No. I’m pretty sure that in the Jewish religion, the Messiah is supposed to be a regular human.
::beating head against wall::
Good grief! WB: Fenris just freaking told you that is not the Jewish definition of messiah.
::going back to beating head against wall::
No: your Father is part of a Trinity. To a Jew, that’s impossible. Absolutely. The Jewish God can’t be part of anything. God is One.
And, as I said in my response to you, Jews believe in a messiah who will be a teacher and a secular king. He will have no supernatural or divine origins or “powers” or authority. He will simply be an extrodinarily learned and holy man.
We do not believe in a Messiah who is the incarnated Son of God, since we believe that God cannot/will not/does not…um…“split” himself up into parts (I know that “split” is the wrong word and that it’s a big-time heresy to say that Jesus was only a part of God, but I can’t think of a better word.)
Fenris
:wally
<Insufferable mode: ON>
Hell, forget them! What would America be like without ME!?
<Insufferable mode: OFF>
Sorry. That was terribly wrong of me. I apologize.
<snicker>
Fenris
Thanks Fenris for the further explanation. I am learning some new things here about the Jewish religion. Another question…Is the “undivided God” in the old Testament? And how come you bold the “M” on Messiah?
For what it’s worth, portajon apologized for emailing me.
I can answer (I think) the second.
One capitalizes the first letter of a proper name to distinguish it from a noun. ie “god” vs. “God” - so when he says Jews believe in a messiah, he is explaining that they believe in a person who will be a great teacher etc. Not the Christian take on it as “THE” Messiah, which according to the Christian, is the proper title for Jesus.
It’s kinda like the difference between a “bill” and you, Bill.
(ouch)
I thought that too wring. But wouldn’t God also be treated in the same way?
Please don’t tell me you’re suggesting that the Jewish G-d shouldn’t be capitalized, only the Christian one.
wasn’t it?
Seemed to me that Fenris refered to “God”, vs. ‘a god’. hence, the capitalization.
wring answered the second question perfectly. (thanks wring!)
As to the first question…
The “undivided God” (often referred to as Yaweh) is the OT God. The one who spoke through the burning bush, the one who parted the Red Sea. That guy. We’re talking about the same “character” in the stories, but we see Him differently. You guys see him as “the Father”, an aspect of God, we see Him as “indivisble”.
Fenris
Okay, the idea that Fenris, Bill, and I “do not worship the same God” has got me upset. I see both sides of the story, but neither is founded on anything close to the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
At the risk of being a pain in the butt here, let me get into this a bit. (I’m cobbing from the old “Christianity and Love” thread, where FriendofGod was preaching something that didn’t make sense even to the Christians participating, and I found it necessary to clarify. Looks like it’s time to again.)
To start with, the God(s, if you insist) that Christians and Jews worship is considered to be beyond total human comprehension. All we can do is attempt to structure accurate concepts about Him.
The Sh’ma is clearly the basis for any such discussion. Whoever He is, He is Lord, and He is One.
However, from the first He is given characteristics: His Spirit broods over the face of the waters in Genesis 1:4 or so. His Spirit is sent forth as creative power in Psalm 104. His Word is the creative force – He speaks, and things come to be. (Did you realize you lived in a voice-activated universe? ;)) His Lovingkindness (chesed) is sweeter than honey, according to one of the Psalms. His Wisdom is this, that, and the other thing in Proverbs. In poetic language, several of these characteristics get personified. Needless to say, this is not setting them up as separate gods, but as the aspects of One God spoken of in personal terms.
Now take John Doe, typical American suburbanite. His mother is in the nursing home, and he attempts to do what she wishes (at least when she’s clear of mind). His 3.2 children are in middle school (except the .2 child, who is in a special-needs program due to its disability), and he tries to be a good father to them. And, of course, he tries to be a loving husband to his wife. And, of course, often he’s called on to be all these things simultaneously.
Yet John Doe is certainly a single individual. He’s functioning in multiple roles.
When Jesus came along, there was common consent among His followers that in what He did and said, one could see God at work. How, exactly, this fits into the One God concept that was sacrosanct to the Jews (including all the early Christians) remained to be worked out.
Mark was content to see Him as the wonder-working Son of God. Matthew saw Him as the promised Messiah – but something more than the O.T. mashiach concept. Luke focused on His compassion and call to live a moral, humanistic life.
John equated him with the Word of God that was the active force in creation, taking on human form.
This becomes a pozzlement. Enter Greek philosophy. Well, say the Greek theologians, suppose we say that God has One ousia (Latin substantia, or substance – underlying nature) expressed in three hypostases – things that stand independently, “under” the Oneness. Hypostasis got translated into Latin as persona, and hence into English as “person.” However, it’s vitally important to realize that the English implies separate individuality, and the Greek and Latin did not. Anyone hearing persona for the next few centuries is going to immediately think of what the word’s basic meaning is – the mask worn by actors in the classic theatre to identify the particular role being portrayed, with a single actor often playing several roles. (“Person” as an individual comes from this usage, BTW, in the same way as the Classic weight “talent” comes to mean “innate skill” in modern English through the Parable of the Talents, or the idea that we are “members” comes from Paul’s metaphor of the Church as the Body of Christ and each individual in it as a member (=appendage). To King James, my speaking of Fenris as a “virile member of the SDMB” would have told him that “Fenris is a prick” – not the meaning I would intend at all!!
So God’s essential Oneness is preserved, though it is carried out through multiple roles. (This shaves the edge of one Christian heresy, but I’m willing that it do so to focus on the concept in question.) The key point is that there was not God Proper sitting up in heaven, chortling gleefully as His Son dies in agony like some melodrama villain – YHWH the Ancient of Days became a human Baby, grew into a Man Who taught love of God and Man, and died an agonizing death because He saw it essential in order to draw all men to Him. Simultaneously, of course, He remained the Spirit inspiring all men (wordplay is intentional, but is not a pun – that’s why “inspiring” means what it does) and the Most High to whom He directs us to come as to a loving Father, not in fearful awe but with loving assurance.
So, troop, though juggling Jesus, God the Father, the Lord God Sabaoth of Moses, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, God the Son, the Son of God, and all the other narrative terms used can very easily make it very confusing, we are all talking about One God in multiple roles. Though I do not agree with fundamentalist scholars that the story is depicting the Trinity, remember that the Lord appears to Abraham as three men, two of whom appear to be angels in the next phase of the story (destruction of Sodom) but the term Elohim is specifically directed at the three, not the one who doesn’t go down to Sodom.
Well, but according to Judaism, the messiah isn’t G-d. He’s a person, like you or me. Admittedly, he’ll do some impressive things, like make Israel an independent religious state, rebuild the Temple, bring Jews from around the world there, etc., but he’s still just a man.
Does that get me an honorary anything??
Me, too. FTR, I don’t think he’s a troll and shouldn’t have been banned. Just, as I said earlier, a little misguided and slow on the uptake. And he could use a bit of asskicking for it, which is how I read the fairly conditional banning Lynn described.
I got you but is that backed up by scripture somewhere? Or is it just part of the Jewish religion? For example: Baptist don’t believe in drinking or dancing but there is no such thing in the Bible. They have that rule just so people will not abuse those to things to the extreme. See what I am saying?
Is “religoon” going to replace “fundie”?
::: ducks & runs :::
Well, Bill, the very basis of Jewish faith, the words that every believing Jew wants on his lips as he dies, are “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” So I sort of think it’s not only suggested in the Jewish faith but kind of the central point of it – and Scriptural to boot!
Polycarp said:
To get to the other side?
You know, the more I think about that line, the deeper it sounds. Whoa.
Oh, and:
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Once again, folks, we’re reaching Page 5 on a thread. As is standard, in a little while I’ll be closing this particular thread and starting a continuation thread- for those not already understanding, the software gets kinda weird once a thread gets to Page 6 or so.
This is in no way a call to wrap things up; continuing the discussion to a second thread is well precedented.
[/Moderator Hat: OFF]
[Even Mods get coding errors. -JMCJ]
[Edited by John Corrado on 10-05-2001 at 10:39 AM]