How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[leibowde84]

Yes and no. Partially that it wasn't a formalized offshoot of Judaism ever, partially that when it was preached to non-Jews it became radically different and, in a way, exclusive of Judaism, partially that Christianity as a religion, when it became "Christianity" morphed away from Judaism.

Fair enough, but it was Paul, who didn't even convert to Christianity until Jesus was dead, that gave the OK to preach to the gentiles. When looking at the historical Jesus, it seems most likely that he was a Hebrew, an apocalyptic preacher, and one who preached exclusively to the Jews. Either way, it doesn't really matter today, as, like you said, the religion has changed quite a bit since then.

 

[metis]

Fair enough, but it was Paul, who didn't even convert to Christianity until Jesus was dead, that gave the OK to preach to the gentiles. When looking at the historical Jesus, it seems most likely that he was a Hebrew, an apocalyptic preacher, and one who preached exclusively to the Jews. Either way, it doesn't really matter today, as, like you said, the religion has changed quite a bit since then.

Theologians tend to wonder it Jesus ever actually issued the "great commission", or whether it was sorta injected later when the Way had difficulty converting more Jews.

And let me mention that when the church walked away from following most of the Law, since the Law is front and center in Judaism, then the two faiths were on very divergent paths. Also, the "new covenant" teaching was not acceptable to observant Jews, especially since the wording in the "N.T." is that the "new" replaced the "old".

 

[catch22]

I used it as an example whereas a parallel can be drawn. Common sense alone should suggest that we don't go to the max on punishment for every single violation. Since the Tanakh attaches specific penalties, it's rather obvious and logical that God did not feel that if one violates one Law that all are violated.

There's Jewish idiom about that, the big rock, the little rocks... nevermind, just something I read once.

Maybe nothing separates us from God unless we intend to separate ourselves. It's like as a good parent when our child disobeys, we don't just discard him/her like a piece of garbage. Do you really think that God treats us like garbage and throws us away if we violate a Law? ...

No. No... you go too far to say that. That's not what I was trying to convey.

Recompense for sin is the not the issue I was addressing -- sin itself is. To the One who is without sin forever and ever, He doesn't like it, He doesn't want to see it, and He certainly won't let it exist with Him.

Genesis teaches this. If everything was peachy fine despite their sin, why cast Adam and Eve from the garden and block its path? Why not just say "It's cool, I forgive you guys"? Why put a mark on Cain? Why destroy the world with a flood because of all the wickedness, and not just forgive it all continually? Why discipline Israel... over, and over... and over again?

Sin has a cost. A high one, at that. God wants His people. He's not indifferent to what we do and how we relate to Him. Hence, the laws and the covenant, right?

...The Tanakh clearly states that God can and will forgive if we go to Him, ask for forgiveness, and try and correct any wrong we've done.

If you had checked a concordance and looked up "forgive" and its variations, you would have seen that most of the time it didn't relate to the Temple sacrifices.

Forgiveness is one of the many attributes of God, yes, but we weren't talking about that. I was just reflecting on the law to be upheld.

Leviticus 17:11. Deuteronomy 12:13-14. Exodus 24:1-8. (The NT has Hebrews 9:22 if anyone is willing to read that).

In other words, I think you missed my point. Let me try to be more clear: you can't uphold the law yourself, so what good is it to comment on Christians who "walk away?" You can do the best you can under present circumstances, but you cannot uphold this important part of the law. Does that mean you walked away, or was it just taken away from you? I'm not saying it's the only way to atonement, but it certainly was important, and still is I'd argue. But, it cannot be done any longer.

And, in my opinion, there's a reason for that.

Who said God threw it down? T'was the Romans.

Babylon first, though. Habakkuk 1-2, and then cross reference to Luke 19:41-44, and 21:5-6. My point is merely that God has done this in the past for certain reasons; Jesus foretold this as well, and it came to pass. There's a reason for this, too.

I can't make heads nor tails what you're trying to say here.

I taught Christian theology (to adults, btw) for 14 years, not including teaching a comparative religions course for two additional years. But if it helps to boost your own ego up at someone else's expense, then maybe your motive here is less than admirable. And using stereotypes, as you have done, is a form of lying that we even warn children not to do. I have not stereotyped you, nor other Christians, nor Christianity as a whole, so you're simply not telling the truth.

Merely the concept of grace. Based on your credentials, you should have an understanding of it.

I'll admit, in that previous post I was uncertain what stereotypes you meant, but I can be abrasive so I didn't question you on it -- perhaps I spoke amiss, perhaps not. It didn't matter, I'm apologetic in either scenario. I make mistakes as anyone, forgive me for that.

Now, to simply be called a liar, or imply I'm spreading lies, means things have simply gone too far. I want to once again thank you for taking to the time to address me, but also to apologize for whatever offense I've caused.

Blessings.

 

[Harmonious]

There's Jewish idiom about that, the big rock, the little rocks... nevermind, just something I read once.



No. No... you go too far to say that. That's not what I was trying to convey.

Recompense for sin is the not the issue I was addressing -- sin itself is. To the One who is without sin forever and ever, He doesn't like it, He doesn't want to see it, and He certainly won't let it exist with Him.

Genesis teaches this. If everything was peachy fine despite their sin, why cast Adam and Eve from the garden and block its path? Why not just say "It's cool, I forgive you guys"?

I hope that you see that eating the fruit from the wrong tree wasn't the only sin that happened in the Garden of Eden. They lied, they slandered both God and each other (and the snake). They set up a hateful situation amongst themselves, and they were the only two people there. That, much like the later exiles of the Jews, was worthy of Exile from the Garden.

Why put a mark on Cain?

Christians and Jews have a different understanding of the mark of Cain. Christians usually call attention to it as "the first Red Letter," a mark of sin. Jews understand the mark of Cain to be a sign of protection. Though he was worthy of being killed for his crime, it was a sign that people should NOT kill him.

It should be noted that the one who DID kill Cain was a blind hunter. He didn't see his quarry, and he especially didn't see the mark of protection.

Why destroy the world with a flood because of all the wickedness, and not just forgive it all continually?

This is because the wickedness was of a level of corruption that really couldn't be corrected.

The word used to describe the sin is "Hamas," which is rather interesting. Simply translated, it means "violence." According to Jewish teaching, there are a few details explained for what the problem was. One was sexual corruption, especially inter-species relations. One was theft. But it wasn't grand larceny. It would be of the nature of... a grape merchant would come with a cart of grapes. Everyone in the town would steal one grape. One grape isn't actionable, so no one was accountable, though the merchant was bankrupted, because his whole stock was depleted.

This level of corruption, wherein arguing the wrongness of what everyone was doing would be unheard by the masses, was something that God sought to correct by erasing the generation that couldn't be fixed.

Why discipline Israel... over, and over... and over again?

Simple answer: If you have a child who you love whose behavior is out of control, parents discipline their child.

Extended answer: God gave the rules for living, particularly for Jews. When Jews are unjust towards each other, God punishes us, as He said He would. But when we do right by each other, God rewards us, as He said He would.

Over, and over, and over again.

Sin has a cost. A high one, at that.

Not every sin has such a high cost. All sins aren't equal, and all punishments for the various sins aren't equal. Not individually, and not nationally.

God wants His people. He's not indifferent to what we do and how we relate to Him. Hence, the laws and the covenant, right?

Yup.

Forgiveness is one of the many attributes of God, yes, but we weren't talking about that. I was just reflecting on the law to be upheld.

Leviticus 17:11. Deuteronomy 12:13-14. Exodus 24:1-8. (The NT has Hebrews 9:22 if anyone is willing to read that).

In other words, I think you missed my point. Let me try to be more clear: you can't uphold the law yourself, so what good is it to comment on Christians who "walk away?"

You know... Success in upholding the law is a progression. Perfection is expected by no one. Not everyone is expected to be perfect in, well, anything. But we are expected to keep trying to get better, to do better, to do more, to grow more. Individually, and as a nation.

The concept of Christians deciding that Torah law is "too hard" really haven't paid too much attention to the details of what Jews, who lovingly keep the Torah (with varying degrees of success), do and why. Usually, the Christians who talk about "getting out from the burden" don't understand that keeping the laws is NOT an "all or nothing" proposition, but discuss the Torah as if it is.

You can do the best you can under present circumstances, but you cannot uphold this important part of the law.

Who says?

Does that mean you walked away, or was it just taken away from you?

Neither.

I'm not saying it's the only way to atonement, but it certainly was important, and still is I'd argue. But, it cannot be done any longer.

Of course it can. We are only responsible for what we have the ability to do. We are not held accountable for the laws we don't have within our grasp.

Jews living outside of Israel can't accomplish the laws that only apply to Israel. Laws that only pertain to First Born Sons don't pertain to daughters. Laws that only pertain to tribes designated as Yisrael are not permitted to be done by Cohanim. And laws that pertain to the Temple can't be done without the Temple.

And even Jews who are not in good health cannot fast, when that is the law of the day. The laws were built to be livable, and doable.

That doesn't mean that the laws that ARE available can't be done.

 

[metis]

There's Jewish idiom about that, the big rock, the little rocks... nevermind, just something I read once.



No. No... you go too far to say that. That's not what I was trying to convey.

Recompense for sin is the not the issue I was addressing -- sin itself is. To the One who is without sin forever and ever, He doesn't like it, He doesn't want to see it, and He certainly won't let it exist with Him.

Genesis teaches this. If everything was peachy fine despite their sin, why cast Adam and Eve from the garden and block its path? Why not just say "It's cool, I forgive you guys"? Why put a mark on Cain? Why destroy the world with a flood because of all the wickedness, and not just forgive it all continually? Why discipline Israel... over, and over... and over again?

Sin has a cost. A high one, at that. God wants His people. He's not indifferent to what we do and how we relate to Him. Hence, the laws and the covenant, right?



Forgiveness is one of the many attributes of God, yes, but we weren't talking about that. I was just reflecting on the law to be upheld.

Leviticus 17:11. Deuteronomy 12:13-14. Exodus 24:1-8. (The NT has Hebrews 9:22 if anyone is willing to read that).

In other words, I think you missed my point. Let me try to be more clear: you can't uphold the law yourself, so what good is it to comment on Christians who "walk away?" You can do the best you can under present circumstances, but you cannot uphold this important part of the law. Does that mean you walked away, or was it just taken away from you? I'm not saying it's the only way to atonement, but it certainly was important, and still is I'd argue. But, it cannot be done any longer.

And, in my opinion, there's a reason for that.



Babylon first, though. Habakkuk 1-2, and then cross reference to Luke 19:41-44, and 21:5-6. My point is merely that God has done this in the past for certain reasons; Jesus foretold this as well, and it came to pass. There's a reason for this, too.



Merely the concept of grace. Based on your credentials, you should have an understanding of it.

I'll admit, in that previous post I was uncertain what stereotypes you meant, but I can be abrasive so I didn't question you on it -- perhaps I spoke amiss, perhaps not. It didn't matter, I'm apologetic in either scenario. I make mistakes as anyone, forgive me for that.

Now, to simply be called a liar, or imply I'm spreading lies, means things have simply gone too far. I want to once again thank you for taking to the time to address me, but also to apologize for whatever offense I've caused.

Blessings.

Even before I read your last paragraph, I decided that I was going to break off this discussion because we simply look at so many things differently, which is quite OK, imo. I not only have no animosity towards Christians, especially since I used to be one, and my wife and younger daughter and her family are Christian, plus I go to church with my wife regularly.

Sorry if I was abrasive, and hopefully we can have future discussions that are friendlier.

Take care and shalom.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The text speaks of the authority being on his shoulder. Present tense. Additionally, I never claimed the passage used the name Hezekiah in Hebrew. It doesn't use any name. Please admit it doesn't make any mention of Jesus, and that the government was never on his shoulder, and that there was no peace during his time.

His time is not ended. Far from it. Prophecies may be parsed into near and far fulfillments! Or if you're going only with "present tense", Hezekiah had internecine warfare and not peace, and he feared the government would come off his shoulders when he was ill and facing death--the prophecy about "him" didn't seem to apply to him or console him... are we can simply say that if you will say Hezekiah was king then, he also wasn't a baby born unto Israel at the same time!

 

[Harmonious]

His time is not ended. Far from it. Prophecies may be parsed into near and far fulfillments! Or if you're going only with "present tense", Hezekiah had internecine warfare and not peace, and he feared the government would come off his shoulders when he was ill and facing death--the prophecy about "him" didn't seem to apply to him or console him... are we can simply say that if you will say Hezekiah was king then, he also wasn't a baby born unto Israel at the same time!

Are you aware that Isaiah's prophecy covers the span of four kings of Judea?

 

[Domenic]

The Messiah had to do several things to prove he was the Messiah. One of these was to prove he was from the line of Abraham. In 70 CE the Romans destroyed the city, and burned all the Jewish records. No Jew today can trace his/her line of descent further back than 70 CE. Which brings up the question: If a man comes, and says he the Messiah the Jews are waiting for, how is he going to prove by written record his line from Abraham? Many Jews today can’t even trace their line back before Hitler.

I would think the Messiah would have had to come before the Romans destroyed those records.

 

[Harmonious]

The Messiah had to do several things to prove he was the Messiah. One of these was to prove he was from the line of Abraham. In 70 CE the Romans destroyed the city, and burned all the Jewish records. No Jew today can trace his/her line of descent further back than 70 CE. Which brings up the question: If a man comes, and says he the Messiah the Jews are waiting for, how is he going to prove by written record his line from Abraham? Many Jews today can’t even trace their line back before Hitler.

I would think the Messiah would have had to come before the Romans destroyed those records.

There are Jews who know what tribe they are from. Levi'im and Cohanim do. There are a few folks who DO know that they are from King David.

 

[rosends]

His time is not ended. Far from it. Prophecies may be parsed into near and far fulfillments! Or if you're going only with "present tense", Hezekiah had internecine warfare and not peace, and he feared the government would come off his shoulders when he was ill and facing death--the prophecy about "him" didn't seem to apply to him or console him... are we can simply say that if you will say Hezekiah was king then, he also wasn't a baby born unto Israel at the same time!

Claiming that prophecies "may be parsed into near and far fulfillments" would only be possible if, as I stated earlier, one does not ignore the surface references when doing it. The superficial reading has the "born" in past tense. Saying it refers to the future while ignoring the actual writing is wishful thinking at best. Hezekiah, when he was born, was a child. Many of us are.

The Radak explains that the peace relates to the fact that during his reign, there was salvation from Assyria and the downfall of Sancheriv (that last bit is added by the GR"A). The Onkelos echoes this when he says that "peace will be seen during his days." The GR"A also points out that we textually use the word "child" to describe even a fetus, so the age does not limit the word choice. Rashi points out that the important fact here is the status of "child" because even though the father was evil, the son was given to us as a righteous man, so the text has to hilight the childhood. Of course the Chazon Yeshaya says that the "peace" refers to his ascension to the throne.

Casting it forward to someone who never had the government on his shoulders, and never brought peace makes no sense. The "his time is not ended" invokes the phantom concept of "it takes two". There is no teaching that says "after a 2000+ year break, I will..."

 

[rosends]

There are Jews who know what tribe they are from. Levi'im and Cohanim do. There are a few folks who DO know that they are from King David.

More than a few. We know that we come from the kingdom of Judah which had (primarily) 2 not Levite tribes in it, so the odds of being from Judah are large to begin with. Then there is much other stuff (my family traces itself to Rashi).
Rav-SIG: Online Journal > Are You a Descendant of King David?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you aware that Isaiah's prophecy covers the span of four kings of Judea?

Isaiah's prophesying covered four kings. This particular prophecy does not--if it is Hezekiah:

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Claiming that prophecies "may be parsed into near and far fulfillments" would only be possible if, as I stated earlier, one does not ignore the surface references when doing it. The superficial reading has the "born" in past tense. Saying it refers to the future while ignoring the actual writing is wishful thinking at best. Hezekiah, when he was born, was a child. Many of us are.

The Radak explains that the peace relates to the fact that during his reign, there was salvation from Assyria and the downfall of Sancheriv (that last bit is added by the GR"A). The Onkelos echoes this when he says that "peace will be seen during his days." The GR"A also points out that we textually use the word "child" to describe even a fetus, so the age does not limit the word choice. Rashi points out that the important fact here is the status of "child" because even though the father was evil, the son was given to us as a righteous man, so the text has to hilight the childhood. Of course the Chazon Yeshaya says that the "peace" refers to his ascension to the throne.

Casting it forward to someone who never had the government on his shoulders, and never brought peace makes no sense. The "his time is not ended" invokes the phantom concept of "it takes two". There is no teaching that says "after a 2000+ year break, I will..."

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

 

[Harmonious]

Isaiah's prophesying covered four kings. This particular prophecy does not--if it is Hezekiah:

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

Which chapter and verse is this?

 

[rosends]

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

The verse reads "To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."

You present questions that were answered 1000 years ago (including an explanation of a word which your translation mysteriously switches from "now" to "that time." Just read the Rashi...

and for peace: which is given to him, there will be no end, for he had peace on all his sides, and this “end” is not an expression of an end to eternity, but there will be no boundaries. On the throne of the kingdom of David shall this peace be justice and righteousness that Hezekiah performed.

and for peace: Heb. וּלְשָׁלוֹם. This ‘vav’ is to rectify the word, thus: He [Hezekiah] increased the authority upon his shoulder, and what reward will He [God] pay him? Behold, his peace shall have no end or any limit.
from now and to eternity: The eternity of Hezekiah, viz. all his days. And so we find that Hannah said concerning Samuel (I Sam. 1:22): “and abide there forever.” And, in order to refute those who disagree [i.e., the Christians, who claim that this (Prince of Peace) is their deity], we can refute them [by asking], What is the meaning of: “from now” ? Is it not so that the “deity” did not come until after five hundred years and more?

 

[Harmonious]

Rosends... Which verse is it? I know someone mentioned it a page or two, or a few ago. But which verse? Book, Chapter, Verse... I'll probably agree with your assessment. But which verse am I agreeing to?

 

[rosends]

Rosends... Which verse is it? I know someone mentioned it a page or two, or a few ago. But which verse? Book, Chapter, Verse... I'll probably agree with your assessment. But which verse am I agreeing to?

ישעיהו פרק ט pasuk hey

 

[Harmonious]

ישעיהו פרק ט pasuk hey

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The verse reads "To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."

You present questions that were answered 1000 years ago (including an explanation of a word which your translation mysteriously switches from "now" to "that time." Just read the Rashi...

and for peace: which is given to him, there will be no end, for he had peace on all his sides, and this “end” is not an expression of an end to eternity, but there will be no boundaries. On the throne of the kingdom of David shall this peace be justice and righteousness that Hezekiah performed.

and for peace: Heb. וּלְשָׁלוֹם. This ‘vav’ is to rectify the word, thus: He [Hezekiah] increased the authority upon his shoulder, and what reward will He [God] pay him? Behold, his peace shall have no end or any limit.
from now and to eternity: The eternity of Hezekiah, viz. all his days. And so we find that Hannah said concerning Samuel (I Sam. 1:22): “and abide there forever.” And, in order to refute those who disagree [i.e., the Christians, who claim that this (Prince of Peace) is their deity], we can refute them [by asking], What is the meaning of: “from now” ? Is it not so that the “deity” did not come until after five hundred years and more?

The beauty of having the silver finger in one's heart and mind when one reads the holy scripture is that one need not run to Rashi or another to hear an interpretation of truth that is itself true.

Which Bible version are you quoting in the English? Or is this your own translation from the Hebrew? Because it's absolutely wrong and I don't care if you, Rashi and the entire Soncino press disagree (may I say with respect!) because the kingdom was not from now (Hezekiah) to eternity because it was stripped away on a temporary basis between Jeconiah and Y'shua! You are making "pretty" translations that are admirable if nonsensical in the English language. DAVID was promised an unending kingdom. Solomon's sons were not. The Septuagint and subsequent Christian translations, as often, are more correct IMHO.

 

[rosends]

The beauty of having the silver finger in one's heart and mind when one reads the holy scripture is that one need not run to Rashi or another to hear an interpretation of truth that is itself true.

Which Bible version are you quoting in the English? Or is this your own translation from the Hebrew? Because it's absolutely wrong and I don't care if you, Rashi and the entire Soncino press disagree (may I say with respect!) because the kingdom was not from now (Hezekiah) to eternity because it was stripped away on a temporary basis between Jeconiah and Y'shua! You are making "pretty" translations that are admirable if nonsensical in the English language. DAVID was promised an unending kingdom. Solomon's sons were not. The Septuagint and subsequent Christian translations, as often, are more correct IMHO.

The silver finger? Weird (and little creepy) but OK then, I'll just let you and your finger friend make up whatever you want. Your decision that a translation you don't like is "wrong" is adorable and ignorant and funny all rolled up into one. The translations you use are simply the opinions and judgments of other people to whom I grant zero authority and who know less about bible text and interpretation than most 3rd grade day school students. You can go run to the KJV or whatever "scholars" you think have a clue. You are within your rights to be wrong.

See how easy it is to dismiss? I can do it as well as you, with more elegant language and fanciful vitriol.

The commentary does a fine job of anticipating and pushing aside all your trifling quibbles and explaining the text to accentuate the consistency of language and reference. Your objections were passe 1000 years ago.