Replies

Of course. That is not what was at issue. I was responding to qua's comment to you (pinging several others of us): "What is clear is that, at least in your position although it isn't clear that it is the consensus opinion, there must be a radical discontinuity with the revealed religon of the Old Testament Jews."

I certainly did not make a judgment as to which side of the coin is heads and which is tails. I merely stated the Jewish position that the "anointed" one, or meshiach, (which is not synonymous with the "savior") is not supposed to be God Himself but a warrior king, anointed by God (like all Jewish kings). This warrior king was to establish peace and harmony in the world, build new Jerusalem, and make all the people of the world believe and worship the God of the Jews.

I must assume that Moses, Jacob, Isaac and so on all believed the same thing, unless pre-Christ Judaism believed in something radically different.

In addition to that, Judiasm never taught that man needs to be saved. It still doesn't. I must assume that Moses and all the Prophets beieved likewise, and considered Israel to be have been saved in Exodus, for which they celebrate a thanksgiving feast known as the Passover. No other salvation is taught.

The term the "World to Come" (known to the Orthodox anc Catholic in the Symbol of Faith, aka The Creed), is used in Judaism to denote the earthly world as established by the human warrior king meshiach when he comes.

Which of the rigtheous OT Jews believed otherwise? If they did not believe otherwise, then Christianity is not a continuation of their faith, but a totally new religion, which is what the Jews claim. The issue is not whether we believe in the same God, but over the role and meaning of the "anointed" one.

Again, I am not making a judgment. I am merely making known both sides of this issue.