Is Christianity true just for Gentiles?

[dizzle]

I changed my mind about not starting a new thread - the advantages are enormous since the last one went everyu which way but loose with the excpetion of Jezz and Karaite.

I was asked to start a new thread and so I shall. The proposition is this. Eliyosef said that Christianity is true for Gentiles but not true for Jews.

Now I posit - as has the historic Christian faith - and I am sure Eliyosef would appreciate me not requiring him to conform to his faith's heretics, thus he should be fair and not posit that I conform to those who hold heretical views of "Christianity" - and I am explicitly requesting that views held by the heretics of my faith as defined by the denial of any tenet of the Apostle's Creed not be a part of this thread. Thus, this tenent is not up for debate. All orthodox Christians believe Christ is God. And that is where we MUST start. If Eli wishes to amend his statement and say that heretical Christianity is true for Gentiles and not for Jews that is fine. I have no horse in that race to argue with him. But if he is going to refer to what has been the historic faith, then he must deal with this issue.

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

This one point, which is basic logic, was refused to be conceded by Eliyosef. That is patently absurd. We can then get into what may follow from that proposition, but we must first start there.

So here is the new thread. And as thread starter I am in a position of demanding that this sole point be dealt with.

[Timothy Leary]

I think the following is what Eli is trying to express - correct me if I am wrong.

----

No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

[Orion]

All orthodox Christians believe Christ is God.

You've made an assertion. Am I permitted to comment on this assertion (given that this is a forum, and all), or do you consider your assertions to be exempt from critical comment? I'm not here to offend or attack, I simply wanna know the ground rules.

I'm not exactly certain as to the meaning of your term "orthodox Christian". Does "orthodox" translate to "conservative", or does it mean "true"? I have no doubt you're aware that there exists considerable differing opinion amongst Christians as to the validity of certain aspects of Christian doctrine. In this regard, I would humbly draw your attention to the writings of John Crossan, Raymond Brown, Karen Armstrong, Paul Tillich, Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, and Jack Spong. I suspect that you're also aware that there exists no definitive criteria for defining who is or is not a Christian, the Apostle's Creed not withstanding.

If Jesus was, in fact, divine, then we must go to scripture as our first source of confirmation. But when we do so, we find conflicting information. For example, Paul was of the opinion that Jesus attained divinity at the time of his resurrection. Mark tells us that Jesus became divine at his baptism. Matthew and Luke pin Jesus' divinity to his birth, and John tells us that Jesus was divine for all eternity. This, I suggest to you, is evidence of the gradual evolution of Christology at the hands of Jesus' followers, most of whom never even knew him.

...and I am explicitly requesting that views held by the heretics of my faith as defined by the denial of any tenet of the Apostle's Creed not be a part of this thread.

Fortunately, the term "heretic" has lost all meaning, given that we are no longer trapped in the fourth to the sixteenth centuries. We have only people with differing views concerning aspects of Christology.

[dizzle]

Orion my opening post was clear. Please deal with my openin post and not go off into then tangents you attempted before or do not participate in this thread please.

[dizzle]

I think the following is what Eli is trying to express - correct me if I am wrong.

----

No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)
Hey Karaite, thank you for sticking to the narrow point. That may be what he is trying to say but that is not what he said. If he wishes to clarify that - we can proceed.

He however did explicitly say that he is not saying Christianity is false. He cannot have it both ways. He said it was true for Gentiles - that is not saying it is not completely true - it is saying it is true depending upon who is the subject. But that is relativism - and that does not fly. Truth does not depened upon people - it depends upon reality.

And we are not talking about some inconsequential issue - we are talking about the cornerstone of Christian faith. And if in fact Jesus is not God, we are talking about idolatry and much more.

So if Eli wishes to say that Christianity is false about its belief that Jesus is God, and that falsity is true for everyone - Jesus is truly not God for everyone, then that is a starting place I can understand and accept. It makes sense.

But Eli wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He needs to have the strenght of his convictions and be able to state the obvious. We can then move on to other points.

[Solly]

Is the notion being promoted that Judaism is by definition true for jews, and true in itself, and that, failing becoming Jews themselves, if Gentiles worship in a way that is related to the Noahic/Abrahamic deposit, then that is true for them in a way that nonAbrahamic religions are not? Is it like Islam speaking of the People of the Book, and thus the Jews can have a memorial to righteous Gentiles, even though such were not, pardon the term, 'kosher'? Under such a notion, Christians and Muslims would be sincere worshippers of God, but also sincerely mistaken.

[dizzle]

Well the statement was made in the context of Eli's assertion that he is not saying that Christianity is false, and that it is only wrong when it tries to convert Jews and that Christianity is absolutely false for Jews, but [presumably] absolutely true for Gentiles.

Yet there are some very core doctrines of Christianity that are no smal matter that Eli denies but will not say that such things are false for Gentiles too. He wants to say that such things are true, but onnly for them.

I further stated that the claims of Christianity are of the nature (and again Orion and all you others out there with your liberal redefinitions of Christianity - that is not the subject of this thread and you are not going to derail this one - the claims of Christianity of which I am speaking are the ones that have been part and parcel of the historic faith - ie orthodox) that they must apply to everyone or they are false. Eli balked at conceding that.

If wants to assert what you said above Solly we could proceed from there, but he has to conceed that some things are indeed false. The problem is that he praised those things, when practiced/believed by Gentiles, as beautiful. Ascribing deity to anyone/anything other than God can hardly be called beautiful. It would be blasphemy. Eli claimed that Christianity qualified under the Noahide commandememnt, but the NOahide commandements prohibit idolatry and blasphemy. He failed to addess that except as to raise a strawman that I was now saying that Christianity was idolatry - no I was saying that from his statements, it must be - and that he should have the courage of his convictions or defeat the argument - an argument he himself raised - the Noahide commandments. I did not raise them.

[Solly]

Right, I can see the point you are making now. If Eli concedes that Christianity is right, he must do it within the context of his own position, not as something which he wants to have related to it on the one hand, but which is in strict opposition to it on the other - ie, the matter of the Person of Christ. It's a case of Liar, Lunatic or Rabbi, eh?
I don't know Eli enough; any chance he doesn't actually know what he is talking about?

[dizzle]

Right, I can see the point you are making now. If Eli concedes that Christianity is right, he must do it within the context of his own position, not as something which he wants to have related to it on the one hand, but which is in strict opposition to it on the other - ie, the matter of the Person of Christ. It's a case of Liar, Lunatic or Rabbi, eh?
I don't know Eli enough; any chance he doesn't actually know what he is talking about?
Yes Solly and actually I was making a two pronged approach - one was analyzing it from his own position - what should his position logically be taking all of his presuppositions as true for the sake of argument (ie Jesus is not God, Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecy etc) to see if his comments were defensible

Second, exactly, I was taking the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument and showingn that Christianity itself does not leave the door open for his position - he is not free to redefine the truth claims of another belief system - he may pronounce judgment on those truth claims - but he must be honest about what those truth claims are - and Christianity claims to be true for everyone, so Eli must concede that such element must be false, and that must be false for everyone - and Christianity's claims for everyone are of such a nature that if they are false for Jews, there is really no reason they should be true for Gentiles

He is manifestly reluctant to do this.

I don't think such in actualityu while it sounds nice actually furhter dialogs. It sweeps massive issues under the carpet.

[Menachem]

I think the following is what Eli is trying to express - correct me if I am wrong.

----

No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

I would like to add to this saying that this form of worship is what I consider a legitimate Noachide covenant(i.e. Rightous Gentile covenant) along with Islam.



On to other matters:

Certain details we disagree on, Messiahship and son of G-dship....etc. I have never denied this and I could quote where I said this in the other thread along with applying Christianity to be a legitimate Noachide covenant(Rightous Gentile covenant) in the eyes of the Jews.

My point was that the overall belief(not the minisculing details of said belief) in the G-d of Avraham, what we have in common, is what I was expounding on as true. I can quote where I said this also in the other thread as well if you like....

[Menachem]

"Devil's" advocate is fun to play

[Solly]

Certain details we disagree on, Messiahship and son of G-dship....etc. ...*snip*... My point was that the overall belief (not the minisculing details of said belief) in the G-d of Avraham, what we have in common, is what I was expounding on as true.

I'd be interested as to how that works out in practice, Eli, since i don't think many of us, on either side, would agree that the claim that the One who is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, who says Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last," and who is also believed to be manifest in the flesh that is Jesus Christ and who says Rev 1:17 "Fear not, I am the first and the last," (JWs take note) is a minisculing detail. And that is exactly the point DD has focussed on.

[Menachem]

I'd be interested as to how that works out in practice, Eli, since i don't think many of us, on either side, would agree that the claim that the One who is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, who says Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last," and who is also believed to be manifest in the flesh that is Jesus Christ and who says Rev 1:17 "Fear not, I am the first and the last," (JWs take note) is a minisculing detail. And that is exactly the point DD has focussed on.


which is why we cant see eye to eye we are focusing on two different things:

DDW- details .......................................................I-the overall




thought?:
I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to ask what I really think on the matter???? Seeing how I am simply playing Devil's advocate.

[Solly]

But again Eli, you are focussing on the overall, but the details affect how you see the overall. For us, "Jesus Christ is Lord" is the overall picture!

OK, I'll buy DA, what do you think of it?

[Menachem]

But again Eli, you are focussing on the overall, but the details affect how you see the overall. For us, "Jesus Christ is Lord" is the overall picture!

OK, I'll buy DA, what do you think of it?

In reality my view is as follows:

Many of the claims made are false... I dont see how anyone could follow some of them(i.e. deification of a human, virgin birth....etc..).

Some of Jesus ethical teachings are good as well as him saying follow G-d is good as well, but its deification of jesus is false as well....

I think Karaite summed it up close enough and probably better than I could word it:

No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

[Sacrificial Ram]

Is the notion being promoted that Judaism is by definition true for jews, and true in itself, and that, failing becoming Jews themselves, if Gentiles worship in a way that is related to the Noahic/Abrahamic deposit, then that is true for them in a way that nonAbrahamic religions are not? Is it like Islam speaking of the People of the Book, and thus the Jews can have a memorial to righteous Gentiles, even though such were not, pardon the term, 'kosher'? Under such a notion, Christians and Muslims would be sincere worshippers of God, but also sincerely mistaken.
Well, the Jewish religion acknowledges that there is more than one path to god, but Judaism is the path that the Jews chose. Since both the Muslims and the CHristians are on a path that appears to lead to God, then what does it matter?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well the statement was made in the context of Eli's assertion that he is not saying that Christianity is false, and that it is only wrong when it tries to convert Jews and that Christianity is absolutely false for Jews, but [presumably] absolutely true for Gentiles.

Yet there are some very core doctrines of Christianity that are no smal matter that Eli denies but will not say that such things are false for Gentiles too. He wants to say that such things are true, but onnly for them.

I further stated that the claims of Christianity are of the nature (and again Orion and all you others out there with your liberal redefinitions of Christianity - that is not the subject of this thread and you are not going to derail this one - the claims of Christianity of which I am speaking are the ones that have been part and parcel of the historic faith - ie orthodox) that they must apply to everyone or they are false. Eli balked at conceding that.

If wants to assert what you said above Solly we could proceed from there, but he has to conceed that some things are indeed false. The problem is that he praised those things, when practiced/believed by Gentiles, as beautiful. Ascribing deity to anyone/anything other than God can hardly be called beautiful. It would be blasphemy. Eli claimed that Christianity qualified under the Noahide commandememnt, but the NOahide commandements prohibit idolatry and blasphemy. He failed to addess that except as to raise a strawman that I was now saying that Christianity was idolatry - no I was saying that from his statements, it must be - and that he should have the courage of his convictions or defeat the argument - an argument he himself raised - the Noahide commandments. I did not raise them.
Well, I don't know about CHristaintiy being mistaken, since there are multiple opinions on that matter within various sects of the Christian religion, but I would say the claim you make are incorrect at least.

Christianity does not appear to be as monolithic as you are claiming it is.

[Solly]

And we can say the same for Judaism, which encompasses atheistic judaism, Karaite Judaism, Chasidic Judaism, Reform Judiasm, I'm-a-Jew-but-I'm-not-very-religious Judaism, and probably a host of sects, inside and outside the borders of Orthodoxy. So we can all play that game. Orthodox Christianity, encompassing the vast majority of Christians, give credence to the central creeds - the Nicene, the Athanasian, the Apostle's. Heterodoxy on the important matters focusses on denial of those creeds. This means the Major, and most minor Protestant, the RCC, and the Eastern Orthodox are orthodox. The major denominations of the East that separated early on, such as the Monophysite churches, are granted honourary orthodoxy. Jw's, Mormons, Unitarians, etc as well as modern liberal 'Christianity', are not orthodox. Unlike Judiasm, Christianity does have a core of beliefs that unite us - hence the Ecumenical movement. Is there such amongst Jews?

[Menachem]

And we can say the same for Judaism, which encompasses atheistic judaism, Karaite Judaism, Chasidic Judaism, Reform Judiasm, I'm-a-Jew-but-I'm-not-very-religious Judaism, and probably a host of sects, inside and outside the borders of Orthodoxy. So we can all play that game. Orthodox Christianity, encompassing the vast majority of Christians, give credence to the central creeds - the Nicene, the Athanasian, the Apostle's. Heterodoxy on the important matters focusses on denial of those creeds. This means the Major, and most minor Protestant, the RCC, and the Eastern Orthodox are orthodox. The major denominations of the East that separated early on, such as the Monophysite churches, are granted honourary orthodoxy. Jw's, Mormons, Unitarians, etc as well as modern liberal 'Christianity', are not orthodox. Unlike Judiasm, Christianity does have a core of beliefs that unite us - hence the Ecumenical movement. Is there such amongst Jews?


Sometimes I think the only thing that unites the Jewish people is Israel, the notion that we are the people Israel and the Shema... If it were not for Israel we would be bitterly divided like the Protestants and Roman Catholics are. With the Orthodoxy on one end and the Reform on the other end while the conservative would try to function as the "peace keepers" in the middle...Israel keeps us united per se.... I know some Reform Jews who do not believe in G-d, who do not follow Torah, and do not Observe very many of the mitzvot....

Israel(as a People) is the center piece now instead of G-d for the reform movement if I am not mistaken. The Orthodoxy take the approach of as we need G-d and His Torah to be his people Israel..

Our core belief lies in G-d and His Torah....see the "Shema"(Deuteronomy 6:4) for the central creed....

[Solly]

You see, we are not that far apart Eli, in the way we do things. Our central creed is Jesus Christ is Lord, as I have mentioned. We are not as 'bitterly' divided as you make out. This website is proof of that, where I can happily discuss and disagree with Catholics, Easterners, Dispensationalists, and Arminians (I am Calvinist). There are some old grudge matches still hanging around, but these are as much linked to territory as anything else, and arise from lack of understanding, not because of it. Catholics etc are of course concerned that protestants don't keep like they do, but we'd still drink a beer together. I imagine that sociologically the spectrum is pretty much the same, from ultras through conservatives to liberals to anarchists.

Anyway, I asked the question remember...what do you think of the matter in hand?

[Menachem]

You see, we are not that far apart Eli, in the way we do things. Our central creed is Jesus Christ is Lord, as I have mentioned. We are not as 'bitterly' divided as you make out. This website is proof of that, where I can happily discuss and disagree with Catholics, Easterners, Dispensationalists, and Arminians (I am Calvinist). There are some old grudge matches still hanging around, but these are as much linked to territory as anything else, and arise from lack of understanding, not because of it. Catholics etc are of course concerned that protestants don't keep like they do, but we'd still drink a beer together. I imagine that sociologically the spectrum is pretty much the same, from ultras through conservatives to liberals to anarchists.

Anyway, I asked the question remember...what do you think of the matter in hand?

I can sit and enjoy the company of a reform Jew, a Karaite Jew and a conservative Jew as well. My intention was not to say "bitterly divided" but Divided enough to never reconcile....Which is what the Reform movement and the Orthodox Movement are headed for....They get along in the secular environment(i.e.we can get along outside of work) and be friends in most cases. The Shul I atend and the reform temple plan joint activities together for the Jewish community but they dont see eye to eye religion wise...


Ask one more time I seemed to have missed the question completely?

[Sacrificial Ram]

You see, we are not that far apart Eli, in the way we do things. Our central creed is Jesus Christ is Lord, as I have mentioned. We are not as 'bitterly' divided as you make out. This website is proof of that, where I can happily discuss and disagree with Catholics, Easterners, Dispensationalists, and Arminians (I am Calvinist). There are some old grudge matches still hanging around, but these are as much linked to territory as anything else, and arise from lack of understanding, not because of it. Catholics etc are of course concerned that protestants don't keep like they do, but we'd still drink a beer together. I imagine that sociologically the spectrum is pretty much the same, from ultras through conservatives to liberals to anarchists.

Anyway, I asked the question remember...what do you think of the matter in hand?
It seems to me that the differences between the Jews mean much less to them than the differences between the Christians. There is a lot less conflict from the theological differences than there are between some of the denominations of Christianity.

[Solly]

I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to ask what I really think on the matter???? Seeing how I am simply playing Devil's advocate.


I'm asking, already!! Oy vey!! :nsm:

[Solly]

It seems to me that the differences between the Jews mean much less to them than the differences between the Christians. There is a lot less conflict from the theological differences than there are between some of the denominations of Christianity.


Yes, i agree. The Christian divisions owned ran nations and institutions; until recently the Jews were probably too busy keeping their heads down, and avoiding persecution to get to involved with in-fighting.

[Menachem]

I'm asking, already!! Oy vey!! :nsm:


I thought I answered that already....hmmm...... lol


In reality my view is as follows:

Many of the claims made are false... I dont see how anyone could follow some of them(i.e. deification of a human, virgin birth....etc..).

Some of Jesus ethical teachings are good as well as him saying follow G-d is good as well, but its deification of jesus is false as well....

I think Karaite summed it up close enough and probably better than I could word it:

No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

[Solly]

:lol: OK, I see what happened, there were so many replies since I was last in the thread, and the first one I saw was SR's on the previous page, which I replied to; I didn't see yours at all.

But if you agree with this: No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

Then you are still in the position of giving partial credence to a form of worship - in Chrisitanity at least, since I am not sure how Islam would be too out of alignment with Judaism - that practices and believes things fundamentally denounced by Judaism: the worship of one it does not consider God. If Chrisitianity was just another Jewish offshoot like the Karaites (or the Shi'a in Islam) OK, but how do you square this circle beyond being nice to us?

[Menachem]

:lol: OK, I see what happened, there were so many replies since I was last in the thread, and the first one I saw was SR's on the previous page, which I replied to; I didn't see yours at all.

But if you agree with this: No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

Then you are still in the position of giving partial credence to a form of worship - in Chrisitanity at least, since I am not sure how Islam would be too out of alignment with Judaism - that practices and believes things fundamentally denounced by Judaism: the worship of one it does not consider God. If Chrisitianity was just another Jewish offshoot like the Karaites (or the Shi'a in Islam) OK, but how do you square this circle beyond being nice to us?

Originally it was an offshoot but took on as a new religion when Paul came to the scene.

Jesus ethical teachings, love your neighbor and promotion of the G-d of Avraham is good, I have no quarrel with those teachings, they are in line with Judaism and was primarily what was taught in the first century and still taught today..

Where the falseness comes in is in the deification of jesus, the trinity, and his messiahship claim along with some others...Jesus was a good teacher of Judaism but his messiahship claim was false along with the notion coming later that he was G-d incarnate and part of a triune deity....I dont know if that made sense or not....

[Solly]

Yes, it's the standard thing, Jesus Good, Paul Bad. I'm not here to put to rest that particular theory, although obviously I consider it wrong, least of all because it must do violence to the texts to make it work.

Just to go down one avenue of it though. In what way was it an offshoot, if Jesus said and did little that was not compatible with Second Temple Judaism?

[Menachem]

Yes, it's the standard thing, Jesus Good, Paul Bad. I'm not here to put to rest that particular theory, although obviously I consider it wrong, least of all because it must do violence to the texts to make it work.

Just to go down one avenue of it though. In what way was it an offshoot, if Jesus said and did little that was not compatible with Second Temple Judaism?

On a few moral issues and practice issues is where he blundered I do believe. Such as Sabbath observance, Community and social justice matters...and a few others I am not going to go into very large detail.....

Ofter his death many of his disciples still practiced Judaism. They went to Shul and prayed along with the Jews. They tried to convince the Jews that jesus was the Mashiakh of Judaism. The Jews rejected this on the grounds that he did not do what Mashiakh was supposed to do when he came....pointing to roman occupation as the first sign....

Had the Deification, the "virgin birth" and the latter attributes of Paul not come, jesus judaism would not have become christianity(i.e. a separate religion), this form of Judaism may have died out and jesus may have been remembered as a prominent Jewish teacher in the first century......That is my view of what might have happened had Paul not come on the scene, the deification not happened and they had not gone their separate ways in regards to observance of Jewish laws....

one of the main reasons Judaism wont claim jesus as a "good Jewish teacher"(and I use that term loosely) is because he is already claimed by christianity as being their center of teaching and belief....as Rabbi Milton Steinburg put it paraphrased of course....

[Solly]

Thanks. It's off topic, so I won't persue it here.

[Menachem]

Thanks. It's off topic, so I won't persue it here.


I was trying to respond to the last part of your post

"Just to go down one avenue of it though. In what way was it an offshoot, if Jesus said and did little that was not compatible with Second Temple Judaism?"

maybe I missed what you were asking...please clarify what you were asking if you would please....

[Solly]

sorry, my lack of clarity. Thanks for the post, it answered my question, but I won't take the matter further here, as it is off topic for this thread. But you provided what I needed.

[Menachem]

sorry, my lack of clarity. Thanks for the post, it answered my question, but I won't take the matter further here, as it is off topic for this thread. But you provided what I needed.


Okie Dokie....I was just making sure :thumb:

[reasonabledoubt]

Does Roman Catholicism count as orthodox? They certainly accept the Creeds- they believe Jesus was God - and yet:

August 20, 2002 Washington, D.C., USA ....

Roman Catholic leaders in the United States declared last week that they will no longer target Jews for conversion to Catholicism. According to a document released jointly by the Catholics and a major U.S. Jewish organization, the Old Testament covenant between God and the Jewish people is "eternally valid." [b]The Bishops conclude in their portion of the statement that there is no need for Jews to embrace Christianity in order to receive salvation.

While saying that they would not discourage individual Jews from joining the Catholic Church, the Bishops said that "proselytizing campaigns are not compatible with the respect with which we hold Judaism." The document says that while the Catholic Church regards the "saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

[dizzle]

That is entirely off topic to the point in my opening post. Please do not attempt to derail this conversation too. I made myself very clear in my opening post. You obviously have a bur under your saddle for that point. Start your own thread and knock yourself out. When I get a few free moments I am going to extract out of the previous posts what was relevant to my post and carry on from there. At some point a comment such as the above may become an issue. It is not at this time, and I do invoke my right as thread starter to keep the focus.

[dizzle]

Here again is the point:

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

This one point, which is basic logic, was refused to be conceded by Eliyosef. That is patently absurd. We can then get into what may follow from that proposition, but we must first start there.


[Eli may have answered this question - I have not completey reviewed his posts in this thread - I am reposting the point so that we are not once again driven into YET what the Catholic Chuch holds about evangelizing Jews - we are NOT at that point]

[reasonabledoubt]

Dee Dee- you miss my point. Some Orthodox Christians believe that Christianity is true just for the Gentiles. Isn't that what the title of your thread is? It is not rude to tell you that some Catholics believe that it is true just for the gentiles. There are 2 covenants. One is for the Jews, one for the Gentiles.

"The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false."

In reality, true. That's what orthodoxy says, that's what Catholicism says.

I am not being rude by replying to this thread. I am explicitly answering your question as well.

[dizzle]

No you did not address my issue. I am asking YOU. I am not asking you to cite what anyone else might think - I am asking YOU.

Please deal with my point. (and the Catholics do not believe that Christ is not God for the Jews by the way - don't misrepresent the Catholics - they err in a different way in what follows from that proposition but they affirm in reality that Jesus is God for everyone) - it is quite nonsensical to state otherwise. If Christ is not God, that is in reality true for everyone - and if He is God, that is true for everyone in reality.

Deal with that please.

[dizzle]

What people are confusing is TRUTH with necessity or validity. The issue of whether or not Christian practice or doctrine is necessary for Jews is an entirely separate issue as to the objective truths of central Christians claims. God is God no matter who is considering Him. Whether or not someone must KNOW or recognize that fact has no bearing on the FACT itself. That is what I am dealing with.

[reasonabledoubt]

I guess you missed where I said "IN reality, true." Jesus IS God, yes. And that is reality.

[Goose]

Is Christianity true just for Gentiles?Is this a loaded question, or are you both assuming Dee Dee's version of Christianity as true?

[dizzle]

I guess you missed where I said "IN reality, true." Jesus IS God, yes. And that is reality.
I need to labor the point - true in reality no matter who the person is?

In other words, even if a Jewish person does not recognize it, Jesus is still God?

[dizzle]

Is this a loaded question, or are you both assuming Dee Dee's version of Christianity as true?
Funny how you complain about loaded questions while making a honking loaded statement of your own.

Please reread my opening post. It is isn't difficult. It was set as a subjunctive

IF Jesus is in FACT in REALITY God, then that is true in REALITY for everyone.

If you cannot handle that question Goose, please don't participate in this thread. My patience for dodgeball is way past its limit.

[reasonabledoubt]

Yes, even if no one recognizes it, I believe that Jesus is God. However I of course could be wrong.

[Goose]

Funny how you complain about loaded questions while making a honking loaded statement of your own.Am I wrong? If I am, please correct me concerning your view.

Please reread my opening post. It is isn't difficult. It was set as a subjunctiveI did read it, but I disagree with your assertion about what "historical Christianity" is. Church scholars are still trying to figure out what early Christianity was really like, and the closest time-frame they come to identifying "historical Chistianity" as they're comfortable with is hundreds of years after their Christ's death. I'll just bow out of this debate, as I disagree with the assertion.

IF Jesus is in FACT in REALITY God, then that is true in REALITY for everyone.I agree with this logic.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Here again is the point:

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

This one point, which is basic logic, was refused to be conceded by Eliyosef. That is patently absurd. We can then get into what may follow from that proposition, but we must first start there.


[Eli may have answered this question - I have not completey reviewed his posts in this thread - I am reposting the point so that we are not once again driven into YET what the Catholic Chuch holds about evangelizing Jews - we are NOT at that point]
I do remember seeing on this very board a discussion about the deity of Jesus... and there seems to be a lot of disagreement amoung the
CHristians who responded.

So, your absolute statement is not making any sense to me.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I need to labor the point - true in reality no matter who the person is?

In other words, even if a Jewish person does not recognize it, Jesus is still God?
For the christians he is at least.

Let us twist it around. Is jesus just a man if the Christians elevate him
to a God??

[dizzle]

I do remember seeing on this very board a discussion about the deity of Jesus... and there seems to be a lot of disagreement amoung the
CHristians who responded.

So, your absolute statement is not making any sense to me.
Then I ask if you cannot understand my question then you not participate in this thread. I am not appreciative of the efforts, just like in the last thread, to throw the issue off course. If you cannot participate within the very narrow question I asked, for whatever reason, please do not particpate.

[dizzle]

Yes, even if no one recognizes it, I believe that Jesus is God. However I of course could be wrong.
Thank you. Just htough for this conversation it is not necessary for you to believe that He is God just the fact that IF He is indeed God, He is God for everyone. That is part of being God.

And all statements from anyone should always be understood wiht the caveat "I could be wrong" - it does not need to be said.

Let me see who I can get this very basic agreement on and we can move on.

[dizzle]

I did read it, but I disagree with your assertion about what "historical Christianity" is.
Irrelevant to this debate thus far.

Church scholars are still trying to figure out what early Christianity was really like, and the closest time-frame they come to identifying "historical Chistianity" as they're comfortable with is hundreds of years after their Christ's death.
Irrelevant to this debate. And I would like to you introduce you to the multiple books on schisms within Judaism. I guess that means that there is no Judaism, and that Messianic Jews are Jews after all. You really need a lesson in consistency - but that is another thread.



I agree with this logic.
Okay. I will read what Eli has to say and then maybe we can move on. This should hae been able to to have been done in one post - this is not a difficult logical question. It can only be denied by someone who denies the law of contradiction, and I stand by my "abusive" assessment in the other thread. Such denial is insanity.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Then I ask if you cannot understand my question then you not participate in this thread. I am not appreciative of the efforts, just like in the last thread, to throw the issue off course. If you cannot participate within the very narrow question I asked, for whatever reason, please do not particpate.
So, you don't understand my answer, and you don't appreciate my disagreeing with your premise. It is not throwing it off the thread what so ever, but is not giving you the answer you want to hear.

Such is life...

[Sacrificial Ram]

Here again is the point:

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

This one point, which is basic logic, was refused to be conceded by Eliyosef. That is patently absurd. We can then get into what may follow from that proposition, but we must first start there.


[Eli may have answered this question - I have not completey reviewed his posts in this thread - I am reposting the point so that we are not once again driven into YET what the Catholic Chuch holds about evangelizing Jews - we are NOT at that point]
It doesn't seem absurd to the Roman Catholic Church. Are you denying they are Christian? Are you purposely misreading their statement?

You speak for 'CHristianity', but almost half of tje christians don't agree with you on this issue. After all, there are almost as many Roman Catholics than the rest of christianity combined.

[Menachem]

What people are confusing is TRUTH with necessity or validity.

actually "true" is a synonym for Valid:

Entry: valid
Function: adjective
Definition: genuine
Synonyms: accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, kosher, lawful, legal, legit, legitimate, logical, official, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, pure, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=valid

for definition:

Main Entry: valid
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
1 : having legal efficacy or force <a valid license>; especially : executed with proper authority and form <a valid contract> <a valid search>
2 : having a legitimate basis : JUSTIFIABLE <a valid reason for terminating the employee>
3 : appropriate to the end in view —va·lid·i·ty /v&-'li-d&-tE/ noun —val·id·ly adverb


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.





The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ.

Actually this was written in stone(metaphorically speaking) after the Nicene council but fair enough we will call that historical christianity.....

That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false.

False according to Judaism......True according to Christianity......Which begs the question...... Which one is right???

False according to Islam as well....True according to Christianity.......begs the question again.....Which one is right???

It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

of course it can.......... see above

[dizzle]

It doesn't seem absurd to the Roman Catholic Church. Are you denying they are Christian? Are you purposely misreading their statement?

You speak for 'CHristianity', but almost half of tje christians don't agree with you on this issue. After all, there are almost as many Roman Catholics than the rest of christianity combined.
I am asking you one last time. If you cannot deal with the point of the OP then please do not participate. If you cannot do that, I am going to ahve to ask for moderator intervention.

[dizzle]

So, you don't understand my answer, and you don't appreciate my disagreeing with your premise. It is not throwing it off the thread what so ever, but is not giving you the answer you want to hear.

Such is life...
Disagreeing with the premise is explicitly not part of this thread - at least at this point It is a hypothetical. Ifyou cannot participate within those parameters please don't.

[dizzle]

Eli I will be back to deal with your points. I have not read them thoroughly. Right now I have reached an agreement with Goose and Reasonabledoubt.

[Menachem]

Eli I will be back to deal with your points. I have not read them thoroughly. Right now I have reached an agreement with Goose and Reasonabledoubt.

okie dokie.... take your time....

[Sacrificial Ram]

<i> But human theories about gravity are not gravity itself. I must obey gravity, but I do not have to agree with human theories about gravity. We must all, ultimately, obey God, one way or another -- in living, or in dying. But we do not all have to agree on the same understanding about God in order to "live and move and have our being" in God. </i>

Ah.. but that is the exact thing I am disagree with.

It does not have to be true for one group, and therefore make all the others false.

Jeuses is true for the Christians, because the Christians believe Jesus to be true.

It is false for everyone else, because everyone else believes it to be false.

So, Jesus came for the Gentile, but he did not fullfill the requirements for the
Jewish Messiah.

The Messiah had to be in the direct male line of David , through solomon (the seed of david). If the Gospels are taken literally, Joseph, whose lineage was relavent, was not the father of Jesus. 1. Be the seed (a direct descendant through the unbroken male line) of King David, through King Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24)
Be married and have children during his term (e.g., Ezek 46:16-17)

Now, since jesus did not meet those requirements, Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.

However, that is the JEWISH requirements, and is only speaking for the messiah from a JEWISH perspective. The Christians chose their own requirements for THEIR messiah.

[Menachem]

<i> But human theories about gravity are not gravity itself. I must obey gravity, but I do not have to agree with human theories about gravity. We must all, ultimately, obey God, one way or another -- in living, or in dying. But we do not all have to agree on the same understanding about God in order to "live and move and have our being" in God. </i>

Ah.. but that is the exact thing I am disagree with.

It does not have to be true for one group, and therefore make all the others false.

Jeuses is true for the Christians, because the Christians believe Jesus to be true.

It is false for everyone else, because everyone else believes it to be false.

So, Jesus came for the Gentile, but he did not fullfill the requirements for the
Jewish Messiah.

The Messiah had to be in the direct male line of David , through solomon (the seed of david). If the Gospels are taken literally, Joseph, whose lineage was relavent, was not the father of Jesus. 1. Be the seed (a direct descendant through the unbroken male line) of King David, through King Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24)
Be married and have children during his term (e.g., Ezek 46:16-17)

Now, since jesus did not meet those requirements, Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.

However, that is the JEWISH requirements, and is only speaking for the messiah from a JEWISH perspective. The Christians chose their own requirements for THEIR messiah.


good point!

[reasonabledoubt]

Well that is interesting- some Christians believe that Jesus IS the Jewish messiah. And that the messiah is God. Christians don't have their own concept of the messiah- they attempt to bring in the OT prophecies to show that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Messiah. So it is not a matter of Christian requirements vs. Jewish requirements. The Christians would say the requirements for the Messiah are in the OT, and Jesus fulfilled them. The Jews would say he did not.

So either he did, or he did not. When you have one standard to go by, you can then say whether Jesus met that standard or not.

[Anitra]

I apologize for inadvertently inserting a comment into this thread. The OP, Dee Dee, specifically asked Christian heretics, such as myself, to stay out of this particular thread. I am respecting her wishes, and had intended to click "new thread" instead of "reply to thread." When I realized that my post had been entered to this thread I immediately deleted it, but some people seem to be quicker on the draw than I am. :blush:

In order to not derail this thread further, I will reply to the posts addressed to my points in the other thread I started, "Is One God true just for Jews? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35259)"

Again, I apologize for threadus interruptus. :flowers:

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well that is interesting- some Christians believe that Jesus IS the Jewish messiah. And that the messiah is God. Christians don't have their own concept of the messiah- they attempt to bring in the OT prophecies to show that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Messiah. So it is not a matter of Christian requirements vs. Jewish requirements. The Christians would say the requirements for the Messiah are in the OT, and Jesus fulfilled them. The Jews would say he did not.

So either he did, or he did not. When you have one standard to go by, you can then say whether Jesus met that standard or not.
Well, for one, the concept of the Messiah is different. The concept of the Messiah the Jews have is not a divine presence, but rather an extrodinary man.

It seems to me that since the concept is so different, as well as some key (such as what salvation is, and the need for it), you are comparing apples to oranges. The word might be the same, but the meaning is different.

[Menachem]

Well that is interesting- some Christians believe that Jesus IS the Jewish messiah. And that the messiah is God. Christians don't have their own concept of the messiah- they attempt to bring in the OT prophecies to show that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Messiah. So it is not a matter of Christian requirements vs. Jewish requirements. The Christians would say the requirements for the Messiah are in the OT, and Jesus fulfilled them. The Jews would say he did not.

So either he did, or he did not. When you have one standard to go by, you can then say whether Jesus met that standard or not.

The messianic prophecies are taken care of in the messianic prophecies thread.. The ones given by christains are not what the Jews had or Have in mind when referring to King Messiah...

son of King David by way of his son King Solomon(Isaiah 11:1).....World peace comes with the King Messiah(Isaiah 2:4)....Elijah will precede him(Malachi 3:23[4:5])...builder fo the Third Temple on its mount in Yerushalim.....etc....the King Messiah is not a god nor is he G-d, he is a very human person.....the King Messiah...

[reasonabledoubt]

Yes, I understand what you guys are saying. But you have to acknowledge that some Christians seek to have Christianity be a continuation of Judaism, in that we worship the same God, and look at the OT prophecies and see them fulfilled in Jesus.
Jews don't see it that way , so Jesus was not the Messiah. Someone is right, someone is wrong, about whether he was the Messiah.

[dizzle]

The OP, Dee Dee, specifically asked Christian heretics, such as myself, to stay out of this particular thread.
That is not what I said. I did say that heretical views stay out of this thread. Heretics may participate if they are willing to post within the boundaries of Christianity as defined by orthodoxy.

[dizzle]

Yes, I understand what you guys are saying. But you have to acknowledge that some Christians seek to have Christianity be a continuation of Judaism, in that we worship the same God, and look at the OT prophecies and see them fulfilled in Jesus.
Jews don't see it that way , so Jesus was not the Messiah. Someone is right, someone is wrong, about whether he was the Messiah.
you are getting ahead of me reasonabledoubt but that is where I am going next - but please let me try to get Eli to the same place where we have reached or hopelessly give up

[Anitra]

Heretics may participate if they are willing to post within the boundaries of Christianity as defined by orthodoxy.Thank you for clarifying that, Dee Dee.

I will try to summarize the problem as I see it, without reference to heretical views.

The traditional Jewish view of the Master of the Universe is that the Highest One cannot even be named, cannot be imaged, and definitely cannot be incarnated in a human form. Humans can apprehend the Divine, but cannot comprehend it; we can practice those things which God has commanded us to do so as to live in awareness of the presence of God, and by so living, uplift the world, but we cannot describe God to someone else because no man can know God.

To the Jews present: please correct me if I have mis-stated what you understand to be the traditional viewpoint.

If this view of God is correct, then to say that Jesus is God is indeed blasphemy, sacrilege, and idolatry; moreover, it's plain silly. It expresses a complete blindness to the immensity of the Divine One. Within the context of Jewish tradition -- within the model based on the assumption that God Is One and there is One God for all the universe -- "messiah" is a term used for a man, not a reference to an incarnation of God. In traditional Judaism, the prophecies of the Messiah refer to a man who will be a special servant of God, who will do a special service in redeeming Israel, and through Israel, the world -- but the Messiah is not an incarnation of God and could not be, because there can be no incarnation of God. By the traditional Judaic understanding of the prophecies, in fact, Jesus was not even the Messiah of the prophecies, let alone the Messiah of Christian theology.

If the Jewish understanding of the prophecies of the Messiah is correct, then Jesus was not the Messiah, and Jesus was not God, and Jesus was not the Redeemer of the World. If the traditional Jews are right, then orthodox Christianity is wrong.

From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, however, within the context of the traditional Jewish use of the term "messiah," Jesus may very well be a messiah, the redeemer of the Gentiles. From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, the One God, who is a Mystery, has made a covenant with the Jews which a Jew must follow in order to live in awareness of the presence of God, live a sanctified life. From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, however, the one God, who is a Mystery, may very well have made a different covenant with the Gentiles. God may have given a different revelation to the Gentiles. Jesus may be the Way by which a Gentile apprehends God, and lives in the awareness of the presence of God.

Therefore, within the context of Judaism, there is no contradiction in saying that "Jesus is God" may be true for the Christian, but not for the Jew. No human being can comprehend God; God reveals Godself to each of us as God so chooses. God has revealed Godself to the Jews in a way that does not allow a traditional Jew to regard Jesus as God. But God may reveal Godself to a non-Jew in another way, even in a way that requires that individual to acknowledge Jesus as God. The only way, in such a system, to determine whether a person is truly following a revelation that came from the One God, or is following a delusion, is in the results -- how that person acts. Those who act justly are being led by the God of Justice. If they are not being led in the way that you regard as true, it is because God has chosen another way for them. It is not up to a human being to dictate how another human being comes to God -- it is up to God.

Eli has therefore accurately stated his position. If Judaism is true, Christianity can also be true for Gentiles, and Islam can be true for Muslims.

Within the context of orthodox Christianity, however, God has revealed one way for all humans to come to God, and there is no other way. Orthodox Christians, like orthodox Jews, also hold that the only way humans can know God is in what God reveals to our limited capabilities. Orthodox Christians, however, hold that God has revealed Godself to all humans in the person of Jesus, and that anyone who denies that Jesus is Lord and Redeemer is a rebel to God and is unredeemed.

Dee Dee is also right in that if orthodox Christianity is true, it is true for everyone, and Judaism that denies that God is incarnate in Jesus, that God is triune, that Jesus is the messiah and redeemer, cannot be true for anyone.

Within the context of orthodox Christianity, either Jesus is the Savior of everyone, or Jesus is the Savior of noone. But within the context or orthodox Judaism, Jesus could be the Savior of the Gentiles and still not be the Savior of the Jews.

Therefore, you are both right. :nice: I can understand Dee Dee's frustration, however. From Dee Dee's standpoint it is very true that only one of you can be right.

[Orion]

If Christ is not God, that is in reality true for everyone - and if He is God, that is true for everyone in reality.

IF Jesus is in FACT in REALITY God, then that is true in REALITY for everyone.

I'm glad you included the "if"s.

I realize that you wish to move on in terms of developing this discussion, but it's apparent that at least some of us are having problems with your initial assertion. For example, one could interpret your above statement to mean that you are attempting to limit the power of God, or that God is somehow constrained to operate within your particular frame of reference. There exists within Judaism the concept that God is essentially unknowable. Not for nothing did the [late] theologian Paul Tillich choose to refer to God as the ground of all being. I could just as easily assert that Jesus is God for those who believe this to be so, and that at the same time he is not God for those who believe that to be so. If you substitute "Brahma" for "Christ" in your above statement, it makes just as much sense.

[dizzle]

Thank you Anitra, you answered exactly in the type of format that I want for this thread. I don't agree, but you kept to the topic as requested. AGreeing with me was not required :wink:


Orion if my initial assertion troubles you so much than please do not participate in this thread. I am nnot going off into rabbit trails. The context is orthodox christianity and traditional Judaism. If you cannot limit yourself in that way - please do not participate.

It is incredibly frustrating that I have to keep saying this.

[Orion]

Orion if my initial assertion troubles you so much than please do not participate in this thread.

I'm not in the least troubled by your initial assertion. But I do take issue with it, and it appears as though that troubles YOU. Therefore, I shall exit this thread.

[dizzle]

Thank you.

[Timothy Leary]

And we can say the same for Judaism, which encompasses atheistic judaism, Karaite Judaism, Chasidic Judaism, Reform Judiasm, I'm-a-Jew-but-I'm-not-very-religious Judaism, and probably a host of sects, inside and outside the borders of Orthodoxy. So we can all play that game. Orthodox Christianity, encompassing the vast majority of Christians, give credence to the central creeds - the Nicene, the Athanasian, the Apostle's. Heterodoxy on the important matters focusses on denial of those creeds. This means the Major, and most minor Protestant, the RCC, and the Eastern Orthodox are orthodox. The major denominations of the East that separated early on, such as the Monophysite churches, are granted honourary orthodoxy. Jw's, Mormons, Unitarians, etc as well as modern liberal 'Christianity', are not orthodox. Unlike Judiasm, Christianity does have a core of beliefs that unite us - hence the Ecumenical movement. Is there such amongst Jews?

There is no 'atheistic Judaism'. It's a bit of an oxymore, since Judaism can be defined as 'the religion of the Jews'.

[Timothy Leary]

I can sit and enjoy the company of a reform Jew, a Karaite Jew and a conservative Jew as well. My intention was not to say "bitterly divided" but Divided enough to never reconcile....Which is what the Reform movement and the Orthodox Movement are headed for....They get along in the secular environment(i.e.we can get along outside of work) and be friends in most cases. The Shul I atend and the reform temple plan joint activities together for the Jewish community but they dont see eye to eye religion wise...


Ask one more time I seemed to have missed the question completely?

Yes and No. Haredim don't tend to get along with me.

However, how is it different than the Christians?

[Timothy Leary]

It seems to me that the differences between the Jews mean much less to them than the differences between the Christians. There is a lot less conflict from the theological differences than there are between some of the denominations of Christianity.

Less differences? I think not. I'd say that the overall spectrum is wider, it's just that we don't fight about it as much.

[Timothy Leary]

:lol: OK, I see what happened, there were so many replies since I was last in the thread, and the first one I saw was SR's on the previous page, which I replied to; I didn't see yours at all.

But if you agree with this: No, Christianity is not completely true. Neither is Islam. However, it is "true" for their adherants in the sense that they bring the adherant of such into an acceptable form of worship. (in contrast to non-abrahamic religions)

Then you are still in the position of giving partial credence to a form of worship - in Chrisitanity at least, since I am not sure how Islam would be too out of alignment with Judaism - that practices and believes things fundamentally denounced by Judaism: the worship of one it does not consider God. If Chrisitianity was just another Jewish offshoot like the Karaites (or the Shi'a in Islam) OK, but how do you square this circle beyond being nice to us?

KDM activated. (Karaite Defense Mode)

Karaism has always existed, however it was not neccessarily in the form of a cohesive sect until the middle ages - when it was forced to. There have always been Sola Scripturola(sp?) Jews - in the days of the temple some of them were called עם הארץ (People of the Land). In fact, when we were forced to become a cohesive sect, there were many Jews who had never even heard of the Talmud.

[Timothy Leary]

There is evidence from a Muslim record from 1000 c.e. that the Ebionites actually survived until a little while after Islam emerged.

On a few moral issues and practice issues is where he blundered I do believe. Such as Sabbath observance, Community and social justice matters...and a few others I am not going to go into very large detail.....

Ofter his death many of his disciples still practiced Judaism. They went to Shul and prayed along with the Jews. They tried to convince the Jews that jesus was the Mashiakh of Judaism. The Jews rejected this on the grounds that he did not do what Mashiakh was supposed to do when he came....pointing to roman occupation as the first sign....

Had the Deification, the "virgin birth" and the latter attributes of Paul not come, jesus judaism would not have become christianity(i.e. a separate religion), this form of Judaism may have died out and jesus may have been remembered as a prominent Jewish teacher in the first century......That is my view of what might have happened had Paul not come on the scene, the deification not happened and they had not gone their separate ways in regards to observance of Jewish laws....

one of the main reasons Judaism wont claim jesus as a "good Jewish teacher"(and I use that term loosely) is because he is already claimed by christianity as being their center of teaching and belief....as Rabbi Milton Steinburg put it paraphrased of course....

[Timothy Leary]

I've read many other Catholic Leaders who absolutely condemned that move.

Does Roman Catholicism count as orthodox? They certainly accept the Creeds- they believe Jesus was God - and yet:

August 20, 2002 Washington, D.C., USA ....

Roman Catholic leaders in the United States declared last week that they will no longer target Jews for conversion to Catholicism. According to a document released jointly by the Catholics and a major U.S. Jewish organization, the Old Testament covenant between God and the Jewish people is "eternally valid." [b]The Bishops conclude in their portion of the statement that there is no need for Jews to embrace Christianity in order to receive salvation.

While saying that they would not discourage individual Jews from joining the Catholic Church, the Bishops said that "proselytizing campaigns are not compatible with the respect with which we hold Judaism." The document says that while the Catholic Church regards the "saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

[Timothy Leary]

Church scholars are still trying to figure out what early Christianity was really like, and the closest time-frame they come to identifying "historical Chistianity" as they're comfortable with is hundreds of years after their Christ's death.

I'm not sure who said this, but we can equally apply this to Judaism. Let's be consisent here.

[dizzle]

Karaite - dang man, you are so cool.

[dizzle]

It is probably going to be a bit before I can get to the responses where there were some differences on the basic question - I ask that unless anyone has a response to that if this thread can rest until then - newcomers to the narrow proposition in the OP are welcome

[Menachem]

I'm not sure who said this, but we can equally apply this to Judaism. Let's be consisent here.


That was goose

[dizzle]

I would like to add to this saying that this form of worship is what I consider a legitimate Noachide covenant(i.e. Rightous Gentile covenant) along with Islam. The God of Islam is not the God of the Bible. But that is not the subject here but something in principle I will address in another post or append to this one.

But on the subject of Christianity this test fails. the Noachide Covenant disallows idolatry and it disallows blasphemy. Christians believe that Jesus is the Creator, and is eternal and is God Himself. If He is not, that is blasphemy. If He is, then you should believe it two. There is no middle ground here with this under your own proposition.


Certain details we disagree on, Messiahship and son of G-dship....etc. Those two things are the heart of Christianity. Without it there is no Christianity. Those two things must either be true in reality or false in reality. You say they are false. If so, you cannot say that Christianity is true in any real sense, all you can say is that it is okay for Gentiles to have a false religion.


My point was that the overall belief(not the minisculing details of said belief).. I am sorry Eli but to call those things minisculing details is being thoroughly dishonest (I am not caling you dishonest or deliberately misleading but that idea is dishonest) with what Christianity itself teaches and claims. They are not miniscule, they are foundational.


in the G-d of Avraham, what we have in common... We believe Jesus is the God of Abraham. We do not even have that in common. We believe the whole OT is about Jesus. He said so.

actually "true" is a synonym for Valid:
Then I was imprecise in my terms, and I think you knonw what I was getting at.

Something is either true or it is false in reality. What you appear to be arguing is that although in reality Christianity is false, it is still acceptable to God - ie its falseness is overlooked. Taht is what you mean by "true" but that is not what truth is.




False according to Judaism......True according to Christianity......Which begs the question...... Which one is right???
You are missing the question. One or none of them has to be true in reality. I am not talking about opinion but about realityl

[Cherith]

This entire thread is frustrating! Why don't you guys just move this into a GYM DEBATE? It would be oh so much simpler - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

Israel (as a People) is the center piece ... we need G-d and His Torah to be his people Israel.. Our core belief lies in G-d and His Torah.

P.S. Funny how you define Israel, Eli. Israel was a FAMILY - the descendants of Jacob who were COMMANDED to remain in covenant with God (by keeping the Law, one major requirement being NØT TO INTERMARRY among the nations). There are no more clearly recognizable descendants of Jacob because his descendants broke the covenant, therefore "Israel (as a People)" are no more no matter how much a bunch of eastern-European Khazar/Zionists try to reinvent themselves! Show us your pedigree! (Sorry, Dee, I couldn't resist!)

[dizzle]

Hey cherith, I keep appending to the above post so that I don't have ten responses to Eli. And I don't have time for a Gym debate right now or I would have made the challenge. I think Eli's thinking is an affront to truth and not doing service to either faith by creating a false unity or agreement. Both sides are served by a frank assessment of where we stand.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Deleted by request.

[dizzle]

SF, I have asked you before not to participate in this thread because you are going off the very narrow point and from what I understand you are not a theist, and this is a theist only area. I have reported your post, but I would hope you would voluntarily delete it.

To everyone else - this thread is between Christians (holding to orthodoxy or those who can accept orthodoxy as true for the sake of argument such as Anitra) and Jews. Everyone else please refrain. I have asked this multiple times.

[dizzle]

I've read many other Catholic Leaders who absolutely condemned that move.
As did many other Christians. That would be a separate thread, but the simpler answer for me is that they were wrong. It is very easy to prove they are wrong from within the viewpoint of people holding the NT as authorative and inerrant.

[dizzle]

Thank you for clarifying that, Dee Dee.

I will try to summarize the problem as I see it, without reference to heretical views.
Thank you. Your input in that manner is appreciated.


If this view of God is correct, then to say that Jesus is God is indeed blasphemy, sacrilege, and idolatry; moreover, it's plain silly. It expresses a complete blindness to the immensity of the Divine One. Within the context of Jewish tradition -- within the model based on the assumption that God Is One and there is One God for all the universe -- "messiah" is a term used for a man, not a reference to an incarnation of God. In traditional Judaism, the prophecies of the Messiah refer to a man who will be a special servant of God, who will do a special service in redeeming Israel, and through Israel, the world -- but the Messiah is not an incarnation of God and could not be, because there can be no incarnation of God. By the traditional Judaic understanding of the prophecies, in fact, Jesus was not even the Messiah of the prophecies, let alone the Messiah of Christian theology.
Very well said Anitra. And if Christians claim all these things, it is no tangential thing. It is essential to orthodox Christianity, and it would be utterly false in everything that is unique to its point of view.


If the Jewish understanding of the prophecies of the Messiah is correct, then Jesus was not the Messiah, and Jesus was not God, and Jesus was not the Redeemer of the World. If the traditional Jews are right, then orthodox Christianity is wrong.
Yes. And the converse.


From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, however, within the context of the traditional Jewish use of the term "messiah," Jesus may very well be a messiah, the redeemer of the Gentiles. From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, the One God, who is a Mystery, has made a covenant with the Jews which a Jew must follow in order to live in awareness of the presence of God, live a sanctified life. From the viewpoint of a traditional Jew, however, the one God, who is a Mystery, may very well have made a different covenant with the Gentiles. God may have given a different revelation to the Gentiles. Jesus may be the Way by which a Gentile apprehends God, and lives in the awareness of the presence of God.
But God would not give a contradictory and false revelation.


Therefore, within the context of Judaism, there is no contradiction in saying that "Jesus is God" may be true for the Christian, but not for the Jew. No human being can comprehend God; God reveals Godself to each of us as God so chooses. God has revealed Godself to the Jews in a way that does not allow a traditional Jew to regard Jesus as God. But God may reveal Godself to a non-Jew in another way, even in a way that requires that individual to acknowledge Jesus as God. The only way, in such a system, to determine whether a person is truly following a revelation that came from the One God, or is following a delusion, is in the results -- how that person acts. Those who act justly are being led by the God of Justice. If they are not being led in the way that you regard as true, it is because God has chosen another way for them. It is not up to a human being to dictate how another human being comes to God -- it is up to God.
That is where we disagree Anitra. God would not reveal Himself falsely. He may reveal Himself differently, I have no issue with that. But He would not reveal Himself ina way that is contradictory within our respective frameworks. That would not be acceptable to the Jew or the Christian in this context.



Within the context of orthodox Christianity, either Jesus is the Savior of everyone, or Jesus is the Savior of noone. But within the context or orthodox Judaism, Jesus could be the Savior of the Gentiles and still not be the Savior of the Jews.
Here is where i think Anitra you missed a sublety of my point. I am not asking if Judaism can make a way in which their view of Christianity could be true. I am asking if the claims of Christianity speak for themselves, and I am referring to the Christianity that I hold, typical evangelical belief, then it cannot be true even in Ei's view for the view itself closes that door. A belief system must be allowed to define itself. I cannot find a way Anitra (to diverge for a second) to reconcile in my own head about how you actualloy do believe Jesus is God when you say you don't. The idea is not to make your view somehow acceptable to me and in so doing revise your claims. The idea and frank way is to take your claims and see if they can be true in my system. Eli is not doing that. He is revising Christianity and declaring his sterilized version is true. But that is the truth of the matter in the claim of the religion itself.

[Menachem]

Something is either true or it is false in reality. What you appear to be arguing is that although in reality Christianity is false, it is still acceptable to God - ie its falseness is overlooked. Taht is what you mean by "true" but that is not what truth is.

Dee Dee....What happens when you have a difference of opinion on what is "true." In "reality" one side says...."It's false"......the other side in "reality" says...."it's true."

What do you do with this scenario Dee Dee?? see below for more details...



You are missing the question. One or none of them has to be true in reality. I am not talking about opinion but about realityl

Oh I got the question and my answer was based on this that you posted....Here I will quote it for ya:

1) The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. 2) That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. 3) It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

first part answered....

1) To the first part my answer was " This is post Nicene christianity which put this ideology into stone(metaphorically speaking)...but fair enought we will call this historical christianity for the sake of your point...."

second part answered....

2) And in "reality" this is what happens....Judaism says jesus' "messiahship and son of godship.....etc" is false....while in "reality" Christianity says its true...all the while in "reality" it begs the question....Which one is right in "reality"?

(the word "reality" was added for emphasis)

and the third part answered....

3) and to answer the last part of this I said "Of course it can, see above."

Did you answer this, which was about your point....No



Just to clear things up here is a definition of reality:

what I am Defining "reality" to be in regards to my answer in this post is in bold

re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:

Idiom:
in reality
In fact; actually.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n.

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
3. That which exists objectively and in fact.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


(P.S. The former posts in the other thread and the first part fo this thread were nonsense just to start the argument and pick things up in the Judaism thread since things were a tad bit "dead" in here...You were right, the others were nonsense but from now on they get a bit more into sense....for the sake of the argument.)

[dizzle]

Dee Dee....What happens when you have a difference of opinion on what is "true." In "reality" one side says...."It's false"......the other side in "reality" says...."it's true."

That is irrelevant. I am not talking about opinion, I am talking about objective reality. You really need to stick to the subject. I am not saying at this point how we can know who's view conforms to reality, what I am saying is given the proposition that Jesus is in fact God in reality that is in reality true for everyone. Please deal with that point. You have yet to do so.




2) And in "reality" this is what happens....Judaism says jesus' "messiahship and son of godship.....etc" is false....while in "reality" Christianity says its true...all the while in "reality" it begs the question....Which one is right in "reality"?

No Eli you are showing a shocking lack of criticial thinking skills. You keep talking about the FACTS that certain groups hold certain OPINIONS. That is not the subject. Both groups hold those beliefs, the fact that it is their beliefs is true in reallity, but that does not make the beliefs true, only the fact that they hold them to be an accurate statement. Do you understand the difference?

In reality they both cannot be objectively true. Either one or both is wrong. This is basic logic.

You need to understnad the question because you keep arguing something that is not in dispute, and in fact is the very premise of this thread. Please deal with the question. So far, Goose, Yosi, Anitra (to a disputed point which I clarified with her) and reasonabledoubt have all understood and answered. You have not yet demonstrated that you have understood the question.

[Menachem]

That is irrelevant. I am not talking about opinion, I am talking about objective reality. You really need to stick to the subject. I am not saying at this point how we can know who's view conforms to reality, what I am saying is given the proposition that Jesus is in fact God in reality that is in reality true for everyone. Please deal with that point. You have yet to do so.

this is very relivent as it shows there to be an error in the thought process on your part....while you assert that your religious values are totally true others see it as false and it seriously beg the question "Which one is right?"

Sticking to the subject...if you continually redefine the parameters of the subject it is hard to stick to it....

what I am saying is given the proposition that Jesus is in fact God in reality that is in reality true for everyone.

False says Judaism....true says Christianity.....your point begs the question...."Which side ir right?"

and you have yet to respond to my answer...




No Eli you are showing a shocking lack of criticial thinking skills.

actually my answer in displays critical thinking skills quite well. I pointed out that when the point is applied it has a serious issue of begging the question which would seem to be an error in the thinking that "jesus is god and that is true for all." you have yet to answer my post...

You keep talking about the FACTS that certain groups hold certain OPINIONS. That is not the subject. Both groups hold those beliefs, the fact that it is their beliefs is true in reallity, but that does not make the beliefs true, only the fact that they hold them to be an accurate statement. Do you understand the difference?

And hence you beg the question..."which one is right?" either one side is true or one side isnt.. The fact is that it is a matter of opinion who is right because you can never give a satistfying answer to the question raised....


In reality they both cannot be objectively true. Either one or both is wrong. This is basic logic.

The I take it that your answer is "Christianity is right." While on the other hand I say "Judiasm is right" which begs one more question....Which of us is right???

You need to understnad the question because you keep arguing something that is not in dispute, and in fact is the very premise of this thread. Please deal with the question. So far, Goose, Yosi, Anitra (to a disputed point which I clarified with her) and reasonabledoubt have all understood and answered. You have not yet demonstrated that you have understood the question.

I understand the question:

"Is Christianity just for gentiles? Christian says its for all people...The Jew says that is false for the simple reason we and others have our own faiths we dont need to leave our faith to get to G-d we can do that right where we are at..etc..."
....and there is a flaw which begs the question.... If we both see ourselves as right...Which one of us is actually right??? Either one of us is right or one of us is wrong I dont dispute that...But which one of us? It is a matter of opinion of who is right or who is wrong seeing as how I will never accept jesus as the son of god, messiah...etc...and you will never come and keep Torah...

I think that it is either the third or fourth opinion that says respectively "Shut up you two.... your both right" or "shut up you two....your both wrong"

Let me illustrate a point:

A doctor in africa who is of say of a native religion a shamen or local holy man. He has devoted his whole life to helping others...he cared for them, nused others to health who were sick,poor and otherwise needy, donated his own time without pay 16, 18 and sometimes 20 hrs. a day just to help these people....He has all of his life been devoted to his traditional religion worshipping the god manooma the god of eternal hope and the god Nambasa the god of the eternal sun. .... He has never once heard of jesus or of Christianity and has no clue as to what it is about ....Then one day he catches a disease from a boy he was trying to aid and dies from it....

This guy devoted his whole life to the Jewish and Christian ideals of 'love your neighbor as yourself,' helped the poor and needy. This guy was a saint. Now, he goes up to the Heavenly Gates.

In my religion he is accepted and welcomed into heaven by G-d...

What do you believe happens to him? When he goes up and is judged by G-d, will he now face eternal fire and damnation because he did not accept Jesus as his L-rd and Savior?

[dizzle]

this is very relivent as it shows there to be an error in the thought process on your part....while you assert that your religious values are totally true others see it as false and it seriously beg the question "Which one is right?"
that is not the question - so yoiur example of your begged question is not even the subject of this thread. I am speaking of a subjunctive

If it is in fact objectively true that Jesus is God, that would be objectively true for everyone

Whether or not you believe we can find it out, you must believe there is objective truth. That is what I am asking. You keep bringing in irrelevancies.



Sticking to the subject...if you continually redefine the parameters of the subject it is hard to stick to it....
That is patently false. I would be willing to request a moderator to come in and judge if I have redefined the parameters of this subject. I have not, and I take offense at your suggestion that I have. Prove it with quotes and post numbers by me. If not, retract.



False says Judaism....true says Christianity.....your point begs the question...."Which side ir right?"
That was nevr the question here. I am speaking of a IF question.

actually my answer in displays critical thinking skills quite well. I pointed out that when the point is applied it has a serious issue of begging the question which would seem to be an error in the thinking that "jesus is god and that is true for all." you have yet to answer my post...



And hence you beg the question..."which one is right?" either one side is true or one side isnt.. The fact is that it is a matter of opinion who is right because you can never give a satistfying answer to the question raised....
No you have once again dodged the point. That is quite disappoitning that you cannot answer a simple question.




The I take it that your answer is "Christianity is right." While on the other hand I say "Judiasm is right" which begs one more question....Which of us is right???



I understand the question:

"Is Christianity just for gentiles? Christian says its for all people...The Jew says that is false for the simple reason we and others have our own faiths we dont need to leave our faith to get to G-d we can do that right where we are at..etc..."
....and there is a flaw which begs the question.... If we both see ourselves as right...Which one of us is actually right??? Either one of us is right or one of us is wrong I dont dispute that...But which one of us? It is a matter of opinion of who is right or who is wrong seeing as how I will never accept jesus as the son of god, messiah...etc...and you will never come and keep Torah...
That is not the question. You have not understood it, or you have, and are wishing to be evasive, for what end, I have no idea. Even your brethren have declared you evasive and contradictory.


I think that it is either the third or fourth opinion that says respectively "Shut up you two.... your both right" or "shut up you two....your both wrong"

Let me illustrate a point:

A doctor in africa who is of say of a native religion a shamen or local holy man. He has devoted his whole life to helping others...he cared for them, nused others to health who were sick,poor and otherwise needy, donated his own time without pay 16, 18 and sometimes 20 hrs. a day just to help these people....He has all of his life been devoted to his traditional religion worshipping the god manooma the god of eternal hope and the god Nambasa the god of the eternal sun. .... He has never once heard of jesus or of Christianity and has no clue as to what it is about ....Then one day he catches a disease from a boy he was trying to aid and dies from it....

This guy devoted his whole life to the Jewish and Christian ideals of 'love your neighbor as yourself,' helped the poor and needy. This guy was a saint. Now, he goes up to the Heavenly Gates.

In my religion he is accepted and welcomed into heaven by G-d...

What do you believe happens to him? When he goes up and is judged by G-d, will he now face eternal fire and damnation because he did not accept Jesus as his L-rd and Savior?
that is not relevant to the narrow question of this thread.

IF in reality, not in opinion, Jesus IS in fact God, then that is true for everyone.

I have no problem affirming the opposite.

If Jesus is in fact NOT God in reality, then He is NOT God for anyone.

[Menachem]

that is not the question - so yoiur example of your begged question is not even the subject of this thread. I am speaking of a subjunctive

The begged question is highly relivent...as you do not want to answer it because it may bring the point you are making down and put it as a subject of opinion on what "truth" is....so continue dodging the question and dismiss it some more....I can forsee that

If it is in fact objectively true that Jesus is God, that would be objectively true for everyone

True says christianity, false says Judaism...still beggin the question and still not answered...

Whether or not you believe we can find it out, you must believe there is objective truth. That is what I am asking. You keep bringing in irrelevancies.

No I keep bringing things up that you refuse to answer because it may have an effect on your point...




That is patently false. I would be willing to request a moderator to come in and judge if I have redefined the parameters of this subject. I have not, and I take offense at your suggestion that I have. Prove it with quotes and post numbers by me. If not, retract.

first the question and title of the this thread:

Is Christianity true just for Gentiles?

along withan emphasis only on what is true and what is not...http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=666161&postcount=39 No mention of "in reality" or "subjunctiveness"

What people are confusing is TRUTH with necessity or validity. The issue of whether or not Christian practice or doctrine is necessary for Jews is an entirely separate issue as to the objective truths of central Christians claims. God is God no matter who is considering Him. Whether or not someone must KNOW or recognize that fact has no bearing on the FACT itself. That is what I am dealing with.

Then a shift in the focus moves from being about truth or what is true to what is true or not true in "Reality." Giving a whole new set of playing rules that is contained withing "reality"

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=666196&postcount=43

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=672497&postcount=82

Then I was imprecise in my terms, and I think you knonw what I was getting at.

Something is either true or it is false in reality. What you appear to be arguing is that although in reality Christianity is false, it is still acceptable to God - ie its falseness is overlooked. Taht is what you mean by "true" but that is not what truth is.

You are missing the question. One or none of them has to be true in reality. I am not talking about opinion but about realityl

Now it becomes subjunctive:

that is not the question - so your example of your begged question is not even the subject of this thread. I am speaking of a subjunctive


This happened in this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=673365&postcount=92

subjunctive

\Sub*junc"tive\, a. [L. subjunctivus, fr. subjungere, subjunctum, to subjoin: cf. F. subjonctif. See Subjoin.] Subjoined or added to something before said or written.

subjunctive

adj : relating to a mood of verbs; "subjunctive verb endings" n : a mood that represent an act or state (not as a fact but) as contingent or possible [syn: subjunctive mood]

just to be clear on the definition... So are we now moving from truths or Facts as earlier posts read.....to contingency or a possibility???

If the moderators do not find this as redefinition of the thread I will respectfully withdraw my assertion and apologize to Dee Dee...

That was never the question here. I am speaking of a IF question.

ok let me add the word "If" in there.

If judaism says false....and if christianity says true....Then which one is right...If both affirm their ends...


No you have once again dodged the point. That is quite disappoitning that you cannot answer a simple question.

as it is on this end for you to not answer mine raised after the point was answered. This little game of dodgeball you are playing is quite amusing



That is not the question. You have not understood it, or you have, and are wishing to be evasive, for what end, I have no idea. Even your brethren have declared you evasive and contradictory.

Who exactly is my bretheren???...Karaite pointed out only one point I may have contradicted myself other than that the only person that doesnt want to answer a question I posed is you.....I answered your question just not the desired answer you were looking for...

If you can point out a quote that says "eliyosef is evasive" I might hold your assertion of evasiveness as valid....and remember it has to be of "my bretheren" dont forget post numbers also....


that is not relevant to the narrow question of this thread.

the overall moral of the story is...you just didnt understand it..

IF in reality, not in opinion, Jesus IS in fact God, then that is true for everyone.

and if in reality Judaism says that is false and christianity says its true....This begs the question....Which one is right?? Again the question comes up....and you still will not answer it...

I have no problem affirming the opposite.

If this is about the story then it would show that this is a matter of a difference of opinion on both sides

If it is about your statement above....see my response above...

If Jesus is in fact NOT God in reality, then He is NOT God for anyone.

Jews say that jesus is not god...while christians do? begging the question.... who is correct? Your answer boils down to this....your opinion....

well thats all for the time being...I will post later on this week...Shalom U'vracha(peace and blessings)

[dizzle]

The begged question is highly relivent...as you do not want to answer it because it may bring the point you are making down and put it as a subject of opinion on what "truth" is....so continue dodging the question and dismiss it some more....I can forsee that The question is not relevant to reality. I do not dispute with you that the two groups have a differing opinion on reality, and then once we have to decide for ourselves which is in fact true in reality, then we must deal with your question. But that is not the issue here. I have no dispute with your alleged begged question. I begin to wonder Eli if you even understand what a begged question is. My assertion on this thread has zero to do with your alleged begged question – I suggest that you are being diversive, and that is another fallacy in and of itself, it is called the red herring. You are raising a conundrum that is not yet relevant to this thread. It may become relevant but it is not yet relevant at all.



We both agree that there is a truth that exists outside of ourselves. This has zero to do with our opinion. I have consistently asked the question for you to make an assumption as fact for the sake of argument and then answer a question. It was always couched in that manner either explicitly or implicitly throughout the context of this whole conversation unless you think I am so retarded that I think that I am going to trick you into admitting that Jesus is God.



The proposition has always been this – and I can move it outside the realm of our two respective beliefs. If Zeus is in fact the Creator of all thing, then He is the Creator of all things for everyone, it is not false for anyone that he is not, even if they don’t believe it.




True says christianity, false says Judaism...still beggin the question and still not answered... See above.




No I keep bringing things up that you refuse to answer because it may have an effect on your point...

I have already said that at the point of the conversation we are in, I agree with your point about opinions. I am dealing with objective reality. And I have to say now after these multiple points, and my insistence on this thread of getting the question answered, that perhaps you should frankly admit that you refuse to answer and not waste my time, because that is really what it is turning into. If you have no intention to answer it, when I have stated that the only participation I want on this thread is those willing to answer the question, then you should at this point admit you will not answer.



Now to your assertion that I have changed the parameters. You apparently have an issue seeing the difference between changing and restating and clarifying. My issue has always been the same. If there was room for misunderstanding before, then I own that readily, but with my clarifications there has been no room for misunderstanding, so let me address your assertions:




first the question and title of the this thread:

Do you think thread titles are meant for much more than a brief summary? The purpose was explained in the opening post and cannot be divorced of the context of the prior thread.




along withan emphasis only on what is true and what is not...http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...61&postcount=39 (http://showpost.php?p=666161&postcount=39) No mention of "in reality" or "subjunctiveness"

Patently false. Do you think words are magical Eli? If I say someone is ugly, and then later say I said they were unattractive, did I just change the parameters? Or did I use different words to express the same idea?



In the post you quoted I said I was dealingn not with opinions, but with FACT. That is exactly the same as saying “in reality” and which is perfectly clear in the flow of the conversation. Subjunctiveness was also implied in that I said “objective truths of central Christians claims” – meaning there are claims that are made that must be analyzed as to their consequences IF they are true. I certainly was not trying to trick you into apostasy by not implying that I was simply asking you to consider the claims objectively as to what they would imply if they were true now was I? Do you think that is reasonable Eli?




Then a shift in the focus moves from being about truth or what is true to what is true or not true in "Reality." Giving a whole new set of playing rules that is contained withing "reality"

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...96&postcount=43 (http://showpost.php?p=666196&postcount=43)

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...97&postcount=82[/quote (http://sh...97&postcount=82%5b/quote)]



False. Truth means truth in reality since my focus was ALWAYS objective truth claims, not subjective opinions. The question has always remained the same as the very first post you linked to. IF IN FACT these claims are true (fact means reality Eli) then there are implications of that.



[quote]
Now it becomes subjunctive:

It always was unless you are thinking I thought I could trick you into becoming a Christian. The question was always framed at least implicitly as IF certain things were true, then they are true for everyone. Everyone else but you has understood this. I think you should consider that.




just to be clear on the definition... So are we now moving from truths or Facts as earlier posts read.....to contingency or a possibility??? The subjunctive state in grammar is to say IF. IF so and so, THEN so and so. That has always been the issue. But we are still dealing with truth in that the subjunctive was IF the truth is so and so, then it is true for everyone. This has always been the case, unless you are thinking that I was trying to trick you into confessing Christianity, and not asking you to take something as true (the IF) merely for the sake of argument.



as it is on this end for you to not answer mine raised after the point was answered. This little game of dodgeball you are playing is quite amusing You never answered the question. And to accuse me of dodgeball is asinine. Please give a link to the post where you answered the question.




Who exactly is my bretheren???...Karaite pointed out only one point I may have contradicted myself other than that the only person that doesnt want to answer a question I posed is you.....I answered your question just not the desired answer you were looking for...

If you can point out a quote that says "eliyosef is evasive" I might hold your assertion of evasiveness as valid....and remember it has to be of "my bretheren" dont forget post numbers also.... Karaite is your brethren. He has pointed out your contradiction which is the very contradiction that is embodied here, only he substituted Messianic claims, for God-status. The foundation is exactly the same. And he continually affirmed the logical position I am proposing. If you would like a quote of where anyone says Eli is evasive, you are correct, I don’t have one, and I withdraw that portion. I believe it is implied with Karaite’s continued insistence on being fair with the facts, but there was not an explicit statement.





the overall moral of the story is...you just didnt understand it..

Irrelevant to this thread. We both know we have different conclusions, that was never in dispute.

Your question/assertion is that the two groups claim two different truths. I concede that. You ask how we can determine which is true - that is an entirely different thread and question. Unless you are denying there is a true reality - whether or not we can discover it - then you are able even affirming that the groups make two different claims to answer the question that IF the Christian claim that Jesus is God IS true, IF IT IS TRUE in reality, then it is not possible for it to be true in reality for just some.

[Jude3b]

I changed my mind about not starting a new thread - the advantages are enormous since the last one went everyu which way but loose with the excpetion of Jezz and Karaite.

I was asked to start a new thread and so I shall. The proposition is this. Eliyosef said that Christianity is true for Gentiles but not true for Jews.

Now I posit - as has the historic Christian faith - and I am sure Eliyosef would appreciate me not requiring him to conform to his faith's heretics, thus he should be fair and not posit that I conform to those who hold heretical views of "Christianity" - and I am explicitly requesting that views held by the heretics of my faith as defined by the denial of any tenet of the Apostle's Creed not be a part of this thread. Thus, this tenent is not up for debate. All orthodox Christians believe Christ is God. And that is where we MUST start. If Eli wishes to amend his statement and say that heretical Christianity is true for Gentiles and not for Jews that is fine. I have no horse in that race to argue with him. But if he is going to refer to what has been the historic faith, then he must deal with this issue.

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

This one point, which is basic logic, was refused to be conceded by Eliyosef. That is patently absurd. We can then get into what may follow from that proposition, but we must first start there.

So here is the new thread. And as thread starter I am in a position of demanding that this sole point be dealt with.

True Biblical Christianity is true for "Whosoever will!" That has the potential to include everyone, if they will say yes.

As the Word of God states: "The Spirit and the bride say, "Come Let each one who hears them say, "Come." Let the thirsty ones come - anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge." (Rev. 22:17)

Obviously some will not come. Many would rather "work" and be part of a
"works" religion. So, they will not come. But, it is available for everyone - all the "whosoever wills" of the world! Amen.

I pray that some of the lost on this tweb, will come, in Jesus' name. Amen.

[dizzle]

Jude I appreciate your sentiment but I have been very strict with all posters to stick to the proposition of this thread. Your post was a great Gospel presentation but that is not what this thread is for, at least not yet ;)

[Pitiricus]

True Biblical Christianity is true for "Whosoever will!" That has the potential to include everyone, if they will say yes.

As the Word of God states: "The Spirit and the bride say, "Come Let each one who hears them say, "Come." Let the thirsty ones come - anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge." (Rev. 22:17)

Obviously some will not come. Many would rather "work" and be part of a
"works" religion. So, they will not come. But, it is available for everyone - all the "whosoever wills" of the world! Amen.

I pray that some of the lost on this tweb, will come, in Jesus' name. Amen.
Well,Christianity wasn't and isn't true for Jews... Simple!

You quote a book that isn't canonical to Judaism, so for a Jew it has no value whatsoever.

As to coming, well sorry... My people has heard it for 200 years and consider it false... And no amount of preaching will change that...

This is the fundamental difference: the people that are waiting for the messiah have found Jesus not to be it!

So it remaisn true that Christianity isn't "true" for the Jews...

[dizzle]

I have once again reported this thread. I am hoping that the posters who have ignored my request to keep this on the narrow topic I have defined repeatedly will voluntarily delete their post. Eli may not be answering but at least he is acting like he is - this last exchange is not.

[Pitiricus]

The thread asks if Christianity is true for gentiles... All I said is that for Jews it isn't...


Given the discussion, it is germane to the subject!

[dizzle]

I am the thread starter O Hyper One. I have the right to narrow the focus which I have repeatedly. Learn the rules.

[Pitiricus]

In any discussion, you better hear both sides... I understand that Christians don't like to hear that in the eyes of Jews, Christianity is avoda zara (idolatry). BVut then if you don't want to hear it or discuss it, you basically do not want to discuss but to preach.

[dizzle]

reported again.

[Pitiricus]

reported again.
You seem to refuse the discussion and only want to report the posts ... So I don't see any use in further discussion...

DeeDee has asked you several times to either (1) stay on the topic of the discussion or (2) stop posting in this thread. If you don't like what she has to say, take to the Locker Room. DeeDee is the thread starter here and she wishes this thread to remain on topic.

[dizzle]

If you wish to deal with the narrow parameters of the thread thus far, post. So far you have not, but you have displayed some incredible ignorance and shown me you have not read the thread, which is not only ignorant but rude. Here is how:

I understand that Christians don't like to hear that in the eyes of Jews, Christianity is avoda zara (idolatry).
Shall I embarass you by showingn you where in the thread I insisted that such is the only consistent position that should be held by Jews regarding Christianity?

So try readngn the thread before posting just to hear yourself speech.
Edited becuase quoted post was edited

[Jude3b]

Well,Christianity wasn't and isn't true for Jews... Simple!

You quote a book that isn't canonical to Judaism, so for a Jew it has no value whatsoever.

As to coming, well sorry... My people has heard it for 200 years and consider it false... And no amount of preaching will change that...

This is the fundamental difference: the people that are waiting for the messiah have found Jesus not to be it!

So it remains true that Christianity isn't "true" for the Jews...

That's crazy!

It is true for those Jews that have Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. I've met some brothers from the group - Jews for Jesus - and most of them expressed a genuine love for Christ and I believe they are saved. If indeed they are - than Christianity is true for them.

Now, if "your people" don't accept the book of Revelation or any of the other books of the New Testament - is their loss. These books are still true and will always be true. God's Word will outlast this universe. Heavean and Earth will pass away, but the Word of God will stand forever.

I will pray that "your people" will stop being so stiff necked and be open to truth. God does love them, that is why He sent Jesus Christ to die for them -so that they to might be saved.

Have you believed on Christ for your salvation? Is He your personal Savior and Lord? Are you sure if you died today that you would go to heaven?

Off topic and the thread starter has already asked you kindly to stop.

[Anitra]

Your input in that manner is appreciated.
I will try to stay in the same vein, Dee Dee. :smile:The ideal and frank way is to take your claims and see if they can be true in my system.Dee Dee, it is a challenge to answer this without annoying you, but I will try. :smile:

I am going to have to describe a heretical viewpoint. I am not doing so to argue for heretical views, but to clarify that while the argument "Your religion may be true and valid for you" may be wrong, it is not dishonest.

If orthodox Christianity is true, then the only way for humans to know God is as God has revealed Himself in Jesus, and all claims to know God that deny that Jesus is God are false. For me to say that "Jesus is God" is false is also saying that the claim that "Jesus is the only way to know God" is false. And either Jesus is God, in reality, or Jesus is not God, in reality.

But if orthodox Christianity is false, then there is more than one way to know God, and one way may be valuable for some people while another way is valuable for other people. If orthodox Christianity is false, then creeds are all made up by humans as models for understanding God, just as mathematical systems are all made up by mathematicians as models for understanding the universe.

If orthodox Christianity is true, there is no way to be partly saved or partly damned, any more than you can be partly pregnant. There is no way to understand God partly correctly, but reject that Jesus is God, any more than you can try to step off a cliff and walk on air, and just be a little bit wrong.

But if the basic postulates of orthodox Christianity is wrong, then it may be possible to understand God partially correctly, and partially incorrectly, and we all do; it may be possible to be a little bit saved and a little bit damned, and we all are.

The parallel postulate is true in Euclidean geometry, and is not true in non-Euclidean geometry. Both Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry are consistent within themselves; both can be useful; and mathematicians regard both as just models for understanding a reality that is far more complex than either of 'em. Different mathematical systems are not "true" or "not true"; they are consistent with the axioms they stated with, or not. Mathematicians like systems that are useful, but it is not a requirement of mathematical proof.

To a liberal Christian, all religions are human; all are human models for understanding a reality which is much greater and more complex than any of our systems. If your system works for you, it works for you. That it is useful to you does not prove it true and that it is true would not prove that it was useful to anyone. There is more than one system that is consistent with the axioms it started with. Axioms cannot be tested or proved; you either accept them, or you do not accept them.

If orthodox Christianity is true, then it is a matter of life and death whether one accepts its axioms as true. The only way to be saved is through accepting as true the revelation of God in Christ. There is no "equally good and valid system."

And to say that that is not true is to say that you are wrong; that the basic postulates of your faith are wrong. From my viewpoint, for instance, the basic postulates of your faith are wrong.

From your viewpoint I cannot say that your basic postulates are in reality wrong, and also say that your basic postulates may be valid for you, without sounding like I am waffling. And from your viewpoint, there is no other viewpoint.

But from my viewpoint, I can honestly say that I think your basic postulates are in reality wrong, but that your worldview may still be right for you. From the viewpoint of any orthodox Christian, I am wrong; but even orthodox Christians are able to understand that although I am wrong, I am not being dishonest.

I am not trying to define your Christianity for you. But within my system, your Christianity is your model for understanding the universe, and my Christianity is my model for understanding the universe, and the universe is bigger and more complex than either of us understand. Within your system, my viewpoint is postmodernism and relativism and if I don't abandon it for orthodoxy my soul is lost. Within your system, to be wrong is to be damned. Within my system, you are wrong. But within my system, being wrong is just being wrong; it doesn't mean you are damned, it just means I disagree with you. Within my system, salvation means something entirely different than it means in your system, there is more than one way to salvation, and being saved has nothing to do with whether you live or die or are accepted or rejected by God. Within my system, you may understand God, the world, and everything entirely differently than I do, and that is just a matter of intellectual interest; what matters is what values you act on, because only in that can the spirit you relate to validly be identified.

It is as if I have two sons, and one of them has a perceptual difficulty and persisted in seeing me as a large blue fish. He has all kinds of crazy ideas; he thinks he is a flying elephant and a reincarnation of a dodo bird. But he is a sweet and loving child and his wild ideas do not interfere with his rationality in daily life or his ethical relations with other people. He loves me dearly even though he thinks I am a large blue fish. I might turn him out of the house and disown him if he began kidnapping small children to roast and eat them like peanuts, but I do not turn him out of the house and disown him because he has wild ideas and a peculiar way of seeing me.

That is the way I see things. I know that it is not the way that you see things. I know that from your viewpoint I am wrong. But I hope I can make you understand that I am not being dishonest, or waffling. Neither is Eli or the others.

Within your system, I am wholly wrong. But within my system, you are partially right.

[Anitra]

I understand that Christians don't like to hear that in the eyes of Jews, Christianity is avoda zara (idolatry).This isn't fair, Pitriclus. Dee Dee understands quite clearly -- more clearly than many Christians -- that from the viewpoint of Judaism saying that "Jesus is God" is to blaspheme the One God. It is to practice idolatry, and therefore to violate the very first of the Noachide laws. A Christian who believes that Jesus is God cannot, then, be a Righteous Gentile.

What is at debate is not whether Jews regard Christianity as false or Christians regard Judaism as false. It is whether someone, especially a Jew, who does not believe that Jesus is God, can honestly say that a Christian who does believe Jesus is God is following God in a way that is valid for them, and can therefore be a righteous person.

There are liberal Jews and non-liberal Jews, just as there are liberal Christians and non-liberal Christians. There are liberal Jews who regard me as a Righteous Gentile. There are, however, conservative Jews who do not.

The seven universal laws:
Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.
Birchat HaShem: Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of G-d.
Shefichat Damim: Prohibition on murder.
Gezel: Prohibition on robbery and theft.
Gilui Arayot: Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations.
Ever Min HaChay: Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live animal.
Dinim: Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to enforce the other 6 laws.

I consider it the proper role of social law to protect the equal rights and well-being of all people, therefore legal enforcement of the prohibition on murder, robbery, and theft is valid. I regard sexual relations as immoral and forbidden when they violate the rights and dignity of others, are cruel or exploitive, are irresponsible; I consider it valid to enforce social laws against such immorality as that. I think our duty to be just and respect the independent purposes of other living beings extends, to at least some extent, to nonhuman animals; forbidding cruelties such as removing and eating a limb from a live animal are then validly enforced by social law. These laws are acceptable to liberal and conservative, theist and atheist.

I do consider idolatry and blasphemy to be forbidden, but I do not consider such morality to be validly enforced by social law, because it does not transgress on the rights and well-being of other persons. I consider freedom of conscience, freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of religious practice to be essential to an individual making their own soul, finding their own relationship with That to which we are all equally and totally subject. For humans to enforce laws against idolatry and blasphemy against each other would lead to us imposing our own limited and human views of That upon each other. That would be idolatry and blasphemy. :smile: It is spiritual humility to remember that the One far exceeds our human conceptions and images. There is no validity in any human being enforcing our finite and fallible concepts and images upon any other human being.

That position is acceptable to liberal theists and secular non-theists, but it is not acceptable to conservative Jews any more than to conservative Christians or conservative Muslims. To a conservative monotheist, the liberal separation of church and state is way overdone.

The only laws regarding blasphemy and idolatry that both liberal and conservative, theist and non-theist, can accept are 1) that no person defame or attack the religious symbols of another, and that 2) governmental authority, the power of social law, is not invested in any set of religious symbols, and does not endorse any set of religious symbols as being more valid than another. It is not legal, for instance, for Catholics to place a statue of the Madonna in the county courthouse; but neither is it legal for non-catholics to vandalize a statue of the Madonna on, say, a Catholic headstone, or for the state to order all religious monuments destroyed.

In a strict conservative interpretation of the Noachide laws, however, if premarital sex is deemed immoral it should be illegal, and if homosexuality is deemed immoral it should be illegal, and cursing, using the name of God in vain, should be illegal, and if to say "Jesus is God" is idolatry, it should be illegal. Puritan Massachusetts may have had a legal system acceptable as righteous by the Noachide Laws, but the United States Supreme Court would find three-sevenths of it unconstitutional today.

Conservative Judaism and conservative Christianity may regard each other as totally wrong and damned, but they are more similar to each other than either is to liberalism. Liberal Christians and liberal Jews have more in common with each other than either do to the conservatives of their own faith. Liberal theism can accept conservative theism as just one of the many human models of understanding and relating to That Which Is, valid and useful for those who find it valid and useful. Conservative theism, however, cannot accept liberal theism as just one of the ways to understand God, because within conservative theism there IS no other way to understand God. You either accept God as God has revealed Himself or you are rejecting God.

A liberal Jew may then be honest in saying to a conservative Christian, "I do not believe that Jesus is God, but believing so may be a valid way for you to approach God." A conservative Jew would not be honest in saying that; a conservative Jew, however, is not likely to say it. :smile:
Edited becuase quoted post was edited.

[Timothy Leary]

The thread asks if Christianity is true for gentiles... All I said is that for Jews it isn't...


Given the discussion, it is germane to the subject!

This is stupidity. If Christianity is true for the Gentiles, in the literal sense of the word "true" - being the "absolute truth" - then duh, it's true for the Jews. If Hinduism is true for the Gentiles, it's true for the Jews. If Zorastarianism is true for the Gentiles, It's true for the Jews, It's true for the Cherokees, It's true for the Wahhibi, it's true for the Hopi, it's true for everyone if it's true!

That being said, let me re-affirm my position that Jesus is not the Messiah.
Edited becuase quoted post was edited.

[Timothy Leary]

Have you believed on Christ for your salvation? Is He your personal Savior and Lord? Are you sure if you died today that you would go to heaven?

:offtopic:

[Timothy Leary]

Anitra,

You may want to replace "Conservative Judaism" with "Jews who are conservative" or replace the word conservative with an alike word, because "Conservative Jews" and "Conservative Judaism" can fall in either the liberal or conservative category, but most I would place in the liberal category.

[dizzle]

This is stupidity. If Christianity is true for the Gentiles, in the literal sense of the word "true" - being the "absolute truth" - then duh, it's true for the Jews. If Hinduism is true for the Gentiles, it's true for the Jews. If Zorastarianism is true for the Gentiles, It's true for the Jews, It's true for the Cherokees, It's true for the Wahhibi, it's true for the Hopi, it's true for everyone if it's true!

That being said, let me re-affirm my position that Jesus is not the Messiah.
Well said Karaite. What I am asserting is simply common sense - the law of noncontradiction. It is not a trap or a trick. The fact that any would dispute this is a sad state of critical thinking skills (Anitra excluded because I still think and I don't have timem right now to respond to her - that she is barking a bit up the wrong tree and if we could focus on the right tree we would not be in disagreement or at least not in much)

[dizzle]

That's crazy!

It is true for those Jews that have Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. I've met some brothers from the group - Jews for Jesus - and most of them expressed a genuine love for Christ and I believe they are saved. If indeed they are - than Christianity is true for them.

Now, if "your people" don't accept the book of Revelation or any of the other books of the New Testament - is their loss. These books are still true and will always be true. God's Word will outlast this universe. Heavean and Earth will pass away, but the Word of God will stand forever.

I will pray that "your people" will stop being so stiff necked and be open to truth. God does love them, that is why He sent Jesus Christ to die for them -so that they to might be saved.

Have you believed on Christ for your salvation? Is He your personal Savior and Lord? Are you sure if you died today that you would go to heaven?
Jude I asked nicely before, but please do not derail this thread.
Edited becuase quoted post was edited.

[Anitra]

You may want to replace "Conservative Judaism" with "Jews who are conservative" or replace the word conservative with an alike word, because "Conservative Jews" and "Conservative Judaism" can fall in either the liberal or conservative category, but most I would place in the liberal category.I agree that it is confusing that the word "conservative" has so many different meanings, Karaite, but there are Orthodox Christians (members of the Eastern Orthodox church) and there are orthodox Christians, and the simplest way to distinguish which you are referring to is capitalization. Whatever words I use, there are going to be many times when one person or another refers to conservative Jews, as well as Conservative Jews.

There are people of the two following stances in, probably, every religion or non-religious philosophy. If you have a suggestion as to which words I could use for them other than "conservative" and "liberal", I would appreciate it.
Humans are not capable of knowing God through human senses and reason, but only through what God has revealed of Himself through (whatever the particular religion's revelation is.) If you do not agree with this revelation (and, usually, the speaker's own interpretation of the revelation) then you are disagreeing with God, rejecting God.
*
All human religions are human models of a reality that is bigger and more complex than any of them, just as all human scientific understandings are human models of a reality that is bigger and more complex than any of them. God can be experienced directly -- apprehended -- by anyone; comprehended, by no one. We all have our own individual concepts and images through which we relate to the Divine, and that is as it should be.
Edited to explain how this works out in non-religious philosophies, as well as religious ones:
There is only one valid way to understand {this}.
There is more than one valid way to understand {this}.
The latter is not postmodernism: postmodernism is the stance that there is no way to really understand whatever-it-is, so everybody should just go with whatever is "true for you". There is no there there, so the difference between difference descriptions of what is there are of no consequence.

Liberalism is the stance that there really is a there there, and we really can apprehend it and comprehend it, but that we do so in a limited and fallible way that will always continue to grow and improve. We will inevitably have different viewpoints, but this is a good thing, instead of a bad thing -- it keeps us thinking. We all, of course, believe that what we think is right, or we would be thinking something else. But we may be wrong, and the other fella may be right.

The type of conservatism I am talking about, which is sometimes called fundamentalism, is the stance that there really is a there there, and there is one tried and true way of understanding it, and it is a life-and-death matter that everyone agree with that, because it is the only way that works. Calling it fundamentalism can be as confusing as calling it conservatism. It could also be called authoritarianism, or absolutism. If anyone has a suggested term for it, I am open to suggestions.

[dizzle]

this is getting afield......

[Anitra]

this is getting afield......I apologize, Dee Dee.

[Menachem]

I withdraw my assertion that DDW was straying from the thread and Formally apologize to you(Dee Dee) for my accusation.

However I will answer all of the questions posed as I am now tired of playing Devil's advocate just to get my post count up and bring life to the Judaism section. Below are my honest answers to the questions posed....and if they are not the answers you are hoping for; well...Thats tuff doo doo...

"Is Christianity true just for Gentiles?"

Yes....for the simple reason we Jews have our own religion and our own traditions and we are told By G-d in the Torah not to stray from them...jesus strayed a bit from traditional Judaism...so we hold him in no esteem...

Judaism holds that while our path is only for Jews and those who wish to convert and become Jews, We are not as exclusive as christianity in that we recognize that rightous Gentiles have a place in Heaven; be they Muslim,Christian, or Confucian..etc..For example: the African Doctor who was a Shamen, Who worshipped more than one G-d but he was rightous in that he adhered to basic priciples found in both of our faiths "Love your neighbor as yourself" and according to Judaism has a place in heaven. This story is quoted at the bottom.

The historic Christian faith maintains the full deity of Christ. That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.

Judaism holds the deity of jesus to be false, according to Judaism, G-d is not a man, and man is not G-d... its as simple as that..

As for it cannot be true for one group and not true for another. This is shown to be false...For one, Judaism holds it not true...while christianity Holds it to be true....Which is why I brought up the Begged question..."Which one is right?"


Regardless of whether you worship the god of timbuktu or the god minuki, the god of the sex, drugs, and rock and roll. If you are one who fits the profile of particularly rightous, then according to Judaism you will be allowed into heaven. I will quote the story once more:

A doctor in africa who is of say of a native religion, a shamen or local holy man. He has devoted his whole life to helping others...he cared for them, nused others to health who were sick,poor and otherwise needy, donated his own time without pay 16, 18 and sometimes 20 hrs. a day just to help these people....He has all of his life been devoted to his traditional religion worshipping the god manooma the god of eternal hope and the god Nambasa the god of the eternal sun. .... He has never once heard of jesus or of Christianity and has no clue as to what it is about ....Then one day he catches a disease from a boy he was trying to aid and dies from it....

This guy devoted his whole life to the Jewish and Christian ideals of 'love your neighbor as yourself,' helped the poor, sick, and needy. This guy was a saint. Now, he goes up to the Heavenly Gates.

In my religion(Judaism) he is accepted and welcomed into heaven by G-d...


If it is in fact objectively true that Jesus is God, that would be objectively true for everyone

According to Judaism it is objectively false....see the begged question above..


BTW...thanks for helping me put life back in the Judaism section and upping my number of posts...Todah...

[{Tim}]

Sorry to butt in, but I just... can't... keep... quiet.... !!!
That is either in reality - true - or it is in reality false. It cannot be true for one group and not true for another.As for it cannot be true for one group and not true for another. This is shown to be false...For one, Judaism holds it not true...while christianity Holds it to be true....Which is why I brought up the Begged question..."Which one is right?"
:argh:
:argh:NO, NO, NO!
:argh:

Dee Dee has never said that "It cannot be believed to be true by Christians, and also not be believed to be true by Jews". She said that "it cannot be true for Christians, and not also be true for Jews"! Surely you can see the difference here??!

It is like saying "2 + 2 = 4". Either it is true or false. Now, maybe Dee Dee says that "2 + 2 = 5" (because she is bad at maths maybe? :tongue:), while I insist that "2 + 2 = 4". Obviously it is possible for me to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, at the same time as Dee Dee believes that 2 + 2 = 5. BUT, (and this is the important thing!), ONLY ONE OF US IS RIGHT!! If Dee Dee was right, then I would be wrong.

So:
"IF in reality I am right that 2 + 2 = 4, THEN that is true for everyone, regardless of what they believe.
Conversely, if Dee Dee is right and 2 + 2 = 5, then I am wrong, and it doesn't matter that I think 2 + 2 = 4, 'cos it isn't."



Can you see what I'm getting at here? Of course Jews and Christians disagree. But only one of us is correct (or possibly neither). IF JEWS ARE CORRECT, CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG. It is as simple as that. If Judaism is correct, then Christianity cannot be true for Gentiles, because it isn't true at all!

Please tell me that you understand this... :help:

Oh and btw I agree with you, Dee Dee :wink:

Tim

[dizzle]

Thank you Tim, you have stated it exactly. Now if Eli cannot deal with the question after this point, not an entirely different question over which I have no disagreement in principle with Eli, then unfortunately, and this is a conclusion only after going over this round and round I think, I have to conclude evasiveness, or severe lack of understanding of written communication.

I do not deny both groups believe certain things, and sincerely believe them.

However if there is "reality" that exists regardless of what we believe, then if Jesus is God in that reality, it is true for everyone. Conversely if Jesus is not God in that reality, that too is true for everyone - they may not believe it - and of course one of us doesn't believe reality for those are the only two options - God or not God - but that does not affect objective reality.

Eli, thank you for the apology. It is much appreciated.

[Timothy Leary]

Good post Eli.

[Menachem]

Good post Eli.

Todah Karaite.....:thumb:

[Menachem]

Thank you Tim, you have stated it exactly. Now if Eli cannot deal with the question after this point, not an entirely different question over which I have no disagreement in principle with Eli, then unfortunately, and this is a conclusion only after going over this round and round I think, I have to conclude evasiveness, or severe lack of understanding of written communication.

or I was playing and otherwise leading everyone to believe something and starting this big argument to do two things....Bring life into this section with participation from people who normally do not participate here and up my number of posts....this was the quick and easy way to do it..

I do not deny both groups believe certain things, and sincerely believe them.

I agree with you...

However if there is "reality" that exists regardless of what we believe, then if Jesus is God in that reality, it is true for everyone. Conversely if Jesus is not God in that reality, that too is true for everyone - they may not believe it - and of course one of us doesn't believe reality for those are the only two options - God or not God - but that does not affect objective reality.

In reality I say that jesus is not G-d....and you are right it does not change the reality that we have a difference of opinion on Who jesus is...Because in reality we will never agree on this..... And you are right this does not affect objective reality: :tongue:

Eli, thank you for the apology. It is much appreciated.

your welcome....

Dee Dee has never said that "It cannot be believed to be true by Christians, and also not be believed to be true by Jews". She said that "it cannot be true for Christians, and not also be true for Jews"! Surely you can see the difference here??!

To which I and every Jew who follows Judaism says the notion of jesus being , son of god, messiah...etc.. is false.

All the while according to Judaism, gentiles are not as restricted as we Jews are. Gentiles, according to Judaism, dont even have to believe in G-d to make it to heaven, all they(gentiles) have to do is uphold certain principles of rightousness(IOW not be evil people). So according to Judaism, what you are doing right now as a gentile will get you into heaven because we are not as exclusive as most christians are when it comes to religion or getting to heaven.

So, you and others being a member of the christian community and upholding the beliefs and precepts of the faith, and the beliefs of prayer to G-d and loving your neighbor as yourself and so on...etc.. makes it a very rightous gentile path according to Judaism...

The Torah specifically says for us(Jews) not to stray from the path that is: G-d and His Torah..We as Jews cannot be part of christianity nor hold its beliefs because in the eyes of the Torah it is leaving Judaism in search of Elohim Acharim(other gods)...

[Anitra]

Let's see if this helps:

R = Reality
RD = Dee Dee's model of reality
RE = Eli's model of reality

Jesus can be God in Dee Dee's model and not be God in Eli's model, simultaneously. But in R itself, Jesus can only be one or the other.

That seems clear to me. The only remaining point is whether the model that is wrong is still acceptable to God.

RC1 = Christians who are certain that only those who believe that Jesus is God are saved
RC2 = Christians who are certain that God knows who has submitted to Him in their heart, whatever their intellectual beliefs, and will reject none who love Him in spirit
RJ1 = Jews who are certain that calling Jesus God is idolatry, a violation of the first Noachide law, and that the One will accept none who do so
EJ2 = Jews who are certain that God know each person's heart and will judge on the basis of what values each has lived on, and will accept all who have acted in the love of truth and righteousness, even if they made an honest mistake about what was true

It remains that R is whatever it is no matter what any of us think about it, and God in reality either will or will not accept those who are wrong about whether Jesus is God.

Dee Dee's original contention, however, was that Jews who expressed the attitude of J2 (and Christians who expressed the attitude of C2, for that matter) were being dishonest, not having the courage of conviction, not saying what they really think. I hope this makes it clear that the opinion that those who believe other than we do are still acceptable to God as following what they believe to be the truth may be wrong, but it is honestly held. Just as the opinion that those who believe wrongly are not acceptable to God may be wrong, but it is honestly held.

My own question is -- is the covenant, Jewish or Christian, between man and man, or between man and God? It seems to me that if the covenant is between man and man, then men may determine whether or no it has been broken. But if the covenant is between man and God, then men cannot determine whether other people have broken the covenant. Each can only keep to what we individually understand to be the covenant between us and God; that is what we are responsible for, and that is what we will be held accountable to.

I think that is what Eli means, although the way he worded it may be confusing to some of us. Eli, please correct me if I understand you wrongly. What I think you mean is that what we each consider the covenant between us and God to be IS the covenant that we will be held accountable to. If a man believes that God requires him to raise blueberries all his life and never eat a strawberry, and he eats strawberries or abandons his blueberry farm while still believing that to be against the will of God, then he really has rebelled against God, in his heart -- even though there is in reality nothing either damning or salvific in blueberries and strawberries. If a man really loves God and loves his fellow men and acts accordingly, but really does not believe that God requires him to honor any particular day as the Sabbath, then he really is not rebelling against God in his heart when he does not honor the Sabbath -- even if in reality God really does require that.

By this reasoning, even if Jesus IS God, if a man truly thinks that to believe that conflicts with "God is One" and is idolatry, then he WOULD be committing idolatry to bow the knee to Christ, even though he would in reality be worshipping the true God, not an idol. If a man truly thinks that Jesus is God, then he will not be found guilty of idolatry even if it turns out that Jesus is not God.

"It is true for you" does not mean "it is, in objective reality, real because you believe it." It means "if you believe it, then it IS the covenant you are bound to."

I expect Dee Dee to come back with something like, "Ridiculous. If a man truly believed that killing and eating his neighbor was required by God, God would find him righteous for doing so? I don't think so!" :teeth: Well, I don't think so, either. But I think it would be judged unrighteous because of what the act was, not because of what the motivation of the act was. If the man believed that God required it of him, he would not be rebelling against God by doing the act. The nature of the act, however, would still be unrighteous.

That goes back, however, to the nature of the act of calling Jesus God, or failing to call Jesus God. Is it possible that God would say, "You truly believed you were following My covenant, and did not intentionally rebel against me. But you were wrong, and I cannot accept your actions as fulfilling the actual covenant."?

It sounds to me like Dee Dee's answer would be "Yes." That is why it is immensely important to her to convince people of what the actual covenant really is. And, perhaps, it is Karaite's opinion also. It is, at least, the opinion of some Jews.

It is my opinion that murder could not be accepted as righteous even if a man believed he was obeying God, but mis-identifying Jesus could be accepted as righteous if a man believed he was obeying God, because one is a physical act that causes material harm to humans, and the other is an intellectual idea. Even a three-year-old would be considered to have done morally wrong by deliberately killing another kid over a toy, ala the Bad Seed. But a three-year-old would not be considered morally wrong to make a mistake in theology.

I know that to Dee Dee and to other conservative Christians here, rejecting Christ is a lot more than "a mistake in theology." And what they believe may be so in reality. If I say that it is not so, I may be wrong. But I am not equivocating, or just trying to please everyone. I honestly believe that God must be worshipped in spirit, in the values that we act on, and that is extremely more important than intellectual ideas about God.

Whatever a man's intellectual beliefs, whatever his creed, if he is acting on the principles of love he is truly obeying the covenant required by God. Whatever a man's intellectual beliefs, whatever his creed, if he is not acting on the principles of love he is truly not obeying the covenant required by God. That is what I believe. I may be wrong, but it is what I honestly believe.

[dizzle]

Whoa! Again, going way afield. I am giong to go through the posts and see where we are at. Anitra I know what you believe is important to you, and I am not trying to disrepect that, but I realy don't want that introduced in this thread to this extent, in which I am trying to keep the focus between two defined points of view. So I am going to go through and try to refocus this conversation.

[dizzle]

R = Reality
RD = Dee Dee's model of reality
RE = Eli's model of reality

Jesus can be God in Dee Dee's model and not be God in Eli's model, simultaneously. But in R itself, Jesus can only be one or the other.

That seems clear to me. The only remaining point is whether the model that is wrong is still acceptable to God.
Okay that is where we are at. I do gotta ask that we not move into unorthodox Christian theology please.

But we are in agreement there. I think Eli was confusing truth with acceptable error.

[dizzle]

or I was playing and otherwise leading everyone to believe something and starting this big argument to do two things....Bring life into this section with participation from people who normally do not participate here and up my number of posts....this was the quick and easy way to do it..


If that is true, that is low and you wasted my time that could have been spent otherwise, and frankly IF that is true, I will be pretty peeved, and such is unethical toying.

I await your response as to the truth of that statement. Becuase that is trashy and wrong.

[Jude3b]

Jude I appreciate your sentiment but I have been very strict with all posters to stick to the proposition of this thread. Your post was a great Gospel presentation but that is not what this thread is for, at least not yet ;)

Ok Dee Dee, sorry. I misunderstood. Jude 3b

[heaven]

:ahem: I withdraw my assertion that DDW was straying from the thread and Formally apologize to you(Dee Dee) for my accusation.

However I will answer all of the questions posed as I am now tired of playing Devil's advocate just to get my post count up and bring life to the Judaism section. Below are my honest answers to the questions posed....and if they are not the answers you are hoping for; well...Thats tuff doo doo...



Yes....for the simple reason we Jews have our own religion and our own traditions and we are told By G-d in the Torah not to stray from them...jesus strayed a bit from traditional Judaism...so we hold him in no esteem...

Judaism holds that while our path is only for Jews and those who wish to convert and become Jews, We are not as exclusive as christianity in that we recognize that rightous Gentiles have a place in Heaven; be they Muslim,Christian, or Confucian..etc..For example: the African Doctor who was a Shamen, Who worshipped more than one G-d but he was rightous in that he adhered to basic priciples found in both of our faiths "Love your neighbor as yourself" and according to Judaism has a place in heaven. This story is quoted at the bottom.



Judaism holds the deity of jesus to be false, according to Judaism, G-d is not a man, and man is not G-d... its as simple as that..

As for it cannot be true for one group and not true for another. This is shown to be false...For one, Judaism holds it not true...while christianity Holds it to be true....Which is why I brought up the Begged question..."Which one is right?"


Regardless of whether you worship the god of timbuktu or the god minuki, the god of the sex, drugs, and rock and roll. If you are one who fits the profile of particularly rightous, then according to Judaism you will be allowed into heaven. I will quote the story once more:






According to Judaism it is objectively false....see the begged question above..


BTW...thanks for helping me put life back in the Judaism section and upping my number of posts...Todah...
Dear Eliyosef,

Could we approach this subject from the viewpoint of ongoing revelation of
G_D. The concept of the Messiah is purely jewish, and why, it is impossible to fulfill the law to stand before G_D.......Only one person has fulfilled the
prophecies of the Messiah and that is Yeshua. He was born a man of a virgen
in Bethleham, yet He worked such signs and wonders that the Israelites
believed Him to be sent by God, it was His Ressurection and Ascension into
heaven that pointed to more than being an anointed one, but possessing
Divinity. This is ongoing revelation...........................With the scripture
you quote and covenant you keep, you would not have this revelation. However, if you study the prophecies of his coming, more than 300, you
will note thqat Yeshua must be Messiah at the very least. The concept of
the Divinity within Yeshua was unexpected and awesome revelation.

Jesus said "If you believe in G_D, believe also in me".

[Timothy Leary]

And that is also a discussion for another thread.

[Sacrificial Ram]

:ahem:
Dear Eliyosef,

Could we approach this subject from the viewpoint of ongoing revelation of
G_D. The concept of the Messiah is purely jewish, and why, it is impossible to fulfill the law to stand before G_D.......Only one person has fulfilled the
prophecies of the Messiah and that is Yeshua. He was born a man of a virgen
in Bethleham, yet He worked such signs and wonders that the Israelites
believed Him to be sent by God, it was His Ressurection and Ascension into
heaven that pointed to more than being an anointed one, but possessing
Divinity. This is ongoing revelation...........................With the scripture
you quote and covenant you keep, you would not have this revelation. However, if you study the prophecies of his coming, more than 300, you
will note thqat Yeshua must be Messiah at the very least. The concept of
the Divinity within Yeshua was unexpected and awesome revelation.

Jesus said "If you believe in G_D, believe also in me".
Well, of course, Yeshua did not meet the Messanic requirements. The concept of god made flesh is very non-Jewish, and is not part of the
Jewish Messanic tradition. The concept of 'ressurction and ascention' of the messiah is not part of the jewish tradition.

So, this Yeshua fellow might be the messiah for the Christians, but he does not meet the requirements for the Messiah the Jewish people are looking for.

[Timothy Leary]

DDW, you ought to lock this thread. People are bound to hijack it...

[heaven]

Dear Karaite:

Wonderful information, I am already learning torah in so many ways and I like it.

The question is if christianity is for gentiles?.............................Christianity is for
everyone, jew and gentile.

So many jews are involved in occult, are atheistic or agnostic and beguiled by
New Age....The New Covenant is very powerful in setting the captives free and
bringing everyone to the God of the jews. Once an evil practice is engaged in or
serious sin.the hapless person is cut off, so to speak from the love of God and only
Yeshua paid the price to set anyone free.................."We wrestle not against flesh and blood but the powers and principalities, the rulers of darkness in the heavenly
places"(paraphrased)....This is a very powerful covenant.....Yeshua said "I am the way,
the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me"..............So, if one is a
prodigal, the way back is Jesus, the spiritual realm is a formidable foe.

Yeshua is the Word, the Torah, and He has ordained the Torah so that none will ever
want to stray.

[Timothy Leary]

heaven, i have not said anything other than you and sacrificial ram should not be arguing points that would be better suited to a new thread. Before it had died, DDW had tried hard to keep both sides of the argument on topic, and we ought to respect her wishes as she is the owner of this website.

[trube]

It is interesting to see this interplay. Christianity is a proselytizing religion and Judaism is basically not. Christians are commanded to go out and recruit people because there is no other way to God but theirs. Sometimes Christians have used quite forcible recruitment methods. Jews are told only their own way to God, and have no command to go out and persuade people to the Jewish way of thinking. There are some promises God makes about the descendents of Abraham becoming the rulers of many nations, and that Jews will be God's chosen people to bring God's word to the world, but no specific directions about how to do this except by example. As a result, the Christian tries to convert the Jew through reason, and the Jew tries to teach the Christian by example. Am I basically on-base here, Eli?

[heaven]

Christianity is a jewish sect, it has brought the God of Jacob to much of the world. The Israelites were baptized into Moses when crossing the Red SEa. There was not one that was sick among them and then were given the Torahand the Law to keep them spiritually
and physically healthy, , rules for right living and government.

Christians are baptized into Yeshua and He brings them to the same place.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Christianity is a jewish sect, it has brought the God of Jacob to much of the world. The Israelites were baptized into Moses when crossing the Red SEa. There was not one that was sick among them and then were given the Torahand the Law to keep them spiritually
and physically healthy, , rules for right living and government.

Christians are baptized into Yeshua and He brings them to the same place.
It might have started OUT as a Jewish sect, but when the brought in many more gentiles than Jewish people as converts, and brought the Gentile paganistic ideas, it ceased being a Jewish sect. This view include, but are not limited by, the concept of hell, of salvation, and of 'God made flesh'.

[dizzle]

heaven, i have not said anything other than you and sacrificial ram should not be arguing points that would be better suited to a new thread. Before it had died, DDW had tried hard to keep both sides of the argument on topic, and we ought to respect her wishes as she is the owner of this website.

Thank you K - I see that after Eli's really IMHO dirty trick, the topic has not really gotten any further. Since I opened this mainly to deal with Eli, and that conversation is over, rather than see my thread get hijacked for a bunch of other things (And Ram has been told multiple times not to post in it), I am requesting for the thread to be closed. You have been a gentleman.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Thank you K - I see that after Eli's really IMHO dirty trick, the topic has not really gotten any further. Since I opened this mainly to deal with Eli, and that conversation is over, rather than see my thread get hijacked for a bunch of other things (And Ram has been told multiple times not to post in it), I am requesting for the thread to be closed. You have been a gentleman.
It is a jewish thread, and I AM Jewish. I might be an athiestic Jew, but I AM Jewish.

Read the guidelines (here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15524)). This forum is for theists to discuss Judaism. You are not a theist, therefore you do not qualify. There are other forums where non-theists may post.

If you wish an exception to the rules to be made especially for you, then the polite thing to do is ask - not just assume that we will or that we ought to make an exception for you.

[dizzle]

First in this thread, I asked you not to participate. Second, this forum area is specifically only for theists. You are not a theistic regardless of your ethnic background. This is not a forum that speaks of ethnic Judaism but of religious Judaism and like all theistic areas of our forum, only theists are supposed to be participate. If you have further issue with that, take it up with the AA for this section, Jezz. If you wish to petition for an exception that is the route to take, not outright disregard.