Quote (ffsvictory @ Sep 10 2013 09:22pm)

The Essenes which was a small Jewish group is really what evolved into Christianity. The Jews blast Christianity which was created by themselves. I don't see why any people should follow Jesus but the Jews. The advice and good teachings in the New Testament would bring ruin to any people that really followed it.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Sep 10 2013 07:04pm)

how is that interpretation? jesus and his jewish followers said and did one thing, and paul said to do something else. that seems pretty contradictory to me. (for some direct quotes etc related to this, skip to about 32:00 in the video and watch for 6 min or so.) here, ill even bring a quote from a christian source ( http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705)

clearly there were christians who still observed the laws, as jesus said to do, and just as clearly, paul was against that.

as i said, anti-semitism is a side point, but heres a few sources. skip to 1:01:00 in the video and watch for a few minutes for some early sources of antisemitic doctrine from people such as justin the martyr and others.

Quote (Caedus @ Sep 10 2013 10:17pm)

It's absolutely an interpretation. You have not a clue what Jesus would have thought of the direction Paul of Tarsus took after. And stop citing this Rabbi as proof. He has an agenda, he is taking a very extreme approach, saying the church is inherently anti-Semitic, which is an inherently wrong statement.

I can cherry pick Protestant philosophers and say that the Protestant church is anti-Semitic. Doesn't mean I'd be right. You have clearly a flawed view of Christian theology.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Sep 14 2013 07:42pm)

Bump.

No-one else?

Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 16 2013 05:12pm)

Do you really believe that Jesus was for the Jews when in fact he went against everything that the Pharisees and Sadducees said, and attempted to end the Jewish religion by calling himself the Messiah?

Quote

We have good historical grounds for thinking that Jesus understood himself to be and claimed to be the Son of God. First, Jesus' parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mk 12.1-9) tells us that Jesus thought of himself as God's only son, distinct from all the prophets, God's final messenger, and even the heir of Israel itself. Notice that one cannot delete the figure of the son from the parable as an inauthentic, later addition, for then the parable lacks any climax and point. Moreover, the uniqueness of the son is not only explicitly stated but inherently implied by the tenants' stratagem of murdering the heir in order to claim possession of the vineyard. So this parable discloses to us that the historical Jesus believed and taught that he was the only Son of God.

Second, Jesus' self-concept as God's Son comes to explicit expression in Matthew 11.27 (cf. Lk 10.22): "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." Here Jesus claims to be the exclusive Son of God and the only revelation of God the Father to mankind. This saying tells us that Jesus thought of himself as God's Son in an absolute and unique sense and as having been invested with the exclusive authority to reveal his Father God to men.

Finally, Jesus' saying concerning the date of the consummation: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32) again speaks of the Son in terms implying uniqueness.

On the basis of these three sayings, we have good evidence that Jesus thought of himself as the unique Son of God. It's true that Jewish kings were referred to as God's sons (II Sam 7.14; I Chron 17.13; 22.10; Ps 2.6-7; 89.26-27), and in Wisdom literature the righteous man could be characterized as God's child, having God as his father (Wisdom 2.13, 16, 18; 5.5; Sirach 4.10; 51.10). Such generic usage is, however, irrelevant to Jesus' claim to divine Sonship, given the uniqueness and exclusivity of his claim. Jesus thought of himself as God's Son in a singular sense that set him apart even from the prophets who had gone before.

But what was that sense? We mustn't conclude too hastily that the title was an implied claim to divinity. It might be that Jesus thought of himself as God's unique Son in the sense that he was the promised Messiah. The Jewish pseudepigraphal work IV Ezra 7.28-29 speaks of Messiah as God's son but nonetheless as mortal. The Dead Sea scrolls also show that the Messiah was thought to be God's son (4Q174; 4Q246; 1QSa 2.11-12). The uniqueness of Jesus' Sonship could be a function of the uniqueness of the Messiah.

On the other hand, it must be said in all honesty that these Jewish texts do not even approach the sort of absoluteness and exclusivity claimed by Jesus of Nazareth in the sayings mentioned above. There's nothing in Dead Sea texts to suggest that the Messiah would be the unique son of God. Being the Messiah might set Jesus apart from all the prophets who had come before him and make him the heir of Israel, as claimed in the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard, but being Messiah would not give him exclusive knowledge of the Father and absolute revelatory significance, as claimed in Mt 11.27. Moreover, the saying in Mk 13.32 not only discloses Jesus' sense of unique Sonship but also presents us with an ascending scale of status from men to angels to the Son to the Father. Jesus' sense of being God's Son involved a sense of proximity to the Father which transcended that of any mortal man (such as a king or prophet) or any angelic being.

Such an exalted conception of God's Son is not foreign to first century Judaism. The New Testament itself bears witness to this fact (Col 1.13-20; Heb 1.1-12). In IV Ezra 13, Ezra sees a vision of a man arising out of the sea who is identified by God as "my Son" (13.32, 37) and who proceeds to subdue all the nations. Ezra asks,

'O sovereign Lord, explain this to me: Why did I see the man coming up from the heart of the sea?'
He said to me, 'Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day' (IV Ezra 13.51-52; cf. 13.26).

That there are other persons presently with the Son prior to his earthly appearance suggests that the Son is a pre-existent, heavenly figure. This becomes quite clear in 14.9 when Ezra is told that his own life is about to end and that he is going to be with God's Son until he is revealed at the end of time: "You shall be taken up from among men, and henceforth you shall live with my Son and those who are like you, until the times are ended." It's intriguing that there is a differentiation made between the pre-existent Son and the righteous, human dead like Ezra who are with him. The Son is clearly set apart as a supernatural figure.

Moreover, as I show in Reasonable Faith, the title "Messiah" itself was also a title that could be infused with connotations of divinity. Titles like "the Son of God" and "the Messiah" were multi-valent and therefore inherently ambiguous without a context. In order to understand the meaning that Jesus invested in such self-descriptions we need to look at the context of his whole life and proclamation, and when we do, it becomes clear that he was claiming superhuman status.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-the-son-of-god#ixzz2f6c5WRlP

Quote

Take, for example, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man. The criteria of multiple sources and dissimilarity show it belongs to the historical Jesus. Now most laymen probably think that this title refers to Jesus’ humanity, just as the title “Son of God” refers to his deity. But that’s a mistake. It fails to take into account the Jewish background of the expression. In the Old Testament book of Daniel, chapter 7, Daniel sees a vision of a divine-human figure coming on the clouds of heaven to whom God will give everlasting authority, glory, and dominion. No mere human being could be accorded such status, for this would be to commit the sin which Muslims call shirk, giving something which properly belongs to God alone to someone else. Yet this is the status which Jesus claimed for himself. Probably the most famous “Son of Man” saying by Jesus comes at his trial before the Jewish high priest. I quote:

Then the high priest stood up . . . and asked Jesus, . . . ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’
‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’
The high priest tore his clothes. . . . ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ They all condemned him as worthy of death. (Mark 14:60-64 NIV)

Every Muslim would have to agree with the high priest and the Council that Jesus is a blasphemer who is worthy of death because he had made himself equal to God.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/who-is-the-real-jesus-the-jesus-of-the-bible-or-the-jesus-of-the-quran#ixzz2f6gGMFa0

Quote (IceMage @ Sep 16 2013 07:46pm)

---

You also have to deal with Jesus forgiving sins.  I'm clueless on Biblical scholarship but someone has to respond to you.

Also, besides that one quote, which some commentary I've read can explain it, how else did Jesus support the Pharisees?

Quote (IceMage @ Sep 16 2013 07:51pm)

Son of Man explained.

You also have Jesus defying the Old Law's dietary restrictions, as well as implementing new commandments.  This is just off the top of my head.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Sep 24 2013 01:00pm)

... ive been really busy, but i finally have a moment to type at least a quick reply...

idk about you, but to me, the most obvious explanation of something is usually the correct one, unless theres some pressing reason to show otherwise.  so, if you need to come onto explanations to explain away jesus's saying to keep the law, and find explanations to interpret other things to show that he thought of himself as divine, or as going against the commandments, then the most reasonable explanation is the one that doesnt require all those explanations. 


regarding  jesus thinking himself equal to god, that doesnt really change anything whether he did or not.  the plain meaning of the bible still shows that he supported keeping the commandments.  he may have gone a lil crazy along the way, but it wasnt til paul that the commandments were done away with.


other than that one quote, the rabbi in the video brings many other examples that show that either jesus himself or followers kept the commandments, even after his death.  dont remember the exact sources, but off the top of my head, heres the gist of a couple of the examples:

someone condemns jesus for his followers gathering grains on the sabbath (or something like that).  jesus doesnt reply that its ok to do completely, he responds that it was ok because it was a matter of life and death, in which case it would be permissible.  he doesnt argue with the basic fact that what they were doing would otherwise be a sin.

paul is told by the jerusalem followers of jesus to sponsor the sin-offering of a nazarite to show that he is loyal to the commandments.  this shows that not only were they still keeping the general commandments, they were performing sin-offerings as well, which they wouldnt be doing if jesus's death had forgiven all sins as the ultimate sin-offering.

a woman comes to jesus and asks him what the path to eternal life is.  he tells her to follow the pharisees.

someone comes to jesus and kisses the 'fringes' of his garments.  fringes, in the context of judaism, refers to a fulfillment of the commandment to bind fringes on the corners of your garments.  that jesus was wearing them shows that he accepted and followed the oral traditions of judaism.  the saducces, who rejected the oral tradition, didnt wear their fringes, they hung them on the wall.

and so on.  i just noticed this in a reply to someone else :  (for some direct quotes etc related to this, skip to about 33:00 in the video and watch for 5 min or so.), so if you want to see the exact sources, you can skip to there and watch for a bit.

where did he defy the dietary restrictions or add new commandments?