Aine wrote:

> Milo wrote:
>
> > Essentially, you're making a mountain out of a molehill
> > here.
> > It's true that the scribes and Pharisees didn't accept Jesus as
> > the expected messiah, but many Jews did accept that he
> > fulfilled the prophecies. Jesus Christ was both priest and
> > king.[/quote]
>
> Ah, but they do not accept him as the physical and literal son
> of God. Why? Because that is an incorrect interpretation of the
> term.
>
> Most Jews do not believe that the prophecies have been
> fulfilled. Those events haven't occurred yet. For example,
> where's the Temple? Christ didn't get around to that,
> obviously. They may have had great hope for him, but he
> failed.
>
> The whole idea of the Christ-is-god is alien to Judaism. It's
> an article of Jewish faith that God doesn't share his power
> with anyone (God as One). In other words, he has no equal, so
> elevating Christ to god-like status is incompatible with
> Judaism.
>
> I disagree that Christ was both priest and king. He was a king.
> John the Baptist was a priest. (And, in fact, there's a whole
> branch of Christianity that traces its teachings not to Christ
> but to John.)

I agree that Jews do not accept Christ as the Son of God. That's a reason why you're making a mountain out of a molehill because it's patently obvious Jews do not accept Christ. Of course Jesus the Son of God is alien to the religion of Judaism, but as I wrote previously, not all jews rejected him. One problem is that they were expecting a political Messiah, and in so doing, they totally missed the point because it was never his intention to establish a physical Temple building because he himself was the Temple. He said, my kingdom is not of this world. He was also a priest:

"So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." - Hebrews 5:5-6

> > There are two expressions of the term. It's true that
> > there were sons of God referred to in the OT, but Christ
> > demonstrated and stated he was the Son of God.
>
> Demonstrated how?
>
> He had every right to call himself the Son of God. As an
> Anointed One, it was his rightful title, so why shouldn't he
> use it?
>
> What two expressions are we talking about? I've mentioned one.
> What's the other?

I never wrote he didn't have a right to call himself the Son of God.

> > There are some similarities between Christ and the
> > so-called Pagan Sun deities, but Christ never advocated
> > Paganism or Sun worship...
>
> Prove it. We have no idea what he might and might not have
> advocated. If he was an Essene and the Essenes had their roots
> in ancient Egypt, he very well may have done just that. All we
> have to go by is the Bible, and we can't very well rely on that
> for accuracy. I know what you're going to say--that the Bible
> is unimpeachable as a source and you'll use that as your
> evidence. I strongly disagree with that.

Why should I accept the writings that you believe in? Of course it's convenient for you to dismiss what writings and books you don't like that contain Christ's teachings, but Pagan Sun worship is also forbidden throughout the OT.

> > and unlike the Solar
> > figures, he sacrificed his life for the potential redemption of
> > others. None of the solar deities did that. There is also the
> > factor of divine mimicry, which I can outline for you in more
> > detail, if you so wish. Judaism does not have its roots in
> > Pagan Egyptian and Babylonian religion. [/quote]
>
> Judaism has a long and storied history with paganism. How long
> were the Israelites in Egypt? Four hundred years? Jewish
> tradition holds that the Israelites were the descendants of
> Jacob's twelve sons (one of whom was named Judah), who settled
> in Egypt. To say they didn't absorb anything from the Egyptians
> strains credulity, Rob. How long did they spend in Babylonia
> during two captivities? They did not become monotheistic
> until after the return from Babylon. I call them
> Israelites because that's what everyone knows them as, but
> there was no such thing as that yet. They were descended from
> the Hebrews, and after the Exodus settled in Canaan, which was
> definitely pagan! Let's not forget the story of the Golden
> Calf. Since you believe the Bible is infallible, you have to
> admit that that this shows that the Israelites were not
> monotheistic.

Of course the Israelites adopted many customs and traditions, but that's what led them into captivity as God deserted them as a nation because of their rebellious nature in turning towards Pagan worship.