Maybe Christianity has Jesus Wrong: Jesus as Mystic

[siam]

@YO
In order that God's covenant love would extend to ALL PEOPLE (not just the Jews), God sent His Messiah and Son as High Priest who would ONCE AND FOR ALL 1) atone for the sins of the people (ala the 2nd Temple Judaism understanding of what a High Priest did) and 2) bridge the divide between the "Children of Israel" and the "Gentiles" (ie. everyone else.) It's not about "original sin" per se at all. It's about saying that, because of God's actions through His Christ, people are AT-ONE with God and AT-ONE with each other, tearing down all walls of division. ---I disagree. ---according to Church history---ALL PEOPLE above should read "Christians" (and only those Christians that belonged to the winning sect) and considering the harsh enmity of the Church towards Jews---The Church has promoted division not unity. (Howeer, during the time of the previous Pope (Pope Paul II,?) the RC church did put into its catechism that Jews and Muslims were included in God's "plan of salvation"----a bit ambigous---but a start)

And....if God had wanted to enact Yom Kippur, with his "son" as High preist, he should have incarnated himself as a bull and had this "son" sacrifice him. ---Not that it would have made any difference since Yom Kippur isn't about sacrifice.....Its about REMEMBERANCE. According to what I read on the net, Yom Kippur is a day of atonement when people ask God to forgive their sins----AND GOD DOES SO....because he is Compassionate and Merciful ----(sacrifice not required). However, the rituals performed on Yom Kippur remember the incident at Mt Sinai when people turned away from the Shema (One God) and worshipped the "Golden Calf"/idol worship.....the destruction of which and the subsequent ritual brought the people back to the ONE GOD. ----Trinitarian Christianity is the total opposite of this---It contradicts the teachings of the Torah by deifying the ("Golden Calf)"Son of God" whose "sacrifice" breaks the Shema into a Trinity. ---In other words---Trinitarian Christianity has resurrected the Golden Calf, broken the Shema and managed to make Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a false Prophet---one who is teaching people what is the total opposite of the Torah.


Neither Judaism nor Islam condone Suicide/Homicide so the whole story/theory of Paulinian/Trinitarian Christianity goes AGAINST the Torah and Quran. God IS compassionate and merciful and forgives those who ask for it with sincerity---no Suicidal/Homicidal sacrifice required. (No "intermediary" required either) Trinitarian Christians read into the Torah things the Torah DOES NOT teach----simply to validate their doctrine---though why they do is a mystery to me---as I said---why not just chuck the Torah and stick with Paul?

Distorting and mutilating the teachings from someone elses Holy book to advance their own agenda is NOT convincing to anyone except the ignorant. Any Christian who thinks they can read into the Quran whatever they please and thus convince a Muslim that concepts such as suicide/homicide are Quran-sanctioned, or the crucifixion, original sin, trinity, or other such----is mistaken.

That Paul or his church managed to convince some "Gentiles" that theose teachings which actually go against the Torah and break the Shema are somehow Torah sanctioned---may only indicate that the recipients of his message were intellectually challenged,.....for Trinitarians today to continue to hold such teachings as Torah sanctioned, possibly indicates not much has changed since

 

[siam]

Peace to you SC,

"I don't think you're getting the bigger picture. "---Perhaps that is because there is no realisitc, logical, reasonable "Bigger picture" to get......the "bigger picture" painted by trinitarian christians is too fantastical, unresonable, unrealistic....etc....to consider.

You mentioned Orthodox Christian---is this a different Christian?---are you trinitarian? I know that some Early Christians did not believe in original sin, their Torah was translated directly from the Hebrew to the Aramaic and the Jewish Torah does not have original sin (the Pe shi tta).....Their theory was that the "fall" was about mortality and the purpose of the crucifixion was to restore "immortality" to humans or something like that......not sure....... I think they were monophysite (They felt Jesus Christ(pbuh) had two distinct natures, one human and one divine as opposed to Trinitarians) Pope Honorius I tried to unite the Eastern and Roman Chrurch in the 7th century by advocating that Jesus Christ pbuh) had 2 natures but one will (monothelitism) but was condemened by the rest of his Church and the attempt failed.----at any rate, Church history is full of such endless arguments about "the nature of Christ" that often turn viscously bloody......meanwhile the actual wisdom teachings of Jesus Christ(pbuh) are never practiced.......

 

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMC:
YieldedOne, you are right I did not mean any disrespect to you or to your religion. I recognize you and other Christians on this forum as being sincere in your faith and I personally know there is a lot of good in Christianity. My whole point was to get people to 'think outside the box' of their normal perspective. Likewise I didn't see your comments as being disrespectful towards Prophet Muhammd (saaws) or toward Islam and, even if they were, they could be seen as being justified as honest replies to my questions.

Cool. Good to hear. :statisfie

****************************************
MustafaMC:
It is easy to perceive Quranic verses or hadith from our personal perspectives or through the lenses of our own faith as opposed to the context in which they are said. I have read two lengthy biographies on Prophet Muhammad (saasws), "The Sealed Nectar" and "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam in Light of the Original Sources an Analytical Study". After reading these books, my love for Rasool'Allah (saaws) grew immensely to know of his noble character and the many hardships, persecutions and threats on his life that he endured only to establish the worship of One God. Perhaps you do not know how vigorously Islam was opposed with the threat of annihilation by the pagan idolators and how tenuous their position was in the early years. This was clearly not an example where 'turn the other cheek' was applicable.

1) I am quite aware of Muhammad's early struggles with threats and persecution. As you've probably noticed, I have not said that God wasn't involved with Muhammad's struggle for monotheism against paganism and idolatry and the persecution that he suffering...and I've done that for a reason. I DO believe that God was involved (though imperfectly). I actually DO believe that God has a plan for what Muhammad did.

2) We could talk about pre-Constintinian persecution of Christians (which was substantial!) Or just the persecution that Paul, Peter, and the like suffered as apostles from both certain Jews AND Gentiles. Yet they did so WHILE they "turned the other cheek." Constantine messed all that up...but the EARLIEST church with the Apostles actually were peaceful in preaching and practice.


******************************************
MustafaMC:
I had read a majority of the NT when I was a Christian and then again after I decided to practice Islam in 2001. It was this later reading that certain things came to my conscious attention in light of my Islamic faith. Of particular note, the first 2 chapters of Galatians shed new light on the struggle to define Christianity in the 1st century. A few years ago I watched a TV show from the ministry of Les Feldick and I was shocked to hear him say that neither Jesus nor his disciples were the primary proponents for what became the Christian faith, but rather Paul was the one 'who got it right'. Quoting below in green from his websites: http://www.lesfeldick.org/news13.html and http://www.lesfeldick.org/news14.html an article by William R. Newell, "Paul's Gospel"....

Such a proclamation is absolutely foolish. I will say that again: foolish. I did some background looking on Les Feldick and what I've seen so far about his credentials and perspective aren't promising at all. He's had absolutely NO bible training whatsoever...and he understands little to NOTHING about hermeneutical issues. He still uses JUST the King James Version, for goodness sakes! Ugh! +o( I would really take his view with a grain of salt...or not.

In short, Les Feldick does NOT respective decent biblical scholarship (liberal or conservative) on these matters.

Not every "bible teacher" is equal in stature or ability. I'm sure you know that.

******************************************

MustafaMC:
In my reading of the Quran, I see multiple cases where Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was defended as not being a madman, a soothsayer, wizard or taught by others. From this I understand that there were vicious and unjustified attacks on his noble character that were brought only because he claimed to be a messenger from God and opposed their idolatry.

Um...Paul was viciously attacked as well...but...


******************************************

MustafaMC:
I choose not to speculate on which of the alternatives that you listed is likely true. However, I do know that the doctrines of Paul and those of Muhammad (saaws) are diametrically opposed because quite obviously Jesus (as) cannot be both the "Son of God" and "not the Son of God". The choice I have made is to accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as Messenger, Prophet and Servant of the One God and to accept what he taught regarding God that He has no father, mother, son, daughter or equal. My point is to raise the question for you to answer as to whether or not you see Paul as the Prophet of God who taught that Jesus (as) was the Son of God and literally God in human flesh Who came to live a perfect life on earth and to die on the cross as the only possible atoning sacrifice for your sins.

1) You have obviously decided (by some measure) that Paul is lying about his experience with Jesus, either by self-deceit or otherwise. You don't have to "speculate", you're alternative demonstrates your choice.

2) Given our discussion, I see Paul as an Apostle sent by Jesus to CONFIRM Jesus' teachings to the Disciples as well as his personal revelation from Jesus himself and RELAY the teachings to the Gentiles. That's what makes the most sense for me to believe. I don't believe he just lied for absolutely no reason. I don't believe that he was completely unhinged and had a psychotic break instead of an actual vision given how his message WENT ALONG WITH the other Disciples who were still alive at the time. I don't believe that Paul was a demonically-influenced liar about his experience for the same reason.


********************************************

MustafaMC:
I am interested in hearing your perspective on Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) as Messenger of God. For me as a Muslim the claim to be a Messenger of God is a most spectacular claim. I remind you of the ridicule that Muhammad (saaws) endured for making such a claim that Christians seem to take so lightly and uncritically regarding Paul.

My perspective is that the Christian claim that Paul is an Apostle of God in Christ is tenable and reasonable to believe. And ridicule and persecution that Paul endured during his tenure as apostle is something that is NOT taken "lightly" or "uncritically" by me.

 

[YieldedOne]

And I'll be back for you, Siam. Heh.

Peace, brothers and sisters.

 

[MustafaMc]

2) We could talk about pre-Constintinian persecution of Christians (which was substantial!) Or just the persecution that Paul, Peter, and the like suffered as apostles from both certain Jews AND Gentiles. Yet they did so WHILE they "turned the other cheek." Constantine messed all that up...but the EARLIEST church with the Apostles actually were peaceful in preaching and practice.

There is a big difference though in that Christianity is just a religion and it is completely divorced from economical, judicial and governmental affairs. In the early years Islam was much like Christianity in this respect until the migration to Medina. At his point the revelation became more stately and comprehensive resulting in Islam becoming a complete way of life that rules all of those affairs.

Such a proclamation is absolutely foolish. I will say that again: foolish. I did some background looking on Les Feldick and what I've seen so far about his credentials and perspective aren't promising at all. He's had absolutely NO bible training whatsoever...and he understands little to NOTHING about hermeneutical issues. He still uses JUST the King James Version, for goodness sakes! Ugh! +o( I would really take his view with a grain of salt...or not.

In short, Les Feldick does NOT respective decent biblical scholarship (liberal or conservative) on these matters.

Not every "bible teacher" is equal in stature or ability. I'm sure you know that.

It is eery how similar what I underlined above is to Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" Are you sure you are not Paul reincarnated? ;-)

I found it absolutely amazing that Les came to the same conclusion that I did about Paul from my reading of Galatians prior to that. However, if you notice, Les Feldick did not write the article, but rather William Newell. Perhaps you are right about him not being a bona fide Bible scholar as I certainly am not one either, but I do have a mind and I can draw logical conclusions from what I read. What source discredited Les Feldick? Does it also discredit William Newell who died in 1956?

Les, William and I aren't the only ones to pick on Paul. Quoting from from http://www.voiceofjesus.org/pb2chapter12.html[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I define now the substance of Paul’s great failure to adequately comprehend the Gospel. You note how he started by saying that he had delivered to the Corinthians as of first importance what he also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. His gospel therefore began with the death of Jesus, and did not draw substantively on anything prior to that. It did not draw on the life of Jesus, or on the gospel that Jesus preached. It did not openly draw on the utterances of Jesus. It was “in accordance with the scriptures” but it was not in accordance with the words of the Lord. [/FONT]

Um...Paul was viciously attacked as well...but...

My point ties in with the last statement I made that to claim a direct revelation from God is a phenomenal claim. Who was the last person you knew who claimed to gotten messages from God? Have you ever heard of "Son of Sam"? Paul claims to have received a revelation from God yet it does not seem to me that Christians acknowledge the significance of that claim to what they believe. You can place your faith in the revelation that Paul brought to the gentiles as being the Gospel of Jesus and I will place mine in that brought by Muhammad (saaws) to all of mankind as being the Word of Allah (swt). (Deen ukum wa liya deen)

1) You have obviously decided (by some measure) that Paul is lying about his experience with Jesus, either by self-deceit or otherwise. You don't have to "speculate", you're alternative demonstrates your choice.

2) Given our discussion, I see Paul as an Apostle sent by Jesus to CONFIRM Jesus' teachings to the Disciples as well as his personal revelation from Jesus himself and RELAY the teachings to the Gentiles. That's what makes the most sense for me to believe. I don't believe he just lied for absolutely no reason. I don't believe that he was completely unhinged and had a psychotic break instead of an actual vision given how his message WENT ALONG WITH the other Disciples who were still alive at the time. I don't believe that Paul was a demonically-influenced liar about his experience for the same reason.

I of course do not believe that Paul was a messenger of God. I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong. I seriously doubt that he had a real vision and that he most certainly didn't have a direct revelation from God. I believe that he formulated his new beliefs during his 3 year visit to Arabia.

My perspective is that the Christian claim that Paul is an Apostle of God in Christ is tenable and reasonable to believe. And ridicule and persecution that Paul endured during his tenure as apostle is something that is NOT taken "lightly" or "uncritically" by me.

My point is not about the persecution he supposedly endured, but rather his claim of revelation from God. Again, who was the last person you know who God talked to directly?

 

[siam]

@MMc
"I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong."----interesting....

YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that is the NT?

I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?

 

[siam]

@MMc
"I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong."----interesting....

YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that led to the NT?

I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?

 

[MustafaMc]

It is also possible that after his epiphany Paul went from one extreme in being Jewish (as he also claimed in Galatians) to the other extreme of negating the Judaic Law and embracing 'faith in Jesus' for one's salvation.

 

[YieldedOne]

Got much more to say. But I'll say this really quick before bed...

MustafaMC:
I seriously doubt that he had a real vision and that he most certainly didn't have a direct revelation from God. I believe that he formulated his new beliefs during his 3 year visit to Arabia.

That simply CANNOT be the case from everything we have on Paul historically. He gets blinded by the vision on the road to Damascus. Gets to Damascus, and stays there for DAYS. Then he's healed by Ananias...and then some DAYS after staying with the Disciples...he IMMEDIATELY goes to the synagogues IN DAMASCUS talking about Jesus being the Messiah and Son of God. That's why I had originally thought that the Disciples had basically taught him the stuff during those DAYS he spent with them.

There's no 3 years in Arabia involved in the main conversion.

Just to clarify.

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that led to the NT?

I WAS positing that the language of Jesus Christ was misunderstood...by HIS Disciples. It was a viable possibility given the misunderstanding of mystical language in general (see Al-Hallaj). I also thought that as a result of this misunderstanding, that the misunderstood "Son of God" language had been PASSED ON to the Disciples in Damascus (including Ananias) who then TAUGHT this misunderstanding to Paul. But I see now that that's not really possible. First of all, Paul got a SEPARATE revelation from anyone teaching him this, by his own words. Secondly, (and here's the kicker)...neither Peter nor James (who knew Jesus personally before his death) nor any of the already existing disciples fundamentally disagreed with what he was saying. That's absolutely significant. It's like a form of independent corroboration between Paul's experience of the ASCENDANT Jesus and Peter, James, etc experience of the EARTHLY Jesus.

Galatians 1:11-24
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

If Paul were to go to PETER and JESUS' BROTHER, JAMES, of all people be like "The Risen Jesus has told me that he is the Son of God and I'm teaching that." And Peter were to have NEVER HEARD THAT from Jesus at all or if it was in NO WAY CONSONANT with what THEY preached...don't you think that either of those primary witnesses of Jesus' words would some kind of stink would have been raised over that? In other words, if Paul was completely off base about Jesus proclaiming to be Son of God AS WELL AS God's Messiah...don't you think that Peter and James would have IMMEDIATELY put him in check on that? Especially if it fundamentally negated the Good News that Jesus spoke of?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally think about it.

 

[YieldedOne]

I still believe that Jesus was a Jewish mystic who's language and life were informed by Jesus' deep intimacy with his God. What I no longer believe is tenable is that Paul received a misunderstanding (begun by the Original Disciples misinterpreting Jesus' mystical self-expressions) as he was taught by other disciples in Damascus. Given reasons to believe Paul's testimony of his revelation and his encounter with primary witnesses of Jesus, that kinda goes out the window.

And I owe it allllllllllllllllllll to you, MustafaMC. Sweet. :statisfie

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?

It's not very different at all, Siam. The whole idea of "Messiah" is JEWISH in origin. "Salvation is of the Jews", Jesus said, speaking about the God of Abraham, Moses, David, and the whole messianic concept. And ANY authentic card-carrying Christian affirms that Jesus IS God's Messiah. That's what Jews and Christians disagree on.
Not to mention that it was through the Old Testament Scriptures that Paul (and Peter) attempted to argue that Jesus was INDEED the long-awaited Messiah. To separate the ground of Judaism from the Disciples' and Aposle's teaching would be absolutely UNTHINKABLE. From Acts 17...

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”


Then Acts 8...

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”

And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

To attempt to separate Judaism from Christianity absolutely is not even coherent. So, no, Siam. Christianity CANNOT stand on it's own.

That's why I called myself "Judeo-Christian" and I really appreciated the offering of that designation. I feel it's more appropriate.

 

[YieldedOne]

Side thought: This is why I don't like Neo-Marcionite Christianity that seeks to divorce the Old Testament revelations from Christ. There's simply no way to fully understanding the Christian message in it's fullness without understanding and respecting Jesus of Nazereth being an informal "rabbi" in Second Temple Judaism largely aligned with the Pharisees theologically...and his devotion to the Scriptures of his day, the Law and the Prophets,etc.

Unfortunately, a LOT of Western Christianity is functionally Neo-Marcionite.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel (YHWH Elohim). Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

...

Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. He rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, and declared that the God of the Hebrew Bible was a lesser demiurge, who had created the earth, but was (de facto) the source of evil.
The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful God of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.

Unfortunately there are far too many Christians who basically believe that Jesus saves us from the God represented in the Old Testament, effectively setting Christianity OVER AND AGAINST Judaism...which simply isn't true.

 

[siam]

"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept." ---Judaism 101

The Persian King Cyrus was also given the title Maschiach (He rebuilt the temple). The term Mashiac/Messiah itself isn't not significant in Judaism---what may have been significant to Paul might have been the "end of days"/Apocalyptic part of it rather than the title itself....? But even then Jesus Christ(pbuh) does not fit....

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). ---ask Rabbi Simmons, about.com

Perhaps the Jewish Paul/Saul was a "cultural Jew" and didn't really know his own religion....!!!? Maybe that explains how he could have so badly misunderstood/misinterpreted Judaism...........

So....now that Christians know...why do they still cling to the Torah?---after all the "end of days" never did come and Paul's "Prophecy"/vision was completely inaccurate.....


"To attempt to separate Judaism from Christianity absolutely is not even coherent. So, no, Siam. Christianity CANNOT stand on it's own. "-----I disagree.
Christianity is completely incoherent even attached to the missappropriated Torah----I think it can only improve without it

But Christianity can vastly improve if it chucks Paul as well----as Gandhi said ---"I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"---a sentiment that Thomas Jefferson would also agree with...

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples"
---Thomas Jefferson

 

[siam]

YO---Just curious---Why was Paul so zealous about making Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Jewish apocalyptic Messiah?

 

[siam]

I like this Marcion....at least he was honest about his religion.....

 

[siam]

"Jesus saves us from the God represented in the Old Testament,"----interesting idea!

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept." ---Judaism 101

The Persian King Cyrus was also given the title Maschiach (He rebuilt the temple). The term Mashiac/Messiah itself isn't not significant in Judaism---what may have been significant to Paul might have been the "end of days"/Apocalyptic part of it rather than the title itself....? But even then Jesus Christ(pbuh) does not fit....
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). ---ask Rabbi Simmons, about.com

1) This affirms what I said about the whole messianic idea being grounded in Judaism.
2) Christians affirm that Jesus is the "anointed one" who would be God's Chosen King over all the nations in peace under the banner of God (ala Daniel 7) where the People of God will be his temple as God reigns in their hearts.

So...I don't see anything that negates my point of Judaism and Christianity being inseparably related.


***************************************************
Siam:
Perhaps the Jewish Paul/Saul was a "cultural Jew" and didn't really know his own religion....!!!? Maybe that explains how he could have so badly misunderstood/misinterpreted Judaism

This is interesting. A while back, you admitted that you didn't have much knowledge on either Judaism OR Christianity. I'm willing to bet you don't know the distinctions between the Pharisess and Sadducees in Second Temple Judaism and how that played out with Jesus and his declarations (especially about his anticipation of the Temple's destruction in 70AD). AND how, Paul (being a Pharisee) would have picked up on that.

So how can you claim that Paul (who by all historical standards was ACCEPTED by all the Jewish religious establishment including the SANHEDRIN prior to his conversion) didn't know his own religion? On what basis can you say that, seriously? I'm curious.

***************************************************
Siam:
But Christianity can vastly improve if it chucks Paul as well----as Gandhi said ---"I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"---a sentiment that Thomas Jefferson would also agree with...

I've said it before: Charge that to supposed inherents who are INCONSISTENT with their purported faith, NOT with the Messenger and Message.

"The message of Jesus as I understand it is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole... If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, 'Oh, yes, I am a Christian.' But negatively I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount... I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west."
Mohandas Ghandi

Interesting...

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Why was Paul so zealous about making Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Jewish apocalyptic Messiah?

I believe it was the "paradigm shift" that MustafaMC talked about. It's like when you have all the same information...and then an experience happens where you look at the exactly SAME information from a DIFFERENT vantagepoint, getting new insight on something that was always there.

Paul's "Damascus Road" experience lead him to QUESTION his previous assumptions and presuppositions about what he had previously believed. And when he went BACK to the Scriptures...lo and behold...he saw how Jesus being the Messiah DID make a lot of sense. He probably read Isaiah 53 and saw that it talked about Jesus...

Please remember this is from ISAIAH. Not from any Christian interpolation. You can read the Hebrew text if you like...

53:Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes [an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

and then there's Daniel 7...

“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

 

[YieldedOne]

Basically, all Paul, Philip and others had to do was say this:

"We believe that the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53 and the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 both refer to Jesus of Nazareth, as demonstrated by Jesus' life and ministry...as well as God raising Jesus from death unto Himself. We believe that Jesus fits this bill perfectly...and because of this, IS the promised Messiah of God!"

Please remember Acts...

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

...

And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.” (YO's Note: This is IN Isaiah 53!)

And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.