The Messiah coming twice in the Old Testament?

[Dan_Defender]

Jewish thought has changed across the spectrum of denominations, including among the Orthodox. Critical thinking is not absent from Jews from any tradition, nor can it be argued that just because some Jews hold to a more traditional interpretation of the Jewish Bible that their modern view of how God deals with Jews has not changed.

Modern times are not the issue. The destruction of the second temple is, which is old history. If it was not punishment, then what was it? If the covenant protected the Jews up to that point, then something must have happened back then.

 

[BenYosef]

The Jews were subject to the same thing that the people in the Twin Towers at 9/11 were. They were no less rejected or protected by God. Evil forces rise and conquer, people search for answers and try to make sense of things. The Jews at that time believed it was because they sinned.

When the Holocaust came and went, the Jews looked back and we realized we needed to revise our thinking. We looked to the book of Job where it teaches that evil befalls even those who do not deserve it and doesn’t necessarily come from God at all. So the Temple didn’t necessarily fall because of any of the reasons the Jews described in the Scripture texts. If it did, then each time the Jews suffered, such as in the Holocaust, then it was God who was the source of these evils too, and the book of Job teaches that this is not so.

 

[Dan_Defender]

ok so your reasoning is that there was and there is no punishment but it is all more or less by chance? But then you have to take it the good with the bad, so the victories of Jews over the Egyptians in Exodus or over the Hitites, Amorites and others when they reached the promised land would be by chance too.

 

[BenYosef]

Jews don’t read these texts as literal history.

To illustrate and give but one of a myriad of examples, in Exodus during the plagues, the 5th plague kills all the animals of the Egyptians, but in the 7th plague of Hail and Fire, the Egyptians are said to have animals again, enough to leave some out to get killed by the falling hail. Then in the 10th plague that strikes all the Firstborn, the firstborn of animals of the Egyptians die, but they were all killed in the 5th and 7th plagues.

Now if that’s not enough, when the Jews do leave Egypt and are at the Sea, Pharaoh and his army chase after them in myriads of chariots pulled by–get this–horses. Where did the horses come from if all the animals have been killed over and over and over again?

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is not literal fact. The Jews have known this throughout our history. That is why on Passover we use the Haggadah and not the Scriptures as our liturgical guide for our Seders. We tell the Exodus story differently from what is different than what you read in the Bible, and we have done so always.

This doesn’t mean God is not behind what good has happened to our people. It just means that we often have to readjust or reconstruct our views as we learn new facts or new evidence comes to light. We can’t be people who prefer confirmation bias as a means to remain static so we can find ways to support views we currently hold and prefer. We need to be willing to face whatever is true, even if that means adjusting our current views and beliefs.

The battles described in the Scriptures aren’t literal either. We Jews are more than likely the actual people of the Fertile Crescent and not the conquerors as described in the Scriptures. Archaeology, DNA studies, cultural traditions, and even our secular and religious history outside of the Jewish Bible supports that we are the a combination of the people we speak of the Torah: the people from Abraham’s land of Ur, the Moabites, people from Egypt, and yes, even the Canaanites.

The stories of conquest may be legendary, much like the stories told in America about Paul Revere (who did not make a midnight ride and warn that the British were coming but was instead captured by the British) or that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776 (it was signed on August 2, 1776) or popular myths like the US was neutral regarding WWI until 1917 (it was actually commercial involved in supporting the war from its very beginning).

Whatever your points, they have nothing to do with the original posting. The Messiah is not mentioned at all by name in any of the original texts of the Jewish Bible. There are no prophecies that state, “the Messiah shall do thus and this,” etc.

As I pointed out in my first post, the Pontifical Vatican Council agrees that there are NO Old Testament texts that Jesus of Nazareth literally fulfills. The Catholic Church sees Jesus developing a new Messianic type that could not have been foreseen by the Jews and is not apparent in the Old Testament by any reading unless a new meaning is given it by the Church. These are the words of the Pontifical Vatican Council, not my own.

 

[Metis1]

Jews don’t read these texts as literal history.

Yep. It’s more “the meaning behind the words” . IOW, what is the author really trying to say.

 

[Metis1]

If it was not punishment, then what was it? If the covenant protected the Jews up to that point, then something must have happened back then.

That’s sortofan assumption that God causes literally every single thing to happen directly, so would we blame God for a child that’s the product of a miscarriage? Not likely, imo.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Very insightful post!

 

[HarryStotle]

Let us not forget that the Church is also responsible for the Spanish and Mexican Inquisitions which persecuted, tortured, and murdered thousands of Jews.

Let us not make up history. The Church NEVER persecuted, tortured, and murdered thousands of Jews. The Inquisitions dealt with Catholics and only Catholics who espoused heretical views. The fact that some of those Catholics were conversos who were formerly Jews does not add up to the charge that the Church persecuted or murdered Jews, as Jews.

With recent access to more and more source documents on what happened at the time and why, our understanding of the time period is rapidly changing. I wouldn’t rely on the accounts of past historians on this one, but would leave open conclusions based upon new data.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Correct. Some/many Orthodox Jews do believe in punishment by Gd due to mankind’s sins. Orthodox Jews, as a group, take literally the Biblical verse that Gd is the Creator of EVERYTHING, including evil events. HaSatan has little power in this regard. But they surely do not believe the destruction of the Second Temple was due to (some) Jews’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Instead, the suffering due to the diaspora is probably meant to strengthen them. Gd has frequently tested the Jewish people to make them more worthy and faithful, much as He tested Jesus Himself.

 

[Shikomu]

Sorry, you are wrong. Around 200,000 Jews were forcibly converted to Catholicism in the Spanish Inquisition. I don’t know what it is with Catholics constantly denying any historical wrongdoing by the Catholic Church. Now, admittedly no religious institution has a perfect track record. But at least own up to your church’s mistakes.

 

[Metis1]

Gd has frequently tested the Jewish people to make them more worthy and faithful, much as He tested Jesus Himself.

But the problem with that is that so many whom are undoubtedly innocent we are to believe God killed to “test” others? No can buy.

 

[Metis1]

Plus there were many Catholics complicit in the Holocaust, including some clergy. However, at least the Church has admitted that many of our own did indeed do this, and we have apologized and worked with the Jewish community to try and make certain it doesn’t happen again to any group.

BTW, I was sponsored on a three-week study in Poland and Israel on the Holocaust, whereas we had meetings with both Catholic and Jewish leaders, and there’s a great deal of cooperation that’s going on between us.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sorry, you are wrong. Around 200,000 Jews were forcibly converted to Catholicism in the Spanish Inquisition. I don’t know what it is with Catholics constantly denying any historical wrongdoing by the Catholic Church. Now, admittedly no religious institution has a perfect track record. But at least own up to your church’s mistakes.

Do you have an actual historical source for this, or do you want us to accept it purely on your say so?

 

[meltzerboy2]

It is the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint, for the most part, not necessarily mine. And the ultimate victory over suffering and death is remaining true to the faith and its Law.

 

[Metis1]

There’s no doubt that the orthodox tend to take a more literalistic approach but that’s not all inclusive. This is in part due to the “Oral Law” that eventually was written as part of the Talmud. And within the Talmudic approach, there’s very often elaborations and sometimes variations, and an orthodox Jew will spend more time studying the Talmud because it is more inclusive than just dealing with the Tanakh directly.

 

[HarryStotle]

Shikomu:

Sorry, you are wrong. Around 200,000 Jews were forcibly converted to Catholicism in the Spanish Inquisition. I don’t know what it is with Catholics constantly denying any historical wrongdoing by the Catholic Church. Now, admittedly no religious institution has a perfect track record. But at least own up to your church’s mistakes.

Do you have an actual historical source for this, or do you want us to accept it purely on your say so?

While we are waiting for you to document your sources, here is a rundown of the history of the relationship between the Church and Jews in Europe by Thomas Madden, who is widely recognized as a leading modern scholar on the Inquisitions and Medieval times.

A relevant paragraph or two.

According to Roman law, and therefore canon law, a Christian was forbidden to convert to Judaism. The problem was that throughout the Middle Ages secular authorities or local populations frequently threatened to attack or expel Jews unless they accepted baptism. Most Jews moved on, if they could. But many others would go to the baptismal font rather than lose their lives or property. When the persecution was over, these baptized Jews would return to Judaism or, fearing the Inquisition, exist in a netherworld between the two faiths. The Church did not recognize a forced conversion as valid, so long as the person repudiated baptism within a reasonable amount of time. Yet if someone received baptism without objection, even if they were acting in response to an implied or spoken threat, that was considered valid. In other words, although the popes were opposed to anti-Jewish violence, if it led to a silent acceptance of coercive baptism, they were forced to recognize the validity of the sacrament. It was the job of the inquisitors, therefore, to make certain that these new Christians remained Christian.

Of all medieval institutions, the Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions. Yet they happened anyway. England expelled all Jews in 1290; France in 1306; Spain in 1492. Europeans disliked the Jews for their affluence and for the closed nature of their society, which seemed to scorn Christians. Jews were commonly believed to use Christian blood in their rituals, to desecrate the host, and to engage in ritual murder. Kings increasingly saw Jews as nonsubjects and therefore detrimental to their kingdoms. When the Black Death arrived in the 14th century, the Jews were accused of polluting the wells or incurring divine disfavor through their rituals. Pope Clement VI issued bulls in 1348 repudiating these widely held beliefs, insisting that the Jews’ lives and property be respected. But his words, and those of his successors in the 14th century, were ignored. By the beginning of the 15th century, the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope.

The Church and the Jews in the Middle Ages

 

[HarryStotle]

Plus there were many Catholics complicit in the Holocaust, including some clergy. However, at least the Church has admitted that many of our own did indeed do this, and we have apologized and worked with the Jewish community to try and make certain it doesn’t happen again to any group.

Then I think it is only proper not to merely tell much less than half of the story, but to put that information in context.

Catholic Martyrs of the Holocaust

Many thousands of Catholic men, women, and children died in concentration camps, SS and Gestapo torture chambers, or in fields and villages across Europe for the “crime” of proclaiming the truth to one of the most evil regimes in human history.

www.catholic.com

Your post makes it sound like someone in the future would be correct in claiming that “many Catholics” were complicit in promoting abortions during the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

While technically true – people like Kaine, Pelosi, etc., are Catholic and are promoting abortion – it doesn’t paint a true picture of how many Catholics, and the Church Magisterium, actively oppose abortion and work to eradicate it.

 

[Metis1]

While technically true – people like Kaine, Pelosi, etc., are Catholic and are promoting abortion

That is not true as they are not “promoting abortion” but feel that women should be allowed to have a choice. Plus there’s the issue of imposing religious opinions in a secular society.

 

[Metis1]

Then I think it is only proper not to merely tell much less than half of the story, but to put that information in context.

Actually I did put it in context, which is also what I did when I taught a three-week unit on the Holocaust that included other acts of genocide. It’s important as Catholics to admit fault where there clearly was fault versus denying it, and the Church has done a good job, imo, in doing just that.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

While technically true – people like Kaine, Pelosi, etc., are Catholic and are promoting abortion

That is not true as they are not “promoting abortion” but feel that women should be allowed to have a choice. Plus there’s the issue of imposing religious opinions in a secular society.

A Catholic who thinks any human being has a right to commit an intrinsically evil act is promoting a morality which is contrary to Church doctrine.

Your objection misses my point entirely. Let me repeat it.

The fact that some or even many nominal Catholics hold or support a position does not mean the Church does.

Would someone in the future be correct in claiming that because “many Catholics” were complicit in promoting the “rights” of women to have abortions during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that fact, by itself, implies that the Church was guilty of a moral failure?

I don’t see how it does.

The same with the fact that some or even many Catholics, acting on their own autonomy, supported the Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s.