Special Creation

[Ben Masada]

I wasn't making the point that Jesus is the Messiah, along the lines of the suffering servant, although I do in fact believe he is. I was merely correcting your claim that a collective understanding of the idea of messiah is the only one possible. Jews for many centuries, including centuries immediately before and after the first, and not including Christians, have advocated a view of the Messiah as a single person. Apparently, it's not so easy as a proof text or two....

Yes, I know. But Judaism is dynamic. I mean, it evolves. Although we still have, and not by a few, many that believe in an individual Messiah. But those of us who have decided to flock with Isaiah the Prophet, are fast increasing. And we consider the idea of and individual Messiah as a trace of slavish mentality. You know, an inheritance from salvery in Egypt. When Moses showed up as a Messianic leader, they all took him as the Messiah himself to soon renew their waiting after his death.

Little by little we are coming to the understanding that an individual Messiah makes no sense, since he is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? No, the Messiah does not die. He lives forever so that Mankind be allowed to live.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/size]

Good, then we are agreed about method. But I reject the notion that you use "only" the Tanach. Surely you are influenced by this or that exegete and/or oral tradition, just as I am.

Influenced perhaps, but never guided by any exegete; much less oral tradition.




Is it a majority or mainstream opinion over the ages, or is it more or less idiosyncratic?


Neither mainstream opinion nor more or less idiosyncratic. But still with some miles ahead into becoming a consensus. Indiosyncratic could never be, since oil cannot mix with water.

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes, that is more or less my view. We can agree to disagree about the nature of the Individual Messiah Vs. Messianic Figure because in the final analysis it's all semantics as we expect the same thing from the Man and the People. We don't need a divine man-god or part of a triune god to be the Messiah. Because he's not alone, he has the People behind him.

Just out of curiosity, who do you consider to be the very first Messianic figure?

As you can probably guess, I consider Yosef to be the first. Hence the Messiah BEN Yosef. Understanding Yosef whom my Rebbi often called 'The Patriarch of Galut' and you understand Galut Edom.

To me, Messiah ben Joseph is a reference to Ephraim, the Ten Tribes of the North, or Ten of Joseph. It has disappeared when it was forever rejected by God, according to Psalm 78:67-69. What exists today is Messiah ben David, according to I Kings 11:36, which is the New Israel from the stock of Judah.

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes I do acknowledge the above powerful quotations which you don’t, otherwise you would never have said, “It is a misconception to say that the Jewish People are God's Chosen People.”
Now Ben, let me explain to you the way a debate works; first you must now, either prove that the Lord did not say, “I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself etc,” plus other scriptures which state that God had chosen Israel as his own people, or admit that you are incorrect in assuming that God did not choose the descendants of Jacob as a people of his own. Then and only then will I explain to you how the statement that “God is no respecter of peoples,” can be reconciled with the statement that God had chosen Israel as a people to himself. “I will call my Son (Israel) out of Egypt.” What other nation has the Lord ever called “My Son”?

And how do you feel about this language, considering that you have no part with the chosen People? You are left with one choice only, either reach for the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology or listen to the Nation-Son of God. I think the better option would be the middle ground of a special creation, since Israel was in the designs of God when there no other peoples for Israel to be chosen from.

 

[S-word]

And how do you feel about this language, considering that you have no part with the chosen People? You are left with one choice only, either reach for the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology or listen to the Nation-Son of God. I think the better option would be the middle ground of a special creation, since Israel was in the designs of God when there no other peoples for Israel to be chosen from.

There you go again Ben, rambling on with your ridiculous rhetoric. How many times must something be explained to you before it sinks into the thick skull of yours? You must first answer the question, “Did the Lord Jehovah, say that Israel was a chosen people that he had formed for himself or did He not?” Only then will we be able to move on in a sensible debate instead of trying to follow your aimless babblings as you rummage through the pages of a book of which you have little or no understanding.

 

[Ben Masada]

There you go again Ben, rambling on with your ridiculous rhetoric. How many times must something be explained to you before it sinks into the thick skull of yours? You must first answer the question, “Did the Lord Jehovah, say that Israel was a chosen people that he had formed for himself or did He not?” Only then will we be able to move on in a sensible debate instead of trying to follow your aimless babblings as you rummage through the pages of a book of which you have little or no understanding.

Okay, you want to go literal with this, so be it. Move right ahead. But don't bable yourself by being too literal by saying that Jehovah Himself said anything because they were men, those responsible for anything said in the Scriptures. Albeit inspired by God.

 

[Dunemeister]

And how do you feel about this language, considering that you have no part with the chosen People? You are left with one choice only, either reach for the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology or listen to the Nation-Son of God. I think the better option would be the middle ground of a special creation, since Israel was in the designs of God when there no other peoples for Israel to be chosen from.

This policy is not Pauline, despite evangelical misreading.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, I know. But Judaism is dynamic. I mean, it evolves. Although we still have, and not by a few, many that believe in an individual Messiah. But those of us who have decided to flock with Isaiah the Prophet, are fast increasing. And we consider the idea of and individual Messiah as a trace of slavish mentality. You know, an inheritance from salvery in Egypt. When Moses showed up as a Messianic leader, they all took him as the Messiah himself to soon renew their waiting after his death.

Fair enough, religions change. But it's hard to take such a radical revision as having authority, relativizing as it does almost every text apart from Isaiah 53, and then giving THAT a radical re-reading. Also, commentary on Isaiah demonstrates that the notion of a singular Messiah is possible even when the suffering servant is referred to as Israel. All I'm saying is that it's a bit strong (to put it mildly) for you to push your notions around as though they were established fact going all the way back to Moses. I'm glad to hear that you are relativizing your claim by admitting that it's a recent innovation.

Little by little we are coming to the understanding that an individual Messiah makes no sense, since he is born, lives his span of life and dies.

Except for one notable exception.....

Are we to expect a Messiah in every generation? No, the Messiah does not die. He lives forever so that Mankind be allowed to live.

A problem neatly solved by the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

This policy is not Pauline, despite evangelical misreading.

Does it mean you do not understand Galatians 4:21-31? That's the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology. If you don't agree, explain it to me.

 

[Ben Masada]

Fair enough, religions change. But it's hard to take such a radical revision as having authority, relativizing as it does almost every text apart from Isaiah 53, and then giving THAT a radical re-reading. Also, commentary on Isaiah demonstrates that the notion of a singular Messiah is possible even when the suffering servant is referred to as Israel. All I'm saying is that it's a bit strong (to put it mildly) for you to push your notions around as though they were established fact going all the way back to Moses. I'm glad to hear that you are relativizing your claim by admitting that it's a recent innovation.



Except for one notable exception.....



A problem neatly solved by the resurrection of Jesus.

If you still have any doubt about Isaiah 53, read my thread on "The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53." And regarding the resurrection of Jesus, prove it to me. Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection. Use your own NT for that. I am all ears. I'll be big enough to reconsider my views if it makes sense. But if it doesn't, I'll be even bigger to tell you why.

 

[Dunemeister]

If you still have any doubt about Isaiah 53, read my thread on "The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53." And regarding the resurrection of Jesus, prove it to me. Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection. Use your own NT for that. I am all ears. I'll be big enough to reconsider my views if it makes sense. But if it doesn't, I'll be even bigger to tell you why.

I have no interest in trying to "prove" the resurrection. It's simply the best explanation I'm aware of for the data that we have, such as the shape and content of the New Testament, the emergence and growth of the early church that believed what it did (especially but not only about the Messiah), and so forth. Of course, that doesn't "prove" it happened, but it means that the burden of proof, at least for me, has decisively shifted to the sceptics.

Rather than debate the issue with you, I invite you to read N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's a very long book, mostly because it tries to address great swaths of historical argumentation about the resurrection. It's well worth a read because it represents a high water mark in Jesus and NT studies, demonstrating uncommon rigor in method and modesty in drawing conclusions. And if you like, once you've purchased the book and made some headway in it, I'd love to discuss it section by section with you.

 

[Ben Masada]

I have no interest in trying to "prove" the resurrection. It's simply the best explanation I'm aware of for the data that we have, such as the shape and content of the New Testament, the emergence and growth of the early church that believed what it did (especially but not only about the Messiah), and so forth. Of course, that doesn't "prove" it happened, but it means that the burden of proof, at least for me, has decisively shifted to the sceptics.

Rather than debate the issue with you, I invite you to read N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's a very long book, mostly because it tries to address great swaths of historical argumentation about the resurrection. It's well worth a read because it represents a high water mark in Jesus and NT studies, demonstrating uncommon rigor in method and modesty in drawing conclusions. And if you like, once you've purchased the book and made some headway in it, I'd love to discuss it section by section with you.

So, what I gather from your answer is that Jesus' resurrection is an issue to be accepted only by faith. Therefore, it would be nice if the preachers of Jesus' resurrection would add that item in their rhetoric: That one needs faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because it could very well not have happened.

 

[Dunemeister]

So, what I gather from your answer is that Jesus' resurrection is an issue to be accepted only by faith. Therefore, it would be nice if the preachers of Jesus' resurrection would add that item in their rhetoric: That one needs faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because it could very well not have happened.

In matters of history, one can always say "it could very well have not happened." The evidence NEVER indicates something happened with 100% certainty. There's always the possibility that the evidence is somehow misleading or faked or inauthentic or whatever. In this, the claim about the resurrection is analogous to the claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or <name your favorite event that has mostly ancient literary attestation>. The sort of faith required to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is similar to that which we need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

The book I recommended to you is a serious piece of scholarly work and is recognized, even by its detractors, as the most significant contribution to the study of the resurrection in decades. My invitation to read and think through it with you is genuine. And whether or not you eventually buy into its conclusions, it will at least bring you up to speed on the current state of scholarship, and you'll therefore (hopefully) make your objections to Christianity on a surer footing than the "so, it's all by faith then..." rhetoric (which applies equally to everyone).

 

[Ben Masada]

In matters of history, one can always say "it could very well have not happened." The evidence NEVER indicates something happened with 100% certainty. There's always the possibility that the evidence is somehow misleading or faked or inauthentic or whatever. In this, the claim about the resurrection is analogous to the claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or <name your favorite event that has mostly ancient literary attestation>. The sort of faith required to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is similar to that which we need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

The book I recommended to you is a serious piece of scholarly work and is recognized, even by its detractors, as the most significant contribution to the study of the resurrection in decades. My invitation to read and think through it with you is genuine. And whether or not you eventually buy into its conclusions, it will at least bring you up to speed on the current state of scholarship, and you'll therefore (hopefully) make your objections to Christianity on a surer footing than the "so, it's all by faith then..." rhetoric (which applies equally to everyone).

After your so well written first paragraph above, why would I put money on something that won't give me the certainty that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or not? If after I read this book, I'll still be in need of faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the NT can already do a better job.

 

[Dunemeister]

After your so well written first paragraph above, why would I put money on something that won't give me the certainty that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or not? If after I read this book, I'll still be in need of faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the NT can already do a better job.

There's faith and then there's faith. You're in need of faith to believe ANYTHING. But if you're not interested in a discussion of the evidence, that's fine.

 

[Ben Masada]

There's faith and then there's faith. You're in need of faith to believe ANYTHING. But if you're not interested in a discussion of the evidence, that's fine.

I'll look for it in the public Library. At least, if I don't like the book, I didn't lose money on it.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'll look for it in the public Library. At least, if I don't like the book, I didn't lose money on it.

Just be prepared. It's long (very long), and spends a great deal of time on issues of methodology, mostly because a lot of what passes for historical Jesus research involves shoddy methodology. You might be able to skip those sections, but if you do, don't be surprised if you have to refer back occasionally. All that said, it rewards a read, and even those who don't agree with him have enjoyed and profited from the book. Good luck with it, and let me know if you want to start a thread on it.

 

[Ben Masada]

Just be prepared. It's long (very long), and spends a great deal of time on issues of methodology, mostly because a lot of what passes for historical Jesus research involves shoddy methodology. You might be able to skip those sections, but if you do, don't be surprised if you have to refer back occasionally. All that said, it rewards a read, and even those who don't agree with him have enjoyed and profited from the book. Good luck with it, and let me know if you want to start a thread on it.

As I can see, you have enjoyed the book, why don't you start a thread on it?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Special Creation

It is a misconception to say that the Jewish People are God's Chosen People. If we really ponder on the matter, the Jews do not claim such a title on themselves. It is usually claimed by others, especially Christians, and usually from a hostile point of view.

For a people to be chosen, they must be picked out from among a group of other peoples. That's definitely not what happened to the Jewish People.

According to Genesis 6:5, the Flood had become inevitable because Mankind had corrupted the earth. After the Flood, Elohim promised Noah that He would never allow another catastrophe of that size again to hit all Mankind. (Gen. 8:21) But what about if Mankind did corrupt the earth again?

That's when Elohim decided to effect a new and special creation and not to wait and choose a people from among a group of peoples. Israel was therefore in the designs of God many years before she was actually born with the purpose to guarantee God's promise to Noah.

Jeremiah, under prophetical inspiration, declared that if Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord forever, the natural laws will cease to work properly, which would cause the eruption of catastrophes anywhere or everywhere to threaten the whole of Mankind. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Therefore, we should stop the myth that the Jewish People are God's Chosen People, and rather think of them as a Special Creation for a specific Divine purpose.

Ben

to bring us bagels?

People are people, I dont get the whole groups thing

 

[Dunemeister]

As I can see, you have enjoyed the book, why don't you start a thread on it?

Maybe I will. If anyone is interested in a discussion of N.T. Wrights' work The Resurrection of the Son of God, please send me a PM. If there are two or three others who'd like to discuss it, it'd be worth making a thread. The only prerequisite will be that you must have read the book.