Jesus & the Torah

[Murad]

I have studied the bible for over 40 years. ....Jesus fulfilled all the law and all prophecies about Him in the Spirit.

Question for debate:
1. Did Jesus fulfill all the prophesy in the Torah like many Christians claim?

[McCulloch]

Well, I have to admit that I'd find that interesting myself; unfortunately, the only responses I've ever seen to these objections have amounted to "That's our story and we're stickin' to it." I can't think of a better or more honest defense of those doctrines than my own, posted above... which is about as ironic as it gets, from where I sit.

Irony aside, I would be fine with the clearly evident fact that this central doctrine of Christian apologetics is nothing more than their own unsupported (sometimes silly) opinion that they tell each other. But they keep on insisting that they are right. Perhaps I should just bookmark this thread to direct the next Christian apologist to when they make some claim or other about the evidential value of fulfilled prophesy.

[Joshua Patrick]

but you don't get to tell Jews how to interpret or understand our own Scriptures or why our own traditions and teachings are or might be wrong. That's our business, and non-Jews don't get a vote.


Jewish Religion:

After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the Jewish faith seized to be what it had been up to that point. The major hallmarks of Judaism prior to the destruction of the temple, had been that it had a temple and offered sacrifice, the entire religion was focused on this one singular point, you also had a king and land, which helped form the authentic Jewish religion into a religious nation.

Once the Romans, had done they business, the Jews as the religion of the convenant, no longer existed. Gone was the temple,temple sacrifice, and the Jewish priesthood, these were the hallmarks, the non-debatle aspects of being a religious Jew.

No Temple
No Sacrifice
No Priesthood

= No Judaism.

What replaced it in history, is what as come down to us today known as Rabbinical Judaism, this is not the Judaism of the convenient, it is a man-made religion. Looks alot like the authentic Jewish religion, but at it's core its very different.


But the convenant that God made with Abraham, that did not seize to be, God did not retreat from his promise to Abraham, not at all.

The promise of the convenant, is fulfilled in the Catholic Church, we are the continuation of Israel, there is an un-broken line from Abraham to us, the first members of the church, were virtually all Jewish, all religious Jews, they went to the temple daily, prayed the prayers of the convenant etc.

But the worship, was made complete in the sacrifice of the Mass, in the Holy Eucharist, this is why nothing was lost in the sense of the convenant, when Jerusalem was destroyed, it's not so much as the convenant was switched to a new group, its much more the case that only a few former members of the convenant stayed faithful. The majority rejected the convenant, as highlighted when the Jews screamed out, "we have no king but Ceaser". The convenant was continued by the few Jews, who remained faithful to it, by recognizing the Messiah, then God added to they number, a multiplicity of Gentiles, the convenant was never abandoned by God, is was abandoned by the overwhelming number of people called to it. Although it is continued today in the Catholic church, we have THE priesthood, THE sacrifice, THE temple.

That is because Judaism, is built upon a Messiah who will come and institute his reign, that happened 2000 years ago, the Jews who accepted him became the church, the Jews who rejected him after voting themselves out of the convenient, went off and started a man-made religion. Waiting for a new messiah, is like trying to touch your elbow with your tongue.

Rabbinical Judaism, todays Jewish religion, is to authentic Judaism, what Protestantism is to Catholicism.

Looks alot like it sometimes, but at it's core it's very different.

[cnorman18]

Well, I have to admit that I'd find that interesting myself; unfortunately, the only responses I've ever seen to these objections have amounted to "That's our story and we're stickin' to it." I can't think of a better or more honest defense of those doctrines than my own, posted above... which is about as ironic as it gets, from where I sit.

Irony aside, I would be fine with the clearly evident fact that this central doctrine of Christian apologetics is nothing more than their own unsupported (sometimes silly) opinion that they tell each other. But they keep on insisting that they are right. Perhaps I should just bookmark this thread to direct the next Christian apologist to when they make some claim or other about the evidential value of fulfilled prophesy.

That website is useful; here is another, which examines the question from the Jewish side. The issue, for us, isn't only that the "Messianic prophecies" aren't prophecies, aren't "Messianic," and/or aren't fulfilled; it's that the Messiah isn't the figure the Christians are saying he is anyway.

Mashiach: The Messiah

As you've seen, some Christians like to go to Judaism 101 at Jewfaq.org to prove points about Jewish beliefs; this particular page is one they don't cite. The Jews for Judaism website given in the quote is very good on these issues as well.

Some quotes:

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought....

Some gentiles have told me that the term "mashiach" is related to the Hebrew term "moshiah" (savior) because they sound similar, but the similarity is not as strong as it appears to one unfamiliar with Hebrew. The Hebrew word "mashiach" comes from the root Mem-Shin-Chet, which means to paint, smear, or annoint. The word "moshiah" comes from the root Yod-Shin-Ayin, which means to help or save. The only letter these roots have in common is Shin, the most common letter in the Hebrew language. The "m" sound at the beginning of the word moshiah (savior) is a common prefix used to turn a verb into a noun. For example, the verb tzavah (to command) becomes mitzvah (commandment). Saying that "mashiach" is related to "moshiah" is a bit like saying that ring is related to surfing because they both end in "ing."....

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach....

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.

Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist....

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the mashiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kokhba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach.

Throughout Jewish history, there have been many people who have claimed to be the mashiach, or whose followers have claimed that they were the mashiach: Shimeon Bar Kokhba, Shabbatai Tzvi, Jesus, and many others too numerous to name. Leo Rosten reports some very entertaining accounts under the heading False Messiahs in his book, The Joys of Yiddish. But all of these people died without fulfilling the mission of the mashiach; therefore, none of them were the mashiach. The mashiach and the Olam Ha-Ba lie in the future, not in the past....

The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:

Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

If you want to know how Jews interpret the passages that Christians consider to be messianic, see the Jews for Judaism website, especially the Knowledge Base under Resources. The Knowledge Base addresses more than 130 of the most common arguments that evangelists make to Jews.

As I've said, as long as Christians don't make claims about what the beliefs of Jews ought to be, or even more outrageously, what they actually ARE, I have no objection to Christians believing whatever they like; but when they begin to make such claims about the Jewish Bible to Jews, I'm quite ready to debate them. Few of those who do these objectionable things know anything significant about Jewish beliefs anyway, but only what they've heard from other Christians.

One more note; I would advise Christians to be cautious about studying the beliefs and teachings of Judaism in books written by Jews. I did -- and I am now Jewish.

[cnorman18]

but you don't get to tell Jews how to interpret or understand our own Scriptures or why our own traditions and teachings are or might be wrong. That's our business, and non-Jews don't get a vote.


Jewish Religion:

After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the Jewish faith seized to be what it had been up to that point. The major hallmarks of Judaism prior to the destruction of the temple, had been that it had a temple and offered sacrifice, the entire religion was focused on this one singular point, you also had a king and land, which helped form the authentic Jewish religion into a religious nation.

Once the Romans, had done they business, the Jews as the religion of the convenant, no longer existed. Gone was the temple,temple sacrifice, and the Jewish priesthood, these were the hallmarks, the non-debatle aspects of being a religious Jew.

No Temple
No Sacrifice
No Priesthood

= No Judaism.

What replaced it in history, is what as come down to us today known as Rabbinical Judaism, this is not the Judaism of the convenient, it is a man-made religion. Looks alot like the authentic Jewish religion, but at it's core its very different.


But the convenant that God made with Abraham, that did not seize to be, God did not retreat from his promise to Abraham, not at all.

The promise of the convenant, is fulfilled in the Catholic Church, we are the continuation of Israel, there is an un-broken line from Abraham to us, the first members of the church, were virtually all Jewish, all religious Jews, they went to the temple daily, prayed the prayers of the convenant etc.

But the worship, was made complete in the sacrifice of the Mass, in the Holy Eucharist, this is why nothing was lost in the sense of the convenant, when Jerusalem was destroyed, it's not so much as the convenant was switched to a new group, its much more the case that only a few former members of the convenant stayed faithful. The majority rejected the convenant, as highlighted when the Jews screamed out, "we have no king but Ceaser". The convenant was continued by the few Jews, who remained faithful to it, by recognizing the Messiah, then God added to they number, a multiplicity of Gentiles, the convenant was never abandoned by God, is was abandoned by the overwhelming number of people called to it. Although it is continued today in the Catholic church, we have THE priesthood, THE sacrifice, THE temple.

That is because Judaism, is built upon a Messiah who will come and institute his reign, that happened 2000 years ago, the Jews who accepted him became the church, the Jews who rejected him after voting themselves out of the convenient, went off and started a man-made religion. Waiting for a new messiah, is like trying to touch your elbow with your tongue.

Rabbinical Judaism, todays Jewish religion, is to authentic Judaism, what Protestantism is to Catholicism.

Looks alot like it sometimes, but at it's core it's very different.

Like I said; as long as you leave us alone, you can believe what you want, even if some of us do find this sort of thing disturbing.

This is classical "replacement theology," but not as taught by your own Church. The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that modern Judaism is a "man-made religion," or even a false religion:

Supersessionism is not the name of any official Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach an extreme or "crude" supersessionism (see: Avery Cardinal Dulles) that considers the Jewish people themselves as effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy. For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the “gifts and calling of God are irrevocable� (Rom 11:29). The persevering presence of Israel on earth is perhaps that best proof that God exists and that His covenant extends “to a thousand generations� (Deut 7:9). The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.

The subject of this thread is whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Jews get to decide that, and he wasn't. Have a nice day.

[ChristShepherd]

The Christian Christ and the Jewish Messiah are two separate and unrelated concepts.

Not according to the Christians.

But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

And when he [Paul] wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Agrippa said to Paul, "You are permitted to speak for yourself."
Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded to make his defense:

"In regard to all the things of which I am accused by the Jews, I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; especially because you are an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.

"So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.

"And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day and for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews.

"Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead? So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

"And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.

"While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

"And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'

"So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.

"For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death.

"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

How is the Hebrew word messiah translated into Greek by the Jewish scholars who created the Septuagint? Did they not use the Greek term Christ?

As I understand Christian doctrine, the Christian Christ and the Jewish Messiah are identical concepts, according to Christians.

John 1:41 (King James Version)
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:41 (New American Standard Bible)
41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ).

John 1:41 (New International Version)
41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

Three Bible versions of the same verse. All say the Mesiah and the Christ are the same.
Christ Shepherd

[ChristShepherd]

If you take the New Testament literally, since he has no father, he is not of the "Seed of David'

Jewish inheritance law was not genetic based but rather linked to the family line/name. Thus if a man died without an heir his brother could take his late brothers wife in order to father children for the continuation of his brothers name and inheritance. the result of this union would be a 'son' with the 'name' of one man and the genetic code of another.

The fact that Jesus genetic code was not inherited literally from the semen of Joseph would no more disqualify him from being Josephs legal heir than would the descendents of a 'brother in law' marriage. Jesus was born of the royal line of David both through his adopted father and his mother and thus fully qualified in a claim to be a descendent of King David.

Acts 2:30 (King James Version)
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What do you suppose Peter meant by the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, ????? Obviously Peter did not know the virgin birth story.

2 Samuel 7:12 (King James Version)
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)
11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Matthew and Luke tripped up with the virgin birth story because they forgot about these Scriptures.

The point is that the Messiah was to be literal seed of David according to the flesh.
Jesus was not.

Christ Shepherd

[cnorman18]

John 1:41 (King James Version)
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:41 (New American Standard Bible)
41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ).

John 1:41 (New International Version)
41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

Three Bible versions of the same verse. All say the Mesiah and the Christ are the same.
Christ Shepherd

Hello? I'm a Jew? Those books are not in my Bible.

Like I said; Christians can believe whatever they like, and they can even put it in their books. Doesn't matter to us, not even a little bitty bit. It wouldn't matter if the Quran said that that Messiah and Christ are the same concept, either. I don't care if the OED says that "Christ" is the Greek translation of "Messiah," or Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Funkin Wagnalls all agree; they aren't. Is that clear enough?

Mashiach was NEVER conceived as being (1) divine, (2) perfect and without sin, (3) a substitutionary sacrifice, (3) the literal son of God, (4) resurrected from the dead, or (5) the only way to personal salvation. Those ideas are not Jewish and never were. Period, full stop.

[cnorman18]

If you take the New Testament literally, since he has no father, he is not of the "Seed of David'

Jewish inheritance law was not genetic based but rather linked to the family line/name. Thus if a man died without an heir his brother could take his late brothers wife in order to father children for the continuation of his brothers name and inheritance. the result of this union would be a 'son' with the 'name' of one man and the genetic code of another.

The fact that Jesus genetic code was not inherited literally from the semen of Joseph would no more disqualify him from being Josephs legal heir than would the descendents of a 'brother in law' marriage. Jesus was born of the royal line of David both through his adopted father and his mother and thus fully qualified in a claim to be a descendent of King David.

Acts 2:30 (King James Version)
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What do you suppose Peter meant by the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, ????? Obviously Peter did not know the virgin birth story.

2 Samuel 7:12 (King James Version)
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)
11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Matthew and Luke tripped up with the virgin birth story because they forgot about these Scriptures.

The point is that the Messiah was to be literal seed of David according to the flesh.
Jesus was not.

Christ Shepherd

Uh, actually, JW is right; adopted children can inherit and are considered of the "line" of their adopted fathers, by Jewish law, and that has been true from the beginning. That even applies to me; when called to the Torah, I give my Hebrew name followed by ben Avraham v'Sarah, "son of Abraham and Sarah," as do all converts; we are considered the children of Abraham and Sarah, the first converts and the first Jews.

It's rather more to the point that it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin.

[Murad]

Mashiach was NEVER conceived as being (1) divine, (2) perfect and without sin, (3) a substitutionary sacrifice, (3) the literal son of God, (4) resurrected from the dead, or (5) the only way to personal salvation. Those ideas are not Jewish and never were. Period, full stop.

I would also like to emphasize that the doctrine of 'Original Sin' does not exist in Judaism; so whats the point of God dying for your sins?

This is just another myth, another man made doctrine created to support another man mad doctrine. It goes around in a circle.

[Goat]

If you take the New Testament literally, since he has no father, he is not of the "Seed of David'

Jewish inheritance law was not genetic based but rather linked to the family line/name. Thus if a man died without an heir his brother could take his late brothers wife in order to father children for the continuation of his brothers name and inheritance. the result of this union would be a 'son' with the 'name' of one man and the genetic code of another.

The fact that Jesus genetic code was not inherited literally from the semen of Joseph would no more disqualify him from being Josephs legal heir than would the descendents of a 'brother in law' marriage. Jesus was born of the royal line of David both through his adopted father and his mother and thus fully qualified in a claim to be a descendent of King David.

Acts 2:30 (King James Version)
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What do you suppose Peter meant by the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, ????? Obviously Peter did not know the virgin birth story.

2 Samuel 7:12 (King James Version)
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)
11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Matthew and Luke tripped up with the virgin birth story because they forgot about these Scriptures.

The point is that the Messiah was to be literal seed of David according to the flesh.
Jesus was not.

Christ Shepherd

Uh, actually, JW is right; adopted children can inherit and are considered of the "line" of their adopted fathers, by Jewish law, and that has been true from the beginning. That even applies to me; when called to the Torah, I give my Hebrew name followed by ben Avraham v'Sarah, "son of Abraham and Sarah," as do all converts; we are considered the children of Abraham and Sarah, the first converts and the first Jews.

It's rather more to the point that it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin.

Not when it comes to the priesthood and the line of david. Look at the Orthodox laws for adoption that are even practiced today. The child is considered of the line of the biological father, not the adopting father.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. When it comes to counting lineage, the biological father counts, not the adoptive father. Adoptive children can inherit, which is a different matter, but when it comes to blood line, the line of the biological father counts.

A son that is adopted by a Cohen whose biological father is not a Cohen is not a Cohen. He can inherit all the material he wants, but he is not considered a Cohen.

From http://library.adoption.com/articles/an ... ition.html

Under traditional Jewish law, the child's biological father determines a child's statues as a Kohen or Levi. If the birth father is a Yisrael, a gentile or unknown, the adopted child is considered a Yisrael, and the status of the adoptive father as a Kohen or Levi does not affect the adopted child.