Messianic Judaism

[Chris_LaRock]

I understand how controversal this issue is, but I’d like to suggest a great book by David H. Stern entitled ‘restoring the jewishness to the gospel’. He’s a Messianic Jewish scholar, and translator of ‘the complete Jewish bible’. (the bible for messianic Jews)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is there some Jewish or Messianic holiday going on now because I dont think the Rabbi has been online for about a week now.

 

[Valke2]

Valke,
Let me boil this down with some thoughts.

First off, to clarify, ricmat stated that Matt 22:41-46 gave proof that Jesus was the Son of God. I think that that is not the case, and you gave a good reason why not. Jesus was rather stating that the Messiah could not be David’s son. Pretty much that’s all that Jesus “proved” here. You and I know what else Catholics believe about the Messiah, but let’s not get into that.

I’m a bit confused. I think both Jews and Christians agree that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. I don’t think Jesus was trying to prove that the Messiah couldn’t be descended from David. Was this a typo in your above quote?

Now, you say that you don’t accept that this passage really happened. You are entitled to believe what you want. However, in the best case there should be sound reasons for what we believe, right?

In the best case, yes. Not always the case with religion.

So, if this is Matthew’s fiction, we might ask, why did he word it so? It’s a bit cryptic. As I just admitted above, it really doesn’t prove anything about Jesus himself. If Matthew were to invent it, wouldn’t he have been a little more specific?

Well, but we arrived at the conclusion that Jesus didn’t prove anything about himself only because we agree (I think) that the interpetation of Verse 110:1 is not correct. If it were correct, then Jesus would be making an argument that Plasm 110 would only have David calling his son (or descendant) God, if the Messiah were to be Divine.

So, I think that Jesus was inviting the pharisees to question him about Psalm 110:1 so that they could begin to understand him. They didn’t; apparently because they didn’t want to appear ignorant in front of the witnesses.

But this conclusion makes no sense. If anyone knew scripture, it was the Pharasee leaders. For more than 2,000 years, the arguments between rabbis have been recorded and debated. You may not agree with what one or more rabbis had to say, but no one can deny that they were ever cautious about voicing their opinions on scripture! I’m just a guy who has been studing Judaism for a few years. And I can tell you that there’s nothing that Jesus is quoted as saying that would make me choose not to address it out of fear of being shown ignorant. How much more so would that apply to Jews who lived, breathed, and discussed Torah/Talmud/Prophets for hours and hours each day?

With that said, I have to disagree with you that this was a private conversation. If you read chapter 22 beginning with verse 15, the pharisees and sadducees are tag-teaming Jesus. In fact, leading up to our passage, in v 34, it’s clearly stated that the pharisees heard about the exchange with the sadducees. So, we can expect that all heard, or heard about it. In fact, the narrative continues in chapter 23 where Jesus “spoke to the crowds and to his disciples” (v 1) and denounces the pharisees. So, it looks like the entire exchange was very public.

.

That may be. I certainly don’t know the context of the conversation as conveyed in the Christian Bible as well as you.
I don’t really see that as being a strong argument for proving that what was written occurred. But I’ll admit the conversation, as written, could have been in front of many people.

 

[ricmat]

Valke2 said: *That may be. I certainly don’t know the context of the conversation as conveyed in the Christian Bible as well as you. I don’t really see that as being a strong argument for proving that what was written occurred. But I’ll admit the conversation, as written, could have been in front of many people. *

In Acts 2:14-41 (particularly 34-35) Peter speaks to this issue, apparently to a large crowd (“devout Jews”), since 3000 people were baptized as a result of his speech.

And presumably not everyone who heard was baptized.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2 said: *That may be. I certainly don’t know the context of the conversation as conveyed in the Christian Bible as well as you. I don’t really see that as being a strong argument for proving that what was written occurred. But I’ll admit the conversation, as written, could have been in front of many people. *

In Acts 2:14-41 (particularly 34-35) Peter speaks to this issue, apparently to a large crowd (“devout Jews”), since 3000 people were baptized as a result of his speech.

And presumably not everyone who heard was baptized.

But Peter is speaking after the fact, right? He’s not speaking at the same time as Jesus.

 

[ricmat]

Yes, Peter is speaking after the fact. The short version of the story is that at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon the “undeducated and inarticulate” apostles, and the words just came to Peter (the first part of chapter 2).

It seems that no one put all the pieces together until that time.

 

[ricmat]

Valke2 - this is off topic but you can probably answer it quickly.

As a Christian, I hear a lot about Pharisees and Saducees.

1. Did either of their positions “win” over time?
2. Does Judaism have the equivalent of the Catholic Magesterium to rule on disputes?

 

[Valke2]

Is there anything within Judaism which strictly says that God could not have a body?

In Judaism God is non-physical. All references to God’s body is considered to be metaphorical. One of the central themes of Judaism is that any physical representation of God is considered to be idolatry. Finite gods, no matter how “great” have a beginning. We believe God always was.

“Every Jew must believe and know that there exists a First Being, without beginning or end, who brought all things into existence and continues to sustain them. This Being is God.” - - Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato, The Way of God. (18th century).

One of the 13 principles of faith, espoused by Rambam states: I believe with perfect faith that God does not have a body. Physical concepts do not apply to Him. There is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all.

Many places in Tanakh and Talmud refer to parts of God’s body, or refer to Him as walking, wearing tefillin… It is a clear cut principle of Judiasim that these references are to be understood only figuratively. However, the fact that Rambam felt the necessity of writing an entire book to address this subject, more or less, inidcates that there were Jews who, incorrectly, tended to view God as having physical attributes. This isn’t really surprising as we have a natural tendancy to place ideas/concepts in a structure with which we are familar. But to do so with God is a form of ignorance of the teachings of Judaism.

This is one of the reasons we are forbidden to represent God in any physical form, as it would promote a way of thinking of God as a physical being.

Then there is numbers 23:19: “God is not a man…”
I am sure there is a Christian explanation as to how this doesn’t mean God isn’t or can’t be an actual man. But as a Jew its meaning, or one of its meanings, is clear that God is not a physical being.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2 - this is off topic but you can probably answer it quickly.

As a Christian, I hear a lot about Pharisees and Saducees.

1. Did either of their positions “win” over time?
2. Does Judaism have the equivalent of the Catholic Magesterium to rule on disputes?

THe Pharisees are the fathers of rabbinic judaism, which is the judaism we know today. In large part because they were able to shift the focus from Temple services to study/rabbinic teaching. Given the destruction of the Temple, this obvioiusly has its advantages.

Regarding your second question, keeping in mind all my knowledge of the Catholic Magesterium comes from your post stating that they rule on disputes:

When the Temple stood, we had a court called the Sanhedrin, which would rule on vairous disputes. These days, there is no one central authrotiy that speaks for all the Jews. The rabbis in the orthodox communities issue their own opinions/findings regarding religious matters. These findings either find consensus and support or they don’t. So certain things may vary from community to community, depending on where the rabbis falls on certain issues.

I’ll give you an example of how this works by highlighting a burning Issue i briefly studied with my rabbi. My rabbi’s grandfather was a very big muckety muck in the Canadian Orthodox community. There was another big muckity muck who’s name I can’t recall. They ofent disagreed over issues of halacha (jewish law).

One issue that they did not see eye to eye with was whether one can brush their teeth on sabbath (I know you are thinking, ‘wow. How come this hasn’t gotten more attention from the mainstream media?’).

The crux of the issue was whether or not brushing one’s teeth constituted “scouring/scraping” the enamel. I type of “work” that would be prohibited. Or if it was only wasing the dirt from the tooth. Something that would be permitted. There was about three pages dedicated to this, listing the scriptual support for Rabbi Mendel’s position.

Now, the end result is you have jews who say it is ok and you have jews who say it is not.

With Conservative Jews, it works a little differently. When an issue comes up that requries a holding, it goes to a committe made up of 21 (I think) rabbis and 5 (I think) laypeople. subcommittes are formed and several responsa/tshuva. Then the committee votes on whether to accept the position as halacha. They only need 6 votes (I think, might be 7) for the responsa to be valid law.

This can result in two contrary opinions being accepted. It is then up to the rabbis of each community as to which view they will follow, either one being valid halacha.

 

[ricmat]

PART 1: THe Pharisees are the fathers of rabbinic judaism, which is the judaism we know today. In large part because they were able to shift the focus from Temple services to study/rabbinic teaching. Given the destruction of the Temple, this obvioiusly has its advantages.

…

PART 2: One issue that they did not see eye to eye with was whether one can brush their teeth on sabbath (I know you are thinking, ‘wow. How come this hasn’t gotten more attention from the mainstream media?’).

Thanks for part 1. I didn’t know the outcome!

Part 2 -

Still on part 2. You mentioned in an earlier post (couldn’t find it so I’m paraphrasing) about the Law needing to come more from the heart. This was one of the “faults” of the Pharisees according to the NT. They got bogged down in the letter of the law and ignored (or just didn’t recognize) the spirit of the law. I’ll bet they had the same teeth brushing discussion 2000 years ago

 

[JohnPaul0]

I’m a bit confused. I think both Jews and Christians agree that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. I don’t think Jesus was trying to prove that the Messiah couldn’t be descended from David. Was this a typo in your above quote?.

Yes, Jesus is Son of David by adoption, since Joseph was of the house of David. I had also heard that Mary is supposed to have been of the house of David, but I don’t think that Jewish thought would consider paternity to come from the woman.

So, yes, Jews and Christians would agree that, at least by adoption, Jesus was Son of David. What I am suggesting is that Jesus was trying to lead to pharisees to understand the fuller picture of his origin as Son of God.

Well, but we arrived at the conclusion that Jesus didn’t prove anything about himself only because we agree (I think) that the interpetation of Verse 110:1 is not correct. If it were correct, then Jesus would be making an argument that Plasm 110 would only have David calling his son (or descendant) God, if the Messiah were to be Divine.

Valke, what I have come to in this discussion is that YOUR exegesis of this passage IS correct, as I quote you below

“In the original Hebrew text the first word “Lord” in the Hebrew is a correct translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). But the second “Lord” is a mistranslation of the text. The second word “Lord” in the verse is a bad translation of the Hebrew word “ladonee”, which actually means “to my master” or “to my lord.” Adonee **never **refers to God.”

Where the confusion has come in is that someone said that this passage refers to Jesus as God, but that’s not the case. Here is a commentary footnote from my New American (Catholic) Bible on Matt 22:45:
“Since Matthew presents Jesus both as Messiah (Mt 16,16) and as Son of David ((Mt 1:1), [Jesus’ question in verse 45] is not meant to imply Jesus’ denial of Davidic sonship. It probably means that although he is the Son of David, he is someone greater, Son of Man and Son of God, and is recognized as greater by David who calls him my ‘lord.’”

If anyone knew scripture, it was the Pharasee leaders. For more than 2,000 years, the arguments between rabbis have been recorded and debated. You may not agree with what one or more rabbis had to say, but no one can deny that they were ever cautious about voicing their opinions on scripture! I’m just a guy who has been studing Judaism for a few years. And I can tell you that there’s nothing that Jesus is quoted as saying that would make me choose not to address it out of fear of being shown ignorant. How much more so would that apply to Jews who lived, breathed, and discussed Torah/Talmud/Prophets for hours and hours each day?
.

Again, two points:

1. I suggest that the pharisees’ pride prevented them from humbling themselves to ask questions of this outsider on a topic which they, despite their universally recognized knowledge of Scripture, didn’t understand.

Jesus never rams anything down anyone’s throat. He invited them to question him so as to come to a greater understanding of him. Sadly, their hatred and pride got in the way.

1. Matthew wrote this in Aramaic for Jewish readers, within the lifetime of those readers. If the pharisees were silenced, everyone would have heard about it and remembered. If they weren’t silenced, Matthew would have known and therefore would have had no reason to state it.

Analogy: Valke appears on David Letterman. Valke is so sharp and witty that Letterman doesn’t know what to say. He is silenced for the rest of the segment. That would be big news! Fifteen years later, JohnPaul writes “The History of TV Talk Shows,” and I refer to that night. If it happened, people will say, “Oh yeah! We all talked about it at work the next day.” If it didn’t, nobody reads JohnPaul’s book.

Cheers!

 

[Valke2]

This would explain why David Letterman continues to refuse to have me on his show.

 

[ricmat]

Where the confusion has come in is that someone said that this passage refers to Jesus as God, but that’s not the case. Here is a commentary footnote from my New American (Catholic) Bible on Matt 22:45:

“Since Matthew presents Jesus both as Messiah (Mt 16,16) and as Son of David ((Mt 1:1), [Jesus’ question in verse 45] is not meant to imply Jesus’ denial of Davidic sonship. It probably means that although he is the Son of David, he is someone greater, Son of Man and Son of God, and is recognized as greater by David who calls him my ‘lord.’”

Actually, a minor clarification. What I said originally was that the passage indicates that David’s son (a fleshy one) is also the Son of God. Not that Jesus per-se was the Son of God (at least in this verse).

My RSV-CE notes on Psalm 110 refer to the note on Psalm 2. “Together with Psalm 110, a royal Messianic Psalm, often applied to Jesus as Messiah in the New Testament.”

 

[JohnPaul0]

Actually, a minor clarification. What I said originally was that the passage indicates that David’s son (a fleshy one) is also the Son of God. Not that Jesus per-se was the Son of God (at least in this verse).

My RSV-CE notes on Psalm 110 refer to the note on Psalm 2. “Together with Psalm 110, a royal Messianic Psalm, often applied to Jesus as Messiah in the New Testament.”

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we’re all understanding each oth…

Sorry, gotta go. Letterman’s producer is on the phone for me again–I’m just so busy, though!

Eat your heart out, Valke!!

 

[CarolsDaughter]

Recently, I chatted with someone who was a Messianic Jew. When he started to describe the beliefs, it didn’t sound overtly Jewish, but it didn’t sound like Traditional Christianity (I figured it wouldn’t even be close). It actually resembled Protestantism, more than anything, with a mix of Jewish ceremonial holy days.

The more I researched, Messianic Jews claimed much of what some Baptists claim: they were the original group, but were persecuted by those “mean Roman Catholics.”

Can anyone here point me in a direction of what they really believe, and how it came about? Is anyone here a former Messianic Jew or a current one?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

The proper use of the term “messianic Jew” would be for a religious Jew who awaits the coming of the true Messiah.

However, there are Christian missionaries (Protestant evangelical) who misuse the term and apply it to Jews who have converted to their form of Christianity.

They are not Jews; they are converts to evangelical Protestantism. They ceased to be Jews by religion once they made such a conversion.

To learn why their beliefs are wrong according to traditional Judaism, see drazin.com

Any other questions, feel free to ask me. I have been a volunteer countermissionary for over 20 years and have heard all their theological arguments and have answered them all many times over.

 

[vocatio]

Bump…

Hey, you guys hi jacked my thread I guess you thought this was the one you meant to post on…Please come back to this one or I’ll have to do something extreme…tattle tell on you for hijacking my thread I want my thread back…

 

[Lapell]

The proper use of the term “messianic Jew” would be for a religious Jew who awaits the coming of the true Messiah.

However, there are Christian missionaries (Protestant evangelical) who misuse the term and apply it to Jews who have converted to their form of Christianity.

They are not Jews; they are converts to evangelical Protestantism. They ceased to be Jews by religion once they made such a conversion.

To learn why their beliefs are wrong according to traditional Judaism, see drazin.com

Any other questions, feel free to ask me. I have been a volunteer countermissionary for over 20 years and have heard all their theological arguments and have answered them all many times over.

I understand that Jews for Jesus also are Protestants but are slightly distinct from the Messianic Jews? What’s the difference between them? Is it a matter of one group in one Protestant denomination and the other one in another? This one’s for you, CarolsDaughter, but anyone else who can answer this is welcome to do so… Thanks and God bless you!

 

[vocatio]

jewsforjesus.org/publications/other/drazin
In the link Laura Barron acuses Drazin of the sin of omission. It’s an interesting article. A critical analysis of the book that Carolsdaughter listed.

I’m interested in getting a copy of the book:

Their Hollow Inheritance: A Comprehensive Refutation of the New Testament and Its Missionaries. Michoel Drazin. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 1990.

There is a number of sources I used to have and some that I would love to have…Got to work on my hebrew though.

 

[Lapell]

I decided to ask my question to Jews For Jesus. Thanks for having put their e-mail address! God bless you…

 

[Valke2]

let us know what they say.