Posted on 03/24/2005 5:47:34 PM PST by Crackingham
Thank you for your post; I appreciate you taking the time to write it.
Pray for W and Terri's Parents
Of course Jesus is Lord, but He will always be Jewish. According to prophecy, He will return to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, and will be ruling from there. He is the eternal King of Israel. As another poster pointed out, during the millenial reign of Jesus, all the nations will be expected to go up to Jerusalem to celebrate Succot (Zechariah 14:16). How's that for Judaizing?
Most of what you interpret as "the fulfillment of 300 prophecies" are not considered "prophecies" (let alone messianic prophecies) by Jews at all. At best, they are typographies, usually single verses taken out of context and interpreted in a Christological way.
From the Jewish perspective, the qualifications of being messiah are straightforward, and are explicitly and literally spelled out in the Hebrew scriptures. The messiah will be a man of the line of David, and will be known as the messiah because he will bring world peace, the return of all the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and universal knowledge of God. There are other, less significant factors, but those are the main ones. (And ones which Christians generally believe will be fulfilled at Jesus's second coming). We will know who is the messiah because he will fulfill all of these prophecies within his lifetime. There is no prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures which states that the messiah will come more than once.
Pray for W and Terri's Parents
If Joseph wasn't Jesus's father, then he wasn't of the line of David. Tribal affiliation and priestly and kingly lines are patrilineal. Nor could one be adopted into a different tribe, or into the priesthood or kingly line. If Joseph was Jesus's father, there is a different problem, because his ancestry is traced through the cursed line of Jeconiah (see Jeremiah 22:28-30)
Is Psalm 22 in the Torah
The Torah is the first five books of the bible, the books of Moses. Psalms are in the part of the Hebrew scriptures called ketuvim, or "Writings".
and are these prophesies of the Messiah?
No, Jews do not see this as messianic. And Christian versions contain a major mistranslation of the Hebrew. Verse 16 is properly translated as "like a lion at my hands and my feet", not "they have pierced my hands and my feet".
This being Purim, I've always wondered why the NRA never made it an honorory 2nd Amendment celebration... after all, what happened on Purim? An edict came from the King allowing Jews to purchase weapons, and organize for self-defense. The Jews succeeded at beating back their enemies.
Do Jews deny he rose from the Grave?
Shalom
Pray for W and Terri's Family
Who said that they did? The rebuilding of the temple is foretold most comprehensively in Ezekiel, but also in other books of the portion of the Hebrew scriptures known as nevi'im, or "the Prophets".
Do Jews deny he rose from the Grave?
Yes.
Prayers for the Schindlers
Good thing I hate coffee then. ;)
LOL, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I like coffee.
Outside of the testimony of some of his followers, as recorded in Christian scriptures, there is no evidence that he did rise from the grave. You believe this on faith, not because it has been proven to you.
Briefly, my opinion of what happened is as follows. At some point soon after Jesus's execution, one of his close disciples had the insight that, given the doctrine of resurrection, Jesus really wasn't dead, but was, in fact, in heaven with God. Perhaps this was accompanied by a vision (something like Stephen's in the book of Acts), perhaps not. And, since he was still alive, and they believed him to be the messiah, then surely he must return to finish what he had left undone. I think they believed the resurrection to be real (in that Jesus was really alive with the Father), but that they also, in those first years, believed it to be a spiritual resurrection. Remember that Paul's writings are the earliest of the Christian canon. I think what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 supports my reading of events (see especially verses 42-47). I think with the passage of time, the idea of Jesus's resurrection came to be understood more literally. Which may explain why the resurrection accounts are more detailed in the later gospels (and the most ancient manuscripts of Mark lack the last 12 verses of chapter 16).
I believe gospels were written some time after the events they describe and not by a single eyewitness.
You said that the lineage Joseph came from was cursed, does that mean there is no way for that lineage to bring a Messiah? If so, why does Matthew who was a Jewish scholar make sure to trace his lineage? Are they no longer Jewish and why were they cursed, idolatry? Shalom
Pray for W and Our Troops
All of which you believe to be true based upon their being written in the gospels. Since I do not accept the gospels as being inspired scripture, I do not assume that what is recorded in them is literally historically accurate.
does that mean there is no way for that lineage to bring a Messiah?
If you think that part of being the messiah is sitting upon the throne of David, then yes.
Thus says the LORD:
"Write this man down as childless,
a man who shall not succeed in his days;
for none of his offspring shall succeed
in sitting on the throne of David,
and ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)
If so, why does Matthew who was a Jewish scholar make sure to trace his lineage?
Matthew was a tax collector, not a Jewish scholar. Some of what he writes can make one question the strength of his scholarship.
Are they no longer Jewish
They remained Jewish, they simply were prohibited from ever sitting on the throne of David.
and why were they cursed, idolatry?
Idolatry and wickedness.
Clearly we have very different beliefs, and very different ways of interpreting scripture. I appreciate that we have been able to have a polite discussion here. I hope you understand that I do not desire to denigrate your faith, especially on today of all days. I wish you a blessed holy day.
Pray for W and Israel
What???
It was a brutal occupation, when one Roman procurator after another tried to install statues of emperors in the Temple, crucified rebels, robed the country blind, etc. Romans brought their laws, roads, soldiers, etc.
Judea was certainly a part of the Roman empire, but it did not originally become so through military attack. Herod I integrated Judea into the Roman empire through political means. In the aftermath of Julius Ceasar's assasination, Herod aligned Judea first with Marc Antony when he was the dominant force in the eastern portion of Roman empire, then at the critical moment he switched allegience to Octavius/Augustus. His only other choice for keeping Judea out of the Roman sphere of influence would have been some sort of alliance with Persia, but he probably made the best choice given the situation.
Herod was handsomely rewarded for his allegience to Augustus, reigning over a kingdom that included Galilee, Samaria, Judea, as well as parts of modern Jordan and Syria. Roman influence was assured by a garrison maintained in the coastal city of Ceasaria, but Herod was given a free hand to govern, unlike many other regions in the Roman empire where Augustus instituted a system of Roman governors.
After the death of Herod 'the Great', his kingdom was divided among multiple sons, and some were more successful at governing than others. The Romans eventually appointed a governor over Judea, but Herod II maintained authority over Galilee and Samaria. This was the Herod depicted in the Gospels during the time of John the Baptist and Egypt.
The influence of Herod's dynasty within the Roman Empire is illustrated by the fact that according to some accounts, Herod Agrippa (the heir of Herod II) played a role an key role in securing the ascension of Claudius to the Emperor's throne following the assasination of Caligula around 40 A.D.
The Romans understood the volatility of Jewish religious sensibilities and the more astute emporers worked fairly hard to not provoke them. One of the surviving Roman references to Governor Pilate indicates that he was reprimanded by Rome for one of the incidents that your refer to of displaying Legion banners in the Temple. This happened about A.D. 28, so it is not unreasonable to believe the Gospel account that he feared rioting would reflect poorly on him. Since the incidents took place in Jerusalem, but Jesus himself was from Galilee, it is also reasonable to believe that he would have tried to coordinate some kind of response with King Herod. The Gospels depict him as trying to finesse situation so that he wouldn't appear to be the bad guy, but doing so rather ham-handedly. This portrait of a tactless administrator who is alternately autocratic and weak-willed is fairly consistent with what Roman records remain tell of Pilate.
I fully agree with you that the Romans brought their roads, laws, and commerce with them. This resulted in substantial prosperity for the urban Jewish population who cooperated with the Romans (e.g., the Sadducees), but was resented by the rural poor Jews, resulting in many rival factions.
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Romans had a defacto veto over who held the position of High Priest, rather than that the Romans appointed the high Priest. While the Gospels refer to Caiaphus as the High Priest, they also mention another influential Priest named Annias. Annias came from a prominent Hasmonian family, and had held the High Priesthood for five or six consecutive years before Caiaphus. The Romans didn't want anyone accumulating too much authority, so they hinted that six years was long enough, resulting in the change.
I agree with you that there were many teachers/prophets leading groups of followers during this period. Jesus is certainly remembered more than any of the others.
There are a great many stories/traditions about associates of Jesus, who are only described with a few tantalizing sentences in the cannonical writings. It is intriguing to speculate on the identity of the Jesus Barabas who was released, on whether Mary Magdelene was a reformed prostitute or a prominent leader in the early church, and on whether the 'James the Just' who was thrown from the Temple Wall for heresy in the events leading up the 67 A.D. rebellion was a relative of Jesus. However, the cannonical writings and verifiable historical records don't offer enough information.
There is a little more support for the conjecture that the Disciples James and John were initially followers of John the Baptist, and therefore likely influenced by the Essene movement. There is also some evidence that the disciples Simon 'the Patriot' and Judas Iscariot may have been influenced by the Zealot movement. Some traditions hold that Judas betrayed Jesus to provoke a confrontation with the Temple authorities which would force Jesus to declare himself the Messiah and begin a violent revolution. By this tradition, Judas' failing was attempting to force God to behave in a certain way rather than accepting God's plan.
It is a fascinating period in human history. The world changed in a remarkable way around 30 A.D. Though I'd like to know all the details, for now I will have to settle for looking "through a glass darkly" and trust that all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.