Former priest convicted of child molestation

DoctorScribbles View Profile

Spirituality

27 Nov '05 04:39

vistesd
Hmmm . . .
Joined
19 Jan '04
Moves
22131
28 Nov '05 01:47
Originally posted by lucifershammer
It would be fair, then, to say that belief in the divinity of Jesus is not incompatible with this creed, right?
No Jewish understanding of the Shema is compatible with Jesus' divinity. God is one, without a second. Even the Jewish monists (in Hasidism and kabbalah, which is where I go) see the manifestation of the cosmos, in all its "protean diversity" as at best transient, much like the Vedantists--not "delusion" necessarily, but certainly illusory. Ein sof is the one whole ground; God and the God-head are one--or, as the standard formula puts it: "God and his name are one." All may be ultimately emanation of God, but no one thing or person can be uniquely "God incarnate."
vistesd
Hmmm . . .
Joined
19 Jan '04
Moves
22131
28 Nov '05 01:521 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It's from the oral tradition, then, the message that the resurrection events, for example, were actual events?

Yep.

It's interesting that in Christianity, the oral tradition seems to be applied in order to hone interpretations (i.e. what is the correct understanding); while in the Jewish tradition it is aimed at expandi ...[text shortened]... ard recently was about the similarity between the Catholic liturgy and worship in the synagogue.
Also, what about the canonisation of NT scripture itself? Is that honing or expanding?

[/b]Now that’s an interesting question. I would say that both the Jewish and Christian canons were intended to “hone” recognized scripture. The original Christian canon was more expansive, vis-à-vis the Hebrew scriptures, than the Jewish one.

EDIT: I keep having to fix the boldface! 😠
lucifershammer
London
Joined
02 Mar '04
Moves
36105
28 Nov '05 01:531 edit
Originally posted by vistesd
No Jewish understanding of the Shema is compatible with Jesus' divinity. God is one, without a second. Even the Jewish monists (in Hasidism and kabbalah, which is where I go) see the manifestation of the cosmos, in all its "protean diversity" as at best transient, much like the Vedantists--not "delusion" necessarily, but certainly illusory. [i ...[text shortened]... ay be ultimately emanation of God, but no one thing or person can be uniquely "God incarnate."
vistesd
Hmmm . . .
Joined
19 Jan '04
Moves
22131
28 Nov '05 02:02
Originally posted by lucifershammer
What about the Jewish non-monists?
The creation is not emanation, but separate from an ultimately transcendant God.* Nothing/no one is "God incarnate."

* Possible exception: soul, of which Jews distinguish among at least four levels, three of which (in "ascending" order)--nephesh, ruah (also "spirit" ) and neshamah have the underlying meaning of breath. chayah has the underlying meaning of life or livliness. The soul-body question is a difficult one in Judaism, that I haven't fully fathomed. There is a line in every Jewish prayer-book, as part of the morning prayers: Elohai neshamah sh' n' tatabi, tehorah he: "My God, the soul you have given me, she is pure." Neshamah is viewed as "unstainable." I think God's immanence may be best expressed in Judaism through the notion(s) of soul.
lucifershammer
London
Joined
02 Mar '04
Moves
36105
28 Nov '05 02:10
Originally posted by vistesd
No Jewish understanding of the Shema is compatible with Jesus' divinity. God is one, without a second. Even the Jewish monists (in Hasidism and kabbalah, which is where I go) see the manifestation of the cosmos, in all its "protean diversity" as at best transient, much like the Vedantists--not "delusion" necessarily, but certainly illusory. [i ...[text shortened]... ay be ultimately emanation of God, but no one thing or person can be uniquely "God incarnate."
No Jewish understanding of the Shema is compatible with Jesus' divinity.

I think that is because they're thinking in terms of Jesus' divinity rather than the Word's humanity. 🙂 It's all a matter of perspective.

Certainly they wouldn't argue that it would be impossible for God to take a human nature.

God is one, without a second.

Ditto in Christianity. The difference is whether God is a single person or three.

The Shema uses the covenantal name of God - YHVH. That's interesting in itself - because the Christian conception of the Godhead is in terms of covenant/family - a family of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God and the God-head are one--or, as the standard formula puts it: "God and his name are one."

I'm not sure those statements are synonymous.
vistesd
Hmmm . . .
Joined
19 Jan '04
Moves
22131
28 Nov '05 03:21
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]No Jewish understanding of the Shema is compatible with Jesus' divinity.

I think that is because they're thinking in terms of Jesus' divinity rather than the Word's humanity. 🙂 It's all a matter of perspective.

Certainly they wouldn't argue that it would be impossible for God to take a human nature.

God is one, ...[text shortened]... a puts it: "God and his name are one."

I'm not sure those statements are synonymous.[/b]
I'm not sure those statements are synonymous.

I think they’re only treated as synonymous in the old tradition where one of God’s names represented some aspect or particular idea of God. And, even in that case, I would’ve been more correct to reverse it and say “The God-head and God are one.”

I think that Judaism has more trouble with the incarnation than they would have with a “trinitarian” view absent that (I don’t thinbk they would say that it is impossible for God—just that it is “out of character” ). I also wonder how much of the differences became hardened by fairly early history. After the fall of the temple in 70 C.E., there were only two surviving, viable “Judaisms”: the Pharisees and the Jesus-followers; the Pharisees were the precursors to modern rabbinical Judaism. I think for awhile, they even shared synagogues. But—and I’m reaching into memory here—I think they had disputes about how to operate under the ever-present threat of the Romans, and one of those disputes may have had to do with the mission to the gentiles. I also think they both had the idea that there was not room in that dangerous world for “two Judaisms,” but that they couldn’t reach any concordance. Some scholars ascribe a late date to the Gospel of John partly on the apparent anti-“Jewish” (read, anti- “those other Jews” ) polemic.

I have also wondered whether it would be possible for Jews to see Jesus (whom most of them seem to recognize as a bona fide rabbi) as a messiah for the Gentiles…

The main thing that Moltmann (a major Protestant theologian) wanted to get at in that section of the book was recognition that Jews have good reasons for their “no” to Jesus as Messiah, so that perhaps both sides can reach some friendly impasse—between those who wait, and those who wait for return.—and to overcome any lingering notions that the Jews are just being perverse. Part of his sensitivity, I think, is that Moltmann is a German. From wikipedia: “He was actually drafted into military service in 1944, when he became a soldier in the German army. Ordered to the Reichswald, a Belgian forest at the front lines, he surrendered in 1945 in the dark to the first British soldier he met.”