What is the view of the Jewish Faith towards Christ?

[Kaninchen]

No, that isn’t what I’ve said. What I said was that jews in particular are bound to investigate the matter, nothing more and nothing less.

That statement is purely a matter of perspective - in what sense are we ‘bound to investigate’? Why are we more ‘bound to investigate’ than you are ‘bound to investigate’ Islam?

You may say that it’s on the basis of what the NT says, but that argument would just as validly be made by a Muslim to a Christian on the basis of the Qu’ran.

 

[jmj1984]

That statement is purely a matter of perspective - in what sense are we ‘bound to investigate’? Why are we more ‘bound to investigate’ than you are ‘bound to investigate’ Islam?

You may say that it’s on the basis of what the NT says, but that argument would just as validly be made by a Muslim to a Christian on the basis of the Qu’ran.

I’ve already pointed on what basis and why the comparison you make is not a comparison of like for like.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve already pointed on what basis and why the comparison you make is not a comparison of like for like.

‘Pointing out’ is not argument, it’s assertion. Muslims argue that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupted and the only pure scripture is the ‘recitation’ that is the Qu’ran, so it’s pretty like-for-like in the fulfilment.of God’s purpose theme.

And, I’m afraid, you’re still stuck with the problem of establishing the NT as anything other than literature.

 

[jmj1984]

‘Pointing out’ is not argument, it’s assertion. Muslims argue that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupted and the only pure scripture is the ‘recitation’ that is the Qu’ran, so it’s pretty like-for-like in the fulfilment.of God’s purpose theme.

And, I’m afraid, you’re still stuck with the problem of establishing the NT as anything other than literature.

I really don’t see where you think this is going to go

Christianity claims that Jesus is the prophesied messiah, that he is the fulfillment of the prophets of the law and in a word of the old testament covenant. There is no like for like between that and Islam.

If someone makes those claims and you are still waiting for a messiah or believe that Jesus wasn’t the messiah (no one seriously disputes that a jesus of nazareth lived at the time of the Jesus of the gospels) you should at least investigate the matter. This duty is especially pressing for Jews because of the aforesaid reasons and the biblical prophecies.

As for establishing the NT as anything but literature that is another matter altogether and the subject for another thread. Treating them as just another piece of literature a la ‘war and peace’ and therefore irrelevant would seem to be incredibly foolish however as ‘War and Peace’ does not make the claims the NT does nor put itself forward as the divine word of God.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In the process of investigating, one of the matters I have difficulty reconciling is the Christian belief that the Messiah is equivalent to the Son of G-d. Nowhere in the Masoretic text (perhaps more so in the Septuagint) of the Hebrew Bible have I found evidence that the Messiah is supposed to be divine.

[BIBLEDRB]Daniel 7:9-14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Isa. 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]
(Which means, “G-d with us.”)
[BIBLEDRB]Isa. 9:6[/BIBLEDRB]
(He is literally called “G-d the Mighty” or “Mighty G-d.”)
Notice that

Another challenge for me is that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that the Messiah is supposed to fulfill. These include world peace between the nations, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the observance of Torah Law on a worldwide basis.

Jesus does fulfill these prophecies, but not through the temporal order. The Temple He builds is not made of stone, but people. The peace He gives is not an end to war but an end to sin, sin being the cause of war and death in general. The Law He gives is not the Levitical external observances (which, like the temporal Davidic kingdom, is temporary) but that which is to be written on the hearts of all (Jer. 31:31-33), namely:

[BIBLEDRB]Dt 6:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 19:18[/BIBLEDRB]

These are the two great commandments that Jesus references as being the entire Law and Prophets.

A third problem is the idea of the Second Coming, which for the Messiah is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.

This is the First Coming:
[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 11:10-12[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Second:
[BIBLEDRB]Zechariah 14:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]

We know that some time must pass between the two because the nations (i.e. the Gentiles) are given time to inquire as to the truth before they are judged. How much time that is will not be revealed to us.

And finally, the concept of a Savior, a Redeemer of the sins of humanity, runs counter to the Hebrew Bible’s prohibition against vicarious atonement.

The Levitical priesthood is entirely based on vicarious atonement; Aaron and his successors offered the sacrifices for the atonement of all of Israel, see e.g. Lev. 19:22.

Even more problematic, it is not a concept associated with the Messiah. Moses reiterates that atonement is a continual process and not so difficult to achieve by one’s own efforts in following the Law, however imperfectly.

I just cannot see the High Priest putting his hand on the scapegoat and recounting every single sin of every single Israelite for the past year (Lev. 16:21). Yom Kippur would be over long before he was anywhere near done. The scapegoat ritual, the purification rite of the red heifer, the Passover sacrifice, and many other Levitical rituals were impossible to fulfill perfectly because the victims offered were always imperfect (the slightest blemish or bent hair disqualified the ram, heifer, etc.) or the sins of Israel were just too numerous. The point of the Mosaic Law was to demonstrate to men the distance between man and G-d could not be bridged except from G-d’s side. Even if G-d gave man the tools with which to address his sinfulness, man would still fail. That is why the work of salvation would have to be accomplished by G-d.

IOW, the notion of universal redemption and salvation from original sin is foreign to Judaism.

It wasn’t foreign to the Tanakh.

Starting at the beginning, we see the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who causes humanity to begin to sin. G-d’s response is to promise universal redemption by promising to act in such a way that will put enmity between a Woman and Her Offspring and the serpent:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

The Woman in question cannot be Eve, because Eve’s disobedience is what caused sin to enter into the world; Eve was clearly not at enmity with the serpent. The Woman is someone to come in the future.

In the Book of Job, the serpent is shown to be not a generalized concept of evil, but an individual: a fallen angel, an accuser and slanderer, an adversary (“satan” from the Hebrew, literally ‘adversary’) of humanity.
[BIBLEDRB]Job 1:6-12[/BIBLEDRB]

The same description of this adversary appears in Zechariah.
Zechariah 3:1 (NRSV)
Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

In the Chronicles it is shown that this adversary (“satan”) is the one responsible for tempting Israel into sin:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Chronicles 21:1[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Psalms make clear that the original disobedience of man has caused the sin of Adam to enter into every person (excepting only the Woman through whom the promise would be fulfilled).
Psalm 51:3-5 (NRSV)

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgement.
5 Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.

(Continued in Part 2…)

 

[Cat_Herder]

In the process of investigating, one of the matters I have difficulty reconciling is the Christian belief that the Messiah is equivalent to the Son of G-d. Nowhere in the Masoretic text (perhaps more so in the Septuagint) of the Hebrew Bible have I found evidence that the Messiah is supposed to be divine.

Actually, the Tanakh is filled with such evidence.

[BIBLEDRB]Daniel 7:9-14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Isa. 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]
(Which means, “G-d with us.”)
[BIBLEDRB]Isa. 9:6[/BIBLEDRB]
(He is literally called “G-d the Mighty” or “Mighty G-d.”)

Another challenge for me is that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that the Messiah is supposed to fulfill. These include world peace between the nations, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the observance of Torah Law on a worldwide basis.

Jesus does fulfill these prophecies, but not through the temporal order. The Temple He builds is not made of stone, but people. The peace He gives is not an end to war but an end to sin, sin being the cause of war and death in general. The Law He gives is not the Levitical external observances (which, like the temporal Davidic kingdom, is temporary) but that which is to be written on the hearts of all.

[BIBLEDRB]Jer. 31:31-33[/BIBLEDRB]

The Law to be so written is:

[BIBLEDRB]Dt 6:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 19:18[/BIBLEDRB]

These are the two great commandments that Jesus references as being the entire Law and Prophets.

A third problem is the idea of the Second Coming, which for the Messiah is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible.

This is the First Coming:
[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 11:10-12[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Second:
[BIBLEDRB]Zechariah 14:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]

We know that some time must pass between the two because the nations (i.e. the Gentiles) are given time to inquire as to the truth before they are judged. How much time that is will not be revealed to us.

And finally, the concept of a Savior, a Redeemer of the sins of humanity, runs counter to the Hebrew Bible’s prohibition against vicarious atonement.

The Levitical priesthood is entirely based on vicarious atonement; Aaron and his successors offered the sacrifices for the atonement of all of Israel, see e.g. Lev. 19:22.

Even more problematic, it is not a concept associated with the Messiah. Moses reiterates that atonement is a continual process and not so difficult to achieve by one’s own efforts in following the Law, however imperfectly.

I just cannot see the High Priest putting his hand on the scapegoat and recounting every single sin of every single Israelite for the past year (Lev. 16:21). Yom Kippur would be over long before he was anywhere near done. The scapegoat ritual, the purification rite of the red heifer, the Passover sacrifice, and many other Levitical rituals were impossible to fulfill perfectly because the victims offered were always imperfect (the slightest blemish or bent hair disqualified the ram, heifer, etc.) or the sins of Israel were just too numerous. The point of the Mosaic Law was to demonstrate to men the distance between man and G-d could not be bridged except from G-d’s side. Even if G-d gave man the tools with which to address his sinfulness, man would still fail. That is why the work of salvation would have to be accomplished by G-d.

IOW, the notion of universal redemption and salvation from original sin is foreign to Judaism.

It wasn’t foreign to the Tanakh.

Starting at the beginning, we see the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who causes humanity to begin to sin. G-d’s response is to promise universal redemption by promising to act in such a way that will put enmity between a Woman and Her Offspring and the serpent, and that through them, the serpent will be destroyed although the Offspring will be wounded (i.e. the crucifixion):

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

The Woman in question cannot be Eve, because Eve’s disobedience is what caused sin to enter into the world; Eve was clearly not at enmity with the serpent. The Woman is someone to come in the future.

In the Book of Job, the serpent is shown to be not a generalized concept of evil, but an individual: a fallen angel, an accuser and slanderer, an adversary (“satan” from the Hebrew, literally ‘adversary’) of humanity.
[BIBLEDRB]Job 1:6-12[/BIBLEDRB]

The same description of this adversary appears in Zechariah.
Zechariah 3:1 (NRSV)
Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

In the Chronicles it is shown that this adversary (“satan”) is the one responsible for tempting Israel into sin:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Chronicles 21:1[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Psalms make clear that the original disobedience of man has caused the sin of Adam to enter into every person (excepting only the Woman through whom the original Gen. 3:15 promise would be fulfilled).
Psalm 51:3-5 (NRSV)

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgement.
5 Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.

The New Covenant established by Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the original Genesis 3:15 promise. The Woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary; Her Offspring is Jesus Christ, Immanuel, Mighty God. The serpent’s head is crushed at Calvary (the ‘place of the skull’).

(Continued in Part 2)

 

[Cat_Herder]

(Continued from Part 1)

(And it does not erase the future probability of sin according to Catholic teaching either.)

The future probability of sin will not be done away with until the devil and the wounded temporal order of the world is done away with. That will only be accomplished in the World to Come. Until then, G-d waits for people to choose life (Deuteronomy 30:19) so as to form a people out of them; G-d provides all people with grace under the New Covenant so that they can make the choice to reject sin freely. If G-d was to eliminate the future probability of sin before each person has had a chance to choose life or death, then G-d would be abrogating the free will of humans, and G-d is not willing to do that. (This is the “inquiry period” referenced in Is. 11:10-12.) We do not know when the day of judgment will come, but we do know that it is coming.

Now I have found out many interesting things in the course of my studying, such as that Jesus is thought to be the reconstructed Temple Himself; the so-called Eternal Covenant, reiterated by G-d to Moses many times, has transformed into a New Covenant though it does not exactly break with the Old Covenant, but instead fulfills and elaborates upon it; the Old Covenant can be compared to an instructional manual for a people who would not be able to understand the message of Jesus at that time in history, IOW the religious revelation of Christianity has been incremental, starting with Judaism; the message of the Gospels expands salvation to the Gentile on an equal footing with the Jew; there are parallels between Jesus and Adam, between the Virgin Mary and Noah’s Ark; and many other enlightening pieces of information. Is this all another, deeper layer of interpretation of Judaism or a gradual departure from the teachings of Judaism? I’m evaluating this and more in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

The notion that G-d’s revelation and covenants with men have gradually expanded is something that is plain in the Torah. The first promise is that of redemption in Genesis 3:15, then the Noachide covenant, then the Abrahamic covenant, then the Mosaic. In each successive covenant, the parties to the covenant gradually expand from one man and one woman to families, then a patriarch and his descendants, and then a nation. Each time the covenant is expanded, G-d builds upon what was established before. This is what happens with the Christian New Covenant: once the world has developed to a point that all peoples are ready to be reconciled with G-d, G-d fulfills the promise made in Genesis 3:15 by setting up a Woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to be at total opposition with the devil and by taking on a human nature through Her.

The progressive revelation of the covenants is called typology. Here is an article that explains it further.

May G-d bless you and guide you as you continue to study.

 

[meltzerboy]

(Continued from Part 1)

The future probability of sin will not be done away with until the devil and the wounded temporal order of the world is done away with. That will only be accomplished in the World to Come. Until then, G-d waits for people to choose life (Deuteronomy 30:19) so as to form a people out of them; G-d provides all people with grace under the New Covenant so that they can make the choice to reject sin freely. If G-d was to eliminate the future probability of sin before each person has had a chance to choose life or death, then G-d would be abrogating the free will of humans, and G-d is not willing to do that. (This is the “inquiry period” referenced in Is. 11:10-12.) We do not know when the day of judgment will come, but we do know that it is coming.

The notion that G-d’s revelation and covenants with men have gradually expanded is something that is plain in the Torah. The first promise is that of redemption in Genesis 3:15, then the Noachide covenant, then the Abrahamic covenant, then the Mosaic. In each successive covenant, the parties to the covenant gradually expand from one man and one woman to families, then a patriarch and his descendants, and then a nation. Each time the covenant is expanded, G-d builds upon what was established before. This is what happens with the Christian New Covenant: once the world has developed to a point that all peoples are ready to be reconciled with G-d, G-d fulfills the promise made in Genesis 3:15 by setting up a Woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to be at total opposition with the devil and by taking on a human nature through Her.

The progressive revelation of the covenants is called typology. Here is an article that explains it further.

May G-d bless you and guide you as you continue to study.

Thank you for the generosity and sincerity of the information you have supplied. I appreciate your willingness to help in a charitable way. Some of the verses, as you may know, are controversial, particularly those from Isaiah and Zechariah. A lot hinges on translation from the Hebrew, as well as story context concerning what exactly these prophets were talking about. But that’s a topic for another thread. I also appreciate the interesting perspective you provide on the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus.

 

[Kaninchen]

I really don’t see where you think this is going to go

Christianity claims that Jesus is the prophesied messiah, that he is the fulfillment of the prophets of the law and in a word of the old testament covenant. There is no like for like between that and Islam.

If someone makes those claims and you are still waiting for a messiah or believe that Jesus wasn’t the messiah (no one seriously disputes that a jesus of nazareth lived at the time of the Jesus of the gospels) you should at least investigate the matter. This duty is especially pressing for Jews because of the aforesaid reasons and the biblical prophecies.

As for establishing the NT as anything but literature that is another matter altogether and the subject for another thread. Treating them as just another piece of literature a la ‘war and peace’ and therefore irrelevant would seem to be incredibly foolish however as ‘War and Peace’ does not make the claims the NT does nor put itself forward as the divine word of God.

There are a couple of themes here that need considering. One is whether one has to follow up each and every claim anybody makes (Jesus as described in the NT is just one messiah claimant - there have been more), the other is the question of whether the media within which these claims are made are reportage or literature - the fact that somebody in a work of literature makes claims about himself does not mean that they have to be considered outside the context of the literary work, Jesus fulfils a whole range of supposed Messiah predictions but they’re only fulfiled within the context of the text itself.

Again, the ‘incredibly foolish’ is only ‘incredibly foolish’ within your point of view.

 

[jmj1984]

There are a couple of themes here that need considering. One is whether one has to follow up each and every claim anybody makes (Jesus as described in the NT is just one messiah claimant - there have been more), the other is the question of whether the media within which these claims are made are reportage or literature - the fact that somebody in a work of literature makes claims about himself does not mean that they have to be considered outside the context of the literary work, Jesus fulfils a whole range of supposed Messiah predictions but they’re only fulfiled within the context of the text itself.

Again, the ‘incredibly foolish’ is only ‘incredibly foolish’ within your point of view.

You appear to be applying a relativistic philosphy if I’m honest.

My claims have nothing to do with the NT or otherwise, they are merely reliant on the claims Christianity has made, claims that were made at least as early as the apostolic era.

The ‘incredibly foolish’ has nothing to do with my point of view, its a fact. If you are a follower in a religion and someone claimed to be the promised messiah of said religion, was then rejected and a whole faith system was based on that, not even bothering to investigate that is objectively foolish.

I should point out that this entire discussion has to do with the view of the Jewish faith towards Christ and not a debate between whether it is foolish or not to investigate Christ or not. You are deviating from the point of the thread, if you want to start a thread on that subject, feel free.

 

[Kaninchen]

You appear to be applying a relativistic philosphy if I’m honest.

Quite what that’s apropos to, you’d have to explain.

My claims have nothing to do with the NT or otherwise, they are merely reliant on the claims Christianity has made, claims that were made at least as early as the apostolic era.

And you’d find those ‘claims’ made, just where exactly?

The ‘incredibly foolish’ has nothing to do with my point of view, its a fact. If you are a follower in a religion and someone claimed to be the promised messiah of said religion, was then rejected and a whole faith system was based on that, not even bothering to investigate that is objectively foolish.

And the ‘claims’ are to be found, just where exactly?

I should point out that this entire discussion has to do with the view of the Jewish faith towards Christ and not a debate between whether it is foolish or not to investigate Christ or not. You are deviating from the point of the thread, if you want to start a thread on that subject, feel free.

I think you’ll find that this ‘deviation’ arose within your posts, not mine, my part in the deviation has been to question you about them.

When you ask questions like the view of the Jewish faith towards Christ (by which you mean Jesus), you have to be prepared for answers like ‘we don’t think about it because it’s irrelevant’, and ‘we don’t accept your scriptures’ amongst others.

You have every right to think it crucially important that we devote our time to consideration of Christian claims - some of us have spent an awful lot of time on the subject because we, as individuals, think/thought it important to converse with Christians on your own terms. At the same time, those of us who have done so have the same right to say that we don’t think it’s important in any way that everybody else should do so.

 

[jmj1984]

Quite what that’s apropos to, you’d have to explain.

And you’d find those ‘claims’ made, just where exactly?

The liturgy of the church, the teaching of the church fathers, oral tradition, the teaching of the church and yes Sacred Scripture.

I think you’ll find that this ‘deviation’ arose within your posts, not mine, my part in the deviation has been to question you about them.

No, it was a response to you, not the other way round.

When you ask questions like the view of the Jewish faith towards Christ (by which you mean Jesus), you have to be prepared for answers like ‘we don’t think about it because it’s irrelevant’, and ‘we don’t accept your scriptures’ amongst others.

Fine, thats an answer as good as any other. I never expected Jews to accept our scriptures, but I have to admit that thinking it irrelevant is somewhat of a surprise to me.

You have every right to think it crucially important that we devote our time to consideration of Christian claims - some of us have spent an awful lot of time on the subject because we, as individuals, think/thought it important to converse with Christians on your own terms. At the same time, those of us who have done so have the same right to say that we don’t think it’s important in any way that everybody else should do so.

Fair enough.

I still do not believe your argument comparing a jews duty with examing the claims of Jesus and a Catholics towards Islam stand up however.

 

[Kaninchen]

The liturgy of the church, the teaching of the church fathers, oral tradition, the teaching of the church and yes Sacred Scripture.

Which would, of course, all exist without there being a NT.

No, it was a response to you, not the other way round.

We’ll just have to disagree about that.

Fine, thats an answer as good as any other. I never expected Jews to accept our scriptures, but I have to admit that thinking it irrelevant is somewhat of a surprise to me.

You’ve not been following the many routine 'Why don’t Jews believe in Jesus?/Why don’t Jews accept Jesus as Messiah?/“What do Jews expect of Messiah?” threads here then.

I still do not believe your argument comparing a jews duty with examing the claims of Jesus and a Catholics towards Islam stand up however.

I think it’s best to avoid “Oh, Yes it Is!/Oh, No it isn’t!” routes.

 

[jmj1984]

Which would, of course, all exist without there being a NT.

Some of it would, yes. Aside from which that would still require one to see whether the NT was just fiction or not, dismissing it out of hand without any investigation is imprudence plain and simple.

We’ll just have to disagree about that.

Fair enough

You’ve not been following the many routine 'Why don’t Jews believe in Jesus?/Why don’t Jews accept Jesus as Messiah?/“What do Jews expect of Messiah?” threads here then.

Sadly not.

I think it’s best to avoid “Oh, Yes it Is!/Oh, No it isn’t!” routes.

ok

 

[Kaninchen]

Some of it would, yes. Aside from which that would still require one to see whether the NT was just fiction or not, dismissing it out of hand without any investigation is imprudence plain and simple.

Which a Muslim might say, a Mormon might say . . . . .

On quite a few occasions here, I’ve raised something that Christians do need to consider before thinking about this subject - Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus - they’re very different religions with different preoccupations and different foci. Things that are very important in one can be of little or no importance in the other.

Telling me that I must accept Jesus to be ‘saved’ will get the shorthand answer from me of “from what?” or “the triumph of Christianity was to invent an illness (you’re all doomed) and announce itself as the only cure.”

Behind those rather glib responses, lie some of a world of differences.

Sadly not.

When I wrote what I wrote, I wondered about how I might convey a sense of “How could you have been around for a few months and still have had the good fortune to miss them?” (they tend to be ritual affairs).

 

[jmj1984]

Which a Muslim might say, a Mormon might say . . . . .

They might say it, but their claims would be entirely different. The relationship of Islam or Mormonism to Judaism is entirely different from that of Christianity to Judaism and it is because of that unique relationship that there is a particular requirement to at least look at the Christian faith.

On quite a few occasions here, I’ve raised something that Christians do need to consider before thinking about this subject - Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus - they’re very different religions with different preoccupations and different foci. Things that are very important in one can be of little or no importance in the other.

Indeed one could well say that there is a massive difference between judaism post 1st century AD and Judaism pre-1st century AD.

Telling me that I must accept Jesus to be ‘saved’ will get the shorthand answer from me of “from what?” or “the triumph of Christianity was to invent an illness (you’re all doomed) and announce itself as the only cure.”

Behind those rather glib responses, lie some of a world of differences.

While the statement is true, as far as I know Judaism does believe in heaven, hell etc… its hardly a helpful way to go about things.

When I wrote what I wrote, I wondered about how I might convey a sense of “How could you have been around for a few months and still have had the good fortune to miss them?” (they tend to be ritual affairs).

I’m not a regular on this particular sub-forum.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not certain Jesus claims to be the promised messiah. The scriptures like to dance around the issue and hint at it, but neither Jesus nor the authors of the New Testament say explicitly that he is the messiah.

I strongly disagree.

All through the scripture, Jesus is portrayed as the new Moses who would user in a new Exodus to a Heavenly Jerusalem.

About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. 30And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. (Luke 9:28-31)

This would have been seen by a Jew reading it as a clear reference to the Messiah. The fact that Jesus fed five thousand in the desert with food left over would have been more than a hint.

During the whole period that Simon the Righteous minstered as High Priest], a blessig was bestowed upon the 'omer, the two breads, and the Bread of the Presence, so that every priest, who obtained a piece thereof as big as an olive, at it and became satisfied with some eathing therof and even leaving something over. (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 39a)

The feeding of the multitudes in the Gosples would have been recognizable to the Jews present as a recapitulation of the event recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. The entire book of Matthew is Jesus recapitulating the life of Israel, except the parts where Isreal failed, Jesus succeeded.

The examples are clear in the scriptures. We don’t see it because we have lost the context of a 1st century Jew. Once we look at scripture with the eyes of a first century Jew, we see Jesus saying, “I am God” and “I am the Messiah” over and over and over. He even goes so far as to say that he is Lord of the Sabbath and greater than Solomon’s temple! The only one greater than the temple is God in the temple. The one who created the sabbath is Lord of the Sabbath.

We can’t get much clearer than that.

-Tim-

 

[Kaninchen]

They might say it, but their claims would be entirely different. The relationship of Islam or Mormonism to Judaism is entirely different from that of Christianity to Judaism and it is because of that unique relationship that there is a particular requirement to at least look at the Christian faith.

Again, we’re back to perspective - what you may see as a ‘unique relationship’, I may see as ‘backwards imperialism’.

Indeed one could well say that there is a massive difference between judaism post 1st century AD and Judaism pre-1st century AD.

It’s still Torah! Torah! Torah!

While the statement is true, as far as I know Judaism does believe in heaven, hell etc… its hardly a helpful way to go about things.

You’re assuming things again.

 

[jmj1984]

Again, we’re back to perspective - what you may see as a ‘unique relationship’, I may see as ‘backwards imperialism’.

You may see it as whatever you wish to see it and call it whatever you want to call it, that doesn’t however change the uniqueness of the relationship.

It’s still Torah! Torah! Torah!

And the Talmud and numerous other books and minus a temple. No disrespect intended.

You’re assuming things again.

Are you saying they don’t believe these things? If not there’s no assuming just stating of facts and if they don’t perhaps you should state that rather than make accusations.

 

[Publisher]

A great book of a Jewish woman who taught a class for her synagouge about Jesus and the New Testament on how Jewish it really was.

“The Reluctant Parting” by Julie Galambush.

It’s a great read.