Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that the verse(s) that inply that G-d sent him only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (and not the Gentiles at all), must be suspect to the possibility that it was an insertion for a specific agenda...
The actions of JC make it clear. The faith of the Canaanite woman is what saved her.
JC did not turn her down. There are more examples.
Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30.
Additionally, nobody knows clearly who is genetically connected with the ancient
House of Israel anymore. They are everywhere.
Messiah for the Gentiles, this is an interesting theory...However, savior does not come from a Jewish set of beliefs...The Jews have no problem with Jesus if it helps bring a Gentile person closer to G-d...The point where it becomes heresy is when they claim to be the replacement of the Jews and henceforth spiritual Israel and therefore the Jews must convert to Christianity...And this seems to be the major thought with Christians...
This is why I think Christian thought was something revolutionary, rather than something in the tradition of Judaism. Sorta more like how Buddhism grew up in the shadow of Hinduism, but broke away from it completely. Jesus was a Jewish man, who from accounts in the NT, was an ordained rabbi (the Pharisees routinely address him as such, and one section has him stand up and say "today this text has been fulfilled"). But he appeared to understand as time went on that he was meant for someone other than the Jews.
Quote:
But, it seems that the Gentiles constantly use the words Savior and Messiah interchangeably when they are not the same, even in the Hebrew language...The Jews were not chosen to be a special group above and beyond the Gentiles, they were chosen by G-d for a specific mission and given the Torah to follow in order to be a light unto the Gentiles, not by preaching, but by a living example, kinda like the structure of a church whereby the Pastor (Israel) leads by example to the congregation (Gentiles), thereby showing how one should live to please G-d.
This is largely a result of them not being Jews. They don't follow the kashrut or kosher diet. They don't have the same concept of sin or Messiah. They don't know about many of the other laws. To the Christian, the Messiah is chosen or anointed for God's purpose, the difference being that this purpose was to save the sinner. For the Jew, the purpose seems to be something along the lines of building the Kingdom (may misunderstand here, but there seems to be a correlation link between the passages about the temple of Jerusalem being rebuilt and an image of the New Heaven and New Earth in revelation. When I read up on the issues with building the new Temple, it said many Jews now believe the temple will be prepared when the world is prepared to have the temple, that is when we build a better world or something).
In regards to this thread. I do believe this might have been a punishment from God. Not that Jews needed to become Christian or Messianic Jews. But that they were operating under a culture that needed changing because it was too ritualized, too controlled by Roman state, and too ready to offer a scapegoat. That is, any punishment was not about not accepting Jesus, it was about the hardness of hearts in that generation.
The actions of JC make it clear. The faith of the Canaanite woman is what saved her.
JC did not turn her down. There are more examples.
Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30.
Additionally, nobody knows clearly who is genetically connected with the ancient
House of Israel anymore. They are everywhere.
Sorry, but you're wrong...It can even be detected if one is a Kohen or not...Genetically...Also, Ashkenazic, Sephardic, etc...But, believe whatever you wish if that makes you feel better...
And your throwing up the Canaanite woman as a proof does nothing (as everyone seems to as a proof......)...Because even the Gentiles can draw closer to G-d in accordance of Isaiah 56...You do realize it says that it was "a woman of Canaan"?...And you do realize that the lost sheep of the house of Israel does not comprise all of the Jews?...What about the house of Judah?...Jesus merely helped the woman, he did not preach the Gospel to her...The Gospel was only meant for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel...
And let us not forget that Jesus commissioned the 70 to go only where???...
Absolutely. And yet, I've never heard a preacher talk about it, or a priest.
Either not enough Christians know about this, or they are too touchy on the
Judaism subject to say so. I mean this is right there in both Talmuds. It's
really incredible and says a lot about what really happened during those years,
and why the Judaic religion no longer has sacrifices. The Lamb is Risen.
IN SHORT... What, EXACTLY does Gd say about human sacrifice in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible? In Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Gd calls human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him, 'for every abomination to the Etrnl, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.' In Jeremiah 19:4-6, Gd tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation, 'They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.' We see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16:20. This teaches that Gd would not accept Jesus' death on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that Gd would accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is unbiblical. - What Jews Believe: Essay #4: Gd Hates Human Sacrifice
IN SHORT... If a person believes that a blood sacrifice were necessary in order for Gd to forgive human sin, then that person forgot to study the Five Books of Moses. Even a single example where Gd forgave without a blood sacrifice would prove that this idea is unbiblical. There are many such examples, but the most interesting is found in the Book of Leviticus. The reason this is so interesting is that it appears right in the middle of the discussion of sin sacrifices. In Leviticus 5:11-13, it states, 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering.' In Jonah 3:10, we also see that one does not need a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. There, the Bible simply states that Gd saw the works of the people of Niniveh. Specifically it says that these works consisted of abandoning their evil ways, and because they did, Gd forgave them. There are many other examples. Therefore, as was stated earlier, the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is unbiblical. - What Jews Believe: Essay #2: Blood Sacrifice Unnecessary
IN SHORT... The Bible is clear, and it is consistent: one person cannot die for the sins of another. In other words, the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the punishment given to another. In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks Gd to punish him for the sin committed by the people in regards to the Golden Calf. Gd tells Moses that the person who committed the sin is the one who must receive the punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, Gd simply states this as a basic principle, 'Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.' This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18: 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.' The prophet Jeremiah looks to the day when the mistaken belief that one man's death atones for another man's sins shall no longer be held by anyone: in Jeremiah 31:29-30, the prophet says: 'In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.' - What Jews Believe: Essay #1: No Vicarious Atonement
IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin states simply that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. In this view, every human being dies because the origin of the human race was tainted with sin: Adam and Eve committed a sin, all humans bear guilt of that sin, and are therefore punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them immortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become immortal, then they were created mortal. They did not bring Death into the world, and we do not die because they sinned. The first essay on this website explains how, in the view of the Bible, one person cannot die as a punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been from the moment the first human beings were created. This explains why, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree of The Knowledge of Good And Evil, Gd told the animals to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. Gd also said the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. - What Jews Believe: Essay #5: No Original Sin
IN SHORT... The newest technique used by Christian missionaries and some other Christian clergy is to be found in what they teach when they use the terms, 'The Jewish Roots of Christianity,' or 'The Hebraic Roots of Christianity.' One might think this means how, in their opinion, Christianity began with Jews, or developed from Judaism. However, this is not what they mean by 'the Jewish Roots.' The way these people try to show that the roots of Christianity are to be found in Judaism is by putting a Christian theological interpretation into a Jewish ceremony or ritual. They then claim that this planted Christian theological interpretation, having been 'found' in something Jewish, demonstrates that Christianity was a natural outgrowth of Judaism. - What Jews Believe: Essay #10: Jewish Roots of Christianity?
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-14-2016 at 04:40 AM..
Reason: Red is reserved for moderator actions.
Go look up Simon Bar Kochba...He was though to be the Moshiach also...
Here is some light reading:
The Messianic Idea in Judaism
...
However, traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times.
The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.
That seems to be the most self-destructive internally-inconsistent paragraph I've ever read.
"The anointed wasn't mentioned, but the End of Days was, therefore the anointed was known in the most ancient times" seriously? The anointing is mentioned since most kings practiced wasting manufactured oil on themselves during their initiation parties. If Jews were "always waiting for a miraculous King" then they sure didn't say much about it until the end of the prophets-writing period, but then why would there even need to be new prophecies about the restoration of the destroyed royal line if it was just always known?
Money-collectors always find a way for livelihood.
Yes, I know the Messiah is the "anointed." The idea of Savior comes from a different belief set. I would contend that Jesus is the Messiah, only he was meant to be the Messiah for the gentiles.
We have a sense of mission from Jesus, where he tries to heal the sick, improve the world, etc. But midway through his ministry we have stories like the Samaritan woman who he says "It is not right to take the children's bread and feed it to the dogs." Jesus was Savior in that he fundamentally changed the way sin worked by offering himself as a blood offering for the sins of the gentile. In doing so, he acted as Savior to them. Is he your savior? Maybe not. But the Messiah will come, to do the work that God needs done on this Earth.
And Allah changed the way sin worked while sparing the gore, immolation, live-blood sacrifice, and sadism... Would He be your savor then? Then you can see perhaps why your ideas are rejected also.
But, it seems that the Gentiles constantly use the words Savior and Messiah interchangeably when they are not the same, even in the Hebrew language...The Jews were not chosen to be a special group above and beyond the Gentiles, they were chosen by G-d for a specific mission and given the Torah to follow in order to be a light unto the Gentiles, not by preaching, but by a living example, kinda like the structure of a church whereby the Pastor (Israel) leads by example to the congregation (Gentiles), thereby showing how one should live to please G-d...The pastor of a church has less freedoms and more restrictions and expectations placed on him then the members of the congregation, therefore, he is held to a higher standard then those in his congregation...The genuine Mashiach is detailed in the Tanakh, and those attributes are the attributes of the Mashiach to come, if he does not accomplish all that G-d has told us that he must accomplish, then he cannot possibly be HaMashiach...
So which would common sense tell you is probably better: a random person in the congregations of groupies, or the largely self-anointed preachers they are meant to fawn at?
That seems to be the most self-destructive internally-inconsistent paragraph I've ever read.
"The anointed wasn't mentioned, but the End of Days was, therefore the anointed was known in the most ancient times" seriously? The anointing is mentioned since most kings practiced wasting manufactured oil on themselves during their initiation parties. If Jews were "always waiting for a miraculous King" then they sure didn't say much about it until the end of the prophets-writing period, but then why would there even need to be new prophecies about the restoration of the destroyed royal line if it was just always known?
Money-collectors always find a way for livelihood.
So which would common sense tell you is probably better: a random person in the congregations of groupies, or the largely self-anointed preachers they are meant to fawn at?
Ya really didn't think that through now, didja?...There are always going to be those that set a good example and those that set a bad example...Those that are born to lead and those that are born to follow...Those that have the patience to lead and those that are too lazy to lead...Perhaps you should study up on the anointing process, because the self-anointing comment just sounds too ludicrous...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
