Sure. I wanted to avoid an argument about definitions, so I just made it explicit. The word is used both biologically and religoiusly, and I don't have a bone to pick with either usage. If another does, that's also fine with me.

I don't really want to get into this argument, but I do have a question of our resident Jews: Are there Jewish Buddhists?

I would argue in many respects there is a lot more in common between Judaism and Buddhism than Judaism and Christianity

And if I am not mistaken you do not need to follow Buddha as a godd in some types of buddhism, so technically you could be both

Nigee plus a lot.

So Santa, if you have an open mind, you might ask yourself "What if it's true that Yeshua was the Messiah?" Btw for those who might not know, "Christ" and "Messiah" are from Greek and Hebrew respectively, and they mean the same thing: "anointed one." Anointing was putting oil on someone's head, which was done for kings, prophets, and priests--All of which Jesus was (or Yeshua, if you have a problem with the Latinized form of the name).

... and on an unrelated topic, don't let's overlook "culturally" when describing who is Jewish.

^I guess that's my cue to come back in and say...

Yes, SC, you're right, there is no such thing as Jewish Christians, hence my point...

So I again ask why you deride me when you agree with my point, are you honestly that petty? If I agree with you--as I just did--I openly state it and leave it at that...are you less a man about such things than me?

Come on.........

Well, Santa, if you'll let "Jewish Buddhist" slide on the grounds that they do not /necessarily/ have to worship Buddha, why does "Jewish Christian" not slide on the grounds that, to them, Jesus is God? (I can't believe I'm even asking this.)

Because being a Christian necessitates taking Jesus as a savior...which is pretty much opposed to the stance Judaism takes...?

I dunno, not my analogy I'm trying to salvage, just a thought.

Which stance?

"
Yes, SC, you're right, there is no such thing as Jewish Christians, hence my point...

So I again ask why you deride me when you agree with my point, are you honestly that petty? If I agree with you--as I just did--I openly state it and leave it at that...are you less a man about such things than me?

Come on........."

I answered this question already, I was being facetious in response to you for acting indignant for saying the exact same thing about you.

"Well, Santa, if you'll let "Jewish Buddhist" slide on the grounds that they do not /necessarily/ have to worship Buddha, why does "Jewish Christian" not slide on the grounds that, to them, Jesus is God? (I can't believe I'm even asking this.) "

What the fuck are you on about. Because Jesus is NOT God. So worshiping Jesus either as a full replacement of god or a 1/3 part of god is not Jewish.

Can someone live by "Christian Values" whatever the fuck that means as Draug stated before and still be a jew? Yes. Can someone think that Jesus was a hell of a guy and still be a Jew? Yes. Can someone think that Jesus is a Prophet of god and still be Jewish? I guess that is a gray area.

Can someone say Jesus is God and be a Jew? Absolutely not. Because a Jew does not believe god would live as a human. Because a jew does not believe that man is born with an original sin that would require god to suffer for him. And above all because Jews worship an intangible deity rather than a Man.

Likewise if Buddhists worship the buddha rather than see him as a spiritual guide than they cannot simultaneously be Jewish either.

Its really quite simple.

"Which stance?"

The stance that the messiah has yet to come,

I mean, Christ, can you be christian and believe that Horus the God of Egypt is actually Jesus? Why not? Why is my religious tradition the exclusive slut of religious identification? Why am I wrong in excluding people who truthfully do not worship the same god as my people do.

Speaking of cheap whoring of religious ideology, why do I constantly have to be the open minded one?

What if "Yoshu" is the messiah? Well acording to you people i'll be burning in eternal hellfire. Doesn't my resistance to your faith despite all the times you people pound that into my head make you want to question the "good news." Doesn't the fact that I abstain despite having lived my entire life around you people, and the fact that my life would be made infinitely easier if I even pretended to share your faith make you question your impression of me? After all you constantly portray me as the ignorant one as you continually bastardize the positions my religion takes on issues and drop discussions when you realize those assumptions are false. I don't pretend to know every detail about your religion, you act like you know mine and you make a fool of yourself as you do.

So why do *I* have to open up my mind? Why can't *you* open up yours. You don't know my religion, you have consistently proved that. I dare you to try to convert an orthodox Rabbi. If he doesn't just start hysterically laughing at you first or close the door in your face, he will take you over to an artscroll siddur and tell you patiently and logically why your entire life is a lie. Then again I know you are too much of a Coward to do so.

If you did know my religion you would know it is hardly a big deal that Jesus gathered his disciples for Passover when at least 1/3 of all the worlds Jews were REQUIRED to descend on Jerusalem for Passover, and that due to the laws of passover, Jesus gathered with his disciples. Passover isn't a portent of Jesus's death and resurrection. Jesus was a Jew and lived as a Jew, and *supposedly* decided to change all the rules at a passover Seder. Even if Jesus did in fact yell "Eat Me!" at a Passover Seder, Passover is no more a portent of Jesus divinity as Christ's birth was a portent of the Battle of Trenton in 1776.

But enough of my obi-like analogies, the fact of the matter is that you are just as closed minded as me, probably more. The only difference is that you feign knowledge of my religion while I am quite content knowing the little I know about yours, which in the end, probably provides me a richer understanding of your religion than visa versa.

"Well, both sides _would_ say that, wouldn't they, SC? The fact is, a Jew who doesn't accept Jesus as Christ is no more "objective" than a Christian in the matter. "

I think anyone who knows the history of Passover and the Jewish laws of the festival can look at the story objectively and realize it wasn't divine action that placed Jesus and his disciples at the same table. Passover is a holiday that gathers Jews together, Jesus made a speech at Passover. That hardly makes passover a portent of Jesus divinity. I think ANYONE looking at that objectively could make that statement. My Judaism or rejection of Jesus doesn't make me more objective, my application of common sense (which Mujus has lauded me for in the past) makes me more objective in this case.

Because if all you got is that the Jewish holiday of Passover is a portent of Jesus divinity because Jesus happened to make a speech while his disciples were gathered on Passover, you are grasping at straws.

Otherwise agree with me that because George Washington decided to use the opportunity of Christmas Day to launch an attack and win a battle at Trenton, that Jesus birth was merely a portent of a small battle in the State of New Jersey.

^Sorry Mujus...but you've lost this round...

I agree with SC there above.

OBIWAN AND SC AGREE.

...

Come to think of it, you may want to check your Bible again, Mujus, and see if that's one of the conditions laid out in Revelations to signal the End Times...lol. ;)

SC,

"I think anyone who knows the history of Passover and the Jewish laws of the festival can look at the story objectively and realize it wasn't divine action that placed Jesus and his disciples at the same table. Passover is a holiday that gathers Jews together, Jesus made a speech at Passover. That hardly makes passover a portent of Jesus divinity. I think ANYONE looking at that objectively could make that statement. My Judaism or rejection of Jesus doesn't make me more objective, my application of common sense (which Mujus has lauded me for in the past) makes me more objective in this case."

Well, a few points here. Perhaps I was misreading your initial post (the "I guess it's just the difference of someone...."). If you mean that the mere fact that Jesus made a speech at Passover is not compelling evidence that He's the Messiah, then I agree. I took you to be saying that an "objective" look at the whole corpus of messianic prophecy would lead to the conclusion that Jesus is not the Christ. There I would of course not agree.

But another point here deserves to be made. To the extent that Jesus' talking at passover did fulfill prophecy (say there was a very specific prophecy to this effect -- not that there was), it would matter little that Jesus was at the table through the normal course of events. To be "divine action," something need not be miraculous, and not every fulfillment of prophecy entails the suspension of the normal course.

So while I appreciate the argument that the mere fact of Jesus talking at Passover is too common and low-information a thing to be very definitive, particularly in light of a fairly vague foreshadowing, I am not impressed with the argument that something couldn't have been divine action or prophecy fulfillment because it happened in the normal course of events.

Any fair reading of even the OT must lead to the conclusion that divine action often comes through "normal" events.

Going back to my initial point, then -- I don't think either side is innately more objective. Each has a desired result. In this particular case, I agree that the evidence in question, taken by itself anyway, is far from definitive.

"^Sorry Mujus...but you've lost this round...

I agree with SC there above.

OBIWAN AND SC AGREE."

Obi, your agreement or otherwise means nothing. If you have an actual argument to present, feel free to jump in.

@semck - I hate to point out the obvious here, but everything I've seen so far regarding PAssover and prophecy and Jesus talking is all so circumstantial to the point that, well, every year my brother-in-law makes a speech at Passover. Virtually every Jewish household does. IF some year he whacked jobbed out and started passing around unleavened bread and wine and made Jesus speech would that not be a fulfillment of prophecy?

The problem with Jesus fuflfilling mundane prophecy as an adult is that he *knew* all these prophecies and could easily manipulate his followers into being at the right place att he right time to "fulfill" them. Only a supernatural act that fulfills prophecy can be compelling evidence.

Mind, I'm not trying to deny Jesus' divinity. I'm arguing from a strictly logical stand point. If I know the details about some big but mundane prophecy, I can fulfill it by doing the mundane act.

The point is that faith in Jesus as the Messiah does not *contradict* logic. However, logic is not the only thing you need to come to Jesus as Savior. To come faith in Jesus as the Messiah, you must also seek the truth with an open mind--asking God directly for wisdom, which he has promised to give if you ask. But first you must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

As for the Passover looking forward to Jesus dying for the sins of the world as the lamb of God, look also at Abraham and Isaac on the mountain. After a long lifetime of waiting for God's promise to come true, and even giving up on it happening, Abraham and Sarah had a baby in their old age. And now God was asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on an altar! On the way to the sacrifice, Isaac asked Abraham why they didn't have a sacrifice, and Abraham replied that God would provide the sacrifice. Jesus is that long-awaited promise and also the sacrifice God provides. And I'm not trying to prove that Jesus was the true meaning of passover--I'm reporting what *he* said at his last supper with his disciples, a passover meal. Here's what he said, one of several accounts in the New Testament, Luke 22:7-20:
The Last Supper

7 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread arrived, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John ahead and said, “Go and prepare the Passover meal, so we can eat it together.”

9 “Where do you want us to prepare it?” they asked him.

10 He replied, “As soon as you enter Jerusalem, a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you. Follow him. At the house he enters, 11 say to the owner, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room where I can eat the Passover meal with my disciples?’ 12 He will take you upstairs to a large room that is already set up. That is where you should prepare our meal.” 13 They went off to the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and they prepared the Passover meal there.

14 When the time came, Jesus and the apostles sat down together at the table.[a] 15 Jesus said, “I have been very eager to eat this Passover meal with you before my suffering begins. 16 For I tell you now that I won’t eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”

17 Then he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. Then he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”

19 He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me.”

20 After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=NLT

"And now God was asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on an altar! On the way to the sacrifice, Isaac asked Abraham why they didn't have a sacrifice, and Abraham replied that God would provide the sacrifice. Jesus is that long-awaited promise and also the sacrifice God provides."

Awesome! A mistranslation. Thanks for hammering my point home Mujus! Because in fact it does not say god will provide the sacrifice, it literally says:

8. And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the *burnt offering*, my son." And they both went together.

Was Jesus a burnt offering? And did not god provide a sacrifice that did indeed become a burnt offering in that same story? huh. Its sorta like you are... grasping at straws.

"The point is that faith in Jesus as the Messiah does not *contradict* logic. "

It doesn't contradict logic when you attribute all the vague prophesies and the prophesies that rely on easily faked information to his "first coming" but stipulate all the substantial prophesies will occur in his "second coming." Isn't it convenient that the messiah arrived yet the world is still at war. but of course it doesn't matter because you christians don;t mind changing the rules after the fact. You are like that preacher changing the date for doomsday, your messiah wasn't actually a messiah, so he obviously will return. Logical...

"However, logic is not the only thing you need to come to Jesus as Savior. "

And I would argue logic is quite a hindrance coming to jesus. I also liked the logical leap from "Jesus as the messiah is not against logic" to "you need logic to come to Jesus"


Semck:

Well f you believe in god everything is divine action. But that wasn't Mujus point (which he seems to have dropped) which was because the episode of the last supper happened to occur on Passover, it means Passover is a portent to Jesus.

I'd say that the Last Supper wasn't so much about Jesus fulfilling prophecy as it was Jesus claiming to be a new sort of sacrificial lamb, using the pattern of the Passover meal to connect what he was doing to what God had done in the past. So in the same way that the blood of the Passover lamb was a sign for the angel of death to pass over the homes of the Hebrews, the blood of Jesus is a sign for the angel of death to pass over the spirit of the believer; or in the same way that the Passover lamb signaled the beginnng of the Hebrew's escape from slavery in Egypt, the blood of Jesus empowers the believer to excape from slavery to sin. Apparently Jesus viewed such a sacrifice as part of the messianic role he claimed. If you don't buy Jesus as the Messiah, you obviously wouldn't buy his claim to be a new sort of sacrificial lamb.

The fulfillment of prophecy would point towards whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Draug is perfectly correct to point out that Jesus could and by all accounts did engineer a number of fulfillments - riding into Jerusalem on a donkey the Sabbath before the Passover is a clear example that springs to mind. Others would have been more difficult to engineer - being born in Bethlehem, being raised in Galilee, dying by crucifixion (he could as easily have been stoned, and almost was several times), and rising from the dead are several that come to mind.

Of course, the resurrection is the linchpin of the whole thing. Why, if Jesus was a vile imposter or a disillusioned nutcase, would God vindicate him by raising him from the dead? And if you swallow the camel of the resurrection, why strain at the gnat of prophetic fulfillments?

Fiinally I'd like to say that generally I think the practitioners of a given religion should get to be the gatekeepers of their own faith. So if practicing Jews say you can't be Jewish and Christian, I respect that (Sorry Obi, I don't think you get a vote). I personally find it quite annoying when Mormons claim to be Christians. If Mormons are Christians, why are they on my doorstep trying to convert me?

Actually he was claiming to be the new sacrifice because Jews made Sacrifices on festivals, for example, Passover.

"being born in Bethlehem, being raised in Galilee, dying by crucifixion"

None of these are prophesy... Guess it happens when you take someone's bio and then turn their life story into prophesy

When I talk to religious fundies in real life this is always what blows their minds. I don't even believe their prophesies exist. You have to understand that your fore-bearers from the disciples onwards have been actively searching for prophesies in earlier books that prove Jesus was messiah. The "prophesies" you all take for granted are weak if they exist at all without translations. For example, Abraham's "Prophesy" that Mujus tried to pawn off on us a second ago. It doesn't fit, it isn't a prophesy, and god 'fulfills' it in anycase in the same bible story. Yet somehow Mujus thinks Abraham was making a prophesy and speaking of Jesus. 2000 years of grasping at straws will do that to you

<<But that wasn't Mujus point (which he seems to have dropped) which was because the episode of the last supper happened to occur on Passover, it means Passover is a portent to Jesus.>> No, Santa, that was your own misinterpretation of my statements.

Sure it was

Also, a burnt offering is a sacrifice. Was Jesus burned? No. Was he killed by ritually cutting his throat, another form of sacrifice? No. Does that mean he was not a sacrifice? No. Santa, it appears that you might be guilty of the very thing you are accusing Christians of--Bending logic and facts to justify your own faith.

... or lack of faith, whichever fits.

A Burnt offering is a specific type of sacrifice, there are several as you know. It also is the type of sacrifice that Abraham used on the Ram that God provided. I am not bending any facts, I think everyone looking at this objectively would agree. Jesus might have been a sacrifice, but he certainly was not a burnt offering which Abraham specifically says. That is quite clear.