Messiah the son of Joseph

[Brian2]

Brian2 said: The truth is that Joseph took Mary, his promised bride, who was pregnant, and married her and raised the child as his own, along with any other children that he had. Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David and so Jesus was born into that and raised in that as a member of Judah.

Rosends said: That's not a truth. That's a claim. It is contradicted by Jewish law.

Brian2 says: How is that contradicted by Jewish Law is the Law does not say one way or the other.

One would need a low ALLOWING it and such a law doesn't exist. When Tzlophchad had only daughters, and there was no law indicating the inheritance as it relates to daughters, they didn't yell "Hey, there's no law saying we don't inherit so we inherit!" They went to Moses and said "because there is no law saying we inherit, we will get nothing" so he presented a law saying that they CAN inherit. Without a law allowing for the exceptional case, the case is not an exception.

There actually was a Law saying that they don't inherit because the inheritance went only to sons. The example is not good. An exception in the Law was needed.
The case of Mary and Joseph was a unique case and could not have had an exception to the law or every wayward female would have been using it when they became pregnant while engaged.
"Oh it's OK God is the Father".
And seriously the Father of the Messiah in scripture is God.

I don't recall saying that it does. But if you dismiss it because it isn't God's word, then you should be consistent and dismiss it -- not allow for its authority when it says something you like.

The P.Rabbati has authority to show us what Jews thought even if it is not God's Word. And what Jews thought in the past is all that is being established.

Great -- you do't have to tell me. Tell it to the OP who insists that the Son of Joseph is a thing.

I think all he is doing is what I was doing, showing that Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah, was a thing in Jewish thought even if these days the thought seems to have evaporated. He seems to be asking about that evaporation and whether it might be a way for Judaism to distance itself from Christianity.
OR is Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah, still alive and well in Jewish thought?

Just like the talmud! Thanks.

The Talmud is a commentary on God's Word.
The New Testament is the story of the Suffering Messiah, Ben Joseph, the one killed and rejected by most Jews.

And some Muslims see references to Mohammed in the Song of Songs. People see weird things, amirite?

People do see weird things, true, but at least what the Christians see is a possibility, unlike what the Muslims see or what Baha'is see.

Great, so they are wrong and you dismiss them as such. That works for me, as long as you are consistent.

Am I being inconsistent in showing Jewish thoughts but disagreeing with what they might say in places?

Yeah, um...this is all other silliness which has been dealt with and dismissed elsewhere. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, go tell the OP that there is no Messiah son of Joseph. You will become part of the conspiracy.

I don't know anything about a conspiracy, but bias does come into the thinking of religious individuals and even scientist when pressure is there. Would a Jew be able to speak of having accepted ideas that support the Christian ideas without be ostracised somehow? I don't know, you tell me.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not really brother. The problem Jews had with the New Testament is not that it was in Greek. The Jews of Jesus's time never ever saw any New Testament. There never was one. The oldest canon that we know of was with Marcion of Sinope and that too from the Church fathers anti Marcion writing. Thus, the rabbit hole runs deeper. So for the Jews to reject Greek writing, they need to have them in the first place. Paul writing to specific people, not all Jews and her was the only writer in the first or second decade. Paul was also preaching to the gentiles, so his writings also reflected the same. So your question in this case has a huge fundamental problem in its response.

Secondly, if I am to hypothetically agree to Jesus being the Christ, son of Joseph and David mentioned in Jewish scripture, where are the teachings of Jesus being one of the trinity? Only if that is found in the same Jewish scripture you are referring to it would be a valid equation. Otherwise it is a fallacy of division.

I agree that whilst Paul and the apostles preached the Gospel, the question of a prophetic language was not an issue. But imagine you were a Jew of the Middle Ages. Would you look to Greek writings as a source of Jewish prophecy?

I am aware that Greek was the 'lingua franca' of Jesus' day, and that to reach a Gentile audience the writings of Paul needed to be in Greek. But did God choose Greek for all the books of the New Testament because He knew that the Jews would reject the Gospel?

As regards the Trinity, I attempted to look at this question from a fresh perspective in a thread called 'Solomon's big question'. The question Solomon posed was, 'But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth?' There are many clues in the Hebrew scriptures that suggest God does come to earth. If, therefore, you can understand the reasons for God coming to earth you can also understand the trinity as a doctrine. Of course, there is no trinity if God does not come to earth.

 

[firedragon]

I agree that whilst Paul and the apostles preached the Gospel, the question of a prophetic language was not an issue. But imagine you were a Jew of the Middle Ages. Would you look to Greek writings as a source of Jewish prophecy?

I am aware that Greek was the 'lingua franca' of Jesus' day, and that to reach a Gentile audience the writings of Paul needed to be in Greek. But did God choose Greek for all the books of the New Testament because He knew that the Jews would reject the Gospel?

As regards the Trinity, I attempted to look at this question from a fresh perspective in a thread called 'Solomon's big question'. The question Solomon posed was, 'But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth?' There are many clues in the Hebrew scriptures that suggest God does come to earth. If, therefore, you can understand the reasons for God coming to earth you can also understand the trinity as a doctrine. Of course, there is no trinity if God does not come to earth.

I did not question the trinity. I questioned your assertion that Jewish Messiah the son of Joseph is Jesus the Messiah and your conception of him if it is in harmony or clashes. If you take one part of their Jewish Messiah to affirm Jesus and neglect the fact that their scripture you yourself is quoting does not support the trinity which Jesus is part of you are committing the logical fallacy of division. This is not about God coming to earth or not, and the trinity is where Jesus existed always, not after God came to earth and the trinity was always the trinity since forever, not after God comes to earth. Thus either you are mistaken or you did not understand the trinity.

Also about Jews not taking Greek writing as a Jewish prophecy is not valid because referring to the New Testament, it is not a book of prophecies. Thats an invalid argument.

 

[rosends]

Thanks for all your responses. One last question, in bits.

If there is to be a single Messiah in the future, but no single Suffering Servant, how do you envisage the coming of that single Messiah [son of David]?

Will the coming Messiah be born in the city of David and rule Israel from Jerusalem, without ever facing rejection or death?

You are asking a valid but very expansive question. As there is much that has been written from the Jewish perspective, I would recommend your reading from those sources. Here is one selection of writings that might give you more information:

Moshiach (Messiah) and the Future Redemption

 

[rosends]

Continued from post #37.

The tribe of Dan of the seventh blessing from Jacob/Israel, who was allocated the seventh allotment of land in the promised kingdom, married into the children of Dinah the seventh child of Leah.

Because they were short, 200 wives, the 600 survivors were allowed to steal 200 virgins from the other 11 of Israel’s 13 tribes,, who had made a solemn vow before God, to never allow one of their daughters to marry a member of the tribe of Benjamin, which vow was witnessed by Phinehas the grandson of Aaron.

The Israelites who had repented for slaughtering the 12th tribe of Benjamin, turned their backs while the sons of Hushim the daughter of Dan and Shaharaim the Benjaminite, stole 200 of the virgins who were dancing at the festival at Shiloh, and this is rape in any man's language. The six hundred Danites were to later recruit “Jonathan the grandson of Moses” as their priest, stealing also the silver idol of Micah, which I believe was an Eagle, a typical symbol for the hill country of Manasseh where Jonathan had lived in the house of Micah.

None from the tribe of Dan, the brother tribe to Benjamin, were among the 11 tribes, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child in the country of Benjamin See Judges 20: 47; nor are any from the tribe of Dan counted among the 144000 chosen from the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelation 7: 4.

The 600 Danites moved up into the land of Sidon after the land of Benjamin was later divided among the tribe of Judah and the 10 northern tribes of Israel (Levi not counted among them) it was then that a pseudo tribe of Benjamin was created, which pseudo tribe was counted from the daughters of Benjamin, who had married into the other tribes before the slaughter of the tribe of Benjamin.

1st kings 12: 31; When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he called together 180,000 of the best soldiers from the tribes of Judah and the (PSEUDO) tribe of Benjamin. (BUT) we have just read in the previous verse (30) after the 10 northern tribes had abandoned Rehoboam the son of Solomon, it is said, that ONLY the tribe of JUDAH remained loyal to David's descendants.

Ps 68: verses 24 and 27; (24) “O God your march of triumph is seen by all, the procession of God, my king, into his Sanctuary” (within His New Temple, that replaces his old tabernacle) ------ (27) “First comes Benjamin, the smallest tribe, etc”

Benjamin, was the youngest and beloved son of Jacob, born of Rachel the love of his life. And of Benjamin, it is said in Deuteronomy 33: 12; “This is the tribe that the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, loves and protects: He guards them all day long, and he dwells in their midst.”

After the 600 descendants of Shaharaim, who belonged to the tribe of Dan and who were unable to remove the original inhabitants from the land they were allocated, had now lost the land of Benjamin in which they had lived. See Joshua 19: 47; The 600 survivors from the tribe of Dan all fighting men ready for battle, with their wives, children and all their possessions, Judges 18: 21; (They weren’t coming back) moved up into the land of Sidon the first born of Canaan, where, in the ships of Dan they became seafaring merchants, and that tribe, who had taken as their priest, Jonathan the grandson of Moses, can be found in the Greco-Roman Empire, which according to Legend was founded by the two brothers, Romulus (Benjamin who was killed when he leaped the wall) and Remus (Dan who founded Rome) the rape of the Sabine women is found in the forcible rape of the 600 virgins.

From the Testament of Dan, who is the actual fifth born son, of Israel, but of the seventh blessing of Jacob and who was born of Jacob’s concubine Bilhah, who was raped by Reuben near Eprathah, when Dan was about 14 years old and while Jacob was away visiting his father “Isaac.”

The Testament of Dan 7: 3; “Nevertheless, Dan prophesied to the members of the tribe that was founded by Hushim his adopted daughter, who was the biological child of Bilhah and Reuben the first born of Israel, that they should forget their God, (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) and should be alienated from the land of their inheritance, (Canaan=Palestine) and from the race of Israel, and from the family of their seed (Reuben the first born).

As Benjamin the 12th tribe of Israel was lost, so too Judas Iscariot, who was the 12th disciple, was also destined to be lost. “Iscariot” means, “Man of Kerioth,” and it was in the district of Kerioth-Hazor that the pseudo tribe of Benjamin settled on their return from the captivity in Babylon.

After Judas, the 12th disciple, who was destined to be lost, had been hung upon a tree, and whose rotted and bloated corpse was to later slip from the rope and fall headless to the ground where it burst asunder spilling his bowls over the Potters field, the other 11, chose a replacement for him, but they did not have that authority, it was Jesus of Nazareth, who chose the original 12 and it was he, in his inherited glorious body of brilliant and blinding light, who chose the replacement to Judas: and that replacement was Paul, the son of a Roman mother and a father who belonged to the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, and it was Paul who was imprisoned in Rome, who was chosen to gather the Roman Gentiles as the 12000 chosen from the tribe of Benjamin who had been lost.

Taken from the book that I am in the process of writing.​

I'll wait for the movie.

 

[rosends]

Rosends said: That's not a truth. That's a claim. It is contradicted by Jewish law.

Brian2 says: How is that contradicted by Jewish Law is the Law does not say one way or the other.

Because Jewish law does not have a status of "adopted" and dos not allow tribal lineage to transfer that way. You insist that because there is no law forbidding it, it must have been extant. I'm saying that with no law allowing it, it wasn't. Can you show me in any canon of Jewish law, any proof that your claim is supported by actual law? Hint -- you can't.

There actually was a Law saying that they don't inherit because the inheritance went only to sons. The example is not good. An exception in the Law was needed.

There was a law that inheritance goes to biological sons. In their case, there were no biological sons so they could not assume that the law transferred inheritance to them. There was a need for an explicit exception. In your case, there is no law transferring inheritance to non-biological children so a similar explicit law would be needed. There is none. The cases are perfectly parallel. In the lack of a fact pattern conforming to biblical law, a law accounting for an exception must be made.

And seriously the Father of the Messiah in scripture is God.

The P.Rabbati has authority to show us what Jews thought even if it is not God's Word. And what Jews thought in the past is all that is being established.

And so they (though there is no "they" when you are quoting a single author's work) saw the concept as a light and God having conversations and sitting on a chair.

is Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah, still alive and well in Jewish thought?

As the "suffering servant"? No. As an idea in Jewish messianic thinking, yes.

The Talmud is a commentary on God's Word.

Not exactly, no. It is composed of the mishna which IS God's word, and the gemara which is explanation of the mishna, guided by God's word.

The New Testament is the story of the Suffering Messiah, Ben Joseph, the one killed and rejected by most Jews.

And Harry Potter is the story of a kid who lived under some stairs, rejected by the Dursleys.

People do see weird things, true, but at least what the Christians see is a possibility, unlike what the Muslims see or what Baha'is see.

You must mean "At least what the Jews see is a possibility, unlike what the Christians see, or what the Muslims see or what Baha'is see."

Am I being inconsistent in showing Jewish thoughts but disagreeing with what they might say in places?

You are being inconsistent in ascribing authority in one place of a text but denying it other places because what it says there doesn't suit you.

Would a Jew be able to speak of having accepted ideas that support the Christian ideas without be ostracised somehow? I don't know, you tell me.

It depends which ideas. If a Christian had the idea to add sriracha to his omelet, an enlightened Jew might well go along with that.

 

[The Anointed]

I agree that whilst Paul and the apostles preached the Gospel, the question of a prophetic language was not an issue. But imagine you were a Jew of the Middle Ages. Would you look to Greek writings as a source of Jewish prophecy?

I am aware that Greek was the 'lingua franca' of Jesus' day, and that to reach a Gentile audience the writings of Paul needed to be in Greek. But did God choose Greek for all the books of the New Testament because He knew that the Jews would reject the Gospel?

As regards the Trinity, I attempted to look at this question from a fresh perspective in a thread called 'Solomon's big question'. The question Solomon posed was, 'But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth?' There are many clues in the Hebrew scriptures that suggest God does come to earth. If, therefore, you can understand the reasons for God coming to earth you can also understand the trinity as a doctrine. Of course, there is no trinity if God does not come to earth.

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

Good News Bible Catholic Study Edition, Hebrew 10: 5; For when Christ the anointed one was about to come into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and burnt offerings you did not want, but a body you have prepared for me, etc.”

That body was the man Jesus, of who we read before he was given divine glory by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, See Acts 3: 13; Hebrew 5: 7-10; “In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. But even though he was ‘A’ son of God, (Not God’s Son, or THE son of God, but A son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong’s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God’s word, see Psalms 82: 6; ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are sons of the Most High.’) HE learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience, he could then be used as the host body through which our God, ‘The Son of Man’ could then revealed himself, through the life, the miracles and the words that would be seen and heard through his obedient servant and earthy image, who did, nor spoke one word on his own authority other than that which he was commanded by the Lord our saviour.)

Jesus, the one who God had prepared for his heavenly anointed one, then became the source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise all those, who are united to him also.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; The Lord says to Moses----“I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything that I command him to say. And whoever will not give heed to MY WORDS which he will speak in MY NAME, I will surely punish.”

Peter reveals who that prophet was, when in Acts 3: 12; in reference to the man Jesus, Peter says; “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will send you a prophet just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc.”

Did the people of his day believe that the man Jesus was some God, who had been born of a virgin? Of course not, the Jews who lived in the day of Jesus, knew that God had said to Moses that he would choose a man from among the Israelites and send him to speak in his name, and Peter in Acts 3: 22; verified that man to be Jesus the son of Mary, Plus the people of his day knew that he was the man that God had chosen from among the Israelites and sent to speak in his name, when on his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, they cried out: “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

Jesus was the earthly temple of the Lord who filled that temple with his spirit on the day he was baptized, and the heavenly voice was heard to say; ”You are my son, this day I have begotten thee.” Or as written in Hebrews 5: 5, “You are my son TODAY I have become your Father.”

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

They were the words that Jesus was commanded to say by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who raised the body of Jesus, the earthly temple, which had been filled with his spirit.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17: 31; For He (The Lord God our saviour) has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.

It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who said through his obedient servant Jesus; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.” And it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who, through the words he spoke through the man Jesus, revealed himself to be the only begotten son of God, who was equal to God in every way, (The Son of Man.)

 

[Shaul]

The Talmud is a treasure chest of information, but I find it hard to believe that the Talmud, completed during the Christian era, has not been tainted by anti-Christian prejudice.

Why would you find it so hard to believe? The fact is that at the time the Talmud was compiled Christianity was a little known, obscure sect. There were probably more Mithraists and Zoroastrians at that time than Christians. The truth is the Rabbis of that time, if they were even mindful of Christianity, would not have given it much thought or consideration. It was important or significant to them. Christians see things relative to their worldview. I doubt most of the Rabbis and Sages that compiled the Talmud even knew Jesus existed and that he had no importance to them whatsoever.

Now on the other hand, the Christian texts were written by people that certainly knew Judaism existed and most definitely were biased against Judaism.

 

[The Anointed]

Because Jewish law does not have a status of "adopted" and dos not allow tribal lineage to transfer that way. You insist that because there is no law forbidding it, it must have been extant. I'm saying that with no law allowing it, it wasn't. Can you show me in any canon of Jewish law, any proof that your claim is supported by actual law? Hint -- you can't.



There was a law that inheritance goes to biological sons. In their case, there were no biological sons so they could not assume that the law transferred inheritance to them. There was a need for an explicit exception. In your case, there is no law transferring inheritance to non-biological children so a similar explicit law would be needed. There is none. The cases are perfectly parallel. In the lack of a fact pattern conforming to biblical law, a law accounting for an exception must be made.

View attachment 41385


And so they (though there is no "they" when you are quoting a single author's work) saw the concept as a light and God having conversations and sitting on a chair.




As the "suffering servant"? No. As an idea in Jewish messianic thinking, yes.



Not exactly, no. It is composed of the mishna which IS God's word, and the gemara which is explanation of the mishna, guided by God's word.

And Harry Potter is the story of a kid who lived under some stairs, rejected by the Dursleys.



You must mean "At least what the Jews see is a possibility, unlike what the Christians see, or what the Muslims see or what Baha'is see."


You are being inconsistent in ascribing authority in one place of a text but denying it other places because what it says there doesn't suit you.


It depends which ideas. If a Christian had the idea to add sriracha to his omelet, an enlightened Jew might well go along with that.

2 Samuel 18: 18; “Because Absalom had no son, he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it ‘Absalom’s Monument’ to keep his name alive.”

2 Samuel 14: 27; ‘THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; a very beautiful woman.”

This did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

Absalom may have been sterile and had sired no children at all. Although it is said in 2 Samuel 14: 27, THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter named Tamar, a very beautiful woman, it does not say whether she was his biological daughter or adopted daughter.

Of course, there were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption papers to be filled out in those days.

In 2 Samuel 13: 1; It is written that David’s son ‘Absalom; had a beautiful sister named ‘Tamar, who was raped by his half-brother Amnon, Who, some two years later, Absalom was to murder. 2 Samuel 13: 20; Absalom comforted his ravaged sister, who from that day on, lived in the home of her brother, who took responsibility for all her needs. And like I have said previously, “There were no formal adoption agencies, and no adoption papers to be filled out in those days.”

1 Chronicles 3: 2, The name of the mother of Absalom, and his beautiful sister Tamar was Maacah.

2 Chronicles 11: 20, Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, loved the daughter of Absalom, [Tamar] who was named in honour of her mother or grandmother, Maacah, the mother of Absalom.

The appellation ‘BEN’ can mean Son, stepson, grandson, or male descendant.

Maacah/Tamar, bore four descendants for Absalom her father, three males and one female, which children were sired by Rehoboam, whose three sons by the daughter of Absalom, were named, Abijah, Attai and Ziza, and a daughter named, Shelomith.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I did not question the trinity. I questioned your assertion that Jewish Messiah the son of Joseph is Jesus the Messiah and your conception of him if it is in harmony or clashes. If you take one part of their Jewish Messiah to affirm Jesus and neglect the fact that their scripture you yourself is quoting does not support the trinity which Jesus is part of you are committing the logical fallacy of division. This is not about God coming to earth or not, and the trinity is where Jesus existed always, not after God came to earth and the trinity was always the trinity since forever, not after God comes to earth. Thus either you are mistaken or you did not understand the trinity.

Also about Jews not taking Greek writing as a Jewish prophecy is not valid because referring to the New Testament, it is not a book of prophecies. Thats an invalid argument.

I am using the word 'prophecy' to mean all the words that God speaks. [2 Timothy 3:16]

The issue of the trinity is probably better discussed on the thread 'Solomon's big question'. I'll post a few thoughts there.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

Good News Bible Catholic Study Edition, Hebrew 10: 5; For when Christ the anointed one was about to come into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and burnt offerings you did not want, but a body you have prepared for me, etc.”

That body was the man Jesus, of who we read before he was given divine glory by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, See Acts 3: 13; Hebrew 5: 7-10; “In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. But even though he was ‘A’ son of God, (Not God’s Son, or THE son of God, but A son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong’s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God’s word, see Psalms 82: 6; ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are sons of the Most High.’) HE learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience, he could then be used as the host body through which our God, ‘The Son of Man’ could then revealed himself, through the life, the miracles and the words that would be seen and heard through his obedient servant and earthy image, who did, nor spoke one word on his own authority other than that which he was commanded by the Lord our saviour.)

Jesus, the one who God had prepared for his heavenly anointed one, then became the source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise all those, who are united to him also.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; The Lord says to Moses----“I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything that I command him to say. And whoever will not give heed to MY WORDS which he will speak in MY NAME, I will surely punish.”

Peter reveals who that prophet was, when in Acts 3: 12; in reference to the man Jesus, Peter says; “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will send you a prophet just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc.”

Did the people of his day believe that the man Jesus was some God, who had been born of a virgin? Of course not, the Jews who lived in the day of Jesus, knew that God had said to Moses that he would choose a man from among the Israelites and send him to speak in his name, and Peter in Acts 3: 22; verified that man to be Jesus the son of Mary, Plus the people of his day knew that he was the man that God had chosen from among the Israelites and sent to speak in his name, when on his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, they cried out: “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

Jesus was the earthly temple of the Lord who filled that temple with his spirit on the day he was baptized, and the heavenly voice was heard to say; ”You are my son, this day I have begotten thee.” Or as written in Hebrews 5: 5, “You are my son TODAY I have become your Father.”

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

They were the words that Jesus was commanded to say by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who raised the body of Jesus, the earthly temple, which had been filled with his spirit.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17: 31; For He (The Lord God our saviour) has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.

It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who said through his obedient servant Jesus; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.” And it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who, through the words he spoke through the man Jesus, revealed himself to be the only begotten son of God, who was equal to God in every way, (The Son of Man.)

As I said to firedragon, I'll pick this theme up on the thread 'Solomon's big question'.

 

[firedragon]

I am using the word 'prophecy' to mean all the words that God speaks. [2 Timothy 3:16]

The issue of the trinity is probably better discussed on the thread 'Solomon's big question'. I'll post a few thoughts there.

You should read my comment again, this is not about an "issue of the trinity".

Peace.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why would you find it so hard to believe? The fact is that at the time the Talmud was compiled Christianity was a little known, obscure sect. There were probably more Mithraists and Zoroastrians at that time than Christians. The truth is the Rabbis of that time, if they were even mindful of Christianity, would not have given it much thought or consideration. It was important or significant to them. Christians see things relative to their worldview. I doubt most of the Rabbis and Sages that compiled the Talmud even knew Jesus existed and that he had no importance to them whatsoever.

Now on the other hand, the Christian texts were written by people that certainly knew Judaism existed and most definitely were biased against Judaism.

What you say is not true, Shaul. In Sanhedrin 43a Yeshu is mentioned as having five disciples. He is also said to have been hanged on the eve of Passover.

From what I have read, the Palestinian Talmud was completed around 400 CE and the Babylonian around 500 CE. By this stage in history, Christianity had gained a firm foothold.

You might also look at the record of the New Testament to get a sense of the anti-Christian sentiment that existed amongst orthodox mainstream Jews. Christianity was seen by many as a cancer on Jewish religion, and Paul (as Saul) played a significant role in persecuting the early Christian movement. Later, as a Christian himself, Paul faced a conspiracy of assassination from Jews [See Acts 23:12].

 

[Redemptionsong]

You should read my comment again, this is not about an "issue of the trinity".

Peace.

Sorry, maybe you could explain this section of your post.
'If you take one part of their Jewish Messiah to affirm Jesus and neglect the fact that their scripture you yourself is quoting does not support the trinity which Jesus is part of you are committing the logical fallacy of division'.

 

[rosends]

2 Samuel 18: 18; “Because Absalom had no son, he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it ‘Absalom’s Monument’ to keep his name alive.”

2 Samuel 14: 27; ‘THERE WAS BORN TO ABSALOM three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; a very beautiful woman.”

This did not mean that Absalom, sired those three sons, because we know from 2 Samuel 18: 18, that Absalom had no sons, and that’s why he built a monument in King’s Valley and named it Absalom’s Monument, to keep his name alive.

Well, if that's how you want to read it, that's fine. The talmud in tractate Sotah understands it differently, and various rabbinic commentators understand it differently based on the second explanation in the talmud. But no, hey, your idea is cute also. Why should I cede any interpretive authority to the experts from 2000 years ago when I have you to invent something now?

 

[dybmh]

Is modern Judaism being honest to its ancient scholarship, or is it systematically attempting to eradicate the points of contact between Judaism and Christianity?

@Redemptionsong ,

Please do not impune the honesty of those whom you have labeled as "Modern Judaism". In spite of the love and affection you describe for the ancient text, this question suggests a deeply held bias against Modern Judaism and Modern Jewish people.

Most respectfully,

 

[dybmh]

Not exactly, no. It is composed of the mishna which IS God's word, and the gemara which is explanation of the mishna, guided by God's word.

Thank you for this... concise, easy to remember, and it answers a lot of questions.

 

[Redemptionsong]

@Redemptionsong ,

Please do not impune the honesty of those whom you have labeled as "Modern Judaism". In spite of the love and affection you describe for the ancient text, this question suggests a deeply held bias against Modern Judaism and Modern Jewish people.

Most respectfully,

You may not have noticed that it was a question, and in my opinion a reasonable question to ask. I am not expressing anti-semitism. Why would I as a Christian? My Saviour was a Jew, and the apostles were Jewish! I understand the roots of my faith.

Can you assure me that in all the recent books written by Jews about Judaism there is not an attempt to distance Judaism from Christianity?

In Alfred Edersheim's book, 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', he provides an appendix (IX) entitled 'List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied In Ancient Rabbinic Writings' The introduction states, 'They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings.'

I've read various modern Jewish web sites that list Messianic passages to be found in the Tanakh, and they come no where near the number that Alfred Edersheim lists (with references). Can you explain why the ancient Rabbinic list no longer applies?

Personally, I have met orthodox Jews who were told not to read the New Testament, and that it was anathema to keep a copy in the house. Even today, how many orthodox Jews bother to examine the New Testament claims? How many study the text?

 

[dybmh]

You may not have noticed that it was a question, and in my opinion a reasonable question to ask. I am not expressing anti-semitism. Why would I as a Christian? My Saviour was a Jew, and the apostles were Jewish! I understand the roots of my faith.

John 1:47

It's clear. Calling Jews dishonest and discerning whether or not a Jewish person has "no deceit in them" is demonstrated in The Book of John as a Christian moral value.

Here's a link to the Greek if you don't believe me... ( link )

That's one reason why.

-----------------------------------

Note: I don't think you intentionally said anything antisemitic. But what you said does encourage antisemitism none the less. Finding another way to express your idea without impuning honesty should not be difficult to do.

 

[dybmh]

Can you assure me that in all the recent books written by Jews about Judaism there is not an attempt to distance Judaism from Christianity?

Actually, I think that on the whole there is an intentional attempt to distance/eradicate Chisrtianity from Judiasm. But I don't see it any differently than any other Avodah Zarah ( translation: 'Service to Other' ).

In Alfred Edersheim's book, 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', he provides an appendix (IX) entitled 'List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied In Ancient Rabbinic Writings' The introduction states, 'They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings.'

OK....

I've read various modern Jewish web sites that list Messianic passages to be found in the Tanakh, and they come no where near the number that Alfred Edersheim lists (with references). Can you explain why the ancient Rabbinic list no longer applies?

I don't know for sure. And, I'm a little afraid to offer my speculation. Here's why:

1) I'm not a Rabbi. I'm not qualified to offer an answer.
2) I am a Jewish amateur enthusiast, and that makes me even lower than an ignoramus. I know both too much *and* too little to speak about the topics in this thread.

However, if you want me to speculate in spite of that, let me know and I'll try to offer my own personal opinion on the matter of attempting to erase the mystery of The Jewish Messiah from Judaism at large.

Personally, I have met orthodox Jews who were told not to read the New Testament, and that it was anathema to keep a copy in the house. Even today, how many orthodox Jews bother to examine the New Testament claims? How many study the text?

Not many.

But I did.

Again, I'm not a Rabbi, but I can offer my own bizarre take on this phenomena if you want. But, it does feel a little off topic.

If you want my opinion, just, reply to this post and ask me specific questions, and I will do my best to answer them honestly and completely. My only request will be that you don't quote me on any of my answers, and that you realize that my answers may be very very different than any other Jew out there.