I can’t believe I couldn’t come up with this earlier:
Isaiah (unfortunately, I don’t have chap/verse, but I don’t think I’ll need it. I’m sure you heard of it before)
“Beat their swords into plowshares.”
“…will learn war no more…”
Zev Steinhardt
ZEV –
Therefore it must hold water regardless of whether the promiser is God or not. We cannot bind God to the laws of men, which he transcends, including insisting that He not break His promises or mislead His children, if He feels there is reason (unknown to us) to do so. Your entire argument puts limits upon the power of God to act by implicitly not allowing Him to act in a way you would allow a man to act. Of course, the “allowing” is not yours or mine. Moreover, and more importantly, you are taking an argument about what He can do and attempting to transform it into a question about why He might choose to do it. You also are focusing your attention upon the Son of God, when that isn’t the heart of the argument, either.
If God, provable to you to be Himself, came in the place of place of the Messiah, would you turn from Him because he was not of Davidic lineage? I of course cannot speak for you, but I assume the answer is no. But that it what it appears you are saying when you say that the law does not allow the Messiah to be other than a Son of David. It seems as if you are saying that no one else – not even God Himself – would be acceptable. That’s what it sounds like your saying to me. This has nothing to do with whether God would really do that, or why He would do that. For example:
Your father promises you his old car when you graduate from high school. It’s not a great car – it’s a 1972 Chrysler Swinger, in fact – a truly bad car. It dies on a whim, is rusted out, needs new tires, and probably won’t last for much longer, but it’s a car. You graduate from high school. Your father comes to you and says “I saved some money and I have bought for you this brand new car. It’s safer, more attractive, and in every way a better car than the one I promised you.” And you say, “No. I was promised a 1972 Swinger. I know you would never lie to me. I insist you give me what you promised me. I insist you give me that rusted-out bucket I’ve had in mind all these years.” How much sense would that make? but that’s what it sounded like you were saying, and that’s why I found it amusing.
Thank you for clearing up the distinction between Jews who are practicing and Jews that are not practicing, or are converted. I now understand the clarification you were making.
I don’t think Zev is limiting God’s powers by saying God will not break his word (since He knows what happens when He sends the messiah, why would He tell different?), any more than you would be limiting God’s powers by saying God would not do evil. By His nature, God will not do evil or break His word. Do you think it is “binding God to the laws of men” to say He will not do evil? And I find it unappealing, even as a humble atheist, to have a God who lies to His followers, although it is not entirely without Biblical suppport. I suppose He must have some sort of “Mysterious Ways” reason to deceive the Jews for 6,000 years.
[1Kgs 22:23.9] Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."
Gaudere, you, like Zev, are focusing on what God would do as opposed to what God could do. That is absolutely, totally, 100% irrelevant to the point that I was making, which is that Zev made it sound like God could not send anyone not of Davidic lineage (not even Himself) because that’s not what the law says – as if God is obligated to follow the law as men are. Would versus could. Huge difference.
Look, this is hardly worth arguing about. I’ve made my point (a very limited and unimportant one, a total tangent) several times. People either see it or they don’t. I’d just as soon let it drop as we seem to be beating a dead horse here, but I’m not willing to have that point misrepresented, so that instead of explaining what I did say, I’m forced to defend something I did not say, and in fact do not believe.
Does your arguement “God could decide to send the messiah as Himself instead of how He said He would” therefore parallel “God could decide that you’re sent to Hell for eternal torture if you accept Christ as savior”? 'Cause then we’re pretty far into theoretical territory, here. If one accepts as axioms that God is wholly Good and wholly Good does not decieve, it is illogical to say that God could lie; He can’t, it’s as impossible as a rock so big He can’t lift it. God is not bound by the Law; the Law (that the messiah will be of Davidianic lineage) was stated by God and exists because that is in fact what did happen (God exists in all times) and God would not–could not, by His nature, any more than He can do evil–deceive His people about what happened. I apologize if I misinterpreted you.
-
Re “idolatry”, why would you assume all Christians practice that? And, if one is no longer Jewish, does the Law still hold for them? Do you consider ME a “sinner” as i don’t keep Saturday as the sabbath?
-
Yep, thats one interpretation.
-
?? married?
-
Nope, “parthenos” means literal intact virgin.
-
What I meant was that in 90AD, the council met at Jamnia to decide which of the Books were to be considered canonical, they picked a cut off date of about 350BC, or according to some as late as 150BC.
And I beleive the line of Hillel died out in 425AD, with the death of Gamaliel VI.
Xeno
Okay, here we go…
Complex cause.
It is entirely possible that “Christian groups”, inspired by the message of Jews for Jesus, began to contribute to the organization after it was initially started up. It is only natural that Christians would contribute to such an organization, since Jews for Jesus are Christians too, in the sense of followers of Christ.
In other words, Jews for Jesus are themselves a Christian group (of Jews — i.e., with Jewish mothers).
Post hoc.
So what? It is possible that Rosen became an ordained minister after becoming a Jew for Jesus.
Insignificant cause.
Heck, Jesus Himself performed Jewish rituals. He explained in some detail that any action, including ritual, for God’s sake is holy, whereas any action, including ritual, for its own sake is not.
Joint effect.
Again, Jews for Jesus are Christian by definition. Jesus and Christ are the same.
jmullaney
Actually the Talmud does not emphasize anything at all about Mary being a “slut” or otherwise. The Talmud is clarifying the name of a “Yeshu ben Sadta”, and in the course of that, clarifies his mother, father and mother’s husband’s names.
For many centuries there have been Christians who have distorted and exagerated the extent to which the Talmud “slanders” the Christian religion. This resulted in the Talmud being censored and banned at various times.
Zev,
The passage referred to is on page 67, not 106, which explains why you did not find it. It is not in the standard editions, having, as mentioned, been taken out by the censors. If you look in the back of the Goldman Edition, you will see it.
Daniel,
-
No. Under Jewish Law, a Gentile can believe in a partnership with God (a la the Trinity). A Jew, however, cannot.
-
OK, glad to see we agree here.
-
Yes. A young married woman is still a young woman. Jewish commentaries explain this verse to refer to either Isaiah’s wife or Achaz’s wife. From the context, however, it clearly doesn’t refer to Jesus.
-
I know that it means that now. As I said, however, I don’t have proof that parthenos was used in that place in Genesis. I will have to research further.
-
You could be right. The basic premise, however, is that in order to be included in the canon, a book had to be composed at a time when prophecy was available. With the closure of prophecy at the start of the Second Temple Era, no further books could be included. Hence the exclusion of Maccabees.
-
I don’t know that the line of Hillel died out. Maybe his descendents were no longer the leaders after the point you mentioned, but I don’t think there’s any place that says that the line was exterminated. In any event, even if Hillel’s line was eliminated, it was far from the only one.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev Steinhardt
That’s fine. If God wanted, he could send the Invisible Pink Unicorn too. But, bottom line, if God says He’s going to send A, then He’s not going to send B; especially, when as an Omniscient God, he knows at the time he says He’s going to send A who He’s going to send.
At this point, I would agree with you that we’re not going to agree on this issue. I’ve stated my position, you’ve stated yours, and I’m willing to let it drop at this point. Still friends? 
Zev Steinhardt
Wow. Lots of stuff since I last looked yesterday (what a surprise). I’ll limit myself to addressing points that I feel haven’t been addressed or which I feel are unclear:
Jodi:
If G-d said “I changed my mind, I’m sending a divine chicken instead of a duck,” that’s one thing. It’s quite another when the chicken itself, which from all appearances is an ordinary chicken, tells people it’s divine and was sent in place of the promised duck. Having received the promise of a duck from G-d himself, it makes them suspicious that the chicken, even if divine, is attempting to usurp the power of duck-hood for its own purposes rather than being a true substitute.
Danielinthewolvesden:
The Sanhedrin at Jamnia (the place which, in Hebrew sources, is known as “Yavneh”) is said to have done a number of things, including standardizing the order of prayer, but according to Jewish sources, fixing the canon was actually done at that earlier date of 350 BCE, by the “Men of the Great Assembly,” which comprised the greatest Rabbis who had returned from Babylon.
Much of this dispute between secular and Jewish religious historians centers, I suspect, around a dispute in chronology. Traditional Jewish sources have the destruction of the first temple, the Babylonian exile and the construction of the second temple as occurring some 160 or so years later than secular sources describe. Due to this, many historical statements from religious Jewish sources contradict the accepted secular chronology and the secular historians re-interpreted those statements as necessary to fit into the chronological framework they work with…quite likely including a transposition of the work of the Men of the Great Assembly with the Sanhedrin at Jamnia.
That wasn’t my understanding. I’ll try to look up what you’re referring to, but I’m certain that the title of “exilarch,” leader of the Jewish communities under Muslim rule in the seventh century and beyond, was held by men claiming descent from that line. A man named “Bustenai” is spoken of in that context.
Libertarian:
He was a minister before the Board of Missions to the Jews appointed him to take on his leadership role. He was known as “Michael” Rosen back then, and started using the name “Moshe” after founding Jews for J.
Chaim Mattis Keller
But first, I will say this again, because Jodi seems to have missed it and I come back to find arguments about ducks and chickens filling the thread. Jesus was of the line of David. Scripture says so – see my earlier post. His father, Joseph, was in the Davidnic line as well, although there may not be any correlation here. Although, again, scripture says Jesus was of the 14th generation in this line. Now, Zev may say he does not believe this scripture, but as it is the only evidence we now hold of Jesus’s lineage, outside of that Talmud written many years later, I think it must count for something.
But enough of that horse!
I assume you mean chapter 2.
Isiah 2:1-5:
Now, you are saying this is speaking about world peace when this is plainly not the case. For example, it says he will judge between the nations, not among the nations. So the text is plainly speaking of two nations, and that it is these two nations which shall not lift their swords against eachother nor learn war anymore. Perhaps you are saying the Messiah will not come until there are only two nations left on earth? The two nations the text refers to are those mentioned at the beginning, of which the verse claims to be speaking, Judah and Jerusalem.
Which is where I basically have to shut up, for I have no idea what those nations are, nor could I easily find them on a map. Which is bad, as there is apparently an ongoing war between them Dan Rather has failed to make me aware of. Perhaps someone can please fill me in on some context and I can pick it up from there?
Well, you’re right: Joseph and Mary were cousins.
28th cousins. In fact, since we strive for accuracy, they were (if I’m not mistaken) 28th cousins, 14 times removed. In other words, you and I might be more closely related than they were. The last paternal ancestor they shared was King David (Joseph . Joseph was descended from David through Solomon, meaning he was born in the line of royal succession, and heir to the throne. Mary was descended from Solomon’s brother Nathan, who was not of the royal line (not first-born and all that).
So no matter how you look at it, Jesus was the son of David.
First of all, jmullaney thank you for finding the chap/verse for me.
Now then, down to business…
Who is Jesus’ father? Is it Joseph, or is it God? Was Joseph intimate with Mary? If the answer is no, then Joseph is not Jesus’ father. If Joseph is Jesus’ father, then what’s this whole business about him being the Son of God?
As to the quote in Isaiah…
There was a kingdom called Judah. There never was a kingdom called Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the capital of Judah.
“Judging between the nations?” Maybe in the future if two countries have a dispute, rather than going to war, they’ll go to the messiah for mediation or resolution. That would be “judging between the nations.”
Zev Steinhardt
Well, Joe_Cool, first of all, Mary lineage doesn’t count. See my earlier post regarding lineage and Jewish law.
As for Joseph, I have to ask you the same question I just asked jmullaney. Who was his father, God or Joseph?
BTW, Solomon wasn’t the first born either. He wasn’t even close…
Zev Steinhardt
GAUDERE –
IMO, yes. Although I don’t believe He ever would do that, I believe He could do that. I believe He could do anything. And I don’t believe the difference between “would” and “could” takes us far into theoretical territory. Look, I can intentionally run over people with my car. The fact that I would never in a million years do so does not mean I lack the actual ability.
But I do not accept the axiom that wholly Good does not deceive. God might have reasons for concealing the Truth from His children; He’s does so in the past. God might have reasons to test His children; there certainly is precedent for that. I cannot think of any reason why God might choose to deceive us, but since I do not grant that deception is in all cases an absolutely evil act, I am not willing to grant that God could (versus would) not do it.
Since I do not equate deception with absolute evil, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
CMKELLER says:
You are obviously talking about Jesus Christ here, and so have obviously totally missed the point, which is this: Zev makes it sound as if even if God Himself came down in the place of the Messiah – not the Son of God, God Himself, and provably God Himself – that would not be good enough for Zev because God is not of Davidic lineage. His response, Gaudere’s response, and, by implication, your response are all “God would never do that,” which also manages to totally miss the point.
ZEV is still sounds like that is what he is saying, by the way, when he says, regarding the issue of Jesus’s Davidic ancestry:
The obvious implication here is that if His father was God, that isn’t good enough, because God is not descended from David. My response to that continues to be: !!!
CMKeller
Okay, I’ll take your word for it. But was his mother Jewish?
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ – good engine.
The teaching is Joseph is Jesus’s earthly father. God is his heavenly father. In the original text of one of the Gospels, Jesus is not God’s son until his baptism.
Eventually. Who is to say Jesus was not made with Joseph’s seed?
Notice the “S” is capitalized. When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit entered him, the heavens parted, and the Lord said “today I have begotten a son.” God does the adoption, not Joseph.
OK, I am very ignorant of the OT. I am reading Isiah now though, and all I have so far is this prophesy is to take place in the latter days. To say that all these things must come to pass with the coming of the messiah seems to be a leap of faith on your part – although there may be a teaching that the messiah’s coming would be the end of history. I too would hope that the Kingdom or Kingship of God would be fully established on earth, but if people continue to reject the teachings of the messiah I can not see how the birds will ever come home to roost. Even should the messiah you are waiting for does come, how should this prophesy come to pass even then if no one follows him?
Jodi,
Just so as to avoid confusion, I will make my point perfectly clear.
If a provable, bona-fide, card-carrying, DNA-weilding Son of God came to me tomorrow and said “I am the messiah” I would tell him “No, you’re not.”
Why not?
Because you’re not the one God said would show up.
It’s that simple.
If he is the messiah, then that means that God was lying when He said He’d send a descendant of David.
If your reaction to that is “!!!” then I’m afraid we’ll just have to disagree.
Zev Steinhardt
ZEV says:
So a true, provable Son of God would not be good enough. Well, at that point, yes, we have to agree to disagree.
But that is not the entirety of what I said in my last post. I said:
Note that I said not the Son of God, but God Himself. So let me just ask you: If God Himself came down in the place of a Messiah, would you deny Him as well because He is not of Davidic lineage?