Welcome to Gaia! ::

Jews don't accept Jesus. They call Him a pagan god. Just because Google and Webster say different isn't going to change what the Jews accept as their teachings. Just like Muslims accepting Muhammand as a prophet. Just because you think he lied, isn't going to change the fact the Muslims still accept him, it's just part of their religion.

@IMR: I never said you couldn't call Him a liar, just that you couldn't call Him a pagan god. I can't call Muhammed a pagan prophet, that goes against the defintion. I CAN however call him a false prophet from a non-pagan religion or a liar.

@Shadow: According to some it does. I'm not going to call Mormons Christian or non-Christian until I do some research, okay?

They can call Him a liar, not a pagan god. That's just plain inaccurate as according to my point above.

@Semiremis: For the most part I agree with you except that it does matter whether they call Him a pagan god or not. Words matter, and if you're going to say something, you should know what you're saying. It matters whether Mormons are Christians or non-Christians (the non- having a huge impact), and the Messianic part of Messianic Jew puts an entirely different spin on things.

I'm in no way saying she was. By 'they' I meant those who don't believe in the Bible.

And no, it doesn't, but pagan isn't a term that should be applied to Christianity. As far as I know, pagan doesn't hold it's origins in Isreal. It is not a term unique to their religion. Since it's not, they can't change the definition to fit their own purposes. It's not like gentile which does refer to anyone not of Jewish descent.

One similarity: Which translation?

I'll go ahead and try the New International Version of the Christian Bible. The Catholic word Pentateuch is for the first five books of the bible - those are just a translation from the Latin translation of the Torah. The NIV was a wonderful thing - scholars went to the originals and translated them directly into English, and even managed to record additional cultural context and subtext.

Don't force my hand. I'm not a bible thumper - please don't ask me to do that, even though I am quite capable of it.

One God in three persons. God the Father is the one Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane, the same God of the old Testament.

Also, not all Christians believe in the Trinity. Look up Gnostics, for example.

This is why I challenge your assertion that Christianity can find nothing of value in Judaism. Neglecting the precepts about a right to the holy land, and being God's chosen people (as Jesus overrode those with that policy about taking converts), they still trace their roots back to the covenant with Abraham. Jesus taught about the Ten Commandments. How is that "Nothing in common"?

Idolatry aside, this is my point exactly. Your understanding would be closer to that of what Jesus grew up with. Add in the works based off of his words, and you have a decent reconstruction of what Jesus actually believed - and many would rather take that as the Christ-ian truth over some Evangelical sermon.

Or neglects it completely. Once again, something that a True "Messianic Jew" would take pains to change.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of that statement, it's incredibly disrespectful. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all still hold the covenant with Abraham at the core of their identity as a faith.

Nice sig, IMR. How ironic.

You don't like to read entire posts, do you?

Do you have any clue how incredibly disresepectful that is? You really do value your own opinion over others, and yet you accused me of that. You're a hypocrite. Would you learn some humbleness?

And I realize that. It evolved into the word we know today. You have no right to use it to describe Jesus. It'd be like me using gentile to refer to someone not Judeo-Christian because I figure both follow the same God. I won't, but you make me want to.

Since you know about Biblical scholarship, you must be happy to share it with us then!

Then please present evidence of the distinction between the First Five books of the Old testament and the Torah. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numerology, and Deuteronomy are the English words for those first five books of the bible; they are the Pentateuch, a word which is used synonymously with the Torah. If you want to use mistranslations as evidence for your assertion, I insist that you use the NIV of the bible as opposed to a sect-specific version. Any disagreement with using the NIV will be interpreted as bluffing about even touching biblical scholarship, as per its purpose, and the method of its creation.

Funny thing - you're not really debating if you pick and choose which to address. Quite an asinine thing to talk about spreading understanding, yet not answer questions. Do we have you backed that thoroughly into a corner that you only have your personal opinion fluffed up as "scholarship" and trolling?

Please quit with the derogatory language. It isn't helping your "king of the mountain" game.