How is something irrelevant because Jewish law doesn't mention it? The Ten Commandments don't say everything that is a sin, because some things are just common sense.
-
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!
How is something irrelevant because Jewish law doesn't mention it? The Ten Commandments don't say everything that is a sin, because some things are just common sense.
rosends
Well-Known Member
First, who said anything about Jesus and John? Who cares about them?
Second, Jewish law didn't mention first cousins o by Jewish law, for the laws that govern "close family" first cousins aren't "close family."
rosends
Well-Known Member
If the discussion is about what is in Jewish law, then making a statement about whether anyone's behavior is influenced by Jewish law is irrelevant. Whether of not someone is influenced by the speed limit doesn't change that there is a speed limit.
First cousins are close family it drops quickly after that. Married people don't call friends of the opposite sex but they sometimes call cousins of the opposite sex.
Something not being mentioned in Jewish law doesn't mean it's not true. Joseph was the earthly and legal father of Jesus. Joseph the Father of Jesus
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Avodah Zara. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews were warned by Hashem in the Torah to stay away from people claiming that we have been given parachutes.
Just FYI, the more you write about what is in the NT the more you are showing that it is Avodah Zara and how Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews should avoid it.
Last edited:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. (Genesis 49:10)
Predictions about the coming Messiah are peppered throughout the Old Testament. This one in Genesis 49:10 is striking because it told God's people, all the way back in Genesis, that the Messiah would come through the lineage of Judah, one of Jacob's twelve sons.
The key phrases in this verse ("The scepter will not depart," "the ruler's staff," "the obedience of the nations") makes it clear that not only a king, but the King, would come from the tribe of Judah. In other words, the Messiah who would judge all people at the end of time would be a descendant of Judah.
This prophecy was echoed throughout the Old Testament-predicting not only that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, but more specifically that he would come through the house of David (who was an earlier descendant of Judah; see 2 Samuel 7:12-13). This was finally fulfilled in the New Testament.
When we look at the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 (the line of Joseph, Jesus' legal father) and Luke 3:23-38 (commonly believed to be the line of Mary, Jesus' mother), we discover that Jesus did indeed descend from the family of Judah as well as the house of David.
Further, from Matthew 25:31-46 we see that Jesus will one day preside over all the nations, and everyone will acknowledge his authority (see also Isaiah 9:6 and Philippians 2:9-11). This has not happened yet-but it's important to remember that some of the prophecies point to the first visit of the Messiah, and some point to his return. The first visit was when Jesus came as our suffering servant to give his life "as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The triumphant return of the Messiah is when Jesus will come to judge the earth and to establish his kingdom-when "the obedience of the nations shall be his" (Genesis 49:10).
The prophecy in Genesis clearly points to the future, everlasting kingdom of a son of Judah. Jesus fits this description perfectly.
Yes, according to Christianity, Jesus was sinless. So, based on what I've explained now, Christianity's version of Jesus could not be the suffering servant!
I'm so glad we've sorted this whole mess out.
There are righteous men. Even sinning and atoning makes you righteous, as it says in Proverbs:
"Seven times the righteous man falls and gets up..."
I think you're contradicting yourself, now, though. Because Jesus was also human, so he also wasn't righteous, according you. But whatever, that's not the point right now.
You're a Christian. Like many Christians, you believe that prophecies take time to play out. This is a prophecy that's still being played out, but in a way, it's already starting to come true. After thousands of years for moving from exile to exile, from one evil government to the next, Jews are starting to regain their glory. Israel - by its allies, at least - is a highly respected country. By its enemies its considered dangerously powerful. Hey, that's something right there.
The Babylonian Talmud was before Jesus, and it said that the Messiah is the suffering servant. The servant is also described as distinct from Israel.
Who Is The Suffering Servant? Israel Or Jesus?
rosends
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, I have just barely been following up to now, but this is totally off the rails.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Something not being mentioned in Jewish law makes it not part of Jewish law. Joseph was not, under Jewish law, Jesus' father no matter how much you think he should be.
I was responding to what you said about Jesus and John not being close relatives.
Just because something is not a part of Jewish law doesn't mean it's not true. In the law, there are things that aren't mentioned but legal precedent exists.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
You did it again. Avodah Zara.
I told you that more you write about the NT the more Avodah Zara you would be presenting. This is probably why the Zoom option where you prove things to me from a Hebrew Tanakh w/o translation is not worthwhile to you.
No matter, you are doing a good job of convincing us Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews that what you are stating is Avodah Zara. Keep up the good work.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Hey. You did it again. Avodah Zara! Is there any way we can just add a counter to the posts?
Many points to be made here:
a. Jesus did not have leprosy.
b. In the same passage in Sanhedrin, multiple names are given for the Mashiach. None of them are "Jesus" or anything remotely similar. They are: Yinon, Menachem ben Chizkiyah, Shiloh and/or Chaninah.
c. At the end of the list, the sages give him the title "חיוורא דבי רבי". It has been pointed out that this חיוורא of the house of Rebbe was a real person. In the Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:1, it says: "תלמיד וותיק היה לו לרבי ודרש פרק אחד במעשה המרכבה ולא הסכימה דעתו של רבי ולקה בשחין". Now I'll explain. "חיוורא דבי רבי" means "the stricken of the house of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince". The Yerushalmi relates who this person was: He was a student of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince who studied advanced mystical teachings improperly, and for this was struck with a form of boils (as in "the plague of boils"). Yes, one could call this leprosy, if one so chooses. Some think that this addition by the sages was a joke, after a chain of guesses of what the Mashiach's name is. This is open to discussion. But in any case, "leper scholar" is not the full story. It's missionary deceit and twisting of the Talmud. It's quite a pathetic way to attempt to prove one's religion is true. But hey, Paul did it, right?
d. As we've explained, the real term is "the stricken/afflicted/leper of the house of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince". This is not Jesus at all: 1. Jesus was born long before Rabbi Yehudah. 2. Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, while a descendant of David, this was from one of his female ancestors. From his father's side, he was of the tribe of Benjamin, and as we all know, Christians claim Jesus was a "direct" descendant of David. 3. Jesus had no known connection to the house of the prince of his time. 4. Jesus was not stricken by any sort of sickness (except, possibly, a mental one).
e. Most importantly, with regards to your claim, going back to the teaching of the sages, calling the Mashiach "the stricken of the house of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince", and basing it off of the verse in Isaiah 53, as I already pointed out in post #533:
Yes, the sages purposely took the verse out of context. I suppose it's exceedingly ironic that missionaries then proceeded to take their words out of context. Funny how that happens sometimes.
f. What are your thought about the previous portion of the Talmudic text, in which Rabbi Hillel (not the same as Hillel the Elder) says: "Rabbi Hillel, who says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled during the days of Hezekiah"?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
WHAT? Did you just write what I think you wrote? Did anyone else notice this statement made by Skywalker? The force is definately not with you on this one.
rosends
Well-Known Member
1. I never said anything about John
2. Mention of phone calls has nothing to do with law
rosends
Well-Known Member
If legal precedent exists, then it is part of the law. When there is none, as in this case, the thing being discussed is not part of the law.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No. Not even close. You're forgetting about the end of the verse in Genesis. The future Jewish King will gather the people. Jesus is a divisive figure, not a unifier.