Ask a Jew Part Too; Commentary

Such as ?

If you are referring to when John was in jail, yes. Do you know why ?

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus ...

 

Yes, I understand that you don't.
I understand that the Christians, in general, can not afford to see this distinction, because it undermines the general interpretation they have for 2000 years given to the story.
Understandable.

I am only concerned with laying down the foundation that supports the way the next generation of Jews will debate with you on this.

Jesus is the same son-of-man who comes "eating and din king, a glutton (sin) and winebibber (sin) but become "metamorphosized" into the son-of-God, i.e.; who is without sin, is God, is immortal, and can never actually die, as could/did Jesus on that cross.

 

Are you begging off here, after the long list you gave us about the studies you made of all the various world religions, and that very informative lesson you posted on Hinduism, that suggested it was derived from Judaism, too some extent???


My simple question to you is who else in the Scriptures or in accord with teachings of the Talmud might John have been referring to???

John is locked up, after insisting that he is NOT the Elijah, not even a prophet for that matter.
He sends men to ask Jesus "are you the one coming?"

Certainly these two Jews both understood from their Judaism that one was expected.
Who else might that have been that the Elijah who was specifically designated to appear some time after 800BC?

Certainly you have some back ground here that would explain what the Jews then were asking Jesus.

 

I prefer to understand this "virgin birth" as reference to an Act-of-God inside the womb of Mary.

That "Act" was actually a genetic mutation.
It changed Jesus in the same way as such an evolutionary incident had created a new species, man, when Adam appeared.

Adam was born out of a surrogate mother ape's womb, having experienced the fusing together of 2 of the 24 ape chromosomes, creating man with only 23 chromosomes ever thereafter.
Out of the dust of these chemicals inside the ovum, in both cases, a new creature appeared.

Jesus was the first of the Homoiousian sapiens that are to coming, and replace us all, as we too are born again into the world of the future.

 

The first time, he said to Jesus as John pulled him back up and out of the water...:



Mat 3:16
And Jesus, (the son of man), when he was baptized, (i.e.; held under by John until a Near Death was experienced), went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens (of the mind) were opened unto him, (in this ritual of Plerosis), and he saw the Spirit of God, (inside his Unconscious mind, i.e.; Truth, opening the door of past memories), descending, (as a great light rushing down through a tunnel reaching up to heaven above).

Mat 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This, (now), is my, beloved Son, (the immortal Elijah, the ONLY son, born again and begotten son), in whom I am well pleased.



The second time, he said it to Jesus and the men who had also seen Elijah and Moses talking, but he was referring to Elijah, who he called his son, the son-of-God, speaking with Moses.

Matt 17:2 And (Jesus) was transfigured before them, (Peter, James, and John): and, (Jesus), his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them (Jesus, Peter, James, and John), Moses and Elias talking with him.
5 While he, (Peter), yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, (Jesus, Peter, James, and John): and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This," (The Elijah who had been speaking with Moses: [Matt 17:3]), is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

 

So if God said it to Jesus why do we know about it? The only person who could have revealed it was Jesus. And people lie. God told me.

 

No. Actually I don't. I try to avoid explaining what religious people should specifically believe about their own religion.
I can tell you what I believe about other people's religions but personally, I consider it a bit rude to tell you or anyone else what you are supposed to believe about your own religion.

However, here is some information about Elijah and Moshiach in Judaism. I can find much more if you like.
This is what Jews believe about Moshiach and Eliyahu Hanavi:

 

Well, according to the only witnesses of this evident, James, Peter, and John, the gospels recorded the history in its report.

6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Then, these three men were instructed not to tell anyone else until AFTER he was crucified,....

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.


This explains why Jesus was less than clear/specific in explaining that, indeed, Elijah had come, and gone, but had been mistreated while he had indwelled Jesus before the transfiguring metamorphosis:

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

 

Whether I agree with you on that issue of rudeness or not is immaterial to responding to proselytizing fro Christians aimed at people in general, including the members of other denominations, Jews, and perhaps, Muslims, when it s safe to so do.
And, The Institution of Religion is one of the seven foundational social constructs which are the source of social forces directed at us all.
It would be stupid and fool hearty to be silent in the face of the possible consequences emanating from these social forces, and suffer the slings and arrows of the massive organization behind these seven institution.

As Al Capone so succulently phrased it, "You mess with me, I mess with you."

 

See :

Wiki :
"The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[1] The singular Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם i.e. ben-'adam) also appears in the Hebrew Bible over a hundred times.

The use of the definite article in "the Son of man" in the Koine Greek of the Christian gospels is novel, and before its use there, no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity exist.[1] Geza Vermes has stated that the use of "the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages


also see : Mark 14:62

http://biblehub.com/mark/14-62.htm

..

 

As I noted, I try and avoid telling people what they should believe about their own religion.
So, I cannot argue with your statement above.
(Well, with the caveat that I do definitely believe that those people who call for killing or persecuting Jews should be encouraged to change their minds! )

 

Cupid Dave isn't talking about God saying these things only to Jesus, he is talking about who God was referring to at the transfiguration, Jesus or Elijah.

Why don't you read this and tell us how you interpret it, meaning was God calling Jesus his beloved son or was he calling Elijah his beloved son..

The Transfiguration

17 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. 3 Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” 8 And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.

 

So, you are a Talmud Observant believer in your Judaism, and refer me, not to scripture, but to these rabbi who have decided we can avoid this entire issue of a direct prophecy that Elijah shall be the "one coming."

What about the Torah Observant person who see the whole of secular history and the events of both 32AD and 666AD as related to the two prophets from among these 12 Jewish brothers who were to come, one Jesus and one Mohammed?

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet, (Elijah, in 800BC), from among their brethren, like unto thee, (i.e.; Moses, a miracle worker), and will put my words in his mouth: [John 14:10; John 17:8;John 3:34]; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Deuteronomy 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it (by harsh correction in holocaust: [Gen 22:13, Rev 11:7-13]) of him.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet (Mohammed), which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, (Allah, of Forces: [Dan 11:3, even that prophet shall die, (unlike Elijah = Jesus, who arose from the dead: [2Ki 2:11]).

 

I haven't a clue as to "what about..."
However, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah are necessary for one to be "Torah Observant."
Those who reject the Oral Torah have, throughout all of history, eventually ceased to be Jewish and have disappeared or become some other religion - such as Christianity.

 

“This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!”

Listen to Elijah - and then Elijah is gone ??? That makes utterly no sense.

 

...yeah...

These social forces whether sourced from the Institution of Religion or the Institution of Law and Order or the Cultural Institution, etc,... they need hear our individual voices:

22 And almost all things are by the law, (which in 32AD was theocratic), purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Rev Martin Luther King exemplified this idea for us in 1965.

The complaint to be acknowledged here, is the Judaism gathered together a College of men who set down in stone of their own ages the interpretation of scripture which forevermore was to deny any different or new insights, unless that where to come from their own ranks, after years of evidence that that scholar agreed 99.999% with everything they had stated to date.

Like the idea of "Separate but equal" which the southeners had agree was acceptable interpretation of the scripture of the US Constitution, King was assassinated for disagreeing with that certified body of politicians who set in stone since 1865 a de facto inequality.

We could say Jesus was rude.
But the Churches and the mosques, and the synagogues use that same charge to maintain the archaic and ancient claims to understanding scripture so they can apply the force of their own peculiar beliefs upon us forever.

 

Well, you do make me laugh sometimes...
I think that history might disagree with the efficacy of Jews applying "the force" of their beliefs on others.
As Torah observant Jews comprise less than .001 percent of the world's population, their "force" has apparently not been very effective.

 

Hmmm...

Elijah came twice.
He brought the same message twice.

The first time, the Jews did not listen to him.
Elijah had even asked God to let him die, because he felt he had failed:

4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.

So, God did let them kill the messenger this second time.


But, Deuteronomy 18 said if they would not listen to his words, God would require it:

Deuteronomy 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, [John 14:10; John 17:8;John 3:34]; I will require it (by harsh correction in holocaust: [Gen 22:13, Rev 11:7-13]) of him.

He required it,... by sending Elijah back.

Elijah/Christ collected the Gentile World together under Christianity.
He made those who said they were Jews, but were of the synagogue of Satan (Rev 3:9), face the judgment of these other Bible readers who understood the scriptures which the Rabbi did not.

Elijah left after he an Moses resurrected the dead suffering messiah, Jesus, in much the same fashion as Israel was resurrected by a remnant from the Holocaust. (Gen 22:13; Rev 11:7-13)

 

You make me laugh too, like using this euphemism of Oral Torah when you mean Talmud.

The 4th century collection, (Talmud), of what the Rabbi thought was the proper meaning of the Old Testament, was based almost totally on the Mishnah, which its self was only a few centuries old.

The Mishnah contained ideas of other old rabbi collected from the 2st century before Jesus until they embarrassing had to escape from Israel had Jesus had told them would be the case.

There is really only the two kinds of believers in Judaism, those would parrot what the Rabbi say in the Talmud, and those who forget such mere opinions, however revered by Jews, and read Torah themselves.

 

I agree - that is according to REV 2:9

But from what I've observed much the same can be said abt followers of Christianity and Islam, ,


Is it God's folly. ?

(wink)







.

 

He came once in the flesh and once in the Spirit....

The point is that it makes no sense that God would point out Elijah as his son and then tell the disciples to listen to him when they were Jesus' disciples.It would make even less sence that God would tell Jesus to listen to Elijah if he was Elijah.

"This is my beloved son -listen to him"

Listen to who, Jesus or Elijah ?

What you are saying draws a complicated picture that God was calling Elijah his son while telling the disciples to listed to Jesus ? Or Elijah ? I don't see many people taking on your interpretation and this is why.

It is the last 2000 years, as you mentioned in another post, Christians have been reading the Bible with the understanding of the Gospel writers and the disciples like the way I have. Think about it ... None of us were anywhere near the transfiguration nor can we understand what happened there, but the disciples spent at least 3 years with Jesus and the Gospel writers wrote these things.

It's right there ! This is why Christians have understood it this way for 2000 years.

Right here - Luke

I think there is a very simple concept to understand and it is this. Jesus was Jesus and Elijah was Elijah and John was John. This is why John didn't say he was Elijah, because he was literally John.

John was asked if he was Elijah but he answered No. I suppose that might have something to do with knowing that the Jews wouldn't have accepted him as Elijah,they sure didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah so there was that complication.

 

Yes, I think you are probably correct on this if we count the written doctrinal statements of the denominational churches.
There is a difference, too, in that the Muslims' Koran, the Mormons' BOK, the Jehovah Witnesses' revised Bible, and the Jews' Talmud.

These all pretty much defer to these sources as the final authority when issues are debated.
I also see that Jerry Falwell set down a practice of stone walling on certain issues, which are now very wide spread n practice and spanning over most of the Christian denominations.

On issues like Evolution, some Christians will not even compromise with science that agrees with the Bible if it differs from the way they understood the matter previously.

I like the clear statements of the Koran, Talmud, BOM, etc., because at least we know what they are wrong about, and what they are stuck with, and what they can not change around as the truth corners them and their book reports on the scriptures.

 

Of course you would be correct unless you accepted the dichotomy of Jesus as the son-of-man and the Christ as the son-of-God.

As I explained before, Jesus was possessed by Elijah, indwelled, during the time from his baptism by John, and the metamorphosis when Elijah returned to be with Moses.

Consider both the problem of an immortal Elijah and a totally different individual, an immortal Jesus.

Unless they are one and the same son-of-God, the scriptures clearly insist that neither of these "men" died.
Are there, god forbid, two sons-of-God, a Quartet, not a Trinity?

 

Only the agnostics and the next generation of believers, especially the Jewish youth will choose this alternative interpretation to the present dialectic of a Christianity that Judaism has fended off for 2000 years, now.

Whereas you look to judge the rationality of my offering here based upon how attractive it seems to people committed already to perhaps a lifetime of these other perspectives, what you need examine is the failure to proselytize 12 million Jews during these last two millennia.
They have basically found good argument against your Jesus, while my Elijah confounds them.

And, contemplate the fact that Islam swept away the five centuries of Christianity in Egypt and may make such inroads into your brand of Christianity in the very near the future.

This is a game changer.
The Jews have erected a strong wall between your orthodox Christian theology, but they have had and will discover no such defenses against my Elijah.
What you will see before 2025 is an earthquake in Israel so great it will shake the whole world:



17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done, ("Christ is The Elijah").

18 And there were voices (among the Christians), and thunders (in Judaism), and lightnings (that aflame Islam); and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great, (effecting 2 billion Christians, 1.33 billion Muslims, and 12 million Jews, collectively, more than half the population of the Earth).

 

I don't see a problem with an immortal Enoch or Elijah,nor do not equate parallels between two people to show that two people are the same person.