| |||||||||||
| |||||||
| Important Notice |
| Philosophy of Religion The philosophical study of religious beliefs, doctrines, and history. Focused more on the whole and not any certain Religion.. What is God? Theology - study of nature of God and religious truth. Theology uses documents, philosophy uses reason. |
![]() |
| | | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| |||||
|
Messianic Jews do not believe in Jesus -- if they do they are generally called Christians. There are many messianic figures other than Jesus, of course. I just wonder how it is that you have confidence in any of your beliefs if you're making this kind of selective amalgamation out of two largely unrelated traditions (Christianity and Judaism parted ways a LONG time ago -- to call them related religions is basically an anthropological statement by this point). |
| |||||
| mes·si·an·ic also Mes·si·an·ic (měs'ē-ān'ĭk) Pronunciation Key adj.
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dustin For This Useful Post: | ||
| |||||
|
The thing that a Jew theologically can never understand about Christianity is how the messiah could have actually come to earth, revealed himself, died, and the world went on just as shitty as it had been before. The first coming of the messiah is part of Jewish eschatology; not so in Christianity, as the messiah already came once. So the Christian tradition requires a "second coming" in order to preserve an eschatologic tradition -- and that's pretty different than the messianic tradition in actual Judaism. So from the vantage point of a Jew, if a first appearance of a messiah isn't at the end of time, then how do you really know it's the messiah? How do you know he't not a false messiah? I mean why not follow Sabbatai Zevi or any other number of Jewish messianic claimants instead of Jesus? How do you decide? By the way, Judaism and Islam are MUCH more closely related in practice and in belief than Judaism and Christianity. Islam, of course, was not a branch of Judaism but it was an independent religion that arose among Arabs and identified very closely with Judaism (and to a lesser degree with Christianity); but the upshot is that Muslim culture and religion resemble that of Judaism much more so than either resembles Christianity. Part of the reason for this is historic -- Jews thrived in Muslim lands from the rise of Islam all the way up through the late 19th and early 20th century when Zionism and the fall of the Ottomans created great stress between them. There was a lot of mutual development and imitation. Christians treated Jews much worse, and in general European Jews were more covert. In other words Islam and Judaism have informed one another over centuries in a way that never happened with Christianity. Last edited by Aedes; 03-13-2008 at 10:16 AM. |
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aedes For This Useful Post: | ||
| |||||
| Quote:
Aedes are you sure about Islam? Think about it maybe they're practices are more similar but I think Christianity is more compatable. Think about it. Christianity uses mainly the new testament scripture Islam has the Quran. Christianity teaches loving G-d and others (although they fail practicing this through history) Islam teaches to hate Christians and Jews and to kill them whereas Chrsitianity says love your nieghbor Judaism says the same thing. Islam does not believe Yahshua is the Son of G-d so this is in common with Judaism, with that said I think Christianity and Judaism should be in harmony. And the reason why they differ so much in belief is because Christianity is based on belief so of course that being their main focus their beliefs are going to a lot more developed or scewed depending on the group of adherants. Judaism is based on practices not strictly beliefs but they both share the same text and universally no other religion does that. Does Islam share the same text? Now sure the two you mentioned are more closely related in practice and belief that's for sure no doubt. But the two I mentioned are more easily pliable since they split at one point with those who believed in Torah and those that didn't those who believed in the Son of G-d and those that didn't that separated Jew from Christian they is even such a thing as a Jewish-Christian or a Messianic Jew (pretty much same thing). So yes they are not the most closely related in practice and belief but if these two factors listed changed (Torah and Yahshua) if all the christians and jews agreed on these two points then they would all be in the same religion my point was to say this that the differences are close to none and Christianity and Judaism may be a far cry from each other in practice and belief but if they both agreed on these two points then it would all be apart of the same faith. that is why these two for me are the most closely related faiths because of the switch. The switch is if you are a Jew you believe in torah and not in Yahshua as Messiah and christianity you accept JC who's name is really Yahshua as messiah and deny torah. No matter how you look at it these two key componenants are what make the switch constant. Last edited by Israelite007; 03-13-2008 at 11:05 AM. |
| |||||
| Yes, I am sure. I've travelled widely in Muslim countries, I've had many Muslim friends, and I've studied the subject outside a vantage point of assumed religious superiority -- I wholeheartedly believe that a religion is as good or as bad as someone makes it, and I don't believe my religion is morally or practically superior to anyone else's. I'm not sure you'd be willing to say that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I know I'm mixing theology with history here, but it's important because we are here and now, and we got here somehow. So answer me this -- if these religions are so compatible and so close together, then why has one of the consistent and repeated projects in Christian lands, from late antiquity all the way up through Hitler, been to destroy the Jews? |
| |||||
| Quote:
Religions are compatible in that they teach fundamentally the same thing - love. They are incompatible the moment this is lost, in any tradition, in any time. |
| ||||
|
Aedes, you got me thinking again... I have always seen Judaism and Christianity as very related, and from a Christian perspective that makes a lot of sense because we believe we are building on the foundation of Judaism. BUT, from a Jewish perspective I can see how the two don't seem closely related at all, as Christianity essentially discontinued following almost all of Jewish tradition very early on. I guess I can see both points on this one, and it seems to me to be a matter of perspective... Personally I would see all of the Abrahamic faiths as related, some more closely than others of course. And I would tend to agree with Aedes that Islam and Judaism have more in common in modern times than Christianity has with either of them. (I would see this both in the practical traditions, and also somewhat in theological understandings.) And back to the begining of the thread: I understand Aedes rejection of the term, but "messianic Jews" is a commonly used expression, and I think Israelite007 was using it approprietly. I could find a better source if you want me to, but here's the first thing that popped up from Wikipedia: "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call by the Hebrew name Yeshua, is both the resurrected Jewish Messiah and their divinesavior." It also mentions that not everyone accepts the implications of the term... Quote:
I once read that, as you could judge the size of a boat that has passed out of sight by the size of it's wake, you can judge a person by their impact on history. Certainly his instant impact was limited due to His being one person in one place, and He never established the authoratative rule that we would expect. But, if you look at the broad strokes of history, He would certainly be in an elite class of individuals who had the biggest impacts. (And the fact that Jesus did this without political power is even more amazing.) I think it would be very hard to imagine the last 1500 years of western history without Him- including many of the shaping values and morals we so easily take for granted. Messiah or not, I don't think Jesus left the world as pathetic a place as it was before. |
| |||||
|
If you want to be practical about it, Jesus would probably have been completely lost to history were it not for Paul and for Constantine. I know that a presupposition of his divinity will argue against that, but I don't make that presupposition. And let's be honest, without Paul allowing all pagans direct access to Christianity, and without Constantine making Christianity the official religion of Rome, Christianity might never have made it anywhere. So who really had the bigger impact? Jesus himself? Or the people in power who institutionalized his tradition? You can similarly argue that Moses and Abraham exerted an even greater influence on history than Jesus. On the other hand, it's not clear that either one of them ever existed as historical figures. Homer was one of the most influential of all authors, and yet it's clear that he never existed as a single individual. The same controversy goes for Lao Tzu, who may not have actually ever lived. So are these towering influential figures of antiquity influential in their own right? Or is it more accurately the tradition that others carry forth in their name that one can call influential? There have certainly been many messianic figures in the history of Judaism. From the mainstream Jewish perspective they're all theologically irrelevant, and from the Christian perspective all but one of them are irrelevant. Secondly, the world did change after Jesus death, but it's hard to argue that it was saved in any sense in some eschatalogic, messianic way. Consider for a moment what happened to Rome after its conversion to Christianity -- in fact just within a couple centuries. It completely disintegrated and collapsed, it suffered a massive plague and population drop, it crumbled at its borders, and it went through a succession of inept, corrupt, short-lived rulers during a truly meteoric collapse. It's no wonder that Gibbons (author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the first great historian of the period) attributed its fall in large part to the influence of Christianity (though this view has been criticized). Last edited by Aedes; 03-14-2008 at 12:29 AM. |
| The following users say: THANK YOU - Aedes for the above post! | ||
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| De Omnibus Dubitandum Est, Or the Curse of Philosophy | Victor Eremita | Epistemology | 3 | 08-26-2008 10:00 PM |