Why can Jews NOT be Christians?

Great Debates
81

Well you’re certainly free to interpret the texts that way if you want. The evidence certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But there are other interpretations as well. My own understanding is influenced largely by what I believe is representative of scholarly consensus (as well as my professors arguments, and what I personally find convincing). I’ve asked you for evidence that there is a scholarly divide on the matter (which wouldn’t surprise me, BTW, but I wanted you to show me), and you’ve given me your own opinion and a 100 yr old encyclopedia. As I’ve said, the evidence is open, but you haven’t convinced me yet.

If you’re evidence is in books that you don’t have access to (or time to hunt through them for my sake), I understand. We’ll just have to disagree for now.

82

D’OH!!! “Your evidence,” of course. Man, that mistake drives me nuts when other people make it, so of course, I do it, too. What I get for retyping part of a sentence carelessly.

83

D’OH!!! “Your evidence,” of course. Man, that mistake drives me nuts when other people make it, so of course, I do it, too. What I get for retyping part of a sentence carelessly.

84

I’m not sure what you’re asking for evidence of. Are you asking simply for a cite as to the contemporary Jewish interpretation of “Son of Man?” Are you asking for a cite that SoM does not mean “Messiah?”

Look for any Jewish (not Christian) commentary on Daniel or Ezekiel. Look at Hebrew lexicons for the definition of “Ben Adam.”
There is no scholarly “divide” in Judaism as to these issues, and I encourage you to seek that scholarship out.

My books from college are in a storage room in my apartment building behind about three tons of crap right now. Give me some time, and I will dig out some stuff that addresses these issues and give you some reading suggestions tomorrow. My googling has been largely futile. I just can’t seem to find much that addresses the question on point at all, from the searches I’m doing. If you type in “Judaism son of man,” or Judaism messiah" you get deluged with Jews for Jesus sites.

Please feel free to search for yourself, though. See if you can find any Jewish commentary (Jewish, not Christian) that identifies SoM as a title for the Messiah. If you can find one, post a link and Ill admit that i was wrong.

With all due respect, you are a student at Wesley. Wesley is a great school with very good instructors, but it is also a school that has a religious objective. Wesley trains ministers. It teaches a particular theology. You are not necessarily going to hear a lot of opposing scholarship (and if you took a semester on Hebrew apocalyptic literature with a smart Rabbi, you would find his point of view very convincing too).

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying Judaism is right and Christianity is wrong. I’m just saying they’re different. Their concepts of the Messiah are very different. Their interpretations of Daniel and Ezekiel and Enoch are different.

To take this back to the OP, the differences as to the definition and identity of the Messiah are so different as to be irreconcilable.

You sound pretty thoughtful and thorough and committed to your beliefs without being inflexible. You’re probably going to make a good minister.

I’ll post more tomorrow . (That storage room is a mess, the book shelf is all the way in the back, and we’ve got, like stacks of boxes and bicycles and old computers in the way. It’ll take some work to get to those books, but i’ll do it)

Peace.
.

85

Judaism is both a religion and a culture/nationality (sort of). As such, when a Jew converts he is still considered Jewish (culture/nationality wise, as well as religiously in some cases).
The reason most Jews do not believe in Jesus being the Messiah is that he did not fulfill the accepted Jewish prophecies of what the Messiah would do. In addition, the whole “Son of God” thing is considered sacrilege (claiming a person to be literally the son of God).

86

As both the books of Ezekiel & Daniel are set during the Babylonian Captivity (whether or not they were actually written
then, tho I do believe they were), the persons Ez & Dan are
said to be contemporaries. Now Ez 14:14,20; 28:3 has some interesting references to a Daniel or a Dan’el.

Ezekiel 1:3 identifies Ez as a priest- priests were indeed anointed- they were indeed messiahs. I’m not saying “son of man”=“priest”=“messiah”. I’m just saying that there is an interesting parallel in the character of Ezekiel. All Davidic kings were similarly “messiahs”.

Now, in the Book of Daniel 7:13, “one like a son of man” comes before the Ancient of Days" to receive the Kingdom. In verses 9 & 10, the Ancient of Days sits upon a flaming throne with wheels of fire. Even as the book of Ezekiel seems to refer to Daniel, the writer of Daniel may be making referring to Ezekiel as representative of the Saints of Israel to whom will restore the Kingdom.

Now, as Jesus referred to himself as “Son of Man”, I think he was indeed identifying himself as representing Humanity (Paul uses a similar concept in I Corinthians 15 to call Jesus the “Last” or “Second Adam”), the Saints of Israel who are given the Kingdom by God (Daniel 7:18,22), and both a Prophet & Priest
like Ezekiel who is in Gentile (this time Roman) captivity & foresees the ultimate judgement against Jerusalem, the fall of the Temple, and the dispersion of Israel. (Daniel 9:24-27 sees the destruction of city & Temple after the cutting off of a messiah-prince.) “Son of Man” may or may not have been generally a Messianic title in Jewish culture, but in using “Son of Man” and accepting others use of “Messiah” to refer to himself, Jesus in a sense redefined it as such.

87

Support for Jesus being/believing self to be messiah(as was taught me)

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one.
KJV

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
KJV

Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
KJV
OT:6005
`Immanuw’el (im-maw-noo-ale’); from OT:5973 and OT:410 with a pronominal suffix inserted; with us (is) God; Immanuel, a type name of Isaiah’s son:
KJV - Immanuel.
(Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
(God with us)

Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
KJV

1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
KJV

John 14:9
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
KJV

1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
KJV

2 Cor 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
KJV

I myself still find “the oneness of God”(Jesus=God in flesh) concept hard to believe/understand(especially with Paul referring to interraction between father and son so much–seperateness), yet the trinity is even harder to believe.

88

**

Minor nitpick here:

Davidic kings were not anointed with the anointing oil unless there was a controversy. For example, Solomon was anointed. Other kings of the line, however, were not annointed.

Likewise, only High Priests were anointed with the anointing oil, and then, only during the First Temple period. Regular kohanim were not anointed with the anointing oil at all. Furthermore, there was no anointing oil during the Second Temple. Furthermore, during Daniel’s time, there was no High Priest, because there was no Temple.

Zev Steinhardt

89

I thought another look at the Isaiah quotes might be interesting:

Isaiah 7:14

Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:5

For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
“The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”-

Isaiah 9:6

In token of abundant authority
And with peace without limit
Upon David’s throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore
The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
Shall bring this to pass.

90

Candida, may I ask what text?

91

Well, the problem is that I agree with you (mostly) on how SoM was used in Ez and Dn. It’s how Jewish Pseudepigrapha used it that seems key to determining how Jesus might have used it. I am entirely convinced that Jewish understanding of the meaning of SoM today is as you say. The question is if it always has been.

That’s a little harder to find, but I can certainly look. For heaven’s sake, I’ve got a whole theological library on campus 20 feet from my dorm! So don’t hurt your back digging out books just for my sake! Neverhteless, if you do find something, by all means, let me know.

Man, wouldn’t I love to! There is a Rabbi who teaches a class here on Jewish understanding of scripture, which I would love to take, but it won’t fit in schedule so far.

Aw shucks. :o

Like I said, don’t hurt your back, and don’t kill yourself just for me! And remember to lift from the knees.

92

Shoe

Sorry, I missed the cite out - complete oversight, apologies.

They’re from the Tanakh (1985, Jewish Publication Society).

93

Shoe, I’m not disputing that the authors of the NT believed that Jesus identified himself as the Messiah, but none of them actually knew the guy and that wasn’t what “Son of man” meant in first century Aramaic.

Your quotation from Isaiah is not only taken out of context, it contains a crucial mistranslation. The word translated by the KJV as “virgin” is “almah” which simply means “young woman.” It does not mean virgin (there’s a different word for virgin). It’s also clear, when read in context, that the events described were to occur during the lifetime of Isaiah, they were not a prediction of the Messiah (although Matthew certainly took it as one).
Alan, Here’s what I dug out of my storage room:

A Jewish translation of the Tanach which translates “One like a son of man” as “One like a human being.” An search of online Tanachs reveals either a translation of “human being” or “one like a man.” These are contemporary translations and they indicate that contemporary Jewish scholarship has not changed as to the meaning of SoM in Daniel.

The Five Gospels by Robert Funk and Roy Hoover contains a mini essay on pg. 75-76 as to the meaning of SoM in Hebrew and Aramaic.

A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ
by Emil Schürer contains commentaries on the meaning of SoM in volume II (starting on page 520) and volume III (starting on pg. 252).

I’ve seen numerous other references in my reading which identify SoM as synonymous with human or man, but they are usually just passing comments without any detail or documentation.

On preview I see you’ve posted while I was writing. I concede that Enoch seems anomolous as to application of SoM to the Messiah. Every contemporary Jewish commentary I see on this seems to believe that the Similtudes are Christian emendments, but they seem to base this more on a belief that it just sounds Christian rather than hardcore archaeological or historiographical evidence.

I’ve had some difficulty finding out if there was any messianic use of SoM during the time of Christ. (I even went to library today, but it’s kind of an obscure point of history to search for). There was obviously a lot of diversity in Jewish belief at the time, and Jewish apocalyptic beliefs of the time ae still sort of murky. I will concede that it is murky enough, and the pseudogriphia are suggestive enough, that a mystic or messianic use of the term SoM by some sects at this time can not be definitively ruled out. You may even find some Jewish scholars who would concede this, (I don’t think so, but I’m really not sure), but even so, I think that they would argue that it wasn’t the common usage of the term.

Some people think that Jesus may have come out of one of the apocalyptic sects (namely the Essenes) and theoretically he may have been using some esoteric, mystical terminology with his disciples which meant one thing to them and another to the public at large.

I have to add that IMO, this is unlikely, but that is only IMO.

I’m glad to hear that Wesley does provide a diversity of perspectives , btw. Like I said, I think it’s a good school. Obviously they’re doing a good job with you. :slight_smile:

Zev,
are you aware of any contemporary Jewish interpretations of the phrase “Son of Adam,” particuarly as it is used in Daniel or with regard to the Messiah?

94

**

The word you’re looking for is besulah. You correctly point out that almah means “young woman.” There is a masculine version of that word, elem, meaning “young man” which is found in I Samuel 20:22. There is no male version of besulah (“virgin”).

None that I’m aware of. Admittedly, it’s been a while since I’ve learned Daniel in depth, but I highly doubt it’s used as a synonym for “messiah.”

Zev Steinhardt

95

Thanks for the input Diogenes. As I said, those were some scriptures which I was taught were support for a messianic Jesus. I hadn’t myself read Isaiah well enough to have formed the ideah on my own. I was just putting it out. I apologize for a poorly supported reference taken out of context. Upon looking a bit further, I’ve discovered these views:

and

and

and

and

I submit that these views are not my own and that I am no expert on this subject. I point out that there are some who do not believe that the translation is wrong in this case or in some other uses in the OT(virgin).

96

Whichever way you look at it, though, interpretation of 7:14 to make “Jesus is God” does rather look like the equivalent of biting bits off jigsaw pieces to make them fit.

97

Shoe, I urge you to read the enirety of Isaiah 7. It’s very hard to take it as reference to Jesus. The prophesy refers to Isaiah’s own son. Despite the above cited commentary, the word “alma” implied nothing about a woman’s sexual history.

I’m aware of the Christian attempts to read this verse as a prophesy of Jesus (and Matthew did the same) but as I said, read it in context for yourself and make up your own mind.

I guarantee you, absolutely no Jewish scholarship reads this as a either a miraculous birth or as a prophesy of the Messiah.

98

Diogenes,
Thanks for your work. I’ll follow your leads and see what I can find myself, but I won’t post it here. I think we’ve carried this as far as anyone else is likely to be interested. (Probably a bit farther. :)) It’s been interesting for me, at least (as has the rest of this thread.)

At the risk of starting another hijack, I have have to ask–how are you familiar with Wesley Theological Seminary?

99

I used to live in the DC area (Alexandria) and was attending a different college (NOVA, one my first attempts at college, it took me a few tries to really get serious. ) I was already interested in religious studies, so I researched some schools in the area. Wesley was one of the campuses I visited. I was impressed with the faculty and the curriculum, but I decided I really didn’t have the requisite faith to attend a seminary.

100

There are a many reasons why the Jewish faith is incompatible with the Christian faith. The Christians worship a man/God complex they call the Trinity. In Judaism, God is very unitary, singular, undivided. See Deuteronomy 6:4, usually translated by Judaism as “Listen O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord the One and Only”. The Christians think 1 equals 3, by some new math. The Trinity is an ancient pagan idea from Plato, not from God.

There are lots of other reasons. God told the Jews to treat Pig meat as unclean, the Christian Messiah said to reverse that. The Jews ask in response, “Since when does the Son overrule the Father? Is the Father sick, has he left town?” If God says one thing and anybody else says the opposite, as a matter of policy, then the Jews go with God and away from the other guy. This is different than an exception for a higher purpose. If genuinely starving, for example, religious Jews should eat pork, if that is the only food available, rather than die, and that is Jewish law, but that is not normal policy. This direct contravention of Gods law disallows the ideas of Jesus into Judaism, because it tells us that Jesus is not okay with God.

Consider also, the beginning of Deuteronomy 13 which quite clearly states that Jews should not follow anyone to any new gods. But praying to Jesus is not always the same as praying to God, according to the Christians, so Jesus is different, and so a new god. A new god with new rules.

Other reasons are procedural, the Christians grew in numbers when they started to convert pagans to Christianity without first converting them to Judaism, meaning that the two religions became genuinely separate. The Christians also declared themselves to be separate from Judaism in many ways. Two of the ways were the changing of the Sabbath from the Seventh Day (Saturday) to the First Day (Sunday), without even claiming that the Jews had the wrong day, instead, they claimed the opposite. This is two ways because 1) It obviously separates the two groups, and 2) It goes directly against God’s commandment, just to be different!

A Hundred or so years ago, it was a death penalty crime for a Christian to Convert to Judaism in Poland. Earlier, it was a crime in other European countries as well. That and many other Christian rulings made it perfectly clear that they were separate faiths.

As to the status of a Jew who converts to Christianity, it is a puzzle for God and the Rabbis to solve. Is this person a Jew who is doing wrong, or does this person at some point leave Judaism altogether, or both?

Nowadays, there are some Christians who respect these differences, and some who don’t, in the name of conversion, rather than of honesty.