Jewish theology concerning the messiah

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

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

There are no “proof texts” for any faith, all true faith comes from God Himself.

cabaret:

messiahtruth.com/response.html

I address the document here (quotes from the document in blue):

In table IV-B.2 the document states that the Jewish understanding of the correct translation is:the L-rd & to/for my lord [or master]. This is in agreement with the Christian translation.

Though there is nothing in the Hebrew language of this verse to positively indicate that King David was referring to the Messiah when he wrote (adoni), my lord/master,…
Yes, but on what basis do you say that it does not refer to the Messiah?

…in reality, there is no problem with David realizing that the Messiah will be greater than he is.
This does not disagree with what Jesus asks.

Moreover, there is nothing in David’s words to indicate that the individual to whom he refers as my lord/master is a divine being.
**Yes but does this state that the Messiah cannot be God Himself?

---

If he authored this psalm, David refers to himself in the 3rd-person for someone else to chant about him.
Even if that were the case, it does not mean that the Jewish Scriptures cannot have different depths of meaning. In fact, apparently, many Jewish commentators do not rule out that this passage of David has a Messianic meaning.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ337.HTM

Who is speaking to whom in Psalms 110:1? The analysis demonstrates that the Christian interpretation of G-d the Father addressing “G-d” the Son (Jesus) does not work;
As I have shown, since Psalm 110 does have Messianic meaning, then the Father addressing the Son is indeed a valid understanding.

Cabaret, I have two questions:

1. Have Jewish sages/rabbis taught that Psalm 110:1 has Messianic meaning?
2. If so, then why does your link called “Messiah Truth” claim that it does not refer to the Messiah?

Greg

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

First, Greg, if I may… outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html
is a pretty good site for our take on Psalm 110. Even if some Jewish sage does claim that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Messiah, what of it? The same sage would absolutely deny that it refers to Jesus!

Shoshana, you asked:

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)

Let me clarify this. We use the fridge (but we turn the light off, so that when we open it, the light does not come on). We don’t unplug it. It is plugged in before Shabbat & we do not adjust any of its settings during Shabbat.

We don’t use the microwave, the TV, the radio, the computer, the toaster, etc. (About the radio: During the first Gulf War back in 1991, when Saddam the Wicked was lobbing SCUDs at us, the authorities came up with a novel solution to the problem of how to alert the Shabbat-observant community in the event of a SCUD attack. Israel Radio opened a silent frequency that would broadcast only during alerts. So just before DW lit the candles, we tuned in this frequency, turned the volume up & left the radio on. Unless there was an alert, it was silent. If there was an alert, and there were a few on Shabbat, then & only then would Israel Radio broadcast on that frequency. Thus, we had access to the vitally important alerts without having to violate Shabbat.)

The lights in our flat are wired into an automatic timer that I set before Shabbat comes in. It automatically turns the lights on/off at the times that I pre-set.

Aside from on-duty police/fire/EMS/army personnel, no Shabbat-observant Jew will drive a motor vehicle on Shabbat unless it is to take someone to the hospital, to a doctor, etc. (When I do my annual stint of reserve duty, I will frequently go out on jeep patrol on Shabbat.)

The foregoing touches on a very important principle in Jewish law. All Torah precepts (except for 3), including Shabbat, may, no must, be violated in order to save human life (this includes a fetus in distress). In Leviticus 18:5, God says:

You shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.

Our Sages note that it says “…live by them…” and not “…die by them…” Our Sages teach that Shabbat was given to humankind, humankind was not given to Shabbat.

What I’ve just posted about Shabbat observance, using electrical stuff, etc. applies to all orthodox Jews, taking into account what I said in my previous post, that orthodoxy is a fairly broad spectrum & that all orthodox Jews, be they ultra-orthodox & Chasidic, ultra-ortthodox & not Hasidic, or modern orthodox (like me), “recognize that there is a certain set of core beliefs that are immutable.” This set of immutable core beliefs includes Shabbat observance (see ou.org/chagim/shabbat/default.htm for a very good site that presents the modern orthodox perspective on Shabbat).

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

You also asked:

1. 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.

I have never heard of “the seven signs” that you are referring to. Sorry!

You also asked:

1. 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?

I think that you’re referring to jewfaq.org/signs.htm#Tzitzit. Is this what you saw? I have a big prayer shawl that I wear only during morning prayers. I wear the little fringes under my shirt & don’t usually let them flap except on days when I’m not working & go around with my shirt not tucked in & then I let 'em flap.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[cabaret]

Hello Greg

Greg_McPherran:

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?

In an earlier conversation, I seem to remember mentioning that my position on Messiah was “Don’t hold your breath!” Rather akin to many of your fellow-religionists’ view of your Savior’s Second Coming, I expect.

A short form of what one would expect of the Messiah can be found here:

simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm#1

 

[cabaret]

Hi Greg

Greg_McPherran:

There are no “proof texts” for any faith, all true faith comes from God Himself.

Not a lot of experience of Josh McDowell supporters then, Greg?

Yes, but on what basis do you say that it does not refer to the Messiah?

Even if it did, what would that imply to Jews? “Messiah as Super-King-David”?

There’s a problem I’ve referred to above in this thread and it’s that the words we use don’t mean the same thing and the paradigms that are the lenses of what we see are so different.

When you take an extract from the Tanakh and say something like:

Yes but does this state that the Messiah cannot be God Himself?

You might as well have rephrased it as:

Yes but does this state that the Messiah cannot be a Martian?

Because the answer would be the same, there is absolutely nothing in the Tanakh to suggest that he would be and everything to suggest that he wouldn’t. So, might Psalm 110 be talking about a “Messiah-As-Super-King-David”? Possibly but that doesn’t add up to Jesus.

As to your questions - do Jewish ‘Authorities’ differ in interpretations? Yes, as I’ve been telling you all along.

 

[cabaret]

stillsmallvoice:

I wear the little fringes under my shirt

Careful, they’re trying to trap you into admitting we’re a ‘fringe religion’!

 

[Ghosty]

cabaret: I think I’m understanding one of the difficulties in this conversation now. You made a comment earlier about previously debating Protestants, and you’ve just made a remark about the (IMO looney-toon) Josh McDowell, and it occurs to me that you may be hearing Greg’s arguments, and the Catholic argument for Christ in general, from a different angle then the Church intends it. I thinks this adds to the already difficult situation of approaching texts from different paradigms.

Greg illustrates the Catholic mindset very well when he says:

There are no “proof texts” for any faith, all true faith comes from God Himself.

Many Protestants fall into the position that Jesus-as-Messiah, and many other theological issues, can somehow be “proven” by Reason, whereas Catholics more often believe in what we call “Mysteries of faith”. When a Protestant evangelical says “This Psalm points to Jesus,” the implication is that you somehow missed the boat if you don’t believe it. When a Catholic says the same thing, the implication is that we Catholics haven’t necessarily missed the boat. Of course we believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Psalms point to Him and the things we know about Him, but we say this from a fundamentally defensive position generally speaking. I find that almost all websites and books by Jews objecting to Christian teachings object specifically to Protestant arguments and approaches.

When you say that everything points to the Messiah not being Jesus, you are stressing certain interpretations that you yourself say are not set in stone. Catholics aren’t saying that our interpretations are necessary, only that they are possible. That modern Jews would have different interpretations is not only unsuprising, it’s expected. The Church teaches that belief in Jesus Christ comes through God’s grace, a gift of faith, a supernatural happening that is informed by reason but not defined by it.

The irony for me is that it was during my approach towards conversion to Orthodox Judaism that I came to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, precisely because of the Messianic teachings I was learning from Orthodox Judaism (specifically of the Chasidic variety, which is likely why I was drawn to Jesus-as-Christ).

As for the Talmud references, I’ve found one I was looking for regarding the Minim who healed the sick in Abodah Zarah 27b, and another mentioning the same follower of Jesus in Abodah Zarah 17a. I’ll keep looking for the other references, but I think these indicate at least some degree of familiarity and recognition of the Christian population, which would indicate that they were a noticable group among Jews. Unfortunately I’m having trouble finding the Roman references to this group of “Jewish schismatics”, but I will continue my search, as well as my reading of the Talmud.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret and SSV,

stillsmallvoice:

First, Greg, if I may… outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html
is a pretty good site for our take on Psalm 110. Even if some Jewish sage does claim that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Messiah, what of it? The same sage would absolutely deny that it refers to Jesus!

There’s a few things we want to understand here (and I see that “ghosty” has already provided some excellent insight [thank you ghosty]):

First, I think when Jesus asked Jewish contemporaries about Psalm 110, Jesus already knew that there was Messianic hope to overcome Roman rule based on Psalm 110. I think what Jesus is teaching is that the Messiah is someone greater than David even if a descendant of David. I think Jesus is showing that this unknown distinction that makes the Messiah greater than David is the Messiah’s divinity. This was not clear from the Hebrew Scriptures but I don’t believe that it is ruled out by the Hebrew Scriptures. We believe that the Messiah Himself has taught us of His divinity.

Secondly, if some Jewish people accept the Messianic meaning of Psalm 110 on what basis can one say that it can not be Jesus?

You see, the main thing I would like to establish is that we are discussing faith not “proof texts”. A Christian cannot claim that a Jewish person must see Jesus in the Scriptures if a Jewish person does not believe in Jesus. At the same time, a Jewish person cannot say that there is scriptural and traditional “proof” that Jesus cannot be the Messiah. The Christian interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures are no less reasonable than Jewish ones. Different, yes, but no less reasonable.

You see, God’s messages in Scripture are often deep and mysterious and can have meanings that apply broadly. I think Jewish midrash makes this clear. Christians believe that Jesus has revealed meanings that were mysterious and St. Paul refers to the hidden meanings:

“Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. Rather, we speak God’s wisdom, mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,”

You see what Christians are saying is that the Messiah has more authoritatively revealed the meaning of the Scriptures.

If one does not believe this a.) because it does not agree with traditionally held views and/or b.) as a matter of faith, then that is one’s belief.

However, I would like to first of all agree that Christinaty cannot be “disproved” from Jewish Scripture and tradition any more than it can be “proved” by Christians. If we can agree on that then we can get to the point where one must say that it is ***possible ***that Jesus is the Messiah. If someone does not beleive it (for whatever reasons) that is one thing, but do we agree that one cannot say it is impossible? If one does say it is impossible that Jesus is the Messiah, then I would be happy to discuss the reasons why you think that.

Do we agree that belief in Jesus as the Messiah is a matter of faith and cannot be “disproven” (by Jewish Scripture and tradition) or “proven” (by Jewish and Christian Scripture and Christian Tradition)?

Greg

 

[Shoshana]

cabaret:

Careful, they’re trying to trap you into admitting we’re a ‘fringe religion’!

:tiphat:

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty & Greg

In some ways we’re saying similar things in different ways but there remain real differences. What I’ve been saying, expressed a little differently, is that you can deduce Jesus from Judaism but only if you start with Jesus – otherwise ‘Jesus’, far from being a culmination, is not a logical conclusion from our scriptures and tradition; Jesus is a ‘culmination’ only of a process of retrospective understanding/explanation (the product of your ‘Ephesian’ divine Grace, if you like) of that ‘culmination’ itself.

Of course, one can’t, from within Judaism, disprove the divinity of Jesus, anymore than one can disprove the idea that the actual Messiah will, in the end, turn out to be a Martian or that Moses, himself, was from Mercury. Indeed, it would be very likely possible to trawl the Tanakh, juxtapose interesting interpretations of disparate verses, add in a bit of creative ‘Paul-ine’ revelation and make a case for all of them – nevermind the question of a Jewish paradigmatic background, those of us of a Ockham-ist tendency tend to such activities with a severely jaundiced eye.

The question I’d like to ask is why there is such a desire to have us accept that “There’s a faint possibility Jesus might possibly, vaguely have been Messiah” unless you see it as some kind of wedge into some lengthy game of evangelization? Even if that’s the case, however, I’m prepared to accept the possibility in much the same way that I’m prepared to accept that “There’s a faint possibility that there’s no God but Allah and Mohammed is the last prophet of Allah” or that “There’s a faint possibility that Zeus and companions are sitting around Olympus playing with the fates of humankind.”

Don’t press me on which I’d find the most unlikely, however.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

What I’ve been saying, expressed a little differently, is that you can deduce Jesus from Judaism but only if you start with Jesus – otherwise ‘Jesus’, far from being a culmination, is not a logical conclusion from our scriptures and tradition;

Actually, I think the indications of the Messiah’s divinity are there:

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

“Immanuel” (God with us)

I think there are other such indications.

Perhaps Judaism traditionally did not interpret these (sometimes mysterious) indications for their full potential meaning but that does not mean the Chrsitian interpretations are incorrect. I don’t think the fact that our understanding seems “retrospective” is because we are wrong, but just because the other possibilities were not traditionally considered. Using science as an analogy, when a new discovery is made, don’t people often look retrospectively and see the clues were there? 3000 years ago people may have seen occasional static electric sparks. However, they may not have considered that they could harness electricity even though the clues were there. Now that we harness electricity and use it, we can look back “retrospectively” and say: “it makes sense, after all, people saw all those static sparks.” Just because it seems retrospective because it is a new idea to some doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

What Jewish person would claim to fully understand the Jewish Scriptures so well that he/she can exclude reasonable meanings?

Also, I don’t think you can compare the Scriptural indications of the divinity of the Messiah with a Martian or Zeus. There are indications of the Messiah’s divinity but there are none for him being a Martian or Zeus. After all, it is God who has spoken to the Jewish people, not a Martian or Zeus.

If one believes that it is impossible that Jesus is the Messiah (beyond traditional interpretation) and that Christian interpretations are less reasonable than Jewish ones, then I am happy to discuss why ours are considered less reasonable.

If ours are reasonable and it is in fact possble that Jesus is the Messiah, then yes, why wouldn’t someone want to consider this further? It is not a “wedge”. We are to follow God where He leads us. There is nothing wrong with that. All people who love God seek the truth and to do His will.

Greg

 

[cabaret]

Hello Greg

(Paraphrase) “I believe, I believe . . . .”

Response (Paraphrase): “I don’t believe, I don’t believe . . .”

Greg, if I wasn’t Jewish, I’d be an atheist. If somebody held a gun to my daughters’ heads and demanded that I pretend to be another religion, I’d choose Islam on the grounds of “it being least unbelievable.” I’m not new to the world of theology and philosophy, you know, and quite used to people trying to evangelize me - it’s a tremendous waste of time.

In other words, I am really interested in Catholicism as a cultural and social phenomenon and in how it ‘works’ - I’m interested in reading what their/your religion means to individual Catholics (I have to be, I’m soon to be surrounded by them/you), I’m happy to talk about differences but, beyond that?

I’ve explained how I see the differing paradigms and epistemologies, let’s stick to those, otherwise we’ll merely end up with “Oh, yes it is/Oh, no it isn’t” over each and every Jesus ‘proof text’ ('cause, despite the execration of Josh McDowell, that’s just what they are).

From experience, discussions between Christians and Jews work when we both accept one another for what we are and what we believe, they break down when we feel that we’re being evangelized and you feel that we’re attacking Jesus.

I appreciate that your religion is evangelistic, it’s a requirement, I appreciate that denying your Savior can be seen as attacking him. Somehow, we have to be able to deal with that - from time to time, call a stop and agree to differ before we end up warring - or carry on the age-old tradition of not talking to each other at all.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you cabaret,

Ouch, what a let down!

Well, let me give the general Irish Catholic customs and perhaps it will map over well enough to help you.

Obviously, this will be much more prevalent with the older population since kids don’t play as much attention to religious observances. So lets jump in to this.

Catholic Cultures tend to be very ritualized and somewhat more superstition than Reformational Christianity. We tend to have lots of cool little prayers for all sorts of things and practice a greater amount of reverence of religious items. Much of this stems from our greater emphasis on the “Sacramental” nature of God’s presence in creation. We have a history of reverence of relics and Holy Items which we are taught have a “greater” amount of God’s presence associated with them which makes them favored items. Having an item thrice-blessed (having it blessed three times is the best). Having your house blessed especially before having a baby is important as well. There are all sorts of tradition behind this and older members take it very seriously so don’t make fun. Catholics tend to assume guilt and having lots of religious items around makes us feel closer to God as does an active prayer life.

Gaelic Morning Prayer

Thanks to You, O God, that I have risen today.
To the rising of this life itself;
May it be to your own glory,
O God of every gift,
And to the glory of my soul likewise.
Even as I clothe my body with wool,
O God, cover my soul with the shadow of your wing.
Help me to avoid every sin,
and the source of every sin to forsake. Amen.

This is a start…

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

I hope my responses have helped to show that Christianity is a valid interpretation of Jewish Scripture. I certainly respect all people’s right to believe or not believe in Jesus. Our freedom of faith is itself a gift from God.

Greg

 

[Ghosty]

cabaret: I don’t believe Greg is trying to evangelize you, and I certainly wouldn’t be assisting him in any way if I felt he was trying to create a “wedge” towards evagelization. Of course, by its very nature our Catholic belief in Jesus as Christ is evangelistic, and how could it not be? Even Maimonides recognized this fact, and the benefit of it, because it rests in the joy and hope of the Messiah, however wrong-headed from a Jewish perspective, and this joy and hope will and must be spread to all people. Maimonides felt that this evagelization process would pave the way for the true Messiah, but did not discount the notion that all people must submit to the Messiah’s call to worship the One Lord; this notion is built into the Messianic belief.

That being said, I know that my main intention, and I believe Greg’s too, is to open up the discussion of our different views of the Messiah. I think the problem is that Greg has been responding to the website you posted, which is not merely a defense of the Jewish view, but an attack on the Christian one. As I said before, the typical Catholic stance is not to demolish the Jewish view, but to establish the Christian one as acceptable, so such a website that is directed at Protestant missionaries (who generally take their own personal interpretation as gold) is perhaps an inappropriate beginning, even though the parts that establish the Jewish view are quite informative. It’s very easy for a Catholic to get stuck on the attack portion of that website because of our general mindset about the Messiah. Greg’s response to a website that is specifically designed to attack the Christian view outright is quite understandable, and rather charitable IMO.

On another note, what in particular would you like to know about Catholic beliefs? I’d be happy to answer any questions you have, but I’m afraid to start spouting off now without direction, because I’m likely to go on for pages without hitting on anything specific to your interests

 

[Ghosty]

cabaret: I do want to quickly address a previous assertion of yours that I haven’t responded to. You stated that the Church began approaching Gentiles because they couldn’t convert Jews, but this is not borne out by history or early Church writings. The Church from the earliest days preached to Gentiles, and found them to be ripe for conversion. The original debate centered not around whether or not Gentiles should be taught, but whether or not they should become fully Judaized, and this was settled very, very early. The Church went to both Jews AND Gentiles, and the “Pauline” approach refers simply to the notion that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised and come under Abraham’s Covenant to accept the Messiah.

Gentiles quickly surpassed Jews in the Church simply because there were a heck of a lot more of them to convert, though they were no more or less receptive to the teachings at first. In fact, Christianity was often highly persecuted in Gentile communities, even those that were generally pluralistic. It’s simply not the case that Christianity saw an explosion of numbers once it began approaching Gentiles, nor is it true that the conversion of Gentiles was part of some “numbers game”. Remember that the conversion of all nations to the worship of God is part and parcel with Jewish conception of the Messiah, and the Church was simply following the traditional Messianic belief in that regard.

 

[cabaret]

Hi chrisb

chrisb:

Well, let me give the general Irish Catholic customs and perhaps it will map over well enough to help you.

‘Mr Cabaret’ and I had a wonderfully long vacation in the Irish Republic not long after we were married (‘Mr Cabaret’ is a Brit - English-Jewish - and had been taken there often as a child), we drove all around the coast spending a few days in places like Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Killarney and Cork before ending up in Dublin for a week. I love the memories of that holiday, not the least because, from then on, vacations revolved around ‘little ones’ and “Are we there, yet?” Still enjoyable but full of preoccupations other than taking in the scenery and local life!

Catholic Cultures tend to be very ritualized and somewhat more superstition than Reformational Christianity.

Never let it be thought that Jewish life lacks folk practices and superstitions though many were lost in the dislocations of the last century, of course - the move of Jewish peasants from Eastern European shtetl to America, or wherever, had similar effects as the movement of Catholic peasants from Ireland or Italy. Quite a few of our customs were picked up from the communities where we lived but acquired a Jewish interpretation (so that they weren’t ‘superstitions’ from then on, of course ).

I don’t think they’re things to make fun of, I think they’re often rather charming and speak of a simple piety.

As to ‘Sacraments’, that’s something I’ve yet really to fathom.

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty

Ghosty:

cabaret: I don’t believe Greg is trying to evangelize you, and I certainly wouldn’t be assisting him in any way if I felt he was trying to create a “wedge” towards evagelization. Of course, by its very nature our Catholic belief in Jesus as Christ is evangelistic, and how could it not be? Even Maimonides recognized this fact, and the benefit of it, because it rests in the joy and hope of the Messiah, however wrong-headed from a Jewish perspective, and this joy and hope will and must be spread to all people. Maimonides felt that this evagelization process would pave the way for the true Messiah, but did not discount the notion that all people must submit to the Messiah’s call to worship the One Lord; this notion is built into the Messianic belief.

This isn’t the first time we’ve run into ‘proof texts’ and not the first time I’ve gotten cross about it. Put a ‘proof text’ in front of me and I’ll immediately refer somebody to a ‘refutation site’, a reaction based on experience of seemingly endless ‘conversations’ about Isaiah 53 or whatever.

Rambam lived at a specific time in a specific (Islamic) culture with little experience of the Christian world. Those of us with family memories of the experience of living in a Christian, specifically Catholic in my case, world might not consider Christian evangelization with his sangfroid.

On another note, what in particular would you like to know about Catholic beliefs? I’d be happy to answer any questions you have, but I’m afraid to start spouting off now without direction, because I’m likely to go on for pages without hitting on anything specific to your interests

It’s amazing what you can learn about American Catholics and Catholicism on Catholic Answers - though whether the social-political outlook of Italians is similar, I kind of doubt!

Ghosty:

cabaret: I do want to quickly address a previous assertion of yours that I haven’t responded to. You stated that the Church began approaching Gentiles because they couldn’t convert Jews, but this is not borne out by history or early Church writings . . . .

Whose history, Ghosty?

It may be a different argument for a different thread at a different time but my interest lies in what could be described as ‘intellectual archeology’ and it’s in that area where I think a kind of truth lies as to what was happening in the first couple of centuries of the Common Era - not just in the early stages when the Christian scriptures were being developed but later when Christians were establishing their own understanding of them.

You see, I sort of go along with the argument that there were, in that period of chaos and cataclysm ending with the Bar Kochba rebellion, a (small but possibly significant) number of Jews who thought that Jesus was Messiah but very much a ‘Jewish Messiah’. What happened to them? My guess is that they suffered the same fate as everybody else.

So Christianity developed along a different paradigm.

 

[chrisb]

cabaret:

Hi chrisb

‘Mr Cabaret’ and I had a wonderfully long vacation in the Irish Republic not long after we were married (‘Mr Cabaret’ is a Brit - English-Jewish - and had been taken there often as a child), we drove all around the coast spending a few days in places like Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Killarney and Cork before ending up in Dublin for a week. I love the memories of that holiday, not the least because, from then on, vacations revolved around ‘little ones’ and “Are we there, yet?” Still enjoyable but full of preoccupations other than taking in the scenery and local life!

Peace be with you cabaret,

Now your talking about God’s Country

Never let it be thought that Jewish life lacks folk practices and superstitions though many were lost in the dislocations of the last century, of course - the move of Jewish peasants from Eastern European shtetl to America, or wherever, had similar effects as the movement of Catholic peasants from Ireland or Italy. Quite a few of our customs were picked up from the communities where we lived but acquired a Jewish interpretation (so that they weren’t ‘superstitions’ from then on, of course ).

Exactly! I’m very sure you are going to witness some interesting superstitions that might or might not be harmless and might or might not be Catholic, in the orthodox sense of the word, but seen as such none-the-less.

I don’t think they’re things to make fun of, I think they’re often rather charming and speak of a simple piety.

Again Exactly. My mother used to light candles all the time, especially during times of illness and when deaths in the family occurred. The lighting of prayer candles is a very Catholic thing and is rather charming as well although when I noticed them around without know why I would always experience a bit of dread. What’s wrong now, I’d thing to myself. One of the worst moments was when candles were light for about a week before I found out my mother (may she rest in peace) was diagnosed with lung cancer. It was bad and leave it to be said that she past on. I still include prayers for her to this day in Mass as well as in evening prayers. Not too long after her passing, I was diagnosed with cancer, although mine was in the soft tissue of the throat and operable. After radiation treatment and 5 years of checkup I was given a clean-bill-of-health but I will never forget my surprise to see a light candle in my recovery room after I awoke from surgery at St. Mary’s Hospital and a Nun sitting by my side silent in prayer. I guess the point of sharing this with you is that sometimes simple piety is really all we have to bind us to the Almighty and sometimes, every once in a while, it’s enough.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Ghosty]

This isn’t the first time we’ve run into ‘proof texts’ and not the first time I’ve gotten cross about it. Put a ‘proof text’ in front of me and I’ll immediately refer somebody to a ‘refutation site’, a reaction based on experience of seemingly endless ‘conversations’ about Isaiah 53 or whatever.

You were the first one to post attacks with proof texts, though. Greg was simply asking what in those passages ruled out Jesus as the Messiah. Greg has also expressed the Catholic belief that there are no proof texts in faith. He specifically stated:

A Christian cannot claim that a Jewish person must see Jesus in the Scriptures if a Jewish person does not believe in Jesus. At the same time, a Jewish person cannot say that there is scriptural and traditional “proof” that Jesus cannot be the Messiah. The Christian interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures are no less reasonable than Jewish ones. Different, yes, but no less reasonable.

His intentions seem very clear. He’s simply trying to show the reasoning behind Christian interpretations, not prove Jewish ones wrong. The fact that he was posting verses and asking for the Jewish interpretation of them while giving the Christian understanding does not demonstrate that he was trying to “proof text”. One thing you’ll soon see if you peruse the the conversations here between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics get the same kind of “proof text” attacks from them that you do, and it’s just as frustrating for us. I just ask that you not assume that just because someone quotes Scripture in the context of a conversation that they are trying to “prove” your beliefs wrong, or trying to convert you. Conversations won’t go very far if they’re taken with a confrontational stance from the get go.

Rambam lived at a specific time in a specific (Islamic) culture with little experience of the Christian world. Those of us with family memories of the experience of living in a Christian, specifically Catholic in my case, world might not consider Christian evangelization with his sangfroid.

Well he put Islam in the same category as Christianity, and Islam has its own problematic history with Judaism. Regardless, he was refering to evangelization to Gentiles specifically because it opened their eyes to God rather than pagan beliefs. He wasn’t speaking of them evagelizing Jews. My point of the quote was simply to show that evangelization in general on the part of Christianity (and Islam) serves a purpose, and a good one, in God’s plan in the eyes of Rambam, and that it’s a quality that shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.

Whose history, Ghosty?

The only documentation we have of the reasons for the Pauline approach is from the New Testament, and it clearly indicates that there was no numbers game going on. The conversions were already happening, it was only a matter of what to do with the converts. The account in Acts of the first Council, the one in which the Pauline approach was adopted, bears no mention of how to best bring Gentiles into the fold, only how to deal with the ones who were there.

The Church began approaching Gentiles very, very early, as was appropriate to Messianic belief. The point of my post wasn’t to indicate any kind of trend one way or another in the practice of Jewish Christians, but simply to state that the evagelization of Gentiles had nothing to do with the growth (or lack thereof) of the Jewish Christian community. As for the persecution of Christians in Gentile communities, I’ll simply point to the period of 300 years after Jesus in the Roman Empire, which can be easily researched without any help from me. The conversion of Constantine was really the watershed event that brought about a mass influx to the Church, and even that took time to fully take hold. Prior to that you’ll find Christians living in caves and arguing amongst themselves more often then you’ll find massive evangelization efforts.