These are my ramblings on the topic subject "Maybe Christianity has Jesus wrong...." If I am off-topic---someone let me know....
The Christians already arguing on this point are going in a different direction than the one I am interested in---so continue with what you are saying.....
Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin.
Does Christianity have it wrong?---Jews and Muslims would agree. That a Muslim agrees or disagrees might be irrelevant---but that a Jew disagrees might be more significant since Jesus Christ(pbuh) WAS a Jew.
How do Jews understand the Torah?
---That the One God (Shema) is indivisible. (God is One and not 3-in-1)
---That all creation is created in goodness (no original sin/man is not inherently bad)
---That sin is not inherited (any mistakes (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) made were his---however, Judaism admits the consequences of a sin can be something that later generations may have to deal with)
---Blood/human sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness of sins---God is forgiving if human beings repent.
Despite this---Christians continue to use the OT to prove their point that the Divinity of Jesus Christ(pbuh) is Torah sanctioned. It seems they do this by appropriating the Jewish Torah---completely re-interpreting it to such an extent that it is unrecognizably distorted, in order make their doctrines fit.
----Torah manipulated for political purpose--
"This stunning misquote in Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul's ability to shape scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his largely gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.
Deuteronomy 30:14---But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart,
that you may do it.
Romans 10:8--But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach)."
---Jewish outreach, Rabbi Singer
The Rabbi is pointing out that in Judaism, man is empowered and responsible for his own salvation and in Judaism, this is done through following the mitzvot. Such a message would go against the political purposes of the Church---for if every man can achieve salvation---what need is there for a church?
As to the idea that "sacrifice" is Torah-sanctioned----this is what the Jews have to say.....
"It is important to note that in Judaism, sacrifice was never the
exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, and was not in and of itself
sufficient to obtain forgiveness. For some transgressions sacrifice
was not even effective to obtain forgiveness.
Jews believe that sacrifice is the least important way to gain
forgiveness from G-d. Repentance is more important. Very few sins
required sacrifice (per Leviticus). For example., the animal
sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin
(Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers 15:30). The one
exception is if an individual swore falsely to acquit himself of the
accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). Intentional
sin can only be atoned for through repentance, unaccompanied by a
blood sacrifice (Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19).
This is re-enforced: "And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to
Me, and I will hearken to you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me,
when you shall search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).
Given its relative unimportance even in Biblical days, what comprised
an acceptable Jewish sacrifice?
Many people think that Jewish sacrifice required blood sacrifice. This
is not true. The primary commandment about blood is that it shouldn't
be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10) "And any man from the house of Israel, or
from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set
My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from
among his people." This can be paraphrased: "Don't eat blood." The
next phrase (Leviticus 17:11) goes on to say, "For the soul of the
flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to
provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for
the soul." This explains why blood is not to be eaten, and that when
it is used as part of a sacrifice it must be sprinkled on the altar of
the Temple. Note that it doesn't say, "blood is the only way to atone"
it says that you shouldn't eat the blood because its only use is for
sacrifice. Since this is a little confusing lets use an example: we
can say that all little boys are people, but does that mean that all
people are little boys?. So Leviticus says "Don't eat blood. You can
use it for sacrifice," but it doesn't say that blood is the only
acceptable sacrifice.
What is an acceptable sacrifice? Well, we know what isn't: the Torah
strictly forbids human sacrifice, unlike most religions of the
Biblical era."
http://www.faqs.org
If it were supposed that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Prophet/Wisdom teacher/Rabbi in a long line of such, it would not contradict any of the general concepts of the Torah. (except he would have been a false Prophet if one believed he was killed by the Jews) Muslim understanding of Jesus Christ(pbuh) aligns far better with the general concepts of the Torah than Christian propositions.
My knowledge of Judaism and Christianity is minimal but it seems to me, since trinitarianism is so thoroughly incompatible with the Torah, why do Christians insist on using the OT?---why not just chuck it and stick with the NT?----then perhaps they wouldn't have to go to the ridiculous lengths they do to make trinitarianism fit into the Shema/One God/Monotheism concept?......
