jewish beliefs and christian beliefs

[Guest shiloh357]

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

In ancient Israel, life always began at conception.  A new born was counted as one year old just out of the womb.    Traditional Jewish belief TODAY may say something different.   But it is important to understand that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament.   It is an adjustment to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

 

So if modern Judaism is claiming that life only begins when one is born, they would factually wrong.   Just because they can cite a Scripture doesn't mean that they are using or applying that Scripture properly.  

[Qnts2]

 

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

In ancient Israel, life always began at conception.  A new born was counted as one year old just out of the womb.    Traditional Jewish belief TODAY may say something different.   But it is important to understand that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament.   It is an adjustment to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

 

So if modern Judaism is claiming that life only begins when one is born, they would factually wrong.   Just because they can cite a Scripture doesn't mean that they are using or applying that Scripture properly.  

 

 

Modern Orthodox Judaism does not regard the pre-born baby as separate from the mother. The reasoning is that if a person pushes the mother causing a miscarriage the punishment does not result in a charge of murder. The person who caused the miscarriage or death of the pre-born baby must pay a penalty fee.  

 

Orthodox Judaism opposes abortion because it goes against the command to be fruitful and multiply. They do not regard abortion to be murder because the Mosaic law does not consider it murder. Abortion is an accepted option, if the life of the mother is at risk.  

 

While ancient Judaism and todays Orthodox Judaism recognized that life begins at conception, the 8th day circumcision is from birth. Obviously not conception.  

[Guest]

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

 

As I Understand It, The Jewish Belief Was That Human Life Began At Conception (Born One Hebrew Year Old~!)

And The Pagan's Assertion Is That A Baby Can Not Be A Human Until It Is Born (If Then)

And Still The Baby Is Really Just Another Beast Created By Chance

And The Difference Is Found In The Intentions

Of The Two Different Believers

 

It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom. Proverbs 10:23

 

~

 

PS: Jesus Is LORD And God

 

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28

 

Is Indeed A (The) Jewish Faith

 

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Revelation 3:20-22

 

And Gentiles (Christians) Are Invited To Join In At Their Feast

 

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Joel 2:32

[another_poster]

 

So if modern Judaism is claiming that life only begins when one is born, they would factually wrong.   Just because they can cite a Scripture doesn't mean that they are using or applying that Scripture properly.  

 

and how do we know we are? 

 

Can you provide a link or something to support the view that they are born one year old please. Thanks.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Blessings another_poster

    I am not sure what it is you are asking,as Shiloh said ,,,,your OP is quite broad "for now"-lol,,,,I trust you will get more specific & narrow it down for us......

   The only thing I would like to say,& I suppose it is just my opinion but other than the belief that lineage or legalism would be any requirements for Salvation I really cannot see that holding to customs or traditions could ever be "wrong".......I know many Messianic Jews that are Saved & know very well that it is through their faith in Jesus that they have received Gods Grace & yet they still celebrate the feasts & hold on to many Hebrew Traditions,I do not see anything wrong & I would think it is very pleasing to God to be Honored so beautifully.......................Praise & Glory to God                With love-in Christ,Kwik

Beautiful post.

[Qnts2]

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

Let's clarify a bit. 

 

Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband ^[v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing.  

[another_poster]

 

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

Let's clarify a bit. 

 

Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband ^[v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing.  

 

that is not as clear as one thinks. Words used in the original can also mean comes out as in birth. So it would then read if the child is born with no damage then fine is paid but if there is further damage after birth then eye for eye etc. That if the baby was not born how would you tell if the damage had been done.

[Hawkins]

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70?

 

 

Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE.

 

So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). 

 

At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. 

 

And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end.

 

 

The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will?

 

After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries.

[Qnts2]

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70?

 

 

Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE.

 

So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). 

 

At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. 

 

And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end.

 

 

The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will?

 

After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries.

 

 

I would tend to disagree with much of what you wrote.

 

Around 130 ce, there was a revolt in Jerusalem, which resulted in the Jewish people being scattered out of Jerusalem. Many of the leading Pharisees gathered in Yavneh. Without the Temple, the Sadducees who were mainly Priests, lost influence. In Yavneh, a council was held to deal with the loss of the Temple and the scattering. To maintain a consolidated Judaism, they determined that the Oral law (Pharisaical belief), should be recorded, and the decisions of the judges which affected the practice of the Jewish community should also be recorded. The other issue is how to observe the Mosaic law (Judaism), while scattered with no Temple. Clearly, many Mosaic law could not be kept and others would not be kept exactly the same way. The Talmud historically records many of the practices during Jesus time, and approaches how to keep the law with the lack of a Temple and scattered.  

 

The Talmud is historical in many ways, is a study of the 'OT' and also carries forward many of the teachings and practices taught by the Pharisees. In the negative, it discusses each law in fine detail, explores varying interpretations, but attempts to 'put a fence around the law' so no one would accidently violate the law. There are discussions on how to treat others, etc.   

 

While there are differences between modern Judaism and Temple Judaism, simply because modern Judaism does not have the Temple, one of the losses is that modern Judaism has normalized a Judaism missing the Temple and the Priesthood. 

 

There is a tremendous amount of study of the OT in Judaism over the centuries. And the books written by the great teachers for the past 2100 years have been kept and still studied. The men who study, are sincerely seeking to understand the Tenack/OT, and viewed as given by God, so is handled with great respect. Knowledge and study are key hallmarks of Judaism. Jewish youth are taught Hebrew so that they have knowledge in the original language. The belief is that God dictated the 5 books of Moses (Torah) to Moses, so each letter was specifically given by God. The effort to preserve the original is important in Judaism. There are many higher levels of education in Judaism.   

[OakWood]

 

 

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same!

 

So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

 

Let's clarify a bit. 

 

Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband ^[v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing.  

 

that is not as clear as one thinks. Words used in the original can also mean comes out as in birth. So it would then read if the child is born with no damage then fine is paid but if there is further damage after birth then eye for eye etc. That if the baby was not born how would you tell if the damage had been done.

 

 

I'd just like to point out, although I'm changing the subject here is that there is another reason that abortion is wrong (by that I mean abortion for the sake of it).

Technically, it is a blood sacrifice.