Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
almostgreta

A Muslim on the Gospel

Recommended Posts

Had a really interesting discussion today on another forum with a Muslim. He said that Islam believes that the OT and NT are both valid revelations, hence the "People of the Book" thing. I had not realized that; I just thought "People of the Book" came from the fact that they consider Moses and Jesus to be prophets. But no, this person said that they feel the OT and NT are both valid revelations. I asked him how come, if that was the case, Muslims reject the divinity of Christ? It is, after all, revealed in the NT. He replied that he felt that wasn't really part of the revelation because Jesus never actually said he was God. I pointed him to Matthew 16:15-17, and reminded him of the teaching of the resurrection and the moment when the dove came upon Jesus and God spoke and said "This is my son." How, if they want to argue that the NT is valid, can they avoid the conclusion that Jesus is to be worshipped?

 

He replied that there were many gospels besides the ones that made it into the canon, and Christians were discussing these matters years before Islam existed, and one scholar even said he thought Islam was a Christian heresy. In other words, he implied that those other gospels might have been better, more accurate, than what became canon.

 

And I was like, But if you think these 'other gospels' are better than what made it into the canon, then you aren't really accepting the NT as a valid revelation, are you? But I didn't actually say it because I wanted to be polite.

 

Has anyone else dealt with this apparent contradiction in Muslim thinking?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He replied that there were many gospels besides the ones that made it into the canon, and Christians were discussing these matters years before Islam existed
There are indeed many so-called gospels but none of them were written by an apostle or the associate of an apostle and none of them date to the 1st century.

 

one scholar even said he thought Islam was a Christian heresy.
True, and no doubt there is more than one.

 

In other words, he implied that those other gospels might have been better, more accurate, than what became canon.
The church as a whole has never accepted any other Gospels but the four in the N.T. All others were rejected for obvious reasons.

 

Sounds to me as if you are going a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it. This might be of some help. John of Damascus (675-749) was the first to suggest that Islam is a Christian heresy. In his work On Heresies, he stated:

 

From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding about this. In 2008 I read The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins. That was not the first time I had heard of the claim but it was the first time I really did any research on the matter. The Arian monk that John of Damascus refers to is Bahira and he is mentioned by early Muslim historians. Here is a link to wikipedia. Normally I do not recommend anything from wikipedia but I have checked it out and it is accurate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira

 

Fascinating!

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! That's really fascinating. I also read something very interesting suggesting that, in fact, nothing is known about Islam's origins before the year 800: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2016/09/origins-of-islam The scholarly consensus has fallen apart. They're looking at a void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Meir - - would like to continue with your questions from the other thread that you left un answered. I feel they are important questions for you to ask and have answered. Why are you a Jew? Why don't you believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah from the book of Isaiah. What does 'salvation' mean to You? As for the Quran -- there is just enough Old Testament included to make it sound okay. The Quran and the Bible are two very different pieces of religious literature. Jesus Christ is the Son of God Not just another prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Sure. We can do those questions. Do you want to start a new topic somewhere here on the site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Right here will be fine -- So the first question -- Why are you a Jew? Meaning are you Jewish by birth or by belief or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Why are you a Jew? Meaning are you Jewish by birth or by belief or both?

Yes, I was born Jewish. Why do you ask?

Am I a Jew by belief? I don't know. It's not a question we ask each other. What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

You've said that you're an Israeli Jew. What does that mean? Do you personally believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah? You've commented that the Jewish people don't accept Him as the promised Messiah -- so, do You accept Him as such?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Wait, hold on. I asked you two questions. What happened?

 

You've said that you're an Israeli Jew. What does that mean?

It means I'm a Jew who lives in the Land of Israel lol...

 

Do you personally believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah?

No.

 

You've commented that the Jewish people don't accept Him as the promised Messiah -- so, do You accept Him as such?

No. So, it's a little confusing, right? If I'm not a Christian, or a messianic Jew, what am I doing here? Valid question. I'm here to learn. Not in order to become a Christian, but in order to understand Christians. I realized, for example, that Christians (at least many Christians) seem to be trying to solve a problem that's totally foreign to me with salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Why don't you, personally, accept Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Why would I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

You've commented that Christian are trying to solve a problem that is totally foreign to you with 'salvation'. The 'problem' that 'we' -- Christians are trying to work with is that of 'sin'. Do you understand what sin Is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

You can say that we have a concept of 'sin', but the terminology that we use has a high degree of precision; so if you just say 'sin', I'm not sure whether you mean chata'ot, pe'sha'im, etc. That semantic issue, however, may be incidental. I'd like to know what does salvation have to do with sin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Sue, I have to say, I'm feeling a little hostility in your comments. Did I offend you or upset you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

You've not upset me at all. Don't mean to sound hostile , either. My understanding is that the Jewish world only accepts the first five books of the Bible. Do you , personally, accept the book of Isaiah? Chapter 64 vs 6 "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousness are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities,like the wind, have taken us away. Do you accept the New Testament? The book of Romans says that " for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" // 'The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ the Lord." That is what the concept of salvation is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

> You've not upset me at all. Don't mean to sound hostile , either.

Okay. Good!

 

> My understanding is that the Jewish world only accepts the first five books of the Bible.

No. We divide the Hebrew scriptures into three sections. Here are the names of our books (in English obviously):

Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Writings - Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra / Nehemiah

 

>Do you , personally, accept the book of Isaiah? Chapter 64 vs 6 "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousness are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities,like the wind, have taken us away."

Of course. The later chapters of Isaiah are some of my favorite parts of the prophetic writings to read.

 

> Do you accept the New Testament?

Nope.

 

> The book of Romans says that " for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

What does that mean to "come short of the glory of God"?

 

> ... 'The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ the Lord." That is what the concept of salvation is all about.

Again, what does Jesus have to do with eternal life?

 

I mean, on some level, I get it. If you're a Roman, or a Germanic tribesman, stuck in paganism, the Sermon on the Mount is truly enlightening. So Jesus became the conduit for the spread of the knowledge of God on some level. That's quite a rescue from their religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Why Don't you accept Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah? That's probably what I should be asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

@Sue D., hope you don't mind my input? I generally think that the one asking the questions controls the conversation. Questions can be asked with no intent of hearing an answer but only controlling an opponent. There is a time to ask a question and to answer them. It is a common courtesy to first answer questions put to us. And there's nothing wrong with suggesting that "I do not know", or "I know that this is important but I need more time to compile my answer."

 

"Why Don't you accept Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah? That's probably what I should be asking." I do not believe you asking this answers Meir's questions. Though your question has the potential to understand more about the Jewish expectation of the Messiah which Christ Jesus may not of fulfilled. Are you supplying OT Scriptures which point to a coming Messiah and establishing faith in the Messiah's coming? Why is that or is that not important?

 

Regarding soteriology, imo, you're beating Meir over the head with the "Good News" and haven't established first the "Bad News". The bad news of course is that we are all guilty of sin and condemned by God, but why? Meir is asking what sin means, and you haven't really answered that question. If you can't agree on mutual definitions then you're going to be using the same terminology but speaking past each other. My suggestion is to establish a standard by which God holds us to, if you can't establish a common foundation in which to discuss then no fruitful dialogue is going happen.

 

Lastly, someone came onto the board today and bashed Jews, calling them pedophiles etc. Their post were removed and membership revoked. Please do not let these kind of individuals make anyone else feel uncomfortable, but use the flag option located at the bottom of each post reply to report them. When they surface they'll be dealt with promptly by Moderation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews -- and especially Israeli Jews -- I'm speaking as one of them -- also deal with similar peculiarities in Muslim interpretation. I'm going to try to put this as respectfully as possible -- even though I think their mode of interpretation is indicative of what has made Muslim society, for the most part, tragically backward. The mode of interpretation is essentially, you might say, colonialist. They see the text as their own, and their to mine for whatever their purposes happen to be. To the extent that I can tell, when Muslims say that they accept the OT and NT, they mean that they accept *some* of the basic ideas. E.g., they accept that Abraham bound his son, but they claim that the son he bound was Yishmael. There are lots of things like that. They bend things to make themselves the perfect servants of Allah. Many Muslims, it seems to me, presume that what is worth accepting is incorporated (in one way or another) into the Qur'an.

Seems to me, William hit the nail on the head.

 

Sue, I'm trying to get a handle on what you're talking about. That's why I'm on this site. I'm here to learn about Christians and how you all see the world -- with all the diversity that entails.

 

I get that there's sin, that that's bad, that you want salvation from that sin, and that Jesus is supposed to be the means of salvation.

I don't know what you think about what sin is, why it's bad, what are its consequences, what kind of salvation can address sin, or -- please excuse me for sounding blasphemous but I think it's important I emphasize just how weird all this sounds to me -- what my long-dead, screw-up cousin has to do with any of this.

 

In addition, I understand that you think that Jesus is the messiah. This, again, in my eyes, is just weird, since he doesn't meet *any* of the Jewish criteria for being messiah. So it must be that you have a totally different conception of what a messiah is.

 

Beyond even that, I understand that you see Jesus as both the son of God, as in, he was literally sired by God, and as part of God. Those ideas don't make zero sense to me. So it must be that you have a totally different conception of God!

 

But all that's pretty weird, since, clearly, my books are very important to you. You read them. You quote them. You see them as supporting the very beliefs which strike me as --

again I'll put it bluntly to emphasize the difference -- pure nonsense. Now, you can say that's because of the scales on my eyes. Okay. End of discussion, I guess. And my effort here to understand Christians and Christianity is over. But even if that's the case... We plainly agree on an awful lot of stuff, Judeo-Christian values for starters. This thread started with questions about how to read. We do both think about that. Another thread addressed issues of modesty in clothing. We do both think about that too. Etc. Is the agreement all coincidence? That doesn't seem likely to me. John Selden wasn't learning Talmud and Maimonides because they happened to be lying around while he was waiting to go into the dentist. The Puritans who went to America weren't kidding when they saw themselves as pilgrims in search of a promised land and tried to build a holy city on a hill; the founding fathers of the United States didn't entertain the possibility of making Hebrew the national language for nothing; Lincoln didn't call the Americans the "almost chosen people" without reason; etc. Something is going on. So while there might be a tendency -- maybe, from the point of view of dispensation? -- to emphasize how Christianity is different from Judaism, I don't think its sufficient to say, Jesus came and everything changed. Something didn't change. But what is it? Is it that ultimately we're both dealing with sin? Maybe. But I've started to get the feeling that we conceive 'sin' in totally different ways.

 

So, would you consider engaging with some of my questions?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meir-Simchah

 

I'll be glad to -- your honesty is appreciated and no, you don't sound blasphemous -- you simply want to understand. I'd like to ask you a question -- What are the Jewish criteria for being Messiah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meir-Simchah

 

I'll be glad to -- your honesty is appreciated and no, you don't sound blasphemous -- you simply want to understand. I'd like to ask you a question -- What are the Jewish criteria for being Messiah?

Ben Shapiro (a brilliant orthodox Jew) answers this question in first 4 minutes of youtube video:

 

Ben points out:

Jesus, assuming such a person existed was an orthodox Jew

The Jews concept of the Messiah is a political figure who will restore Judism, restore the Davidic Kingdom, gather the Jews together (lot of stuff that we believe He will do in 1,000 year millenium were "we" is defined as pre-mill people)

That the claim of Jesus to be God is a heretical belief that contradict ONE GOD

-Ben also says the story in the NT would make Jesus a poor rabbi

 

I guess they see the Messiah as a lion and not a lamb and later as a lion (analogy)

 

Least ways, that's my guess from an experts statements.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×