To get it out of the way before I deal with specific statements against:

I agree with bo_sox on the whole "Jews for Jesus" movement not truly being, well, a recognizable sect of the Jewish faith.

"Who are you to question--"

1. I WAS a Reform Jew growing up, albeit a loosely-practicing one (my parents weren't really into the whole Synagogue/Temple thing, and they thought to drive to one from where we live would be a hassle...for some reason that all went out the window and my dad now happily drives to a CHURCH after he converted, but that's another story) so I'm not coming from nowhere and no experience as a Jewish theist, after all.

2. The logic "You must be A in order to question the validity of A" seems logically flawed to me...

By that logic, I'd have to be an astronomer in order to question one who says "Planet X" will collide with the Earth and bring about the 2012 event that's not going to happen (sorry, Roland Emmerich) or to question a doctor who thought that human beings had two hearts and can regenerate if hurt and near death.

I don't have to be a rabbi or practicing Jew to say "Hey, that's not Judaism."

"But who are to say what is or isn't, everyone has a right to their own belief--"

I agree.
And Jewish faith combined with a beliefe Jesus is the messiah has a name...as bo_sox said...
It's called Christianity, and it makes millions if not billions of dollars each year.
It's NOT Judaism.

If you think that's unfair, answer my challenge--

What if a Christian priest/pastor/minister got up and had a sect called "Christians for Muhammad," taking him as the last prophet and quoting from the Koran and telling everyone to live good MUSLIM lives?

Would you still really call that person a "Christian?"

I don't think many of you would...even if you'd be tolerant of their belief, I'm willing to bet at least privately you'd say "Come on, that's not Christianity...dude, you're reading from the Koran, teaching Muhammad was the final prophet, calling God Allah, saying Jesus DIDN'T die on the Cross...sort of violating some of those basic precepts..."

Same with Jews for Jesus.

You've violated basic precepts when you read from the New Testament (NOT in the Judaic canon, at all) and teach Jesus is the messiah when that's not part of Jewish faith and hasn't been for 2,000 years of pain and tell everyone to be good CHRISTIANS in life...isn't that sort of a giveaway that the man's not holding to Judaism anymore?

Not to be a good JEW in life...but to be a good CHRISTIAN, and that do do that you must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and yada yada yada...

Can't we agree that's past the point of being a Jew in the faith-based sense?

@bo_sox:

Well, I agree with most of what you said, so no need to go on here... :)

@Draugnar:

"So? They are still Jews by birth and follows the basic tenants and practices of the Jewish faith."

Explain to me how reading from the New Testament is practicing a basic tenant of JEWISH faith.

" If you are going to get that picky, then the only true Jews are Othodox and the only true Christians are Catholics."

Given how many different types of Early Christians there were and how diverse they were, that seems erroneous and built on a post-Catholic notion of Christianity.

What's more...I'm not saying you can't be a BIT flexible with your beliefs and still call them beliefs.

Protestant, Baptist, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, etc...I'm not taking issue there...

Mormonism...to be honest that almost feels different enough to BE it's own religion, but I'm not demanding it be taken as so, and it's still a Christ-based organization, so you they can call themselves Christians if they like, so far as I'm concerned...

But again--what of the theoretical "Christians for Muhammad" Sect?
One that would read from the Koran, not the Bible...
One that teaches a different version of Genesis and the Christ story...
One that teaches Muhammad is the final prophet, NOT Jesus...

Are you really going to call them "Christians" still--don't you think that's rather jumping the shark, as it were?

There's being flexible...and then there's flexibility to the breaking point...

The same way you can do Shakespeare plays MANY different ways, but if you choose to do "Romeo and Juliet" and have them live happily ever after at the end or do "Hamlet" and have him see the ghost and immediately kill Claudius Act I, sing of wine, become King and live happily ever after...

You're no longer really doing R&J or Hamlet, are you?
You've broken the backs of the plot, you've bent it so far.
You're doing your own thing now, no longer the story of R&J or Hamlet.

And YES, I'm well aware that during different points in history--later Restoration works as well as Victorian performances come to mind--people DID rework Shakespeare's tragedies just that way, to give them happy endings and have all the good characters live and all the bad ones die or say they were sorry and be forgiven...

And we who study Shakespeare along with, well, probably everyone here has the same reaction...

That's not Shakespeare, those aren't the real plays, you've strayed too far.

The same way no Shakespeare scholar will ever accept the latter re-working of "King Lear" in which Cordelia, at the very end, leaps out of her father's arms and shouts (as if out of Monty Python!) "I'm not dead yet...I'M ALIVE! I'M ALIVE!" and he regains the throne and they all live happily ever after as part of the true Shakespearean canon...

The same way I'm betting the Christians here, given my description, wouldn't recognize a "Christians for Muhammad" sect as being "Christian" when they read from the Koran, practice according to the Koran, and teach that Muhammad was the last prophet and Jesus' life and death didn't unfold the way the Bible says it did...

I, even as an secular Jew, were I to evaluate the different Jewish sects, would not count "Jews for Jesus" as a true sect of Judaism as, well, it not only rather contradicts the teachings BUT, as bo_sox said, just as there's already a movement where they read the Koran and accept Muhammad, and it's not "Christians for Muhammad" but simply "Islam," so too is there a movement where people take Jesus as their savior, and it's not "Jews for Jesus," it's simply called "Christianity."

@Mujus:

And that's all well and good...except that's from a book that Jews wouldn't consider canonical and thus wouldn't say those statements hold sway...

And yes, we're somehow, oddly enough, aware Jesus was a Jew.

Somehow that seemed to slip Europe and the Middle East's minds for a couple thousand years while they were busy with pogroms, ghettos, Inquisitions, and other fun things for the Jews, but still, yes, we're acutely aware of that...

And since you quoted a book outside the Jewish canon, I may as well do the same myself...and by a Jewish author, no less--

“Jesus Christ, who they go around telling everyone was God, was actually a Jew! and this fact, that absolutely kills me when I have to think about it, nobody else pays attention to. That he was a Jew, and they took a Jew and turned him into some kind of God after he is already dead, and then- this is what can make you absolutely crazy- then the dirty bastards turn around afterwards and who is the first one on their list to persecute? who haven't they left their hands off of to murder and to hate for two thousand years: The Jews!”


--Philip Roth, "Portnoy's Complaint" (Probably the dirtiest and most hilarious book I've EVER read...and it's a quick, quick read, so if you haven't read it yet, folks, I recommend it...if you're Jewish it's a must-read SO MANY in-jokes and Yiddish-language jokes and so on...a laugh riot, and with some good points to make, too.) :)

Looks like the Jewish people are in perpetual agreement.

@Obi - "Explain to me how reading from the New Testament is practicing a basic tenant of JEWISH faith."

How is driving a car practicing a basic tenant of the Jewish faith. As long as the action doesn't violate one of the Laws, it isn't against the Jewish faith and therefore is not incompatible. Yes, I know all about the Talmud having sections dealing with Crhsitianity. Thsoe sections were written after Christianity existed and are, therefore, not part of the Jewish faityh as it existed in the time of Christ. So, if you can't change those tenants now to allow for those who wish to follw his teachings without violating the "You shall have no other gods before me" commandment, then how do you justify changing the tenants around 500 AD? Either it is an unerring and unchangeable religion, or it can be changed today the same as it was changed in 500 AD. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and Obi... Jesus wasn't the last prophet. Considering that the Revelations was a revelation of Christ to John. So John, being the one who had the visions sent to him from Christ, was a prophet. And for that matter, the Mormon's (no, I'm not Mormon) believe prophets are alive today. So I would have no problem with a Christian Muslim blend whether it be a Muslim for Christ or a Christian for Mohammed. As long as their faith was peace centered andabout the peaceful teachings of both men, it's all good in my book.

And now, the match-up non one's been waiting for...

@SC:

"A Rabbi is NOT a specific thing. Rabbi means teacher. Anyone can be a Rabbi. In America and elsewhere now there are ordinations but you do not be to be ordained to be a rabbi. Lack of knowledge comes through again."

And we start on a technicality--that's a good sign, right?

Thanks, I know what the word means, funnily enough...

I was obviously going by the more socially-accepted term, the ordained rabbinical ideal, thanks, as obviously anyone can claim to be a rabbi or--for that matter--a priest...anyone here can start their own sect of Christianity (the First Church of Christ, Krellin, and KFC, maybe?) and name themselves priest or pontiff or whatever else of that "sect."

And everyone here would view that as absurd if we all did that.

So, really, unless you want to let me call myself "Rabbi Obiwan," as "anyone" can use the term, stick with what I obviously meant--the accepted, ordained rabbis--and don't be a prat about such a technicality.

"Yet you can be a Jew quoting athiest thinkers and saying you live an athiest life. Nice..."

Yes, because I freely admit I'm not part of the THEISTIC side of Jewishness.
I'm not claiming to be.
You CAN be a Jew in the secular sense--many great Jews have been so.
You CANNOT be a Jew in the theistic sense and not stick to the theology.

If I DID style myself "Rabbi Obiwan" and then started spouting off atheist authors, you'd be well within your rights to call me out and say "That's not real Judaic theistic teaching!" the same way I'm calling this man out for not teaching what he purports to teach, namely, Judaism as it is as a faith.

When my atheist quoting starts to begin with "This is part of the Jewish FAITH," you can chastise me.

Until then, I've made it clear my Jewish secularism is separate from the faith altogether, so don't be a prat about that, either.

"Catholic Priests are completely different from Rabbis. The process to become a priest is totally different as are the requirements of a priest."

1. Well, yeah, they're different faiths...and
2. It was meant as a loose analogy, to represent the people you hear Saturday/Sunday...
3. I notice you didn't answer the question and challenge--what if there was a sect that had all those Koranic trappings, read from the Koran, practiced from the Koran, taught a Koranic theological view, took the Koranic view of Jesus, taught Muhammad was the last prophet...and STILL purported to be a Christian sect under the title "Christians for Muhammad," surely you'd call THAT a contradiction and its followers would hardly be considered Christian when, well, they're not practicing, believing, or holding with Christian but rather Islamic dogma?

"I am more irritated that when I do this to Mr. Seinfeld Jew up their he throws a whine fest, yet he can question ANYONEs Jewish credentials."

So...you AGREE with me it's a contradiction...

But because you dislike that it's ME pointing out that it's a contradiction and saying "That's not Jewish/the Jewish faith," you have a stink over it?

"I am being facetious. Obi has chastised me to no end when I "criticize" his Judaism, yet he feels fine criticizing others."

Again, if you AGREE that the man's contradicting the Jewish faith while purporting to teach it and represent it as a rabbi, why are you complaining about my criticism?

Also, an important distinction to draw:

I could care less about you chastising my Judaism, as I don't practice that (obviously.)

I DO care if you say I'm not a JEW in the ethno-cultural way, as I am.

Notice I have NOT said that this man isn't a Jew in THAT sense (he may very well be) ONLY in the faith-based, Torah-and-Talmudic centered sense.

"Hypocrisy combined with lack of knowledge."

1. If it IS hypocritical, and you AGREE with it and my "hypocritical" charge, what's that say about YOU?

2. I would say it's not hypocritical for the reasons I've already stated above...I'm not saying he is more or less Jewish in an ethno-cultural sense, I AM saying (and you seem to be agreeing) that the man isn't holding with Judaism in the RELIGIOUS sense...that he's teaching a contradiction in Judaism, as much a contradiction as it would be to take that "Christians for Muhammad" stance as delineated above.

"It obviously exposes Obi's connection to his faith, ie. being Jewish just means he is not christian, and of course can make Jewish jokes and speak for people he has no real connection to."

Oy gevalt...

1. AGAIN, I hold to the ethno-cultural (are we tired of that term yet?) side of the coin, NOT the religious side, ergo, I do not hold with the Jewish faith, but DO with the ethno-cultural side of things, ie, I am a secular Jew and not one who practices Judaism...

2. ...and I'm REALLY not about to get into a "My Jewish ties are better than yours!" contest, given the distinctions I've made...given the fact my mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, great-great-grandmothers (I think we have the picture) were all Jewish, and the males as well in the family...in a bloodline sense, I'm as Jewish as they come and at least as Jewish as you, sir...in a cultural sense, I'm sorry if you can't accept secular Jewishness, the fact is, most Jews and most of society can and does recognize it, so I have plenty of connections to my people, thanks, I simply made a very specific criticism--one you AGREED WITH--and you just seem to be attempting a rather malicious streak right now, which I don't quite get when you seem to AGREE...

Please make that clear, SC:

DO YOU AGREE OR NOT that"Jews for Jesus," ie, teaching Jesus is the messiah, reading from the New Testament, telling people to live good Christian lives, is NOT a properly-Judaic stance?

If it isn't, that's all I'm saying, and if you agree with me it isn't...well, why are you giving me a hard time when you agree? Because I don't fit your view of a Jew? I fit the view most agree to with secular Jewishness...I have left the faith alone, I don't purport to impose my atheistic views on it and say "This is Judaism" because it's NOT.

I criticize Judaism, the faith, but that's different from saying my atheism = Judaism in some sense.

It does not.

So again, if you agree with me...why the hassle? Granted our little forays all over the forum are fun, but still, come on, if you agree with me, there's no need for a fight...we do that enough when we genuinely disagree! LOL
If you disagree...then this should be fun, tell us why "Jews for Jesus" isn't a contradiction, especially when you already seem to have said so?

"This Rabbi is just a Jewish as Obi (from birthright)"

Didn't question that...

"and just as anti-jewish as obi but from a different angle."

If you mean anti-Jewish in the cultural sense, I'm not judging his cultural sense, and I take issue with you judging mine, especially as I don't judge yours...

If you mean anti-Jewish in the theistic sense, fair enough, but again, *I* don't style myself "Rabbi Obiwan" while being anti-Judaic, do I? *I* make it clear and explicit I'm anti-Judaism in the sense of opposing the faith as a theistic truth...this man's anti-Judaic and yet pretends he isn't, as if somehow we're to forget that Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah and that this has been a tenant of the faith for, well, a couple millenia now.

In short, I'm honest and open about my opposition; he's being dishonest about his stance, and I don't teach atheism and call it Judaism, as it were, while he's essentially teaching Christianity and calling it Judaism.

"I'm fine in principle for putting Jews for Jesus on blast, they are a real cult."

So you ARE IN AGREEMENT...

"But the fact that Obi is doing it, after all his ranting and raving, is quite rich."

...but it's ME, so OF COURSE, even in AGREEMENT, you have to argue.

...I'd say "how Jewish of you" in jest, but I feel like that'd be taken the wrong way...oh well--

How Jewish of you! :p

And what--because it's me, it's suddenly wrong somehow?

I'm sorry--does my saying 2 + 2 = 5 make THAT any less true to you, SC?

Or does my saying Yom Kippur is a day for atonement and reflection make that any less true?

LOL

"I just find it an endless source of entertainment that a Jew who prides himself on his ignorance of Judaism,"

I'm going to AGAIN ask--and likely regret doing so--how I'm ignorant of Judaism, SC?

It's not like I haven't read the OT...this you have to know, given how much time we spent arguing over 1 Samuel, Exodus, and Genesis...

That I REJECT the basic theistic underpinnings of Judaism as false and call some of the stories immoral isn't being ignorant of Judaism, it's being OPPOSED to Judaism in the theistic sense.

"can come on and criticize the Jewish credentials of others, no matter how ridiculous that faith is"

...Well, yes, the faith IS rather ridiculous. But anyway, taking what I think you meant to say, that position of faith (odd as I have a lack of faith, but whatever)...

SC, you AGREE with me!
You also say the guy's a quack!
You agree that Jews for Jesus =/= Judaism!
Because it's ME it's an issue??? Really?

That comes across as rather petty.

And again, I'm criticizing that he's teaching something that doesn't hold with Judaism and is selling it as Judaism, and thus selling a lie.

I'm NOT questioning whether he was born a Jew or what he holds in the secular realm of Jewishness and so on.

JUST saying, theistically, his claim about Judaism =/= Judaism, and you agree.

KFC = Krellin's For Christ. ;-)

Oh and if the Christian's continued to call Jesus the Son of God and put him sitting at the right hand of God, the Christian's for Mohammed would be fine.

@Draug:

"How is driving a car practicing a basic tenant of the Jewish faith."

???

"As long as the action doesn't violate one of the Laws, it isn't against the Jewish faith and therefore is not incompatible."

Oh, OK, I see. :)

Well, you start your defense of my response in your next part, so I'll cite that first to conflate things:

"Yes, I know all about the Talmud having sections dealing with Crhsitianity. Thsoe sections were written after Christianity existed and are, therefore, not part of the Jewish faityh as it existed in the time of Christ."

But to say they're not valid in terms of the faith seems rather illogical and self-serving as, well, how do you set up rules about dealing with Christianity...before Christianity emerges? :)

"So, if you can't change those tenants now to allow for those who wish to follw his teachings without violating the "You shall have no other gods before me" commandment, then how do you justify changing the tenants around 500 AD? Either it is an unerring and unchangeable religion, or it can be changed today the same as it was changed in 500 AD. You can't have it both ways."

That's actually a fair point, and if this were an atheism vs. religion debate, I'd probably cite that as another example of why I view religion as man-made and false.

But keeping with the theistic argument here...

I think the general mode of thinking is "this far and no further," that is, if you cross this line in the sand--as it were--you really cease to be Faith A and become Faith B, because you've either so given yourself to B that to still claim A is facetious, or else you've taken a stance so at odds with A that you can't really still claim to be A.

For example, if I claimed to be a fan of Shakespeare's works, but said I hated all 37 solo plays and 154 sonnets he wrote, as well as his other narrative poems...

Well, it's a seeming contradiction to be a fan of Shakespeare's works and yet hate them all, yes?

Now, there's room within the extremes of "I love all Shakespeare!" and "I hate all Shakespeare!" to shape a moderate opinion of the man...

I love most of his plays, as is evident, but as I've said before, I really don't care for, say, "The Merry Wives of Windsor."
T.S. Eliot loved Shakespeare...and thought "Hamlet" was "an artistic failure."
Shaw was very much love/hate with Shakespeare, often differing by the scene or speech.
D.H. Lawrence, as expressed in his poem "When I Read Shakespeare," thought the language he used was lovely and poetic, but hated a lot of the characters and plots (which are, funnily enough, almost exactly my sentiments on the King James Bible as a literary piece.)

And so on. Lots of wiggle room. But obviously, if I take the Leo Tolstoy position, and say that I dislike all or nearly all of everything Shakespeare wrote and say it's garbage...well, I can hardly call myself a Shakespeare fan THEN, right?

Apply that principle here, of only so far and no further.

In the basic, most crude terms, what would MOST people, if you asked them on the street, say was the difference between Christianity and Judaism?

That the former believes Jesus was the messiah and the latter does not, right?

So if you cross THAT threshold...I'd argue that you're no longer teaching Judaism, you've gone a step too far, not because you're too radical or progressive, but simply because what you're saying both contradicts the vernacular "definition" of Judaism as it is dined via its binary opposition to Christianity--again, not believing Jesus was the messiah--as well as teaches those things in Christianity and fact teaches people to BE Christian, and not Jewish.

That seems a step too far, logically, to continue calling it "Judaism."

"Oh, and Obi... Jesus wasn't the last prophet."

I don't think I said he was...if I did, I apologize for mis-speaking, I meant that he was last and final in terms of his being the messiah in the Christian religion, I may have accidentally conflated that with the succession of prophets, if I do, I apologize for the oversight.

"So I would have no problem with a Christian Muslim blend whether it be a Muslim for Christ or a Christian for Mohammed. As long as their faith was peace centered andabout the peaceful teachings of both men, it's all good in my book."

But would you still consider them "Christian" if they taught from the Koran, recited it in Arabic (as is the practice with the Koran), told people that Muhammad was the last prophet, gave a different account of Genesis than is in your Bible, gave a different account of Jesus than is in your Christian Bible...that Jesus was not the messiah...told people to live good Muslim lives...

Would you still consider that person still "Christian"...or Muslim?

If Christian, well, what there makes the person Christian, when everything else he's teaching is Muslim?

Notice I don't say "bad" or "wrong," just "Muslim," no longer Christianity.

If that person's still teaching "Christianity"...how? Why is that still Christianity by definition, and not Islam?

To give just one more example, maybe more drastic and exemplary--

Suppose we had a Christian sect, the First Church of Christopher Hitchens and David Hume, and in this "Christian" Church I teach:

--The Genesis story is wrong, creationist drivel, and never happened
--There is no evidence for the Exodus story being true
--That many of the Ten Commandments and portions of Exodus and Leviticus are immoral
--That 1 Samuel is immoral
--That the sun never DID stand still for Joshua so he could finish his battle
--That Mary was NOT a virgin, at all, and lied to Joseph
--That Jesus did NOT walk on water, turn water to wine, heal the sick, etc.
--That Jesus did NOT die for our sins as part of a grand theistic ideal
--That Jesus did NOT rise from the dead three days later
--That Jesus is NOT coming back for any of us to take us to Heaven and whatnot
--That Heaven and Hell do not, in fact, exist
--That GOD, in fact, does not exist

If I preached all that, Draugnar, in my First Church of Christopher Hitchens and David Hume...

And called myself an Atheist for Christ, and called myself a Christian evens still...would you REALLY take my sect as validly Christian?

I'm a Wiccan who will occasionally call Jesus or Buddha as my representative of the God. But that still makes me Wiccan, not Christian or Buddhist. So I guess that my feeling, after seeing that there was 150 obiposts in here and not reading more than a few words of any, is really, who are we to tell people what faiths they are allowed to be and who they can consider as divine within them? I'm not exactly the Vatican Council here.

^It's a matter of misrepresenting a faith, though, SD:

Granted I'm not Wiccan, but suppose, say, I said I was, went on TV, and told people that the essence of Wiccan belief derives from a magical Sorting Hat that places you in four houses at a school run by a gay old man who seems to have a rather strong connection to a certain Mr. Potter...

Surely you'd agree I'm misrepresenting what you actually believe as a Wiccan, and what the Wiccan faith is actually about and/or believes in?

Or, think of it this way--

What is Wiccan NOT? That is, what is NOT in line with the Wiccan belief? (If in fact there is nothing that's not in line with the Wiccan belief, this may be a bad example on my part, but it applies to the Judeo-Christian religions especially, and that's what this whole mess is concerning, after all.)

Now, suppose I said "Wiccans believe *insert whatever it is that you don NOT believe.*

The same way, again, that Judaism does NOT teach Jesus is the messiah, or that the NT is NOT canonical for Judaism as a faith, or that Jews should try to be good Christians.

THAT is fundamentally breaching what Judaism is, teaches, and is about, and presenting it as Judaism is misrepresenting it.

I'm not saying this man can't believe what he wishes to believe...

But to say he believes it and preaches it as part of Judaism just doesn't fly...it's like seeing red and calling it blue, even though it's not even a purple, it's clearly red and NOT blue.

(Or if the red/blue example doesn't work--I'm colorblind in several ways myself, so it may very well not--try this:

It's like saying 2 + 2 is 5 when it is clearly 4...

And justifying that by saying that if you believe it to be 5 it is 5.

Unless you're O'Brien in Room 101, that logic simply doesn't fly--

Regardless of whether "for you" 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or 6 or 42 or whatever, the logical, objective fact remains that, by the rules of mathematics, 2 and 2 are 4, and if you call it 5 you are calling it wrong.)

Oh, certainly, I don't like being told that I worship the devil...I don't even believe in "the devil". But I don't like telling people what not to believe. I mean, his personal view of Judaism allows him to be a Jew who believes in Jesus. As far as I can tell, he's not saying that's true of all Jews or true of you as a Jew, it's true of he personally and whoever chooses to be ministered by him.

In other words, if it doesn't directly involve you, I advise letting the guy be free to do what he wants.

Obi - I know it isn't in your nature to be brief and organized but OMG! Anyhow, I am not arguing about Jewish heritage who claim Christ as Messiah and Son of God. I am talking about teaching His teachings of love your fellow man and do unto others and stuff. If you reread my earlier response you will note that I made the requirement of Christians for Mohammed be that they still call Christ the Son of God and Messiah. I actually have read many parts of the Quran

Stupid phone...

I jave read parts of the Quran and when interpretted in the right spirit of peace there is good writing within. Of course I tend towards a casual Christianity with more a focus on morality and some sort of deity existing (agnostic with Christian leanings) so I am.not the perfect example of the perfect Christian by any means.

"@Santa - Where in the Talmud does it say you can't follow Jesus' teachings? I get that you can't worship Him as that would violate the 1st Commandment by putting Him before Jehovah in the orthodox view. Bit again I say nothing in hos teachings violates Hebrew Law. "

In some place it says he was a sorcerer, in some places an idolater which other parts of the talmud claim his punishment in the afterlife is boiling in shit, Christians are classified as heretics. So no, you are not allowed to follow Jesus teachings.

Obi-
Tl;dnr

I'll take your rambling as confirmation that you cannot reconcile your hypocrisy either.

@Santa - I did a little research and everything anti Jesus in the Talmudvwas written after Christianity started growing in an attmept to stifle it's growth. But that doesn't make it the actual laws from God and is arguable a pervesion of God's Jidaism.

Perversion of god's Judaism? The Talmud IS Jewish law. And before you start crying about the poor christians, it was written AFTER Christianity had already grown. What, you expected them to prohibit Christianity before Christianity?

I'll accept this line of reasoning if you accept that christianity is a perversion of Judaism since it came later...

@Santa - Yes. I expect an all knowing God to have said to them "This whack job is gonna come along in about 3500 years and you are to ignore him and not follow him. The Jewish leaders of 500 AD felt threatened and thought they would lose power so they passed laws to declarr this new young religion and the young man behind it to be sacreligious even though the only thing they could try to pin on him was blasphemy - the same thing their fellow hypocrites pinned on him and murdered him for. But when you read the more historical references like Luke you see he never claimed divinity on that level until then very end and then only in private to his closest 12 apostles and never to the masses that followed him. And even then they had to use Roman law to do their dirty work. So does it surprise me that a mere 25 generations later the hypocrites would continue to.persecute him by writing laws and claiming it was God's will that these be the laws? Not at all. But the Talmud is hardly God's will. It is some.old.men afraid of.losing their power desperate to find a way to keep it.

Oh, I completely accept that. Jesus did pervert Mich of Judaism himself and Christianity continied to do so after his death. There is no triunity in the old testament/Torah anywhere. So yes, we coopted it to try and give more credence to Christ's origins rather than saying "hey look at our cool new religion with a loving God, not a vengeful one who makes men damn near kill their only son to prove their faithfullness."

Draugnar, the triune God is indeed all throughout the Old Testament, as is Jesus (God with us). In Genesis, God says "Let us make man in our own image," and while that's not definite proof, it is an indication that the One God has a plural nature, in some unfathomable way. Also in Genesis, Jesus is the promised seed by which men will be saved, and the Angel of the Lord who comes down and speaks with Abraham, notably on the way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. In Exodus, God's voice comes from the burning bush, and he says that he sees and hears the distress and cries of his people, and to tell those who ask that He is the God who has come down to deliver his people. Obi you referenced that the Messiah would be like Moses, and a brief search found this resource:

Messiah would be like Moses
Prediction: Deuteronomy 18:15-18
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die." The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
How is Jesus like Moses:
Moses and Jesus narrowly escaped dead when they were born
Pharao killed all male children of Jews (Ex. 1:15-17)
Herod killed all infants younger than 2 in Bethlehem (Matt 2:16)

Moses and Jesus were saved by the faith of their parents
Moses' parents put him in a ark
Jesus' parents took him to Egypt

Moses and Jesus came out of Egypt
Moses and Jesus fasted for 40 days
Moses: Ex. 34:28
Jesus: Matt 4:2

Moses and Jesus spoke with God face to face
Moses: Num 12:7-8
Jesus: John 1:18

Moses and Jesus took their closest followers up a mountain to meet with God
Moses: Ex. 24: 9-10
Jesus: Matt 17:1-5

Moses and Jesus faces shined with light after seeing God
Moses: Ex 34:34-35
Jesus: Matt 17:2

Moses and Jesus established a covenant between God and His people
Moses: Ex. 24:7-8
Jesus: Luke 22:20

Most revealing of all: These are the only two prophets (Jesus is a messenger of God as He told us in this parable in Matt 21:37) who have ever fed a multitude of people
Moses with manna
Jesus with fishes and bread (on at least 2 occasions) - John 6:14 tells us that after Jesus performed this miracle, the people began to say "Surely, this is **the Prophet** (the one they are waiting for !) who is to come". The people were reminded of the prophacy that a "Prophet like Moses" will come - feeding thousands of people reminded them of the miracle of Manna in Moses' time !
Messiah would be the LORD God himself
Prediction: Isaiah 9:6
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Messiah/intro.html

The triune God thing is tough, and I remember wrestling with trying to get my head around the concept that the one God can exist in three... personas, or persons. I cam across a couple of concepts that helped me see that in some way I don't understand, it's possible: 1) God has three forms, like ice, liquid water, and steam are all H2O. 2) Within the very nature of the one true God himself is love, even *within* himself. This is illustrated very capably in an amazing book I've just started reading--one of those books that I can only read a few pages before I have to put it down and let things digest in my brain for a while--The Shack Revisited. In it is a reference to C.S. Lewis's story of his coming to God as he recounts in his books Surprised by Joy. Let me quote a bit here:

What a stupid thread.

Before I venture forth again through all those...

@SC:

That's just cold.

I mean, if you're going to insult me and call me a hypocrite (even when you agree with me, so what's that say about YOU?) then you'd better state it better and give the common courtesy of reading my response.

I read yours, after all...and yes, mine are long, but yours are not exactly sonnet-short, either, in many cases.

From The Shack, Revisited, by C. Baxter Kruger, pp. 42-43:
Behind Lewis's longing and ours is "the first dance," the original dance, the fellowship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This fellowship is not boring, joyless, sad, or empty, and certainly not religious. This is a living fellowship of passion and delight and love, of creativity and music and joy, of glory and oneness and life--zoe.

The secret longing of our souls is to be taken into *this circle and given a place in it, to pass into it, to bathe in it and be filled with *this life, to be noticed and known and embraced, to share in the very delight and pleasure that the Father has for his beloved Son, to share in their joy together in the Spirit, and to live in its feedom. As Lewis says, 'The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us.'

Such a thought is almost unbelievable, but I think it is tucked away within us, and wrapped up in a box labeled "Too Risky." Such a longing is too much to bear. What could be more painful than to hope for such a dream and then miss it? And who among us actually believes that we could possibly be "a real ingredient in the divine happiness"? Why would God smile at us? So we bury our dream, and move on with life. Then we read of Papa's shout, full of such passion and love and delight, and the dream is awakened."

@Invictus:

What a stupid comment--

If you don't like the conversation, why not ignore it, mute it...

ANYTHING but comment in it saying it's stupid, when all that does is bump the conversation right back up to the top?

@Mujus - So when the Queen says "we" she is saying she is more than one person? But more importantly there are plenty of scholars smarter than you or I who have shown this not to be the case. http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis1.htm

As far as Jesus being the seed, that is a Christian interpretation that assumes Jesus was the Messiah. You can't make an assumption then say a scripture proves your assumption because it references the role (Messiah) in which you assume that person holds. It's circular in nature and fails epically. In short, you say Jesus is the Messiah then claim any reference to the Messiah proves he was. It doesn't work.

As far as using the new testament, written by Christ's followers, to show a commonality with Moses, that was what his followers wanted to show. Add to it some flase statements like: Moses never saw God's face. The OT makes that absolutely clear.

And then when you add to it that Jesus knew *all* of the stories of Moses, it was pretty easy for him to claim he made a covenant. You need independent sources to prove the points you are trying to prove, not just parallels between things Jesus had clearly read and things recorded by his followers but nowhere else in history.