Thank you. Now back to work!…

That’s a strange statement anyway. Christian means “belonging to Christ” and clearly Christ doesn’t belong to Christ.

Esthier on October 26, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Actually, it means “man of Christ” much in the same way as Corinthian means man of Corinth, or Ephesian means man of Ephesus, or Houstonian means man of Houston. You can explore the genitive case if you like for more. Here, I think it is called a “genitive of source.”

The “an” at the end of those words is the same “an” that means “man” in words like “an”thropology and mis”an”thrope.

The then responded now he was not he was a Christian.

That’s a strange statement anyway. Christian means “belonging to Christ” and clearly Christ doesn’t belong to Christ.

Sorry, it’s early.

In all candor, I’m afraid that any site named >”jewsforjudaism” isn’t likely to be an objective, paragon of religious instruction – when it comes to Jesus Christ being the Messiah.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 4:08 PM

I must respectfully disagree. If you’re goal is to interpret Christian scripture, then you might have a point. But if you are interpreting Jewish scriptures, then I believe you must go to a source that looks at the original Hebrew and interprets the language in accordance with the way it has been commented on by Jewish sages for over 2000 years (much of which precedes Jesus).

mjkazee on October 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM

mjkazee,

I’m not sure who you spoke to about the “hair-cutting” ceremony, but I do not think it was correct. The ceremony is called an Upsherin. There is nothing “forbidden” about inviting friends, neighbors, and family. The reason for it has nothing to do with Avraham’s realization of the existence of the absolute unity of G-d. Rather, the Torah uses a metaphor in which it compares man to fruit-bearing trees (why it does so is a lengthy discussion for another day). There is a commandment that forbids Jews from picking the fruit for the first three years. From this, the custom arose not to cut a boy’s hair until his third birthday (the custom does not apply to girls, because often their hair is allowed to grow for far longer than three years). The third birthday is also when a boy begins learning and begins to wear a kippah on his head at all times and tzitzit (fringes) on a type of undershirt. On the third birthday, then, the family makes a great celebration and invites family, friends, etc. to snip a piece of hair. Generally, as you snip some hair, you give the boy a few coins or a dollar, so he can give the money to charity. This begins teaching him about the commandment to give charity. Also, the boy may be given a laminated board having the Hebrew alphabet on it that is smeared with honey or some other goody. He gets to lick/eat the treat, so that he always associates learning with sweetness.

Rather than the “faggot” comment being ironic, I think she was calling Edwards out more as a “sissy” than a “homosexual”.

dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 8:33 PM

This was exactly what Ann said when asked about it after the fact. That calling someone a faggot was a “schoolyard taunt” that painted someone as a sissy, not necessarily as being a homosexual. Tell me that the names Silky Pony and Breck Girl don’t produce the same effect. It’s Arnold calling the California legislature “girly-men”.

It’s much ado about nothing. Sadly, some here piled on Ann for that, and for more recent comments that were no more harmful. The cry goes up, “yeah, she’s right, but I wish she wouldn’t say it that way”. Oh well.

Sorry for butting in. I understand the question you’ve presented, and the answer goes to the differences in man’s nature vs God’s nature, at least partially.

According to Hebrews, “there is no redemption without the shedding of blood”. Every form of substitutionary sacrifice instituted by God includes the death of the sacrificial animal. Jesus, as “the spotless Lamb of God”, substituted his perfect, sinless life for ours, taking our punishment upon himself to free us from the just and correct wages of our disobedience to our Creator, making Heaven and eternal life with God available to unworthy humans.

It had to be so according to God. Why it had to be so, and no other way, is for our Creator to decide, and far be it for me to gainsay. I’d be a fool to attempt to explain what is beyond human knowledge.

Understand that God exists outside of the contraints of our physical universe, both in space and time. He “sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end”, just as you or I could read the last chapter of a book before the first, He always sees all of time before Him. By that, He is able to know what actions people will take, even those he does not approve of. He knows that Pilate would wash his hands, He knows that the Jews would ask for Barabbas to be spared, He knows that the priests and scibes would whip up the crowd to call for Jesus’ execution.

That God knows what would happen does not in the slightest remove the blame of those who made the decisions. And blame enough there is to go around, in includes all of us. Each person on Earth has failed ot obey God completely, and for each of us Jesus was nailed on the tree. We are ALL to blame, but the good news is that Jesus ROSE, He IS ALIVE, and because He is, we can have that eternity promised by the Father.

Enrique, the Prof handled it well enough, but I just wanted you to know that I, and most Christians I know, are far more settled and secure about what they believe than virtually ANY non-Christian I know, and to attempt to avoid those beliefs when making political decisions would be both personal and corporate stupidity. But thanks for playing.

Thanks for your answer too. I am a little stuck on the part about the necessity of some part of mankind to sin in order for God to accomplish his plan. That doesn’t sit right with me somehow, but I will continue to think about it. Thanks.

JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM

People, Jesus had to be crucified…….because God foreordained it. God, in precious times had told the Isrealites that they would be disciplined if they ever fell away from being faithful to Him. But woe to those by whom they were disciplined (paraphrase). The same applies here. Christ had to be “cut off” (per Daniel, as correctly noted above), but it came by way of “the Jews” which, since all the apostles were Jews too, has a very specific meaning. That is, not all Jewish people, just the religious leaders of the day. I fyou read the Bible (and I do, a lot), then you see that hypocracy and arrogance are some of the most hated things by God. These guys eventually figured out that Jesus was who He said He was, and He was humiliating them over an over again; because, instead of repenting and leading the Israelites to receiving Him, they rejected Him and opposed Him. Eventually, they ordered the hit, as stated so eloquently above. Yes, Pilate and the Romans performed the mechanics of the crucifixion, but as Christ told Pilate, he had no autority except that which was given to him by God.

Now, to the reason: Man did NOT have to sin. But Christ had to die. Since man sinned, God used the occasion to take care of two problems at the same time. But before the foundatino of the world, the council of the Trinity foreordained that Christ would be manifest as a man and shed His blood for the glory of the Father. Irrespective of sin, Christ would die so that God’s life could be released to reach man. Man can’t reach God, but God could reach man; and this was the process He designed and decided on.

Ok, here comes the controversy (or tedium, depending on your perspective). Athanasius (yes, that brilliant old codger) said: God became man so that man could become god. He didn’t mean that man would participate in the Godhead, he would never be the object of worship. But, as Peter said, we would be partakers of the divine nature. And Paul talked about being sons of God by receiving His life. God’s intention was to impart His life, eternal life, into His people (Christians and Jews). It just so happened that the Jews rejected Him, but His promise to them remains. Coming out of Egypt, He told tham He wanted them to be a nation of priests. He wanted them to be the priests to the rest of the entire world. They would lead the world in worship to God. And so they will. They are still the chosen race, and their preisthood will be established when Messiah returns. But sorry, Christians (or more properly, believers, though they come later) supercede the Jews (or the entire restored nation if Israel) to become God’s divine co-kings over the whole world.

So there you have it. Christ and His people are the fulfillment of David, and the restored nation of Israel will be the fulfillment of the Aaronic (moi, BTW) priesthood. Fun, huh?

…oh, and her singing is off-key almost as much as it’s on.

I think she was calling Edwards out more as a “sissy” than a “homosexual”.

dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I do as well. She even later clarified her comments to say she’d never insult gay people by lumping them in with Edwards.

So the main irony among many in this short statement of hers is the left’s persecution of her beliefs that she triggers by using a word that refers to a persecution that is not even relevant to Edwards.

Thanks for the etymology. I hadn’t known that.

If I follow, you are saying that the ironic aspect of Coulter is that she is saying something about Edwards not because she believes it (in fact she believes the opposite), but because she knows that she can make the left look foolish by jumping on something that isn’t really an issue. If that were the case, she could be seen as something like an Alice Cooper, not believing in the content of his shock metal but relying on the outrage by conventional society to sell albums.

I’m more inclined to believe that Coulter essentially means everything that she says, and is savvy enough with words to lay verbal traps for the left to overreact. Rather than the “faggot” comment being ironic, I think she was calling Edwards out more as a “sissy” than a “homosexual”.

Okies, cool. The point I was trying to make was that Jesus submitted Himself to Israel as their Messiah. In that sense, only Israel could reject Him. They did, and in doing so, His salvation passed on to grubby Gentiles like me.

Jesus was, and is, a Jew, a son of David and the rightful heir to the throne of David. Jesus sits on the right hand of God, right now, as a Jew. Paul was, and is, a Jew. Paul was, and is, a Jew. Just because they had accepted and rejoiced in their long-awaited Meshiach Nagid doesn’t mean they stopped being Jews.

I believe that God isn’t done with Israel yet. Paul was born “out of due time” in the sense that he is the model for something to come. Believing Jews (those that take their Judaism seriously) are already good (if in gross error). There is coming a day when they will go from being good to being perfected. The dry bones have already come together, so who knows what powerful works God has in store for His people?

spmat on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Sorry – posted at the same time!

Ok, now I think I understand you more clearly.

And, the Cub analogy, is pretty good!

spmat on October 25, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Right. I see what you are saying – I think. But, let me be clear, it sounds as if you are blaming the Jews for crucifying Christ.

This is not a position that either, should be supported by Christians, or, can be supported Biblically. Christ died voluntarily for all, for the sin of all – we all crucified Christ. And, to be technical, it was the Romans who carried out the act.

Damn Eyetalian Mob!

I would back away from the “one whom they have pierced,” and rather, assign blame where it is due – to humanity as a whole.

nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 5:00 PM

I wouldn’t. If you read the verse from Zechariah I linked, it is clearly talking about Israel. The they in that verse is clearly referring to the “house of David” and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Who has Israel pierced? Their Meshiach Nagid, their Messiah the King. Is this verse necessarily talking about His crucifixion? Maybe, but more critically, it is talking about their rejection of Him. Jesus referred to this on multiple occasions via parables (e.g the parable of the wedding and the parable of the evil husbandmen).

mjkazee on October 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM

I appreciate your opinion here and mean no disrespect, but I see no reason I can’t do both.

The song isn’t even any good.

The rhyming made me wince. *shudder*

One of these days I’d like to learn more about Judaism

You do not need to learn more about Judaism. Please excuse me for being blunt. My wife and I were invited to a ritual by orthodox Jews. It was absolutely forbidden but these folks loved us. What it was was a hair cutting ceremony involving a three year old. Very beautiful by the way. I had an opportunity to speak to the cantor of the temple and ask him the why and wherefores to this ceremony. His answer was that at three years old Abraham walked out of his home and looked to the sky and said that only God could have created such a thing. So that was when he received his first haircut and this ceremony was in dedication to that. Fine but that was long before God called him out of the land of Ur. Very entangled in folklore and law. Please just continue in your study of the Word, you will go a lot further. God Bless.