typology and Judaism of today

[JimO]

Believe me. I don’t claim to have a complete view of christanity. And I don’t really want to debate the qualifications of the Messiah or why I don’t believe Jesus met them. However, while I have not read all the soruce material, I’ve read a fair amount of commentary on the source material. Enough to be able to hold a conversation.

That’s fine and, I might add, you do much better than I would trying to debate with Jews over current beliefs. I think the OP wasn’t real clear on what he/she meant. For example, Jesus is viewed as the “new Adam”. Paul states in one of his letters that as through one man’s disobedience sin entered the world and all were made sinners, through one man’s obedience all were justified.

I noted that you stated that because the New Testament states that Joseph was not Jesus’ natural father, the Jews reject His lineage as being that of David’s. Why would you give recognition to this particular point in the New Testament and no other? The reason Joseph was not his biological father is because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, either Jesus was the son of Joseph and was of the lineage of David or he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Son of God.

 

[Valke2]

Judaism, like Christianity, is not sola scriputura. The idea of the Olam haBa (the World to Come), is accepted as basic Jewish belief, although not stated in scripture. One great book that explains the concept extensively is the Derech HaShem, written in the 17th century by the great Rabbi Chaim Luzzato (I think that’s how it’s spelled).

If you believe that Jews enjoy the closest relationship w/ G-d, you will become Jewish. I don’t see how you can get around this.

I believe in Olam HaBa. I just don’t believe it involves the destruction of this world.

 

[Valke2]

How is it minor?

First, because it refers to “a” messiah. Not “The” Messiah. The teaching, recorded in tractate Sukkah, makes reference to two messiahs. One is Mashiach ben Yosef (“Messiah son of Joseph”). The other is Mashiach ben David.

The former is the son of Joseph (son of Jacob, not Joseph and Mary). He is viewed as a kind of forerunner to the Davidic Messiah and he has a specific mission. His specific role was to defeat the power of “Esau,” Jacob’s brother. In Jewish tradition, Esau is a figure for Rome. This is based on a reading from the prophet Obadiah, who states that “the house of Jacob will be fire, the house of JOseph a flame, and the house of Esau for straw; and they will ignite them and devour them. There will be no survivor to the house of Esau, fo rthe Lord has spoken.”

So, since Jesus was not from the house of Joseph, he could not be the messiah referred to in the Talmud. ANd since he did not even attempt to upset the power of Rome, he could not be the messiah ben joseph.

 

[Valke2]

I noted that you stated that because the New Testament states that Joseph was not Jesus’ natural father, the Jews reject His lineage as being that of David’s. Why would you give recognition to this particular point in the New Testament and no other? The reason Joseph was not his biological father is because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, either Jesus was the son of Joseph and was of the lineage of David or he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Son of God.

I didn’t address the aspect of Jesus being conceived in the HOly Spirit because it is not something Jews believe. It is not a condition that the Jewish messiah has to fulfill. Obviously, Jews don’t believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy spirit. THat is a Christian belief. I was answering as to why Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[meedo]

Shalom (Peace) Everyone,

I can’t help but realize that much of Jewish expectation for a soon to be coming Messiah is similar to Islamic ideals with Muhammad (pbuh) and the legend of the Mahdi.

Is there any common ground shared between Islam and Judaism with these ideas?

Thank you.

Shalom.

salam ,

Muhammed wasn’t the Messiah nor Al Mahdi is the Messiah.

There is a true Messiah. He is a human . He will usher peace on earth. At his time people will know the One God because his coming will eleminate any doubts and differences between humans about who is God and thus people will see finally who is right and who is wrong and earth will know again the one true God. Thr peoblem is that his coming ( according to Islam ) will not help people who have been disbelievers before. Because his coming is a Miracle and by his revelation of the Truth of God . This early test is only on its way to Judgement day . When the Messiah comes, Disbelievers become believers but their belief is useless, sort of like Pharouhs belief in the God of Moses and Aron when he was drinking sea water as he drown .

Another problem is that there will come a False Messiah that is also a Jew , who will be at the time a Military leader and a king and will have battles and will win. A large section of Jews will follow him as their messiah . he is the greatest test to humanity.

Modern day Jews in their belief in God are Monothiests. The problem is in the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. But i dont blame them if Jesus the presented to them is some sort of God incarnate .

salam

 

[Valke2]

Shalom (Peace) Everyone,

I can’t help but realize that much of Jewish expectation for a soon to be coming Messiah is similar to Islamic ideals with Muhammad (pbuh) and the legend of the Mahdi.

Is there any common ground shared between Islam and Judaism with these ideas?

Thank you.

Shalom.

I’m not familar with the legend of Mahdi. What does it hold?

 

[exoflare]

Modern day Jews in their belief in God are Monothiests. The problem is in the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. But i dont blame them if Jesus the presented to them is some sort of God incarnate .

As opposed to the Jesus who said, “Wait, I take it back… I’m NOT God, so you don’t have to sentence me for blasphemy!”

If Muslims believe that he was the Messiah, they have some explaining to do on why they deny a lot of the stuff that he claimed for himself. At least the Jews are honest enough with themselves to make their judgement of Jesus based on his actual words and deeds, and not on some strawman version of the same guy invented 600 years later.

 

[meedo]

As opposed to the Jesus who said, “Wait, I take it back… I’m NOT God, so you don’t have to sentence me for blasphemy!”

If Muslims believe that he was the Messiah, they have some explaining to do on why they deny a lot of the stuff that he claimed for himself. At least the Jews are honest enough with themselves to make their judgement of Jesus based on his actual words and deeds, and not on some strawman version of the same guy invented 600 years later.

Well,

From his actual words and deeds he said nothing different than what Muslims believe.

If any body wants to take any bodys words out of context then definetly he will do it no matter how silly it looks. God doesnt play games with us nor he base our faith in him on some riddles and mysteries. Why?

Because he will Judge us . And he is fair. And the result of his judgement has no appeal . Its as well EVERLASTING!

I wouldnt worship someone who outrightly denied that he is good and ONLY GOD is good! Such outright denial of him bieng God would leave no escape from the question on Judgement day.

oh and by the way , Muslims are honest too.

salam

 

[inJESUS]

Well,

From his actual words and deeds he said nothing different than what Muslims believe.

 

[exoflare]

Well,

From his actual words and deeds he said nothing different than what Muslims believe.

The parts where he claims to be God kind of pose a problem, though.

meedo:

If any body wants to take any bodys words out of context then definetly he will do it no matter how silly it looks. God doesnt play games with us nor he base our faith in him on some riddles and mysteries. Why?

This is all irrelevant.

meedo:

Because he will Judge us . And he is fair. And the result of his judgement has no appeal . Its as well EVERLASTING!

Again, you’re completely off-subject…

meedo:

I wouldnt worship someone who outrightly denied that he is good and ONLY GOD is good! Such outright denial of him bieng God would leave no escape from the question on Judgement day.

I know the verse you’re talking about. Nowhere in it does Jesus deny that he is God. Don’t start accusing others of taking verses “out of context” and then right afterwards throw that tired old argument at me. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

meedo:

oh and by the way , Muslims are honest too.

salam

Some are honest, some are ignorant… but never both at once.

 

[exoflare]

why is it that you keep saying that Jesus denied he is good? Jesus said i am the GOOD shepheard…so?

He tries taking the verse where Jesus says “only God is good” and implying that somehow it must mean that Jesus is saying he is not God. Anybody who has taken an entry-level logic class knows his conclusion doesn’t even begin to follow from the premises. That’s why you call stuff like that “jumping to conclusions”.

 

[inJESUS]

He tries taking the verse where Jesus says “only God is good” and implying that somehow it must mean that Jesus is saying he is not God. Anybody who has taken an entry-level logic class knows his conclusion doesn’t even begin to follow from the premises. That’s why you call stuff like that “jumping to conclusions”.

well the more i read the more i realize those who corrupted the Bible were desperately unprofessional …if they wanted to make Jesus God, why leave such a sentence

 

[exoflare]

well the more i read the more i realize those who corrupted the Bible were desperately unprofessional …if they wanted to make Jesus God, why leave such a sentence

I don’t think it matters anyway - the passage doesn’t even imply that Jesus is denying to be God. Those who say it does are just reading things into Jesus’ words that simply aren’t there.

The closest example I can think of at the moment, is when some Protestants think that since Mary had no relations “until” Jesus was born, that means she must have afterward. In both cases, the meaning of the words is stretched beyond certainty.

 

[meedo]

I don’t think it matters anyway - the passage doesn’t even imply that Jesus is denying to be God. Those who say it does are just reading things into Jesus’ words that simply aren’t there.

The closest example I can think of at the moment, is when some Protestants think that since Mary had no relations “until” Jesus was born, that means she must have afterward. In both cases, the meaning of the words is stretched beyond certainty.

I think that Jesus never denied bieng God because no body at his time remotely considered that option as a valid one!! He never denied bieng an alien either !

What sort of reasoning is that ?! if Mary didnt have a relation befroe having Jesus then she could or couldnt have after she gave birth to him. But she certainly didnt before giving birth to him. Same with Jesus in that Phrase, he denies himself bieng good because only God ( which clearly is somebody else other than himself!) is Good. Now i dont think he would give the following explanation for the man who vcame asking him

‘’ why do you call me good , only God is good. And in case you didnt understand God is not me !!!

I guess Jesus assumed that the man who asked him would have some understanding that he should call some other entity good and not him. Some other entity that is Known to be God for the Jews.

again , it is clearer for me that there is no retort on Jesus at Judgement day for these false allegations. The man is clean .

salam

 

[exoflare]

I think that Jesus never denied bieng God because no body at his time remotely considered that option as a valid one!! He never denied bieng an alien either !

What sort of reasoning is that ?! if Mary didnt have a relation befroe having Jesus then she could or couldnt have after she gave birth to him. But she certainly didnt before giving birth to him. Same with Jesus in that Phrase, he denies himself bieng good because only God ( which clearly is somebody else other than himself!) is Good. Now i dont think he would give the following explanation for the man who vcame asking him

‘’ why do you call me good , only God is good. And in case you didnt understand God is not me !!!

I guess Jesus assumed that the man who asked him would have some understanding that he should call some other entity good and not him. Some other entity that is Known to be God for the Jews.

again , it is clearer for me that there is no retort on Jesus at Judgement day for these false allegations. The man is clean .

salam

What is it with you and changing the subject? Bringing up that he didn’t deny being an alien is too ridiculous. He didn’t claim to be one either, as he claimed to be God, so it’s irrelevant like most of the other stuff you bring up here.

 

[inJESUS]

Meedo, did you read that passage? or you just read the first sentence and said Aha got you !? Jesus in this passage tells the man that the commandmants are good, but there is more if you want salvation : there is more than the Law of do and don’t! there is God! that’s why Jesus told him: you are following the Law, bravo, but if you want to be PERFECT as you personally want, then follow God, that is, follow ME, by selling all your properties , that is, your “god” and follow GOD (ME), because even if you follow the Law, your “god” is your money. What did the man who “followed the Law since a child” do when Jesus told him to sell his money(god) and follow Him? he rejected Jesus’ offer . And what did Jesus respond?“How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
what did Jesus mean? that rich men are going to hell? of course not, but that rich men who have their money as “god” instead of God will not be easy for them to inherit eternal life even if they follow the Law, as this rich man. The first commandmant is love God, and this man was loving “god”, even though he was following the dos and donts of the Law.

Again, Jesus said : "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel
30
who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age.

You do not leave everything for the sake of a human Meedo, but for the sake of God.

So from all this extremely important passage, you chose the first sentence and neglected it’s contextual meaning.

 

[vernet1]

First, because it refers to “a” messiah. Not “The” Messiah. The teaching, recorded in tractate Sukkah, makes reference to two messiahs. One is Mashiach ben Yosef (“Messiah son of Joseph”). The other is Mashiach ben David.

The former is the son of Joseph (son of Jacob, not Joseph and Mary). He is viewed as a kind of forerunner to the Davidic Messiah and he has a specific mission. His specific role was to defeat the power of “Esau,” Jacob’s brother. In Jewish tradition, Esau is a figure for Rome. This is based on a reading from the prophet Obadiah, who states that “the house of Jacob will be fire, the house of JOseph a flame, and the house of Esau for straw; and they will ignite them and devour them. There will be no survivor to the house of Esau, fo rthe Lord has spoken.”

So, since Jesus was not from the house of Joseph, he could not be the messiah referred to in the Talmud. ANd since he did not even attempt to upset the power of Rome, he could not be the messiah ben joseph.

Although it is certainly true that most of the details of Messiah ben Joseph in the Talmud don’t match with the life of Jesus, there are certain striking parrallels.

Roy H. Schoeman writes about this extensively in his book, Salvation is from the Jews

The mission of Messiah ben Joseph was to be defeated, and in particular, peirced, by his enemies.

The following passage from the Talmud identifies Zechariah as talking about Messiah ben Joseph: “What is the cause of the mourning in Zechariah 12:10]…The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph” - Sukkah 52a

Joseph Klausner , a Jewish Talmudic scholar, writes that “the idea of the ‘suffering servant’ has its source in this verse of Zechariah together with Isaiah 53”

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (KJV)

Other reasons exist for connecting Jesus with the Messiah ben Joseph.

Like Joseph, he was falsly condemned for a crime exactly opposite to his virtue. Joseph was condemned for attempted rape precisely because he refused to sleep with Potiphar’s wife. Jesus was condemned for blasphemy precisely because he WAS G-d’s son.

Additionally, the final result of Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery and attempting to kill him was that “all the earth” (Gen. 41:57) was saved from death.

 

[zerinus]

Meedo, did you read that passage? or you just read the first sentence and said Aha got you !? Jesus in this passage tells the man that the commandmants are good, but there is more if you want salvation : there is more than the Law of do and don’t! there is God! that’s why Jesus told him: you are following the Law, bravo, but if you want to be PERFECT as you personally want, then follow God, that is, follow ME, by selling all your properties , that is, your “god” and follow GOD (ME), because even if you follow the Law, your “god” is your money. What did the man who “followed the Law since a child” do when Jesus told him to sell his money(god) and follow Him? he rejected Jesus’ offer . And what did Jesus respond?“How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
what did Jesus mean? that rich men are going to hell? of course not, but that rich men who have their money as “god” instead of God will not be easy for them to inherit eternal life even if they follow the Law, as this rich man. The first commandmant is love God, and this man was loving “god”, even though he was following the dos and donts of the Law.

Again, Jesus said : "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel
30
who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age.

You do not leave everything for the sake of a human Meedo, but for the sake of God.

So from all this extremely important passage, you chose the first sentence and neglected it’s contextual meaning.

Hey, inJesus, did you know that that painting in your signature is taken from a large LDS mural?

zerinus

 

[Valke2]

Although it is certainly true that most of the details of Messiah ben Joseph in the Talmud don’t match with the life of Jesus, there are certain striking parrallels.

Theologically, you could stop right there. If most of the details of Messiah ben Joseph conflict with the details of Jesus’ life, then what is the point of discussing further whether or not Jesus was the messiah spoken of in the Talmud? He wasn’t.

Roy H. Schoeman writes about this extensively in his book, Salvation is from the Jews

The mission of Messiah ben Joseph was to be defeated, and in particular, peirced, by his enemies.

This may be written extensively by Shoeman. It is incorrect. It makes assumptions that are just not supported by the Tanach. Especially saying that his mission particularly called for being pierced.

Joseph Klausner , a Jewish Talmudic scholar, writes that “the idea of the ‘suffering servant’ has its source in this verse of Zechariah together with Isaiah 53”

suffering servant = Israel.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,

the use of the word pierced is a mistranslation. This has been shown again and again. A simple Google should give the details.

Like Joseph, he was falsly condemned for a crime exactly opposite to his virtue. Joseph was condemned for attempted rape precisely because he refused to sleep with Potiphar’s wife. Jesus was condemned for blasphemy precisely because he WAS G-d’s son.

Putting it kindly, that’s pretty weak, given that Joseph ends up being the number two guy in Egypt and Jesus ends up on the cross. Only by first accepting that Jesus is God and then looking backwards can you make such a connection. There is zero evidence in the story of Joseph and his brothers to support anything about Jesus.

Additionally, the final result of Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery and attempting to kill him was that “all the earth” (Gen. 41:57) was saved from death.

Gen. 41:57: So all the world came to Joseph in Egypt to procure rations, for the famine had become severe throughout the world.

First, this was not the “final result.” It occurs in the middle of the story, before Jacob sends his sons to Egypt for supplies. The use of the term “all the world” = “all the land”. Again, this says nothing at all about a messiah, about Jesus or about redemption in this life. It also doesn’t say anything about being saved from death. If the KJV says that, I would think it is a poor translation. Again, the only way one can possible argue that this refers to anything about Jesus is to start with the assumption that Jesus is the messiah and work backwards. There’s nothing in the text that gives one any hint that it is discussing any future event.

Finally, even if the details of the messiah ben Joseph did not contradict the details of Jesus’ life, which they do; and even if you think all my arguments are hooey, the Messiah ben Joseph isn’t the headline act anyway. He is not the messiah that hearalds a messianac age. If one was to argue that Jesus was this man, to also argue that he was God would be futile. Unless you are going to take the position that God as messiah ben Joseph plays second fiddle to messiah ben David.

 

[inJESUS]

Hey, inJesus, did you know that that painting in your signature is taken from a large LDS mural?

zerinus

you mean Jesus’ picture? i took it from a Catholic site. What is LDS mural?