I completely understand that, but that’s not what I’m asking. Your original statement was:
The way you stated it, it sounds as if you’re saying, “Jews don’t believe Jesus was the messiah [partly] because Joseph was not Jesus’ father, God was.” Looking again, though, I see what you’re saying, which appears to be, “If Christians are going to claim Jesus was the son of Mary and God, then he has no paternal claim to Davidic lineage.” Which makes more sense.
That leads to an interesting hypothetical, though–as a Jew (and I guess anyone can answer this, not just Zev), what would be your thoughts on someone who it turned was the literal progeny of Mary and God, but clearly did not fulfill the Judaic requirements of messiah-hood?
I believe he is referring to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a. This was a reactionary bit of work written a few centuries after Jesus’ death and in an attempt to combat Christian encroachment.
The Talmud is important, but as the work of holy men interpreting Torah, it’s on quite another level. Granted, I’m both a gentile and an atheist…
You’ll find it quoted on all sorts of pleasant sites concerning the Jewish “plots” “blasphemies” etc…
Got some quick hits on: christianbiblestudy.org home.arkansasusa.com new-world-order.org
ZEV, Phil’s point is that you can’t have it both ways, either; Jesus was either the Son of God OR the son of Joseph – unless you theorize some unknown father, such as the anonymous Roman soldier. But if Jesus was the Son of God, presumably his patrilineage would be acceptable to even the most rigorous Jew, and he might well be be the Messiah; if He was the son of Joseph, then his patrilineage includes the House of David, and He still might be the Messiah. So the only way that a Jewish person can complain about His lack of pedigree is by theorizing some anonymous third party as His father, as set forth above. There is, of course, no indication of that as, diety or not, the only human father Jesus is known to have had was Joseph, son of David.
I understand the difference between my body and soul. So too is my body made up of skin, bones, organs, etc. However, God is not man. It is a basic tenet of Judaism that God is one. God is not composed of parts as you and I are. He is simply one.
True, but not entirely,
It is true that a Jew who comes back after joining another religion does not need a formal conversion, nonetheless, a symbolic one is done.
In addition, while the Jew who converts to another religion may technically be Jewish, with respect to many Jewish laws, this person is no longer considered Jewish. He cannot count for the quorom (did I spell that right?) of ten for prayer. He cannot be a kosher butcher or scribe, be buried in a Jewish cemetery, etc. So, for all practical purposes, this person is no longer Jewish.
BTW, I still don’t see how the post just above this one invalidates what Zev said. The Messiah isn’t God’s son, that’s blasphemy. The Christians would deny he’s Joseph’s son. Therefore, he does not have Davidic lineage. This, aside from the other signs of the Messiah that did not occur…
And of course, one musn’t forget the contradictions between the two lineages. IF someone even tries invoking the, well, one was Mary’s, then I’ll have to point out that both have Joseph in the lineage. Was the relationship incestuous as well?
other entertaining sites with silly claims like “the Talmud is their holiest book…” that quote that talmud thing. thelordswork.com
biblebelievers.org.au jesus-messiah.com
Anyway, that Talmud was written in 600 CE apparently…
So God is not composed of parts but Man, made in His image, is? Could not God choose to assume the body of a man if He chose? If He did, would that mean he no longer had a spiritual component as well? It is a basic tenet of Christianity that God is one also. But we do not put limits on how that One may be composed, whether in whole or in parts that nevertheless create a whole, since in God all things are possible. In any event, I am not asking you to agree with me, but merely pointed out that “parts” may in fact make up a “whole” and the “whole” be considered One (not Three). If you grant the theory, as you do for men, then you understand the nature of Christian belief, whether you agree with it or not.
My bolding. With all respect, I laughed out loud at this, for a reason you could not know (being fairly new), which is this: We have discussed the subjects of Jews for Jesus and the nature of Judaism on the Board before – several times – and I was taken to task –by Jewish posters whom I presume knew the tenets of their own religion – for arguing this exact same thing, that is, that a person may not, practically speaking, be simultaneously Jewish and Christian. I was told in no uncertain terms how wrong I was. So you’ll get no argument over this from me; if you get any argument at all, I imagine it will be from your fellow Jews.
Perhaps you are right. I found a link which covers all this, and it says the Talmud says Mary actually was a slut, unfaithful to her husband. http://www.messianicart.com/dalman.htm
If the Jews so easily dismissed Jesus as the messiah, they seem to have worked quite hard to sully his (and his mothers) reputation.
Actually it was compiled over a looong period of time. The Mishnah (which includes the Hillel and Shammai I mentioned above) was compiled from about 200 BCE to 100 CE. The Gemara covers from the end of the Mishaic period to about 450 CE.
ZEV, you surely admit the existence of the concept of a hypotehtical. YOUR argument – not mine, but yours, was that Christians deny the actual paternity of Joseph so cannot use his bloodline to trace to the House of David. This is an irrelevancy to most Christians, since they believe He was the Son of God Himself. But talking about Christian beliefs – which you were – you must admit that hypothetically there were two possibilities for Jesus’s paternity – God (in which case His lineage is presumably okay for a potential Messiah), or Joseph (in which case His lineage is still okay for a potential Messiah). The question does not become “meaningless” simply because you do not yourself believe in one of the hypothetically possible answers.
Well, this was 600 years later, Christians were fairly active then. You can surely understand some rivalry. Especially about claims being made about God.
I found a ref for that World Peace thing in one of my fav. sites for this sorta thing, OutreachJudaism.org - sort of a counter to Jews for Jesus.
Jodi – hence the teachings of the Talmud. Although, perhaps there is more than one Talmud and the one that says Jesus was a complete bastard is now passe.
What the two of you (I think) are referring to is a one-shot reference to a heretical Rabbinical student called “Yeshu ben Pantira” (I don’t off-hand have the exact place he’s mentioned.) Although many people have assumed this to be JC (because we Jews sometimes refer to him as “Yeshu”), I think (if I recall correctly) that the Rabbi he is said to have been a student of lived about 150 years before the time of JC.
I’ll try to come up with something more concrete.
Kimstu:
But many Jews who are ignorant of the details of their ancestral religion (which is exactly who J4J are targeting) would not recognize Christianity, thus described, as being fundamentally incompatible with Judaic beliefs.
Jodi:
Orthodox Jews do not distinguish between Judaism as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion, but our definition of a “religion” is slightly different from that of non-Jews. Most people describe their religion as what they do observe and believe. Judaism defines religion as what one is obligated to observe and believe, and believe that all Jews by ethnicity have that obligation and are therefore also Jews by religion. The “Christian Jews” are practicing Christianity - but are (in the eyes of Orthodox Judaism) obligated to practice Judaism. Hence, once a Jew, always a Jew.
pldennison:
Depends what he wants that status to allow him to do. It wouldn’t enable him to be king/messiah; it wouldn’t enable him to serve in the Temple (when it stood) as a priest. Perhaps, if he performed miracles and stated prophecies, they would be believed…as long as said miracles and prophecies conform to the constraints listed in Deuteronomy 13…which apply to ordinary human prophets as well.
In other words, I can’t think of how he’d be treated, religiously, any different from an ordinary person.
Well, I read Ezekiel 37 and am not convinced. These people’s bones are dead because they have lost hope. Since when is losing hope a terminal disease? So, I would have to say that the rising of the dead is symbolic here. Of course Jesus has returned hope. Much of the rest of this supports Jesus as the Messiah. I know y’all have some hangups about Isreal being a physical place rather than God’s kingdom being something greater that beach front property (wouldn’t that country be a little small, esp. since half of it will be Palestine soon?) but xtians take this talk of restoring Isreal symbolically also.
Now, I guess Ezekiel 37:26 is what Zev has been angling at:
Is that it? Surely, God has not gone to war against the xtians. (Although, come to think of it it has been raining here all week – better start building that boat). I don’t know how you get from this scripture to whirled peas, let alone world peace. Of course, if you can reference a Jewish translation which makes it clear that this one is wrong, I’m all ears.
Respectfully, I find this very amusing. You surely must be aware that some ultra-observant and/or Ultra-Orthodox Jews develop a reputation for exhalting the Law over everything, regardless of whether the indicated conclusion is a reasonable one or not. I find the idea that an actual, provable, bona fide, yep-He’s-the-One, Son of God would not be acceptable as a Messiah because He is not of the House of David to be a great example of this. Please don’t think I am insulting your beliefs, because I’m not; it just strikes me as, well, as incongruous.
CHAIM says:
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me; this is what I said, and Zev corrected me, so you might want to take it up with him. You say, as did I “Once A Jew, Always A Jew.” Zev said, in effect “Practically speaking, this is not correct.” Since that was originally my belief as well (and, in my heart of hearts, since I am not a Jew remains my belief, albeit an irrelenant one since I am not Jewish and therefore not qualified to say who is or is not a Jew), I am truly interested in how the two of you will reconcile your positions.
