Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why is it that Jews dont believe Jesus has come yet?
Why do Christians believe Jesus has already come and Jews think that he has not yet come?
0
Comments
Jews know that Jesus came and preached. They simply don't accept that he was a promised Messiah (or 'Christ' from the Greek). Muslims see Jesus as a prophet of God. Both reject the notion that he was "Son of God", particularly because they can't get their heads round the strange Christian assertion that they (the Xtians) are still monotheists when they appear to worship three gods.
Plus its not like Jews can say that Jeasus didn't exist because there are accounts and proof that he did exist.
There are many, well-read and qualified people who have serious doubts about the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels.
Anyway, Jews don't believe Jesus could be the son of God because they don't believe that God can be divided into parts like the trinity suggests. I know there are other reasons but that is just what I have read.
And I have no doubt that Yhwh is not a "Supreme Being" even were such a one to exist. But I am of the opinion expressed by the Tathagata (the Buddha) that, in all my travels, I have never met such a one.
"Yes, I understand the Father, and the Son bit, but what is is with the Holy Ghost? What is it?"
They looked at each other, then Father Eddie replied,
"SHE'S the Love that Flows In Between."
Paul added,
"There's no mystery, She's just Love in its True Purity."
For Catholics, this is simplicity beyond belief. And putting it into the feminine, bowled me over....
Many Christian mystics have addressed God as Mother and, of course, Jung (who was a Protestant by background) called the declaration of the doctrine of the Assumption (1950) as replacing the Mother at the cntre of worship.
Now I see it... Does this belief also verifies that the New Testament has not been corrupted, being the source of Christ's teachings, and where he mentioned he was the Son of God?
THINK!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
THINK A MINUTE BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
SCROLL DOWN!
JEWS FOR JESUS !
It's like how many of us Buddhists will believe in Matreiya if one day he comes down and he says my name is George Bush? (Dangerous statement!)
Always good to get a response from YOU.
Nirvana
Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, Nirvana, but it still got me thinking. The Shakyamuni Buddha founded, and named, the Sangha. The Prophet Mohammed (peace be on him) spoke of the Umma. But, as far as I can see, Jesus never gave his followers a name, other than 'disciples' or 'students'. In the Muslim world, students are called taliban, so Peter, John, the Marys, Andrew, Philip and the rest were taliban. (Perhaps, if Christians called themselves Taliban, it would confuse OBL and his cohorts!)
In reflecting on the question of what the first 'Jesus people' called themselves, I realised that the question must have exercised them, too. They had to work out most of what we now think of as the Church without much practical instruction from the Founder. Jesus certainly didn't leave blueprints for a structure or a hierarchy. It actually took the Romans to give a derogatory name to the new movement: Christiani. Tacitus would be very amused to learn that it became the official name for the believers and, even a name proudly borne.
I like the idea that Jesus didn't name a 'movement' because that wasn't what he was interested in.
nor what he was about.
This may be of interest:
Jason
The divinity of Christ wasn't a fundamental part of early Christianity until around four hundred years after Christ died. The reason that Jews don't take Christ as the Messiah is because he didn't fulfill the requirements for the Jewish Messiah.
Interesting stuff. Check that page. Here it is again: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com
Keith
That well-known pop-group 'Lappovthegodz'......
As long as you haven't got one called Tete de Veau yet. Yukky name, yukky concept!
Sorry to do this, but here's a good link on this subject:
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp
a snippet:
The article goes into detail about each of these points (some of which, I've provided). It is a bit too long to post in its entirety, but I will do so if you guys don't mind.
For some side info, the name YHVH indicates both male and female, though this is not advertised too much. Throughout the Hebrew Torah, different names are used to refer God and his/her host. Elohim is one of the most prominent names used. The original hebrew used to compose the Torah is so rich and manifold, no English translation could possibly do it justice without volumes of commentary.
Also, the Holy Spirit initially existed in Judaism, but not really as a person. It is considered the Breath (Ruach) of God or the enlivening force of creation breathed into man's nostrils in the Genesis story/myth (btw, the regarding of the Genesis account as partly myth does not discredit it, imo). It is considered in Judaism that all people have the holy spirit in them. Some of the New Testament theology surrounding the Holy Spirit and God is a radical departure from Judaism in many ways. It is also interesting to note that the passage in John regarding the Trinity was changed from the original Greek. Initially, Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not mentioned at all, but rather something along the lines of fire, water, & blood (though my memory fails me). It was supposedly changed somewhere because the doctrine was implicit throughout the new testament. Basically, it was added for consistency. It is also argued by some biblical historians that the passage in Matthew where Jesus charges the disciples to preach the gospel (good news), the part about baptizing in the name of the Trinity was added. Apparently, the prose style seems to differ from the rest of the text and this part of 'the charge' was not mentioned in the accounts in Luke or Mark.
Anyway, take care.
_/\_
metta
I can`t say anything in regards to the initial question but since trinity came up here, I just wanna say that I never had problems in comprehending it,maybe i got it totally wrong
The father, the sond and the holy spirit are not three seperate individuals, like dieties, nor are they equal, they are simply one and the same just different aspects of it. If one believes in Trinity, then God shows in that three ways, the son makes it possible to circumvent the idolozing prohibiton (no images of god), the spirit makes it possible to speak of god within one`s ownmind/spirit. For me,it has always been that simple, it does not violate monotheism, but as said, maybe I am wrong
Yeah, I don't really have a big problem with the Trinitarian Doctrine, except for the tendency to regard them as 3 separate persons (rather than aspects of God). That really seems to miss the point to me.
_/\_
metta
Simon, I must question this statement. When you say "I have no doubt..." that means to me that you somehow know that Yhwh is not a supreme being. Now, I may agree with you on this but how can you know?
I am a firm believer in logic. Your logic tells you that there may not be any supreme being and that it is certainly not the God of the Bible. I mostly agree. However, I would say that I see it as being logical for a supreme-type being to exist. It makes sense to me. I don't believe that God or whatever descriptive word used for this "being" is the Christian God. I, personally, believe in some form of God or another even if it may be something more like the Tao as referred to in the Tao Te Ching. That being said, I certainly can't know this for sure. My belief of such a being cannot be proved by scientific means or any other means that I know of. Also, I really don't have an established view of 'God' because, logically, no one really can say for sure that "He" even exists, let alone in what form. Those are just my simple thoughts on this matter.
BTS, that is precisely why I use the conditional mood. Whatever my personal opinion on the matter of "supreme being", I am aware that conventional logic is not adequate to establish whether or not the notion has objective reality.
Thank you for pointing it out.