Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jesus the Jew
March issue, 1995 pages 1-6 [I typed it in.] | Arthur Zamboni----Catholic Digest--condensed from Catholic Update

Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333

*I know this is an extremely old article [I dug it out of the back of my closet} but it is well worth the read.

Jesus was a committed Jew of his day. And to truly understand Jesus, we need a solid background in Jewish religious, social, and political history.

Jesus, a rural Jew, lived in Galilee, in the northern part of Palestine. And in Jesus day, Galilee was divided into an upper and lower region. The lower region, where Jesus lived was a rich valley that stretched from the Mediterranean to the sea of Galilee, a distance of about 25 miles.

As far as we know, in Jesus' time there were four principle Jewish sects: The Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.

The Essenes, whose name may come from an Arabaic word meaning "pious," had already withdrawn from Jerusalem and Temple participation by the time of Jesus. In isolated monastic communities established in the Judean wilderness, they studied scriptures and developed a rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety--daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict observation of the Sabbath, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, wearing white robes as a symbol of spiritual purity, and sharing communal meals and property. Nowhere in the Gospels, however, is Jesus presented as adhering to the Essenes way of life.

Jesus was not a zealot either. Zealots were Jews who vehemently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. But there is no evidence in any of Jesus' teachings that he encouraged revolt against Rome.

Jesus also was clearly set apart from the Sadducees, whose name in Hebrew means "Righteous ones." These Jews believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah and did not believe in life after death. Jesus, of course believed in bodily resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)

Contrary to common understanding, Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees, even if he did debate them vigorously. Many of Jesus' teachings and much of his style was similar to theirs. To understand this, we need to compare the central teachings of the Pharisees to Jesus' teachings.

The Pharisees were a lay reform group within Judaism. The name Pharisee itself means "separate ones" in Hebrew, which refers to a ritual observance of purity and tithing; the word Pharisee can also be translated as "The interpreter," referring to this group's unique interpretation of Hebrew scripture.

As reformers, the Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation; rather their focus was on reforming the temple, especially with respect to its liturgical practices and priests. And the Pharisees turned their attention toward strengthening Jewish devotion to the Torah, which, they said, had to be continually readjusted within the framework of the contemporary Jewish community. While the Pharisees insisted that the 613 commandments found in the written Torah remained in effect, the commandments had to be carefully rethought in light of new human needs.

The temple priests, though, looked upon the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the Temple. The Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that every ordinary human action could become sacred--an act of worship. Doing a "good deed" for another human, a "mitzvah" in Hebrew, was accorded a status that in some ways, surpassed Temple worship. This was truly a revolution in religious thinking.

In addition, a new religious figure in Judaism--the teacher--or Rabbi--emerged within the Pharisaic movement. For their part, rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: They served as interpreters of the Torah and, more importantly, they helped make its teachings relevant. Their principle task was instructional, not liturgical.

From the Pharisaic reform emerged what was later called the synagogue ("assembly of people"). The synagogue became the center of this movement, which quickly spread throughout Palestine and the cities of Jewish Diaspora. Unlike the Jerusalem Temple, the synagogues were not places where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather they were places where the Torah was studied, rabbis offered interpretations, and prayers were said. Thus, synagogues became not merely "houses of God" but far more "houses of the people of God."

The Pharisee also emphasized table fellowship--a way of strengthening relationships within a community. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in the household of Israel. A quiet but far reaching reform was at hand. There was no longer any basis for assigning to the priestly class a unique level of authority.

The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the Covenant, and much more, but in a special way, as the Parent of each individual. Everyone had the right to address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the temple sacrifices offered by the priests.

The Pharisees also believed in resurrection. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. Then they would enjoy perpetual union with God.

There is little doubt, then, that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. The first was their basic approach to God as a parent figure. In story after story in the Gospels, Jesus addresses God in this way. And Jesus' central prayer begins by invoking God as "Our Father" (Matt. 6: 9-13). The effect of this emphasis was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees (although Jesus had a unique position as God's "Only begotten Son"). More than anything, this approach led to both an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection--and perpetual union with God.

Jesus' own public stance closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus on a number of occasions in the Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching in synagogues.

Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism as well, that of the oral Torah, which refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus offers interpretations of Scripture quite similar to those of the Pharisees.

Finally, Jesus also embraced the table fellowship notion of Pharisaism. The meal narratives in the New Testament are an example of this. In the end, He selected table fellowship for a critical of his ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist.

Then why, in the Gospels, do the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus? Here is gets complicated. For one thing, some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example the scribe of Mark 12:32). And we know that Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 14:1).

But there was still conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus, nevertheless. And here scholarship offers three possible explanations.

The first sees Jesus and his teachings as quite similar to the Pharisees. The animosity in the Gospel results from subsequent interpretations of Jesus' action. For example, Jesus' practicing healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain in the holy day were actions clearly not supported by the Pharisees.

Another possible explanation results from our enhanced understanding of the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. In the Talmud are references to some seven categories of Pharisees, which clearly shows that the Pharisaical movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints and, more important, that internal disputes, often of the heated variety, were quite common. The Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the "Pharisees" were examples of "hot debates" that were common in the Pharisaic circles rather than examples of Jesus condemning the Pharisees.

A third scholarly approach stresses positive connection between Jesus' central teachings and those of the Pharisees. In light of these, one becomes suspicious about the so-called texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common.

Hence, either Jesus was speaking in a very limited context, or what are commonly called "the conflict stories" represent religious tensions existing in the latter part of the first century when the gospels were written. The Christian community--now formally expelled from the synagogues--was engaged in intense competition for Jewish converts. The New Testament statements about conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees may reflect that competition.

Regardless, one fact remains. Jesus' own Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures. His attitude toward the sacred writings is summed up in the assertion "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish the Law but fulfill (Matt. 5:17).

On the whole, Jesus' teachings were wither literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of the scripture, or both.

The way the Pharisee and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures becomes more clear when Jesus argues his position by using so-called "proof-texts." Here, Jesus quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or refute a critic (See the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5, 6, & 7). In such instances, Jesus was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees in trying to make a point.

The "Proof-Texting" that Jesus used did, at times, pit him against the Pharisees--such as when He challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on teachings of humans than of God (Matt. 23: 1-36).; such as when He used scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12: 1-8). or unwashed hands (Matt. 15:20).

At other times though, Jesus' "proof-texting" placed him on the side of the Pharisees. Once in an impressive debate with the Saduccees, He used Hebrew scripture to reinforce his belief, and that oft he Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive he won the Pharisees' applause (Matt. 22: 23-33).

Possibly the best example we have of Jesus' use of Hebrew Scriptures is his teaching on love. "Teacher," one Pharisee asked, "which commandment is greatest?" And Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronamy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment" (Matt. 22: 36-39). Them Jesus went on quoting Leviticus 19:18, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In brief, Jesus was proof-texting his answer.

Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore, was unabashedly Jewish. And it was similar to that of his contemporaries, particularly the philosophy of the Pharisees.

Knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins has at least three advantages: First, it helps us revise negative understandings of the Pharisees. It also helps us to avoid anti-Semitism. Finally, it allows us to better appreciate the Jewish roots of Christianity. Ultimately, understanding Jesus as a Jew will help us to better understand both our own faith and that of the contemporary Jews.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: jesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-303 next last
To: wimpycat
I don't even know why I butted in, except maybe to point out that "proving" it one way or the other is futile, but I felt the need to get it off my chest.

The truth is knowable, by simple thought experiments as pointed out by C.S. Lewis and others. (Occam's Razor, etc.)

Telling others the truth they don't want to hear is worthwhile. For one thing, Jesus commanded it. For another, you remove the ignorance excuse.

When someone disagrees with me, I try to make time to consider their argument. As a result, I have changed my position on important doctrinal points. I realized that I was wrong when I looked into the matter being debated. On the other hand, it has also made me a lot more contentious with those who pose arguments I have considered and rejected.

I realize that error is often the result of a closed mind that refuses to be educated, not always the result of starting out believing the wrong things or disagreements about "interpretation."

221 posted on 11/07/2001 6:40:36 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: angelo; monkeyshine; ArGee
Explain to me how Jesus was of the line of David.

Hi! :)

The New Testament starts out by giving chronological order to Jesus' lineage--in Matthew 1:1, which says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob.

Also [on a slightly different note], I consider the New Testament to be basically a continuation of Jewish books [with the obvious exception, of course]. For example, in addition to Matthew 1:1---Mark 12:26 also shows the common bond we have with our patriarchs; "Have ye not read the book of Moses, how in the Bush, G-d spake unto him saying, I am the G-d of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob?" [which concurs with Exodus 3:6]

Likewise in Luke 3:33-34 it says "Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nahor."

There are also quotes in Acts [3:13 and 7:8] and in Romans [9: 7-13] which again state the patriarchs.

We also share many of the same commandments--compare Deuteronomy IV:4-9 to Mark 12:23-30. Both are identical in language and meaning in regard to the commandment that says to love G-d almighty [Jesus was definately referring to the G-d of Abraham].

Then there is the quote you used earlier, Leviticus 19: 17-18 and 33-34, and Mark 12:31, which both state to love your neighbor as yourself.

And nowhere in our common belief is there a call for a total annihilation of the enemies of G-d. On the contrary, we seek repentance from and mercy for those on the wrong path. We do not believe that G-d delights in seeing the destruction of those created in His image, but the same cannot be said for the Islamic tradition that calls for the annhilation of Jews and Christians.

One final thought on those people of faith[???] who would turn their backs on the Jews and Israel--Zechariah 8:23 where it says "Thus saith the L-rd of Hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages and nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we heard that G-d is with you.

222 posted on 11/07/2001 7:02:34 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Er, you are flattering yourself. You aren't bugging me, you bug. You simply remind of human imperfection.
223 posted on 11/07/2001 7:06:33 PM PST by madrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: madrussian
Well yes...most definately I am falliable, and of course I am not trying to bug you. I have no ill feelings toward you, whatsoever! I just like a good debate.
224 posted on 11/07/2001 7:19:26 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Very good! Excellent, in fact!
225 posted on 11/07/2001 7:47:00 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Sorry for the delay, but I've had guests all day.

The passage which the epistle to the Hebrews takes out of context actually has nothing to do with atonement! It is about dietary laws.

I wasn't using the NT, I was quoting from Exodus 30.

Rabbis have tried and failed, huh? Yeah, right.

If they have, then perhaps they've contradicted God (Exo 30:10 & Lev 16:34)

This is really not that difficult. God commanded that sacrifices be offered only at the place(s) He commanded. The last place so designated was the Temple in Jerusalem. In the absence of the Temple, there is no place for sacrifices to licitly be offered. It would be an act of disobedience for Jews to try to offer sacrifice at a place other than where God commanded they be done.

Agreed, but I think it's a impossible burden for your faith to atone for your sins.

You think Jesus was the 'perfect sacrifice'? Sacrifices were supposed to be physically unblemished; Jesus had been scourged. Sacrifices were only allowed to be performed in the Temple. Jesus was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem. Human sacrifice was forbidden by the Torah. Furthermore, no one can atone for the sins of another:

Isaiah 53, strongly disagrees with you.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

226 posted on 11/07/2001 7:53:20 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: shield
Are you saying that he is not a descendant of the tribe of Juda? Hmmm, I thought he was. And all this time I thought Hebrew is a language of the ancient Jews still written and spoken today in synagogues.
227 posted on 11/07/2001 7:55:15 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
I wasn't using the NT, I was quoting from Exodus 30.

'Hebrews' cites the passage from Leviticus. That passage is not about qorbanot, but rather is about kashrut.

Agreed, but I think it's a impossible burden for your faith to atone for your sins.

Thanks for your concern. When we repent and turn to God asking for forgiveness, He forgives us. Sacrifice was normative, but it was not mandatory in order to atone for sin. Sacrifice was a symbol of one's desire to mend one's relationship with God. A sacrifice made without contrition for sin was not efficacious.

Isaiah 53, strongly disagrees with you.

You think I haven't read these passages before, and heard the interpretation that Christians impose on them? In the last several months, I've probably had this same discussion half-a-dozen times on FR. Isaiah 53 is NOT a messianic passage. The Suffering Servant is Israel, not the messiah (as any reading of Isaiah in context will demonstrate). The translation you use here is not an accurate one, BTW.

228 posted on 11/07/2001 8:42:46 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
>The House of Judah is a subset of the House of Israel

No it isn't. Go back and READ Genesis with special attention to the words HOUSE, TRIBE, KINGDOM, and it will all shake out. The HOUSE of Israel was never Jewish. (Click on my Profile for more...)

229 posted on 11/07/2001 9:54:54 PM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
I didn't say the House of Israel was Jewish. I said the House of Judah is Jewish, and the House of Judah is INSIDE the House of Israel.
230 posted on 11/07/2001 10:00:48 PM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Go back and READ Genesis with special attention to the words HOUSE, TRIBE, KINGDOM.
231 posted on 11/07/2001 10:06:34 PM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
I have a question. If Jesus' lineage in Mathew went from David to "Joseph, the husband of Mary", wouldn't that negate God from being the literal father of Jesus? That would seem to negate Davidic ancestry. If Jesus was the Messiah through Davidic lines, how could God be his father? How would this apparent contradiction be reconciled?
232 posted on 11/07/2001 10:43:30 PM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
In Genesis 12 verses 16 and 17, 'house' is mentioned two times in reference to Avram's wife being taken in Pharoah's house. What does house mean in these two instances?

Chapter 50, verse 8 "And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house; ..." What does house mean in these two instances?

233 posted on 11/07/2001 11:29:04 PM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Well, more power to ya, hope! Some people just aren't cut out for it, and I guess I'm one of them. No patience.
234 posted on 11/08/2001 4:44:46 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Perhaps because they KNEW their scriptures regarding the archtypes of enemies of God?

You bring up some interesting points, but not in response to the original question. You gave some New Testament Scriptures regarding Yeshua, but the Pharisees would not have had access to those Scriptures when debating Yeshua so they could not have used those Scriptures as a basis for challenging Him. Especially they would not have known that Yeshua would have been pierced by a sword and missing from His grave.

Your points, while interesting, show the fallacy of using proof texts to understand G-d rather than the whole of Scripture. Key to all of this is the huge difference between Satan (or Lucifer) and Yeshua in how each was exalted. Satan was cast down because He attempted to exalt Himself. You pointed this out in your quote of Isaiah 14:12, (although not everyone accepts that this speaks of Lucifer. It is addressed to the King of Babylon who, I seem to remember, was often referred to as the "Morning Star." It is only in knowing how to read prophetic writings that this verse has also been attributed to Lucifer.)

But Yeshua did not exalt Himself. His claim to be Messiah-El was not substantiated by Himself but by G-d through the miracles wrought in His name, especially healing of the man who was born blind and casting out of demons. If you read Yeshua's teachings you will see that He exalts G-d, not Himself. He always points to the Father. This has been noted so strongly that some scholars have suggested that Yeshua never claimed to be G-d. These scholars claim that Paul invented the G-dhood of Yeshua to "sell" the Gospel to the polytheistic Goyim. It is true that we believe that Yeshua ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of The Father. But Yeshua received that gift from The Father, He did not attempt to take that place for Himself. Note specifically Yeshua's teaching that you should always take the lowest place at the table so you may be invited to a higher one and thus exalted in front of all the guests. Yeshua remained the humble servant of G-d throughout His life and was exalted by G-d in His death. Yeshua did not exalt Himself.

You quote John 19:37 and say that John should have quoted the rest of the Scripture. I don't see any reason why John should have, the readers would know the rest. Jews will mourn for Him because they will know that He was Messiah and the firstborn of G-d. What's so odd about that?

This post is long. I read what you wrote, but your analysis of the verses does not tend to go deeply enough. If you want to pick one more that I have not already addressed I will look at that.

Oh, and as to the line of accursed Kings, you read Matthew's geneology which goes through Yosef, Yeshua's father. But Yeshua is not of Yosef's seed and is, therefore, not of the line of accursed kings. However, as Yosef adopted Him, He still had the devine right to sit on David's throne.

As if He really needed it. Still, it was necessary to fulfill all the prophets.

Shalom.

235 posted on 11/08/2001 5:14:23 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Do a simple scan using the phrase "house of Judah" under WORD SCAN at gospel.com or similar and see what pops up. Try it again using "house of Israel" and see how -Israel and -Judah are juxtaposed.

Even this simple test shows that the House of Israel and the House of Judah were separate and distinct. While there is no basis whatever to claim that one was a "subset" of the other, it is important to note that word usage and meaning is related to context. Thus, careful reading, and thinking while reading is required.

236 posted on 11/08/2001 8:47:01 AM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: skraeling; angelo; Just another Joe; wimpycat
You have just demonstrated the need for my post. If you disagree with the view I present, so be it. Certainly, you can appreciate the challenge in considering it without resorting to vitriolic personal attacks for my view?

The Old Testament is the story of G_d's attempts to cultivate His people (The House of Israel) in the gospel of the Atonement amongst the weeds of paganism. In the Old Testament, in anicipation of Christ, Christ is referred to as the coming "Messiah". This is a difference in language, rather than theology.

Ancient Jews were Christians (Would you feel better referring to them as Messiahanists,instead of ancient Christians?) waiting upon the Lord's arrival whom they referred to as "Messiah". Unfortunately, Jews rejected Christ as their "Messiah", effectively turning away from the prophecies of all of their ancient Old Testament prophets. In so doing, Jews splintered from their ancient Christianity creating their own religion, referred to today as Judaism.

Referring to Judaism as being older than Christianity, proves that you don't understand modern Christianity's connection to the House of Israel, or the House of Israel's (represented by the only remaining tribe - Judah, at the time of Christ) anticipation of Christ's arrival and atonement of the sins of those who came before Christ (them) and after Christ (us).

237 posted on 11/08/2001 9:35:37 AM PST by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Christ is referred to as the coming "Messiah"

Point me to the FIRST mention of this, chapter and verse.

Ancient Jews were Christians (Would you feel better referring to them as Messiahanists,instead of ancient Christians?) waiting upon the Lord's arrival whom they referred to as "Messiah".

I would feel a lot better about calling them "Messiahanists" than Christians. But it would still depend on when the first mention of the COMING Messiah was in the old testament as to when you could start calling them Messiahanists. What were they BEFORE this time?

In so doing, Jews splintered from their ancient Christianity creating their own religion, referred to today as Judaism.

It still seems to me that Judiasm came well before Christianity and if anything splintered off it was Christianity from Judiasm. Admittedly, Christianity is now the larger of the religons, but I still feel Judiasm came first.

238 posted on 11/08/2001 10:19:47 AM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
In the Old Testament, in anicipation of Christ, Christ is referred to as the coming "Messiah". This is a difference in language, rather than theology.

In the Old Testament, the word mashiach means a "king" (literally, "the one who has been annointed"). It is a political, not spiritual, concept that has no meaning comparable to the meaning of the English word "messiah." Later, during the Babylonian exile, the Jews hoped for the restoration of an independent Judea and began to foretell the coming of the "Messiah," i.e., the return of a legitimate Jewish king. Nowhere in the OT does the word "messiah" have anything like the meaning that the Christians later gave it.

239 posted on 11/08/2001 3:03:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
You gave some New Testament Scriptures regarding Yeshua, but the Pharisees would not have had access to those Scriptures when debating Yeshua so they could not have used those Scriptures as a basis for challenging Him. Especially they would not have known that Yeshua would have been pierced by a sword and missing from His grave.

Certainly the piercing of the sword and missing from the grave would have been in the near future, but the point IS those that KNEW the scriptures (Old Testament) would know of the OT verses directed at the enemies of God, and when they saw or heard things coming from Jesus or from those that followed him, they would be able to put the two together. This would clearly be enough to make most Torah Jews skeptical of Jesus as the messiah because of the correlations. As time went on and more became known, such as the piercing, missing from the grave, darkness at his death etc, they would know that they had been right in rejecting Jesus.

Your points, while interesting, show the fallacy of using proof texts to understand G-d rather than the whole of Scripture. Key to all of this is the huge difference between Satan (or Lucifer) and Yeshua in how each was exalted. Satan was cast down because He attempted to exalt Himself. You pointed this out in your quote of Isaiah 14:12, (although not everyone accepts that this speaks of Lucifer. It is addressed to the King of Babylon who, I seem to remember, was often referred to as the "Morning Star." It is only in knowing how to read prophetic writings that this verse has also been attributed to Lucifer.)

The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, which was written about 300 before the Christians came onto the scene, translates heylel as "heosphoros", the Greek word for the Morning Star. Similarly, when St. Jerome wrote the Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate, written about 6 centuries later, he knew that heylel meant the Morning Star. Accordingly, he translated it as "LUCIFER", the Latin word which was used to refer to the Morning Star. Note that in Roman culture the Morning Star was considered the son of the dawn goddess, Aurora. The word, Lucifer, literally meant "Light-Bringer" and was used because the Morning Star brings the dawn.

Nearly 1200 years had passed by the time the English King James Bible was written (in 1611 C.E.). For some reason, its writers chose to leave the Latin word "LUCIFER" untranslated amid the rest of the verse which they translated into English. This unbalanced approach is why the KJV reads with the Latin word sticking out in the English sentence like a sore thumb: "How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn..."

Because Isa 14:12 talks about an enemy of GOD (the king of Babylon), some Christians, down through the centuries, began to assume "Lucifer" to be another name for Satan. Although there is no other place in the Bible where Satan is called by this name, Luke refers to Satan falling from the sky "like lightning". This similarity is probably what tempted Christians to make the connection. The fact that Isaiah talked about the king of Babylon is usually overlooked (and the fact that there are many more similarities to Jesus's own execution and the deeds for which he was arrested is entirely lost on them). At any rate, this man-made tradition is the only reason why "Lucifer" ever became a name for Satan. What is ironic (to anyone who knows Latin) is that the very presence in the KJV of the Latin word, "Lucifer", itself, serves as a tell-tale sign that the verse should be translated using the words, "Morning Star". But, alas, Protestants are not taught Latin in Sunday School.

Even the original 1611 edition of the KJV admits in a footnote that the word "Lucifer" really means the Morning Star. You can even see this in some KJV Bibles today. Later versions of the Bible were translated more accurately using the wording, "Morning Star". And, this is in keeping with the surrounding context -- since the "light-bearer" is called the "son of the dawn" and is directly associated with the morning.

So, what's the association with Babylon about? Babylon is the land to the east of Israel, the land of the sunrise and morning star. Also, the Babylonian religion held that the Morning Star was a manifestation of one their major deities. This is why Isaiah called the king of Babylon the Morning Star. And, this is why the major bibles, NIV, RSV, NASB, and Strong's concordance, among others, translate heylel as "Morning Star".

This said, it must not be lost upon the reader that such an appellation was given to the prideful man who would call himself God. That is the underlying message of the passage, and the fate of the king of Babylon foreshadows that of another man who thought he would ascend to the clouds of heaven (and, we should remind folks that these passages in Isa 14 do indeed say that they speak of a man, not an angel).

At any rate, for the masses of modern Christians, uneducated in Latin, the English KJV's use of the Latin word, Lucifer, masks the fact that the actual meaning is "Morning Star". It hides the meaning behind an untranslated word. One cannot help but wonder whether this masking has been intentional since Jesus is also called "Morning Star".

But Yeshua did not exalt Himself. His claim to be Messiah-El was not substantiated by Himself but by G-d through the miracles wrought in His name, especially healing of the man who was born blind and casting out of demons. If you read Yeshua's teachings you will see that He exalts G-d, not Himself. He always points to the Father. This has been noted so strongly that some scholars have suggested that Yeshua never claimed to be G-d. These scholars claim that Paul invented the G-dhood of Yeshua to "sell" the Gospel to the polytheistic Goyim. It is true that we believe that Yeshua ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of The Father. But Yeshua received that gift from The Father, He did not attempt to take that place for Himself. Note specifically Yeshua's teaching that you should always take the lowest place at the table so you may be invited to a higher one and thus exalted in front of all the guests. Yeshua remained the humble servant of G-d throughout His life and was exalted by G-d in His death. Yeshua did not exalt Himself.

Matthew 26:64 "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

WHO said the above? Jesus? Two things come to mind. 1) He says 'Son of man'.... so in this manner you are correct that he didn't call himself God... However he says that 'Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.' Who is Jesus talking about? Himself? Or someone else? If himself, then the 'implication' is there. He 'implies' that he will be exalted.

I will however agree with you that generally Jesus doesn't exalt himself except perhaps by the above verse. In most cases he is (alledgedly) exalted by either his followers or by Paul. The problem though is that Jews KNEW/KNOW that man cannot be God.

And Paul says:

Acts 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"

So, how did Jesus get turned into a 'God'? And who did it?

What was expected of the Messiah?

The Messiah was to be an earthly King. Jesus was not a King and ruled over no country. The people of Israel were supposed to 'dwell safely'. They did NOT then, nor do they now.... The Messiah is to have an earthly kingdom, whose dominion shall be throughout the world. It shall be a non-ending kingdom, teaching peace. The Messiah will have great honor and service from all people, and he will save the people of Israel from earthly troubles. These are the descriptions of the Messiah and his rule.

Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts the concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation.

The Jewish Messiah is expected to return the Jews to their land. Jesus was born while the Jews still lived in their land, before they had gone into exile. He could not restore them to their land because they were still living in it!

The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem — but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.

The Jewish Bible says that the Messiah will redeem Israel. In the case of Jesus, the very opposite took place. About 20 years after his death, (shortly after the death of James), the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900-year-long night of persecution—largely at the hands of the followers of this self-styled "Messiah!"

The Prophets in the Bible foretold (Isaiah 45) that when the Messiah comes, all the nations of the world will unite to acknowledge and worship the one true God. "The knowledge of God will fill the earth. The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the seas" (Isaiah 11:9). Nothing of this nature took place following the death of Jesus. On the contrary, Islam developed and became the religion of the Arabs and many other nations, Christianity broke up into many conflicting sects which were constantly at war with each other, and a large part of the world continued to worship idols.

When the true Messiah comes, his influence will extend over all peoples who will worship God at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Prophet says, "For My House will become the House of Prayer for all the Nations." This has obviously not yet taken place, and, therefore, the Messiah has not yet come.

During the time of the Messiah a new spirit will rule the world, and man will cease committing sins and crimes; this will especially apply to the Jews. The Torah (in Deuteronomy 30:6) says that "God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your children to love God." The Prophets taught: "And your people are all righteous, they will inherit the earth forever" (Isaiah 60:21); "In that day I will seek the sins of Israel and there will be none" (Jeremiah 50:20); "I will give you a new heart and a new spirit—and you will obey My laws and commandments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26,27). (But, I thought Paul said that the Law was dead...must be God changed His mind...NOT!)

The true Messiah is to reign as King of the Jews. Jesus' career as described in the New Testament lasted all of three years, at the end of which he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal. He never functioned as anything but a wandering preacher and "faith healer"; certainly, he held no official position or exercised any rule of any kind.

One of the Messiah's major tasks is to bring peace to the entire world. In the time of the Messiah, there are to be no more wars, and the manufacture of arms will cease. The Prophet Isaiah (2:4) says, "And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Nations are continually at war and wars have been going on almost non-stop since the time of Jesus up to and including today!

The New Testament itself claims that the prophecies concerning the Messiah were to be realized in Jesus' own generation. Mark (13:30) clearly says, "truthfully I say unto you that this generation shall not pass until all these things be done." In Matthew 4, Jesus is quoted saying that “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Almost 2,000 years have passed and still nothing has been accomplished.

Nowhere does the Jewish Bible teach the Messiah would come once, be killed, and return again in a “second coming.” The idea of a second coming is a pure rationalization of Jesus' failure to function in any way as a Messiah, or to fulfill any of the prophecies of the Torah or the Prophets. The idea is purely a Christian invention, with no foundation in the Bible, and created only to explain away why Jesus did not return in the generation of his followers as the New Testament attests.

While on the cross Jesus is quoted as saying, "Forgive them, Father, for they (the Jews) know not what they do." Why do some Christians insist on persecuting the Jews if Jesus himself gave instructions to forgive them?

If his rising from the dead was so crucial to demonstrate who he was, why did this take place in secret and not in the presence of his "thousands" of devotees?

Jesus claimed that he did not intend to change the Laws of Moses—"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) and the Prophets, I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5). Later on, the New Testament attests that he himself abrogated some of the laws, while his followers eventually abolished or changed nearly all of them. Personally I believe the New Testament to be less than credible in describing events where Jesus supposedly broke the Law or changed the Law. Jesus may have had a difference of opinion in interpretation but he followed the Law and taught others to do the same. Hillel vs Shammai.

Judaism believes that God is eternal, above and beyond time. God cannot be born, He cannot die, He cannot suffer, He can not "become flesh," nor can He be divided into sections ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"). These are pagan notions. Certainly no "God" or "Son of God" could have called out on the cross, as Jesus is supposed to have said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" After all if Jesus was God, then he abandoned himself??? Makes no sense.

If Jesus was really the Messiah, why does the New Testament admit that all the rabbis of the time, without one exception, rejected his claim? Why was there not one man of learning, nor one prominent leader who accepted him? Because they KNEW their scriptures! They used the Masoretic texts and didn't have to rely upon Greek translations and mis-translations and deliberate false translations.

Who was in a position to judge if he was or was not the Messiah—his own people, who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Messiah, or pagan peoples who had no understanding of what the concept really meant?

If God has "rejected" the Jews for not "accepting Jesus" as Christians claim, why have the Jewish People managed to survive 2,000 years of Christian persecution? How do Christians explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has God restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people?

Luke 21:31-33 "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

What does 'this generation' mean to you, in the context of which Jesus supposedly said them?

You quote John 19:37 and say that John should have quoted the rest of the Scripture. I don't see any reason why John should have, the readers would know the rest. Jews will mourn for Him because they will know that He was Messiah and the firstborn of G-d. What's so odd about that?

I was thinking that John should have quoted the rest of the scripture for the 'gentiles' since they would NOT know the rest!!! It would have helped them to make an informed choice! One might wonder why any of the Apostles followed Jesus. I have heard it said that they were illiterate. If so, then that may explain why they didn't KNOW their own scriptures. James disagreed with Paul, and James was the head of the Jerusalem Church. The Bishop of Bishops. He was in charge, and Peter, Paul and the others were answerable to him. James and Paul disagreed over the Law. Antioch was about 'table fellowship'/dietary regulations. James considered Paul 'apostate' (without Law). Interesting that in the Mary visitations she speaks of the great apostasy. The 'great falling away from the Law??

Oh, and as to the line of accursed Kings, you read Matthew's geneology which goes through Yosef, Yeshua's father. But Yeshua is not of Yosef's seed and is, therefore, not of the line of accursed kings. However, as Yosef adopted Him, He still had the devine right to sit on David's throne.

Romans 1:2 "(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

According to the flesh...is sex.... 'seed' shows direct lineage. And Paul IS right about this aspect of prophecy. The Messiah is supposed to be a man, natural son of natural son of natural son.... it was the deliberate MIS-translation of Isaiah in which the early church had him born of a 'virgin', to pacify the pagans they wanted to convert. But, most of this is moot anyway, because Jesus did not fulfill prophecy. At least NOT Jewish Prophecy. He may have fulfilled the man made prophecies of the early church, but that still wouldn't make him the Jewish Messiah.

As if He really needed it. Still, it was necessary to fulfill all the prophets.

And he didn't.

240 posted on 11/08/2001 5:45:43 PM PST by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson