Jews For Jesus - For Real?

Great Debates
101

Jodi:

My comment about religious / ethnic Judaism was intended as a supplement to yours, not an argument.

However, here’s an argument:

The problem here would be that the Messiah is specifically said, in prior prophecies, to be a descendant of David. It is not, therefore, absurd to reject someone for that position based on the fact that he is not a descendant of David, no matter what distinguised pedigree he might have. The scriptures defining Messianism explicitly say “David” and “Jesse” (David’s father).

Chaim Mattis Keller

102

I don’t get the Davidic lineage argument either. I mean, Joseph was his father. God had to get that genetic info from somewhere – it only makes sense that He got it from Joseph. Just because Mary happened to get pregnant while her and Jospeph were still dating and not yet married doesn’t mean some miraculous pregnancy might not have occured which in no way implies they were having premarital sex and is not in any way saying that is OK. Heck, immaculate conception happens all the time on Montel Williams.

103

jmullaney

One question.

Where does it clearly say that the messiah will be the Son of God?

It doesn’t.

In addition, if God really wanted to have a child by Mary, why would He need Joesph’s DNA? He didn’t use anyone’s DNA for Adam…

As for Montel…

Doesn’t the Immaculate Conception refer to Mary’s birth, not Jesus’…

Zev Steinhardt

104

Chaim, I know that’s what it says, but Zev’s statement made it sound like an entity provable to be the actual Son of God, or even God Himself – not a pretender but the real McCoy – would not be an acceptable Messiah becuase the Messiah is supposed to be of the House of David. The obvious follow-up is that a Jew who religiously (ha!) adheres to the the Law would reject any Messiah – even the hypothetical proven Son of God, even God Himself – who was not of Davidic lineage. If that’s not exhalting form over substance, I don’t know what is.

105

Oh, and I’m still interested in how Zev and Chaim will reconcile their positions regarding “what is a Jew?” Or will you just agree to disagree? I’m not just stirring the pot here; I’m interested to know what the party line on this is – assuming, of course, that there is one.

106

It seems to me that this post has denigrated into the age-old debates any Rabbi and catholic Priest or Pastor would have: I think I am seeing Jews showing WHY the OT makes it clear Jesus was not messiah, and I see people trying to pring up points that Jesus WAS the Messiah (capital “M” this time).

I mean, the whole Jesus is-is not debate is separate from this, considerably more cosmic, has gone on forever, and if THAT kind of debate is not worthy of its own thread, I fear nothing is anymore! :slight_smile:

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, 38 minutes and 20 seconds.
4394 cigarettes not smoked, saving $549.30.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 10 minutes.

Visit The Fabulous Forums of Fathom

107

Jodi,

Where did Chaim and I disagree? I must have missed something…

Zev Steinhardt

108

So what are you saying? That God lied when He said the messiah would be of Davidic descent?

Zev Steinhardt

109

You are absolutely correct, Satan. This thread has gotten WAY off track…

See what you started Izzy!! :wink:

Zev Steinhardt

110

Are you disappointed by movies which don’t give away everything in the trailer?

Why reinvent the wheel? Besides, God didn’t have a child by Mary. The spirit came upon her. And if you just want to duel scriptures, the angel says to Mary of Jesus that the “Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David.” Seems fairly clear to me, I don’t see how you can argue with that :wink:

I didn’t capitalize. But that is some teaching of the Catholics, yes.

Now, had Joseph been the father in some parallel universe, you would be complaining then that Mary was not a virgin and thus Jesus’ birth did not fulfull scripture (yes, I understand that that section of Isaiah IIRC is now translated “young girl” but I wonder how it might be translated now otherwise.) I think if you are waiting for a Messiah that will fulfull every scripture out there you will have a long wait.

Do I get my reference about world peace yet? C’mon, I’m ethnicly a Jew – you might yet convert me.

111

Jodi:

But you’re just not making sense. G-d’s promise of a Messiah specifically mentioned that the one he’d send would be descended from David. Thus, anyone whom G-d sends to the Jewish people in some capacity who is not descended from David, even if he was (theoretically) a son of G-d (as if such a thing were possible) is not the Messiah, and if he claims to be, he’s lying, because he’s contradicting the definition provided by his “father.”

Given the definition of the Messiah given in scripture, why would it be wrong to reject, as Messiah, anyone who does not fit that description?

And as for the “Jewish identity” thing, I too don’t see where I’m disagreeing with Zev on this.

Chaim Mattis Keller

112

**

Still doesn’t answer the question…

A) We don’t consider that scripture authoritative.
B) If there’s no indication that the messiah had to be the Son of God, why would God do all this?
C) Jesus had a throne? He ruled as David ruled?
D) The Jews had a throne to even offer to him? They were ruled by Rome.

**

Wrong. The verse was never translated as virgin.

I don’t really want to open up this whole can of worms again, but the word for virgin is “Betulah.” The word used in Isaiah is “Almah” which means a young woman.

Proof? There is a masculine version of “Almah.” That word is “Elem.” There is no masculine version of “Betulah” (as there really was no such concept as virginity in men in Biblical times.)

It’ll have to wait until I get home. I don’t have a bible handy here.

As for converting you, that’s not my aim. The aim (if we can possibly find our way back to the OP) is to show that Jews for Jesus is deceptive. We have, as Satan pointed out, come far off track.

Zev Steinhardt

113

We wouldn’t be complaining. Jews don’t consider that verse in Isaiah to be referring to the messiah at all. Look at the context of the chapter. This too wsa discussed in another thread.

Zev Steinhardt

114

Hokay. I said:

(All boldings are mine.)

To which Zev replied:

Chaim then weighs in and also says “Once a Jew, always a Jew,” which is literally, word for word, the exact same thing I said. Therefore, if Zev takes issue with my pronouncement as being even partially incorrect, he must also (obviously) take issue with Chaim’s identical pronouncement.

All of which is beside the point to the actual question, to which I still want an answer: Is a Jewish person who converts to Christianity still a Jew or not? I fail to see how one can “technically” be a Jew but “not be considered Jewish” or “for all practical purposes,” not be a Jew.

The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that a person may remain ethnically Jewish while abandoning the religion of Judaism. This does not wash, however, since a large component of the Jewish religion (not the culture) is the obligation to obey the Law, which every Jew bears and which cannot be disavowed by a Jew, converted or not. Therefore it is not me that says that the concept of being a Jew is an undeniably religious one, as opposed to a merely cultural one; it is the Jewish faith itself. Therefore, is a converted Jew a Jew or not so far as the religion of Judaism is concerned?

In other words, If I am not considered a Jew by other Jews; if for all pratical purposes I am not a Jew; and if I do not practice or follow the Jewish faith, on what grounds may I be considered “technically” a Jew? What do you mean by “technically”?

ZEV asks:

What I am saying – and all I am saying – is that if God sent a provable Messiah who was not of the lineage of David (Why? Who knows? Maybe he’ll decide to come Himself), it would be ridiculous to reject that proven Messiah on the grounds He is not of the lineage of David.

And just so we’re clear on the context of this exchange, Zev said:

The obvious implication here is that Godly descent (i.e., the Son of God), even if proven, would not be good enough – because specifically Davidic descent is the “requirement” (Zev’s word, not mine). And I continue to consider that an obvious exhaltation of form (“the Scriptures say Davidic lineage”) over substance (“here is the actual, bona fide, proven Messiah”).

It is of no moment to say “that will never happen;” I’m not arguing that it will. I am not saying that God lied. I am making no prediction of the future. I am merely expressing suprise and a modicum of amused confusion over Zev’s statement, quoted above, and its undeniable implication that a Messiah of true Godly descent would not be sufficient in the eyes of the Jews. This is not based on something that I said or believe; it’s based on something Zev said (and, since he said it, presumably believed – namely the quote set forth above.

115

Jodi, I understand your confusion about what may seem like legalistic quibbling, but I think that what Zev and Chaim are saying is that a “literal Son of God” just isn’t Messiah material. It’s as if—well, excuse the homely simile, but it’s what popped into my head: it’s as if God had promised to send the world a duck, and what shows up is a chicken that was demonstrably divinely created ex nihilo (simultaneously resolving the which-came-first debate! :)). Yes, that would be pretty cool and downright miraculous, but a chicken, even a divine chicken, still isn’t a duck. To say that the prophecy is now fulfilled would imply that the age-old interpretation of it had been just plain wrong. It doesn’t seem overly legalistic to me that many believers would respond “True, God has sent us a divine chicken for good reasons of His own; but when it comes to fulfillment of the ancient prophecy, we’re still holding out for a duck.” After all, why would God say a duck if He didn’t mean a duck?

(“Why a duck? Why a no chicken?” Don’t tell me it was an old memory of Coconuts that subconsciously inspired this whole ridiculous analogy!)

116

I see this, Kimstu, but I still find it mildly amusing.

It’s as if God were to say “Look at this, that I have made for you! It’s the divine chicken! It’s better than a duck! It takes the place of the duck, because I have decided to give you my best and that is not a duck, it is a chicken!” and people said: “Nope. You said duck. I want a duck. I don’t care if the chicken is better, more direct, and does everything that the duck would do and I don’t care that you intend the chicken to replace the duck, you said a duck and gosh darn it you’d better cough up a duck!”

The impliacation made by Zev was that if God said “descent through David” anything else, even descent from God His Very Own Self – even if it were God His Very Own Self – is just not good enough, I mean, what if God came down and said “You know, the whole Messiah thing was just confusing people, so I’ve decided to come Myself.” Would the Jews then say “Sorry, God; you’re not descended from David.”? Because that’s what it sounds like. The fact that people do not believe God would really do that (heck, I don’t believe He’d do that), does not change the irony inherent in that sort of (hypothetical) adherence to the law at the expense of (hypothetical) reality.

117

Man, and I was only gone for half a day!

zev: why do you say it is better for an (ethnic) Jew to have no Faith, than be a Christian? And, if one of the 13 rules is that the Messiah has not come yet, what happens when the “real” Jewish Messiah does come? Will there be Jews who say it is heresy to believe in Him?

Next, many Christians do not believe JC was the PHYSICAL Son of G-d, just the spiritual Son of G-d. Then, of course the entire point is moot, as then JC is descended by blood thru Joseph. Of course, even if he was the Physical Son of G-d, there is no reason that G-d could not, by a miracle, make Him also of the line of David. G-d could have made him the actual son of David, if he wanted to.

As far as verses in the Talmud, etc that refer to JC, there
is only one which is considered timely, and that only refers to the brother of Jesus (yes, JC did have real, actual brothers) who was stoned at the order of AnasusII. This is the only “historical” listing of Jesus, and it is 2nd hand, ie it refers to 'James, the brother of Jesus, who they call Christ". The section is in Josephus.

As far as the verse in Isaiah, the Septuagint translators used “parthenos” (virgin)to translate “almah”, which means “young, unmarried woman”, who certainly should be a “virgin”. Certainly, 'almah" could very well indicate a virgin, altho the actual word was not used.

And, I do have a question: the Jewish canon was closed in AD90 (as to which date it was closed to, that is a controversy), however, you folks have said the Talmud is as important as the Bible, and the Talmud is still added to, to this day, if I am not incorrect. Thus is the “canon” not still “open”, in a way?

As far as the “line of David”, is there anybody left? Would we not have to take it on faith that any messiah was of that Line?

118

OK, Jodi,

I promised Gaudere that I wouldn’t quote long passages from previous messages, so you’ll have to follow along without the previous attributions. In addition, I’ll consolidate the arguments we’re having into one post.

** Messiah, Davidic or Divine **

Your argument (bona-fide Son of God is better than Davidic descendent) might hold water * if * the promiser wasn’t God.

For example:

My father tells me that he’s going to send my fourth cousin twice removed whom I’ve only met once in my life to me with an important message. So I wait for him. Lo and behold, who should show up, but my brother, saying that he has the message and that Dad changed his mind about sending my cousin. Fine, I would say, that’s wonderful.

Not God.

If God said he’d send a Davidic king, why would he send His own Son? Why deliberately confuse the issue and not fulfill your promise? Surely God (who is Omniscient – and no, I don’t want to open Omniscence vs. Free Will again) knew at the time of the prophecy who He would send. So why say a Davidic descendant? The obvious answer is – because ** that’s * who He’s sending – no one else. To say otherwise is to say that God was lying when he declared the prophecy in the first place.

Your argument has yet another flaw…

Even if someone could prove that he’s a bona-fide Son of God, why does he have to be the messiah as well? It does not say anywhere that the messiah will be the Son of God.

**Chaim’s statement and my statement **

We are both correct.

Once a person is born a Jew, they are a Jew for life.

However, under certain circumstances, he is treated by Jewish Law *as if * he is not Jewish.

The fact remains, however, that should he repent, a formal conversion is not mandated. A ceremonial, symbolic one, however is recommended. However, if it is not done for whatever reason, the person is still Jewish and is treated again by Jewish law as a Jew for all the things he was excluded from earlier.

Zev Steinhardt

119

See what happens when you leave for a while :slight_smile:

The reason I say this is because there are three sins for which a Jew is commanded to allow himself to be martyred rather than transgress. One of those sins is idolatry. Beleive it or not, disbelief in God is not one of those sins.

**

By that logic (he’s the spiritual Son), I am the son of God too. So are you. So is Mohammed. You get the picture.

As for this miracle, I might go along with it, but in reality, even if I were to concede that this miracle happened (and there’s no textual proof that God should/would do this), you still have the other issues to deal with.

Three considerations:

First of all, Jews only consider the translation of the Pentatuch to have any authority. The translation of the rest of the Jewish bible was done at a different time.

Secondly, if the “almah” was married, she wouldn’t be a virgin, true?

Third (and unfortunatly, I can’t back this up since I don’t know Greek… I am only reciting this second hand. Perhaps someone who does know Greek can check it out) “parthenos” may not actually mean virgin. I remember reading that the word is used in the translation of Genesis to refer to Dinah after she was raped (when she was no longer a virgin).

Firstly, the canon was closed a lot earlier than 90 AD. It was closed shortly after the building of the second Temple (circa 350 BCE?) It was definitely closed by the time the miracle of Channukah occured (about 160 BCE). That’s why Maccabees is in the Apocrypha and not in the Jewish Bible.

Secondly,

The Talmud was closed by Ravina and Rav Ashi at about 450 CE (I could be off by about 50 years in either direction). Since then people have written commentaries and such, but the Talmud as it stands (with the exception of censoring of certain portions in the Middle Ages by Christian censors) stands as it did when it was sealed.

There are people who can trace their line that far back. In addition, certain famous historical persons (Hillel, Rabbi Yehuda, Rashi) are known to have descended from King David. Rashi died in 1100 CE. It’s certainly possible for someone to track their line that far back.

Zev Steinhardt

120

I checked this one out. Sorry, no mention of Jesus at all on 106a and 106b. Side a talks in it’s entirety about Bilaam. Side b talks about other people who have no share in the world to come. Jesus is not mentioned at all. All the people mentioned are those in the Jewish bible.

Zev Steinhardt