640 replies to this topic

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 09 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

The teaching of blood atonement in Christianity is against the teachings of God to Moses: http://www.whatjewsb...planation1.html
This is clear.

Funny how the imagery of Isaiah 53 contradicts you quite clearly.

It may be what they believe now, it isn't what they believed then, I take the mea culpa, in that this is a natural reaction to the christian stance.

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Here are some clear historical references to what many of the ancient Rabbis thought of Isaiah 53, notwithstanding the modern Jewish interpretation.

1. Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the Messiah, but with a fairly radical reworking of the text, emphasizing the Messiah’s victory rather than his suffering, and with some application of the text to the nation of Israel as a whole.

Cf. the discussion in Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974); see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. with Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav, 1983); more recently, see Bruce D. Chilton, The Aramaic Bible: The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999). For the text in Aramaic and English, see S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer, eds. and trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:4–5; 2:5–6 (hereafter cited as Driver-Neubauer).

2. The Talmud refers Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b; as rendered in the Soncino translation, “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

Rab (Abba Arika) said:
--"The world would not have been created except for David."
(Rabbi) Samuel (bar Abba) said:
--"For Moses!"
Rabbi Johanan (bar Nappacha) said:
--"For the Messiah!"
What is his name?
The school of Rabbi Shila said:
--"His name is Shiloh, for it is said:
--'until Shiloh come' (Gen 49:10)!"
The school of Rabbi Jannai said:
--"His name is Yinnon, for it is said:
--'He shall endure forever,
before there was a sun his name is Yinnon' (Ps 72:17)!"
The school of Rabbi cHanina said:
--"His name is cHanina, for it is said:
--"as I will not give you favor [chanina]' (Jer 16:13)!"
Others say his name is Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, for it is said:
--'For the comforter [Menachem] is far from me,
the one who revives my soul" (Lam 1:16b)!"
But the rabbis say:
--"His name is the leper teacher, for it is said:
--'Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows
yet we deemed him stricken [nago'a: "plagued", esp. leprosy],
laid low by God and suffering" (Isa 53:4)!

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

3.Ruth Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah.

4. Midrash Tanchuma applies both 52:13, speaking of the servant’s exaltation, and 53:3, “a man of pains and known to sickness,” to the Messiah.

5. Yalkut Shimoni (a thirteenth compilation of earlier midrashic writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah, called the great mountain according to the Yalkut’s interpretation of Zecheriah 4:7, is “greater than the patriarchs . . . higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses . . . and loftier than the ministering angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620).

This is the midrash to Psalm 2:6, dealing with the Hebrew word ִתּיְסָנ, interpreted here to mean, “I have woven him,” with reference to Judges 16:14, “i.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. R. Huna, on the authority of R. Aha, says, ‘The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions, etc.”.’” See Driver-Neubauer, 1:7–8; 2:9–10.

6. Rambam (Maimonides) refers Isaiah 53:2 (along with the “Branch” prophecy in Zech. 6:12) to the Messiah in his Letter to Yemen (Iggeret Teman).

See Douglas Pyle, comp., What the Rabbonim Say about Moshiach (n.p.: Douglas H. Pyle, 2008), 57–58, citing Abraham S. Halkin, Moses Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, ed. from MSS; Eng. trans. Boaz Cohen (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952), 8. For a free online edition of Pyle’s useful compilation, see www.moshiachontheweb.com.

7. Ramban (Nachmanides), while stating that the text in reality referred to Israel, followed the messianic interpretation of the text found in the Midrash, beginning with the Messiah’s highly exalted state based on 52:13.

8. Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, that “[o]ur rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

9. The messianic interpretation of our passage is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works, including Leqah Tov, which applies 52:13 to the Messiah.

Why don't you go here for a more detailed view. http://www.moshiachontheweb.com./

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 09 April 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Funny how the imagery of Isaiah 53 contradicts you quite clearly.

It may be what they believe now, it isn't what they believed then, I take the mea culpa, in that this is a natural reaction to the christian stance.

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Here are some clear historical references to what many of the ancient Rabbis thought of Isaiah 53, notwithstanding the modern Jewish interpretation.

1. Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the Messiah, but with a fairly radical reworking of the text, emphasizing the Messiah’s victory rather than his suffering, and with some application of the text to the nation of Israel as a whole.

Cf. the discussion in Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974); see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. with Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav, 1983); more recently, see Bruce D. Chilton, The Aramaic Bible: The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999). For the text in Aramaic and English, see S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer, eds. and trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:4–5; 2:5–6 (hereafter cited as Driver-Neubauer).

2. The Talmud refers Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b; as rendered in the Soncino translation, “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

Rab (Abba Arika) said:
--"The world would not have been created except for David."
(Rabbi) Samuel (bar Abba) said:
--"For Moses!"
Rabbi Johanan (bar Nappacha) said:
--"For the Messiah!"
What is his name?
The school of Rabbi Shila said:
--"His name is Shiloh, for it is said:
--'until Shiloh come' (Gen 49:10)!"
The school of Rabbi Jannai said:
--"His name is Yinnon, for it is said:
--'He shall endure forever,
before there was a sun his name is Yinnon' (Ps 72:17)!"
The school of Rabbi cHanina said:
--"His name is cHanina, for it is said:
--"as I will not give you favor [chanina]' (Jer 16:13)!"
Others say his name is Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, for it is said:
--'For the comforter [Menachem] is far from me,
the one who revives my soul" (Lam 1:16b)!"
But the rabbis say:
--"His name is the leper teacher, for it is said:
--'Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows
yet we deemed him stricken [nago'a: "plagued", esp. leprosy],
laid low by God and suffering" (Isa 53:4)!

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

3.Ruth Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah.

4. Midrash Tanchuma applies both 52:13, speaking of the servant’s exaltation, and 53:3, “a man of pains and known to sickness,” to the Messiah.

5. Yalkut Shimoni (a thirteenth compilation of earlier midrashic writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah, called the great mountain according to the Yalkut’s interpretation of Zecheriah 4:7, is “greater than the patriarchs . . . higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses . . . and loftier than the ministering angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620).

This is the midrash to Psalm 2:6, dealing with the Hebrew word ִתּיְסָנ, interpreted here to mean, “I have woven him,” with reference to Judges 16:14, “i.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. R. Huna, on the authority of R. Aha, says, ‘The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions, etc.”.’” See Driver-Neubauer, 1:7–8; 2:9–10.

6. Rambam (Maimonides) refers Isaiah 53:2 (along with the “Branch” prophecy in Zech. 6:12) to the Messiah in his Letter to Yemen (Iggeret Teman).

See Douglas Pyle, comp., What the Rabbonim Say about Moshiach (n.p.: Douglas H. Pyle, 2008), 57–58, citing Abraham S. Halkin, Moses Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, ed. from MSS; Eng. trans. Boaz Cohen (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952), 8. For a free online edition of Pyle’s useful compilation, see www.moshiachontheweb.com.

7. Ramban (Nachmanides), while stating that the text in reality referred to Israel, followed the messianic interpretation of the text found in the Midrash, beginning with the Messiah’s highly exalted state based on 52:13.

8. Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, that “[o]ur rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

9. The messianic interpretation of our passage is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works, including Leqah Tov, which applies 52:13 to the Messiah.

Why don't you go here for a more detailed view. http://www.moshiachontheweb.com./

Care to explain why Jesus failed to fulfill all of the actual messianic prophecies?

[Jor-el]

Arbitran, on 09 April 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Care to explain why Jesus failed to fulfill all of the actual messianic prophecies?

Which ones, the ones presented today, or the ones that existed back then?

Please take note that the Messianic expectations back then are NOT the same as the ones presented by modern Jewish exegetes.

This would also derail the thread, so I'll answer you either in PM or on a new thread if you think its worth your time. Get back to me on that please.

[Arbitran]

Jor-el, on 09 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Which ones, the ones presented today, or the ones that existed back then?

Please take note that the Messianic expectations back then are NOT the same as the ones presented by modern Jewish exegetes.

This would also derail the thread, so I'll answer you either in PM or on a new thread if you think its worth your time. Get back to me on that please.

Fine, forget it.

[Mr Walker]

Ben Masada, on 09 April 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Do you believe that Jesus was a loyal Jewish member of the Jewish community? I hope you do. How could he go against the Scriptures that say that "by
his own fault only shall a man die?" (Exo. 32:33 and Jer. 31:30) This, as far as I am concerned, means that no individual can die for another.
Ben

Loyal to wha tpart of which jewish community? Obviously  some segments of the the jews did not find him "loyal"; they had him crucified.   Others found him a preacher /teacher and perhaps messiah within the understandings of their own faith and community.  Those close to him had a loyalty and love which eventually surpassed even their  fear of death although, in the context of the story, it tokk jesus' physical ressurection to give them that faith and courage.
And i do not read that simple statement as you do/ To me it just says that, in the end  we are responsible for our own deaths through the way we live our lives (both in this life and in the next.) That does not preclude one man dying to save another nor a man /god dieing to save alll mankind. What that statement does say is that no innocent (or faultless) man should be put to death. It does not say that  a "guilty" man cannot be saved from death.

Any man can die "for another" if they chose to. That is perfectly clear. In  a fortnight we celebrate anzac day, and  hundreds of thousands of men and women who died so that others might live.

Jesus illustrated this point perfectly.

I must assume you do not believe that, theologically, jesus could die as a sacrifice, and thus save humanity from their disconnection with god, which leads to our deaths, (by reuniting in body and spirit each one of us with god?)

I have god within me and god is all around me. I walk with god in the same way and form as the ancient jews. (But also as any man can do from any time)  God has always been with us but jesus's sacrifice alow d US to apprecaite this and allowed US to reconnect to god on a physical and spiritual/metaphysical level.

It is possible to find and experience this reconnecton in other ways, (again because god is in us and all about us, always)  but christ makes it explicit and simple. Open your heart and mind and let him in. Thats all it takes.

Edited by Mr Walker, 10 April 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[euroninja]

Ben Masada, on 07 April 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

BUT REALLY, WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?

Then when we retire we can write the gospels
So they'll still talk about us when we've died

[Realm]

Ben Masada, on 09 April 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Now, to use Isaiah talking about God Himself and apply it to Jesus, I believe that if Jesus could think of it, he would turn in his grave. Why? Because he was a Jewish man and, according to Judaism, there is no such a thing as the Greek myth of the demigod who is the son of a god with an eartly woman. Read Isaiah 46:5. "Who would you compare Me with as an equal or match Me against as though we were alike?" It means that God is absolutely One and there is no other. Jesus himself affirmed that truth in Mark 12:29.
Ben

Psa 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Joh 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35  
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36  
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[Arbitran]

Realm, on 10 April 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Psa 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Joh 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35  
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36  
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Cool! I didn't know that I was equal to God Almighty! Thanks for that!

[Realm]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

Cool! I didn't know that I was equal to God Almighty! Thanks for that!

Isa_40:25  
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 09 April 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

No gospel was written before the war which ended up with the destruction of the Temple. The first gospel to come out was indeed the one of Mark but the year given is 75 ACE.
Ben

Ok, I think I understand.  Your use of words is perhaps a little misleading because by saying that Constantine engaged in pious forgery implies that he is the one who committed the forgery (or at the least ordered said forgery to be made).  Perhaps you intended to say that the texts he used were evidence of pious forgery, because they were dated so many years after Jesus' actual existence.  Would this be accurate?  I have two follow-up thoughts to consider:

1- Does 40-50 years after the event mean that a text is a "forgery"?  

2- While circa 50 years represents the earliest gospel, it does not represent the earliest New Testament text.  Some texts date only 15-20 years after Jesus' death.  1 Thessalonians, for example, is written about 20 years after the event, long before the destruction of the Temple.  In chapter 1 of this text, we get several pieces of information, including that Jesus is identified as God's son who was raised from the dead in order to save humanity from the wrath to come.  Philippians, likewise, comes from a near-identical date, and in chapter 2 acknowledges that Jesus Christ was "in very nature God", but came as a servant not a King, dying a painful death on the cross, after which God raised him from the dead in order that "every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord".  

These all come from possibly less than 20 years after the events (and definitely less than 30), letters written to the various churches that had sprung up in the decade and a half after the Jesus movement began.  I think it is a mistake on your part to focus only on the gospels.  Even though these are the earliest of the biographies we have of Jesus, they are not the earliest texts we have that attest to Jesus' death and resurrection on a cross.

Just a few thoughts,

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 10 April 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 09 April 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Jonh the Immerser, aka, John the Baptist was a Jewish man; he could have never mentioned such an unJewish statement. Then, I asked you for a quote from the Jewish Scriptures, because that's where the idea of a paschal lamb comes from. About 80% of the NT is composed of Hellenistic myth.
Ben

Just a point I seem to have noted in a few of your posts, you seem to assert that many of these statements are unJewish, and therefore could not have been said or believed by Jews.  I was just wondering then why the earliest followers of Jesus (those who professed Jesus' death and resurrection) were actually Jews.  Saying that the Jesus story is not Jewish does not account for the many Jews who converted to Christianity, both then in the early days of Christianity, and even today those who call themselves "Messianic Jews", who are Christian converts from the Jewish faith.  They would obviously disagree with you, would they not?

~ PA

[Arbitran]

Realm, on 10 April 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Isa_40:25  
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Well, at least I know I somehow had a hand in creating the world! After all, if I'm an el, just like elohim in Genesis!

[Tiggs]

Robbie333, on 09 April 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

        It was tradition to let a prisoner go during the Jewish holiday.

Actually - there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

[Arbitran]

Tiggs, on 10 April 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Actually - there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

Very well stated. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a tradition ever existed.
To my knowledge there isn't any evidence of the Roman Empire requiring people to return to their ancestral home for a census either...

[Mr Walker]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

Very well stated. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a tradition ever existed.
To my knowledge there isn't any evidence of the Roman Empire requiring people to return to their ancestral home for a census either...

Dont know about the former, but when you look at the requirements on people during the census period and the power of the censors and censorial laws, eg to require all people to be married and produce children, then it would make sense, especially in the provinces, for people to return to their home places in order to verify the cenus requirements. It was not just  a matter of having your name etc checked off. And with apologies the following is only a part of it    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Quote

  First he had to give his full name (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen) and that of his father, or if he were a Libertus ("freedman") that of his patron, and he was likewise obliged to state his age. He was then asked, "You, declaring from your heart, do you have a wife?" and if married he had to give the name of his wife, and likewise the number, names, and ages of his children, if any.[37] Single women and orphans were represented by their guardians; their names were entered in separate lists, and they were not included in the sum total of heads.[38]

After a citizen had stated his name, age, family, etc., he then had to give an account of all his property, so far as it was subject to the census. Only such things were liable to the census (censui censendo) as were property according to the Quiritarian law. At first, each citizen appears to have merely given the value of his whole property in general without entering into details;[39] but it soon became the practice to give a minute specification of each article, as well as the general value of the whole.[40]

Land formed the most important article of the census, but public land, the possession of which only belonged to a citizen, was excluded as not being Quiritarian property. If we may judge from the practice of the imperial period, it was the custom to give a most minute specification of all such land as a citizen held according to the Quiritarian law. He had to state the name and location of the land, and to specify what portion of it was arable, what meadow, what vineyard, and what olive-ground: and of the land thus described, he had to give his assessment of its value.[41]

Slaves and cattle formed the next most important item. The censors also possessed the right of calling for a return of such objects as had not usually been given in, such as clothing, jewels, and carriages.[42] It has been doubted by some modern writers whether the censors possessed the power of setting a higher valuation on the property than the citizens themselves gave, but when we recollect the discretionary nature of the censors' powers, and the necessity almost that existed, in order to prevent fraud, that the right of making a surcharge should be vested in somebody's hands, we can hardly doubt that the censors had this power. It is moreover expressly stated that on one occasion they made an extravagant surcharge on articles of luxury;[43] and even if they did not enter in their books the property of a person at a higher value than he returned it, they accomplished the same end by compelling him to pay a tax upon the property at a higher rate than others. The tax was usually one per thousand upon the property entered in the books of the censors, but on one occasion the censors compelled a person to pay eight per thousand as a punishment.[44]

A person who voluntarily absented himself from the census was considered incensus and subject to the severest punishment. Servius Tullius is said to have threatened such individuals with imprisonment and death,[45] and in the Republican period he might be sold by the state as a slave[46] In the later times of the republic, a person who was absent from the census might be represented by another, and be thus registered by the censors.[47] Whether the soldiers who were absent on service had to appoint a representative is uncertain. In ancient times, the sudden outbreaks of war prevented the census from being taken,[48] because a large number of the citizens would necessarily be absent. It is supposed from a passage in Livy[49] that in later times the censors sent commissioners into the provinces with full powers to take the census of the Roman soldiers there, but this seems to have been a special case. It is, on the contrary, probable from the way in which Cicero pleads the absence of Archias from Rome with the army under Lucullus, as a sufficient reason for his not having been enrolled in the census,[50] that service in the army was a valid excuse for absence.

After the censors had received the names of all the citizens with the amount of their property, they then had to make out the lists of the tribes, and also of the classes and centuries; for by the legislation of Servius Tullius the position of each citizen in the state was determined by the amount of his property (Comitia Centuriata). These lists formed a most important part of the Tabulae Censoriae, under which name were included all the documents connected in any way with the discharge of the censors' duties.[51] These lists, insofar as they were connected with the finances of the state, were deposited in the aerarium, which was the temple of Saturn;[52] but the regular depositary for all the archives of the censors was in earlier times the Atrium Libertatis, near the Villa publica,[53] and in later times the temple of the Nymphs.[54]