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 #51

Post by cnorman18 »

The Me's wrote:
cnorman18 wrote: [Replying to post 48 by The Me's]

"And, of course, I note once again that the issue of a MAN being worshiped as GOD, a key component of Christian belief that is absolutely absent from and contradictory to everything in Jewish belief, teaching and tradition, is still being assiduously avoided here...."
I'm not sure whom you're quoting nor why this is relevant.
I was quoting myself, of course; the quote was a portion of the post to which you last responded, and which you deleted.
Jesus has never had a temple built for him, has never been offered animal sacrifices, and has never had adoration from any sect of Christianity that didn't also include God as the source of Jesus' greatness.
Oh, please.

From the Nicene Creed, as revised by the Council of Constantinople, circa 381 CE. Note my added emphasis -- and I remind you that these are the beliefs REQUIRED of virtually all Christian denominations:
The Council of Constantinople wrote: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by Whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man...
Looks like "a MAN worshiped as GOD" to me. Can you explain why the Creed does not mean exactly what it says?

Do you yourself not pray to Jesus? Do Christians not commonly do so?
I avoided it because I would think that your attempt to misinterpret Christian belief would have been obvious.
And what, exactly, was my "attempt to misinterpret Christian belief"? Are you proclaiming here that Christianity does NOT teach that Jesus was divine -- that is, God Himself incarnate?
(You're also misinterpreting Jewish beliefs. What rabbinic Judaism teaches is not relevant.
I MAY be "misinterpreting" Jewish beliefs -- but you are very clearly DISMISSING them. Here's a news flash for you: Claiming a distinction between "Jewish beliefs" and "the teachings of Rabbinic Judaism," as if the latter were NOT "Jewish beliefs," is a plain falsehood; and non-Jews, such as yourself, have no authority to pronounce such an arrogant judgment upon an entire religion.

It all comes down to the usual two alternatives: Are you saying that (1) Jews are too stupid to understand our own religion, and have been for 2,000 years, or that (2) Jews just lie about it? Which is it? Explain yourself.
Christianity relies on OT Judaism. Where rabbinic Judaism disagrees with Christianity, integrity demands that your first impulse should be to investigate whether your own practices are in line with the law and the prophets, seeing how far the rabbis have departed from them.)
I would think that "integrity demands" that YOUR first impulse, since you say that "Christianity relies on OT Judaism" (a term never used by any Jew, by the way) would be to investigate whether Christian beliefs conflict with the teachings of the "OT," WHATEVER the rabbis teach. And, like I said -- there is no hint, anywhere, of a MAN being worshiped as GOD -- nowhere in Tanakh, certainly nowhere in Torah, and nowhere in the vast corpus of Jewish literature. If you have your OWN peculiar little version of Christianity that does NOT consider Jesus a divine being and the literal Son of God, that's YOUR business -- but it certainly has nothing to do with "Christianity" as it is believed and practiced worldwide, never mind Judaism.

That a man could be the literal Son of God, and Divine himself, is not a Jewish idea; it is a Greek idea, e.g., Zeus and Herakles. There is nothing remotely resembling the doctrine of the Incarnation anywhere in the "OT," as you call it. Period, full stop.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #52

Post by Goat »

The Me's wrote:
cnorman18 wrote: [Replying to post 48 by The Me's]

"And, of course, I note once again that the issue of a MAN being worshiped as GOD, a key component of Christian belief that is absolutely absent from and contradictory to everything in Jewish belief, teaching and tradition, is still being assiduously avoided here...."
I'm not sure whom you're quoting nor why this is relevant.

Jesus has never had a temple built for him, has never been offered animal sacrifices, and has never had adoration from any sect of Christianity that didn't also include God as the source of Jesus' greatness.

I avoided it because I would think that your attempt to misinterpret Christian belief would have been obvious.

(You're also misinterpreting Jewish beliefs. What rabbinic Judaism teaches is not relevant. Christianity relies on OT Judaism. Where rabbinic Judaism disagrees with Christianity, integrity demands that your first impulse should be to investigate whether your own practices are in line with the law and the prophets, seeing how far the rabbis have departed from them.)

On the contrary.. Christianity relies on a reinterpretation and retrofitting of the Jewish scriptures. often with mistranslations and out of context quotes.

And considering that Charles, before he converted to Judaism, was a minister, I think he knows Christian belief.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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

Post #53

Post by The Me's »

cnorman18 wrote:
Oh, please.

From the Nicene Creed, as revised by the Council of Constantinople, circa 381 CE. Note my added emphasis -- and I remind you that these are the beliefs REQUIRED of virtually all Christian denominations:
I have to admit this is where I stopped reading. If you can err as grotesquely as this, the rest of your post has to be more of the same.

The Nicene Creed is found nowhere in the NT, it therefore is not foundational for Christianity.

Almost all protestant churches reject the 2000 years of doctrinal history between Jesus death and today. They read directly from the Bible and use it exclusively in substantially every sermon every Sunday. Your claim that these are somehow "required beliefs" is pure fantasy. I for one have never heard this creed referenced in any service.

It seems to me that what you're trying to do is manufacture an argument against Christianity, but you're using teachings that don't appear in the Bible and certainly weren't held by Jesus or the early believers.

Your idea that Jesus is equated with God is therefore a distorted view. You may want to rethink that one. Even for Trinitarians, Jesus might rise in importance to the level of God, but he never replaces him, and he's never treated as [alone] being God.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #54

Post by Goat »

The Me's wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
Oh, please.

From the Nicene Creed, as revised by the Council of Constantinople, circa 381 CE. Note my added emphasis -- and I remind you that these are the beliefs REQUIRED of virtually all Christian denominations:
I have to admit this is where I stopped reading. If you can err as grotesquely as this, the rest of your post has to be more of the same.

The Nicene Creed is found nowhere in the NT, it therefore is not foundational for Christianity.

Almost all protestant churches reject the 2000 years of doctrinal history between Jesus death and today. They read directly from the Bible and use it exclusively in substantially every sermon every Sunday. Your claim that these are somehow "required beliefs" is pure fantasy. I for one have never heard this creed referenced in any service.

It seems to me that what you're trying to do is manufacture an argument against Christianity, but you're using teachings that don't appear in the Bible and certainly weren't held by Jesus or the early believers.

Your idea that Jesus is equated with God is therefore a distorted view. You may want to rethink that one. Even for Trinitarians, Jesus might rise in importance to the level of God, but he never replaces him, and he's never treated as [alone] being God.

Yet, you too have beliefs that you have proclaimed that are not in the bible, or used by the early Christians or Jesus. For example, the concept of the inerrant bible first developed in the mid 19th century.

So, it seems to be a bit hypocritical to me , since you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse Charles of doing. And, for that matter, what he said is factually correct.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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

Post #55

Post by The Me's »

Goat wrote:
On the contrary.. Christianity relies on a reinterpretation and retrofitting of the Jewish scriptures. often with mistranslations and out of context quotes.

And considering that Charles, before he converted to Judaism, was a minister, I think he knows Christian belief.
Charles can't speak for Christians or Jews. He can only speak for himself.

And if you're going to sling an accusation of "retrofitting", try this one: Jews believe that they can obey Moses without a temple, without a priesthood, without practicing the national holidays as Moses prescribed, and without living in Israel.

Moses would likely disagree. His words were clearly stated and explicit.

A rabbi once told me how Rabbinic Jews devised the means for bet dins of never using the death penalty, and he readily admitted that it was a complete rejection of Moses' law. Not only do Jews no longer obey Moses in many things, they admit it and consider it normal in light of circumstances.

There can be no question that Judaism has been altered to such an extent that Moses wouldn't recognize it.

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

Post #56

Post by The Me's »

Goat wrote:
Yet, you too have beliefs that you have proclaimed that are not in the bible, or used by the early Christians or Jesus. For example, the concept of the inerrant bible first developed in the mid 19th century.

So, it seems to be a bit hypocritical to me , since you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse Charles of doing. And, for that matter, what he said is factually correct.
You have a habit of lying about what I post.

I very clearly stated elsewhere that the Bible informs everything I do (except accounting). That was in the politics section, so you may not have seen it.

I've also stated that I use ancient cultures to help me illuminate what the Bible means, and I called it "context", which of course it is. The use of modern culture to assist in Bible interpretation is a grave error (normally referred to as "projection").

I have also always claimed that my beliefs are exactly those held by the early Christians, or as close as I can get to them, and if I can help it, I never deviate.

I don't at this point have any reason to believe you're an honest person. Honesty demands that you represent others in good faith, and your intentions seem to be the opposite. You have to understand that this limits my ability to take you seriously or view you as credible.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #57

Post by Goat »

The Me's wrote:
Goat wrote:
On the contrary.. Christianity relies on a reinterpretation and retrofitting of the Jewish scriptures. often with mistranslations and out of context quotes.

And considering that Charles, before he converted to Judaism, was a minister, I think he knows Christian belief.
Charles can't speak for Christians or Jews. He can only speak for himself.

And if you're going to sling an accusation of "retrofitting", try this one: Jews believe that they can obey Moses without a temple, without a priesthood, without practicing the national holidays as Moses prescribed, and without living in Israel.

Moses would likely disagree. His words were clearly stated and explicit.

A rabbi once told me how Rabbinic Jews devised the means for bet dins of never using the death penalty, and he readily admitted that it was a complete rejection of Moses' law. Not only do Jews no longer obey Moses in many things, they admit it and consider it normal in light of circumstances.

There can be no question that Judaism has been altered to such an extent that Moses wouldn't recognize it.
Charles isn't saying what Jews must believe in. He is saying what is generally accepted by the mainstream, and what the general attitudes are. Same thing for Christianity.. he is not telling Christians WHAT to believe, he is pointing how what is generally believed. There is a difference.

And, so what if Moses is not considered the end all of someone to be obedient to? That is up to the Jewish faith to choose, not you.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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

Post #58

Post by The Me's »

Goat wrote: Charles isn't saying what Jews must believe in. He is saying what is generally accepted by the mainstream, and what the general attitudes are. Same thing for Christianity.. he is not telling Christians WHAT to believe, he is pointing how what is generally believed. There is a difference.

And, so what if Moses is not considered the end all of someone to be obedient to? That is up to the Jewish faith to choose, not you.
Wait--you're putting yourself forward as a legitimate judge of Christians, and now you're trying to tell me that I can't be a judge of Jews?

Okay, noted and rejected (for obvious reasons).

It's a free country, and I'll judge whomever I want whenever I want. My credibility need only rest on my integrity in the process.

My original claim was that Jews no longer follow Moses, and you have now confirmed it. As I've stated elsewhere, truth defends itself and need not be repeated by us. In time, even the worst of us come around and confess the truth as you have here. That's the power that it has over us.

The fact remains that Jews are not a good judge of what the OT says and what it doesn't say if they have willingly departed from it. I would suggest that Christians are a better judge because we have not.

cnorman18

Post #59

Post by cnorman18 »

The Me's wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
Oh, please.

From the Nicene Creed, as revised by the Council of Constantinople, circa 381 CE. Note my added emphasis -- and I remind you that these are the beliefs REQUIRED of virtually all Christian denominations:
I have to admit this is where I stopped reading. If you can err as grotesquely as this, the rest of your post has to be more of the same.

The Nicene Creed is found nowhere in the NT, it therefore is not foundational for Christianity.

Almost all protestant churches reject the 2000 years of doctrinal history between Jesus death and today. They read directly from the Bible and use it exclusively in substantially every sermon every Sunday. Your claim that these are somehow "required beliefs" is pure fantasy. I for one have never heard this creed referenced in any service.
Well, I didn't stop reading here, but that's as far as anyone needs to go.

Evidently you feel that you have the authority not only to dismiss and discard all Jewish thought and teaching from the beginning, but all Christian thought and teaching since the beginning of THAT faith as well -- and pontifically presume to speak for both Moses and Jesus, telling everyone else what we ought to believe because YOU understand the Bible better than anyone ever has since it was first written! I find such arrogance and presumption nothing short of breathtaking.

You also have a very bad habit of smearing those who don't instantly bow to your self-proclaimed great wisdom and absolute authority as "lying."

Once again I say; don't expect me to either take you seriously or respond any further to your posts. I don't argue religion with those who not only make up their own, but claim it to be the TRUE religion and all others false.

Once again: Have a nice day.

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

Post #60

Post by The Me's »

cnorman18 wrote: Evidently you feel that you have the authority not only to dismiss and discard all Jewish thought and teaching from the beginning,
What is it with this web site and everyone's penchant to lie about other user posts?
I've never "dismissed and discarded all Jewish thought and teaching from the beginning".
I know you're not going to try to source this claim, so I won't bother asking.

but all Christian thought and teaching since the beginning of THAT faith as well --
My post very clearly states that the Nicene Creed is not in the NT, and I therefore reject it.
If you think this is "all Christian thought", then you've forgotten about Jesus of Nazareth, haven't you?
I have no responsibility to answer for any Christian thought beyond that one man.
This is just another silly claim you need to prop up your point.
and pontifically presume to speak for both Moses and Jesus, telling everyone else what we ought to believe because YOU understand the Bible better than anyone ever has since it was first written!
I have full authority to quote any scripture I see fit. That gives me the authority to speak for Moses, Jesus, Isaiah, and anyone else who went on the record. The only authority I don't have is to alter their words.
I'm sorry if such quotes get in the way of your trying to shove the Nicene Creed into the Bible's text, but such efforts will always end in disaster. Better I nip it in the bud right now.
I find such arrogance and presumption nothing short of breathtaking.

You also have a very bad habit of smearing those who don't instantly bow to your self-proclaimed great wisdom and absolute authority as "lying."

Once again I say; don't expect me to either take you seriously or respond any further to your posts. I don't argue religion with those who not only make up their own, but claim it to be the TRUE religion and all others false.

Once again: Have a nice day.
You're welcome to demonstrate that I'm wrong any time you like.

But I'll warn you: I take the Bible at it's word, as written. If you dare to alter the text in any way, you will continue to find me "breathtaking" and quite a challenge.

Look, I couldn't care less if you like me or not. It's not like I'll lose sleep over it. But I would caution you against treating others the way you've dishonestly treated me here. I tend to stick up for them, as well.

There's no room in any debate for outright lies about other users. You accomplish nothing.

Post Reply