Posted on 03/21/2005 1:36:27 PM PST by 1 spark
ABOUT a month before Easter this year, I received a poignant letter from a prominent Seattle-area evangelical Christian businessman, a passionate activist for Israel. He wrote to invite me for a kosher meal at his home — and to discuss Jesus.
He did not, he promised, intend to evangelize me, a believing Jew. Rather, as a leader in the growing movement of Christians and Jews allying on behalf of the Jewish state, he was puzzled about what we Jews believe about the Christian savior. He was, he said, "ashamed that I never engaged my friends in what is the most important aspect of their lives, their faith, simply because some Christians — not Jews — told me to never ask these questions of my Jewish friends, or risk deeply offending them."
With the approach of the most holy day on the Christian liturgical calendar, his questions deserve answers. As citizens of a largely Christian society, most Americans see Easter through Christian eyes: as a commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection, which won salvation for all mankind. My Christian friend was asking why Jews don't see Easter as he does.
In wondering, he is far from alone. The new political alliance of conservative Jews and Christians has aroused curiosities. Jews like me who work with evangelicals and other Christian conservatives are often asked, by friends and colleagues mustering their courage, how nice people like us could possibly reject the risen Christ.
How, indeed. The best answer may be that what distinguishes the two religions above all is that Jews never saw a need for the sacrifice recalled at Easter.
The apostle Paul, who originated the most distinctive ideas in Christianity, taught that salvation is not something you buy with deeds — in particular, not with the Torah's system of 613 commandments, whose practice he explained could now be discarded. Rather, salvation is God's gift. God gave the ultimate gift in the form of Jesus' saving death.
Later Christian theologians boasted of God's unmerited "grace" as if it were a unique feature of their religion, while Jews were stuck with a discouraging faith where you try to earn your way to heaven by performing commandments. This represents a misunderstanding of Judaism.
As the Bible's book of Ecclesiastes, attributed to King Solomon, advises, "Go, eat your bread with joy and drink your wine with a glad heart, for God has already approved your deeds." At the same time, Solomon crystallized the heart of biblical religion: "Be in awe of God and keep his commandments, for that is man's whole duty." How were the two ideas reconcilable?
In the Jewish understanding, salvation came in the form of the covenant given to Moses on Mount Sinai — God's gift. The commandments a Jew performs do not "earn" salvation. They are merely the response that God asks to the fact that the Jew is already saved — "God has already approved your deeds." As a fundamental Jewish text, the Mishnah, puts it, "All of Israel has a share in the world to come." Non-Jewish peoples had their own covenant with God, received by Noah after the flood. It worked the same way.
What about the great Jerusalem temple, often depicted as a mechanism for "purchasing" forgiveness with sacrificed animals — before the building was destroyed 40 years after Jesus died? Surely, this made the need for Christ's sacrifice clear.
But Solomon also said that when the Jews were in exile, without a temple, they "should repent saying, 'We have sinned; we have been iniquitous; we have been wicked,' and they [will] return to you with all their heart and with all their soul — may you hear their prayer and their supplication from heaven and forgive your people who sinned against you."
In Judaism, repentance is always available to people, Jews and non-Jews, who wish to "get right" with God. The temple sacrifices were an aid to this, not a precondition. That was proved by the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The first temple lay in ruins for 70 years (before a new one was built). If God saw no need then for a sacrificial Christ, why would there ever be a need?
The offer of Christianity, for Jews, amounts to giving up the unique grammar of our relationship with God, the commandments, in return for a gift that we already had. This is why Easter is a day on which we should wish Christians all the blessings of their faith — a faith, however, that if we understand our own, we can never share.
See 38 above.
Unfortuantely, this thread is going to turn out like many before it. Some insisting Christian interpretations are of course completely correct and those of us who are not Christian telling you we do not agree.
Luke 15
11 Yeshua continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his Father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my Father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my Father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ 20 So he got up and went to his Father.
“But while he was still a long way off, his Father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the Father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your Father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his Father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his Father, ‘Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31 “‘My son,’ the Father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ”
The older brother is Judaism (never left The Father), the younger Christianity. The younger has run off with Jezebel (Proverbs 7), how many will return (to Torah)?
Neither can anything else. All sources are necessarily biased, even moreso at that time than now.
They knew the individual. They certainly did not "know" him as the "Son of God" (utter blasphemy) but as a one of many messianic claimants.
They knew the individual. They certainly did not "know" him as the "Son of God" (utter blasphemy) but as a one of many messianic claimants.
Simon Peter was one discple. What does his answer prove other than that he was ignorant of the oneness of God?
If Jesus was not the son of Joseph, then he was not of the Davidic line.
They don't believe Christ is their Messiah and they don't like being conncected to His death in any way shape or form.
If Jesus was not the son of Joseph, then he was not of the Davidic line.
Simon Peter was one discple. What does his answer prove other than that he was ignorant of the oneness of God?
Peter said taht Jesus was the son of God. None of the others even considered such a thing as it was blasphemy.
How about Flavius Josephus?
"Flavius Joseph (hardly an unbiased source)..."
What historian is unbiased?
Well, they didn't exactly object to it, did they?
In response to Peter's answer, Jesus said unto him "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall lnot prevail against it."
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Are you saying Jesus is a blasphemer?
The tomb where Jesus was buried in Israel is empty. We serve a living God because Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, according to the scriptures just like He said He would.
It is not documented what the others considered about who Jesus was in this particular scripture, so it is in error for you to merely assume that none of the other considered that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.
After His Resurrection, however, He appeared to his disciples on many occasions, and they believed and knew He was the Messiah and thus they turned the world upside down for Jesus Christ, in fact, dying for Him, beginning in Jerusalem.
The tomb where Jesus was buried in Israel is empty. We serve a living God because Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, according to the scriptures just like He said He would.
According to his cult of followers he promised to return from the dead, did so and disappeared. And we should take this as evidence?
It is not documented what the others considered about who Jesus was in this particular scripture, so it is in error for you to merely assume that none of the other considered that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.
1. He was called "son of man" by other people.
2. He clamed to be of the Davidic line (impossible if his fathe was not Joseph)
3. You quoted other disciples who gave other answers.
After His Resurrection, however, He appeared to his disciples on many occasions, and they believed and knew He was the Messiah and thus they turned the world upside down for Jesus Christ, in fact, dying for Him, beginning in Jerusalem.
And that is a foundation of your faith. It is not proven and means nothing to me.
You can't argue an arguent of faith with faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.