Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?

Avatar said:
That should not be a reason to write improperly.


On what do you base your assumption? Please provide some arguments counter to those already mentioned here.


Preaching is forbidden in this forum.
Click to expand...

The Bible contains a continuous narrative thread from start to finish. From the Adamic Covenant to the Abrahmic Covenant to the New Covenant.

As for the differences between Jews and Christians; Jews DO NOT accept the divinity of Christ, whereas it's the central concept of CHRISTianity. Christians believe that God the Father (Old Testament) and God the Messiah/Redeemer (New Testament) are the same God, two parts of the Trinity (with the Holy Spirit being the third), but all are the same God. Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor do they believe in the Trinity.

I hope this explains in some small part why Christians and Jews do not worship the same God.
 
That's all fine and sweet, but the question is about the god Jesus referred to.

If he saw himself one with the jewish Jahve, it doesn't bode well together with what he preached. There is a difference what the old testament spoke of Jahve and what Jesus spoke of God. His philosophy of what the god is contradicts with the depiction of god in the old testament.

supersoldier71 said:
YES:The Old Testament God (Yahweh) and the New Testament God are the same God.
Click to expand...
 
supersoldier71,

I think that was and is well understood.(though not all Christians are Trinitarians)

The question, however, as I took it (and as I see it) is regarding not what Christians interpret, or what the Church's position is, but what Christ was actually preaching.

The question is whether what he preached was genuinely consistent with the God in the Old Testament, or he was preaching a complete departure from the Old Testament and trying to convert Jews to another "Father" altogether.

I am too busy at work lately to research supporting chapter and verse (The Devil Inside, I have a good one or two for your last comment) but this is a valid, supportable position.
(it figures that as soon as I get this forum, I get very busy at work)

Hopefully this week...
 
That would be great, one_raven,
christianity and judaism isn't my prime field of interest.
 
Matthew 21:12 has jesus directly quoting the torah as his authority, for example:
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'
Click to expand...

this is but one example of jesus' judaic intent.
the things he taught, in essence, are consistent with judaism.

however, i believe he was actually trying to revolutionize the religion (which he certainly did).
 
What are your thoughts on the Thomas Gospel, the one which was dug up among the dead sea scrolls?

From the type of a seemingly good and precise first person account it could be written in the time of Jesus or shortly after, but it could also be written 200 years later by a clever gnostic scribe/s.

Personally my hunch is that much of that may really have been what Jesus really said.

At any case I find the Gospel of Thomas fascinating. And take in mind that it's an original text that has avoided censorship and biased and unbiased translations for almost 2000 years, not like the other gospels.
 
Avatar said:
What are your thoughts on the Thomas Gospel, the one which was dug up among the dead sea scrolls?

From the type of a seemingly good and precise first person account it could be written in the time of Jesus or shortly after, but it could also be written 200 years later by a clever gnostic scribe/s.

Personally my hunch is that much of that may really have been what Jesus really said.

At any case I find the Gospel of Thomas fascinating. And take in mind that it's an original text that has avoided censorship and biased and unbiased translations for almost 2000 years, not like the other gospels.
Click to expand...
well to be honest, my opinion (and thats all it is at this point) is that it is most likely an extrapolation of real life events. it seems to me to be a classical jewish tale, in the sense that jesus has a power that nobody understands, and misuses it.

this can be taken as an allegory for hebrew teachings at the time.
for example, men who wished to be rabbis werent permitted to begin their study before the age of forty. this is because jews believe that the torah is more than a "book", they see it as a sort of "owner's manual to the universe".
jewish teachings tell that anyone who understands the torah even nearly intimately would be capable of the feats that are attributed to jesus.


jesus having "the power" at an early age and misusing it, says to me: "This was written by a jew of jesus' time." jewish stories are full of such lessons of the misuse of power with no oversight.

*shrug*
again, its just my opinion. :)
 
It has no structure of a tale, it's more like a notebook where some phrases have been written down at different times.
And I don't remember there anything said about a misuse of knowledge.
 
Avatar said:
It has no structure of a tale, it's more like a notebook where some phrases have been written down.
And I don't remember there anything said about a misuse of knowledge.
Click to expand...

just because it reminds me of a tale doesnt mean that it is one. :)

the thomas gospel is the writing where jesus kills the boy, yes?
in jewish thought, this would be jesus misusing his power (knowledge), as he is a child still, and jewish education doesnt begin until you enter manhood. :)

its very indicative of jewish writing of the time, actually.

ill explain:
jews think of the torah as a woman. those who try to understand what is written for only the words is akin to judging the entirety of a woman's personality by her clothing....which is what jews think the torah is: the clothing for the earthly presence of g-d. :)

it was in this context that i wrote the above comment.
hope that clears up what i was intending to put forth.
 
the thomas gospel is the writing where jesus kills the boy, yes?
Click to expand...
ummm, where?
Kills a boy? Humm, you mean this?
(65) He said: A good man had a vineyard. He gave it to husbandmen that they might work it, and he receive its fruit their hand. He sent his servant, that the husbandmen might give him the fruit of the vineyard. They seized his servant, they beat him, and all but killed him. The servant came (and) told his master. His master said: Perhaps they did not know him. He sent another servant; the husbandmen beat the other also. Then the master sent his son. He said: Perhaps they will reverence my son. Those husbandmen, since they knew that he was the heir the vineyard, they seized him (and) killed him. He that hath ears, let him hear.
Click to expand...
(The following is a fresh translation, made from the Coptic text published by Messrs. Brill of Leiden. In the preparation of this versi the following six translations have been consulted, in addition to to published by Messrs. Brill: English by W. R. Schoedel, French by Doresse and R. Kasser, German by J. LeipoIdt and Hans Quecke Danish by S. Giversen. The numbering of the sayings is that of the Brill edition.)

The good man is god.
The garden is the Earth.
The boy and heir to the garden is a child of the god.
The husbandmen are people not honouring (etc) the god.

I don't get your point, sorry.
 
however, this isnt a discussion of "christian dogma" per se....if i understand avatar well enough, i think the point is to understand jesus from as many perspectives as possible before rendering judgement on the thread's subject.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you do. For I am interested of the christianity in the time when it was free from the dogmatic control and interpretation of the church.
Because for some time now I have a growing suspicion based on textual and other evidence that christianity (as we populary think of it today) was not really the philosophy/religion of Jesus,
but it is more what clergy and polititians wanted it to be around 300 CE and afterwards.
 
Avatar said:
Indeed, you do. For I am interested of the christianity in the time when it was free from the dogmatic control and interpretation of the church.
Because for some time now I have a growing suspicion based on textual and other evidence that christianity was not really the philosophy/religion of Jesus,
but it is more what clergy and polititians wanted it to be around 300 CE and afterwards.
Click to expand...

gnostics, essenes, and the like are an excellent place to start looking for "unorthodox" opinions of jesus.

also, dont neglect the muslim opinion of jesus. :)
 
Because the parts they excluded talked about the individual persuit of spiritual transformation, not simply inheriting the doctrines of apostolic succession. This would have robbed the bishops of political power. Same with the tradition of only speaking latin in church services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top