Prove Jesus To A Jew

[pat22]

like my quote?

[Namaste]

(PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THIS POST I AM SIMPLY PARAPHRASING OR COPYING DIRECTLY FROM THE SALVATION HISTORY WEBSITE. FOR FURTHER UNDERSTANDING PLEASE GO THERE)
First of all, I’m not a Jew. Neither am I an expert. However, I was (literally, this is not a joke to make me sound all 1st century) pagan before I was Catholic. I had to be convinced the old fashioned way that Christ was the redeemer. To understand why Christ is the Messiah, we have to go way back to the Old Testament (henceforth, as you are a Jew) the Tanakh.
When G-d interacts with Israel in the Tanakh, he does so in the form of covenants. We may understand, in the modern world, covenants to mean the same as contracts. But covenant (related to the word convene) means to come together. The readers of the Tanakh would have seen the difference between contract and covenant as the difference between prostitution (contract) and marriage (covenant, or between owning a slave (contract) and having a son (covenant). Through the progression of covenants, the Father has been trying to bring us gradually back to him since our expulsion from Eden.
We understand this because the second difference between contracts and covenants is what is being exchanged. In a contract, you exchange a skill or piece of property or some other thing. In a covenant you say, “I am yours and you are mine.” And unlike in a contract, where you swear by your own word, in a covenant you swear by or with the help of G-d.
You’ll find for instance, that ancient covenants take a certain form: There’s a kind of preamble that introduces the covenant, followed by a historical review of the relationship between the two parties; then a series of stipulations that spell out the obligations of the parties, along with a list of blessings and curses for upholding or breaking the covenant. Usually, the covenant is "ratified" in a solemn ceremony that involves a reading of the covenant document and eating and drinking. (If you want a very detailed analysis, try "The Meaning of Covenant" in the SalvationHistory.com Scripture Library.)

A. The Number of the Biblical Covenants

Following St. Irenaeus, we’re now ready to look at the number of covenants that God makes in the Bible and the special character of each. God makes six major covenants in the Bible, with:

1. Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-2:3)
2. Noah and his family (Genesis 9:8-17)
3. Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-14; 22:16-18)
4. Moses and the Israelites (Exodus 19:5-6; 3:4-10; 6:7)
5. David and the Kingdom of Israel (2 Samuel 7:8-19)
6. Jesus and the Church (Matthew 26:28; 16:17-19)

It’s important to know these covenants well - what God promises and what is required of those who enter into the covenants.

In each successive covenant that G-d makes, he expands his people. Adam and Eve- a couple; Noah- a family; Abraham- a tribe; Moses- a nation or a people, but without a formal king; David- a kingdom; and with Christ, he opened up his covenant to the entire human race. This covenant with Christ brings all of creation into the kingdom of the Father.
Christ tied his Passion to the Seder meal of the Jews and created himself the new sacrificial lamb. It is now by eating this Passover that we will be reminded of how G-d saved us from death.
In order to be the messiah, Christ had to be Priest, Prophet and King. These are the progressive relationships that Israel had with God. Abraham was a priest, Moses was a prophet and David was a King. The messiah was to be all of these. When the wise men brought gold, frankincense and myrrh they were acknowledging exactly these three roles. Gold to represent him as King, Frankincense because he’s a priest, and Myrrh because he’s a prophet. Myrrh was also an embalming oil used at the time, so this foretold of his suffering and death.
So, Christ is the long awaited Messiah, and there is more evidence to point to this if you don’t get the answers yourself by simply researching the covenants. Let me know.


I understand that I peiced this together quicky and possibly poorly. Please forgive me but I'm mentally exhausted right now. If some of this doesn't make sense let me know and I'll try to let you know what I meant to say.

[Deb]

[quote name='pat22' post='1827934' date='Apr 7 2009, 05:20 PM']That works, especially the breaking bones one. how 'bout this one:why didn't Jesus defeat the Romans? if he was god he could have and everybody would undoubtedly believe him. he could still teach love your enemy ECT...[/quote]


Oh my. Do you really not know anything about God? Jesus could have destroyed all of Rome in a blink of an eye. God isn't looking for us to come to him out of fear. He loves us and he wants us to come to us out of love. He wants us to love each other as he loves us. Jesus came to teach us the way and that way leads to peace and love, not destruction. He wants us to serve him because we want to, not because we are afraid not to.
Although, if we choose not to, we may end up having something to be afraid of. Just not here.

[pat22]

Look, DEB, I'm playing devils advocate. "Oh my. Do you really not know anything about" reading the first post?

[Arpy]

[quote name='pat22' post='1827993' date='Apr 7 2009, 01:55 PM']Look, DEB, I'm playing devils advocate.[/quote]
And to what point and purpose?

[pat22]

"and to what point and purpose? the Black Pearl is gone."-Jack sparrow. I like Pirates of the Caribbean too.

Edited April 7, 2009 by pat22

[Arpy]

Huh. Evasion.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1827883' date='Apr 7 2009, 03:48 PM']Faith is a divine gift of grace, and as such it is not founded upon so-called "rational proofs." Faith is a gift of uncreated energy, while the formulation of any argument is an act of created intellect, which by its very nature cannot transcend to the uncreated.

So-called rational "proofs" are simply helps to the faith already lived and experienced by a Christian. To say anything else is to fall into various heresies, including – but not limited to – Pelagianism.[/quote]

So then all proofs for the existence of God fail? Why did then doctors of the Church even attempt such things? Theres no point in telling believers God exists, they are meant for those who are non-believers...

[pat22]

We are doing Jesus not the very existence of God.

[rkwright]

[quote name='pat22' post='1828102' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:10 PM']We are doing Jesus not the very existence of God.[/quote]

Don't be so narrow. Apo is saying proofs of matters of faith are useless - including "Proving Jesus to a Jew".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828041' date='Apr 7 2009, 04:44 PM']So then all proofs for the existence of God fail?[/quote]
[i]That[/i] there is a God can be known – according to the Eastern Fathers – by looking at creation, but [i]who[/i] or [i]what[/i] God is cannot be known by created reason.

Ultimately, revelation is necessary in order to know [i]who[/i] God is (i.e., that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but nothing can reveal [i]what[/i] God is, because the divine essence is and always will be utterly transcendent, and beyond the scope of created reality.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828041' date='Apr 7 2009, 04:44 PM']Why did then doctors of the Church even attempt such things? Theres no point in telling believers God exists, they are meant for those who are non-believers...[/quote]
Why the Scholastics undertook to use pagan philosophy to know that which is unknowable is not something that I can answer. Such a search will bear no fruit.

I discussed this issue in another thread some time ago: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"][u]God as Unknowable[/u][/url]

Edited April 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

It is a form of the Pelagian heresy to say that one comes to faith in the Triune God by the act of his own created intellect. Whereby through arguments devised by his own created reason he convinces himself that there is a God, and then believes in Him. Such a methodology is quite simply a form of idolatry.

Divine faith is a gift of uncreated grace, and not of created intellection.

True knowledge of God – to paraphrase St. Gregory of Nyssa – involves giving up all created intellectual activity, for it is only when one abandons all creatures and passes by all that is intelligible in creation that he can find his Beloved by faith. [cf., Jean Cardinal Danielou, editor, [u]From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings[/u], page 202]

Edited April 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1828124' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:26 PM']It is a form of the Pelagian heresy to say that one comes to faith in the Triune God by the act of his own created intellect. Whereby through arguments devised by his own created reason he convinces himself that there is a God, and then believes in Him. Such a methodology is quite simply a form of idolatry.

Divine faith is a gift of uncreated grace, and not of created intellection.

True knowledge of God – to paraphrase St. Gregory of Nyssa – involves giving up all created intellectual activity, for it is only when one abandons all creatures and passes by all that is intelligible in creation that he can find his Beloved by faith. [cf., Jean Cardinal Danielou, editor, [u]From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings[/u], page 202][/quote]

If I understand you correctly, one cannot prove faith. You said earlier that one can prove that there is a God, although not really know him in a belief way.

If this is true, then we can prove if Jesus was God. We can prove to the Jew that the man Jesus was indeed God in the same way we can prove to an atheist God does in fact exist.

As a side note, I understand your criticism of Western thought, but it is the thought of my rite\church and is widely used in the western rite\church.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1828116' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:21 PM']Ultimately, revelation is necessary in order to know [i]who[/i] God is (i.e., that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but nothing can reveal [i]what[/i] God is, because the divine essence is and always will be utterly transcendent, and beyond the scope of created reality.[/quote]

Wasn't the divine essence that is and always will be beyond the scope of created reality contained in the created reality of the person of Jesus?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828231' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:38 PM']If I understand you correctly, one cannot prove faith. You said earlier that one can prove that there is a God, although not really know him in a belief way.[/quote]
If through reason, i.e., by reflecting upon the created order, you convince yourself that there is a God, any belief that would be founded upon such an appraisal would be human faith, and not divine faith, which by its very nature a gift of uncreated grace. Only the latter type of faith is salvific.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828231' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:38 PM']If this is true, then we can prove if Jesus was God. We can prove to the Jew that the man Jesus was indeed God in the same way we can prove to an atheist God does in fact exist.[/quote]
It is not possible to prove by reason that God is a Trinity of persons, or that Jesus Christ is the eternal and uncreated person of the Logos incarnate, such things are known only through the gift of grace by which we receive divine faith.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828231' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:38 PM']As a side note, I understand your criticism of Western thought, but it is the thought of my rite\church and is widely used in the western rite\church.[/quote]
It is the "thought" of your Church only since about the 11th or 12th century. Prior to that time East and West, although using different languages, shared a common tradition of faith on these issues.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828233' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:40 PM']Wasn't the divine essence that is and always will be beyond the scope of created reality contained in the created reality of the person of Jesus?[/quote]
Jesus is the incarnation of the divine person of the Logos, and in relation to the incarnation it is heretical to focus upon the common divine essence, because to do so leads to the heresy of Patripassianism and to the false notion that the Holy Spirit became incarnate. Such an idea confuses the persons of the Trinity with their common nature.

Thus, there is a real distinction (i.e., a [i]pragmatika diakrisis[/i]), without a real division (i.e., a [i]pragmatike diaresis[/i]), between person and essence in God, and to fail to grasp this revealed truth leads to both Triadological and Christological errors.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1828263' date='Apr 7 2009, 09:04 PM']Jesus is the incarnation of the divine person of the Logos, and in relation to the incarnation it is heretical to focus upon the common divine essence, because to do so leads to the heresy of Patripassianism and to the false notion that the Holy Spirit became incarnate. Such an idea confuses the persons of the Trinity with their common nature.

Thus, there is a real distinction (i.e., a [i]pragmatika diakrisis[/i]), without a real division (i.e., a [i]pragmatike diaresis[/i]), between person and essence in God, and to fail to grasp this revealed truth leads to both Triadological and Christological errors.[/quote]

What does this mean and how does it answer my question.

Its heretical to focus on the divine nature of Jesus?

[txdinghysailor]

Jesus was a redeemer. I don't care if you believe it or not. if you don't, there's a good chance you'll go to hell. not my problem.

[Nihil Obstat]

So let's say that someone was willing to maybe accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, but didn't understand why we also call Him one with God. What do we point to in order to take it that extra step?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828317' date='Apr 7 2009, 08:30 PM']What does this mean and how does it answer my question.[/quote]
What it means is this: you cannot speak about the divine essence in relation to the incarnation, but must refer that mystery solely to the person of the Logos.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1828317' date='Apr 7 2009, 08:30 PM']Its heretical to focus on the divine nature of Jesus?[/quote]
Yes, according to the 5th ecumenical council, it is heretical to "focus" upon the divine nature of Christ, which is only distinguished [i]tei theoriai monei[/i], but never in reality. The orthodox teaching is that Christians must focus upon the divine person of the Logos, who exists in two natures after the incarnation, without separation or blending.

To speak of the "divine nature" as incarnate is heretical, because the divine nature is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.