There ain't no Jesus here.

[URAVIP2ME]

[QUOTE="Tumah, post: 4694784, member: 51255"
Somehow I think either your sabra was a Christian or it didn't really happen. I assume you are referring to Isaiah 11:1.
The first word means "rod" and its the same word found in Prov. 14:3. It has nothing to do with a tree living or dead. In fact usually rods are dead wood.
The second word means "shoot" and it refers to a live growth with no implications about its source. In fact in another place, its implied that it is growing from live roots (Isa. 60:21). So there is no such idea present in this verse.[/QUOTE]

A staff will grow from the stump of Jesse and a shoot will sprout from his roots - Isaiah 11:1
A literal staff does Not grow out of stump, but a twig ( rod ) does.- Isaiah 53:2; Zechariah 6:12
' from his roots ' or rootstock a sprout ( wene'tser ) will be fruitful ( or will shoot up ) - Ruth 4:17; 1 Samuel 17:58
So, even as a cut down olive tree when watered can sprout again is Not dead wood - Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; 2 Samuel 7:16
There will go forth a king from the sons of Jesse, and from the sons of his sons the Messiah ( Christ ) himself will be brought up. - Targums, Aram.

 

[Tumah]

[QUOTE="Tumah, post: 4694784, member: 51255"
Somehow I think either your sabra was a Christian or it didn't really happen. I assume you are referring to Isaiah 11:1.
The first word means "rod" and its the same word found in Prov. 14:3. It has nothing to do with a tree living or dead. In fact usually rods are dead wood.
The second word means "shoot" and it refers to a live growth with no implications about its source. In fact in another place, its implied that it is growing from live roots (Isa. 60:21). So there is no such idea present in this verse.

A staff will grow from the stump of Jesse and a shoot will sprout from his roots - Isaiah 11:1
A literal staff does Not grow out of stump, but a twig ( rod ) does.- Isaiah 53:2; Zechariah 6:12
' from his roots ' or rootstock a sprout ( wene'tser ) will be fruitful ( or will shoot up ) - Ruth 4:17; 1 Samuel 17:58
So, even as a cut down olive tree when watered can sprout again is Not dead wood - Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; 2 Samuel 7:16
There will go forth a king from the sons of Jesse, and from the sons of his sons the Messiah ( Christ ) himself will be brought up. - Targums, Aram.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't say "grow" it says "come out" (lit. exit). Nor does it say "stump" it says "root" or perhaps in this case, "trunk".
It is true staffs do not grow, but they can be cut out of wood that is already present. Again, no mention of the source being dead.

 

[Tumah]

Agree that empowered to perform miracles does Not have to be related to being anointed. Who anointed Moses?_______ Where is the record of Moses being anointed with oil, yet Moses performed miracles. No record of Moses being anointed with oil but Moses did have God's spirit to empower him.

I don't see how this is helping your point. All it is saying is that miracles are not related to anointing. Nothing more.

Does the special anointing with oil - Hebrew ma.shach' - come from the word ma.shi'ach (Messiah) ?-______ Exodus 30:30 ; Leviticus 4:5

The other way around. The word "mashiach" comes from the root word "mashach". Anyone who is anointed is called "mashiach". As in Lev. 4:5 "and the kohen ha-mashiach (anointed priest) shall take".

 

[Redemptionsong]

Just a bit of info -- the root tz-m-ch occurs in various forms 45 times (33 expressed as a verb, 12 as a noun form). As specifically tzemach, the word appears (with prefixes and suffixes) 12 times. The word as simply tzemach (no prefixes or suffixes) appears 6 times, 3 times as a particular adjunct to a noun and 3 times as a noun on its own.

The passages that use the word tzemach, without prefixes or suffixes, are the relevant ones. The five I can see are: Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; and Zechariah 6:12. Where is the sixth?

 

[Tumah]

The passages that use the word tzemach, without prefixes or suffixes, are the relevant ones. The five I can see are: Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; and Zechariah 6:12. Where is the sixth?

Maybe Ezekiel 16:7.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Tumah, if you include Ezekiel 16:7, why then does Rosends not also include Isaiah 61:11 and Hosea 8:7?

 

[Tumah]

Tumah, if you include Ezekiel 16:7, why then does Rosends not also include Isaiah 61:11 and Hosea 8:7?

Isaiah 61:11 has a suffix. But in my verse, the first has a prefix and the second is a verb. Hosea 8:7 might be the one. I didn't look carefully I just pulled out the first one that showed up on my search.

 

[rosends]

Hoshea 8:7
Zecharia 3:8
Zecharia 6:12
Yeshayahu 4:2
Yirmiyahu 23:5
Yirmiyahu 33:15

6 other uses of the noun have affixes.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Interestingly, the JSB has the following note in its margin against Isaiah 4:2: 'Radiance...splendor, lit. "branch...fruit." The former term alludes to the royal line, as indicated by its use elsewhere in the Bible (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8, 6:12) and also in Phoenician. Following this sense, the Targum translates it as "Messiah."

These are not my words. Yet they signify a specific use of the word Tsemach. On 5 occasions the word is used specifically in reference to a coming messiah.

 

[rosends]

Interestingly, the JSB has the following note in its margin against Isaiah 4:2: 'Radiance...splendor, lit. "branch...fruit." The former term alludes to the royal line, as indicated by its use elsewhere in the Bible (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8, 6:12) and also in Phoenician. Following this sense, the Targum translates it as "Messiah."

These are not my words. Yet they signify a specific use of the word Tsemach. On 5 occasions the word is used specifically in reference to a coming messiah.

That's the problem. Instead of counting instances of the word, your resource is starting by accepting interpretive meaning and then only counting instances which serve that meaning. The targum in Is. 4:2 says "meshicha". Hoshea 8:7 has "nov" so your list would choose not to include that. If, though, your list decides that the Targum is authoritative, does it accept everything the Targum says in all cases, or is it just using the Targum here because it is convenient? What about any other words which the Targum translates as "meshicha" or similar (34 times from all the Aramaic translations of the Tanach for just meshicha and 7 for meshiach, including Jer 23:5)? And how does one determine what "meshicha" refers to?

If you are starting by citing the instance of a word, you should be citing the instances of the word. If your focus is on instances of an understanding, then the word is unimportant. You can't mix the two methods. And when you hand power off to another source to do your counting, you only see what someone else has decided you get to see.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Fair comment.
But I'm looking to you to explain why the JSB and Targum choose to highlight these five instances of tsemach. Do they not reflect a traditional Jewish understanding and expectation?

 

[rosends]

Fair comment.
But I'm looking to you to explain why the JSB and Targum choose to highlight these five instances of tsemach. Do they not reflect a traditional Jewish understanding and expectation?

The targum doesn't highlight these any more than it highlights the other 30-something instances which it sees as meaning "mashiach" or something related to it. It is providing one vision of meaning/interpretation. Do you take the targum's understanding of other words as "mashiach" as persuasive? What about when the targum presents a vision of "mashiach" which contradicts other theological aspects? Is the targum authoritative then also?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The other way around. The word "mashiach" comes from the root word "mashach". Anyone who is anointed is called "mashiach". As in Leviticus 4:5 "and the kohen ha-mashiach (anointed priest) shall take".

Thanks for your reply.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A staff will grow from the stump of Jesse and a shoot will sprout from his roots - Isaiah 11:1
A literal staff does Not grow out of stump, but a twig ( rod ) does.- Isaiah 53:2; Zechariah 6:12
' from his roots ' or rootstock a sprout ( wene'tser ) will be fruitful ( or will shoot up ) - Ruth 4:17; 1 Samuel 17:58
So, even as a cut down olive tree when watered can sprout again is Not dead wood - Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; 2 Samuel 7:16
There will go forth a king from the sons of Jesse, and from the sons of his sons the Messiah ( Christ ) himself will be brought up. - Targums, Aram.

It doesn't say "grow" it says "come out" (lit. exit). Nor does it say "stump" it says "root" or perhaps in this case, "trunk".
It is true staffs do not grow, but they can be cut out of wood that is already present. Again, no mention of the source being dead.[/QUOTE]

Can agree, No mention of the source being dead. Even as an Olive Tree's trunk can appear dead, but later when watered shows it is Not dead wood.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If the word tsemach cannot be distinguished in usage, then the conclusion must be that the interpretation of the passage has been determined solely by the context. The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Berlin and Brettler, certainly has no Christian bias, and recognises in its introduction that "There are seventy faces to the Torah". Yet it feels justified in adding a marginal note that links together five passages in which the word tsemach is used.
Tumah's original post claims that Jesus cannot be found in the Tanach. As already explained, we wouldn't expect the 'mystery' to have exposed Jesus by name, but the expectation of a future Messiah, or deliverer out of Zion, is a frequent theme. The question is whether or not Jesus fits these prophecies. Jesus certainly believed he did, for he would not have opened the scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus without such certainty. 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.' (Luke 24)

It's a pity he didn't mention the exact passages he used as proof texts, but I can't imagine they have vanished. We know, for example, that elsewhere he used the sign of Jonah in reference to his own death and resurrection (Matthew 12).

 

[rosends]

If the word tsemach cannot be distinguished in usage, then the conclusion must be that the interpretation of the passage has been determined solely by the context. The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Berlin and Brettler, certainly has no Christian bias, and recognises in its introduction that "There are seventy faces to the Torah". Yet it feels justified in adding a marginal note that links together five passages in which the word tsemach is used.
Tumah's original post claims that Jesus cannot be found in the Tanach. As already explained, we wouldn't expect the 'mystery' to have exposed Jesus by name, but the expectation of a future Messiah, or deliverer out of Zion, is a frequent theme. The question is whether or not Jesus fits these prophecies.Jesus certainly believed he did, for he would not have opened the scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus without such certainty. 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.' (Luke 24)

It's a pity he didn't mention the exact passages he used as proof texts, but I can't imagine they have vanished. We know, for example, that elsewhere he used the sign of Jonah in reference to his own death and resurrection (Matthew 12).

Yes, it is determined by context -- and the context is the same as the 30-something other times the text refers to some sort of mashiach.

And the concept of mashiach is determined by context as well -- is it referring to a king, a priest or a future leader (the targums often work hard as distinguishing which meshicha they mean). So the word "tzemach" is no more clue that any other word. The entire messianic concept, which exists, is no clue because the text never mentions Jesus. So what we have left is the after-the-fact belief by Jesus (a belief also held by other aspirants) that the text refers to him and the later backwards-reading to find how the text supports one person's claim over any other's.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The big difference between the claims of Jesus and other aspirants is that Jesus' claims to messiahship have not been disproved.

But rather than looking back with the advantage of the New Testament to support the claims, what about the Jews whose interpretations of scripture did fit with the idea of a two-stage messianic revelation. For example, in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, we read the following: 'R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one thousand [the seventh], as it is said, it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye said: It will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight..... The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation, two thousand years the Torah flourished, and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.' [In the notes it says, He should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years; the delay is due to our sins.]

From an early period there was an understanding of Genesis as a form of prologue. It indicates a time-period of seven thousand years. The calculations of events and ages seem to place Abraham around the two thousand year mark, and this would place Jesus around the four thousand year mark [Ussher says 4004 AM]. Of course, this fits nicely with the messianic era spoken of by Tanna debe Eliyyahu. It also means that we are around the six thousand year mark at the present time. For Christians this represents the general time of the second coming of Christ, but for many Jews it's the time of the first and only coming. As regards prophecy, this is highly significant, because Jews have a tendency to highlight the second-coming prophecies whilst overlooking the first coming prophecies. It also allows for the accusation that Jesus has not fulfilled the prophecies of the coming Messiah because the fulfilment of the prophecies is not yet complete.

One further point about the confusion experienced by the very wise and able Jewish sages. Not only does the NT tell us that Jesus came first time as a Saviour (crowned as king at his crucifixion), and that he will return as a King of Kings, but Jesus bears the various titles of king, high priest and servant (saviour).

 

[rosends]

The big difference between the claims of Jesus and other aspirants is that Jesus' claims to messiahship have not been disproved.

Sure they have. He is dead and many prophecies were not fulfilled.

But rather than looking back with the advantage of the New Testament to support the claims, what about the Jews whose interpretations of scripture did fit with the idea of a two-stage messianic revelation. For example, in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, we read the following: 'R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one thousand [the seventh], as it is said, it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye said: It will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight..... The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation, two thousand years the Torah flourished, and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.' [In the notes it says, He should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years; the delay is due to our sins.]

This is a complete misunderstanding of the talmud which often happens when one simply cuts and pastes a translation of the text without actually learning it. None of this passage indicates a 2 stage "revelation" -- it is a discussion of the evolution of society and the rabbinic attempts to understand when the messianic age will start because it HASN'T STARTED YET. Check Rav Ashi's point further on. Instead of trying to gloss through the text and find what you think supports your point, you should probably defer to people who pore over the text and understand it in its original.

From an early period there was an understanding of Genesis as a form of prologue. It indicates a time-period of seven thousand years. The calculations of events and ages seem to place Abraham around the two thousand year mark, and this would place Jesus around the four thousand year mark [Ussher says 4004 AM]. Of course, this fits nicely with the messianic era spoken of by Tanna debe Eliyyahu. It also means that we are around the six thousand year mark at the present time. For Christians this represents the general time of the second coming of Christ, but for many Jews it's the time of the first and only coming. As regards prophecy, this is highly significant, because Jews have a tendency to highlight the second-coming prophecies whilst overlooking the first coming prophecies.

The Christian lens through which you present this is tremendous. There are no prophecies of a first and then second coming. That is all revisionist invention. Again, if you learned the talmud, you would understand that none of what is written there supports your point and your "calculations". The prophecies in the tanach are there for when the messiah comes and the era STARTS. It simply hasn't happened. Claiming 2 stages is a way to cover up the failure of things to be done when they were expected.

One further point about the confusion experienced by the very wise and able Jewish sages. Not only does the NT tell us that Jesus came first time as a Saviour (crowned as king at his crucifixion), and that he will return as a King of Kings, but Jesus bears the various titles of king, high priest and servant (saviour).

But this "further point" is irrelevant. It relies on your a priori accepting the validity and authority of he gospel texts. The wise Jewish sages were not confused. The Christian apologists were shocked and had to find a way to explain what didn't happen. None of what is innovated in this gospel expectation is found in the tanach text.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have to disagree. The whole of the Tanach is diffused with references, both in theme and in specific prophecy, that refer to Jesus.

Let's take two that have caused confusion for the sages of old.
KJV Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.'
JSB Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion; Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant, Yet humble, riding on an ***, On a donkey foaled by a she-***.'

KJV Daniel 7:13,14.'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'
JSB Daniel 7:13,14. 'As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a human being Came with the clouds of heaven; He reached the Ancient of Days And was presented to Him. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; All peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, And his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.'

These two passages have traditionally been understood to refer to a future king, yet they cannot be easily understood as referring to the same king. How would you explain these passages?

 

[wizanda]

He is dead and many prophecies were not fulfilled.

The Messiah dying is part of the prophecies.