Judaism - True or False Religion?

And so let's add even more qualifiers. And again, there is not one opinion in the Talmud but a whole collection of discussion and interpretation. And you still have not shown that it was the Talmud that Jesus was talking about. In fact, Jesus himself often used Talmudic Discourse to make a point.Creating circles of unsupported assertions does not make a case stronger Faith. LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem is you have a world where Faith = God. You get to determine how to interpret the bible and anyone who disagrees with faith's interpretation is wrong. YOU ARE NOT GOD. Your interpretations of scripture are no more valid than many other interpretations. Unless you think you are god that is.In any case you have made my point. In your opinion the jews are worshipping god the wrong way, but they are still worshipping the same god. I think we can leave it to god to decide who is worshipping him correctly.. Unless you think it's your place to judge and not god's.I'd recommend you refrain from calling other people ignorant. Especially if you are going to continue to post about any scientific subjects in the future.

True, Faith could have used nicer words in her conveyance to you that she considered you unapprised on the subject, but on the other hand, maybe she'd have been more concilliatory towards you, had you not previously referred to her god as a FREAKING GOD.

Sorry if I offended. I didn't mean it that way!It's probably better than freaky god though!

No, he didn't. As a matter of fact, he advocated getting rid of some of them in an effort to bring in converts from the gentils.

Two points.Jesus did not 'fullfill' any law. And the term 'fullfill' is not 'replace'.

Not at all. He "advocated" strongly that the Law no longer applied because it had been fulfilled, particularly to the Gentiles to whom it had never been given.

Two points.Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law, from the moral law through the ceremonial laws. They were given by God in the first place to foreshadow Him.The Law was not replaced, it was fulfilled. He WAS the meaning of most of it so nobody else COULD fulfill it, and as for the moral law we are all to obey that, but we cannot be condemned for our failures now because Jesus paid the entire debt in our place.

You didn't answer my questions from Message 35

quote:

---

this adding to the Torah, that Jesus condemned the Pharisees.

---

These aren't additions to the Torah. Just like Christian commentaries and church rules are not additions to the New Testament.All you have shown is that Jesus had a problem with hypocrites not the Jewish religion or what the Rabbis taught.As I showed earlier, Jesus told the people to do what the religious leaders told them to do. He did not negate what they taught.He was upset that they didn't practice what they preached.When Jesus is speaking woes to Pharisees, I doubt if every single Pharisee was at the gathering, so he was only talking with those who were present. IOW I don't feel he was describing every single rabbi or Jew.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law, from the moral law through the ceremonial laws. They were given by God in the first place to foreshadow Him.

---

What do you think it means to fulfill a law?If I fulfill the speed limit on the highway, it only means I am following it. The speed limit is still there tomorrow.So Jesus followed all the laws (except those specifically for women). That doesn't mean they don't apply to anyone else.Nothing Jesus supposedly said appears to negate the moral or ceremonial laws of the OT.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

In the case of the moral law it means to pay the debt owed for failure to obey the law, a debt owed to God that is to be punished by eternal misery otherwise. Once the debt is paid by the Son of God it is paid for all time for all he chooses to pay it for. I no longer owe that debt, it is fulfilled forever. But the Law is good and to be honored and obeyed to the best of my ability nevertheless, although I could never obey it to any degree that would earn me anything but eternal misery.The other laws were fulfilled in a different sense by Jesus. They were "pictures" or types of him, to foreshadow him. The sacrifices for instance were fulfilled as He is the ultimate sacrifice so that no others are ever again needed. The temple functions are fulfilled in him as the ultimate High Priest who interceded for His people with God, presenting His own blood as payment for our sins. Etc. Fulfilling the moral law does include his obedience to it, of course, but the real meaning is that he paid the debt we owe for our failure to obey it. It's what Jesus DID that fulfilled (paid in full, not negated) the laws of the OT.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 10:02 AM

Rest from their normal work. But what the Pharisees did and have done and continue to enforce is a bunch of nitpicky rules about what work supposedly is. To say that to flip a light switch is a violation of the rule against gathering wood for making a fire on the Sabbath is a perfect example of this kind of nonsensical burden they imposed on the people. That ADDS work -- and worry -- to a day that is supposed to be a day of rest. The degree of housecleaning that is required on the Passover in order supposedly to remove every conceivable speck of leaven from any possible nook or cranny is something so obsessional the idea of a holiday is completely overwhelmed by the work required to fulfill it. Penalties aren't part of what I'm talking about. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their addition to the rules. I don't recall that he spoke of the penalties as having anything to do with his condemnation.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 10:08 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 10:09 AM

On the other hand, I don't see other people calling Christianity a 'False religion'. If you are going to slap someones hands about saying 'freaking god', then how about saying someone has a 'false religion'.It goes both ways you know.

Everything said about the New Testament from the Jewish point of view is the equivalent of calling Christianity a false religion. And it is offensive. However, to assert that a religion is false is a statement of fact that is either true or false, it's not namecalling, which "freaking god" is.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 02:33 PM

Unfortunately there's not much more I can say that you actually want to hear, but fortunately you haven't shown Judaism to be a false religion or that Jesus considered it such or that he condemed the entire oral law.There is a lot more to Judaism that you quite obviously don't undertand and don't seem to care to, which is a shame. I don't feel that Jesus was ever described as disrepectful to other religions. I don't feel that those who supposedly follow his path should either.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz