subject.
To reduce the Tanakh to "LITERATURE" (or Literature or literature) is patently absurd - an act of thoughtless semanticide at best. Deny the theological thread of the Deuteronomists and you render much of the Tanakh senseless lore. Eviscerate Amos or Jeremiah or Isaiah of it's theology and you've simply gutted the work.
Perhaps you've missed the point. Compare the great stories and beautiful poetry of the Tanakh with the preachy theology of Romans and Paul's other letters. Paul is trying to make a point, arguing like technocrat, boring, human, tiresome. Genesis, Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah have majesty. "Thoughtless semanticide?" "Literature" is a label superior to "theological thread."
The Tanakh is many things. Much of it superb literature ranging from Psalms to Job. Some of it is demythologized folklore, magnificent epic narrative, fanciful etiology, remarkable poetry, turgid ethno-centrist polemic, Judah-centric folk history and theologically dictated historiography with [in my opinion] ugly echoes down through the present. It deserves to be read and understood in all its manifold aspects. (See, for example, We Enter The Talmud Barefoot) It should be read with an effort to appreciate its literary quality (which is why I find Fox and Alter so valuable). But to read Kings or Chronicles as 'LITERATURE' does the text and the reader a disservice.

As for the rest, "our scripture is less preachy than your scripture" strikes me as more than a little adolescent.

Post Reply