I hope you are referring to other's posts and not mine? I thought my post was well referenced by cited scriptures to back up what was said. You gotta admit, it makes sense and how scriptures from all over the Bible all point to this scenario. Any other way of thinking just leads to dead ends. Col
Frankly, nobody can tell for sure. We didn't live during those times. All those facts are written by men. My personal opinion is, it doesn't matter who killed Jesus or how he died. What matters is how we are going to die lol. Knowing what happens in the past, ain't gonna save us from dying, we better find some ways to save ourself 1st before we die just my opinion. Cheers ..
When you say "we are all going to die" do you mean by natural, murder, disease etc..? Or by God's hand? Col
Just so no one is confused, Cheap SEO Services' beliefs sound Mormon, and not in line with Protestant Christianity. The stuff in his pamphlet (can you give a link to where you got that from btw?) like the angels coming down and sleeping with women, are from "The Book of Enoch" which is not accepted as part of God's word by most Christians.
Yes it’s deep and I couldn’t be bothered to read it all. But from an overview on that, all I could see is an open un-ended and elastic interpretations of unlinked verses from the bible to prove something, based on a pre-prepared conclusion to mean the prophecy of Jesus. Do Jews agree with the Christian interpretation of gen 3:15 of their book? I’ve also found this slightly different interpretation: Have a look at this: (Calvin, Genesis 1. part 8)
Every time i watch mel gibson's movie " the passion of the christ " it brings tears to my eyes that they would do such a thing. But it also reassures me its real, because of how he sacrificed himself.
Jewish interpretation? There is only one true and living God is the faith position of both Jew and Christian. I think it needs to be said that there are many "fulfilled Jews" who would point out that the Christian interpretation (as you called it) is totally consistent (eg Jews for Jesus). The bible gradually reveals the role of the Messiah. The only difference between "Jews" and "Christian" is the acceptance of Jesus as God's Messiah = King/Profit/Priest etc.. = Christ in greek versions and working out what that means to living in God's Way. The bible is the same for both Jews and Jesus people (who became known as christians). The reliance on the Genesis promise to Abraham is the same. The interpretation of Gen 3:15 comes down to the understanding of the what God is up to - especially with the Messiah. To the modern Christian Jesus was a Jew, fully obedient to the Law (though NOT the traditions of the elders), and salvation comes from the Jews. It is generally accepted that Roman doctrine is characterised as holding interpretation as the role of the church rather than the individual. In reformed doctrine emphasis is on what can be proven from scriptures (Scriptura Sola=Bible alone) so it can be shown to be plainly true. There is no reformed doctrine that says the jews are solely to blame for Jesus' death. A fulfilled jewish friend of mine says the Talmud is very dry, so I am impressed that you can stick with it Cheers
What do you mean by that? The whole thing, but especially the bold part is hard to understand exactly what you're saying. Please be more precise in your wording. I'm curious what you mean.
Sorry I just came back to edit that.. I meant the jews are not blamed for "Jesus's death", in the sense that they *alone* bear the guilt. As I said earlier, reformed doctrine leans toward every human having contributed to Jesus death...he came to the lost, to his enemies and died once for all. The final blood sacrifice for sin during the passover. Jesus said of himself "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" Mark (chap 10 verse 45) I know the jews of the time were not guilt-less either, Peter even says to the his fellow jews who had witnessed the coming of the Holy Spirit and wanted an explanation: "; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing to the cross..." (Acts chap 2 verse 23) As far as the rest I am pointing out there are jews today who follow Jesus as the Messiah. They haven't stopped being jews. So like christianity the jewish point of view is also very broad - orthodox, liberal and everything in between. In a very real sense the Messiah is THE jew - the embodiment of Abrahams promised nation. He is King David's son, the lion of Judah (the word "jews" comes from Judah) etc etc. Christians believe Jesus IS the messiah together with fulfilled jews who also acknowledge this and the rest of jewry awaits someone else. I certainly wasn't supporting the earlier long treatise on what is and what will be (it is not convincing to me). What I am saying is very much at the 10,000 foot level. I hope that is clearer? Cheers
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Thought you were saying that the Bible didn't mention the Jews having anything to do with Jesus' death.
from the above discussion i come to know that jews killed Jesus but nowadays the Christian and jewish nation relation are very friendly ... why???
The books you Christians call the New Testament are not part of Jewish scripture. The Old Testament is known to them as Torah or the Tanakh. Christians added the Tanakh to their own bible and called it the old testament. This is resembling the prospect of Muslims adding the new testament to their last testament (the Quran) and interpreting your new testament in their own way to find prophecies of Mohammed in the bible. I had a look at the long list of prophets that Jews believe in, but I’m afraid I can’t see Jesus name in that. May be you are missing the point here. Jews do not believe in Jesus in the same way Christian don’t believe in Mohammed. Jesus to them is nothing but an imposter and a liar. If some Jews show respect to Jesus, it doesn’t mean that they endorse him or his teachings to be divine. I have seen also “atheists for Jesus†does this mean that atheists now accept Christianity as true? ABOSOLUTLY NOT. This summarize and prove my point see what has been written about Jesus in Jew FAQ web site So to the Jews gen 3:15 has nothing to do with Christ. It is just a wishful thinking and a delusional interpretation of Christian believers.
Hi Kafer, Your statements are completely understandable. I think christians can agree with you that Jesus is the stumbling block. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone..." Psalm 118 verse 23 Christians read the Law, Prophets and Writings too and see the promises of the Messiah. Jesus would never tamper with the Torah, rather fulfill it and help others understand it. In christian understanding Gods Law is perfect, we humans are imperfect. Any single breach of the Law is punishable by death? Is this not so? I don't know anyone who has never sinned (leaving Jesus out of this for a moment). All of us humans (Adam) deserve death. Jesus may be rejected however he cannot be irrelevent, since he was part of jewish history. He also seems to be important to the destruction of Jerusalem according to your quote? I will cover that later. I am not sure why you would say Jesus has not redeemed the Jews, many have accepted him. Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. God chooses who he will doesn't he? He chose Jacob not Esau. As far as the messiah being crucified under the Romans you might consider the vision in Daniel regarding the Kingdoms to come? The one of iron with clay feet is interpreted by Christians as the Romans. This is very subjective and I understand if there is a different interpretation more popular in mainstream jewish thinking. At least the existence of documents which are anti-Jesus like Josephus go some way to assuring people that such a person existed historically. I understand that is not the argument of jewish people against jesus (that he didn't exist) but it is surprising the number of people who still question this - one even posted in your thread. The jews being scattered and degraded (in this case by the Romans) was not the first time, as you know Daniel was in exile in Babylon. The meaning of the current diaspora is different in christian interpretation. I didn't know the Jews (Rambam) blamed christians for the revolt which set the Romans to destroy earthly Jerusalem - interesting. I always understood it was a purely jewish patriotic revolt to throw off the oppression of Rome? It is interesting you started the post on do christians still blame the Jews for Jesus' death. It looks like you are now quoting an opinion that the christians brought about the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem? Interesting. I wish you well. PS Oh I forgot to mention your link went to a "file not found"
I appreciate your intellectual and civilised manner in debating. I am still after the discussion of the main topic and I don’t wish to deviate from that. My recent threads were only in response to the posted Christian interpretation of Gen 3:15 which differs completely from that of the Jews and to the claim that Jews and Christians share the same believe about Jesus or have a common perception of the bible. Jesus though, he is relevant from a historical point of view, he is irrelevant to Judaism as a religion. Cross-faith conversations happens everyday. It doesn’t mean much about the truthfulness of one religion versus another. Check the links here: http://www.jewfaq.org/looking4.htm http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm
Going by your statements. I think you are the confused one here. You thinking that I was a Mormon says you don't know much about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Trust me. There's a HUGE difference. You are correct in stating I am not in line with Protestant Christianity. I would much rather obey God as ruler than men. There's two scriptures associated with that particular statement I just made. Acts 5:29 and 1 Timothy 2:1-7. The book of Enoch??? Never read it and as far as I am concerned is not part of the Bible. In other words. Not a book that God has accepted. I suppose me saying that has put a bit of a thorn in your side as far as your argument goes. You know how the word assume goes? You making an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Therefore, don't assume. It makes people look foolish. Col
I believe there is more evidence that "sons of God" is refering to believers of God there, not Angels, i.e. that the believers noticed the beautiful daughters of the unbelievers and went and took them for their wives. As far as I know, there's only one place in the Bible (Job) that refers to Angels as "the sons of God", and there is a verse that implies angels do not have sex. Luke 20:34-36 On the other hand, there are many verses that refer to believers as "children of God": Hosea 1:10 , Luke 3:38 , 1 John 3:1-2 , John 1:12