Questions for Christians re: Judaism and how Christianity came to be (spin off) - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 305 Old 09-17-2006, 11:38 AM
 
Janelovesmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: with water bugs.
Posts: 2,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And to add in regards to Isaiah 53, the interpretation of Isaiah 53 that refers to Israel is really a recent one. The first one to expound this view was Shlomo Yizchaki (Rashi), and it was followed by David Kimchi. But it was contrary to all rabinic teachings of that day and of the preceding one thousand years. Today, however it's a dominant view amongst rabbinic theology.
But this goes against a thousand of years of ancient rabbies concluding that Isaiah 53 speaks of no-one but the Messiah.

http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html
Janelovesmax is offline  
#122 of 305 Old 09-17-2006, 11:49 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think you should discount Rashi so blithely.
DaryLLL is offline  
#123 of 305 Old 09-17-2006, 02:33 PM
 
Janelovesmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: with water bugs.
Posts: 2,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
I don't think you should discount Rashi so blithely.
huh? Who is discussing Rashi "blithely". Are you serious?

I have all the respect in the world for him! Why would I do that? But that doesn't mean that everyone 100%agreed with his commentaries.
I don't get it, why would you say that?
Janelovesmax is offline  
#124 of 305 Old 09-22-2006, 05:08 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Christ did not only fulfill scripture regarding the messiah, he surpassed it and radically re-presented it.

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#125 of 305 Old 09-22-2006, 05:22 PM
 
MyLittleWonders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Always learning something new.
Posts: 8,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How do you figure? What do you use as your proof-texts? There are some *very* key things the messiah must do that Jesus came no where near close ... and there are some things that he *did* do that aren't part of the package or even allowed (human sacrifice being one; worship of the messiah and not God Himself being another).

 Me + dh = heartbeat.gif ds (7/01), ds (11/03), ds (6/06)
and dd born 11/21/10 - our T21 SuperBaby ribbluyel.gif heartbeat.gif
MyLittleWonders is offline  
#126 of 305 Old 09-22-2006, 10:51 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders View Post
How do you figure? What do you use as your proof-texts? There are some *very* key things the messiah must do that Jesus came no where near close ... and there are some things that he *did* do that aren't part of the package or even allowed (human sacrifice being one; worship of the messiah and not God Himself being another).
Christ fulfills the law... here as in the Catechism: it is best to read the full link in the Catechism but below is a bit of the meat:
(the numbers are paragraph numbers--like page numbers)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

II. THE OLD LAW

1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.

1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18

III. THE NEW LAW OR THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19

1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:

If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one's life.20

1967 The Law of the Gospel "fulfills," refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the "kingdom of heaven." It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the "Father who sees in secret," in contrast with the desire to "be seen by men."24 Its prayer is the Our Father.25

1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between "the two ways" and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets."27

The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.28

1971 To the Lord's Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord's teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30


I think the point is that Christ re-directs us to human being as opposed to texts--Love the Lord you God as yourself, and love your neighbor as yourself... otherwise you get bogged down in the law Book of Leviticus style...

Christ does not worship himself, but His Father in Heaven... no where in scripture does Christ worship himself--even in the paramount prayer the Pater Noster--it is all about the Father. Even as he suffered on the cross, and folks yelled at him to get down off the cross and save himself, he never did--even though he had the power to heal and forgive sin, making people complete.

And this is the point. Christ does not come as the Messiah perfectly according to the letter of any text (and anyone who has studied literature knows that most of the text is known according to the reader--or that the meaning abides in the reader and is therefore difficult to agree on what a text is saying). Otherwise he would have been more widely recognized as the Christ than by a few poor women and some fishermen... But one has to not 'read' Christ to recognize him as the Saviour, but rather abide with him.

I think if you are looking at a checklist instead of BEING--a prescence, sure, the Messiah will never come.

I'll address the human sacrifice aspect latter...

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#127 of 305 Old 09-24-2006, 05:04 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Where in the jewish sources did christians find the messiah-will-be-god thing?

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#128 of 305 Old 09-25-2006, 05:02 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As Catholics we look to the story of Abraham and Isaac, as one example (not necessarily that the Messiah would be God, but rather, that--inorder to reconcile humanity to Himself, God would have done to Him what he could never ask of man--this is the depth of love that God the Father has for Humanity...)

and this is pretty pointed, it is the fourth paragraph down:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm

Special importance attaches to the prophetic description of the Messiah contained in Daniel 7, the great work of later Judaism, on account of its paramount influence upon one line of the later development of Messianic Doctrine. In it the Messiah is described as "like to a Son of Man", appearing at the right hand of Jahveh in the clouds of heaven, inaugurating the new age, not by a national victory or by vicarious satisfaction, but by exercising the Divine right of judging the whole world. Thus, the emphasis is upon the personal responsibility of the individual. The consummation is not an earth-won ascendancy of the chosen people, whether shared with otter nations or not, but a vindication of the holy by the solemn judgment of Jahveh and his Anointed One. Upon this prophecy were mainly based the various apocalyptic works which played so prominent a part in the religious life of the Jews during the last two centuries before Christ. Side by side with all these prophecies speaking of the establishment of a kingdom under the sway of a divinely-appointed legate, was the series foretelling the future rule of Jahveh himself. Of these Is., xl, may be taken as an example: "Lift up thy voice with strength thou that bringest good tidings to Sion: lift it up, fear not. Say to the cities of Juda: Behold your God. Behold the Lord your God himself shall come with strength and his arm shall rule." The reconciliation of these two series of prophecies was before the Jews in the passages--notably Ps. ii and Is., vii-xi--which clearly foretold the Divinity of the promised legate. "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"--titles all used elsewhere of Jahveh Himself (cf. Davidson, "0.T. Prophecy", p. 367). But there seems to have been little realization of the relation between these two series of prophecy until the full light of the Christian dispensation revealed their reconciliation in the mystery of the Incarnation.

As Catholics we believe that the revelation that the Messiah is both completely Human and Divine in nature (the dual nature of Christ) as the part of revelation that exceeds--that goes beyond--anything previously revealed. It totally blows the mind, in other words. Thus we believe that Christ Jesus not only fulfills the Law, but surpasses every possible human expectation. God can do that, right?

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#129 of 305 Old 09-25-2006, 05:30 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post
As Catholics we look to the story of Abraham and Isaac, as one example (not necessarily that the Messiah would be God, but rather, that--inorder to reconcile humanity to Himself, God would have done to Him what he could never ask of man--this is the depth of love that God the Father has for Humanity...)
God prohibited human sacrifice forever, but then reinstated it.

Quote:

As Catholics we believe that the revelation that the Messiah is both completely Human and Divine in nature (the dual nature of Christ) as the part of revelation that exceeds--that goes beyond--anything previously revealed. It totally blows the mind, in other words. Thus we believe that Christ Jesus not only fulfills the Law, but surpasses every possible human expectation. God can do that, right?

Actually demi-gods, and/or dying and rising god/desses, had been common in "pagan" theologies for approx 3,500 yrs before Daniel was written. The NT authors were not recording, IMO, a further revelation from YHWH, but syncretizing Greek ideas with Jewish.
DaryLLL is offline  
#130 of 305 Old 09-25-2006, 10:37 PM
 
Janelovesmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: with water bugs.
Posts: 2,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
Where in the jewish sources did christians find the messiah-will-be-god thing?
Hi BelovedBird,

This is just our humble explanation of this. I'm not saying that we are 100%right, but respectfully just some things:

Isaiah7:14
In this chapter King Ahaz is under threat of attack. It's a threat to the whole House of DAvid. Through Isaiah God tells King Ahaz to not be afraid. Two reasons are given: first sign, in verse 13 and 14 that no attempt to destroy the House of DAvid will succeed until the birth of a virgin-born son. (The whole virgin thing is controversial, I can elaborate if you want to). The second sign in verses 15 and 16 are given to Ahaz personally and have to do with Isaiah's son Shear-Jashub.
This verse shows that Messiah will be born of a virgin-birth.
Isaiah9:6
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us: And the government will rest on His Shoulders, And His Name will be Called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Now I don't know Hebrew so I can only say that this is what I know. "Mighty God" - El-Gibbor never used of a mere man.

"Mighty God" is also found in the next chapter of Isaiah.

Jeremiah 23:5-6
"Behold the days are coming" declares the Lord "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. "In His Days Judah will be saved. And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His Name by which He will be called the Lord our righteousness" NASB
In verse 6 this man is given a name which is applicable to God alone - YHVH.

Zechariah 12:10
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom the have pierced and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first born".
The Messiah is rejected by the Jewish leadership and it is an absolute prerequisite of his Second Coming that Jewish leaders should repent of their original rejection ask God for his return and. This verse (I believe) describes the grief which one day will be experienced by Jewish leaders over the death of Messiah at the his first coming.

So this is our interpretation granted, it's debateble, but just my 2 cents.
Clearl
Janelovesmax is offline  
#131 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:05 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
God prohibited human sacrifice forever, but then reinstated it.




Actually demi-gods, and/or dying and rising god/desses, had been common in "pagan" theologies for approx 3,500 yrs before Daniel was written. The NT authors were not recording, IMO, a further revelation from YHWH, but syncretizing Greek ideas with Jewish.
Christ is not just human (but also Completely divine in nature) and was put to death as punnishment by a political order--he wasn't killed by God, his Father, but rather by romans as demanded by pharisees.


The Law forbids the body modification as well (Lev. 19:28), and yet circumcision is a Covenant--I just put that out there as another example of God changing his relationship with humanity which appears to be contradictory, but He is actually perfecting/advancing his relation with us. We esteem Christ as the final and perfect Covenant.

If Christianity was just another re-hash of a pagan myth why was pagan society so threatened by Christianity? Why did Christians seem so alien and threatening? Perhaps you, with your contemporary understanding of the ancient world see "Christ as nothing more than...," but I think history presents a different picture. Even Justin Martyr (early Church Father) in DEFENSE of Christianity at the time used a similar argument to defend Christians from being put to death for practicing their religion--he said how is our God radically different from Zeus' children? He continues to explain that Christians do not worship some material idol, but rather the immaterial and perfect (along the lines of platonic thought). And yet Christians were killed for their belief, so for Christianity to be a mere syncretizing of Greek ideas with Jewish seems to overlook the essentials of Christianity and reduce its radical nature away.

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#132 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:18 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post

The Law forbids the body modification as well
No it doesn't.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#133 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:26 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
beloved bird,
it is my understanding that the law forbids any markings or cutting of the body:

book of L:
19:28. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead: neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks. I am the Lord.

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#134 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:31 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post
beloved bird,
it is my understanding that the law forbids any markings or cutting of the body:

book of L:
19:28. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead: neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks. I am the Lord.
Because you ignore the "for the dead" thing? : Anyway, don't take anything about "the law" from a translation of a translation.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#135 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:47 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post
Christ is not just human (but also Completely divine in nature)
Yes, half human/half divine, just like many a pagan demi-god or hero. Some gods could even be half god/half animal. Or a god as well as a planet, the sun, the moon, a tree, a vine, the sea.

Quote:
and was put to death as punnishment by a political order--he wasn't killed by God, his Father, but rather by romans as demanded by pharisees.
It was his father's will from before time that he die, acc to the NT. God used the Romans and Jews as tools for his plan. Acc to the book.


Quote:

If Christianity was just another re-hash of a pagan myth why was pagan society so threatened by Christianity?
It wasn't particuarly. Contrary to popular belief, the persection of C'ians was spotty and relatively brief. The Roman Empire was threatened by the worship of any god outside their pantheon, b/c it had a state religion. It was unpatriotic and seditious to worship another pantheon. Just politics.

Quote:

Why did Christians seem so alien and threatening?
They didn't seem alien particularly. The leaders of both sides were fully aware of the similarities. Their movement was small and a fringe element for a good while. However, it appealed to the masses b/c of its original focus on the poor and marginalized members of society (as opposed to heads of state, and the emperors, sanctioned as sons of Zeus). When the movement became big enough, it was legalized by Emperor Constantine, and from then on, money was poured into it, making the bishops very wealthy men and the new church buildings very grand. C'ianity was also codified and no longer were all C'ians persecuted, just the "heretics." Ironic on both counts.

Quote:
Perhaps you, with your contemporary understanding of the ancient world see "Christ as nothing more than...," but I think history presents a different picture. Even Justin Martyr (early Church Father) in DEFENSE of Christianity at the time used a similar argument to defend Christians from being put to death for practicing their religion--he said how is our God radically different from Zeus' children?
Right.

Quote:
He continues to explain that Christians do not worship some material idol, but rather the immaterial and perfect (along the lines of platonic thought). And yet Christians were killed for their belief, so for Christianity to be a mere syncretizing of Greek ideas with Jewish seems to overlook the essentials of Christianity and reduce its radical nature away.
Again, the Romans did not invent religious intolerance. You could worship Isis in the morning and Athena in the afternoon. It was the insistence on monotheism by C'ians and Jews that was the sticking point. (Altho the idea of the Trinity does muddy the waters of C'ianity'sd idea of itself as monotheistic quite a bit, as UUs, Jews and Muslims point out. )

As for "idol worship," the use of statues, icons, relics, holy places such as the Via Dolorosa and the Sepulchre etc, in C'ianity, is actually right in line with the use of idols and images in other religions.
DaryLLL is offline  
#136 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 01:59 PM
 
mommaduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of the Rappin' Buggies
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1) Christians view Christ as fully human/fully Gd. Meaning Gd chose to place part of HIMSELF in the flesh (not just a spawning of another creature)

2) On the Trinity, in the beginning Gd says "Let US make man in OUR own image" In the Shema, the term for "one" shows a unity. This is not "3 gods", this is differing parts of one Gd...difficult to explain.

3) There are many segments of Christianity that do NOT use statues, icons, relics, or holy places in their worship and in fact forbid it. Those items did not come into being until later in Christianity when the Church started using pagan things to bring in pagans. On the flip side some have pointed to the items in the temple as similar to their use of icons (images of cherubims and seraphims, etc).

4) on the Levitical passage, it is as BelovedBird said...it had to do in the context of pagan practices for the dead. This does not mean they can't pierce their ears or other such...two separate issues.

I would like to see the thread continue as to the original question, not an attack at the Christian faith.

Orthodox Mama
mommaduck is offline  
#137 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 02:33 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaduck
I would like to see the thread continue as to the original question, not an attack at the Christian faith.
I am not attacking, I am debating. I do not appreciate your slander of me expressing my POV from a historical critical stance as an attack. I am addressing the OP, how C'ianity came to be. MY POV is that it is a syncretization of 1st century Judaism and Greek pagan mystery religions.

Quote:
1) Christians view Christ as fully human/fully Gd. Meaning Gd chose to place part of HIMSELF in the flesh (not just a spawning of another creature)
I did not say he "spawned another creature." Please do not put words in my mouth.

Quote:
2) On the Trinity, in the beginning Gd says "Let US make man in OUR own image" In the Shema, the term for "one" shows a unity. This is not "3 gods", this is differing parts of one Gd...difficult to explain.
This is an odd one, isn't it? Elohim is plural. Some say it is the "royal we."

It is difficult to understand the Trinity. It just always ends up sounding like polytheism to me. Esp as I know the common symbol for the goddess at the time of the writing of the NT was a dove. To me, it makes sense that the Holy Pneuma/dove was the mother of Jesus.

(Many children are confused about a family consisting of 3 males and no mum.)



Quote:
3) There are many segments of Christianity that do NOT use statues, icons, relics, or holy places in their worship and in fact forbid it. Those items did not come into being until later in Christianity when the Church started using pagan things to bring in pagans.
Source? The movement was always focused on Gentiles. Paul spoke to former pagans and Acts presents the evangelising to Greeks as well. If statues were not used early on, it may have just been because they couldnt afford them until Constantine started pouring money into the church in the 4th century.

Quote:
On the flip side some have pointed to the items in the temple as similar to their use of icons (images of cherubims and seraphims, etc).
Agreed.

The Torah say cherubim stood atop the Ark, were carved into the doors, and the walls of the temple were adorned with them. Some Jewish lit says the cherubim atop the Ark were even entwined in a marital embrace.

Not sure about the seraphim however.
DaryLLL is offline  
#138 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 03:05 PM
 
mommaduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of the Rappin' Buggies
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DaryLLL, I wasn't being slanderous, nor was I pointing at you specifically. I was simply wanting to make certain of the heart here. There is tons of comparing Christianity to paganism which is/could be offensive to many Christians. I have seen comparisons between Judaism and paganism before (similarities) and I know that that would be/could be offensive to the Jewish ppl here. We have turned from how we get Christianity out of Judaism to how there is pagan similarities in Christianity.

Yes, the triangle was a symbol for a pagan goddess...the triangle itself is not forbidden. In fact, do not the Jewish ppl make "cakes" of some sort in this shape? And yet, the OT refers to them making cakes to the "queen of heaven", a pagan identity...it's not the shape or the cake that is the offense, it's the use. We are using it to describe a 3-in-1...one being, three aspects/personas, our understanding of Gd's personal being...not a pagan deity.

The "royal we"...even when I've heard the royal we used, it's always been with an inclusion of authority. ie., the forced bra thread...the teacher was trying to make the we sound as though it was a combined authority, not just her (even though in reality it was just her...another matter...LOL). I'll have to go look more on the "One" in the Shema. I have never heard of it as a "royal we"...thanks...more to chew.

Some of the apostles were reaching out towards the Jewish ppl and some were reaching out to the Gentiles. Paul specifically was reaching to the Gentiles. Matthew, Mark, and John were reaching to the Jewish ppl.

You don't want to get me started on Constatine...I don't have alot of fuzzy feelings for the man. I personally believe he "used" Christianity for his own purposes...and thus, yes, we ended up with alot of issues (political) within the church for a huge chunk of history. One of the reasons the Reformation happened...to break away from that.

Orthodox Mama
mommaduck is offline  
#139 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 06:08 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Really quickly (I'm supposed to just be looking up recipes!)--I haven't been offended by anything said and hope I haven't offended anyone with my assertions. I am enjoying this exchange a lot and think it is really helpful for people to understand what they believe.

Beloved Bird, forgive me for the poor translation, but am I correct in understanding that Hebrew people (I understand that this is a diverse bunch, just as Christians are not a very unified group these days) for the most part object to any tattooing or cutting, piercing, etc. of the body as the body is sacred and created in the image and likeness of God? Am I totally off on this?

Daryll, I just wanted to add also that pagans weren't like some organized, unified group--they were quite a diverse bunch (as you hint to, but then seems to also present them as a sacred group or pantheon and thus an 'organized religion...'. Romans followed what every god displayed power or was effective--thus Constantine's conversion wasn't a true conversion, per se, but rather he saw that this new god of the Christians was effective in winning so it must be the most powerful now--kind of a weird pragmatism... Contrast this with the conversion of St. Augustine--an individual who sought and sought thruth and experienced a heartfilled conversion with a very deep understanding of the Catholic faith (and then went on the shape this Catholic faith profoundly as a result of his seeking and personal integrity).

I think that forms pf platonism contained a philosophical flavor of monotheism and thus do not see how the monotheism of Chatholicism itself was a threat to the ancient 'status-quo.'

And as one last off topic side, I have studied modern Hebrew language and a a great love although limited (now) grasp of the language. I do agree that much harm is done by having poor understanding of the real depth of language. I was amazed at how much meaning is packed into even the simplest words--unlike latin, which is a very effective language for being specific but lacking in the mysticism of Hebrew or Greek, even.

Edit: and I forgot to add what I orignially wanted to post, that this new Coventant of Christ in no way replaces or diminishes the Coventant with the Hebrew people or that the Hebrew people are the chosen people. There is a beautiful essay by Léon Bloy called Salvation is from the Jews which asserts that one cannot escape that the salvation of the world through Christ's blood (Catholic belief) is essentially and always Jewish blood. I wish I could find a good english translation...

So, I am off to find something to do with a box of swiss chard, but will be back for further dialogue .

Pace,
Carmel

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#140 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 07:57 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post

Beloved Bird, forgive me for the poor translation, but am I correct in understanding that Hebrew people (I understand that this is a diverse bunch, just as Christians are not a very unified group these days) for the most part object to any tattooing or cutting, piercing, etc. of the body as the body is sacred and created in the image and likeness of God? Am I totally off on this?
Who are the hebrew people? If you mean jews (or judaism). No, only tattooing is forbidden, but not from that verse. Cutting? Like hurting yourself? That would be out from "neshmartem meod es nafshosechem". Piercing? Nope. Not at all a problem. Did you forget that the matriarchs had piercing as cited in numerous places?

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#141 of 305 Old 09-26-2006, 09:32 PM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
Did you forget that the matriarchs had piercing as cited in numerous places?
So OT, but this is the reason I got my nose ring.
mamaverdi is offline  
#142 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 09:34 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaduck View Post
DaryLLL, I wasn't being slanderous, nor was I pointing at you specifically. I was simply wanting to make certain of the heart here. There is tons of comparing Christianity to paganism which is/could be offensive to many Christians.
mommaduck, I rechecked the OP. It says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy
I'd like to know exactly how you came to understand, from the scriptures, that Jesus was in fact the Messaiah. Reading the scriptures in Hebrew, and even reading Jewish translations, there are many, things which prove, flat out, that he couldn't possibly have been Moshiach. Isn't Christianity ostensibly based on the fact that Jesus was the Jewish Moshiach? If so, wouldn't he then have had to meet the requirements laid out for Moshiach in the Tanach in order to be Christ? I'm asking an honest question here, one to which I do not understand an answer. Is it something within the scriptures that leads you to believe this, or something without?
So, obviously, I am pointing out where the originators of C'ianity got the idea of a dying and rising salvation god. They didn't get it from the (proto-) Judaism of the day (altho earlier Hebrews worshiped Tammuz, a god of this type). They got it from pagan mystery religions~ there were, as estimated, 600 of this god-type worshipped all over the Mediterranean region.

Jews were still arguing about the concept of the resurrection (the thrust of Jesus' mission). "Pagans" however, had had a fully developed theology including this concept, for at least 3500 yrs (the Egyptian Osiris was one of the earliest gods on record of this type).

Quote:
I have seen comparisons between Judaism and paganism before (similarities) and I know that that would be/could be offensive to the Jewish ppl here. We have turned from how we get Christianity out of Judaism to how there is pagan similarities in Christianity.
Offensive or not, the OP asked for it. If you believe religion is wholly revealed from God, you may find the comparisons offensive (b/c paganism is "evil" and the "opposite" of C'ianity). If you do some research into comparative religion, as I have done (my book list is in the resources sticky above), you see the similarities between religions in a certain region, and become aware of syncretism~ the borrowing and reshaping.


Quote:
Yes, the triangle was a symbol for a pagan goddess...the triangle itself is not forbidden. In fact, do not the Jewish ppl make "cakes" of some sort in this shape?
Presently? I don't know.

Quote:
And yet, the OT refers to them making cakes to the "queen of heaven", a pagan identity...
Yes. The Hebrew peoples in Israel and Palestine worshiped several different goddesses. The OT is a tale of the wiping out of these female dieties, so-called "abominations," "wrong in the eyes of YHWH".

Quote:
it's not the shape or the cake that is the offense, it's the use.
Not quite sure what your point is, here. Triangular cakes? Triune godhead?


Quote:
We are using it to describe a 3-in-1...one being, three aspects/personas, our understanding of Gd's personal being...not a pagan deity.
Not a pantheon, you mean? Fine. There are also some Indian gods depicted with many arms, or heads with 2 faces to attempt to describe (with our limited human understanding) a concept of a singular god/dess with many aspects.

Quote:
The "royal we"...even when I've heard the royal we used, it's always been with an inclusion of authority. ie., the forced bra thread...the teacher was trying to make the we sound as though it was a combined authority, not just her (even though in reality it was just her...another matter...LOL). I'll have to go look more on the "One" in the Shema. I have never heard of it as a "royal we"...thanks...more to chew.
You're welcome. Google "elohim plural." Here is wikipedia on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Quote:
Some of the apostles were reaching out towards the Jewish ppl and some were reaching out to the Gentiles. Paul specifically was reaching to the Gentiles.
And Paul wrote just a few yrs after the usual date set for Jesus's crucifixion.

Quote:
Matthew, Mark, and John were reaching to the Jewish ppl.
And wrote a good 20-70 yrs after Paul wrote, when the stories of Jesus had had time to circulate (and perhaps become exaggerated). It is very interesting to compare what Paul knew about Jesus and what the evangelists seemed to know, much later.

There was a growing group of Greeks of the day who were enamoured of the Jewish god. They were called God-fearers. They had tired of the state sanctioned polytheism, which had become, under the emperors, merely a symbol of the state. It seems C'ianity was tailor made for them.

Quote:
You don't want to get me started on Constatine...I don't have alot of fuzzy feelings for the man. I personally believe he "used" Christianity for his own purposes...

Sure he did. He was a devotee of Sol Invictus. He just added Jesus to his pantheon. C'ianity was made the state religion, and paganism outlawed, by Theodusius, later in the 4th century.
DaryLLL is offline  
#143 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 10:45 AM
 
mommaduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of the Rappin' Buggies
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, I was under the impression that the OP wanted answers from Christians on why THEY believed that Christianity came from Judaism.

So the complaint is that the Gospels were written by ppl who were PRESENT in Christ's life and at his crucifiction, but they waited until they were older to write about it? None of us should be writing autobiographies then, we may fictionalize our life in our old age. Neither should we accept any other ancient manuscripts as most things were written years after the events recorded. Should we state that the OT has been around longer and therefore the miracles in it also are stretched stories? Sorry, I won't do that. I believe the OT and I believe the NT. Not trying to be snarky, but this is just where the logic leads. For more info, the men who wrote the NT were mostly Jewish men (Luke was not and he was writing for legal research and testamony to the authorities in Rome).

Quote:
Not a pantheon, you mean? Fine.
Exactly...one Gd, the creator of the universe.


Quote:
There are also some Indian gods depicted with many arms, or heads with 2 faces to attempt to describe (with our limited human understanding) a concept of a singular god/dess with many aspects.
No, the triangle, which you brought up, represents a concept, not Gd. We are not idol worshippers.

On Christ's death and resurrection, however, it is no different than other OT miracles and since we believe that he was FULLY Gd as well as FULLY human, it is not beyond him to be capable of raising himself from the dead. Elijah raised the widow's son. Christ raised Mary and Martha's brother. There was manna in the OT, there were the loaves and fishes in the NT. Is it beyond Gd's power to do these things? There ARE OT comparisons...they did not come from paganism. A main difference between Christ and Pagan deities is that Christ did not have the lustful human qualities of the Pagan deities of that time. The Pagan deities of the time were very much in the image of man. Christ did not represent these things.


This is my point on the thread. Are ppl REALLY asking what we believe or are they just wanting to try to tear apart our beliefs? It is historical fact that Christianity branched off of Judaism. Were some things added along the way, yes, but many of us reject those things. Just as there are different sects of Judaism, there are different sects of Christianity.

Orthodox Mama
mommaduck is offline  
#144 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 10:53 AM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

Really just lurking but did want to say that in my religion classes we were taught John was written for the Greeks, not Jews. Hence why you don't have as much concern about proving Jesus comes from the House of David.

This thread has given me a lot to think about.
lisalou is offline  
#145 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 01:01 PM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaduck View Post
Sorry, I was under the impression that the OP wanted answers from Christians on why THEY believed that Christianity came from Judaism.

So the complaint is that the Gospels were written by ppl who were PRESENT in Christ's life and at his crucifiction, but they waited until they were older to write about it? None of us should be writing autobiographies then, we may fictionalize our life in our old age. Neither should we accept any other ancient manuscripts as most things were written years after the events recorded. Should we state that the OT has been around longer and therefore the miracles in it also are stretched stories? Sorry, I won't do that. I believe the OT and I believe the NT. Not trying to be snarky, but this is just where the logic leads. For more info, the men who wrote the NT were mostly Jewish men (Luke was not and he was writing for legal research and testamony to the authorities in Rome).

This is an important point-- as Catholics we believe in a Tradition that preceeded and created (with the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit) the New Testament... So to say that the NT wasn't written for many years until after Christ's actual death and ressurection doesn't mean it is any less reliable because it was passed down through a community and the Tradition still exists today... It is called the Catholic Church. People forget that the Catholic Church preceeded the New Testament. So to say, well, such and such isn't in the bible so it isn't true is silly since the Church stands before the NT.
This is not unusual in the ancient world--to have important stories passed down until they can be preserved. And I do not think that the New Testament authors waited quite so long to write down their accounts--I have dates as early as the following:
Matthew: 40--45 years after Christ's Ascencion (Hebrew)
Mark: 70--80 years (Latin)
Luke: 50 years (Greek)
John: 49 to 62 years (Aramaic) in Ephesus while [many believe] living with the Vigin Mary. John was a very young man during Christ's life.
Acts: 80 years or so A.D.

If you really sit down and read the new testament from cover to cover, with an open heart, I don't see how you can conclude that this was made up by some people in order to take over the world (or whatever DaryLLL is asserting).

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
#146 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 06:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
eilonwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lost
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaduck View Post
This is my point on the thread. Are ppl REALLY asking what we believe or are they just wanting to try to tear apart our beliefs?
I'm really asking, because I really want to understand; apparently, that looks exactly the same as "tearing apart," but I only dissect ideas and statements because I'm trying to understand.

Rynna, Mama to Bean (8), Boobah (6), Bella (4) and Bear (2)
eilonwy is offline  
#147 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 08:02 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post
The OT is a tale of the wiping out of these female dieties, so-called "abominations," "wrong in the eyes of YHWH".
The concept of Diety having a gender [bichlal]* is wrong in Judaism.

*Sorry, can't come up with a translation. Anyone?

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#148 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 09:34 PM
 
mommaduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of the Rappin' Buggies
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
I'm really asking, because I really want to understand; apparently, that looks exactly the same as "tearing apart," but I only dissect ideas and statements because I'm trying to understand.
Cool...I tend to do the same at times. It just seemed that it was turning into a big debate. It's one thing to break down verses and give the Jewish understanding and the Christian understanding (which I saw happening at the beginning of this thread ). It was another to just keep saying that "well, that's similar to the pagans". Christians accused the Jewish ppl of that at one time too. I don't think it's right. I do agree that some pagan beliefs have similarities, but that doesn't mean that either came from or are pagan.

Orthodox Mama
mommaduck is offline  
#149 of 305 Old 09-27-2006, 10:45 PM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 16,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I, too, was beginning to wonder about if there were really questions or just a way to show our beliefs as wrong. I love to share what I believe. I love to even debate my beliefs with an openminded person. But I have no desire to argue over my beliefs with someone that is solely out to disprove my entire belief system.

There are so many similarities in many religions today. That does not mean that they had to come from the same place, or that Christianity incorporated pagan beliefs. There are only so many "beliefs" available. To think that there would never be any overlaps would be silly. And just because there are "similarities", does not mean that one had to come from the other.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
#150 of 305 Old 09-28-2006, 12:33 AM
 
carmel23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 5,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL View Post

There was a growing group of Greeks of the day who were enamoured of the Jewish god. They were called God-fearers. They had tired of the state sanctioned polytheism, which had become, under the emperors, merely a symbol of the state. It seems C'ianity was tailor made for them.
But ideas of monotheism existed in Roman (and Greek) society even without Judaism--in both Platonic and Stoic thought.. . So why would they need to dress up the Jewish God in Christ in order to worship a single god? This is reducing Christianity into something it is not in order to dismiss it. There is a subversive force manifest in Christianity that is threatening to anyone who claims power falsely--the fear of early christians is the same fear that lead to the Crucifixion of Jesus himself. I think the Gospel literally blew their minds--and unless you were receptive, you would either reject it or be threatened by it.

 hh2.gif  ~~~~~~~~~~hh2.gif
 

carmel23 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off