Judaism

Tone · Oct 26, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
I can respect that, Catholics are similar, you can't just stand up in a catholic church say you believe and you're in, you have to study for a year (its called RCIA)

You may want to check out the Messianic forum:

Messianic Judaism

It's more like bridging the gap and less like jumping.

JackRT · Oct 26, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
You've eloquently stated the root of your problem. You are looking for a religion. Religion saves no one. Lord Jesus condemned the most religious people of all, the Pharisees. I'd be seeking to find out why I don't believe in Jesus. He put an end to all religion, rather giving His followers what we need more than anything else - Life.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone. The Romans this right from the Sanhedrin in AD 39.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

klutedavid · Oct 26, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
You see Jesus there, I don't. And to say if I knew the Old Testament well I'd know Jesus is kinda of a big assumption. The Old Testament is a Jewish book right?

The name 'Jew' does not appear for some time in the Old Testament. The Old Testament refers to Hebrews and Israelites mostly.

Its their book

Not true at all. Noah was in covenant with God and logically, all the descendants of Noah own the Old Testament.

and they don't believe in Jesus, I'm very interested in their interpretation of it.

The New Testament was written by Jews.

There are factions within Judaism and each has their own interpretation of the Old Testament. Good luck in your quest.

I think you see Jesus in the Old Testament because that is your interpretation of it. Which is fine, but I really don't believe in Jesus, so I'm not going to see him there. I know you're only trying to help me and the thought of not believing in Jesus to you is unthinkable but I'm ok with it, I actually feel relieved

Happy your relieved.

Soyeong · Oct 26, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
You see Jesus there, I don't. And to say if I knew the Old Testament well I'd know Jesus is kinda of a big assumption. The Old Testament is a Jewish book right? Its their book and they don't believe in Jesus, I'm very interested in their interpretation of it.

I think you see Jesus in the Old Testament because that is your interpretation of it. Which is fine, but I really don't believe in Jesus, so I'm not going to see him there. I know you're only trying to help me and the thought of not believing in Jesus to you is unthinkable but I'm ok with it, I actually feel relieved

Jesus, his disciples, and all Christians were all Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10. Paul still identified as a Jew in Acts 21:39 and 22:3 and as a Pharisee in Acts 23:6, and in Acts 21:20, it reports that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah, so many Jews did and still do believe in Jesus, including myself. If you are interested, I can link you to a study on finding Messiah in the Torah.

eleos1954 · Oct 26, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
So I've recently had a massive faith crisis and I just can't (no matter how hard I try) believe in Jesus, so I started thinking, what about Judaism? I really don't' know much about it, which I think is pretty silly and a bit naive of me because the religion I followed my whole life wouldn't exist without it.

For any Jewish members here, where would you recommend starting researching Judaism?

Jesus is God ... in the OT and in the NT.

C.S. Lewis put it this way ....

Either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was the Son of God.

When studying the NT which of the above do you see?

JackRT · Oct 26, 2020

C.S. Lewis wrote that "Jesus is either Lord or liar or lunatic." A simplistic statement such as this immediately brings to mind other questions and possibilities not just about Jesus but about the bible itself. There are many more than just the three possibilities already mentioned: (1) Jesus is precisely what the bible claims --- this of course presupposes the bible to be inerrant and to be taken literally. (2) Jesus is a liar and a fraud --- this of course brings into question why would an inerrant bible record the words and deeds of a liar? (3) Jesus was deluded about himself --- this of course brings his sanity into question along with why would an inerrant bible record the words and deeds of a lunatic? Other possibilities include: (4) The bible was corrupted by scribes and copyists in order to present a vision of their understanding of Jesus. (5) The bible was written using Jewish vocabulary, mythology, images and metaphors which the Gentile church has lost the ability to understand correctly. (6) The bible is written in the Jewish style of midrashic literature with the result again that the Gentile church is lured into believing it is literal and inerrant. (7) The bible writers were influenced by the mythologies, philosophies and practices of the pagan peoples living around them. (8) A combination of all or some of possibilities (4) through (7). As Christians we must never try to delude ourselves or other people by presenting such a simplistic and self serving argument.

cloudyday2 · Oct 26, 2020

@RoseCrystal , if you are trying to understand the origins of Christianity better by understanding Judaism then you need to remember that Rabbinic Judaism is actually a sibling to Christianity rather than a parent. Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity partly defined themselves to be distinct. It was like identical twins who hated being similar and took opposing paths as a result. Rabbinic Jews wanted the Christians out of their synagogues, and the Christians wanted the Jews out of their churches, so the theologies emphasized those things that would exclude the sibling religion. Both of these religions were forced to reinvent themselves after the Temple was gone. If the Temple had not been destroyed I wonder if Christianity might still be one of many Jewish sects.

The real parent of both religions is Second Temple Judaism, and that is a mixture of widely varying sects. The main thing uniting Jews at that time was dietary laws and the Temple. Jews could believe almost anything, because Judaism was an ethnicity rather than a religion.

I think the Essenes influenced early Christianity a lot, but that's just my opinion.

RoseCrystal · Oct 26, 2020

eleos1954 said:
Jesus is God ... in the OT and in the NT.

C.S. Lewis put it this way...

Either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was the Son of God.

When studying the NT which of the above do you see?

I think the problem is when I study the NT I don't see God at all. I don't believe in the NT anymore and I don't believe Jesus is the messiah and the son of god. I do, however, still believe in the OT, it still feels sacred to me, where as the NT does not.

To discard the OT because I don't believe in Jesus anymore kinda feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I no longer see them as connected, I see them as very separate.

So C.S. Lewis' quote really has no relevance to me as it's based on a book I don't believe is divinely inspired.

eleos1954 · Oct 26, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
I think the problem is when I study the NT I don't see God at all. I don't believe in the NT anymore and I don't believe Jesus is the messiah and the son of god. I do, however, still believe in the OT, it still feels sacred to me, where as the NT does not.

To discard the OT because I don't believe in Jesus anymore kinda feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I no longer see them as connected, I see them as very separate.

So C.S. Lewis' quote really has no relevance to me as it's based on a book I don't believe is divinely inspired.

Jesus IS God in the OT ... Jesus is our creator ... the entire bible (OT & NT) is about Him. It's a continuous story from beginning to end ... not separate stories.

Aussie Pete · Oct 26, 2020

JackRT said:
Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone. The Romans this right from the Sanhedrin in AD 39.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

Jesus had no time for the Pharisees. I've come across the Pharisee spirit in many people in my 48 years in the Lord. If you want to judge Jesus for His attitude to Pharisees, that's your call. I'm not about to be so foolish.

JackRT · Oct 26, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Jesus had no time for the Pharisees. I've come across the Pharisee spirit in many people in my 48 years in the Lord. If you want to judge Jesus for His attitude to Pharisees, that's your call. I'm not about to be so foolish.

I am not judging Jesus for his attitude to the Pharisees. I am suggesting that those who wrote about Jesus were not entirely historical in the modern sense of that word.

Aussie Pete · Oct 27, 2020

JackRT said:
I am not judging Jesus for his attitude to the Pharisees. I am suggesting that those who wrote about Jesus were not entirely historical in the modern sense of that word.

You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Three of those people were eyewitnesses.

FireDragon76 · Oct 27, 2020

RoseCrystal said:
I am not looking for a new religion, I'm looking to learn more about where the roots of the one I was raised in comes from. And why they don't believe in Jesus.

They don't believe in Jesus because they don't believe he fulfilled the expectations for the Messiah. It's not that complicated to understand.

Robban · Oct 27, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Three of those people were eyewitnesses.

There are two sides to every coin, it is said.
but it is the same coin.

If four reporters were sent out to photograph a mountain,
one on each side,

north, south, east and west,

most certainly they would come back with different pictures,
at least in the details.

But it is the same mountain.

Aryeh Jay · Oct 27, 2020

Danigt22 said:
You will have to follow the 613 commandments perfectly and never fail once not even a little. If you break one, you are guilty of all and people will stone you to death. Or you could accept the free gift of mercy and grace the word of God made flesh did for us dying in the cross. You can read Isaiah 53, genesis 3, Daniel 9 foreshadowing this event.

Please don’t lie, as a Christian it is unbecoming. You should be a beacon of light, not a deceiving snake.

JackRT · Oct 27, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Three of those people were eyewitnesses.

I don't believe so. Bible scholars have worked out the dates at which various Christian scriptures were composed. These dates suggest that, with the exception of Paul, none of the authors were contemporary with Jesus.

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. Papyrus Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)

Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)

Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (12)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)

Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century

honey badger · Oct 27, 2020

Danigt22 said:
Were do I lie?, do you even know judaizer are the snakes?, Beacon of light, I preach mercy and grace. Not sacrifice and holocaust as the judaizers do.

'Christianity is every bit the path of a serpent as Judaism ...

Danigt22 · Oct 27, 2020

honey badger said:
'Christianity is every bit the path of a serpent as Judaism ...

The lord Jesus Christ isnt a serpent. The serpent seed is in war with him. Those are lies from the kabbalah.

Aryeh Jay · Oct 27, 2020

Danigt22 said:
Were do I lie?, do you even know judaizer are the snakes?, Beacon of light, I preach mercy and grace. Not sacrifice and holocaust as the judaizers do.

One lie that you have said is that a person has to follow all 613 commandments perfectly.

Another lie is that a person cannot fail in the following of the 613 commandments, even a little.

A third lie is that the people will kill you by stoning if you fail keeping any of the 613 commandments, even a little.

Danigt22 · Oct 27, 2020

Aryeh Jay said:
One lie that you have said is that a person has to follow all 613 commandments perfectly.

Another lie is that a person cannot fail in the following of the 613 commandments, even a little.

A third lie is that the people will kill you by stoning if you fail keeping any of the 613 commandments, even a little.

Do you think you will be welcome you into his kingdom as a sinner. Sinners go to hell. Your levitical holocaust no longer cover any sin, only our lord Jesus Christ does.

Judaism

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Active Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-----------

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Well-Known Member

i am

Well-Known Member

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads