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?

[Cathar1950]

I agree. Branch is a Messianic title. If you'll read the post you quoted, I also said that he will be a man. However, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm simply asking for scriptural evidence that he is to be mortal. As you know, Christians believe He immortal, so it's not an issue with us. But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this. Can you understand how this would give a Christian pause?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

Jesus died so he wasn't immortal.
I think what you are asking is there any Scripture which says the Messiah would be just a regular man and not a God/Man as Christians believe is the situation with Jesus.
Deuteronomy 18:15
" The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.
Many believe the above Scripture to be a Messianic Scripture. See Peter's speech at Acts 3 where he uses this Scripture to refer to Jesus.
Moses is the one who wrote Deut 18:15 so if ""God will raise up for you a prophet like me [like Moses]"" refers to the Messiah, then the Messiah would be just a man like Moses.

Christ Shepherd

Given it is Deuteronomy then it wasn't Moses.
It was probably either Jeremiah or Josiah when the stuff was being written. Then again it could be some post exile redactor or editor with some post exile decedent of David in mind.

[fewwillfindit]

I just find it interesting when you are give a list of criteria and you only address one by using a dubious source.

Now how about those examples, and addressing my own arguments?

This is the one I chose to address because I felt I was presenting a plausible alternative that hadn't been raised. Although I do have answers for the questions presented, I didn't enter the conversation to address every question, because my time is very limited these last few weeks, and when I do have the time, I'm so tired I can barely see straight, as is the case at the moment.

Please let me know if I misunderstand the forum rules, but I am under the impression that it is acceptible to enter a thread to address selected statements within that thread that haven't been answered, without having to tackle every other question posited within that thread.

=====================

Can you give a few examples? If you "keep coming across" this, you ought to be able to give more than one. How about some links or quotes?

I could swear that I had seen this stated multiple times, but I can't seem to find the examples, except for in this thread, so my apologies.
=====================


I do, however, wish to address a couple of other things:

=====================

Matthew 21:1-11 has Jesus riding on both a donkey and a colt, indicating his misunderstanding of the prophecy.

My personal favorite is the laughable passage in Matthew that has Jesus riding on a donkey and her colt at the same time, which is pretty hard to do anyway

Matthew 21:7 ESV They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

Matthew 21:7 KJV And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew 21:7 NASB and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.


Them. He sat on the cloaks. It is disingenuous for you to say emphatically that the text says that Jesus sat on both the donkey and the colt simultaneously, when it could just as easily be rendered as saying that he sat on the cloaks, i.e; them, as in pural. It seems as though, in this case, you immediately default to the interpretation that bests suits your agenda, which is to discredit the New Testament, even if the simplest and most obvious rendering of that text does not conflict with the rest of the New Testament.
=====================


=====================

I think the details of theology are trivia, and it's my opinion that the Christian belief that elevates doctrinal correctness to the highest priority is pretty dumb too

Without correct doctrine there is no basis for belief; it's anything goes. I have no wish to devote my life to a belief system that is subjective, nor do I wish to place my trust in tradition. True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

Remember, too, that in Jewish belief, what you BELIEVE doesn't matter. What you DO does.

Hence your willingness to believe in a religion that elevates tradition to a level of authority near that of scripture. This is sounding more and more like Catholicism with every passing moment. I, in stark contrast, echo the cry of the reformers: sola scriptura.

And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important.
=====================


=====================

I further agree that "it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin."

Taught? Perhaps not, if by that you mean by Rabbinic tradition, to which I lend little credence. But in Isaiah 7:14, of which I am sure you are acutely aware, it says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Of course the TANAKH bends it it's own way, and has her being called a young woman, "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."


Virgin here (or young woman - TANAKH), (Hebrew - ha-almah), means young woman, unmarried (marriagable)woman, maiden or virgin, so it doesn't preclude the possiblilty that "virgin" is a correct rendering of the word. Yes, I know this speaks temporally of Maher Shalal Chash Baz, but eschatologically, I believe it speaks of the Messiah. Since Isaiah's wife was not a virgin, if virgin is to be rendered as the interpretation here, then it must be a dual prophecy, and its ultimate fulfillment cannot have been in Maher Shalal Chash Baz. Not to mention that Maher Shalal Chash Baz was not called Immanuel. Since Immanuel means, "God with us," this, from a Christian perspective, perfectly fits Christ.

Isaiah's wife in Chapter 8 is referred to as a prophetess because she bore a son of a prophesy, or perhaps because she was he wife of a prophet, and she was not a virgin because she had already bore Isaiah children previously. I'm not aware of any passage that says she was a young woman either. So it remains that there must be another ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy; the Messiah.

Yes, I am aware that Jewish scholars do not even recognize this passage as Messianic, but we do. I am also aware of the Jewish arguements as to why this cannot be rendered as "virgin." You may even have another interpretation of this, but that's not the point. The point is, once again, that I have presented a plausible alternative. I do not wish, nor do I expect you to agree with it, I just want you to see that there is another possible explanation. Again, not for the purposes of telling you that your religion is wrong, but for the purpose of defending mine.

=====================


=====================

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.

Tripped up implies that these were men intentionally making up stories. You are reducing the Christian faith to fables.

As I stated, this can easily be reconciled if Mary was a blood decendant of David. Yes, I know you don't accept it because Jewish tradition doesn't recognize a female lineage as valid, but whether or not Jews accept a female as a valid bloodline is irrelevant to me. I'm not attempting to convince you to believe this. It is plain that you won't. I am simply pointing out that there is another plausible interpretation other than the one you present, vis-à-vis, the bloodline of Mary. And if there is the possibility of another interpretation, then this reduces your claims from the status of dogma into the realm of opinion. And if opinion, then you must at least entertain the notion that Christians arent the "silly" little gullible believers in Greek mythology that we are made out to be in this thread. Convincing you that I am right isn't my goal. My goal is to answer for my faith, not convince you to convert to it.

=====================


=====================

Like I keep saying; Christians may believe anything they like, with no argument from me; 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.

Peace to you, but keep your hands off my religion and mind your own. I don't tell you what to believe, or what you should believe, or what you might consider; kindly extend the same courtesy to me.

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.

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.

Actually, I DO get a vote, because my faith hinges upon the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible was directly inspired by God; yes, my God, our God (YHWH, El Shaddai, Elohim) and it is as much my scripture as it is yours. My hands aren't on your religion, and I'm sorry of you feel threatened because Christians read God's Word differently than you do. I can't speak for other Christians here, but where I'm coming from in defending my faith is not to impose it on you, but rather to give an answer for why I believe what I believe. Obviously, if a Christian claims a certain interpretation of scripture, and a Jew sees it differently, it's bound to raise some hackles. That's the nature of the game. But in defending my faith, it's not a direct attack on you. The reason that it is not a direct attack is that I am not saying this to trounce on your beliefs, but rather to defend mine.

=====================


=====================

"" Joachim (whose name means Yahweh prepares), was the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.). Tradition nevertheless, grounded on very old testimonies, very early hailed Saints Joachim and Anne as the father and mother of the Mother of God. True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions. It should be borne in mind, however, that the apocryphal character of these writings, that is to say, their rejection from the canon, and their ungenuineness do not imply that no heed whatever should be taken of some of their assertions; side by side, indeed, with unwarranted and legendary facts, they contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions or documents; and difficult though it is to distinguish in them the wheat from the tares, it would be unwise and uncritical indiscriminately to reject the whole.""
From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We have 4 books of apocryphal literature that say "Joachim" was Mary's father. However unreliable this literature may be, it suggests [Damned if anyone knows for sure] that Joachim was Mary's father. So I wouldn't put much faith in Eli since there is absolutely no evidence that the genealogy in Luke's gospel is that of Mary.

As I said earlier, apocryphal literature has no bearing on Christian doctrine, and no true Christian doctrine is derived solely therein.

So then I ask, who was Eli? I'm asking you to make believe, for a moment, that the New Testament is accurate and not just a nice collection of fairy tales, hyperbole, metaphors and parables. Put yourself in a Christian's shoes for a moment. We believe (I should qualify this. "We," meaning fundamentalist Protestant Christians who believe that the entire Bible is the direct Word of God, and is to be taken literally except where it is obvious contextually that it is either metaphorical or parabolic) that every word is important, and Luke mentions Eli. So, since there are only two possible "fathers" in Joseph's life, his father and his father-in-law, and it is already established that Jacob is Joseph's real father, then who is Eli? Bear in mind that to a Christian, the scripture is inerrant, so Eli isn't a fabrication, nor is his mention a mistake. Eli by process of elimination, simply has to be Mary's father.

In any case the genealogy in Luke's gospel is flawed. It has the Davidic line coming through David's son Nathan, when the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Davidic line of the Messiah would come through Solomon. [2Sam 7:12-16, 1Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:6-7]
So Luke's genealogy is useless no matter whose genealogy it is.

The passages you cited, IMO, have a duality in mind. They speak temporally of Solomon's reign, and eschatologically of the Messiah's reign, and in this interpretation, it doesn't require the Messiah to come through Solomon, but rather, in one of the scriptures you cited, "(1 Chr 17:11 KJV) And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.", it says it could be any of his sons.

Mary's bloodline comes through Nathan, son of David, thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the Messiah.
=====================

=====================

Just out of curiosity, to the Jews here; In your viewpoint, who was Jesus' father?


1) You can't say it is Ruach HaKodesh, that's for sure, or you'll be admitting Jesus' divinity.

2) You can't say it was Joseph, or you will be conceding that Jesus qualifies for one of the requirements of the Messiah.

3) Are you willing to reduce Mary to an aldutress?

4) Or will you have to default to the same old, "the New Testament is hogwash, so believe what you wish" copout and not answer the question?

[cnorman18]

I just find it interesting when you are give a list of criteria and you only address one by using a dubious source.

Now how about those examples, and addressing my own arguments?

This is the one I chose to address because I felt I was presenting a plausible alternative that hadn't been raised. Although I do have answers for the questions presented, I didn't enter the conversation to address every question, because my time is very limited these last few weeks, and when I do have the time, I'm so tired I can barely see straight, as is the case at the moment.

So you’re declining to answer several arguments that have been posted here on account of your fatigue and lack of time -- but still have the time and energy for this very long post. One wonders why you chose THIS particular argument to address and not the others; but I draw no conclusions.

When you DO have time and energy to address the other points made here, do let us know.

Please let me know if I misunderstand the forum rules, but I am under the impression that it is acceptible to enter a thread to address selected statements within that thread that haven't been answered, without having to tackle every other question posited within that thread.

That is indeed within the rules, but then it is also within the rules for other members to speculate about your reasoning and your credibility on that basis.

Can you give a few examples? If you "keep coming across" this, you ought to be able to give more than one. How about some links or quotes?

I could swear that I had seen this stated multiple times, but I can't seem to find the examples, except for in this thread, so my apologies.

Thank you. I might speculate, for instance, that by choosing to refute an argument that has NEVER been made, as opposed to several that HAVE, you are arguing to suit your own agenda and not to actually enter into the debate as it is.

I do, however, wish to address a couple of other things:

Matthew 21:1-11 has Jesus riding on both a donkey and a colt, indicating his misunderstanding of the prophecy.

My personal favorite is the laughable passage in Matthew that has Jesus riding on a donkey and her colt at the same time, which is pretty hard to do anyway

Matthew 21:7 ESV They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

Matthew 21:7 KJV And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew 21:7 NASB and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.

Them. He sat on the cloaks. It is disingenuous for you to say emphatically that the text says that Jesus sat on both the donkey and the colt simultaneously, when it could just as easily be rendered as saying that he sat on the cloaks, i.e; them, as in pural. It seems as though, in this case, you immediately default to the interpretation that bests suits your agenda, which is to discredit the New Testament, even if the simplest and most obvious rendering of that text does not conflict with the rest of the New Testament.

You are attributing to me a desire to "discredit the New Testament." I have no interest in that whatever. Since the New Testament is of no importance to me at all, I have no "agenda." I'm only trying to understand the text as it is written.

Since the passage in Matthew rather makes a point of mentioning both the ass and her colt, and since Matthew also makes a point of quoting a passage in Zechariah which mentions both an ass and her colt, the most obvious interpretation is the one given. Since that interpretation is also supported by at least one prominent and highly-regarded Protestant study Bible (the Oxford Annotated, NT, p. 39), I think I’ll stand by it rather than ignoring the repeated emphasis in the text itself.

Claiming that your own agenda-driven interpretation “does not conflict� with the rest of the NT and is “the simplest and most obvious,� when it clearly isn’t, rather makes a mockery of your claim of sola scriptura below as well; but we’ll get to that.

I think the details of theology are trivia, and it's my opinion that the Christian belief that elevates doctrinal correctness to the highest priority is pretty dumb too

Without correct doctrine there is no basis for belief; it's anything goes. I have no wish to devote my life to a belief system that is subjective, nor do I wish to place my trust in tradition. True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

Well, I figured we’d get to “True Christianity� sooner or later. Your approach is also called “dogmatism.�

I’m no longer a Christian, but I would point out that my Bible didn’t say “Ye shall know them by their correct doctrine.�

Remember, too, that in Jewish belief, what you BELIEVE doesn't matter. What you DO does.

Hence your willingness to believe in a religion that elevates tradition to a level of authority near that of scripture. This is sounding more and more like Catholicism with every passing moment. I, in stark contrast, echo the cry of the reformers: sola scriptura.

And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important.

Not according to Paul -- or to the Reformers, either. Their cry was not only sola scriptura, but also included sola fide -- “by faith alone.�

Not to mention sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria -- “by grace alone,� “by Christ alone,� and “glory to God alone.�

The claim of sola scriptura, as you are presenting it here, apparently denies that your own tradition is authoritative; but since your tradition is the source of your interpretation of scriptura, that is rather clearly not the case. The Bible does not interpret itself; without some tradition of scholarship or interpretation, it is largely unintelligible.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Catholics are at least honest about their sources of authority; they openly acknowledge that there are two, both Scripture and Holy Mother Church. Protestants have traditions of their own -- rather obviously, since there are many more than one denomination and thus many more than one interpretation of Scripture -- but they all claim to have only Scripture as their guide, and they all claim that their OWN unacknowledged traditions are the ONLY proper interpretations of sola scriptura. That's pretty clearly nonsense.

In any case, you claim below that you have no intention of telling me that my religion is wrong, while you are rather clearly saying precisely that -- indeed, equating it with a tradition for which you evidently have a good deal of disdain, Catholicism, and even insisting that you do “have a vote� on the correctness of Jewish beliefs.

Your position is rather clearly that your own religion -- i.e.. your own denomination’s interpretation of Scripture -- is correct and all others are “obviously� wrong. I have rather explicitly said that that is not my own approach; I have repeatedly said that we Jews claim only to know how God has spoken to US, and if He has chosen to speak to other peoples in some other way, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He has not. My only concern is that others not presume to redefine or dictate the proper beliefs of Jews, and by claiming that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, you are doing exactly that -- which you do not have the right to do.

I further agree that "it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin."

Taught? Perhaps not, if by that you mean by Rabbinic tradition, to which I lend little credence. But in Isaiah 7:14, of which I am sure you are acutely aware, it says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Of course the TANAKH bends it it's own way, and has her being called a young woman, "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."


Virgin here (or young woman - TANAKH), (Hebrew - ha-almah), means young woman, unmarried (marriagable)woman, maiden or virgin, so it doesn't preclude the possiblilty that "virgin" is a correct rendering of the word. Yes, I know this speaks temporally of Maher Shalal Chash Baz, but eschatologically, I believe it speaks of the Messiah. Since Isaiah's wife was not a virgin, if virgin is to be rendered as the interpretation here, then it must be a dual prophecy, and its ultimate fulfillment cannot have been in Maher Shalal Chash Baz. Not to mention that Maher Shalal Chash Baz was not called Immanuel. Since Immanuel means, "God with us," this, from a Christian perspective, perfectly fits Christ.

Isaiah's wife in Chapter 8 is referred to as a prophetess because she bore a son of a prophesy, or perhaps because she was he wife of a prophet, and she was not a virgin because she had already bore Isaiah children previously. I'm not aware of any passage that says she was a young woman either. So it remains that there must be another ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy; the Messiah.

Yes, I am aware that Jewish scholars do not even recognize this passage as Messianic, but we do. I am also aware of the Jewish arguements as to why this cannot be rendered as "virgin." You may even have another interpretation of this, but that's not the point. The point is, once again, that I have presented a plausible alternative. I do not wish, nor do I expect you to agree with it, I just want you to see that there is another possible explanation. Again, not for the purposes of telling you that your religion is wrong, but for the purpose of defending mine.

You'll notice I'm not entering into the debate over the meaning of almah. I don't much care what Christians think on the subject; their understanding is not relevant to my own belief. The idea of a virgin birth appears nowhere else at all in Scripture, nor in any Jewish teaching or tradition before Jesus; and, of course, according to the Jewish reading, it doesn't appear in Isaiah 7 either. The issue is simply irrelevant to Jews and not worth arguing about.

But I will address this: If you are truly only presenting an alternative view, I have no problem with that -- but it does appear that you are arguing that your own interpretation is correct and all others wrong.

As I’ve said elsewhere multiple times, including on this very thread, that for all I know Jesus was the “Messiah� for Gentiles, and that your interpretation is perfectly valid for Christians, and that I have no warrant to say that it will not be honored and validated by God. You seem to be granting to Jews the privilege of believing the wrong things and of going to Hell as a result of their error.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t agree that I am attacking your religion, or that you are NOT attacking my own.

More to the point, you are once again imposing your own tradition of interpretation on the Bible, which you clearly hold is authoritative in determining the meaning of the Bible itself; and that gives the lie to your claim of sola scriptura. Your ultimate authority is your OWN tradition, just as mine is; the only difference being that I admit that, and you deny it.

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.

Tripped up implies that these were men intentionally making up stories. You are reducing the Christian faith to fables.

As I stated, this can easily be reconciled if Mary was a blood decendant of David. Yes, I know you don't accept it because Jewish tradition doesn't recognize a female lineage as valid, but whether or not Jews accept a female as a valid bloodline is irrelevant to me. I'm not attempting to convince you to believe this. It is plain that you won't. I am simply pointing out that there is another plausible interpretation other than the one you present, vis-à-vis, the bloodline of Mary. And if there is the possibility of another interpretation, then this reduces your claims from the status of dogma into the realm of opinion. And if opinion, then you must at least entertain the notion that Christians arent the "silly" little gullible believers in Greek mythology that we are made out to be in this thread. Convincing you that I am right isn't my goal. My goal is to answer for my faith, not convince you to convert to it.

Once again; if that were true, you wouldn’t be arguing that the Jewish interpretation is simply wrong. If your own interpretation does not constitute “dogma,� i.e., doctrine that is indubitably correct and not to be questioned, please be explicit about saying that the Jewish interpretation might, at least, be just as valid as your own.

Further; my contention is not that following Greek ideas is in itself “silly,� but that denying that Greek religion is the source of these ideas is. Virgin birth, death and resurrection of a Divine savior, and so on are not ideas to be found anywhere in Jewish tradition, and can only be found in the Bible by imposing an interpretation that is foreign to the text. That interpretation may very well be correct, or at least will be honored and validated by God; but it is not a Jewish interpretation, and never was. I say, and intend to say, no more than that; and if your position is truly what you explicitly claim here, I fail to see what your objection might be to that. See below, in my words which you yourself have taken the trouble to quote.

Like I keep saying; Christians may believe anything they like, with no argument from me; 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.

Peace to you, but keep your hands off my religion and mind your own. I don't tell you what to believe, or what you should believe, or what you might consider; kindly extend the same courtesy to me.

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.

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.

Actually, I DO get a vote, because my faith hinges upon the Hebrew Scriptures.

Correction; your faith hinges on your interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It clearly does NOT depend upon the Jewish interpretation of them. Period, full stop.

The Bible was directly inspired by God; yes, my God, our God (YHWH, El Shaddai, Elohim) and it is as much my scripture as it is yours.

That is quite true, at least in my own personal opinion; I have no objection to your adopting our literary tradition and consulting it and interpreting it as YOU choose. But you don’t get to tell us how WE should read it.

My hands aren't on your religion, and I'm sorry of you feel threatened because Christians read God's Word differently than you do.

That’s called “mindreading,� and I don’t think you have that ability. Jews aren’t “threatened� by Christianity at all; we’ve done very well without Jesus for 2,000 years, and that’s not about to change. On the contrary; it appears that you don’t want to allow that the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible might be valid, not even for Jews. Graciously granting us the right to be egregiously wrong and damned to Hell is granting nothing at all.

I can't speak for other Christians here, but where I'm coming from in defending my faith is not to impose it on you, but rather to give an answer for why I believe what I believe. Obviously, if a Christian claims a certain interpretation of scripture, and a Jew sees it differently, it's bound to raise some hackles. That's the nature of the game. But in defending my faith, it's not a direct attack on you. The reason that it is not a direct attack is that I am not saying this to trounce on your beliefs, but rather to defend mine.

My hackles are only raised when you claim that you “have a vote� in determining how WE should read the book that we produced and whether or not our way of reading it -- and thus the things we believe -- are correct for us.

If that isn’t your intention, please be explicit about that. Do you believe that Jews are flatly wrong and are doomed to Hell without Jesus as our individual personal Savior? Or do you admit that the Old Covenant might, at least, still be in effect and that Jews might be remaining faithful to God, as opposed to rebellious, obstinate, and condemned?

Spit it out. Don’t pretend to be nonjudgmental and liberal and tolerant of other points of view if you aren’t.

"" Joachim (whose name means Yahweh prepares), was the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.). Tradition nevertheless, grounded on very old testimonies, very early hailed Saints Joachim and Anne as the father and mother of the Mother of God. True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions. It should be borne in mind, however, that the apocryphal character of these writings, that is to say, their rejection from the canon, and their ungenuineness do not imply that no heed whatever should be taken of some of their assertions; side by side, indeed, with unwarranted and legendary facts, they contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions or documents; and difficult though it is to distinguish in them the wheat from the tares, it would be unwise and uncritical indiscriminately to reject the whole.""
From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We have 4 books of apocryphal literature that say "Joachim" was Mary's father. However unreliable this literature may be, it suggests [Damned if anyone knows for sure] that Joachim was Mary's father. So I wouldn't put much faith in Eli since there is absolutely no evidence that the genealogy in Luke's gospel is that of Mary.

As I said earlier, apocryphal literature has no bearing on Christian doctrine, and no true Christian doctrine is derived solely therein.

So then I ask, who was Eli? I'm asking you to make believe, for a moment, that the New Testament is accurate and not just a nice collection of fairy tales, hyperbole, metaphors and parables. Put yourself in a Christian's shoes for a moment. We believe (I should qualify this. "We," meaning fundamentalist Protestant Christians who believe that the entire Bible is the direct Word of God, and is to be taken literally except where it is obvious contextually that it is either metaphorical or parabolic) that every word is important, and Luke mentions Eli. So, since there are only two possible "fathers" in Joseph's life, his father and his father-in-law, and it is already established that Jacob is Joseph's real father, then who is Eli? Bear in mind that to a Christian, the scripture is inerrant, so Eli isn't a fabrication, nor is his mention a mistake. Eli by process of elimination, simply has to be Mary's father.

In any case the genealogy in Luke's gospel is flawed. It has the Davidic line coming through David's son Nathan, when the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Davidic line of the Messiah would come through Solomon. [2Sam 7:12-16, 1Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:6-7]
So Luke's genealogy is useless no matter whose genealogy it is.

The passages you cited, IMO, have a duality in mind. They speak temporally of Solomon's reign, and eschatologically of the Messiah's reign, and in this interpretation, it doesn't require the Messiah to come through Solomon, but rather, in one of the scriptures you cited, "(1 Chr 17:11 KJV) And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.", it says it could be any of his sons.

Mary's bloodline comes through Nathan, son of David, thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the Messiah.

You’ll notice, again, that I’m not countering your arguments concerning the correctness of the New Testament here, for the most part. Though I’m rather well-read on the subject and have had Christian seminary training, I’m no longer interested in the NT, do not consider it authoritative, and do not think it has any bearing at all or relevance to Jewish beliefs or teachings.

Just out of curiosity, to the Jews here; In your viewpoint, who was Jesus' father?

1) You can't say it is Ruach HaKodesh, that's for sure, or you'll be admitting Jesus' divinity.

2) You can't say it was Joseph, or you will be conceding that Jesus qualifies for one of the requirements of the Messiah.

3) Are you willing to reduce Mary to an aldutress?

Just out of politeness, I give you my answer, and I think I can speak for most, if not all, Jews on these questions:

We don’t care. The question is of no more importance to us that the question of who the father of Confucius was.

Mary might very well have been an adultress; she might have been a faithful wife of Joseph, and the Virgin Birth story a later redaction of a legend or myth from an earlier religious tradition (cf. Greek myths of virgin birth); or Mary herself might have been a purely fictional creation of a later generation. I have no particular problem with any of those alternatives, and I don't have any reason to prefer any of them or to care. I certainly don't have any reason to believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God. Once again, that is not a Jewish belief, never has been, and is in fact prohibited by Jewish monotheism. Please don't trouble yourself to argue with that; the question was settled two thousand years ago, as far as Jews are concerned. You may believe as you like, and as I've said, for all I know you may be right in some way or other; but that is not a Jewish belief and cannot be, and no one but we Jews get to make that determination.

4) Or will you have to default to the same old, "the New Testament is hogwash, so believe what you wish" copout and not answer the question?

Is there some reason why I, or any Jew, is obligated to answer the question? I don’t say that “the New Testament is hogwash,� and never have; what I HAVE said is that it isn’t our book.

Many Christians seem to have this peculiar idea that we Jews are consumed, perhaps secretly, with the guilty knowledge that we have rejected our true Messiah, or are at least haunted by that suspicion, and spend a lot of time worrying and wondering and thinking about it. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but Jesus comes up in Jewish discussions of our faith about as often as the Buddha. Jesus doesn’t matter to us. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that.

It seems to be an undeniable fact that Jewish beliefs are very important to Christians, for the very good reason that the larger part of the Christian Bible consists of the Jewish Scriptures; but that isn’t a Jewish problem. Christianity is of no importance whatever to us or to our understanding of our own religion, except insofar as the ways we are and have been treated by Christians. That has rarely, over the last two millenia, been a positive experience.

Christians can resolve their difficulty -- that their own faith is, at least in part and by their own admission, dependent upon Judaism -- in any way they wish, except by proclaiming what Jews ought to believe and teach. As I said, it’s not our problem. We’re doing fine without any reference whatever to Jesus, or to Mary, or to the NT. Those are the facts, like them or not; and no one -- repeat, NO ONE -- has the right to tell us that we should think differently.

[McCulloch]

True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

Perhaps it begins there, but if the message of Jesus and James are to be believed, it does not end there.

So then I ask, who was Eli? [...] We ... who believe that the entire Bible is the direct Word of God, ... that every word is important, and Luke mentions Eli. So, since there are only two possible "fathers" in Joseph's life, his father and his father-in-law, and it is already established that Jacob is Joseph's real father, then who is Eli? Bear in mind that to a Christian, the scripture is inerrant, so Eli isn't a fabrication, nor is his mention a mistake. Eli by process of elimination, simply has to be Mary's father.

Does it not seem odd to you that the inspired writer would say father when he meant father-in-law? Other passages in the New Testament do properly use the -in-law language, so it is not a foreign concept in koine Greek.

Just out of curiosity, to the Jews here; In your viewpoint, who was Jesus' father?


1) You can't say it is Ruach HaKodesh, that's for sure, or you'll be admitting Jesus' divinity.

2) You can't say it was Joseph, or you will be conceding that Jesus qualifies for one of the requirements of the Messiah.

Why not? I am not Jewish, but to admit that Jesus qualified for one requirement of Messiah is not an admission that he was messiah.

3) Are you willing to reduce Mary to an adulteress?

It seems likely to me. The traditional Christian telling of the story reduced Joseph to a cuckold and God to a sinner. Aren't there rules against getting someone else's wife pregnant. Or is God one of those do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do kind of guys.

Anyway, at this late date, I really don't think that the question can be accurately answered.

[fewwillfindit]

So you’re declining to answer several arguments that have been posted here on account of your fatigue and lack of time --but still have the time and energy for this very long post. One wonders why you chose THIS particular argument to address and not the others; but I draw no conclusions. When you DO have time and energy to address the other points made here, do let us know.

Let me explain something here. I work 10 to 14 hour shifts, 6 to 7 days a week, with exactly 10 hours off between shifts. If I want to sleep for 8 hours, this leaves me 1 hour to eat dinner and unwind, and 1 hour to wake up and try to become coherent enough to begin functioning. I do this day after day after day, ad nauseum. I haven't had a day off in 2 weeks.

Last night, I spent 5.5 hours formulating the above post so as not to leave the questions that have already been asked of me hanging any longer. Because of this, I slept a miserable 3.5 hours, which is making today anything but fun. I am writing this reply on my Motorola Droid2 while trying to steer with one knee in heavy traffic.

Now that I've shared more of my personal life than I care to share in a public forum, I hope that you have a clearer understanding of my situation.

That is indeed within the rules, but then it is also within the rules for other members to speculate about your reasoning and your credibility on that basis.

Lol, I didnt realize that I was auditioning here. It would be simply amazing to me if anyone even entertained the idea of questioning my credibility in light of my membership infancy and my miniscule post history. Give it time, people. Reserve your judgement for a later date.

I might speculate, for instance, that by choosing to refute an argument that has NEVER been made, as opposed to several that HAVE, you are arguing to suit your own agenda and not to actually enter into the debate as it is.

Then your speculation would not be based in fact, since there have been plenty of arguements in this thread that have stated that the Hebrew scriptures do not support Jesus as the Messiah and being prophesied of therein. My arguement speaks directly to this. That is entering squarely into the debate. You are wandering into minutia here.

I will try to respond to the rest of your latest response tonight or tomorrow.

[cnorman18]

So you’re declining to answer several arguments that have been posted here on account of your fatigue and lack of time --but still have the time and energy for this very long post. One wonders why you chose THIS particular argument to address and not the others; but I draw no conclusions. When you DO have time and energy to address the other points made here, do let us know.

Let me explain something here. I work 10 to 14 hour shifts, 6 to 7 days a week, with exactly 10 hours off between shifts. If I want to sleep for 8 hours, this leaves me 1 hour to eat dinner and unwind, and 1 hour to wake up and try to become coherent enough to begin functioning. I do this day after day after day, ad nauseum. I haven't had a day off in 2 weeks.

Last night, I spent 5.5 hours formulating the above post so as not to leave the questions that have already been asked of me hanging any longer. Because of this, I slept a miserable 3.5 hours, which is making today anything but fun. I am writing this reply on my Motorola Droid2 while trying to steer with one knee in heavy traffic.

Now that I've shared more of my personal life than I care to share in a public forum, I hope that you have a clearer understanding of my situation.

That is indeed within the rules, but then it is also within the rules for other members to speculate about your reasoning and your credibility on that basis.

Lol, I didnt realize that I was auditioning here. It would be simply amazing to me if anyone even entertained the idea of questioning my credibility in light of my membership infancy and my miniscule post history. Give it time, people. Reserve your judgement for a later date.

I might speculate, for instance, that by choosing to refute an argument that has NEVER been made, as opposed to several that HAVE, you are arguing to suit your own agenda and not to actually enter into the debate as it is.

Then your speculation would not be based in fact, since there have been plenty of arguements in this thread that have stated that the Hebrew scriptures do not support Jesus as the Messiah and being prophesied of therein. My arguement speaks directly to this. That is entering squarely into the debate. You are wandering into minutia here.

I will try to respond to the rest of your latest response tonight or tomorrow.

I apologize for my snide remarks earlier. No hurry on replying -- and listen, it's not important enough to text in traffic, in any case. There are a lot of things worth dying for, but an Internet debate with a stranger isn't one of them. Be careful, man.

[fewwillfindit]

I do, however, wish to address a couple of other things:

Matthew 21:1-11 has Jesus riding on both a donkey and a colt, indicating his misunderstanding of the prophecy.

My personal favorite is the laughable passage in Matthew that has Jesus riding on a donkey and her colt at the same time, which is pretty hard to do anyway

Matthew 21:7 ESV They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

Matthew 21:7 KJV And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew 21:7 NASB and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.

Them. He sat on the cloaks. It is disingenuous for you to say emphatically that the text says that Jesus sat on both the donkey and the colt simultaneously, when it could just as easily be rendered as saying that he sat on the cloaks, i.e; them, as in plural. It seems as though, in this case, you immediately default to the interpretation that bests suits your agenda, which is to discredit the New Testament, even if the simplest and most obvious rendering of that text does not conflict with the rest of the New Testament.

You are attributing to me a desire to "discredit the New Testament." I have no interest in that whatever. Since the New Testament is of no importance to me at all, I have no "agenda." I'm only trying to understand the text as it is written.

Since the passage in Matthew rather makes a point of mentioning both the ass and her colt, and since Matthew also makes a point of quoting a passage in Zechariah which mentions both an ass and her colt, the most obvious interpretation is the one given. Since that interpretation is also supported by at least one prominent and highly-regarded Protestant study Bible (the Oxford Annotated, NT, p. 39), I think I’ll stand by it rather than ignoring the repeated emphasis in the text itself.

Claiming that your own agenda-driven interpretation “does not conflict� with the rest of the NT and is “the simplest and most obvious,� when it clearly isn’t, rather makes a mockery of your claim of sola scriptura below as well; but we’ll get to that.

Well, we certainly don't see eye to on this. I think it is clear that he sat on the coats, not two animals at one time. As for the alleged conflict, it is not a conflict for the other Gospel writers to say that Jesus rode on one animal, while Matthew has Him also riding on one animal, but also happens to mention the presence of another animal. Perhaps the colt was frightened, and they brought its mother along to calm it down. Who knows? If I were to tell a friend that I went to the movies yesterday, then I told another friend that I went shopping and I went to the movies, I would have been exactly accurate in both of my accounts of the story. Matthew's account of the donkey is not in conflict with the rest of the Gospel writers. Anyone who automatically defaults to the ridiculous is looking hard for something that's not there.

I think the details of theology are trivia, and it's my opinion that the Christian belief that elevates doctrinal correctness to the highest priority is pretty dumb too

Without correct doctrine there is no basis for belief; it's anything goes. I have no wish to devote my life to a belief system that is subjective, nor do I wish to place my trust in tradition. True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

Well, I figured we’d get to “True Christianity� sooner or later. Your approach is also called “dogmatism.�

Dogmatism

1: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

Gee...thanks.

I’m no longer a Christian, but I would point out that my Bible didn’t say “Ye shall know them by their correct doctrine.�

Of course you shall know them by their fruits. But cultists who fancy themselves as Christians but aren't can have good fruit as well; just look at the Mormons. Jesus didn't say the only way to tell if someone is a believer is to look at their fruits. Obviously, it is one of the many ways. That is a very nitpicky thing for you to say. Without correct doctrine, there is no Christianity. Doctrine defines Christianity. Doctrine is one of the tools we as Christians have to determine who is and who isn't a false teacher, which churches are orthodox in their teachings and which ones to steer clear of, etc.

Remember, too, that in Jewish belief, what you BELIEVE doesn't matter. What you DO does.

Hence your willingness to believe in a religion that elevates tradition to a level of authority near that of scripture. This is sounding more and more like Catholicism with every passing moment. I, in stark contrast, echo the cry of the reformers: sola scriptura.

And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important.

Not according to Paul -- or to the Reformers, either. Their cry was not only sola scriptura, but also included sola fide -- “by faith alone.�

Not to mention sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria -- “by grace alone,� “by Christ alone,� and “glory to God alone.�

The claim of sola scriptura, as you are presenting it here, apparently denies that your own tradition is authoritative; but since your tradition is the source of your interpretation of scriptura, that is rather clearly not the case. The Bible does not interpret itself; without some tradition of scholarship or interpretation, it is largely unintelligible.

Thank you, but I am well aware of the solas, and I affirm them. Are you really claiming that a rather large list of scriptures can't be produced that show that the New Testament places equal weight on faith and works? James balances Paul perfectly, and Paul affirms what James says.

Perhaps you are conflating works as the expected fruit of a Christian's life and works meant to attempt to earn one's salvation. Those are two completely different subjects. I never said that the New Testament teaches that salvation is earned via works. I said, "And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important."

You are also putting words in my mouth in saying that I espouse that tradition is the source of my interpretation. Absolutely not. My interpretation, as you put it, is derived from the scriptures. If, in the Christian tradition, there are historical extrabiblical sources that agree with a literal rendering of the scripture, then it is not following tradition to affirm what these historical sources say, rather it is agreeing with them. For instance, one cannot reject the Synod of Dort or the Westminster Confession if he finds them to be true, simply because he rejects the notion of being informed by tradition. That would be ridiculous.

It is not elevating tradition to the level of scriptural authority if I use words that prominent believers in times past have used, or even coined, for that matter.

I think a definition of what I mean by tradition is in order, so that we don't continue to argue over a misunderstanding of what I am saying. What I take issue with is when professing believers esteem tradition that cannot be backed up with scripture. Tradition is fine and dandy. But tradition from which doctrine is derived, and either cannot be backed up by the Bible, or even worse, contradicts the Bible, and is then elevated to an equal standing with scripture, is a travesty. That is heresy, the result of which is nothing more than a Godless, man-made religion.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Catholics are at least honest about their sources of authority; they openly acknowledge that there are two, both Scripture and Holy Mother Church. Protestants have traditions of their own -- rather obviously, since there are many more than one denomination and thus many more than one interpretation of Scripture -- but they all claim to have only Scripture as their guide, and they all claim that their OWN unacknowledged traditions are the ONLY proper interpretations of sola scriptura. That's pretty clearly nonsense.

We DO have only scripture as our source of final authority. It isn't nonsensical if you understand the differences between essential and non-essential doctrine. All orthodox Protestants affirm the essentials, and are in full agreement with them. Among Protestants, there are tangential doctrines which are non-salvific in nature upon which we can agree to disagree while not affecting our status as fellow believers.

In any case, you claim below that you have no intention of telling me that my religion is wrong, while you are rather clearly saying precisely that -- indeed, equating it with a tradition for which you evidently have a good deal of disdain, Catholicism, and even insisting that you do “have a vote� on the correctness of Jewish beliefs.

Your position is rather clearly that your own religion -- i.e.. your own denomination’s interpretation of Scripture -- is correct and all others are “obviously� wrong.

I am non-denominational. Perhaps "interdenominational" would be more accurate, as I am not opposed to denominations that exist within the pale of Protestant orthodoxy. You are correct in that it is my firm belief that anyone who doesn't believe the essentials of the Christian faith is wrong. And, as you say; period. Full stop. (Hey, that's pretty cool. I think I'll use that one again )

I have rather explicitly said that that is not my own approach; I have repeatedly said that we Jews claim only to know how God has spoken to US, and if He has chosen to speak to other peoples in some other way, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He has not. My only concern is that others not presume to redefine or dictate the proper beliefs of Jews, and by claiming that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, you are doing exactly that -- which you do not have the right to do.

Well, then how do you propose that I articulate my belief in Jesus, Who is my Messiah, and whom the New Testament says was foretold in the Law, the Writings and the Prophets? If, for the sake of peace and harmony, I tell you that Jesus was not foretold in the Old Testament, then I do not believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and I have given my life to a fabrication.

Look, the bottom line is that Christianity, in it's true and accurate form, steps on toes. It HAS to, or it's not Christianity. Christianity says that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no man can come to the Father (YHWH, G-d, et al) but by Him. If that's not an alienating, exclusivist, closed-minded bigoted statement, then I've never heard one. If you are asking me to water down the Word of God until it is no longer offensive, I would to have trim out the lion's share of the New Testament. Peter, quoting Isaiah, said that Jesus is a rock of offense, a stone and a stumbling block to unbelievers.

Raw, undiluted Christianity is about as popular as a children's party clown with Tourette syndrome. It rarely goes over well.

I feel like a broken record here, but I am not saying these things for the sake of offending, I am simply defending Christianity. Not watered down, feel-good, Joel Osteen-ish, cotton candy, boxed and ready to serve to the masses and God forbid if someone gets their feelings hurt in the process Christianity; but Biblical Christianity.

I further agree that "it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin."

Taught? Perhaps not, if by that you mean by Rabbinic tradition, to which I lend little credence. But in Isaiah 7:14, of which I am sure you are acutely aware, it says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Of course the TANAKH bends it it's own way, and has her being called a young woman, "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."


Virgin here (or young woman - TANAKH), (Hebrew - ha-almah), means young woman, unmarried (marriagable)woman, maiden or virgin, so it doesn't preclude the possiblilty that "virgin" is a correct rendering of the word. Yes, I know this speaks temporally of Maher Shalal Chash Baz, but eschatologically, I believe it speaks of the Messiah. Since Isaiah's wife was not a virgin, if virgin is to be rendered as the interpretation here, then it must be a dual prophecy, and its ultimate fulfillment cannot have been in Maher Shalal Chash Baz. Not to mention that Maher Shalal Chash Baz was not called Immanuel. Since Immanuel means, "God with us," this, from a Christian perspective, perfectly fits Christ.

Isaiah's wife in Chapter 8 is referred to as a prophetess because she bore a son of a prophesy, or perhaps because she was he wife of a prophet, and she was not a virgin because she had already bore Isaiah children previously. I'm not aware of any passage that says she was a young woman either. So it remains that there must be another ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy; the Messiah.

Yes, I am aware that Jewish scholars do not even recognize this passage as Messianic, but we do. I am also aware of the Jewish arguments as to why this cannot be rendered as "virgin." You may even have another interpretation of this, but that's not the point. The point is, once again, that I have presented a plausible alternative. I do not wish, nor do I expect you to agree with it, I just want you to see that there is another possible explanation. Again, not for the purposes of telling you that your religion is wrong, but for the purpose of defending mine.

You'll notice I'm not entering into the debate over the meaning of almah. I don't much care what Christians think on the subject; their understanding is not relevant to my own belief. The idea of a virgin birth appears nowhere else at all in Scripture, nor in any Jewish teaching or tradition before Jesus; and, of course, according to the Jewish reading, it doesn't appear in Isaiah 7 either. The issue is simply irrelevant to Jews and not worth arguing about.

But I will address this: If you are truly only presenting an alternative view, I have no problem with that -- but it does appear that you are arguing that your own interpretation is correct and all others wrong.

In this case, I am not asserting that mine is the only correct interpretation. I concede that yours is just as plausible. I am simply offering it as an apologetic for Matthew's virgin reference.

As I’ve said elsewhere multiple times, including on this very thread, that for all I know Jesus was the “Messiah� for Gentiles, and that your interpretation is perfectly valid for Christians, and that I have no warrant to say that it will not be honored and validated by God. You seem to be granting to Jews the privilege of believing the wrong things and of going to Hell as a result of their error.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t agree that I am attacking your religion, or that you are NOT attacking my own.

More to the point, you are once again imposing your own tradition of interpretation on the Bible, which you clearly hold is authoritative in determining the meaning of the Bible itself; and that gives the lie to your claim of sola scriptura. Your ultimate authority is your OWN tradition, just as mine is; the only difference being that I admit that, and you deny it.

Answered above. (tradition)

As for Jews going to hell, I address this a little further down.

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.

Tripped up implies that these were men intentionally making up stories. You are reducing the Christian faith to fables.

As I stated, this can easily be reconciled if Mary was a blood descendant of David. Yes, I know you don't accept it because Jewish tradition doesn't recognize a female lineage as valid, but whether or not Jews accept a female as a valid bloodline is irrelevant to me. I'm not attempting to convince you to believe this. It is plain that you won't. I am simply pointing out that there is another plausible interpretation other than the one you present, vis-à-vis, the bloodline of Mary. And if there is the possibility of another interpretation, then this reduces your claims from the status of dogma into the realm of opinion. And if opinion, then you must at least entertain the notion that Christians arent the "silly" little gullible believers in Greek mythology that we are made out to be in this thread. Convincing you that I am right isn't my goal. My goal is to answer for my faith, not convince you to convert to it.

Once again; if that were true, you wouldn’t be arguing that the Jewish interpretation is simply wrong. If your own interpretation does not constitute “dogma,� i.e., doctrine that is indubitably correct and not to be questioned, please be explicit about saying that the Jewish interpretation might, at least, be just as valid as your own.

In this case, as in my concession above, I concede that the Jewish interpretation is plausible.

Further; my contention is not that following Greek ideas is in itself “silly,� but that denying that Greek religion is the source of these ideas is. Virgin birth, death and resurrection of a Divine savior, and so on are not ideas to be found anywhere in Jewish tradition, and can only be found in the Bible by imposing an interpretation that is foreign to the text. That interpretation may very well be correct, or at least will be honored and validated by God; but it is not a Jewish interpretation, and never was. I say, and intend to say, no more than that; and if your position is truly what you explicitly claim here, I fail to see what your objection might be to that. See below, in my words which you yourself have taken the trouble to quote.

I categorically deny that Greek religion is the source of Christianity. I do, however, fully agree that many of the Christian concepts can be found in Greek and other pagan legends which predate Christianity. Nimrod and Semaramis, Mithraism, Zeus's flood, Horus, Isis, and even Ishtar, and many more, even down to things that are not commonly known, like speaking in ecstatic tongues. In some ways, the similarities are striking, but we are not guilty by association.

I know it is tempting to dismiss Christianity as nothing more that plagiarized paganism, but I look at it this way. Satan set up his counterfeits which mimic what he knew Christianity would look like long before Jesus' arrival, so as to discredit it once it was established. It looks like it worked, because many people use this as a reason to dismiss Christianity.

Like I keep saying; Christians may believe anything they like, with no argument from me; 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.

Peace to you, but keep your hands off my religion and mind your own. I don't tell you what to believe, or what you should believe, or what you might consider; kindly extend the same courtesy to me.

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.

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.

Actually, I DO get a vote, because my faith hinges upon the Hebrew Scriptures.

Correction; your faith hinges on your interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It clearly does NOT depend upon the Jewish interpretation of them. Period, full stop.

I accept the correction.

The Bible was directly inspired by God; yes, my God, our God (YHWH, El Shaddai, Elohim) and it is as much my scripture as it is yours.

That is quite true, at least in my own personal opinion; I have no objection to your adopting our literary tradition and consulting it and interpreting it as YOU choose. But you don’t get to tell us how WE should read it.

I have no wish to tell you how to read the Judeo Christian scriptures. However, different interpretations necessitate at least someone being wrong.

Just sayin'

I think it all boils down to motive. My motive is not to condemn your religion, but rather to defend mine.

My hands aren't on your religion, and I'm sorry of you feel threatened because Christians read God's Word differently than you do.

That’s called “mindreading,� and I don’t think you have that ability. Jews aren’t “threatened� by Christianity at all; we’ve done very well without Jesus for 2,000 years, and that’s not about to change. On the contrary; it appears that you don’t want to allow that the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible might be valid, not even for Jews.

Touché. You have a point there. And for the record, I agree that the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible is valid for Jews.

Graciously granting us the right to be egregiously wrong and damned to Hell is granting nothing at all.

Well, see, this is where it gets sticky. This is going to make me a lot of enemies here, but I do not believe that Jews will go to hell because they rejected Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah...the first time around. This does not, however, apply to any other group of people on the planet but the Jews. This excludes all other religions and peoples. I believe that the New Testament is clear that the Jews are part of God's elect. I believe that soon God will call all Jews to Himself and reveal to them that Jesus is in fact, the Jewish Meshiach. They are his chosen ones, and He will keep His covenants with them, for He cannot lie, and He will not break His promises.

For all other peoples on the planet, the regular rules apply, (lol, I know that sounds corny, but oh well). If non-Christian gentiles die before accepting Christ as the Messiah, they will not be in the Kingdom of God.

I can't speak for other Christians here, but where I'm coming from in defending my faith is not to impose it on you, but rather to give an answer for why I believe what I believe. Obviously, if a Christian claims a certain interpretation of scripture, and a Jew sees it differently, it's bound to raise some hackles. That's the nature of the game. But in defending my faith, it's not a direct attack on you. The reason that it is not a direct attack is that I am not saying this to trounce on your beliefs, but rather to defend mine.

My hackles are only raised when you claim that you “have a vote� in determining how WE should read the book that we produced and whether or not our way of reading it -- and thus the things we believe -- are correct for us.

If that isn’t your intention, please be explicit about that. Do you believe that Jews are flatly wrong and are doomed to Hell without Jesus as our individual personal Savior? Or do you admit that the Old Covenant might, at least, still be in effect and that Jews might be remaining faithful to God, as opposed to rebellious, obstinate, and condemned?

Spit it out. Don’t pretend to be nonjudgmental and liberal and tolerant of other points of view if you aren’t.

I not only "might" believe, I do believe that the Old Covenant is still in effect for Jews. In effect and fully binding. The New Testament is explicitly clear on this. Again, because of this, Jews are the only ones on the planet who are exempt, for the time being, from condemnation apart from Christianity.

Nonjudgmental, liberal and tolerant. Nope. None of the three describes me in the slightest. Not when it comes to compromising God's holy Word. We are to judge rightly, we are to be intolerant of heresy, and liberal, well...if that word ever DOES apply to me, please, just shoot me now.

4) Or will you have to default to the same old, "the New Testament is hogwash, so believe what you wish" copout and not answer the question?

Is there some reason why I, or any Jew, is obligated to answer the question? I don’t say that “the New Testament is hogwash,� and never have; what I HAVE said is that it isn’t our book.

Many Christians seem to have this peculiar idea that we Jews are consumed, perhaps secretly, with the guilty knowledge that we have rejected our true Messiah, or are at least haunted by that suspicion, and spend a lot of time worrying and wondering and thinking about it. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but Jesus comes up in Jewish discussions of our faith about as often as the Buddha. Jesus doesn’t matter to us. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that.

It seems to be an undeniable fact that Jewish beliefs are very important to Christians, for the very good reason that the larger part of the Christian Bible consists of the Jewish Scriptures; but that isn’t a Jewish problem. Christianity is of no importance whatever to us or to our understanding of our own religion, except insofar as the ways we are and have been treated by Christians. That has rarely, over the last two millenia, been a positive experience.

Christians can resolve their difficulty -- that their own faith is, at least in part and by their own admission, dependent upon Judaism -- in any way they wish, except by proclaiming what Jews ought to believe and teach. As I said, it’s not our problem. We’re doing fine without any reference whatever to Jesus, or to Mary, or to the NT. Those are the facts, like them or not; and no one -- repeat, NO ONE -- has the right to tell us that we should think differently.

Just for the record, I'm not one of those Christians who think that Jews are consumed with a haunting suspicion that they may have rejected the Messiah by passing on Jesus. I've never thought that.

So you’re declining to answer several arguments that have been posted here on account of your fatigue and lack of time --but still have the time and energy for this very long post. One wonders why you chose THIS particular argument to address and not the others; but I draw no conclusions. When you DO have time and energy to address the other points made here, do let us know.

Let me explain something here. I work 10 to 14 hour shifts, 6 to 7 days a week, with exactly 10 hours off between shifts. If I want to sleep for 8 hours, this leaves me 1 hour to eat dinner and unwind, and 1 hour to wake up and try to become coherent enough to begin functioning. I do this day after day after day, ad nauseum. I haven't had a day off in 2 weeks.

Last night, I spent 5.5 hours formulating the above post so as not to leave the questions that have already been asked of me hanging any longer. Because of this, I slept a miserable 3.5 hours, which is making today anything but fun. I am writing this reply on my Motorola Droid2 while trying to steer with one knee in heavy traffic.

Now that I've shared more of my personal life than I care to share in a public forum, I hope that you have a clearer understanding of my situation.

That is indeed within the rules, but then it is also within the rules for other members to speculate about your reasoning and your credibility on that basis.

Lol, I didnt realize that I was auditioning here. It would be simply amazing to me if anyone even entertained the idea of questioning my credibility in light of my membership infancy and my miniscule post history. Give it time, people. Reserve your judgment for a later date.

I might speculate, for instance, that by choosing to refute an argument that has NEVER been made, as opposed to several that HAVE, you are arguing to suit your own agenda and not to actually enter into the debate as it is.

Then your speculation would not be based in fact, since there have been plenty of arguments in this thread that have stated that the Hebrew scriptures do not support Jesus as the Messiah and being prophesied of therein. My argument speaks directly to this. That is entering squarely into the debate. You are wandering into minutia here.

I will try to respond to the rest of your latest response tonight or tomorrow.

I apologize for my snide remarks earlier. No hurry on replying -- and listen, it's not important enough to text in traffic, in any case. There are a lot of things worth dying for, but an Internet debate with a stranger isn't one of them. Be careful, man.

Thanks for the concern, and no worries about things that have been said. I think, for the most part, it's been civil and even enjoyable. As far as posting while driving, I seriously need to stop doing it. My wife tells me that I'm smarter than that and I keep proving her wrong. It's dumb. Just plain dumb.

[cnorman18]

Edited to the essentials:

Matthew's account of the donkey is not in conflict with the rest of the Gospel writers.

That there is a “conflict� is not my point; perhaps you are used to dealing with that class of objections, but that’s not what I was saying. There was no second donkey in the Zechariah passage. The phrase “riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey,� is a Hebrew parallelism, not a reference to two animals. We can disagree on that; perhaps there were two donkeys when Jesus rode into the city, and Matthew thought that made the Zechariah passage a prophecy about two animals when it wasn’t. In any case, the issue is hardly earthshaking.

I think the details of theology are trivia, and it's my opinion that the Christian belief that elevates doctrinal correctness to the highest priority is pretty dumb too.

Without correct doctrine there is no basis for belief; it's anything goes. I have no wish to devote my life to a belief system that is subjective, nor do I wish to place my trust in tradition. True Christianity begins and ends with correct doctrine.

This is a difference in priorities; your opinion isn’t the same as mine, and it doesn’t have to be. Peace to you, and it’s okay if we disagree there too.

Perhaps you are conflating works as the expected fruit of a Christian's life and works meant to attempt to earn one's salvation. Those are two completely different subjects. I never said that the New Testament teaches that salvation is earned via works.

I was indeed speaking of works meant to attempt to earn one’s salvation. According to Christian belief, works are not necessary to be saved; is that not so?

I said, "And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important."

And that plainly isn’t true, else the sinner who confesses on his deathbed could not be saved. Only faith is essential; works are the expected fruit, but works are not what saves. Works are less important, Q.E.D.

That is different from the Jewish perspective, where belief, doctrine, etc., are of virtually NO importance, and “works� are the ONLY thing that matters. I am not saying that that is right and the Christian perspective is wrong; I am saying only that they are not the same.

My own conclusion from that is that the Christian teaching of “salvation by faith� does not come from Judaism; since Christians have their own understanding of the teachings of Judaism which is not congruent with that of Jews, you disagree; that’s fine, but it annoys me when Christians say that Jews DO teach “salvation by faith,� since (1) we don’t concern ourselves with “salvation� in the Christian sense (“going to Heaven�) at all, and (2) we don’t teach that “faith� or “correct doctrine� is essential to being saved, pleasing God, or whatever, either.

My only “agenda� here is showing that Judaism and Christianity are not the same on these theoretical and theological doctrinal issues. That’s all; and that is a matter of FACT and not opinion.

It is not elevating tradition to the level of scriptural authority if I use words that prominent believers in times past have used, or even coined, for that matter.

If those “words of prominent believers in times past� are used to determine or define the meaning of Scripture, while excluding other and differing interpretations -- then, yes, it absolutely does elevate that tradition to the level of Scriptural authority.

I think a definition of what I mean by tradition is in order, so that we don't continue to argue over a misunderstanding of what I am saying. What I take issue with is when professing believers esteem tradition that cannot be backed up with scripture. Tradition is fine and dandy. But tradition from which doctrine is derived, and either cannot be backed up by the Bible, or even worse, contradicts the Bible, and is then elevated to an equal standing with scripture, is a travesty. That is heresy, the result of which is nothing more than a Godless, man-made religion.

The trouble is that your tradition, and not Scripture itself, determines the definitions and doctrines that are supposedly taught by the Bible. Defining other interpretations, such as Jewish ones of the OT, as “heresy� and “a Godless, man-made religion� could not make that any clearer.

For instance: when you say that “almah� definitely means “virgin,� and/or that the Bible teaches that the Messiah must therefore be born of a virgin, how are you not elevating your own tradition of interpretation to that of the Bible itself, in that the tradition determines the meaning of that word while the Bible itself does not?

All that is of course a matter of opinion too; every religious community believes that its own tradition is correct and Scriptural and that others are neither. That is my point. The difference in Judaism is that we admit, as a matter of ancient teaching, that many more interpretations than one MAY be correct, and no one can claim that his and his alone is the only one.

We DO have only scripture as our source of final authority. It isn't nonsensical if you understand the differences between essential and non-essential doctrine. All orthodox Protestants affirm the essentials, and are in full agreement with them. Among Protestants, there are tangential doctrines which are non-salvific in nature upon which we can agree to disagree while not affecting our status as fellow believers.

So these “tangential doctrines,� i.e. less central teachings of Scripture, are therefore determined by the different denominations’ respective traditions, are they not? Are those traditions therefore not authoritative over the Bible itself, at least on those “non-salvific� matters?

Whatever. Let’s move to the most essential point, at least as far as concerning what I have to say here:

Like I keep saying; Christians may believe anything they like, with no argument from me; 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.

Actually, I DO get a vote, because my faith hinges upon the Hebrew Scriptures.

Correction; your faith hinges on your interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It clearly does NOT depend upon the Jewish interpretation of them. Period, full stop.

I accept the correction.

My hands aren't on your religion, and I'm sorry of you feel threatened because Christians read God's Word differently than you do.

That’s called “mindreading,� and I don’t think you have that ability. Jews aren’t “threatened� by Christianity at all; we’ve done very well without Jesus for 2,000 years, and that’s not about to change. On the contrary; it appears that you don’t want to allow that the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible might be valid, not even for Jews.

Touché. You have a point there. And for the record, I agree that the Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible is valid for Jews.

Graciously granting us the right to be egregiously wrong and damned to Hell is granting nothing at all.

Well, see, this is where it gets sticky. This is going to make me a lot of enemies here, but I do not believe that Jews will go to hell because they rejected Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah...the first time around. This does not, however, apply to any other group of people on the planet but the Jews. This excludes all other religions and peoples. I believe that the New Testament is clear that the Jews are part of God's elect. I believe that soon God will call all Jews to Himself and reveal to them that Jesus is in fact, the Jewish Meshiach. They are his chosen ones, and He will keep His covenants with them, for He cannot lie, and He will not break His promises….

I not only "might" believe, I do believe that the Old Covenant is still in effect for Jews. In effect and fully binding. The New Testament is explicitly clear on this. Again, because of this, Jews are the only ones on the planet who are exempt, for the time being, from condemnation apart from Christianity.

And we’re done, because I think that that is a very legitimate and reasonable approach to the respective Covenants.

I said when was a Christian, and have said since I became a Jew, that I think when (and if) that Day finally comes, the Jews will be saying “You’re HERE!� while the Christians will be saying, “You’re BACK!�

-- and then we’ll all look at each other and laugh, and all the old wounds will finally be healed, and we will be one people at last.

We are brothers NOW; and we should BOTH try to affirm each other and act like it while we work together to oppose the idol-worshipper of our own day -- those who worship THINGS, like power, money, fame, self-gratification, and themselves. Agreed?

One more note:

I apologize for my snide remarks earlier. No hurry on replying -- and listen, it's not important enough to text in traffic, in any case. There are a lot of things worth dying for, but an Internet debate with a stranger isn't one of them. Be careful, man.

Thanks for the concern, and no worries about things that have been said. I think, for the most part, it's been civil and even enjoyable. As far as posting while driving, I seriously need to stop doing it. My wife tells me that I'm smarter than that and I keep proving her wrong. It's dumb. Just plain dumb.

That’s very true. Knock it off, and I send my love to your wife; she’s completely right.

As far as I’m concerned, all is well here; questions about the importance of tradition and other matters, where we can disagree, can be laid aside. My own concerns are satisfied, and I think we CAN agree that we both have regard and respect for each other’s religions. THAT, on this forum, has always struck me as the essential thing. We’re never going to agree entirely on everything.

Not till that Day, anyway -- when we will both be told by the only One who really knows.

Peace to you, and drive carefully.

[fewwillfindit]

Perhaps you are conflating works as the expected fruit of a Christian's life and works meant to attempt to earn one's salvation. Those are two completely different subjects. I never said that the New Testament teaches that salvation is earned via works.

I was indeed speaking of works meant to attempt to earn one’s salvation. According to Christian belief, works are not necessary to be saved; is that not so?

I said, "And in Christianity, both what you believe AND what you do are equally important."

And that plainly isn’t true, else the sinner who confesses on his deathbed could not be saved. Only faith is essential; works are the expected fruit, but works are not what saves. Works are less important, Q.E.D.

I understand what you are saying now, and I agree. Since we never defined "important" as meaning, "that which relates to salvation," I was reading it in a more general sense, but in light of your explanation, we are in agreement.

That is different from the Jewish perspective, where belief, doctrine, etc., are of virtually NO importance, and “works� are the ONLY thing that matters. I am not saying that that is right and the Christian perspective is wrong; I am saying only that they are not the same.

My own conclusion from that is that the Christian teaching of “salvation by faith� does not come from Judaism; since Christians have their own understanding of the teachings of Judaism which is not congruent with that of Jews, you disagree; that’s fine, but it annoys me when Christians say that Jews DO teach “salvation by faith,� since (1) we don’t concern ourselves with “salvation� in the Christian sense (“going to Heaven�) at all, and (2) we don’t teach that “faith� or “correct doctrine� is essential to being saved, pleasing God, or whatever, either.

I have my own thoughts on this, but it has the potential to derail this thread's original topic, so perhaps we can leave this for another day.

It is not elevating tradition to the level of scriptural authority if I use words that prominent believers in times past have used, or even coined, for that matter.

If those “words of prominent believers in times past� are used to determine or define the meaning of Scripture, while excluding other and differing interpretations -- then, yes, it absolutely does elevate that tradition to the level of Scriptural authority.

I think we are into semantics now, because we both agree that tradition, in some way shape or form, is in play with Protestants. What we disagree on is whether or not these traditions are the source of our docrtines, or whether they merely reflect that which our methodology, i.e; hermeneutical interpretation, has determined that the scripture already says.

Regardless, we probably have both made our points enough in this matter to move on to other things, unless of course, you wish to discuss it further.

I think a definition of what I mean by tradition is in order, so that we don't continue to argue over a misunderstanding of what I am saying. What I take issue with is when professing believers esteem tradition that cannot be backed up with scripture. Tradition is fine and dandy. But tradition from which doctrine is derived, and either cannot be backed up by the Bible, or even worse, contradicts the Bible, and is then elevated to an equal standing with scripture, is a travesty. That is heresy, the result of which is nothing more than a Godless, man-made religion.

The trouble is that your tradition, and not Scripture itself, determines the definitions and doctrines that are supposedly taught by the Bible. Defining other interpretations, such as Jewish ones of the OT, as “heresy� and “a Godless, man-made religion� could not make that any clearer.

For instance: when you say that “almah� definitely means “virgin,� and/or that the Bible teaches that the Messiah must therefore be born of a virgin, how are you not elevating your own tradition of interpretation to that of the Bible itself, in that the tradition determines the meaning of that word while the Bible itself does not?

All that is of course a matter of opinion too; every religious community believes that its own tradition is correct and Scriptural and that others are neither. That is my point. The difference in Judaism is that we admit, as a matter of ancient teaching, that many more interpretations than one MAY be correct, and no one can claim that his and his alone is the only one.

No sir. I was not calling Judaism heresy or a Godless, man made religion. I apologize for getting that into the mix, because by "professing believers," I meant professing Christians, and I should have clarified that. I can see why you took it that way though, because we have also been discussing tradition within Judaism. To clarify, I believe that God is most definitely in Judaism.

We DO have only scripture as our source of final authority. It isn't nonsensical if you understand the differences between essential and non-essential doctrine. All orthodox Protestants affirm the essentials, and are in full agreement with them. Among Protestants, there are tangential doctrines which are non-salvific in nature upon which we can agree to disagree while not affecting our status as fellow believers.

So these “tangential doctrines,� i.e. less central teachings of Scripture, are therefore determined by the different denominations’ respective traditions, are they not? Are those traditions therefore not authoritative over the Bible itself, at least on those “non-salvific� matters?

I think it would be more accurate to say that the traditions are a result of the different denominations' respective interpretations, rather than that the interpretations are determined by the different denominations' respective traditions. Semantics? Perhaps.

And we’re done, because I think that that is a very legitimate and reasonable approach to the respective Covenants.

I said when was a Christian, and have said since I became a Jew, that I think when (and if) that Day finally comes, the Jews will be saying “You’re HERE!� while the Christians will be saying, “You’re BACK!�

-- and then we’ll all look at each other and laugh, and all the old wounds will finally be healed, and we will be one people at last.

We are brothers NOW; and we should BOTH try to affirm each other and act like it while we work together to oppose the idol-worshipper of our own day -- those who worship THINGS, like power, money, fame, self-gratification, and themselves. Agreed?

I long for that day! I truly do, my brother. And yes; agreed.

One more note:

That’s very true. Knock it off, and I send my love to your wife; she’s completely right.

As far as I’m concerned, all is well here; questions about the importance of tradition and other matters, where we can disagree, can be laid aside. My own concerns are satisfied, and I think we CAN agree that we both have regard and respect for each other’s religions. THAT, on this forum, has always struck me as the essential thing. We’re never going to agree entirely on everything.

Not till that Day, anyway -- when we will both be told by the only One who really knows.

Peace to you, and drive carefully.

Yes, all is well here too, and peace to you as well.

[cnorman18]

I have my own thoughts on this [salvation, etc.], but it has the potential to derail this thread's original topic, so perhaps we can leave this for another day.

Maybe. I rather doubt we'll find a lot of common ground there, but it might be worth kicking around sometime.

Regardless, we probably have both made our points enough in this matter [tradition & authority] to move on to other things, unless of course, you wish to discuss it further.

No, I think we're good.

I was not calling Judaism heresy or a Godless, man made religion. I apologize for getting that into the mix, because by "professing believers," I meant professing Christians, and I should have clarified that.

No, I should have been clearer myself; I got that you were talking about other Christian communions and not Jews. No problem there, but thanks for your concern anyway.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the traditions are a result of the different denominations' respective interpretations, rather than that the interpretations are determined by the different denominations' respective traditions. Semantics? Perhaps.

Not "perhaps"; I'd say, most probably. Anyway, no problem there either. I think we're on the same page.

And we’re done, because I think that that is a very legitimate and reasonable approach to the respective Covenants.

I said when was a Christian, and have said since I became a Jew, that I think when (and if) that Day finally comes, the Jews will be saying “You’re HERE!� while the Christians will be saying, “You’re BACK!�

-- and then we’ll all look at each other and laugh, and all the old wounds will finally be healed, and we will be one people at last.

We are brothers NOW; and we should BOTH try to affirm each other and act like it while we work together to oppose the idol-worshippers of our own day -- those who worship THINGS, like power, money, fame, self-gratification, and themselves. Agreed?

I long for that day! I truly do, my brother. And yes; agreed.

Me, too.

It might interest you to know that Jewish mystical tradition actually has a time for that Day -- the Messianic Age will coincide with the Seventh, or Sabbath, Millennium from the traditional date for the Creation. That millennium will begin in the Hebrew year 6001. Since this year is 5771, we have exactly 130 years to wait. Not even many Jews know about this bit of esoteric teaching.

Ennh -- take it with a grain or two of salt. Interesting, though. Those old rabbis got the average length of the lunar month right to five decimal places, so there might be something to it....

Whatever. Be well and may God bless you and yours.