Jews of Jesus' day rejected him because of bad theology/doctrine

[prisonchaplain]

We just finished the Triumphal Entry (Palm Sunday) and are heading towards Easter.  It strikes me that many people were fringe followers of Jesus because of the power and miracles he demonstrated.  His teaching--not so much.  Why?  They'd been taught bad theology--bad doctrine.  The messiah/Savior/Christ was supposed to be a human military king, who would drive out the Romans, and re-establish Israel as a kingdom rivaling the glory David and Solomon enjoyed.  This was the traditional Judaism of the day.

 

Jesus came along and--sure enough--he healed the sick.  One fellow was blind from birth!  He drove out demons.  Consider that!  A demon is an angel who's fallen.  They were so awesome that many prophets mistook them for God.  Now picture Jesus driving out hundreds from one man, sending them into a herd of pigs, and seeing those pigs run off a cliff into the sea!  WOW!  Hey, won't it be awesome when Jesus does that with the Roman "pigs?"

 

So, he enters Jerusalem, and his close followers are parading him about as a king and savior.  Amen to that!  You go Jesus--bring it to the Romans!

 

Alas, did you hear?  Jesus is in shackles.  Those soldiers beat him up real bad.  I guess he's not the one.  After all, the Messiah was supposed to save us.  Look at him!  Look at the Romans looking at us as if we're just like him.  We'll be in for it now.  They'll treat us worse than ever.  Better make Jesus our sacrificial lamb.  Crucify him?  Oh yeah!  Let's shout it.  Maybe he'll temper their blood lust.

 

There are plenty of scriptural prophecies that showed Messiah as one who would suffer and be rejected.  Further, the prophets said Israel was to be a "city on a hill," who would draw Gentiles to God.  Instead, it became insular, elite, and corrupt from within.

 

And so, most missed the glory of following the actual Son of God--in the flesh!  They missed the chance to walk with, commune with, learn from, gain strength from, and be saved by Jesus--God in the flesh.

 

Today there are many saying that theology and doctrine are not important.  God doesn't give academic tests, the say, with not a small dose of glibness.  I'd suggest that it was bad doctrine and theology that kept so many away from Jesus.

 

Some say it's the heart that counts.  The Bible says the heart can be deceitful above all else.  We do well to study the one we say we love.  We call this study theology.  We demonstrate wisdom when we learn the teachings of our church, so we can say and explain what we believe, and give an answer to those that question us.

 

Perhaps this re-affirmation of the importance of doctrine informs our on-going interfaith conversations, as well.

 

Thoughts?

[SpiritDragon]

Great post PC!

 

I think all too often people like to take the easy way out, they get the idea that god is loving and transform that to mean what they interpret loving to be without taking any further effort to actually learn the teachings of Christ.

 

I can't count the number of times I've heard ridiculous and uneducated exclamations about what the bible says about certain topics from people who obviously haven't read it. It is indeed hard if not impossible to recognize God and His handiwork when we don't know the first thing about it. Worse still so many deceive themselves into believing they know all about it.

[Traveler]

I think we are products of our time.  It is easy to say we believe in Jesus and if we had lived when Christ walked among mankind, we would have recognized him as the Messiah.  But then I remember a college psychology class where the teacher used peer pressure to convince some students in the class that what they thought was the color red was really blue.  I also remember from my studies of history that within the lifetime of those evil Jews that put Jesus to death that the Roman’s put down the zealot Jewish rebellion putting to death thousands of Jews (a majority of the population) that would not deny their G-d.

 

I personally marvel at the apostles that were with Jesus at the last supper when Jesus said that one among them would deny him.  I marvel that they did not figure out that it was Judas but they all asked the question – “Is it I?”

 

Most of us want to be a part of the herd and where it goes we follow.  We think that to doubt something in our religious herd is to doubt Christ.  We also think that anyone that doubts anything that our religious herd believes doubts the Christ as well.  I think there is a great difference between the L-rd’s sheep that know his voice and follow him and the members of a herd that in essence do little more than follow other sheep.  The sad thing for me is realizing that most often I am just a sheep following other sheep – and then when I think I am making up my own mind – most often I am just following other sheep of a different herd.

[Roseslipper]

The Jewish People thought Their messiah would come King of Kings the way he would come @ His second coming!

Things were also hidden. Also  A lot of Jewish people did believe.

 

As far as Judas betraying him, someone had to do it, I think it  was part of the plan. It all fell in place with the plan of salvation some how some way......imho... 

[prisonchaplain]

 Also  A lot of Jewish people did believe.

 

As far as Judas betraying him, someone had to do it, I think it  was part of the plan. It all fell in place with the plan of salvation some how some way......imho... 

 

Thank you for mentioning that a lot of Jewish people believed.  The early church was almost entirely made up of Jews.  Gentiles came in--but it was Jews who were chosen to found the church.

 

Judas--I'm doubtful of his end.  Jesus said it would have been better for him if he had never been born.  That he committed suicide rather than face Jesus in repentence further suggests a sad end for him.

[Roseslipper]

Yw CP!   Thats true CP,(Thank you for mentioning that a lot of Jewish people believed.  The early church was almost entirely made up of Jews.  Gentiles came in--but it was Jews who were chosen to found the church.) Thats true CP His Apostles didnt go out  to teach the world until after His death.  Remember Christ had to die,well he didnt have to, He had His free agency as well, But He was born for this so we would all have the opportunity to repent, clean up our lives strive to be like HIm, so we can have all the Father has and wants to give to us, His Children....

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Perhaps this re-affirmation of the importance of doctrine informs our on-going interfaith conversations, as well.

 

 

PC, great post.  I have often pondered on this also. I mean on the Jewish people and how and why they were confused.  There were prophesies of the kind of Messiah they hoped for, which I understand apply to the Second Coming.  And as you said, there were also prophesies that applied directly to the Savior's life--as we know with hindsight can see plainly.

 

In the past, the lesson I have taken from this is the understanding/caution that prophesy may not always unfold in the way that we think it will.  You post brings more and broader meaning to ponder.

 

As others mentioned, some of the Jewish people were able to make the leap...to accept the correct doctrine and accept the Savior.  Others were not.  What strikes me most about this is that they were members of the SAME religion.  It occurs to me that it is not unlike the discussions we have here where we can look at the same scriptures and yet understand them so differently.  And then you remind me to take it to another level---considering many religions--all of us looking at the Bible and understanding it so differently.  

 

Soon my mind begins to spin...how can any of us be sure we have the correct interpretation...the one that will lead us to follow and not crucify our Savior?  The most troubling and yet comforting at the same time, is the idea that all the Jewish people were of the same religion and yet had different understandings.  Yikes!  

 

I don't think I quite understand your comment (as quoted above).  Do you mean the way different religions interpret doctrine or the way "non-religious" people reject doctrine entirely.  

 

I don't know what the answer is...but I think it is important for each of us to keep asking the questions.  I mean--to be humble enough to accept that perhaps you are wrong and need a course correction.   Just as when the Savior said someone would betray Him and the apostles said, "is it I?" Matthew 26:22

 

Is it I?  Good question to keep asking ourselves.

[Blackmarch]

When God called us to be obedient, it was to be with our hearts, might, and mind- or in other words while the gut feelings, impressions, senses, and attitude is important it has to be combined with thought, consideration, meditation, and importantly, with work (which takes time and effort).

I hope I can be humble enough, I've found it interesting that individuals who exhibit the characteristics of the spirit (patience, love, temperance, long suffering, mildness, humility and etc..) generally tend to be more open towards things that are outside their comfort zone.


over the last few weeks I've been finding bits of native American lore and oral history to be really interesting.

[prisonchaplain]

First, I've always enjoyed your posts and your aproach Literate.  My concern is for spiritual discourse in general--not even just at lds.net.  Society settles for pablum.

 

So, to answer your question:  neither.  I mean the way some LDS and far too many Protestants (and Catholics) reject the pursuit of sound doctrine and theology.  They fear the very problem you highlight--differences of opinion.  They forsee contention, and so the walls go up.  "I just love God, my church and want to live in peace."

 

I get it.  However, frankly, it seems not so different from "ignorance is bliss."  The statement is supposed to be biting sarcasm, yet to many embrace the proverb as face-value wisdom.  I've come to view the canard "Don't sweat the small stuff--and it's all small stuff!" as a cute, yet quite evil lie.

 

So, how does this inform interfaith discussions like those I engage in here?  If understanding who God is, how He operates, what He expects of me, and whether or not he restored the gospel through a particular movement or not, is important, then I dare not dismiss all such conversations as too contentious.  I am to pray, discuss, study scripture, wrestle (spiritually and intellectually)--I am to pursue God and every truth He may reveal.

 

The bottom line is that I appeal first to myself to take our conversations seriously, to take them as being important, and not to dodge or deploy the copout, "Oh well...we'll figure it out together in heaven."  I want to be kind enough and polite enough and a good enough "listener," that folks of different churches, and even different religions, will find it worthwhile to share their precious faith and beliefs with me.  Further, that they would me open and honest and God-anointed enough that some of my understandings might gain a hearing as well.

 

Our faith is not hobby, optional, nor of side interest.  It is the core of who we are.  And so, I tire of the "I am okay.  You are okay.  Let's not rock the boat...okay?" approach to spiritual discourse. 

 

 

 

I don't think I quite understand your comment (as quoted above).  Do you mean the way different religions interpret doctrine or the way "non-religious" people reject doctrine entirely.  

 

[Traveler]

First, I've always enjoyed your posts and your aproach Literate.  My concern is for spiritual discourse in general--not even just at lds.net.  Society settles for pablum.

 

So, to answer your question:  neither.  I mean the way some LDS and far too many Protestants (and Catholics) reject the pursuit of sound doctrine and theology.  They fear the very problem you highlight--differences of opinion.  They forsee contention, and so the walls go up.  "I just love God, my church and want to live in peace."

 

I get it.  However, frankly, it seems not so different from "ignorance is bliss."  The statement is supposed to be biting sarcasm, yet to many embrace the proverb as face-value wisdom.  I've come to view the canard "Don't sweat the small stuff--and it's all small stuff!" as a cute, yet quite evil lie.

 

So, how does this inform interfaith discussions like those I engage in here?  If understanding who God is, how He operates, what He expects of me, and whether or not he restored the gospel through a particular movement or not, is important, then I dare not dismiss all such conversations as too contentious.  I am to pray, discuss, study scripture, wrestle (spiritually and intellectually)--I am to pursue God and every truth He may reveal.

 

The bottom line is that I appeal first to myself to take our conversations seriously, to take them as being important, and not to dodge or deploy the copout, "Oh well...we'll figure it out together in heaven."  I want to be kind enough and polite enough and a good enough "listener," that folks of different churches, and even different religions, will find it worthwhile to share their precious faith and beliefs with me.  Further, that they would me open and honest and God-anointed enough that some of my understandings might gain a hearing as well.

 

Our faith is not hobby, optional, nor of side interest.  It is the core of who we are.  And so, I tire of the "I am okay.  You are okay.  Let's not rock the boat...okay?" approach to spiritual discourse. 

 

One thing I find very interesting is the one sided quest for true doctrine expressed in many religions.  The idea that theology and doctrine matter because G-d is a G-d of truth and to understand G-d we must understand truth.  I have no problem with such thinking - but I think it to be problematic when the religious community compartmentalizes truth and the pursuit of truth into religious truth and secular truth.  Really?  Is G-d not the G-d of all truth?  And if it is necessary to understand truth and true doctrine to understand G-d – can we reject any truth and still understand G-d?

 

For me, I honestly wonder; if a religious theology and doctrine cannot include empirical truth that can be demonstrated – how and why should anyone have faith in the same methods that fail in the pursuit of empirical truths as being flawless for “spiritual” truths. 

 

But my concern of religions goes far beyond simple comparisons for discovery methods.  The reason the religious community is divided is because of arguments of the “spiritual” truths.  Jesus taught that there is simple rhetorical logic to “spiritual” truth through the fruit it produces.  But even Jesus and his teachings caused so much contention among his own Jewish people that the theologians and scripture experts of his day and culture put him to death – in the name of G-d – for blaspheme and false doctrine.  Again it is interesting to me that these theologians were horrible in dealing with empirical truths – and it appears to me that Jesus was very much about demonstrating his teaching empirically.

 

It is not enough to believe.  Because there is too much confusion about what exactly we must or ought to believe.  And belief is not fruit.  It is not about belief and the doctrine of belief.  It is about method and the doctrine to produce fruit.  If the fruit is flawed so is the doctrine.

 

Some say Christianity makes people better but only if they believe it and it is as they define the doctrine.  Historically those that have not believed the doctrine – traditional Christianity has made dead.  And if secular truth is incompatible with their beliefs and doctrine they cast such believers from them and convince them that there is no G-d that respects such doctrines. Should not the belief in “spiritual” truths and doctrine be an asset in understanding secular truths and empirical things better than those without the spiritual advantage?  Are empirical fruits excluded?  If Christianity makes people better – should not that be an empirical better?

[prisonchaplain]

We compartmentalize when we build our fences.  An obvious examples as that we evangelicals are tempted to avoid all talk of good works, because we have built a very high and secure fence about our doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.  Some Christians have forsaken prayers for sick to avoid any association with charlatan-healers, who brought shame to our churches.  We used to forbid dancing to protect chasity, makeup to protect modesty, and, yes, some churches a strong strain of anti-intellectualism--believing "man's wisdom," to promote arrogance and undermine faith.

 

So, Traveler, your words are sound.  Jesus is the ultimate Truth, but all truth is inspired by God.  We fear some truths because we foolishly try to protect others--as if God needs that kind of help!  Historically, Christianity brought literacy and institutions of healing.  It also promoted the Dark Ages.

 

Let us be the promoters of healing and wisdom! 

[Traveler]

We compartmentalize when we build our fences.  An obvious examples as that we evangelicals are tempted to avoid all talk of good works, because we have built a very high and secure fence about our doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.  Some Christians have forsaken prayers for sick to avoid any association with charlatan-healers, who brought shame to our churches.  We used to forbid dancing to protect chasity, makeup to protect modesty, and, yes, some churches a strong strain of anti-intellectualism--believing "man's wisdom," to promote arrogance and undermine faith.

 

So, Traveler, your words are sound.  Jesus is the ultimate Truth, but all truth is inspired by God.  We fear some truths because we foolishly try to protect others--as if God needs that kind of help!  Historically, Christianity brought literacy and institutions of healing.  It also promoted the Dark Ages.

 

Let us be the promoters of healing and wisdom! 

I believe that you have responded well.  Much better than I expected.  I would add my thought that we fear some truths because of lack of faith in truth and a G-d of truth.

 

The question is - why did the Jews reject Jesus.  I have not understood this.  Near the Dead Sea select and faithful Jews sacrificed much looking for a Messiah - more than I have and yet they did not (at least from scripture) recognize the Christ.  Again about 30 years after the established community of Jews participated in the murder of Jesus the same community sacrificed much more than I ever have for their faith and belief in G-d.  Thousands watched as their wives and children were abused, tortured and murdered while they were forced to watch and all could be stopped if they would just deny the G-d of their fathers.  I do not know if I would endure such a thing – feeling forsaken of G-d even as Jesus did upon the cross.  Was their suffering punishment?  Only if G-d is the contradiction of his own teachings – Jesus suffered to so the Jews would be punished but that we can all escape the punishment of hell.

 

I do not know why the Jews rejected Jesus – I cannot find answers or reasons that convince me – especially that convinces me that in their shoes I would do any better.   The promise is that Jesus will return – and who will be willing to endure more than the Jews have.  And prior to when Jesus comes again, who will comfort those suffering if there is another option? 

 

I am concerned that if we believe we will be spared the suffering (the rapture) that should we suffer we will forsake as we think we are forsaken

[Traveler]

 

[onethatislazy]

QuoteAnd so, most missed the glory of following the actual Son of God--in the flesh!  They missed the chance to walk with, commune with, learn from, gain strength from, and be saved by Jesus--God in the flesh.

 

 

Beautiful! So it is even with many LDS. They miss the chance to walk with, commune with, learn from... Jesus Christ. They believe we have one that speaks to us for Him and we do not need to converse with, seek after His face, and receive him face to face. I have heard it talk many times we do not need to see Him or seek after him and it is enough to see Him in the world around us. That if we need something we have a prophet that speaks to us, thus we fall into the same trap as the people with Moses who prayed that Moses would speak to them for God instead of going up on the mountain themselves to do the "heavy lifting", and they were cursed for it (TPJS). 

 

D&C 101:38 And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.

 

I really enjoyed what you wrote. They certainly had many problems with possession and its really bad today as well. 

 

  

[prisonchaplain]

I am concerned that if we believe we will be spared the suffering (the rapture) that should we suffer we will forsake as we think we are forsaken

 

If the doctrine of the Rapture is taught incompletely, or if it is combined with the heretical "prosperity gospel," it could do exactly that.  On the other hand, who can tell our North Korean or Sudanese brothers and sisters that there is no suffering in Jesus?  They experience horrors, on a personal level, that rival the judgments of Revelation.  Likewise, our members who live in violent, drug-infested neighborhoods?  Those who experience childhood or spousal abuse?  Those with painful chronic diseases?  Etc.

 

Jesus clearly taught us to be ready for his imminent return.  That readiness would primarily be accomplished by keeping our lamps full (oil signifying the Holy Spirit).  So, we walk with God daily, continually.  We meditate on his Word, we commune with his Spirit, and we demonstrate our faith and truth by, as the young Christian musicians like to say, "Living Out Loud."

 

Just as a poorly taught Pre-Tribulation Rapture could lead to us being caught off-guard by suffering, so a poorly taught Post-Tribulation 2nd coming could lead one to believe that there is time--Jesus won't be back for at least 7 years.  In both cases, the problem is not the doctrine, but the instruction.

 

Perhaps there is this truth in End Times teaching:  We are to get read (no rapture) and be ready (rapture).