What was Y'shua's sacrafice???

[simchat_torah]

What was Y'shua's sacrafice???
Shalom Mishpochah,

What I am about to present to you is taken from a dear friend of mine. He posted this in another discussion board, one that I'm sure no one here has been too...

However, I will leave his two posts untainted, then present what I replied with... and there is still so much more to be discussed on this issue....
Without furhter adue, here it is:
(p.s. His name is Mikha'el, and He's a rabbi in Alaska who believes in Y'shua... I will also point out he previously was involved as a Rabbi in a Hassidic congregation in California, and now is the Rabbi of a conservative group in Alaska)

Post #1
=============================================
What was Yeshua's Sacrifice?

Shalom everyone,

I'm writing this because I've been toiling over some different ideas and problems lately and I'd likd as much feedback as I can get. Please be patient as I'm sure it will be long. I feel I need to be as exhaustive as I can for anyone else to understand where I'm coming from.

Sometime ago, I set out to do a study on why Yeshua was the Messiah. Taking a look at all the prophesies concerning Him. Along the way, I came into a few difficulties and sought out some help in that area. I came to a few new conclusions as well, and this weekend I spent some time praying and think I've finally got the salvation thing worked out.

The reason I picked this particular forum to voice this opinion was because we already stand together in the understanding that a Jew who is Torah observant and love's HaShem with his whole heart, soul and mind does not need to accept Messiah in order to be saved.

In the book of Hebrews Shaul talks about how Yeshua was our Kapparah for that great Yom Kippur.

I'll begin with this: I struggled with all these Christians that go around talking about "Jesus died for my sins, and is in my heart". The problem I have is, why? So I searched out the prophesies that relate to Moshiach ben Yosef. They all speak of Israel as a whole, not the individual. He was going to come to bear the iniquities of Israel, not Joe Shmo. The second problem I had was a question the Rabbi's have posed. A sin sacrifice is always done for the past sin, not the one you're about to commit. So how can Yeshua's sacrifice be valid if it's paying for everyone's sin past, present and future?

As many know, Israel was divided into two nations after Solomon's death. Northern Israel and Judah. In Yirmeyahu 3 we read how HaShem divorced Israel / Ephraim. Paul then talks about in Romans how the woman who is divorced by her husband and runs off to another, cannot remarry the first husband (this is also found in Deut 24), but if the first husband dies, then she is set free from that which was binding her to him and she is no longer commiting adultery.

Idolatry was one of the things that HaShem hated the most, and here was one of His brides commiting idolatry and in Hoshea we're told that He was going to call them not His people and then His people again. (For those of you who are wondering, this is not a two house teaching, I'm not talking about two house as many teach it today, just bear with me). So Hoshea warns us that Northern Israel would become not his people and then we see Yirmeyahu tell us when that happened.

But Moshiach ben Yosef was to come and die for the transgressions of the people! We're not really told about how Northern Israel was to become His people again, we're only told they will.

So, I've come to a certain conclusion. Messiah came in the name of the Father. Whether you belive in the virgin birth or not, the prophecies say that Moshiach will inherit the name of HaShem. So in essense, by inheriting the name of HaShem, his death was the same as though HaShem, the first husband, had died. Now, Israel was freed from the "title" of whore. She was able to come back to HaShem and no longer be in an adulterous affair.

So what was Yeshua's sacrifice? Was it a pay in advance sacrifice? I'd say that no, it is not, on one hand. It was done so that Israel might be able to come back. Remember that a woman cannot come back to her first husband, but if he dies she is released, and upon his ressurection, she can then marry him again. So, Messiah died for the transgressions of the forefathers, that caused the descendants non-access to their G-d. How can I say then that this is a pay it forward situation? Today, those that were part of Israel and have walked away from HaShem can have that access to him through Messiah. But what about the sins I commit today? As we've seen in times when there was no Temple in the TaNaKh, we get salvation from Teshuvah. When we repent, and turn our eyes towards HaShem, we are then forgiven our sins.

What of Judah though? Judah was never divorced. And for those who have kept the lifestyle of Torah wiht love for G-d and not just out of habit, there is salvation. How does this line up with what we're taught in the New Testament? In Matt. 9:12-13 Yeshua says that the well are not in need of a doctor, but only the sick. He had not come for the righteous but for the sinners. This implies that there are those who are righteous. We also see in Mark 1:2-5 that Yochanan was immersing in the Immersion of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. What? How could he do that, Yeshua hadn't even died yet. Some might argue that his was before the death of Messiah and it was all looking forward to Messiah. Ok, then what they're saying is that, yes, infact, G-d does indeed change. Another interesting passage is in John 4:22. Yeshua is talking with the woman at the well and said to her that they didn't know who they worshipped, but the Jews knew their G-d. Then he says, "You see, salvation is From the Jews". He did not say "to the Jews". Why didn't he say that salvation came from Him?

Another misconception is when Christians think that Yehsua died so that they could be saved. Oy! Can anyone name me a verse in the TaNaKh where salvation was not offered to the Gentiles that wanted to join HaShem? Of course not. There has always been an invitation and a plan for the salvation of anyone who wanted to join HaShem. It wasn't only Hebrews at the foot of Sinai, but they were all Israel. There were Egyptians there as well as descendants of Jacob. They all received the Torah together.

In short, what I've come to understand is this:
Yeshua came a died so that the sins of our forfathers that rejected HaShem and followed after idols could be done away with, once and for all. By this, our descendants are allowed access to HaShem and are given the opportunity to be saved. It is a great thing that he's done. But once we've returned, or made teshuvah, we must follow Torah and it is he that endures to the end that shall be saved. A little prayer when you're twenty doesn't give you assurance of "Salvation". It is walking daily with HaShem until the end that assures us a part in the Olam HaBa. As it is said, he that lives his life Holy and in his last days curses HaShem will have no part in the Olam HaBa, yet he who has lived wickedly, if he makes teshuvah at the end of his days, it will all be accounted righteousness to him.

I'd appreciate any comments and corrections in my reasoning. Thanks for hearing me out. I'm still not sure that I've made my view understood, I'm not sure how to articulate this subject well.

Be well,
Mikha'el
============================================

Post #2....
A couple more

I forgot to mention a couple of other things that led me to this understanding. There are two scriptures where Yeshua makes a couple of different, interesting statements.

Matt. 10:1-6 He sends out his Talmidim and tells them not to go to the Gentiles, but go unto the lost sheep of the "House" of Israel.

Matt. 15:22-24 There is a Gentile woman who comes to him and He tells her that he came only to the lost sheep of the "House" of Israel.

Also remember that in Yirmeyahu 31:31-34 HaShem says that He'll make a New Covenant with the "House" of Israel and the "House" of Judah. He then goes on to say that He'll write the Torah on the hearts of those from the House of Israel. Judah had it there already, for they had not lost their husband.

His mission was not necessarily unto the Gentile, nor the Jew. It was to lost Israel. As I understand, the common phrase used, Sinners, was directed towards the Hellenistic Jews, who had abandoned Torah. So when he came for sinners, it was for those who left Torah by the wayside instead of speaking about it to their children when they walked along the wayside.

What about the references made towards the Gentile now being able to be saved? Acts 10 and other passages that are related? I'd suggest that it's becuase come this time in history the Halacha to become an Israelite was so strict that many Gentiles weren't coming to faith. The Jewish people of the day were not being as bright a light unto the nations as possibly they could have been. In making such restrictions, they called the Gentiles unclean, when in fact, HaShem did not call them unclean. The middle wall of partition that was broken down was actually that fence around Torah that prohibited the coming of the Gentiles, or at least making it so difficult.

I do find it interesting that today's Pharisees (modern day Judaism) so much of their teachings that Yehsua came against in the first century, has changed to match more closely to Yeshua's teachings on those particular subjects. The first century Judaism is not identicle to today's Judaism. There are differences in the teachings today, at least since the inquisition and the crusades and Yom HaShoah, but for the most part, teachings on the heart issues are in line with Yeshua's teachings.

Another interesting one, to me anyway, is where it talks about believing in Yeshua and being saved. If we read that a little differently and place commas in different locations, being Greek nor Hebrew have commas, it would say
"Believe in the L-rd Yeshua, and be saved". In other words, if you believe in Yeshua and what he did, you can return unto HaShem and be saved by HaShem.

I guess this is about my 64 cents worth, since it's far more than 2 cents.

Again, I welcome any and all responses. If I'm way out there, show me. If you've just never seen it that way and think it's worth considering, tell me that too.

Shalom U'Brochot,
Mikha'el

And now my own words....
I had also posted in this thread my take on Acts 10, which I feel applies to the discussion at hand. However, first I will post my reply to the above posts...

My reply #1:
==============================================
Mikha'el... achi,

I have to be honest, there is so much more that I want to discuss concerning this very topic!!!

We have barely begun to unveil what lies beneath, nu?

None the less, what I feel is the most important statement Y'shua made regarding this topic is:
"I came only for the lost sheep of Yisra'el..."

That's quite a bold statement.
Combine it with, "I did not come for the healthy but for the sick" and other such statements, we begin to see that Y'shua did not come for everyone... correct?

He references this idea several times.

One more thing that I noticed the other day...
Sha'ul, in Acts 21, had just returned from his "missionary" journey. Who did he go to see???

Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

Hmmm.... seems to me that Sha'ul went to the Jews, nu?
We have to remember, that according to Jewish Halacha of the First Century, a Jew who had turned away from Torah and Yisrael was no longer Jewish, but a gentile... and that they were less than a gentile! (i.e. the Samaritans, ect.)

I have so much more to say about that, but first I want to share a few thoughts on Acts 10, that I feel are quite related....

to be continued...
J.

My reply #2
Acts 10 Controversy...

This past Shabbat, I had the incredible opportunity to spend several hours with Avi ben Mordechai (author of Messiah volumes 1-3). He is probably the deepest individual I have ever been blessed with the opportunity to meet. We discussed very intensely Acts chapter 10, and I would like to present these ideas to you.

Of course many of you know that Acts 10 has been used by the ch-rch to prove that G-d did away with Kashrut (Kosher) mitzvot.
And amongst some messianic circles (the observant anyway) it is taught that this idea is wrong because Ha Shem gave the interpretation to the dream, and that interpretation is that the gentiles are clean.
However, I will present the more mystical ideas behind the reasoning WHY HaShem presented Kepha with that conclusion, as well as clarify the conclusion itself (which I believe is slightly misconstrued).

Let's start with Act 10:

"9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance."

There is some type of a reoccuring theme of hunger. If any of you have an insight into this, please share...

"11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners."

Now this is interesting...
It actually says in the Greek, that the "heavens" not heaven opened. This is in reference to mystical esoteric Judaism, but we will not go too deep into that aspect. Suffice it to say that in Midrash Rabbah Ecclesiastes 9:8 (a parable about wedding garments) we can determine that this "something like a sheet" is a tallit, as we can see it has four courners.
But, back to the meat of the subject...

"12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air."

This is where I believe the heart of the matter to lie.
What are these four-footed animals, reptiles, and birds? What do they represent? Why specifically are these creatures listed?

Let us first turn to Tehillim (psalms) 115:1-8

"1 Not to us, O L-RD, not to us but to your name be the glory, because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say, "Where is their G-d?"
3 Our G-d is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see;
6 they have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but they cannot smell;
7 they have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but they cannot walk; nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them."

Take special note of vs. 8...
They will become like that which they worship. Now turn with me to Romans 1

"18 The wrath of G-d is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness..."

Just a note: in order to suppress the truth, you must first have the truth. So this is speaking of those who have had the truth, but now suppress the truth.

"19 since what may be known about G-d is plain to them, because G-d has made
it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world G-d's invisible qualities--his
eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

One way in which we interpret (well, this should be the only way) the Brit Chadasha is by using the Tanach as our dictionary. Interestingly, in the Hebrew Brit Chadasha the word behind "men" in vs. 20 is "adam" not "ish". Adam (man) is ONLY used in reference to Yisrael, never to refer to
gentiles... never.
It is a term soley used for referal to Yisrael only.

Now, if you also look at Zech. 10 you will see the story of Ephraim, or the dispersed of Yisrael. These are the Jews who were a dispersed (now of the diaspora). There are many many prophecies of the regathering of Yisrael. In fact, it is this group which Y'shua was primarily interested in reaching:

Mattiyahu 15:25 "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Yisrael."

So, here (rom. 1) we have a group that is clearly referred to as Yisrael, yet has forsaken Torah... a group I think is obviously the dispersion (or any of Yisrael unfaithful to Torah, but mainly in reference to the dispersion as so many prophecies are in alignment).
Let us continue in Rom.1:

"21 For although they knew G-d, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

AHA! Here we are...
so, this group that was given Torah, but has forsaken (or suppressed) Torah has fallen into worship of: birds, animals, and reptiles....
remember psalms 115? They became what they worshipped?
Let's continue...

"24 Therefore G-d gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of G-d for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen."

Here we have it! They WORSHIPPED these created beings, as opposed to the Creator Being.
Now let's take a look at Ezekiel 34

"7 `Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the L-RD:
8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign L-RD, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock...
11 "`For this is what the Sovereign L-RD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them....
28 They will no longer be plundered by the nations, nor will wild animals devour them. They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid.
29 I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations.
30 Then they will know that I, the L-RD their G-d, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Sovereign L-RD. 31 You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign L-RD.'"

more....

the rest...
and Hosea 2 (which many of you are familiar with):
"23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called `Not my loved one. ' I will say to those called `Not my people, ' `You are my people'; and they will say, `You are my G-d.'"
Now, according to 1st century Halacha, those of the dispersion were called not His people... even though Jewish by birth, they were rejected as being Jews. We know this is the dispersion because chapter 1 says:
"10 "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, `You are not my people,' they will be called `sons of the living G-d.' 11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel."

We can even tie this in even tighter... look again at ch. 2:18
"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety."

So, it is with the people who had Torah, who WERE a part of Yisrael, who suppressed or rejected Torah, that Ha Shem is now making this covenant with!
The people who are called birds, beasts, and reptiles!

We even have final proof from Acts 10 as well...
"28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But G-d has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean..."

Again, the word in the Hebrew texts is "adam", not "ish"... thus Cornelius was a part of the dispersion. Maybe he didn't know it, but he WAS! Maybe many of you who are turning to Torah (and I'm not saying this as factually) are a part of the dispersion. Many many people who have been empassioned to follow Torah in these times have looked through their family history and have found that they do in fact have Jewish blood. Now, I am not in support of the 10 tribes theories, replacement theology, or any of that nonesense. But it is very likely that if your heart has been captured for Torah that you are a part of Yisrael's bloodline and do not know it.
Now, gentiles have always been allowed to join themselves to Yisrael either through conversion, or what is known as a righteous gentile (and there was even a specific place in the Temple set aside for the righeous gentile). Thus, I am in no way excluding gentiles from the kingdom, the door has always been open, and always will be. But in acts 10, something very different was going on.

Finally, the statement made in the vision:
"Get up, Kepha, Kill and eat." vs. 13

there is also something else going on behind these scenes. If Ha Shem desired Kepha to actually eat unclean food, you would have seen that as:
1) the conclusion of the dream
2) a HUGE ordeal made about unclean animals now food...
yet, neither are EVER addressed... ever.

So what does it mean to kill and eat?
Is anyone here familiar with Zevach Shalamim? This is what is called the peace offering. This is where one side of the two parties makes a sacrafice, then they eat the sacrafice together. This can be seen in Bereshith (gen.) 31:51-54

What I believe Ha Shem was showing was that Kepha was to go and make peace with those who were cut off from being called G-d's people. In other words, to make a Zevach Shalamim... or Shalom.
We can also see this as a continual struggle for Kepha, when we read on into
Gal. 2.

Hopefully, the waters are clearer and not muddier concerning Acts 10.

PLEASE share your thoughts, and tell me what you think of all this.

Shalom to you as you weigh this out in your minds,
Yafet.

p.s. I owe many of the ideas presented to Avi ben Mordechai. He revealed much of this to me in our discussions

[simchat_torah]

And now some new ideas....
I've been looking further into the translation of a simple word in the Greek of the NT that makes, dare I say, as big or even BIGGER difference than the translation of nomos!!! The word is "hellen" - typically translated as "gentile" or "Greek". Take a moment to consider the implications of translating this (and related terms) as hellen-JEWS (not the typical hellen-gentiles, as is assumed). If it hasn't hit you yet, let me give you some food for thought:
1) Rather than "Paul, the apostle to the gentiles" we have "Shaul, the one sent to the Hellenized Jews of the dispersion" -- This would be a paradigm-shift that would rock everything!!! And - if this translation is accurate - would demonstrate just how far replacement has been taken!
2) Rather than "gentiles" as the "uncultivated wild olive branch" being "grafted into the culitvated olive branch (for the first time)" we have "Hellenized (dispersed) Israel" being "grafted BACK INTO (regathered/teshuvah/renewed) the olive branch" from which they had become estranged and understandably "wild" in comparison to.

3) Halacha (Oral Torah) was called a "fence" for the Torah by the rabbis. Part of that "fence" meant that faithful Israel needed to stay seperated from "Hellenized Israel" (for example, not eating in their houses like Kepha was condemned for doing by Shaul). When Shaul speaks of the "middle wall of partition" being "broken down" ...are Christians right in saying this refers to the seperation between "Jew" and "gentile"? The Aramaic (from the Peshita) for "middle wall of partition" is the VERY SAME termonology used by the rabbis for - yep, that's right - "fence" (of the Oral Torah!!!). SO... let's put it together. Shaul (submitted to the beit din headed by Ya'chov [James]) was explaining the halachic decision made by the Beit Din HaNetzarim located in Yerushalaim, namely, that Israelites-Tzadikim (righteous Israelites) were NOT to remain seperated from Hellenized-Israelites-Ba'al-Teshuva (Hellenized Israelites who were returning to Torah, but not YET living righteous lives) BECAUSE the previous halachic decision ("fence") had been "abolished in the flesh of Mashiac" BECAUSE Mashiac had come FOR THE VARY REASON of cleansing Israel of her sins and making possible the REGATHERING of the DISPERSED OF ISRAEL. Ahhhhhh... now THAT makes sense in the context.

4) Getting back to Shaul's self-conception... what was it he saw himself as doing? Was he "sent to the gentiles" because the "Jews" had rejected their Messiah? This sets the stage for the obvious conclusion that "gentiles" replaced "Israel after the flesh" because they are the "spiritual Israel" who accepted what the "Jews" forfeited. Here's where a MASSIVE paradigm shifts takes place. "Jews" (in the Gk) is actually "Judeans" (i.e. the Israelites who were NOT in the dispersion, or Judeans who had moved into the dispersion for whatever reason). Let's try out the (correct?) translation and see what happens. Shaul sees the "Judean Israelites" as not (as a whole) accepting their Mashiach. Therefore, Shaul goes to the "Hellenized Jews" in the dispersion, because Yahoshua is the Messiah of ALL Israel (not just the Judeans). After all, the Neviim (prophets) had spoken EXTENSIVELY (nearly all of them!) about the REGATHERING of the dispersed of ISRAEL. The dispersed needed to hear that their redemption had come. Keep in mind that Shaul saw himself as an example of him who's "feet on the mountain brings good news ("gospel")". According to Isaiah (and nearly ALL the other prophets!), who was it that was to receive this "good news"? Was it "gentiles"? Ahhh, NO! It was the dispersed of Israel of course, the "Hellenized Jews". It was good news because Elohim was to regather them and re-establish Israel to make her a "praise in all the earth" and to RENEW the covenant He had made with them. It was good news because Israel - though they had violated the covenant and been scattered to the four corners of the earth - was now to be regathered and re-established. Who was to make this happen? The "son of David" of course - the Messiah. The same one that Shaul was offering. I tried to ask myself the questions that a 1st century faithful Jew would ask. What in the Scriptures would drive Shaul to be so passionate about being "sent to the gentiles"? - I don't see it. On the other hand, what in the Scriptures would drive him to be so passionate about being "sent to the dispersed (Hellenized) of Israel"? - I see nearly ALL of the prophets VERY PASSIONATELY describing this sort of calling!!! I suspect Shaul would be VERY HONORED to call the dispersed of Israel to do teshuvah, but I think he would be VERY CONFUSED if he was asked to go to the "gentiles". Being "sent to the gentiles" makes absolutely no sense according the Scriptures!!! However, being "sent to the dispersed (Hellenized) of Israel" is in fact the ENTIRE THEME of the prophets!!!!!!! And, notice where in fact Shaul goes - the SYNAGOGUES.

5) I could go on, because the possibilities open a NEW PARADIGM for interpretting Shaul, the Netzarim, and the entire foundation of how they saw: themselves, Hellenized Israelites, and gentiles. Just IMMAGINE... Shaul (the one sent to the Hellenized-Jews) writing to SYNAGOGUES in the dispersion, rather than "Paul" (the apostle to the gentiles) writing to "Christian Churches" he "established (from scratch)" throughout the world. Which truly makes sense... I think Shaul was "sent" to the "hellens" alright (the literal Gk), but I think the "hellens" were hellen-JEWS... after all, if we indeed see his letters as written to synagogues (not "churches") then we can see how "Jews" could be the obvious context for which "hellens" he was refering to. There were several "hellens" and some of them were Jews. This is esspecially interesting in Romans 9-11.


Well... write me back and tell me what you think. I admit, the idea is radical, but radical in comparison to what? It's only radical to Christian theology, which is replacement garbage. On the other hand, NOT interpretting it this way is radical to Jewish theology. This interpretation flows perfectly and consistantly, and I am growing in the opinion that it surely must be the right one... not "gentiles" but "Hellenized Jews" of the dispersion.

Shalom,
Yafet.

I looked up "hellen" in my concordance and did some cross-checking for its use in the LXX (this comes in very handy ever since I have been enrolled in my greek classes). I found very quickly another term - "ethnos". This term is usually translated "nation" or "people group". It can mean bloodline, but that specific use is usually the word
"phoo-lay" (used for "tribe" in NT, as in the tribes of Israel). In Isa. 49 (you should look this up) for example, ethnos is translated "gentiles" or "nations". HOWEVER, the context seems to GLARINGLY contradict this translation!!! It seems obvious (to my limited understanding anyway) that it is the dispersed of Israel that is being refered to - look elsewhere from chps 40-55 to see what I mean. Isa 49:1-7 is sometimes called the other "servant's song" because it resembles Isa 53. The "literal meaning" (first level of the so called "four-levels of understanding" - PaRDes as explaned at SANJ) of Isa 53 is obvious - "suffering servant = Israel". The other "levels of understanding" are what's used to point to the Messiah.
Here's the thing. By ALL OTHER wording in Isa 40-55 it seems the dispersed of Israel are who receive the "light in the darkness" and wait for the "justice" (mishpatim) to be delivered to them. HOWEVER (and here's where I think the confusion comes in), it is the "servant" (of YHVH) that brings all these things to the "ethnos" (what's translated as "nations" or "gentiles"). Here's the confusion. The translators ask (I know this because I went to the LXX and the Masoretic Hebrew to translate this myself), "How can 'Israel' be the 'servant' and deliver this 'light' to 'Israel' (as in the dispersed of Israel)???????" That's the question I asked myself in trying to understand these cryptic prophecies. I think other translators have asked these same questions, and have consequently solved this apparent paradox by translating "ethnos" as "nations/gentiles".

HOWEVER, THIS FAILS!!! The context seems to refer to these same "ethnos" people as ISRAEL!!! How can this be??? I asked myself this and pondered...

When I was trying to understand Shaul's writings I was baffled why he contrasted "ethnos" with "Israel". I was also baffled why he contrasted "hellen" with "Israel". These are the two main terms that Christians translators use to prove that their "apostle Paul" was "sent to the gentiles". (By the way, the Greek can also be translated as "amoung the ethnos ["nations"]). I thought to myself, "Isa also seems to contrast "ethnos" with "Israel", but Isa seems to mean this in such a way that "ethnos" is actually the DISPERSED OF ISRAEL!!!

EURRRREEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
!

What if Shaul read to prophet Isaiah... What if Shaul understood the "servant" to be Israel-the-faithful-remant... What Shaul also used PaRDes (deeper levels of understanding beyond the literal) to understand a more hidden meaning of this "servant" to ALSO indicate the Messiah... What if Shaul understood the contrast between "Israel" and "ethnos" to be contrasting "Israel-the-faithful-remnant" with "the dispersed of Israel"... What if Shaul used "ethnos" to describe the dispersed of Israel in his letters SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE that term was already used in the LXX to describe the dispersed of Israel, thus making it obvious WHO he was refering to and making it easy to make the conection between his ministry and Isaiah's prophecies... What if this has been OBVIOUS the whole time but Christian translators have only perpetuated the the false dogma (like they have in everything else) and they can't see past the dogma anyway because 1900 years of "scholarship" has blinded people to any other interpretation... Then again, what if I'm wrong...

These questions kept me up last night with books all over my floor. It would all come together if the LXX translation of Isaiah uses "ethnos" (contrasted with Israel) to mean the "dispersed of Israel". If that is so, then there can be no other interpretation to Shaul's letters, PERIOD - case closed. Shaul proved his message using "Scripture" and the Bereans (most likely Greek-speaking-Jews) confirmed his message in the SCRIPTURES - Tanach. Isaiah is by far quoted the most (second only to Devarim, Dt.), and understanding Isa would reveal how Shaul viewed his mission!!! Other quotes he uses are revealing. In Romans he quotes Hosea (speaking for YHVH) in saying (paraphrased) "Those I called 'not-my-people' I will call 'my-people'". This is UNARGUABLY refering to the dispersed of Israel in the book of Hosea, so why should we think Shaul is speaking of someone else in his letter? Did Shaul not know what Scripture meant??? It could be argued that Shaul was using PaRDeS to apply this to "gentiles", but I don't see why if there is a better answer. What if Shaul - following the exact same wording as he found in Isaiah - contrasted "Israel" with "ethnos" to mean contrasting "Israel-the-remnant" with "Israel-the-dispersed-and-captive-in-darkness"....... This makes sense when trying to interpret the beginning of Romans chp 11.

Equally as important, "Jews" needs to be translated literally "Judeans". Further research also needs to be done in how first century Jews used the terms "ethnos" and "hellen". For example, if one Jew is speaking with another Jew about Jews, would he simply say "hellen" to refer to a hellenized short for short... or would need to specify "hellenized Jew" rather than simply say "hellen". For example, even today, if an Orthodox Jew is speaking to another Orthodox Jew about another (non-religious) Jew, and he simply calls him "hellenized" he has no need of specified that he doesn't mean "gentile" but he means "hellenized-Jew". This should not seem odd...

Well, in hopes of good responses, Shalom...

Yafet.
The insights to this revelation, Who Yeshua came for and what his sacrafice did, continue to pour forth. I have spoken with many great Rabbis today concerning this matter, as well as various people online. It has only been recently that it has all been falling into place.

like hand and glove.

The "new covenant" or rather, more properly translated, the "REnewed" covenant finds it's foundation in Jeremiah 31.

We know from this passage that the christians are incorrect in abolishing the Torah. However, I am not really touching on that subject tonight, or in this thread... just merely a tidbit... he he he

Anywho...

"Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the L-RD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the L-RD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the L-RD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G-d, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the L-RD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the L-RD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. "

What does this mean???

First, take careful note of WHO this covenant is established with.

Judah and Israel.

I believe that HaShem is using this renewed covenant, where Torah will be planted upon the heart, to rejoin a broken bride. However, the really neat insight I had last night as I pondered was this...
I had always wondered, what does it mean when it says " And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the L-RD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them..."
????

Finally it it me!!!

Judah was the faithful brother/neighbor. They remained within the covenant. Yeshua did not come for them, remember? He said he did not come for the righteous, but the unrighteous; he said he came for the sick, not the healthy. He came for The Lost Sheep Of Israel.

The neighbor/brother of Judah was Israel (or Ephraim, in prophetic language). They will be united through Y'shua's sacrafice... He came to bring Teshuvah and repentance BACK TO TORAH!!!.

No longer will Israel follow pagan dieties. No longer will Israel be the "dispersed among the nations". No longer will Israel be "Not My People" (hosea).

NO! They will be united through repentance, and Teshuvah... What Y'shua came to establish!!!

Hallelujah!
Yafet.

[Menachem]

One verse takes care of your Human sacrifice and that is Deuteronomy 12:31. Human Sacrifices are prohibited by Torah..

Anyway, I am not here to argue I am here to ask you about your supposed "Hassidic Rabbi" who is now a "conservative Rabbi" in Alaska that believes in jesus. Does this Rabbi have an Email address and or does the Synagogue he is at have a Web page? Please relay those in this thread as soon as possible...Todah

[Timothy Leary]

We had a person like Simchat come in a paltalk room the other day. They usually are lieing about their Rabbi. The one I'm thinking of claimed they attended a Chabad Shul in a certain city of California. We looked into it, and there weren't any Chabad shuls within 50 miles of that city.

[Menachem]

We had a person like Simchat come in a paltalk room the other day. They usually are lieing about their Rabbi. The one I'm thinking of claimed they attended a Chabad Shul in a certain city of California. We looked into it, and there weren't any Chabad shuls within 50 miles of that city.


Seems like the typical case scenario.....and they use it all the time...LOL

[Jezz]

A couple of quick thoughts:

I have no problem accepting the fact that Sha'ul went to the Jews of the Diaspora first during his travels. However, you seem to be arguing that that was Sha'ul's only mission - ie, that he wasn't supposed to go to the hellenised non-Jews to preach. How then do you account for the passage in Acts 17:16-34, where Sha'ul gets up to speak at the Areopagus (where the Greek philosophers - the Stoics and Epicureans - used to discuss philosophy)? (If that's

Also, what is your interpretation of the significance of Yeshua choosing 12 apostles for Himself? Didn't Ya'chov (aka Yisra'el) have twelve sons? Do you think that perhaps that might be the significance?

[Menachem]

A couple of quick thoughts:

I have no problem accepting the fact that Sha'ul went to the Jews of the Diaspora first during his travels. However, you seem to be arguing that that was Sha'ul's only mission - ie, that he wasn't supposed to go to the hellenised non-Jews to preach. How then do you account for the passage in Acts 17:16-34, where Sha'ul gets up to speak at the Areopagus (where the Greek philosophers - the Stoics and Epicureans - used to discuss philosophy)? (If that's

Also, what is your interpretation of the significance of Yeshua choosing 12 apostles for Himself? Didn't Ya'chov (aka Yisra'el) have twelve sons? Do you think that perhaps that might be the significance?



And then......

[arcadejunkie]

Isn't this supposed to be the Judaism section?? Why is this sort of thing here!?

[Jezz]

And then......
Hey eliyosef,

Sorry I let this post go for so long... I forgot to come back to this forum! :smile:

I'm afraid I don't really understand your question. What exactly is it about my post that you are querying? If you could clarify a little what it is you found confusing/not completely fleshed out, then I might be able to explain it better. Cheers.

[Menachem]

Hey eliyosef,

Sorry I let this post go for so long... I forgot to come back to this forum! :smile:

I'm afraid I don't really understand your question. What exactly is it about my post that you are querying? If you could clarify a little what it is you found confusing/not completely fleshed out, then I might be able to explain it better. Cheers.


I Didnt have a question I was responding to what you said and I was wondering if you knew that Jews really dont care about what is in the christian bible about jesus having 12 disciples or so forth and what not. That isnt part of our belief.. So my reply was.... "And Then...."

[Jezz]

I Didnt have a question I was responding to what you said and I was wondering if you knew that Jews really dont care about what is in the christian bible about jesus having 12 disciples or so forth and what not. That isnt part of our belief.. So my reply was.... "And Then...."
You're not at least interested in the New Testament for its historical value? I mean, even if you think they are mostly heretical, the fact is that they are Jewish writings - written largely by first-century Jews. They should be useful from the point of view of Jewish history even if you don't agree with the theology that they contain. Much as the gnostic gospels are useful for understanding early Christianity, even though Christianity rejects them as heretical.

Oh well, if you still feel that the NT is not worth bothering with, then fine. I don't really feel like arguing that with you now. My original post wasn't directed at you anyway. It was directed at the opening poster, who clearly was interested in what is in the New Testament.

[Menachem]

You're not at least interested in the New Testament for its historical value? I mean, even if you think they are mostly heretical, the fact is that they are Jewish writings - written largely by first-century Jews. They should be useful from the point of view of Jewish history even if you don't agree with the theology that they contain. Much as the gnostic gospels are useful for understanding early Christianity, even though Christianity rejects them as heretical.

Oh well, if you still feel that the NT is not worth bothering with, then fine. I don't really feel like arguing that with you now. My original post wasn't directed at you anyway. It was directed at the opening poster, who clearly was interested in what is in the New Testament.


of course the opening poster is interested in the Christian bible he is a christian who calls himself a so called "messianic jew"

[Christy]

Why exactly are people not allowed to be accepted as Jews if they believe in Jesus, but are if they don't believe in God at all, or don't know he exists?

I'm just asking

[Jezz]

of course the opening poster is interested in the Christian bible he is a christian who calls himself a so called "messianic jew"
Your point being? It doesn't change the fact that my post was directed at the opening poster, and not at you. :shrug:

But seeing as how you brought it up, perhaps I can ask you a couple of questions:

The concept of a Messiah is an Orthodox Jewish concept, isn't it?

You're not claiming that if you believe the Messiah has already come, this automatically disqualifies you from being a Jew?

[Menachem]

Your point being? It doesn't change the fact that my post was directed at the opening poster, and not at you. :shrug:

But seeing as how you brought it up, perhaps I can ask you a couple of questions:

The concept of a Messiah is an Orthodox Jewish concept, isn't it?

You're not claiming that if you believe the Messiah has already come, this automatically disqualifies you from being a Jew?



The concept of the messiah is not Just an Orthodox Jewish concept but a Jewish as a Whole concept except maybe Reform Jews who believe in a Messianic age and not a Personal messiah..

As for your reasoning for disqualifiying me for being a Jew it is not sound as the coming of messiah does not end my life as a Jew nor does it end Judaism. Since the messiah has not come yet we sit in wait for him to arrive any minute. As for me being a Jew I can say I definately am. So, In effect, I will wait for Messiah to come just as we Jews do... Anything else??

[Menachem]

Why exactly are people not allowed to be accepted as Jews if they believe in Jesus, but are if they don't believe in God at all, or don't know he exists?

I'm just asking


Once these jews who you are saying go to christianity they are what is called an apostate. they are Jews who wish to worship Idols and seek other gods or Elohim Acharim.. Hence they become cut off from Israel but still Jews by birth...

as for the Jew who is an athiest at least they are not seeking after other gods or idol worshipping. They are a Jew by birth but they choose to believe in no G-d at all....

[Jezz]

Hey eliyosef,

The concept of the messiah is not Just an Orthodox Jewish concept but a Jewish as a Whole concept except maybe Reform Jews who believe in a Messianic age and not a Personal messiah..
Good. That's what I thought.

As for your reasoning for disqualifiying me for being a Jew
I wasn't trying to disqualify you for being a Jew. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

...it is not sound as the coming of messiah does not end my life as a Jew nor does it end Judaism. Since the messiah has not come yet we sit in wait for him to arrive any minute.
Exactly. When the messiah comes, it does not end Judaism. And, I think it is common sense to say that this is true no matter when the messiah comes - do you agree?

As for me being a Jew I can say I definately am.
Again, I never claimed that you weren't, and I'm sorry if you got that impression.

So, In effect, I will wait for Messiah to come just as we Jews do...Anything else??
You don't like me asking questions?

[Menachem]

Hey eliyosef,


Good. That's what I thought.

OK


I wasn't trying to disqualify you for being a Jew. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

Its Ok. Im sorry if I came off as rude.


Exactly. When the messiah comes, it does not end Judaism. And, I think it is common sense to say that this is true no matter when the messiah comes - do you agree?

I agree that when the Messiah comes it will not be the end of Judaism but a flourishing thereof....


Again, I never claimed that you weren't, and I'm sorry if you got that impression.

Sorry I thought you were...I apologize If I came off as rude

You don't like me asking questions?

Was just wondering if there was anything else

[Timothy Leary]

The concept of the messiah is not Just an Orthodox Jewish concept but a Jewish as a Whole concept except maybe Reform Jews who believe in a Messianic age and not a Personal messiah..

Most of my Conservative friends don't think the common conception of a "Messiah" is completely correct.

[Jezz]

Its Ok. Im sorry if I came off as rude.
No problemo - happens sometimes in a written medium that people misunderstand each other. I didn't think you were being rude.

I agree that when the Messiah comes it will not be the end of Judaism but a flourishing thereof....
Ok then. Now, what I dont understand is why you would insist that, because they believe that the Messiah has already come, Messianic Jews are not really Jews? How can belief that the Messiah has come be a non-Jewish belief?

[Timothy Leary]

Jezz,

Most "Messianic Jews" do not have Jewish Lineage. According to J4J, there are maybe 50,000 Jews who are "Messianics".

[Menachem]

Most of my Conservative friends don't think the common conception of a "Messiah" is completely correct.


True Most of my conservative friends think that way also...However my comments about the very liberal end such as reform seem to be predominantly about a messianic age rather than an actual Messiah

[Menachem]

No problemo - happens sometimes in a written medium that people misunderstand each other. I didn't think you were being rude.

It happens

Ok then. Now, what I dont understand is why you would insist that, because they believe that the Messiah has already come, Messianic Jews are not really Jews? How can belief that the Messiah has come be a non-Jewish belief?

Most of the "Messianic Jews" as Yoshiah had commented about are not even Jews. They have no Jewishness to play on. Granted a very small minority of them were born Jewish and converted to christianity. Still you are looking at a very small number mixed in with the Gentiles there who like to dress up and play "Jew."

Now for the ones who converted to christianity, The reason I call them apostates is because they elected to go and follow another faith that is not the Jewish faith. The whole NT screams Greek Influence or Hellenization. The concept in which these apostate Jews follow is not a Jewish concept i.e. The "Son of G-d" concept or the "virgin birth" concept and the concept of a "Mystical Messiah who is to be a lasting sacrfice for the sins of the world" these concepts are not Jewish concepts and are actually according to many Idolatry practices especially equating the man "jesus" with G-d is in fact Idolatry according to Halachah.. That is one of the major reasons for my not considering them Jewish anymore they are "cut off" from the Land of Israel. So there you have it....

[Jezz]

Most of the "Messianic Jews" as Yoshiah had commented about are not even Jews. They have no Jewishness to play on. Granted a very small minority of them were born Jewish and converted to christianity. Still you are looking at a very small number mixed in with the Gentiles there who like to dress up and play "Jew."
Isn't it possible for a Gentile to become a Jewish convert?

Now for the ones who converted to christianity, The reason I call them apostates is because they elected to go and follow another faith that is not the Jewish faith.
Ok, I can understand that from your point of view. Of course, from their point of view their faith is Jewish, and it is you who is apostate - a point I can also understand.

The whole NT screams Greek Influence or Hellenization.
I've heard that accusation levelled at the later Church, but less commonly at the NT itself. The NT is a collection of extremely Jewish documents. It was, after all, written by Jews. The very genre of Revelation, for example, is a uniquely Jewish genre (apolcalyptic) - you don't find that writing style outside of Judaism. Much of the strange Greek found in the NT is attributable to the fact that it was Semitic thought being expressed.

The concept in which these apostate Jews follow is not a Jewish concept i.e. The "Son of G-d" concept...
The Word, or Wisdom of G-d, is a very Jewish concept. The Aramaic Targums (1st-century BC/AD paraphrases of the Tanakh in Aramaic), for example, often substituted "the Word (Memra) of YHWH" for YHWH - especially when YHWH was interacting directly with His creation.

...or the "virgin birth" concept and the concept of a "Mystical Messiah who is to be a lasting sacrfice for the sins of the world" these concepts are not Jewish concepts
They're not Hellenistic concepts either. Therefore, your attempt to explain them away as "Hellenistic influences" doesn't work. The ideas came from somewhere else other than Hellenism.

On the other hand, the idea that the Messiah would be divine has ample precedent in the Tanakh. For example:

1. The Messiah was to be a kingly figure. However, when Israel asked G-d for a king, G-d made it clear that it was His will that only He should be king over Israel (1 Samuel 12:12). It thus would make sense if the Messiah was God himself.

2. Here is Psalm 28:8 literally translated from Hebrew:

(YHWH) (their strength) (and fortress) (yeshuah) (his messiah) (he)

Here is a possible meaning:

YHWH [is] their strength and fortress; yeshuah his messiah [is] he.

There are plenty of other verses that stated G-d would become salvation for His people. Of course, the Hebrew/Aramaic word for "salvation" is "yeshuah" - which is the word from which we get "Jesus"...

...and are actually according to many Idolatry practices especially equating the man "jesus" with G-d is in fact Idolatry according to Halachah..
Equating the man "jesus" with G-d would indeed by idolatory - if Jesus was not G-d.

That is one of the major reasons for my not considering them Jewish anymore they are "cut off" from the Land of Israel. So there you have it....
Fair enough. And given your starting assumption (ie, that Jesus was not G-d incarnate), I agree with your conclusion. I simply disagree with your starting assumption.

[Menachem]

Isn't it possible for a Gentile to become a Jewish convert?

Of course it is the only thing is, the person who does convert becomes Jewish and even if the person decides to later leave the faith he is still Jewish and since he left to pursue other gods he would be an apostate as well

Ok, I can understand that from your point of view. Of course, from their point of view their faith is Jewish, and it is you who is apostate - a point I can also understand.

Of course from their point of view they would still be Jewish they wish to make subtle elements of christianity appear more Jewish than it is. As for "Messianics" calling me an apostate I have never been called an apostate as an apostate in terms of Judaism is someone who leaves in search of other gods...so how am I supposed to believe a person, who is more than likely a gentile masquerading as a Jew, saying "come to the completed Judaism, If you dont you are an apostate to true Judaism in Yeshu'a." When this happens I will Just laugh and be on my way

I've heard that accusation levelled at the later Church, but less commonly at the NT itself. The NT is a collection of extremely Jewish documents. It was, after all, written by Jews. The very genre of Revelation, for example, is a uniquely Jewish genre (apolcalyptic) - you don't find that writing style outside of Judaism. Much of the strange Greek found in the NT is attributable to the fact that it was Semitic thought being expressed.

When you find a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT let me know. Even the Book of Daniel and its apocalyptic writings are not even close to Hellenized influence of the GNT(Greek New Testament)...

The Word, or Wisdom of G-d, is a very Jewish concept. The Aramaic Targums (1st-century BC/AD paraphrases of the Tanakh in Aramaic), for example, often substituted "the Word (Memra) of YHWH" for YHWH - especially when YHWH was interacting directly with His creation.


"the word became flesh" that is a Jewish concept I think not. Nor is the concept of "virgin birth." No where in the Tanakh is the concept of a virgin girl giving birth to a baby..In fact if that ever happens I would ask "What have you been smoking?" As for the Aramaic Targumim I hope you will supply verses and the exact Targum you are reading from.

I have targum Onkelos right in front of me and I am looking at example of the usages of (memra) by Onkelos and here in Genesis 15:4 the Hebrew reads "VeHiNeH Devar Hashem Eliu Leameor Lo" The aramaic reads "VeH'a Pitegam'a DaHashem Imeh LeMeiMar L'a Iretinakha" the usage of the word memra here in Blue lines up perfectly with the hebrew word Devar which essentially means "word." All most Targumim are, are interpretation of what the Tanakh says not what the Tanakh actually says in the case of Onkelos here he is pretty close to the actual rendering.

They're not Hellenistic concepts either. Therefore, your attempt to explain them away as "Hellenistic influences" doesn't work. The ideas came from somewhere else other than Hellenism.


On the other hand, the idea that the Messiah would be divine has ample precedent in the Tanakh. For example:

1. The Messiah was to be a kingly figure. However, when Israel asked G-d for a king, G-d made it clear that it was His will that only He should be king over Israel (1 Samuel 12:12). It thus would make sense if the Messiah was God himself.

David is called Mashiakh several times so was Saul and Solomon so are you equating them with G-d?? your response begs the question "If all of these people are called mashiakh, then they must be gods correct?"

Now as for your citing that The Mashiakh will be divine I would like to see your evidence of such in the tanakh.
The tanakh makes it very clear who the messiah is and he will be a physical flesh and blood human descendant of King David through his son Solomon Isaiah 11; 2 Samuel 7:16;1 Chronicles 17:11-12. The messiah will be a flesh and blood human being who is a physical descendant according to Jewish Law(Patrilineally) of King David and King Solomon..

The concept of G-d becomaing man to save the world from its sins is foreing to Judaism as Judaism has believed ever since it began that we take responsibility for our own actions towards G-d and we dont put our sins,blame, or worries on anyone else...

Your right some probably dont come from hellenism so then they must come from the rest of the Pagan Roman Empire of the time period.

2. Here is Psalm 28:8 literally translated from Hebrew:

(YHWH) (their strength) (and fortress) (yeshuah) (his messiah) (he)

Here is a possible meaning:

YHWH [is] their strength and fortress; yeshuah his messiah [is] he.

Now lets have the correct rendering of the hebrew: Here is the transliteration for the Hebrew of the passage and we will see if your assumption about the word "yeshuah" stands: "Hashem Aoz Lamo Ure'am Yeshuaot Mashiaku Hu" your claim on the word "Yeshuah" as a person doesn't stand as the word is Plural and feminine. In your terms this would read more than one person and they are females. which would not match up to the rest verse grammatically which is Masculine.

The rendering you gave literally is really literally read "Hashem is my strength to them; and the stronghold/tower/fortress of salvations for His anointed one is He." This verse immediately preceeded by the Psalmist, King David, saying he is going to sing a song of Praise to HaShem. The anpointed one in this passage is without a doubt King David.

Your last rendering would have to read with the grammer if you are going to try and do that: "Hashem is their strenth and fortress; yeshuahs are his messiah is he." The Verb "to be" in Hebrew can be inferred. Now, once the Hebrew is examined the rendering you gave falls apart... The verse itself would have to be changed to compliment the feminine, plural name. which I am not going to do...

There are plenty of other verses that stated G-d would become salvation for His people. Of course, the Hebrew/Aramaic word for "salvation" is "yeshuah" - which is the word from which we get "Jesus"...

actualy Yeshuah(yod-shin-vav-heh) is not a Hebrew name but a hebrew word meaning salvation. also the word above was not jesus Hebrew name as the word itself is Feminine in case. the wor often given as his name Yeshu'a(yod-shin-vav-ayin) has no meaning of salvation at all as the words are completely different in spelling. Jeshua the high priest in Zechariah is called Yeshu'a(yod-shin-vav-ayin) but the word itself does not mean salvation....sorry..


Equating the man "jesus" with G-d would indeed by idolatory - if Jesus was not G-d.

this is another non Jewish concept since jews are not permitted to worship Idols in the forms of either male or female (Deuteronomy 4:16). And for that matter G-d becoming a man is foreign to Judaism....ancient greek mythology has a great many man/god's Judaism never considered the concept...


Fair enough. And given your starting assumption (ie, that Jesus was not G-d incarnate), I agree with your conclusion. I simply disagree with your starting assumption.

Seeing that you are a christian I knew that you would and you are entitled to disagree with me all you want. I have no quarrels with those who disagree with me I only give my position on the matter and hope that you accept it as such...

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I'll just restate something I posted on another thread in this section:

I don't want to insult or offend anyone here (least of all Goose, who is courteous & a gentleman), but beliefs in Jesus/Ribi Yehoshua/Yeshua/Yahoshua/etc. as the Messiah, the "Son of God", an avatar of God Incarnate and a "person" within a triune God, and/or in the very idea that God could/did become flesh, etc. are totally, utterly, and completely incompatible with traditional, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism, whether of the Rabbinic or Karaite variety. (Heck, even the Samaritans would agree with us on this one!) This circle can never be squared.

Non-Jews may certainly convert to Judaism. (There are several converts in my neighborhood; see the pics thereof at http://www.jr.co.il/ma/pic/ma012.htm.) But a non-Jew who believes in any of the beliefs/concepts I cited in the preceeding paragraph cannot convert to Judaism since the aforementioned beliefs/concepts fundamentally contravene/contradict core principles of Judaism. No self-respecting beit din (an orthodox rabbinical court) would admit such a person as a convert.

While many/most(?) so-called "Messianic Jews" may indeed be Jews (i.e. they were born of Jewish mothers or had an orthodox conversion before adopting their heretical beliefs), what they believe and practice is certainly not Judaism.

I have seen more than a few Christian (!) websites that purport to state what various "Ancient Rabbis" really said or really meant regarding the nature and/or identity of the Messiah. No Jewish Sage or rabbi worth his salt has ever made any favorable references to Jesus, the Trinity or the Incarnation no matter what any would-be missionaries-on-the-make or those with a king-size axe to grind would have you believe, mistranslations and misrepresentations (whether innocent or deliberate), and badly-taken-out-of-context quotes by would-be missionaries-on-the-make and those with an agenda, notwithstanding. Claims to the contrary are preposterous.

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Jezz]

Of course from their point of view they would still be Jewish they wish to make subtle elements of christianity appear more Jewish than it is.
Or perhaps, you are trying to make Christian concepts appear less Jewish than they are. :wink:

As for "Messianics" calling me an apostate I have never been called an apostate as an apostate in terms of Judaism is someone who leaves in search of other gods...so how am I supposed to believe a person, who is more than likely a gentile masquerading as a Jew, saying "come to the completed Judaism, If you dont you are an apostate to true Judaism in Yeshu'a." When this happens I will Just laugh and be on my way
Yeah, I don't think "apostate" would be the right description actually, from a Messianic POV. "schismatic", perhaps.

When you find a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT let me know. Even the Book of Daniel and its apocalyptic writings are not even close to Hellenized influence of the GNT(Greek New Testament)...
Just one shred? Well, this is too easy. The most obvious Jewish concept found in the GNT is resurrection. That was a uniquely Jewish concept - the Hellenistic world found it quite abhorent - they believed that the body was a prison of the soul. The idea of resurrection - a concept, I think you'll agree, that is central to the GNT - came straight from Pharisaic Judaism and from nowhere else. So there's one shred of Jewish thought...

Of course, there's also John's "logos", which is being discussed below.

If you struggle with finding the Jewish concepts in the Greek New Testament, perhaps you'd be interested in reading the Aramaic New Testament? The Peshitta is a very early Aramaic translation of the NT (some argue it's even the original from which the GNT was translated). You can find an online interlinear of the Gospels and Acts here (http://www.peshitta.org).

"the word became flesh" that is a Jewish concept I think not. Nor is the concept of "virgin birth." No where in the Tanakh is the concept of a virgin girl giving birth to a baby..In fact if that ever happens I would ask "What have you been smoking?"
I was not talking about "the word became flesh" - I was talking about the word itself. That's a Jewish concept, as I will show below. The opening verse of John's gospel expresses a very Jewish concept. You claimed that there were no Jewish concepts in the GNT - I was merely refuting that claim.

I agree that the idea of "the Word becoming flesh" is not found in earlier Judaism. But it was most certainly not a Hellenistic idea either - it's a uniquely Christian idea.

As for the Aramaic Targumim I hope you will supply verses and the exact Targum you are reading from.

I have targum Onkelos right in front of me and I am looking at example of the usages of (memra) by Onkelos and here in Genesis 15:4 the Hebrew reads "VeHiNeH Devar Hashem Eliu Leameor Lo" The aramaic reads "VeH'a Pitegam'a DaHashem Imeh LeMeiMar L'a Iretinakha" the usage of the word memra here in Blue lines up perfectly with the hebrew word Devar which essentially means "word."
I'll do one better than quote the Targumim. I will refer you to the page in the Jewish encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M&search=memra) that discusses the Jewish concept of the Word (Memra, Logos) as found in the Targumim and other Jewish literature. Here's a quote:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Clearly, it is this concept of "the Word" that John is using in the start of his Gospel.

Also, while you're there, you might like to read about wisdom (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=210&letter=W), which is also a Jewish concept found in the GNT.

All most Targumim are, are interpretation of what the Tanakh says not what the Tanakh actually says...
I know. That's why they're useful. They are interpretations of what the Tanakh says, and they were written by Jews. So in reading them we get an idea of how the Jews were interpreting the Tanakh around the 1st century.

...in the case of Onkelos here he is pretty close to the actual rendering.
Yes, but as I've shown this isn't always the case.

David is called Mashiakh several times so was Saul and Solomon so are you equating them with G-d?? your response begs the question "If all of these people are called mashiakh, then they must be gods correct?"
Surely, you realise that there is a difference between calling David and Solomon "Messiahs", and calling either of them the Messiah? Neither of them were the Messiah.

Now as for your citing that The Mashiakh will be divine I would like to see your evidence of such in the tanakh.
I already quoted 1 Samuel 12:12 - which says that G-d intended that Israel would have no king other than Him. So if G-d was going to send Israel a Messiah - the Messiah, and not just an ordinary king like Solomon or David - and this Messiah was to be a kingly figure, and G-d intended that only He be king over Israel... well... connect the dots. Either the kingly Messiah would have to be a compromise (as G-d would be putting a king other than Himself over Israel), or the Messiah would have to be G-d. You're not suggesting that G-d's Messiah would be a compromise, are you? :wink:

The tanakh makes it very clear who the messiah is and he will be a physical flesh and blood human descendant of King David through his son Solomon Isaiah 11; 2 Samuel 7:16;1 Chronicles 17:11-12. The messiah will be a flesh and blood human being who is a physical descendant according to Jewish Law(Patrilineally) of King David and King Solomon..
Hmm, the Isaiah passage said that the Messiah would be a descendent of Jesse (David's father), and the 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles passages said that he would be a descendent of David. But I did not see anywhere that suggested he would have to be a descendent of Solomon. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Of course, Jesus was a descendent of David by blood through his son Nathan (through Mary), and by law through Solomon (though Joseph). Also note that Jesus was a Netseret (Nazarene) - Isaiah 11 says that the Messiah will be a "branch" (netser).

The concept of G-d becomaing man to save the world from its sins is foreing to Judaism as Judaism has believed ever since it began that we take responsibility for our own actions towards G-d and we dont put our sins,blame, or worries on anyone else...
I happen to be closer to the Jewish belief here than the picture of Christianity that you have in mind. The Christianity that you are thinking of is probably modern Western Protestantism of the type typically found in the US. I agree that the modern pseudo-Christian idea that one can do anything that they want and not worry about being responsible for the consequences is incorrect. I have a more Eastern Orthodox view of sin and Jesus' role as saviour - for more information, see where I've commented on the topic in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23572&page=3#post577775).

Your right some probably dont come from hellenism so then they must come from the rest of the Pagan Roman Empire of the time period.
Why are you so sure that they are pre-existent ideas? Why couldn't Jesus himself have introduced the ideas? That's the idea I find most likely, as the ideas find no real precedent in the ancient world.

Now lets have the correct rendering of the hebrew: Here is the transliteration for the Hebrew of the passage and we will see if your assumption about the word "yeshuah" stands: "Hashem Aoz Lamo Ure'am Yeshuaot Mashiaku Hu"
Looks good enough to me - my Hebrew's not that flash. Although the MT that I've seen uses the tetragrammaton rather than "Hashem".

...your claim on the word "Yeshuah" as a person doesn't stand as the word is Plural and feminine. In your terms this would read more than one person and they are females. which would not match up to the rest verse grammatically which is Masculine.
There are other verses where G-d is described as being, or becoming "salvation" (yeshuah - feminine). If it's a problem here, then it's a problem there also in Psalm 62:2, for example: "He only my rock and my salvation (yeshuah)..."

As for it being plural: well, yes - I missed that (though did note that it was plural in the Septuagint, so it makes sense). But think long and hard about this point: You seem to be arguing that if a word/name is plural, then it [i]must refer to more than one person. Are you sure you want to argue that?

The rendering you gave literally is really literally read "Hashem is my strength to them; and the stronghold/tower/fortress of salvations for His anointed one is He." This verse immediately preceeded by the Psalmist, King David, saying he is going to sing a song of Praise to HaShem. The anpointed one in this passage is without a doubt King David.
All Messianic passages if read "in context" can be seen to be referring to someone other than "the Messiah". That doesn't mean that they don't have a dual meaning that refers to the Messiah as well.

Your last rendering would have to read with the grammer if you are going to try and do that: "Hashem is their strenth and fortress; yeshuahs are his messiah is he." The Verb "to be" in Hebrew can be inferred. Now, once the Hebrew is examined the rendering you gave falls apart... The verse itself would have to be changed to compliment the feminine, plural name. which I am not going to do...
I would have written it "Hashem is their strength and fortress; yeshauhs his messiah is he". It is not grammatically necessary to add "are" between "yeshuahs" and "his messiah", is it?

As for your complaints about it being feminine and plural, please see above.

actualy Yeshuah(yod-shin-vav-heh) is not a Hebrew name but a hebrew word meaning salvation.
Hebrew names are Hebrew words, aren't they?

also the word above was not jesus Hebrew name as the word itself is Feminine in case. the wor often given as his name Yeshu'a(yod-shin-vav-ayin) has no meaning of salvation at all as the words are completely different in spelling. Jeshua the high priest in Zechariah is called Yeshu'a(yod-shin-vav-ayin) but the word itself does not mean salvation....sorry..
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. The only difference between "Yeshuah" and "Yeshua" is that the former has a trailing "heh" which makes it feminine, while the latter is masculine. As far as I know, this doesn't change the meaning at all. What do you suppose "Yeshua" means, if not "salvation"? How do you explain that "Yeshua" is used as an abbreviation for "Yehoshua", meaning "G-d is salvation"?

this is another non Jewish concept since jews are not permitted to worship Idols in the forms of either male or female (Deuteronomy 4:16).
Deuteronomy 4:16 refers to graven images made in the likeness of G-d. We do not believe that Jesus was the "likeness" of G-d - we believe that he was G-d. Worship of Jesus does not fall under this category.

And for that matter G-d becoming a man is foreign to Judaism....ancient greek mythology has a great many man/god's Judaism never considered the concept...
The idea of G-d becoming man is just as foreign to Greek mythology as it is to Judaism. In Greek mythology, gods may have occasionally came down and walked on the earth, but they never took on the corruptible, fleshy bodies of humans - they merely made themselves appear as humans. There are plenty of times in the OT when G-d appears in human likeness (though not in the flesh) to OT characters as well (eg, when Jacob wrestled with G-d).

The idea that G-d would would become a human being and be subject to human frailty - sickness, injury, and death - is indeed quite unique to Christianity. It's an idea that originated with Jesus himself.

Seeing that you are a christian I knew that you would and you are entitled to disagree with me all you want. I have no quarrels with those who disagree with me I only give my position on the matter and hope that you accept it as such...
Sure, I accept your opinion. I'm just submitting facts for your consideration, because I think you are mistaken (much as you are submitting facts for my consideration because you think I'm mistaken :smile:). Do with them as your conscience sees fit.

[Menachem]

Or perhaps, you are trying to make Christian concepts appear less Jewish than they are. :wink:

I dont have to they do that themselves...If christianity is so Jewish then why do christians eat porkchops and I dont??


Yeah, I don't think "apostate" would be the right description actually, from a Messianic POV. "schismatic", perhaps.

schismatic wouldnt work as many of them are no more Jewish than their Gentile pastor is..


Just one shred? Well, this is too easy. The most obvious Jewish concept found in the GNT is resurrection. That was a uniquely Jewish concept - the Hellenistic world found it quite abhorent - they believed that the body was a prison of the soul. The idea of resurrection - a concept, I think you'll agree, that is central to the GNT - came straight from Pharisaic Judaism and from nowhere else. So there's one shred of Jewish thought...

The Idea of the resurrection in Jewish theology is that of a overall resurrection of the dead. Who did the gospels say was resurrected?? The original concept yes i will agree does come from Judaism how it is conveyed is somewhat different..

Of course, there's also John's "logos", which is being discussed below.

If you struggle with finding the Jewish concepts in the Greek New Testament, perhaps you'd be interested in reading the Aramaic New Testament? The Peshitta is a very early Aramaic translation of the NT (some argue it's even the original from which the GNT was translated). You can find an online interlinear of the Gospels and Acts here (http://www.peshitta.org).

I have actually read the aramaic Peshitta from there and there are a few errors made in the gospels. They seem to be the same ones the Greek New Testament makes also...


I was not talking about "the word became flesh" - I was talking about the word itself. That's a Jewish concept, as I will show below. The opening verse of John's gospel expresses a very Jewish concept. You claimed that there were no Jewish concepts in the GNT - I was merely refuting that claim.

the latter part of his claim of "The word" is refuted as a Jewish thought by John Himself...."The word became flesh."

I agree that the idea of "the Word becoming flesh" is not found in earlier Judaism. But it was most certainly not a Hellenistic idea either - it's a uniquely Christian idea.

your right it is not found in Judaism. The Idea is merely a play on Hellenistic thought of a G-d becoming a Man or as the greeks have a man/god..


I'll do one better than quote the Targumim. I will refer you to the page in the Jewish encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M&search=memra) that discusses the Jewish concept of the Word (Memra, Logos) as found in the Targumim and other Jewish literature. Here's a quote:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Clearly, it is this concept of "the Word" that John is using in the start of his Gospel.

Also, while you're there, you might like to read about wisdom (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=210&letter=W), which is also a Jewish concept found in the GNT.


That is a good definition of the the function of (memra) in a few of the Targumim. However now lets apply that to the targumim.
Targum Onkelos Genesis 3:8: "ushma'u yat qol meimra' daHashem elohim m'hallek b'ginta." And they (adam and eve) heard the sound of the Word of HaShem passing through the garden. The Aramaic word Memra literally means the statement or utterance. This is used in the Targumim when G-d reveals himself in a way to this world. In the case of the passage the way G-d was revealing himself to the world was in a sound.. this works With the Hebrew when it says "They heard the sound of HaShem G-d manifesting itself in the garden" The sound referred to as itself since it is not G-d himself and is rendered Gender Neutral.

So yes when you apply it to context the word "Memr'a" I agree with the jewish encyclopedia however I dont agree with your assesment of the application of it..

As for John's usage of the word "Logos" meaning literally in Greek "a word/statement" when he starts out he is fine then he moves to a Non jewish concept " the Logos became flesh" there he throws it off and goes awall with it.. So I will agree with you that "The word" does have Jewish roots but not the ones assigned by the GNT and the Peshitta.. as they are both not Jewish documents but Christain documents...


I know. That's why they're useful. They are interpretations of what the Tanakh says, and they were written by Jews. So in reading them we get an idea of how the Jews were interpreting the Tanakh around the 1st century.[

And these interpretations follow how the writers saw the passage. So based on the Targumim we know how one person interpreted a passage.. And the Targumim are not exactly friendly to the Christain cause as a little application of what the Targums says in Aramaic proves very little for Christianity


Yes, but as I've shown this isn't always the case.

note I say he "was pretty close" I never said he was dead on accurate all the time

Surely, you realise that there is a difference between calling David and Solomon "Messiahs", and calling either of them the Messiah? Neither of them were the Messiah.

Yeah the fact the you have to get p[ast is that they were both called Messiah and if you are going to equate G-d as messiah then you must acknoledge that they were G-d..

oted 1 Samuel 12:12 - which says that G-d intended that Israel would have no king other than Him. So if G-d was going to send Israel a Messiah - the Messiah, and not just an ordinary king like Solomon or David - and this Messiah was to be a kingly figure, and G-d intended that only He be king over Israel... well... connect the dots. Either the kingly Messiah would have to be a compromise (as G-d would be putting a king other than Himself over Israel), or the Messiah would have to be G-d. You're not suggesting that G-d's Messiah would be a compromise, are you? :wink:

Now on your Samuel quote what does the verse before and after it say?
This passage is about setting the King of Ammon, Nahash over the as a King. Samuel proclaims G-d is king which in real terms G-d is the King of the Universe and of spiritual matters when it pertains to someones life. In the next Verse in verse 13 It says "nd behold; HaShem set a king over you." and in verse 14 "If you will fear haShem and worship him and hearken to His voice and not rebel against the word of Hashem, the you and the King who reigns over you will remain [following] after HaShem, your G-d."

We can see here by the context it is not saying that HaShem will be the King he already is the King of our Lives. This passage comes as a calling to G-d for a literal Physical human being King which would be King Saul..

Hmm, the Isaiah passage said that the Messiah would be a descendent of Jesse (David's father), and the 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles passages said that he would be a descendent of David. But I did not see anywhere that suggested he would have to be a descendent of Solomon. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

1 Chronicles 17:1-12 has the prophet nathan talking to King David and in verse Eleven it mentions[11] "I will raise up your offspring after you, who will be one of your sons; and I wil establish his kingdom.[12] He shall buold me a house and I will establish his throne forever.
the person building the house of G-d after King David was king Solomon and if Solomon's throne is established forever king messiah must come from him..


by blood through his son Nathan (through Mary), and by law through Solomon (though Joseph). Also note that Jesus was a Netseret (Nazarene) - Isaiah 11 says that the Messiah will be a "branch" (netser).

The problem with your assumption is that in any accounts of this by Jewish law he was not related to King David an any way.. Jewish Law says that Lineage is declared through the Father's side this comes from Numbers chapter 1:18. Joseph was not his father as he was born from a virgin, which rules him out... Mary is a Woman which does not carry the hereditary line according to the tanakh.. So Jesus lineage get a double whammy. and even if Joseph was his father the curse of King Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:30 gets him and he is still disqualified as being messiah.. also the argument of adoption is discredited as Jewish law only recognizes adoption if it is within the persons tribal house.. Jesus didnt have a tribal affiliation in the first place so he can not be adopted into the Tribe of Judah nor the house of David. So there is his third Whammy


I happen to be closer to the Jewish belief here than the picture of Christianity that you have in mind. The Christianity that you are thinking of is probably modern Western Protestantism of the type typically found in the US. I agree that the modern pseudo-Christian idea that one can do anything that they want and not worry about being responsible for the consequences is incorrect. I have a more Eastern Orthodox view of sin and Jesus' role as saviour - for more information, see where I've commented on the topic in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23572&page=3#post577775).

tell me do you like porkchops? How about some bacon? Or, Some roast ham?

Why are you so sure that they are pre-existent ideas? Why couldn't Jesus himself have introduced the ideas? That's the idea I find most likely, as the ideas find no real precedent in the ancient world.

The ideas that jesus taught were no doubt Pharisaic he probably learned them from Rabbi hillel as Hillel lived from 40 B.C.E. to about 10 C.E. in his younger years he probably learned from him. Hillel was famous for teaching the Torah to a proselyte who wanted him to teach him the Torah on one foot so Hillel did saying " What is hateful to you do not do to others , this is the whole of Torah the rest is commentary. Now, go and study the commentary." the Ideas of Jesus sermon on the Mount reflect much of the teachings of the essenes and Prushim.

Looks good enough to me - my Hebrew's not that flash. Although the MT that I've seen uses the tetragrammaton rather than "Hashem".

The Hebrew text I have has the tetragrammaton also all of them do. I Dont vocalize the name out of reverence and respect of the Name of G-d. So I use either HaShem or Adonai in its place.

There are other verses where G-d is described as being, or becoming "salvation" (yeshuah - feminine). If it's a problem here, then it's a problem there also in Psalm 62:2, for example: "He only my rock and my salvation (yeshuah)..."

No that is a problem for you trying to place it as a proper name of a man and in that particular verse. the word Yeshuah is feminine yes but it does not present a problem grammatically for the passage as it is not applied to any person as a name. It is used only for its meaning which is perfectly alright in Hebrew.. the problem arises when you try to place it as a man's name because of its feminine case so it is more of a problem for your name game than it is for the actual use of the word..


As for it being plural: well, yes - I missed that (though did note that it was plural in the Septuagint, so it makes sense). But think long and hard about this point: You seem to be arguing that if a word/name is plural, then it [i]must refer to more than one person. Are you sure you want to argue that?

sure this will be more than easy and if you are going to try and argue the Word "Elohim" save your breath you may as well look up the word Chaiim, Shamayim , and Panim which are the words for Life, Heaven, and Face. so go ahead and try to explain words that are immediatly followed by singular verbs to show they are can carry both a singular and plural meaning depending on context. Then sit and ponder the english word Deer. Is it plural or singular. trust me I have gone through this argument before and it is not new and not hard to figure out...

All Messianic passages if read "in context" can be seen to be referring to someone other than "the Messiah". That doesn't mean that they don't have a dual meaning that refers to the Messiah as well.

Dual meanings...here comes the non Jewish thought to try and play with Jewish thought.. Dual meaning c'mon.... I can place in the tanakh, if you want to put a dual meaning on something ,about my birth....


I would have written it "Hashem is their strength and fortress; yeshauhs his messiah is he". It is not grammatically necessary to add "are" between "yeshuahs" and "his messiah", is it?

actually yes it is ok since the verb "to be" can be inferred. which means it doesn't have to be present to be place there. this is true in hebrew Grammer. I can place an "is or an are" at the beginning, middle and end ,it may not sound all that great but, it would not be wrong. This passage I can read three or four different ways simply by removing the vowel markers and placing new ones below; Im not changing the text as it reads I am only placing different vocalizations. The Text being unpointed in the first place you can do that....think about what you are trying to do before you travel down this street...

As for your complaints about it being feminine and plural, please see above.

as for you complaints about its usage and me correcting you see above

Hebrew names are Hebrew words, aren't they?


I'm not quite sure what to make of this. The only difference between "Yeshuah" and "Yeshua" is that the former has a trailing "heh" which makes it feminine, while the latter is masculine. As far as I know, this doesn't change the meaning at all. What do you suppose "Yeshua" means, if not "salvation"? How do you explain that "Yeshua" is used as an abbreviation for "Yehoshua", meaning "G-d is salvation"?

your right they are hebrew words. The difference between Yeshuah and yeshu'a is that the latter ends with a Heh and is feminine. the former ends with an Ayin and is masculine this is used to call the High priest Jeshua in Zechariah. Yehoshua does not come from the word for salvation but rather the masculaine word Hoshe'a meaning "save" divy up the word into its parts: Yeh Hoshua a play on the words Yah $ Hoshe'a meaning "G-d saves." Yeshu'a is a dimunitive form of Yehoshu'a and would have a similar meaning if you were to divy up the name into its parts and assess a root word. my name Yosef means "G-d add's." so we can continue to play the name game all day and get nowhere

Deuteronomy 4:16 refers to graven images made in the likeness of G-d. We do not believe that Jesus was the "likeness" of G-d - we believe that he was G-d. Worship of Jesus does not fall under this category.

In the form of man or woman dont forget that part. Think about that, that means we shall not worship anything, the word used for likeness(TeMonat) has the meaning of something in the form of as in genesis "in our image after our likeness(LeMinehu)" they both have the same root, the word is used to say not toworship anything that looks like me, It doesnt matter how you try to play it any image in form of male or female be it living or not is considered idolatry by that passage... to worship a human is idolatry...


The idea of G-d becoming man is just as foreign to Greek mythology as it is to Judaism. In Greek mythology, gods may have occasionally came down and walked on the earth, but they never took on the corruptible, fleshy bodies of humans - they merely made themselves appear as humans. There are plenty of times in the OT when G-d appears in human likeness (though not in the flesh) to OT characters as well (eg, when Jacob wrestled with G-d).

Tell that to Hercules and Achillies...They were men/gods born of both a god and a woman...

As for Jacob wrestling G-d I can definately say he did not. He either wrestled and angel or he wrestled a mighty person.. what is funny the word for wrestle can mean tangle/ wrestle/ struggle/ compete....etc...

The idea that G-d would would become a human being and be subject to human frailty - sickness, injury, and death - is indeed quite unique to Christianity. It's an idea that originated with Jesus himself.

and very foreign to Judaism as I have said over and over..


Sure, I accept your opinion. I'm just submitting facts for your consideration, because I think you are mistaken (much as you are submitting facts for my consideration because you think I'm mistaken :smile:). Do with them as your conscience sees fit.


I can only say the same to you. Plus I would like to comment that I enjoy speaking with you. You have some good comments about hard questions and I like that about people..

[Menachem]

well put Stillsmallvoice

[Christy]

Once these jews who you are saying go to christianity they are what is called an apostate. they are Jews who wish to worship Idols and seek other gods or Elohim Acharim.. Hence they become cut off from Israel but still Jews by birth...

as for the Jew who is an athiest at least they are not seeking after other gods or idol worshipping. They are a Jew by birth but they choose to believe in no G-d at all....


How do you know that Jews that are atheists don't worship themselves, or other people as their God? Wouldn't that mean that they have other Gods? Why do people get so mad at people who call themselves "Messiac Jews." What's the big deal if somebody decides to convert to Christianity from Judaism anyway?

[Menachem]

How do you know that Jews that are atheists don't worship themselves, or other people as their God? Wouldn't that mean that they have other Gods? Why do people get so mad at people who call themselves "Messiac Jews." What's the big deal if somebody decides to convert to Christianity from Judaism anyway?


The definition of an athiest is someone who does not worship any dieties. if they dont worship anything at all they certainly dont worship themselves.

Christy, the term "messianic jew" is used for those who are christians who want to dress up and play jew and/or convert Jews to christianity. The makeup of the whole messianic movement is about 98% Gentile with only a small following of Jews who converted to this form of evangelical Christianity.

The Idea of a christain branch who wants nothing more than to convert Jews to christianity is repugnant and infuriating. Since all we want is to be left alone to worship G-d..

[Christy]

Then why when somebody wants to not be Jewish do they send that person to a Rabbi to change their mind? I heard about this happening. I don't know if it is true or not but my sister told me that one of her co-workers became a Christian from a Jew, and his family held a funeral for him. I mean, they should be allowed to search it out for themselves, shouldn't they?

[Christy]

When I said somebody who doesn't want to be Jewish, what I really meant is somebody who is interested in Christianity or another religion. I didn't word that right.

[Menachem]

Then why when somebody wants to not be Jewish do they send that person to a Rabbi to change their mind? I heard about this happening. I don't know if it is true or not but my sister told me that one of her co-workers became a Christian from a Jew, and his family held a funeral for him. I mean, they should be allowed to search it out for themselves, shouldn't they?

The person if they are wanting to go and follow other faiths is sent to a rabbi yes, the Rabbi simply asks them why and trys to level with them. The rabbi does try to disuade them for the reason that if they leave it diminishes the Jewish peoepl becasue the person will altimately intermarry and the end their line as a Jewish one. So it is a big deal within judaism to keep its adherents as a religion and as a People.

If you are inquireing about conversion to Judaism here is my response:
Judaism as a religion does not proselytize. The rabbi disuades them to test how much they want to be a Jew and practice Judaism plus it also give the person time to think is over..

If my son or daughter went in search of Elohim Acharim I would have one two because they have left the Jewish people in search of other gods. When Jewish people do that they are cut off from Israel and considered dead to the family and to Judaism.

[dizzle]

T

Christy, the term "messianic jew" is used for those who are christians who want to dress up and play jew and/or convert Jews to christianity. The makeup of the whole messianic movement is about 98% Gentile with only a small following of Jews who converted to this form of evangelical Christianity.

all of the persons who are really Jewish converts must be in my area of town since I know of not one gentile who calls themself a messianic jew and numerous Jews who have embraced their Messiah.


The Idea of a christain branch who wants nothing more than to convert Jews to christianity is repugnant and infuriating. Since all we want is to be left alone to worship G-d..

Obviously the ones who convert decided they wanted something else. Furthermore your statement vis a vis the majority of evangelicals is akin to me saying, "Hey I love orthodox Judaism...... as long as they eat pork." In other words, you want to dictate what we shold believe. Sorry but I believe that if you reject Christ you are going to be separated from God for all eternity and no matter how repugnant it may be to you that I wish to spare you from that, I do. You would have a huge problem with me and my husband who spend more time then most speakikng to and yes, I have no compunction in saying, proselytizing Jewish people. We both work in areas where we have many Jewish friends and co-workers.

[Goose]

Hi all!
I don't want to insult or offend anyone here (least of all Goose, who is courteous & a gentleman), but beliefs in Jesus/Ribi Yehoshua/Yeshua/Yahoshua/etc. as the Messiah, the "Son of God", an avatar of God Incarnate and a "person" within a triune God, and/or in the very idea that God could/did become flesh, etc. are totally, utterly, and completely incompatible with traditional, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism, whether of the Rabbinic or Karaite variety. (Heck, even the Samaritans would agree with us on this one!) This circle can never be squared.Thank you for the comment SSM, but for clarification purposes, here are some things concerning Ribi Yehoshua ben Yosef that I believe:


He didn't authorize, or teach the NT. This is a Christian set of books. Redacted and contradicting, and not what the earliest followers believed.
He was conceived normally, by normal human procreation.
He was not G-d incarnate, or part of a trinity. He was a regular (orthodox) Jew in good standing, whom I believe fulfilled the necessary prophesies of Meshiach ben Yosef.

[Christy]

I never said that Judaism was a prolestizing religion, sorry if it sounded that way. So, hypothetically, a person born into a Jewish family would have to stay Jewish, it doesn't matter if that person believes in God or not. However, they can never be anything else but Jewish or else their family would disown them? So they live with fear of being disowned to disuade them from wanting to go into another religion?

[Christy]

I'm sorry, I'm getting really off topic

[Socrates]

Most of the "Messianic Jews" as Yoshiah had commented about are not even Jews. They have no Jewishness to play on. Granted a very small minority of them were born Jewish and converted to christianity. Still you are looking at a very small number mixed in with the Gentiles there who like to dress up and play "Jew."
Ipse dixit -- try backing up your assertions for a change. The Jews for Jesus and Ariel Ministries are mainly ethnically Jewish. And where do you get off by saying that they are no longer Jewish when they believe in a Jewish Messiah and follow His teachings in the Jew-authored New Testament?

Now for the ones who converted to christianity, The reason I call them apostates is because they elected to go and follow another faith that is not the Jewish faith.
A large number of Israelis don't believe in God at all, so are they no longer Jews either? Well, if Jewishness is based on religion, then there can be no such thing as an atheistic Jew. But if Jewishness is based on ethnic identification, then it doesn't matter whether a Jew follows Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity or orthodox atheism.

But your real gripe is that Christians don't follow the revisionist Rabbinic Judaism coined by Yochanan ben Zakkai.

The whole NT screams Greek Influence or Hellenization.
Crap. You wouldn't know Hellenization if you tripped over it.

The concept in which these apostate Jews follow is not a Jewish concept i.e. The "Son of G-d" concept
Agur certainly knew that God had a son, whose name was then unknown (Proverbs 30:4). Far too many misochristic Jews know squat even about their own professed faith.

or the "virgin birth" concept
Then blame the Septuagint translators 250 years before Christ for translating 'almah as parthenos (virgin). I would trust these rabbis living >1000 years before modern revisionist Jews who claim that 'almah just means "young woman" -- and who can't show that it is ever used of a non-virgin or why a young woman conceiving should be a sign -- it happens all the time!

and the concept of a "Mystical Messiah who is to be a lasting sacrfice for the sins of the world" these concepts are not Jewish concepts
Yes they are -- they are found in the Jew-authored NT which is based firmly on the Jew-authored OT. The NT authors made a huge point of rejecting Hellenistic idolatry (Acts 14).

and are actually according to many Idolatry practices especially equating the man "jesus" with G-d is in fact Idolatry according to Halachah..
Crap again. And who cares what about the Halachah -- the NT is just as Jewish.

That is one of the major reasons for my not considering them Jewish anymore they are "cut off" from the Land of Israel. So there you have it....
So why are so many atheists in the Land of Israel, hypocrite?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Hmm...

Generally, someone who is thinking about converting should approach a LOR (Local Orthodox Rabbi & discuss his/her (the prospective convert's) concerns. It is the LOR's job to talk with the prospective convert, size up their seriousness & inform him/her of what being a Jew means (warts & all). The LOR will attempt to dissuade the would-be convert as part of his duty to ascertain her motives & see how serious he/she is (We learn this from Naomi's threefold attempt to dissuade Ruth from following her, see Ruth 1:8, 1:11-12 and 1:15). Once the LOR is satisfied as to the genuineness & seriousness of the would-be convert's motives, he will outline a course of intensive study (copying Naomi, who, once she understood that Ruth was totally serious, stopped trying to talk her out of it; see Ruth 1:18). This will include not just reading, but visiting an orthodox Jewish family, spending Shabbat (i.e. the Sabbath) and holydays with them, etc. After the LOR is satisfied that the prospective convert has studied enough, he will arrange for him/her to appear before a duly constituted rabbinical court (whether permanent or ad hoc), known as a beit din. When the three members of the beit din are satisfied that the would-be convert is both knowledgeable & sincere, they will sanction his/her conversion. A man will thereupon have to be circumcised; if he is already circumcised a drop of blood will have to be drawn from the glans of his penis (by someone specially trained!). The man will then have to immerse in a special ritual bath, known as a mikveh, in the presence of the beit din. A woman will have to immerse in the mikveh, in the presence of a duly authorized woman attendant. That's it. The person (who will be given a Hebrew name, either in addition to or in place of the person's previous name) is now Jewish & is usually welcomed with Boaz's blessing to Ruth (2:12):

"The Lord recompense your work, and be your reward complete from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you are come to take refuge."

When as Jew voluntarily adopts another faith (God forbid!), it is seen as a terrible disaster/tragedy. Our Sages teach that "All Israel are responsible for each other." All Jews are one family, one body. When a Jew converts to another faith or marries a non-Jew, and the children are neither Jewish nor are raised as Jews (God forbid!) if they are, it is like having an organ torn out or a limb cut off. We feel the loss very keenly and it hurts more than you can possibly imagine (how many hundreds of millions of Christians are there in the world?). It is a raw wound that never heals, a void that cannot be filled.

On the Saturday before last, we (Jews all over the world) read Numbers 8:1-12:16 in synagogue as the weekly Torah portion (see http://www.jewfaq.org/readings.htm). The portion opens with Aaron (and his priestly descendants) being commanded to light the seven-branched candleabra (menora in Hebrew). The following is the last 2 paragraphs from the column on the weekly Torah reading in last-last Friday's Jerusalem Post:

Hence the dependency of the priests upon the individual Israelites is a paradigm for the interdependence of every Jew: each Jew must see himself as a co-signer and guarantor for every other. (...).

The story is told that when the young Trisker and Voorker rebbes (two great leaders of hassidic dynasties who had studied together as children) were about to leave their heder and establish their respective congregations, they decided to give each other a picture of themselves as a memento. But each did not give the other a picture of himself; each tore his picture in half, and each departed from the other with two half pictures. The message was clear: one without the other was only half an individual, as each Jew is only a partial being when set apart from the rest of the Israelites.

Link:http://tinyurl.com/2vzm2

As the above excerpt shows, all Jews everywhere constitute one organic whole. A Jew who adopts another faith, or a Jewish man who "marries out" (as we say), scars and disfigures this whole, this unity, and all other Jews suffer, and are impaired and diminished, thereby. Thus, we see adopting another faith and intermarriage as very grievous things.

A Jew who (God forbid!) adopts another faith, is still Jewish. However, until he/she repents & renounces the other faith that they have adopted, a number of disabilities are heaped on them. Such a person is to be shunned. If a man, he cannot be counted as part of the necessary quorom for group prayer; he may not be given any synagogue or community honor; he may not teach Judaism; act as a rabbi, mohel (ritual circumciser), or shokhet (kosher butcher). Under Jewish law, he is disinherited. If such a person dies unrepentant, I believe that he/she either may not be buried in a properly-consecrated Jewish cemetery or must be buried in a special section. In any society, traitors are shunned & treated as outcasts (whom did Dante place in the 9th, and lowest, circle of Hell? Traitors to their country, traitors to their kindred & traitors to their lords).

Once inducted into the club (either by birth from a Jewish mother or via an orthodox conversion), a Jew can never leave, i.e. he/she cannot un-covenant themselves; adoption of another faith does not change this. A Jew who thinks that he/she can absolve him/herself of his/her covenental obligations by, say, adopting Christianity or Islam is sorely mistaken. In Ezekiel 20:32-33, God says:

"...and that which comes into your mind shall not be at all; in that you say: We will be as the nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, will I be king over you;"

One of my rabbis says that, the wood mentioned above refers to the Cross (i.e. Christianity), while the stone refers to the Kaaba (i.e. Islam).

Judaism is not an ethnicity & Jews are not an ethnic group. In my neighborhood, we have white-skinned Jews, black Jews, darker/brown-skinned Jews, oriental Jews, etc. The people of Moses are a real mosaic!

A large number of Israelis don't believe in God at all, so are they no longer Jews either? Well, if Jewishness is based on religion, then there can be no such thing as an atheistic Jew. But if Jewishness is based on ethnic identification, then it doesn't matter whether a Jew follows Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity or orthodox atheism.

Being a Jew doesn't fit any other paradigm/pattern (quoth Balaam: "it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations"). A Jew is someone who was born of a Jewish mother or who had an orthodox conversion, period. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Socrates also posted:

But your real gripe is that Christians don't follow the revisionist Rabbinic Judaism coined by Yochanan ben Zakkai.

I certainly acknowledge your opinion about Yohanan Ben Zakkai (see http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/zakkai.htm and http://tinyurl.com/2rmua) even if I do not share it.

I, for one, bear no such gripe as you have mentioned. My only gripe is against people who knowingly blur the distinctions & differences between our two respective faiths, Judaism and Christianity, for the purpose of spreading disinformation in order to convert uninformed Jews. Let us each exist in our own spheres & acknowledge that the beliefs of the other have as much meaning for them as ours do for us.

Far too many misochristic Jews know squat even about their own professed faith.

Alas, this is true! (What does misochristic mean?)

See http://tinyurl.com/3hg5z for our take on Proverbs 30.4.

...they are found in the Jew-authored NT...

Just because something has been written by a Jew doesn't mean that it necessarily jibes with traditional, normative Judaism. Shabbethai Zvi (http://tinyurl.com/338xd) wrote a lot.

So...I'm having GREAT fun teasing my British-born colleagues :bonk: about England's spectacularly disgraceful :eww: performance against France in the European soccer championships in Portugal yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/257ve). What're you all up to? (The foregoing is my effort to defuse any possible rancor on this thread. Remember, if we can stay amigos, then it's not worth discussing here!)

Goose, thank you for correcting me!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Menachem]

Ipse dixit -- try backing up your assertions for a change. The Jews for Jesus and Ariel Ministries are mainly ethnically Jewish. And where do you get off by saying that they are no longer Jewish when they believe in a Jewish Messiah and follow His teachings in the Jew-authored New Testament?

LoL this is what I alsways Get that jews for jesus is primarily made up of ethnically Jewish people.. The last time I encountered jews for jesus the people who were working for them were no more jewish than their gentile supervisor on the street corner. Their assertion is that the people who are street missionaries are either born Jewish or are married to converted jews. So the ones who are married, or so they claim, to them(Jews) are not counted jewish and those who are ethnically Jews are so small in numbers they are hardly identifiable in the bunch of Gentiles.
The problem with the latter half of you statement is that jesus was not the Jewish messiah. he is disqualified as were many others from being the messiah by many things, His birth, his lineage, his teachings and the christian concept fo man/god savior claim..


A large number of Israelis don't believe in God at all, so are they no longer Jews either? Well, if Jewishness is based on religion, then there can be no such thing as an atheistic Jew. But if Jewishness is based on ethnic identification, then it doesn't matter whether a Jew follows Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity or orthodox atheism.

The Jewish atheist has already been addressed in another post of course you can never count on a christain to read anything.. The Jew who is an atheist is not considered an apostate because he/she has not sought after other gods they simply dont believe one exists as for the Jew who converts to christianity He is still a Jew as he/she was born a Jew but he/she has now become an Apostate and is cut off from the community of Israel and in many ways considered Dead by other Jews.

But your real gripe is that Christians don't follow the revisionist Rabbinic Judaism coined by Yochanan ben Zakkai.

No that is not my gripe at all. I dont gripe about much.

Your gripe is that I dont accept the crap that christians try to feed me about jesus. as for your evidence of revisionsim by Yochanan ben Zakkai I would love to see what you will post about that...

Crap. You wouldn't know Hellenization if you tripped over it.

I pointed out christianity pretty quickly so that must say something about it.


Agur certainly knew that God had a son, whose name was then unknown (Proverbs 30:4). Far too many misochristic Jews know squat even about their own professed faith.

The problem here is christains know even less about the jewish faith than Jews do fortunately I know a great deal about Judaism

Now lets look at what this passage really says in the Hebrew:

Misheli(proverbs) 30:4 "Mi A'lah Shamayim Va'yerad Mi Asaf Rucha / Bechapenayu Mi Atzarar Mayim / Basimelah Mi Hekim Kal A'pesei aretz Mah Shemo Vemah Shem Beno Ki Tead'a."

Who has ascended to heaven and descended? Who else gathered the wind in his palm? who else restricted the water in his garment/cloak? Who established all the ends of the Earth?

This part of the passage is an inquiery of either about G-d or about Moses who restricted the waters,who controlled the wind and who went into heaven and brought the Torah to earth.

Now here is tha last part fo the person's in Inquiery:

What is his name , what is his son's name if you know?

Here is where you dillemmas lies. this part is asking who has done this now he wants an answer of who these people are. the person's name and the names of family members.

also read this with verses 2 and 3 : [2] Surely I am a boor of a man and do not have human understanding [3] I have not learned wisdom, nor known sacred knowledge.

Here the guy admits he is not wise in other words the guy is a moron. and he warns Solomon here that he should not consider himself greater than Moses nor greater than G-d. this is all this verse referrs to.

apparently I do know what judaism is about and do know better than to think that christains can interpret passages in the context as the context given shows you that the way you are applying this is wrong.

Then blame the Septuagint translators 250 years before Christ for translating 'almah as parthenos (virgin). I would trust these rabbis living >1000 years before modern revisionist Jews who claim that 'almah just means "young woman" -- and who can't show that it is ever used of a non-virgin or why a young woman conceiving should be a sign -- it happens all the time!

LoL...the septuagint LXX you have is a product of the second century C.E. church fathers Lucian and Origen. The one that was dont by the 72 Rabbis only consisted of the first five books of the Torah, The Letter of Aristeas, Talmud Tractate Megilla 9a, Church father Jerome's "Book of Hebrew questions" , and Josephus all say the same thing I did about the Septuagint's original form containing only the first five books of the Torah. With that amount against you I would advise reshaping your thinking about the septuagint.

now as for the word Parthenos why dont you look up Genesis 34:2-4 in the Septuagint. There Dinah the daughter of Jacob is being called a Parthenos after she was raped. In the Hebrew the word na'ara is used to say young girl. How can a raped girl be a parthenos? according to any native greek speaking person they will tell you that in the greek language "parthenos" has to meanings that of a virgin and that of a young woman depending on how it is used.

as for my proof of almah not meaning virgin Isaiah used the hebrew word for Virgin several times the word betulah here: Isaiah 23:4,12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5

Now for almah the KJV doesn't call them virigns here :
Exod 2:8 – And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the young woman (“ha’almah”) went and called the child’s mother.

Ps 68:26 – The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were young women (“alamot”) beating tambourines.

Pr 30:18-19 – (18) There are three things which are too wonderful for me, indeed, four which I know not; (19) The way of a vulture in the sky; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a [virile] man (“gever”) with a young woman (“b’almah”).

so yes the KJV does get things right once in a while but most of the time they try to place meanings to words that dont mean what they say it does.


Yes they are -- they are found in the Jew-authored NT which is based firmly on the Jew-authored OT. The NT authors made a huge point of rejecting Hellenistic idolatry (Acts 14).

they go from rejecting one form of Idolatry in the GNT to accepting another form of Idolatry by worshipping a human being Deuteronomy 4:16 forbids that.

So how much is it based on the Tanakh again??


Crap again. And who cares what about the Halachah -- the NT is just as Jewish.

Since you try to make the base claim that the GNT is Jewish then you would have no problem incorperating Halacha in there. since you consider halachah crap that means that the NT must not be as Jewish as you thought.

since you want to say halacha is crap your giving the GNT as a Jewish document doesnt add up since you cant even say a Jewish document is worth your caring...


So why are so many atheists in the Land of Israel, hypocrite?

Why dont you ask them why they are atheist or secular... As for me being a hypocrite I have not seen you prove this beyond calling me names and personally attacking me. So I can say I am not a hypocrite to what I believe and do. Now you should really look at your Christian doctrine and ask yourself who is being hypocritical.

[Menachem]

all of the persons who are really Jewish converts must be in my area of town since I know of not one gentile who calls themself a messianic jew and numerous Jews who have embraced their Messiah.

See thats the thing many of the gentiles who are under the guise of messianic jew will tell you they are Jewish. And they are believers in Yeshu'a. This is the missionary tactic they use to get the Jewish people to foolow them to join a Hebrew-christian group. I have been approached withthis tactic and they will do whatever it takes to get you to believe that they are just as Jewish as I am.


Obviously the ones who convert decided they wanted something else. Furthermore your statement vis a vis the majority of evangelicals is akin to me saying, "Hey I love orthodox Judaism...... as long as they eat pork." In other words, you want to dictate what we shold believe.

I have no desire to dictate what you believe I am simply saying that you should leave us alone so that we may worship G-d

Sorry but I believe that if you reject Christ you are going to be separated from God for all eternity and no matter how repugnant it may be to you that I wish to spare you from that, I do. You would have a huge problem with me and my husband who spend more time then most speakikng to and yes, I have no compunction in saying, proselytizing Jewish people. We both work in areas where we have many Jewish friends and co-workers.


That is far different from What Judasim believes we are much more focused on Tikkun Olam than we are on the after life. The Tanakh is almost silent on what happens when we die. here is a quote from ecclesiastes 12:7 that I think is where Jews go when we die. Ecclesiastes 12:7 "The dusts return to the ground as it was and the spirit returns to G-d who gave it." So in the tanakh we dont need jesus to help us in the afterlife we know where we go.

[Timothy Leary]

Hi SSV,

Could you clarify what you mean when you say "favorable"? My mother's LOR thinks that Jesus was a good man, but thinks that the Christian beliefs about him (virgin birth, man-god, etc.) are "unkosher".

No Jewish Sage or rabbi worth his salt has ever made any favorable references to Jesus, the Trinity or the Incarnation no matter what any would-be missionaries-on-the-make or those with a king-size axe to grind would have you believe, mistranslations and misrepresentations (whether innocent or deliberate), and badly-taken-out-of-context quotes by would-be missionaries-on-the-make and those with an agenda, notwithstanding. Claims to the contrary are preposterous.

[Timothy Leary]

all of the persons who are really Jewish converts must be in my area of town since I know of not one gentile who calls themself a messianic jew and numerous Jews who have embraced their Messiah.


DDW,

Then I'd like to applaud your area for the honesty. Where I live, there is a "Messianic Synagogue" with people who claim they are "Messianic Jews". How many of them have any Jewish Lineage (maternal or paternal)? 2 of them.
The rest don't even know what chutzpah means.

[Timothy Leary]

On a RJ site, I read some evidence that at one time Judaism was a proselyting religion, though it isn't anymore. The closest thing to a proselyting Judaism today are the people in Chabad. Who knows, maybe in the future it'll change?

I never said that Judaism was a prolestizing religion, sorry if it sounded that way. So, hypothetically, a person born into a Jewish family would have to stay Jewish, it doesn't matter if that person believes in God or not. However, they can never be anything else but Jewish or else their family would disown them? So they live with fear of being disowned to disuade them from wanting to go into another religion?

[Timothy Leary]

Ipse dixit -- try backing up your assertions for a change. The Jews for Jesus and Ariel Ministries are mainly ethnically Jewish. And where do you get off by saying that they are no longer Jewish when they believe in a Jewish Messiah and follow His teachings in the Jew-authored New Testament?

Hi Socrates, the founder of J4J, Moshe Rosen, said the numbers of Messianics who are actually Jewish (paternally and/or maternally) are less than 50,000. In the nearest "Messianic Synagogue", only 2 of their adherants are actually Jewish.


A large number of Israelis don't believe in God at all, so are they no longer Jews either? Well, if Jewishness is based on religion, then there can be no such thing as an atheistic Jew. But if Jewishness is based on ethnic identification, then it doesn't matter whether a Jew follows Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity or orthodox atheism.


They would be apostate Jews, just like the Messianic Jews who are actually Jewish.


But your real gripe is that Christians don't follow the revisionist Rabbinic Judaism coined by Yochanan ben Zakkai.

If that's so, how is it that Eli and I get along perfectly - when I'm a Karaite, A Jew who doesn't accept the "Oral Torah"? Why is it that Eli has never even said that I should attend a Rabbinic Synagogue, or study the Talmud, or a Rabbinical Sage's commentaries?


Then blame the Septuagint translators 250 years before Christ for translating 'almah as parthenos (virgin). I would trust these rabbis living >1000 years before modern revisionist Jews who claim that 'almah just means "young woman" -- and who can't show that it is ever used of a non-virgin or why a young woman conceiving should be a sign -- it happens all the time!

The LXX and the Virgin, by Kenneth Lefebvre (http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=16&page=1), and Isaiah 7:14 - Virgin Birth? (http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html) provide effective disproofs of that notion.

I'd also hit the claim you made about Proverbs, but my TNK isn't near me.

[Socrates]

Hi Socrates, the founder of J4J, Moshe Rosen, said the numbers of Messianics who are actually Jewish (paternally and/or maternally) are less than 50,000. In the nearest "Messianic Synagogue", only 2 of their adherants are actually Jewish.
Hearsay --- totally contrary to organisations like Jews for Jesus, Celebrate Messiah and Ariel Ministries which have a huge Jewish following.

They would be apostate Jews, just like the Messianic Jews who are actually Jewish.
Needs more than just your ipse dixit. Rather, you need a rational criterion for Jewishness that is not blatantly self-serving that excludes followers of Jesus but includes rejectors of God.

If that's so, how is it that Eli and I get along perfectly - when I'm a Karaite, A Jew who doesn't accept the "Oral Torah"? Why is it that Eli has never even said that I should attend a Rabbinic Synagogue, or study the Talmud, or a Rabbinical Sage's commentaries?
It seems that there is such anti-Christian bigotry among many Jewish people that all they can agree on is that a Jew can't be a follower of Jesus. They make pathetic excuses for allowing God-haters to be Jews.

The LXX and the Virgin, by Kenneth Lefebvre (http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=16&page=1), and Isaiah 7:14 - Virgin Birth? (http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html) provide effective disproofs of that notion.
:bouncing: All that nonsense is completely splattered in AiG's article http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp#714)

[Goose]

(Orthodox) Jews do not hold to the LXX as authoritative, so the point arguing the virgin birth to an informed Jew, is actually pointless. The LXX(originally just the Pentateuch and did not contain your "prophecy") was originally written as a crutch, and the extant copies of the LXX we hold today are not the original.

[Socrates]

LoL this is what I alsways Get that jews for jesus is primarily made up of ethnically Jewish people.. The last time I encountered jews for jesus the people who were working for them were no more jewish than their gentile supervisor on the street corner.
I don't believe you. Rather, you have already defined them as non-Jews for believing in Yeshua.

The problem with the latter half of you statement is that jesus was not the Jewish messiah. he is disqualified as were many others from being the messiah by many things, His birth, his lineage, his teachings and the christian concept fo man/god savior claim.
Lovely ipse dixits that ignore the OT teachingsabout the Messiah that can be fulfilled only in Yeshua.

The Jewish atheist has already been addressed in another post of course you can never count on a christain to read anything.
We can never count on an anti-Christian bigot to read anything. My post More on defining a Jew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132146&highlight=fruchtenbaum#post132146) shows the futility of trying to define a Jew non-biblically.[/QUOTE]

The Jew who is an atheist is not considered an apostate because he/she has not sought after other gods they simply dont believe one exists as for the Jew who converts to christianity He is still a Jew as he/she was born a Jew but he/she has now become an Apostate and is cut off from the community of Israel and in many ways considered Dead by other Jews.
Talk about special pleading. Many atheistic Jews are very anti-God -- a clear rejection. But Jewish Christians believe in God and the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible.

Your gripe is that I dont accept the crap that christians try to feed me about jesus. as for your evidence of revisionsim by Yochanan ben Zakkai I would love to see what you will post about that...
Simple -- the synagogue replaced the temple as the center of Jewish life, and the leadership changed from priests to rabbis.

I pointed out christianity pretty quickly so that must say something about it.
Ignorant assertion.

Who has ascended to heaven and descended? Who else gathered the wind in his palm? who else restricted the water in his garment/cloak? Who established all the ends of the Earth?

This part of the passage is an inquiery of either about G-d or about Moses who restricted the waters,who controlled the wind and who went into heaven and brought the Torah to earth.
Clearly can refer only to God.

Now here is tha last part fo the person's in Inquiery:

What is his name , what is his son's name if you know?

Here is where you dillemmas lies. this part is asking who has done this now he wants an answer of who these people are. the person's name and the names of family members.

also read this with verses 2 and 3 : [2] Surely I am a boor of a man and do not have human understanding [3] I have not learned wisdom, nor known sacred knowledge.

Here the guy admits he is not wise in other words the guy is a moron. and he warns Solomon here that he should not consider himself greater than Moses nor greater than G-d. this is all this verse referrs to.
Sez you. It clearly refers to God having a son, and how it would stump even the smartest to know His name, because it was not possible to know this back then at that stage of God's progressive revelation of His Messianic program.

apparently I do know what judaism is about and do know better than to think that christains can interpret passages in the context as the context given shows you that the way you are applying this is wrong.
I know better than most Jews how the ancient Rabbis interpreted so many passages as messianic, and only revisionist anti-Christian bigots have revised the traditional interpretation.

LoL...the septuagint LXX you have is a product of the second century C.E. church fathers Lucian and Origen. The one that was dont by the 72 Rabbis only consisted of the first five books of the Torah, The Letter of Aristeas, Talmud Tractate Megilla 9a, Church father Jerome's "Book of Hebrew questions" , and Josephus all say the same thing I did about the Septuagint's original form containing only the first five books of the Torah. With that amount against you I would advise reshaping your thinking about the septuagint.
What nonsense -- even anti-Christians say that Matthew got parthenos from the LXX, but wrongly says this is a mistake.

now as for the word Parthenos why dont you look up Genesis 34:2-4 in the Septuagint. There Dinah the daughter of Jacob is being called a Parthenos after she was raped. In the Hebrew the word na'ara is used to say young girl. How can a raped girl be a parthenos?
Easy -- makes perfect sense to say that someone raped a virgin. Similarly, people have written that Hitler killed millions of living souls. Of course, the rape violently removed her virginity, and Hitler removed the lives. But it gets across perfectly what these horrendous acts did to people.

according to any native greek speaking person they will tell you that in the greek language "parthenos" has to meanings that of a virgin and that of a young woman depending on how it is used.
Nonsense. The primary meaning is "virgin". That's why we have terms like "parthenogenesis".

as for my proof of almah not meaning virgin Isaiah used the hebrew word for Virgin several times the word betulah here: Isaiah 23:4,12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5

Now for almah the KJV doesn't call them virigns here :
Exod 2:8 – And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the young woman (“ha’almah”) went and called the child’s mother.
This is miriam as a girl -- how could this not be a virgin? AiG points out in The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp)

The word for virgin here is ‘almah. Some liberals and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign — it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates it as παρθενος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin. Later Jews, such as Trypho,28 Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi (11th Cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.

However, even Rashi admitted that the word could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almah in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, betûlah, ‘emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).’ It is qualified by a statement ‘neither had any man known her’ in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to ‘almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betûlah is used of a married woman. The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.


they go from rejecting one form of Idolatry in the GNT to accepting another form of Idolatry by worshipping a human being Deuteronomy 4:16 forbids that.
It forbids in general worshipping a created being. but if God Himself took on human nature, it would not be idolatry. Don't you believe in God's omnipotence.

So how much is it based on the Tanakh again??
Everything.

Since you try to make the base claim that the GNT is Jewish then you would have no problem incorperating Halacha in there. since you consider halachah crap that means that the NT must not be as Jewish as you thought.
The GNT is true to the facts and is authored by Jews; the Halacha is Judaistic revisionism.

Why dont you ask them why they are atheist or secular...
No, I'm asking you or anyone else why they should be considered Jews when they reject the very monotheism that characterises Judaism.

[Menachem]

I don't believe you. Rather, you have already defined them as non-Jews for believing in Yeshua.

Wrong again socrates i can see you hardly read the posts. I called them apostates..


Lovely ipse dixits that ignore the OT teachingsabout the Messiah that can be fulfilled only in Yeshua.

While we are on the subject of ipse dixits I would love to see some of the evidence on which you are trying to base Jesus in the tanakh.

I give more than ample support for my answers....where is yours...

Also what are those teachings about jesus in the tanakh again throw them he one at a time so that they may be knocked down one at a time.


We can never count on an anti-Christian bigot to read anything. My post More on defining a Jew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132146&highlight=fruchtenbaum#post132146) shows the futility of trying to define a Jew non-biblically.

Now we have more personal attacks and name calling gee isnt this guy something he wants me to carry a civil dialogue with name calling.....sounds like fun....LoL...

As for the futility of defining a jew non biblically I have already done so and you have not shown anything wrong with it....In fact you only helped me do it better...

Talk about special pleading. Many atheistic Jews are very anti-God -- a clear rejection. But Jewish Christians believe in God and the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible.

Yeah they are a bit anti-G-d yes but they were born Jews Or converted by the LOR and later returned to atheism which makes them a Jew. The Jew who goes after christainity is still a Jew but is considered an apostate and dead to the community of Israel. sounds to me Socrates your making nonsense out of sense


Simple -- the synagogue replaced the temple as the center of Jewish life, and the leadership changed from priests to rabbis.

This is an incorrect assumption. You assume the synagogue voluntarily became the center of Jewish life. with the temple destroyed by the Romans the synagogue gave rise to the real center of Judaism.....The Jewish community....

The Rabbis are not the leaders of Judaism they are the teachers of Judaism..In Judaism there is no Hierarchy as there is in christianity.
I have the perfect freedom to go against any rabbinic decree and anything in the Tanakh if Iwant to. This includes eating a ham and cheese sandwich on Yom kippur. I dont do those things but I could IF I really felt the need to test G-d.


Ignorant assertion.

No, this is a very intelligent assertion and one you couldn't disprove if you tried.


Clearly can refer only to God.

Talk about ignorant assertions.

This passage can be telling about moses for one.... It could be referring to the events surrounding moses and the miracles he did. For example: Parting the red sea parallel that with " who has restrained the waters in his garment?"

this verse doesnt necessarily refer to G-d. It can refer to moses.

Sez you. It clearly refers to God having a son, and how it would stump even the smartest to know His name, because it was not possible to know this back then at that stage of God's progressive revelation of His Messianic program.

No, says the Hebrew... this passage clearly does not show what you are hopin it would show. This is not showing how it could stump anyone, except you. The person writing agur is asking a simple question of who has done the things mentioned beforehand and asking who his family members are. he goes on to even mention he is a dummy. It is typical of a christian to actually take a verse out of its context and try to forcefit jesus into it.

also if you want to try and force-fit your son theory in here this might fit a bit better Exodus 4:22 the son here works just as well...


I know better than most Jews how the ancient Rabbis interpreted so many passages as messianic, and only revisionist anti-Christian bigots have revised the traditional interpretation.

so far socrates all I have seen you spell out is your own ignorance of the matter. you have not even made one single valid point as far as it is later disproven by either me or Yoshiah or Stillsmallvoice...

What nonsense -- even anti-Christians say that Matthew got parthenos from the LXX, but wrongly says this is a mistake.

And many christain scholars say that Matthew was originally in aramaic or Hebrew. The Peshitta is a later play on the Greek which is why the peshitta makes the same mistakes as the GNT does.

Face it socrates witht he evidence of the septuagint being written by the church especially Lucian and Origen and one of your own church fathers Jerome backing up the claim the Talmud, the letter of Aristeas, and Josephus we cn conclude that the septuagint is nto the same as the one produced by the 72 rabbi's.


Easy -- makes perfect sense to say that someone raped a virgin. Similarly, people have written that Hitler killed millions of living souls. Of course, the rape violently removed her virginity, and Hitler removed the lives. But it gets across perfectly what these horrendous acts did to people.

I can tell you did not read the passage so I will read it for you as it is in english: Genesis 34;
1. And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
3. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl[septuagint=parthenos], and spoke kindly to the girl[septuagint=parthenos].
4. And Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, Get me this girl for a wife.

So you can see what you are saying is not done here. the girl is clearly defiled then after she was raped she is called a "Parthenos" check it out for yourself http://www.spindleworks.com/septuagint/Genesis.htm

Nonsense. The primary meaning is "virgin". That's why we have terms like "parthenogenesis".

The why did the septuagint renderers use it wrong in the case of Dinah??


This is miriam as a girl -- how could this not be a virgin? AiG points out in The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp)

The word for virgin here is ‘almah. Some liberals and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign — it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates it as παρθενος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin. Later Jews, such as Trypho,28 Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi (11th Cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.

Wow..I would have to agree with my fellow orthodoxy... in which case they are right..and Rashi of course I would have to say yes he is right about that...


However, even Rashi admitted that the word could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8.

Yes I knwo very well Rashi thought this passage by context the young women could be virgins.. If you actually read what Rashi said it would help. He never said the word "almah" means virgin he said the women mentioned could be virgins.. so there goes your usage down the drain here..

In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almah in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage).

The translaters of the KJV dont have a clue as to how things are translated...They still think Ka'ari used in psalms 22:16 is means at piercing when the word itslef doesn even carry that meaning. they still think that Neshaqu Var in psalm's 2:12 should be translated as "Kiss the son" when the word Var in Hebrew does not mean son at all. plus there is no Heh preceeding the word to make it say "The....." so yes the Kjv has major issues of Translation problems. These are very good examples. as you said before all the other ones correct the problems with the translation.

The case you point out with Rebekah shows the word Almah. Now if you read the passage how would isaac KNow she was a virgin.. he doesnt the usage as virgin doesnt make sense case he doesnt know he is seeing her for the first time..
also note in Genesis 24:61 the KJV also uses Damsel for the hebrew word Na'arah which means young or little girl. This word goves no note of virginity and still the KJV likes to use Maidens or Damsels for these words also. The word is not soley used for almah or virgin as you would like to put it.

true you do have things like maiden voyage. taking inot account it is the first official voyage. and then you have the word maid who cleans things....surely it is not her first time cleaning thins now is it...especially when she tells you she has been a maid for 10 years...thats an aweful long time to be on your first cleaning job...


Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, betûlah, ‘emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).’ It is qualified by a statement ‘neither had any man known her’ in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to ‘almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betûlah is used of a married woman. The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.


are you sure about that usage fo virgin
try Genesis 24:16 the usage of betulah there aslo in these passages: Leviticus 21:14, the usage of the word throughout Deuteronomy 22, 1 Kings 1:2....etc... all use betulah and use it not the way you are saying it is used. your right it can be used to emphasis both which is what it does it is the total word for virgin, while almah is never used to emphasize anything remotely virginal..

LoL...if you actually read the hebrew of Joel 8 the word is K'betulah which gives it the preposition of "Like" making it a similie saying "Like a virgin" this passage is nto saying the person is a virign it is saying they should do something that is "Lament" like a virgin does. and if you actually read the context of the chapter it is talking about the elders of Tzion..

Now for the Baal and anath usage here. the encyclopedia Judaica while giving this definition and using the word Betulot which is in its plural case to refer to a single person. Which makes no sense try reading it this way. Anath left the virgins and had fenzied sex with Baal. That would fit much better... plus the aramaic language is irrelivent since we are talking about Hebrew. i can pull out one of the targums and show you a usage of the Armaic usage of the word..

It forbids in general worshipping a created being. but if God Himself took on human nature, it would not be idolatry. Don't you believe in God's omnipotence.

Well socrates this is where you get Non Jewish concept of G-d becoming a man. G-d is not a man, nor a son of man. Plus lets point out the Hebrew that is used here and compare it with another place it is used... the word "Temunat" in verse 16 has the same root as "Kidemutanu" which means this word measn exactly as it implies nothing in the likeness of G-d which would include actual human beings in any shape or form.

Everything.

is that so then where in the Tanakh is the concept of G-d becoming flesh to save humanity from their sins....good luck finding it....How about Human sacrifice oh wait that is prohibited also by the Torah, man christianity is on a roll.


The GNT is true to the facts and is authored by Jews; the Halacha is Judaistic revisionism.

LoL....Halacha is standing tradition and law since the time of Moses and the GNT came about when in the first century sometime.....LoL your reasoning is faulty just like the GNT.


No, I'm asking you or anyone else why they should be considered Jews when they reject the very monotheism that characterises Judaism.

That is not what your orginal post said but anyway I will answer. The Fact that they are born a Jew makes them a Jew. They can come out of the mothers womb sceaming bloody murder and say I hate you and your stinking religion and become a Moslem or Buddhist or an atheist or even a christian and he is still a Jew and he/she cant get away from that. Granted they have become apostates for most of them except the atheist since the others went in search of Elohim Acharim. Three of the four are cut off fromt eh community of Israel since they chose to leave of theri own free will the other, the athiest, is not cut off becasue here is a chance they may lose theri indifference and actually be Jewish.. The concept is not hard socrates and your trying to make nonsense out of sense..

[Timothy Leary]

Hearsay --- totally contrary to organisations like Jews for Jesus, Celebrate Messiah and Ariel Ministries which have a huge Jewish following.

Would you be reffering to the number given by Moshe Rosen, or the number in the local Messianic Congregation? If the former, I'll provide a source. If the ladder, I invite you to come to my home and find out for yourself.

Needs more than just your ipse dixit. Rather, you need a rational criterion for Jewishness that is not blatantly self-serving that excludes followers of Jesus but includes rejectors of God.

1) What does ipse dixit mean?

2) No, I have defined Jews who believe in Jesus as apostates.

3) By your standards, yes. By my standards, believing that Jesus is god is nothing less than Idoltary.


It seems that there is such anti-Christian bigotry among many Jewish people that all they can agree on is that a Jew can't be a follower of Jesus. They make pathetic excuses for allowing God-haters to be Jews.

If there is Anti-Christian sentiments among most of Jewry, it might be blamed on the misojudaic sentiments among certain Christians. After being labeled a Satanic Zionist Agent, or being called a "Christ-Killer" many times, you might get the picture. But, contrary to what you may think, we aren't opposed to the Christians themselves, though we are opposed to your religion. This is no different than your opposition to our religion, while you do not hate us.

[Timothy Leary]

More than that Goose,

No one is stupid enough to hold a translation as authorative. Even the so called "Humastic Judaism" (cough cough) doesn't hold a translation as authorative. Not even the Messianics do.

(Orthodox) Jews do not hold to the LXX as authoritative, so the point arguing the virgin birth to an informed Jew, is actually pointless. The LXX(originally just the Pentateuch and did not contain your "prophecy") was originally written as a crutch, and the extant copies of the LXX we hold today are not the original.

[Timothy Leary]

Lovely ipse dixits that ignore the OT teachingsabout the Messiah that can be fulfilled only in Yeshua.

There are no teachings in the Only Testament about Yeshua ben Yossef. Since there is already a thread examining the "Messianic Prophecies" in the Comparative Religions section, I suggest the discussion be taken there.

[dizzle]

actually that thread is old, and the thread should be moved to this section...

[Timothy Leary]

Yeah, I realized today that I forgot to keep going on it, and revived it today.

[Jezz]

(Orthodox) Jews do not hold to the LXX as authoritative, so the point arguing the virgin birth to an informed Jew, is actually pointless. The LXX(originally just the Pentateuch and did not contain your "prophecy") was originally written as a crutch, and the extant copies of the LXX we hold today are not the original.
Goose, this is an extremely misleading. The extant copies of the Masoretic Text that we have today are not the original either!

More than that Goose,

No one is stupid enough to hold a translation as authorative. Even the so called "Humastic Judaism" (cough cough) doesn't hold a translation as authorative. Not even the Messianics do.
This is also an extremely misleading statement. Just because the Masoretic Text is in the original language, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is closer to the original than the LXX is.

The fact is, there is no such thing as the "original text" in our current possession. All we have are "extant textual witnesses" to the original Hebrew Tanakh. There are various sources that are used as witnesses to parts of the Tanakh (you believe in the testimony of multiple witnesses, right? :wink:). I've listed the ones I could think of off the top of my head, listed in very rough chronological order (it can only be rough, as there is a discrepancy between "date of composition of original" and "date of earliest extant manuscripts"):

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from 2nd century BC to about AD 100).
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch.
3. NT quotations.
4. Josephus.
5. The LXX.
6. The Syriac OT.
7. The Latin OT (aka the Vulgate)
8. Church Fathers and Talmudic/Mishna quotations.
9. The Masoretic Text.

Now, I'll agree that the fact that the MT is in the original language certainly works in its favour as a witness to the original text. However, in contrast to this its late date also works against it, as it is by far the latest of all the textual witnesses. The earliest manuscripts for the MT date from the 11th century AD, whereas the earliest for the LXX date from the 4th century, and the Syriac from the 5th. The DSSs, of course, are much earlier again (and many are Hebrew). Very often, the DSS, LXX and Syriac all agree with each other - against the MT (and sometimes, there are even variants within the MT tradition that agree with the LXX/Syriac and disagree with the more mainstream MT variants).

Now, I certainly agree with you that no translation is more authoritative than the original, Yoshiah. This is a no-brainer, and I agree that one would be stupid to claim otherwise (like the silly KJV-only crowd who claim that the KJV is more accurate than the Greek from which it was translated... :ahem:). It would be nice if this was the choice we were faced with in choosing which extant version of the Tanakh was most authoritative. But the fact is that that choice is not open to us, as the original Tanakh is not available to us. Instead, the choice we are faced with is a choice between early translations and much, much later copies several generations and many centuries removed from the original. The question of which of these is more authoritative is not as cut-and-dried as you would like to believe.

eliyosef, I haven't forgotten your post - I will respond to it later... :smile:

[Menachem]

1) What does ipse dixit mean?


ipse dixit (IP-see DIK-sit) noun

An assertion without supporting proof. [From Latin, literally, he himself said it.]

Hope this helps...

[Timothy Leary]

Actually, in my notes (on my computer... the dead one - thank goodness for a laptop that my dad got from his work...), I had some evidence to show that the Masoretic Texts are copies of the Temple (Master) Manuscript.

Raine, do you by chance have any of the notes I'm thinking of?

[Jezz]

The evidence is not all that clear cut. My understanding is that the DSS manuscripts sometimes agree with the LXX against the MT, where the two differ, and I think sometimes the other way around (ie, agree with the MT against the LXX). Also, the Syriac and Vulgate (both, I think, translated from Hebrew and not from the LXX) seem to agree with the LXX more than they agree with the MT.

I think the current consensus, based on this evidence, is that there were two main streams of Hebrew tradition. The Masoretic Text developed out of one of these streams, and the Vulgate/LXX/Syriac developed out of the other stream. It seems that both of these streams were in circulation in Palestine in the first century.

[Jezz]

Hey eliyosef - my apologies that this has taken so long. I've been a bit busy and a bit distracted...

eliyosef: Of course from their point of view they would still be Jewish they wish to make subtle elements of christianity appear more Jewish than it is.

Jezz: Or perhaps, you are trying to make Christian concepts appear less Jewish than they are.

eliyosef: I dont have to they do that themselves...If christianity is so Jewish then why do christians eat porkchops and I dont??
So refraining from eating pork is the most important thing about Judaism? :shrug:

Christianity and Judaism both believe in a supreme, sovereign creator-god who created the world, created humanity as his special creation, made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had Israel as his chosen people, gave the law to his people through his deputy Moses at Sinai, promised a Messiah, and will oversee a general resurrection at some point in the future. We both celebrate Passover - the Eastern Orthodox even call it Pascha - though given that this was the time that Jesus was crucified, this festival has taken on additional significance for us (while not losing the old). These are all things that Christianity and Judaism have in common. And in the face of all these commonalities, in an effort to make them appear less similar than they really are, you focus on the fact that Christians eat pork. :shrug: Tell me, if you had to list the top 5 or 10 most important things about Judaism, where would "not eating pork" appear on that list? Pointing out minor differences in doctrine does not make the major similarities go away.

I could explain why Christians feel there is no longer any need to refrain from pork, but that would be getting a bit off-topic. I will for now simply point out that the modern Western aversion to eating horse meat stems from a Christian prohibition similar in purpose to the Jewish prohibition against eating pork.

Yeah, I don't think "apostate" would be the right description actually, from a Messianic POV. "schismatic", perhaps.

schismatic wouldnt work as many of them are no more Jewish than their Gentile pastor is..
I wasn't talking about your opinion of Messianics. I was talking about their opinion of you. They would probably consider you schismatics.

The Idea of the resurrection in Jewish theology is that of a overall resurrection of the dead. Who did the gospels say was resurrected?? The original concept yes i will agree does come from Judaism how it is conveyed is somewhat different..
Perhaps I should remind you of the challenge you threw at me: When you find a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT let me know. (from this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2679&page=2&pp=16#post586155)). I am not trying to claim that everything in the NT is explicitly found in earlier Jewish tradition. I acknowledge that there were some new ideas introduced (or perhaps some older ideas clarified). But what I am trying to combat is your claim that there is not any Jewish thought in the GNT, which is a gross misrepresentation. There are more than just a few threads of Jewish thought in the GNT.

Will you at least admit that there is "a shred" of Jewish thought in the GNT?

I have actually read the aramaic Peshitta from there and there are a few errors made in the gospels. They seem to be the same ones the Greek New Testament makes also...
I'd be curious to know what those errors are, but as we seem to be diverging into all sorts of other topics I'll save that for another time. We won't make any kind of progress unless we can stay focussed.

the latter part of his claim of "The word" is refuted as a Jewish thought by John Himself...."The word became flesh."
Again, you think you can make the similarities go away by focussing on the differences. I never claimed that there were no differences. I will deal with the issue of differences later if you wish. But first, I need you to admit that you were very wrong to say that "there isn't a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT".

your right it is not found in Judaism. The Idea is merely a play on Hellenistic thought of a G-d becoming a Man or as the greeks have a man/god..
Incarnation is not a Hellenistic idea. It is completely foreign to Greek thought - in fact, more foreign to Greek thought than Jewish. As you have repeated this claim later I will not duplicate my efforts by refuting it here - I'll do that later in this post.

That is a good definition of the the function of (memra) in a few of the Targumim. However now lets apply that to the targumim.
Targum Onkelos Genesis 3:8: "ushma'u yat qol meimra' daHashem elohim m'hallek b'ginta." And they (adam and eve) heard the sound of the Word of HaShem passing through the garden. The Aramaic word Memra literally means the statement or utterance. This is used in the Targumim when G-d reveals himself in a way to this world. In the case of the passage the way G-d was revealing himself to the world was in a sound.. this works With the Hebrew when it says "They heard the sound of HaShem G-d manifesting itself in the garden" The sound referred to as itself since it is not G-d himself and is rendered Gender Neutral.
This is true, but irrelevant. Not all usages of Memra in the targumim are as literal as this, as I am sure you are aware. I was not referring to the literal usages, but those where "the Memra of G-d" is used as a substitute for "G-d" - indicating that the targum translator saw an equivalence between the two, yet also a difference. It doesn't matter that this translation was not literal; what matters is the thought that is evidenced by this translation - it proves that the translator was using a concept that was already prominent in Jewish thought at the time (ie, that G-d acts through his Word when dealing with his creation).

So yes when you apply it to context the word "Memr'a" I agree with the jewish encyclopedia however I dont agree with your assesment of the application of it.
I didn't ask you to agree with my application of it. I asked you to agree with me that this was a very Jewish idea that the GNT authors were playing with.

As for John's usage of the word "Logos" meaning literally in Greek "a word/statement"...
Actually, the meaning of "logos" is not literally word/statement (that would be better matched by "rhema"), but instead reflects the idea of the mental thought/meaning behind the word. "Logos" can also be translated reason (the word "logic" derives from "logos").

...when he starts out he is fine then he moves to a Non jewish concept " the Logos became flesh" there he throws it off and goes awall with it.. So I will agree with you that "The word" does have Jewish roots but not the ones assigned by the GNT and the Peshitta.. as they are both not Jewish documents but Christain documents...
I agree with you that they are Christian documents. But unlike you, I don't think that precludes them from being reckoned as Jewish documents. As I said, Christianity has its own offshoot documents - the non-canonical Gospels, for example. They were not canonised because in many cases they contain heretical Christian doctrine, which is why they are not used by the Church. Yet they must still be reckoned as important Christian documents, because they also contain Christian ideas (what made them non-Christian was that most of the Jewish ideas had been taken out of them...).

The GNT as the same. Even if you consider them heretical from a Jewish POV, they must still be reckoned as important Jewish documents because they are chock-full of Jewish ideas like the Word, the Torah, G-d, and resurrection, and are hence indicative of Jewish thought in the 1st century.

And these interpretations follow how the writers saw the passage. So based on the Targumim we know how one person interpreted a passage..
The fact that the Targumim survived indicates that they were popular - the fact that they were popular goes to show that the ideas in them were widespread. The translator would not have translated "G-d" as "Memra of G-d" in some places unless it was a concept that was already familiar to his listeners. (And, if I'm not mistaken, we have more than one targum where it is translated thus, so even by only reckoning the count of translators we have more than one person's interpretation.)

And the Targumim are not exactly friendly to the Christain cause as a little application of what the Targums says in Aramaic proves very little for Christianity
An application of the Targums proves that the concept of "the Word of G-d" was found in Judaism prior to Christianity. that is all I was trying to use the Targums to prove at this stage. Hence, the GNT contains Jewish thought.

Yeah the fact the you have to get p[ast is that they were both called Messiah and if you are going to equate G-d as messiah then you must acknoledge that they were G-d..
I am not at all compelled to acknowledge this.

David and Solomon were both called "lord", too. This does not force you to acknowledge that they were G-d, does it? No, because only G-d is the Lord. There are many lords, but only one Lord.

Similarly, the fact that David and Solomon were both called "messiah" does not force me to acknowledge that they were G-d. Only the Messiah was G-d. There are many messiahs, but only one is called the Messiah.

Now on your Samuel quote what does the verse before and after it say?
This passage is about setting the King of Ammon, Nahash over the as a King. Samuel proclaims G-d is king which in real terms G-d is the King of the Universe and of spiritual matters when it pertains to someones life. In the next Verse in verse 13 It says "nd behold; HaShem set a king over you." and in verse 14 "If you will fear haShem and worship him and hearken to His voice and not rebel against the word of Hashem, the you and the King who reigns over you will remain [following] after HaShem, your G-d."

We can see here by the context it is not saying that HaShem will be the King he already is the King of our Lives. This passage comes as a calling to G-d for a literal Physical human being King which would be King Saul..
Yes, I agree with that. But the thing is, it was not G-d's idea to give them a human king - as he was already their king. That's why Samuel tried to talk them out of it. The Christian view of the Messiah, therefore, solves this dilemma - the king that now rules over us is both G-d and human.

1 Chronicles 17:1-12 has the prophet nathan talking to King David and in verse Eleven it mentions[11] "I will raise up your offspring after you, who will be one of your sons; and I wil establish his kingdom.[12] He shall buold me a house and I will establish his throne forever.
the person building the house of G-d after King David was king Solomon and if Solomon's throne is established forever king messiah must come from him..
Solomon's throne barely outlived Solomon himself. If that's your idea of a throne that was "established forever", then you have a looser interpretative hermeneutic than I do. :wink:

The Christian understanding of this is of course that the Messiah was the descendent of David who built God a house (that is, the Church), and that he rules the cosmos from his position as head of this house. You must admit that this throne has lasted a little longer than Solomon's...

The problem with your assumption is that in any accounts of this by Jewish law he was not related to King David an any way.. Jewish Law says that Lineage is declared through the Father's side this comes from Numbers chapter 1:18.
If Numbers 1:18 is the best that you can do, then I will have to conclude that Jewish Law says nothing about how Jewish lineage is declared. Numbers 1:8 says nothing about lineage being declared through the Father's side. It talks about a census performed for military purposes.

Morever, in Numbers 27 (continued in Numbers 36) we have the story of Zelophehad's daughters. This is a much more concrete example of inheritance than the example you cited. And in this example the women received an inheritance from their father. If land can be inherited through a female lineage, then there is no reason other things (eg ancestry) can't be too.

I will certainly grant that it was usual for lineage to be traced patrilinealy. But this hardly means that it was a law followed without exception. The question of which "side" lineage is declared from only becomes important when the lineage of the two parents are different. In the case of Jesus' parents, both were descendents of David - so there was no question as to the parent through whom his lineage would be declared.

Finally, it is necessary to note that when G-d acted in Israelite history, he typically acted in a way that was uncustomary. For example: inheritance in Jewish law typically passes to the firstborn. Yet, if you look at the history of the Israelites you'll notice that G-d breaks this rule-of-thumb all the time (Isaac instead of Ishmael, Jacob instead of Esau, Judah instead of Reuben/Simeon/Levi, etc). It is by breaking the rule of thumb that we know G-d is doing something special in the world. You shouldn't be surprised if, when the Messiah comes, G-d does something a little unexpected. Like, for example, reckon his lineage through his mother's side instead of his father's...

SSV mentioned in an earlier post that one is a Jew if one is born of a Jewish mother. Hence, Jesus was a Jew by descent. Answer me this question, then: given that Jesus was a Jew by descent, which house did he descend from?

Joseph was not his father as he was born from a virgin, which rules him out...
Joseph was legally his father. Surely you don't dispute that, at least?

Mary is a Woman which does not carry the hereditary line according to the tanakh.. So Jesus lineage get a double whammy.
Asserted, but not proven.

...and even if Joseph was his father the curse of King Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:30 gets him and he is still disqualified as being messiah..
But he was not a blood descendent of Jeconiah, so that curse need not apply. There is, of course, also the question of whether or not the curse was meant to apply to Jeconiah's descendents. After all, G-d does claim to limit the iniquity of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generations...

...also the argument of adoption is discredited as Jewish law only recognizes adoption if it is within the persons tribal house.. Jesus didnt have a tribal affiliation in the first place so he can not be adopted into the Tribe of Judah nor the house of David. So there is his third Whammy
I'm not using the argument of adoption, but I have a question: when a Gentile became naturalised in Israel, to which tribe did they belong? How was this determined?

I happen to be closer to the Jewish belief here than the picture of Christianity that you have in mind. The Christianity that you are thinking of is probably modern Western Protestantism of the type typically found in the US. I agree that the modern pseudo-Christian idea that one can do anything that they want and not worry about being responsible for the consequences is incorrect. I have a more Eastern Orthodox view of sin and Jesus' role as saviour - for more information, see where I've commented on the topic in this post.

tell me do you like porkchops? How about some bacon? Or, Some roast ham?
What is your point here? This seems to me to be a red herring that has nothing to do with the question of the difference between Jewish and Eastern Orthodox views of salvation. The fact remains that the two views of salvation are similar, and both quite different to the Protestant view.

The ideas that jesus taught were no doubt Pharisaic he probably learned them from Rabbi hillel as Hillel lived from 40 B.C.E. to about 10 C.E. in his younger years he probably learned from him. Hillel was famous for teaching the Torah to a proselyte who wanted him to teach him the Torah on one foot so Hillel did saying " What is hateful to you do not do to others , this is the whole of Torah the rest is commentary. Now, go and study the commentary." the Ideas of Jesus sermon on the Mount reflect much of the teachings of the essenes and Prushim.
So now you are saying that what Jesus taught was Jewish in origin? And you were previously claiming that the GNT contained "not a shred" of Jewish thought? :shrug:

Of course, I don't have a problem with the idea that Jesus' teaching was similar to earlier Rabbis - in fact, I would expect it. Though note a subtle difference between what you quoted as Hillel's teaching, and what Jesus taught:

Hillel: what is hateful to you, don't do to others.
Jesus: what you would have done to you, do to others.

Jesus' teaching actually goes beyond Hillel's - Hillel is a command not to be nasty to another person. Jesus' command is to not only not be nasty, but to go out of your way to be kind to them. Maybe this is what Hillel meant too, but I thought I'd point out the difference.

The Hebrew text I have has the tetragrammaton also all of them do. I Dont vocalize the name out of reverence and respect of the Name of G-d. So I use either HaShem or Adonai in its place.
I realise that you don't vocalise the Name for fear of profaning it, which I respect. What I didn't realise is that you considered typing of the name as the same thing as vocalisation.

No that is a problem for you trying to place it as a proper name of a man and in that particular verse. the word Yeshuah is feminine yes but it does not present a problem grammatically for the passage as it is not applied to any person as a name. It is used only for its meaning which is perfectly alright in Hebrew.. the problem arises when you try to place it as a man's name because of its feminine case so it is more of a problem for your name game than it is for the actual use of the word..
I don't consider the gender of the word particularly important - Jesus is also called the Wisdom of God, and Wisdom is feminine. It is the meaning that matters.

sure this will be more than easy and if you are going to try and argue the Word "Elohim" save your breath you may as well look up the word Chaiim, Shamayim , and Panim which are the words for Life, Heaven, and Face. so go ahead and try to explain words that are immediatly followed by singular verbs to show they are can carry both a singular and plural meaning depending on context. Then sit and ponder the english word Deer. Is it plural or singular. trust me I have gone through this argument before and it is not new and not hard to figure out...
Right, so you admit that plural words can apply to singular persons. Good. I guess we can throw away your objection that "yeshuah" being in the plural means it can't refer to the singular Jesus then, can't we? :smile:

Dual meanings...here comes the non Jewish thought to try and play with Jewish thought..
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Rabbis write all kinds of midrash based on the Scriptures, looking for hidden meanings? The Targumim also show examples where passages were given Messianic interpretations that weren't explicitly present in the Hebrew (Isaiah 53 is one example off the top of my head) - because they were looking for dual meanings. Seems to me that looking for dual meanings was a very Jewish passtime during this period.

I can place in the tanakh, if you want to put a dual meaning on something ,about my birth....
Can you? Let me see you do it then. I see this claim often made - I've yet to see anyone actually try. Except for the Muslims - they tried to find prophecies of Mohammed in the Scriptures, and could only find about 4 that matched... And they had the advantage of being able to search the NT as well as the OT...

actually yes it is ok since the verb "to be" can be inferred. which means it doesn't have to be present to be place there. this is true in hebrew Grammer. I can place an "is or an are" at the beginning, middle and end ,it may not sound all that great but, it would not be wrong. This passage I can read three or four different ways simply by removing the vowel markers and placing new ones below; Im not changing the text as it reads I am only placing different vocalizations. The Text being unpointed in the first place you can do that....think about what you are trying to do before you travel down this street...
I'm not talking about moving vowell markers. I'm talking about trying to figure out where the "be"s need to be inferred in the sentence, because they are not explicitly stated. You are aware that this needs to be done, and you are aware that it can be done in multiple ways.

your right they are hebrew words. The difference between Yeshuah and yeshu'a is that the latter ends with a Heh and is feminine. the former ends with an Ayin and is masculine this is used to call the High priest Jeshua in Zechariah. Yehoshua does not come from the word for salvation but rather the masculaine word Hoshe'a meaning "save" divy up the word into its parts: Yeh Hoshua a play on the words Yah $ Hoshe'a meaning "G-d saves." Yeshu'a is a dimunitive form of Yehoshu'a and would have a similar meaning if you were to divy up the name into its parts and assess a root word. my name Yosef means "G-d add's." so we can continue to play the name game all day and get nowhere
I see no reason to continue the name game. I have established that the words "yeshuah" and "Yeshua" are related in meaning and sound.

In the form of man or woman dont forget that part. Think about that, that means we shall not worship anything, the word used for likeness(TeMonat) has the meaning of something in the form of as in genesis "in our image after our likeness(LeMinehu)" they both have the same root, the word is used to say not toworship anything that looks like me, It doesnt matter how you try to play it any image in form of male or female be it living or not is considered idolatry by that passage... to worship a human is idolatry...
This thread is already got too many distractions in it, and this one I can see is going to be another big one. If it's ok with you, I think it best to ignore this one for now and focus on some of the others.

Tell that to Hercules and Achillies...They were men/gods born of both a god and a woman...
Let me give you a piece of advice: the pagan copycat idea is a dead end. There are many important differences between the Christian doctrine of the incarnation and pagan belief. Here are a few:

-Hercules/Achilles were not considered gods. They were powerful human beings. At best, they were considered half man, half god. Jesus was considered fully man, fully God.
-Hercules/Achilles were conceived by sexual intercourse between a male god and a mortal woman. Jesus was conceived without sexual intercourse, by a miracle of God's Spirit.
-Hercules/Achilles were not pre-existent gods. Prior to their conception/birth, they did not exist. Jesus was eternally preexistent as the Word of G-d.

But most importantly (and this is why it can't be considered a Hellenistic idea): In the Hellenistic world, creation was considered evil and beneath the gods by virtue of its corruptibility. No Hellenistic god would have voluntarily subjected themselves to the evil, mortality, shame and corruptibility by becoming human - they were above such things. The pagans criticised Christians for this belief on these very grounds.

Ironically, this last fact means that the incarnation is more understandable as growing out of a Jewish belief than a Hellenistic one - because at least the Jews did not think that creation was evil (as G-d created it). Despite this, though, I will acknowledge that the incarnation was a foreign idea to Judaism too (even if not as foreign as it was to Hellenism). The fact is, the incarnation was an idea foreign to all worldviews at the time. Are we in agreement here?

As for Jacob wrestling G-d I can definately say he did not. He either wrestled and angel or he wrestled a mighty person.. what is funny the word for wrestle can mean tangle/ wrestle/ struggle/ compete....etc...
Jacob certainly thought that he was wrestling with G-d. Hoshea also strongly implies it (12:3-5).

I can only say the same to you. Plus I would like to comment that I enjoy speaking with you. You have some good comments about hard questions and I like that about people..
:thumb: Glad we can have this converstation on amicable terms. I am quite enjoying it as well.

[Menachem]

Hey eliyosef - my apologies that this has taken so long. I've been a bit busy and a bit distracted...

Its ok I have been busy myself


So refraining from eating pork is the most important thing about Judaism? :shrug:

My saying that was to show that Christianity and Judaism are not as similar as one thinks.

Christianity and Judaism both believe in a supreme, sovereign creator-god who created the world, created humanity as his special creation, made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had Israel as his chosen people, gave the law to his people through his deputy Moses at Sinai, promised a Messiah, and will oversee a general resurrection at some point in the future. We both celebrate Passover - the Eastern Orthodox even call it Pascha - though given that this was the time that Jesus was crucified, this festival has taken on additional significance for us (while not losing the old). These are all things that Christianity and Judaism have in common. And in the face of all these commonalities, in an effort to make them appear less similar than they really are, you focus on the fact that Christians eat pork. :shrug: Tell me, if you had to list the top 5 or 10 most important things about Judaism, where would "not eating pork" appear on that list? Pointing out minor differences in doctrine does not make the major similarities go away.

actually the pork thing would be listed pretty high as it would be listed in the thing called "Halachah" which carries a very high standing in Judaism. Other than that I will have to agree with most of the rest of your statement,

I could explain why Christians feel there is no longer any need to refrain from pork, but that would be getting a bit off-topic. I will for now simply point out that the modern Western aversion to eating horse meat stems from a Christian prohibition similar in purpose to the Jewish prohibition against eating pork.

I agree this would be appropriate for another thread but if your are feeling frisky we can discuss here....lol

I wasn't talking about your opinion of Messianics. I was talking about their opinion of you. They would probably consider you schismatics.

and I was saying that would be a wrong assesment on the grounds that most of them are no more jewish than their gentile pastors

Perhaps I should remind you of the challenge you threw at me: When you find a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT let me know. (from this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2679&page=2&pp=16#post586155)). I am not trying to claim that everything in the NT is explicitly found in earlier Jewish tradition. I acknowledge that there were some new ideas introduced (or perhaps some older ideas clarified). But what I am trying to combat is your claim that there is not any Jewish thought in the GNT, which is a gross misrepresentation. There are more than just a few threads of Jewish thought in the GNT.

And you have stuck to the topic really well and I respect that very much. I will have to say that yes, there are some jewish Ideas in the Christian bible which i willfully see and acknowledge I was wrong in that regards.

Will you at least admit that there is "a shred" of Jewish thought in the GNT?

Did above..I admit that there are some.

I'd be curious to know what those errors are, but as we seem to be diverging into all sorts of other topics I'll save that for another time. We won't make any kind of progress unless we can stay focussed.

I would be more than happy to discuss this on another thread. I would agree that this would take us off topic and be a distraction.

Again, you think you can make the similarities go away by focussing on the differences. I never claimed that there were no differences. I will deal with the issue of differences later if you wish. But first, I need you to admit that you were very wrong to say that "there isn't a shred of Jewish thought in the GNT".

see above.


Incarnation is not a Hellenistic idea. It is completely foreign to Greek thought - in fact, more foreign to Greek thought than Jewish. As you have repeated this claim later I will not duplicate my efforts by refuting it here - I'll do that later in this post.

sounds fair.

This is true, but irrelevant. Not all usages of Memra in the targumim are as literal as this, as I am sure you are aware. I was not referring to the literal usages, but those where "the Memra of G-d" is used as a substitute for "G-d" - indicating that the targum translator saw an equivalence between the two, yet also a difference. It doesn't matter that this translation was not literal; what matters is the thought that is evidenced by this translation - it proves that the translator was using a concept that was already prominent in Jewish thought at the time (ie, that G-d acts through his Word when dealing with his creation).

actually the word Meimra is not literally used here but it is used to describe the manifestation of G-d. It is used many time in regards to when G-d speaks to Humans and used for its literal meaning sometimes.


I didn't ask you to agree with my application of it. I asked you to agree with me that this was a very Jewish idea that the GNT authors were playing with.

Ill agree to a certain degree...

Actually, the meaning of "logos" is not literally word/statement (that would be better matched by "rhema"), but instead reflects the idea of the mental thought/meaning behind the word. "Logos" can also be translated reason (the word "logic" derives from "logos").

I am a bit rusty on my Greek I will have to ask my old professor.

I agree with you that they are Christian documents. But unlike you, I don't think that precludes them from being reckoned as Jewish documents. As I said, Christianity has its own offshoot documents - the non-canonical Gospels, for example. They were not canonised because in many cases they contain heretical Christian doctrine, which is why they are not used by the Church. Yet they must still be reckoned as important Christian documents, because they also contain Christian ideas (what made them non-Christian was that most of the Jewish ideas had been taken out of them...).

I am going to have to stand by my original statement on this one.

The GNT as the same. Even if you consider them heretical from a Jewish POV, they must still be reckoned as important Jewish documents because they are chock-full of Jewish ideas like the Word, the Torah, G-d, and resurrection, and are hence indicative of Jewish thought in the 1st century.

It is concievable that the original copies were written by Jews. However after many centuries of editing by the church fathers of the first and second century it ceased to become jewish documents and turned in to christian documents.


The fact that the Targumim survived indicates that they were popular - the fact that they were popular goes to show that the ideas in them were widespread. The translator would not have translated "G-d" as "Memra of G-d" in some places unless it was a concept that was already familiar to his listeners. (And, if I'm not mistaken, we have more than one targum where it is translated thus, so even by only reckoning the count of translators we have more than one person's interpretation.)

and they still work against christian interpretation of the Hebrew bible. I find that amazing.

Its not that part that is changed it is the overall passage that is different, and based on how the person interpreted it. I could give an example but it would take too much time.

An application of the Targums proves that the concept of "the Word of G-d" was found in Judaism prior to Christianity. that is all I was trying to use the Targums to prove at this stage. Hence, the GNT contains Jewish thought.

and I said the concept of the Word of G-d is a Jewish concept of that period and the application of it in the GNT is not.

I am not at all compelled to acknowledge this.

I dont figure you would

David and Solomon were both called "lord", too. This does not force you to acknowledge that they were G-d, does it? No, because only G-d is the Lord. There are many lords, but only one Lord.

and I know the difference between the words used for G-d and the words used for man Adoni=master/lord in terms of a Human. Hashem= the tetragrammaton also said as LORD. Adonai used in conjunction with the tetragammaton means Lord/Master.

Similarly, the fact that David and Solomon were both called "messiah" does not force me to acknowledge that they were G-d. Only the Messiah was G-d. There are many messiahs, but only one is called the Messiah.

actually King David was called the Messiah (2 Samuel 23:1)

Yes, I agree with that. But the thing is, it was not G-d's idea to give them a human king - as he was already their king. That's why Samuel tried to talk them out of it. The Christian view of the Messiah, therefore, solves this dilemma - the king that now rules over us is both G-d and human.

Actually it was G-d's Idea to give them a King.

Deuteronomy 17:14. When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall live in it, and shall say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me;
15. You shall set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers shall you set king over you; you may not set a stranger over you, who is not your brother.


Solomon's throne barely outlived Solomon himself. If that's your idea of a throne that was "established forever", then you have a looser interpretative hermeneutic than I do. :wink:

actually it did survive longer than you say it did rehoaboam kept it going. As G-d said "I will not take your entire kingdom away from you"

The Christian understanding of this is of course that the Messiah was the descendent of David who built God a house (that is, the Church), and that he rules the cosmos from his position as head of this house. You must admit that this throne has lasted a little longer than Solomon's...

the only problem with this assesment is that jesus never ruled as king, so that point is irrelivent to make.


If Numbers 1:18 is the best that you can do, then I will have to conclude that Jewish Law says nothing about how Jewish lineage is declared. Numbers 1:8 says nothing about lineage being declared through the Father's side. It talks about a census performed for military purposes.

Numbers 3:15,

Numbers 33:54. And you shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families; and to the more you shall give more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give less inheritance; every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falls; according to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit.

I could do more but it would take too much space...


Morever, in Numbers 27 (continued in Numbers 36) we have the story of Zelophehad's daughters. This is a much more concrete example of inheritance than the example you cited. And in this example the women received an inheritance from their father. If land can be inherited through a female lineage, then there is no reason other things (eg ancestry) can't be too.

excpet you brought down your own point with Numbers 36 about the daughters of Zelophad.

In here it is explained that if they dont marry inside the father's household they will lose everything they have as it regards property wise.

Numbers 36:3. And if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.
4. And when the jubilee of the people of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.

and they were told this here:

Numbers 36:6. This is the thing which the Lord does command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.
7. So shall not the inheritance of the people of Israel move from tribe to tribe; for every one of the people of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
8. And every daughter, who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the people of Israel, shall be the wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the people of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
9. Neither shall the inheritance move from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the people of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.

The passing fo property to a woman is only temporary and only if their Father has no male heirs.

Thanks for helping my point...Todah


I will certainly grant that it was usual for lineage to be traced patrilinealy. But this hardly means that it was a law followed without exception. The question of which "side" lineage is declared from only becomes important when the lineage of the two parents are different. In the case of Jesus' parents, both were descendents of David - so there was no question as to the parent through whom his lineage would be declared.

Jospeh had proper lineage according to the GNT but had the problem of King Jeconiah in his Lineage. Mary if it were possibly to accept her lineage is illegitimate to be messiah's as it does not go through Solomon but his brother nathan.

The question of which line the child is to take is not in question. It is to be taken from the Father's side only. And jesus being born of a "virgin" makes him have no tribe nor line to King David.

Finally, it is necessary to note that when G-d acted in Israelite history, he typically acted in a way that was uncustomary. For example: inheritance in Jewish law typically passes to the firstborn. Yet, if you look at the history of the Israelites you'll notice that G-d breaks this rule-of-thumb all the time (Isaac instead of Ishmael, Jacob instead of Esau, Judah instead of Reuben/Simeon/Levi, etc). It is by breaking the rule of thumb that we know G-d is doing something special in the world. You shouldn't be surprised if, when the Messiah comes, G-d does something a little unexpected. Like, for example, reckon his lineage through his mother's side instead of his father's...

Isaac was the son of Sarah to whom there would be a promise Ishmael was the son of a concubine which also had a promise. Ishmael was not the firstborn of Sarah, Isaac was.

Esau sold his birthright to Jacob in return for some food, Jacobn had every right to the First-born blessing.

Reuben/Simeon/Levi had wrongs their father in the past, Judah repented of it so Judah got the Highest of blessings on teh grounds that Jacob had been wrongs and not fogiven them.

and the last part about reckoning through the mothers side is not the case and is not in accordance with Jewish Law...

SSV mentioned in an earlier post that one is a Jew if one is born of a Jewish mother. Hence, Jesus was a Jew by descent. Answer me this question, then: given that Jesus was a Jew by descent, which house did he descend from?

SSV mentioned yes one is a Jew by the mother. That is telling you that Jewishness is determined by one's mother. Not the house and lineage which is determined by the father's side.

Jesus being a Jew by birth had no line or Pedigree to decalre as he had no mortal father. He may have been Jewish but he was not a descendant of King David.


Joseph was legally his father. Surely you don't dispute that, at least?

yeah and I can have a Japanese man as my legal father does that mean I can claim my adoptive Father's line...the short answer is...No.


Asserted, but not proven.

this was disproven above.

But he was not a blood descendent of Jeconiah, so that curse need not apply. There is, of course, also the question of whether or not the curse was meant to apply to Jeconiah's descendents. After all, G-d does claim to limit the iniquity of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generations...

Ok so you admit he had no line to King David as In the book of Numbers it established according to the house of the Fathers not the Mothers. The curse actually does apply to the descendants of Jeconiah as it says and I quote "No man of your offspring shall prosper ruling on the throne of David and ever to rule over Judah."(Jeremiah 22:30) This is an oath by G-d and Oath's are never broken. What you said applies to sins not oaths.


I'm not using the argument of adoption, but I have a question: when a Gentile became naturalised in Israel, to which tribe did they belong? How was this determined?


they are nto given a house or anything like that. They are given Israeli citizen ship and they are called a Ger which has the meaning of rither a proselyte or Resident Alien. The person is a Resident Alien (i.e. not a Jew but lives in the land).

What is your point here? This seems to me to be a red herring that has nothing to do with the question of the difference between Jewish and Eastern Orthodox views of salvation. The fact remains that the two views of salvation are similar, and both quite different to the Protestant view.

Not at all. you said you were as close to Judaism as it gets. I was playing on the closeness to Judaism by asking you how close are you really i.e. "Do you like porkchops, or Bacon, or etc...?


So now you are saying that what Jesus taught was Jewish in origin? And you were previously claiming that the GNT contained "not a shred" of Jewish thought? :shrug:

I already adressed this above.

Of course, I don't have a problem with the idea that Jesus' teaching was similar to earlier Rabbis - in fact, I would expect it. Though note a subtle difference between what you quoted as Hillel's teaching, and what Jesus taught:

Hillel: what is hateful to you, don't do to others.
Jesus: what you would have done to you, do to others.

Jesus' teaching actually goes beyond Hillel's - Hillel is a command not to be nasty to another person. Jesus' command is to not only not be nasty, but to go out of your way to be kind to them. Maybe this is what Hillel meant too, but I thought I'd point out the difference.

actually Hillel's is not a command...If you read the whole of what hillel said you will see he was teaching someone the Entire of Torah while on one foot.

Of course jesus' teachings will be a little different he added a personal touch to the interpretation.

I realise that you don't vocalise the Name for fear of profaning it, which I respect. What I didn't realise is that you considered typing of the name as the same thing as vocalisation.

Im glad you understand my reasons as many do not..


I don't consider the gender of the word particularly important - Jesus is also called the Wisdom of God, and Wisdom is feminine. It is the meaning that matters.

When taking the word for its meaning and taking as a proper name are two different things. In hebrew if you have a passage and the words are a mix of Masculine a feminine words you have no problem using the words as long as you dont give a feminine word as a Proper name of a Male then your in trouble. The actual grammer does matter.

Yet they dont bother to transliterate the word for wisdom as a name they take the word and its meaning and apply the meaning of the word in a translation about jesus. They didnt give jesus the literal name of Wisdom of G-d.


Right, so you admit that plural words can apply to singular persons. Good. I guess we can throw away your objection that "yeshuah" being in the plural means it can't refer to the singular Jesus then, can't we? :smile:

The only problem is that in order for this to be considered the case it must be proceeded and preceeded by both singular perpositions and verbs. that is not the case for this verse as it is for the other words used. So no my original argument still stands

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Rabbis write all kinds of midrash based on the Scriptures, looking for hidden meanings? The Targumim also show examples where passages were given Messianic interpretations that weren't explicitly present in the Hebrew (Isaiah 53 is one example off the top of my head) - because they were looking for dual meanings. Seems to me that looking for dual meanings was a very Jewish passtime during this period.

Here is where your misconception is.. The Midrashim are nto to be taken literally that is one part of it. teh second is that the Midrashim often Play witht eh verses. Some assign new meanings to teh passage and some play witht eh words themselves, for example removing the vowel markers and giving new ones to words making it read differently. they often transposed and even added or replaced letters to see how it would read. The Midrashim are not Literal and are very tricky to read. They were not looking for dual meanings they were seeing how many different ways the actual verse could read. and also they were applying actual verses of scripture to an idea to support an argument. Anyone can take it oout of contexts assign a meaning to it and say "what do you think about that?" I would say "lets look at the actual contextual meaning and see if it stands."

Those are two very big misconceptions about the Midrashim.

Can you? Let me see you do it then. I see this claim often made - I've yet to see anyone actually try. Except for the Muslims - they tried to find prophecies of Mohammed in the Scriptures, and could only find about 4 that matched... And they had the advantage of being able to search the NT as well as the OT...

taking into consideration my name being Yosef here it is Genesis 30:24. I told you my birth was in there...HeHe...
I'm not talking about moving vowell markers. I'm talking about trying to figure out where the "be"s need to be inferred in the sentence, because they are not explicitly stated. You are aware that this needs to be done, and you are aware that it can be done in multiple ways.


I see no reason to continue the name game. I have established that the words "yeshuah" and "Yeshua" are related in meaning and sound.

No we didn't. you concluded that not me. Yeshuah(yod-shin-vav-heh) means salvation in Hebrew. (Yod-shin-vav-Ayin) is a proper name. Which if you broke it up only as to its composition then you may be able to determine that it had a meaning. in fact Yeshu'a is a composite as I said earlier of Yah-Hoshea meaning G-d is Help.


This thread is already got too many distractions in it, and this one I can see is going to be another big one. If it's ok with you, I think it best to ignore this one for now and focus on some of the others.

that is fine with me.


Let me give you a piece of advice: the pagan copycat idea is a dead end. There are many important differences between the Christian doctrine of the incarnation and pagan belief. Here are a few:

-Hercules/Achilles were not considered gods. They were powerful human beings. At best, they were considered half man, half god. Jesus was considered fully man, fully God.
-Hercules/Achilles were conceived by sexual intercourse between a male god and a mortal woman. Jesus was conceived without sexual intercourse, by a miracle of God's Spirit.
-Hercules/Achilles were not pre-existent gods. Prior to their conception/birth, they did not exist. Jesus was eternally preexistent as the Word of G-d.

But most importantly (and this is why it can't be considered a Hellenistic idea): In the Hellenistic world, creation was considered evil and beneath the gods by virtue of its corruptibility. No Hellenistic god would have voluntarily subjected themselves to the evil, mortality, shame and corruptibility by becoming human - they were above such things. The pagans criticised Christians for this belief on these very grounds.

which is where pieces of Zoroastrianism may come into play since they were persian magi. And persians were inherently Zoroastrians..

Ironically, this last fact means that the incarnation is more understandable as growing out of a Jewish belief than a Hellenistic one - because at least the Jews did not think that creation was evil (as G-d created it). Despite this, though, I will acknowledge that the incarnation was a foreign idea to Judaism too (even if not as foreign as it was to Hellenism). The fact is, the incarnation was an idea foreign to all worldviews at the time. Are we in agreement here?

we are in agreement for the most part.

Jacob certainly thought that he was wrestling with G-d. Hoshea also strongly implies it (12:3-5).

Hoshea paraphrases what happened and explains in verse five that it was not G-d but an angel. The only reason the term Elohim is used is to denote the presence of a Divine being which was of G-d. And that struggling with an angel is the equivalent of struggling with G-d as Angels were often sent to do G-d's will.


:thumb: Glad we can have this converstation on amicable terms. I am quite enjoying it as well.

same here.