Jesus is recorded in Matthew as having said;
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Mat 5;17-18)
Earth still, apparently, exists- so clearly Jesus believed in the authority of the law and that it should be followed (at least ‘until heaven and earth pass away‘).
He also reportedly declared himself to be a major subject of the Hebrew Bible;
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
But there are elements of Christian theology that appear to be completely foreign to the Hebrew Scriptures. For example;
1-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that God must become human and die to eliminate the system of ritual animal sacrifice that it says he himself set up to atone for sins?
Lev 1:2-4 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock. "If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”
2-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that Hell has been designed as a place where specifically non-Christians go to be tortured for eternity when they die?
3-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah will actually be God himself?
These beliefs seem to form the bedrock of New Testament theology for many Christians, but if they do not have their origins in the Hebrew Scriptures, where did they come from and why were they given such authority in Christianity?
Christian Theology and the Hebrew Scriptures
Moderator: Moderators
-
Joe Blackbird
- Apprentice
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:09 pm
Post #31
New to the forum and this thread caught my eye. Forgetting about the Urantia nonsense, I noticed some misinformation regarding the topic of Isaiah 53 and rabbinic interpretation. I realize that this is an old thread but if anyone wants to revive it I would be pleased to contribute and to clarify some misconceptions that were posted by easyrider previously.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #32
Welcome and please do feel free to post.
einstein:
I am sure everyone here agrees.
einstein:
I find it hard to believe easyrider had any misconceptions but I would love to read them.I realize that this is an old thread but if anyone wants to revive it I would be pleased to contribute and to clarify some misconceptions that were posted by easyrider previously.
I am sure everyone here agrees.
Post #34
Thanks for the invitation to post. As luck would have it I am away this weekend for a conference but will try to post early next week. The thread is very broad and I am interested in discussing many issues but perhaps to start, we should focus on Isaiah 53, its interpretation from the Jewish perspective, and some misconceptions that are widely posted on the web wrt to rabbinic interpretation. To all, have a great weekend.
Post #35
Back again. This topic is extensive and obviously cannot be covered in one post so I will posting several times. The first issue to address is the rabbinic commentaries concerning Is 53. The idea that Jews used to say that the passage was about the messiah but then changed it to Israel or the righteous remnant of Israel during the time of Rashi (12th century CE) originated in the 19th century with a book that was the brainchild of E.B. Pusey of Oxford entitled, "The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters". The translations were courtesy of Driver and Neubauer but it is interesting to note in the introduction that Neubauer did NOT want to include passages from a priest named Martini but Pusey insisted they be included. As a result there are many mistranslations and passages completely taken out of context as well as omissions which contradict other passages to present a biased and fallacious perspective. For example the Targum Jonathan is quoted for 52:13 but not for other verses where the servant can be righteous Israel or even the nations that subjugate Israel. Again, the Alsheich is quoted who mentions the Messiah but not the part that says by messiah he is referring to King David.
Many quotes are taken from the Talmud are midrash. There are two types of midrash. Midrash halacha is a writing of oral law while midrash aggadah(most commonly quoted) is a form of story telling- it takes a word or a phrase from the Tanach, ignores the context, and uses the phrase as a starting point to usually tell a story that teaches ethics, morals, etc. It is not meant to be taken literally. It is a form of allegory.That's all for now. More to come.
Many quotes are taken from the Talmud are midrash. There are two types of midrash. Midrash halacha is a writing of oral law while midrash aggadah(most commonly quoted) is a form of story telling- it takes a word or a phrase from the Tanach, ignores the context, and uses the phrase as a starting point to usually tell a story that teaches ethics, morals, etc. It is not meant to be taken literally. It is a form of allegory.That's all for now. More to come.
Post #36
Yonathan ben Uzziel: The Targum of Yonathan is often quoted by missionaries to support their contention that we Jews ignore our sages and Rabbis who consistently viewed certain passages in the Tanach as Messianic. Note, even if this were true (which we shall show it is not) it is puzzling how any logically thinking Christian could then take this to show that Jesus is the Messiah. 
The Targum was written in Aramaic. This Targum is of the Prophets or Neviim. As stated before a targum is not a translation. It is a reworking of the text to yield what the Targumist desires it to give forth. In other words the Targum or Midrash reoresents a style of teaching that is not strictly dependant on the actual text being studied.
If one actually reads the Targum one will see that Yonathan uses the term servant, to apply variably. Sometimes it is applied to the Messiah. Sometimes it is applied to the nation of Israel. He even applies it to the nations who subjuated Israel in the past. The important point to convey is that in EVERY CASE, references to the Messiah are that of an exalted and victorious figure while any reference to suffering is always applied to Israel. This is completely in agreement with the normative and centuries old understanding the the true identity of the eved in Isa 53.
The Mashiach does not suffer,or die in Targum Yonathan. The Mashiach is a victorious figure who rebuilds the Temple as foretold in Isaiah. BTW, last time I read the Targum the name of Jesus wasn't mentioned.
The Targum was written in Aramaic. This Targum is of the Prophets or Neviim. As stated before a targum is not a translation. It is a reworking of the text to yield what the Targumist desires it to give forth. In other words the Targum or Midrash reoresents a style of teaching that is not strictly dependant on the actual text being studied.
If one actually reads the Targum one will see that Yonathan uses the term servant, to apply variably. Sometimes it is applied to the Messiah. Sometimes it is applied to the nation of Israel. He even applies it to the nations who subjuated Israel in the past. The important point to convey is that in EVERY CASE, references to the Messiah are that of an exalted and victorious figure while any reference to suffering is always applied to Israel. This is completely in agreement with the normative and centuries old understanding the the true identity of the eved in Isa 53.
The Mashiach does not suffer,or die in Targum Yonathan. The Mashiach is a victorious figure who rebuilds the Temple as foretold in Isaiah. BTW, last time I read the Targum the name of Jesus wasn't mentioned.
Post #37
The concept of a material Messiah is an evolved concept derived from the enlightenment of the Hebrew prophets, the foretelling of the arrival of God the son incarnate in the flesh. The scriptures are faulty and demonstrate a series of manipulation, editing, reinterpretation and exploitation by man as he sought to understand his relationship with God.
Jewish converts to Christianity continued this exploitation by attempting to transendentalize the Jewish prophets showing Jesus as the Messiah....soon to return. Jesus was not the material Jewish messiah though he was the person about whom the Messianic concept was evolved, hence the answer that Jesus gave in his interrogators at the trumped up trial that resulted in his death.
The Jews were chosen as the host people for the incarnation of the son of God. They were chosen as the torch bearers of a spiritual message to the world, not a racial centric material kingdom message. They lost their way and repeatedly rejected the spiritual messengers, messengers of a spiritual kingdom.
Christians should note that our Jewish friends have had 2,000 years to review the scriptures and they don't see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah .....because he was not! And Jews should note that the concept of a material messiah to return and take David's political seat is an unfortunate conceptual error.
So Einstien, in some ways your correct about the exploitation of Hebrew writings by Christian writers and teachers of the New Testament.( my words) The apostles as well as Paul and Luke were former Jews whose very fabric was spun from the concept of the Messiah so it is not strange that Jesus would be interpreted as such.
The brilliance of Jesus was that he did not attack the error of the old teaching but rather planted new seeds and allowed the old teaching to die on the vine. New revelation must always more or less keep in touch with previous revelation.
Colter
Jewish converts to Christianity continued this exploitation by attempting to transendentalize the Jewish prophets showing Jesus as the Messiah....soon to return. Jesus was not the material Jewish messiah though he was the person about whom the Messianic concept was evolved, hence the answer that Jesus gave in his interrogators at the trumped up trial that resulted in his death.
The Jews were chosen as the host people for the incarnation of the son of God. They were chosen as the torch bearers of a spiritual message to the world, not a racial centric material kingdom message. They lost their way and repeatedly rejected the spiritual messengers, messengers of a spiritual kingdom.
Christians should note that our Jewish friends have had 2,000 years to review the scriptures and they don't see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah .....because he was not! And Jews should note that the concept of a material messiah to return and take David's political seat is an unfortunate conceptual error.
So Einstien, in some ways your correct about the exploitation of Hebrew writings by Christian writers and teachers of the New Testament.( my words) The apostles as well as Paul and Luke were former Jews whose very fabric was spun from the concept of the Messiah so it is not strange that Jesus would be interpreted as such.
The brilliance of Jesus was that he did not attack the error of the old teaching but rather planted new seeds and allowed the old teaching to die on the vine. New revelation must always more or less keep in touch with previous revelation.
Colter
Post #39
[quote="Colter"]The concept of a material Messiah is an evolved concept derived from the enlightenment of the Hebrew prophets, the foretelling of the arrival of God the son incarnate in the flesh. The scriptures are faulty and demonstrate a series of manipulation, editing, reinterpretation and exploitation by man as he sought to understand his relationship with God.
Jewish converts to Christianity continued this exploitation by attempting to transendentalize the Jewish prophets showing Jesus as the Messiah....soon to return. Jesus was not the material Jewish messiah though he was the person about whom the Messianic concept was evolved, hence the answer that Jesus gave in his interrogators at the trumped up trial that resulted in his death.
The Jews were chosen as the host people for the incarnation of the son of God. They were chosen as the torch bearers of a spiritual message to the world, not a racial centric material kingdom message. They lost their way and repeatedly rejected the spiritual messengers, messengers of a spiritual kingdom.
Christians should note that our Jewish friends have had 2,000 years to review the scriptures and they don't see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah .....because he was not!
Glad to see you agree
However, the concept of an incarnated son of God is pagan, not Jewish in origin and is considered idolatry by Jews.
Jewish converts to Christianity continued this exploitation by attempting to transendentalize the Jewish prophets showing Jesus as the Messiah....soon to return. Jesus was not the material Jewish messiah though he was the person about whom the Messianic concept was evolved, hence the answer that Jesus gave in his interrogators at the trumped up trial that resulted in his death.
The Jews were chosen as the host people for the incarnation of the son of God. They were chosen as the torch bearers of a spiritual message to the world, not a racial centric material kingdom message. They lost their way and repeatedly rejected the spiritual messengers, messengers of a spiritual kingdom.
Christians should note that our Jewish friends have had 2,000 years to review the scriptures and they don't see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah .....because he was not!
Glad to see you agree
However, the concept of an incarnated son of God is pagan, not Jewish in origin and is considered idolatry by Jews.Post #40
I'll take your word for it though I find that idea puzzling in light of OT depictions of God carrying on long conversations with man, dictating the laws and even walking around talking with individuals. So the notion of an existential personification of God the father incarnate in the flesh isn't that far fetched when compaired with the lore of the scriptures.jjg wrote:Colter, the Jewish people believe God is transcendant and that is why they reject Jesus as the Son of God.
There is evidence of pluralistic deity throughout the scriptures starting in the creation narrative with "let us create man in our own image".
I do agree that Israel was completely unprepared for "a son of God incarnate in the flesh".
CLIP:
1. CONCEPTS OF THE EXPECTED MESSIAH
The Jews entertained many ideas about the expected deliverer, and each of these different schools of Messianic teaching was able to point to statements in the Hebrew scriptures as proof of their contentions. In a general way, the Jews regarded their national history as beginning with Abraham and culminating in the Messiah and the new age of the kingdom of God. In earlier times they had envisaged this deliverer as "the servant of the Lord," then as "the Son of Man," while latterly some even went so far as to refer to the Messiah as the "Son of God." But no matter whether he was called the "seed of Abraham" or "the son of David," all were agreed that he was to be the Messiah, the "anointed one." Thus did the concept evolve from the "servant of the Lord" to the "son of David," "Son of Man," and "Son of God."
In the days of John and Jesus the more learned Jews had developed an idea of the coming Messiah as the perfected and representative Israelite, combining in himself as the "servant of the Lord" the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king.
The Jews devoutly believed that, as Moses had delivered their fathers from Egyptian bondage by miraculous wonders, so would the coming Messiah deliver the Jewish people from Roman domination by even greater miracles of power and marvels of racial triumph. The rabbis had gathered together almost five hundred passages from the Scriptures which, notwithstanding their apparent contradictions, they averred were prophetic of the coming Messiah. And amidst all these details of time, technique, and function, they almost completely lost sight of the personality of the promised Messiah. They were looking for a restoration of Jewish national glory--Israel's temporal exaltation--rather than for the salvation of the world. It therefore becomes evident that Jesus of Nazareth could never satisfy this materialistic Messianic concept of the Jewish mind. Many of their reputed Messianic predictions, had they but viewed these prophetic utterances in a different light, would have very naturally prepared their minds for a recognition of Jesus as the terminator of one age and the inaugurator of a new and better dispensation of mercy and salvation for all nations.
The Jews had been brought up to believe in the doctrine of the Shekinah. But this reputed symbol of the Divine Presence was not to be seen in the temple. They believed that the coming of the Messiah would effect its restoration. They held confusing ideas about racial sin and the supposed evil nature of man. Some taught that Adam's sin had cursed the human race, and that the Messiah would remove this curse and restore man to divine favor. Others taught that God, in creating man, had put into his being both good and evil natures; that when he observed the outworking of this arrangement, he was greatly disappointed, and that "He repented that he had thus made man." And those who taught this believed that the Messiah was to come in order to redeem man from this inherent evil nature.
The majority of the Jews believed that they continued to languish under Roman rule because of their national sins and because of the halfheartedness of the gentile proselytes. The Jewish nation had not wholeheartedly repented; therefore did the Messiah delay his coming. There was much talk about repentance; wherefore the mighty and immediate appeal of John's preaching, "Repent and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And the kingdom of heaven could mean only one thing to any devout Jew: The coming of the Messiah.
There was one feature of the bestowal of Jesus which was utterly foreign to the Jewish conception of the Messiah, and that was the union of the two natures, the human and the divine. The Jews had variously conceived of the Messiah as perfected human, superhuman, and even as divine, but they never entertained the concept of the union of the human and the divine. And this was the great stumbling block of Jesus' early disciples. They grasped the human concept of the Messiah as the son of David, as presented by the earlier prophets; as the Son of Man, the superhuman idea of Daniel and some of the later prophets; and even as the Son of God, as depicted by the author of the Book of Enoch and by certain of his contemporaries; but never had they for a single moment entertained the true concept of the union in one earth personality of the two natures, the human and the divine. The incarnation of the Creator in the form of the creature had not been revealed beforehand. It was revealed only in Jesus; the world knew nothing of such things until the Creator Son was made flesh and dwelt among the mortals of the realm.
Colter
