Basically I'm trying to explain to people the Jewish side of their belief based from what I have read here, basically the time of when I read it here, and when I repeat it to someone else usually as such a gap that its hard to sound assertive and confident and trust my own memory.
Basically rather then discuss a already been discussed to death topic that will lead to eventually Ron/Resh and Lisa/Kom arguing with each other pointlessly to avoid this if possible and not too much effort can someone email me the documentation and links to a comprenhensive explainations with the Torah/Talmud/Book of Moses sources.
Thank you for your time and efforts on my behalf. Once I recieve the information I will delete the thread before an argument breaks out.
Basically what I ask is why Jews do not believe "Jesus" is the Messiah.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
(2nd Google hit on "jews and jesus", 1st one that wasn't a link to "Jews for Jesus" material)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good choice. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I agree
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It won't open for me.
Posted by Mama Squirrel (Member # 4155) on :
I couldn't get it to open in IE, but I could in FF.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Weird. Opens in IE for me.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:What exactly is the Messiah? (back)
The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach“, which means “Anointed.“ It usually refers to a person initiated into God’s service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)
Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s Messiah [Saul]...“ (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)
Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)
Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES (back)
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH (back)
A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets—Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father—and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (2) SEE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"
3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS (back)
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text—which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah’s prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nazianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire." For further reading on the "suffering servant": http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html
4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION (back)
Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation—i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He’ll tell everyone, not just one person.
Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God’s true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show—assuming they are genuine—is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
Judaism, unique among all of the world’s major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone’s belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you…" The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us—who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
See "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai" for further reading.
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.
A. GOD AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God’s One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry—one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.
B. MAN AS GOD?
Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary—i.e. confessing one’s sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.
The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don’t retreat from life, we elevate it.
Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."
The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they’d never have destroyed it.
Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.
For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah: The Seven Laws of Noah
Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God’s plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.
Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.
Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.
The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today—if you hearken to His voice."
by Rabbi Shraga Simmons Largely adapted from Aish.com
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Couple of thoughts on the link from an atheist:
quote:Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry.
I did not know of this belief, and find it pretty interesting. Having God able to make direct revelations to a religion would seem pretty important. Are any persons or groups trying to get this to all of the Jews together so that this could come back? Due to population density problems, I wonder if prophecy could ever come again without a massive extinction level event. I suppose you also could ask the Jews outside of Israel to stop reproducing, so that the next generation can receive prophecy.
quote:If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He’ll tell everyone, not just one person.
But he didn't tell "everyone", he allegedly told one group of people living in one place at one time. He didn't tell me, I'm sure I'd remember it. The entire section strikes me as an attempt at critical thinking against one religion that ignores the fact that the idea cuts both ways.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
You seem to get in a lot of these conversations, Blayne.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A note -- What is posted above should NOT be considered an accurate source concerning Catholic beliefs.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Couple of thoughts on the link from an atheist:
quote:Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry.
I did not know of this belief, and find it pretty interesting.
Me neither, and I find it incorrect. If it were true, Jeremiah wouldn't have been a prophet, since the majority of Jews had been exiled by Assyria before he was even born.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Weird. Opens in IE for me.
I upgraded from IE6 to IE7 today. Now I can see it. Odd.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: A note -- What is posted above should NOT be considered an accurate source concerning Catholic beliefs.
Goodness, no! Thanks, dkw.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think this is very interesting, and it makes sense to me. Thanks for this information. The thing I loved so much when reading Chaim Potok (whom I know is problematic to many Orthodox Jews, but whom I love) is how through prayer mundane aspects of life are made (or rather, recognized and shown to be) divine and holy.
I seem to gain religious insights from all different religions with which I come into contact. My own religious tradition (LDS) tells me this is correct: that all religions have some true knowledge and everything true is part of our religion. Anyway, thank you for improving my knowledge of Judaism.
I love the idea that in every generation someone is alive who has the ability to take the role of messiah. A similar idea is expressed in "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis, that multiple people lived who were almost Christ or potentially Christ, but who turned away, took another path, weren't able to live up or fulfill the requirements, until Jesus came, who despite temptation held out to the end. I love that book because of how it personified Christ to me as truly human, as well as divine. It's responsible for me being a Christian rather than Buddhist or Hindu, I think, since I encountered it during a formative time in hs.
Why do you think God chose Israel as his people in Moses' day? What qualities did they have that set them apart as the civilization or culture most ready to hear God's word?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, actually, God chose Abraham. And then He chose Isaac, and then Jacob. Or rather, they chose Him. We left Egypt based on God's promise to Abraham. But then we accepted His Torah when we were in the desert. There's an interesting midrash about that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not.
Is there a difference between the Torah of Moses, and what's commonly known as the Torah?
Because from what I understand from other conversations, non-Jews are not supposed to study the Torah.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
That's not how I heard it.
God was looking for a people to be his chosen people. He saw a Hittite, and He said: "I'm looking for a people who will be my chosen people - interested?" The Hittite said: "I don't know, what do we have to do?" God said: "Just follow my commandments." The Hittite asked God what the commandments were. God said: "Well, do not kill." The Hittite said: "Sorry, not interested." God talked to an Assyrian and Phoenician and they both told God that they liked war, and they couldn't follow the commandments. Then God saw Moses in the desert. He approached him and said: "I'm looking for a people to be my chosen people - are you interested?" Moses said: "I don't know, what's involved?" God said: "You just have to follow my commandments." Moses said: "Like what?" God said: "Well, thou shalt not kill." Moses said: "That's it? What will it cost us?" God said: "Cost? It won't cost you anything." Moses said: "Well, in that case, I'll take all you've got."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because from what I understand from other conversations, non-Jews are not supposed to study the Torah.
Not quite. Certain parts yes, certain parts no.
That's why you have "the light unto the nations" -- to provide guidance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
>.<
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Basically I'm trying to explain to people the Jewish side of their belief based from what I have read here, basically the time of when I read it here, and when I repeat it to someone else usually as such a gap that its hard to sound assertive and confident and trust my own memory.
Basically rather then discuss a already been discussed to death topic that will lead to eventually Ron/Resh and Lisa/Kom arguing with each other pointlessly to avoid this if possible and not too much effort can someone email me the documentation and links to a comprenhensive explainations with the Torah/Talmud/Book of Moses sources.
Thank you for your time and efforts on my behalf. Once I recieve the information I will delete the thread before an argument breaks out.
Basically what I ask is why Jews do not believe "Jesus" is the Messiah.
Blayne, are you part of those Nigerian fraud email groups?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
As I went to sleep last night I pondered this thread...
It was so interesting to me that someone needed to ask why Jews DON'T believe in Jesus. Jews often ask why on earth anyone would believe in Jesus in the first place!
It's funny, having a strong background in OT - there isn't much that suggests a second coming, etc. While reading the NT, the NT so many times quotes OT verses and claims their fulfillment, trying to show its source in the OT.
I mean, i know this is stupid, but it never quite hit me that Christians would wonder why Jews aren't Christians and that Jews would wonder why Christians would ever be Christian.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Why do you think God chose Israel as his people in Moses' day? What qualities did they have that set them apart as the civilization or culture most ready to hear God's word?
I say this without any thought of condescension but I have found Jewish people to be absolutely wonderful people that I wish I knew more of. There's just something about them that makes me think on occasion, "It makes total sense that they are a peculiar people, and also God's chosen."
I can't really do a very good job of pointing out the specifics, but I do believe the whole is greater than the sum of its' parts.
----
Also presenting Jesus in the vein of, "why don't the Jews accept him" is a topic of a potentially very volatile nature. I don't have much faith it will go very far.
-----
Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept? How does it jibe with say Israel's blessing on all his sons before his death where he prophesied many things concerning them and their seed respectively. Clearly they were in Egypt at the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it never quite hit me that Christians would wonder why Jews aren't Christians and that Jews would wonder why Christians would ever be Christian.
I wonder both these things almost daily. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it never quite hit me that Christians would wonder why Jews aren't Christians and that Jews would wonder why Christians would ever be Christian.
I wonder both these things almost daily.
Also wonders why Tom is not a Jew for Jesus.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I also never heard of prophecy coming at a time when the majority of Jews are in Israel.
I could ask around about it, but it sounds like a modern Zionist idea to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept?
There is no rationale for it, because it isn't true. I don't know why they made that mistake, but it was definitely a mistake. There hasn't been a majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel since the Assyrian conquest. Jeremiah prophesied after that. So did Zephaniah and Huldah. And others.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is there a difference between the Torah of Moses, and what's commonly known as the Torah?
The Torah of Moses is specifically the 5 books of Moses.
Just saying "the Torah" could refer to only the 5 books, or all the OT, or also the Oral Torah (midrash, mishneh, gemareh etc.), or just "kosher" Jewish thought.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept?
There is no rationale for it, because it isn't true. I don't know why they made that mistake, but it was definitely a mistake. There hasn't been a majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel since the Assyrian conquest. Jeremiah prophesied after that. So did Zephaniah and Huldah. And others.
Didn't the prophets Haggai, Zacharaiah, and Malaci chastise the majority of world Jewry for staying in Babylonia instead of returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
to clarify i am not trying to ask "why wouldnt jews believe in jesus" in such a way that is condenscending etc, I do not conside myself christian, I am quite agnostic and like my agnsticism. I'm simply trying to learn more about this particular contraversy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it never quite hit me that Christians would wonder why Jews aren't Christians and that Jews would wonder why Christians would ever be Christian.
I wonder both these things almost daily.
Also wonders why Tom is not a Jew for Jesus.
Has never wondered that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept?
There is no rationale for it, because it isn't true. I don't know why they made that mistake, but it was definitely a mistake. There hasn't been a majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel since the Assyrian conquest. Jeremiah prophesied after that. So did Zephaniah and Huldah. And others.
Didn't the prophets Haggai, Zacharaiah, and Malaci chastise the majority of world Jewry for staying in Babylonia instead of returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple?
Actually, if you check out Haggai, his chastising was over the fact that those of us who *did* return hadn't rebuilt the Temple. Something which seems not to have changed over the past 2300 years.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it never quite hit me that Christians would wonder why Jews aren't Christians and that Jews would wonder why Christians would ever be Christian.
I wonder both these things almost daily.
Also wonders why Tom is not a Jew for Jesus.
Has never wondered that.
Really? I'd say that it's the question that keeps me up at night.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*bites tongue*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept?
There is no rationale for it, because it isn't true. I don't know why they made that mistake, but it was definitely a mistake. There hasn't been a majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel since the Assyrian conquest. Jeremiah prophesied after that. So did Zephaniah and Huldah. And others.
Didn't the prophets Haggai, Zacharaiah, and Malaci chastise the majority of world Jewry for staying in Babylonia instead of returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple?
Actually, if you check out Haggai, his chastising was over the fact that those of us who *did* return hadn't rebuilt the Temple. Something which seems not to have changed over the past 2300 years.
Well remember while they built it they were being attacked the whole time. I don't see many prophets chastising the Jews for not rebuilding the temple these days.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Adenum, the only Messianic prophecies not fulfilled by Jesus are those that have not YET been fulfilled. The Bible presents three comings of the Messiah. The first, when He came to atone for the sins of all mankind, occurred two thousand years ago. The second, which could come within a few years, Jesus' feet will not touch the earth, but He will appear with the angels of God "shining as the lightning from the east to the west", and all the faithful (both those still living, and those who were dead but are resurrected) are gathered to "meet the Lord in the air" and are taken to Heaven for a thousand years. Then at the end of the millennium, Jesus will come a third time. This time His feet will touch the earth, a great valley will be created, and the New Jerusalem will come down from God out of Heaven to rest there. At that time the earth will be recreated. The lake of fire that ultimately destroys the wicked (including Satan and His fellow fallen angels), will cleanse the earth and allow it to be re-created as a global Edenic paradise. The faithful of God will be privileged to witness the renewal of Creation Week.
Many (but not all) Jews wrongly expected some of the prophecies that pertain to Jesus' second and third comings, to all apply to His first coming. Thus they were unwilling to receive Him at His first coming, because there they saw the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, with whose "stripes we are healed," instead of the King of kings who will come in the full glory of God.
The prophecies of Scripture must always be taken in context, so we can know which of the three comings of Christ the prophecies pertain to.
But the prophecies Jesus did fulfill number in the hundreds. These include most notably the time prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which tells us exactly when Jesus would appear on the scene and be annointed (by the Holy Spirit at His baptism, right on schedule, 483 years after Ezra arrived in the land of Israel with the document from King Artaxerxes of Persia--in the fall of 457 B.C.--when Ezra published throughout the land the commandment "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem") and in the "midst of the week," or three and one-half years later, Messiah would be "cut off, but not for Himself." Jesus was crucified three and one-half years after He began His ministry. At the end of the 70 weeks (the original language actually says "seventy sevens"), in 34 A.D., the gospel went to the Gentiles, signalling the inclusion of all the faithful of all nations into the spiritual Israel of God. These are very telling fulfillments. Only God who sees the end from the beginning could provide us with the exact time and schedule of events for the first coming of the Messiah.
[ March 14, 2009, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A note -- What is posted directly above should ALSO not be considered an accurate source concerning Catholic beliefs. Or the majority of Christianity, for that matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, personally, have little doubt that the gospels were written (retconned?) with a certain goal in mind.
It also doesn't make a lot of difference to me whether Jesus was the Jewish messiah as expected by the Jewish prophets.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Adenum, the only Messianic prophecies not fulfilled by Jesus are all of them.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Hundreds, Lisa, hundreds.
Just because you can find some fanciful and strained means for explaining them away, does not mean you are really refuting them, and does not reduce the real weight of evidence--and the point comes where you make yourself look ridiculous trying.
You will never, ever be able to refute the time prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, no matter how hard you try. You can join with the atheists and just categorically deny everything. But if you believe the Bible is inspired by God, the point is proven that the true Messiah appeared on earth right when Bible prophecy predicted He would.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the idea that prophecy disappears whenever there is not a majority of Jewry in the holy land is completely new to me. Could somebody give me the rationale for that concept?
There is no rationale for it, because it isn't true. I don't know why they made that mistake, but it was definitely a mistake. There hasn't been a majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel since the Assyrian conquest. Jeremiah prophesied after that. So did Zephaniah and Huldah. And others.
Didn't the prophets Haggai, Zacharaiah, and Malaci chastise the majority of world Jewry for staying in Babylonia instead of returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple?
Actually, if you check out Haggai, his chastising was over the fact that those of us who *did* return hadn't rebuilt the Temple. Something which seems not to have changed over the past 2300 years.
Well remember while they built it they were being attacked the whole time. I don't see many prophets chastising the Jews for not rebuilding the temple these days.
Not prophets, perhaps, but men and women of spirit. There's a midrash that says the Jews were punished in the time of King David for not wanting to build the Temple. The obvious question is, "But God explicitly told David he couldn't build it. So how could He punish us for that?" And the answer is that it wasn't the not-building that got us punished. It was that the people didn't even care. They should have been champing at the bit to get it built. They should have been stockpiling materials and preparing vessels. They should have been excited about it.
In the time of Haggai, due to the libels of the Samaritans, the Persians had recinded their permission for us to rebuild the Temple. The world superpower said "no". But along came Haggai, and told them that the reason they were in poverty, and the reason everything was going wrong for them, was that they sat around in their own houses while God's House lay in ruins. How was it fair to blame them, when the Persians had forbidden us to rebuild? Because sometimes you just have to do the right thing, and damn the consequences. We don't rely on miracles generally speaking, but we do when it comes to obeying God.
That's why there's The Temple Institute. That's why there are some of us who are constantly trying to get other Jews to understand the importance of this thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Hundreds, Lisa, hundreds.
None, Ron, none.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just because you can find some fanciful and strained means for explaining them away, does not mean you are really refuting them, and does not reduce the real weight of evidence--and the point comes where you make yourself look ridiculous trying.
I defer to the expert on looking ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You will never, ever be able to refute the time prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, no matter how hard you try.
You're so silly. The interpretation you want to put on that prophecy made things fail to match by seven years. So you invented a cockamamie fudge factor to squeeze it in. Pathetic, really.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You can join with the atheists and just categorically deny everything. But if you believe the Bible is inspired by God, the point is proven that the true Messiah appeared on earth right when Bible prophecy predicted He would.
Wrong. The true Messiah won't blaspheme. He won't violate God's commandments publically. And most particularly, he won't get killed like a common criminal. He isn't divine; he's a regular human being.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Instead of just saying "yes he did" and "no he didn't" at each other with no evidence, check http://bibleprobe.com/over-300-prophecies.pdf for a bit of info on the prophecies Jesus fulfilled.
It's kind of a lofty claim to say "None, Ron, none."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I should delete the thread but my popcorn just went ding.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Adenum, the only Messianic prophecies not fulfilled by Jesus are all of them.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I should delete the thread but my popcorn just went ding.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: It's kind of a lofty claim to say "None, Ron, none."
Seriously? And it isn't lofty to say "Hundreds, Lisa, hundreds"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I hate quoting myself but,
quote:Also presenting Jesus in the vein of, "why don't the Jews accept him" is a topic of a potentially very volatile nature. I don't have much faith it will go very far.
Look I (yes BlackBlade) fulfill one of the messianic prophecies by virtue of the fact that I'm a man. Whoopidee do! Arguing that Jesus didn't fulfill any or fulfilled all is absolutely pointless because none of us even agree over what each prophecy means specifically let alone the ones that actually refer to the messiah.
It does not appear that anybody wants to seriously discuss this without getting huffy about it, so just leave it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There was a prophecy that he would be a man? Could you provide a reference?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My favorite prophecy was the one that this thread would descend into a pointless argument after a short time.
Hobbes
[ March 15, 2009, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with Hobbes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I predicted that right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You also predicted that this thread would be deleted before that happened. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I said probably would but laziness kicks in.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, it takes so much effort to delete a thread.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There is no fudge factor needed in the prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27, Lisa, unless you are thinking of the praeteristic interpretation, which tries to see fulfillment in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Maccabees actually did try to use this prophecy in this way to legitimize their seizing power, and they did have to use a fudge factor of about seven years.
But taking a year for a prophetic day, as is common in Bible prophecy, 457 B.C. (when Ezra arrived in Judea to publish throughout the land the king's commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem--the commandment that actually did result in this being done) to 27 A.D. (when Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan and annointed by the Holy Spirit according to the gospel account) is exactly 483 days/years or 69 sevens, as specified in the prophecy (remembering that there was no year zero, 1 B.C. was followed by 1 A.D.). That date, 27 A.D., is when Jesus turned 30 (as Matthew mentions)--because the scholars who originally devised the Christian calendar were mistaken about the date of Christ's birth, which has since been shown to be about 4 B.C., according to most scholars. So Jesus was about three years old in 1 A.D., 30 in 27 A.D. No fudge factor is required. Everything comes out exactly on the predicted date. Ezra arrived in Judea in October, the fall of the year, and Jesus was crucified in the Spring of the year, right in the "midst" of the last "week," or three and one-half years from the start of His ministry. When you have the right interpretation of Bible prophecy, every detail works out to be exactly correct. If any particular does not fit, then you do not have the right interpretation. God does not make mistakes.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just because I hate to see these things go unanswered:
Ron? If you'd like to focus on another prophecy, I think that'd be better, because I think that the Jewish interpretation is compelling, especially with the context of Isaiah.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Right interpretation? Doesn't the very word come down to how you see it? Not as an established fact?
That is one of the reasons I never became a Christian. Many Christian arguments discuss "interpretation" of scriptures. Jews discuss scripture from direct translation.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : explanation 2 : a particular ADAPTATION or version of a work, method, or style 3 : a teaching technique that COMBINES factual with stimulating explanatory information
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Just because I hate to see these things go unanswered:
Ron? If you'd like to focus on another prophecy, I think that'd be better, because I think that the Jewish interpretation is compelling, especially with the context of Isaiah.
Superb. Blayne, I hope you decide not to delete this thread, because there's some good stuff in it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There was a prophecy that he would be a man? Could you provide a reference?
Here you go.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes well I am loathed to lose all this data.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There was a prophecy that he would be a man? Could you provide a reference?
That is another troublesome reference. The translation from Hebrew into English is very sketchy.
In case anyone was curious about what Armoth meant, here's a different translation.
quote:5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
But basically, anytime anything about hamashiach/ the messiah is mentioned, it's with male pronouns, like this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Male singular pronouns.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There was a prophecy that he would be a man? Could you provide a reference?
That is another troublesome reference. The translation from Hebrew into English is very sketchy.
I wouldn't exactly say "sketchy". "Completely wrong" is probably more accurate. Though I'll be even handed and say that I don't think the Chabad version is very good, either.
Since when does having "El" as part of one's name imply that one is a deity? Elhanan: gracious God. The single most common form for names in the ancient near east (not even just in Hebrew, but in Aramaic and Akkadian and Hurrian and just about every other language) is stem-DN or DN-stem, where DN is a divine name and stem is a noun or verb or adjective. Gabriel means exactly the same thing as El Gibor, which the LDS translation gave as "mighty God".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are plenty of prophecies that happen to imply he would be male, but that's different from a prophecy that he would be male.
That one's arguably close to that, though it seems to be a prophecy that he will be male and he will bear some sort of authority. That prophecy would only be fulfilled when both conditions are met, not when just being male is met.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There are plenty of prophecies that happen to imply he would be male, but that's different from a prophecy that he would be male.
That one's arguably close to that, though it seems to be a prophecy that he will be male and he will bear some sort of authority. That prophecy would only be fulfilled when both conditions are met, not when just being male is met.
You asked for a prophecy specifying that the messiah would be male, the fact there are additional qualifications does not take away from that particular requirement.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I didn't. I asked for a prophecy that he would be a man. The reason I phrased it that way is you said being a man fulfills one of the messianic prophecies. Not, is mentioned by a prophecy, but fulfills that prophecy.
quote:Look I (yes BlackBlade) fulfill one of the messianic prophecies by virtue of the fact that I'm a man.
quote:There was a prophecy that he would be a man?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, I didn't. I asked for a prophecy that he would be a man. The reason I phrased it that way is you said being a man fulfills one of the messianic prophecies. Not, is mentioned by a prophecy, but fulfills that prophecy.
quote:Look I (yes BlackBlade) fulfill one of the messianic prophecies by virtue of the fact that I'm a man.
quote:There was a prophecy that he would be a man?
I hate semantics, but people routinely refer to messianic prophecies in terms of each defining characteristic. Matthew the gospel writer says many times, "that the scriptures/prophecy may be fulfilled which said that..." and then he proceeded to quote the middle of a verse.
I admit there is not a particular scripture that says, "The messiah will be a man." But there are many scriptures that clearly indicate that he will be a man as well as other equally important characteristics. The reason I even brought any of this up was two people were making equally extreme claims that were equally useless IMHO. Arguing that Jesus does not fill a single one of those prophecies to me is just as futile as arguing that he fulfilled all of them. To me the fact the Jews amongst all their recorded criticisms in the NT did not question Jesus' genealogy seems to indicate that at least that seemed to square with most of them.
I'm not really interested in discussing whether Jesus fulfills all the prophecies in the OT, I've found there are so many differences in how Jews and Christians read the OT that it is nearly impossible to discuss the scriptures without first spending a long time discussing context.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, no one in 150 years has been able to answer the points I made about Daniel 9:24-27 pointing to the exact year when Jesus would be annointed as Messiah. Every attempt to explain away this prophecy has been clearly bogus. And this proof is based on the mathematics of time and dates fixed in history. No quibbling about the connotations of the original language is relevant. You can argue whether the principle of a prophetic day equalling a literal year is valid, but there are precedents for this elsewhere in Scripture. (See for example Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.) Even the Qumram community apparently saw the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 as 490 years, because they referred to it as "ten jubilees." Since a Jubilee came every 49 years, this was saying 490 years.
I can see why you would rather go on to consider some other Messianic prophecy, where you can make arguments based on the connotations of the original language. But even if you dispute the literal meaning of "a virgin shall conceive" (Isaiah 7:14) and say it just means a young woman or "maiden," that still does not preclude the Messianic implications. Neither does pointing out any local application preclude a second, future application. By itself, if that was all we had, it would not be "proof." But put it together with all the other specifications Jesus Christ fulfilled, such as that he would come out of "Bethlehem Ephratah," and be the one who is "to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting" (Micah 5:2), and the weight of evidence builds.
The first Messianic prophecy in the Bible is Genesis 3:15, which promised a Seed who would bruise/crush/strike the serpent's head, even though the Seed would suffer the same against His heel.
There is another very telling Messianic text that we have discussed before, to which I thought you gave a very unsatisfactory answer, Lisa. That was Psalms 110:1, where we read: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" Jesus quoted this in Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, and then asked how is it that the one David called Lord was also considered to be David's son? Lisa, you said that the first Lord was Abraham. I maintain that that makes no sense. No where in the Bible is Abraham given the title "Lord." The question remains unanswered, who was David calling Lord, who also had a Lord He acknowledged? The Son of David would be Lord. In other texts it is said He will be called "God."
The case for Jesus Christ being your Jewish Messiah has a great weight of evidence. You can probably come up with some rationalization that at least makes a stab at explaining away each text; the human mind can be very imaginative. God has not removed all possibilities for doubt. If He had done that, then faith would not be possible, and faith is what He desires. Just knowing the truth is not enough. As the Apostle James observed, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!" (James 2:19) But what does the great weight of evidence indicate? This is all that faith requires. This is what makes faith a responsible faith.
[ March 16, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, no one in 150 years has been able to answer the points I made about Daniel 9:24-27 pointing to the exact year when Jesus would be annointed as Messiah.
<snort> Did you even read Armoth's link? Only your poor translation of Daniel 9 allows you to come close to such a conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Every attempt to explain away this prophecy has been clearly bogus.
"Clearly". Oh, you mean "Because Ron says so."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And this proof is based on the mathematics of time and dates fixed in history. No quibbling about the connotations of the original language is relevant. You can argue whether the principle of a prophetic day equalling a literal year is valid, but there are precedents for this elsewhere in Scripture. (See for example Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.) Even the Qumram community apparently saw the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 as 490 years, because they referred to it as "ten jubilees." Since a Jubilee came every 49 years, this was saying 490 years.
No one disputes that the chapter is talking about weeks of years. That's a red herring you keep throwing out.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The first Messianic prophecy in the Bible is Genesis 3:15, which promised a Seed who would bruise/crush/strike the serpent's head, even though the Seed would suffer the same against His heel.
Wrong. The word "zera" means descendents. It means that serpents bite humans and humans kill serpents. That's all.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is another very telling Messianic text that we have discussed before, to which I thought you gave a very unsatisfactory answer, Lisa. That was Psalms 110:1, where we read: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"
Yes, but again, that's a very dishonest translation. It says "The Lord said to my lord". Where the first "Lord" is the Tetragrammaton; the four letter Name of God. And the second one is a term of respect given to human beings. Adoni. M'lord. In modern Hebrew, it's the equivalent of "sir". Back in biblical times, it had more of a nobility thing going on.
But the first place in the Bible that we see anyone being called "adoni" was Abraham, who was addressed that way by the Children of Heth. And that's who this verse is referring to. Capitalizing "your" is blasphemous.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus quoted this in Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, and then asked how is it that the one David called Lord was also considered to be David's son? Lisa, you said that the first Lord was Abraham. I maintain that that makes no sense. No where in the Bible is Abraham given the title "Lord."
Wrong. The exact same term is used for him. "Adoni shema'eini". "My lord, hear me." That was Ephron the Hittite. Also, it's the second "lord" that's referring to Abraham. The first one is absolutely God. You know, Ron, it's a real shame you can't read Psalms in the original. You might realize how lame your arguments are.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The question remains unanswered, who was David calling Lord, who also had a Lord He acknowledged? The Son of David would be Lord. In other texts it is said He will be called "God."
Nope. In no texts is it ever said that the Messiah will be a deity. That's blasphemy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The case for Jesus Christ being your Jewish Messiah has a no evidence.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
score one lisa.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: score one lisa.
Blayne I seriously doubt you would even know enough about this issue to play score keeper.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Foul! Into the penalty bin! 5 minutes!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I especially like the start: "You'll never be able to answer this! No one in One Hundred and Fifty Years has been able to ans--" "Armoth already got that" "No one in One Hundred and Forty Nine Years has been able to..."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yay Armoth!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just to be clear Ron. Lisa was talking about Genesis 23:15 - Efron addresses Abraham with the title Adoni - my lord.
Indeed, if you go to Israel today, people will address you as Adoni, my lord, or sir.
I do not find many of the Jesus arguments to be very compelling. You see a lot of weight, i see a lot of people who read a christological interpretation into Bible when it is not quite there. It's even more bizarre arguing scripture with people who read it in translation as opposed to those who have a command of the language.
To conclude - your thing on faith is particularly striking. The word for "faith" in Hebrew is "emunah" - which does not mean faith in the English sense.
Jews do not believe in taking a leap of faith. They believe that the truth of Judaism is demonstrated by rational argument - no leap of faith required. Leaps of faith are meaningless.
The word "emunah" means fealty, loyalty, or faithfulness. We are commanded to be "ma'amin" in God - to be faithful to the knowledge of His existence and to have that reflect in our behavior.
Otherwise, if you did not "believe" in God, why would you care if he commanded you to believe in him?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I said that every attempt (in 150 years) to explain away this prophecy has been bogus. Certainly people have tried, but their arguments have all been refuted by responsible scholarship.
If you acknowledge that the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 is talking about 70 sevens of years, and it began in 457 B.C. (the date favored by most scholars), then what do you see as happening in 27 A.D.?
That link you and Armoth gave leads to a page that says "Domain name has been changed," and has a list of topics that have no apparent relevance.
Just because someone can venture some way of explaining away a Scriptural evidence, doesn't mean he has really refuted it. I need to see the argument you are trying to make to respond to it. I have been conversant with this debate for some 45 years. I doubt anyone has come up with anything new recently.
I maintain, it is really stretching things to claim that David would be referring to Abraham in Psalms 110:1. Cling to that if you wish. But the splinter you are holding onto to keep you afloat is becoming seriously water-logged. I have to say, this seems to be representative of the quality of all your arguments.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Copied from the cached version:
"Now we will turn our attention to the chapter of Daniel 9, and will deal with it in the same way, examining its context, original language, and even punctuation to see how it has been tampered with in Christian translations of the Tanach. This analysis may be a bit technical, but is nevertheless important to understand.
Specifically, we are dealing with verses 25 & 26. The passages deal with a prophecy of Daniel that speaks about the Second Temple Era. Though he will speak of a time frame, using the word weeks, everyone agrees that he meant weeks of years, 7 years, instead of a week of 7 days. In the King James Version it reads:
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself….
The Christian position is that this passage talks about the Messiah (moshiach) coming during the second Temple period, and dying for our sake.
For background, let us begin by understanding some Jewish concepts.
The word "moshiach", literally means anointed and is used in Tanach to apply to kings, priests, prophets, even the altar in the Temple . So, when the Tanach refers to someone as a "moshiach," anointed one, we need to be aware of whom it could be speaking.
The term “Messiah” is a relatively "modern" phrasing for the future anointed King, descended from David, who will usher in the Kingdom of G-d. In Tanach, he is usually referred to as David or the son of David, or a branch of Jesse, David’s father. Nowhere in all of the Tanach does the phrase “HaMoshiach”, "The Messiah" appear, including here. Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.” It even goes so far as to capitalize the word Messiah, making it seem that it is referring to the awaited deliverer, yet know that there is no capitalization in Hebrew - all letters appear in the same case.
The key to understanding the proper reading of this verse is to recognize that there are two time frames mentioned: 7 weeks, and then a subsequent 62 weeks, equaling 69 weeks. Two different anointed ones appear, one in each of those periods. According to the Christian reading, the two periods are combined into one, and the two anointed ones are one and the same, namely Jesus.
Let's look at a Jewish translation that will show how even the misuse of punctuation can be deceiving.
25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem until the coming of an anointed prince shall be seven weeks;* and sixty two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and nothing will be left to him....
*Hebrew grammer places an "asnachta" between these verses, which has a "semi-colon" as its best counter-part in English. It is meant to divide two distinct parts of a sentence. The KJV & NIV will at least acknowledge this with a "comma."
By our reading, we have an anointed prince coming after 7 weeks which is 49 years. This timeframe corresponds in history to King Cyrus giving permission to the Jews to return to their land. What does the Tanach say about Cyrus?
---------------------------
Tanach - Isaiah Chapter 45
1. Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him doors and gates; and the gates shall not be closed; -------------------
Tanach - Ezra Chapter 1
1. And in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 2. Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. -------------------
Cyrus is this anointed prince or king, whose actions occurred around 49 years into the 70 years exile of the Jews. Once he did his job, the 2nd Commonwealth essentially began and the separate 62 week period of "troublesome times" began, until we see the second anointed one.
The Christian translators eliminated the sentence break or (semi-colon) found in Daniel to combine our two parts into one misleading phrase, trying to suggest a 69 week period with a single anointed one, mentioned twice. First of all, no language in the world, including Hebrew, would ever express 69 as 7 & 62. They would say 60 & 9 or 9 & 60, but you will never see seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks for 69 weeks, especially with an "asnachta" (semi-colon) placed between the verses. Both the King James & NIV place at least a comma between the verses to parallel this.
To reinforce our position that the 62 week period is distinct from the first 7 weeks, Daniel speaks again about the 62 weeks in verse 26, where he says:
26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off…
Christian translations say:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (meaning the same one mentioned before) be cut off, but not for himself….
They want you to feel that this corresponds to Jesus as a sacrifice. However, we say it says.
26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and nothing will be left to him....
Here we are introduced to another “anointed one,” as per the Hebrew, not “The Messiah.” The Hebrew says this anointed one will "be cut off, and nothing will be left to him...."
If we look at the Hebrew text we see 2 key points.
Y'KARAIS MOSHIACH V'AYN LO.
1) The verb for "cutoff", KARAIS refers to the fate of evil people.
--------
Exodus 9:15: For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may strike you and your people with pestilence; and you shall be cut off from the earth. ------
Exodus 12:15. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread; the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel . --------
Number 9:13 , 15:30, 15:31 , 19:13 , 19:20 . To name a few.
2) The words V'AYN LO means "and he will have nothing" or "and nothing will remain to him." If you wanted to say "but not for himself, you would need to say V'AYN L'ATZMO."
Our translation then deals with a cutoff (evil) anointed person, who will end up with nothing. This corresponds in history to King Herod Agrippa, the last king of Israel before the Roman destruction. See:
In conclusion, we once again debunk Christian proof-texts through carefully examining proper context and translation."
Ron: I never liked Lisa's abrasive methods, but I'm beginning to understand why she uses them. You have absolutely no leg to stand on when you talk about your proofs so confidently. I am more than willing to give you the opportunity to claim a leg to stand on, and to earn it through proofs and argument. You have not yet gotten there.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: My favorite prophecy was the one that this thread would descend into a pointless argument after a short time.
Hobbes
When did Hobbes come back? And how did I miss it?
(oh yeah - probably because I don't get on Hatrack much any more)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: My favorite prophecy was the one that this thread would descend into a pointless argument after a short time.
Hobbes
When did Hobbes come back?
Feb. 16th, it looks like.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I said that every attempt (in 150 years) to explain away this prophecy has been bogus. Certainly people have tried, but their arguments have all been refuted by responsible scholarship.
<snicker> Right. Never mind the fact that your translations bite. It's "responsible scholarship" if it agrees with your religious beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you acknowledge that the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 is talking about 70 sevens of years, and it began in 457 B.C. (the date favored by most scholars), then what do you see as happening in 27 A.D.?
I'm sorry, did I accidentally say that I agree with "most scholars" about this?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That link you and Armoth gave leads to a page that says "Domain name has been changed," and has a list of topics that have no apparent relevance.
That's not true. Did you type the URL in or did you click on the link? I suspect you typed it, and that you did so inaccurately (which would make sense, as it would match your reading of the Bible). I checked the links again, and you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I maintain, it is really stretching things to claim that David would be referring to Abraham in Psalms 110:1. Cling to that if you wish. But the splinter you are holding onto to keep you afloat is becoming seriously water-logged. I have to say, this seems to be representative of the quality of all your arguments.
First of all, the reason David mentions Malchizedek in that chapter is because of the interaction between Abraham and Malchizedek. Second of all, whether it's Abraham or not, it certainly is not God, because Adoni is never used for God. Ever. Not even one time in the entire Bible.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.
This is merely an assertion that one meaning of "annointed" is to be preferred over another. Jewish scholars, determined to avoid any reference to a Messiah at the time Jesus Christ appeared, are the ones who have tampered with the translation of this text. The Christian view is certainly the one most likely, since things are said about this "annointed one" that imply a person, not a thing (as if it were talking about the sanctuary). Verse 25 refers to Him as "Messiah the Prince." Verse 26 says "Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself." All Jewish scholars can do is pile up assertion upon assertion, without convincing proof, or any proof, other than quoting from themselves.
The idea that there are two annointed ones is ludicrous. There was no punctuation at all in the original language when Daniel was written, in the sixth century B.C. Here again we see the desperation of Jewish scholars impelling them to tamper with the text and make it read the way they want it to.
The fact remains that the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 has a definite starting point. The commandment "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" (v. 25) was published throughout the Land of Judah by Ezra when he arrived from Persia, in a trip that would have brought him to Judah in the fall of 457 B.C. That is when the prophecy begins. This is the only reasonable interpretation, that requires no "fancy footwork."
It might be objected (and has been by some) that there were three commands issued to rebuild Jerusalem. But the third one, issued by Artaxerxes, and carried by Ezra to Judah, who was given authority, money, and men-at-arms to enforce his authority as governor, is the only one that did result in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its wall. This is also specified by the prophecy: "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
The nonsense about this prophecy having to do with the fall of Babylon can be completely disregarded. Babylon fell in Daniel chapter five. Chapter nine was written well after Medo-Persia had replaced Babylon as ruler of the Middle-Eastern world. There would be no point in having a prophecy about the Medo-Persians conquering Babylon, when it was already past history.
What is interesting is that the prophecy of Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus by name years before his birth, and promises that the "two leaved gates" woud be open, and "shall not be shut." This is important, because the armies of the Medes and Persians, led by Darius and Cyrus, respectively, could not have entered Babylon through the dry river bed after diverting the water, if the gate that spanned the river to prevent just such an attack had been shut and locked, as it was supposed to be.
It was not until years later, during the time of King Artaxerxes, that the document containing the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and its wall was delivered by Ezra to Judah and resulted in the accomplishment of what was decreed.
[ March 17, 2009, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do you have a source that the Jews tampered with their own texts?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron, perhaps the biggest blow to your interpretation is the verse in Isaiah that calls Cyrus God's annointed - mashiach - same word as messiah. Cyrus is God's messiah according to the same Bible that you and I read. What do you do with that?
It fits mighty well.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.
This is merely an assertion that one meaning of "annointed" is to be preferred over another.
So is yours, Ron, except that the definite article is certainly omitted, so "the Messiah" is clearly wrong. It doesn't say "ha-mashiach", it says "mashiach". A messiah/anointed one.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jewish scholars, determined to avoid any reference to a Messiah at the time Jesus Christ appeared, are the ones who have tampered with the translation of this text.
You're so silly. We don't really care all that much about translations, because we use the text in its original. We only use translations as a convenience. We never make the mistake of thinking that the translation is the actual text.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Christian view is certainly the one most likely,
<snort>
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: since things are said about this "annointed one" that imply a person, not a thing (as if it were talking about the sanctuary).
Who says it's talking about the sanctuary? The anointed one in verse 25 is Cyrus, and the anointed one in verse 26 is Agrippas. Neither of whom were things, so far as I'm aware.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Verse 25 refers to Him as "Messiah the Prince." Verse 26 says "Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself."
No, verse 25 says "an anointed prince". There's absolutely no definite article in that phrase. The "the" is pure invention on the part of Christian translators. And verse 26 says an anointed one will be cut off, using the term that's only ever used in the Bible for excision. Something which God says will happen to those who violate the Torah in really bad ways. "And the soul that does thus-and-such shall be cut off from his people." It's always a punishment for someone who has sinned grievously. And it does *not* say "but not for himself." "Ayn lo" means "he does not have". So "yekaret mashiach v'ayn lo" means that a "mashiach v'ayn lo" will be excised. Agrippas was an anointed king who had no legitimacy on the throne. Seems to me that he fits. "Ayn lo" appears several places througout the Bible, and it *never* means "not for himself".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The idea that there are two annointed ones is ludicrous. There was no punctuation at all in the original language when Daniel was written, in the sixth century B.C. Here again we see the desperation of Jewish scholars impelling them to tamper with the text and make it read the way they want it to.
Wrong. Why do you think there was no punctuation? Who do you think knows better what the text says in all its details? The people who actually preserved the text and from whom you got it, or a bunch of recent pagans who adapted it to suit their polytheistic beliefs?
Rhetorical question, of course. You clearly go with the pagans.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fact remains that the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 has a definite starting point. The commandment "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" (v. 25) was published throughout the Land of Judah by Ezra when he arrived from Persia, in a trip that would have brought him to Judah in the fall of 457 B.C. That is when the prophecy begins. This is the only reasonable interpretation, that requires no "fancy footwork."
Actually, since the First Temple was destroyed in 421 BCE, and Cyrus' decree was about 49 years later, you're off by quite a number of years.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I have a question about Daniel. I've read that Daniel was not a prophet, but many branches of Christianity believe he was one. Why the difference?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Some Christians. Please don't attribute that to all of us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hence the "I think". I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Is Saul amongst the prophets?
But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
There's no capitalization in Hebrew.
(Seriously, arguing purely semantic distinctions across at least two different languages and cultures seems even more pointless than the rest of this thread.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks Lisa. I'm sorry that came out so abrupt. This thread is making me twitchy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
There's no capitalization in Hebrew.
(Seriously, arguing purely semantic distinctions across at least two different languages and cultures seems even more pointless than the rest of this thread.)
I'm not sure that it is, but I don't feel a strong need to do so.
So in Hebrew is there any sort of distinction between one who feels the spirit of prophecy like Saul and one called to fill the prophetic station like Moses?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I'll refer you to Judaism 101, which sums up the basics well enough. Beyond that... if you want to argue about whether "prophet" is a perfect translation of navi or whatever, that's your concern.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I didn't think this thread was pointless. I learned more Daniel now than I ever did in my Yeshiva education. ;-)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Is Saul amongst the prophets?
But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
Like Shmuel said, there's a language problem here. I'd phrase what you said as "wouldn't anybody who makes a prediction". Prophecy isn't about fortelling the future. That's one small part of what prophets can do, and it's generally used as a method of proving a prophet to actually be capable of prophecy. But most of the time, prophecy is about telling us what the proper priorities in God's law are. Something that can only be done in real time, and could never have been written down generations earlier without risking major misunderstandings.
Daniel may or may not have been a prophet. But the visions he had were not gotten at that level.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So in Hebrew is there any sort of distinction between one who feels the spirit of prophecy like Saul and one called to fill the prophetic station like Moses?
Not really. In some cases, prophets spend years attempting to achieve prophecy. In other cases, God makes it simple for them. Either way, the defining issue is the level of perception.
Though I should add a caveat, which is that Moses is an entirely different case. We divide these levels of divine perception into three categories. Torah, the highest, is a level that was attained by Moses, and by no other prophet in our history. Nevua (prophecy) is a lower level than that, which sometimes comes as visions, or dreams, or other metaphors. The words Moses wrote down were the exact words God used. The words the prophets wrote down were their own expression of what God told them. The third level is Ruach HaKodesh (literally holy spirit; we usually translate it as divine inspiration, but it's the same term you guys use for the third part of your deity). It's less than Nevua, but still pretty significant.
You probably know that the Jewish Bible is divided into three sections, Torah, Prophets, and Writings. These are divided according to those same levels. For example, the prophet Samuel wrote the beginning of the book of Samuel, and he also wrote the book of Ruth. But he wrote the former under the influence (so to speak) of prophecy, while he wrote the latter under the influence of divine inspiration. I understand you guys try and keep the books in chronological order. We arrange them conceptually, first and foremost.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: That explains a lot, thank you for the clarification.
I didn't mean to suggest that prophets spend all their time revealing the future. It's just the word "prophecy" is typically used as a verb for that very act. We (English speakers) would not refer to Moses revealing God's law as "prophesying."
So then are there quite a few prophets that are not named in the scriptures then? For instance the prophets that Saul was dancing and prophesying with? Shmuel's link mentioned that while non-Jews can be prophets they are not as "revered?" as the Jewish ones? Could you explain to me, is that just something that is or something that is prescribed? Conceivably could there be prophetic writings that have been lost? Or would God by force of habit only speak to prophets of whom Jews would have access to those utterances?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There is only one inspiration by God. Either the prophet is given God's words to convey to others, or he is not. But there are different PURPOSES for the calling of a prophet. Many prophets mentioned in the Bible never contributed any written text to the Bible, except when they were quoted by others. Such as Elijah. Samuel was called to raise up schools for the spiritual education of the people, in addition to the messages he was given. Moses was called to lead the people from Egypt to the Promised Land.
Armoth, I already answered your objection by pointing out that it would be ridiculous for Daniel 9:24-27 to be speaking of Cyrus, since he and his conquest of Babylon, were already past history at the time when Daniel 9 was written. Of course God can annoint people for a particular purpose. But what was the purpose of the annointing in Daniel 9:24-27? This is called "Messiah the Prince" and of Him it was said he would be "cut off, but not for Himself." The Christian habit of capitalizing these pronouns is entirely justified, as any reasonable person can see.
Lisa, your repeated reference to "pagan scholarship" is offensive. Sound Bible scholarship is the province of anyone willing to submit to the discipline of studying it. Jews do not own scholarship, not of the Bible or anything else. The Bible is not your word, it is God's Word. It is what has authority, not you or the Jewish people. Sound scholarship that makes sense is what is persuasive, not close-minded assertions that do not make sense.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
Is it common for Christian scholars to study Biblical Hebrew to the point where they can read and understand? So much is lost in translation, especially things that English doesn't have (like gender). I suppose a fair amount of learning could happen from the English translation, but there is certainly a level of knowledge that will be lost.
I'm also curious if Christian scholars read Jewish biblical commentators (such as Rashi).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just want to point out that Adoni is a different word than Adonai - Adonai is commonly read as "Hashem" or God.
Adoni means my master or lord.
I know that in Medieval times there were a lot Christian Hebraists that tried to write their translations based on the best knowledge of Hebrew.
I also know that many medieval Christian scholars read Rashi. I know specifically that Nicholas of Lyra held Rashi to be incredibly important and quoted him on almost EVERY page of his commentary. What's cool is that in a dispute between Christian commentators and Rashi, he would often side with Rashi.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for Christian scholars to study Biblical Hebrew to the point where they can read and understand?
Yes. Certainly any Christian Old Testament scholar above the Master's level will be fluent in Biblical Hebrew. Someone who specializes in, for example, medieval church history, probably not so much.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I didn't think this thread was pointless. I learned more Daniel now than I ever did in my Yeshiva education. ;-)
I haven't learned any in my day school education Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
HaShem is a euphemism, meaning "the Name". It's used in place of Ad-nai and the Tetragrammaton to avoid taking God's name in vain. In practice, this is done in pretty much all contexts except when one is actually praying, or reading the Torah in public.
Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.) It's also used as a euphemism for the Tetragrammaton when one is actually praying, or reading the Torah in public.
The Tetragrammaton itself is never spoken. (And translators handle it in a number of different ways.)
[The hyphen above is standing in for an "o". I prefer not to spell it out.]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Do you not check email anymore?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Take A Level In Prophecy?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Do you not check email anymore?
Who?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I do! But I haven't gotten anything from you... just checked the spam folder, too.
Edited to add: never mind, found it. I don't check that address often. (I should set it to forward to my main address, come to think of it.) Sorry!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I didn't mean to suggest that prophets spend all their time revealing the future. It's just the word "prophecy" is typically used as a verb for that very act. We (English speakers) would not refer to Moses revealing God's law as "prophesying."
True. Every field of knowledge has its own jargon. Religion is no different, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then are there quite a few prophets that are not named in the scriptures then? For instance the prophets that Saul was dancing and prophesying with? Shmuel's link mentioned that while non-Jews can be prophets they are not as "revered?" as the Jewish ones? Could you explain to me, is that just something that is or something that is prescribed? Conceivably could there be prophetic writings that have been lost? Or would God by force of habit only speak to prophets of whom Jews would have access to those utterances?
Well, Balaam (the guy with the talking donkey) is considered to have been on the same level of prophecy as Moses. That's why it says at the end of Deuteronomy that "there did not arise in Israel a prophet like Moses". God didn't want the nations of the world to be able to say, "Well, sure, if we'd had a Moses, we could have been better than we were."
As far as prophets go, it's written in the Talmud that there were many prophets in Israel. Twice as many as those who left Egypt (meaning about 1.2 million). But only those that were necessary for all generations were written down. Meaning that even most of the Jewish prophets are lost to history. They played their part in their times, but what they had to say was only for their times.
The "sons of the prophets" that Elisha hung with, the band of prophets that Saul fell in with... those were a very few of the prophets who prophesied in Israel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is it common for adoni and Ha Shem to be translated into English as the same word? That seems very confusing to me, to say the least.
Well, adoni does mean "my lord". But Ad-onai is a name of God. And we pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Ad-onai (except when it's preceded by Ad-onai, in which case we pronounce it El-ohim). Generally, the Tetragrammaton is translated as Lord (or LORD).
It's just as confusing in regular English. There are lords and ladies in England, but when we say, "Oh, my Lord!", we mean something entirely different.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.)
No, sir. Adoni can be used for more mundane lords, but that's a different word.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ad-nai is a name of God in its own right, generally translated as "Lord." (As Lisa pointed out upthread, the word can also be used for more mundane lords.)
No, sir. Adoni can be used for more mundane lords, but that's a different word.
Oops. You're right; apparently I didn't fully engage my brain before posting that. (Though, just to confuse matters, the two words are spelled the same way, with only the vowels being different...)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Minerva, every Christian theological seminary that I know of has professors with PhDs in Biblical languages, each person usually specializing in Hebrew or in Greek. The theological seminary associated with Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Michigan (where I spent over three years in the undergraduate school), has many recognized experts in Biblical Hebrew. There is a whole department of Biblical Languages in the seminary. For a long time they also had on their faculty Dr. Leona Running, who was one of the few world-recognized experts in Biblical Aramaic (the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic).
Andrews was founded in 1874 and is still operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To this day, the SDA Church requires all its ministerial students to take Biblical Greek on the undergraduate level, and Biblical Hebrew on the graduate level. Most SDA ministers have MDiv (Master of Divinity) degrees. Those who want to go into teaching on the collegiate level usually continue further to get PhDs.
The SDA Church is said to have over 15 million members worldwide, with churches and various institutions (such as elementary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and clinics) in over 200 nations. Link: http://www.answers.com/topic/seventh-day-adventist-church Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I'm wondering then, Ron, how they could possibly mistranslate adoni as Lord. It seems like a deliberate deception. I mean, any Hebrew speaking child could tell you that is incorrect.
I'm really trying to give these translators the benefit of the doubt, but it's not terribly easy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This sort of thing tends to happen when you rely on prayer over experiment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Minerva, Shmuel's point about the spelling is a good one.
Which is not to say that I don't think the mistranslation is deliberate; I'm sure it is.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Question for the Christians that don't agree with Ron (seems to be the majority here).
Do you believe the Hebrew Scriptures speak of Jesus?
If not, why do you believe in him as the savior?
If you accept him as a savior, but agree with the Jewish translations, why bother with the Hebrew Scriptures at all?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I believe that Christian translators of the Bible use the same Textus Receptus that Jewish scholars do.
Here is what Thayers Bible Dictionary tells me, when I check the Strong's numbers for the phrase "The LORD said unto my Lord" in Psalms 110:1:
"The LORD"
quote:03068 Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} from 01961; TWOT - 484a; n pr dei AV - LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519 Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
"Said unto My Lord"
quote:0113 'adown {aw-done'} or (shortened) 'adon {aw-done'} from an unused root (meaning to rule); TWOT - 27b; n m AV - lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1; 335 1) firm, strong, lord, master 1a) lord, master 1a1) reference to men 1a1a) superintendent of household,of affairs 1a1b) master 1a1c) king 1a2) reference to God 1a2a) the Lord God 1a2b) Lord of the whole earth 1b) lords, kings 1b1) reference to men 1b1a) proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b1b) master 1b1c) husband 1b1d) prophet 1b1e) governor 1b1f) prince 1b1g) king 1b2) reference to God 1b2a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") 1c) my lord, my master 1c1) reference to men 1c1a) master 1c1b) husband
In Psalms 97:5 the text says: "The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the Lord" (NKJV) Please note that the "Lord" at the end of that clause is also Strong's number 0113, the same identical word as the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1. Somehow, I don't think the mountains melt like wax at the presence of Abraham.
Also in Zechariah 4:14 is this phrase: "the Lord of the whole earth." Again, the word used for Lord is Strong's number 0113, the same as the Hebrew for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1. I don't think Abraham was ever described as the Lord of the whole earth, beside whom "the two anointed ones" stand. The two annointed ones are obviously the two covering cherubim who stand on either side of the throne of God in Heaven, represented by the two golden angels who stand on either side of the "Mercy Seat" of the Ark of the Covenant.
Would you care to explain to me how you can justify calling the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 Abraham, when the same word is applied to the Lord of the whole earth, in whose presence the mountains melt, etc.?
And as I have said before, there is no sensible reason why David would refer to Abraham as his "lord."
As Christians see it, this is God the Father speaking to God the Son.
[ March 18, 2009, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I'm wondering then, Ron, how they could possibly mistranslate adoni as Lord. It seems like a deliberate deception. I mean, any Hebrew speaking child could tell you that is incorrect.
I'm really trying to give these translators the benefit of the doubt, but it's not terribly easy.
Playing devil's advocate, the two terms are spelled the same way.
One might also note that in this particular case, either reading can have the same result: other Christian translators do take the word at issue as being "adoni," while still taking it as referring to Jesus. NETBible, for instance, translates it in the lowercase, and has this footnote:
quote:My lord. In the psalm’s original context the speaker is an unidentified prophetic voice in the royal court. In the course of time the psalm is applied to each successive king in the dynasty and ultimately to the ideal Davidic king. NT references to the psalm understand David to be speaking about his “lord,” the Messiah. (See Matt 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Acts 2:34-35).
Obviously, this isn't the Jewish reading, but that's a matter of interpretation.
Their footnote 20 to that psalm is interesting and relevant, in that it directly addresses a similar issue regarding the word with that spelling in verse 5. They go with the Jewish vocalization there as well, but do note an alternative reading.
The Jewish and Christian traditions and translations have irreconcilable differences, no question, but I'm reluctant to put differences among contemporary scholars down to incompetence or deception. We're just starting with very different premises.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is what Thayers Bible Dictionary tells me, when I check the Strong's numbers for the phrase "The LORD said unto my Lord" in Psalms 110:1:
"The LORD"
quote:03068 Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} from 01961; TWOT - 484a; n pr dei AV - LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519 Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
"Said unto My Lord"
quote:0113 'adown {aw-done'} or (shortened) 'adon {aw-done'} from an unused root (meaning to rule); TWOT - 27b; n m AV - lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1; 335 1) firm, strong, lord, master 1a) lord, master 1a1) reference to men 1a1a) superintendent of household,of affairs 1a1b) master 1a1c) king 1a2) reference to God 1a2a) the Lord God 1a2b) Lord of the whole earth 1b) lords, kings 1b1) reference to men 1b1a) proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b1b) master 1b1c) husband 1b1d) prophet 1b1e) governor 1b1f) prince 1b1g) king 1b2) reference to God 1b2a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") 1c) my lord, my master 1c1) reference to men 1c1a) master 1c1b) husband
In Psalms 97:5 the text says: "The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the Lord" (NKJV) Please note that the "Lord" at the end of that clause is also Strong's number 0113, the same identical word as the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1. Somehow, I don't think the mountains melt like wax at the presence of Abraham.
See, that's the problem with using such tools. It simply isn't as good as learning the language and dealing with the real text. The verse says "The mountains melt like wax from before the Lord; from before the lord of all the earth." The first Lord there is the Tetragrammaton. The second one is the word lord. And yes, it's calling God the lord of all the earth. It's completely different than the name Ad-onai and the Tetragrammaton, both of which are translated as Lord with a capital L.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Also in Zechariah 4:14 is this phrase: "the Lord of the whole earth."
Same thing. God's being called the lord of all the earth, but the divine name Lord is not being used. It's a descriptive, rather than a name. And yet you'll still never find a single place in the entire Bible where a simple "adoni" (with the first person singular possessive suffix) is used for God. If Psalms 110:1 did, it's the only place in the entire Bible where it was done, while a simple "adoni" was definitely used for human beings. First among them being Abraham.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Would you care to explain to me how you can justify calling the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 Abraham, when the same word is applied to the Lord of the whole earth, in whose presence the mountains melt, etc.?
Do you understand now? Calling God "lord of all the earth" is not the same thing as referring to Him as "Lord".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And as I have said before, there is no sensible reason why David would refer to Abraham as his "lord."
Because David was familiar with the Torah, to say the least. And that's a title by which Abraham was called in Genesis.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As Christians see it, this is God the Father speaking to God the Son.
Well, that's lame. Hell, you have a problem with David calling his ancestor Abraham "my lord", but you're okay with him calling his distant descendent by the same name? Nutty.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well, Lisa, here it seems we come to the dividing point between Christianity and Judaism. It is a matter of what you arbitraily assert is preferable. But you cannot prove that the Christian interpretation is incorrect. I maintain that any fair-minded person would have to agree that I made valid points comparing Psalms 110:1, 97:5, and Zechariah 4:14, where the exact same Hebrew word for Lord is used, and the latter two passages are clearly talking about God. And it still sounds absurd to suppose that this one place in the Bible, King David is referring to his ancestor Abraham as "My Lord." Abraham had been dead for centuries. How could he be David's Lord?
You ask how David's Lord could be his son. Ah yes, exactly. And that is the very question Jesus Christ put to the scribes in His day. See Luke 20:42-44. The only interpretation that makes good sense of Psalms 110:1 is that the second Lord is God the Son. If you do not see it this way, it is only because you do not choose to see it this way. But do you really have good reason to see it this way? What does the real weight of evidence indicate?
The Hebrew experts, such as translate the Bible, know a whole lot more about ancient Hebrew than you or any of your teachers in Hebrew school do. Your appeal to some proprietary authority over the Hebrew text of the Bible you think you have because of your Hebrew heritage is not a valid argument.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, Lisa, here it seems we come to the dividing point between Christianity and Judaism. It is a matter of what you arbitraily assert is preferable. But you cannot prove that the Christian interpretation is incorrect. I maintain that any fair-minded person would have to agree that I made valid points comparing Psalms 110:1, 97:5, and Zechariah 4:14, where the exact same Hebrew word for Lord is used, and the latter two passages are clearly talking about God.
Nope. The stem is the same. But adon isn't adoni. Abraham is called adoni. God is never called adoni. He's called adon kol ha-aretz, and He's called Ad-onai. But He's never called adoni.
This isn't a matter of personal taste, Ron. It's a matter of fact.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And it still sounds absurd to suppose that this one place in the Bible, King David is referring to his ancestor Abraham as "My Lord." Abraham had been dead for centuries. How could he be David's Lord?
It sounds absurd to you because you have no feel for the language. Adoni was a title by which Abraham was called.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The only interpretation that makes good sense of Psalms 110:1 is that the second Lord is God the Son.
No, the second "lord" is not "Lord". It's not God. God is never referred to as "adoni". Ever.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not see it this way, it is only because you do not choose to see it this way.
Or, you know, because I can read the text without having to use concordances and dictionaries.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But do you really have good reason to see it this way? What does the real weight of evidence indicate?
Asked and answered.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Know what's funny Ron? Lisa, Shmuel (I'm assuming), and I do not hold PhDs in Hebrew. This is baby-Hebrew. Jews, for some CRAZY reason find it important to learn Hebrew and make sure to be the keepers of our solid tradition. You are so baseless in this argument that it's scary how you can be so confidant.
Secondly, I studied a whole lot of Jewish-Christian relations in Medieval times. Did you know that ALL over Christian culture, Jews are portrayed as keepers of knowledge - the link to scripture and to Godly wisdom. Christians always recognized and were impressed by Jewish wisdom. They just chose to argue about the whole Jesus thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, what about me!
I don't have a PhD either. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Hebrew in which the Psalms were written did not have any vowels. Marks to indicate some vowel sounds were added after the fact, centuries later, by uninspired scribes. Is this not true? So how can you be so dogmatic about whether the second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is adon or adoni? Which is the Hebrew word for lord in Psalms 97:5 and Zechariah 4:14? According to dictionaries and condordances which are a lot more authoritative than any of you are (no matter what you claim), the word in the three passages is the same word. I need more proof than your say-so that the word used for the second lord in Psalms 110:1 cannot be applied to divinity. Your dogmatism is not persuasive. Your opinions are not evidence, I don't care what you were programmed to believe in Hebrew school as children. Do you understand what scholarly evidence is?
The idea that David was calling Abraham "My lord" is not reasonable. Can you get that? Or is your mind closed to reason?
OK, granted, if you admit this point then you have to admit that Christianity is true, and that Jesus Christ is your true Jewish Messiah. Maybe you are just unwilling to do this. But it is, and He is, just the same. Christianity is Judaism, grown to maturity. Because I receive His Son, God regards me as a truer Jew than you are. Hopefully, I will see you in Heaven after the Second Coming, and we can continue our debate then.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I need more proof than your say-so that the word used for the second lord in Psalms 110:1 cannot be applied to divinity.
If it is proven to you, will you concede that Jesus is not the Messiah?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Or is your mind closed to reason?
Yeah, you guys should be more open minded, like Ron!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, the evidence for Jesus Christ being the Messiah is far greater than that one verse, Psalms 110:1. I consider the evidence from Daniel 9:24-27 to be the most telling.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship. Some of you seem to be so scholarly challenged that birds could fly through your "open minds."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, Ron. Which specific verses would you have to have disproved before you'd concede that Jesus is not the Messiah?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Ron, for some reason your posts come across to me as evangelism, where others' come across as explanation. I'm not sure how to clearly identify the difference. Unfortunately, that means I don't have a clear way to explain how I believe your posting style needs to change. Nevertheless, I think I need to say something, and so I'd ask that you endeavor not to come across that way.
--PJ
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship.
Bull. No amount of scholarship would ever be able to convince you that Jesus was not the Messiah / son of God. It's so central to your core personality and even concept of "self" that it's become your starting axiom in your evaluation of the world. You may as well claim that you are open to scholarship that says 1 = 2. Though if your religion said 1 = 2, I have a feeling you'd defend it tooth and nail!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Hebrew in which the Psalms were written did not have any vowels. Marks to indicate some vowel sounds were added after the fact, centuries later, by uninspired scribes. Is this not true? So how can you be so dogmatic about whether the second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is adon or adoni? Which is the Hebrew word for lord in Psalms 97:5 and Zechariah 4:14?
It's not true, because the knowledge of the correct pronunciation was passed down along with the text. But leave that. The second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun-yud. The Hebrew word for lord in the other two verses you mention is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to dictionaries and condordances which are a lot more authoritative than any of you are (no matter what you claim), the word in the three passages is the same word.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Ron. When someone like you who doesn't even know how to use those dictionaries and concordances reach conclusions from them, it isn't the books that are at fault, but you yourself.
Based on what you cited, it's clear that the dictionary you used was giving you the stem and translating it, rather than the entire word. And I'll bet that if you open up the beginning of that book and read through the front matter, you'll see that that's exactly what they say they're going to do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I need more proof than your say-so that the word used for the second lord in Psalms 110:1 cannot be applied to divinity.
Surely you have access to these books in Hebrew, Ron. Surely you have access to someone who can show you the actual words on the actual page. This isn't something which requires you to believe anything. It's a physical fact. Go and check it out for yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your dogmatism is not persuasive. Your opinions are not evidence, I don't care what you were programmed to believe in Hebrew school as children. Do you understand what scholarly evidence is?
I do. Do you? Casually misusing resource books isn't good scholarship.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The idea that David was calling Abraham "My lord" is not reasonable. Can you get that? Or is your mind closed to reason?
Well, maybe if you assert it again another few times, I might buy it. Then again... no, I wouldn't. If you were a member of a tribe which was a part of a greater nation which had one man at the head of it, who founded it and who inspired all of the knowledge of that nation, you might refer to him as your lord as well. Hell, the Brits don't need even that much reason to call people "my lord". All they need is a patent of nobility.
You see it as weird only because you're programmed (nice word, incidentally) to think of the word as denoting a deity. So it's tinted for you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK, granted, if you admit this point then you have to admit that Christianity is true, and that Jesus Christ is your true Jewish Messiah.
Um... no. Believing one inane thing doesn't necessary lead to believing another one. There's no question whatsoever that the second "lord" in that verse is not referring to God. If you could somehow prove (how?) that it's not referring to Abraham, it'd only mean it was referring to someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Maybe you are just unwilling to do this. But it is, and He is, just the same. Christianity is Judaism, grown to maturity.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Because I receive His Son, God regards me as a truer Jew than you are.
Blasphemer. You're no Jew. Not in any way, shape or form.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron might be the son of a Jewish woman. You never know.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I pray he is not.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Son of a haredi woman! ;-)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Armoth, you realize that there are LDS people on this board who were either born Jewish or who have family members that were. It loses some of the humor when you realize that.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
No it doesn't.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Son of a haredi woman! ;-)
Most definately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If so, he would have a better grasp of Hebrew. Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
But he went off the derech before he could learn.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Xavier, my mind is open to sound scholarship.
Bull. No amount of scholarship would ever be able to convince you that Jesus was not the Messiah / son of God. It's so central to your core personality and even concept of "self" that it's become your starting axiom in your evaluation of the world. You may as well claim that you are open to scholarship that says 1 = 2. Though if your religion said 1 = 2, I have a feeling you'd defend it tooth and nail!
Um. You do know what Christians say about one and three, right?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: snerk ::
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That actually is kind of funny. Not exactly correct, but funny.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
4?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Doesn't count if you do it on purpose.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Let me just ask again this simple question: Do you deny or admit as true that the Hebrew in which Psalms was originally written had no vowels, and marks indicating vowel sounds was not added until centuries later--perhaps not even until after the time of Christ?
That being the case, how would it be physically possible for the word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 to be any different from the word for Lord in Psalms 97:5 or Zechariah 4:14, which unquestionably were referring to God?
It is on this that you are basing your whole argument, and your evidence cannot be validated.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Mayfly?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Yud is not a vowel. That letter has been there since Sinai. Seriously, go take a look.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is the spelling of the two words in question, in the original?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What is the spelling of the two words in question, in the original?
According to Lisa:
quote:The second "lord" in Psalms 110:1 is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun-yud. The Hebrew word for lord in the other two verses you mention is spelled alef-dalet-waw-nun.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That being the case, how would it be physically possible for the word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 to be any different from the word for Lord in Psalms 97:5 or Zechariah 4:14, which unquestionably were referring to God?
Lisa's already addressed this, but if you could read Hebrew, you'd see that you're entirely wrong about this. The word in Psalms 97:5 and Zechariah 4:14 is one letter shorter than the word in Psalms 110:1. It reads "adon," not "adoni." "Adon" unambiguously means "master" or "owner," not "God"; no contrary vocalization is possible. In both of those cases it is part of the larger phrase adon kol ha'aretz, or "master of all the earth." Psalms 110:1 has a different form, "adoni," meaning "my master," and it doesn't have "kol ha'aretz" in it. (And just as well, considering that "adoni kol ha'aretz" would be ungrammatical...)
Lisa's already said all this, so I don't quite know why I'm bothering. You can keep ignoring the facts and reiterating false assertions all you want; it doesn't make them any truer.
[ March 21, 2009, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let me just ask again this simple question: Do you deny or admit as true that the Hebrew in which Psalms was originally written had no vowels, and marks indicating vowel sounds was not added until centuries later--perhaps not even until after the time of Christ?
That being the case, how would it be physically possible for the word for the second Lord in Psalms 110:1 to be any different from the word for Lord in Psalms 97:5 or Zechariah 4:14, which unquestionably were referring to God?
It is on this that you are basing your whole argument, and your evidence cannot be validated.
Oh, silly Ron. The letter yod is not a vowel. Vowels are the points. Little dots and what not. There is definitely a consonental difference between the words in the two places. They have the same stem, but it isn't just a difference of vowels.
Really, Ron, you ought to go and learn something about the subject. You'd make less foolish mistakes that way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oops. Didn't read quite carefully enough.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, anyone, can you show me any other place in Scripture where David referred to Abraham as "lord"? Can you show me any example in Scripture where anyone after Abraham's death referred to him as "lord"?
I would also like to know "which" original Hebrew source you are using, and when it was last updated by uninspired scribes. But perhaps you are not critical enough in your scholarship even to consider this. You accept whatever you receive from your present rabbis, scribes, etc.
I am asking you serious and responsible and valid questions, and you respond by deriding me for making "foolish" mistakes. That kind of thing is not even making an argument.
As you may know by now, I am a strong believer in taking due cognizance of context. So let me point out to you a little context, Psalms 110:1 plus the next three verses:
quote:The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." 2 The Lord will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, [saying], "Rule in the midst of Thine enemies." 3 Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee [as] the dew. 4 The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, "Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." (NASB)
This is copied and pasted from my on-computer copy of the NASB. I have about a dozen English-language versions of the Bible on my computer. I like the NASB because of its scholarly precision.
Please notice what is said in verse 4 about the second "Lord" in verse 1: "Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." When was this ever true of Abraham? Abraham paid tithes TO Melchizedek, and was never himself a priest.
If your interpretation of a passage does not make sense in context, then that is a pretty big clue that your interpretation is wrong, and you need to question all your rationalizations for interpreting the passage in question the way that you do.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They have already answered you several times over.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, you are not paying close enough attention.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since you haven't acknowledged you were wrong about there being no difference in the Hebrew consonants between adoni and adonai, I don't think one has to be paying very close attention to know that you are arguing without intellectual honesty.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, anyone, can you show me any other place in Scripture where David referred to Abraham as "lord"? Can you show me any example in Scripture where anyone after Abraham's death referred to him as "lord"?
And if I were to find one, you'd say, "Can you show me any example in Scripture where anyone after Abraham's death, with red hair and blue eyes and mole just above their right shoulder who speaks with a slight lisp referred to him as 'lord'?"
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would also like to know "which" original Hebrew source you are using, and when it was last updated by uninspired scribes. But perhaps you are not critical enough in your scholarship even to consider this. You accept whatever you receive from your present rabbis, scribes, etc.
Now you're really grasping at straws, Ron. I think I'll let this concession post of yours stand on its own (de)merits.
PS: you left out Pharisees, hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, etc...
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I invite you to Yeshiva University's rare book room. We can together look at the the oldest versions of Psalms and Genesis and compare.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In any case, the unenlightened-scribes bit cuts just as hard against Ron. Who is to say that the prophecies weren't inserted by such after the fact? Or that some other prophecies which can't be forced to fit weren't quietly dropped?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Since I cannot read Hebrew, I would have to depend upon the assessment of qualified Hebrew scholars, and that does not mean anyone who happens to have attended Hebrew school in their childhood. Has it even occurred to any of you that scribes after the time of Christ may have tampered with Psalms 110:1 to create a situation where they could arbitrarily pretend that the second Lord in that verse could not refer to diety? This is not a far-fetched speculation, because it is admitted that points which indicate presumed vowel sounds were not added until centuries after the original text of Psalms was written. How many more changes were made in a dishonest attempt to counter otherwise unanswerable Christian arguments? To really validate the facts involved, we must see manuscripts that actually date from before the Christian era. How did the Dead Sea Scrolls have Psalms 110:1?
But regardless of any claims about the form of the word used, the argument based on context will still outweigh anything else to me. Psalms 110:1-4 specifies that the second "Lord" is declared to be "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Abraham was never any kind of priest, let alone of the order of Melchizedek, to whom he himself paid tithes. Nor was he ever "King of Salem," as is said of Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But Jesus Christ we Christians affirm was declared to be a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and now officiates as the High Priest for the whole human race in the Sanctuary of God in Heaven.
You Jews gave us Christians and the whole world the whole divine Plan of Salvation in your sanctuary services, and now you let the Plan of Salavation pass you by. Is pride more important than truth?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I hear The Plan is going to air this fall on SciFi (SyFy?).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
evangelism again.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How many more changes were made in a dishonest attempt to counter otherwise unanswerable Christian arguments?
Or, y'know, create them.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is a discussion of the very points we've been discussing by someone who who is an expert. It is a lengthy article. I will try keep the excerpts brief.
quote:In their article in The Journal, Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting argue that since the Hebrew word in Ps. 110:1 translated "Lord" in reference to Christ was "adoni," Christ couldn't be God. In what may be the single most frequently cited Old Testament Messianic text in the New Testament, David wrote: "The Lord [Yahweh] says to my Lord [Adoni]: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.'" They reason that Jesus couldn't be God, since "adoni" refers to "in every one of its 195 occurrences, human (and occasionally angelic) superiors." This argument runs into an insufferable weakness, however: The only difference between "adoni" and "adonai" is one of vowel pointing, as Buzzard and Hunting themselves point out. Since Hebrew originally was written only in consonants, the vowel points were added later, probably in the sixth or seventh centuries A.D. Neither Jerome in the fourth century (who translated the Latin Vulgate) nor the Talmud in the fifth century mention them, despite "both at times discuss in detail different vocalization possibilities of Hebrew consonants . . . It is inconceivable that had such signs existed Jerome and the rabbis should have failed to mention them." -- FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD A Reply Against Gary Fakhoury, Anthony Buzzard, and Wade Cox, by Eric V. Snow, p. 36; Link: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/Snow_Buzzard.pdf
Snow goes on to point out a number of specific cases where it is provable that Jewish scribes did make errors in pointing, some of them in Messianic texts. He then observes:
quote:Consequently, this possibility must be examined: Could have the Jews deliberately inserted the vowel points for "adoni" instead of "adonai" in this key messianic text? After all, since the New Testament gives this text such prominent placement, the traditional oral reading of the Jews by the time the vowel points were created and inserted could have "softened" this text to weaken it as a "Christian prooftext." Despite the Jews' marvelous skill and meticulousness in preserving the Old Testament, there are signs they altered the reading of one or more texts to weaken Christian messianic interpretations of some texts. The most obvious case is the apparent insertion of a semi-colon in the middle of Dan. 9:25, between the 7 and 62 weeks, which pushes back the arrival of the Messiah to just 49 years after the Persian king, Artaxerxes, issued a decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 b.c. Thus the Seventy Weeks Prophecy, one of the best proofs that the Messiah had to arrive by the first century A.D., conveniently disposed of. (Ibid., pp. 36-37)
These are basically the same arguments I have made. Do they sound better coming from a qualified expert, who can show examples that unwarranted and incorrect changes have been made in the Bible text, and can say in many cases when the changes were made?
Can you see now why we Christians do not meekly bow before any attempts to browbeat us on the basis of textual evidence that we have good reason to believe that Jewish scribes have falsified?
Those of you who rely upon your Hebrew School education to make you think you know these issues better than Christians, need to appreciate that the real textual issues involved are not as simple as you think, and it is entirely possible that your teachers in Hebrew school did not teach you things that were entirely correct.
[ March 22, 2009, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But regardless of any claims about the form of the word used, the argument based on context will still outweigh anything else to me. Psalms 110:1-4 specifies that the second "Lord" is declared to be "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Abraham was never any kind of priest, let alone of the order of Melchizedek, to whom he himself paid tithes.
Melchizedek was another name of Shem, son of Noah. Abraham learned from Shem and Eber, and he was absolutely a priest of God in the same way that Melchizedek was. He offered sacrifices to God, and the priesthood of true worshippers of God was passed down from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Levi, whose great-grandson Aaron was the progenitor of the Kohanim, the Jewish priestly lineage.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You Jews gave us Christians and the whole world the whole divine Plan of Salvation in your sanctuary services, and now you let the Plan of Salavation pass you by. Is pride more important than truth?
We don't require salvation, Ron. We aren't born into sin. Sin is not a state of being. That's something that was invented by others. We know how to be good with God. And it doesn't include your incessant blasphemy.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, that is just an assertion. You cannot prove that Melchizedek was Shem, though admittedly he was alive at the time that Abraham paid tithes to Mechizedek. When was Abraham ever called a priest? Remember, Abraham did not pay tithes to himself, he paid tithes to Melchizedek.
There was no connection between the Melchizedek priesthood and the Levitical priesthood--which consisted of one tribe (Levi) being dedicated to the Lord by arbitrary selection by God, in place of the first born of every family.
If you are not in Heaven, Lisa, if you still live in a world where you are doomed to die, sooner or later, and are subject to every kind of evil from without, not to mention from within, then you most certainly need to be saved. You cannot speak to God face-to-face. His glory would consume you. Even Moses had to be shielded by a rock. Those animals that were sacrificed were sacrificed only after the people had confessed their sins over their heads. Yet even confessing sins was not enough. The animals had to be killed, and not just killed, their blood was applied to the altar daily, and once a year to the Ark of the Covenant (while it still was in the sanctuary). And throughout all the instructions that set up this system, the application of blood was called "making an atonement." Why don't you believe your own Scriptures? You do need salvation. Look around you if you think you don't!
Blasphemy is calling good evil, and evil good.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, that is just an assertion. You cannot prove that Melchizedek was Shem, though admittedly he was alive at the time that Abraham paid tithes to Mechizedek. When was Abraham ever called a priest? Remember, Abraham did not pay tithes to himself, he paid tithes to Melchizedek.
The priesthood passed from Shem to Abraham.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There was no connection between the Melchizedek priesthood and the Levitical priesthood--which consisted of one tribe (Levi) being dedicated to the Lord by arbitrary selection by God, in place of the first born of every family.
Incorrect. It went from Shem to Abraham. It went from Abraham to Isaac, and not Ishmael. It went from Isaac to Jacob, and not Esau. It went from Jacob to Levi, and not to any of his other sons. It went from Levi to Kehat, and not to any of his other sons. It went from Kehat to Amram, not any of his other sons. It went initially from Amram to Aaron, but when God chose Moses, it went to him. Though it was then transferred to Aaron and his four sons when they were in the desert. Lastly, Aaron's grandson Phinehas, who was not included in the priesthood because he had been born prior to his father being granted the priesthood, was granted the priesthood for him and his descendents as well after he killed Kosbi and Zimri.
There's no "order" of Melchizedek priesthood. The verse says "al divrati Malkitzedek". "Al divrati doesn't mean "of the order of". It means "after the manner of":
quote:Tractate Nedarim 32b: R.Zekharya said in the name of R.Yishmael: God wanted the priesthood to descend from Shem, as it is stated, "And he was a priest of the Most High God". But when he preceded Avraham's blessing to God's blessing, He made (the priesthood) descend from Avraham, as it is stated" "And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Avram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth. And blessed be the Most High God". Avraham said to him: Does one bless a servant before his master? He there and then gave it to Avraham, as it is stated (Ps.110:1): "The Lord says to my master: Sit you at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool". This is followed (ibid.ibid.4) by, "The Lord has sworn, and will not change His mind, You shall be a priest for ever, after the manner (lit. because of the speaking) of Malki Tzedek. It is therefore that it is stated: "And he was a priest of the Most High G-d" - he was a priest but not his descendants.
The only real priesthood to God is the priests among the Jewish people, as God swore.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you are not in Heaven, Lisa, if you still live in a world where you are doomed to die, sooner or later, and are subject to every kind of evil from without, not to mention from within, then you most certainly need to be saved.
Um... no. What I need to do is what God said I need to do. Not what a bunch of Christian theologians say I need to do. And what God says I need to do is to obey His laws and live according to them. And if I screw up, to do teshuva (repent according to the procedure God gave us). That's all I need to do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You cannot speak to God face-to-face. His glory would consume you. Even Moses had to be shielded by a rock. Those animals that were sacrificed were sacrificed only after the people had confessed their sins over their heads.
Right. Part of the teshuva process is bringing the animal sacrifices, when that's possible. But what creates forgiveness isn't the sacrifice. It's the teshuva. The repentence.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yet even confessing sins was not enough. The animals had to be killed, and not just killed, their blood was applied to the altar daily,
Nope. There were different kinds of sacrifices. The daily sacrifice was an olah, or a sacrifice that was completely consumed by fire. It was not a chatat, or sin offering. You really do know very little about this subject, I see. Quite an ego you have for such thin knowledge.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and once a year to the Ark of the Covenant (while it still was in the sanctuary). And throughout all the instructions that set up this system, the application of blood was called "making an atonement." Why don't you believe your own Scriptures? You do need salvation. Look around you if you think you don't!
Um... okay. <looks around> You're still wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blasphemy is calling good evil, and evil good.
Really? Do you have a source for that? Blasphemy is saying that a person can be God, or vice versa. Or that God can get killed (chas v'shalom) and hung up on a stick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Has it even occurred to any of you that scribes after the time of Christ may have tampered with Psalms 110:1 to create a situation where they could arbitrarily pretend that the second Lord in that verse could not refer to diety?
Are you suggesting that the text of the Bible has been tampered with and is not divinely inspired, Ron?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just me or i ron going away and away further from "reasoned" argumnents as best and loosely as they can be defined to suit him, and into preaching territory?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Tom, those two are not mutually exclusive. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, as well as most of the Princeton theologians who came up with the theology, maintain that inerrency applies only to the original manuscripts. That's the position most fundamentalists take. There are a few King James Onlyists out there, but Ron doesn't seem to be one.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Just me or i ron going away and away further from "reasoned" argumnents as best and loosely as they can be defined to suit him, and into preaching territory?
You noticed! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But that's baffling. If scribes were going to tamper with the Bible to that end, why not tamper with it more? Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Not quite sure what your antecedent is here, Tom, or who you're addressing.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Dead horse anyone?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But that's baffling. If scribes were going to tamper with the Bible to that end, why not tamper with it more?
Council of Nicea anyone?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not quite sure what your antecedent is here, Tom, or who you're addressing.
Mainly, the idea that anyone might cite the Bible -- and specifically its prophecies -- as proof of anything Biblical, while also granting the possibility that the text has been edited. Once you grant that it could have been changed after the fact and all record of that change expunged, don't you completely invalidate the strength of any prophetic prediction within it?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Well, that position seems somewhat hyperbolic. Do you also find troubling, say, the Lincoln Papers Project? Or the temerity of publishers who translate Dostoevsky? I'm hardly an inerrentist of any sort, but I have a hard time understanding why translation or editing renders a document worthless, even taking into consideration your caveat about prophecy. Perhaps it's just that your language - 'completely' - strikes me as somewhat breathless and cynical, and the notion that scripture is primarily "proof" in the empirical sense somewhat limited.
For what it's worth, Article V of the Chicago Statement:
quote:We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
Finally, inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are three different concepts (the first may, but does not have to, produce the second and third) and even inerrantists acknowledge that the Bible speaks in poetry and metaphor and hyperbole and all the rest, through the distinctive styles of various authors; indeed, you'll find perhaps the most heated arguments about Biblical interpretation among fundamentalists.
The basic notion of inerrancy is that the Bible is authoritative upon those matters it claims authority upon; infallibility means that it is free of falsehood and mistake.
IIIc:
quote: Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have a hard time understanding why translation or editing renders a document worthless, even taking into consideration your caveat about prophecy. Perhaps it's just that your language - 'completely' - strikes me as somewhat breathless and cynical....
Why? If you're saying, as Ron often has, that "the fact that the Bible's description of this event which must have occurred 50 years after this author was writing proves the divine power of this text and thus the authority of the Christian God," it seems to me that acknowledging that people were editing the Bible throughout history in ways that have not always been recognized or recorded boils it down to a giant shrug: "well, yeah, the text either has divine power or somebody stuck it in a bit later."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But that's baffling. If scribes were going to tamper with the Bible to that end, why not tamper with it more?
Wicked cool. Tom just used a migo. You're absolutely right, Tom.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa - Lo chatziff inish -- small changes, no big ones. ;-)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Who decides what's big or small in this situation?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
letters vs. entire psukim?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, Lisa, the Jewish scribes in the 7th century A.D. did not have the nerve to actually change the text--there were too many copies already in existence in too many places for them to think they could get away with something so blatant. What they did was devise a system of vowel pointing, as sort of marginal notes (but written over the words) indicating how they thought the words should be vocalized, as well as introducing their own punctuation. Here is how Snow commented on this:
"Despite the Jews' marvelous skill and meticulousness in preserving the Old Testament, there are signs they altered the reading of one or more texts to weaken Christian messianic interpretations of some texts."
Thus they had an ulterior motive in the changes they made, and the changes were not actually to the text but to their vowel pointing and punctuation, which they added to the text.
Lisa, I think that after more than 50 years of extensive and serious study of the sanctuary system, I know a whole lot more than you do about its particulars, and certainly about its significance. Sinners were required to confess their sins over the head of their personal sin offerings, before the animals were slain. This was in addition to the morning and evening sacrifices, which were corporate sin offerings for the whole nation.
And finally Lisa, I have to comment on your repeated insistence on calling the Christian faith "blasphemy." Because you keep on doing this, it is only fair that I tell you what blasphemy really is.
Blasphemy was for the rulers of the Jewish nation to go contrary to the will of the majority of the people and have the Roman authorities crucify the Incarnate Word of God on the Cross.
Blasphemy was for Jewish scribes in the seventh century A.D., entrusted with the faithful preservation of Scripture, to crucify the written Word of God by tampering with the text, knowingly adding to it vowel pointings and punctuation that were incorrect, in order to try to downplay those Bible texts that most directly prove that Judaism is wrong to reject Jesus Christ.
Blasphemy is anyone repeating the contrived arguments manufactured by those unfaithful scribes, thus crucifying the Word of God afresh.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...." (The Gospel of John, chapter one, verses 1-4, 14; NKJV)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Mebbe. I still think Tom has a good point.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No he doesn't. Read my last post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do we see substantial differences between the Christian and Jewish versions of the Tanakh prior to the 7th century?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Melchizedek was Shem? Wow. That's not in the wiki article I looked up!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do we see substantial differences between the Christian and Jewish versions of the Tanakh prior to the 7th century?
Other than the order of the books (and one can argue whether or not that is substantial) we don't see substantial differences now.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Melchizedek was Shem? Wow. That's not in the wiki article I looked up!
Check some midrash instead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dana, do you know if there are obvious diacritical and "vowel pointing" differences between 7th-century versions of the Tanakh and earlier versions? Especially widespread ones?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found the earliest full manuscript of the Hebrew text still around was 10th century. So talking about widespread differences in 7th century manuscripts or not isn't really possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, where are you getting your information? What sources do you have on the differences between 6th and 7th century Tanakhs?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
The vowels were added ba'alei hamasorah around the 7th century CE (and later).
Your sentence was doing fine until some extra letters got stuck in there....
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
*by the ba'alei hamesorah - literally meaning "the masters of tradition"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That'd be a great name for a zydeco band.
--------
So everyone agrees that marks were added and codified around the 7th century, but no one knows which ones existed prior to that point?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not quite. Prior to that point they were not written in the scrolls, period. The pronunciations, emphases etc. were transmitted orally.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "Despite the Jews' marvelous skill and meticulousness in preserving the Old Testament, there are signs they altered the reading of one or more texts to weaken Christian messianic interpretations of some texts."
Those wiley Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I think that after more than 50 years of extensive and serious study of the sanctuary system, I know a whole lot more than you do about its particulars, and certainly about its significance.
I think everyone reading this is already aware that you think that, Ron. You're mistaken, however. Gee, that must suck. Fifty years wasted like that...
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sinners were required to confess their sins over the head of their personal sin offerings, before the animals were slain. This was in addition to the morning and evening sacrifices, which were corporate sin offerings for the whole nation.
Fooey. Numbers 28:1-8 says:
quote:And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season. And thou shalt say unto them: This is the offering made by fire which ye shall bring unto HaShem: he-lambs of the first year without blemish, two day by day, for a continual burnt-offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk; and the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering, mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil. It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in mount Sinai, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto HaShem. And the drink-offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin for the one lamb; in the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of strong drink unto HaShem. And the other lamb shalt thou present at dusk; as the meal-offering of the morning, and as the drink-offering thereof, thou shalt present it, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto HaShem.
These were not sin offerings, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And finally Lisa, I have to comment on your repeated insistence on calling the Christian faith "blasphemy." Because you keep on doing this, it is only fair that I tell you what blasphemy really is.
You don't have to tell me. You've shown me. I wish you'd stop.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No he doesn't. Read my last post.
Yes, he actually does. Your post was wrong. Paranoid to an extreme degree, too.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Melchizedek was Shem? Wow. That's not in the wiki article I looked up!
Really? When I look at the Wikipedia article on Melchizedek, there's a section called Shem and Melchizedek that covers it.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Oops, sorry for leaving a word out in my earlier post.
I want to add that it's not like these vowels were completely unknown or known to just a small group of people. It was read publicly, often, and by a diverse group of people. And there are other writings surrounding it that make clear what the vowels would have been.
Ron, if you are insisting the text must have been changed, do you acknowledge the text as written doesn't support your claim?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, you're all wrong about blasphemy; blasphemy is the assertion that the gostak does not distim the doshes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I love that game, KoM. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Man, I wish the gostak would frikkin' distim my doshes. I have a sink full of them!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* I don't know if that was intentional or not, Kate, but it's quite clever nonetheless.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blasphemy was for the rulers of the Jewish nation to go contrary to the will of the majority of the people and have the Roman authorities crucify the Incarnate Word of God on the Cross.
Blasphemy was for Jewish scribes in the seventh century A.D., entrusted with the faithful preservation of Scripture, to crucify the written Word of God by tampering with the text, knowingly adding to it vowel pointings and punctuation that were incorrect, in order to try to downplay those Bible texts that most directly prove that Judaism is wrong to reject Jesus Christ.
Blasphemy is anyone repeating the contrived arguments manufactured by those unfaithful scribes, thus crucifying the Word of God afresh.
Liel's Third Law: Push an overinsistent Christian too hard about his beliefs and you'll get socked with "Christkiller".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom,
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I want to add that it's not like these vowels were completely unknown or known to just a small group of people. It was read publicly, often, and by a diverse group of people. And there are other writings surrounding it that make clear what the vowels would have been.
Good point. I apologize if I accidentally implied otherwise (I see now that I rather did).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I have never in my life called Jews "Christkillers." The Jews did not kill Christ. And I don't just mean that it was Roman soldiers who crucified Him, either. I mean that crucifixion is not what killed Him.
First of all, it was our sins--the sins of all humanity--that brought about His death, because that was the only way justice could be satisfied--for our sinful humanity to be executed. Jesus did this in Himself. As Paul said, "We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin." (Romans 6:6; NRSV) And: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21; NKJV)
Secondly, Christ could not be killed. He was and is divine. Immortal. Not subject to death. There was no power on earth that could kill Him, who healed leprosy with a touch, and raised the dead by a word. In Him was life, the life of the Creator of life, unborrowed and underived. This is why Jesus told His disciples beforehand: "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NKJV)
It was not the scourging and crucifixion that killed Him. The witnesses testified: "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.' And having said this, He breathed His last." (Luke 23:46; NASB) The Romans were surprised that He died so quickly; crucifixion was designed to produce lingering hours and even days of torment. That is why the centurian drove a sword through His side, to confirm that He was dead.
It had always been Jesus' purpose to come to this world, set an example, develope an experience He could share to succor sinners against temptation, and ultimately voluntarily give up His life, bearing responsibility for the sins of all humanity. The scourging, the reviling, the humiliation, the crucifixion, all were extraneous and gratuitous--things that were heaped upon him by Satan working through individuals he could control, in an effort to discourage Jesus from going through with His mission to redeem humanity.
But the Son of God felt it was worth it to endure the worst that devils and men could do, so that a way could be provided for the family of Adam to be restored to free and open fellowship with God.
The Jews did not kill Christ, because Christ is God, and God cannot be killed. Jesus rested in an unconscious state in the tomb, until an angel was sent to call Him to wake up and take up His life again.
Those Christians who through the ages have foolishly called Jews "Christ-killers," were unsound in their theology, and inconsistent with the true faith of Christianity. To say that Jesus was killed by anyone is to deny the divinity of Christ, and contradicts His own words quoted above, from John 10:17, 18.
[ March 24, 2009, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
<snicker> Though I shouldn't laugh. Ron makes me kind of sad.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This may be an argument that cannot be made by Jehovah's Witnesses and some others who do not affirm the full and eternal divinity of Christ. But this is an argument that can and must be made by all mainstream, "orthodox" Christian faiths.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This may be an argument that cannot be made by Jehovah's Witnesses and some others who do not affirm the full and eternal divinity of Christ. But this is an argument that can and must be made by all mainstream, "orthodox" Christian faiths.
Not exactly.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
That doesn't mean it's wrong, that calling Jews "Christkillers" is unsound theology.
Because Jews tend to slap we with the "Anti-Semite" label whenever I ask about their beliefs just as much as a Christian supposedly slaps a Jew with the "Christkiller" label, I'm a bit uninformed as to what you learn in Hebrew school, but as far as I know Christians that seriously think the Jews are responsible for killing the Messiah are a slim minority.
Just a general comment on this thread: This is very interesting when responses to posts aren't things like "<snicker>" or name-calling. Having been unable to have a reasonable conversation about theology with a Jew for a long time (I do remember having some enjoyable discussions with a Jewish friend who has since moved away), it's interesting for me to learn the Jewish perspective on issues such as Jesus's status as the Messiah.
I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
when ron decides to use scholarly posts instead of self righteous posts that only thinly attempt to hide their condescending nature "I am christian and accepted christ so I am a better Jew then you" which in of itself is a massive anti semetic slap in the face of several years of persecution and genocide...
I think it should become fairly obviously fairly fast that Ron doesnt intend to join in scholarly debate, Tom has said it best, NOTHING can convince him he is wrong because the center piece of this discussion is the very BACKBONE of his world view which he can never admit to be wrong about without seeing his life as a lie and admitting he has been a fool all along.
Seriously, half of his posts become nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
In all fairness, that is what Christianity asserts - that anyone who accepts Christ is entitled to the inheritance of Abraham. I don't see what that has to do with the Nazis and the Holocaust. As far as I know, Ron has no responsibility for the crimes that have been committed against Jews.
I'd say there's been legitimate arguments on both sides, when they actually cite the document that is being examined and its background.
However, I do think both sides have also shown their unnecessary pride. What's being discussed is the "BACKBONE" of both sides. It would be just as humiliating for Lisa to admit that Jesus is the Messiah as it would be for Ron to admit he isn't. Which is probably why they're being so irritable.
Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Jews; it isn't for me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
Sure, if there were any scholarly posts. Look, I respond to Ron on this subject in a very different way than I do, for example, to BlackBlade. That's because BlackBlade, for all that I disagree with him theologically, is a mensch. Ron isn't. His misplaced arrogance rubs me the wrong way, so I permit myself to lose some restraint with him. I apologize to other Christians reading this thread who may feel hurt by the things I've said (though I've been honest about my positions). I wouldn't be going after Ron with all barrels if I didn't think it was the only language he would understand.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: ... Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Well, imagine that you've read the Lord of the Rings and you find it pretty interesting but maybe you have some questions about specific plot points.
Then you go online and find some people that really think that they're Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs. They're debating the finer points of Middle Earth economics and Middle Earth politics, whether a Ent cutting approach or whether building a road to Mordor is better for the economy, and whether Middle Earth is ready for a Hobbit overlord. Even more interestingly, you find its all relatively consistent with the books and hey, it even answers some of your questions.
Well, you may as well pull up a chair and listen. Maybe you might keep some distance ... but its still pretty fascinating stuff.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: ... Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Well, imagine that you've read the Lord of the Rings and you find it pretty interesting but maybe you have some questions about specific plot points.
Then you go online and find some people that really think that they're Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs. They're debating the finer points of Middle Earth economics and Middle Earth politics, whether a Ent cutting approach or whether building a road to Mordor is better for the economy, and whether Middle Earth is ready for a Hobbit overlord. Even more interestingly, you find its all relatively consistent with the books and hey, it even answers some of your questions.
Well, you may as well pull up a chair and listen. Maybe you might keep some distance ... but its still pretty fascinating stuff.
<grin> We love you too, Mucus.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa:
quote:BlackBlade, for all that I disagree with him theologically, is a mensch
It's all a ploy I put on, I'm really more of a schmendrick. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True story.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: True story.
I'd take a closer look at that plate I gave you awhile ago. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
Fixed that for you.
Only if those first century Jews settled the question in a certain way. If they decided not, they probably remained good Jews - or at least as good as they were before. And, if I understand correctly, Jews that decided in the affirmative remained Jewish, just "bad" Jews. Yes?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Do you have any idea how many Jews chose to become Christians? It seems to me so at odd with Jewish teachings, that I cannot picture many making the switch. However, maybe it was less extremely different back then (for example, Jesus as a deity).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
First-century Christianity was really very different from what we have now. It was more in the direction of a mystery cult.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
Fixed that for you.
Only if those first century Jews settled the question in a certain way. If they decided not, they probably remained good Jews - or at least as good as they were before. And, if I understand correctly, Jews that decided in the affirmative remained Jewish, just "bad" Jews. Yes?
I'm not sure when they started taking in Gentiles. But even so, it was a minority of Jews, so it would have been incorrect to state that "it certainly was for first century Jews". At best, you could have said "it certainly was for some first century Jews", but even that is kind of awkward.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
That doesn't mean it's wrong, that calling Jews "Christkillers" is unsound theology.
Because Jews tend to slap we with the "Anti-Semite" label whenever I ask about their beliefs just as much as a Christian supposedly slaps a Jew with the "Christkiller" label, I'm a bit uninformed as to what you learn in Hebrew school, but as far as I know Christians that seriously think the Jews are responsible for killing the Messiah are a slim minority.
Just a general comment on this thread: This is very interesting when responses to posts aren't things like "<snicker>" or name-calling. Having been unable to have a reasonable conversation about theology with a Jew for a long time (I do remember having some enjoyable discussions with a Jewish friend who has since moved away), it's interesting for me to learn the Jewish perspective on issues such as Jesus's status as the Messiah.
I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
1) Hebrew school. I hate this word. Orthodox Jews do not attend Hebrew school. They attend Yeshiva. I apologize in advance to any Jews here who attended Hebrew school, but to me, the difference is huge. I feel like Hebrew school is like remedial classes in Judaism that secular Jews take to make sure they get their weekly dose of Judaism in. Yeshiva is all about your Judaism. Modern Orthodox Yeshiva teaches both secular and Jewish subjects together - but under a Jewish umbrella.
2) At YESHIVA, i was not told that most Christians believe we are christkillers. We know that SOME Christians believe that. Usually they are unexposed to Jews in their daily life. But no, I grew up in NY, I know plenty of Christians and we are not poisoned to hate them. I'll not deny there are many ignorant Jews who would love to believe that, but they are ignorant, and a minority. Sort of like the Christians who ask me if I have horns...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Certainly only a minority decided that Jesus was the messiah. It is an important question even if answered in the negative. More people than Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Even if those claims are easily dismissed, it is an important question.
Even so, what would make "some first century Jews" awkward?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Because it leaves out the fact that they were Christians. It's incomplete, and consequently misleading. At least potentially.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But wouldn't they still be Jews? I thought - from you pretty much - that if you were a born Jewish, you didn't have any choice?
And, again, only the ones who decided Jesus was the messiah became Christian.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd take a closer look at that plate I gave you awhile ago.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, again, only the ones who decided Jesus was the messiah became Christian.
And to the others, the question was hardly the "backbone" of anything. Any more than some of the odd beliefs of the Shomronim (Samaritans) were.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wouldn't the question of "messiahhood" have been the "backbone" of whether or not they became followers of Christ? No one is claiming it became a backbone of Judaism.
Nor was the question necessarily an important one for the Gentiles*, so saying it was the "backbone" for Christians would be inaccurate once they started letting Gentiles in.
My assertion is that the only people for whom the question was important enough to be a "backbone" would have been those expecting a messiah. Not that all (or even most) of them answered it in the affirmative or even paid much attention to it.
I think it is odd that contemporary Christians (Ron for example) are so caught up in it. As far as I am concerned**, Jesus would have been Jesus even if he had been born Greek.
*I imagine. I am not a particular scholar of the ere but I don't see why someone who wasn't a Jew and didn't want to convert to Judaism would become a follower of Christ just because he fulfilled Jewish prophecy.
**Not claiming to speak for other Christians.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: or even paid much attention to it.
Bingo.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, clearly, some did, yes? And they remained Jewish. "Bingo" is missing my point.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Because it leaves out the fact that they were Christians. It's incomplete, and consequently misleading. At least potentially.
But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Modern Orthodox Yeshiva teaches both secular and Jewish subjects together - but under a Jewish umbrella. [/QB]
Is that an umbrella with the ferrule cut off?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
I have always wondered how many of them actually were Jewish. The New Testament is the only historical source I am aware of. Do 10 - 50 people trying to convert gentiles constitute a Jewish movement?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Around the first century, there were many Jewish "movements." Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, etc. Probably around 20-25 in total. Christianity would have been just one among many. It wasn't like most Jews were presented with just two options: Judaism and Christianity, and then had to make a choice.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Oh, and there have also been several Jews who have been considered to be the messiah by large numbers of their contemporaries. My guess is they had more contemporary Jewish followers than Jesus.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Around the first century, there were many Jewish "movements." Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, etc. Probably around 20-25 in total. Christianity would have been just one among many. It wasn't like most Jews were presented with just two options: Judaism and Christianity, and then had to make a choice.
Yep. Lots of interesting stuff going on then in terms of religious movements.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
I have always wondered how many of them actually were Jewish. The New Testament is the only historical source I am aware of. Do 10 - 50 people trying to convert gentiles constitute a Jewish movement?
The original members were all Jewish, the founding documents are permeated with references to Jewish scriptures, and one of the first major internal disagreement was whether or not new followers who were not Jewish had to convert to Judaism. I think it's fair to say Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A movement of Jews, perhaps. Definitely not a Jewish movement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Oh, and there have also been several Jews who have been considered to be the messiah by large numbers of their contemporaries. My guess is they had more contemporary Jewish followers than Jesus.
Right. And for the Jews who decided to follow them*, the question of whether they were a messiah was an important one.
*Athronges, Theudes and many others.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
I have always wondered how many of them actually were Jewish. The New Testament is the only historical source I am aware of. Do 10 - 50 people trying to convert gentiles constitute a Jewish movement?
The original members were all Jewish, the founding documents are permeated with references to Jewish scriptures, and one of the first major internal disagreement was whether or not new followers who were not Jewish had to convert to Judaism. I think it's fair to say Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
Out of sheer curiosity, is there historical evidence other than the New Testament, and a brief questionable mention by Josephus, that it started with Jews and not Romans?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Romans pretending to be Jews?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Romans pretending to be Jews?
Sort of. I teach my students that Christianity took off in Rome where it spread throughout Europe. I also teach them that the first followers were indeed Jews. Is there any historical evidence of the crossover? As a non-Christian how do I know that Christianity did not start in Rome and not in the Holy Land?
It seems odd to me that many major religions flourished where they started, except Christianity. Even Buddhism, while more popular in China, has deep roots in India where it began.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
I have always wondered how many of them actually were Jewish. The New Testament is the only historical source I am aware of. Do 10 - 50 people trying to convert gentiles constitute a Jewish movement?
The original members were all Jewish, the founding documents are permeated with references to Jewish scriptures, and one of the first major internal disagreement was whether or not new followers who were not Jewish had to convert to Judaism. I think it's fair to say Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
So I'm curious then. I have asked several Christians why they are not Torah observant (for example, keeping kosher). I get an answer that roughly translates to, "Jesus came and said that the old ways (such as kosher eating) are no longer relevant. He gave a new set of laws." It seems that is this is true, then I would think that it would be difficult to call Christianity a Jewish movement. As diverse as the other movements were, none preached abandoning Torah observance. Additionally, without promising observance, people would not be able to convert to Judaism.
So it seems that the early Christians must have been Torah observant, and then changed their minds. I'm curious about how this happened (if it did). Were they aware that they were now no longer a Jewish movement? Or am I wrong and they were never Torah observant?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There was considerable controversy in the early Church as to whether non-Jews who wanted to be Christians should be allowed at all or if they must be convert to Judaism or be circumcised and obey dietary laws. Paul was all for bringing in Gentiles; Peter, not so much. Eventually Paul won that argument.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
So Christianity stopped being a Jewish movement essentially within the first generation of its establishment? By the time Paul died, there were people who were Christians who were not Torah observant?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Before he died even.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The problem is that most Christians (who think about it) view Christianity as an extension or the logical conclusion (help me here DKW, I don't feel like I'm finding the right word) of Judaism: the fulfilled promises of Jewish prophecy. To practicing Jews it is viewed it as a distortion or downright perversion of Judaism. If it is viewed as having any link beyond location. The answer to the question "is it a Jewish movement?" will depend highly on your beliefs.
[EDIT: Even "extension" might be too dramatic a word for a Christian view on this. Christians belief in a second coming of Christ. When that happens it wont be a change to their religion as we might think of the "change" to Judaism when Christ came, merely an event that was prophesied previously. However, because different Christian religions belief differently about the 2nd coming, one could imagine, depending on what one thinks will happen then (the 2nd coming is pretty dramatic, so I guess we have to imagine it a little more gentle and less obvious than the 1st or it becomes too incredulous), that there will be drastic changes and some who don't go along with it. It's not as if Christianity becomes something else, but it's point in time when a significant dividing happened. All this then of course contrasts the second part of what I said which is that Christianity doesn't represent fulfillment of prophecy to practicing Jews, but the alteration or even denial of it. Just as the coming of modern day religious figures didn't impress all the Catholics in their day!]
Hobbes
[ March 25, 2009, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The way I learned about the origins of Christianity was that in the beginning things were very much the same.
Many Jews were taken in by Christianity. People lived on as normal, just a large portion of the population felt that the messiah had come, while the rest of the population felt it had not.
From what I was taught, this version of Christianity was not only similar enough to Judaism that it was threatening, it was extremely tempting at the time, considering that the destruction of the temple soon followed and the deeply painful exile.
It was only after Saul of Tarsis - Paul, who changed the laws of Christianity (not Jesus) so as to make it more similar to pagan beliefs and to attract more non-Jewish followers.
At the same time, Christianity became less threatening to Jews who would not leave Judaism for a religion that was so different.
This was back in a time when Jesus was not yet revered as divine, and the laws were not different. Eventually, as Christian belief evolved and was concretized, people look back and superimpose stuff that was decided only later on that first generation.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Was Paul alive at the same time as Jesus? If so, all this happened over a period of what, 20 years?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The problem is that most Christians (who think about it) view Christianity as an extension or the logical conclusion (help me here DKW, I don't feel like I'm finding the right word) of Judaism: the fulfilled promises of Jewish prophecy. To practicing Jews it is viewed it as a distortion or downright perversion of Judaism. If it is viewed as having any link beyond location. The asnwer to the question "is it a Jewish movement?" will depend highly on your beleifs.
Hobbes
Right. I differ from those (and probably most) Christians in that I am not particularly invested in Jewish prophecy. I can understand why Jewish people are, but I am not Jewish. I think that Christ was considerably more than a fulfillment of those prophecies.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Was Paul alive at the same time as Jesus? If so, all this happened over a period of what, 20 years?
Yes, but they didn't meet during Christ's mortal ministry. Or at the very least there aren't any records of it (which I think would come up, but draw your own concluesions).
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Was Paul alive at the same time as Jesus? If so, all this happened over a period of what, 20 years?
They were alive at the same time but did not meet when Jesus was alive. Paul became a follower of Jesus after Jesus died. In fact, Paul, before he became a follower of Christ, was pretty fiercely against the Christian movement.
So about 30 - 35 years as Paul died about 64-67.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: So I'm curious then. I have asked several Christians why they are not Torah observant (for example, keeping kosher). I get an answer that roughly translates to, "Jesus came and said that the old ways (such as kosher eating) are no longer relevant. He gave a new set of laws." It seems that is this is true, then I would think that it would be difficult to call Christianity a Jewish movement. As diverse as the other movements were, none preached abandoning Torah observance. Additionally, without promising observance, people would not be able to convert to Judaism.
For me, the short answer is that I don't follow Torah because I'm not Jewish. My heritage, as far as anyone would ever be able to tell, is Gentile. The covenant God made at Sinai with the Jews isn't my covenant, but when Jesus came he made a new covenant which extended certain blessings to Gentiles.
I don't believe that his new covenant invalidated the old one. Reading debates here has helped convince me that that covenant is for all time, period. I don't think the Jews who followed Jesus magically stopped being Jewish, even if some apparently got confused and tried. Paul was emphatic that those who were circumcised not try to get uncircumcised (I don't even what to think of what that would have involved).
Being Catholic, I obviously don't have a problem with Jesus being the messiah, but I'd be distressed if a Jew who thought he was, too, gave up keeping Torah. My church back home is facing this dilemma this Easter - an older Jewish gentleman joined the RCIA* program last fall. Last I heard, they weren't sure if they were going to baptise him or not, because the heads of the program don't believe he should have to stop being Jewish and neither does he, despite his messianic beliefs. That was of Christmas, and I don't know what they eventually decided.
I know how Jewish Hatrackers are appalled at conversion like that, but leaving the man's personal choice to him, I'm interested in you'll's opinion on how the church should be handling the situation.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Interesting question. Sad question from our perspective, but interesting. If the man believes Jesus is the Messiah, and not divine, then he should continue to live his life as a Jew.
Jews do not worship their messiah. He is simply an instrument of God.
If he believes in the divinity of Jesus, and in the Gospels, Christian law, etc. It is too much of a contradiction with Judaism for him to continue practicing Judaism and to be a Christian as well.
It's really tricky. How is he supposed to keep Jewish laws while being a Christian? Will he go to church? Participate in ceremonies? Jews are not allowed to create incense for ritual purposes anywhere outside the temple - does being a Jewish Christian mean that restriction no longer applies?
Jews don't create any imagery because we believe it is idolatry. Can a Jewish Christian worship in a place full of idols (sculptures and images)?
What about all the Jewish laws that require participation with other Jews? Attending prayer services with a quorum? I dunno it blows my mind.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I know how Jewish Hatrackers are appalled at conversion like that, but leaving the man's personal choice to him, I'm interested in you'll's opinion on how the church should be handling the situation.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't go near that one. Seems to me that it's essentially asking non-Christians how a Christian organization ought to be practicing its own religion. I'll leave that to its practitioners.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Interesting question. Sad question from our perspective, but interesting. If the man believes Jesus is the Messiah, and not divine, then he should continue to live his life as a Jew.
Jews do not worship their messiah. He is simply an instrument of God.
If he believes in the divinity of Jesus, and in the Gospels, Christian law, etc. It is too much of a contradiction with Judaism for him to continue practicing Judaism and to be a Christian as well.
It's really tricky. How is he supposed to keep Jewish laws while being a Christian? Will he go to church? Participate in ceremonies? Jews are not allowed to create incense for ritual purposes anywhere outside the temple - does being a Jewish Christian mean that restriction no longer applies?
Jews don't create any imagery because we believe it is idolatry. Can a Jewish Christian worship in a place full of idols (sculptures and images)?
What about all the Jewish laws that require participation with other Jews? Attending prayer services with a quorum? I dunno it blows my mind.
I think those issues are why they were thinking of not baptising him. The head of the program and the priest were talking with a local Reform synagogue, where his beliefs might cause less of a disturbance to others. If he's not baptised, he can't participate in any Catholic rituals. He could attend masses, but not read or take the Eucharist (this particular church uses incense once or twice a year, if that, so it could be avoided). Since he's been at a Catholic initiation course, I imagine he might believe Jesus is/was divine - I don't know for sure. Images are pretty hard to avoid, though.
It's really been blowing everyone's mind, to be honest. I think they're trying to do the best they can and hope God is merciful at the end of the day. Whatever happens, I'm proud of my church for not taking the easy route and just baptising him willy-nilly.
Thanks for the input, Armoth.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, Paul was probably studying in Alexandria, Egypt, during Christ's ministry. He was not back in Judea until a year or so after the Crucifixion. We know he was there to hold the outer garments of the people who took Stephen out to stone him, in 34 A.D.
I think it was not Paul, or at least not just Paul, who was responsible for Christianity to become more Gentile-centered than Jewish-centered. For the first few decades, the church was dominated by the Christian Jewish elders in Jerusalem. As the church expanded to include more and more Gentiles, the Hebrew-centered church would begin to change. But it was not until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when the Jewish Christians were scattered, that to a large extent the dominant influence of the Jewish Christians was ended or great diminished.
Also, by 100 A.D. and the time of the Emperor Hadrian, the inclusive tolerance of all religions the Romans professed to believe in changed to become very anti-Jewish (after fighting so many wars to put down Jewish insurrections), to the extent that Judaism was actually banned. This is when, according to the research of Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, some Christians resorted to assembling on the Sabbath only secretly, and assembling publically on Sunday, to distance themselves from the Jews, so they wouldn't look so much like a Jewish offshoot.
In the process of centuries, church leaders in Rome, working hand-in-hand with Roman authorities (notably the Emperor Constantine), decided it would be best if Christians made their chief meeting day be on Sunday, the same as pagan religions. For centuries, Christians still kept the original seventh-day Sabbath and also the new Sunday. But church authorities cleverly decreed that Sabbath should be a day of fasting, and Sunday a day of feasting. After a few generations of this, most people (except those most familiar with Scripture--this was a time when only 5% of the population could read) dropped Sabbath and came to regard Sunday as the day to venerate.
Knowing this history, I for one refuse ever to fast on the Sabbath.
Eventually the church leadership was given secular power when the Emperor moved his throne to Constantinople, and secular penalties were imposed on any Christians who "Judaized" by keeping the "Jewish" Sabbath, and on any who refused to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Church's first Bishop (later called the Pope), and on any who failed to embrace all the newly instituted festivals and observances of the church (thinly disguised from similar pagan festivals and observances).
There were a few thousands who refused to compromise, and were driven by persecution from the church to flee to the high, wilderness valleys of the Piedmont mountains. Their community survived and later became known as the Waldenses and Albigenses. Their descendents exist to this day.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Strictly from the Jewish perspective regarding the individual, though...
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Interesting question. Sad question from our perspective, but interesting. If the man believes Jesus is the Messiah, and not divine, then he should continue to live his life as a Jew.
You seem to be suggesting that accepting a non-divine Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with Judaism, and that the deal-breaker comes only when he's suggested to be God. To say that this is questionable to an astronomical degree would be a bit of an understatement.
quote:It's really tricky. How is he supposed to keep Jewish laws while being a Christian? Will he go to church? Participate in ceremonies? Jews are not allowed to create incense for ritual purposes anywhere outside the temple - does being a Jewish Christian mean that restriction no longer applies?
Of course not. (Would that one really come up, though?)
quote:Jews don't create any imagery because we believe it is idolatry. Can a Jewish Christian worship in a place full of idols (sculptures and images)?
Again, of course not.
quote:What about all the Jewish laws that require participation with other Jews? Attending prayer services with a quorum? I dunno it blows my mind.
Not seeing what's mind-blowing here... what Jewish grounds would there be for disregarding any of the laws?
Edited to sum up: as far as the individual goes, it is impossible to live as a religious Jew and a Christian simultaneously. There isn't any compromise arrangement that won't require redefining one religion or the other... and most likely both. Whether there's an arrangement that works better for the church than others, I can't presume to say.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Shmuel...my questions were posed rhetorically. I'm with you through and through. Even with the Jesus not being divine thing.
My response was posed for Christians who lack the thorough understanding of Judaism that I'm sure you possess.
Chas v'shalom, I'd never consider entertaining a moment of trying to synthesize Judaism and Christianity, even with a non-divine Jesus.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, I have mentioned before that the Elves in Tolkien's Lord of the Ring seem vaguely Jewish to me. I have also said that I think the Hobbits remind me of Canadians, but I do not wish to make a big issue of that, living as I do so close to Windsor, Ontario.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As for scholarship, review of all the posts here will show that I have presented more scholarly arguments, including some cited from authorities, than anyone.
Furthermore, I am the one who has taken to task the sloppy scholarship shown by others, detailing precisely where their reasoning and claimed evidence is invalid.
The fact is that I do know what I am talking about; perhaps this is what gives me the confidence that some mistakenly deride as arrogance. I do not allow anyone to browbeat me, no matter how many try to gang up on me. It is not arrogance that enables me to do this.
Not to be defensive, but reference to the posts in this thread will also show, I believe, that I am the least likely person to resort to name-calling or expressions of ridicule. I confine my efforts to logically valid, scholarly arguments. I do make an effort to explain the arguments of scholars in plain language that clearly communicate to non-theologians. Still, I find myself being misunderstood frequently, and having to attempt to correct those misunderstandings that matter. That seems to go with the territory.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron you remind me of my father. My dad is really smart. So smart that he is often out of the league of his friends and family. He has a very lonely view of the world, where he feels that only he is correct and that no one will ever understand all the wisdom that he possesses.
However, my father did bequeath his intelligence to his 3 male children. My brothers and I have a very difficult time speaking to him because he has already convinced himself that no one will ever understand the world as he does. Yet when we offer intelligent arguments, his walls are already up - he will not acknowledge the arguments, he simply throws up his arms and talks about the woes of being too smart for his own good.
On top of that, he is so incredibly condescending and self absorbed that it makes talking to him extremely difficult. Add to that that my three brothers and I think he is often wrong. It makes it tough to carry out a conversation.
I think that most of the things you claim to have shown in your last post, you did not actually show. Your confidence is not mistakenly taken as arrogance. You make your arguments without couching them in the best vehicle to be received by the person you are speaking with.
It is almost like you are arguing for the sake of defending your own beliefs to yourself. You do not think about what would make Lisa, or myself actually consider your views.
Sound scholarship (which I'm not convinced you have) is only one component of an argument. Speaking respectfully, with an understanding that the person you are speaking to grew up with different beliefs and thought patterns, with sensitivity and understanding, is another component.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, I have mentioned before that the Elves in Tolkien's Lord of the Ring seem vaguely Jewish to me. I have also said that I think the Hobbits remind me of Canadians, but I do not wish to make a big issue of that, living as I do so close to Windsor, Ontario.
Hobbits remind you of Canadians? In Windsor?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, we're very agreeable, like our food and drink, and... uh... live underground? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I confine my efforts to logically valid, scholarly arguments.
And, to be fair, the "scholarly" version of "Nuh-uh. Says you."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Well, we're very agreeable, like our food and drink, and... uh... live underground?
And the tops of your feet are hairy.
[Edited to add quote]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I would say that the Jew who believes that Jesus is the messiah should go get more Jewish education. I know that sounds snarky, but it is so at odds with Jewish thought and beliefs that he clearly does not have a very deep understanding. Perhaps the additional education will clarify things for him. One has to make a decision, it's not possible to rational straddle the fence here. I have seen people try ("Oh, we're raising the kids as both religions.") and it's always a disaster.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I've seen a lot of "Oh, we're raising the kids as both religions" too. "Disaster" wouldn't be a word I'd use to describe the result, but the kids do tend to be less devout than children of a couple that's homogeneous in faith.
I think the trouble with your assertion, Minerva, is that any "Jewish education" will offer conclusions formed from a confirmation bias.
Now of course, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Jewish education" (hence the quotes), whether that be Hebrew school or majoring in Jewish history in college or simply going to temple more... of course the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is contrary to Jewish thought when the word "Jew" is limited specifically to Jews who did not take on the Christian faith.
For Christians, however, "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him." (Romans 10:12, American Standard Version) (I'd normally use a different translation; but this one was the most readily available). This is largely why the Christian faith was separated from those who call themselves Jews: neither our ethnic heritage nor our ceremonial practices offer us salvation and community with God.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, I have mentioned before that the Elves in Tolkien's Lord of the Ring seem vaguely Jewish to me. I have also said that I think the Hobbits remind me of Canadians, but I do not wish to make a big issue of that, living as I do so close to Windsor, Ontario.
Hobbits remind you of Canadians? In Windsor?
Have you ever met real Canadians? I distinctly recall a lack of Hobbits riding polar bears to work, or igloos for that matter. Seriously, "Canada without snow?" I had to look up 3 different dictionaries to come up with that sentence.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I think the trouble with your assertion, Minerva, is that any "Jewish education" will offer conclusions formed from a confirmation bias.
Now of course, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Jewish education" (hence the quotes), whether that be Hebrew school or majoring in Jewish history in college or simply going to temple more... of course the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is contrary to Jewish thought when the word "Jew" is limited specifically to Jews who did not take on the Christian faith.
Say an hour with someone who knows what the Jewish concept of the messiah is, and is able to teach decently. From a Jewish perspective, it's just absurd, divinity or not. What Christians claim that Jesus was is not at all in line with what Jews claim the messiah will be.
You can take all of the requirements and say, "Oh, they meant the metaphorically, Jesus will rebuild the Temple." OK, fine. But when you water down the description to that extent, it could apply to a great many people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's a day where Shmuel posts what I would say, only better.
Awesome.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
ouch.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
???
It's far from the first time this has happened. It's actually a tiny bit scary sometimes. (But if I ever get too freaked, I can just check his review of Eats, Shoots, And Leaves. )
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I think the trouble with your assertion, Minerva, is that any "Jewish education" will offer conclusions formed from a confirmation bias.
If the mother is Jewish, then the children are. In which case, confirmation bias towards Judaism is a Very Good Thing. For you, for me, for the kids, and for the rest of the world. If the mother is not Jewish, the children should be encouraged to think of themselves as Gentiles. You know, since they are.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Now of course, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Jewish education" (hence the quotes), whether that be Hebrew school or majoring in Jewish history in college or simply going to temple more...
Probably anything that would show them the error of their ways.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: of course the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is contrary to Jewish thought when the word "Jew" is limited specifically to Jews who did not take on the Christian faith.
It's not just contrary. A Jew who adopts Christianity is an idolator, plain and simple. Even according to those views which exempt Christianity from that category for Gentiles, it's still idolatry for Jews.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth, it does not sound to me like I am anything like your father, outside of maybe the intelligence part, and if you use him as a means for measuring me, that guarantees you will misjudge and mischaracterize me, as you have been doing. I think that some of those who criticize me just cannot handle informed and articulate opposition, and have to resort to pretending things to explain why I do not fold to their arguments. The real reason why I do not is because their positions are wrong and their arguments demonstrably weak.
Lisa, the attitude you reveal towards Jews who become Christians is interesting. Clifford Goldstein, who is now a very prominent writer and editor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was considered a highly intelligent Jewish scholar by his community. When through his own studies he became convinced that Christianity was essentially correct, and was baptized and became a member of the SDA church, he had to flee the state he lived in, because he learned his family was actively planning to forcibly put him into a mental institution.
I don't know why you would call Christians idolators, unless you are thinking maybe of Catholic churches with all those images of saints. But surely you realize that Protestants take sharp issue with that practice in the Catholic Church. But even Catholics say they do not worship the images. I sometimes wonder if Catholics who admire the statue of "Peter" in the Vatican realize it was orginally supposed to be a statue of Poseidon. Maybe they do and just do not care.
Most of the Christian converts from Judaism I have met say they consider that they have found their true Jewish Messiah in Jesus Christ. It is hard for most Jews to see this, mainly because of the way so many Christians have misrepresented their own faith, even besides the Sunday-keeping thing, and have treated Jews so badly in history. Many Jews who become Christians become Seventh-day Adventists, because they do not have to give up the Sabbath, and SDAs also highly value many of the things that pertained to original Judaism, such as the sanctuary, and the Scriptures prior to Matthew.
Lisa, what do you think of Felix Mendelssohn, the composer? He and his family were Jewish-Christians. His grandfather was Moses Mendelssohn, the noted Jewish philosopher. Do you ever listen to the music of Felix Mendelssohn?
[ March 26, 2009, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know why you would call Christians idolators, unless you are thinking maybe of Catholic churches with all those images of saints. But surely you realize that Protestants take sharp issue with that practice in the Catholic Church. But even Catholics say they do not worship the images. I sometimes wonder if Catholics who admire the statue of "Peter" in the Vatican realize it was orginally supposed to be a statue of Poseidon. Maybe they do and just do not care.
Oh, Ron, you're like a more avuncular version of Jack Chick.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron, Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler of blessed memory, spoke about the force of rebellion.
Rabbi Dessler was an emotional/spiritual advisor of sorts who helped his students process the moral messages of the Torah and to translate them into actual emotions and action. In one of his sermons, he spoke about giving rebuke, criticism and advice (as he often did).
He wrote that one cannot give criticism outright - not only would it not work, but because it will not work, it is forbidden. When one is criticized, innately, the forces of rebellion are stirred up within him. They immediately, in their heart, reject anything you say, no matter how true.
As such, Rabbi Dessler advised that criticsm should be couched with words of love and sensitivity, praising a friend before criticizing, and by making sure not to harm the person's ego. One should not place a stumbling block before a blind man - as such, it is forbidden to give criticism without precaution. The result is that the person will face an unnecessary rebellious struggle and will likely not heed the advice, no matter how true.
Ron, the veracity of your claims and the level of scholarship involved becomes completely irrelevant when your arguments are not sensitive to the people you wish to speak to. The message and its truth is step 2. Step 1 is communication. If you make your audience hate you, what use are you as a preacher?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: I agree completely.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, the attitude you reveal towards Jews who become Christians is interesting. Clifford Goldstein, who is now a very prominent writer and editor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was considered a highly intelligent Jewish scholar by his community. When through his own studies he became convinced that Christianity was essentially correct, and was baptized and became a member of the SDA church, he had to flee the state he lived in, because he learned his family was actively planning to forcibly put him into a mental institution.
Good for them. But he was never any kind of Jewish scholar. He was raised a secular Jew. Had his parents been wise enough to give him a Jewish education, perhaps he wouldn't be an idolator today. A degree in semitic languages doesn't make someone a Jewish scholar.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I don't know why you would call Christians idolators, unless you are thinking maybe of Catholic churches with all those images of saints.
Ron, if I wanted to address that question, I would have addressed it. But I didn't. All I said was that even according to those who exempt Gentiles who espouse Christianity from the category of idolators do not do so in the case of Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But surely you realize that Protestants take sharp issue with that practice in the Catholic Church.
Honestly, Ron, I couldn't possibly care less. You worship a person. You worship something/one separate from the One God. Whether that's idolatry or not for a Gentile isn't the point here. Three is not equal to One.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Most of the Christian converts from Judaism I have met say they consider that they have found their true Jewish Messiah in Jesus Christ.
I'd hazard a guess that most, if not all of them, were raised in secular homes and know even less about Judaism than you do. And that's a pretty low bar.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, what do you think of Felix Mendelssohn, the composer? He and his family were Jewish-Christians. His grandfather was Moses Mendelssohn, the noted Jewish philosopher. Do you ever listen to the music of Felix Mendelssohn?
Felix Mendelssohn was a tragedy. Moses Mendelssohn was one as well. It was his damaged philosophy that led to the creation of the Reform movement, as well as the conversion of his children.
And no, I never listen to his music. I don't even know what he's done. But it isn't because of that. I listen to Wagner, even though he was a despicable Jew-hating pre-Nazi. Bees sting, but they also make honey.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't know why you would call Christians idolators, unless you are thinking maybe of Catholic churches with all those images of saints. But surely you realize that Protestants take sharp issue with that practice in the Catholic Church. But even Catholics say they do not worship the images. I sometimes wonder if Catholics who admire the statue of "Peter" in the Vatican realize it was orginally supposed to be a statue of Poseidon. Maybe they do and just do not care.
Oh, Ron, you're like a more avuncular version of Jack Chick.
I was going to respond to this, but I can't think of anything better than what Tom said.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, Ron, you're like a more avuncular version of Jack Chick.
I think that's the first nice thing anyone here has said about Ron.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I said he was smart...
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:originally posted by Armoth I said he was smart...
Don't worry, he noticed:
quote:originally posted by Ron Lambert Armoth, it does not sound to me like I am anything like your father, outside of maybe the intelligence part
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::grin::
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I am surprised that you would indicate approval of Clifford Goldstein's Jewish kin for plotting to have him committed for becoming a Christian. (By the way, I heard him tell that story in person. He was guest speaker at the Troy, Mich. SDA church about 20 years ago when he recounted having to flee his state. I was in the choir loft just behind him.) But really, Lisa, misusing the psychiatric profession to punish people you don't agree with is what the old Soviet KGB used to do to dissidents. Do you meant to tell me you are no better?
By the way, it seems to me that the majority of Jewish scholars are secular. Many of them seem to be influenced by the angst of the Holocaust. They ask, if the Jews are God's chosen people, how could He have allowed that to happen?
I am surprised that you would listen to Wagner, but not to Mendelssohn. You find no appeal in the latter's Midsummer Night's Dream? His Oratorios, such as Elijah? His symphonies and concertos? His Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage overture, and other such works?
For those who may not know, Felix's grandfather, Moses, was a hunchback. One of the stories told about him is that when he obtained consent from his best friend to marry his daughter, contingent upon her approval, he gave her this spiel: "Do you believe that before we are born, it is decided whom we shall marry?" She said Yes. He said, "I was shown whom I would marry. And I said, But Lord, she is a hunchback! She will be bitter and unhappy all her life. Please, I pray, let me have the hunchback instead." According to the story, she burst into tears and gladly agreed to marry him.
Felix Mendelssohn died at the age of 39, of what modern medical experts say sounds like a cerebral aneuryism. It appears also that Moses died of the same thing, so apparently it was hereditary.
Armoth, you attempt to set aside the logical force of my arguments and cited evidence, and claim that no one needs to be persuaded by what I say because I am not "sensitive" enough. Your Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler reminds me of the expert on soccer coaching that my brother the soccer coach likes to cite, that when criticizing schoolchildren just learning to play soccer, you sandwich a constructive criticism in between two compliments. Such as: "Great enthusaism, Hector. It would be good if you did not rely so much upon kicking your opponent in the shins. But I like your drive."
There comes a time, Armoth, when it is time to grow up. If you cannot handle debate like an adult, then you should not participate. As the saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Most Jews of my experience appreciate this. They place great stock on debate. It seems to be the main avocation (if not vocation) of Jewish Rabbis and scholars. I consider that that puts me in good company, for the most part. There is fun in debate, that you are missing because you begrudge having your shins bruised. (Or whatever.)
As far as sensitivity goes, who is it who resorts to ridicule and contemptuous dismissal, personal criticisms and name-calling? You will observe it is not me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lol.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:There comes a time, Armoth, when it is time to grow up. If you cannot handle debate like an adult, then you should not participate.
Since when does adult mean a complete absence of amiability? You are not speaking as somebody who wishes to have a dialogue. Admittedly it's good that you have such a thick skin, but I've found that a pissing contest never produces new ways of thinking.
quote:I am surprised that you would listen to Wagner, but not to Mendelssohn.
Lisa already said that she has not found occasion to listen to Mendelssohn not that she avoids him whenever she can.
quote:As far as sensitivity goes, who is it who resorts to ridicule and contemptuous dismissal, personal criticisms and name-calling? You will observe it is not me.
Maybe so, but you sometimes resolve to smug and condescending dismissals of your opposition's point of view. That to me is exactly the same as contemptuous dismissal.
You don't debate with the intent of lovingly imparting your own thoughts while letting others do as they please with your offerings, instead you seem to relish the exhibition of your mental powers. It's as if debate for you is a dance off where both participants seek to prove that their agility is greater.
I could spend all my time smugly laughing at your attempts to understand Christianity as you do not have the benefit of modern revelation or scripture, and instead limit yourself to what is found in the Old and New Testament. You do exactly that except you ridicule Jews for using the Old Testament instead of accepting the New Testament.
I actually like you Ron, I find that many of your comments regarding the scriptures are close to my own, but I also find that even if I agree with your conclusion 100%, I often find that I could not agree with the way you presented it. Were I coming from a different point of view I would dismiss your arguments purely because I don't much enjoy telling a braggart that they are right.
I wouldn't call those disagreeing with you universally polite in their remarks, in fact there are some who are being quite obnoxious. Even Jesus had people laughing and criticizing him though he spoke aright. You can't always convince the majority of people even if you are exactly right, sometimes there is only one person in your audience who is going to see the validity of your arguments, often they won't even say anything to let you know they've changed their minds.
But get over yourself and get out of the way of your message, you're being a stumbling block for those you seek to convince. Not that we should be seeking to convert anybody here anyway. I think the forum is a more diverse place with you here Ron, and I believe you are capable of understanding what I'm trying to say, though I am not even near perfectly adept at saying it. But I did have two years of intense 16 hour days where I learned to discuss the gospel, and I initially spoke quite often in the manner you do in this thread. But when I learned to care more about improving somebody's life rather than getting them to agree with me, that both me and the people I was addressing were edified and quality of life increased.
Why not attempt to find common ground? Why not conceded a point once in awhile? You don't have to lie to yourself, but I find it unlikely that everything being said by Lisa, Shmuel, rivka, Armoth, etc is completely wrong, and I am certain that not everything you or I say is 100% correct. So lets live in the real world and talk as if we do as well Ron, can you agree?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I initially spoke quite often in the manner you do in this thread.
Really? Egad.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, you said: "Maybe so, but you sometimes resolve to smug and condescending dismissals of your opposition's point of view."
(I assume you mean "resort" rather than "resolve.")
That is entirely your own misinterpretation. You reach the point where you just blatantly tell lies about me. I present the facts as clearly and in as straightforward and economical a manner as possible. I attempt to make the logic of my arguments and their basis so clear that no one can misunderstand.
Maybe it upsets you that I contradict you. Some people cannot stand contradiction. You are probably taking personally things you do not need to take personally, since I usually am speaking to an idea or belief or theory. How wed to them you are is your problem.
As for finding common ground, I am more interested in finding truth, and in speaking up when someone propounds something I know is untrue and can prove is untrue. Especially when they are dangerously untrue and can lead to your distruction. In the long run, that is doing a much greater service to everyone than just trying to be compromising and temporizing. We are discussing life or death issues, that matter not just in this world and this life; but in Heaven and earth, and for eternity. There is a real importance to what I am trying to get across to you. That is what I care about. That is what shows how much I care about you. Sometimes I feel some kinship with the prophets of old, who faithfully gave to the people the messages of the Lord, and were stoned for their efforts.
(Of course, whether Lisa likes Wagner and not so much Mendelssohn is not a life-or-death matter.)
What point do you think I need to concede? You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You have hardly even tried! I am still waiting for some of you to acknowledge that I made valid points, and backed them up with sound scholarship, relevant textual citations, appeals to people like Eric Snow, etc. All some of you ever do is try to dismiss me with ridicule, name-calling, etc. That I do not respond in kind does not mean I am insensitive, it means that I am not vulnerable to your cheap shots. Why you keep making them when they do you no good, do not throw me off, and only expose your own weakness to any thoughtful reader, is a mystery to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I initially spoke quite often in the manner you do in this thread.
Really? Egad.
I'm glad I've grown out of it to some degree. I think part of it was also that while I was in the Missionary Training Center your entire life is changing in some very radical ways, one of the ways I tried to cope was to cling to my own sense of intellectuality. Stoking my own self confidence in the face of such difficulty by being smug, I tried to rebel against the change by arguing that I didn't need to in some important aspects.
I've mentioned this before but a key moment for that change in direction came when I had a mission companion who told me I was not focused enough on missionary work and was too distracted by other things. I said, "You're such a hypocrite, you're as distracted as anybody I've seen." He responded, "I know it, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about you."
If it makes you feel any better Tom, while I do see you being fair minded very often there are times when you have not exactly endeared me to your behavior.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:That is entirely your own misinterpretation. You reach the point where you just blatantly tell lies about me.
Wherein have I spoken lies about thee?
quote: I present the facts as clearly and in as straightforward and economical a manner as possible. I attempt to make the logic of my arguments and their basis so clear that no one can misunderstand.
Maybe that's your problem, in your desire to find absolute accuracy you have forgotten that men are men not machines. Jesus used parables quite often, not because parables were the most accurate way to present his message but because the attitudes of those he was addressing necessitate that manner of teaching.
quote:Maybe it upsets you that I contradict you. Some people cannot stand contradiction. You are probably taking personally things you do not need to take personally, since I usually am speaking to an idea or belief or theory. How wed to them you are is your problem.
I am not upset, if I'm upset about an idea I'll let you know in no uncertain terms. By making certain that your opposition is heard and understood I think many negative feelings can be averted. Rational people tend to get frustrated more with the fact that no real discussion is taking place rather than that their ideas as being questioned.
quote:As for finding common ground, I am more interested in finding truth, and in speaking up when someone propounds something I know is untrue and can prove is untrue.
There you have it Ron, you're openly admitting that common ground is not something you are concerned with as the urgency of your ideas preclude any consideration.
quote:We are discussing life or death issues, that matter not just in this world and this life; but in Heaven and earth, and for eternity. There is a real importance to what I am trying to get across to you. That is what I care about. That is what shows how much I care about you. Sometimes I feel some kinship with the prophets of old, who faithfully gave to the people the messages of the Lord, and were stoned for their efforts.
Ron, what profit is there in a unruly man crying repentance? Have you removed the beam in your own eye so that you can remove the mote in your neighbor's? That's what finding a common ground does, we acknowledge our imperfections and the holes in our arguments. You have an imperfect Bible changed and altered by imperfect scribes handed down to them by imperfect Jewish scribes. Were I to care nothing for your feelings I'd say, "Who cares what Eric Snow thinks, there are hundreds of pages from real prophets inspired by God that you haven't even read" (I'm assuming you have not read the Book of Mormon or any other scripture since the Bible was created.) But what good would that do for either of us? You are trying to prove that your interpretation of Psalms is correct, and that it speaks to Jesus being the messiah. You have further argued that in Daniel he unequivocally sets a predicated time limit for the messiah to be born and that Jesus also fits that. Even if you're right on both counts, and I do think you are right, what now? The enormity of what you are asking your opposition to accept is of such import that only the most sensitive feelings should attend such a request. Instead you have opted to take the road of, "I'm right sinners, now acknowledge your guilt and repent." My own parents who I love more than life itself could not ask me to do such a thing in that manner and expect results, who are you Ron?
quote:What point do you think I need to concede? You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You have hardly even tried!
You're right Ron, because as far as I am concerned your failure to represent our savior as His sworn disciple concerns me more than any particular intellectual point you are making.
quote:All some of you ever do is try to dismiss me with ridicule, name-calling, etc.
And when that happens you put the books away and move on because they aren't ready for your message. Even Jesus could "perform no miracle" in certain places because of the unwillingness of some to believe. But I assure you Ron, you are not doing all you could do to make your ideas as palpable as possible.
quote:Why you keep making them when they do you no good, do not throw me off, and only expose your own weakness to any thoughtful reader, is a mystery to me.
I'm assuming you are addressing this remark to those who do those things. I do not think I have.
How about conceding that since humans have certainly made mistakes in the Bible, that in of itself renders any appeal to the text as we have it difficult.
edited for some grammar and spellings.
[ March 28, 2009, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lol.
QFT
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am surprised that you would listen to Wagner, but not to Mendelssohn.
Never heard anything by him. Whereas I know The Ride of the Valkyries both from a classical album my father used to play when I was growing up, and from the brilliant Bugs Bunny cartoon that used it.
I don't generally choose the art I like by whether I'd like the person who created it. That's what I meant when I said that bees sting, but they also make honey.
That said, philosophically speaking, Wagner was a non-Jew. And a German. His antisemitism... well, let's just say that dogs bite and leave it at that. Mendelssohn had no such excuse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sometimes I feel some kinship with the prophets of old, who faithfully gave to the people the messages of the Lord, and were stoned for their efforts.
Color me completely unsurprised.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Sometimes I feel some kinship with the prophets of old, who faithfully gave to the people the messages of the Lord, and were stoned for their efforts.
Color me completely unsurprised.
See?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For consistency's sake, I don't worship a God who commands me to be humble. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For consistency's sake, I don't worship a God who commands me to be humble.
Aho that is true. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, it does not sound like you would consider yourself a fan of classical music. I definitely am, so of course I am familiar with practically everything Mendelssohn and Wagner composed. It just surprises me that you would express prejudice against Mendelssohn merely because he was part of a Jewish-Christian family--especially since, as you say, you are unfamiliar with his music. That you would evidently have more animosity towards someone who at least partook of a Jewish heredity, than someone who was overtly antisemitic--and is known as Adolph Hitler's favorite composer--makes me question your priorities.
But I guess it is a human tendency to reserve our greatest animosity towards those who are the most like us, but just disagree a little bit. Christians mainly burned Christians at the stake, not atheists so much. I guess you Jewish people are in fact just like us.
That reminds me of a statement by a Jewish writer (whose name I have forgotten) who said that he figured the reason why God chose the Jews to be the chosen people was not because they were better than any other people, or more spiritual, but because they were just like everyone else, "only more so." That is, if they are religious, they are zealously religious. If they are secular, they are zealously secular. (I think I may have mentioned this to you before.)
Someday perhaps you will come to admit that you have more in common with us Christians than you now are willing to admit.
Thank you at least for continuing to dialog with me; so many Jewish people refuse even to do this with Christians.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dialog? Where? All I see is two competing monologues.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's weird to stereotype an entire people based on the opinions and behaviors of one.
Lisa, Myself, Rivka, Shmuel and others on this board who are Jewish - have we exhibited similar personalities? Similar writing styles?
Most Jews I know do not buy German. My father still refuses to buy a German car, like most people in my community will not. That will probably change soon enough.
But I still don't get where Lisa's musical preferences allow you to draw the conclusion that "you Jewish people are in fact just like us."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Most Jews I know do not buy German.
You need to get out more.
I know some who feel this way, but far more who don't even worry about it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think that's the second time you've said that to me...
Where do you live Rivka?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not in de heilige city of New Yawk, that's for certain sure.
Did you check my profile? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
LA...makes sense...::grin::
My chavrusas all happen to be from LA.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And I probably know their parents.
Actually, I may know them, if they've taken summer classes here.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Apfel, Korda?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not sure about the first, but definitely communicated with the second. I think the class in question ended up getting canceled though.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not in de heilige city of New Yawk, that's for certain sure.
What's holy about New York?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I like the Red Army choir.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not in de heilige city of New Yawk, that's for certain sure.
What's holy about New York?
Don't ask me. Ask all the NYers who seem to think there's something.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, it does not sound like you would consider yourself a fan of classical music. I definitely am, so of course I am familiar with practically everything Mendelssohn and Wagner composed. It just surprises me that you would express prejudice against Mendelssohn merely because he was part of a Jewish-Christian family--especially since, as you say, you are unfamiliar with his music. That you would evidently have more animosity towards someone who at least partook of a Jewish heredity, than someone who was overtly antisemitic--and is known as Adolph Hitler's favorite composer--makes me question your priorities.
Like I said, dogs bite. So a German composer was an anti-semite. Do you think he was the only one? The fact that Hitler liked him... now I'm going to let Hitler decide what kind of music I like? That's nuts.
Nor am I a racist, so the fact that Mendelssohn "partook of a Jewish heredity" doesn't mean squat. So did his children, and none of them were Jewish in any way. He was a Jew, and he apostasized, and he was an idolator, which harmed him, harmed the entire Jewish people, and harmed reality itself. Better that he had died before doing such a thing. Better that he had been stillborn than live to damage the world.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But I guess it is a human tendency to reserve our greatest animosity towards those who are the most like us, but just disagree a little bit.
Yes, it is. But that's not the operating factor here. When a non-Jew is a vicious anti-semite, he may be scum, but it isn't earth-shattering. When a Jew is an idolator, it is.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Christians mainly burned Christians at the stake, not atheists so much. I guess you Jewish people are in fact just like us.
God forbid. Christians often burned Jews. And many of the Christians they burned were burned under suspicion of being secret Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That reminds me of a statement by a Jewish writer (whose name I have forgotten) who said that he figured the reason why God chose the Jews to be the chosen people was not because they were better than any other people, or more spiritual, but because they were just like everyone else, "only more so." That is, if they are religious, they are zealously religious. If they are secular, they are zealously secular. (I think I may have mentioned this to you before.)
Yeah, maybe. I think it's kind of dumb, though.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Someday perhaps you will come to admit that you have more in common with us Christians than you now are willing to admit.
Maimonides wrote, speaking of what purpose Christianity might have in the world, that Christianity has exposed the entire world to the true word of God (albeit in a very false way). That when the time comes, Christians will have helped pave the way for everyone to know the truth, in spite of themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Thank you at least for continuing to dialog with me; so many Jewish people refuse even to do this with Christians.
I'm ornery.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Most Jews I know do not buy German.
You need to get out more.
I know some who feel this way, but far more who don't even worry about it.
I certainly don't. I mean, given a choice between something made in the Arab world and something not made there, I'll generally choose the latter, but Germany? It's a bit late now. Had it been up to me, I would have razed and salted the place after WWII and scattered them to the four winds, but it's 2009. Virtually all of the Nazi vermin are dead.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, years ago, I dated a lady who had a Jewish mother and a Catholic father. She told me she was fond as a teenager of saying "But I'm Protestant!"
She told me that like many people with a Jewish heritage, she was averse to the color brown, especially in automobiles. Seems that it is reminiscent of the Nazi "Brown shirts." Conversely, the best colors would be white trimmed with blue--like the Israeli flag.
Saying that Felix Mendelssohn (and the world) would have been better off if he had been stillborn, just because his Jewish family chose to become Christian, seems a bit much. I have to say, if yours is in any way representative of the attitude of very many Jewish people, then I am glad that Jews do not rule the world.
Oh, what you said about Christians being burned at the stake for suspicion of being Jews, derives from the fact that so many records of such events that have been preserved from the nearly 1,300-year history of the Papacy, list as one of the chief offenses for which the victim was executed (martyred, in truth) was "Judaizing." That was a code word for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. It is astonishing to realize how many Christians from the time just a few hundred years after the Apostles, to the ending of Papal dominion by conquest by the armies of Napoleon, were killed for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. It shows that Sunday-keeping was never any where near universal among Christians. Thousands, perhaps millions of Christians, were willing to die for the Sabbath. My understanding of Bible prophecy (especially in Revelation 13) is that this will happen again, on a world-wide scale.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Nice Rivka. Just stereotype us New Yorkers...
Actually, in Yeshiva in Israel I had a good friend from Pittsburgh. And I was so used to talking about home to my Israeli relatives and explaining: "In America,..." - that when I spoke to my friend from Pittsburgh, when I was trying to explain the way we did things in NY, i said, "In America..." - It got him pretty upset...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Nice Rivka. Just stereotype us New Yorkers...
Some stereotypes have a basis in truth.
And you're the one who keeps assuming that the way Jews you know do things is the way most/all Jews do things. IME, this is a trap NY Jews fall into with far greater regularity than those from anywhere else. (As opposed to Israeli charedim, who are more likely to think that the way they do things is the way most/all Jews should do things! )
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth, many of us Americans do tend to regard New York as another country. 9-11 did help to bring us together somewhat, though.
Rivka, are you saying there are Yiddish Jews, and there are Hebrew Jews?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not at all. Plenty of Israeli Jews speak primarily Yiddish. And a fair number of New York Jews speak less Yiddish than I do.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And you're the one who keeps assuming that the way Jews you know do things is the way most/all Jews do things. IME, this is a trap NY Jews fall into with far greater regularity than those from anywhere else. (As opposed to Israeli charedim, who are more likely to think that the way they do things is the way most/all Jews should do things! )
Yes, like that only more so.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::shrug:: I know a lot of Jews! I have close friends from different communities in the U.S. - LA, Richmond, Pittsburgh, Houston, Atlanta - as well as the crazy number of communities in NY.
When I said most Jews at any point in this thread (though admittedly, at times I meant most Orthodox Jews), have you disagreed with me? (The German thing I said was in my community, which I still believe is true).
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
You meant to say, "a number of crazy communities in NY", right?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
In my experience, usually the Jews with an aversion to buying German are from my grandparent's generation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: When I said most Jews at any point in this thread (though admittedly, at times I meant most Orthodox Jews), have you disagreed with me?
Yes, several times. And sometimes I said so. When it was something I agreed with for the most part, or agreed was right more often than not (if not "most"), I usually let it go.
But you would do well to remember that NY is not the center of the Jewish world. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I just scrolled through the 7 pages of the this thread - I didn't find any time you voiced your disagreement with me.
Though one time you said that it was a day where Shmuel was saying things you would say only better - I think after he had disagreed with me.
I don't mean to be annoying, I'm just the Jewish newcomer to the board and I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're not annoying.
You're just young. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::grumbles:: ;-)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
How is it possible not to step on the toes of someone Jewish?
Seriously, whom would most of you say is the more extremely conservative--Orthodox Jews or Hassidic Jews? I have tended to regard Hassidic Jews as Orthodox Jews who are somewhat on the charismatic side (pardon the Christian term).
When they were building the I-696 expressway in SE Michigan, the way it ran would separate many Orthodox Jews from their synagogues in Oak Park. So they built the overpasses especially wide, and planted grass and small trees along the walkway, so the Jews could walk to synogogue and back without violating their beliefs. When you are driving on I-696, the overpasses are like two really long tunnels hundreds of feet long.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hassidic is a subset of Orthodox.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man. If I were forced at gunpoint to describe Hassidic Jews with one adjective, "charismatic" would definitely not be that adjective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, you probably already know this but for those who might not, Ron likely is using "charismatic" in the religious sense which has nothing to do with charm or personal attractiveness or influence. It refers to having certain graces or gifts like speaking in tongues or healing.
Still, I would not have used that word to describe Hassidic Jews unless Ron means that they are cultural less mainstream.
ETA: It is a pretty specifically New Testament term.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How is it possible not to step on the toes of someone Jewish?
I know, right? Those damned Jews are so hypersensitive about everything.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Seriously, whom would most of you say is the more extremely conservative--Orthodox Jews or Hassidic Jews? I have tended to regard Hassidic Jews as Orthodox Jews who are somewhat on the charismatic side (pardon the Christian term).
The problem with such terms is that they simply don't fit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tom, you probably already know this but for those who might not, Ron likely is using "charismatic" in the religious sense which has nothing to do with charm or personal attractiveness or influence. It refers to having certain graces or gifts like speaking in tongues or healing.
Still, I would not have used that word to describe Hassidic Jews unless Ron means that they are cultural less mainstream.
They tend towards the mystical, if that's what Ron intended to say. While Kabbalah is only rejected completely by a small segment of Orthodox Jewry, it's most strongly embraced by Hasidim.
Note: I'm not talking about the Madonna/Red Thread/Kabbalah Center/Berg nuttiness; but real Kabbalah.
In addition, up to a few decades ago, they were much more into a kind of "cult of personality" thing than non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews. Each Hasidic group had its Rebbe, who was virtually infallible in their eyes, and who they saw as "closer to God" than the average Jew. Unfortunately, this attitude has spread to a lot of non-Hasidic Orthodox communities of late. Ugh.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The way us outsiders view the "Charismatic Movement" is that it places a great emphasis upon the personal emotional/spiritual experience. Among some Protestant as well as Catholic Christians, this usually is characterized by a focus on "the gifts of the Spirit," which in turn almost always means an emphasis upon the "gift of tongues," which in most cases winds up as a manifestation of ecstatic utterances. Some might cynically observe that the gift of "tongues" as most commonly practiced in charismatic groups is so popular because it is the gift of the Spirit that is easiest to fake.
Most mainline Christians think this is a misinterpretation of the gift of tongues, since in the Bible, the gift of tongues always gave the recipient the ability to speak in a language they never learned, or enabled multi-ethnic hearers to hear one speaker speaking in their own languages (as happened at Pentecost). The purpose was to facilitate communication, not hinder it with the confusion of meaningless babbling. There is not much value in an "unknown tongue." All the gifts of the Spirit are designed to build up the church, not multiply confusion.
Christians like me have been surprised to note a behavior that seems very similar among Hasidic Jews. They may call it something different, but the emphasis is still upon a personal emotional/spiritual experience. I for one suspect that the "charismatic movement" is in large part responsible for the Hasidic "subgroup" that Rivka referred to.
Wherever there is a feeling that a straight-laced emphasis upon doctrines and standards of behavior, characteristic of most churches to varying degrees, is oppressive, there is a natural tendency to embrace something fresh and new and that promises some emotional breaking free. Everyone wants to feel good, and charismatic behavior usually makes people feel good. Just like singing and dancing does. I would think that members of Orthodox Jewish groups would be especially susceptible to this.
I have not heard if there is any equivalent among Islamic groups, but I would not be surprised to learn that such exists.
[ March 30, 2009, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
There is a difference between Judaism and the practice of Jews. Most Modern Orthodox Jews that I know don't actually practice the ideals of Modern Orthodoxy. I'm sure every religion has what to compare this to.
The Judaism that I practice is no Hasidic, yet it's essence is emotional. The Talmud states: "Rachmana liba ba'i" - The Merciful One (God) desires your heart. The tremendous stress on law and ritual comes from the reverence of God and His commandments - to be extremely diligent in the fulfillment of His will.
Again, speaking from my own experience, the Judaism I practice is all about relationships and will of the being you are relating to. The relationship between man and himself, between man and his fellow man (family, friends, community, and outward), and ultimately between Man and God. It's a big fest of love and awe.
In a bunch of Jewish History courses that I took, my professors took the view that you took. That the Hasidic movement was influenced by the stuff that was going on in the Christian world at the same time. Similarly, in medieval times, they posit that the philosophical Maimonidean perspectives in Judaism were influenced by the Muslims (Kalaam) through the Greeks.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
While we're on the subject of Hasidism, I've seen two ways of parsing the title "Baal Shem Tov". 1. "Tov" modifies "Shem"; thus it means "Master of the Good Name" or "Master of the Good Reputation". 2. "Baal Shem" refers to "Master of the (Divine) Name" with "Tov" as an added honorific referring to the man. Any thoughts?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Many Hebrew phrases or names are meant to have multiple meanings. It's not supposed to be one or the other. It's both.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Most Modern Orthodox Jews that I know don't actually practice the ideals of Modern Orthodoxy.
*Sigh*
Most "Modern Orthodox" Jews that I know aren't even aware that Modern Orthodoxy has ideals.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Christians like me have been surprised to note a behavior that seems very similar among Hasidic Jews. They may call it something different, but the emphasis is still upon a personal emotional/spiritual experience.
Then you're mistaken. There was a bit of that when Hasidism first started, but it faded away.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I have not heard if there is any equivalent among Islamic groups, but I would not be surprised to learn that such exists.
Sufiism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The Judaism that I practice is no Hasidic, yet it's essence is emotional. The Talmud states: "Rachmana liba ba'i" - The Merciful One (God) desires your heart. The tremendous stress on law and ritual comes from the reverence of God and His commandments - to be extremely diligent in the fulfillment of His will.
Whereas the Judaism that I practice (which in its expression is probably no different than Armoth's) is in essence intellectual. While it's a Hasidic sentiment, Armoth seems to agree with "mitzvah gedolah lihyot b'simcha tamid" (it's a great mitzvah to be joyous always), while I would identify with the opposite: "simcha gedolah lihyot b'mitzvah tamid".
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
No. I actually do not think that it is a mitzvah gedola lihiyot b'simcha tamid. To be joyous always. I think it's mitzvah gedola to be learning Torah tamid (to be perpetually engaged in the study of Torah). But that's ultimately because learning teaches us to see the world in it's truest perspective and gives one the tools to be engaged perpetually in a relationship with God.
And I identify with your formulation as well, as I believe the truest simcha only comes from the fulfillment of God's will - fulfillment of mitzvoth.
My Judaism is intellectual, but the intellectual aspects are needed only to discern the truth. The second step is to have your heart actually feel all the truths you have discovered.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And I identify with your formulation as well, as I believe the truest simcha only comes from the fulfillment of God's will - fulfillment of mitzvoth.
My Judaism is intellectual, but the intellectual aspects are needed only to discern the truth. The second step is to have your heart actually feel all the truths you have discovered.
Amen.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: My Judaism is intellectual, but the intellectual aspects are needed only to discern the truth. The second step is to have your heart actually feel all the truths you have discovered.
I agree that that's a proper goal. I haven't reached it. I probably never will. I wish I could.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth said: "My Judaism is intellectual, but the intellectual aspects are needed only to discern the truth. The second step is to have your heart actually feel all the truths you have discovered."
Substituting the more general word "faith" for Judaism, this is a fair statement of the challenge of the walk of faith to all people of faith.
I have long appreciated as especially insightful and profound the implications of Psalms 86:11, 12: "Teach me Thy way, O Lord; I will walk in Thy truth; Unite my heart to fear Thy name. I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And will glorify Thy name forever." (NASB)
Notice especially the clause: "Unite my heart to fear Thy name." Thus even the Psalmist acknowledged that his real problem was a divided heart. The purpose of God in the life of every one of us, is to make us whole-hearted in our faith. That is the only "perfection" we can realistically aspire to.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: My Judaism is intellectual, but the intellectual aspects are needed only to discern the truth. The second step is to have your heart actually feel all the truths you have discovered.
I agree that that's a proper goal. I haven't reached it. I probably never will. I wish I could.
I don't know how to respond to this, I guess because I don't know you as a person, but it made me very sad. You strike me as an incredibly passionate woman. I hope you, I hope we all reach this goal.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I've been almost entirely offline for the past few days (DSL modem broke), but I have to wholeheartedly second this, re: Armoth.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You're not annoying.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)