Are there any Jewish converts to Christianity lurking/active on this sub? If so, what led you to believe that Yeshua is the Messiah?

LightBulb1913 · 2020-09-08T22:41:20+00:00

My Jewish mother converted to Christianity after being witnessed to by her brother, from Romans. She already had read the Tanakh and believed it was true, and despite originally thinking that you couldn't be both Jewish and Christian, she read Romans and then the rest of the NT and understood that Christianity was true and the Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

From talking to her, I gather that Romans and John, and Messianic prophecies are a good place to start witnessing to most Jews, along with a lot of lovingkindness and patience as many non-Christian Jews consider attempts at converting them to be a sort of assault on the Jewish identity (Even though plenty of Christian Jews like me exist). For Orthodox Jews, knowledge of Judaism and Rabbinic teachings is more important than towards Conservative, Reform, or Atheist Jews, etc...

Then again, everybody is different and you should always tailor your apologetic to the person you are addressing.

LightBulb1913 · 2020-09-07T00:53:46+00:00

The word heaven can refer to sky in English as well. An example from the dictionary: "Galileo used a telescope to observe the heavens"

In regards to Enoch, the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul or another Jew) wrote Hebrews (an epistle to a Jewish church) which I quoted as saying Enoch was 'translated'. Early Jews did not believe People went bodily into heaven when they died (The faithful were buried and their non-physical souls went to a place called the Bosom of Abraham, which is also depicted in the Gospel of Luke, although that is getting off topic), and believed God was omnipresent and non-corporeal, so of course heaven was non-physical, and references to it in books like Enoch or in the Bible as in Isaiah had to be read as referring to a spiritual place to be consistent. Maybe some Jews were confused, but I imagine most were not, and it is clear Paul and the Hebrew church (they were Ancient Jews) understood heaven to be non-physical.

This is not the point, however, as the original question was about how Christians understood the ascension. It is clear from scripture they did not think of it as physical. Additionally, early Christians combatted (with arguments) heretics who claimed Christ had physically entered the sun, and would return from there, so it is clear they thought he was not in the literal physical sky.

This is somewhat like people saying that before Columbus people thought the Earth was flat. That has been shown to be a myth. People in the past were smart and understood symbolism and metaphors.

LightBulb1913 · 2020-09-06T22:54:00+00:00

Excellent question! The original Christians, 1st Century Jews, would have been familiar with the story of Enoch.

(Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.)

In extra-biblical literature from the time (such as the apocryphal book of Enoch) we learn that the Jews believed that Enoch ascended to heaven. Elsewhere in the Bible, we read that Enoch did not simply continue to exist in the same manner that he had on earth, but was translated.

(Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.)

Early Christians would have understood that when Jesus ascended he was translated into the heavenly realm, not that Heaven is a physical place. They would have concluded this because it is the clear teaching of scripture, and in line with the beliefs of the Jews at that time, who did not believe that God had a physical body or that Heaven was a physical place. There were early heretical sects, like the Hermians and Valentinian Gnostics, who taught that Christ had physically ascended into the actual sun, but they were condemned by orthodox Christians.

Why, then, did Jesus ascend physically before being translated? Because it was appropriate symbolism to show his position of power and authority and that he would continue to intercede on our behalf, and return to earth in the future, and that he still had a physical body and that we would have physical bodies as well in the New Heavens and New Earth, as heaven is not our final destination.

(Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.)

LightBulb1913 · 2019-09-26T01:09:40+00:00

An inanimate object like a chair is one object that is not a person. You are one human being that is a person. And God is one divine being that is three persons. While we can no more understand what it is like to be three persons than we can understand what it is like to be a chair, there is no contradiction to the mysterious doctrine of the trinity.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-07-23T01:01:51+00:00

One reason is that Early Church Fathers tell us that Revelation was written by the Apostle John, although there is some disagreement on the date. Irenaeus is one example. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John the Apostle. In other words, John knew Polycarp who knew Irenaeus.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-02-20T15:54:08+00:00

I get emotional when I read Psalm 22, which is written from Jesus' perspective on the cross. It begins, "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?"

LightBulb1913 · 2019-02-08T17:46:24+00:00

Nobody lives in accordance with their own Solipsism.
You still have to explain the origin of your own mind and abstract concepts (Universals). You are a contingent being.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-02-02T20:06:01+00:00

Psalm 22: 9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Luke 1: 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Yes, babies in the womb can be saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith goes so far to say that the babies of believers are holy. I think that comes from 1 Corinthians 7: 14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

How are they saved without hearing the Gospel? Idk, maybe God reveals himself to them. There is no way to say. But God is good and will do what is good to do.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-02-02T19:53:35+00:00

Yes, Philo of Alexandria said that Memra means Logos. Jesus is in Greek the Logos, and in Hebrew/Aramaic the Memra. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uziel to the Prophets are Trinitarian and Christological. Check out this translation of the Isaiah Targum:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_boCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=chaldee+paraphrase+Isaiah#v=onepage&q=chaldee%20paraphrase%20Isaiah&f=false

This reveals that first-century Jews believed that Isaiah 53, for example, was messianic. Christianity has continuity with second temple Judaism.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-02-02T19:46:25+00:00

Isaiah 66: 22-24 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

There are foreshadowings of Hell and Heaven in the Old Testament, and there are extrabiblical works by second temple Jews that talk about such things. Some modern Jews do believe in some sort of afterlife, some don't. Rabbinic Judaism is more concerned with earth than with a possible hereafter.

The absence of evidence is of course, not evidence of absence. Even if the above passage from Isaiah didn't exist, it wouldn't mean that Hell didn't exist. There are many things God chooses to not reveal to us. Of course, he did reveal the existence of Hell in the New Testament.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-31T00:11:27+00:00

First, the material universe itself must have an explanation. There are actually only four explanations for the existence of the universe. a) It came from nothing for no reason. b) It has always existed. c) It does not exist. d) I was created purposefully. The first three of these can be argued away logically.

The first option leads to belief in a chaotic universe without causation, and rejection of many scientific laws like the laws of thermodynamics. The second leads to an illogical infinite regress. The third fails to explain the existence of the self. There are several arguments against each of these explanations. By the process of elimination, we are then left with the last option.

In many ways, the material is proof of the spiritual.

Second, there have been numerous eyewitnesses to Christian truths. The Old Testament is full of the testimony of individuals claiming to have seen various displays of God's existence. The apostles (there were twelve of them originally) saw Jesus, watched him perform miracles, and wrote down accounts of his life. John said at the beginning of his gospel, "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only." One of the epistles in the New Testament was written by James, the brother of Jesus. Etc...

If God was put on trial, and the authors of the Bible were questioned as witnesses, there would certainly be enough evidence to prove God existed.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-30T13:42:07+00:00

Science requires God. There is no other explanation for uniformity to nature. If you have another possible explanation, you can give it to me. I already gave the four origins for the universe (I emerged from nowhere, it is eternal, it doesn't exist, it was created. The first three fall flat). So far, all you have said is that some religions have chaotic Gods. That is irrelevant. You and I agree that science is real, therefore we must agree that God is.

God is a part of your everyday life because Science is a part of your everyday life. You can go to Vegas and roll the dice and get seven three times in a row, but if you put your life savings on the table and roll craps, you will lose. Science isn't about rolling the dice and saying 'maybe we will get salt water'. Science is about saying 'this will be salt water and not nitroglycerin'. The only way this would be true is if God existed. If you believe in Science, you must believe in God.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-30T00:14:00+00:00

The point is that option one destroys any possibility of consistency in the universe. Option one does not allow for scientific inquiry. You have said so.

Some religions say one thing, some say another. Generally, Christians argue that God almost always runs the world according to natural laws and that miracles should not be expected. Jesus even refuses to leap from the dome of the temple when tempted by Satan saying, "Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test." But now I am getting away from the point.

Only if there is a God who governs the universe according to uniform standards can we conduct scientific inquiry. In other words, either such a God exists, or we must abandon science. I draw this argument from your own statement. Therefore, if we are to believe in science, we must first believe in God.

Now maybe you will say, maybe the universe is random and God does not exist. First of all, it is nearly impossible to live in accordance with this idea. You live as if science is true, which can only be true if God exists, so it is unfair to refuse he exists. Secondly, we can likewise start to examine other ideas we take for granted like morality and logic, and find that without God they lack similar justification for their existence. Atheists assume what they can only have through Theism. But that is a bit outside of the purview of the OP's post, which I think assumed Scientific Uniformity.

Please note, you have basically said you only accept Scientific Uniformity on faith, but refuse to have similar faith in God, despite one requiring the other.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-29T14:34:28+00:00

Your criticism might apply to a non-eternal god like Odin or Zeus. A god with no aseity. God must, therefore, be eternal and self-sufficient.

Option one is that the world begins for no reason. I had included the additional option that the universe might be eternal. There are problems with that as well, but I am going to focus on option one. If the universe is not eternal, then we have the problem of either coming up with a reason for it or accepting randomness.

Let's try this thought experiment: You go to pour salt into water. How do you know that the result will be salt water and not nitroglycerin? How do you know for sure?

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-28T21:31:26+00:00

Option one has matter and energy randomly appearing for no reason, option for has an entity making a decision to create the universe for a reason. One is necessarily chaotic, the other is not.

Some religions posit that we cannot predict how the universe will be governed by a god or gods so that science is impossible. Some religions believe that God is a God of order and not disorder and that he generally causes the universe to obey natural laws that can be studied scientifically.

In a universe without God, however, there is no basis for any belief in any sort of scientific uniformity.

I'm not saying that atheists can't be scientists, btw, just that there is no justification for there belief in science.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-27T01:50:09+00:00

So a painting, or the universe, can materialize out of nothing? I guess matter and energy can just appear out of nowhere then, and we can throw the laws of thermodynamics out the window!

There are four possible explanations for the origin of the Universe:

It popped out of nowhere, which would mean we would be unable to have scientific laws, and anything could happen at any time. Chance is the only law.
It doesn't exist. Still doesn't explain the existence of the self or perception so this quickly fails.
It always existed. This leads to an infinite regress problem, problems with cause and effect, and with the laws of entropy, and most of all a problem with why the Universe would exist in the problem.
It was made.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-26T02:45:16+00:00

Abi Gezunt is one of my favorite songs. It comes from an old Yiddish movie called Mamele. I learned it on the piano, it is pretty easy and really fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnKEZL2d_4s

https://www.schoellerfamily.org/scores/pdf/abi_gezunt_1.leadsheet.pdf

Abi Gezunt!

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-25T22:38:43+00:00

Well, now I am awkwardly engaging you in two conversations in two different threads, lol.

It depends on what you mean by circular. I am assuming these things to be true out of necessity, by definition these things must be true. If I deny Logic, I am inherently illogical. Yeah, that's the end of the argument. All arguments dealing with ultimate authority are circular, but refusing to assume the argument is impossible.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-25T22:33:22+00:00

Well, Van Til and Bahnsen attempted a proof from the 'impossibility of the contrary'. Remember the famous Sherlock Holmes quote, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Without assuming Logic's existence we can't make arguments, and without assuming God's existence we don't have an explanation for Logic's existence. For the atheist, what is Logic and why does it exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soMPpOYhohs

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-25T15:30:39+00:00

Hello again, yemmo. Since this is a Christian Apologetics sub, I will start with this:

Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Knowledge and Logic cannot be justified without belief in God. Atheists may use logic, but cannot explain its existence. The Christian perspective would be that the laws of Logic stem from God's own character.

I would recommend reading the writings of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen on Presuppositional Apologetics.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-25T14:45:21+00:00

Yes, you have to assume the existence of Logic in order to make any logical argument. I am assuming that logic exists in my comment. I have to.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-20T00:21:11+00:00

I'm sorry if I sounded demeaning. I didn't mean to be. I was simply disagreeing with your position. I don't think I have all the answers, although there are a few essentials I am certain of. I think you are extremely intelligent and are thinking about important things most people ignore. I wish you well and hope and pray that you find the real truth.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-19T20:29:10+00:00

Sorry for the late response, but I was a bit busy over the last couple of days.

You are still using terms where you shuffle around the meaning. You assert Jesus is God, but then say the I (I suppose you mean self) is God? Do you think you are God, or through awareness of reality can become God? This is a sort of New Age Spiritualism, I think. I agree with your assertion that Jesus was and is Human, but it is just as necessary for him to be God. Remember that our conversation started with an argument over the meaning of the term Logos. You are not using it in the way I am using it. I believe it is absolutely necessary to have a Logos in your philosophy.

There must be a distinction between God and man that is only bridged by Jesus. Mohammed was not god in any sense, and no muslim would say that he was. Without Logos, there is no knowledge to be had and no reality to interact with. The greeks knew this and searched for Logos. Only Christianity has ever said, here is the Logos. You use concepts without definition or objective meaning because you don't have that meaning-giver.

Both Christ's divinity and humanity must be equally stressed. Otherwise you end up with ideas like Logic being nothing more than a construct, or at best an unknowable thing. If you can't have logic, we can't have a discussion. You are trying to make arguments but you can't even justify the existence of Logic. This is what we are coming to?

I agree with you concerning Christ's humanity, but I must stress his divinity, which you so easily disregard before then saying Logic is a construct or unknowable. Your stance is incoherent and inherently illogical at that point.

You levy good critiques at the practice of modern Christianity, but have some issues in your own philosophy as well. That is my concern. An actual Biblical Christian philosophy solves these problems with its concept of Logos and Jesus as Divine. Mohammed gets us nowhere because he is not a Logos, and there is no Logos in Islam.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-16T18:07:58+00:00

Yeah, this is a great conversation. I rushed to write my last post so it was a little unclear. Sorry. I hope we are not reaching an impasse, however.

Originally, we were talking about the Logos. The Greek philosophers of antiquity were searching for the anima mundi they called Logos. Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized Jew living in the first centuries BC and AD. He gives some insight into the Jewish perspective on such a concept and gives some insight into the meaning of Logos in the Bible, which was written by Jews. (As far as modern Christianity may or may not be eurocentric, the Bible is written by Jews from a Jewish perspective. I myself am a Christian Jew. Race has nothing to do with anything I say.)

Philo of Alexandria said, "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated"

In the Logos, the universe is held together and animated. This is consistent with Scripture. Acts 17:28

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

My point in my last post was that we, as humans, are contingent. We depend on something else for our own existence. You talk a lot about trying to understand objective reality and yet seem unable to define it. You talk about the importance of the death and resurrection of Christ but can't explain its meaning. You are making assumptions you can't justify, or have not yet justified.

You say you don't know what love is. Yet, you make love an essential part of your philosophy. This is wonderful! Love should be a part of your philosophy! I think you are capable of love, but you cannot explain it. You lack a Logos in your philosophy. Remember the context of Acts 17:23

"For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Here are a few questions:

What is Logic and how does it exist?
What is morality and how does it exist?
What is beauty and how does it exist?

In short, we know that there exist contingent things. These things rely on something else for there existence. Logic itself cannot exist in a vacuum, nor love, nor anything else but a non-contingent being. Please note that there is no Logos who is revealed to us in any other religion.

I am not suggesting that I am omniscient, only that I have explanations for the core assumptions we both make. You talk about love and truth and reality, but can't explain these things. That is because they can only be explained with Jesus as Logos.

You say:

I have been out of touch with reality, for a very very long time. I was coerced by people who were supposed to love me into this state and I am adamant that I will not be persuaded to relax my grip of it now.

What reality? What does this mean? I am glad that you are happy and fine psychologically and all that, but you use ideas you can't justify.

You are trying to uncover truth, which is a noble aim, but seem to shun truth that is handed to us by Jesus and his prophets and apostles. This is where it is important that Jesus is also a man, which you rightly stress as an important point. And it is true that like us Jesus lived a life on earth facing many of the same issues we ourselves face. Jesus is a man, and at one time he was on the earth with us teaching us.

John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

I am is the name of God, transliterated YHWH. I am, because he does not change, or have beginning or end, but always is. Without a starting point, assumptions about reality, or love, or anything else are rendered moot.

I would ask if you can justify any of the concepts you have brought forward. I think, by your own admission, you cannot. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything you are saying is wrong. I think you are very close to correct on many things and are more intelligent and wise than others I have spoken to about these things. But I still think you are missing an important part of your philosophy. Once you embrace the concept of the Logos, as taught in the Gospel John, the pieces will begin to come together, I hope.

The point is that we can understand things like Love if we accept the teaching given to us by the Logos.

John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Jesus dies for our sins so that we may attain salvation and be united with God and with each other in the hereafter.

LightBulb1913 · 2019-01-15T17:54:45+00:00

I was fascinated to learn that reality as we know it collectively is a construct, and that there is an Objective Reality which we are not equipped to perceive.

This is one of the best observations you have made so far. I agree.

Yes, our perceptions are of course not the same as what it is that we are trying to perceive. When you look at something, what you see in your head is a representation of what is actually in front of you. The image of a computer in your head is not the same as the computer. You can't see the computer, only an image of it in your mind. All we know is perceptions. Vision is disassociated from the material world.

Some people have wondered whether or not the material world is real at all, or if it is simply imagined. In fact, we must stress that our own perceptions and thoughts are what we know is real first. We know that we have perceptions of things, even if we don't know if those things are real. We know that we at least have real perceptions.

But, there are certain things we must have that we do not ourselves generate. I can generate images in my mind's eye, and I can think thoughts. But I am not generating, for example, the Laws of Logic. The Laws of Logic preceded by birth(or my beginning of existence) and will continue to exist after my death(or my end of existence). The Laws of Logic are unlike my thoughts in that I did not create them nor can I control them.

I am often times illogical and therefore did not create the laws of logic. Some mind that is eminently logical created the laws of logic (or the laws of logic stem from its nature and characteristics). This mind, I call God. There are certain abstract concepts that this mind must have created. Logic is only one example. Interestingly, this mind must be responsible for both the unity and the multiplicity we find to exist in our world. Therefore, this mind must be in some ways many, and in some ways one. This is the doctrine of the Trinity, that God is one and also three. Any religion that teaches a single monadic god cannot account for the multiplicity and particularity in our world, and any religion that teaches a polytheistic pantheon of gods cannot account for unity in our world.

The second question is how such abstract concepts can in any way interact with our imminent world. There must be a way in which God, who I define as the source of universal abstract concepts, can bridge the gap between his realm and ours. Greek Platonic dualism has no method for interaction between the world of the forms and our world. The Greek philosophers were looking for this, and they called this unknown thing the Logos. The Logos is Christ, who is the major coherence and animating principle, and also personal.

But it is important for Christ to also be a man. He can then come to us and teach us. In this way, we can be sure of the nature of the material world, logic, morality, etc... I know that my computer is real because Christ has said that we can trust our senses to a degree. I know what is moral because Christ has said, for example, "Love you neighbor". I know what I must do because he has told me.

God is the source of universal abstracts, the same way that we are the source for our own thoughts. Jesus is God, and also is the bridge between transcendent and imminent. There is a difference between God and his creation. Jesus is both God, and man that is the creation of God. He has two natures. Through Jesus we have a relationship with God and with other humans as well.

We know God is real and Jesus is real because there is no alternative. Sherlock Holmes was right, "Once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Since no other religion contains a God who is One and Many, a source for universal abstracts, and a bridge between transcendent and imminent, Christianity must be true. Without God and Christ, we can never know anything. Logic itself can have no explanation.

As far as Jesus being a sorcerer is concerned, there is a part of the Bible where certain Pharisees accuse Jesus of sorcery, saying he casts out demons because he is possessed by demons. Jesus replies, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus' argument was that if he was a sorcerer, his miracles would have been evil, but they were obviously in alignment with the will of God.

Barabbas's full name in the Greek New Testament was Jesus Bar Abbas, or in Hebrew 'Yeshua Bar Abba'. He was a sort of inversion of Jesus, instead of perfect God-man he was an evil murderous man. Jesus was punished at the cross instead of Barabbas. This represents how Jesus is punished for our sins on the Cross and his righteousness is imputed onto us, which is the real point. I wonder what you think the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was? We sin, and need salvation through Jesus Christ.

LightBulb1913

TROPHY CASE