Messiah in the Talmud

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Thruit
Apprentice
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:33 pm

Messiah in the Talmud

Post #1

Post by Thruit »

The Talmud says the Hebrew Bible depicts Messiah appearing in two different ways:

Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven34 whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass!35 — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven;36 if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.

Rabbi Joshua quoted Daniel 7:13, where the Messiah receives a Kingdom from God.

Rabbi Joshua also quoted Zechariah 9:9, where Messiah comes to His people in humility.

According to Rabbi Joshua, the manner in which the Messiah appears depends on the conduct of the Jewish people.

Is there anything in the Hebrew Bible that indicates the manner of Messiahs coming has anything to do with Israel's behavior?

cnorman18

Post #81

Post by cnorman18 »

Goat wrote:
Ah, the typical misquotes from the missionary web sites that target the Jews . http://judaismsanswer.com/targum.htm
WONDERFUL resource. A must-read for anyone interested in these questions.

Just my opinion: Intellectual honesty and integrity DEMANDS that these references be considered -- as opposed to dismissed without examination, using a flimsy excuse demanding the use of a particular word in order to justify not even looking at them.

But maybe that's just me preferring honest debate to transparent sophistry.

The Me's
Banned
Banned
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:55 pm

Post #82

Post by The Me's »

Goat wrote:
Where did I say that it was 'REFERENCED ' by the Talmud. You are misrepresenting what I said. I said it was INFLUENCED' by the Gospels, REFERENCED.
Since when do Jews read the gospels?

How could the Talmud have been influenced by the gospels and not by Jesus, the apostles or Christians?

Nevertheless, you don't have a prayer of ever supporting that claim. The Talmud mentions Jesus by name, not the gospels. The normal conclusion is that the Pharisees were obsessed with Jesus of Nazareth, not the gospels.

Thruit
Apprentice
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:33 pm

Post #83

Post by Thruit »

Goat posted,
Ah, the typical misquotes from the missionary web sites that target the Jews . http://judaismsanswer.com/targum.htm
From the website you supplied:

Moshe Shulman, using Leveys translation Of Isaiah.

52:13 - Here the servant is the Messiah...

52:14 - Here the servant is Israel...

52:15 - The servant is the Messiah again...

53:2 - The servant in this verse is the righteous of Israel...

53:3 - It seems that the servant here is the NATIONS...

53:4 - The servant’s role here is applied to BOTH the Messiah and Israel...

53:5 - The servant here is the Messiah.

53:6 - Here we see Israel’s position...

53:7 - The servant here is again the nations...

53:8 - The servant here is Israel...

53:9 - The servant here is the nations...

53:10 - The servant here is Israel...

53:11 - The servant here is both Israel and the Messiah...

53:12 - The servant here is the Messiah...

Well...thanks for clarifying...creepers!

cnorman18

Post #84

Post by cnorman18 »

[Replying to Thruit]

You're obviously misreading this website. Either you don't understand the argument, or you don't understand which passages are from its author and which from Christian apologists. The Targum is not a translation. The author states that unambiguously in several places.

I think the last four paragraphs make it clear:
Moshe Shulman wrote: ....But there is a problem. As we have said, this is a Midrashic commentary. It is theology and not exegesis. We see that the theology of the Targum and that of Historical Judaism are in agreement. The question is can we discern who the Targum believes is the subject of Isaiah 53? I think that we can. I think that we have a few pieces of information that tells us that in the time of the Targum they understood the simple meaning of Isaiah 53 is that the suffering servant is referring to Israel, or the Righteous of Israel.

The first fact is based on a simple question: Why is Moshiach ben Yosef not mentioned in this passage of the Targum? In a few others places the Targum mentions Moshiach ben Yosef. Had the Targum wanted to indicate that Isaiah 53 related to the idea of a suffering Messiah figure, then it would have been natural for him to include mention of Moshiach ben Yosef. By excluding mention of Moshiach ben Yosef in Isaiah 53 the Targum shows that he excludes the idea of a single person for the subject of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, especially the Messiah.

Secondly, all sources, Christian and Jewish; acknowledge that the subject of Isaiah 53 is a servant who suffers. As we saw from Dr. Goldberg, and from our examination of the Targum itself, the person suffering is ISRAEL. The inclusion of discussion about what the Messiah would be like and what he would do does not change anything with regards to that fact. This is, after all, a Midrash that is trying to teach something theological about the end-times period. It tells us many things, all of which Judaism accepts and acknowledges to the present day. And one point it makes quite clearly is that Israel has suffered in the exile.

These two points give us strong proof and confidence that, just like the theology the Targum teaches with regards to Isaiah 53 is what Historical Judaism believes, so the identification of the servant as Israel or the righteous of Israel, which Historical Judaism believes, is the same as the Targum. The Targum DOES NOT teach that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. There is nothing in the Targum that even remotely is connected with the Christian theology about a Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. No person reading the Targum objectively, from beginning to end, would make such a contention.
So much for this Targum as an argument for Christian claims.

Case closed.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #85

Post by Wootah »

Thruit wrote: I thought it was rather self explanatory. Goat has said what is written in the NT doesn't matter to Jews and that according to Jews, Jesus wasn't the Messiah, yet it was the Jews who wrote the NT wherin Jesus is proclaimed Messiah. It was further stated by Goat that the Messiah will fulfill certain tasks which haven't been accomplished (by Jesus), yet the Jews who wrote the NT explained how those tasks have been fulfilled. So, my statement, ("According to the Jews who knew Jesus, nothing you (Goat) have said is true"), is justified.
Moderator Comment
Hi Thruit,

Please don't respond to moderator comments or warnings. You should have written the above in the original post ....
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply