• 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!

Psalm 110: The most quoted psalm in the NT.

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I do possess the Babylonian Talmud in an English translation, so l do have some idea!

Are you about to suggest that these are not reliable sources for the views of Rabbis?
I asked whether he was talking about verses and quotes that were "Messianically applied" or verses and quotes that were "Jesusianically applied". You replied with a quote that has nothing to do with answering that question. So which is it? What was Edersheim looking for?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I asked whether he was talking about verses and quotes that were "Messianically applied" or verses and quotes that were "Jesusianically applied". You replied with a quote that has nothing to do with answering that question. So which is it? What was Edersheim looking for?
Clearly ''Messianically applied'. The way to tell is to look at an example from his list.

Example: 'Ps.xviii.50 is referred to in the Jer. Talmud (Ber.ii.4, p.5a, line 11 from the top), and in the Midr. on Lam. i.16, to the Messiah, with this curious remark, implying the doubt whether He was alive or dead: 'The King Messiah, whether He belong to the living or the dead, His name is to be David, according to Ps.xviii 50'.'

The name of Jesus does not appear in his list. The list is taken from sources that mention the Messiah in relation to specific passages of (OT) scripture.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Clearly ''Messianically applied'. The way to tell is to look at an example from his list.

Example: 'Ps.xviii.50 is referred to in the Jer. Talmud (Ber.ii.4, p.5a, line 11 from the top), and in the Midr. on Lam. i.16, to the Messiah, with this curious remark, implying the doubt whether He was alive or dead: 'The King Messiah, whether He belong to the living or the dead, His name is to be David, according to Ps.xviii 50'.'

The name of Jesus does not appear in his list. The list is taken from sources that mention the Messiah in relation to specific passages of (OT) scripture.
Great, except that it was presented in response to the statement that "Yeshua is on every "page" of Tanakh. My non-saved Jewish brethren have to eliminate most prophecies about Yeshua until they have perhaps three prophecies of Him left in all of Hebrew scripture!" in post 130.

So if the response to "Jesus is there and Jews eliminate those prophecies" is "The name of Jesus does not appear in his list" then you have made a very persuasive argument against Jesus's being at all present in the minds of Jews but Jews reject him. If the response to "Jesus is the object of the prophecies" is a quote that "His name is to be David" then you have made a very persuasive argument against the idea that the messiah is named Jesus. If the response to "Jews reject a whole lot of messianic prophecies" is "supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings" then you have made a very persuasive argument against any claim that Jews have rejected prophecies that are "messianically applied."

So thanks for supporting the idea that Judaism is rife with awareness of messianically applied prophecies that have nothing to do with Jesus.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Alfred Edersheim did a survey of Tanakh passages that were Messianically applied and provides the following introduction to his listing of passages:
'The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456 thus distributed: 75 from the Penteteuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. Despite all labour and care, it can scarcely be hoped that the list is quite complete, although it is hoped, no important passage has been omitted'.

If Edersheim could find this number of references in Rabbinic writings it seems mighty odd that Torah Jews (in recent times) have managed to reject so many in favour of alternative interpretations.

It's not odd at all--so many Messianic prophecies are obviously about Jesus, who is rejected by many Jews, that the Jewish people HAVE to say the prophecies are about anything and everything EXCEPT Messiah.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Great, except that it was presented in response to the statement that "Yeshua is on every "page" of Tanakh. My non-saved Jewish brethren have to eliminate most prophecies about Yeshua until they have perhaps three prophecies of Him left in all of Hebrew scripture!" in post 130.

So if the response to "Jesus is there and Jews eliminate those prophecies" is "The name of Jesus does not appear in his list" then you have made a very persuasive argument against Jesus's being at all present in the minds of Jews but Jews reject him. If the response to "Jesus is the object of the prophecies" is a quote that "His name is to be David" then you have made a very persuasive argument against the idea that the messiah is named Jesus. If the response to "Jews reject a whole lot of messianic prophecies" is "supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings" then you have made a very persuasive argument against any claim that Jews have rejected prophecies that are "messianically applied."

So thanks for supporting the idea that Judaism is rife with awareness of messianically applied prophecies that have nothing to do with Jesus.
The starting point in any dabate between Christians and Jews, as Edersheim was not slow to realise, is to establish a pool of prophecies that both recognise as having a messianic association.

According to Torah Jews today, the list of biblical passages referring to the Messiah are relatively few. Here are some suggested by Judaism 101:
This list may be short, but at least it gives a starting point for discussion about the nature of the Messiah, and the place of Israel in the overall plan of God.

Clearly, all references to a 'Suffering Servant' are missing from this list. But, as we've already heard, the Suffering Servant is understood by many Torah Jews to be Israel, not Christ.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The starting point in any dabate between Christians and Jews, as Edersheim was not slow to realise, is to establish a pool of prophecies that both recognise as having a messianic association.

According to Torah Jews today, the list of biblical passages referring to the Messiah are relatively few. Here are some suggested by Judaism 101:
This list may be short, but at least it gives a starting point for discussion about the nature of the Messiah, and the place of Israel in the overall plan of God.

Clearly, all references to a 'Suffering Servant' are missing from this list. But, as we've already heard, the Suffering Servant is understood by many Torah Jews to be Israel, not Christ.
actually, the starting point would be well before that. It would be establishing what a "prophecy" is and how it operates and agreeing on hermeneutic rules for understanding, and a textual canon and theological schema in which to understand. Without a common lens, one will no doubt come to a different conclusion. For example, the discussion of the suffering servant IS a prophecy and part of any pool of prophecies. The fact that you see it reasonable to exclude it from such a pool bespeaks the lack of common ground as a starting point.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
actually, the starting point would be well before that. It would be establishing what a "prophecy" is and how it operates and agreeing on hermeneutic rules for understanding, and a textual canon and theological schema in which to understand. Without a common lens, one will no doubt come to a different conclusion. For example, the discussion of the suffering servant IS a prophecy and part of any pool of prophecies. The fact that you see it reasonable to exclude it from such a pool bespeaks the lack of common ground as a starting point.
As you will notice if you check the list of Messianic prophecies in Judaism 101, all the prophecies relate to the King Messiah.

The Authorised Version of the Bible accepts the Hebrew and Greek canons of scripture. To me all these books are inspired by God, and, to my understanding the Suffering Servant is the 'anointed one' who becomes the King Messiah. In my experience, it's Torah Jews who like to distinguish between the two; hence 'son of Joseph' and 'son of David'.

If we can agree that God inspired prophets to write all the books of the Tanakh then we have a point of agreement. Finding an acceptable translation of the Hebrew text in English also helps.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not odd at all--so many Messianic prophecies are obviously about Jesus, who is rejected by many Jews, that the Jewish people HAVE to say the prophecies are about anything and everything EXCEPT Messiah.
It seems we have stumbled upon mighty Jesus's one flaw: The utter inability to convince his brethren that he's the messiah. Turns out god does have a weakness, after all. So much for omnipotence.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The Authorised Version of the Bible accepts the Hebrew and Greek canons of scripture. To me all these books are inspired by God, and, to my understanding the Suffering Servant is the 'anointed one' who becomes the King Messiah. In my experience, it's Torah Jews who like to distinguish between the two; hence 'son of Joseph' and 'son of David'.
Great. That isn't relevant to Judaism. The ASV isn't, the Greek texts aren't and your understanding isn't.
If we can agree that God inspired prophets to write all the books of the Tanakh then we have a point of agreement. Finding an acceptable translation of the Hebrew text in English also helps.
Disagree about the former statement and the question of a translation is problematic.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Great. That isn't relevant to Judaism. The ASV isn't, the Greek texts aren't and your understanding isn't.

Disagree about the former statement and the question of a translation is problematic.

So, you don't even believe that all the words of the Tanakh are inspired?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Well, I think that "inspired," itself, is an unclear word, as is "written", but @Harel13 is correct, not all was written by prophets.
What you have (both) proudly argued is that Judaism has remained unchanged in its attitudes and beliefs for the last two thousand years.

Two thousand years ago, Jews in Judea rose up against their Roman occupiers but were brutally suppressed. Jerusalem was destroyed, and the temple, central to Jewish religious practices, was flattened. Jews were thereafter forced to scatter abroad.

If Judaism and its beliefs have remained unchanged in two thousand years, why do you think God has allowed Jews to return to the land of their ancestors? Was God not responsible for scattering Jews from their homeland in the first place?

We may see the rebuilding of the temple in the next few years, and Judaism will be a step closer to its position two millennia ago.

What do you think will have changed in the relationship between God and the Jews?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
What you have (both) proudly argued is that Judaism has remained unchanged in its attitudes and beliefs for the last two thousand years.
I'm not sure if the word is "unchanged" as Judaism is rife with change. But it is more of "remained cohesive" in that the changes manifested through consistent application of ancient principles have crafted a dynamic religion which is part of a chain traced back to antiquity.
Two thousand years ago, Jews in Judea rose up against their Roman occupiers but were brutally suppressed. Jerusalem was destroyed, and the temple, central to Jewish religious practices, was flattened. Jews were thereafter forced to scatter abroad.
That was after a long period which included other destructions, another exile and the understanding of Jewish practice as able to exist sans temple.
If Judaism and its beliefs have remained unchanged in two thousand years, why do you think God has allowed Jews to return to the land of their ancestors? Was God not responsible for scattering Jews from their homeland in the first place?
God is responsible for everything. God is responsible for illness yet God has given doctor's the ability to "undo" illness and heal people.
What do you think will have changed in the relationship between God and the Jews?
The understanding in Judaism is that when the temple is rebuilt (speedily and in our days) what will change is the nature of people so that the extant relationship can be more properly understood and adhered to.

(I tell this story often) -- when I was younger and in school, a student asked a rabbi if there would be basketball in the messianic era. The rabbi said "sure, but no one will want to play it." The change isn't that basketball won't exist, but if you can more clearly perceive that God is right there in front of you then you will not want to miss a minute of that presence by playing games.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It seems we have stumbled upon mighty Jesus's one flaw: The utter inability to convince his brethren that he's the messiah. Turns out god does have a weakness, after all. So much for omnipotence.

Huh? The first 100,000 (?) "Christians" were 1st century Messianic JEWS. What are you talking about?

I'm Jesus's brethren and He convinced me.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Huh? The first 100,000 (?) "Christians" were 1st century Messianic JEWS. What are you talking about?

I'm Jesus's brethren and He convinced me.
At the time there were about 16 million Jews just in the Roman Empire, and that's besides those in the Parthian Empire and who knows where else. So that's not that much. How many of these 100k knew Jesus himself and how many were simply convinced by the strong missionary tactics of yahoos like Paul?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The understanding in Judaism is that when the temple is rebuilt (speedily and in our days) what will change is the nature of people so that the extant relationship can be more properly understood and adhered to.
Is there really a correlation between the rebuilding of the temple and the nature of people? Surely, when the temple did stand, people had the opportunity to walk obediently with God, but chose otherwise. Why should it be any different if a new temple is built?
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Is there really a correlation between the rebuilding of the temple and the nature of people? Surely, when the temple did stand, people had the opportunity to walk obediently with God, but chose otherwise. Why should it be any different if a new temple is built?
Because that's the essence of the promise of the true messianic Era.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
At the time there were about 16 million Jews just in the Roman Empire, and that's besides those in the Parthian Empire and who knows where else. So that's not that much. How many of these 100k knew Jesus himself and how many were simply convinced by the strong missionary tactics of yahoos like Paul?

The estimate is for just the first years of Christianity before it left Jerusalem and Judea!

Why would we need to know Jesus himself to accept He fulfilled Tankah prophecy? You and I have no excuse.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The estimate is for just the first years of Christianity before it left Jerusalem and Judea!
Mine as well. What's your point?
Why would we need to know Jesus himself to accept He fulfilled Tankah prophecy? You and I have no excuse.
Didn't you just say "I'm Jesus's brethren and He convinced me"? Regardless, we would most certainly have to know, because you are arguing against the following post that I wrote:

"It seems we have stumbled upon mighty Jesus's one flaw: The utter inability to convince his brethren that he's the messiah. Turns out god does have a weakness, after all. So much for omnipotence."​

As for myself, I don't need excuses to scoot far away from anti-Judaic heretical nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Top