A simple question for Judaism

[Shiny]

What does a Jew have to lose in order to become a Christian?

[Justin Kissel]

Are you asking why Jews don't become Christians, with the idea that they perhaps have nothing to lose? Or are you asking what they must give up (beliefs? worldly things? mindset?) in order to become Christians?

[Shiny]

Are you asking why Jews don't become Christians, with the idea that they perhaps have nothing to lose?

This.

[biro]

There was an interesting answer from author and Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner. He said the reason he did not become a Christian was that Christ said He was come to set a man against his father (Mt. 10:35). (I'm paraphrasing.) Neusner said one of the most important beliefs in Judaism was to take care of your family no matter what. He could not get used to the idea of separating from your family even if it was for reasons of faith.

I guess the biggest thing a Jewish person would have to give up to become Christian would be the sense that the Messiah had not come yet, because they are still waiting for him, whereas we believe Christ fulfills that status. Just my thoughts.

[Justin Kissel]

Are you asking why Jews don't become Christians, with the idea that they perhaps have nothing to lose?

This.

Well, if they think Christianity is bunk and they convert anyway, they would lose a significant degree of integrity that they had. If they aren't sure but convert, that's a bit different, though still IMO nonsensical. Also, if Pascal will forgive me, anyone who makes that type of decision for Chrisitanity potentially has a ton to lose. They only come out better (with a gain) if Christianity turns out being right; it's wrong to say that if Christianity is wrong they are none the worse.

[Shiny]

There was an interesting answer from author and Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner. He said the reason he did not become a Christian was that Christ said He was come to set a man against his father (Mt. 10:35). (I'm paraphrasing.) Neusner said one of the most important beliefs in Judaism was to take care of your family no matter what. He could not get used to the idea of separating from your family even if it was for reasons of faith.

I guess the biggest thing a Jewish person would have to give up to become Christian would be the sense that the Messiah had not come yet, because they are still waiting for him, whereas we believe Christ fulfills that status. Just my thoughts.

Wouldn't it seem like, for the Jew, that God had abandoned them in the sense by the destruction of the second Temple?

BTW Jacob is wrong, what Christ is saying is that you cannot love someone more than God. And there are other passages which support the family unit.

[Shiny]

BTW love the Mayan faith thing LOL.

Well, if they think Christianity is bunk and they convert anyway, they would lose a significant degree of integrity that they had. If they aren't sure but convert, that's a bit different, though still IMO nonsensical. Also, if Pascal will forgive me, anyone who makes that type of decision for Chrisitanity potentially has a ton to lose. They only come out better (with a gain) if Christianity turns out being right; it's wrong to say that if Christianity is wrong they are none the worse.

And that's where this kind of discussion would probably end up is something along Pascal's Wager. However even with the wager it is still being taken out of context in the Pensees because it isn't an argument for conversion, and I agree one shouldn't base one's faith of it however I still have always found that argument to be compelling to me.

It's one of the reasons why I accept God exists, because I don't see a reason not to. Or an afterlife for that matter, there is nothing telling me to accept the contrary.

This raises another question, even if a Jew was to convert to Christianity, and let's assume that Christianity is false, and that Jew dies are they still held accountable for believing in a false Messiah?

And another thing, if Christ was a false Messiah then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Christ as the Messiah? And to add to that, if Christ is false then how is He the most influential figure in all of history?

I think this places the Jew in a tricky situation because if God was to bring a Messiah to save His people, how much harder would it be for the 2 billion Christians worldwide to renounce their faith and to convert?

If there are no ramifications for the Jew, besides integrity, to accept Christ, then why not?

[Anastasia1]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism). He must also be willing to be considered no longer a part of the Jewish people by most Jews.

[Jetavan]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

[JamesRottnek]

"And another thing, if Christ was a false Messiah then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Christ as the Messiah?"

Your question can be restated thusly: If Muhammad was a false prophet, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Muhammad as a prophet?

Or perhaps like this: If the Papacy is a false doctrine, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept the Papacy as a true doctrine?

Perhaps this way: If sola scriptura is heresy, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept sola scriptura?

You could also ask this: If Zeus doesn't exist, then why would God have allowed/deceived so many people into accepting Zeus as existing?

[yeshuaisiam]

"And another thing, if Christ was a false Messiah then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Christ as the Messiah?"

Your question can be restated thusly: If Muhammad was a false prophet, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Muhammad as a prophet?

Or perhaps like this: If the Papacy is a false doctrine, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept the Papacy as a true doctrine?

Perhaps this way: If sola scriptura is heresy, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept sola scriptura?

You could also ask this: If Zeus doesn't exist, then why would God have allowed/deceived so many people into accepting Zeus as existing?

1/4 of the world is Christian
1/3 of the world is Muslim
Another massive chunk is Buddhist
Another massive chunk is Hindu

The truth is a narrow path as stated by God.  This means there will be a very narrow amount of people who find their way down it.  Broad is the way to destruction.

[Jetavan]

"And another thing, if Christ was a false Messiah then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Christ as the Messiah?"

Your question can be restated thusly: If Muhammad was a false prophet, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept Muhammad as a prophet?

Or perhaps like this: If the Papacy is a false doctrine, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept the Papacy as a true doctrine?

Perhaps this way: If sola scriptura is heresy, then why would God allow/deceive so many people to accept sola scriptura?

You could also ask this: If Zeus doesn't exist, then why would God have allowed/deceived so many people into accepting Zeus as existing?

1/4 of the world is Christian
1/3 of the world is Muslim
Another massive chunk is Buddhist
Another massive chunk is Hindu

The truth is a narrow path as stated by God.  This means there will be a very narrow amount of people who find their way down it.  Broad is the way to destruction.

Baha'is make up .07% of the human population. That's pretty narrow.

[Justin Kissel]

If there are no ramifications for the Jew, besides integrity, to accept Christ, then why not?

Without integrity and sincerity a man is eternally lost, I think.

[ialmisry]

What does a Jew have to lose in order to become a Christian?

Not even the scar.

Just the deviations from the Old Testament introduced by the rabbis.

[JLatimer]

it's wrong to say that if Christianity is wrong they are none the worse.

Why?

[Justin Kissel]

it's wrong to say that if Christianity is wrong they are none the worse.

Why?

  Seriously?

[JLatimer]

it's wrong to say that if Christianity is wrong they are none the worse.

Why?

  Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

[Justin Kissel]

Time, money, meaning/purpose, enjoyment/happiness, etc. come to mind. Unless, of course, you don't care whether it's right and will be happy regardless.

[jewish voice]

What does a Jew have to lose in order to become a Christian?

I'm sorry bout I will have to do the up most Jewish way in answering your question with a question  
What does a Christian or ( Achronos) have to lose in order to become a Jew ?

[Andrew Crook]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).  

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.


Why does a Jew even need to ask "What is God like?  How many Persons is he?"  he usually asks "How best can I do and obey God's will?" Only the Greeks and all of their philosophy would feel an incessant urge to try to comprehend, He who is Incomprehensible.

[biro]

Did you copy that from somewhere? A Muslim site, perhaps? The "attributing partners" bit is a dead giveaway.

[Andrew Crook]

Did you copy that from somewhere? A Muslim site, perhaps? The "attributing partners" bit is a dead giveaway.

No, these are just my thoughts. 

[JamesRottnek]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).  

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.


Why does a Jew even need to ask "What is God like?  How many Persons is he?"  he usually asks "How best can I do and obey God's will?" Only the Greeks and all of their philosophy would feel an incessant urge to try to comprehend, He who is Incomprehensible.

For what it's worth, someone in a thread a while back, mentioned how the (I believe) Zohar speaks of the possibility of multiple Persons of God, but the thread managed to die before this was ever explored.

[jewish voice]

 James I think this is what you are talking about

'The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [Ayin]'"[17] (Zohar, iii. 288b).

However, many passages in the Zohar talk about the unity and uniqueness of God, in the Jewish understanding of it, rather than the Trinity. One of the most common phrases in the Zohar is "raza d'yichuda "the secret of his Unity" which describes the Oneness of God as completely indivisible, even in spiritual terms.

The above phrase of the three heads, according to the kabbalists has extremely different connotations, as it is known that the Zohar is written in heavily coded terms according to Jewish tradition, and its true meaning is revealed only to the very righteous. However, the simple meaning of that above phrase, according to Jewish sources, has no relation at all to the Trinity. According to Judaism, God Himself is incomprehensible.

However, our relation to God is His Divine Presence. This may be comparable to a man in a room - there is the man himself, and his presence and relationship to others in the room. In Hebrew, this is known as the "Shechinah". It is also the concept of God's Name - it is His relationship and presence in the world towards us. The Wisdom (literally written as Field of Apples) in kabbalistic terms refers to the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. The Unknowable One (literally written as the Miniature Presence) refers to events on earth when events can be understood as natural happenings instead of God's act, although it is actually the act of God. This is known as perceiving the Shechinah through a blurry, cloudy lens. This means to say, although we see God's Presence (not God Himself) through natural occurrences also, it is only through a blurry lens, as opposed to miracles, in which we clearly see and recognize God's presence in the world. The Holy Ancient One refers to God Himself, Who is imperceivable. (see Minchas Yaakov and anonymous commentary in the Siddur Beis Yaakov on the Sabbath hymn of Askinu Seudasa, composed by the Arizal based on this lofty concept of the Zohar). This is the simple understanding of that phrase in the Zohar by Jews, however, as understood, there are many deeper and secret kabbalistic interpretations which are not open to the public.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "This and other similar doctrines found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity, but the Christian scholars who were led by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar."[17]

[Anastasia1]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).  

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.


Why does a Jew even need to ask "What is God like?  How many Persons is he?"  he usually asks "How best can I do and obey God's will?" Only the Greeks and all of their philosophy would feel an incessant urge to try to comprehend, He who is Incomprehensible.

That's a Bingo! You grasp this difference well. I hope that God uses this in you to witness to others, that they may know our Father in Heaven and glorify Him.

[Andrew Crook]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).  

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.


Why does a Jew even need to ask "What is God like?  How many Persons is he?"  he usually asks "How best can I do and obey God's will?" Only the Greeks and all of their philosophy would feel an incessant urge to try to comprehend, He who is Incomprehensible.

That's a Bingo! You grasp this difference well. I hope that God uses this in you to witness to others, that they may know our Father in Heaven and glorify Him.

I seriously doubt God would want to use someone like me.  I barely even deserve the label "Christian", I am a tormented soul.  Please pray for me.

[Ioannis Climacus]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

[Andrew Crook]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

I agree with you Ioannis, there were various Jewish groups going about at the time.  The Pharisees were simply one among many.  The Jews of Alexandria especially (i.e. Philo) definitley borrowed Hellenistic concepts. 

[jewish voice]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

[Andrew Crook]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

Okay jewish voice, you have my attention... tell us more.  I take it you're also referring to the idea of the "Council of Jamnia", when mentioned by Christians?

[Ioannis Climacus]

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

Emphasis mine.

I would call adherence to the Babylonian Talmud a pretty significant change. It has completely revolutionized the way Jews interpret Sacred Scripture.

Where's the priesthood?

Also, could you provide me with a source that supports the idea that "Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5%". I have evidence to suggest that the Masoretic text has been edited.

[jewish voice]

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

Emphasis mine.

I would call adherence to the Babylonian Talmud a pretty significant change. It has completely revolutionized the way Jews interpret Sacred Scripture.

Where's the priesthood?

Also, could you provide me with a source that supports the idea that "Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5%". I have evidence to suggest that the Masoretic text has been edited.

Talmud is nothing more than taking oral tradition an writing it down such as how one is to dress upon getting out of bed did not change the texts of the bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint theres a quick link to the 5% deal

[ialmisry]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

LOL. A "Jewish Voice" saying "hogwash."

Since the Hebrews translated the LXX, and the Jews used it, don't know what point you are depending on the DDS to prove (especially as you are wrong on the percentage match.  The Nash papyrus, as old or older than the oldest DDS matches the LXX.

[jewish voice]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

LOL. A "Jewish Voice" saying "hogwash."

Since the Hebrews translated the LXX, and the Jews used it, don't know what point you are depending on the DDS to prove (especially as you are wrong on the percentage match.  The Nash papyrus, as old or older than the oldest DDS matches the LXX.

DSS are older than the The Nash papyrus. You want proof of the N.T playing with my bible right here

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

oh yes very good but what does it really say well lets go to Deuteronomy and see
 
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

 12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

 14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Notice how Paul plays with my bible Hmmmmmmmmm leaving out the whole part that you may do the law

[Anastasia1]

A Jew has to give up his strict monotheist (non-trinitarian, very emphasized in some groups of Jews and part of official teaching of Judaism).

Are you saying that there are two types of strict monotheism: trinitarian and non-trinitarian?

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).  

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.


Why does a Jew even need to ask "What is God like?  How many Persons is he?"  he usually asks "How best can I do and obey God's will?" Only the Greeks and all of their philosophy would feel an incessant urge to try to comprehend, He who is Incomprehensible.

That's a Bingo! You grasp this difference well. I hope that God uses this in you to witness to others, that they may know our Father in Heaven and glorify Him.

I seriously doubt God would want to use someone like me.  I barely even deserve the label "Christian", I am a tormented soul.  Please pray for me.

I pray God helps us all, but He did once speak through an ass (Balam's), and on other occasions through other (I'm not sure if that use of the word is allowed here)es.

[ialmisry]

There are indeed differences between two types of monotheism.  Non-trinitarian and Trinitarian, there is only one form of strict monotheism non-trinitarian (belief in God without attributing any helpers or partners to him).

For what its worth, I think the title "monotheism" should be rejected entirely. It fails, in my opinion, at accurately portraying our understanding of God.

I've been thinking about it, and I have no idea why a Jewish Christian.. such as the original Patriarch of Jerusalem St. James the brother of Christ (or his successors, until the Hellenism took over)  would ever accept the philosophy out of which the Trinity is based upon, all of this Neoplatonism and Hellenistic concepts.

I think you should bear in mind that the "Judaism" present during the time of the apostles was quite different than modern-day Judaism (or what people associate with the term). For one, the Jews of Christ's time were somewhat Hellenized (i.e. use of the Septuagint, etc.), so it should not be surprising that certain non-Hebrew concepts were brought into the field. In fact, it was not until the sacking of Jerusalem in 5578 AM (AD 70) that Hellenization was "purged" and true "Judaization" accomplished.

That is hogwash I'm tired of seeing this come up over and over by some christians, yes there were a few different branches that left Judaism but however there was a very strong Orthodox line just like there is today. Just like they try to say the Jews changed things after christians but with the DSS find showing that the Jewish texts match 95% were as the LXX only match's what oh yea 5% nothing was changed in Judaism on the texts and major points on faith.

LOL. A "Jewish Voice" saying "hogwash."

Since the Hebrews translated the LXX, and the Jews used it, don't know what point you are depending on the DDS to prove (especially as you are wrong on the percentage match.  The Nash papyrus, as old or older than the oldest DDS matches the LXX.

DSS are older than the The Nash papyrus.

No, much of the DSS are decidedly younger.  None are much older, if at all.

You want proof of the N.T playing with my bible right here

Since your bible postdates the N.T., there was nothing to play with.

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

oh yes very good but what does it really say well lets go to Deuteronomy and see
 
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

 12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

 14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Notice how Paul plays with my bible Hmmmmmmmmm leaving out the whole part that you may do the law

I notice that "law" isn't even mentioned by your bible.

You're welcome to your Masoretic text.  The Protestants can fight you for it.

St. Paul tells what Moses really said, not the reverse.

[jewish voice]

lol yeah took what 5000 years for Paul to come along and tells us what it was about

[JamesRottnek]

And then it took what, another thousand for the Masoretic Text to...

[ialmisry]

lol yeah took what 5000 years for Paul to come along and tells us what it was about

No, it took Christ just 3700 years to come along and tell us what it was all about. St. Paul is just His spokesman.

[jewish voice]

And then it took what, another thousand for the Masoretic Text to...

Hebrew was always there where are some of you really getting your info from the crackerjack box

[NicholasMyra]

lol yeah took what 5000 years for Paul to come along and tells us what it was about

No, it took Christ just 3700 years to come along and tell us what it was all about. St. Paul is just His spokesman.

Are you saying that Christ lived 3700 years after Moses?

[Jetavan]

lol yeah took what 5000 years for Paul to come along and tells us what it was about

No, it took Christ just 3700 years to come along and tell us what it was all about. St. Paul is just His spokesman.

Are you saying that Christ lived 3700 years after Moses?

After Creation?

[NicholasMyra]

lol yeah took what 5000 years for Paul to come along and tells us what it was about

No, it took Christ just 3700 years to come along and tell us what it was all about. St. Paul is just His spokesman.

Are you saying that Christ lived 3700 years after Moses?

After Creation?

Oh.

Well, I'm out of the convo then.

[Shiny]

Is Isa a YEC believer?

[ialmisry]

And then it took what, another thousand for the Masoretic Text to...

Hebrew was always there where are some of you really getting your info from the crackerjack box

There was a Hebrew text, but not the Masoretic.  That can even be shown from the Masoretic text:the acrostic of Psalms 9-10 of the Masoretic shows that the original numbering is the Septuagint's.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: A simple question for Judaism