Da Vinci vs. Jewish Responses to Jesus
I've noticed a strange occurance.
On many blogs, including this one, I've read from some Jewish people that the message of Y'shua was originally very monotheistic (read Unitarian). Then the Roman emperor, Constantine, or some other Roman group got involved. Then, all of sudden believers who were willing to suffer for their message rolled over and then made the message very pagan (which I think they mean Trinitarian).
Now, the Da Vinci Code types take a completely different route. They say the original message was pretty pantheistic/pagan/gnostic/divine feminine/etc. Then Constantine got involved and made it monotheistic.
So many contradictory conspiracy theories with no support, what are you going to believe?
The people who knew the apostles, known as the apostolic fathers (makes sense), quote extensively from the New Testament. Read this or this if you want to read more on how they used the New Testament.
But if the people who knew the apostles are quoting the New Testament extremely early on, how can we claim corruption?
If you want to say Trinitarian conceptions are a divergence from monotheism, you would be wrong to say that since believers in Y'shua are strictly monotheists.
And as my posts about the Angel of the LORD have shown Trinitarian concepts about the nature of God were revealed in the Torah and in the Tanakh in general well before the 1st century CE.
As Al Gore likes to say, the testimony of the apostles and its support in the Tanakh is an inconvenient truth.
On many blogs, including this one, I've read from some Jewish people that the message of Y'shua was originally very monotheistic (read Unitarian). Then the Roman emperor, Constantine, or some other Roman group got involved. Then, all of sudden believers who were willing to suffer for their message rolled over and then made the message very pagan (which I think they mean Trinitarian).
Now, the Da Vinci Code types take a completely different route. They say the original message was pretty pantheistic/pagan/gnostic/divine feminine/etc. Then Constantine got involved and made it monotheistic.
So many contradictory conspiracy theories with no support, what are you going to believe?
The people who knew the apostles, known as the apostolic fathers (makes sense), quote extensively from the New Testament. Read this or this if you want to read more on how they used the New Testament.
But if the people who knew the apostles are quoting the New Testament extremely early on, how can we claim corruption?
If you want to say Trinitarian conceptions are a divergence from monotheism, you would be wrong to say that since believers in Y'shua are strictly monotheists.
And as my posts about the Angel of the LORD have shown Trinitarian concepts about the nature of God were revealed in the Torah and in the Tanakh in general well before the 1st century CE.
As Al Gore likes to say, the testimony of the apostles and its support in the Tanakh is an inconvenient truth.
posted by geoffrobinson at 4:56 PM
12 Comments:
One if you believe in Jesus that means you do not believe in one G-d. Basic breaking of the first commandment. Thou shalt have no other diety before me. That means no one. Whether made of wood or flesh. Second I have heard of these so called "proofs" of the trinity or pluratity of G-d written in Torah. I have even looked them up and no surprise I found no validity to such claims, along with millions of other Jews.
First, Trinitarian belief is monotheistic by definition. Are you saying we believe otherwise?
Secondly, I have posts on this blog dealing with some of those texts. Why don't you take a crack and try interacting with one of them? Lay out your reasons. There is nothing in your last comment to respond to.
I don't think Jews have a great deal of interest in debates over the precise roots of Christianity and how pagan beliefs merged with a Jewish gloss became a religion
the davinci code appears to be merely a popularized sensationalized versions of various ideas that have been floating around for a while
had Jesus existed of course he would likely have had children and been married by his age, but once the Roman Church decided to make him into a divine figure, those had to be discarded and his wife transformed into a prostitute
trinitarian belief is polytheistic by definition, the tri part is the giveaway
once you go to any number above one it becomes polytheism otherwise every pagan religion can have a thousand gods and claim they're just aspects of one god and sweep the whole thing under the carpet
one means one
Trinitarian is monotheistic if your Christian, not Jewish. The old rabbi's made this clear in the Talmud.
Look, God is bigger than you and bigger than me. If He wants to be three in one, that's His business. It's not for us to say what he can and can't be.
Anyway, Christians believe in one God. If you don't understand what they mean by that, then you need to find out if you're going to debate about it.
If Jesus didn't exist, why are you arguing about him. Do you argue about the meaning of Mickey Mouse to Jews? Or the Pied Piper?
The Roman Church didn't decide bupkis about Jesus being God, that was recognized by the early Jewish followers of Jesus.
The mistake is to think that what Rambam said about God being yachid is what Tanach said. Rambam was influenced by Greek philosophy. Therefore if anything, the idea that God can be three-in-one is more Jewish and less Greek.
Something is either monotheistic or not. Not monotheistic if you are Gentile, and polytheistic if you are Jewish. If the rabbis claim that, they are violating the laws of logic.
Trinitarian belief, by its very definition, is monotheistic. The diversity with God's one Being, that's something that is described to us by God Himself.
Sultan, you missed the point of my post. The current message is firmly grounded in the eyewitness testimony of the followers of Y'shua. Postulating later changes is ignorant conjecture, and I mean by ignorant "without knowledge" not more negative connotations of the word.
You should go back and re-read the post.
You can argue that three is one but then you can also argue that sixty is one too. If Christianity can claim to be monotheistic, so can any religion with many gods as long as they claim all their gods are attributes of one central diety. It's a blank check to let anyone into the monotheistic club.
You can write that check but once you cash it, except the actual monotheists to call you on it.
Now G-d is indeed bigger than you and me. So big that he doesn't need to be subdivided into these little boxes you put him in to create seperate dieties like Jesus. So big that he is indivisble.
As to arguing over Jesus. I don't argue over Jesus. I argue with Christians, mainly those with aggressive designs towards Jews. If Mickey Mouse had spawned a cult that murdered millions of Jews and continued to persecute us, I'd tell them mouseketeers a thing or two.
Actually I have some sources that have said Jesus was a part of a small radical cult group (can't remember the name)that was quite devout. This group had a policy of no children. If there is truth to that then yes Jesus had no children. I, however, hold the beleif that being a Jewish male and given how Judaism works, he quite possibly had many children. It is a requirement by Jewish law to have children and I find it hard to believe Jesus would escape from that law Especially since he followed all the Mitzvahs.
I am sorry but if you condsider the rabbi's illogical then I will defend them by saying believing that one ==three violates basic mathematical principles. The universe would implode on it's self if such logic were used.
I agree with sultan. Most of my problems with Christianity isn't about the religion itself, but overly agressive attitudes some Christians have towards Jews.
Knish said:
"You can argue that three is one but then you can also argue that sixty is one too."
You could...but I don't. Interestingly, in Kabbalah there are not three but ten "emanations" of God that are part of the "Godhead"
"If Christianity can claim to be monotheistic, so can any religion with many gods as long as they claim all their gods are attributes of one central diety. It's a blank check to let anyone into the monotheistic club."
But they don't claim that. So why shadow box?
"Now G-d is indeed bigger than you and me. So big that he doesn't need to be subdivided into these little boxes you put him in to create seperate dieties like Jesus. So big that he is indivisble."
God doesn't "need" anything. If he's three-in-one, then that's what he is. And really, I have no idea what it means for anything to be so big that is "doesn't need" to be subdivided, that would't fly in Philosophy 101.
"As to arguing over Jesus. I don't argue over Jesus. I argue with Christians, mainly those with aggressive designs towards Jews. If Mickey Mouse had spawned a cult that murdered millions of Jews and continued to persecute us, I'd tell them mouseketeers a thing or two."
All this is, is name-calling. BTW are you a yeshiva student?
LOL. Rich he could be a yeshiva student you better watch out. If he is he knows loads more then I do.
Post a Comment
<< Home