A messiah but not a god

[Tanakh Keeper]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

[RBerman]

Universalists and JWs are not Christians. There are no Christian denominations which deny the divinity of Christ, by definition. But there's no shortage of people in the world who deny the divinity of Christ. Indeed, that is the majority view. Congratulations!

[popaface]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

Some groups of Universalists would hold those beliefs. They're primarily religious redactionists (a heretical suppersessionist neo-colonial Imperialist ideology); groups like these seem to think that German Romanticism is not just an idealistic vision but a proper, nay, indisputable way of doing history: "simple = pure".

JW's don't hold this belief, they are modern followers of the old Arian heresy, Arius believed that Jesus was a god, created by God at the beginning of time.

Unitarian Universalists also hold this belief, but you can probably find it in the teachings of various Jesus Seminar scholars, various new liberals such as John Shelby Spong, and it might still be popular in Germany.

Allan

[Tanakh Keeper]

There are no Christian denominations which deny the divinity of Christ, by definition.

I doubt that. I once created a thread to determine a definition of Christianity. After going on for about 10 pages, all the Christian participants were unable to agree on one.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Some groups of Universalists would hold those beliefs. They're primarily religious redactionists (a heretical suppersessionist neo-colonial Imperialist ideology); groups like these seem to think that German Romanticism is not just an idealistic vision but a proper, nay, indisputable way of doing history: "simple = pure".

JW's don't hold this belief, they are modern followers of the old Arian heresy, Arius believed that Jesus was a god, created by God at the beginning of time.

Unitarian Universalists also hold this belief, but you can probably find it in the teachings of various Jesus Seminar scholars, various new liberals such as John Shelby Spong, and it might still be popular in Germany.

Allan

I poked around on google searching on "German Romanticism", but I didn't see anything relating to this concept. According to wiki regarding Jehovah witnesses, I'd agree that it doesn't seem likely that they have this belief. Alright, so I'll go with a subset of Universalists possessing this belief.

Thanks!

[popaface]

German Romanticism lead to another myth that continually penetrates contemporary Biblical studies. It is the myth that an idealized moment in time was pure, simple, unadulturated and perfect. It was the myth of a particular type of Golden Age, and it made sense for redactionists to adopt this ideology in their historical Jesus studies: Jesus becomes a very simple peasant figure who doesn't make any "outrageous" claims about himself - he becomes a contemporary Socialist interested in a very simple social movement that he terms the "kingdom of God" and this movement is a slogan which meant for him that all people should share, love, and be fundamentally equal. It is basically the Liberal American myth of origins transfered onto a figure worshipped as god. And it is based primarily on Romantacizing the primative, the simple. The links aren't quite overt, but they do stand out when one is conscious of other ways of doing historical Jesus work: cross-cultural, post-colonial, culturally sensitive, etc.

Allan

[John Goddard]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

Adoptionists like me believe Jesus was born a regular man, and they destroy your arguments.

That's why you put me on ignore, so you can harp on Trinity forever and ever.

You are like one of those passive-aggressives Holding uses to justify riposte. Only he is too chicken to use it on Jews because the Men in Black might cut off his whosi-whatsies...

LOLOLOLOLOL.

I think I answered your question.
Let's not go there

[barnasha]

If you don't believe that Jesus was "born a regular man", you believe in fairy tales, and you're suckering yourself.

[Tanakh Keeper]

German Romanticism lead to another myth that continually penetrates contemporary Biblical studies. It is the myth that an idealized moment in time was pure, simple, unadulturated and perfect. It was the myth of a particular type of Golden Age, and it made sense for redactionists to adopt this ideology in their historical Jesus studies: Jesus becomes a very simple peasant figure who doesn't make any "outrageous" claims about himself - he becomes a contemporary Socialist interested in a very simple social movement that he terms the "kingdom of God" and this movement is a slogan which meant for him that all people should share, love, and be fundamentally equal. It is basically the Liberal American myth of origins transfered onto a figure worshipped as god. And it is based primarily on Romantacizing the primative, the simple. The links aren't quite overt, but they do stand out when one is conscious of other ways of doing historical Jesus work: cross-cultural, post-colonial, culturally sensitive, etc.

Ah, this makes your first post more meaningful to me. Thank you for the explanation.

[barnasha]

Universalists and JWs are not Christians. There are no Christian denominations which deny the divinity of Christ, by definition. But there's no shortage of people in the world who deny the divinity of Christ. Indeed, that is the majority view. Congratulations!

(1) divinity or deification? The original post asked about deification. the earliest "christians" certainly did not mix Jesus with Jesus's god as some modern Christians do.

(2) who is the authority on who is christian and who is not?

According to wikipedia, the publically-editable encyclopedia, it is a "restorationist,[1] millenarian[2] Christian[3] denomination.[4][5]". Is this incorrect?

[John Goddard]

Sorry Rogue, too much Jungle Juice last night... :(

[Adrift]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

The cult The Way International used to believe that Jesus was the son of God, but not God the son. They're now a shell of their former self. Went from about a million members to a few thousand now. They fell apart from the inside when certain sectors of the leadership started actually studying the scriptures out and found it incompatible with what the Way was teaching.

[Adrift]

I doubt that. I once created a thread to determine a definition of Christianity. After going on for about 10 pages, all the Christian participants were unable to agree on one.

That's not quite how it went down as I recall. As I recall most of the Christians in that thread either stated agreement on certain basic premises, or it was assumed they did. It was the details they were hung up on. I'm sure if I started a thread on the definition of what Judaism is on a mix Jewish forum you'd probably have a few dissenting opinions as well. Karaite/Rabbinical, Orthodox/non-Orthodox, etc. etc.

[Tanakh Keeper]

That's not quite how it went down as I recall. As I recall most of the Christians in that thread either stated agreement on certain basic premises, or it was assumed they did. It was the details they were hung up on.

As I recall, I kept repeating the definition back trying to see if I got it. But someone kept editing it and re-editing it, until the definition just fell to pieces. So instead of trying to memorize that three part definition that was developing, I kept the one I already had in my head. To wit: A Christian believes in Jesus as a god. That's why I was surprised when that person told me that certain Christians don't believe that Jesus is a god. Thanks to the responses in this thread I know that "certain Christians" are certain Universalists.

[Adrift]

As I recall, I kept repeating the definition back trying to see if I got it. But someone kept editing it and re-editing it, until the definition just fell to pieces. So instead of trying to memorize that three part definition that was developing, I kept the one I already had in my head. To wit: A Christian believes in Jesus as a god. That's why I was surprised when that person told me that certain Christians don't believe that Jesus is a god. Thanks to the responses in this thread I know that "certain Christians" are certain Universalists.

:ahem: Yeah. Right.

[RBerman]

(1) divinity or deification? The original post asked about deification. the earliest "christians" certainly did not mix Jesus with Jesus's god as some modern Christians do.
That's a matter of some debate, although certainly these topics enjoyed systematization over time.

(2) who is the authority on who is christian and who is not?
I am. Wanna wrestle?

According to wikipedia, the publically-editable encyclopedia, it is a "restorationist,[1] millenarian[2] Christian[3] denomination.[4][5]". Is this incorrect?
I do not know the "it" (emphasis mine) of which you speak.

[barnasha]

That's a matter of some debate, although certainly these topics enjoyed systematization over time.


I am. Wanna wrestle?


I do not know the "it" (emphasis mine) of which you speak.

sorry, Jehovah's Witnesses

[popaface]

Barnasha is speaking from normal redactionist Christianity, which has its place in German Romanticism rather than early Christian history.

In short, Jesus and Jesus' followers were most probably very alien to any contemporary Western observer, however, people like Barnasha want to rationalize the early Christian movement instead of understanding it for what it was: different.

The claims made about Jesus in, say, the Gospel of John, are not alien claims which did not make any sense to the early Christians. The scary truth is that they were so normal in fact and so common in Judaisms that Christianity cannot be distinguished from Judaism anymore than Rabbinic Judaism which developed alongside Christianity could. To claim that Jesus and his immediate followers were indistinguishable from contemporary rational redactionists, and that they made no "outrageous" claims about Jesus is purely imaginary. The skinny is that they would not have been normal Jews if they had no rich mythical and cultural tradition that they were selling, they would not have been normal first century Mediterranean civilians had they nothing to believe in.

Imagining Jesus and Yhwh as having, to a great extent a mixed and linked identity, meant that Jews at this time were understanding Jesus and God in binatarian language. This was a very ordinary way of imagining God and it meant that Jesus was very important to these Jews.

Allan

[caspian]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

Hi TK

I am a so-called "Universalist". I believe Jesus is the Son of God, but not the Supreme Deity; that He is God in a representative sense, as the "image" of God, and that He is a god in a relative sense--an unspeakably great one--under the Only True God; His God. I know quite a few people who believe as I do, but it is not a popular view.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Hi TK

I am a so-called "Universalist". I believe Jesus is the Son of God, but not the Supreme Deity; that He is God in a representative sense, as the "image" of God, and that He is a god in a relative sense--an unspeakably great one--under the Only True God; His God. I know quite a few people who believe as I do, but it is not a popular view.

Shalom Caspian

Popaface said that only Unitarian Universalists believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god. Would you agree with that?

Regarding your belief:
1) are you saying that Jesus is a lesser god, as opposed to the "Supreme Deity" being a greater god?
2) Do you think that Jesus was a god when he was born?

[Tanakh Keeper]

The scary truth is that they were so normal in fact and so common in Judaisms that Christianity cannot be distinguished from Judaism anymore than Rabbinic Judaism which developed alongside Christianity could.

What's with this false demarcation of Judaism to something called Rabbinic Judaism? We've never changed, we still have the same Judaism as we've always had.

[caspian]

Shalom Caspian

Popaface said that only Unitarian Universalists believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god. Would you agree with that?

Regarding your belief:
1) are you saying that Jesus is a lesser god, as opposed to the "Supreme Deity" being a greater god?
2) Do you think that Jesus was a god when he was born?

I and the people I mentioned who hold a similar theology are not Unitarian Universalists. Personally I don't like the Universalist label; it is just that I interpret Scripture as revealing that God's goal includes the salvation of all the universe.

1) I think that absolutely there is one true God - the Father. Any others termed "gods" are gods only in a relative sense, in that God appoints them as disposers over His handiwork, in order to effect His great plan. This includes Christ Jesus. In this way, there are many gods relatively speaking, but absolutely there is one True God.
2) I don't see the term god as an ontological classification. I think there's good reason to believe that god is a title, which essentially means disposer; one who disposes.

[RBerman]

According to wikipedia, the publically-editable encyclopedia, [Jehovah's Witnesses] is a "restorationist, millenarian Christian denomination." Is this incorrect?
It is imprecise. The JWs are rooted in 19th century American Christianity's "Great Disappointment," and as such they have much surface similarity with Christianity. They purport to believe the Bible, but they have their own idiosyncratic translation in order to minimize certain uncomfortable doctrinal questions which used arise for them in other Bible translations. And even for their New World Translation, in my experience even their missionaries are not familiar with it, spending much more time studying the reams of secondary material churned out anonymously by their central office, The Watchtower. As a result, JWs use much of the same theological vocabulary as Christians, but not with the same definitions, and not in the service of Christian doctrine.

[Tanakh Keeper]

1) I think that absolutely there is one true God - the Father. Any others termed "gods" are gods only in a relative sense, in that God appoints them as disposers over His handiwork, in order to effect His great plan. This includes Christ Jesus. In this way, there are many gods relatively speaking, but absolutely there is one True God.

Interesting. What are some of the names of your "many gods"?

[caspian]

Interesting. What are some of the names of your "many gods"?

Satan is called "the god of this eon" by the apostle Paul in the NT. Nonetheless, he states that for us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I think that this is explained by the fact that God is the one Who "created the waster to destroy."

[Tanakh Keeper]

Satan is called "the god of this eon" by the apostle Paul in the NT. Nonetheless, he states that for us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I think that this is explained by the fact that God is the one Who "created the waster to destroy."

OK, Satan is one. Any others?

[shunyadragon]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

The Baha'i Faith teaches this.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I doubt that. I once created a thread to determine a definition of Christianity. After going on for about 10 pages, all the Christian participants were unable to agree on one.

I guess we can't poll Jews (since you're one of the few here on Tweb) ... so we're left guessing whether or not you guys all agree on a unified definition of Judaism (I suspect not though)? We all have a brain squishing between our ears do we not (though I realize we all use it to different degrees).

[caspian]

OK, Satan is one. Any others?

Psalms 82:6-7 (this is not the best translation):

I, the Most High God, say that all of you are gods and also my own children. But you will die, just like everyone else, including powerful rulers.

It isn't clear of whom God speaks here. Some people think He speaks of human rulers.

[barnasha]

people like Barnasha want to rationalize the early Christian movement instead of understanding it for what it was: different.


The "early christian movement" (before the institution) WAS quite different. It's not about what I "want", it's about the facts... you should focus on those alone.

[popaface]

What's with this false demarcation of Judaism to something called Rabbinic Judaism? We've never changed, we still have the same Judaism as we've always had.

No. Rabbinic Judaism as it exists today is not Second Temple Judaism(s). A very clear observation about this is the New Testament and other early Christian literature; this was normative Second Temple Judaism. It existed in a very diverse milieu in which everything that one finds in the New Testament can be very much understood and normative to the Jews or "God fearers" living around the Mediterranean at the time.

The "early christian movement" (before the institution) WAS quite different. It's not about what I "want", it's about the facts... you should focus on those alone.

See that's just redactionist jargon to me. I know. I've been there. I used to see things exactly the same way. But the portrait that I got from reading the Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong was much too neat and tidy, much too liberal Protestant, not alien enough. And I like to think about Jesus as belonging, primarily, to a completely different cultural, social, economic, political and religious systems to us. This is probably why I'm much more taken by more recent studies in Second Temple Judaism by people like Amy-Jill Levine, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Bogdan Bucur, John Levenson, Daniel Boyarin and Larry Hurtado.

Allan

[popaface]

No. Rabbinic Judaism as it exists today is not Second Temple Judaism(s). A very clear observation about this is the New Testament and other early Christian literature; this was normative Second Temple Judaism. It existed in a very diverse milieu in which everything that one finds in the New Testament can be very much understood and normative to the Jews or "God fearers" living around the Mediterranean at the time.

I'm not trying to say that Christianity as it exists today "is" Judaism or replaces Judaism. What I mean to say is that in the late Second Temple Judaism, writings began to appear within the Judaisms around the Mediterranean which proclaimed a man named "Jesus" as God incarnate. These forms of Judaism existed alongside other forms of Judaisms and eventually developed into "Christianity", after a very long process spanning maybe 3 centuries.

Allan

[Tanakh Keeper]

It isn't clear of whom God speaks here. Some people think He speaks of human rulers.

I'm trying to get your beliefs, not "some people". Do you believe that every person is a god?

Earlier you said there are many gods. I'm just trying to get a list of their names. So far you've said: Supreme Being, Jesus, and Satan. What are the names of some other gods?

[Tanakh Keeper]

I guess we can't poll Jews (since you're one of the few here on Tweb) ... so we're left guessing whether or not you guys all agree on a unified definition of Judaism (I suspect not though)?

This thread isn't about Judaism. I didn't make any sweeping statements about "All Jews believe...thus".

[Tanakh Keeper]

No. Rabbinic Judaism as it exists today is not Second Temple Judaism(s). A very clear observation about this is the New Testament and other early Christian literature

Ah, based on Christian literature. That explains it.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I'm not trying to say that Christianity as it exists today "is" Judaism or replaces Judaism. What I mean to say is that in the late Second Temple Judaism, writings began to appear within the Judaisms around the Mediterranean which proclaimed a man named "Jesus" as God incarnate. These forms of Judaism existed alongside other forms of Judaisms and eventually developed into "Christianity", after a very long process spanning maybe 3 centuries.

Allan

There may have been writings that such a person was a messiah, but there was nothing Jewish about stating a man was a god. That wasn't codified until Nicea around the year 325. Once the god angle developed, anything Jewish about it vanished. The whole god thing came from the religions of Mithras, Tammuz, and Bachus, NOT Judaism.

[caspian]

I'm trying to get your beliefs, not "some people". Do you believe that every person is a god?

Earlier you said there are many gods. I'm just trying to get a list of their names. So far you've said: Supreme Being, Jesus, and Satan. What are the names of some other gods?

I don't know their names. Neither do I know the names of very many angels. ?

No, I don't believe every person is a god. My beliefs are simply that there is one God, absolutely speaking, but many, relatively speaking. If God "shared power" with anyone He would not be the one true God, IMO. Therefore, anyone else termed a god is carrying out the will of God in all that he does.

[barnasha]

See that's just redactionist jargon to me.

if dispassionately "sticking to the facts" is jargon to you, then everything you think is going to be make-believe.

[Yankee_Doodle]

This thread isn't about Judaism. I didn't make any sweeping statements about "All Jews believe...thus".

I know .... but you inferred there's something wrong with Christianity because Christians frequently disagree with one another (I contemplated whether or not all Jews are in full agreement regarding all aspects of Judaism to show the absurdity of your inference).

[John Goddard]

There may have been writings that such a person was a messiah, but there was nothing Jewish about stating a man was a god. That wasn't codified until Nicea around the year 325. Once the god angle developed, anything Jewish about it vanished. The whole god thing came from the religions of Mithras, Tammuz, and Bachus, NOT Judaism.

Messiah of David is leader of the House of David, and Gentiles view Jesus as God. So I think you are mistaken.

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

[popaface]

Ah, based on Christian literature. That explains it.

Yes and no. What you call "Christian literature" was a particular form of Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. We could easily look at other Jewish writings from this period to see both similarities to Christianities (thus backgrounds to it) as well as differences.

There may have been writings that such a person was a messiah, but there was nothing Jewish about stating a man was a god. That wasn't codified until Nicea around the year 325. Once the god angle developed, anything Jewish about it vanished. The whole god thing came from the religions of Mithras, Tammuz, and Bachus, NOT Judaism.

Actually, these very early and very high Christological statements about Jesus make perfect sense considering the Jewish Binitarian theologies. In fact, Daniel Boyarin pointed out that the only thing different about "Christianity" to the various other Judaisms around was that "Christianity" used the normative Binatarian theologies in describing "Jesus" as opposed to the traditional "demi-god" figure. Daniel Boyarin goes so far as to say that the Gospel of John makes perfect sense as a very Jewish Gospel which, of course, he reads as portraying Jesus as a divine being, incarnate God. The strongest presence of Binitarian theologies comes through in the Targumim, in them we can see a picture of how the Memra has come into being in the exegesis of Exodus 3:12-14 which states:

And God said to Moses: "I am that I am," and he said: "Thus shall you say unto them, 'I Am has sent me to you.'"

On this verse the Palestinian Targum translates:

And the Memra of H' said to Moses: He who said, to the world from the beginning, 'Be there,' and it was there, and who is to say to it 'Be there,' and it will be there; and he said, Thus shall you say to the Israelites, He has sent me to you.

The huge motif in the Palestinian Targum is a Two Powers in Heaven motif; it accentuates a plurality in God. And within this form of Judaism arose forms of Christianity. Obviously by the reaction to both of them by second century Rabbinical Judaism, Rabbi's began to name Binitarianism as heretical, and according to Daniel Boyarin's thesis, it is through this heresiology, through a long evolution of heresiology that Judaism and Christianity became distinguishible entities.

if dispassionately "sticking to the facts" is jargon to you, then everything you think is going to be make-believe.

I find the entire program of these redactionist scholars too neat and tidy. They wouldn't take into account that what I wrote above was very normal Jewish theology in the late Second Temple period, they just want a Christianity that looks rational to 21st century liberal Protestantism. Nevermind the huge ideological jumps that they make which actually bring abount a not-too-objective take on the "facts".

Historical Jesus scholars have created a criteria which they can place over the top of the data and bring about what they (want to) understand to be an historical Jesus. The criteria has been 1. Early, 2. Multiple Attestation, 3. Contextual, 4. Dissimilarity or Embarrassment - and the theory goes that if a peice of data is early, attested numerous times, contextual to a first century figure in Palestine and embarrassing, it possibly was not created by early Christians and instead was the act or saying of Jesus. This may be a fair enough matrix through which we can understand who the historical Jesus was however it becomes problematic when considering a few core presumptions. Firstly, it is quite a jump to say that early Christian communities were interested in clearing up embarrassments; in fact very many "embarrassing" counter-cultural stories are called by redactionist historical Jesus scholars mythological such as the women at the tomb of Jesus or the Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman. It seems that many Gospel writers didn't have any qualms about "creating" embarrassments in their stories. The same goes for the entire Beloved Disciple vs Peter motif in the Gospel of John. Secondly, an early story about Jesus really is much more likely to be historical than a later one however there is an interesting issue when it actually comes to dating the data at hand, and this is an issue which holds the "myth" vs "history" dichotomy close to heart. The historical assumption, which owes much more to German romanticism and idealism, is that if something sounds mythological or developed or theological then it must be a story which is late, and the favourite date of "late" is post-70 CE, in fact, in strange 10-year sequential gaps between the four canonical Gospels: Mark = 60's-70, Matthew = 80, Luke = 90, John = 100. However, none of the books that we have have any dates on them at all. And this strange progression is based not on any sort of extra-biblical dating system, nor on any dating system at all, but rather it is based in circular correspondence with just how "mythological" the Gospel looks. The issue here for "serious" scholars is that if something looks mythological then it can't be early, because early Christians weren't interested in mythology, they were interested in simply, farmy, homely truths (just like those German romanticists).

Overall, rather than attempting to reconstruct a supposed "historical Jesus" who looks fairly white and socialist, it makes better sense to understand the data as giving, not an historical account of the historical figure of Jesus but rather impressions of Jesus in the artworks of narrative structures. Also, one must begin with the presupposition that every single story made about Jesus in the canonical and extra-canonical Gospels was a very normal way of telling a story. This scary truth is that these stories were not alien to their people at all. They were able to imagine them in fact as culturaly niormalities, as part of their "cultural reality", and as far as I'm concerned we can simply see the words "cultural reality" and "realities" as interchangeable.

Allan

[harlan]

The United Church of Christ has a simple creed: "Forward with Christ" I don't think they require any further defining of belief for members. I once heard a UCC minister state in a sermon that he personally didn't believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. No one in the autdience said a word. Unitarian Universalists are not required to believe in God, much less Christ. They don't consider themselves Christian any longer, although individual members may believe in God or Christ.

A better question in my opionion is whether Jesus believed that Jesus was God. You can find quotes to support either.

My own answer would be yes and no, depending on how your understanding of what it means to "be God." My understanding can be expressed by another comparison. If you compare God to the sun as the source of all life on earth, and a reflection of that sun in a mirror. Is the reflection of the sun the same as the sun? The mirror reflects the rays of the sun so perfectly that in one sense it is the same as looking at the sun. On the other hand, the real sun is 94 million miles from us. This is how I would interpret Jesus saying, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." He was like a perfect Mirror reflecting the glory, majesty, love, kindness, etc. of God, as much of God as man could handle.

Harlan

[caspian]

If you compare God to the sun as the source of all life on earth, and a reflection of that sun in a mirror. Is the reflection of the sun the same as the sun? The mirror reflects the rays of the sun so perfectly that in one sense it is the same as looking at the sun. On the other hand, the real sun is 94 million miles from us. This is how I would interpret Jesus saying, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." He was like a perfect Mirror reflecting the glory, majesty, love, kindness, etc. of God, as much of God as man could handle.

Harlan

Exactly!

[popaface]

The United Church of Christ has a simple creed: "Forward with Christ" I don't think they require any further defining of belief for members. I once heard a UCC minister state in a sermon that he personally didn't believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. No one in the autdience said a word. Unitarian Universalists are not required to believe in God, much less Christ. They don't consider themselves Christian any longer, although individual members may believe in God or Christ.

Ah the redactionist project. I honestly don't think anyone can ever really know historically, and I honestly don't think that's the point of the story either. it's really just people trying to be controversial. The issue here is that first century Judaisms were a different cultural reality to ours, in their cultural reality it made perfect sense to suggest that visions of a Christ after his crucifixion meant that Christ was raised on high by God. And of course because of who Christ was in his life, a very mystical character who understood himself to have been the divinely appointed high-priestly/kingly messiah after the order of Melchizedek, it made sense to see visions of him as a very important thing.

A better question in my opionion is whether Jesus believed that Jesus was God. You can find quotes to support either.

My own answer would be yes and no, depending on how your understanding of what it means to "be God." My understanding can be expressed by another comparison. If you compare God to the sun as the source of all life on earth, and a reflection of that sun in a mirror. Is the reflection of the sun the same as the sun? The mirror reflects the rays of the sun so perfectly that in one sense it is the same as looking at the sun. On the other hand, the real sun is 94 million miles from us. This is how I would interpret Jesus saying, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." He was like a perfect Mirror reflecting the glory, majesty, love, kindness, etc. of God, as much of God as man could handle.

Harlan

Jesus understood himself to be "Yhwh", (the Lesser God in an ancient Jewish binitarian theological system which in itself is based on much more ancient chaoskumpf mythologies), in the same sense that the High Priest thought that he was "Yhwh" incarnate in the Yom Kippur ritual at the end of the religious year. This according to recent studies in Second Temple Judaisms temple cult rituals by such scholars as Daniel Boyarin, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Larry Hurtado and John Levenson.

Allan

[Tanakh Keeper]

On this verse the Palestinian Targum translates:And God said to Moses: "I am that I am," and he said: "Thus shall you say unto them, 'I Am has sent me to you.'"

Actually G-d said "I will be that I will be".

Whatever one author says or doesn't say isn't relevant. Once the people that started Christianity left the Torah behind and began worshipping a man, they also left Judaism.

[popaface]

Actually G-d said "I will be that I will be".

Whatever one author says or doesn't say isn't relevant. Once the people that started Christianity left the Torah behind and began worshipping a man, they also left Judaism.

I actually think that in the Temple rituals themselves of ancient Israel, the king and particularly the high priest was worshipped as a manifestation of God. I think it's evident althroughout ancient Jewish scriptures particularly the scriptures that weren't canonized in the Tanakh.

In fact, some scholars have argued that the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is the High Priest in the Holy of Holies performing the sacred rituals. I think it makes a lot of sense to read the story that way, and I think that it's quite likely for very many ancient devotees to have had similar visions of the High Priest performing this ritual as the disciples of Jesus had at the transfiguration.

Judaism itself arose out of an ancient Middle Eastern cultural milieu. For all intents and purposes "Israel" was a form of "Canaan", and Judaism(s) were a species of Hellenism (as far as blood and culture is concerned respectfully).

Allan

[Tanakh Keeper]

I think it makes a lot of sense to read the story that way...

Obviously, since you already worship a man, you are pre-disposed to interpret it that way. However, for Judaism, that interpretation is an abomination.

[Bosco]

Actually G-d said "I will be that I will be".

Whatever one author says or doesn't say isn't relevant. Once the people that started Christianity left the Torah behind and began worshipping a man, they also left Judaism.

While I agree Christianity left Torah behind (to their error), I do not see them as worshipping a man. While the Art Scroll can play games with where the word shem appears in isaiah 9:5(6), the Massoretic texts are quite clear as to whom is being spoken about in that verse. Likewise, Yehoshua himself quoted Isaiah 35 when asked by John's disciples if he was the one to come or do they look for another. Those verses, clearly speak of when Elohim comes. Likewise, in Zech 12:10 we see YHWH (all caps LORD) being spoken of when Judah sees the pierced holes in his side.

While I reject the modern trinity understanding, I do not see any conflict between the Tanach and the Brit Chadasha in regards to Yehoshua and YHWH being one and the same. It is the Son who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27) and while here, even at the end of his life (and toward the end of John's gospel) the Son told us he had no been plain concerning the Father but that a day WILL COME when he would be. (John 16:25) Likewise, we see in Rev. 1:1 that it is God who sends the angel to John to testify of Yehoshua, while Rev. 22:16 has that angel as having been sent by Yehoshua. he received worship and didn't respond with rebuke. He was called "My Adonai and my Elohim" by Thomas without giving rebuke... and Paul states that the second Adam was the Adonai from heaven. (1 Cor. 15:47) There are not two "Lord's of heaven," and the Lord of heaven is our Father. (Acts 17:24 or Matt. 11:25)

It isn't that man went and worshipped a man, it's that the Tanach points to God coming and the Brit Chadasha (NT) reveals that coming. If there is fault, it is in the translators hands... not JUST in the Greek, but in the Peshitta as well seeing the Aramaic NT which pre-dates ALL manuscripts we have, also reveals the Son of God as God himself.

Peace.
Ken

[Tanakh Keeper]

While I agree Christianity left Torah behind (to their error), I do not see them as worshipping a man.

(Matt. 11:27)
(John 16:25)
Rev. 1:1
Rev. 22:16
1 Cor. 15:47)
Acts 17:24 or Matt. 11:25)


Quoting the Christian bible doesn't do anything to advance your case within Judaism.

[Bosco]

Quoting the Christian bible doesn't do anything to advance your case within Judaism.

What makes you think I am trying to advance my case with Judaism?? Are you Jewish?

I don't believe that Christianity has any right at all to try to convert Judah to another faith! Early "Christians" (I use that word ONLY because it is the understood word on these forums) were Jews, who did NOT think they were converting to a new religion. Rather, they believed they were being good Jews for accepting the promised Messiah, Yehoshua. They continued keeping Torah, and they understood that the bondage they were freed from was sin and death, not Torah itself. Sadly, bad exegesis over many years has caused that to be re-interpreted into dispensationalism which causes Torah (somehow) to appear as the bondage we were freed from.

If I wanted to make headway with a Jew, which I do not, I would share how Yehoshua fulfilled each and every applicable prophetic scripture related to him. But, as I said, I do not wish to convert a soul. I believe the Tanach is clear that, at his return, the eyes of Judah will be opened, the descendents of the Northern Kingdom awakened, and all of God's people, including Ephraim (those who came through Messiah before his return and were not bloodline Israel- i.e. grafted in) will become one NEVER to be divided again.

Peace.
Ken

[John Goddard]

If I wanted to make headway with a Jew, which I do not, I would share how Yehoshua fulfilled each and every applicable prophetic scripture related to him.

Maybe you should tell a few jokes instead, you'd probably get farther.

[Bosco]

Maybe you should tell a few jokes instead, you'd probably get farther.

Oy.

Peace.
Ken

Ps... nice picture!

[popaface]

Obviously, since you already worship a man, you are pre-disposed to interpret it that way. However, for Judaism, that interpretation is an abomination.

I'm most definately not saying that you should understand things this way. I'm simply arguing for a very reasonable approach to the history of ideas - Christianity aroze out of Second Temple Judaisms, and for the first 3 hundred years found its self-identity through heresiological conversations with what also developed into Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity did not abandon the Torah and Prophets in this, but rather shaped their canon of those Scriptures much differently to Rabbinic Judaism: Christians don't have a Tanakh, we have an Old Testament, a collection of similar books in different orders that give the impression of pointing forward into culmination, with the prophets last, sometimes Daniel as dead last (at least in some Orthodox canons), which point directly to Jesus. The Tanakh does not do this. In fact, Daniel is pushed right out of spotlight in the Tanakh and what we Christians call the Deutero-canonical books are not even in the Tanakh because of their similarity to Christianity. What I propose is that they're similar to Christianity because they were taken for granted forms of Judaism in the Second Temple period, as was Christianity. Margret Barker has argued that Christianity saw itself as the culmination of the Temple Judaisms, and that our ritual of the Eucharist makes quite a lot of sense in this milieu. Think for instance of the Basilica of St John Lateran in Rome, during the middle ages, it was formally understood by anyone who went into the Basilica by the rituals and architecture, that this place was the Christian culmination of the Jewish Temple, of which the Christians still found their identities so intertwined.

My readings of ancient texts like Daniel 7 and the "Son of Man" as the High Priest in the Temple rituals makes perfect sense, it was absolutely normal for the public to worship their High Priest or King during the Iron Age. Just like today, there are notions that the Pope and bishops and priests, while performing the Christian sacred rituals become something different, that they are no longer themselves but they act in persona Christi. I think that this is most likely the same way that the ancient atonement rituals were experienced in the Temple cult of Judaism in which the High Priest became the very incarnation of Yhwh in the ritual itself. Of course after mass when we go out for a few beers, we're not going to worship our priests, but in the ritual there, in sacred time/space, there is a sense that his identity is different.

Jesus himself most likely had this same sort of identity, sacred time/space followed after him according to how he handled his ministry. He likely saw himself as the true High Priest/King after the order of Melchizedek, as the data portrays him, and as such, he had the power and authority to usurp the very powers in Jerusalem and the established order there. As such also he had the authority to be worshiped as lord and I'd point to the very blurred identity markers between Yhwh and Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek in the Qumran Scrolls. So Jesus was worshiped after his death and Resurrection, but I'm also of the opinion that he may have been worshiped during his own lifetime. Judaisms were very fluid at the time, there were diaspora Jews who looked very much more like Platonist philosophers than actual followers of the ancient traditions. But my overall point is that history itself is messy and fluid, it is interpretation and collective memory, it is projection and recollection, what we have is data and what the data already-always means(meant) for us. I personally think that this makes history much more fun to play with, especially when two people can look at one another after sharing a long experience and say something like: "I don't think that my 80's was the same as your 80's." That's the beauty of it, really.

Allan

[Tanakh Keeper]

I'm simply arguing for a very reasonable approach to the history of ideas - Christianity aroze out of Second Temple Judaisms, and for the first 3 hundred years found its self-identity through heresiological conversations with what also developed into Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity did not abandon the Torah and Prophets in this, but rather shaped their canon of those Scriptures much differently to Rabbinic Judaism: Christians don't have a Tanakh, we have an Old Testament, a collection of similar books in different orders that give the impression of pointing forward into culmination, with the prophets last, sometimes Daniel as dead last (at least in some Orthodox canons), which point directly to Jesus.

Christianity is an amalgamation of multiple beliefs. While Christianity might have first started as a branch of Judaism, it quickly developed into something else. I agree that Christianity does not use G-d’s Torah. I find it odd that you say that they didn’t abandon the Torah since many of their precepts are opposite of the Torah. The Christian bible re-arranged the Prophets and the Writings plus added new chapters to make their book support their beliefs. Since their bible is different from the Tanakh, I’d say that they abandoned the Tanakh in favor of their book. The tone of your belief is that Judaism changed their book to make it different from the Christian book. However, our book came first. Obviously, the book that came later is the one that changed.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the influence of Hellenism grew dramatically in early Christianity. The idea of a man-god was a Greek and heathen concept brought in several decades after the time of J*. When former pagans, steeped in Greek and Roman culture, converted to Christianity, they brought with them a pagan understanding of the nature of G-d. For example, the concept of a trinity has its origins in the Babylonian religion. The Babylonian trinity included a father, a mother and a son exemplified by Baal, Ishtar, and the supernaturally incarnate baby Tammuz. Trinitarianism took a firm hold after the apostles died and Jerusalem was destroyed. It was solidified as a doctrine in the 4th century.

The concept of a messiah dying for the sins of the people is unprecedented in the Tanakh. However, this concept is readily found in the mythology of many other ancient cultures, such as Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, and Isis. The early Jewish followers of J* would have been shocked at that concept. In reality, Jewish people have always expected our Messiah to rule over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.

[Bosco]

I thought I would share this. I did not write it, it may take a few minutes to read, but it is very insightfull>>

Several scholars over the centuries have addressed the natural connections between the Early Christian movement and the 1st Century Jewish practice. The information they have uncovered has fallen too often on deaf ears due to disputes of their day between the two religions. Both Christianity and Judaism have evolved over the last two millennium, leaving both of us wondering if there was any connection between the two. Too often the leaders of each prefer that we not look at the other in the light of their similarity.

There have been some who have dared mention, and even shown the single origin and common belief of the two. John Lightfoot (1602-1675) Master of St. Catherine Hall, Cambridge, was one Christian Hebraist who dared connect the Apostolic Writings (New Testament) to such books as the Talmud, Tosefta, and other Hebrew writings. His book, now available in a 4 volume set "Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica" gives much insight into the similarities between the two religions. Jewish works have also been written on the subject. Harvey Falk in "Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus" points out the great similarity between the words of Yehoshua/Jesus and the 1st century BCE Doctor of the Law Hillel I. Hillel was founder of a School of the Law in Jerusalem and also sat as President of the Sanhedrin. Hillel probably died when Yehoshua was a young boy but both are attributed as having originated the Golden Rule although in a slightly different wording. Various teachings of Yehoshua are similar to Hillel's teachings and often contrast with the other school in Jerusalem and its teacher Shammai.

Paul attended the school of Hillel under the direction of Hillel's grandson Gamaliel prior to his acceptance of Yehoshua as messiah. No one in early Christianity thought of themselves as converting to another religion. The New Testament refers to what we now call converts as proselytes a term used by Hebrews of the first century CE to distinguish a person who was in the process of conversion to Judaism. Most Christians in the early years thought that the converts they brought in were coming into Judaism, not some new unrelated religion. Logic alone would reveal this since many groups were vying to be the status quo of Jewish teaching and the followers of Yehoshua believed him to be the promised Messiah of the Hebrew Writings. If they considered themselves the continum of a proper understanding of the Hebrew Writings (Old Testament) they must have thought themselves good Jews.

Going into the Synagogue on the Sabbath is often mentioned in the Apostolic Writings (New Testament) and there is no command to change this found in those writings. In Matthew 5:17 Yehoshua is reported as saying, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill, For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (NKJV) So the modern destruction of the law as portrayed by some in Christianity doesn't seem to fit the claims of Yehoshua.

A book "Ecclesiastical History" written in the 4th century by Christian historian Eusebius, quoted some early Christian leaders. Eusebius introduces a debate of the second and third centuries showing that there was some confusion concerning the proper practice for Passover. He reports, "The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Savior's Passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the Paschal Lamb; and it was incumbent on them, at all times to make an end of the fast on this day on whatever day of the week it should happen to fall." (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers 1998 p. 181) Third century bishop Polycrates is reported as saying "We therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom." He then lists those whom have kept Passover in like tradition, "Phillip one of the twelve apostles... John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest... Polycarp of Smyrna..., Thraseas..., Sargaris..., Papirius, and Melito...." These are just a few quotes that reveal a rather long standing adherence to the law.

One last quote I will share from volume 14 of the "Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, The Seven Ecumenical Councils," Henry R. Percival, Eerdmans, Reprinted 1979, page 381. It is a real eye opener since it is from a council called Quinisext which met in 692 CE. Cannon 33 states, "Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish customs); ... we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained;..." It seems from this that the Armenian church was looking to see if people were of the proper descent in order to become a priest. Could it be that they required someone to be of Levitical descent in order to serve as a priest in the Armenian church?

These and many other writings make me think that the movement begun by Yehoshua now known as Christianity had no intent of leaving the law or the historical practices of the Jews. There are ample Apostolic Scriptures that give evidence that He disagreed with some contemporaries on their exegesis concerning halacha (the oral tradition) but it is not conclusive that He disagreed with all of it. A close look at the debates of the day reported in the Talmud expose that He often sided with Hillel and that His usual attacks on the Pharisees were evident when they held to the teachings of Shammai. Furthermore, even though much of Church History has been destroyed because of the winners desire to eradicate the teachings of its opponents, there is still ample evidence that early Christians held to obedience of the law. It is impossible to control the followers over the centuries, so a modern presentation of Christianity may not be a historical view of the practices over the years and may not be the intent of the founding fathers. Hence I and others have begun to review the New Testament in this light and have found many revealing passages that can only be understood in light of its Hebraic origin.

[Adrift]

Bosco, you might want to cite your source and keep in mind TWeb's rules on citation length.

[Bosco]

Bosco, you might want to cite your source and keep in mind TWeb's rules on citation length.

My congregation leader wrote it as a post on a site that I own and moderate. Seeing in no way am I here to pitch my site nor lead others to it, I did not believe it proper to state his name nor my site... either of which would be wrong in my view. I posted it here only because it directly addressed the point made. I will refrain from doing so again... but I do ask that it be left. I think it adds another worthwhile perspective to the discussion. It can of course be broken into two posts if you want??

Peace.
Ken

[Adrift]

My congregation leader wrote it as a post on a site that I own and moderate. Seeing in no way am I here to pitch my site nor lead others to it, I did not believe it proper to state his name nor my site... either of which would be wrong in my view. I posted it here only because it directly addressed the point made. I will refrain from doing so again... but I do ask that it be left. I think it adds another worthwhile perspective to the discussion. It can of course be broken into two posts if you want??

Peace.
Ken

I don't really have a problem with it, but moderation may. You might want to get a hold of a moderator to ensure there's no issues. It probably isn't a big deal as long as you explain the situation. Here are the forum guidelines on this:

Proper citation is required for any posted copyrighted material. Proper citation includes the author, publisher, and link (if available). If the material is found in a book or other off line resource, be sure to include enough information that another person could track down the original source with ease. A general rule of thumb is to use the same citation one would use in a college essay.

Unless permission is given to the poster by the copyright holder to reproduce the material, the length of the posting must not exceed fair use. There is no hard and fast way to decide at what point posting of material is fair use, but this is a general rule of thumb: Do not post any material exceeding the length of 8 sentences or 1/2 the original. Since this is a rule of thumb, we reserve the right to rule each case on a case by case basis.

If you have specific written permission from the copyright holder granting you permission to post the material on TheologyWeb.com you MUST notify all area moderators 24 hours in advance, furnishing them with a copy of the written permission and material to be posted. Failing to do so may result in the material being removed without notice.

Some copyrighted works have clauses that give readers the ability to fully (or in excesive of fair use) repost their material elsewhere under certain circumstances. Even if you think posting such material to TheologyWeb.com is acceptable under the guidelines, you must seek area moderator approval before posting the material. You must wait for the moderator's answer before posting. This requirement will be enforced fresh on every posting unless waived by an Owner.

These rules were written as an effort by TheologyWeb.com to comply with US and international copyright law. As such, there may be cases where we have to restrict postings due to something we did not legally anticipate or when we feel the posting puts TheologyWeb in danger of entering litigation. These rules will be enforced at the sole discretion of TheologyWeb and posts violating them may be removed without notice. If you have any questions, please contact an area moderator or Owner before posting material. We'll be more than happy to work with you to workout something fair.

[Bosco]

I don't really have a problem with it, but moderation may. You might want to get a hold of a moderator to ensure there's no issues. It probably isn't a big deal as long as you explain the situation. Here are the forum guidelines on this:

Proper citation is required for any posted copyrighted material. Proper citation includes the author, publisher, and link (if available). If the material is found in a book or other off line resource, be sure to include enough information that another person could track down the original source with ease. A general rule of thumb is to use the same citation one would use in a college essay.

Unless permission is given to the poster by the copyright holder to reproduce the material, the length of the posting must not exceed fair use. There is no hard and fast way to decide at what point posting of material is fair use, but this is a general rule of thumb: Do not post any material exceeding the length of 8 sentences or 1/2 the original. Since this is a rule of thumb, we reserve the right to rule each case on a case by case basis.

If you have specific written permission from the copyright holder granting you permission to post the material on TheologyWeb.com you MUST notify all area moderators 24 hours in advance, furnishing them with a copy of the written permission and material to be posted. Failing to do so may result in the material being removed without notice.

Some copyrighted works have clauses that give readers the ability to fully (or in excesive of fair use) repost their material elsewhere under certain circumstances. Even if you think posting such material to TheologyWeb.com is acceptable under the guidelines, you must seek area moderator approval before posting the material. You must wait for the moderator's answer before posting. This requirement will be enforced fresh on every posting unless waived by an Owner.

These rules were written as an effort by TheologyWeb.com to comply with US and international copyright law. As such, there may be cases where we have to restrict postings due to something we did not legally anticipate or when we feel the posting puts TheologyWeb in danger of entering litigation. These rules will be enforced at the sole discretion of TheologyWeb and posts violating them may be removed without notice. If you have any questions, please contact an area moderator or Owner before posting material. We'll be more than happy to work with you to workout something fair.

Thanks, I do appreciate the info. I have talked to mods and the post was actually a post from another site which is public...I didn't see a copyright issue.

Ken

[popaface]

Christianity is an amalgamation of multiple beliefs. While Christianity might have first started as a branch of Judaism, it quickly developed into something else. I agree that Christianity does not use G-d’s Torah. I find it odd that you say that they didn’t abandon the Torah since many of their precepts are opposite of the Torah. The Christian bible re-arranged the Prophets and the Writings plus added new chapters to make their book support their beliefs. Since their bible is different from the Tanakh, I’d say that they abandoned the Tanakh in favor of their book. The tone of your belief is that Judaism changed their book to make it different from the Christian book. However, our book came first. Obviously, the book that came later is the one that changed.

I don't think it's that simple. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both are the daughters of Second Temple Judaisms, their canons developed as a product of internal and external debate usually with reference to one another. For all intents and purposes, Christians and Jews do not use the same Bible, they use two different collections of similar books, the Tanakh and the Old Testament. The structuring of the Tanakh was obviously done in an effort to downplay the importance of various prophets, for instance Daniel is not even counted amongst the prophets in the Tanakh. Also, the Deutero-canonical books are not included because they were much more similar to the New Testament beliefs. Christians on the other hand when they ordered their canons they gave first and foremost a place for Jesus. The Christian Old Testament points to Jesus as the fulfilment of all the prophecies. It's not rigorous enough to say "The Tanakh came first so the Old Testament is a deviant", the fact is that these are two different religions which both legitimately understand their canons in entirely different ways, even if they do use similar stories. I think that Islam's Qu'ran plays in the same game as well. All three of us ancient Middle Eastern religions use the scriptures that were around at the time and come out with different conclusions. It's fair enough, we don't have to hate on one another for it. In fact, looking at it this way we can give much more basis for interfaith studies and religious pluralism: we're not trying to argue for our "rightful" interpretation of the particular stories themselves for they all play different games considering the canon of Scripture that they're in.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the influence of Hellenism grew dramatically in early Christianity. The idea of a man-god was a Greek and heathen concept brought in several decades after the time of J*. When former pagans, steeped in Greek and Roman culture, converted to Christianity, they brought with them a pagan understanding of the nature of G-d. For example, the concept of a trinity has its origins in the Babylonian religion. The Babylonian trinity included a father, a mother and a son exemplified by Baal, Ishtar, and the supernaturally incarnate baby Tammuz. Trinitarianism took a firm hold after the apostles died and Jerusalem was destroyed. It was solidified as a doctrine in the 4th century.

I don't think so. Earliest Christianity resembles a binitarian schema for understanding who God is. This comes right out of the milieu of Second Temple Judaisms, and their various theologies. I think it's appropriate to maintain that Christians for the first few centuries understood themselves as standing in direct logical continuity with the milieu that was Second Temple Judaisms. Plus, this binitarianism was in their faces, as it was in the faces of other Judaisms, it's not as if they would abandon what they experienced in front of them as a valid understanding of Judaism in favour of something that they considered pagan. In all likelyhood, when Jewish scholars named binitarianism heretical in the second century, they were condemning particular forms of Christianity, they were condemning a particular Judaism which was Christianity.

The concept of a messiah dying for the sins of the people is unprecedented in the Tanakh. However, this concept is readily found in the mythology of many other ancient cultures, such as Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, and Isis. The early Jewish followers of J* would have been shocked at that concept. In reality, Jewish people have always expected our Messiah to rule over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.

No, it's not in the Tanakh, but Christians don't have a Tanakh we have an Old Testament, and at the time when these beliefs were coming around, we didn't even have that, we had a collection of books which we called "Scripture" that included much of the Deutero-canonical books as well, and probably included a range of other books. Also, other forms of Judaisms had an understanding that the High Priest in the Temple performing the sacred ritual was at that time Yhwh incarnate - and that Yhwh was also incarnate in the sacrifice itself.

I think it's obvious that you want to place any understanding of Christian beliefs outside of a Jewish background, but it just doesn't make any historical sense. I'll admit that Christianities became (and are now) very Hellenized, but I cannot see how that's a problem facing my beliefs at all, Judaism itself is a species of Hellenism, it developed during the late Maccabean era. There are very blurred ethnic/cultural distinctions during this international era of the ancient Mediterranean, and it's even very hard to see what the Old Testament understands as being "Israel", there are quite a number of ancient theories in the Scriptures.

Allan

[RCNicholas]

The Baha'i Faith teaches this.

Baha'i is not a Christian denomination...

[RBerman]

These and many other writings make me think that the movement begun by Yehoshua now known as Christianity had no intent of leaving the law or the historical practices of the Jews.
Your pastor's essay ignores the ample Scriptural evidence that the early church decided it was fine for Gentile Christians to deviate from the Jewish religion, in the greater light of revelation provided by Christ.

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up:..."It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

Indeed, Paul the former Pharisee now considers it evil to require all Christians to obey Jewish ceremonial laws like circumcision:

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.

And again here, where Paul likens Torah-centered religion to slavery:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

And concerning the importance of the Torah in the grand scheme of "being right with God," Paul declares this:

We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

And this:

the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So when Gentiles contemplate binding themselves to the Jewish ceremonial calendar, Paul warns this:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

The first generation of Christians did include many Jews who continued to observe Torah. But God, working through Paul, showed the Church that Torah's ceremonial rules were not the true heart of Christianity. That's where Christianity diverges deliberately from Judaism.

[Bosco]

[Acts 15:6-13,19]

Understood. I believe his post was long enough and simply could not cover every aspect of Torah in the NT. As for Acts 15, remember, the whole issue starts with Jews who believe that Messiah following gentiles had to be circumcised "in order to be saved." Paul and Barnabus take great issue with this and come back to Jerusalem to discuss it with the others. Here is the side you won't hear in many churches and it has three points.
1. Circumcision never saved to begin with, so what is the point?
2. Circumcision was a command given to the FATHER of a child to have him circumcised on the 8th day. If a 30 year old man was not circumcised, according to Torah (pre-Messiah) he was not in sin anyway. It would be his father who transgressed the law, not the 8 day old child.
3. There was a split in Judaism at the time as you know... the Pharisees and the Sadduccess. These two groups came into existence during Babylon when the ability to adjudicate was in question because there was no Temple. So to have gates and 4 walls, they built the first synogogues in Babylon. (Synogogues are not from Torah) When they came out 70 years later the Pharisees, who assumed authority in the synogogues, did not release that authority back to the priests when they had their Temple again. So you had two groups grabbing for power, the Pharisees and the Sadducces. The Sanhedrin, incidentally, was a group that tried to keep the peace between the two. Dispute over many issues divided the two groups... circumcision being one of them. So the debate that gives us Acts 15 stems from that division, and it was determines, rightly so, that gentile adults do not need to be circumcised to be saved because circumcision doesn't save and an adult gentile did not break Torah anyway because it would have been his father (had he lived under Torah) that would have broken to command.

Indeed, Paul the former Pharisee now considers it evil to require all Christians to obey Jewish ceremonial laws like circumcision:

Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.

The Oral Law, not unlike the creating of synogogues in Babylon, are man made additions to Torah. The above verse has Paul saying he lived according to the traditions, the legalistic righteousness... that isn't God's everlasting Torah he was speaking about, he is speaking about Jewish halacha, Jewish law, and not God's law.

And again here, where Paul likens Torah-centered religion to slavery: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

Messiah came to free us from God's Torah, the same David called a Delight? See, we see Torah as bondage, as punishment for the Jews. But David had another perspective, and I believe Paul did as well. I believe we were set free from two items... sin/death and man made laws, dogma. (Dogma is civil, religious, or ceremonial law... it is not a word that is ever used to describe God's laws)

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (dogma) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

In the above we see the handwriting in dogma which was against us was nailed to the cross. The burdens which were added to Torah... making Torah impossible to keep. Look at it this way, in Torah there are 7 Sabbath commands. Yet Jewish halacha has 39 CATEGORIES of Sabbath laws and some 4000 total Sabbath laws. We are freed from that.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The above speaks for itself. So we now know we have been free of the man made junk AND the LAW of sin and death.

Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Is not stealing a yoke of slavery I(or bondage as douleia is also translated as)? Is not serving other gods or not making idols a yoke of slavery? Of course not, so this is not speaking of Torah, it is speaking of being a slave to sin.

I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

Circumcision does not save.

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Likewise, Torah does not save, never did. Torah is instruction in righteousness, (2 Tim 3:16) it defines what is sin and what isn't sin. How do we know not make idols... God tells us in Torah.

We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

We are not made free, saved, or justified by Torah. The above verse in no way states that being obediant to God makes one justified.

Galatians 3:22-28

First, the term under the law. All that means is we were guilty. If I am driving on a highway and get pulled over for speeding, I am guilty under the law. If I was rushing my wife to the hospital to give birth, and I plead my case before a judge who pardons me... does that abrogate the speeding laws? Is it ok for me to speed now? When Adam sinned we all became guilty under the law. Through the work of Messiah, our faith in him, and his grace... we are no longer guilty under the law. We have been made free because he defeated sin and death. But that doesn't abrogate Torah either. It is not ok for me now to make idols and serve other gods. As for the schoolmaster or instructor... again, once faith came we were not under the instructor any longer... but that doesn't make what the instructor taught go by the wayside which I will share in another post due to length here.

Formerly, ]when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Please reread that carefully. The boldened part does not describe a Jew, it describes a pagan, a person described as never having known God (Jews always knew him) and who served other gods. Pagans. In the underlined part we see that they are turning back to the things they left behind. The days, months, seasons, and years... not Sabbath or the other appointed days which are called "perpetual" in more than one place in the OT. These days were Saturnalia, the venerable day of the sUn, celebrating Mithras birthday, et. al.

The first generation of Christians did include many Jews who continued to observe Torah. But God, working through Paul, showed the Church that Torah's ceremonial rules were not the true heart of Christianity. That's where Christianity diverges deliberately from Judaism.

In my next post I will share Messiah own words which contradict that. Not trying to sound offensive, it's just the common thought among most and one I held too.

Peace... and thanks for taking the time to respond in this manner. Most enjoyable... a blessing for me!!

Peace.
Ken

[Bosco]

In the NT, there is only one Greek word for law. (nomos) Whether it be God's law, man's law... it's all nomos. So we have to use the context around the word to determine which we are speaking about. In the following verses, I will replace the word "law" with "Torah" because, I believe, the context is clear that this is what Yehoshua is speaking about. Ok?

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

RB, if he did not come to abolish (repeal, annul, make void, destroy, put an end to) Torah, then how can he fulfilling Torah be taught that he brought it to an end? Torah points to a perfect walk before God, the Prophets speak of the coming of Yehoshua... he both came and walked perfectly never sinning... that is all it means to fulfill the two.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from Torah, till all be fulfilled.

Stand up, jump up and down... feel the floor? That means the earth is still here. If the earth is still here, then not one jot or tittle has passed from Torah.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Those who break the least commandments, and teach other to do the same... called the LEAST in the Kingdom of heaven? Those who do the commandments and teach others the same called GREAT in the kingdom of heaven? We can get more into Paul another day, but three straight verses contextually speaking of Torah, and all three declare no end to Torah by Messiah himself. Yet, he said more:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

A right to the tree of life tied to doing God's commands? Mind you, I am NOT saying that we can work our way in the kingdom, nor am I saying that obedience will gain us entrance into the kingdom. I am saying that God's grace and our faith is all we need... but once we become his, we play by his rules and not our own. There are 613 +/- commands, and while not all apply to us today (we don't live in the land, don't have a temple, are in a form of captivity - not living in a system ruled according to God's authority but rather stuck in a secular form of government), but we are to keep all we can. And we do this, not to gain favor, that is unearned. We do it out of love. Because we are members of the household of God... and like you who likely had rules your children had to obey while living under your roof, so too does God have rules we live by. We don't cheat on our wives, we don't steal or covet items belonging to another. We don't make idols nor serve other gods. Loving God and neighbor (a repeat pair of commands from Deut.) mean we don't do those things and ALL Torah and ALL the prophets hang on those two commands.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.

It's late, sorry so long on these. I will cut them down next time. I would like to discuss Paul more with you.

Peace.
Ken

[RBerman]

Bosco,

You claim that Galatians 4:8-11 is a warning to the Galatians not to return to pagan gods and pagan holidays like Saturnalia. That's totally out of place; the problem in Galatia was not idolatry, but Judaizers, those who falsely claimed that Christians must follow the Jewish ceremonial law. That's what the whole book is about. That's why a few verses before, Paul says:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

And a few verses later, Paul says:

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.

"These people" are the Judaizers against whom Paul has been railing for four chapters at this point. Paul's point in bringing up the pagan gods is not that he's worried the Galatians will lapse back into idolatry. Paul's point is rather that idol worship is a kind of slavery, and adherence to Torah's ceremonies is another kind of slavery, and Christians ought not be slaves of either sort.

Christians are at liberty not to personally obey the ceremonial aspects of Torah (sacrifices, dietary restrictions, Hebrew holy days, etc) not because those things are cancelled, but because those things are fulfilled in Christ's death, resurrection, and ongoing priestly service in heaven. Christ is the sacrifice, and the priest, and even the temple; the book of Hebrews spends a lot of time explaining this.

[UrbanMonk]

The early Jewish followers of J* would have been shocked at that concept. In reality, Jewish people have always expected our Messiah to rule over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.

I'd say the earliest followers were split on this issue, some, defaulting to a sacrificial concept of salvation, and others favoring a merciful concept of salvation. The sacrificial types felt a need to bridge their Jewish heritage with what they though Jesus taught. The merciful types moved toward abandoning the "old" ways of thinking altogether. As evidence, I offer that P(s)aul traveled distances to suppress what he called "the Way", when, James and his followers were located right in his own backyard, in Jerusalem. Yet, we hear nowhere of P(s)aul going after the James gang, or Peter for that matter. For Peter and James were towing the line, while "the Way", as represented by Stephen, was agitating for a more radical paradigm shift.

Are you comfortable with my assessment that the doctrine of Jesus is so radically shifted from Tanach based theology that there is really nothing in common with them? Finding prophetical support from intra-Tanachian source, then, was an overzealous endeavor of confused bridge-builders trying to hang on to their Jewish heritage, instead of truth seeking bridge-burners trying to hang onto Jesus' authentic doctrine.

[Bosco]

Bosco,

You claim that Galatians 4:8-11 is a warning to the Galatians not to return to pagan gods and pagan holidays like Saturnalia. That's totally out of place; the problem in Galatia was not idolatry, but Judaizers, those who falsely claimed that Christians must follow the Jewish ceremonial law. That's what the whole book is about. That's why a few verses before, Paul says:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

And a few verses later, Paul says:

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.

"These people" are the Judaizers against whom Paul has been railing for four chapters at this point. Paul's point in bringing up the pagan gods is not that he's worried the Galatians will lapse back into idolatry. Paul's point is rather that idol worship is a kind of slavery, and adherence to Torah's ceremonies is another kind of slavery, and Christians ought not be slaves of either sort.

Christians are at liberty not to personally obey the ceremonial aspects of Torah (sacrifices, dietary restrictions, Hebrew holy days, etc) not because those things are cancelled, but because those things are fulfilled in Christ's death, resurrection, and ongoing priestly service in heaven. Christ is the sacrifice, and the priest, and even the temple; the book of Hebrews spends a lot of time explaining this.

RB, the first verse you cite says that before the current time, they knew not God and served OTHER gods who were not gods. Sound like Jews to you? Then it says that they were returning to their past ways. This again isn't speaking of Jews because the early jewish followers of Yehoshua did not stop keeping Sabbath and the other appointed days... in other words, in practice they did not change. Even Paul stated in his defense that he NEVER taught against the Law of Moses (Torah) nor the traditions of the Jews. He even flat out told us to keep the feast of Passover. Throughout Acts we see Jews AND Greek going into the synogogues and keeping Sabbath.

However, if you believe Torah, God's laws, are dead and gone, I respect that and do not stand in your way. I am not here to change your opinions.

Peace to you.
Ken

[Bosco]

RB, like I said, I am not here to change your mind. I really believe a person is free to draw their own conclusions. But, I would be interested in your understanding of the Matt. and 1 John verses of the post after the one you replied to. I believe it is on the bottom of page 5.

Peace.
Ken

[Tanakh Keeper]

Are you comfortable with my assessment that the doctrine of Jesus is so radically shifted from Tanach based theology that there is really nothing in common with it?

I wouldn't go as far as "nothing", but there is little in common between Christian theology and Judaism theology.

Finding prophetical support from intra-Tanachian source, then, was an overzealous endeavor of confused bridge-builders trying to hang on to their Jewish heritage, instead of truth seeking bridge-burners trying to hang onto Jesus' authentic doctrine.

It took several centuries and lots of bloodshed to agree on "Jesus authentic doctrine". But once they agreed, they should've removed the notion that it was based on Judaism. Once this new religion made radical turns away from true Judaism, most of the adherents with Jewish heritage left it and returned to Judaism.

[RBerman]

RB, the first verse you cite says that before the current time, they knew not God and served OTHER gods who were not gods. Sound like Jews to you? Then it says that they were returning to their past ways. This again isn't speaking of Jews because the early jewish followers of Yehoshua did not stop keeping Sabbath and the other appointed days... in other words, in practice they did not change. Even Paul stated in his defense that he NEVER taught against the Law of Moses (Torah) nor the traditions of the Jews. He even flat out told us to keep the feast of Passover. Throughout Acts we see Jews AND Greek going into the synogogues and keeping Sabbath.

I agree that Paul is writing to Gentiles. But he's not worried that they will lapse back into Gentile idolatry. He's worried that the Judaizers have convinced them to become enslaved to the Jewish ceremonial law. The Jews may themselves have continued, as Jews, to keep Sabbath (and Paul even says in Romans that's OK if you want to), but for Gentiles to do so would be missing the point that for Christians those things are not necessary. Jesus did not tell Christians to observe Passover, and indeed Christians do not observe Passover.

However, if you believe Torah, God's laws, are dead and gone, I respect that and do not stand in your way. I am not here to change your opinions.
I didn't say they were dead and gone. The moral law continues to bind Christians, since it reflects God's character. And the ceremonial law is not dead; however, it is fulfilled in the work of Christ. That's why we don't offer sacrifices at a temple today.

[Bernie]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?
This post seems to be baiting of some sort or another. Many Christian universalists are conservative in their beliefs and hold most or all the beliefs conservative non-universalist Christians also hold--including belief in the Trinity--except that all are saved by Christ's atonement instead of some.

Then there are some ultra conservative Christians like RBerman who will be wholly surprised when he finds that not only the good ole boy beer drinkin club are showin' up at the gates, but atheists, Muslim jihadists and even universalists, too.

***********************************************************************************
cost of membership in many organized Christian denominations.......10% of your gross income

application fee for admission to Trinity Theological Seminary........$65

look on RBerman's face when he sees universalists in heaven.......priceless.

[RBerman]

Then there are some ultra conservative Christians like RBerman who will be wholly surprised when he finds that not only the good ole boy beer drinkin club are showin' up at the gates, but atheists, Muslim jihadists and even universalists, too.
FWIW, I allow that the error of Christian universalists is not a damnable heresy, although it is a misconstrual of the intent and extent of Christ's atoning work. I'll see you in heaven, and we can look for your atheists together. We'll have all eternity!

[Bernie]

Hi RB,

Well this is the first inconsistency I recall catching you in...

Universalists and JWs are not Christians.
Given your strict exclusivist stance, your answer is a surprise.

[John Goddard]

Hi RB,

Well this is the first inconsistency I recall catching you in...

Given your strict exclusivist stance, your answer is a surprise.

Inclusiveness is expressed here, for one:

Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So in reality, you can't actually not include an atheist, devil worshiper, even killer of your own child, in the salvation we would have, without receiving wrath of God for your own more insignificant sins, as we would deem them.

[RBerman]

Well this is the first inconsistency I recall catching you in.
My comment in the first post was within the context of Unitarian-Universalists. Recall that the question was along the lines of, "I've heard of universalists who deny the deity of Christ. Are they Christians?" So when I said that JWs and Universalists are not Christians, I was speaking of Unitarian-Universalists. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my earlier comment.

[Bernie]

Inclusiveness is expressed here, for one:

Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So in reality, you can't actually not include an atheist, devil worshiper, even killer of your own child, in the salvation we would have, without receiving wrath of God for your own more insignificant sins, as we would deem them.
Not sure of your point John Goddard....and don't wish to hijack the thread.....but I've always said of my fellow universalists that they seem oblivious to the fact that not only will all be saved, but all are saved through hell itself.* We pay for our own sins in hell....Christ pays for rebirth from the death we bring on ourselves. Little-realized foundational principle of the atonement.

* As Paul well understood (1Cor 3:11-15). Only a Messiah who was God Himself could pay this price. I can't see any sense in trusting a God who sent a created being, regardless of how "holy" he was, to die for the sins of humanity.

[slaveofone]

Is it true that there are certain Christian denominations that believe that Jesus is a messiah, but not a god? Somebody told me that groups called Universalists and Jehovah witnesses have this belief. Was this person pulling my leg? If it is true, what other Christian denominations also have this belief?

Shalom Tanakh Keeper.

I am a follower of Yeshua and a member of the “radical reformation,” the Anabaptist branch of Christianity—specifically the Mennonite denomination. Although my denomination and its branch of Christianity would never officially agree with my thoughts, they nevertheless accept differences of opinion on the matter and there have been many other Mennonites or Anabaptists who have disagreed with Trinitarianism.

I think Adoptionism comes close to my thoughts on the matter, although I do disagree with Adoptionism in a number of important respects where I must part ways with it. I have no problem calling Yeshua god, but I have a problem saying YHWH is three persons, I have a problem saying Yeshua was god in his essence or being, and I have a problem with the idea that any of these philosophical head concepts are at all important, let alone definitive of Christian faith and/or salvation. In a grossly over-simplified statement, I would say that I believe Yeshua was a man who had his sins forgiven through John’s baptism of repentance, was chosen by the Spirit to be the unique and ultimate representative of YHWH on earth to humanity, and then was tested in the wilderness for 40 days (symbolic of the 40 years Israel spent in the desert) to see if Yeshua would walk with YHWH and be blameless or if Yeshua would go his own way. Yeshua chose to walk with YHWH and be blameless (not mine will, but thine). And thus YHWH uniquely ordained him to be his agent (A man’s agent is like to himself. --Mishnah, Tractate Berakoth 5:5) and gave him a name above every other name—his own. To speak, therefore, of Yeshua, is to speak of YHWH. In that sense, Yeshua is god.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Shalom Tanakh Keeper.

I am a follower of Yeshua and a member of the “radical reformation,” the Anabaptist branch of Christianity—specifically the Mennonite denomination. Although my denomination and its branch of Christianity would never officially agree with my thoughts, they nevertheless accept differences of opinion on the matter and there have been many other Mennonites or Anabaptists who have disagreed with Trinitarianism.

I think Adoptionism comes close to my thoughts on the matter, although I do disagree with Adoptionism in a number of important respects where I must part ways with it. I have no problem calling Yeshua god, but I have a problem saying YHWH is three persons, I have a problem saying Yeshua was god in his essence or being, and I have a problem with the idea that any of these philosophical head concepts are at all important, let alone definitive of Christian faith and/or salvation. In a grossly over-simplified statement, I would say that I believe Yeshua was a man who had his sins forgiven through John’s baptism of repentance, was chosen by the Spirit to be the unique and ultimate representative of YHWH on earth to humanity, and then was tested in the wilderness for 40 days (symbolic of the 40 years Israel spent in the desert) to see if Yeshua would walk with YHWH and be blameless or if Yeshua would go his own way. Yeshua chose to walk with YHWH and be blameless (not mine will, but thine). And thus YHWH uniquely ordained him to be his agent (A man’s agent is like to himself. --Mishnah, Tractate Berakoth 5:5) and gave him a name above every other name—his own. To speak, therefore, of Yeshua, is to speak of YHWH. In that sense, Yeshua is god.

Interesting...

However, answering my specific question, this is your individual belief and not a denominational belief.

[Bosco]

I agree that Paul is writing to Gentiles. But he's not worried that they will lapse back into Gentile idolatry. He's worried that the Judaizers have convinced them to become enslaved to the Jewish ceremonial law. The Jews may themselves have continued, as Jews, to keep Sabbath (and Paul even says in Romans that's OK if you want to), but for Gentiles to do so would be missing the point that for Christians those things are not necessary. Jesus did not tell Christians to observe Passover, and indeed Christians do not observe Passover.

"Ceremonial law" is not found in scripture. Torah is Torah and no differentiation is made by God between laws. Paul took the vow of a Nazirite, as "ceremonial" a thing to do if there is one. Heck, "baptism" is not much different than a Mikvah, and is as much a ceremonial action as sleeping in a tent for a week during Sukkot. Tithing too, many churches say the law is dead and then ask for tithes! But Sabbath, to me that's the oddity. We see millions of Christians with 10 commandment bumper stickers or yard signs... but then keep only 9. Sabbath was never moved in scripture to another day, it was not deleted, it is right there with not serving other gods or not stealing. Anyway, Paul did write about Passover:

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Yehoshua didn't say to keep on keeping it, but he didn't order it's end either. I think Matt. 5:17-19 sums up his view of Torah. Plus, he is the model we follow, correct? Well, he kept Passover, the Last Supper was a Passover Sedar. You might note too, that the word Easter appears in the KJV and some other versions in Acts 12:4, but the Greek word it comes from is Pascha, the Greek transliterated word from the Hebrew word Pesach...Passover.

Interesting to note, prophetically speaking, we have two things you might consider. One, it says the sacrifices will continue... into the millenium. However, like communion, I believe where they once pointed TO Messiah, they will now point back as a memorial. (personal opinion) Second, Isaiah 66:22-23 seems clear enough that from Sabbath to Sabbath and New Moon the New Moon, all flesh shall come to worship the LORD. So can we say that Torah was applicable for 3000+ years.... done away with by Messiah for 2000 years, but then is written in our hearts where God asked us to keep it originally and Torah practices will continue after his return.... and say we see any kind of continuity or consistency there? If Torah is called everlasting, how can it go away... ever?

Sorry to rant, it isn't you... but how we got from the point where Proverbs call Torah a "light," David called it a "delight," and Paul said Torah was profitable for doctrine, for setting things straight, and for instruction in righteousness.... to "Torah is bondage" is just beyond my grasp. Sin and death are the bondage done away with, the MAN MADE additions to Torah which made it impossible to keep.... those things have been done away with.

Peace.
Ken


I didn't say they were dead and gone. The moral law continues to bind Christians, since it reflects God's character. And the ceremonial law is not dead; however, it is fulfilled in the work of Christ. That's why we don't offer sacrifices at a temple today.[/QUOTE]

[UrbanMonk]

Sorry to rant, it isn't you... but how we got from the point where Proverbs call Torah a "light," David called it a "delight," and Paul said Torah was profitable for doctrine, for setting things straight, and for instruction in righteousness.... to "Torah is bondage" is just beyond my grasp. Sin and death are the bondage done away with, the MAN MADE additions to Torah which made it impossible to keep.... those things have been done away with.

Peace.
Ken


I didn't say they were dead and gone. The moral law continues to bind Christians, since it reflects God's character. And the ceremonial law is not dead; however, it is fulfilled in the work of Christ. That's why we don't offer sacrifices at a temple today.

Ken, I'm doing my best to ignore your posts, as suggested. But you are so far behind the eight ball on all of this that it's really pathetic. You will not be able to find your way out of this psychological labyrinth by the guidance of those like Paul who were yet lost within it. You must appeal to the Spirit of Truth as discussed in the latter chapters of John, and you must be sure you are listening to the Spirit of Truth, and not the spirit of untruth which does speak in the name of truth.

A follower of Christ Jesus is asked to drop any and all thoughts of attack...any belief in attack. You should understand that to see anybody as a body is a form of attack...evidence of a lingering belief in attack-as-salvation. While we think we can attack, we will blind ourselves to our Self. Instead of bodies, we should be seeing Christ. This is the truest meaning of what it means to "forgive". The sight of bodies is evidence of intent to condemn Christ. The intent to overlook bodies is to forgive Christ for what Christ has not done. Till you can begin to grasp these principles, you really have no idea what sin is all about. Sin has a stranglehold on your mind. And unless you open up your mind, the stone will not roll away from what is buried inside, from what thrives in the darkness of confusion, and from what shuns the light.

[UrbanMonk]

I wouldn't go as far as "nothing", but there is little in common between Christian theology and Judaism theology.

That's probably why they call it "Judeo-Christianity". But that is only because of the influence of "Judaizers" whose sophistic sages might have turned Guatama Buddha into a good little Jewish boy had he been born within three hundred miles of Jerusalem. And yet, there is no more correlation between Jesus and Judaism as there is between Buddha and Judaism.

It took several centuries and lots of bloodshed to agree on "Jesus authentic doctrine". But once they agreed, they should've removed the notion that it was based on Judaism. Once this new religion made radical turns away from true Judaism, most of the adherents with Jewish heritage left it and returned to Judaism.

The bloodshed seems to have established Jesus as a kind of blood-sacrifice, which tied him down to the horns of ancient Jewish alters with Messianic overtones thrown in for good measure. This was the unfortunate consequence of attempting to mix in the "leaven of the Pharisees" through the likes of P(s)aul and Peter and James. The anonymous author "Matthew" was perhaps the most Jewish "judaizer" of them all.

[John Goddard]

Not sure of your point John Goddard....and don't wish to hijack the thread.....but I've always said of my fellow universalists that they seem oblivious to the fact that not only will all be saved, but all are saved through hell itself.* We pay for our own sins in hell....Christ pays for rebirth from the death we bring on ourselves. Little-realized foundational principle of the atonement.

* As Paul well understood (1Cor 3:11-15). Only a Messiah who was God Himself could pay this price. I can't see any sense in trusting a God who sent a created being, regardless of how "holy" he was, to die for the sins of humanity.

His death doesn't pay for your own sins. Rather, because Jesus was perfectly obedient to the death, God honored him with the role of Messiah and Judge. So his mercy when you repent saves you from death. Doesn't matter if you repent here or in purgatory. Some won't need purgatory according to the Bible.

But then others may never be able to repent anywhere.

Hell is a place of fire where sinners are punished after they die. Certain classes of people who deny religion receive eternal punishment there (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3:5-6), but most sinners are punished there for only (up to) a year (Mishnah Eduyos 2:9; Talmud Shabbos 33a). (http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=467#)

[UrbanMonk]

His death doesn't pay for your own sins. Rather, because Jesus was perfectly obedient to the death, God honored him with the role of Messiah and Judge. So his mercy when you repent saves you from death.

Is your avatar supposed to help us understand this...perhaps if we stare at it long enough? Why would "the life", the "son" of LIFE ITSELF...be told to die? And, even if he was told to die, how could LIFE die? If he was told to bungie jump off the Golden Gate bridge, and did it, would that mean he could have been appointed Messiah and Judge? Or, if Jesus was told to blow his brains out with a shotgun, and he did it, how would that make him a good "judge" of, well, anything? Does the title "Messiah" go to the one obsequious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsequious) enough to fulfill a double-dare-ya challenge by a gothic godfather? Does the title "Judge" go to the one who makes it through a kind of Egypto-themed pledge-week initiation ritual to get into a divine frat house?

[John Goddard]

Why would "the life", the "son" of LIFE ITSELF...be told to die?

Only alternative to martyrdom was to tuck tail and run from Pharisees and others who wanted him to shut up with his preaching. He wouldn't make a very good King, a coward obeying men instead of God.

For his obedience to God, now all men have to obey him.

[UrbanMonk]

Only alternative to martyrdom was to tuck tail and run from Pharisees and others who wanted him to shut up with his preaching. He wouldn't make a very good King, a coward obeying men instead of God.

For his obedience to God, now all men have to obey him.

Well, I'm staring at your avatar and I'm still not getting your logic. I'm getting verrry sleeepy.

[John Goddard]

Well, I'm staring at your avatar and I'm still not getting your logic. I'm getting verrry sleeepy.

You're just mixed up, see the other thread.

[UrbanMonk]

You're just mixed up, see the other thread.

Your just mixing things up. See your avatar.

[John Goddard]

Your just mixing things up. See your avatar.

okie dokie

[UrbanMonk]

okie dokie

The gospel (wordplay: go-spell) is about dispelling a spell self-cast over a powerful mind. It's not about obeying hypnotic commands of an other authority (another will) to do dumb things for even dumber reasons.

[Adrift]

The gospel (wordplay: go-spell) is about dispelling a spell self-cast over a powerful mind.

O.E. godspel "good news," from god "good" + spel "story, message," translation of L. bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Gk. euangelion "reward for bringing good news." First element of the O.E. word had a long "o," but it shifted under mistaken assoc. with God.

[UrbanMonk]

O.E. godspel "good news," from god "good" + spel "story, message," translation of L. bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Gk. euangelion "reward for bringing good news." First element of the O.E. word had a long "o," but it shifted under mistaken assoc. with God.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I am aware of that etymology. I would point out that God and "good" are synonymous. Thus, the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is the "story" of combining the attributes of God (good) with opposite attributes into one fruit: "the world". This is a magical tree and a magical fruit that casts a spell over the mind of what MIND digests its ramifications. The gospel, then, is about a world in which there are no opposites to good, the proverbial "Kingdom of God" as symbolized by the "tree of Life". In giving and recieving this story, the spell is lifted over the mind that has digested opposites-in-combination. And that is why I am expanding it's etymology to include the "go-spell" reference. It's about telling a story of good and only good, which banishes the manifestation of an ill-conceived of world in which good and not good (evil) are combined to manifest everything the human eye can see. The World of God is the good world, and the world of god-not-god is the evil world we seem to live in, and from which the go-spell would deliver us if we believed it. The World of God is God. The world of god-not-god is a self-concept (God reversed). When self-concepts are dispelled, only the good remains, as it was, is and always shall be.

[John Goddard]

The gospel (wordplay: go-spell) is about dispelling a spell self-cast over a powerful mind. It's not about obeying hypnotic commands of an other authority (another will) to do dumb things for even dumber reasons.

What gospel?

[UrbanMonk]

What gospel?

See my response to Adrift above. It's the news of a good God and not a good-and-evil (blessing and cursing) kind of "god". . It's about the World of God, what thinks it can compete with it, and how to escape the competing world we made with the power God gave us. It's about our own Will, not obedience. It's about an equality, not a heirarchy, a oneness, not a multiplicity of unique differences. It's about reality and not what we've imagined can best reality. It's about everything that makes us happy, not afraid. It's about what's possible with God. It's about our own, hidden joy. It's about knowing our true Self, as Jesus came to know himself. It's about how to return "home" from an imaginary world within our own mind. It's the story of our true Father...not some evil step father who puppeteers the strings of life and death, doling out medals to christian soldiers willing to follow sensless orders that drive them into the grave to test their trust. It's not about escaping the wrath of God. It's about dispelling the notion we ever thought that our Father is wrathful, vengeful, or out ot punish us. It's about forgiving ourselves our misperceptions about God, and therefore about our Self, which is created like from like, true God from true God. It's about taking responsibility for making the world...or thinking that we could make it...about forgiving ourselves for what we thought we did, and dismissing what we thought we wanted as having no value to us any longer.

[John Goddard]

See my response to Adrift above. It's the news of a good God and not a good and evil God. It's about the World of God, and how to escape the world we made with the power God gave us. It's about our own Will, not obedience. It's about an equality, not a heirarchy, a oneness, not a multiplicity of unique differences. It's about reality and not what we've imagined can best reality. It's about everything that makes us happy, not afraid. It's about what's possible with God. It's about our own, hidden joy. It's about knowing our true Self, as Jesus came to know himself. It's about how to return "home" from an imaginary world within our own mind. It's the story of our true Father...not some evil step father who puppeteers the strings of life and death, doling out medals to christian soldiers willing to follow sensless orders that drive them into the grave to test their trust.

So it's the gospel of your Spirit Guide.

[UrbanMonk]

So it's the gospel of your Spirit Guide.

Yes, it's the gospel of the Spirit of truth as spoken of in John 16:

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Sin = unbelief in Christ as Self, the "Son of God"
Righteousness = going home to "our Father" to the World of God.
Judgement = the god of this world does not exist, nor it's world

[John Goddard]

Yes, it's the gospel of the Spirit of truth as spoken of in John 16:

Righteousness = going home to our Father


The "death" and "resurrection" of "Jesus" occured BEFORE the cross and the Houdini-like escape from a tomb. The death of the alien will in our minds is more like an exorcism. When the alien will (sin) is gone, we return to our Self...to our own will...

Your Spirit Guide must be telling you what to cherrypick from the Gospel of John.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

[UrbanMonk]

Your Spirit Guide must be telling you what to cherrypick from the Gospel of John.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

You're confusing the resurrection with the ascension. The ascension of the Son of God is after all of us have been resurrected and united as one. Then, what descended from heaven will ascend back to heaven. Notice Jesus emphasis: "I ascend to my Father, and your father, and to my God and your God". Is it possible to make a more clear statement of unity, sameness and equality? The atonement is about reuniting the Son of God and ascending as One to "our Father". Why is this "righteousness"? Because, when you recognize you are far away from home in an alien desert wasteland, the only "right" thing to do is to go back home.

[UrbanMonk]

Your Spirit Guide must be telling you what to cherrypick from the Gospel of John.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

You're confusing the resurrection with the ascension. The ascension of the Son of God is after all of us have been resurrected and united as one. Then, what descended from heaven will ascend back to heaven. Notice Jesus emphasis: "I ascend to my Father, and your father, and to my God and your God". Is it possible to make a more clear statement of unity, sameness and equality? The atonement is about reuniting the Son of God and ascending as One to "our Father". Why is this "righteousness"? Because, when you recognize you are far away from home in an alien desert wasteland, the only "right" thing to do is to go back home. Jesus ascension is a teaching lesson...a metaphor for the ascension of the Son of God. Note well: the ascension of the Son of God is away from this world in defiance of all it's so-called "laws"...because the World of the Son of God is "not of this world". So, if you think the Son of God will come back to this world, then you are a friend of this world and theoretically an enemy of God's good oneness.

[headheart]

So, if you think the Son of God will come back to this world, then you are a friend of this world and theoretically an enemy of God's good oneness.

Still this 'world' idea casting a shadow over your/our minds.

Sincerely,
HH

[John Goddard]

...an enemy of God's good oneness.

Are you a Pentecostal?

[UrbanMonk]

Still this 'world' idea casting a shadow over your/our minds.

Sincerely,
HH

To borrow words from the infamous impossible P(s)aul, the world is a "strong delusion" which comes over the mind of that which sees itself as separate, different and unique (special)...as Israel sees itself.

[UrbanMonk]

Are you a Pentecostal?

Pentecostal means? Guided from within by the Spirit of Truth? I would hope so. That is the intent. In this function, I build a bridge between "christians" and Christ...between self-concepts and Self.

[headheart]

To borrow words from the infamous impossible P(s)aul, the world is a "strong delusion" which comes over the mind of that which sees itself as separate, different and unique (special)...as Israel sees itself.

Unique is what Jesus is, and what we can be in Him. --- It that is a delusion, then it is the happiest delusion I know of.

[UrbanMonk]

Unique is what Jesus is, and what we can be in Him. --- It that is a delusion, then it is the happiest delusion I know of.

Delusions are happy...until they're not. We make of Jesus what we secretly wish to be...special. And we are special until we are betrayed by it...and find that specialness is what makes hell hellaciously glad and sad.

[headheart]

Delusions are happy...until they're not. We make of Jesus what we secretly wish to be...special. And we are special until we are betrayed by it...and find that specialness is what makes hell hellaciously glad and sad.

My grandmother's Jesus was 'Our Father, which art in heaven....etc'
My mother's Jesus was 'gentle Jesus meek and mild...etc'
My father's Jesus was 'For what we are about to receive may the Lord....etc'
My little piggie ran all the way home.

Sincerely,
HH.