Jesus & the Torah

[Murad]

I have studied the bible for over 40 years. ....Jesus fulfilled all the law and all prophecies about Him in the Spirit.

Question for debate:
1. Did Jesus fulfill all the prophesy in the Torah like many Christians claim?

[Cathar1950]

I recall reading, I don't recall the sources, that "anointed" translated christ in Greek, but so did called, appointed, or someone with a purpose.
Paul would be a christ as he was called to convert Gentiles.

Every Christian would be anointed or called.

The idea that there would be some special messiah is largely a Christian invention based on a reinterpretation of the Royal Ideology...

Of course the unknown author of Mark has Jesus being adopted by God at his baptism and Paul might have seen his appointment at his being raised to God's right hand which doesn't require a bodily resurrection or empty tomb.
I tend to think it was a dream either Peter or James had of Jesus being at God's right hand and vindicated. Then Paul had his revelation.

[cnorman18]

Uh, actually, JW is right; adopted children can inherit and are considered of the "line" of their adopted fathers, by Jewish law, and that has been true from the beginning. That even applies to me; when called to the Torah, I give my Hebrew name followed by ben Avraham v'Sarah, "son of Abraham and Sarah," as do all converts; we are considered the children of Abraham and Sarah, the first converts and the first Jews.

It's rather more to the point that it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin.

Not when it comes to the priesthood and the line of david. Look at the Orthodox laws for adoption that are even practiced today. The child is considered of the line of the biological father, not the adopting father.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. When it comes to counting lineage, the biological father counts, not the adoptive father. Adoptive children can inherit, which is a different matter, but when it comes to blood line, the line of the biological father counts.

A son that is adopted by a Cohen whose biological father is not a Cohen is not a Cohen. He can inherit all the material he wants, but he is not considered a Cohen.

From http://library.adoption.com/articles/an ... ition.html

Under traditional Jewish law, the child's biological father determines a child's statues as a Kohen or Levi. If the birth father is a Yisrael, a gentile or unknown, the adopted child is considered a Yisrael, and the status of the adoptive father as a Kohen or Levi does not affect the adopted child.

Uh, I stand corrected. Thanks.

I comfort myself with the knowledge that I'm not afraid to admit it when I screw up; and in any case, it remains true that Jesus was NOT the Jewish Mashiach.

I found this on the Jews for Judaism website, too. Worth reading for anyone interested in the question.

[ChristShepherd]

If you take the New Testament literally, since he has no father, he is not of the "Seed of David'

Jewish inheritance law was not genetic based but rather linked to the family line/name. Thus if a man died without an heir his brother could take his late brothers wife in order to father children for the continuation of his brothers name and inheritance. the result of this union would be a 'son' with the 'name' of one man and the genetic code of another.

The fact that Jesus genetic code was not inherited literally from the semen of Joseph would no more disqualify him from being Josephs legal heir than would the descendents of a 'brother in law' marriage. Jesus was born of the royal line of David both through his adopted father and his mother and thus fully qualified in a claim to be a descendent of King David.

Acts 2:30 (King James Version)
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What do you suppose Peter meant by the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, ????? Obviously Peter did not know the virgin birth story.

2 Samuel 7:12 (King James Version)
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)
11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Matthew and Luke tripped up with the virgin birth story because they forgot about these Scriptures.

The point is that the Messiah was to be literal seed of David according to the flesh.
Jesus was not.

Christ Shepherd

Uh, actually, JW is right; adopted children can inherit and are considered of the "line" of their adopted fathers, by Jewish law, and that has been true from the beginning. That even applies to me; when called to the Torah, I give my Hebrew name followed by ben Avraham v'Sarah, "son of Abraham and Sarah," as do all converts; we are considered the children of Abraham and Sarah, the first converts and the first Jews.

It's rather more to the point that it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin.

I agree "adopted children can inherit and are considered of the "line" of their adopted fathers, by Jewish law." But the Scriptures specifically say that the Messiah would be the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels,, the fruit of thy body .
Adoption is not an option in this case.

I further agree that "it has never been taught that Mashiach was to be the son of a virgin."

Christ Shepherd

[ChristShepherd]

John 1:41 (King James Version)
41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:41 (New American Standard Bible)
41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ).

John 1:41 (New International Version)
41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

Three Bible versions of the same verse. All say the Mesiah and the Christ are the same.
Christ Shepherd

Hello? I'm a Jew? Those books are not in my Bible.

Like I said; Christians can believe whatever they like, and they can even put it in their books. Doesn't matter to us, not even a little bitty bit. It wouldn't matter if the Quran said that that Messiah and Christ are the same concept, either. I don't care if the OED says that "Christ" is the Greek translation of "Messiah," or Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Funkin Wagnalls all agree; they aren't. Is that clear enough?

Mashiach was NEVER conceived as being (1) divine, (2) perfect and without sin, (3) a substitutionary sacrifice, (3) the literal son of God, (4) resurrected from the dead, or (5) the only way to personal salvation. Those ideas are not Jewish and never were. Period, full stop.

Sorry about that.
How about comparing these......
Daniel 9:25 NASB
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Daniel 9:25 The Translation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures, Including the Apocrypha. "The Septuagint in English"
Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

I agree "Mashiach was NEVER conceived as being (1) divine, (2) perfect and without sin, (3) a substitutionary sacrifice, (3) the literal son of God, (4) resurrected from the dead, or (5) the only way to personal salvation. Those ideas are not Jewish and never were. Period, full stop.

Christ Shepherd

[fewwillfindit]

If you take the New Testament literally, since he has no father, he is not of the "Seed of David'

Jewish inheritance law was not genetic based but rather linked to the family line/name. Thus if a man died without an heir his brother could take his late brothers wife in order to father children for the continuation of his brothers name and inheritance. the result of this union would be a 'son' with the 'name' of one man and the genetic code of another.

The fact that Jesus genetic code was not inherited literally from the semen of Joseph would no more disqualify him from being Josephs legal heir than would the descendents of a 'brother in law' marriage. Jesus was born of the royal line of David both through his adopted father and his mother and thus fully qualified in a claim to be a descendent of King David.

Acts 2:30 (King James Version)
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What do you suppose Peter meant by the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, ????? Obviously Peter did not know the virgin birth story.

2 Samuel 7:12 (King James Version)
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

Psalm 132:11 (King James Version)
11The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Matthew and Luke tripped up with the virgin birth story because they forgot about these Scriptures.

The point is that the Messiah was to be literal seed of David according to the flesh.
Jesus was not.

Christ Shepherd

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

Regardless of what current rabbinical tradition may say about it, i.e; how generations are to be reckoned, this completely satisfies this particular requirement of being a blood descendent.

To others:

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

[ChristShepherd]

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

Regardless of what current rabbinical tradition may say about it, i.e; how generations are to be reckoned, this completely satisfies this particular requirement of being a blood descendent.

The genealogy in Luke's gospel is not Mary's genealogy. Mary is never even mentioned. How can you have a genealogy without naming the person whose genealogy it is supposed to be?
"""according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin. """ From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The doctrine that Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy is a late invention. Even the Catholics don't believe it's true.

The bloodlines in Israel were reckoned by the male bloodline.
""Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head "" Numbers 1:2

Mary was probably not even of the tribe of Judah. Her relatives Elizabeth and Zacharias were Levites. Elizabeth, Mary's cousin was a descendant of Aaron which makes it even more improbable that Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Luke 1

Christ Shepherd

[cnorman18]

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

(Uh, Jesus WAS mortal. He died, didn't he? And doesn't the New Testament teach that EVERYONE has immortality in the sense that Jesus did, after the general Resurrection at the end of time?)

This works the other way around. YOU have to show where the Hebrew Scriptures say -- positively, clearly, comprehensively, consistently, and clearly -- That Mashiach would be (1) born of a virgin, (2) the literal Son of God, (3) God incarnate, (4) a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humans, (5) raised from the dead, and (6) the only way to salvation by faith alone.

NONE of those teachings are in the Hebrew Bible in more than one or two ambiguous and invariably either mistranslated or out-of-context verses; they certainly are NOT major themes. Those Christian doctrines are NOT comprehensively or consistently taught throughout the Hebrew Bible, and in the few places they are alleged to be found, they are certainly NOT clear and unambiguous.

You're claiming that I have to show that the Bible says these things are impossible, and that's ludicrous. By that standard, it would be perfectly okay to claim that the Messiah was a space alien, because the Bible certainly doesn't say that he wasn't.

Rabbinic tradition, i.e. the Talmud, is where Jewish teachings are found, and not in Scripture; but it's not necessary to go there to show that these Christian beliefs have no root or source in Judaism. They aren't in the Jewish Bible either. Those beliefs are, every single one of them, Greek in origin and not Jewish. I'm not saying they're wrong for Christians; that's not for me to say. But they are wrong for Jews. WE get to make that determination, not Christians. You don't get to tell us what we have to or ought to believe, any more than I have the right to make corrections to Christianity according to my own beliefs.

If you really want to be challenged on this, take a look at the link I provided above: here it is again.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/blog/wp-c ... e-suit.pdf

[ChristShepherd]

To others:

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
"When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
"In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
'The LORD our righteousness.' Jeremiah 23:6

The title "Branch" is a Messianic title.

Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."' Zechariah 6:12-13
""a man whose name is Branch,""....The Messiah would be a man.

To try and prove that the Messiah would not be a god is trying to prove a negative. Can anyone prove that the Messiah would not be an effeminate flaming pedophile?

Christ Shepherd

[fewwillfindit]

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

Regardless of what current rabbinical tradition may say about it, i.e; how generations are to be reckoned, this completely satisfies this particular requirement of being a blood descendent.

The genealogy in Luke's gospel is not Mary's genealogy. Mary is never even mentioned. How can you have a genealogy without naming the person whose genealogy it is supposed to be?
"""according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin. """ From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The doctrine that Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy is a late invention. Even the Catholics don't believe it's true.

The bloodlines in Israel were reckoned by the male bloodline.
""Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head "" Numbers 1:2

Mary was probably not even of the tribe of Judah. Her relatives Elizabeth and Zacharias were Levites. Elizabeth, Mary's cousin was a descendant of Aaron which makes it even more improbable that Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Luke 1

Christ Shepherd

You cannot emphatically say, as you did, that the account in Luke is not Mary's geneology. You certainly have the right to disagree with it, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the final authority on anything. All it proves is that not everyone agrees with the geneology in Luke belonging to Mary. Just because the census was reckoned by counting the sons, doesn't eliminate the possibility that if Mary was a direct descendant of David, that Jesus had David's genes, and thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the messiah. Certainly, there was no provision made in the Law that allowed for a miracle like a virgin birth. It was a one-time special ocurrence. And coupled with the fact that Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, there is at least enough evidence to make a plausible case for a viewpoint other than yours.

My point, I guess, is that your interpretation does not emphatically discredit Christianity like you are trying to make it do, if there is even a remote possibility of another interpretation being true. It is simply your viewpoint.

Also, if Jacob is Joseph's father, and Luke says, "Joseph, son of Eli," that is a pretty strong indication that it is sayiing that Eli is his father in law.

I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is the correct interpretation, but neither can you prove that yours is any more valid, in light of the existence of another possible interpretation, since this is one of the instances where it isn't spelled out plainly.

[Cathar1950]

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

Regardless of what current rabbinical tradition may say about it, i.e; how generations are to be reckoned, this completely satisfies this particular requirement of being a blood descendent.

The genealogy in Luke's gospel is not Mary's genealogy. Mary is never even mentioned. How can you have a genealogy without naming the person whose genealogy it is supposed to be?
"""according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin. """ From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The doctrine that Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy is a late invention. Even the Catholics don't believe it's true.

The bloodlines in Israel were reckoned by the male bloodline.
""Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head "" Numbers 1:2

Mary was probably not even of the tribe of Judah. Her relatives Elizabeth and Zacharias were Levites. Elizabeth, Mary's cousin was a descendant of Aaron which makes it even more improbable that Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Luke 1

Christ Shepherd

You cannot emphatically say, as you did, that the account in Luke is not Mary's geneology. You certainly have the right to disagree with it, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the final authority on anything. All it proves is that not everyone agrees with the geneology in Luke belonging to Mary. Just because the census was reckoned by counting the sons, doesn't eliminate the possibility that if Mary was a direct descendant of David, that Jesus had David's genes, and thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the messiah. Certainly, there was no provision made in the Law that allowed for a miracle like a virgin birth. It was a one-time special ocurrence. And coupled with the fact that Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, there is at least enough evidence to make a plausible case for a viewpoint other than yours.

My point, I guess, is that your interpretation does not emphatically discredit Christianity like you are trying to make it do, if there is even a remote possibility of another interpretation being true. It is simply your viewpoint.

Also, if Jacob is Joseph's father, and Luke says, "Joseph, son of Eli," that is a pretty strong indication that it is sayiing that Eli is his father in law.

I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is the correct interpretation, but neither can you prove that yours is any more valid, in light of the existence of another possible interpretation, since this is one of the instances where it isn't spelled out plainly.

Actuality it is a better indication that one or both authors didn't know and made it up unless of course they got it from someone else that didn't know.
I just find it interesting when you are give a list of criteria and you only address one by using a dubious source.