Jews and Jesus

[naz]

- Some Questions for Debate -

* Are Jews for Jesus?
* What are some common reasons for Jewish people not believing in Jesus?
* Are Jewish people no different than the pagans that killed Christ for turning their backs on him?
* Are Jewish people ungrateful for not believing and is that why they havent had any other messengers from god in over 2,000+ years?

Debate and justify your reasons.

[Zzyzx]

.

Good Post! I just want to acknowledge that I read your post. I like your point....."""but they have no right to impose their own readings and interpretations on the people who produced that book. """
Christ Shepherd

I am in full agreement with Cnorman and ChristShepherd. Jewish people have every right to read and interpret THEIR literature however they like and NOT be told by later splinter groups what their literature says or means.

The same applies to Christians and the "New Testament" -- interpret it however you want.

But, in either case, it is unwise to claim in public debate that tales are true unless they can be SHOWN to be true.

[cnorman18]

.

Good Post! I just want to acknowledge that I read your post. I like your point....."""but they have no right to impose their own readings and interpretations on the people who produced that book. """
Christ Shepherd

I am in full agreement with Cnorman and ChristShepherd. Jewish people have every right to read and interpret THEIR literature however they like and NOT be told by later splinter groups what their literature says or means.

The same applies to Christians and the "New Testament" -- interpret it however you want.

But, in either case, it is unwise to claim in public debate that tales are true unless they can be SHOWN to be true.

Thanks, Z. I would agree with that; but I would qualify that just a bit, by noting that those who regard the Bible as literature, which it indisputably is, without claiming it to be history or science, are under no such obligation. That's always seemed to be to be among the first steps toward rational study of those documents.

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . those who regard the Bible as literature, which it indisputably is, without claiming it to be history or science, are under no such obligation.

Excellent point. I agree 100%

That's always seemed to be to be among the first steps toward rational study of those documents.

I am in favor of "rational study of those document" as LITERATURE -- and as a wonderful opportunity to gain some insight into the thinking of people who lived thousands of years ago.


However, many I debate in these threads are Biblicist / Literalist / Fundamentalist Christians who insist that their favorite religious literature is "inerrant", "infallible", "historically accurate", "true beyond question", "superior to modern science" and/or "the word of god".

I fully realize they are not representative of modern religious thought; but, they are numerous, vocal and convinced that they "know TRUTH" -- and in my opinion they are dangerous (in numbers) when they attempt to influence thinking of following generations and when they attempt to inflict their religious beliefs upon others through passage of laws favoring their brand of religion.

[cnorman18]

.

. . . those who regard the Bible as literature, which it indisputably is, without claiming it to be history or science, are under no such obligation.

Excellent point. I agree 100%

That's always seemed to be to be among the first steps toward rational study of those documents.

I am in favor of "rational study of those document" as LITERATURE -- and as a wonderful opportunity to gain some insight into the thinking of people who lived thousands of years ago.


However, many I debate in these threads are Biblicist / Literalist / Fundamentalist Christians who insist that their favorite religious literature is "inerrant", "infallible", "historically accurate", "true beyond question", "superior to modern science" and/or "the word of god".

I fully realize they are not representative of modern religious thought; but, they are numerous, vocal and convinced that they "know TRUTH" -- and in my opinion they are dangerous (in numbers) when they attempt to influence thinking of following generations and when they attempt to inflict their religious beliefs upon others through passage of laws favoring their brand of religion.

Which is as good an explanation as any of why we are so often in agreement. SOME religions are toxic, and barring human sacrifice, for my money the most toxic aspect of many religions is that impulse to outlaw independent rational thought and scientific research in favor of unreflective, mindless dogmatism. Belief in God ought not entail abdicating responsiblity for one's decisions and moral judgment, not to mention responsibility for understanding how the world works.

It's remarkable; on this forum, I find myself much more often arguing on the same side as non-theists, and most of the members that I have grown to consider my personal friends - and you are chief among them, Z - are non-theists as well.

[McCulloch]

Jewish people have every right to read and interpret THEIR literature however they like and NOT be told by later splinter groups what their literature says or means.

The same applies to Christians and the "New Testament" -- interpret it however you want.

But, in either case, it is unwise to claim in public debate that tales are true unless they can be SHOWN to be true.

I would agree with that; but I would qualify that just a bit, by noting that those who regard the Bible as literature, which it indisputably is, without claiming it to be history or science, are under no such obligation. That's always seemed to be to be among the first steps toward rational study of those documents.

While I agree with you that the Bible is literature, I do not agree that its status is indisputable. If it was, we would not have those who dispute it. Alas, there are still many who still regard the Bible as being an accurate depiction of both history and science. Hence the need for more public debate.

The problem with allowing the Jews to interpret their holy books the way that they feel is appropriate and the Christians to interpret their New Testament their own way is that the New Testament itself makes a whole bunch of claims about what Christians now call the Old Testament, which contradict the way that the Jews (modern or ancient) view the same books. So, unless you wish to toss out the Law of Non-Contradiction, we seem to be at an impasse.

[Zzyzx]

.

The problem with allowing the Jews to interpret their holy books the way that they feel is appropriate and the Christians to interpret their New Testament their own way is that the New Testament itself makes a whole bunch of claims about what Christians now call the Old Testament, which contradict the way that the Jews (modern or ancient) view the same books. So, unless you wish to toss out the Law of Non-Contradiction, we seem to be at an impasse.

I agree " and add:

That situation developed because Chrianity hijacked Jewish writings and grafted the Jesus icon onto what existed " producing a number of inconsistencies, including the triad-god concept (to avoid polytheism which had fallen out of favor).

Perhaps it was easier to gain converts to the new splinter group by incorporating some familiar literature and adding a new covenant (which changed many things) rather than start competing with all new ideas.

There may be some truth in the suggestion that Paul / Saul was an interloper who derailed BOTH the teachings of Judaism and those of Jesus. His writings constitute more of the New Testament than words attributed to Jesus and his teachings were different. He had not met Jesus personally (but claimed to have met him in a vision " that cannot be confirmed). He may have been a clever shill who triumphed over Judaism and Jesus.

The foggy history (what we know of it) of early Christianity does not permit thorough analysis of the development process. However, it is known that gospels were not written until decades or generations after the supposed events (and conversations supposedly repeated verbatim). It is known that the ideas promoted by Paul / Saul are highly represented in the New Testament and that much of Christian dogma is taken from them.

[cnorman18]

Jewish people have every right to read and interpret THEIR literature however they like and NOT be told by later splinter groups what their literature says or means.

The same applies to Christians and the "New Testament" -- interpret it however you want.

But, in either case, it is unwise to claim in public debate that tales are true unless they can be SHOWN to be true.

I would agree with that; but I would qualify that just a bit, by noting that those who regard the Bible as literature, which it indisputably is, without claiming it to be history or science, are under no such obligation. That's always seemed to be to be among the first steps toward rational study of those documents.

While I agree with you that the Bible is literature, I do not agree that its status is indisputable. If it was, we would not have those who dispute it. Alas, there are still many who still regard the Bible as being an accurate depiction of both history and science. Hence the need for more public debate.

The problem with allowing the Jews to interpret their holy books the way that they feel is appropriate and the Christians to interpret their New Testament their own way is that the New Testament itself makes a whole bunch of claims about what Christians now call the Old Testament, which contradict the way that the Jews (modern or ancient) view the same books. So, unless you wish to toss out the Law of Non-Contradiction, we seem to be at an impasse.

I'm okay with an impasse. I believe in freedom of thought and the freedom to disagree, and till God Himself shows up to settle the dispute, I'm content to leave it where it is. I've got no warrant to decry Christianity as a "false religion," and I expect the same courtesy, private opinions notwithstanding.

[Joshua Patrick]

A Jewish person called Israel Anton Zoller converted to Christianity(Catholicism). He was chief rabbi of Rome between 1939 to 1945 .

He wrote a book called "Before The Dawn". Also other books on Christian theology.

Might be interesting, might buy it myself.


I dont know the reasons why Jewish people dont believe in Christ, but they is also a debate on both sides, it's not just one sided.


This is one subject myself I wish to study since I have never asked myself why Jewish people don't believe in Christ or even attempted to find out. I'll try not be biased in my study and pick just from Catholic sources

[cnorman18]

A Jewish person called Israel Anton Zoller converted to Christianity(Catholicism). He was chief rabbi of Rome between 1939 to 1945 .

He wrote a book called "Before The Dawn". Also other books on Christian theology.

Might be interesting, might buy it myself.


I dont know the reasons why Jewish people dont believe in Christ, but they is also a debate on both sides, it's not just one sided.


This is one subject myself I wish to study since I have never asked myself why Jewish people don't believe in Christ or even attempted to find out. I'll try not be biased in my study and pick just from Catholic sources

It happens. People are free to do as they like. I myself was a Methodist minister 30-some years ago, and now I'm a Masorti Jew.

Actually, no; there is no debate. Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Christians have no say in the matter, and Jews who come to believe otherwise are called by a special designation by other Jews; we call them "Christians."

Don't forget to read a couple of books by practicing Jews while you're doing your research. There are very few things that all Jews agree on, but this is one of them.

[McCulloch]

So, unless you wish to toss out the Law of Non-Contradiction, we seem to be at an impasse.

I'm okay with an impasse. I believe in freedom of thought and the freedom to disagree, and till God Himself shows up to settle the dispute, I'm content to leave it where it is. I've got no warrant to decry Christianity as a "false religion," and I expect the same courtesy, private opinions notwithstanding.

I'm okay with an impasse as well. However, I'm not comfortable throwing our the law of non-Contradiction. At least one of the two mutually exclusive positions on this matter is wrong.