Cousins are close relatives. Married people are sometimes friends with cousins, but it would be weird if they were friends with a non related person of the opposite gender.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cousins are close relatives. Married people are sometimes friends with cousins, but it would be weird if they were friends with a non related person of the opposite gender.
Not everyone on the forums is a scholar on Christianity, that doesn't mean that they don't have the authority to discuss it. I'm talking about believers and unbelievers.
What law in the scriptures existed during the time of Isaiah that excluded step parents from being close relatives?
Step parents are not distant relatives.
rosends
Well-Known Member
So I have the right to make an affirmative claim about an essential aspect of Christianity? Great.
People in discussions express different opinions. That doesn't mean that everyone is making an affirmative claim about an essential aspect of another belief system.
rosends
Well-Known Member
2 problems - there still is no concept in Jewish law of "close relatives" and you don't understand Jewish law enough to discuss it. But it is in Leviticus, 21. Shutting down now.
Where does Leviticus 21 exclude step parents from being considered close relatives? What does stepfamily mean?
@Skywalker, I'm very curious to know why you are unwilling to admit that Jews for Jesus are wrong about there claims of how old the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is. Do you have some sort of attachment to that group? Or do you think that Origen is untrustworthy?
Jews for Jesus may be wrong about the 1000s is when the doctrine of the suffering servant began, but there is evidence that Judaism changed its view of the suffering servant when Jesus came. I don't have attachment to Jews for Jesus. I trust what God says not the opinions of people. I believe into looking into things for myself. Regarding Origen, I agree with certain aspects of Judaism, like embarrassing crierior of the Old Testament, but that doesn't take away from the evidence that Jesus is the suffering servant.
And that is? You know, there are some academics that believe that this view is echoed by many different people - of many Jewish sects - in the NT itself.
But as you've answered my question, I'll oblige by answering you other question:
If you read chapter 53 carefully, you'll notice that - perhaps somewhat shockingly to some - it never says that the servant himself is sinless!!!
*Gasp!*
And that is? You know, there are some academics that believe that this view is echoed by many different people - of many Jewish sects - in the NT itself.
But as you've answered my question, I'll oblige by answering you other question:
If you read chapter 53 carefully, you'll notice that - perhaps somewhat shockingly to some - it never says that the servant himself is sinless!!!
*Gasp!*
View attachment 48476
Where does the New Testament mention that the Pharisees believed that the suffering servant is Israel? Modern Judaism is an extension of the Judaism that the Pharisees in the Old Testament believed in.
The suffering servant is Jesus because he is described as never disobedient. Who Is The Suffering Servant? Israel Or Jesus?
53:11 does not refer to the servant as "righteous". The verse is as follows: "מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֺנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃" which translates as "Out of his anguish he shall see it; He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion. He will vindicate the righteous, my servant, to the many, and he shall bear their sins." or another translation: "He would see (the purpose) and be satisfied with his soul's distress. With his knowledge My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes; it is their iniquities that he will carry."
Jews for Jesus (and, admittedly, also some Jewish sources, improperly translate the term "צדיק עבדי" as meaning "my servant is righteous", but in the context of the verse, and the makeup of the sentence, it doesn't fit.
As for verse 5, it doesn't say that the servant was innocent.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Except that you have, saying that certain things ARE part of Jewish law, or even that they (via you "common sense") are not excluded from Jewish law. But you don't know Jewish law.
You aren't expressing your belief about what should be the case, or even what you think the case is, but what you claim is the case. And it isn't.
rosends
Well-Known Member
When it lists family members, it doesn't INCLUDE step family. Therefore, they are excluded. "Excluded" means "not included." I can get a link to a dictionary if you would like.
It was just the sabbath because it was the 7th day. The text says "seventh day" but maybe that includes the 3rd day also, because both are days and you think that they are like each other and it doesn't explicitly say "but not the 3rd day."
Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that.
That doesn't mean that step family aren't close family. Someone marrying a step sibling would be weird. Step family aren't distant relatives. They have a close ongoing family connection to people.
Jesus is sinless. What human being is a righteous one? How did the suffering of Israel lead to their exaltation? 19. The Triumph of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13—53:12) | Bible.org
A lot of things aren't explicitly stated but are common sense. How does Leviticus exclude step family from being close family? Not all behavior that people do is influenced by Jewish law.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Great. So you create categories according to your personal whim. But who cares? That has no impact on Jewish law.
rosends
Well-Known Member
If the question was "what is included in Jewish law?" then the answer that not all behavior is influenced by Jewish law is completely irrelevant.
Jewish law didn't mention first cousins and sometimes beyond that being close relatives, but that doesn't mean that Jesus and John the Baptist weren't close relatives.