No Jesus was God part of the Trinity therefore worshipping Him is worshipping God so not in violation of the 1st Commandment.

In any case coming to God through Him could easily cover the fact Jesus was the perfect sacrifice whose blood bathesallsin from us, which taken that way Jesus is the means to be seen as perfect to God when we die. Your still worshipping God but must accept thesacrificeof Jesus.

Either way it should be fine to be a Jew and honor Christ who was a Jew as either God as part of the three persons or as the sacrifice who allows us to come to God (The Father) through grace alone.

These two seem to be in contradiction to me.  If worshiping Jesus isn't different than worshiping God, why is accepting Jesus different from accepting God?  It seems like the trinity is invoked arbitrarily when it fits ones ideas, but ignored when it doesn't, hence the original question.  Why is it necessary to view Jesus as a separate, different, not-the-same-guy entity when it comes to accepting him for salvation, but at the same time necessary to ignore that fact when interpreting the first commandment?

Hypothetically speaking, from a polytheistic perspective, when the first commandment was laid down God didn't have any kids yet- it was just him. So from that perspective it could well become modified once he has children... after all what parent doesn't put their kids first?

That would contradict the protestant interpretation of the beginning of John, though.  I don't think most christians (Mormons being an exception, I assume) think there was any time when God didn't have a son.

So some at least protest teh concept of evolution because teh bible lays down a timeline in which the earth was created in regular causal time but depite the fact that the birth (creation) of Jesus happened much later in teh chronology they insist he has been arround since the begining.

Wouldn't the book make a lot ore sense if genesis occured in convoluted time and teh New Testement occured in regular old causal time?

Because its by His sacrifice that our sins are purified to a clean slate and our names are written in the Book of Life, deny Jesus and the divinity of Jesus then His sacrifice means nothing. Its not that hard to understand that is the core foundation of the Chrisitan faith whythis is is a Mystery of God we don't have to understand just accept.

So no Jesus your full of sin when standing before God and barring His mercy will go straight to Hell if you heard of Jesus and rejected it.

As far as I understand it the Messiah will come when all the world is good, another interrpration is when all the people of the would becomes Jewish, the Messiah will lead the faithful to the next world, the dead will rise up and live again first among those, the people who were buried on the mount of olives...well you know the rest, i'm not sure where you got the whole worldly bit from.

I know of at least one jewish person who said that when the messiah comes Jews will no longer be persecuted and therefore evidence suggests that teh Messiah has not come. Certainly not 2000 years ago.

[emphasis added by Tycho]
I think this is where we're getting hung up.  You think it's easy to understand because you don't need to understand it--just accept.


But its not "no Jesus" if you ask God for forgiveness, right?  If they're the same guy, isn't asking one for forgiveness the same as asking the other?

Again, what I'm trying to reconcile here is the fact that Jesus isn't a different god than God, with the idea that you're supposed to recognize him as a different entity or you don't get forgiveness.

Worldly might not have been the best word.  Would "Earthly" be better?  What I'm meaning is dealing with people on earth, rather than in heaven or whatever.  I was under the impression that the Messiah would be someone who helped the jews deal with issues here on earth, rather than purely afterlife-related issues.  A leader, rather than a deity.

For first commandment, it uses one word for "before me," so you can't say.  It might as well say, "thou shalt have no other gods."

"acher elohiym paniym"

As for your other comment about the New Testament, the New Testament is written in Greek, so the same grammatical structure does not apply.  (For the record, it is a singular "me" in Greek, but though I'd like to say that has meaning, I can't.)

EDIT: FYI, All of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in Koine Greek.


I'm not sure I follow.  There's not a change in rules but a progression to a higher law, just as a child's rules change as he becomes an adult.  The key is the progression of the individual, not what the "rules" are.


Yes.  Prior to Noah, eating any animals was not okay.  They were vegetarians, so to speak.  Then the rules about meat became more specific with the law of Moses.


Only change in that the higher law would be adhered to because they represent a lower law.


You're confusing me.  I thought you were talking about Christians.

SOrry, I lost the argument by not seeing the first post.  What was the first question?


Except that you're not praying to Jesus.  You're praying through Jesus to God.  (If trinitarian, you probably believe you are praying through the aspect of Jesus as God to God the Creator.)

That's not what I was implying.  To the Jews, the Messiah is not God.  That's a Christian thing.  What exactly the "Messiah" is actually would depend on the sect of the Jew, and what century we're talking about (e.g., the Israelites vs. modern Jews).


Well, you need to pick Jews or Christians here.  If Jew, there are different beliefs about the afterlife depending on the sect of the Jew..  If Christian, it depends on the denomination of the Christian.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:25, Thu 10 June 2010.

Hmm...I suppose that fits with a plural view of God, but it certainly doesn't seem to make it explicit.


Good point.


I'm talking about Christians views of Jews.  Does the mainstream and/or evangelical christian view of Jews imply that God wants the Jews to reject what he had told them in the past?  (the noah example does show that this isn't unprecedented, so it's not quite as problematic as I had at first thought).


Yes, I win the argument!  Oh...wait...that's not what you meant, is it? ;)  The original question is about the christian view of Jews.  It seems like accepting Jesus as equal to God would be a violation of the first commandment, and thus something a devout Jew, doing his very best to do what he thought God wanted, should not accept Jesus as God.  But the mainstream christian view of such a person would be that they end up in hell ("no one comes to the father but through me...").  Seems like an odd bind for God to put his chosen people in.


Yes, exactly.

Now add to that that Paul in his letters to Timothy (who was born of a Jewish mother as described in Acts 16), commands him to keep alive teh faith that his grandmother (who never converted to Christianity) and his mother had, and to follow the scriptures as he was taught them as a child. It is also interesting to not ethat where paul describes the 'Great secret of Christianity' to Timothy in First Timothy has states "He appeared in Human Form, was shown to be right by the spirit, and was seeen by angels. He was preacched among teh nations, was believed in throughout the world and was taken up to heaven." Which says nothing about being the Son of God or in any way divine himself.

From what I understand, God blinded many Jews to the fact that Jesus is God. So as I understand it, if Jews don't know that Jesus is God and don't understand the Gospel, then they aren't going to Hell. They can still be saved by looking ahead for the Messiah. People only go to Hell if they hear, understand, and then reject the Gospel.

The fact that Jews have given so much to the Christian faith is a stumbling block for Replacement Theologians. I believe that Replacement Theologians have corrupted originally pure theology with Anti-Semetic influence that effects even those who don't have an Anti-Semetic bone in their body.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:30, Thu 10 June 2010.

That's an interesting take that I've not heard before.  God blinded them?  It sort of seems to solve the problem I raised, but raises more questions as well.  Why would God do this?  Does it violate free will?  Does God do this to anyone else?  Are atheists people who God had intentionally blinded, perhaps?  Does it prove Jesus' "no one comes to the father but through me" line incorrect?

Out of curiosity, where did you hear of this view of things?  It's not one I've heard before, and I'd be interested to look into it further.

I made an edit, look at that before reading my reply. It's one word. (Gospel) instead of Bible. God blinded the Jewish people because before Jesus came into the world, (Or was crucified and raised from the dead) the vast majority of people who were in the Kingdom of Heaven during the time of the ancient Israelites were Israelites. In order that EVERYONE could go to Heaven, he allowed Gentiles to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but before he could do that, he had to blind some of the Jewish people. Now, as to your question as to whether it violates free will, no. Because the Jews can still follow God's will through the Messiah, even though they wouldn't know it was Jesus. As to what happens if God does this to anyone else, I believe he does, but I have no Biblical proof. Athiests probably aren't people God has blinded, because there problem has to do with God, not just any kind of Messiah. Lastly, it doesn't prove that Jesus was wrong when he pointed out that he was the only way to the Father, because Jesus is the Messiah.

I wanted to address a couple of misunderstandings about Judaism laid out above (but I had to go on vacation, so...):

The Jews believe in the Messiah (Moshiach, also Moshiach ben David, or 'Messiah, son of David').  To the Jews, the lord "Jehovah" is their one God, but to a Christian Jehovah is Jesus.  Though there are several theories, the more prevalent one says that the Messiah's origin and purpose is that he will be a human man chosen by God to bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people.

The word "Moshiach" 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.

An interesting corollary to this is that, even if Jesus is everything the Christians believe, theoretically he still might not be the Moshiach the Jews believe in...except for the fact that Jesus claimed to be him, as I recall.

A key disconnect between Jews and Christians and understanding of the change in laws when Jesus came is that the Jews do not accept that Christ came to give full "spiritual meaning" to the Mosaic law, which was until then a law to be blindly followed, regardless of the principle behind the law.

Jewish beliefs are also different as to the teachings of the prophets who explained who the Moshiach really is. (Isa. 43:1, 3, 11, 15; 44:24; 45:15, 21-23, 53, etc.)  This name for God represents the Hebrew conception of the divine nature or character and of the realtion of God to His people.  It represents the Deity as He is known to His worshipers, and stands for all those attributes which He bears in relation to them wand which are revealed to them through His activity on their behalf.  "Jehovah" is the name for the "anointed one," the great "I Am" and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

When will the Moshiach come?
Talmudic thought holds that there will be war and suffering, and when he arrives, it will be a time of wonder and women will give birth painlessly.  Chickens will continuously lay eggs and food appears in abundance.  Jews will return to Israel and the Davidic monarchy will be restored as well as Jewish political independence.  He will rebuild the temple and be victorious.  He will establish a government in Israel to be the center of all world government, both for Jews and Gentiles.  (See, e.g., Ezek 38:16; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:1; 42:1.)  He will restore the priesthood and the Temple and traditional sacrifices will be reinstated.There will be no eating, procreation, commerce, jealousy, hate or competition.  The righteous will hav crowns with the radiance of the Sheckinah (presence of God).  The messiah will be mortal, a descendant of the house of David.  Non-jews will accept judaism.

Most thought/scholars hold that when the Moshiach comes will be determined by the conduct of mankind, when he is most needed or most deserved, but there is deviation of thought on this, such as:
-if all Israel repents in a single day
-if all Israel obserbved a single Shabbat properly
-if a whole generation loses hope
-if a whole generation of children do not honor their parents
-if a whole generation is totally innocent or totally guilty
etc., etc.

So there are different thoughts.  There is no one unified voice necessarily about the Moshiach or when he will come, and there is a need to separate out Hebrew, Israelite, Jew, and Talmudic thought into their various different lines of thinking rather than clumping them all as one.

I'm far from evangelical in thought, but my understanding is that Jesus came to add spiritual truth to the Mosaic law.  In other words, the Mosaic law was a place holder until a higher law could come.  Once they could understand the principles behind the Mosaic law, they could add spiritual context to the law and live an even higher law.

For example, all my life people may have told me not to cut anyone with a blade.  It's dangerous. It will hurt them.  But then I go to medical school and learn how to properly use a scalpel.  Now it is not wrong for me to use a blade in the appropriate circumstances. I am ready for it. I am trained, and it does not "reject" what I was told in the past.

So I see no conflict here.


The problem here is that the Christians believe Jesus was the Moshiach and Jehovah.  Jews believe he was neither, and to them the two are completely separate beings.  However, you're looking at the evangelical "trinitarian" belief of God, in which Jesus and God are the same being.  In that perspective, there would be absolutely no conflict.  Taking, on the other hand, the LDS view that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the old testament, there still is no conflict.  Jesus is their God...Jesus is a god...Jesus is the one they were supposed to pray to, and through him is salvation.


Yes, exactly.
</quote>

One issue with this analogy- Jews (depending on sect of course) spend years upon years in spiritual training learning their religion, where christians simply 'accept jesus' and are, if we are using your analogy, fully qualified to 'perform surgery'?

I think the error in that thinking is that you are clumping all Christians together.  Perhaps with Evangelicals that might be true, but that is exactly one of the major disagreements between Evangelicals and the LDS church.

So I would say with some Christians, like Catholics and the LDS church, that is not entirely true.  For these two groups (and perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses as well?), it is a constant learning process to try to become more like Christ.  I.e., you spend this life learning and progressing and self-disciplining to be the best person you can be.

My argument, of course, is that Evangelicals are in a similar boat to the ancient Israelites.  They accept only a small portion of the truth and are perhaps unable or unwilling to move on to higher truths.

The same is true of the LDS Church.  Our belief is that we receive truth one bit at a time -- precept upon precept -- with the ultimate goal being to slowly progress toward the full truth, which is to be like God.  But we do not believe we are there yet and we await further revelation all the time, hoping we are doing the best we can with what we've received so far.

So ultimately, the full truth would be knowing and comprehending everything God does, but we are so pitifully unable to do that as fallible human beings that it is a slow and steady climb, sometimes with jumps in knowledge and understanding (which, essentially, is what the "Grace" of Jesus is about when we get to judgment day, where our bodies are resurrected into (hopefully) perfected bodies with the capacity to comprehend all that God does).

That's a slight deviation from the point of the thread, but to be short, I think the surgeon analogy applies to every religion.  It's just that some religions don't quite understand that and think they have received everything they need.

Except that even LDS and Catholic learning 'curves' for 'certification' are horrendously short compared to traditional Judaism. Also as a side note inifinity cannot be approached by aceleration, but only by already existing- it's like teh speed of light, you could accelerate forever and never get there, unles you were already made of EM radiation, in which case you don't need to accelerate at all. Not to say learning is a bad idea, but maybe a more realistic goal?

There are many holes in this statement, which is conclusion unsupported by fact.

It also misses the point, which is not what you have to do but what levels of understanding are revealed to you from above.  For example, you can become the best arithmatist in the world, but if you are never introduced to calculus or trigonometry, you are always stuck with just arithmatic.

This misunderstands the principle.  The principle is that you can receive the grace of Christ (i.e. to become perfected, something you can -- as you correctly assert -- never become yourself) only after all you can do.  So you do your best, and this will to be the best you can (be humble, be like Christ, learn wisdom, etc.) follows after death.  In other words, you only get rewarded after the test.  But if you fail the test, you do not receive the reward.

The orriginal analogy was that most people have been taught most of their lives not to cut people with knives, but a doctor with special training is allowed under some circumstances to do so, and this was analagous to Christianity 'completing' Judaism. My point is that in teh analogy teh doctor has more training but in what it is being compared to the supposedly advanced group (christians) have less.

As to 'misunderstanding the principle' the issue is simple- if you can approach 'being like God' incrementally with any chance of success then God is not the perfect penultimate unreachable goal. If you can 'recieve grace and be like God' (metaphorically being transformed into light to achieve light speed) then further revelation on achieving that state would be unnecessary. Additionally i would expect to see a radical change in the nature of people who have recieved grace, instead of them continuing to be the same fallible people with perhaps a bit more pride in the fact they have 'achieved grace'.

This misunderstands the point.  The point of revelation to try to be like God is that we must develop the will and desire to be like Him and then conform our actions to the best of our ability.

To go to an analogy, let's say you are going to take a math test containing every single math fact in existence.  But to get an "A," you don't have to get 100% or even 90% of them right.  However, you'd have to do the best you can to get the best score you can personally get to pass.  If you don't do this, you don't pass, even if someone who scored lower than you did pass.  Life is the math test.  You don't have to do it perfectly, but you have to do the best you can.  This demonstrates your will, desire, and true and deep attempt to meet your potential.  Then the Grace of Christ reveals the answers to the test.

On the other hand, if you say you're not going to try or you don't care about certain branches of math, so why bother, or if you say everyone will pass anyway, so you just have to do as good as the next guy, you will also fail.

You tend to focus more on the physical aspects (knowledge and action), whereas this focus is more on the human will, on desire, on attitude, and on perseverence.

So in short we are in agreement that the goal (100%) is unrealistic. I didn't say 'don't try' but on the other hand when the people who claim to know more study less I have to question the claims...