Spirituality
01 Apr 22
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidI dont think Jesus needed to state categorically that he is starting a new religion. His words and actions did that. For example
Jesus was a Jew, and there is not the slightest indication in the Synoptic Gospels that he thought of himself as founding a new religion distinct from Judaism. The 'new' religion called "Christianity" was invented by someone else, after Jesus died.
- all the times he said that The law of moses said abc, but I am saying xyz..
- the many times he condemned the leading practitioners of Judaism
- the times the Sabbath was not kept by the disciples and supported by Christ
- the occasions when he condemned the stoning of sinners
- the many times he identified who are His brothers, sisters, mother etc, the righteous sheep who are His, ie those who keep the commandments
Jesus stated a whole new way of thinking that was / is revolutionary and contrary to Judaism.
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@Rajk999
He also said that not one jot of the law would pass away, ere he return. The law he meant was the Jewish law, no other.
When an unclean man tried to sacrifice in the temple, Jesus was angry with him and sent him away, commanding him to perform the traditional (jewish) rituals of purification.
@suzianne saidAnd therein lies the crux of the biscuit. What exactly did Jesus mean when he told his disciples to go forth and make disciples of all men? Did he mean to convert gentiles to Judaism (i.e., to follow the Mosaic law, circumcision, food rituals, not to wear fabrics woven of two different materials, and all the rest of it)? Or did he mean something else? I'm pretty certain he did not mean to force all men to sing the same hymn and cow down to the creed of the Roman Catholic Church (which is what the Roman Catholic Church made of it), and which is my (and Rajk's) chief objection to Christianity as an organised religion. Already by the Council of Nicaea (4th c), the church was more interested in propagating the church than in propagating the faith.
And part of that new way of thinking was that this was open to Jew and Gentile alike and not a matter of heredity.
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidHe meant something else. His disciples preached the keeping of the commandments, chief of which is brotherly love and charity.
And therein lies the crux of the biscuit. What exactly did Jesus mean when he told his disciples to go forth and make disciples of all men? Did he mean to convert gentiles to Judaism (i.e., to follow the Mosaic law, circumcision, food rituals, not to wear fabrics woven of two different materials, and all the rest of it)? Or did he mean something else?
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidJesus fulfilled the law ... Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.(Matthew 5:17-18 KJV)
@Rajk999
He also said that not one jot of the law would pass away, ere he return. The law he meant was the Jewish law, no other.
When an unclean man tried to sacrifice in the temple, Jesus was angry with him and sent him away, commanding him to perform the traditional (jewish) rituals of purification.
This means that he came to fulfil what the prophets said about his death and resurrection. All that the prophets said will also be fulfilled and will not pass away. In addition anyone that shows love for his neighbour has fulfilled the law as well. There are other parts of the bible that speak of the law of Moses as being replaced with a new law and new covenant where God writes his law in the hearts of men and not on stone.
That is the Good News, that all people who live righteously are part of this covenant and are destined for the kingdom of God.
02 Apr 22
@rajk999 saidIt is a peculiarly Christian interpretation of the OT to read it as one long omen pointing to Jesus. The Jews don't read it that way; and why should they? After all, it's their book.
Jesus fulfilled the law ... Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.(Matthew 5:17-18 KJV)
This means that he came to fulfil what the prophets said about his death and ...[text shortened]... t all people who live righteously are part of this covenant and are destined for the kingdom of God.
02 Apr 22
@moonbus saidI think they did. The whole of the OT points to a messiah and a saviour who will saved them from ... whatever. Just that they did not believe it was Jesus. Even to this day they refused to accepted Jesus as nothing more than a prophet.
It is a peculiarly Christian interpretation of the OT to read it as one long omen pointing to Jesus. The Jews don't read it that way; and why should they? After all, it's their book.
Since the fall of man God promised a messiah and this message was repeated to all the patriarchs and spoken of by all the prophets.
02 Apr 22
@moonbus saidThat is not precisely true; "who do you say that I am?" a question He asked. Who did He say He was to the woman at the well? Who did He confess to being when He said, Before Abraham I AM? It is a huge miss to miss who Jesus is. It isn't a new religion distinct from Judaism; it is the fulfillment of Judaism; they have missed the hour of their visitation. The church even said that what God was doing was including the gentiles into the fold; it isn't a distinct religion from Judaism.
Jesus was a Jew, and there is not the slightest indication in the Synoptic Gospels that he thought of himself as founding a new religion distinct from Judaism. The 'new' religion called "Christianity" was invented by someone else, after Jesus died.
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@rajk999 saidWho will save them from invading armies, such as the Babylonias and the Romans. Ancient Judaism does not propose an afterlife. It proposes one's name being reverenced by one's descendants.
I think they did. The whole of the OT points to a messiah and a saviour who will saved them from ... whatever. Just that they did not believe it was Jesus. Even to this day they refused to accepted Jesus as nothing more than a prophet.
Since the fall of man God promised a messiah and this message was repeated to all the patriarchs and spoken of by all the prophets.
The ancient Hebrew word which as been translated "Lord", he who was prophesied to come and save them, meant, at that time, something akin to an English lord, a man -- not The Lord creator of the universe. Which is why the Jews do not accept Jesus as anything more than a prophet, based on their interpretation of their sacred writings.
02 Apr 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidSome references speak to the divine, others human; Jesus fulfilled both.
Who will save them from invading armies, such as the Babylonias and the Romans. Ancient Judaism does not propose an afterlife. It proposes one's name being reverenced by one's descendants.
The ancient Hebrew word which as been translated "Lord", he who was prophesied to come and save them, meant, at that time, something akin to an English lord, a man -- not The Lord creator of the universe.
02 Apr 22
@kellyjay saidThe ancient Jews did not believe in an immortal soul which needed any sort of metaphysical saving, and thereofore there was no need of a metaphysical saviour either. The divine aspect of the saviour archetype was a specifically Christian over-lay on top of the OT.
Some references speak to the divine, others human; Jesus fulfilled both.
02 Apr 22
@moonbus saidA kingdom with no end, virgin birth, judging not with His eyes or ears but with righteousness, the foretelling of many things about Jesus and what occurred, yes, I'd say there is quite a bit that in the Old Testament scriptures, it was those that they used to proclaim Christ as the New Testament scriptures were being written. Nothing in the Old Testament had to be ignored because there were conflicts in doctrine when including the New. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you can find in the Old Testament. What they didn't get was in the Old Testament when (God said) the Word of God was going to become a man.
The ancient Jews did not believe in an immortal soul which needed any sort of metaphysical saving, and thereofore there was no need of a metaphysical saviour either. The divine aspect of the saviour archetype was a specifically Christian over-lay on top of the OT.
03 Apr 22
@divegeester said@josephw?@josephw said
There are Christians, and there are those that call themselves Christian
This was asserted in another thread by josephw.
If you think you are a “Christian”, as opposed to those who “call themselves Christians” how do you know and what are your differentiators?