Jewish theology concerning the messiah

[cabaret]

Greg

Since our God is incorporeal, the question as to what the term ‘image’ might imply has to be more than somewhat different to that of a Christian. We cannot, in some way, be physical reflections of a non-physical being.

I’ve always taken it imply ‘an ability to have an intellectual/personal relationship with God’.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Ghosty, you asked about the cherubim. See my posts at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=239764#post239764 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=241908#post241908.

Greg, you posted:

My original point was to show that Judaism forbids images of God yet we are told:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image,…

**Genesis 1:27 **God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him;

Hmm, methinks you are comparing apples and rocks. That my faith forbids images & that we are created in God’s Image have nothing to do with each other.

Whowantsumadebo, I’m actually studying Daniel now. However, I’ve only just finished Chapter 2.

Be well!

ssv

 

[Ghosty]

I did read those posts, but I don’t think they quite get around the problem at hand. You recognize that God can give permission for the making of images, but you said that the making of images of the angelic host is forbidden for any purpose whatsoever. The fact that God permits the making of such images under certain circumstances indicates that the making of such images is not a fundamental offense to God, and are not an offense in every circumstance whatsoever.

In essence, you believe that such images are ok when permitted by God. Well, Christians teach that such images are indeed permitted by God. The underlying beliefs are identical, it’s merely the extent of God’s permission that is in question. There is no fundamental difference in the beliefs of Jews and Christians in this regard; Christians believe such images are permitted only because they have been specifically allowed by God. Since the discussion seemed to be heading in the direction of Christians having a fundamentally different view of the making of such images, I felt this point should be raised.

Remember that the issue of such images was not immediately settled when Christianity began. In fact it took centuries, and outside of the Church it is still debated. Christians did not at all abandon the Jewish belief on the matter of images, and it was only after much debate, prayer, study, and finally direct Divine guidance that we have come to the point we’re at today in the Church.

 

[Shoshana]

I attended a Byzantine conference once, and the priest said since God the Father willed His Son to be incarnated by man, that this issue of graven images was not problematic anymore. Jesus is our Living Icon par excellence. Also the Shroud of Turin is said to be, by the Eastern Churches, an icon painted by non-human hands…

Just my two cents…

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

I’ve always taken it imply ‘an ability to have an intellectual/personal relationship with God’.

You indicate that it is your opinion/interpretation. Does Judaism have an authoritative teaching on what it means for man to be made in the divine image?

Also, if it means the ability to have an intellectual/personal relationship with God, then why cannot God relate to us as one like us if He so chooses. Are you saying this is impossible for God?

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi SSV,

stillsmallvoice:

Hmm, methinks you are comparing apples and rocks. That my faith forbids images & that we are created in God’s Image have nothing to do with each other.

What does it mean that we are created in God’s image? Why is the word “image” used?

Greg

 

[cabaret]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Cabaret,

You indicate that it is your opinion/interpretation. Does Judaism have an authoritative teaching on what it means for man to be made in the divine image?

Judaism tends more to the authoritative row.

Also, if it means the ability to have an intellectual/personal relationship with God, then why cannot God relate to us as one like us if He so chooses. Are you saying this is impossible for God?

Probably safe to assume that God would be restricted by God’s rules. What reason would one have to believe that God would do the absurdly contradictory?

I realize that you have the need to believe that God would make a clone (a lesser clone, since vulnerable) of himself in the physical world but, rather than being deducible from Judaism, it’s always seemed to me that Christianity sees Judaism as a jigsaw puzzle where you have to bite bits off the pieces to make them fit a picture in the Christian mind - the text manipulation as I’ve called it from time to time.

Yes, you can manipulate our scriptures to your heart’s content but you have to remember that you’re doing so from within a particular paradigm - you start from ‘Jesus’ and fit the text to the phenomenon as you perceive it - like reading history backwards.

Meanwhile, we start from an entirely different paradigm. You have the ‘reported’ deeds and sayings of your ‘Man God’, we have our non-corporeal, omniscient, omnipotent, God about whom we can only conjecture in our limited human way (and row about) from what we have been given (Torah/Tanakh).

You have to remember that the focus of the two religions is entirely different and questions that mean something within one of them may be meaningless in the other. Even if one accepted your premise, just for the sake of argument, there’s absolutely nothing in our scriptures to lead one to believe that God would do so, or that it would be in the shape of the Messiah - nothing at all unless one started with the presumption that Jesus was the Messiah and was God and went on to bite the bits off the jigsaw pieces.

 

[Ghosty]

you start from ‘Jesus’ and fit the text to the phenomenon as you perceive it - like reading history backwards.

While this is true of many modern Christians, this is not true of Christianity historically at all. The Apostles certainly didn’t start with Christ and fit the Jewish Scriptures to fit their world view. This is espescially true of Paul. These were not Christians who wanted to adapt Judaism, but Jews who adapted to Christianity, just as ALL the early Christians were. The Church’s explainations and definitions begin with the Jewish point of view, not with the Gentile one. While modern people come more and more from the Gentile perspective, the fundamental aspects of the faith were defined and understood by extremely conservative Jews.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

Judaism tends more to the authoritative row.

What is a “row”? Also what is the authoritative row regarding man being made in God’s image?

cabaret:

…there’s absolutely nothing in our scriptures to lead one to believe that God would do so (become man),

Isaiah 30:20 No longer will your Teacher hide himself, but with your own eyes you shall see your Teacher,

Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father.

Luke 20:42-44 Then he said to them, “How do they claim that the Messiah is the Son of David? For David himself in the Book of Psalms says: ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Now if David calls him ‘lord,’ how can he be his son?”

cabaret:

Probably safe to assume that God would be restricted by God’s rules. What reason would one have to believe that God would do the absurdly contradictory?

What are these rules and where are they found?

cabaret:

…(a lesser clone, since vulnerable) of himself in the physical world

John 10:17-18 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father."

The rest of my responses are from this Vatican document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

cabaret:

…you start from ‘Jesus’ and fit the text to the phenomenon as you perceive it - like reading history backwards.

Christian readers were convinced that their Old Testament hermeneutic, although significantly different from that of Judaism, corresponds nevertheless to a potentiality of meaning that is really present in the texts.

cabaret:

…we have our non-corporeal, omniscient, omnipotent, God about whom we can only conjecture in our limited human way (and row about) from what we have been given (Torah/Tanakh).

Like a “revelation” during the process of photographic development, the person of Jesus and the events concerning him now appear in the Scriptures with a fullness of meaning that could not be hitherto perceived.

Finally,
two human groups that take their point of departure from the same Old Testament faith basis, but are in disagreement on how to conceive the final development of that faith.

The example of Paul in Rm 9-11 shows that, on the contrary, an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude…

I recommend that Vatican Document (see link above).

Greg

 

[oat_soda]

i grew up in an area that had a high jewish population. many of whom were orthodox and in fact i had a synagoge a few houses down from me. now that i’m more into my faith, i regret not learning more about the jewish faith.

as i became more involved in my catholic faith, my esteem and respect for the jewish faith has directly increased. the orthodox jews seem to me most similar to catholics. the reformed jews are way to liberal and are more like protestants. conservative jews are like baptist. is there any truth to this analogy?

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

While this is true of many modern Christians, this is not true of Christianity historically at all. The Apostles certainly didn’t start with Christ and fit the Jewish Scriptures to fit their world view. This is espescially true of Paul. These were not Christians who wanted to adapt Judaism, but Jews who adapted to Christianity, just as ALL the early Christians were. The Church’s explainations and definitions begin with the Jewish point of view, not with the Gentile one. While modern people come more and more from the Gentile perspective, the fundamental aspects of the faith were defined and understood by extremely conservative Jews.

Paul, if I remember from reading the NT, never met Jesus - apart from occasional revelation just at the right moment, which made up for that particular shortcoming. Now there was the real religious genius of the group (I’m serious about that, I think he really was).

As to the idea that ‘Messiah/God Jesus’ could emerge from the Jewish paradigm, we’ll never agree, so we must agree to disagree.

 

[cabaret]

Hi Greg

What is a “row”? Also what is the authoritative row regarding man being made in God’s image?

A ‘row’? Something of a smiling allusion to the fact that Judaism often seems one long argument. Historically, there have been a number of positions argued by different ‘authorities’ - none of which involve any kind of possible ‘Jesus’.

As to your quotes -

I’ll agree with you, Greg, Jesus was the son of ‘The Father’ (Greg staggers back in surprise, possibly too soon) just as we all are sons and daughters of the Creator. Now you want the metaphor to be literal, I see no reason why that should be the case - if Jesus considered himself to be the son of ‘The Father’, he was no different to others around him (including Bar Abbas, of course - smile).

If you want full interpretations of ‘Jesus proof texts’, I’d suggest:

messiahtruth.com/response.html

for example:

messiahtruth.com/ps110.html

What are these rules and where are they found?

Torah/Tanakh

John 10:17-18 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father."

Son of ‘The Father’, again and not exactly an answer to somebody talking about seeing Judaism through the Christian paradigm.

Christian readers were convinced that their Old Testament hermeneutic, although significantly different from that of Judaism, corresponds nevertheless to a potentiality of meaning that is really present in the texts.

Sure they do, it’s their paradigm.

Like a “revelation” during the process of photographic development, the person of Jesus and the events concerning him now appear in the Scriptures with a fullness of meaning that could not be hitherto perceived.

Obviously not to us or our ancestors who haven’t believed a word of it.

 

[Ghosty]

Paul, if I remember from reading the NT, never met Jesus - apart from occasional revelation just at the right moment, which made up for that particular shortcoming.

He met Jesus briefly after Jesus had died, which is when he began to reexamine his persecution of the Christians. Of course you don’t believe that he actually met Jesus, nor would I expect you to, but he believed he did and so did the friends of Jesus who talked with Paul afterwards. Paul was indeed a religious genius, and likely the only really educated Apostle, but he was also a fanatically zealous Pharisee who the Christians were rightly terrified of (Paul had to put a LOT of work into convincing them that he’d come around to their POV).

While we certainly disagree about whether or not Christ can be understood from the ancient Jewish tradition and Scripture, my point is that not only a large chunk of Jews at the time, but some very educated, powerful, and zealously faithful Jews certainly believed that Jesus was the Christ based purely on tradition and Scripture. Putting aside arguments of which side is right and which is wrong, I propose that the reason that Judaism is so obviously distant from such a perspective today is precisely because it is made up of the descendants of those who did not view tradition and Scripture in that light, not because the modern Jewish idea of the Messiah is necessarily the “more accurate” one, or the more popular one historically. While modern Jews can certainly say that their view holds more weight because they’ve remained hard and fast in it since ancient times, the Church has the same right to say it, going right back to Paul and other faithful, educated Jews who believed in Jesus as the Christ precisely because of their extreme faithfulness to Scripture and tradition. These weren’t people who were abandoning their faith, but folks who continued going to synagogues (until persecutions drove them underground), and many even proposed putting the full weight of the ancient Law on Gentiles who converted.

While in modern times it seems that the Church has a decidedly “Gentile” cast, it must be remembered that the Gentiles who came into the Church were nothing like what we think of Gentiles today (at least in the Christian world). One could just as easily say that Gentiles were Judaized beyond recognition. After all, just look at the level of guilt that gets heaped left and right within the Church

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I wish everyone a good week (the traditional greeting upon the exit of Shabbat/the Sabbath), from here jr.co.il/ma/ in faraway Maaleh Adumim. We (DW, Da Boyz & myself) hada very nice Shabbat. Lots of the usual praying, eating & sleeping. As an orthodox Jew, I don’t use the computer, TV, car, etc. over Shabbat (jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm).

So…

Greg, on Judaism’s views as to what being created in God’s image means, see jewfaq.org/human.htm.

Oat soda, you posted:

i regret not learning more about the jewish faith.

jewfaq.org/toc.htm & ou.org/about/judaism2.htm are pretty good places to learn.

as i became more involved in my catholic faith, my esteem and respect for the jewish faith has directly increased. the orthodox jews seem to me most similar to catholics. the reformed jews are way to liberal and are more like protestants. conservative jews are like baptist. is there any truth to this analogy?

Yes, your analogy is pretty on-target. Tracey Rich, who maintains the jewfaq.org site that I love to refer to (because I think that it’s an excellent site) writes:

The information in this site is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint, because I believe that is the starting point for any inquiry into Judaism. As recently as 200 years ago, this was the only Judaism, and it still is the only Judaism in many parts of the world.

Traditional, normative Judaism is orthodox (orthodoxy being a far broader spectrum than many non-Jews, and many non-orthodox Jews, seem to realize; see jewfaq.org/movement.htm#US for a good summary on orthodoxy & the other, so-called, “movements” within Judaism). The Reform, Conservative & Reconstructionist “movements” are newfangled movements that developed in Europe, in reaction to the Enlightenment. They have junked so many core Jewish beliefs and, in effect, make it up as they go along, influenced by whatever happens to be trendy at the moment & taking care to be “politically correct”. This is Judaism??!! I grew up, as I like to say, de jure Conservative but de facto nothing. I looked at what the Conservative movement offered & was thoroughly underwhelmed & unimpressed. Orthodox Judaism is all-encompassing and supplies a deep emotional commitment & spiritual food for the soul. Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah comes from God; the Reform movement does not. The Conservative movement tries to straddle a middle ground that does not exist. If one does not believe that the Torah is from God, then what’s the point? Judaism is not, and never has been, an everyone-for-him/herself religion. Orthodoxy recognizes that there is a certain set of core beliefs that are immutable & which serve to bind all Jews everywhere, much as they have for thousands of years. Take Shabbat (i.e. the Sabbath, see the link I gave above), most of the observance of which the Reform movement has junked altogether (I guess they ignore Isaiah 56:1-2 and 56:6-7) & which the Conservative movement has made “optional.” An early Zionist writer wrote, about this binding set of core beliefs & norms which I’ve just mentioned, “More than the Jews have kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jews.”

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

Roman Catholicism & orthodox Judaism (despite our rather obvious differences) have much in common. Our views on many ethical & moral issues are similar. But beyond that, ours are faiths with rules, with authority & structure & with discipline. Ours are not make-it-up-as-you-go-along faiths & never have been (I suppose Protestantism & Reform Judaism are like that). Rather than mold the faith to fit the individual, I think that we believe that it is the individual who must mold him/herself to fit the faith. The late former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Lord Immanuel Jakobovitz (of blessed memory) once said that a faith which demands nothing is worth nothing. To be an orthodox Jew demands a great deal & I have learned to be a Roman Catholic is similarly very demanding.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

While we certainly disagree about whether or not Christ can be understood from the ancient Jewish tradition and Scripture, my point is that not only a large chunk of Jews at the time, but some very educated, powerful, and zealously faithful Jews certainly believed that Jesus was the Christ based purely on tradition and Scripture.

Ghosty, I’m sorry but you haven’t the slightest evidence for this assertion (see post 52 here), it’s pure wishful-thinking.

One could just as easily say that Gentiles were Judaized beyond recognition. After all, just look at the level of guilt that gets heaped left and right within the Church

Ah, there’s a *real *difference, we Jews know that’s precisely what mothers are for .

Cabaret (Jewish daughter, Jewish wife, Jewish Mother)

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, I’m sorry but you haven’t the slightest evidence for this assertion (see post 52 here), it’s pure wishful-thinking.

While we don’t know just how many Jews were Christians, we do know from records that it was a significant enough number to be noticed even by those outside the faith who had little interest in the inner workings of Judaism. This is found in both Roman documents and the Babylonian Talmud, the former describing growing unrest between two factions of Jews, and the latter in numerous places dicussing the “heretic and his followers”. It doesn’t say that the Christians were the majority, on the contrary they were viewed as a subset of traditional Judaism (or apostates from it), but they were certainly a significant enough factor to warrant mention by sources both inside and outside the religion. I’ll get some sources together for this and post them later, as I’m pressed for time at the moment. As for prominant, educated Jews becoming Christians, Paul is a perfect and the most well known example of this. He was an ultra-traditionalist by his own admission, and was extremely well educated and quite influential on the persecution front. There are others, but they aren’t nearly as well known or recorded, seeing as their personal writings are considered Scripture.

Ah, there’s a *real *difference, we Jews know that’s precisely what mothers are for .

I wouldn’t say that’s a difference at all. Mothers are the best guilt trippers the Church has to offer. You should see the way my grandmother broke her children. Even Mary is held up as an example of what we could be if we just tried harder.

 

[Shoshana]

stillsmallvoice,

1. You mention that you do not use anything electrical on the Shabbat (late Shabbat Shalom to you btw). From my understanding when I was in Israel, this was had by the ultra-Orthodox. (the long back coats and big black hats and the strands of hair uncut in the boys by tradition).If not then, where would the ultra-Orthodox be placed? something like our traditionalists, I suppose? (Mel Gobson being a fine example)
2. For the life of me, I cannot find, within the heaps of Jewish material, the seven signs that the Messiah in the Jewish pov would be here. (Maybe I am looking too hard…:whacky: ). Time is limited and maybe that could be a good starting point as this would be within the context of the original thread.
3. I also saw around the waists of some Jewish boys a sachet and long cords hanging from their waist. It was a prayer reminder (??) Would this be a devotion open to all sects or only the Conservatives, etc?

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

I’ll get some sources together for this and post them later, as I’m pressed for time at the moment.

S’ok, I’ve been through this with Protestants so it will be interesting to see what the differences are in the sources and how Catholics interpret them.

As for prominant, educated Jews becoming Christians, Paul is a perfect and the most well known example of this. He was an ultra-traditionalist

Highly Hellenized . . .

by his own admission, and was extremely well educated and quite influential on the persecution front. There are others, but they aren’t nearly as well known or recorded, seeing as their personal writings are considered Scripture.

At most a few then.

Surely the importance of Paul, from a ‘numbers’ point of view, is the realization that the sect was going nowhere as a group of Jews trying to convince fellow Jews that Messiah had come and was about to return (we’ve had a few of these sorts of groups and figures, by the way) - if I remember, there’s a point where there’s a falling out between Paul and the guys back in Jerusalem (James and Peter) on precisely this subject which is a turning point in the switch to concentrating on Gentiles (can’t remember just where in the NT this is, I’m afraid).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Cabaret,

St. Paul explains this in Romans 9. However, before discussing that I would like to ask you what your belief is regarding the Messiah? Do you believe that the Messiah is to come? (I understand that some Jewish people may not believe in the Messiah at all.) If so, what prophecies be fulfilled so that will you know it is the Messiah?

Greg